Filling the Internet Void with Ramblings of Politics and Sexual Innuendo
Thursday, November 30, 2006
To: Joanna, Re: Bad Stuff in HB347
Joanna asked what the bad things were in HB347. The comment was getting too long, so I'm putting it here. (Apparently, I must not talk enough about this stuff at home. I'll have to change that.)
The bill originally passed the House. The Senate took some stuff out and added some stuff in.
First, the bill had a provision to "surrender" your legal handgun if you're drinking. There is a current law (which I agree with) that says a CHL holder can not carry if they've had one tiny sip of alcohol. None. Nothing. That's cool.
This provision would've let me "surrender" my firearm to someone that hasn't been drinking instead of being forced to go home and lock it up before having one beer at Applebee's. It was argued that "someone would carry and drink and only surrender when they saw they were getting pulled over." I can buy that argument except for the fact that the hoops we jump through prove CHL holders don't usually intentionally break the law. I'm not about to risk a felony for that. Anyway, that got taken out.
Second, they removed a portion that would allow a CHL holder to opt out of the media's access to their personal information. You guys have heard me talk in the past about this. The Cleveland Plain Dealer is the worst in misusing this privilege the legislature created for them. That was taken out. (But it was re-inserted in another bill, HB9 that is pending).
Now, the Senate also added some stuff. For some reason, whenever Ohio opens the Pandora's Box that is pro-gun legislation, new felonies just appear out of nowhere. Many people across the country think OH is nuts for this. The anti-gun legislators say, "You want to carry your concealed firearm concealed in the car? Well, then I'm going to up the penalties on stuff for no reason to compensate."
Specifically, the bill as passed harshens the current law that says a CHL holder has to "immediately notify" when carrying by making it a 1st degree misdemeanor instead of 3rd degree for the first offense. They also added a 1-year suspension of your CHL. Second violation would be a felony. It also makes you have to notify a "a highway patrol motor carrier enforcement inspector." I have no idea what the hell that is, but I'm pretty sure it only applies to semi-truckers.
"Failure to lawfully comply with an order" was harshened with a 2-year suspension of a CHL.
The cost of the application was raised to a max of $55.
There's more, but that's what sticks out right now. Nothing huge, but there is definitely something to be said for harshening penalties that aren't a problem now. As far as official records go, NOT ONE person has been convicted of failing to notify an officer that they are legally carrying. Why increase the penalty when there's no need? Feel good legislation at its best.
I won't get into gory details of the whole bill because you guys probably don't care too much, but I'd be remiss not to mention that the most sweeping concealed carry reform legislation passed both the OH Senate and the House this afternoon.
It does many things, both good and bad (from my point of view -- perhaps not yours). The two big things that it changes in my favor:
1) Grant preemption regarding firearm laws. Preemption means that local governments can not pass more restrictive laws than what State law says. This is common sense that almost every other "right to carry" state has. (Don't quote me, but I'm pretty sure it's 44 out of the 48 states that have carry laws have preemption.) Right now, there is a quiltwork of local laws all over Ohio regarding firearms. For example, in Cinci, you can only possess magazines that hold 15 rounds or less. In Columbus, you can possess magazines with a capacity of 20 rounds or less. In Toledo, you can possess any magazine, but only load it with 10 rounds. Color me confused.
There are thousands of other examples, all the way to a tiny town near Toledo (Oregon, OH) that outright prohibits carrying a firearm in any public place. I bet that one unknowingly breaks many laws (including some felonies) when carrying a legally licensed firearm on the interstate between Dayton and New Phila. How is one supposed to know every single tiny ordinance? Shouldn't every Ohioan have the same applicable laws regarding firearms?
2) It strikes down Ohio's requirement that a concealed firearm has to be "in plain sight" when in a motor vehicle. You thought the issue was Concealed carry, didn't you!? Silly reader. Ohio is the only state out of all 48 that has this ridiculous provision. If I were a lawmaker, I'd want to talk to other state legislatures to find out what has worked and what hasn't. Ours sure didn't do that. There's years and years of historical data out there going unused.
Anyway, "plain sight" is bad for many reasons. First and foremost: Safety. While I am very confident in my training and constant attention to the basic safety rules of firearms, I think everyone can agree that the less you handle a loaded gun, the better. Ask any cop: "Sir, would you like to unholster your loaded handgun with a car full of people to reposition it every time you get in and out of your car?" I wonder what he'd say. A lot of people simply tuck their coat behind them in the car. That doesn't work for me. Both of our SUVs have a tall center console that blocks view of my right side at all times. I have to walk to my car concealed, get in, get my extra holster from the glove compartment, wriggle around to safely unholster while sitting down, make sure I never point it at anything I wouldn't want to destroy, insert the loaded gun into the new holster, then stick that holster in my front pants pocket to make it visible. Then reverse all that when I get to whereever I'm going. Have a few errands to run? You'll be unnecessarily handling a loaded gun 4, 6, 8 times! Are you a woman that wants to carry in a purse? Impossible to do in Ohio.
Second reason it's bad: Ambiguity. There is no definition anywhere of "in plain sight". There are confirmed accounts of people getting severely hassled because the cop approached the passenger side and complained that they can't see it. The driver purposely put it on their left leg because they thought that's where the cop would approach. Also, it is completely unknown when you have to unconceal. The letter of the law says it must be in plain sight while in a motor vehicle. So I guess I technically break the law when I do it inside the car. Am I to do it outside the car in the middle of a busy mall parking lot? That might not be legal either.
Third reason it's bad: "Man with a gun!" calls. This is rare, but there are confirmed cases of people getting the cops called on them for following the law. I'm very wary of this. What do I do on a motorcycle? Answer: I was forced to open carry some times. That felt pretty weird.
One Ohioans For Concealed Carry member had his day severely ruined earlier this summer. If you have a minute, watch the beginning of the cop's dashcam video below and see how the cops treated this law-abiding citizen for open carrying in the car as mandated by Ohio. If you don't wanna watch, I'll spoil it. Someone saw his gun at a gas station. The cops were called. They pulled him over. Forced him to climb out of his car window because his doors automatically lock when he drives and he needed to keep his hands visible. Made him lay face down on the gravel on a busy road, approached him with a fully automatic rifle pointed at his head, cuffed him, then found out he has a license to carry. That could be me.
Fourth reason it's bad: It pisses me off! It can only be applied to someone that has jumped through all of the hoops. Someone that has received mandatory training (the most stringent in the country BTW), been fingerprinted, passed a Federal background check, paid a fee, and waited months to get the license. These are not the people we need to be worried about. There is not a law on the books that says someone (not licensed) carrying a gun illegally in a car has to do it in plain sight. By definition, a bad guy could never be charged with a crime that I could. Ridiculous.
There is a law on the books that says someone carrying with their license has to notify immediately when stopped for a law enforcement purpose. There is not a law that says "everyone carrying a gun must immediately notify". Several crimes are specifically tailored to me that could never be applied to Joe Gangbanger. Is that right?
So, this legislation is going to the Governor's desk. Early reports say that Taft will veto it. Right now there are sufficient votes in the House and Senate to override. However, time is a factor as the year is winding down and legislators work about 4 hours a week.
It's true, I have been ignoring the topic suggestions that were put forth by Andy, my wife, my wife, my wife, and my wife during my request to fill the mailbox. Haven't seen me in a few years? Want to talk about something specific? Ask away.
Now, let's get down to the answers you've been seeking...
Topic #1: Andy would like to talk about Porno.
Do you ever walk around the street looking at people and wonder what flavor of porn they prefer? I do. (This is an off-shoot of the very popular bar game "What position does she like?") Anyway, most people probably like their standard 10-15 minutes of girl-on-girl or guy-on-girl. That gets the job done for the majority. However, statistics tell us that at least a few people we come into contact with during our day have a stash of "enormous-tittied 80-year-old chick getting freaky with a horse" porn. Take a look around the office tomorrow and make a list of the most likely suspects. It's easier than you might think.
Topic #2: Jokin Z would like to talk about poodles.
Hmmm. Poodles. You know what a funny image is that I would never do? Punting a small dog into a nice tight spiral. Admit it, you could be the largest poodle lover in the whole world and you still have to chuckle at that image. I can't decide if it's the tight spiral starting at the snout or the YYYYYIIIIiiiiiiippppppppp of their bark as they travel 50 yards downfield.
Topic #3: Jokin Z would like to talk about the movie "Happy Feet".
I swore off this movie and declared that I would never waste two hours of my life on it. This decision was based on the very brief promo I saw that only depicted some stupid animated penguins that dance. Is that it? Is this just a desperate attempt to latch onto the success of "March of the Penguins"? I can't believe how terrible this looks! Anyway, I am softening my position and am willing to bite the bullet and sit through this if my beautiful wife really wants to see it. By the way, stay tuned for "Happy Feet 2" which stars the feet of yours truly. It'll be a heart-warming story of one infant's lower limbs that realize their greatness and go on to win the newly created Nobel Prize for Best Looking Feet.
Topic #4: Jokin Z would also like to talk about "how the age of information has turned blogs and forums into political weapons."
This is actually a very interesting topic. First, the blogosphere and internet publications in general are a tremendous tool for not only relaying information to the public, but also in swaying opinion. As one matures and becomes more politically astute, they usually realize at some point, "Hey, media sources are pretty damn biased." Whether you're complaining about Fox News being Republican lap dogs or The New York Times and Washington Post slurping the Liberals, you can usually find a lot of differing opinions on the net. Granted, they're just as slanted (if not more) than what you'll find elsewhere... but at least you get different views. More proof of the importance of the internet is how every single second of an entire campaign is instantly accessible. Every politician better be constantly on guard now that camera phones, an internet connection, and YouTube is all one needs to air your blunder to the world. I really think the VA Senate race (and therefore the U.S. Senate majority) came down to the grainy video of Sen. Allen calling that dude "Mucaca".
Topic #5: Finally, Jokin Z suggested talking about "the definition of a tactical accessory".
That's rather difficult to do. First of all, I've never said before but probably should that I hate the word "tactical". It's so overused. It conjures the image of fat guys buying black helmets and bulletproof vests.
Everything's tactical depending on how it's used, isn't it? It's really nothing more than a tool. Speaking of... how sweet are tools? Nothing makes me feel less like a monkey than using tools. Doesn't matter if it's putting new pipes on my bike last summer or using the remote to reach something that's fallen behind the couch.
Alright, sorry. "Tactical accessories". Examples? Could be anything. People might think I'm weird, but I carry a tiny (but quality) flashlight with me everywhere. There've been a few times at work that I've had to dig into the servers or something and it's come in handy. You also never know when you're going to be in a parking garage or a blackout or something.
Here's another little tip that I recently heard about that most people might not think of. I know I didn't.
Keep a house key in your bedroom attached to a small flashlight or glow stick or something. If your alarm goes off at 4AM or you hear breaking glass downstairs, obviously, the best thing to do is sit tight and call the cops. You DO NOT want to go sneaking around your house no matter how much training you've had or how armed you may be. Hopefully you have a means to defend yourself while waiting for the police response, but that's a different blog entry.
Anyway, what do the cops have to do when they come to check out your place? Bust your door down. This way you can throw the key out a window to them and save yourself the cost of a $400 door. The cops prefer it as well since it makes their entry a lot easier.
As I've said before, I don't post every one of these that I see in the news, as there are always a few a week that I hear about. I do promise to post every single story I find about a legally licensed citizen committing violent crime. After two years in Ohio and many, many years for the rest of the country, I'm still waiting for those...
Those that don't keep their radar tuned to self-defense stories are probably not aware of what recently happened to Lumpy Lambert. That is because armed citizen accounts rarely make it to print. When they do, the vast majority of them report that, "Mrs. Smith is lucky to be alive" rather than "Mrs. Smith used her legal firearm for self-defense. If she hadn't, she would now be dead." I know I don't have any facts/statistics to back that up (how would I?). You'll have to trust me that's the case. The closest I can come is that the official FBI stats predict that a firearm is used 1.5 million times a year in justifiable self-defense. Do you hear about all of those in the news? I certainly don't.
That is what makes this story a bit of an anomaly. It comes to us from Knoxville, Tennessee and actually made its way to a few other papers around the country. However, it certainly didn't get the widespread coverage it deserves.
Here's what happened:
A Knox County Commissioner, Greg "Lumpy" Lambert was working at his car dealership when a 19-year-old man entered and wanted a test drive. After it was over, the customer said he's ready to buy and had $12,000 in cash for the purchase. Lumpy asked for the customer's driver's license and started the paperwork. The customer then went outside to have a cigarette. Lumpy said he was always suspicious as he didn't see any bulges in the guy's pants that would indicate he had such a large sum of cash with him. Also, he never tried to negotiate a better price. The customer came back in, continued acting suspicious, and began to draw a handgun. Lumpy, who trains with his legal firearm, was quicker and drew his first.
"He [the robber] said he didn't want any trouble, that he just wanted to leave. I said he was not going to leave with his gun. This man is obviously pulling a gun on people, he's not, the rest of society out there was not safe as long as he was carrying this weapon. So I made him drop his weapon. And told him to get out of there and prepare to be arrested that our good sheriff's department would catch up with him, which they did about 12 hours later," said Lambert.
I believe that the reason why this was originally reported was because it was painted as an amusing human interest story. The media kept making fun of the robber since he previously gave Lumpy his driver's license (allowing the cops to apprehend him). Plus, Lumpy was wearing a "Friends of the NRA" hat at the time. Finally, the good guy's nickname is Lumpy and he's from Tennessee. All of the accounts made sure to mention those facts and have a good chuckle about the moronic robber rather than focusing on Lumpy's heroics. (For example, see the original news article).
That's fine. Whatever gets the word out.
However... this story became a lot more serious yesterday. (From the same link above):
The man who pulled a gun on a Knox County commissioner is charged with murder.
Late Tuesday afternoon, a grand jury indicted 19 year-old Kane Stackhouse with the murder of 53 year-old David Lindsey.
Lindsey was shot and killed at a Walgreen's in Powell earlier this month.
Stackhouse is also charged with aggravated robbery after officers say he pulled a gun on Commissioner Greg "Lumpy" Lambert at his car dealership about ten hours after the murder.
So, the media should not focus on a good ol' boy in an NRA hat that got the drop on a stupid thief that left behind his driver's license.
They should focus on the fact that a legally armed citizen used his firearm to defend himself from someone that allegedly committed murder a mere ten hours before the encounter. It also needs to be noted that (like the vast majority of self-defense encounters) a shot never had to be fired.
Good for you Lumpy. I'm glad you're not dead.
UPDATE: Just for fun, I've posted a pic of the handgun Lumpy had with him mainly to note that it is arbitrarily banned in many cities across our nation (Toledo, OH is one) because it's too small in size. This is one of the more common restrictions in a "Saturday Night Special" law. Whatever.
I also think it's good for normal, everyday folks (like you, Constant Reader) to see firearms as the morally neutral tools they are. They're not inherently evil. They can be used for good. Normally, people only see guns on CNN in the hands of terrorists or in a hazy surveillance tape during a robbery.
Personal Liberty. Privacy Rights. Responsible Adults Knowing What is Best For Themselves... Not the Government.
You've read these phrases a lot on "The Musings of Milkey". I realize that many people throughout our country would say I am a bit hard-headed and stubborn in defending these principles. Some would say I'm paranoid. Some think that if the government is freely given some of our personal liberties that the practice will stop when appropriate.
You know how I feel about that. I fear that it won't.
Read what the English government wants to do. Keep in mind that this isn't some nut-job wingbat. This chick holds an official position of power. Prime Minister Tony Blair thinks this is a great idea!
Do we want our government to go down this road? It's certainly not out of the realm of possibility.
This story, accounts of cities banning fatty foods, and many others prove that I'm not paranoid.
Parents could be forced to go to special classes to learn to sing their children nursery rhymes, a minister said.
Those who fail to read stories or sing to their youngsters threaten their children's future and the state must put them right, Children's Minister Beverley Hughes said.
Their children's well-being is at risk 'unless we act', she declared.
And Mrs Hughes said the state would train a new 'parenting workforce' to ensure parents who fail to do their duty with nursery rhymes are found and 'supported'.
...
Her efforts have gone alongside a push by other ministers to determine exactly how parents treat their children down to how they should brush their teeth.
Tony Blair has backed the idea of 'fasbos' - efforts to identify and correct the lives of children who are likely to fail even before they are born - and new laws to compel parents to attend parenting classes are on the way.
This autumn is likely to see an extension of parenting orders that can force parents to attend parenting classes so that they can be used on the say so of local councils against parents.
...
The threat of action against parents who fail to sing nursery rhymes was unveiled by Mrs Hughes as she gave the first details of Mr Blair's 'national parenting academy', a body that will train teachers, psychologists and social workers to intervene in the lives of families and become the 'parenting workforce'.
...
The National Academy for Parenting Practitioner, Mrs Hughes said, would operate from next autumn to train a parenting workforce and 'support the Government's parenting agenda as it develops'.
She did not mention any figures for the cost of the scheme.
Mrs Hughes condemned the way governments before 1997 thought they had no role in the upbringing of children, which it 'regarded as the entirely private arrangements families make.'
I wonder if "The Blog Era" is making our society even more isolated and socially inept.
-People used to talk. -Then we started writing letters, which at least was in someone's own handwriting and allowed for personal touches. -Then a few hundred years later we started emailing. -Now we blog. That's about as impersonal as you can get.
I know I don't write near as many emails as I did a few years ago. I feel kinda bad about that, but I don't have anything of value to justify sending something directly to Andy or John like I used to.
Nope, now I can just vaguely direct whatever random bullshit is rattling around inside my head to you, my anonymous Constant Reader.
So, let's make this more interactive. What do you want talk about? Ask me a question.
(OK, mainly I want you to ask me questions so that I can re-use the awesome icon I created for "Let's Go to the Mailbag!" That dude cracks me up every time I look at him. I know you want to see him again as well.)
I've made this disclaimer before, but I'm making it again:
I do not buy everything hook, line, and sinker that may be posted on here. At times I'll post things that don't completely represent my own thoughts just cuz I found it interesting. This is one of those times.
I feel guilty at times that I don't do more to help out my fellow man. I have a pretty decent job for my young age and should probably give more to various charities. Unfortunately, when the chance arises I think to myself, "Sorry, I gave at the office." A very large chunk of each of my checks is taken to pay for charities that I don't choose to support.
I wish I could have some of that money back to give to local and more efficient charities that won't waste 80% of it on beauracracy and red tape.
Will Rodgers once said, "It is a good thing that we do not get as much government as we pay for."
OK, on to the cut/paste:
Tax his land, Tax his bed, Tax the table At which he's fed.
Tax his tractor, Tax his mule, Teach him taxes Are the rule.
Tax his cow, Tax his goat, Tax his pants, Tax his coat.
Tax his ties, Tax his shirt, Tax his work, Tax his dirt.
Tax his tobacco, Tax his drink, Tax him if he Tries to think.
Tax his cigars, Tax his beers, If he cries, then Tax his tears.
Tax his car, Tax his gas, Find other ways To tax his ass
Tax all he has Then let him know That you won't be done Till he has no dough.
When he screams and hollers, Then tax him some more, Tax him till He's good and sore.
Then tax his coffin, Tax his grave, Tax the sod in Which he's laid.
Put these words upon his tomb, "Taxes drove me to my doom..."
When he's gone, Do not relax, Its time to apply The inheritance tax.
Accounts Receivable Tax Building Permit Tax CDL license Tax Cigarette Tax Corporate Income Tax Dog License Tax Federal Income Tax Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA) Fishing License Tax Food License Tax, Fuel permit tax Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon) Hunting License Tax Inheritance Tax Interest expense Inventory tax IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax) Liquor Tax Luxury Taxes Marriage License Tax Medicare Tax Property Tax Real Estate Tax Service charge taxes Social Security Tax Road usage taxes Sales Tax Recreational Vehicle Tax School Tax State Income Tax State Unemployment Tax (SUTA) Telephone federal excise tax Telephone federal universal service fee tax Telephone federal, state and local surcharge taxes Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax Telephone state and local tax Telephone usage charge tax Utility Taxes Vehicle License Registration Tax Vehicle Sales Tax Watercraft registration Tax Well Permit Tax Workers Compensation Tax
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago and our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt and had the largest middle class in the world.
Now that we've had a brief hiatus after the elections and cleansed our political palettes with some mindless Minesweeper visuals, I thought I would answer a question that Andy posed:
Milkey, are you pro-life or pro-choice?
I'm going to stay away from the millions of hypothetical situations: rape, incest, crack whores racking up frequent abortion miles. I'm just looking at the big picture for now...
I have always been ardently pro-choice. At the same time, I have always ruled out abortion for me. But that decision is only applicable to me.
I can't think of a more difficult or personal decision to be made and no one should pretend they know what's best for someone else's individual situation.
That above statement isn't the only reason I am pro-choice. Most pro-life arguments center around their church's position on the matter. In my opinion, that should never be a viable basis for crafting public policy.
Anyway, I do have to admit that someone recently countered with a point that made me pause. That gentleman said to me,
"Forget the religious bullshit. You seem to be a strong supporter of individual rights and liberties. What about those that can't fight for their own rights? Are they to be denied? Should you not physically defend a 95 year old woman that's being beat on because she's too frail to defend herself?
Then what about the unborn? Why are their personal liberties worth less? You have to admit their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is being infringed upon."
Ugh... Interesting...
Unfortunately, adopting this argument as my own necessitates a definitive answer to the question: "When does life begin?" That's certainly not something I feel comfortable tackling. I know that I support a prohibition on abortions a week before the due date. I also support legalizing The Morning After Pill. So I guess if I were making the rules, I'd have to arbitrarily pick some point in time between those two. How does one do that? As there doesn't seem to be a clear answer, does that mean it has to be all or nothing?
I don't know.
So there you go Andy. I am and have always been pro-choice, but am allowing myself to continue to think about it.
The comments section is officially open for business and I welcome any insights... or at least emotion-based rants.
I've been invited back to NRANews.com's flagship program "Cam & Company" to discuss an upcoming Ohio Senate hearing concerning a bill that will prohibit Ohio journalists from publishing private information regarding CHL holders. The Cleveland Plain Dealer is the worst offender that publishes private information in order to intimidate potential licensees. Many Ohioans say they won't get their licenses until the Plain Dealer stops publishing these lists.
If you want to listen, I'm scheduled to go live at 9:40PM on Friday.. The show starts at 9:00. Click on the above graphic to go to the website. If you do so between 9-Midnight, it automatically takes you to the live feed. You can play an archived edition anytime before the next broadcast (so you have until 9PM Monday 11/13). Then you can fast forward into the show 40 minutes to hear my piece.
Now that another election has come and gone, we're hearing the same tired rhetoric about "reaching across the aisle" and "being committed to bipartisanship". Bullshit. History tells us that this probably won't be the revolutionary Congress that stops acting like children. There will be a few nice words for a month or so and then the backstabbing will begin anew.
I know how to fix all that.
What's wrong with this picture?
Of course they hate each other! Mix it up a bit! Force Taxy O'Handout to sit next to Churchy McFatcat. Borrow a pen. Share an anecdote.
Is there any wonder why bipartisan social skills are nonexistent when people attend legislative sessions like third graders attend school dances?
You know I usually don't like to reproduce "humorous" garbage from elsewhere on the web, but sometimes I make an exception:
Recently a routine police patrol parked outside a bar in Arlington, Texas .
After last call, the officer noticed a man leaving the bar so intoxicated that he could barely walk. The man stumbled around the parking lot for a few minutes, with the officer quietly observing. After what seemed an eternity in which he tried his keys on five different vehicles, the man managed to find his car and fall into it.
He sat there for a few minutes as a number of other patrons left the bar and drove off. Finally, he started the car, switched the wipers on and off; it was a fine, dry summer night--, flicked the blinkers on and off a couple of times, honked the horn and then switched on the lights.
He moved the vehicle forward a few inches, reversed a little and then remained still for a few more minutes as some more of the other patrons' vehicles left. At last, when his was the only car left in the parking lot, he pulled out and drove slowly down the road.
The police officer, having waited patiently all this time, now started up his patrol car, put on the flashing lights, promptly pulled the driver over and administered a breathalyzer test.
To his amazement, the breathalyzer indicated no evidence that the man had consumed any alcohol at all! Dumbfounded, the officer said, "I'll have to ask you to accompany me to the police station. This breathalyzer equipment must be broken."
"I doubt it," said the truly proud TEXAN. "Tonight I'm the designated decoy."
Issue 5 is a proposed law that will prohibit smoking in all privately owned buildings except for private residences, designated hotel rooms, designated nursing home areas, and tobacco shops.
The complete official argument AGAINST Issue 5:
The SmokeFree Ohio proposal on the November ballot is a near total ban on smoking across the state. It is an unreasonable approach that creates an unnecessary intrusion on the rights of individuals and business owners to make their own decisions.
SmokeFree does not allow exceptions for adult-only businesses and virtually criminalizes smokers with potential citations and fines. It is important to realize that given free choice, many restaurants, hotels and other places that serve families are making “no smoking” rules on their own. Since most Ohioans don't smoke, we can rely on traditional American freedoms to decide this issue in the marketplace, as we have always done.
Ohio should take reasonable action to protect non-smokers in public places. It is important to protect families from second-hand smoke, but we should use common sense to make the rules, so both health and individual freedoms are protected.
SmokeFree is an unreasonable, intrusive approach that will create more problems than it solves.
The complete official argument SUPPORTING Issue 5:
Protect your right to breathe smoke-free air inside all restaurants, public places and workplaces.
Secondhand Smoke Kills
The U.S. Surgeon General reports that:
Secondhand smoke causes cancer, heart disease, and lung disease in nonsmokers.
There is no safe level of exposure.
The only way to protect health is to eliminate smoking inside public places.
Separate smoking sections do not protect health.
Smoke-free policies do not harm business.
For these reasons, the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, and American Lung Association have joined with doctors, hospitals and every major health organization in Ohio to urge a YES vote on Issue 5.
What the SmokeFree Workplace Act will do:
Eliminate secondhand smoke in all public places and workplaces
Offer equal protection against secondhand smoke to all workers and customers
Create one fair, level playing field for all businesses
Studies show nonsmokers inhale the equivalent of one and a half cigarettes just by sitting in a restaurant's non-smoking section for two hours. This state law allows children, the elderly, and those with health problems to enjoy restaurants and other public places without jeopardizing their health.
Simply asking smokers to step outside public places will protect the health of the nonsmokers around them and allow all Ohioans to enjoy their favorite places together.
What the SmokeFree Workplace Act will not do:
SmokeFreeOhio does NOT amend the Constitution.
The law does NOT prohibit smoking in private residences, vehicles, or outdoors.
Twenty-one Ohio communities and 14 states have strong, successful smoke-free laws in place. The time has come to vote to stop this preventable health hazard and improve the health of all Ohio residents.
Vote YES on Issue 5 so Ohio can breathe smoke-free!
What I think:
While many of the official arguments that you've read throughout this series are complete bullshit... I find the "AGAINST" argument in this case extremely well-written. It almost perfectly sums up everything I was going to say. Fear not, Loyal Reader, for that doesn't mean I'm not going to say it. :)
Regular visitors to this blog already know what my "big picture" argument will be. I am an advocate for small government and believe that individuals are responsible enough to make personal decisions for themselves. (I hate to be blunt, but I have no other way of saying this...) I pity those that want other adults to make common sense decisions for them. Why do you think they're smarter and more capable than you?
Yes, "SUPPORTING" people, we all know tobacco smoke is unhealthy. If you don't want to breathe it in somebody's privately owned building, there's a simple solution available: Don't go in there! Nobody is forcing you. Who are you to impose your will on someone else when you voluntarily choose to be affected?
If the simple solution of "don't go in there" isn't proactive enough for you, there is also another solution that has worked for a long time: The Free Market. In general, business owners are greedy bastards. If every person that was going to vote in favor of this smoking ban would write a letter or talk to their favorite restaurant proprietor saying they're taking their money to a competitor... I guarantee they'd see results.
How do I know? Because I have taken part in this process and have achieved those results. Ohio law allows for private businesses to choose whether or not to allow licensed citizens to carry a concealed handgun in their building. Several hundred businesses in Ohio have removed their prohibition once they were informed that customers were shopping elsewhere. A few places have changed their policy due to my efforts alone. The Free Market works!
On the flip side, if nobody listens to you and there is a "non-smoking bar" need in the market, you're free to open your own place and become filthy rich filling that niche. Isn't this country great?!
I realize that passing legislation is easier and saves you the legwork. However, it's lazy and goes against everything that makes our system of government the best in the world. Let's focus on issues that serve the public from things outside their control... not the voluntary choice each of has to walk through another person's door.
How will you like it when someone down the line passes legislation against a personal choice that you enjoy that does not have to affect them?
In summary, this whole issue reminds me of an old and unfunny joke. Right now it goes:
Patient: "Doctor, it hurts when I move my arm like this." Doctor: "Then don't move your arm like that."
Advocates for this issue want to re-write that joke to say:
Patient: "Doctor, it hurts when I move my arm like this." Doctor: "Then let's enact legislation that imposes fines and jail time to criminalize any situation in which you might voluntarily choose to move your arm like that."
Issue 4 is a proposed Amendment to the Ohio Constitution that will "prohibit smoking in enclosed areas except tobacco stores, private residences or nonpublic facilities, separate smoking areas in restaurants, most bars, bingo and bowling facilities, separated areas of hotels and nursing homes, and race tracks." It does not protect the choices of private business owners that are not in that list.
Issue 5 also deals with smoking, so it is important to note that whatever your views may be on smoking in general, you need to vote for both 4 and 5 as Issue 4 is a Constitutional Amendment that will override anything passed in Issue 5.
The complete official argument AGAINST Issue 4:
Don't Be Fooled by Tobacco Companies
Vote NO on the Pro-Smoking Constitutional Amendment
Vote No on Issue 4 to keep secondhand smoke out of restaurants and other public places.
RJ Reynolds and other tobacco companies are proposing and funding a pro-smoking constitutional amendment. Smoke Less Ohio would keep smoke in restaurants and other public places and put customers and workers at risk from secondhand smoke, a proven health hazard.
The American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, doctors, hospitals, and every Ohio public health organization oppose Smoke Less Ohio because it would:
Deny your right to breathe smoke-free air in public places.
Keep smoke in restaurants and bowling alleys, exposing children, the elderly and those with health problems to secondhand smoke.
Overturn smoke-free laws in 21 cities across Ohio including Columbus and make it unconstitutional for lawmakers to enact future clean indoor air ordinances.
The U.S. Surgeon General confirmed that secondhand smoke causes cancer, heart disease and lung disease. He also confirmed that separate smoking sections like those proposed by Smoke Less Ohio do not protect health.
Smoke Less Ohio would make it unconstitutional to protect more than half a million hospitality workers and their customers from exposure to secondhand smoke. No worker should have to choose between earning a living and protecting his or her health.
Smoke Less Ohio alters the Constitution to protect the tobacco industry's bottom line. Lawmakers and voters could only change the Smoke Less Ohio proposal through another constitutional amendment—a costly and lengthy process.
Smoke Less Ohio would create different rules for similar businesses and make a level playing field for all Ohio businesses impossible.
Smoke Less Ohio FAILS to protect the workers and citizens of Ohio from secondhand smoke. Vote NO on Issue 4.
The complete official argument SUPPORTING Issue 4:
The Smoke Less Ohio proposal on the November ballot is a constitutional amendment to ban smoking in 90% of Ohio businesses.
This is a reasonable approach to meeting the needs of Ohioans to protect non-smokers from secondhand smoke. We are proposing an effective smoking ban to keep smoke out of 90% of all the businesses in Ohio.
Smoke Less is a common sense approach that protects both non-smokers and individual rights. Smoke Less protects the rights of individuals and businesses to make their own personal choices about smoking in very limited locations. Smoke Less provides exceptions for places where there are no minor children or where a total ban would threaten the health of the business. Bars are the main exception. Bowling alleys, bingo locations, and completely separate, enclosed areas in restaurants are the others.
Smoke Less has proposed that the Ohio smoking ban be a constitutional amendment. That will be a dependable, permanent solution, so Ohioans know clearly where smoking is or is not allowed. Business owners can make a decision about whether to become entirely smoke-free or to participate in the allowed exceptions. If decided by statute, our smoking laws will be subject to constant change, and voters could be asked to decide the same question over and over again.
Smoke Less is a common sense smoking ban for Ohio.
What I think:
This one is a pickle for me. If you read "What I think" about Issue 5, you will see that I think private businesses should be able to decide for themselves to allow or prohibit smoking. Entering a private establishment that permits smoking is completely voluntary on the part of the patron. Therefore, why does that patron need laws protecting them from a choice they make? That's all I'll say about that for now, as you'll get an earful in Issue 5. Back to the particulars of this Issue:
I said this is sticky for me. Here's why:
I support what this Issue is trying to do. It's guaranteeing some businesses the right to decide for themselves. I think it's sad a law needs to be enacted to protect a private business owner's right to do as he pleases in his own building.
Of course, that right has to be exercised within reason. Laws should exist that protect patrons from unknown health hazards. That argument isn't applicable here, as everyone that voluntarily patronizes a smoking establishment can instantly tell by sight or smell that smoking is taking place. They are then free to leave. Unfortunately, it's becoming clear that common sense needs to be legislated at the State level because many local municipalities are enacting these kinds of bans.
With that being said, I am voting No on this issue. Again, this is also not appropriate for a Constitutional Amendment. It focuses on the narrow issue of smoking and only protects the rights of some businesses (listed in the intro).
Now, if there was a proposed Amendment that said "all private businesses have the right to enact policies so long as those policies aren't forcing patrons into a dangerous environment against their will".... Sign me up. THAT is appropriate for a Constitutional Amendment.
Before I have "SmokeLess" people leave comments, please note that I am in favor of protecting the rights of private business owners. I am against a Constitutional Amendment that has a very narrow scope and arbitrarily protects some private business owners over others. Why are the rights of bowling alley owners more important than the guy that owns a guitar shop?
The Scala Girls' Choir covering a little ditty by The Devinyls. Where is Scala you ask? Who the hell knows. The Musings of Milkey is assuming they're all 20ish. That way if it turns out they're a middle school group or something I'm not so creepy.
Since we're talking about choir, I went to the home page of New Philadelphia's finest musical ensemble for the first time:
First of all, look how many people there are! No way half those guys can sing. In my day, which of course was the pinnacle of Delphian greatness, we struggled to find more than 6 or 7 gents that could hold a tune.
Second, it's nice to see that nine years after I've graduated the ladies are still sporting the same fashionable dresses that our sopranos and altos despised. All funds earmarked for wardrobe updates must have been spent replacing the cummerbund that made me look so dashing.
Issue 3 is a proposed Amendment to the Ohio Constitution that will permit slot machines in specific locations (seven horse racing tracks and two Cleveland non-track venues). Some of the profits are earmarked to go towards college scholarships, so the proponents of this Issue have dubbed it "Learn and Earn." The money is to be divided as such:
55% to the slot and casino owners and operators.
30% to the Board of Regents for college scholarships and grants to eligible students and administration of the program.
The remaining revenues to be divided among local governments, race tracks for purse money, gambling addiction services
The complete official argument AGAINST Issue 3:
PROTECT OHIO CHILDREN AND FAMILIES -- VOTE “NO” on ISSUE 3
Please Vote NO on the Learn and Earn Casino Gambling Amendment.
This dishonest plan, filled with loopholes, will not deliver the benefits promised.
A handful of casino developers want to use your Constitution for their personal gain, but it will ruin lives.
Why so many are voting NO on Issue 3:
Learn and Earn Casinos will create at least 109,000 NEW gambling addicts, ruining the lives of hundreds of thousands of families.
Remember the Lottery? It didn't save Ohio public schools. Learn and Earn Casinos are a bad deal for students, parents, and colleges.
Learn and Earn creates a private monopoly for a handful of casino owners. Gambling proceeds are exempted from state and local taxes.
Learn and Earn Casinos will place NO money in the Ohio General Revenue Fund- not one dollar for the State Treasury.
Issue 3 will not stop Ohioans from traveling to gamble but will grant licenses to out-of state operators and drain more dollars from Ohio.
Ohio casinos will drain $2 billion from the local economy costing Ohio jobs.
Learn and Earn LOOPHOLES will leave thousands of students without scholarships. There are no guarantees on how much scholarships will be worth or when they will be paid. Only the top 5% of students will qualify for tuition grants which disappear after 12 years.
Learn and Earn will push Ohio into a Class III gambling state making it easier for tribal casinos to open in Ohio.
Community leaders, elected officials and many Ohio newspapers are urging a “NO” vote on Learn and Earn's gambling casinos.
Don't gamble away Ohio's future. Protect Ohio's families and children.
Vote NO on ISSUE 3.
The complete official argument SUPPORTING Issue 3:
A "yes" vote on Issue 3 would provide thousands of Ohio's hard-working high school students with scholarships to Ohio's colleges and universities. All students will be eligible to earn these scholarships, which would be funded from the proceeds of expanded gambling--slot machines--at the seven commercial horse racing tracks, and at two carefully specified locations in Cleveland's entertainment district. Issue 3 would also provide new funds for economic development and job creation for communities throughout Ohio.
Unlike the proceeds from the lottery, Learn and Earn scholarship funds would be free from control of politicians who now simply reduce education's general revenue funds by the amount of lottery proceeds. Issue 3 expressly prohibits the reduction of such funds by providing that the money generated for scholarships and local communities' economic development will supplement, not supplant, monies currently appropriated for these purposes. The scholarship monies will be placed in individual accounts for Ohio's primary and secondary school students under the direct control of the Ohio Board of Regents. The legislature will be powerless to divert this money for politicians' pet projects.
Under Issue 3, the locations and number of slot machines would be strictly limited, and would be regulated by the new Gaming Integrity Commission, which will operate without general revenue tax dollars.
Each year, Ohioans spend billions of dollars on gaming entertainment in neighboring states and Canada. This amendment will help keep that money in Ohio for the benefit of Ohio and its children. Money now spent by Ohioans on gaming in Indiana, Michigan, West Virginia, and Canada (and soon, Pennsylvania), benefits the residents of those places. The money spent by Ohioans on this form of entertainment should benefit Ohioans, not out-of-state interests.
Vote Yes for Ohio's Children. Vote yes on Issue 3.
What I think:
First off, both sides say they're for the children. NOW WHAT THE FUCK AM I SUPPOSED TO DO?!?!
Just kidding.
I am strongly opposed to this issue because this is by far the worst possible use of a Constitutional Amendment. As I've mentioned before, a Constitution is supposed to represent and protect rights that all citizens should expect to enjoy for many, many years.... NOT the financial gain of specific and enumerated business men in specific and enumerated locations. It really eats me up to imagine a Constitutional Amendment permitting only a few wealthy people to open a business in only nine locations... only in and around Cleveland. I really wish that opponents crafted more of their public argument about this instead of focusing on moral implications and the promise of hellfire and brimstone.
[QUICK UPDATE] In re-reading what's above and the comments, I realize this paragraph came off like I'm upset that someone is trying to make money. Couldn't be further from the truth. I'm upset that some want to have the Constitution allow a maximum of nine people to expand their business. No problem with the ends. Just the means. [/UPDATE]
That's why I'm voting No. Therefore, I haven't looked into the scholarship aspect too much. I've heard people smarter than me say that hardly any money will get to students due to the application requirements and the amount of funds that will be available. Definitely something to look into if my main argument doesn't bother you.
I am all for bringing legalized gambling to Ohio and think it's ridiculous that we don't allow it. I think most Ohioans agree. Hopefully, those voters will read the fine print and see what this Issue is really about.
