A Look at Ohio Issue #4

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?