OK, so I finally decided to spout off about the two smoking bans on the Ohio ballot. In my observation, Issue 4 seems to be doing way more advertising than Issue 5, but maybe I'm just not watching enough TV.
Issue 5, supported by
Smoke Free Ohio, is probably the easiest to explain: it bans smoking in all stores, restaurants, workplaces, bars, bowling alleys, and just about any other building you can think of that isn't a private residence. It gets stickier in areas where a private residence is also used as a business: in this case, no smoking is permitted during business hours in the area of the residence that's open to the public. Nursing homes, being places of residence, are permitted to have designated smoking rooms for residents only, and employees may not be asked to enter said room during working hours. The law would go into effect 30 days after the election, i.e. December 7th.
Issue 4, supported by
Smoke Less Ohio, dubs itself "the common sense smoking ban" because it would ban smoking in most public buildings, as well as places of employment.
That's assuming your place of employment isn't a restaurant that earns 40% of its income from alcohol sales, in which case it's considered a "bar" and smoking is permitted. If you don't like it, Issue 4 says, get a new job:
When 90% of workplaces are covered by the smoking ban to begin with, and more are already choosing to be smoke-free, as Marriott and Bob Evans have recently done, people in every job category really do have a choice of workplace environment."Getting a new job" is a very popular libertarian solution to just about any problem, and is one of the reasons I stopped aligning myself with libertarian values. Getting a new job at the same pay rate in the same field of work in the same geographic region isn't always easy. And as I've said before, why should I be looking for a new job to avoid smoke? Who's to say my next employer won't also be a smoker? The place I work now used to be smoke-free until the president of the company started smoking, then suddenly that unwritten rule disappeared and we all get to enjoy that smooth, cool taste.
The general libertarian rule is "you have the right to do what you want so long as it doesn't infringe on others' rights" -- and when it comes to smoking, they often defend the smoker's "right" to do what he/she wants, rather than the non-smoker's "right" to not be affected by it. While on the surface this would seem to be a contradiction for them, it's really not: they would prefer the non-smoker be proactive and constantly ask the smoker time and time again to please step outside to enjoy his Camel Lights, rather than institue a smoking ban. Libertarians are big on the "every man for himself" adage, so the same principle applies here.
Of course, many libertarians' dislike of draconian bans ends where their child's peanut allergy begins. Except in that case, the whole school has to stop eating peanut butter sandwiches because of a few kids (who I'm sure will be tormented for such), whereas secondhand smoke affects everyone in its presence. But I digress. I'm sure the libbies would argue that their child
has to go to school, whereas I don't
have to go to work -- just get a new job!
Another catch with Issue 4 is that it allows smoking in workplaces where minors are prohibited. That's fine for bars and strip clubs, but it also means any old cubicle farm could decide to "prohibit minors" in order to legally allow smoking. Don't like it? Again, get a new job!
All that aside, my biggest problem with Issue 4 is that it would make governmental smoking bans illegal. Voters in Toledo approved a sweeping, city-wide smoking ban a few years ago, but Issue 4 would render it void. Bowling Green voters implemented a smoking ban in restaurants with an exception for restaurants with closed off smoking sections having separate ventilation systems and bars (where "bar" is defined as 50% of income from alcohol sales). Issue 4, aside from voiding the 21 smoking bans already in place in Ohio municipalities, would also trump Issue 5 if both proposals pass. The Issue 4 campaign responds to this by saying,
In many communities, the existing regulations are very similar to the provisions of Issue 4. And it’s fundamentally more fair, when you think about it, that the rules are the same for everyone. A level playing field is less confusing and doesn’t give any locality a business advantage over any other.Uh, sorry, but saying "if you think about it" isn't a convincing argument. I mean, "if you think about it," localities should be allowed to decide what goes on within their borders, rather than having their ordinances nullified by the state. See how easy (and unconvincing) that was?
Other statements from the
Issue 4 FAQ:
Ohioans should be free to make personal choices, whether about their own health or how to run their businesses. This is where we take the word "corporation" literally, as a body that has human rights to be protected. Given the choice, somehow the "rights" of the non-human
corporations often trump the "rights" of the people who have more than just money to be concenred about.
To me, this is by far the most tell-tale line from Issue 4's FAQ, regarding asking smokers to step outside:
Remember that when a group of people just step outside to smoke, they form a smoker’s cluster that can be a lot more annoying to passers-by than if they stayed where they were. You see? They even debunked the simple courtesy of smoking outside!
Personal Opinion: They really
do want smokers to have the "right" to light up wherever they please without being inconvenienced. The only reason they're supporting Issue 4 is because it will outlaw local and statewide smoking bans, while throwing just enough crumbs to the non-smokers of Ohio to make it pass the ballot. They'll concede smoking in most workplaces just so Issue 5, and other local ordinances like it, are rendered void. That's why they're going after an amendment to the Ohio constitution here, not just a law.
Two weeks from today we'll know the results. I have a feeling one of the issues will pass, but I honestly can't guess which one. Non-smokers are in the vast majority, but not all of them necessarily support even a lesser ban such as Issue 4. I think Issue 5 may be too much too soon. I myself, despite what you may think after reading this post, haven't even decided if I'm going to vote for Issue 5. But I will say this: if it
does pass, I'm going bowling on December 7th. Then, I'm going to a karaoke bar. And I'm going to enjoy every smoke-free minute of it.
Regardless of which one passes, I question how this will be policed. Do they really think a lowly employee, especially in a small business where gossip spreads quickly, is going to report the big cheese to the authorities? And that there won't then be backlash toward that worker? You know how employers always love a good whistle-blower.
As an aside, I'll state here that I very much dislike the "
take a stand" commercials. Their misleading (and sometimes downright faulty) statements, combined with snotty, smart-mouthed kids painting smokers as evil incarnate do absolutely
no good. They make the rest of us non-smokers look like whiny Puritan crybabies every time we ask a smoker to step outside, and makes people like me loathe to do so (which is probably stupid since I'm a cancer survivor and I'm now more susceptible to lung cancer -- but that's not really Stand's fault).
Here's an idea for the Stand campaign that might actually be funny: "Every time someone lights up then asks if I mind if he smokes, I cut a ripe, juicy one, wave it in his face, then ask if he minds if I pass gas. {{PPPFFFTTTT!!}} Ahhh. Speak up. Take a stand against faux courtesy."
I'm pretty sure flatulence doesn't cause cancer either. Global warming, maybe.
Links:
Issue 4 FAQ
Issue 5 FAQ
