Smoking In Ohio: Issues 4 vs. 5

In Ohio, outside of the important gubernatorial and congressional races going on, there are two issues on the ballot that I believe require some attention and clarification. I'll also point out some of the hypocrisy surrounding the type of support one of the issues is receiving.

Issue 4 and Issue 5 both deal with the issue of smoking, but have very different goals. And in what may be an unprecedented situation, if one of the issues passes, it immediately cancels the other out.

The full text of Issue 4:

This proposed amendment would allow smoking in the following enclosed public areas: separate smoking areas in restaurants, most bars, bingo or bowling facilities, separated areas of hotels and nursing homes, race tracks, tobacco stores, private residences and nonpublic facilities. It would prohibit smoking in all other enclosed public areas. The amendment would also override home rule, invalidating and prohibiting local bans on smoking. A majority yes vote is necessary for passage. Note: There are two smoking-related ballot issues. This proposal is to approve a constitutional amendment.

If any local townships or city ordinances have a smoking ban, the passage of Issue 4 trumps it. A state CONSTITUTIONAL amendment is added and would override all laws state wide regarding smoking. All current 22 laws throughout the state of Ohio preventing smoking in various public places would instantly become unenforcable. Last election, a city wide smoking ban in all public buildings was passed in Columbus. The citizens of the city are able to go out and have dinner without having to worry about second hand smoke. With the passage of Issue 4, smoking sections would return full force.

Issue 5 on the other hand, would enact a law similar to the one in Columbus state wide:

To enact Chapter 3794. of the Ohio Revised Code to restrict smoking in places of employment and most places open to the public. The proposed law would:

Prohibit smoking in public places and places of employment;

Exempt from the smoking restrictions certain locations, including private residences (except during the hours that the residence operates as a place of business involving non-residents of the private residence), designated smoking rooms in hotels, motels, and other lodging facilities; designated smoking areas for nursing home residents; retail tobacco stores, outdoor patios, private clubs, and family-owned and operated places of business;

Authorize a uniform statewide minimum standard to protect workers and the public from secondhand tobacco smoke;

Allow for the declaration of an establishment, facility, or outdoor area as nonsmoking;

Require the posting of "No Smoking" signs, and the removal of all ashtrays and similar receptacles from any area where smoking is prohibited;

Specify the duties of the department of health to enforce the smoking restrictions

Create in the state treasury the "smoke free indoor air fund;"

Provide for the enforcement of the smoking restrictions and for the imposition of civil fines upon anyone who violates the smoking restrictions.

Confusing advertisements surrounding Issue 4 put forth by the misleadingly named group "Smoke Less Ohio" have led the public to currently support the passage of both issues. Although, if both pass, because Issue 4 is a constitutional amendment, it would instantly trump the law put in place by the passage of Issue 5. Not surprisingly, much of the funding for Issue 4 comes from tobacco companies.

While listening to the local conservative talk radio personality, which I occaisionally do for a good laugh, the subject of these two issues came up. The Republican callers insisted that this wasn't a public health issue, but a business owner's property rights issue. They concluded that Issue 5 was too restrictive on business owners' rights as a property owner by not deciding what could be done within their building. The fact that Issue 5 would protect innocent people from the dangers of second hand smoke was not sufficient for them to support it.

After hearing four straight calls lambasting big government for infringing upon our rights too much, I called in. I asked the host if he supported Bush's 'terrorist survelience program.' He said absoutely. I asked why he supported it. He said because it was protecting innocent people from terrorists attacks.

I then asked him to explain why he was supporting the revocation of our some of our privacy rights under the auspice of protecting innocent people from terrorist attacks yet against the revocation of a business owner's property rights to protect innocent people from second hand smoke.

I never did get a good answer from him.

According to the American Lung Association:

Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 22,700-69,600 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year

I will be voting No on Issue 4 in Ohio, and Yes on Issue 5

I'm not going to ask fellow Ohioans to vote the way I do, but please think of the above fact when you enter the voting booth.