Ohio Ballot Issues on Smoking

Two issues on the ballot pertain to restricting smoking in Ohio. Ballot Issue 4 would amend the Ohio Constitution to prohibit smoking in enclosed areas. Ballot Issue 5 would put wide-sweeping anti-smoking provisions in the Ohio Revised Code.

1) First of all, I have concerns about both of these measures, not the least of which is their lack of specifics regarding where smoking is banned. Issue 4 refers to 'enclosed areas' which I interpret as any area with a wall or fence around it or an area posted by signs. Issue 5 prohibits smoking in 'public places and places of employment' but provides no details as to what is to be considered public.

Agreed, both measures incorporate exceptions to the rules but they are hardly helpful when the rules are written so generally and open to interpretation.

2) Secondly, I'm having a difficult time seeing a justification for changing laws. I mean, just what problem is being solved. Hear me out. Last week, I made it a point of meandering out in my area on a few occasions to evaluate the extent of smoking by the citizenry in enclosed and public places. The results were unremarkable. In more than two dozen stores and restaurants, I didn't see one person smoking. In two banks and an office building where scores of people work, no smokers were noted. However, I did see people smoking in parking lots, outside buildings and walking down the street but they were few when compared to the number of people who were out and about.

If there is a true necessity to change the Ohio Revised Code or the Ohio Constitution to solve some massive problem in society, one would imagine that the massive problem is ubiquitous and affecting average citizens' lives daily. I'm sure some would argue that point, however, in several days of non-scientific looking around, I didn't see the problem.

3) Thirdly, it's good practice to expect that taxes will rise when new law is imposed on the citizenry. Both Issue 4 and Issue 5 impose new law and the new provisions will have to be paid for by the taxpayer. How and when remains to be seen. Issue 5 is substantially more troubling in this regard than Issue 4.

Issue 5 creates a new bureaucratic element in state government along with a smoking enforcement division to assure compliance. That's new people, new desks, new telephones, new office space and new computers throughout the state to administer the anti-smoking program. A nice large chunk of tax revenue will be needed to pay for administration of the program.

A 'smoking police' force will have to be sworn in to patrol likely smokers' hangouts and investigate violations of the new laws. They'll issue citations as appropriate, leveling fines for noncompliance. Granted, the smoking police will likely be newly-hired state employees who function similarly to meter maids [Oops! meter persons]. Of course, they'll need training and, probably, uniforms and, most likely, vehicles since their enforcement area is the entire state of Ohio. And, of course, all this costs money. Ohioans, hold on to your wallets.

4) Also, in Issue 5 is this nugget:

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

Can someone tell me what this means? Correct me if I'm mistaken but, to my knowledge, no threshold level of safety regarding secondhand tobacco smoke has ever been identified. Given that, how does one authorize a standard?

This provision smells. It strongly hints that the passage of Issue 5 will launch a taxpayer-funded scientific research program on secondhand smoke. In my estimation, that's exactly what is intended. The anti-smoking activists want to use the ballot box mandate to approach the legislature for funding research on secondhand smoke. So, the 'authorize a standard' verbiage is in Issue 5 to allow greedy hands an avenue to scoop money out of the treasury.

In summary, Issue 4 and Issue 5 should be opposed for a variety of reasons. If smoking laws are necessary, the individual municipalities should take action, not the state. Additionally, the libertarian in me is in pain just thinking of the level of nanny-state governance represented by Ballot Issues 4 and 5. If someone in my vicinity emits an offensive odor, whether it be cigarette smoke, perfume, hygiene or flatulence, I move away. I don't draft a state law or propose an amendment to the constitution.

Recommendation:

Vote NO on Ballot Issue 4.

Vote NO on Ballot Issue 5.

Alternatively, for those who have very strong feelings about smoking, choose Issue 4 rather than Issue 5. Any objective assessment of Issue 5 would indicate that it is very high on the harassment scale and I don't think the state should be harassing its citizens. People who smoke are being targeted for citations and fines by the proposed law. Businesses that cater to the beer-and-a-smoke customer base are targeted. I see the true intent of Issue 5 is to force people to give up smoking and to bankrupt businesses that rely on customers who smoke.

One last thought. Watching the leftist political crowd closely, I've found that it is homogenous. One day, activists are protesting smoking. The next day, they're demonstrating for rights for illegal aliens. Later, you'll find them carrying placards against the war. And they can be relied upon to save the whales, the desert tortoise and the timber wolves.

It's mix and match with the leftists, and confusing. On more than one occasion, I've seen news footage of a demonstration about something and there's always one group that didn't get the memo and showed up carrying the wrong signs. Funny? Yes.

However, sometimes the mixed bag of issues the leftists promote ends up producing conflict. In the case of the anti-smoking crowd, I'd bet a paycheck that it is infested with some members who think that smoking marijuana is just ducky. Consequently, the anti-smoking activists are due for a future face-off with marijuana smokers seeking legalization of pot. That should be fun.

Lastly, I'd like this post to be liberally construed to favor my purposes.