What public smoking law was passed in Ohio?  What does it mean?
958570
No smoking in bars or restaurants, and other places too.  I voted for Issue 5 and helped it pass.  I agree it is an excellent law.  Takes effect 30 days from passage.  \n\nFull text of the law here with all the details you are looking for:\n\nhttp://www.smartvoter.org/2006/11/07/oh/state/issue/5/\n\n~Kyle
439406
Check with your local and state laws, whatever state you live in. I just love a smoke after full or self service.
80007
A business banning smoking has nothing to do with a law. Some states have made laws outlawing smoking in businesses across the board, but otherwise, The business has a right to set its own standards on its property.  Now, laws banning smoking in government (federal and state) buildings are another matter.
950921
Passive smoking is the fact that you inhale the smoke coming of a cigarette from a person or persons in your near vicinity or you inhale the smoke being exhaled by a person or persons near you. especialy in offices shops clubs etc
453978
I know, I know!  Pick me, pick me!\nWhat needs to happen is that restaurants (and other businesses) must be made to comply with health codes.  That is to say, that the smoking area should be well-ventilated, and separate from the non-smoking areas.  Any restaurant (or business) that doesn't comply must either A) Shut down.  or B) Not allow smoking.  If they decide to go with B, and then violate it, it would be treated the same as any other health code violation, e.g. HUGE fines.\nUnfortunately, the current political climate in our country is all-or-nothing, instead of focusing on compromise.  And instead of eating somewhere that doesn't allow smoking, many non-smokers want NO restaurants or businesses to allow smoking.  Completely unfair.  Everyone is entitled to the pursuit of liberty and happiness, not just the non-smokers.
815555
Because a business owner should have the right to decide how he wants to run his business. Does he want a smoke free bar or tavern, or a smoking bar or tavern should be his choice, These smoking bans HURT small local bars and taverns and people lose jobs. I know of six right now that stand a good chance of losing their jobs after Ohios smoking ban takes effect.
607422
Look for "Ohio Revised Code" on line--it will bring you to the Anderson's site. It is a misdemeanor offense to posses tobacco if you are a minor in Ohio...You can probably go through a diversion program in your community and have no record at all, and all juvie records are sealed also.
668100
Smoking is already banned in restaurants. Well it is here anyways. I'm In Ontario, Canada. \n\nAnd now, as of May 1st...today hahaha, the only place any-one can smoke is in your own home , that is if you don't have any children. Otherwise, you  have to stay on your porch. \nGood luck with your search.
35817
Definitely should be laws against this! No child should have to breathe in second hand smoke- it's cruel. Parents with any sense wouldn't smoke around their kids.
279439
Only just introduced a smoking ban in all workplaces in Scotland (came into effect in 26/03/06).  I'm a leper no, scratch that, A SMOKER and I'm happy for this to have happened.  Maybe now the Anti-Smoking Lobby will settle down and leave me to my self-destructive vices.
1017838
I have searched under both of the references given and I can find no mention of these official-looking sections. There were, indeed, amendments to the Public Health Act in 1962 and the Local Government Act in 1982 but the Acts are not available online, it seems.\n\nFurther lines of research I would suggest would be:\n\n1) The Police. Since the note appears to address the Traffic Wardens/Police, they should know about these sections\n\n2) Your Central/Local library. Although the Stationery Office sells these Acts, your Library should have copies of, at least, the more relevant ones.
1107782
In CT it's against the law to smoke in public restaurants, bars, and other eateries where the smoke can and most likely will be considered offensive. But unfortunately not too many states have laws like this so if this is not the case for you you may want to send your local representative a letter or somehow communicate with him/her about something like this. I think it's a great law and can greatly help with people's health in general. Otherwise you'll unfortunately have to find another place to do whatever it is that you do since some areas (especially outside) you're allowed to smoke in. But some places like amusement parks and other places that young children may frequently visited are generally smoke-free as deemed by the company that owns the place and/or property. It all depends on the situation; well really that is where you are.
447651
April 20th is all about the Senate Bill (S.B.) in California #187, regarding the use and posession of marijuana for medical (and other) purposes. \n\nThe bill got held up in the senate for quite some time and was finally rejected and then the bill was renamed S.B. 420\n\nIn protest, many people smoke.\n\n--- There are other reasons for 4/20.. I guess enough people heard about it and just decided to have an unofficial holiday\n\nBut i thank them.
538435
Here in Queensland, Australia we don't allow people to smoke inside buildings like shopping centres etc, within a certain distance to the serving area of a bar, in any place where food is served, at childrens playgrounds, within 10 meters of a building entrance or at bus shelters.\n\nThe legislation in your area would need to be more specific other than "public places".
936606
If you read each of the issues carefully, you shouldn't have been confused at all.\n\nIssue 4 was promoted by the big tobacco and cigarette companies and claimed to reduce the number of places where smoking is now allowed, and to designate certain areas in businesses with regular smokers as smokefree or pro-smoking, thus allowing second hand smoking to continue.\n\nIssue 5 was promoted by the American Cancer Society and almost every single major newspaper and health institution in Ohio, and claimed to ban smoking in all public places with no exceptions, in order to prevent the many illnesses and deaths caused by 2nd hand smoking.\n\nThe results were very predictable and very simple: most smokers voted for 4 (smoke less Ohio) and against 5 (smoke free Ohio), while most non-smokers voted for 5 and against 4.\n\nThe ideological debate among Ohioans for these issues is almost the same as it is for most social and/or moral issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, stem-cell research etc.\n\nOne group of people (people for 4 and against 5) voted for the right to practice some behavior they like (, regardless of the effect it has on other people, and the other group (people for 5 and against 4) voted to prevent or ban certain behaviors (smoking in this case) that are objectively wrong because of the harm they cause for other people.
431131
2 reasons:  1) History.  2) Momentum.\n\nIn regard to history, we already prohibited alcohol once in this country and it failed miserably.  For that reason, the prohibition was lifted.  Instead, we do have strict laws that greatly restrict when and how we can consume alcohol.  \nThose laws are designed to protect innocent people, even though people don't always follow the laws and people still get hurt.\n\n2)  The anti-tobacco campaign, however, is gaining huge political momentum.  The tobacco companies have lost big law suits because they lied about knowing of the harmful chemicals they were putting in cigarettes.  The tobacco industry had to shell out billions of dollars to states in a settlement and they have very little lobbying power right now to stop the local laws that are going into place.  The laws themselves don't prosecute a person for smoking per se, they only prosecute a person for smoking in a way that jeopardizes someone else's health.  So, if you are in public smoking a cigarette and someone else can breathe in your harmful smoke, you can be prosecuted... just like you can be prosecuted if you ram your car into someone when you are drunk.\n\nThe real question is... if we are holding people legally liable for polluting our air with cigarettes, why aren't we holding manufacturers strictly liable for dangerous smoke that they put into the air when there are things they can do, although more expensive, to lessen that degree of smoke?
1132971
It's from an anti-smoking organization, (stand), the counter is supposed to hit zero sometime on July 10th. No one really knows why. My guess is that it will say something like "since the counter started *blankity blank* people died from second hand smoke."