COLUMBUS, Ohio, June 12 /PRNewswire/ -- On Nov. 7, 2006, Ohio voters
passed Issue 5, Ohio's smoking ban, which included exemptions for private
clubs and family-owned businesses. Over a year later, no private clubs are
exempt and no family-owned businesses are exempt as far as we know. Ohio
citizens have serious concerns about Issue 5 and an apparent concerted
effort by special-interests to mislead Ohio voters.
Ballot Language: What voters read when they cast their vote for Issue 5
was "Exempt from the smoking restrictions ... outdoor patios, private
clubs, and family-owned and operated places of business". The ballot
measure language did not define "family-owned and operated". A letter dated
Nov. 28, 2007 by Ohio Department of Health Director Alvin Jackson states,
"Although the entire length of the initiative could not appear on the
ballot itself due to space limitations, the exact and complete wording was
available in the newspapers and on the websites of the Secretary of State,
your county boards of elections, and the initiating organization. The
definition is intended to exclude those businesses that operate from the
home, have little contact with the public, and only employ family members,
thereby limiting exposure to second-hand smoke". There was no definition on
the ballot and that missing definition was intended to exclude businesses
that operate from the home? Six words would have clarified that virtually
no family-owned business would be exempt. Was it really a space issue?
Ohioans who did not subscribe to newspapers or have Internet service
depended on reading the true language when they voted, not a watered down
version that misrepresented the facts.
Explanation and Argument for Issue 5 -- Surgeon General Carmona's
Report: Those who could access the Secretary of State's website saw five
bullet items in the Explanation and Argument for Issue 5 from the U.S.
Surgeon General's Report. After the five bullet items, it then summarized
"For these reasons...urge a YES vote on Issue 5." The fact is Issue 5 was
based solely on Surgeon General Carmona's report. Issue 5 petition language
was certified April 2005. The Surgeon General's Report wasn't issued until
June 2006. FORCES, Inc., a non-profit educational corporation dedicated to
scientific research integrity, has filed a complaint with the Health and
Human Services, Office of Research Integrity against Surgeon General
Carmona's report. The complaint alleges the "deplorable act of scientific
misconduct on the part of the U.S. Surgeon General" and the "conscious use
of fraudulent epidemiologic studies by that Office, with the intent of
sustaining statements and policies that are just as fraudulent as the
underlying epidemiologic studies adduced as justification." "People need to
be able to confidently rely on experts, such as the Surgeon General. That's
what makes this such a serious matter," said Stephanie Stahl, President of
Forces, Inc. "The report fails to relate dose with SHS/ETS. Biological
metabolism is virtually ignored. Confounders, such as socio-economic
status, are also belittled. The surveys used to collect data are very
vague, imprecise and unreliable. We hope the ORI will conduct a full
investigation soon."
The fifth bullet item in the Explanation and Argument -- "Smoke-free
policies do not harm business" -- is also from Carmona's report. This
statement is an already proven lie. The smoking ban in Ohio is hurting
businesses. During the first 12 months of the smoking ban 5,400 jobs were
lost in the hospitality and leisure industry. Permit holders lost a
potential of $67.44 million in 2007 sales. One large beer distributor
reports a 5 percent decline in sales. The coin machine industry is down 25
to 35 percent in liquor pouring establishments. The trickle down affect
includes the loss of income to musicians, karaoke vendors, snack vendors
and more. Families invested their money and their lives into owning their
piece of the American Dream. After Issue 5, if they can sell their
businesses it's for a fraction of the money, blood, sweat and tears they've
invested. Due to loss of revenues, private clubs are no longer able to
support charities at previous levels. "If the economic studies in Carmona's
report are any indication of the credibility and validity of the remainder
of his report, I don't wonder that a complaint has been filed" said Debi
Kistner, Opponents of Ohio Bans. Dr. Jackson's Nov. 28, 2007 letter closed
concluding smoke-free benefits to Ohio "outweigh the need for some business
adjustments." Adjustments should not mean reducing business income 25 to 35
percent, nor should it include closing businesses. A question to Dr.
Jackson would be, "What other health laws have been imposed by more than
$2.6 million of private special-interest pharmaceutical support?" $2.1
million (80 percent) of that sum was contributed by the American Cancer
Society and its divisions. The Society receives direct financial support
for its smoking ban advocacy from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which
as of Dec. 31, 2007 owned $3.0 billion in common stock of NicoDerm CQ patch
manufacturer Johnson & Johnson.
American Cancer Society spokesperson Tracy Sabetta will once again
display her Karmak the Magnificent skills, to proclaim the intent of voters
about Issue 5. Like most psychics, however, she accomplishes her feats of
legerdemain through misdirection from reality. Even many who support
smoking bans acknowledge that, "Qualifying an initiative for the statewide
ballot is thus no longer a measure of general citizen interest as it is a
test of general fundraising ability," as quoted in a recent Yale Law School
scholarship paper. Prowess at raising special-interest funding must not be
substituted for the genuine will of the people. Ms. Sabetta will, no doubt,
retort with her now famous line that Ohio voters "overwhelmingly" voted for
Issue 5. Ohio voters voted for a ban with exemptions. They voted to have
private clubs and family-owned businesses exempted. The smoking ban we have
now does not represent what the voters approved nor does it represent the
will of the people.
Issue 5 was fraught with misleading and missing language and was based
on a report against which serious allegations of scientific misconduct have
been alleged. If Carmona's report wasn't released until 14 months after the
petition certification, what proof of necessity was given for enacting such
restrictive legislation? No evidence was provided to the Ohio Attorney
General to show whether or not the declarations made within the text of the
Issue 5 petition were fair or truthful as the law requires.
Although Opponents of Ohio Bans believes that all private business
owners should be allowed to make their own policies on smoking, several
Ohio Senators have seen the devastating damage to family-owned businesses
and private clubs and agree that at least they should be spared from this
all too restrictive law. Senator Robert Schuler-R has introduced SB 346 to
again exempt private clubs and family-owned businesses, as the law passed
in November, 2006 stated by clearly defining "family-owned business." The
bill is co-sponsored by 12 other senators. "We're extremely grateful that
Senator Schuler and the other co-sponsors have introduced this legislation.
Family-owned businesses and private clubs can finally get some financial
relief. It's too bad that so many families have already lost their
businesses or have lost such large amounts of money that nothing can be
done to make it up to them. At least this bill will prevent further
financial devastation to family owned businesses and private clubs," said
Pam Parker, Opponents of Ohio Bans.
Those who have been affected by Ohio's smoking ban are being asked to
write their respective Senators and State Representatives and ask that they
support SB 346.
Related Web site: http://www.opponentsofohiobans.com
SOURCE Opponents of Ohio Bans
 back to top
Related links:
http://www.opponentsofohiobans.com
CONTACT:
Pam Parker, +1-614-565-6560, and Debi
Kistner, +1-614-668-8485, both of Opponents of Ohio Bans,
truth@opponentsofohiobans.com
|
