Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse

National Guard, Bucknuts to Sponsor Weekly JJHuddle Fall Sports Player & Team of the Week Awards

This Fall we are pleased to announce that the Ohio National Guard, Bucknuts and JJHuddle have partnered together to award weekly player and team of the week honors in Football, Boys & Girls Soccer, Boys & Girls Cross Country, Volleyball, Girls Tennis and Boys & Girls Golf.

Each week during the fall sports seasons (regular and post), we will hold a fan-generated contest on JJHuddle to tab a weekly Team and Player of the Week in each sport. Each weekly winner will receive awards.

There will also be Player & Team of the Year voting in each sport at the conclusion of the respective seasons.

How it works?
http://www.jjhuddle.com/2014/08/06/n...e-week-awards/
See more
See less
Ohio Smoke Free ban upheld by Supreme Court Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse


Latest Topics Latest Topics Module
Collapse


X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ohio Smoke Free ban upheld by Supreme Court

    http://www.dispatch.com/content/stor...itutional.html

  • #2
    Whew....I feel better. Now if only these do-gooders would work on the pollution of Grand Lake St. Marys and Lake Erie......

    Comment


    • #3
      Love this

      Comment


      • #4
        good

        Comment


        • #5
          I'm a non-smoker but not an anti-smoking person. When this ban was put in, I didn't agree with it. After getting used to smoke free restaurants, etc., I'm all for it.

          My only complaint, as a non-smoker, is you can't eat outside on a patio without people smoking around you. Patios are the new "smoking areas".

          Comment


          • #6
            I know this would be difficult to regulate but what will annoys me are parents that smoke with children in the car, home, etc. Its one thing to have the freedom to jeopordize your own health but what are smokers thinking when their children are forced to breath second hand smoke?

            Comment


            • #7
              There is not a group of people discriminated against more than smokers. I'm not a smoker, and this was one of those things that unfortunately most people just don't understand. Many of us want freedom from doing alot of things in this world, especially when we agree with them. This was one of those slippery slope things that started with non-smoking areas in restaurants, and now has encompassed about every public and private area in the state.
              Let business owners, restaurants and bowling allys decide if they will allow smoking or not. We don't need another layer of government to watchdog these things.

              Comment


              • #8
                Agree completely 14Red.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Does anyone who supports the right to smoke and opposes the costs of health care understand that these are diametrically opposing views? Smokers cause health care costs to spiral upward. Banning smoking has caused the following good results. Better health and longer life for many Americans. More pleasant restaurant experiences, concert environments, athletic experiences, less risk of heart attacks and strokes, less chance of cancer, particularly of the lungs, and all sorts of other benefits that we enjoy as a result of having our "right" to smoke limited.

                  I understand the feelings of those on the pro-smoking side. My Dad was probably one of those folks, but when he was chain smoking, no one worried about it. Lots of people smoked. In fact, I can't remember a time when I was growing up that I saw my Dad without a cigarette in his mouth. I also understand the political view that says the tobacco industry pours billions into our nation's economy yearly and it used to do just that. I'll bet I can name another industry that smoking helped boost before smoking was made much less available. The mortuary business definitely owes smoking a debt of gratitude.

                  My Dad has been gone for over 50 years now and I know there are those of you who would want me to present a link supporting the connection between smoking pack after pack a day for his entire adult life and his death from lung cancer, but you know what...if you don't think there is and I can't produce a link that you agree with, you'll simply deny the existence of such evidence and point to the much more compelling evidence that smoking actually prolongs life. George Burns lived to be a hundred and he smoked those big black smelly cigars all the time. For the record, one of the reasons I don't smoke is that I do believe that cigarettes killed my Dad and I don't really need a link. I had one.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    This is truly a no win for either side. If non- smokers win they impose their rights on others and so to the other side. I am not a fan of smoking. I do however believe that a person has the right to do it if he wants. With smoking areas being designated that should be enough. This is really no different then the government telling us to wear seat belts. That is a choice, not a requirement. I don't know the answer and will not offer up one here but to say that each and every person has rights.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Damn knew it wouldn't go away. I love smoking

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Lancer '65 View Post
                        Does anyone who supports the right to smoke and opposes the costs of health care understand that these are diametrically opposing views? Smokers cause health care costs to spiral upward. Banning smoking has caused the following good results. Better health and longer life for many Americans. More pleasant restaurant experiences, concert environments, athletic experiences, less risk of heart attacks and strokes, less chance of cancer, particularly of the lungs, and all sorts of other benefits that we enjoy as a result of having our "right" to smoke limited.

                        I understand the feelings of those on the pro-smoking side. My Dad was probably one of those folks, but when he was chain smoking, no one worried about it. Lots of people smoked. In fact, I can't remember a time when I was growing up that I saw my Dad without a cigarette in his mouth. I also understand the political view that says the tobacco industry pours billions into our nation's economy yearly and it used to do just that. I'll bet I can name another industry that smoking helped boost before smoking was made much less available. The mortuary business definitely owes smoking a debt of gratitude.

                        My Dad has been gone for over 50 years now and I know there are those of you who would want me to present a link supporting the connection between smoking pack after pack a day for his entire adult life and his death from lung cancer, but you know what...if you don't think there is and I can't produce a link that you agree with, you'll simply deny the existence of such evidence and point to the much more compelling evidence that smoking actually prolongs life. George Burns lived to be a hundred and he smoked those big black smelly cigars all the time. For the record, one of the reasons I don't smoke is that I do believe that cigarettes killed my Dad and I don't really need a link. I had one.
                        Lancer, you have the majority opinion, and that's why this is one of those issues that is wrong, but for the overall good it will never change. Look, I don't smoke, and I understand the dangers of smoking. But I also understand that this slippery slope has gone from creating smoking "sections" to not smoking indoors, and now there are even outdoor public places where people can't smoke. Governments has taxed the heck out of cigarettes and people will still smoke. We have people now who have virtually lived in a smoke free environment their entire lives, and they really notice when there is a smoker even in the area.
                        My slippery slope argument is when does the next shoe drop, when does government start telling people what kinds of food, and how much they eat? The cost of fast food has actually dropped over the last 25 years due to competition, yet we are hammered with the obesity rates everyday in the news? Are our healthcare dollars more affected by the 10-15% that smoke, or the 50-70% that eat at fast food restaurants??? See where I'm going.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I'm a non-smoker, but I can certainly understand, and even sympathize, with those people who raise the issue of personal freedom and proprety owner's rights. We should resist governmental intrusion.

                          That stated, I'm troubled on where and how we draw the line. At what point does the right of a building owner trump all other rights? For example, few people would support a factory owner who disdained machinery guarding just because he felt OSHA was nothing short of government meddling.

                          I also doubt a banquet hall owner would have broad support if he or she decided fire occupancy codes should be a personal choice.

                          Can we really pick and choose which laws we follow and which ones we reject just because a structure is privately owned?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            It is a very difficult and complicated issue. Obviously I have a great vested interest in the smoking debate but there have been several excellent points made on this thread regarding when we allow government intrusion and when perhaps, we shouldn't.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Not Complicated!

                              Originally posted by Lancer '65 View Post
                              It is a very difficult and complicated issue. Obviously I have a great vested interest in the smoking debate but there have been several excellent points made on this thread regarding when we allow government intrusion and when perhaps, we shouldn't.
                              Not complicated at all. If somebody wants to smoke they should not impose the results of their vice (exhaling or the smoke off the cigarette or cigar) on others that don't smoke. So how is that fixed...having areas where they can do thier thing and not impact those that don't want the results of doing thier thing on or in them. That could be a special section just for them to sit, eat and smoke while those that don't smoke be in another location.

                              Now has anybody thought abouth this? Smoking is considered somewhat a vice and those that smoke can put the results of thier vice on others that don't want it. How would the smoker like the results of the beer drinkers (you know what I mean) being put on them???? Just saying....

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X