Posted on 02/28/2006 3:15:32 AM PST by E Rocc
Bars wait for smoke ban ruling
Law takes effect today;7 businesses will learn whether they're exempt
By Kymberli Hagelberg Beacon Journal staff writer
The smoking ban is now law for many Summit County businesses for at least the next five weeks, but a Common Pleas Court will decide today whether seven bars are temporarily off the hook.
Attorney Chris Tipping has filed for a temporary restraining order on behalf of seven clients who own bars in Summit County townships that must comply with the Summit County Clean Indoor Air Ordinance.
The law prohibits smoking in bars, restaurants and most other businesses.
A hearing is scheduled for 10 a.m. today before Summit County Common Pleas Judge Mary Spicer.
The owners of Bocassio's Sports Pub, Pat Dee's, Just One More Bar and Grill, the Montrose Brubaker's, Beer Belly Deli, Sir Dudley's and the Loose Moose face ``disparate impact and undue burden under the law that businesses right down the road will to face,'' Tipping said.
(Excerpt) Read more at ohio.com ...
``The level playing field (argument) is bogus,'' he said. ``This is a fight for good health against the fear of loss of some business.
This particular jackass, of course, finds it easy to dismiss lost business, as it isn't his business.
In any sense of the word.
-Eric
And we actually claim to have a free-market economy.
Whether it's good for business or bad for business, it should be the business owner's decision, not the government's. Same with seatbelt laws even though I've worn seatbelts since the 1970s. Same with helment laws.
ping
-Eric
-Eric
Here is what I think of these "smoking bans". I 100% believe that these are nothing more than a back-door scam, to intrude on our proprety rights, period.
Also, the individuals right to make up your OWN mind, is being removed from the picture. Don't smoke? Cool with me. Find somewhere that has no smoking policies {there are plenty}. Say you smoke? Cool with me too. But, wait! YOU DON'T HAVE ANYWHERE TO GO.
Gee,says Mr. Nanny state, I don't think you can smoke on your own property. I don't give a crap if you go out of business. I think at the end of the day, this is what it is about. Property rights. See this anti-smokers. PROPERTY RIGHTS. Do you have PROPERTY? Then you too will be affected. You either have freedom, or you don't. You can't have it both ways.
Judicial Activism is never a good thing.It is when it restrains other branches of government from abusing their power. Judges shouldn't (and usually can't) order laws passed, they can only invalidate bad law.
-Eric
Let's hope this ruling is right. One nice thing about this is, it lays bare what these "bans" are really about.
It is amazing to me that DEMOCRATS, who never met a tax they didn't love, don't understand that these smoking bans will reduce tax revenues. (I don't smoke...hate it, but know folly when I see it).
In my home town the democrat city council has done the same thing, yet over the years they have been all too eager to grant a liqour permit to any group that wanted them...last I saw, alcohol related traffic deaths occur every 22 seconds in this country.
I am not for banning either tabacco or alcohol, but these goofy arrogant officials all get on the same activist page and do some really stupid things.
Seems we are differing on our own definations of judicial activism. I will share mine. When judges interpret law in a new, non-standard, or unusual way to fit their indiviual belief of what is for the "good".
Overuling on appeal while following precedent I don't see in the same catagory.
Strange... that this bureaucratic snake would continue to argue the "good health" fraud facing the clear and unambiguous evidence of unequal tax burden targetted at a minority, and spent, the vast majority, on non-smoking-health-related issues.
Sound familiar?
Strange... that this bureaucratic snake would continue to argue the "good health" fraud facing the clear and unambiguous evidence of unequal tax burden targetted at a minority, and spent, the vast majority, on non-smoking-health-related issues.Pete Crossland doesn't ever appear to have held a job in the private sector.
-Eric
Over the last several years the Left has taken our term, judicial activism, and thrown it about until it became devoid of meaning.
Of course, we did the same thing with their term "liberal"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.