COLUMBUS (TDB) -- State health officials want $800,000 to begin enforcing Ohio's new indoor smoking ban when rules covering 280,000 locations go into effect in a few months. The money is supposed to come from the Ohio Tobacco Prevention Foundation, a state-controlled organization that holds about $300 million after successful litigation against cigarette manufacturers earlier this decade. The damage award money is invested and earned about $20 million last fiscal year.
The Ohio Health Department disclosed in a budget document it could not put teeth behind the smoking ban without Controlling Board approval to spend tobacco-settlement money. The request is on the agenda for the Feb. 26 Controlling Board meeting in Columbus:
"Health requests Controlling Board approval to establish appropriation authority in the amount of $800,000.00 in Fund 5ED, line item 440-651, Smoke Free Indoor Air to implement, manage, and enforce the Smoke Free Indoor Air Law."
Other state documents show some of the tobacco-settlement proceeds will be used to start a call center, build a Website and database to track complaints and violations, and hire temporary workers to process the information generated. People also will be needed to write complaint letters, and other contracts will be required to print and mail them to suspected violators.
Health officials also say they plan to distribute 280,000 "compliance packets" that containing the rules, a copy of the state law banning indoor smoking, and "no smoking" literature that probably will be warnings about the harm tobacco can cause to lungs, hearts and pregnant women . They also want to print signs and give funds to local health departments that have to police businesses, bars, nightclubs and anywhere else covered by the ban. Officials said they think they'll get more money from fines once enforcement begins, but noted in a document attached to the funding request "It is not possible to estimate the revenue from fines at this point."
In all, they expect to spend $125,000 on temps, $275,000 for preparing and mailing the compliance packets, and $400,000 to subsidize the local health departments. They also said they have no other source of money to get the ban up and running.
"If not funded, enforcement of the law could not take place," the Ohio Department of Health said in its request for the money. Information about the Ohio Tobacco Prevention Foundation is HERE.
Showing posts with label Ohio Smoking Ban. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ohio Smoking Ban. Show all posts
Monday, February 19, 2007
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Ohio College President Says Butts Are Everywhere
YOUNGSTOWN (TDB) -- Youngstown State University President David Sweet says students are tossing cigarette butts on the ground all around the campus since the school removed ashtrays to comply with Ohio's new indoor smoking ban. He didn't call anybody an a-- over the butts. He is doing a slow burn over the ugly sight of litter.
Sweet has offered $100 of his own money to any YSU student who comes up with the best idea for getting the butts off his campus. He said he wants to stop littering, not stomp on students who smoke, and he's open to any creative possibilities. The Jambar, the student newspaper, is collecting the ideas at thejambar@gmail.com. "It's the little ideas that mean a great deal to me," Sweet said.
Apparently, nobody wants to start arresting litterbugs.
Still, the campus appears more than a little ragged without the ashtrays. The student newspaper said the smokers "are leaving a nasty trail behind them" and noted the student center was among several buildings in need of a serious cleanup.
"The goal now is for students to render ideas that would effectively stop the littering of cigarettes across campus. SmokeFreeOhio is the law now; ignoring it makes us criminals and makes our campus dirty," the paper wrote in an editorial. "Don't forget; the winner gets a 'Sweet' check."
Sweet has offered $100 of his own money to any YSU student who comes up with the best idea for getting the butts off his campus. He said he wants to stop littering, not stomp on students who smoke, and he's open to any creative possibilities. The Jambar, the student newspaper, is collecting the ideas at thejambar@gmail.com. "It's the little ideas that mean a great deal to me," Sweet said.
Apparently, nobody wants to start arresting litterbugs.
Still, the campus appears more than a little ragged without the ashtrays. The student newspaper said the smokers "are leaving a nasty trail behind them" and noted the student center was among several buildings in need of a serious cleanup.
"The goal now is for students to render ideas that would effectively stop the littering of cigarettes across campus. SmokeFreeOhio is the law now; ignoring it makes us criminals and makes our campus dirty," the paper wrote in an editorial. "Don't forget; the winner gets a 'Sweet' check."
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Cancer Society Intervenes To Protect Smoking Ban
CINCINNATI (TDB) -- Lawyers for the American Cancer Society's Ohio division petitioned to intervene in a Hamilton County lawsuit filed by a statewide organization of liquor permit holders that challenges the indoor smoking ban. Voters overwhelmingly approved the ban last November. The cancer society's Ohio unit was a founding member of SmokeFreeOhio, the coalition of health groups that sponsored State Issue 5, which received 59% of the vote.
So far, not many businesses appear on SmokeFreeOhio's (you can find a link to the businesses in each city near the bottom of this post) Web list that shows who is complying. There are 29 in Cincinnati, 14 in Cleveland, 20 in Columbus and 9 in Toledo.
SmokeFreeOhio, the coalition behind the anti-smoking campaign, says calling its action a ban is misleading "because our law does not ban smoking. SmokeFreeOhio just asks smokers to step outside for a few minutes to protect everyone's right to breathe clean indoor air."
In the court action, the cancer society contends it is legally eligible to intervene because it managed the statewide petition circulation effort that landed the issue on the ballot, and "provided hundreds of thousands of dollars in financial and in-kind contributions" to support the measure.
''Proposed intervenor's interest is in giving full effect to the Act as passed by the voters of Ohio,'' the petition filed with Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Judge Fred Nelson says. ''Proposed intervenors are also clearly so situated that disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede their ability to protect that interest given that a ruling by the court could prevent the enacted law from going into effect as written, or at all."
The petition added that the Ohio Department of Health, which is responsible for administering the smoking ban, ''may or may not raise all of the same arguments against this action that proposed intervenor will raise."
Nelson has approved a consent decree that blocks enforcement of the law until rules are drawn up. The case is Buckeye Liquor Permit Holders Association et al v. Ohio Department of Health et al, Case No. A0610614. Donald J. McTigue and Mark A. McGinnis, of the McTigue Law Group in Columbus, represent the American Cancer Society.
Meanwhile, SmokeFreeOhio has compiled THIS LIST of businesses that are complying. It also urges supporters to patronize the businesses and leave these thanks cards
behind.
State health officials held a meeting in Columbus today and started preparing enforcement regulations, which may be out by early June.
So far, not many businesses appear on SmokeFreeOhio's (you can find a link to the businesses in each city near the bottom of this post) Web list that shows who is complying. There are 29 in Cincinnati, 14 in Cleveland, 20 in Columbus and 9 in Toledo.
SmokeFreeOhio, the coalition behind the anti-smoking campaign, says calling its action a ban is misleading "because our law does not ban smoking. SmokeFreeOhio just asks smokers to step outside for a few minutes to protect everyone's right to breathe clean indoor air."
In the court action, the cancer society contends it is legally eligible to intervene because it managed the statewide petition circulation effort that landed the issue on the ballot, and "provided hundreds of thousands of dollars in financial and in-kind contributions" to support the measure.
''Proposed intervenor's interest is in giving full effect to the Act as passed by the voters of Ohio,'' the petition filed with Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Judge Fred Nelson says. ''Proposed intervenors are also clearly so situated that disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede their ability to protect that interest given that a ruling by the court could prevent the enacted law from going into effect as written, or at all."
The petition added that the Ohio Department of Health, which is responsible for administering the smoking ban, ''may or may not raise all of the same arguments against this action that proposed intervenor will raise."
Nelson has approved a consent decree that blocks enforcement of the law until rules are drawn up. The case is Buckeye Liquor Permit Holders Association et al v. Ohio Department of Health et al, Case No. A0610614. Donald J. McTigue and Mark A. McGinnis, of the McTigue Law Group in Columbus, represent the American Cancer Society.
Meanwhile, SmokeFreeOhio has compiled THIS LIST of businesses that are complying. It also urges supporters to patronize the businesses and leave these thanks cards
behind.
State health officials held a meeting in Columbus today and started preparing enforcement regulations, which may be out by early June.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Ohio Smoking Ban: Court Blocks Enforcement
CINCINNATI (TDB) -- State health officials repeatedly keep issuing alerts that businesses in Ohio are "required to comply" with the new statewide smoking ban. The Ohio Health Department sent out 280,000 letters Friday at taxpayers' expense warning every business it could find that the ban is in effect.
The letters mentioned rules for enforcement are not final.
What the letters didn't say -- and what state officials have not been very forthcoming about -- is that the massive mailing probably wasn't worth the paper it was written on. There is a Hamilton County Common Pleas Court order on the books that states clearly Ohioans can ignore the ban for now no matter what the health department says. The state agreed to a consent decree that has blocked enforcement since December 8, 2006. Common Pleas Judge Fred Nelson signed the order in Buckeye Liquor Permit Holders Association et al v. Ohio Department of Health et al, Case No. A0610614.
The order does not seem to be on the state health department's Smoking Ban Web site, a significant omission that has allowed businesses to be frightened that they have to stop people from smoking. Meanwhile, all 280,000 letters mailed Friday said rules about how to enforce the ban were in the works and "until then, businesses and organizations are required to comply with the statutes."
But this is what the order signed by Judge Nelson says:
"A. The Ohio Department of Health, its director, officers, agents, designees and employees (collectively 'ODH'):
"1. Shall not undertake any enforcement action pursuant to sections 3794.09 (A) and (B) and (D) and 3794.07 (B) of the Revised Code until such time as the Director shall promulgate rules (in according with Chapters 119 and 3795 of the Revised Code including R.C. 3794.07 (B)) to implement and enforce all provisions of Ohio Revised Code Chapter 3794 and all such rules are effective. Specifically, ODH shall not make findings of violation, issue warning letters, or assess/impose civil fines upon any business, organization, proprietor, employer, employee or individual (herein 'Party') who is alleged to have violated Chapter 3794 or the Revised Code until such time as the director shall promulgate rules in accordance with Chapter 119 of the Revised Code and such rules are effective.
"2. Shall not use complaints or reports of alleged violations occurring before the effective date of rules promulgated by the Director in accordance with Chapter 119 or the Revised Code against any Party now or in the future."
The health department can send out letters to parties alleged to be in violation but "the letter, without comment concerning the report, shall acknowledge the report and provide the party alleged to be in violation with information on compliance with R.C. Chapter 3794 and no further enforcement action shall be taken regarding the referenced report." H. Louis Sirkin, of the Cincinnati law firm Sirkin Pinales & Schwartz LLP, represents the liquor permit holders. Assistant Attorney General Steven C. McGann of Columbus is the attorney for the state health department.
There is all kinds of information on the Ohio Health Department's Web site, but the state's failure to place the court order there only adds confusion. For now, the ban is legally toothless. And the rules -- when they finally are issued -- will be confronted by a well-financed legal attack in Judge Nelson's court. He has stayed all proceedings until the regs are rolled out. That's when the real match will begin.
The letters mentioned rules for enforcement are not final.
What the letters didn't say -- and what state officials have not been very forthcoming about -- is that the massive mailing probably wasn't worth the paper it was written on. There is a Hamilton County Common Pleas Court order on the books that states clearly Ohioans can ignore the ban for now no matter what the health department says. The state agreed to a consent decree that has blocked enforcement since December 8, 2006. Common Pleas Judge Fred Nelson signed the order in Buckeye Liquor Permit Holders Association et al v. Ohio Department of Health et al, Case No. A0610614.
The order does not seem to be on the state health department's Smoking Ban Web site, a significant omission that has allowed businesses to be frightened that they have to stop people from smoking. Meanwhile, all 280,000 letters mailed Friday said rules about how to enforce the ban were in the works and "until then, businesses and organizations are required to comply with the statutes."
But this is what the order signed by Judge Nelson says:
"A. The Ohio Department of Health, its director, officers, agents, designees and employees (collectively 'ODH'):
"1. Shall not undertake any enforcement action pursuant to sections 3794.09 (A) and (B) and (D) and 3794.07 (B) of the Revised Code until such time as the Director shall promulgate rules (in according with Chapters 119 and 3795 of the Revised Code including R.C. 3794.07 (B)) to implement and enforce all provisions of Ohio Revised Code Chapter 3794 and all such rules are effective. Specifically, ODH shall not make findings of violation, issue warning letters, or assess/impose civil fines upon any business, organization, proprietor, employer, employee or individual (herein 'Party') who is alleged to have violated Chapter 3794 or the Revised Code until such time as the director shall promulgate rules in accordance with Chapter 119 of the Revised Code and such rules are effective.
"2. Shall not use complaints or reports of alleged violations occurring before the effective date of rules promulgated by the Director in accordance with Chapter 119 or the Revised Code against any Party now or in the future."
The health department can send out letters to parties alleged to be in violation but "the letter, without comment concerning the report, shall acknowledge the report and provide the party alleged to be in violation with information on compliance with R.C. Chapter 3794 and no further enforcement action shall be taken regarding the referenced report." H. Louis Sirkin, of the Cincinnati law firm Sirkin Pinales & Schwartz LLP, represents the liquor permit holders. Assistant Attorney General Steven C. McGann of Columbus is the attorney for the state health department.
There is all kinds of information on the Ohio Health Department's Web site, but the state's failure to place the court order there only adds confusion. For now, the ban is legally toothless. And the rules -- when they finally are issued -- will be confronted by a well-financed legal attack in Judge Nelson's court. He has stayed all proceedings until the regs are rolled out. That's when the real match will begin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)