Judge sides with state on smoking fines

Erie County Common Pleas Judge Roger Binette has sided with the state in a local bar owner’s battle to avoid $24,000 in smoking violation fines.
Jessica Cuffman
Mar 4, 2013

Excuses Lounge owner Terry Smith has been fighting in court for a year, although the war goes back to 2008, when he agreed to pay the first $100 fine after the Erie County Health Department cited him for allowing a patron to smoke in the Strub Road bar.

*
Click here to watch an interview with Terry Smith on "Between the Lines Live."
*

For the 11 citations that followed, however, Smith decided to stand his ground.

Court documents filed this month order him to pay the full $24,000 in fines — plus interest, which the state calculated at nearly twice the total when the case was filed a year ago in Erie County Common Pleas Court.

*

Click here for a previous story on the smoking fines, or here for the e*Paper, get a copy of today's Register, or check back here at sanduskyregister.com for updates as they become available.

 
 
 

Comments

Tmm

The smoking ban that is in effect in ohio is a law passed to protect employees of businesses from being subjected to second hand smoke. It has absolutely nothing to do with the protection of patrons or the public. This is a workplace safety law so to comment that people who don't smoke should stay away from bars is ignorant. The smoking ban law is in affect to protect the employees of said bar, not the patrons.

BW1's picture
BW1

Tmm, that's a bogus argument. Many people voluntarily choose jobs that come with increased risks. Cops risk getting shot, firefighters being burned to death, pilots crashing, you name it. Given the skills required for the job, waiting tables in a bar, when tips are considered, is often one of the highest paying jobs available at that skill level. There is no justification for denying people the right to accept the small risk of second hand smoke in exchange for improved earnings when they enjoy the right to take on the risk of first hand smoke by smoking themselves, in exchange for no tangible benefit. That's the problem - this is all about interfering in VOLUNTARY transactions between consenting adults, which is outside the proper scope of government. People want to get together to drink and smoke, and a property owner is willing to provide them such a place in exchange for the opportunity to sell them liquor. The property owner needs assistance serving drinks, and other people are willing to put up with second hand smoke in exchange for making a better living than they could make sweeping the floor at WalMart.

Ultimately, this law is about one thing - busybody nannystatists who feel a fascist compulsion to deny choices with which they don't agree to other people.

The Big Dog's back

People who work in industry who are subject to smoke and all other kinds of Carcinogens are told if you don't like it get another job. But people who work in bars get a law passed?

BW1's picture
BW1

You know the nannystate has gone too far when a statist like Big Dog starts objecting.

Cowboy

Pay up cry baby!

WhatTheHeck

Dr. Koopp, when he was Surgeon General, stated falsely that secondhand smoke was the biggest risk factor in the US. More than one independent study has proven that whole milk has more carcinogens in it than secondhand smoke. Human lungs are great at filtering out all of the bad stuff before a smoker exhales it from it's body. Big gov strikes again! Livin the lie!

Cowboy

...which is why bars don't serve milk anymore! DUH!

WhatTheHeck

All the people know where to go if you want to smoke, and the people know places to go with no smoking. I quit 20 years ago, but my nephews are fighting for my rights and yours. If my nephew wants to light up, I dare anyone to say anything. Goverment wants the money, start charging for a smoking license like liquor license.

Pages