Ohioans to have a say on anti-smoking issue

The Ohio General Assembly has before it a measure that aims to ban smoking in all public and work places in the state, but proponents of the campaign don't want legislators to take any action. Senate President Bill Harris, R-Ashland, and House Speaker Jon A. Husted, R-Kettering, are only too happy to oblige.
Why? Because they understand that letting lawmakers delve into the smoking ban initiative could open a legislative Pandora's box. Husted and Harris obviously realize that going through the full-blown legislative process would bring enormous pressure from special interests keen on being exempted from the ban. Under normal circumstances, we would take the leadership to task for not scheduling committee hearings and floor debates, but in this case the short-circuiting is not only being sought by SmokeFreeOhio, but if all goes according to plan, voters of the state will have the final say. And that's how an issue with such enormous public policy implications should be handled.
Because SmokeFreeOhio, led by the American Cancer Society, Ohio Division, is taking the "initiated statute" route for making the smoking ban law, it had to submit a petition containing the valid signatures of 100,000 Ohio voters to the secretary of state so the Smoke Free Workplace Act could then be submitted to the General Assembly.
By not taking any action, the legislature will allow proponents to collect an additional 100,000 signatures to place the issue on the November general election ballot.
The campaign has every reason to be confident that the second petition campaign will be a success, given that voters from all 88 counties signed the first one.
Airing of arguments
Providing Ohioans with the opportunity to have their say is not only the right thing to do because of how emotionally charged the issue of smoking has become -- smokers contend that non-smokers are trying to take away their personal freedoms -- but because it provides for a full airing of all the arguments, for and against. The months leading up to the November vote will also allow for an objective analysis of the initiative and put to rest any misconceptions and misunderstandings.
For instance, the law would not prohibit smoking in retail tobacco stores that meet certain conditions, nor in sleeping rooms in hotels and other lodging facilities designated as smoking rooms. Also, for-profit private clubs that meet certain conditions would be exempted.
The dangers of smoking and of second-hand smoke have been exhaustively studied and publicized. The list of organizations supporting SmokeFreeOhio, from medical to business to community to academic, lends credence to the statement contained in the summary of the Smoke Free Workplace Act: " ... medical studies have conclusively shown that exposure to secondhand smoke from tobacco causes illness and disease, including lung cancer, heart disease, and respiratory illness ..."
Eleven states have strong anti-smoking statutes on the books, and in Ohio, 20 cities have passed laws to protect residents from secondhand smoke.
Thus, what is being proposed as a ballot issue is not groundbreaking, nor extreme.
The decision by House Speaker Husted and Senate President Harris not to take action on the proposal is proper, given that advocates believe Ohioans should make the decision on this important health issue.