Smoking proposals cloud ballot
By the time Election Day rolls around in November, there might be a third smoking-related proposal on the state ballot: an amendment to the surgeon general's cigarette-pack warning.
Warning: Voters may be subject to deceit, ambiguous rhetoric and wolves in sheep's clothing.
On Friday, a nonprofit coalition turned in 185,000 petition signatures to the Ohio secretary of state's office supporting a law that would ban smoking in workplaces and most enclosed public spaces.
It's possible you signed this petition.
It is also possible you thought you were signing this petition when in fact you were signing a decidedly similar petition with a decidedly different purpose.
The group that turned in its petitions Friday is called SmokeFreeOhio. As its name clearly indicates, it wants a statewide law to ban most public smoking. It is motivated by a concern for public health. Its supporters include the American Cancer Society and the American Lung Association.
It is being challenged by another group that also is collecting petition signatures.
The second group is called Smoke Less Ohio. It wants a statewide constitutional amendment to ban smoking in most businesses -- except for bars, bowling alleys, fraternal halls and smoking sections in restaurants. It is motivated by business concerns. Its supporters include the bar and restaurant lobby and the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
Confused? Don't feel bad. That seems to be the point.
Because its proposal is a constitutional amendment, Smoke Less Ohio would trump the law SmokeFreeOhio is trying to get passed. It would also overturn local nonsmoking ordinances and block future laws.
R.J. Reynolds reportedly has budgeted $40 million to fight nonsmoking efforts in Ohio and three other states.
Let's say you support a smoke-free Ohio. If you were approached on the sidewalk by someone with a clipboard who said he represented a group called Smoke Less Ohio that is trying to pass a smoking ban amendment, you could be forgiven for being fooled.
A parallel R.J. Reynolds-supported effort in Arizona goes by the equally ambiguous name 'the Non-Smoker Protection Committee.'
In this game of political semantics, something that looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck could actually be a hippopotamus.
SmokeFreeOhio is concerned enough about the confusion that it has taken out radio ads asking voters not to be tricked into signing the similar-sounding petition.
Smoke Less Ohio insists it is operating above board and its adversary is running scared.
Last winter, the debate over a local smoking ban was heated and often confusing. Summit County appeared to have approved a smoking ban, but it disintegrated when individual cities determined that their less restrictive local ordinances superseded the countywide ban. Everything was put on hold in anticipation of the statewide ballot issue that is now in formation.
The confusion, however, stemmed mainly from the fact that this is a complex issue that weighs individual rights against the public good, that pits business concerns against health concerns and that tests the power of local jurisdictions.
The local confusion did not stem from intentional deception. Neither side seized on the confusion as a cynical power play, and even vehement opponents of the ban agreed a statewide vote would be the fairest way to address the issue.
So now we're approaching such a vote, and the whole thing is clouded by deliberate confusion.
Ohio will be best served by putting this debate before voters.
If you favor a smoke-free state, go with SmokeFreeOhio.
If you favor smoking in bars, restaurants and bingo halls, go with Smoke Less Ohio.
But don't be fooled by the smoke screen.
