A victory came on Monday for Ohio bars and restaurants facing fines for breaking the state smoking ban. “This essentially required the small businesses to enforce the smoking ban for government, Thompson said, “It’s the government’s law and the state should be required to enforce its own laws.  That’s what the statute said and that’s what the court has said.”

Click here to read the Court’s Decision .

Story: Court Rules Smoking Ban Enforcement Method Is Unfair

Tuesday,  October 20, 2009 12:55 AM

Updated: Tuesday,  October 20, 2009 6:27 AM

The state’s 10th District Court of Appeals ruled that the way the ban is enforced is unfair, 10TV’s Kurt Ludlow reported.

It all came down to two words “permit smoking.”

Maurice Thompson works with the Buckeye Institute. He said the law was requiring small business owners to enforce the smoking ban.

“This essentially required the small businesses to enforce the smoking ban for government, Thompson said, “It’s the government’s law and the state should be required to enforce its own laws.  That’s what the statute said and that’s what the court has said.”

The court ruled if a business posts signs prohibiting smoking, and notifies customers that smoking is not allowed, the business should not be charged with permitting smoking just because a patron is caught doing so.

A Toledo bar challenged a $500 fine it received after a Lucas County health department worker caught a patron smoking inside the bar.

In the lawsuit, the Pour House of Toledo argued that they were improperly cited because they had posted signs and told patrons to refrain from lighting up.

Thompson said no one smoking in a bar has been fined as an individual.

“Now they’re going to have to start investigating whether the patron is smoking without the permission of the owner, or whether the owner gave permission to the patron,” Thompson said.

Allen said he would help the state enforce the law if they paid him.

“If the state wants me to be their police officer, they should be paying me $30,000 and then I’d be happy to do it,” Allen said.

Zenos Bar has not paid any of the fine money.

Stay with 10TV News and refresh 10TV.com for continuing coverage.

Previous Story:

August 20, 2009: Smoking Ban Lawsuit Goes Before An Appeals Court

Click here to read the Court’s Decision

©2009 by 10TV.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

COLUMBUS – The Buckeye Institute, a Columbus-based think tank, today filed, in Federal Court, a motion to restrain the City of Cincinnati and its agents from harassing citizens who are demanding that the City put its $200 million trolley project to a vote. The Motion argues the City consistently threatens petitioners who gather signatures for causes with which the City disagrees, and that the Court must immediately stop this interference.

Over the last month, the City of Cincinnati, through various police officer and other government agents, has escalated its interference with trolley project petitioners, ordering them to stop collecting signatures on Fountain Square, Findlay Market, and on public sidewalks, and in several cases, threatening to arrest petitioners for “circulating petitions without a license.” The Motion notes that no license or prior approval is needed to gather signatures on public property.

The Institute, who is partnering with the Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes on this case, expects that the U.S. District Court will immediately grant a Temporary Restraining Order prohibiting the City and its agents from interfering with petitioner’s collection of signatures.

“In Ohio and nationwide, Courts recognize the ballot initiative as the ‘zenith of political speech,’ and accorded the utmost protection under the First Amendment,” said Thompson. “Given our state Constitution’s acknowledgment that ‘all political power is inherent in the people,’ that the City would interfere with this clearly-recognized right in such a haphazard manner is dumbfounding.”

The City’s interference and harassment coincides with COAST petitioners reaching the halfway point on their way to the the 6,150 valid signatures that need to be submitted by September 4 to place the issue on the ballot.