The Adobe Flash Player is required to view this multimedia interactive. Get it here.

Smoking ban violators owe $2M in unpaid fines

file photo Steve Clark, of Hamilton, sits in Mutts bar in Trenton smoking at the bar in this file photo.

Inmate escapes sheriff’s car
5/26/12
Cable worker hurt on the job
5/25/12
Beach Waterpark sued for failure to deliver
5/25/12
Lakota to discuss open enrollment proposal
5/25/12
AD resigns to take job at Kettering
5/25/12
> More headlines

By Hannah Poturalski and Mark McGregor, Staff Writer 9:01 PM Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Five years after a controversial indoor smoking ban went into effect, nearly $2 million remains unpaid in the state from businesses fined for violating the law.

Despite enforcement efforts of the Smoke-Free Workplace Act — being challenged in Ohio Supreme Court by a Columbus bar saying it’s unconstitutional — less than half of fines have been collected from businesses that allowed smoking after the ban went into place on Dec. 7, 2006.

In Butler County, more than $100,000 from fines have not been collected by the state health department.

Businesses statewide have been fined more than $2.74 million since enforcement began in early 2007, but more than $1.82 million is still owed as of Dec. 5, according to figures from the Ohio Department of Health.

In Butler County, the state has conducted nearly 820 investigations based on more than 1,750 complaints, according to ODH.

The Hamilton Health Department has conducted 294 investigations based on 499 complaints of smoking in the past five years, according to state records. Since the ban, 18 Hamilton businesses have been fined four or more times.

Shawn Dempsey, Hamilton health director, said there’s very little his department can do to help enforce the state law.

“We pretty much have no authority, we can’t bring the business owner into the court system,” Dempsey said. “It’s left in the hands of the state to handle.”

In Middletown, 300 cases have been investigated, with just two businesses receiving four or more fines. In Warren County, zero businesses exceeded four fines out of more than 350 investigations, according to state records.

Ohio’s health department and the Ohio Attorney General’s Office are trying to improve compliance in various ways, said Mandy Burkett, chief of the Indoor Environment section of the state health department.

“Collection programs typically don’t yield a very high return,” Burkett said. “I think one thing that’s important to know is the majority of businesses are complying with the law; now we’re dealing with people who refuse to follow the law.”

The state has reimbursed more than $32,000 in enforcement collections to health agencies in Butler and Warren counties for conducting investigations. A remaining 10 percent is used by the state for its Web-based tracking of complaints and other costs related to enforcement.

In the five years, Butler County received $13,695; Hamilton received $8,550; and Middletown received $10,565, according to state records.

Enforcement begins with a warning, followed by tiered fines up to $2,500 with the option to double the fine if it is deemed the violation was intentional, Burkett said.

Economic impact

An analysis of the ban released in September by the state shows the policy has had little ill effect on businesses and has seen some positive health impacts.

“We’re feeling pretty positive about it,” Burkett said.

The report indicates fairly steady taxable sales for restaurants, averaging about $475 million, and a near steady increase at bars during from June 2003 to May 2010.

But tavern owner Joe Schwarz said a smoking customer will more likely opt to get their burger and beer at the business they can still smoke inside.

“In general, (the smoking ban) has probably cost us some business with some patrons,” said Schwarz, majority owner of Symmes Tavern on the Green in Fairfield.

In accordance with the ordinance, Schwarz said he’s made investments to keep his smoking customers such as installing a patio outside with plastic drapes and heaters to cut the wind.

“There are just some people who smoke, they get a sense of enjoyment, a sense of relaxation,” Schwarz said. “We try to accommodate them but they just know we aren’t going to permit it.”

Nick Fries, co-owner of Dry Dock Saloon in Hamilton, said the smoking ban has attributed to an about 30 percent decrease in business at the bar. Fries said since the smoking ban he received three violations but has paid all fines to the state.

“Eighty percent of our clientele are smokers; bars attract a certain crowd,” Fries said, who is a non-smoker. “It’s such an inconvenience to go outside to smoke especially in bad weather.”

Fries said the law as written remains ambiguous and could be more fair and clearly written. Fries said a couple alternatives to the ban could be allowing smoking bars to post signs alerting patrons of possible smoke, or allowing customers to smoke inside bars that don’t have food-related income.

“I have some real questions about legislation that allows people to carry guns in bars, which are illegal for most to possess, but it’s more legal than smoking cigarettes,” Fries said.

Impact on health, attitudes

Statewide, the September analysis report said the ban reduced the health effects of secondhand smoke exposure.

One such indicator it pointed to was heart attacks. The number of emergency room visits related to heart attacks in males and females decreased, with a sharp drop among males after May 2007 — the month enforcement began.

Trenton resident Amanda Shepherd-Caudill said she’s in favor of the smoking ban, mainly for smoking inside restaurants. Shepherd-Caudill said she has two children, ages 2 months and 21 months.

“I won’t even take them to relatives homes that are smoked in,” Shepherd-Caudill said. “Secondhand smoke is way more dangerous for little ones. They deserve to breathe clean air when we’re out and about.”

A 2009 adult tobacco survey cited in the analysis said an estimated 4.8 percent of smokers thought smoking should be allowed in all areas, compared to 1 percent of non-smokers; about 53 percent thought it should be allowed in some areas, compared to about 17 percent of non-smokers; and about half of all smokers surveyed think smoking should not be allowed in any areas of a restaurant. The other half think it should be allowed in some areas.

Share this article