I've never quite understood the "TAXES ARE TEH GREETEST EVIL EVAR!!!1!" mentality that seems to grip so many people.

Of course, I don't own a home, so that's probably part of it. But still, taxes pay for things we use collectively. Sure, there's all kinds of things like pork barrell projects, and graft, and taxes not paying for the things they should be paying for, and paying for things we don't need (like costly foreign wars for vague, ill-defined purposes), but we do owe a debt to each other, payable through the State.

We had two smoking ballot initiatives. One was called "Smoke Less Ohio" by its supporters--the tobacco industry and the restaurant association. It would basically wipe out every single local indoor smoking ban across the state. The other one was called "Smoke Free Ohio" by its supporters--the health industry and just about everyone else which would make those local bans statewide. Talk about confusing.

taxes not paying for the things they should be paying for

This seems to be the argument against nearly all the propositions on the table. It's sad.

I think what happens here is that a lot of the taxes aren't evil - but there is a lot of incomplete information. There is a utility tax on our ballot this time ( actually I should say again) that is supposed to pay for fire ,police, etc. not a bad thing. but it goes int - the general fund- so there is no garuntee that it will pay for police and fire. So people won't vote for it. of course they did some bizzare math the last time it was up - and figure out that it would cost people X per year when it more like 10X. esp with prices for fuel going up. Anyway, people felt lied to . And the more I talk with people about various propsitions, the more people feel like they aren't getting the whole story - and it is hard to find the whole story- and money makes it even harder.

If I were ever elected to public office, I think my first proposal would be a bill that forbids you to name a bill the opposite of what it does.

We had two smoking ballot initiatives.

The part I hate about that is that Smoke Less is a state constitutional amendment, but Smoke Free is just a regular issue. So if they both win, the crappy one has precedence.

I think the restaurant people are making a poor choice. The percentage of non-smokers outweighs the smokers (I would think), so you're not favoring the majority of your client base. I think if it passes, I'll either boycott sitdown restaurants entirely, or ask to eat my food out on the curb.

I think I saw a few of the Smoke Less ads when I was in Cincy this weekend. I really want to know -- do they really think Ohioans believe that California and New York are now completely devoid of bars and restaurants? 'Cause, um...we're not.

MIL called this morning to see how to vote. MIL: Should we vote for more sales tax to build a new courthouse? Me: Do you need a new courthouse? We aren't in the same county so I haven't read enough about it. Chances are they need a new courthouse, and need to pay for it. We upped the sales tax in my county a couple years ago for schools and parks and both of my kids are in new shiny schools instead of the portables they used to be in. Taxes for stuff we need makes sense. Taxes for waging war, not so much.

do they really think Ohioans believe that California and New York are now completely devoid of bars and restaurants? 'Cause, um...we're not.

Hell, there's still more than one or two bars that will quietly provide you with an ashtray if you ask, i.e. the regular clientele contains enough smokers that they've all tacitly agreed to ignore the law.

I almost miss the tiered system they had in the last place I lived. Some were smoke-free, some had separated, and some were all play. You knew when you walked in the door what the environment would be, and the smokers could be happy too.

I'm sure from a smoker's point of view that's kinda like me saying they're welcome to sit in the back of the bus.