Ohio's smoking ban, approved by 58 percent of Ohio voters in November 2006, has prompted much debate about whether some 1,500 private clubs -- such as VFWs and fraternal organizations -- are exempt from the new law.

Opponents say Ohio voters didn't know the extent of the ban when the law appeared on the ballot. Indeed, the law's final tweaking was left to state officials after the vote occurred. Proponents say voters knew full well what they were doing.

The Ohio Supreme Court seemingly put a stop to the controversy last month when it voted, 4-3, not to hear appeals concerning smoking ban exemptions. The justices who said no to the appeal were Maureen O'Connor, Paul Pfeifer, Robert Cupp and Terrence O'Donnell Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer and justices Judith Lanzinger and Evelyn Lundberg Stratton wanted to hear the case.

But this has not shut off discussion about the issue.

Three senators from southwest Ohio introduced a bill in the General Assembly just days ago which would give these groups an exemption.

Intrusive government and voters' perferences are just part of the debate. Many fraternal groups report that their well-known fundraising activities aren't generating cash like they used to, apparently because many of their smoking members aren't participating.

You can hardly blame them. For them, home is a government-free zone where they don't have to think twice about lighting up.

Perhaps the best solution would be to put more clear smoking ban language on the ballot and see what happens. If voters say no to smoking in private clubs, then that's their democratic choice, but they should know this is how we get big government in the first place.

Oddly enough, we could learn some things from European countries who are known for large doses of government intervention where environmental issues are concerned.

In Germany, which has public smoking bans, smokers can still retreat to private clubs to practice their habit. Imagine the irony of that in a country where Americans helped establish and teach freedom 63 years ago.

*****

I'm not a gun owner (or a smoker), but I respect those who are because it's a core right Americans have. Now, the Supreme Court has endorsed that position as well.

In a 5-4 ruling, the high court threw out a Washington, D.C. law that banned handgun ownership. The intent of the law may have been good -- to make Washington's dangerous streets safer -- but like so many gun statutes, the reasoning was flawed. Ignored is this axiom: Criminals will get guns if they want them because breaking laws is what they do.

Not that this had anything to do with the Supreme Court majority's decision. Rather, it reasoned that the Constitution's Second Amendment gives Americans the right to bear arms.

That seems obvious and basic enough, but admittedly the Amendment isn't as clear as you might think. It states: "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Does this refer to militias, -- today, outdated relics of their former selves -- or the people in general?

Given the times of that day, when firearms were essential to survival and heavy-handed government was still a very real threat, one could conclude that the constitutional framers' intent was clear: The average American should have the right to own a gun.

At a time when so many rights are being found in the Constitution that never existed, it's nice to see the justices upholding one that is actually there.

(Todd Helberg is city editor and editorial page editor of The Crescent-News.)