Dangers outweigh need for exceptions to smoking ban
Monday, July 14, 2008 2:33 PM PDT
Printable version
E-mail this articleJuly 14 Daily News editorial
Three years after Washington voters went to the polls and prohibited smoking in public places, a number of businesses, organizations and individuals in the state continue to hunt for ways around the ban. According to recent article by Spokesman-Review reporter Rich Roesler, the holdouts include a Bremerton American Legion post that is battling in court, several bar owners seeking relief through the state Department of Health and tens of thousands of cigar smokers who have petitioned for an exception for cigar and smoke shops.
The good new is that, to date, none of these efforts has met with any success. The cigar smokers’ petition accomplished nothing; state health officials have yet to compromise, even slightly; and the Legion post has not received a favorable ruling in court. Its appeal now is pending with the state Supreme Court.
Washingtonians did themselves and the state as a whole a good turn in 2005, when they voted lopsided approval of this smoking ban. And, contrary to the predictions of many bars and taverns, that vote did not harm business. Roesler reports that state Department of Revenue tax data show that the industry’s earnings rose by 20 percent from 2006 to 2007.
Health officials have long called for smoking bans similar to Washington’s, citing the dangers of secondhand smoke. A 2006 report by U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona on those dangers was unambiguous. “The debate is over,” Carmona stated. “The science is clear. Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance but a serious health hazard.”
The hazard may be greater than is commonly believed. Secondhand smoke contains more than 50 cancer-causing chemicals. Exposure to it can lead to lung cancer and heart disease. Even short-term exposure can cause cardiovascular problems, lung disease and other long-term health problems, according to the surgeon general.
The owner of bar in Olympia, Frank Schnarrs, explained to Roesler that his legal effort to carve out an exception to the smoking ban isn’t about smoking. “This is about freedom of choice,” he said. We disagree. Patrons can choose to stay away from smoke-filled establishments, but economic necessity effectively denies many workers that choice. And their risk of illness due to secondhand smoke is greater than the customers who come and go. A study conducted by the American Medical Association reported that bar and restaurant workers who breathe secondhand smoke on the job are 50 percent more likely to get lung cancer than workers in smoke-free environments.
Sixty-three percent of Washington voters decided the state would be better off eliminating secondhand smoke from public places. It was a wise decision — one that needs no revision.
COE wrote on Jul 14, 2008 5:13 AM:
" I agree. Question - Is anyone enforcing the 25' rule locally? While sitting in a next-door parking lot, I recently watched patrons of a local tavern smoke right outside the tavern door. Clearly, the smokers violated the rule of distance. I'm not sure if there is a regulation requiring the tavern operator to provide a spot at the legal distance. "
generalsn wrote on Jul 14, 2008 7:30 AM:
" If that's true, why aren't all of us in our 60s plus dead by now? As youngsters, most of us were exposed to smoke nearly everywhere we went, except at school. These well funded Chantix lobbyists, through tax exempt charities, will not quit until there is a nationwide prohibition on tobacco. Many bars here in Chicago ignore the ban to keep their customers, figuring that any fines are just another cost of doing business. "
TDN Bad Boy wrote on Jul 14, 2008 8:20 AM:
" Everyone who sees a violation should report the establishment to the County Health Office. That office is charged with issuing a warning or a citation to the bussiness. I guarantee that no business is going to keep paying the fine for people with death wishes. The TDN needs to do a story on the follow up of this. If businesses are not complying the law may need to be tougher. Maybe the answer will be to pull a liquor license. I'm guessing that it will only take one time for this practice to stop. "
Beer&Skittles wrote on Jul 14, 2008 9:13 AM:
" This is just the dumbest argument. We don't smoke - can't stand being around those who do. Just recently - like in the last few days - we began meeting friends at a local tavern. We never could before. The challenge to local tavern owners is to reestablish the habits of those who don't smoke to come into their establishment. And those who don't smoke have all that money NOT spent on cigs that they would be happy to spend at a nice establishment on other stuff, like a beer and appetizers or a meal. Only a couple in the area that I know of have clean enough places that non-smokers will go - and they're cleaning up, so to speak! The smokers are just poor fools who throw their daily temper tantrums and flaunt their habit, now, just outside the doors of establishments. We have a policy that if there's someone smoking just beyond the door, we don't patronize - obviously the management doesn't care about our business. "
patmarie wrote on Jul 14, 2008 11:05 AM:
" Generalsn - You are right. How did we ever survive this long? I remember as a kid swiping chunks of warm tar to chew when the streets were being tarred and my grandfather making me bread fried in bacon grease not to mention the brown sugar and butter sandwiches. All this while growing up in a house where all the grownups smoked. Even the doctor smoked. My mother would make him tea when he made a house call and he would have the tea and a cigarette before he left.
This fear of second hand smoke is a fallacy perpetuated by the professional anti smoking crowd. It's how they make their living. Now when I want to visit my grandchildren I have to go outside to smoke. I wouldn't have dared ask my parents to do this as it would have been disrespectful to an older person. I hate the way I am being treated because of these fanatics engineering our lves in the name of health and safety. Especially since it has never been proven that second hand smoke is a danger. Longevity in this country is the highest it has ever been but these people are constantly wringing their if their agenda is not followed.
Beer - The management probably finds it more lucrative to overlook the smokers beyond the door.Sure there must be enough sanitized places
for you. Choice- that's what makes capitalism great. "
This fear of second hand smoke is a fallacy perpetuated by the professional anti smoking crowd. It's how they make their living. Now when I want to visit my grandchildren I have to go outside to smoke. I wouldn't have dared ask my parents to do this as it would have been disrespectful to an older person. I hate the way I am being treated because of these fanatics engineering our lves in the name of health and safety. Especially since it has never been proven that second hand smoke is a danger. Longevity in this country is the highest it has ever been but these people are constantly wringing their if their agenda is not followed.
Beer - The management probably finds it more lucrative to overlook the smokers beyond the door.Sure there must be enough sanitized places
for you. Choice- that's what makes capitalism great. "
TDN Bad Boy wrote on Jul 14, 2008 12:08 PM:
" Whine, cough, cry, cough, whine, cough, cry, cough, whine. I guess you smokers won't know there's proof until you cough out a lung. Just be respectful not to do it my presence. I want nothing to do with your filty, stinking, disease-ridden habit. Stay home and smoke. Make us all happy. And you can whine, cough, cry, cough, whine, cough, cry, cough, whine all you. Nonsmokers have the power now. "
Castle Rocker wrote on Jul 14, 2008 12:30 PM:
" Patmarie, I'm not sure what you mean by choice. Because if my choice is to hit someone over the head with a baseball bat, I go to jail because it is illegal for me to harm others. Second hand smoke harms others, why should you have the choice to do it around them. To your point that second hand smoke has never been proven to be harmful; I'm not sure where you've been for the last 30 years but it's been proven to be extremely harmful in hundreds if not thousands of studies. Just because you choose to read them doesn't make them go away. "
Rosey Glasses wrote on Jul 14, 2008 12:30 PM:
" Having been around smokers and non smokers alike for all of my 46 years, still cancer free!! imagine that. No for my opinion: It should be the choice (yes I said choice) of the owner and customers, NOT the general public's to determine if smoking should be allowed. If the owner determines that he makes more money being smoke free... so be it. It should not be the decision of joe from down the street as to whether a bar on the corner should allow smoking, nor should it be a decision for the WHOLE state. Each establishment and community should in effect make that choice. Life is full of choices, we should be allowed to make those on our own without government intervention and our neighbors telling us what we can and cannot do. I drink at home where I can choose to smoke or not; my friends are allowed to smoke at my house or not... their choice... not my neighbors. "
Castle Rocker wrote on Jul 14, 2008 12:35 PM:
" Patmarie, it's also disgusting to me that you think yourself too good to have to go outside to smoke when around your grandchildren. That statement alone should make you think real hard about the power that cigarrettes have over you. That you are much more concerned about walking 20 feet to get outside than you are about your grandchildren's health. "
Castle Rocker wrote on Jul 14, 2008 12:49 PM:
" Rosey Glasses, you're right, even though second hand smoke has been proven to be harmful it must not be true because you haven't got lung cancer yet. I'm sure the authors of thousands of studies will defer their conclusions to your personal findings. Think real hard. Choice is choice but not when you choose to harm someone. Do you think I should be allowed to drive on the sidewalk because I choose to. Probably not because there are people on the sidewalk that will be hurt or killed. You cannot choose to ignore the health and welfare of others because you don't have the will power to stop smoking and join us all at the restaurant. We're having a great time. "
TDN Bad Boy wrote on Jul 14, 2008 1:11 PM:
" Hey Rosey Glasses, just came back from having lunch at a resturant. Took a deep breath and could smell the aroma of great food. Something I couldn't enjoy with smokers around before. So much nicer. And Rosey, it's my choice YES I SAID CHOICE not to allow smokers in my presence. And guess what Rosey the business owner made a choice to follow the laws of this state when they took out that business licence. And in this case the law of the state is the will of 63 percent who voted in favor of this ban. And we can make it a lot tougher in the future. Hey Rosey I thought you were going to move to some state where death-by-CHOICE is still legal. Better get going and don't let the door hit your a-- on the way out. You won't be missed. "
DUH wrote on Jul 14, 2008 2:09 PM:
" RE: Beer&skittles... I respect your rights as a non smoker not wanting to deal with second hand smoke but, what about my rights as a non drinker not wanting to deal with you and others like you on the streets when you drive home after you've had a few. I am so happy that you have more money to buy beer since you don't smoke. You must be really proud of yourself. If there is an establishment where people are seen smoking outside you don't patronize. Hmmmm, so then are you saying that because I don't drink that I should stay off the road? "
patmarie wrote on Jul 14, 2008 2:59 PM:
" TDN My goodness you are so angry. Why don't you have a nice bowl of oatmeal and a nap. Maybe it will make you feel better.Your ranting is rather scary and over the top. Beware the tyranny of the majority. The majority is not always right you know. The constitution is supposed to protect individual rights. Check it out. "
kitten wrote on Jul 14, 2008 3:09 PM:
" Duh-Just because someone is at a tavern or bar having a drink does not mean they are driving drunk. Most people either have a designated driver or they only have one or two beers. If they are drinking and driving drunk, that is harmful to others and that is why we have laws against it. Much like having laws against smoking where the rest of us have to breath in air because it is harmful to our health. I couldn't care a less if people want to smoke, there are way too many humans anyways, just don't do it around me and don't expect me to pay your hospital bill when your lungs are rotting and you feel sorry for yourselves. Own your destiny! "
berryjewels wrote on Jul 14, 2008 3:37 PM:
" I really wish that they would start building 2 of each business, 1 for smokers and 1 for non drinkers that way everyone should be happy. The non-drinkers would have a place to go that would be fun for them not having to deal with all the drunks stumbling all over, the non-smokers would have a place to go where are there are no smokers. "
berryjewels wrote on Jul 14, 2008 3:42 PM:
" re: kitten, have you check the jail inmate roster lately? Maybe you should there are way more people in there for DUIs than anything else. Usually about 2/3 of them are in there for drinking and driving. There are far more drinking and driving than drinkers are willing to admit! "
TDN Bad Boy wrote on Jul 14, 2008 3:45 PM:
" Patmarie, only anger I have is for people like you who think your right is better than mine. Mine happens to be in the majority and that really bothers you. The Constitution? Doesn't it guarantee democracy based on the vote of the people? The people voted. Nonsmokers win and we don't have to put up with your nasty, filthy, intrusive habit (not a right) anymore. You have the right of free speech to whine, cough, and cry. You do not have the right to make up laws just for you. We voted fairly on this and you lost. So quit your crying, have another cigarette and say hello to lung cancer and the high prospects of a very slow and painful death. "
DUH wrote on Jul 14, 2008 4:00 PM:
" Kitten... Most peole either have designated drivers or only have one or two beers? Where do you get your statistics? Thats laughable! To say they don't do it simply because there are laws against it is being naive. Own your destiny... Kinda hard to do with people that drink and drive on the road. Like I said, (since you seem to have missed it) I RESPECT THE RIGHTS OF A NON SMOKER. At the same time you should respect the rights of non drinkers. IF YOU HAVE TO DRINK... STAY HOME AND DO IT! "
patmarie wrote on Jul 14, 2008 4:47 PM:
" TDN Bad Boy - You should calm yourself. Your comments are so vindictive. That's a lot of hateful energy expended on just smokers. Are you sure there isn't something else bothering you? I'll bet you haven't had your nap yet. Save your energy for the important things in life and try to be less combative with those who disagree with you. I didn't think I sounded like I was crying but you certainly do- and stamping your feet as well.
My, my such a temper! "
My, my such a temper! "
TDN Bad Boy wrote on Jul 14, 2008 11:02 PM:
" So patmarie if I don't like smokers or their filthy, stinky, disease-ridden habit, then I am angry? Hardly. I celebrate everytime I go out to eat or watch a game and I don't have some nasty smoker blowing their poison into the clean air. Smokers are the most obnoxious, inconsiderate people I have ever seen. And if you think I will be quiet for one minute while people like you cry about their infringed rights. Rights, you don't have no stinking rights in my world. Except to die. So puff yourself to death. I won't shed a tear. Never do when I hear a smoker cough between puffs. Just wonder how they ever got so stupid. So if telling you exactly what is on my mind in anger, then have even less intelligence then I think and believe me I don't give you credit for much. To argue that your rights have been infringed is about the dumbest thing I have ever heard. And then to try to tell those of us who believe in democracy through free elections that it protects your individual right to smoke. Somehow you forget about my individual right not to allow you to smoke in my public space. So try another approach. Your anger approach is funny. Not very intelligent but very funny. Not light up another one and get one puff closer to death. "
El Fuego wrote on Jul 15, 2008 3:29 AM:
" I think it would be interesting to see statistics of those who have died of lung cancer having never been exposed to cigarettes. Only the hazards of chemicals from mills, etc. Would also bet more people die from alcohol than cigarettes. I always respect the wish of a non-smoker by asking if they mind. If so, I leave the room. I am getting tired of you do gooders telling me whats good for me, ie: wear seat belt, wear helmet, etc. Just mind your own business and leave us alone. Yes you have the majority for now, but will never have total control. Why don't they amend the law and do like airports and other states. Provide a smoking room with ventilation. Keep pushing and one of these days I won't be so congenial and ask if you mind. I will just light up. It's a two way street. Thats the way I feel. "
Beer&Skittles wrote on Jul 15, 2008 8:38 AM:
" It's not about do-gooders....it's about the fact that you asserting your "right" of smoking, not wearing seatbelts or helmets MAKES THE REST OF US PAY FOR YOUR IRRESPONSIBILITY! And if you're irresponsible enough to do these things in the first place, you show yourself to be irresponsible enough to challenge the odds and try to make their way onto the Darwin Awards list. And that outrages me. As for the idea of only going to a tavern to get drunk - hardly! I've never been drunk in public and it won't happen any time soon! So far, most I've encountered as being beligerent haven't been from taverns, although I'm sure it does happen from time to time, but the establishment has the obligation to cut people off. The number of arrests for driving drunk has gone way down since those laws passed. Most DUI folks are getting blotto in their dysfunctional homes, sometimes after beating on their spouses and children. Not everyone who drinks does so to get drunk and out of hand. "
El Fuego wrote on Jul 15, 2008 10:13 AM:
" Beer & Skittles, what an odd name for someone who seldom, if at all drinks. As for the rest of you paying for my being irresponible, think of what you are saying. You and your kind are the irresponsible ones by pushing me into a corner for wanting to be american and make my own choices as long as I'm not hurting anyone else. People have died because they were trapped in their vehicle by a seat belt. same thing with not being able to hear or loose peripheal vision from helmets. Now you don't want me to drive and talk on my phone, yet police and fire departments can. You push these coffer filling laws without thinking. Prohabition did,nt work back then and it won't now. Same with smoking. Dig deep in your own closet and cure your hidden disabilities and leave the rest of us alone to live the way we want - FREE; And that's the way I feel. Fair is fair. "
DUH wrote on Jul 15, 2008 10:34 AM:
" The rest of us pay for your irresponsibility "Beer&Skittles" Everytime a drinker gets behind the wheel! You gripe about smokers and what it's costing you but when we say something about drinkers and what it costs us... HOLY COW, WATCH OUT! You people flip out. Why is that? You say rotting lungs... I say to you , rotting livers. You say second hand smoke kills... I say drunk drivers kill. It goes both ways. Also, a vast majority of drinkers also smoke. All this coming from some one with "Beer" in their screen name and who brags about having more money for beer since you don't smoke. Thats real intelligent thinking there. And to say you have never been drunk in public... Your beligerence on here alone tells a different story. I don't expect ANYBODY to admit that they have ever been drunk in public or to admit driving drunk! All you drinkers expect us to believe that you are fine upstanding law abiding citizens. What a joke! "
lolainlongview wrote on Jul 15, 2008 12:25 PM:
" Duh, One or two beers then drive home. STUPID. You will kill somoene one day after your two beers. You shouldn't be driving after one swallow. "
El Fuego wrote on Jul 15, 2008 1:33 PM:
" I have the solution about all this. From now on, I will have only one or two cigarettes when out in public. Promise to wear my seat belt and helmet at least twice each time I am out. As far as talking on the phone, look at the TDN poll on the front page. Seems I'm not alone there either. Thats the way I feel. "
berryjewels wrote on Jul 15, 2008 1:49 PM:
" tdn bad boy, that is how we non-drinkers feel, Quote, Smokers are the most obnoxious, inconsiderate people I have ever seen. Unquote. You say that we have no rights, we do, we can still smoke and as long as we are where we are supposed to be we are in the right. If you find it necessary to walk through us while we are smoking then that is your problem not ours! We as non-drinkers also have the right not to have to deal with obnoxious and inconsiderate people (your words) also but you are saying that we must. thank you DUH and El Fuego Fair is Fair and it should be that way! "
cheney119 wrote on Jul 15, 2008 2:53 PM:
" Who cares what Rosey Glasses thinks? I said, I don't need a gun to defend myself, and Rosey said that is should be shot for my optimism, real nice. Bad Boy this is probably one of the only things you and I agree on, but that's one thing brother, it's one thing. I don't know if you are a reformed smoker, I am, it makes the back of my throat raw. If a smoker can't understand that, just think of the last time you smoked with a sore throat, that's what it feels like when I breath your damn smoke. Your smoke is an imposition on everyone you make breath it, anywhere any time. If you want a way to enforce the 25 foot rule how about a 12 guage shot gun. That would be appropriate, but probably excessive. From my post, can you smokers see why you'll never ever win at the polls? "
kitten wrote on Jul 15, 2008 2:53 PM:
" Duh! I have not had more than one drink in public in years because I am a responsible drinker and drink only at home if I am having a few. I don't want to kill myself or anybody else . I am glad there is a law against drinking and driving and of course not everyone follows the law. What would you like to do? Get rid of the law because people break it? I am not sure I get your point? "
El Fuego wrote on Jul 15, 2008 2:59 PM:
" My final comments on this matter are simply I don't care who is king of the hill, or wants to argue who is getting the biggest piece of candy. I just want to live free and make my own choices. For you followers who can not think for yourselfs and are attacking my rights, I say "I last saw the Pied Piper south bound on 15th." If you hurry, you can get in line! Oh yea, I also think that you do gooders have alot of catching up to do when it comes to taxes I pay on my cigarettes. If cigarettes were completely banned in this state, Wa. would have a major recession in Wa. alone. Oh well, I will just grow my own tobacco, be free and let you carry the burden for awhile. That's the way I feel. P.S. You are welcome Berryjewels. "
cheney119 wrote on Jul 15, 2008 3:31 PM:
" Attention: You simps out there! There is no analogy between smoking and drinking. That is flawed logic. Drinking doesn't effect your breathing. It's drinking and driving that is the problem and it's a crime already. Sort of like public smoking should be everywhere. Why don't you mental midgets take a logic course. A + B = C that's the drinking and driving equasion. The smoking equasion is A + nothing + toxic cancerous air, within a given radious, means the innocent have to breath your toxins reguardless of their actions. Tabacco + fire + toxins + DAH!! You smokers are so into your pathetic habit you can't even think straight. Drinking and driving is harmful, drinking doesn't hurt anyone but the drinker, unless they drive. Smoking hurts anyone that breathes near them. DAH! Your logic is non existant. Stop trying to use a weapon you do not possess. "
DUH wrote on Jul 15, 2008 3:38 PM:
" Kitten... Just like you want smokers to obey the laws, I want drinkers to obey them also. I promise, the next time I smoke myself into a stupor with my cigarettes I will not get behind the wheel of my car and try to drive home from the cigarette bar. Now, if only drinkers would do the same... "
DUH wrote on Jul 15, 2008 4:20 PM:
" Again... When somebody other than you has a valid point that you can't deny, you resort to insults. Thats mighty grown up of you Cheney119. Drinking doesn't hurt any one but the drinker? What about the taxes we pay to house drunk and dissorderlies, DWI's, and Vehicular assaults, and any other criminals that are under the influence when committing their crimes? Tax payers pay for their stays in jail and guess what, cigarette smokers pay tax too. So don't tell me that drinking only affects the drinker. It affects everyone. "
Gondolapete wrote on Jul 15, 2008 11:29 PM:
" Hey TDN bad boy since you like to tout "The majority spoke" rant, what will your rant be when Obama gets elected??? Will the "majority" still be the prevailing truth??????
You are an embarrassment to the Conservative party. In fact you are far from being a conservative. "
You are an embarrassment to the Conservative party. In fact you are far from being a conservative. "
Cheney119 wrote on Jul 15, 2008 11:52 PM:
" Insulting? How does someone insult a smoker. You already know you are doing something stupid. Yet you assert your "right" to do so and poison others in the process. Please explain this to me and everyone else. How do you insult a smoker? You insult yourself and everyone around your actions. Just curious? "
Castle Rocker wrote on Jul 16, 2008 8:29 AM:
" You smokers have your choice, there is no law against smoking. The law is against hurting others while your smoking. So just go outside. Doesn't seem hard to me. You can enjoy a smoke outside and we can enjoy our dinner inside. And whining about drunk driving is just making our point for us. You say it's wrong because it puts others in danger, exactly. That's why there are laws against it. And second hand smoke harms others too, so there is law against it. Sounds about right to me. "
DUH wrote on Jul 16, 2008 9:18 AM:
" Have you even read my other comments? I have said that I respect the rights of non smokers. I stay well outside the 25 foot radius as set forth by the law. I do not smoke where groups congregate. I do not believe that non smokers should be bothered by my smoke or any others that smoke. I also voted in favor of the smoking bans. But if you see people smoking, you have the choice to either go around them or to walk through their smoke. If you choose to walk through it then thats your problem, not ours. Maybe if one of your family, or friends, or loved ones was killed or injured by a drunk driver, you might not be so quick to call it whining. I call it an insult when you lower yourself to immature grade school name calling. "Simps" "Mental Midgets" Shows a real high level of maturity there. "
Rosey Glasses wrote on Jul 16, 2008 9:25 AM:
" You know cheney119, I never said you should be shot! I am not sure where you got that either. I just said it is a "god given right, recognized by the US Constitution" and "reaffirmed by our Supreme Court system. With that said... I think that you and bad boy need to get a life other than posting rude comments to others here. I should not be slammed like this for stating an opinion. Opinions are like rectums, everyone has one and they all smell from time to time. I really could care less if you think that smoking should be banned, I think it should be a choice by the "owners" of an establishment. If they loosa business, then they should be free to choose no smoking. It should not be for the community to ban smoking; but a choice! That is all I have stated. But it is hard to explain that to people who feel they have the right to tell me how to live. SIGH "
TDN Bad Boy wrote on Jul 17, 2008 1:32 PM:
" Gondolapete, I could care less what you think of my conservative views. I don't need your approval. This law was about our citenzens speaking and taking control. You think you live in a world where you get to make the laws so that they serve you, even if the majority disagrees. That's as unAmerican as you can get. This law has nothing to do with Liberals or Conservatives. It isn't a constitutional rights issue. It is a health issue and a democracy issue. People voted for this because they believe it is healthier to be free of smoke, first hand or second hand. And it is a democracy issue because democracy is about the majority of the people who vote. In this case, 63 percent voted in favor. In fact, every anti-smoking initiative this state has had more than 60 percent approval. So if your view of me is anti-conservative because I believe, support and defend democracy then I would have to challenge your views of America as being unAmerican. As for the election, if Obama wins, I will begin work on the next election. And unlike many of you anti-Bush Liberals, I will base my views solely on the facts of how he buddies up to Iran, creates a civil war in Iraq, introduces the highest tax increase in the history of our country, and goes about his social engineering program. But I will be an American and accept how the Electoral College vote turns out unlike Liberal Demoncrats. "
kitten wrote on Jul 24, 2008 12:45 PM:
" RE Duh: A valid point? Let's see? Which kills more people each year and is a bigger drain on our resources? POINT MADE!!!!!! "
bert wrote on Jul 30, 2008 9:28 AM:
" So lets look at some of the points made here. 1.) The business owners should not allow smoking within 25' of the entrance. After all it is the law. So each business owen should post a guard, and pay them, to patrol a 25'radius of their entrance. 2.) A business owner who has invested money, time and effort should not have the right to decide what is most beneficial to their business. Smoking or not smoking. 3.) We must protect everyone from making harmful choices. That is why we have seatbelt laws, helmet laws, cell phone laws, ect.. The number 1 health problem in this nation is obesity. It leads to heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure and many other illness that cost all of us. So how do we regulate and protect us from ourselfs. Outlaw restaurants that sell high calorie, high fat, and high sodium foods? Issue a calorie card to every indidual that does not allow you to purchase food when you have reached your daily intake? "
Huggygramma wrote on Jul 30, 2008 5:20 PM:
" For those who made comments about how "it is only hurting myself" I beg to differ. Secondhand smoke notwithstanding, many smokers (and drinking drivers) will end up being hospitalized for their habits. Hopefully each and every one of those will be multi-millionaires and not dependent on health insurance. You see, your insurance will most likely have a cap on it, and lung cancer treatments or severe head injuries would most likely use it all up, so that's when the state will step in and foot the bill for your continuing health care. And guess who gets to pay for it? Years ago I worked in an emergency room the night a child came in after a car accident and needed to be put on a ventilator. Problem? That day the last ventilator in the place was given to a motorcycle rider (who didn't wear a helmet) following a crash, to keep him alive. The child died. Still think it's OK to ignore the law, ya'll? Just put out the ciggie, have a Coke, and put on a stupid helmet, what's the big deal? "
blacarrow wrote on Jul 31, 2008 6:51 AM:
" I am an ex-smoker. I listened to what was beingn said about the dangers and decided for myself and the safety of others to quit long ago.
One thing I just can't understand is why the state wide law doesn't apply to casinos on Indian land. Are we safe from the danger if we are on Indian reservations? I realize it's one's decision to patronize these places, but still........ "
One thing I just can't understand is why the state wide law doesn't apply to casinos on Indian land. Are we safe from the danger if we are on Indian reservations? I realize it's one's decision to patronize these places, but still........ "
klb65 wrote on Aug 4, 2008 3:25 PM:
" All you grandparents should never smoke around your grandchildren! My parents did and I would do anything to undo the exposure they and I received from my wonderful parents..and they were wonderful. By the way, they finally did quit when the both received their cancer diagnosis...Mom had Lung cancer; dad had esophogial...wasn't a pretty way to go and I miss them to this day. If you still smoke, please find a way to stop. It is a horrible death and I would never wish it on anyone, especially my grandkids and children. "
Grace wrote on Aug 4, 2008 9:11 PM:
" That's the problem with paying so much in taxes, it makes some people think they have the right to run other people's lives because "they are paying for it." If you are a smoker, be considerate of others around you and don't throw your butts on the ground. If you drink, don't drive. A little common courtesy goes a long way. "
Past Month's Most Commented Stories