State Supreme Court rules smoking ban applies to private clubs
Thursday, September 11, 2008 4:39 PM PDT
By Rachel La Corte
The Associated Press
Printable version
E-mail this articleOLYMPIA — A sharply divided state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Washington’s smoking ban applies to private clubs that have employees.
In a 5-4 decision, the majority said the law created by Initiative 901 clearly prohibits smoking in workplaces — including private clubs.
American Legion Post 149 in Bremerton sued the state and Kitsap County after it was ordered in 2006 to ban smoking or face prosecution.
The court’s dissent argues that voters never intended to require private clubs to be part of the smoking ban, and the initiative didn’t change the underlying law to include those clubs.
Voters overwhelmingly approved a statewide indoor smoking ban in 2005. Initiative 901 prohibited smoking in bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, minicasinos, most hotel rooms and most other nontribal businesses that had been exempted by the state’s Clean Indoor Air Act, which already banned smoking in most public places.
The post argued that the initiative did not change language in state law that said, “This chapter is not intended to restrict smoking in private facilities which are occasionally open to the public except upon the occasions when the facility is open to the public.”
But the majority, led by Justice Mary Fairhurst, said that I-901 broadened the prohibition against smoking to include any place of employment.
While noting that that the law is unclear on the relationship between the private facilities exception and prohibition against smoking in any place of employment, the majority said that arguing that exempting private clubs with employees “would eviscerate much of the Act and interfere with the express intent of the voters, which was to protect employees regardless of whether their place of employment is a public place.”
In enacting I-901, voters intended to enlarge the smoking ban because of increased concerns with the effects of secondhand smoke, Fairhurst wrote. She was joined by Chief Justice Gerry Alexander, Justices Susan Owens, Barbara Madsen and Justice Pro Tem. Bobbe J. Bridge.
“Unlike the former Clean Indoor Air Act, the voters in Initiative 901 recognized the importance of protecting workers in their places of employment from harmful exposure to secondhand smoke,” the majority wrote.
But the dissent said that that private facilities are excluded from the law, regardless of whether they have employees.
“To interpret the statute any other way is not only to ignore the text and intent of the voters but also to invite constitutional error,” Justice Richard Sanders wrote.
“Undoubtedly the smoking ban regulates private property. But more fundamentally the smoking ban prohibits private conduct. It is this regulation of private conduct I find most disturbing,” Sanders wrote.
Justices Tom Chambers and Jim Johnson wrote separate dissents.
Shawn Newman, who represented the American Legion post, said he was considering appealing the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“The majority acknowledges that the law is vague but rather than find it unconstitutional, they rewrite it, which is not their role,” he said.
Dan Sytman, a spokesman for the state attorney general’s office, said that the decision “upholds the will of the people to protect employees against secondhand smoke in the workplace.”
The case is Am. Legion Post No. 149 v. Dep’t of Health, docket number 79839-7.
On the Net:
Supreme Court of Washington: www.courts.wa.gov
GG wrote on Sep 11, 2008 11:53 AM:
" YEAH!! I KNOW as an ex-smoker that this is hard for the smokers and infringes on your personal right to smoke but as a non smoker now it is so NICE to not come home smelling like an ashtray and have to hang your clothes out in the garage so as not to smell the smoke. What about the Indian Casinos? Are they EXEMPT from this law? Even with the smoke free area for gamblers, the smoke in the casinos makes it untolerable for us to go. "
TDN Bad Boy wrote on Sep 11, 2008 1:24 PM:
" Unfortunately GG the Tribal Casinos are on Tribal land and thus they have their own laws. But hey let's celebrate. This is another victory for the big, big majority. I know all the puffers and hackers will hail this as an infringement of their rights -- of course none of the rest of us have any rights. The next step is pushing the cancer patient wannabes back onto their own property and out of public sight and mind once and for all. That initiative is coming. "
Gondolapete wrote on Sep 11, 2008 1:29 PM:
" TDN BB too bad you are so liberal, you have the potential to be a real conservative like myself. Us real conservatives do not believe in privately owned places being dictated to. "
DUH wrote on Sep 11, 2008 1:42 PM:
" I hope none of you hip hip horrayers never need CPR and Mouth to Mouth, because as a smoker that is trained and certified in CPR, BLS, and ALS, I sure would hate to harm your health while trying to save your life. "
longview citizen wrote on Sep 11, 2008 1:57 PM:
" Yeah thats right and just wait until they pass a tax for fast food for all you that love that. It is ridiculous that people over 21 can not smoke in doors. If you do not want to go to a place where smoking is allowed then don't. There are a lot of places that have closed or lost signifigant income due to this ridiculous law. Even the nudist have places they can go but oh my god not the smokers. I know several people that have never been around it or smoked and they died of lung cancer. I also know several 85 plus folks that have smoked since they were 12 or 13 and are healthy and still going strong. I will admit it is not good for folks but it is a personal choice and should be treated as such. Just like not smoking you can choose to go where you like and enjoy but a smoker has lost that choice. Next women will lose their right to choose and then what???? Wake up people!!!! "
TDN Bad Boy wrote on Sep 11, 2008 2:12 PM:
" Ah, yes, here come the cry babies. Longview Citizen believes the world is going to come to an end. But I do want him to know that "they" as he describes the people who voted for the ban are more numerous then him and that he lives in a Republic where democracy is treasured, and in democracy the majority rules. In this case, almost 63 percent. As for the businesses, you are so wrong. The latest figures in the state show that businesses such as restaurants and bars are doing better than ever. And you know what Longview Citizen, you have the choice not to go where there is no smoking. I now have the right to breath clean air in every business I go to. So stay at home. As a local business owner, I certainly don't need ya. I love this law. Next to 3-strikes and some of the anti-tax initiatives it is the best thing the voters in this state have ever done. "
Washington Rez wrote on Sep 11, 2008 2:26 PM:
" One by one our rights are taken away.
Freedom to choice doesn't exist in the United States anymore. "
Freedom to choice doesn't exist in the United States anymore. "
citizen pote wrote on Sep 11, 2008 2:38 PM:
" Sadly this is the liberal way of life. I do not smoke myself, but am agianst this use of legislation to judge others lifes so closely. What is next on the liberal agenda? My car? My house? My hairstyle bother any of you? I'm sure you will let us all know in time. "
castle rocker wrote on Sep 11, 2008 2:56 PM:
" Washington Rez: Freedom to chose is alive and well. You can still chose to smoke yourself to death, you just have to do it away from any of the establishments that I might go to for dinner not to be bothered by harmful second hand smoke. "
cheney119 wrote on Sep 11, 2008 3:07 PM:
" Now here's a food fight that I just LOVE!!!! Smokers that love government intervention abandon their convictions. Yet republican smokers like TDN bad boy love the anti-smokering laws. It is just like the first thing that congress did against smoking 20 years ago, they banned smoking on airliners. This is an issue without political party, we all have to breath. I say smokers should only be allowed to smoke if they are not allowed to exhale. To hell with smoking anywhere indoors, particularly in any place public indoors. It's sort of like hunting, the practicioners are quickly dieing off; the sooner the better. When will the last smoker die? "
Common_Sense wrote on Sep 11, 2008 4:03 PM:
" Washington Rez - Americans have more choices and rights than most other countries in the world. If you ever left America, you would understand that.
If my interpretation is correct, a right is a right as long as it does not infringe on anyone else's rights - correct?
It's my right to breathe in clean, fresh air, not polluted, poisoned filled air; which has the potential cause illness.
If you want to smoke, go outside and smoke in the open air (away from the entrances & exits). If you really are in that dire need to a cigarette, surely you could get up and walk outside? "
If my interpretation is correct, a right is a right as long as it does not infringe on anyone else's rights - correct?
It's my right to breathe in clean, fresh air, not polluted, poisoned filled air; which has the potential cause illness.
If you want to smoke, go outside and smoke in the open air (away from the entrances & exits). If you really are in that dire need to a cigarette, surely you could get up and walk outside? "
cheney119 wrote on Sep 11, 2008 4:05 PM:
" Yes Washington Res we can't poison one and other like in the good old days. What a shame. Hack, Hack, Hack! "
El Gabilon wrote on Sep 11, 2008 4:22 PM:
" Runnning through the laws of our nation is a golden thread which establishes the rights of American citizens to be free from the interference of government especially in ones personal affairs. We do not smoke, but we will defend to the death the right of others to smoke if they like just as long as they are willing to accept the responsibility for their actions and not expect others to do so for them. We consider the ongoing ban on smoking to be the biggest SCAM ever DUMPED upon the heads of American Citizens. This kind of scam always insists that the public bear the burdern of some do-gooders insistence that all the rest of us follow his/her example. We hear the platitudes of the medical profession, the congress, the surgeon general, and now the supreme court of the State of Washington. WHAT WE DON'T HERE from this group of individuals who have become a permanent colanatical irritation is the following: A demand for banning the sale of tobacco products throughout the nation; a banning of the growing of tobacco products, and/or the banning of exporting or importing tobacco products. AND WHY IS THIS? Is it not that the Great State of Washington collects taxes on tobacco products? Is it not because the Federal Government collects taxes on these products. "
El Gabilon wrote on Sep 11, 2008 4:36 PM:
" Further, since we have not heard the Surgeon, the American Medical Profession, the State of Washington, nor the Federal Goverment insisting on the bans listed above, must assume that they SUPPORT THE POISENING OF CITIZENS OF THE REST OF THE WORLD through our continuing supply of this alleged terrible drug. IS IT NOT BECAUSE THERE IS PROFIT TO BE MADE by the state and federal government in the form of taxes?
Does it not show that the Federal and State governments are slowly but surely eliminating the rights of citizens in order to control them? No, you might say, but the second SCAM is now in progress concerning providing the customer with a bag to carry his groceries or other purchases home with. We do not hear from these supporters any demand that freezer bags, polyester products or other products that consume oil be banned from store shelves. Thus, hand in hand with business, the federal and state governments slowly remove from you the citizen your rights to be free and independant under the guise of protecting your health or reducing the consumption of products made from oil. Put together we can only come to the conclusion that the objectors enjoy the role of colanatical irritents, and quivering pustules of how to live, according to their rules and morals. Further in the case of plastic bags are endeavoring to turn the American citizen and consumer into robatic walking and carrying BILLBOARDS. Otherwise why not sell a non logo cloth bag. HYPOCRITS! "
Does it not show that the Federal and State governments are slowly but surely eliminating the rights of citizens in order to control them? No, you might say, but the second SCAM is now in progress concerning providing the customer with a bag to carry his groceries or other purchases home with. We do not hear from these supporters any demand that freezer bags, polyester products or other products that consume oil be banned from store shelves. Thus, hand in hand with business, the federal and state governments slowly remove from you the citizen your rights to be free and independant under the guise of protecting your health or reducing the consumption of products made from oil. Put together we can only come to the conclusion that the objectors enjoy the role of colanatical irritents, and quivering pustules of how to live, according to their rules and morals. Further in the case of plastic bags are endeavoring to turn the American citizen and consumer into robatic walking and carrying BILLBOARDS. Otherwise why not sell a non logo cloth bag. HYPOCRITS! "
msfans wrote on Sep 11, 2008 4:40 PM:
" the problem with this is this:everybody wants to ban smoking in public places( which is fine by me ( yes I do smoke,have off and on for 20yrs)but nobody ie the government wants to out right tobacco products as do do other addictive drugs because they get paid on both ends of the issue. Now I for one would befor illegalizing tobacco altogether. take the product out entirely. Make it illegal. Now on the other hand we know from history that prohibition does not work. Look at alcahol for example. Or the ridiculous war on drugs. One was a disaster and the other is a joke and a huge waste of time,money and manpower.There has to be some middle ground somewhere whether it be as business owners able to decide wich way they want to run their business (which I believe is the correct way) or patrons deciding where they want to go. I am not sure if there is a right solution but segregating an entire part of the population is not an answer at all. Trust me that is all this is in its base form. Now it is smoking maybe tomorrow it might be fast food, perfume, hairstyle who knows but we have to figure something out to fix this. "
castle rocker wrote on Sep 11, 2008 5:37 PM:
" Everyone is making this about a persons right to chose to smoke. That is not what it is about at all. No one has made smoking illegal, you can chose to smoke whenever you want. What this is about, is everyone else's right to not inhale toxic second hand smoke. msfans says we are segragating smokers with the ban. I say when bars, lounges, restaurants, etc. were still allowing smoking we were segregating non-smokers who did not want to inhale the noxious fumes. The question is, who should have more rights, smokers or non-smokers. I would say the majority, and since we voted and 63% of people said ban smoking, there is your answer. "
TDN Bad Boy wrote on Sep 11, 2008 5:58 PM:
" I just love it when the smokers come on here and say it's the government taking this right from me, that right, and that right. It's so funny I almost fall over laughing. The government didn't touch this law. This was WE, THE PEOPLE, who made this law. WE, THE PEOPLE as in 63% said no more. Is that what democracy is, WE, THE PEOPLE. And yes Cheney I agree with you on this. It's not Republican or Demoncrat, or Conservative or Liberal. But please don't ever say I smoke. I will never accuse you of such stupidity, even though you lean so far to the left you make the Leaning Tower look normal. I do enjoy being part of WE, THE PEOPLE on this issue with you. "
Rosey Glasses wrote on Sep 11, 2008 7:26 PM:
" Well... I guess I won't be opening a business here! If a private club isn't exempt from the smoking ban (even if all the members smoke) then what is the point of owning a private "smokers" club or truck stop where many of the drivers smoke? I may not smoke in restaurants, but I still say it should be up to the owners not the government. Let the "free market" system do its job. If smokers come.. great, if they don't... change it! Don't force the whole community into a non-smoking situation.. that is more socializm than democracy! Give me a break. "
Argoman wrote on Sep 11, 2008 8:19 PM:
" I had to endure 16 plus years of my mom smoking in the car and the house. I wonder why I have lung problems now?? I complained alot about the smoke growing up but mom did not care, typical of most smokers reactions. I am glad that us non smokers have finally got our say. "
Argoman wrote on Sep 11, 2008 8:27 PM:
" RE: DUH, I would rather die than have a disgusting nicotine stained rotten toothed ash tray tasting fool who signs on as DUH who is supposedly a EMT. Did you know that some of us are so allergic to the many poisons that the rotten smell on your clothes, breath and hair can make some people seriously ill? "
msfans wrote on Sep 11, 2008 8:44 PM:
" to CR&TDBB:First to CR my comment on segragation is being misused by definition by you CR. In quick terms it means segregate or isolate a race, class, or ethnic group by forced or voluntary residence in a restricted area. That being said, Smokers are being forced away from public areas not by choice. non smokers had the choicewhether to/ not to patronize a business that allowed smoking. Therefore non smokers had the personal choice to go or not to. Smokers are being told they can not go to these places of business which equates to segregation by definition. that is all I was saying. As to TDNBB: I never said It was the government taking away my rights on this issue. Other rights yes. Thats a different issue for a different time. I said Tobacco should be criminalized like the rest of the highly addictive drugs out there that our already illegal but the gov't gets paid on both ends of tobacco so it will never happen. I personally enjoy going out without tobacco in the air. its nice to walk into an establishment and not have the building full of smoke. But in the end it is up to the owner to decide if this is allowed or not. The gov't in any form shouldn't decide. "
Sea-Gal wrote on Sep 11, 2008 9:28 PM:
" re: msfans - the gov't had nothing to do with this! It was put into law by the VOTERS of this state. "
turkeyhunterman wrote on Sep 11, 2008 9:38 PM:
" Can anyone find for me the amount spent by the government per year for health bills for people who can no longer work or contribute to society due to tobacco consumption? I think if people want government out of their lives concerning smoking then they should be soley responsible for any and all health care bills that are accrued as a result of their personal choices such as smoking! People don't want to be told what they can or can't do but expect taxpayers to foot the bill for their poor decisions. "
DUH wrote on Sep 11, 2008 10:54 PM:
" Hey Argoman, Did I say I was an EMT? No I didn't. All I said was that I was trained and certified. That does not make one an EMT. And Argoman, If you don't want a smoker saving your life that's your problem. Don't make it mine. Buy or make yourself a bracelet that says, "If I am dying, and you smoke, don't save me". "
DUH wrote on Sep 11, 2008 10:58 PM:
" And if ya don't like the way I smell there Argoman, STAY THE HELL AWAY FROM ME. All I have to do is stay outside the 25 foot limit set by law. I don't smoke indoors, never have. If I'm outside that 25 foot limit and you come up to me complaining... Here's smoke in your eye. "
Crystal wrote on Sep 11, 2008 11:19 PM:
" If you really want to breathe clean air, maybe you shouldn't be living around Fibre and Weyerhauser. Living in an industrial area like Longview/Kelso and next to the freeway w/ car exhaust is more dangerous to your health than secondhand smoke. There are so many other air pollutants out there that are far worse than secondhand smoke that I think should've been dealt with before the smoking ban. "
TDN Bad Boy wrote on Sep 12, 2008 8:22 AM:
" Smokers like DUH is why I will continue to push for expansion of this ban. Walk outside in town and look at the cigarette butts or empty cigarette packs or boxes on the ground. It is as if they have absolutely no regard for other people. So when the next initiative comes around to push them back completely onto their own property, I not only will sign it, I will gather signatures. It is time WE, THE PEOPLE, take complete control of this issue. Do it on your own property, litter your yard with the butts. I don't care. That's yours. But can't smokers be at least a little more respectful of others in public? I don't think so. "
ThunderStorm98626 wrote on Sep 12, 2008 8:58 AM:
" Our rights as American citizens started being taken away a long long time ago.
This process was started by first taking away the rights of the indigenous people of America. How long did the general public think it would actually take before the gov't would start taking theirs away??? I mean, honestly, a gov't can be judged by how it treats the indigenous people of the land the gov't comes to inhabit....
Being part First Nations myself, the gov't and legislators need to stay away from the Reservations that "American" gov't so graciously "gave us" when they stole my land and the land of my ancestors. Smoking? I will respect others' rights by not smoking in public establishments and in others' homes unless they themselves smoke. MY home, it is the only Sacred Ground left to me as the American gov't has stolen from me more than they can ever make reparation for... but it is still my country, my land, and my gov't. There are ways to fight the removal of our rights....legally. Complaining doesn't get the job done, legal action is the start.... "
This process was started by first taking away the rights of the indigenous people of America. How long did the general public think it would actually take before the gov't would start taking theirs away??? I mean, honestly, a gov't can be judged by how it treats the indigenous people of the land the gov't comes to inhabit....
Being part First Nations myself, the gov't and legislators need to stay away from the Reservations that "American" gov't so graciously "gave us" when they stole my land and the land of my ancestors. Smoking? I will respect others' rights by not smoking in public establishments and in others' homes unless they themselves smoke. MY home, it is the only Sacred Ground left to me as the American gov't has stolen from me more than they can ever make reparation for... but it is still my country, my land, and my gov't. There are ways to fight the removal of our rights....legally. Complaining doesn't get the job done, legal action is the start.... "
ThunderStorm98626 wrote on Sep 12, 2008 9:02 AM:
" PS, TDN BB... I also don't leave my butts or empty packs laying around...
That would disrespect the Mother and the Creator. "
That would disrespect the Mother and the Creator. "
ThunderStorm98626 wrote on Sep 12, 2008 9:12 AM:
" Crystal- You are completely right about that. Having lived in the Ghetto of Longview for 5.5 years, I had more problems with my asthma than my smoking ever caused me. Chlorine gas spills...
good god...that stuff is deadly if inhaled, and not deadly long term like smoking can be... Now if we want to talk about not smoking in public places because of the secondhand smoke, people, let's talk about all those women that wear perfume! I cannot tell you how many times someone in line at a checkout stand in the store has caused me to start having an asthma attack just by their mere presence and the fact that they've bathed in their dang perfume! I can't even breathe properly when exposed to people that wear perfume that doesn't go with their body chemistry, not to mention it also gives me an immediate headache! Let's ban perfume in public places also! Oh, and while we're at it, let's ban air freshener sprays, and bleach, etc etc...
I do, after all, have the right to breathe unpolluted air, right? "
good god...that stuff is deadly if inhaled, and not deadly long term like smoking can be... Now if we want to talk about not smoking in public places because of the secondhand smoke, people, let's talk about all those women that wear perfume! I cannot tell you how many times someone in line at a checkout stand in the store has caused me to start having an asthma attack just by their mere presence and the fact that they've bathed in their dang perfume! I can't even breathe properly when exposed to people that wear perfume that doesn't go with their body chemistry, not to mention it also gives me an immediate headache! Let's ban perfume in public places also! Oh, and while we're at it, let's ban air freshener sprays, and bleach, etc etc...
I do, after all, have the right to breathe unpolluted air, right? "
castle rocker wrote on Sep 12, 2008 9:22 AM:
" Stop talking about rights. Smoking is not a right when it infringes on someone's actual right not to breathe second hand smoke that will kill them. Smoking is not a right. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is there a right to kill yourself or anyone else with toxic smoke. Smoking is not a right. Unless go outside, 25 feet from the door, and away from the 63% of people who voted that should should not be able to blow death in their face. "
ThunderStorm98626 wrote on Sep 12, 2008 9:29 AM:
" castle rocker- do I need to educate and state the fact that asthma is a life threatening illness? No one has the right to make me breathe polluted air other than myself, right? Then people don't have the right to wear perfume or spray air fresheners in public places, because it infringes on my right to breathe... see my point? All I'm saying is that complaining doesn't change things! "
castle rocker wrote on Sep 12, 2008 9:54 AM:
" Perfume has not ben proven to cause cancer. Therefore it may be an undesirable smell, but will not affect your health. Breathing second hand smoke will affect my health. If your asthma makes the perfume harmful to you, than that's an extenuating circumstance that you and others with asthma have to deal with. But that would put you in the minority. If a majority of people had asthma and voted to ban perfume from public places that would make sense, just as the smoking ban makes sense to the majority. "
DUH wrote on Sep 12, 2008 10:36 AM:
" Castle rocker..."Therefore it may be an undesirable smell, but will not affect your health". That's just too funny. There are chemicals in certain perfumes that cause my eyes to swell shut and my throat to close up. Sure glad you don't see that as an effect on health. I'm sure I'm not the only one that has this reaction. You seem to think that your 63% comes only from non-smokers. Got news for ya, I along with many other smokers voted in favor of the ban. Might even be safe to say that maybe 13% or more that voted in favor for it were smokers. You're welcome! You go on to say, "Stop talking about rights. Smoking is not a right". Maybe not in that context but, if I do not smoke indoors and I stay outside the 25 foot limit as set by law, then I guess it would be safe to say that I am well within my legal rights when it comes to smoking. If you choose to walk through my smoke where it is legal for me to do so, that's your problem not mine. "
slowburn wrote on Sep 12, 2008 10:39 AM:
" Why does everything have to be so absolute? Why can't the state just say, "OK. You want to have smoking in your establishment? You're going to have to apply for a permit (revenue, anyone?) and equip your business with the best ventilation equipment available. Also, you're going to pay your employees hazard pay, and you will post a sign on your door that says this is a state-approved smoking establishment." You could also include an annual fee that goes straight to the Health Department. Sure it's an expensive proposition for business owners, but if the demand is there, they'll find a way to make it work. I understand why people don't like being around smokers, but it seems to be all take and no give. There must be a middle ground that doesn't include this all-or-nothing attitude. "
TDN Bad Boy wrote on Sep 12, 2008 12:04 PM:
" Slowburn, there is no way in smoke-filled room down below that I will ever agree on your idea. It is all or nothing and pretty soon the majority in this state is going to demand another step. We will push smoking onto private property. This is the simglemost dirty habit I can think of. So light them up now. Because very soon we are going to vote on an idea that is overdue. A complete smoking ban on any public land. "
castle rocker wrote on Sep 12, 2008 1:10 PM:
" TDN Bad Boy: I like the idea. Run those smokers off public property and out of our air. According to the American lung association of Oregon, second hand smoke kills 53,000 Americans every year. Forget how many smokers it kills, they did it voluntarily, but 53,000 Americans are killed every year by SECOND HAND SMOKE. I consider everyone of those deaths to be homicide. Even if we can limit smokers to private property, many stupid parents are still going to smoke in their house with their kids inside. We need to make smoking illegal across the board. "
slowburn wrote on Sep 12, 2008 1:12 PM:
" That just shows that it's not a health issue for you. It's a matter of stubborn pride because you're always right about everything. What negative effect could that proposal really have on your life? It's clearly marked, all people inside know what they're getting into, and the cost of running such an establishment would ensure that few exist. One, two per county I figure. Plus, it could actually generate at least some money for the state. How does this scenario infringe on your personal health or happiness? You're a zealot who can't see anyone around you because your nose is so high in the air. "
castle rocker wrote on Sep 12, 2008 2:06 PM:
" Oh, that makes it a little better. A private club where people just kill themselves and not others. Terrific. "
castle rocker wrote on Sep 12, 2008 5:24 PM:
" Well if killing yourself is okay, why not legalize crack, meth, ecstacy, etc... "
JohnRove wrote on Sep 12, 2008 5:59 PM:
" slowburn, I used to live in Phoenix, and there was a similar law in place. As a non-smoker, I enjoyed being able to go out and now worry about being stuck in a smoky room, but also understood the purpose of the smoking establishments. When I-901 was passed and I voted for it I fully expected someone to write an initiative for the following year to create a similar program, unfortunately it did not happen. As for this ruling, I think it is completely in disagreement with how the law was presented. I had understood the law to allow exceptions for private clubs and establishments, but apparently the Court knows better than I do what my intent was. TDN bad boy, are you completely serious about restricting smoking to an individual's private property? I thought you were a conservative. That is getting way too close to a nanny state to me. "
averageguy wrote on Sep 12, 2008 6:05 PM:
" This is obviously a "hot-button" issue. Many of you are so strongly opinionated that you have stopped listening or thinking; you just keep repeating your mantra over and over again, hoping the last one speaking wins. So much for an objective discussion or debate among educated citizens. "
cheney119 wrote on Sep 12, 2008 6:42 PM:
" The people in favor of smoking are nicotine addicts, are you really anticipating rational objective discussion or debate; they honestly believe they have a right to poison us, they poison their families every day. The whole educated citizen thing is rather far fetched, have you read this blog before today? The thing I really enjoy is how TDN Bad Boy the most conservative person on earth and I prehaps the most liberal agree on how offensive cigarette smoke is to be forced to breath. Does that tell you smokers anything? This is about air not politics. "
Thunderstorm98626 wrote on Sep 13, 2008 11:58 AM:
" I may be a nicotine addict, but I also believe in respecting the majority as well as the minority. And for the information of the person lacking education about asthma, it is NOT the minority per se. If you've educated yourself, you would know that it, like obesity related health problems, is quite on the rise. AND more often than not, PERFUME and perfumed products are some of thebiggest asthma triggers there is besides cold air and cigarrette smoke. Fact is, I find it highly offensive that some people wopuld be so narrow minded as to think that cigarrette smoke is the only lung-problem causing chemical out there.... perhaps those people need to read more closely the ingredients of their weed or moss killer, their fertilizers, their products for detailing their cars...hand sanitizers...etc etc... the clean indoor air act should apply to ALL potentially harmful chemicals, not just cigarrette smoking... "
Past Month's Most Commented Stories