2 WEEKS FREE!    Circulation Center    Submit News    Submit Letter to Editor    Courier NIE    Submit Classified    Purchase Photos    Print Ads    Advertise    RSS Feeds
Advanced Search
(older than 14 days)
High 83°F
Low 57°F
 News » Breaking News
Article rated a
0
by
0
users
Janet Petersen
~ADVERTISING~
Advertise  |   Marketplace  |   Classifieds  |   Cars  |   Homes  |   Jobs
Thursday, March 13, 2008 5:01 AM CDT
UPDATE WITH NEW INFORMATION: Bars, restaurants dropped from smoking ban
By WHITNEY WOODWARD, Courier Des Moines Bureau
DES MOINES --- The Iowa House volleyed a proposed statewide smoking ban back to the Senate Wednesday after drastically overhauling the bill to exempt for bars and casinos, jeopardizing its chances.

“We lost a battle,” said Rep. Janet Petersen, D-Des Moines. But Petersen, a longtime smoking ban advocate, said she was optimistic the changes wouldn’t stick.

The House changes, approved on a 59-40 vote, would require most businesses — but not casinos or bars — to go smoke-free. Restaurants with liquor licenses could allow smoking during designated hours if closed to people under the age of 21 at the time.

The amendments slash the effectiveness of the original proposal, which advocates frame as a public health initiative to prevent workers and the public from hazardous secondhand smoke.

Wednesday’s vote ships the proposal back to the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, doesn’t think there’s any way his chamber will accept the modified version.

Should the Senate reject the bar and casino exemptions, the bill goes to a bipartisan panel designed to hash out the two chambers’ differences. The panel would craft another plan which would be sent to each body for a final up-or-down vote.

If the House and Senate can’t agree on that version, the proposal dies.

Petersen said it is premature to think lawmakers will leave the Capitol this year without approving a statewide law, but she wasn’t pleased with the exemptions added Wednesday.

“Hopefully level heads will prevail in conference committee and move us forward instead of backwards,” Petersen said.

Both chambers had rejected previous attempts to exempt bars from the bill.

The original legislation, drafted and narrowly approved by the House, would have banned smoking in almost all public places except casinos. But the Senate sent that bill back to the House after removing that casino exemption and adding a provision to allow smoking on some farm equipment.

Business and bar owners bombarded lawmakers with warnings their sales would suffer if forced to go smoke-free.

During debate, Rep. McKinley Bailey, D-Webster City, cited these fears when pushing for the exemptions.

“This is the only way most of these businesses can continue to operate,” Bailey said.

But Petersen said the businesses’ lobbying campaign drowned out the silent majority — the 80 percent of Iowans, according to some polls — who support the legislation.

Backers brushed off Wednesday’s vote as a speed bump on the road to a comprehensive ban.

“I don’t think it endangers the bill as a whole,” said Rep. Tyler Olson, D-Cedar Rapids. “[But] it obviously is going to take us a little longer to get to our end goal.”

Contact Whitney Woodward at (515) 243-0138 or whitney.woodward@lee.net.
Previous Next
     
 More Stories from News » Breaking News

gkb32 wrote on Mar 12, 2008 3:47 PM:

" This was a great decision by House. Bars and restaurants should not be forced into being non-smoking. If there is so much passion to pass this, why not put your money where your lungs are, and open up a non-smoking bar or restaurant yourself, and reap all the financial rewards with having the 80% of people who are non-smokers frequent your establishment. If you are successful, and other smoking bars lose significant clientele, they will change, but that will be THEIR decision. "

hawksrule wrote on Mar 12, 2008 3:55 PM:

" What about making bars or restaurants purchase a smoking license just like they have to purchase a liquor license? "

4bikers wrote on Mar 12, 2008 4:10 PM:

" So, Happy Chef and the Tobacco outlet are the only business that will have to change their policies?

Now people will have to put out their smokes when entering the T.O, rather than when they leave :)
"

jjd wrote on Mar 12, 2008 4:16 PM:

" When we encourage Iowa natives to move back from Minneapolis, Chicago and New York, let's not forget to tell them about the smoke-filled bars and restaurants that help make Iowa such a great place to raise a family. "

wikallen wrote on Mar 12, 2008 5:24 PM:

" Why do smokers need to smoke at a restaurant? You can not sit there, order your meal, eat, pay your bill, and go smoke on your way home?

I am so sick of smokers thinking they have the right to light up where ever they want. I watched a couple a few weeks ago, sitting at Z's with their infant child, both puffing away at their cigarettes 2 foot away. Absolutely pathetic. No addiction should be so strong that it puts your own child at risk.

There is nothing worse to kill the taste of a great meal, then smelling someones nasty cigarette. "

ap1989 wrote on Mar 12, 2008 6:20 PM:

" WHAT IS THE POINT OF THIS???
IT'S GOING TO BE PRETTY MUCH THE SAME AS IT WAS BEFORE!! I STILL WON'T BE ABLE TO GO OUT AND HAVE A GOOD TIME BECAUSE I'M ALLERGIC TO SMOKE AND CAN'T BREATH IN PLACES LIKE APPLEBEES, TOADS, ETC BECAUSE OF THE SMOKE!! "

Chicagoloo wrote on Mar 12, 2008 7:03 PM:

" Waterloo still stuck in 1975...you people that are "for" smoking in a bar need to leave the big city of waterloo and see how the rest of the country operates.. "

carrot311 wrote on Mar 12, 2008 7:57 PM:

" This could possibly be the best news I've heard come from the Courier in quite some time. I hope this stays. Knowing the anti-smokers and their never ending campain against smokers and cigarettes it wont though. Iowa use to be my safe haven from "the rest of the country" as stated by chicagoloo. I'm in North Carolina and the law is the same as it is in Iowa now...Smoke 'em if you got 'em. 19 states have no state wide ban on tobacco use and 10 states have a partial ban. I don't need to tell you Courier readers that is 29 states not "the rest of the Country. I found this information at: http://www.brooklynparrots.com/uploaded_images/i_love_you_mug_image-713593.jpg .It has 79 references so it seems like a reputibale source. "

JB wrote on Mar 12, 2008 8:01 PM:

" Chocagoloo-

I am in no way "for" smoking in a bar. I am, however, in favor of private property rights and freedom. Smoke is disgusting, so I don't let people smoke in my house, and I tend to avoid places where people smoke. But health fascism and its neurotic need to control people is even more disgusting.

And "ap1989" - you do not have the "right" to go out and have a good time. You don't have the right to tell the owners of Applebee's and Toad's how to run their businesses; they should have the freedom to cater to you or not. If you want a smoke-free place to go out and have fun, open one yourself, or convince the owner of an establishment to prohibit smoking. And learn the concept the you don't own everything. The concept of lowercase letters wouldn't hurt either. "

eureka1951 wrote on Mar 12, 2008 8:32 PM:

" Being a former smoker I can see both sides. However when I did smoke I was able to refrain for 45 minutes while I ate dinner. We avoid applebees, toads, carlo's etc because of the smoke. No smoking sections are a joke!! Kudos to Texas Roadhouse for going the smoke free route in the new bldg. "

potsie wrote on Mar 12, 2008 9:21 PM:

" I say leave it up to the owners of each establishment. I should mention I am not a smoker, and hate the smell of cigarettes. However, I do my job every day as a member of the U.S. military so you all are able to exercise your free will. If an outright ban on smoking is enacted, what will be next? When will enough be enough? "

me wrote on Mar 12, 2008 9:36 PM:

" yay for cancer!!! hey employees of iowa bars and resturants YOUR STATE doesn't care about you! yet another reason for the young people who are working in these places while they are in college to get the heck out of the state once they are done with school! HUGE step forward!

WHY do the rights of people that, forget they don't care about themselves, having such a negative affect of the lives of so many iowans?? i too have seen far too many babies in smoking sections, pregnant women smoking, and many other things that i won't even go into in public bars and resturants. this just says to these people it's ok what you are doing...keep up the good work! keep giving your kids cancer and many other health problems! the state doesn't want to protect those they can protect let alone your kids so light up another one! "

css wrote on Mar 12, 2008 10:07 PM:

" I'm a non-smoker and I think all smoking ban laws need to be dropped.

Second hand smoke dangers are misrepresented. Vehicle exhaust has more harmful components than processed tobacco.

It's funny how people believe in press releases rather than true science. "

hetfield wrote on Mar 12, 2008 10:59 PM:

" The house really took some teeth out of their bill. Their is no way the senate will agree with this bill as written(again.)

Smoke away Johnny! "

tomanderson wrote on Mar 12, 2008 11:12 PM:

" I cannot believe how lawmakers lose their spine when tobacco legislation is introduced. Within ten years there will only be two places of growth in the state of Iowa, Des Moines and Iowa City. The rest of the state will creep into a downward spiral of population loss thanks to backwards thinking that leads to allowing the public spread of lung cancer. Congratulations Iowa, it's 1973 all over again; gas is over priced, idiots are able to smoke wherever they want, jobs are dwindling, home prices are in the crapper and I still cannot get a good meal without having to snort someone else's carcinogens.
"

truthiness wrote on Mar 12, 2008 11:26 PM:

" Here's the rest of the story found from the Register. The vote passed 59-40, so it wasn't as "narrow" as it seemed. The bill actually has some merit as it will only allow smoking in businesses during times when only customers age 21 are older are allowed in. The bill states that smoking will be allowed in restaurants, bars, hotels, clubs and casinos that sell alcohol for on-premise drinking during times when only those 21 or older are invited or admitted. So if children are allowed in a restaurant, then there can be no smoking. I like this compromise as it protects much of the public who goes out to eat from the smokers, and yet it protects the bars/casinos as it will allow the smokers to light them up. It's a small step, but one that I hope will find some compromise. "

Ken wrote on Mar 13, 2008 1:07 AM:

" Once again the elected politicians choose to make decisions that will get them reelected as opposed to making the "right" and often times difficult decisions. These legislators need to remember that 2nd hand smoke causes cancer and other diseases. This is not theory. This is proven science. Everyone has a right to do just about anything in the country unless it harms others; which is exactly the case with smoking. This is not a personal choice or business choice argument. This is a discussion about public health. You have a right to go into a bar and order a beer, as do I. We each have the right to be seated beside one another while we indulge. You do not, and you should not ever, have the right to partake in any activity that causes me harm. It's fairly simple. "

gmaro wrote on Mar 13, 2008 7:31 AM:

" I do not like smoking either, but I think those who own the businesses should be able to make the rules in their establishments. People do have the choice to go into these places or not. I for one do not there are places where smoking is prohibited and the food and atmosphere is great. Texas Roadhouse is awesome. "

gkb32 wrote on Mar 13, 2008 7:48 AM:

" Ken, I would have to disagree with your argument of "Once again the elected politicians choose to make decisions that will get them reelected". The argument I see from the anti-smoking folks is that 80% of the voting public are non-smokers. So you have it backwards. If that is the case, then they risk not getting re-elected because they went against the supposed "majority" on this issue. I applaud them. And as Truthiness says, if you look at the bill, restaurants that serve those under 21 will have to be non-smoking. So they are protecting the every popular "children" card. "

cf_mommy wrote on Mar 13, 2008 8:38 AM:

" What a joke. I hope the Senate is smart enough to reject this "compromise." Get with the times Iowa. States much more progressive than ours already have smoking bans successfully in place and no one has lost revenue or gone out of business. What is the point of a smoking ban that excludes bars and restaurants? "

Think wrote on Mar 13, 2008 9:07 AM:

" Reminds me if JIM Crow. What part of "Private Business" do you not get. I hate smoke, but I hate seeing us become a police State. "

Chicagoloo wrote on Mar 13, 2008 9:19 AM:

" You realize that Iowa is one of a few states in the midwest that allow smoking. Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska- all have banned smoking.

Do some research on what it has done for those states and those establishments. Is it that hard to step outside and have a smokie smoke?

Not a good way to convince young people to move back into Iowa. Whats the median age of Iowa anymore? "

shouldbemayor wrote on Mar 13, 2008 9:34 AM:

" JB- So owners of business should have the right to run their businesses as they see fit......

I could open a bar, ban smoking, sell booze to minors, keep selling booze past 2am, even after all the patrons are all so drunk they can't stand up.

All would be within my rights as a businessperson, correct?

Oh yeah, most of those things are against the LAW, which is exactly what this smoking ban is, a law. Laws are made to protect people. 400 people a year DIE in IOWA each year because of secondhand smoke.

If 400 people a year died from foul balls at baseball stadiums in Iowa, I guarantee there would be netting required by law, or baseball would be illegal.

Bottom line is outlawing smoking is not popular because big tobacco controls many politicians, and because smokers are too weak to break the addiction the habit causes.

Smoking Kills. "

jjd wrote on Mar 13, 2008 9:36 AM:

" Fortunately, the federal government eliminated the state and local Jim Crow laws and did not provide the southern states with the "freedom" to do as they please. The government, at all levels, imposes restrictions all the time. Very few people are actually against this in general, but they use it as a means to complain when the government imposes restrictions they don't like. There are many, many restrictions to protect the health and safety of workers and consumers. The lack of a smoking ban is unusual considering the obvious health impacts. "

gkb32 wrote on Mar 13, 2008 9:37 AM:

" If I'm reading this correctly, basically ALL restaurants would go non-smoking. Most restaurants serve family, so if it's a true restaurant, it will be none smoking. Bars and casinos will still allow smoking. And like I said, if you want non-smoking bars, start one up. Here in DM there are numerous non-smoking bars and they are very successful. I know there are some in the 'Loo/CF too. So if you really have a passion, start one up. I wish you tons of success. And if you think Iowa is so behind the times with not banning smoking, I'd say if the most of the rest of the country was so "progressive", why not ban cigarettes? A progressive thinking person would not condone smoking of any kind, and thus, would want it made illegal since smoking is so '70's. "

think wrote on Mar 13, 2008 10:26 AM:

" The Governments would die without smokers. The people who smoke are the ones less able to afford it. The truth is the Government wants you to smoke, they just won’t admit they needed the billions that taxes generate. Want to fix the problem. Ban tobacco just like opium. They don’t have the spine to do it and would be bankrupt in months without smokers. "

FedUp wrote on Mar 13, 2008 10:31 AM:

" This is an affirmation of the rights of private business people to operate their business as they see fit. If they wish to go non-smoking, I would respect that. After all, they are the owners and they should set the rules. Keep government OUT of private business. While we're at it, lets try to get government out of our private lives altogether. "

andy1 wrote on Mar 13, 2008 10:44 AM:

" I hate smoking and the smell of smoke. I also like the idea of this bill. It protects those who don't have a choice as to where they want to go to eat. From what I understand, smoking will only be allowed in establishments that require you to be 21 to enter. This would therefore protect all children. Everyone else would be able to choose whether they want to go to a smoking or non-smoking establishment. I think this would be a great improvement over the current law since smoking sections are a joke. The smoke isn't contained to one section...it spreads to the non-smoking section.
If you want a non-smoking bar, ask the owner and ask all your friends to ask the owner to make it non smoking...or open up a non-smoking bar across the street and take his business if there is so little a demand for smoking in bars.
If you work in a bar that allows smoking and you don't like smelling like smoke, get another job!

If this is all about keeping Iowans healthy why not just ban cigarette sales? Oh yea...we need that tax money. We care about peoples' health, but we squeeze as much out of them for their unhealthy habit and if they quit we run a deficit. "

cf_mommy wrote on Mar 13, 2008 12:58 PM:

" To GBK32, the ban excludes restaurants that have a liquor license. I would venture a guess that almost every single restaurant you frequent (including the family friendly ones you mentioned) has a liquor license. My definition of progressive thinking differs a bit from yours. For something to be progressive, it must show forward progress, an advancement towards a better solution. I believe a smoking ban is extremely progressive if that definition holds true. "

KC wrote on Mar 13, 2008 1:26 PM:

" Let's not be the armpit of America and continue smoking in public places. Aren't we beyond this? Have some guts legislators and inact a statewide ban on smoking in ALL public places, casinos included. "

gkb32 wrote on Mar 13, 2008 1:56 PM:

" cf_mommy, I have to disagree. The new bill says "That revision would allow smoking in most bars, casinos and some restaurants during hours when only people 21 or older are allowed". It says "when only people 21 or older are allowed". So this is basically 99.9% or restaurants. I can't even think of a restaurant that would turn away a family with kids under 21. So it's probably 100% of restaurants. Bars that serve food, where alcohol sales comprise the majority of their revenue, now those would not have to go non-smoking. Places like Appleby's, Cheddars, Chili's, etc are restaurants and would be smoke free. But breaking news, the Senate has rejected the new bill. Back to the drawing board............ "

shirley wrote on Mar 13, 2008 2:12 PM:

" How would all you smokers feel if my cousin lit up a joint and smoked it in front of you? It might be illegal- not my point. You would throw a fit I bet.
I do not understand why restaurants need to be left out. You guys can go outside and smoke if you NEED one that bad! I can understand bars and casinos- those are places that I could see it as acceptable. But non-smokers do not want to smell it as they eat. I am sure that Texas Roadhouse will not lose that much service from it being non smoking. "

Get Real wrote on Mar 13, 2008 2:31 PM:

" And to all the smokers that love their smoking/drinking establishments, stay away from the front doors and entrys from the non-smoking ones. You're all still around with your cancer sticks puffing away so we inhale it and smell like it when we are just trying to get into the non smoking buildings! What a stupid, wimp out decision this was, but then we're in Iowa, what can we expect. Progressive? I think not. "

cf_mommy wrote on Mar 13, 2008 3:15 PM:

" Thanks for the clarification gkb32, I missed that part. I was under the impression it was any restaurant with a liquor license. "

(return of) joe wrote on Mar 13, 2008 4:04 PM:

" Isn't it weird that for many the civil rights violations of our time is the banning of smoking, yet we idly sit by and watch the government illegally wiretap our phones with the help of Verizon, willingly give up Habeas Corpus, and allow everything under the Patriot Act to dilute our liberties. However, to not be able to smoke in public is the civil rights issue of our time, folks! No wonder that our people are so easily duped! "

hillaryc wrote on Mar 14, 2008 9:37 AM:

" Once again Joe is only giving half the info in his re-education efforts,,,
Here is a link explaining who this suspension of Habeus corpus rights affects

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/habeuscorpus_2.htm

Perhaps if Joe would THINK, he would see why the average citizen wouldn't be concerned about this,,, but Joe feels if you repeat mis-information long enough, it will soon become the truth "

myk5873 wrote on Mar 14, 2008 3:12 PM:

" Let smokers step out side to light up! A smoker and non-smoker can enjoy a smoke free establishment equally. The only sacrafice the smoker makes is they have to step out to enjoy a smoke. In an establishment that allows smoking the smoker and non-smoker cannot enjoy it equally. The non-smoker has to breath unwanted second hand smoke placing their health at risk. This seems like such common knowledge to me. I think all (smokers & non) would agree smoking is bad for your health. Why should those who don't want to breath the smoke be forced to. I hope they pass the law in its original form! Note: I am a former smoker of about 18Yrs. I smoked my first cigarette at about age 12. I have quit now for about 4yrs. I wish I had never smoked. "

chatty1 wrote on Mar 14, 2008 3:41 PM:

" I'm a former smoker that sees things from boths sides of this issue. The one thing I really have a problem with is people claiming so and so can't work at whatever establishment because they have smoking there and that's why there should be no smoking. So what??? That isn't the only place of employment, and if they don't want to work in a smoky environment, then that person needs to choose somewhere to work where it isn't smoky. Nobody is forcing people to work where smoking is allowed. If you're going to have a reason, at least blame it on trying to keep people from dying from smoking related illnesses rather than this made up junk. "

me wrote on Mar 14, 2008 7:20 PM:

" chatty- you are right no one makes these people work at these places, but as a former college student who had to pay her way through college while living on her own but getting very little financial aid, resturants and bars are fast money that help pay those bills as a college student...no where near the same amount if i would have worked at walmart or kohls. this is also about promoting a healhier lifestyle. smoking isn't healthy...by letting smokers smoke where ever they please you are sending the message it's ok...keep up the good work! hey new mom on government aid why don't you just give your baby the cig? or pregnant lady inhale a little deeper! SMOKING and SMOKE kills people every day so how about we start treating it that way???? weird...i know! "

myers70001 wrote on Mar 14, 2008 11:12 PM:

" I am a smoker and go to a resturaunt and not smoke. If I can do it so can others. But the fact remains the goverment has no right to interfere with a private business owner as to if he allows smokimg or not. That is not what democracy is about. It is more like a totalatarian goverment is. Are you that the federal government subsidizes the tabacco farmers. As more people quit smoking we pay the farmers more and we foot the bill. If evereyone were to quit we would be paying these farmers plenty of money because the land would be useless to plant anything in the ground for probably 20 years because of the substanses in the ground. As far as someone mentioning about why follow the alcohol law that is because in order to get your license their are stipulations in place to take care of this problem. While we are at it lets make a law that all hambugers must weigh the same and sell for the same price set by the government as well as food prices and everything else.Than there would only need to be one gas station,resturaunt,grocery store, clothing store etc. in each town. "

avee wrote on Mar 15, 2008 6:45 AM:

" I wish people were half as concerned about alcohol as they are about second hand smoke. There is far more years of life lost due to alcohol and far more misery caused by alcohol than any environment of cigarette smoke. No one ever drove their car head on into a bridge or another car because they had one too many cigarettes. No one ever beat their wife or kids because they had one too many cigarettes. Some people that smoke or are continuously exposed to second hand smoke may die 2 to 5 years early (age 80 instead of 85) if a drunk driver doesn't kill them first. Alcohol kills people in their teens and 20s robbing them and their parents of 40 to 50 years of their life. Apparently death by drunk is acceptable. You have a choice about which bar or restaurant to go to. You don’t have a choice if a drunk runs a red light and kills you, your wife, your son or daughter. "

me wrote on Mar 15, 2008 1:40 PM:

" private business owners don't have the right to serve alcohol past 2am....you have to be 21 to drink...18 to smoke...can't drink and drive all these laws are meant to protect us. drunk driving is against the law, sadly people do still die from it


avee- Secondhand smoke is especially harmful to young children. Secondhand smoke is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year, and causes 430 sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths in the United States annually from http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422

sounds a little bit different then someone dying at 80 as opposed to 85 doesn't it??? "

avee wrote on Mar 15, 2008 7:42 PM:

" Point me to the last news story in iowa of a child or teenager that died from second hand smoke? You have a choice where you take your clild. You don't have a choice if a drunk driver hits your child crossing the street.
"

shirley wrote on Mar 15, 2008 11:39 PM:

" avee-
Alcohol is just as bad a smoking. Do not make one worse than the other they both have different problems. If you want to see what smoking does to people go work at a cancer center of a nursing home before you say something smart about smoking. Your comment of 80 instead of 85 is pathetic. Well lets see how you like it when your mom or dad or husband or wife die at 80 INSTEAD of 85. A lot happens in 5 years. And actually a lot of people do not make it even close to 80 with lung cancer. Most are between 40-60. MOST not all.
My dad died at the age of 58 when I was 12 years old from lung cancer and let me tell you if i could have had just one more year with him that would have been wonderful. THINK before you talk please. "

avee wrote on Mar 17, 2008 10:20 AM:

" "SHIRLEY" "THINK before you talk please"

I think about this frequently and have for probably more years than you are old. I think about it every time I read about a car load of teens getting killed or maimed because of a drunk driver,
I think about it every time I read about a child on their bike getting hit by a drunk. I think about it every time I get a letter from a friend who lost his innocent son to a drunk several years ago and still carries the pain of the loss every day.
I think about it every time I hear the call for contributions to the battered women and children’s shelter.

BTW - I am a non-smoker and I don't go to any bars or restaurants that I feel are unclean. There are plenty to go around. If the market will not support a business it will go away.
BTW #2 - I don't care if people smoke, I just don't want to be forced to pay for their health care!
"

me wrote on Mar 17, 2008 10:51 PM:

" Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States.1 Cigarette smoking causes an estimated 438,000 deaths, or about 1 of every 5 deaths, each year.

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/Factsheets/tobacco_related_mortality.htm


Alcohol abuse kills some 75,000 Americans each year

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6089353/

so smoking kills 5.8 times more then drinking...so to me it makes 5.8 times more sense to target smoking


"

shirley wrote on Mar 19, 2008 1:45 AM:

" I have had my own of alcohol problems in my life- but yews think before you talk- i mean what i say. you can not say one is worse that the other cuz it is not true. My cousin was killed because of an alcohol related car accident. But I still feel this is a smoke related issues so that is where we should keep it. If it was about drunk drivers- fire away I will stand beside you. The comment you made was a little hurtful and I hope that you can understand that. If not then whatever- some people are just stuck in their ways no matter what is said or done. Please try not to be defensive be open minded. I am 100% on your side with drinking and driving, but that will not help any case against smoking and letting somebody die 5 years earlier is just cruel. That comment you made was very hurtful and that is why I am talking to you specifically now.
Like I said I would take just one more year with my dad. You have to always put yourself in the other persons shoes to really understand the whole situation- don't you agree? "

If you would like to comment on this story, please log in with the form below. If you are not a registered user, please CLICK HERE to sign up.
Due to the amount of spam and negative comments received, the Courier implement a registered-user system for participation in the comment portion of our site. In doing so, the Courier reserves the right to ban any user(s) at any time without notice if we feel they are not following the terms of agreement.
*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login?
(requires cookies)
 
If you are not a registered user, please CLICK HERE to sign up.
DISCLAIMER: The Courier provides our story commenting feature in order to solicit feedback, debate and discussion on topics of local interest. Please keep in mind that civility is a necessary component of productive conversation. All blatantly inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate comments (i.e. vulgarity, marketing, etc.) are subject to rejection and/or removal. Comments will appear if and when they are approved. For a more in-depth explanation of our policy, please see our Rules of the Road. Thanks for reading, and thanks for participating.
NEWS | SPORTS | COMMUNITY | BUSINESS | ENTERTAINMENT | FEATURES | OPINIONS | OBITUARIES | CLASSIFIEDS | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | CARRIER PAGES
© 2008, Courier Communications, Waterloo, IA,
A subsidiary of Lee Enterprises