RSS Feeds
 |
|
|||||||||||||
News » Breaking News
Article rated a 0
by 0
users |
|
||
Culver signs smoking ban
Gov. Chet Culver signs the smoking ban passed by the Iowa Legislature during a ceremony in the Statehouse Rotunda Tuesday.
BOB NANDELL / Courier Lee News Service
BOB NANDELL / Courier Lee News Service
~ADVERTISING~
UPDATE: Culver signs smoking ban into law
By DAN GEARINO, Courier Des Moines Bureau
DES MOINES — Say goodbye to smoke-filled taverns, along with just about all other smoky public places in Iowa.
That’s because Gov. Chet Culver signed a near-total ban on public smoking Tuesday, a law that takes effect on July 1.
“The bottom line is that this bill will save lives, plain and simple,” he said at a jam-packed signing ceremony.
The ban will be most noticeable in bars and restaurants, but it covers nearly every workplace. The main exceptions are for the gaming floors of the 17 state-licensed casinos and for the Iowa Veterans Home in Marshalltown.
The signing, which follows months of debate in the Legislature, gave lawmakers one more chance to praise or condemn the ban.
“It’s a good day for Iowa, because in the long run we’ll be healthier,” said Sen. Jeff Danielson, D-Waterloo.
His Cedar Valley colleague, Sen. Bill Dotzler, D-Waterloo, was one of the few Democrats who opposed the bill. He thinks bars should have had an exception.
“I was very disappointed that we didn’t go back to a conference committee and fix the things we knew were wrong with the bill,” Dotzler said.
Dotzler’s mother owns Waterloo’s Embassy Lounge and his sister manages it, but he said his final opposition was based on those unresolved questions and not family considerations. He said his mother supports the ban but his sister opposes it.
Rep. Mark Kuhn, D-Charles City, also voted for the bill.
“We’re very pleased that we’re going to provide the opportunity for Iowans to breathe smoke-free air. That’s a very good thing,” he said.
Iowa joins 22 states that ban smoking in most work places.
Looking at those other states, Iowa officials expect the ban to reduce cigarette sales by about 4 percent, which would cost retailers $31 million per year, and cost the state roughly $9 million in lost cigarette taxes.
Many Iowa bar owners fought the ban, which they said would drive them out of business.
“It’s going to be devastating. Everybody’s worried,” said Joe Sturgis, owner of the Rusty Nail in Davenport.
Despite those fears, Creighton University economist Ernie Goss doesn’t expect a major shift for bars. He said the greatest changes would typically be along state borders, but not in this case because nearly all of Iowa’s neighbors have similar laws.
Goss is perplexed by the casino-floor exception, which he thinks will be difficult to enforce. “I didn’t know they were concocting such crazy laws,” he said.
Critics of the bill have focused their scorn on the casino exception, which they say is the result of close ties between the gaming industry and legislative Democrats. “I think the smoking bill was the best darn piece of legislation that casino money could buy,” said Rep. Jeff Kaufmann, R-Wilton.
Many Democrats share concerns about the exception. And yet, party leaders said the bill wouldn’t have had enough support to pass without
the provision. The Senate originally supported a total ban, while the House wanted several exceptions. The final measure was a mix of the two approaches.
“This is a very strong bill,” said Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs.
Contact Dan Gearino at (515) 243-0138 and dan.gearino@lee.net.
That’s because Gov. Chet Culver signed a near-total ban on public smoking Tuesday, a law that takes effect on July 1.
“The bottom line is that this bill will save lives, plain and simple,” he said at a jam-packed signing ceremony.
The ban will be most noticeable in bars and restaurants, but it covers nearly every workplace. The main exceptions are for the gaming floors of the 17 state-licensed casinos and for the Iowa Veterans Home in Marshalltown.
The signing, which follows months of debate in the Legislature, gave lawmakers one more chance to praise or condemn the ban.
“It’s a good day for Iowa, because in the long run we’ll be healthier,” said Sen. Jeff Danielson, D-Waterloo.
His Cedar Valley colleague, Sen. Bill Dotzler, D-Waterloo, was one of the few Democrats who opposed the bill. He thinks bars should have had an exception.
“I was very disappointed that we didn’t go back to a conference committee and fix the things we knew were wrong with the bill,” Dotzler said.
Dotzler’s mother owns Waterloo’s Embassy Lounge and his sister manages it, but he said his final opposition was based on those unresolved questions and not family considerations. He said his mother supports the ban but his sister opposes it.
Rep. Mark Kuhn, D-Charles City, also voted for the bill.
“We’re very pleased that we’re going to provide the opportunity for Iowans to breathe smoke-free air. That’s a very good thing,” he said.
Iowa joins 22 states that ban smoking in most work places.
Looking at those other states, Iowa officials expect the ban to reduce cigarette sales by about 4 percent, which would cost retailers $31 million per year, and cost the state roughly $9 million in lost cigarette taxes.
Many Iowa bar owners fought the ban, which they said would drive them out of business.
“It’s going to be devastating. Everybody’s worried,” said Joe Sturgis, owner of the Rusty Nail in Davenport.
Despite those fears, Creighton University economist Ernie Goss doesn’t expect a major shift for bars. He said the greatest changes would typically be along state borders, but not in this case because nearly all of Iowa’s neighbors have similar laws.
Goss is perplexed by the casino-floor exception, which he thinks will be difficult to enforce. “I didn’t know they were concocting such crazy laws,” he said.
Critics of the bill have focused their scorn on the casino exception, which they say is the result of close ties between the gaming industry and legislative Democrats. “I think the smoking bill was the best darn piece of legislation that casino money could buy,” said Rep. Jeff Kaufmann, R-Wilton.
Many Democrats share concerns about the exception. And yet, party leaders said the bill wouldn’t have had enough support to pass without
the provision. The Senate originally supported a total ban, while the House wanted several exceptions. The final measure was a mix of the two approaches.
“This is a very strong bill,” said Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs.
Contact Dan Gearino at (515) 243-0138 and dan.gearino@lee.net.
 |
 |
More Stories from News » Breaking News
Three-wheeler accidentFire rekindles, forcing woman from home in WaterlooUPDATE: Culver signs smoking ban into law Lone Tree woman charged with growing pot in homeDeputies warn about phone scamIowa Senate OK's vehicle registration fee hike to fix roadsLongtime GOP activist announces 3rd District bid for Boswell's seatMotorcyclist injured in accidentWind advisory againBlack Hawks finish RoughRidersIndependence gives Monsanto warm welcomeArea poster winners to be honored todayMembers of Iowa Air Guard going to IraqFormer school secretary denies changing daughter's grades
justme wrote on Apr 15, 2008 12:19 PM:
" This is crazy!! Why should the government be able to tell us where we can smoke? Why not just make cigarettes illegal then? I have never smoked in my life and think this smoking ban is crazy. I agree with restaurants being non smoking, but the bars is uncalled for. I play on leagues in bars and I know what I am getting into when going into them. It is my choice to go and be around the smoke. If you don't like it go to a non smoking bar like Jameson's. Why not ban alcohol while they are making stupid laws. "
jcollins wrote on Apr 15, 2008 12:46 PM:
" Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but if I'm not mistaken you would still be able to smoke at a bar if they have an outdoor beer garden. "
highrolla7 wrote on Apr 15, 2008 12:50 PM:
" Why not ban alcohol? Because there is no such thing as second hand alcohol. Smoking isnt illegal either, just cant do it indoors in public places (well, except casinos, which I dont agree with either, but oh well). "
4bikers wrote on Apr 15, 2008 12:59 PM:
" justme, I am sorry for your loss, but if it makes for a safer working environment, I can accept the ban. If it was merely to make non-smokers happy, I would have a hard time supporting it.
Keep in mind with drinking vs smoking. I cannot sit at a bus stop with a case of crappy beer, popping them as I please. Alcohol has already been banned in a similar manner in which you speak. Is that a stupid law too? "
Keep in mind with drinking vs smoking. I cannot sit at a bus stop with a case of crappy beer, popping them as I please. Alcohol has already been banned in a similar manner in which you speak. Is that a stupid law too? "
unistudent wrote on Apr 15, 2008 1:05 PM:
" It's about time! I will be counting down the days till July first. :) "
gkb32 wrote on Apr 15, 2008 1:27 PM:
" jcollins, I think you are wrong regarding beer gardens. Smoking areas must be at least 10 feet away from any seating area, and not have any employees. So they would have to make some sort of "garden" away from the building and not have any alcohol served in that area. If I'm reading it correctly. "
jcollins wrote on Apr 15, 2008 1:31 PM:
" No such thing as 2nd hand alcohol? I'm guessing that you've never dealt with a out of control drunk person before. "
hetfield wrote on Apr 15, 2008 2:05 PM:
" Anyone care to wager whether the dems who smoke will show their hypocrisy by continuing to support liberals at the polls?
Iowa was recently rated as one of the most liberal states in the country. While I support this bill, the democrats continue to take our liberties away.
Nice job lefties! "
Iowa was recently rated as one of the most liberal states in the country. While I support this bill, the democrats continue to take our liberties away.
Nice job lefties! "
think wrote on Apr 15, 2008 2:13 PM:
" To predict the imminent rise of the Fourth Reich. I wonder how many of those men that fell on the 6th of June would even understand what has happened since then. You don't hear "it's a free Country" much anymore do you. One term Lug but oh the damage he has done. "
madmico wrote on Apr 15, 2008 2:43 PM:
" IF THIS IS REALLY ABOUT SAVING LIVES, THEN BAN ALCOHOL AND CIGARETTES. THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE. IT'S ALL ABOUT MAKING MORE MONEY FOR THE GOVERNMENT. ANOTHER SMOKE SCREEN. NO PUN INTENDED. "
facts are facts wrote on Apr 15, 2008 2:49 PM:
" WTG one term Chet, hope you enjoy whats left of your term as this among a few of your other projests will end your governor career next election. "
Smoker wrote on Apr 15, 2008 3:15 PM:
" Alcohol is bad for you and others around you (abuse, accidents, fights...etc) - and causes millions of deaths every year - just like smoking. So why not ban alcohol too? I don't see the government very concerned in how unsafe drinking is for you? "
gkb32 wrote on Apr 15, 2008 3:55 PM:
" Mark my words, this law will be deemed unconstitutional because of the casino exemption. Lawsuits are being drafted as we speak by bar owners. Can you say TouchPlay Part 2? "
me wrote on Apr 15, 2008 8:24 PM:
" jcollins-i heard...just through the grape vine that there will be no smoking on the property at all including beer gardens...maybe we could get a little help on this one from the courier blog editor??
this isn't a stupid law! protecting people from second hand smoke is a good thing! yes we do have plenty of other problems out there but why not deal with what we can??
i hope one day for smoking to be banned in homes and cars with kids under 18 years old too. if they can't smoke the cigs themselves but the parents can give them all the bad affects of it that just doesn't make sense!
huge step forward, iowa!! "
this isn't a stupid law! protecting people from second hand smoke is a good thing! yes we do have plenty of other problems out there but why not deal with what we can??
i hope one day for smoking to be banned in homes and cars with kids under 18 years old too. if they can't smoke the cigs themselves but the parents can give them all the bad affects of it that just doesn't make sense!
huge step forward, iowa!! "
hawkiiis wrote on Apr 15, 2008 8:34 PM:
" Our 'beloved' govenor (please note sarcasm) was in such a hurry to sign this bill and save us all, that the full content has yet to be decided on. It is such an open-ended law, we'll see an endless amount of court hearings judging its interpretation...at taxpayer's expense of course. "
LT John wrote on Apr 15, 2008 8:47 PM:
" I just moved out here from a state that recently passed a similar law, and all the same arguments against this were there too. Crazy enough, about a year later and nobody is complaining any more. In fact, some of the smokers say it's the best thing that could have happened to them, because it helped them quit. "
shouldbemayor wrote on Apr 15, 2008 8:52 PM:
" YES!!!!!!!!
Greatest day ever!!! Can't wait to start spending more money in bars and restaraunts on July 1st. Can't wait to turn in the first law breaker I see.
By the way, the government has been telling us where we can smoke for years. They just added a whole bunch of places to it.
Thank you Gov. Culver and all of the brave men and women who voted for this right and just law.
Ashtrays for sale. Get your ashtrays cheap!!!
"
Greatest day ever!!! Can't wait to start spending more money in bars and restaraunts on July 1st. Can't wait to turn in the first law breaker I see.
By the way, the government has been telling us where we can smoke for years. They just added a whole bunch of places to it.
Thank you Gov. Culver and all of the brave men and women who voted for this right and just law.
Ashtrays for sale. Get your ashtrays cheap!!!
"
a362966 wrote on Apr 15, 2008 11:38 PM:
" highrolla7- Second hand alcohol is called drunk driving...kills a lot more than second hand smoke. So are we REALLY committed to saving lives? This bill not only makes it illegal to smoke indoors, but outdoor areas too.
Iowans are really serious about saving lives EXCEPT in casinos...too much money at stake. Little bar owner guy-take a hike, we only listen to the big money.
Not to worry, Chet is just a one-term type of guy anyway. "
Iowans are really serious about saving lives EXCEPT in casinos...too much money at stake. Little bar owner guy-take a hike, we only listen to the big money.
Not to worry, Chet is just a one-term type of guy anyway. "
jcbr wrote on Apr 16, 2008 1:52 AM:
" state regulated casio smoking allowed reeks of conflict of interest privette bar owners banned / i hope the bar owners sue / i hope everyone votes these yes kissers to the governor out / whats the state goverment going to ban next / we are giving our freedoms away / from now till july 1st i will make sure i blow smoke in nonsmokers face / i was a democrat all my life but ill make damm sure to vote replubican / right now im sorry i was a veteran / equal rights what a joke "
jcbr wrote on Apr 16, 2008 1:58 AM:
" ban smoking / now i want these illegals deported they are draining the wellfare of this country / smoking is bad so are they "
jcbr wrote on Apr 16, 2008 2:26 AM:
" state smoking ban appears tobe a illegal law / a state licensed regulated casio is exempt on one hand says ban on other hand money coming to them its ok double standard / i think all smokers should BOYCOT THE CASIOS REGULATED BY THE STATE / go only to indian casios buy your cigs there too / state dont like smokers then they dont need our tax money from cigs either / all smokers unite we can and will overcome "
Brian B wrote on Apr 16, 2008 2:53 AM:
" justme: Cigarettes will never be made illegal because the taxes raised from them are enormous.
highrolla7: Alcohol will never be banned because the taxes raised from it is enormous.
Chet Culver will never be banned because he continues to find ways to raise taxes.
You asked for it, you got it.
"
highrolla7: Alcohol will never be banned because the taxes raised from it is enormous.
Chet Culver will never be banned because he continues to find ways to raise taxes.
You asked for it, you got it.
"
jakenichols wrote on Apr 16, 2008 6:20 AM:
" i dont smoke but i would have to say this is another law that limits freedom, it limits the business owners and the consumers freedom from making their own choices, its the government slowly removing our freedoms, you know this is why the colonists left england to begin with is the crown slowly removing freedoms until there was nothing left, they are just seeing what they can get away with and you people who are praising this law should be ashamed to be americans. bad decisions are getting made daily, people need to open their eyes, the media and the government are doing a really good job at making the public think that everything they are doing and promoting is justified, its not. this is another step towards complete government control of our daily lives. "
RUKIDDINGME wrote on Apr 16, 2008 7:40 AM:
" For the record, I am a nonsmoker, and am against this ban. There is too much government control in our lives! If there is to be a ban, it should be put up for a vote, not mandated by the government. You people who voted for Culver are getting what you asked for!
...oh...and by the way...jcbr...if you blow your cigarette smoke in my face...I will put your cigarette out on your face!!!! "
...oh...and by the way...jcbr...if you blow your cigarette smoke in my face...I will put your cigarette out on your face!!!! "
me wrote on Apr 16, 2008 7:50 AM:
" a362966
Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 46,000 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year. (http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422)
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration released data showing there were 13,470 deaths in 2006 involving drivers and motorcycle operators with blood alcohol levels of .08 or higher, which is the legal limit for adults throughout the country. The number was down slightly from 2005, when 13,582 people died in crashes involving legally drunk drivers. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-20-drunk-driving_N.htm)
so 13,000 compared to almost 50,000...what were you saying again? cause i can't remember...
the thing with blogs like this is they allow people to type what is on their minds and for whatever reason what they think but most of the time they are wrong!
I couldn't find the most up to date info on this one...but all you people who are comparing drinking to smoking are waaaaaaaaaay off base!!
An estimated 63,718 deaths were attributable to harmful drinking in the U.S. in 2000. (http://www.washington.edu/alumni/uwnewslinks/200409/article_alcohol.html)
What were the deaths in 2005 due to smoking? approximently 440000 a year (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_were_the_deaths_in_2005_due_to_smoking)
so lets drop the whole drinking thing...ok!? cause what you are comparing when you see the numbers doesn't even make sense!
"
Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 46,000 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year. (http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422)
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration released data showing there were 13,470 deaths in 2006 involving drivers and motorcycle operators with blood alcohol levels of .08 or higher, which is the legal limit for adults throughout the country. The number was down slightly from 2005, when 13,582 people died in crashes involving legally drunk drivers. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-20-drunk-driving_N.htm)
so 13,000 compared to almost 50,000...what were you saying again? cause i can't remember...
the thing with blogs like this is they allow people to type what is on their minds and for whatever reason what they think but most of the time they are wrong!
I couldn't find the most up to date info on this one...but all you people who are comparing drinking to smoking are waaaaaaaaaay off base!!
An estimated 63,718 deaths were attributable to harmful drinking in the U.S. in 2000. (http://www.washington.edu/alumni/uwnewslinks/200409/article_alcohol.html)
What were the deaths in 2005 due to smoking? approximently 440000 a year (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_were_the_deaths_in_2005_due_to_smoking)
so lets drop the whole drinking thing...ok!? cause what you are comparing when you see the numbers doesn't even make sense!
"
justme wrote on Apr 16, 2008 8:25 AM:
" I agree RUKIDDINGME...It should have been a vote. Like I said I have never smoked but I choose to go to the bars. If you don't like it, why not just go to a bar that is smoke free?? As far as my comment earlier about banning alcohol, why not? The government seems to decide what is in our best interest without any vote from the public. Alcohol causes many deaths every year with drunk drivers. Maybe they should limit bars to serving only one or two beers apiece. This law is a bunch of crap! I don't see it holding up for long. It's like prohibition of the 1920's and 30's. "
pcorb wrote on Apr 16, 2008 9:25 AM:
" Well this whole ban tells me only the big money places matter to the state not the little home town establishments..think of our local bars and how many may go out of business due to this. Restaurants ok but the bars a tad over zelous. For all you in favor to save everyone, what will be next when everyone quits smoking?? high taxes on milk, prescriptions or maybe property...they will have to make the shortfall up somewhere.. Something to keep in mind.
"
"
foxyparty wrote on Apr 16, 2008 10:05 AM:
" Lets start off that I Am a smoker but for the most part I have no problem with this law as it does offend and hurt others with the second hand smoke. I do not agree with the allowing smoking at casino gaming areas at all. It makes no sense that we can sit at a slot machine and order a drink and play while we smoke but if we go to the bar and sit to get away from people we can not smoke. Bars and smoking go hand in hand and if they are going to ban it in bars just make it consistant and not offer loop holes. I pay taxes too, where are my rights? "
cfreader wrote on Apr 16, 2008 10:09 AM:
" Thank you "ME" for the insightful data. Comparing alcohol to smoking is about the dumbest argument there is. First of all drunk driving is illegal, smoking is not. I can't drink in my vehicle or on the street, smokers can smoke in those places. I can't buy alcohol after 2AM, smokers can buy smokes anytime. These alcohol laws were put into place to protect the public. Do you here me crying about it? No, I understand it is for the safety of the public. According to your logic, maybe I should sue for the right to drink in my car? And the best one yet, comparing this ban to prohibition. Do you have any clue what prohibition was? It made alcohol illegal!!! Smoking is not illegal, it is just limited just like alcohol.
One more point. In my experience, most smokers do NOT smoke around their children. If there are no harmful effects as you say and it's your "right", why not??? According to your logic, it must be OK to sit at home and blow smoke in a babies face. Apparently a strangers health means a lot less than your child's. What a bunch of hypocrites!!! "
One more point. In my experience, most smokers do NOT smoke around their children. If there are no harmful effects as you say and it's your "right", why not??? According to your logic, it must be OK to sit at home and blow smoke in a babies face. Apparently a strangers health means a lot less than your child's. What a bunch of hypocrites!!! "
a6g wrote on Apr 16, 2008 10:14 AM:
" jcbr, you blow smoke in my face, and I'll make sure there is dirt in yours...please, you better be one mountain of a man to make blanket ridiculous statements like that and attempt to back them up. it is not the non-smokers vs. smokers, it is liberal elitists vs. conservatives. chester thinks he is above everyone else, and what he says should go. i am 100% for the smoking ban for several personal and somewhat selfish reasons, but chester is doing what he told all of you democrats he would, and now you are complaining with the rest of us! wise up already. "
cfreader wrote on Apr 16, 2008 10:18 AM:
" pcorb - Don't you think if everyone quits smoking (which will never happen), the savings on health care will far outweigh any "new" tax? You can't seriously think people will quit smoking because they can't smoke at a bar. According to that logic, all smokers should've quit there jobs long ago when most businesses went smoke free. That is also why small business won't go out of business, people will adjust just like they have in MN and IL where most bar owners say business is better now than before the ban. "
Jizzo57 wrote on Apr 16, 2008 10:29 AM:
" I would much rather stand next to a smoker in a bar and have them blow smoke in my face all night than meet some idiot on the road who had knocked back a few too many. Pick and choose your battles. The people to want to support their lesser of two evils with death rate statistics need to get a life. Try using an unbiased source to back up your opinions. I am sure they stuck to the scientific method when doing research on smoking deaths. I would like to know how they can definitively conclude that secondhand smoke causes that many cancer deaths and it might not be possible that some other extraneous variable is to blame like say they had a genetic predisposition for cancer. Using the same logic I could say ice cream consumption causes people to drown for which I could find statistics to back my claim. Keep signing these laws and we won't have any freedoms left! "
cire wrote on Apr 16, 2008 10:30 AM:
" so much for our "free country", huh?
I'm not a smoker, but this hypocritical law is ridiculous. Bar owners, you have my support if you want signatures for your petition. "
I'm not a smoker, but this hypocritical law is ridiculous. Bar owners, you have my support if you want signatures for your petition. "
justme wrote on Apr 16, 2008 10:55 AM:
" You say drunk driving is illegal, yes it is, but smoking is now illegal also everywhere except your house and car and casino. I do not think a bar should be non smoking. So you can't smoke in a room full of adult in a bar but you can smoke in your house with your kids and in the car with your kids. I myself don't smoke and think it is crazy. I don't think the government should be able to tell smokers they can't smoke in a bar or public place. Like I said before, if they don't like the smoke, go to a non smoking bar! Pcorb I agree they will tax other things higher trying to get people to quit smoking. I think we have greater worries in this state and country than where someone smokes. "
justme wrote on Apr 16, 2008 10:56 AM:
" Also, it will be interesting to see how they control this issue at Fridayloo's and My Waterloo Day's and events like that. All those people how will they watch everyone? Or is that another loop hole in this stupid law? "
panthers08 wrote on Apr 16, 2008 11:05 AM:
" Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 46,000 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year
I am betting this is repeated and heavy exposure, to act like walking into a bar were people are smoking for a couple of hours on a friday night is going to give you lung cancer is just being stupid.
Its all about money the lawmakers could really care less about your health.
And shouldbemayor about the I cant wait to start turning people in remark, I would sure hope if your going to do this on people in bars you would keep it quiet or I would think haveing allot of medical insurance would be a good idea.
I dont smoke but come on people say you dont like the smell, it burns your eyes or something but the it will kill you walking by someone smoking or going into a bar for a few hours is really getting old. "
I am betting this is repeated and heavy exposure, to act like walking into a bar were people are smoking for a couple of hours on a friday night is going to give you lung cancer is just being stupid.
Its all about money the lawmakers could really care less about your health.
And shouldbemayor about the I cant wait to start turning people in remark, I would sure hope if your going to do this on people in bars you would keep it quiet or I would think haveing allot of medical insurance would be a good idea.
I dont smoke but come on people say you dont like the smell, it burns your eyes or something but the it will kill you walking by someone smoking or going into a bar for a few hours is really getting old. "
avee wrote on Apr 16, 2008 11:28 AM:
" Me wrote:--""so 13,000 compared to almost 50,000...what were you saying again? cause i can't remember..."" ----
If one of those 13,000 was your child that will never grow up to debate these issues, I think you might wish he or she was around to help decide the issue of smoking and second hand smoke.
"
If one of those 13,000 was your child that will never grow up to debate these issues, I think you might wish he or she was around to help decide the issue of smoking and second hand smoke.
"
Frosty wrote on Apr 16, 2008 11:55 AM:
" jcbr wrote on Apr 16, 2008 1:52 AM:
" from now till july 1st i will make sure i blow smoke in nonsmokers face "
Behavior and attitudes like this are what created the need for this ban. "
" from now till july 1st i will make sure i blow smoke in nonsmokers face "
Behavior and attitudes like this are what created the need for this ban. "
gkb32 wrote on Apr 16, 2008 12:28 PM:
" Me, you state "Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 46,000 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year". Give me 1 name of someone who died from lung cancer due to second hand smoke. Just 1 name. If you're talking 3,400 per year and 46,000 per year, it should be easy to give me 1 name, right? You can't. It's not been proven, beyond a shadow of doubt, that second hand smoke causes lung cancer. I'm a non-smoker, but against the ban due to rights. Both the rights of business to decide on what their clientele want, and the rights of consumers to have a CHOICE on where they want to go. You never know what is next to get under the governments thumb. Internet? Coffee? Fast food? Forcing exercise? All the things regulated by communist/facist countries. We're heading down that road. Government doesn't give "choice" to the people and makes all their decisions for them. "
gkb32 wrote on Apr 16, 2008 12:33 PM:
" And one other thing. I bet most people on here and that are for this ban, are also pro-choice when it comes to abortion. The term "pro-choice" evidently is only used when it backs your cause. Those of us against the ban are also "pro-choice". Meaning, we all have the "choice" of where we work and want to go have an adult beverage. So all of you who are two-faced, meaning, you want to be able to make your own "choice" when it comes to aborting a baby (you DON'T want government telling you what you can/can't do), but you want government to make the decision on your ability to have a choice to go to a smoking or non-smoking establishment are a joke. "
shouldbemayor wrote on Apr 16, 2008 12:57 PM:
" Panther08 wrote: And shouldbemayor about the I cant wait to start turning people in remark, I would sure hope if your going to do this on people in bars you would keep it quiet or I would think haveing allot of medical insurance would be a good idea.
I dont smoke but come on people say you dont like the smell, it burns your eyes or something but the it will kill you walking by someone smoking or going into a bar for a few hours is really getting old. "
Hey, the same cops that come to write the ticket for smoking can certainly take you to jail after you attempt to assault me. I will say, however, that they will probably need to call an ambulance for you when I answer your assault. After all, my lungs are clean and ready to go 10 rounds. "
I dont smoke but come on people say you dont like the smell, it burns your eyes or something but the it will kill you walking by someone smoking or going into a bar for a few hours is really getting old. "
Hey, the same cops that come to write the ticket for smoking can certainly take you to jail after you attempt to assault me. I will say, however, that they will probably need to call an ambulance for you when I answer your assault. After all, my lungs are clean and ready to go 10 rounds. "
jakenichols wrote on Apr 16, 2008 1:13 PM:
" i am going to reiterate this, this law is bogus. THINK ABOUT THIS: maybe they are making smoking illegal in bars and public areas, and not in the casino, because they want to get more people to start gambling so that the casino revenue increases and its win-win for politicians and the casinos, the money is all going to get funneled right into chet culvers fat pockets, i am so irate about this, i dont even SMOKE, and i am irate, this is a greed issue, they are trying to control the population by monopolizing where certain freedoms exist and thus taking in a hefty revenue, because god knows they arent getting it from all the small bars and other establishments that are going to be hurting from this law, i am just imagining all of the places that i go to have a good time that are going to be empty and depressing, this is going to destroy business districts that rely on bars and entertainment, such as live music venues (i.e. the reverb). which is a main concern for me, being a musician, this is going to slowly kill CULTURE as well, second hand smoke kills at home not at the bar this is moronic. "
pinzy76 wrote on Apr 16, 2008 2:11 PM:
" Everyone is talking about taxes going up in other areas as soon as this has gone through and has setteled down and the smokeres have quit complaining Well you know first off this is not about health, you are right. It is about the money. Look at what they are trying to raise next. Veichle Registration Fees...way to go Gov....pretty proud of you. Great job your doing here!!!
By the way you have a better chance of going out to your car and driving down the street and getting killed in a car accident before you you die of second hand smoke...... "
By the way you have a better chance of going out to your car and driving down the street and getting killed in a car accident before you you die of second hand smoke...... "
taxpayer wrote on Apr 16, 2008 3:45 PM:
" this country is of the rich,by the rich and for the rich. Until people come together to change these things this is the way it will always be. "
jcbr wrote on Apr 16, 2008 3:46 PM:
" to all ill blow smoke where i want if legal / ive been shot cut beaten but im still free / America land of the free each created equal rights we may like or dislike / but we have a choice as long as legal / i dont like taxes but i pay them for the common good / some foods i dont like but some people do / should we ban the foods i dont like ? some foods arent healthy either ? i treat people with respect but respect me back / respect your space you mine respect my ideas i yours / by the way i would never blow smoke in a persons face unless given reason in answer to prev comment / "
think wrote on Apr 16, 2008 6:13 PM:
" I hope the ban perfume. That stuff smells like a funeral home and does cause some people to become ill just like peanuts. I hate the stench of that stuff. So as long as were banning stuff lets get rid of this as well. "
me wrote on Apr 16, 2008 6:22 PM:
" avee- i never said drunk driving wasn't a problem. i said comparing something that causes 13,000 deaths to something that causes almost 4 times that is crazy.
jcbr- banning foods you don't like?? really? this isn't about people not wanting to come home smelling like an ash tray after spending hours in the bar it's about protecting people that don't smoke.
gkb- it's all about the rights! the government regulates MANY things...it only makes sense to regulate something that causes so much harm and so many deaths! and did i ever say i was pro choice? i don't think so. and actually, i am not. i think you get your self pregnant cause you were not smart enough to use birth control or not know how to use it then that baby should go to a family that wants one but can have one of their own...way to generalize! i guess it's fair for me to say that the only people that smoke are second class citizens all one food stamps who are all unemployed then right??
pinzy- how do you have a better chance of dying from a drunk driver? can you prove that? if not, then don't be spouting off stats like that
then everyone who is concerned about the taxes! smoking costs the government a lot each year so hopefully the lack of people smoking and being exposed with help out! unlike many on here, here is a fact to back up what i just said:
60% of the direct health care costs in the US go to treat tobacco related illnesses
20 % or 1 in 5 of all deaths in the US are attributable to smoking. Smokers have a 70% higher death rate than nonsmokers
Tobacco kills more Americans each year than alcohol, cocaine, crack, heroin, homicide, suicide, car accidents, fires and aids combined.
Tobacco kills more people each year than losses from WW I, Korea and Vietnam combined, approximately equal to WW II losses (http://wolfweb.unr.edu/homepage/shubinsk/smokost1.html) "
jcbr- banning foods you don't like?? really? this isn't about people not wanting to come home smelling like an ash tray after spending hours in the bar it's about protecting people that don't smoke.
gkb- it's all about the rights! the government regulates MANY things...it only makes sense to regulate something that causes so much harm and so many deaths! and did i ever say i was pro choice? i don't think so. and actually, i am not. i think you get your self pregnant cause you were not smart enough to use birth control or not know how to use it then that baby should go to a family that wants one but can have one of their own...way to generalize! i guess it's fair for me to say that the only people that smoke are second class citizens all one food stamps who are all unemployed then right??
pinzy- how do you have a better chance of dying from a drunk driver? can you prove that? if not, then don't be spouting off stats like that
then everyone who is concerned about the taxes! smoking costs the government a lot each year so hopefully the lack of people smoking and being exposed with help out! unlike many on here, here is a fact to back up what i just said:
60% of the direct health care costs in the US go to treat tobacco related illnesses
20 % or 1 in 5 of all deaths in the US are attributable to smoking. Smokers have a 70% higher death rate than nonsmokers
Tobacco kills more Americans each year than alcohol, cocaine, crack, heroin, homicide, suicide, car accidents, fires and aids combined.
Tobacco kills more people each year than losses from WW I, Korea and Vietnam combined, approximately equal to WW II losses (http://wolfweb.unr.edu/homepage/shubinsk/smokost1.html) "
a6g wrote on Apr 16, 2008 7:54 PM:
" jcbr, you still do not understand. you list off all of these quid pro quo examples, yet included is one that states: i "respect your space you mine". you smoking anywhere NEAR me, let alone blowing it in my face is in no way, shape, or form "respecting my space". your putrid, filthy habit enters my space in public and now i get the last laugh... i have nothing against smoking...in private or with courtesy, the problem is that there are far too many filthy smokers who think it is their right to blow their nasty smoke in my direction. NOT ANYMORE! "
panthers08 wrote on Apr 16, 2008 8:18 PM:
" shouldbemayor:
A. I dont smoke so my lungs are just fine
B. I dont go to bars normally
C. I was talking about other people, I am guessing that if a person was in a bar and said hey your smoking I am turning you in, that person might be setting themself up for possible problems.
d. making comments about going 10 rounds is pretty easy from behind a screen "
A. I dont smoke so my lungs are just fine
B. I dont go to bars normally
C. I was talking about other people, I am guessing that if a person was in a bar and said hey your smoking I am turning you in, that person might be setting themself up for possible problems.
d. making comments about going 10 rounds is pretty easy from behind a screen "
shouldbemayor wrote on Apr 17, 2008 12:54 AM:
" PantherO8,
You are the one who threatened violence, I just said I'm ready if you or someone else decides to attack me for reporting a crime.
The GREAT news about all this is that I will be enjoying lower health care premiums because fewer people will die a slow and painful death because of second hand smoke. So I thank you for your concern about my health insurance, panther08, but I am looking better than ever because of this fair and just law. Ashtrays for sale, get em cheap. Ashtrays for sale!!! "
You are the one who threatened violence, I just said I'm ready if you or someone else decides to attack me for reporting a crime.
The GREAT news about all this is that I will be enjoying lower health care premiums because fewer people will die a slow and painful death because of second hand smoke. So I thank you for your concern about my health insurance, panther08, but I am looking better than ever because of this fair and just law. Ashtrays for sale, get em cheap. Ashtrays for sale!!! "
stenny1963 wrote on Apr 17, 2008 6:40 AM:
" When I moved here from a state that had a ban we were really upset when it first started.But then I found out that i smoked almost a pack and a half less when i stepped out for cocktails compared to when I didnt have to get my butt off the bar stool to have a smoke.I don't feel my rights were violated to have to step outside and I think most would agree after this thing starts. "
stenny1963 wrote on Apr 17, 2008 7:00 AM:
" To all of those who insist law suits are coming.These cases have already been tried in many states and were unsuccessful because the state can place regulations and standards in any buisness.All buisnesses have a set of rules they must adhere to or risk losing their license.all the state has to do is assure a level playing field which they did.None of the restaraunts or bars are competing directly with the casinos.and for your information i already do my gambling in Tama where they offer a smoke free area which is nice to play in for a spell to give mty lungs a break.I'll be glad to step outside to have a smoke and will smoke alot less when i go out too so really this is win win. "
avee wrote on Apr 17, 2008 7:17 AM:
" Me: states -------“”Smokers have a 70% higher death rate than nonsmokers””--------------------
All your statistics are ridiculous. 100% of non-smokers die and 100% of smokers die.
"
All your statistics are ridiculous. 100% of non-smokers die and 100% of smokers die.
"
gkb32 wrote on Apr 17, 2008 7:47 AM:
" me, sorry about the pro-choice comparison. I was getting political and generalizing democratic stances.
As for your stats on deaths, can you give me one persons name who died from second-hand smoke? I don't think anyone is arguing that 1st hand smoke is bad for the smoker, but I'm still not agreeing with the numbers of deaths they say are due to second-hand smoke.
And I think my main argument on this law is that it is not a level playing field if casinos (privately owned and county owned - Prairie Meadows) allow smoking. If someone is hooked on cigarettes and lives in close proximity to a casino, they will be more apt to go to the casino rather than their local watering hole so they can smoke, drink, and gamble a little. Smoking needs to be banned across the board (except VFW's and veteran places because to protect my country, you deserve the right to smoke).
And my last point, which is my main stance, is that the marketplace was already going toward non-smoking with restaurants being basically smoke-free already, and numerous smoke-free bars popping up. So it gave "choice" to people where they want to go. No one forced non-smokers to go into establishments where there was smoking. If you didn't like smoke, don't go to places with smoke. Seems simple to me.
I'm a non-smoker. Never have smoked. But this law is unfair to business, unfair to smokers, and all about money. "
As for your stats on deaths, can you give me one persons name who died from second-hand smoke? I don't think anyone is arguing that 1st hand smoke is bad for the smoker, but I'm still not agreeing with the numbers of deaths they say are due to second-hand smoke.
And I think my main argument on this law is that it is not a level playing field if casinos (privately owned and county owned - Prairie Meadows) allow smoking. If someone is hooked on cigarettes and lives in close proximity to a casino, they will be more apt to go to the casino rather than their local watering hole so they can smoke, drink, and gamble a little. Smoking needs to be banned across the board (except VFW's and veteran places because to protect my country, you deserve the right to smoke).
And my last point, which is my main stance, is that the marketplace was already going toward non-smoking with restaurants being basically smoke-free already, and numerous smoke-free bars popping up. So it gave "choice" to people where they want to go. No one forced non-smokers to go into establishments where there was smoking. If you didn't like smoke, don't go to places with smoke. Seems simple to me.
I'm a non-smoker. Never have smoked. But this law is unfair to business, unfair to smokers, and all about money. "
cire wrote on Apr 17, 2008 8:43 AM:
" stenny1963, explain how this law assures a level playing field? Casinos are essentially just large bars that happen to have gambling as well. You can still drink, eat, and smoke in a casino..but now you can't smoke in every other establishment in the state. It's very obvious that the lobbyists influenced this decision.
Also, of course the state "can" regulate businesses, but that doesn't mean they're always right. At the very least, if you're going to pass something into law, you'd better make it the same for all businesses...which this law doesn't do. "
Also, of course the state "can" regulate businesses, but that doesn't mean they're always right. At the very least, if you're going to pass something into law, you'd better make it the same for all businesses...which this law doesn't do. "
think wrote on Apr 17, 2008 12:43 PM:
" AMTRAK tried it on the trains going to CA. Guess what. Unless you put cameras in the biffs good luck. The smoke rolling out and the people with a smile on their face. Are any of you going to stick your face in? "
gramma007 wrote on Apr 17, 2008 1:31 PM:
" I understand why casinos will be exempt from our new smoking ban. Sounds like a terrific case of covering ones backside! Now explain to me why the Iowa Vets Home in Marshalltown is special enough to be exempt. Do they also supply the state with some form of revenue?
We're suppose to believe this is a health concern and will save the lives of people forced to work where smoking is allowed. EXCUSE me! No one, since the days of slavery, has ever been FORCED to work somewhere they didn't want to.
My biggest complaint against this ban is pretty much the same as others-What's good for the goose is just as good for the gander. Casinos & the Veterans home are the same as my neighborhood restaurant/bar let's treat them the same in this instance.
Maybe if our wonderful state politicians wanted to actually save money in healthcare, they would crack down on the people that don't need or deserve the state aid they are receiving. "
We're suppose to believe this is a health concern and will save the lives of people forced to work where smoking is allowed. EXCUSE me! No one, since the days of slavery, has ever been FORCED to work somewhere they didn't want to.
My biggest complaint against this ban is pretty much the same as others-What's good for the goose is just as good for the gander. Casinos & the Veterans home are the same as my neighborhood restaurant/bar let's treat them the same in this instance.
Maybe if our wonderful state politicians wanted to actually save money in healthcare, they would crack down on the people that don't need or deserve the state aid they are receiving. "
pcorb wrote on Apr 17, 2008 2:26 PM:
" ok i just dont get it how can people say thinks like
i "respect your space you mine". you smoking anywhere NEAR me, let alone blowing it in my face is in no way, shape, or form "respecting my space". your putrid, filthy habit enters my space in public and now i get the last laugh... i have nothing against smoking...in private or with courtesy, the problem is that there are far too many filthy smokers who think it is their right to blow their nasty smoke in my direction. NOT ANYMORE! "
Do we filty smokers force you to go somewhere where smoking is allowed??? OH NO that is what is called "FREEDOM OF CHOICE" something i will lose on 7/1/08 This whole argument is just asinine meaning It is surprising that supposedly intelligent people can make such asinine statements. "
i "respect your space you mine". you smoking anywhere NEAR me, let alone blowing it in my face is in no way, shape, or form "respecting my space". your putrid, filthy habit enters my space in public and now i get the last laugh... i have nothing against smoking...in private or with courtesy, the problem is that there are far too many filthy smokers who think it is their right to blow their nasty smoke in my direction. NOT ANYMORE! "
Do we filty smokers force you to go somewhere where smoking is allowed??? OH NO that is what is called "FREEDOM OF CHOICE" something i will lose on 7/1/08 This whole argument is just asinine meaning It is surprising that supposedly intelligent people can make such asinine statements. "
stenny1963 wrote on Apr 17, 2008 2:57 PM:
" To answer the question of how this is a level playing field.Smoking is only allowed on the gaming floor in casinos.Smoking is prohibited in casino bars and in casino restaraunts therefore the casinos are not competing against any buisnesses covered in the ban. "
gkb32 wrote on Apr 17, 2008 3:36 PM:
" stenny, not sure if you're aware of this, but you can also drink on the floor of the casino and be served by a waitress on the floor of a casino and you can eat on the floor of the casino. So by taking the bar and restaurant out of the equation, it's still not equal. "
jcbr wrote on Apr 17, 2008 5:36 PM:
" all smokers boycott all indoor bars restarants state regulated casios / buy your cigs at indian casios some are 10 bucks a carton / crazy laws demand crazy ideas / be careful when you bbq the smoke doesnt drift to your nonsmoking neighbor / oh bbq s willbe banned next year sorry health hazard / tailgate parties is iffy "
jcbr wrote on Apr 17, 2008 6:18 PM:
" to all when i was near someone i always asked if they cared if i smoked / i honored their wishes / but when i was at a table already smoking and they told me to quit that is different / respect goes both ways / i have several freinds that dont smoke and i dont smoke near them / their choice and mine are respected / i feel human and not a anaimal / the pro and con we all agree smoking is unhealthy / after a few days i hope the salt rubbin stops and the gloom and doom cools down "
shouldbemayor wrote on Apr 17, 2008 8:00 PM:
" This is simple. Everyone agrees that casinos are getting a better deal because they give millions back to the state.
If you want to allow smoking in your bar, simply give back millions to the state. Case closed.
Those millions of dollars could help treat the people the second hand smoke in your bars make sick.
Casinos ONLY get to have smokers on the gambling floor. Perhaps you could all get gambling permits and put slots in your bars and problem solved.
Until then, abide by the law, enjoy your profits without giving back as casinos do, and have an ashtray auction. ASHTRAYS FOR SALE. GET YOUR ASHTRAYS HERE!!! "
If you want to allow smoking in your bar, simply give back millions to the state. Case closed.
Those millions of dollars could help treat the people the second hand smoke in your bars make sick.
Casinos ONLY get to have smokers on the gambling floor. Perhaps you could all get gambling permits and put slots in your bars and problem solved.
Until then, abide by the law, enjoy your profits without giving back as casinos do, and have an ashtray auction. ASHTRAYS FOR SALE. GET YOUR ASHTRAYS HERE!!! "
me wrote on Apr 17, 2008 10:51 PM:
" avee-of course we all day some day but i take the stat that Smokers have a 70% higher death rate than nonsmokers...i would assume it means something like they die sooner or they die of something like lung cancer or heart disease as opposed to just plain old age...are you saying smoking doesn't cause people to die????
gkb32- how is this all about the money? i don't agree with the casino excemption, but i will take what i can get. i know several people who are in the process of quiting smoking due to this new ban...less smokers equals less money brought in by that tax...less smokers equals less second hand smoke which equals less money spent on health care. i don't know anyone who has died of secondhand smoke directly...but maybe the doctors didn't want to tell my grandpa that his smoking caused my grandmas heart disease causing her to die at 61..who knows! or maybe the doctor didn't want to tell the parents of the baby that died os SIDS that lived next door to my father that their second hand smoke could have caused the babies death. or maybe the lady who goes to church with me that grew up in a house hold of parents that smoked, just like me, who only has ONE lung due to lung cancer didn't want to tell her parents hey you almost killed me! that stats are out there and yes they can be made to help argue one side over the other it happens. i grew up in a house with smoking parents. i had asthma, which i could have died from...moved out and it went a way. every winter i had really bad coughs...couple cases of bronchitis...moved out no more bad coughs. all reasons why i think this should be condidered child abuse...but whatever. employees of bars and resturants are exposed to smoke their entire shift...any where from 4-12 hours 5-6 days a week...you really think that doesn't add up over time?? "
gkb32- how is this all about the money? i don't agree with the casino excemption, but i will take what i can get. i know several people who are in the process of quiting smoking due to this new ban...less smokers equals less money brought in by that tax...less smokers equals less second hand smoke which equals less money spent on health care. i don't know anyone who has died of secondhand smoke directly...but maybe the doctors didn't want to tell my grandpa that his smoking caused my grandmas heart disease causing her to die at 61..who knows! or maybe the doctor didn't want to tell the parents of the baby that died os SIDS that lived next door to my father that their second hand smoke could have caused the babies death. or maybe the lady who goes to church with me that grew up in a house hold of parents that smoked, just like me, who only has ONE lung due to lung cancer didn't want to tell her parents hey you almost killed me! that stats are out there and yes they can be made to help argue one side over the other it happens. i grew up in a house with smoking parents. i had asthma, which i could have died from...moved out and it went a way. every winter i had really bad coughs...couple cases of bronchitis...moved out no more bad coughs. all reasons why i think this should be condidered child abuse...but whatever. employees of bars and resturants are exposed to smoke their entire shift...any where from 4-12 hours 5-6 days a week...you really think that doesn't add up over time?? "
Get Real wrote on Apr 18, 2008 10:07 AM:
" FANTASTIC, though it should have been banned in all public places.
Now I won't have to look at the poor infants and children subjected to their selfish parents and other adults like gramma puffing away in their face while the poor kids are trying to eat and BREATHE. Hopefully they will make a Law to keep it within so many feet of children as too many adults don't give a D about this, smoking in the vehicle, poor kid can't jump out.
They can't walk away from the wretched things and are forced to inhale it. Sad indeed.
And please stay away from the doorways the minimum distance you should. Unfortunately the smokers with manners have to now pay the price because of the jerks.
But that is why laws are made, not because of those that behave themselves, it comes because of those who wouldn't. "
Now I won't have to look at the poor infants and children subjected to their selfish parents and other adults like gramma puffing away in their face while the poor kids are trying to eat and BREATHE. Hopefully they will make a Law to keep it within so many feet of children as too many adults don't give a D about this, smoking in the vehicle, poor kid can't jump out.
They can't walk away from the wretched things and are forced to inhale it. Sad indeed.
And please stay away from the doorways the minimum distance you should. Unfortunately the smokers with manners have to now pay the price because of the jerks.
But that is why laws are made, not because of those that behave themselves, it comes because of those who wouldn't. "
pinzy76 wrote on Apr 18, 2008 2:59 PM:
" me.....notice I did not say DRUNK DRIVERS....you are so stuck on one subject and that is a non smoking world. There are other things that are going to kill a person....and they are CHOICES that YOU make for others every day on their behalf. You can choose for yourself of of the atmosphere you want to be in is all I was saying. My statement also said that you have a better chance of getting killed in a car accident than second hand smoke...any car accident in general...not a drunk driver...not even a driver that was smoking for that matter. "
me wrote on Apr 18, 2008 7:03 PM:
" pinzy-
There were an estimated 6,289,000 car accidents in the US in 1999. There were about 3.4 million injuries and 41,611 people killed in auto accidents in 1999. The total number of people killed in highway crashes in 2001 was 42,116, compared to 41,945 in 2000. An average of 114 people die each day in car crashes in the U.S. (http://www.unitedjustice.com/death-statistics.html)
can you explain to me how if more people die from second hand smoke each year then any type of car accident how do i have a better chance of dying in a car accident then by second hand smoke??? again...unless you can actually cite something to back up your claims what you think or says means nothing to me but my guess is there are people out there...maybe your family, friends, co-workers or some of the other yahoos on here that believe what you say...which just so happens to be FALSE. i applaud your effort though!!!!!! "
There were an estimated 6,289,000 car accidents in the US in 1999. There were about 3.4 million injuries and 41,611 people killed in auto accidents in 1999. The total number of people killed in highway crashes in 2001 was 42,116, compared to 41,945 in 2000. An average of 114 people die each day in car crashes in the U.S. (http://www.unitedjustice.com/death-statistics.html)
can you explain to me how if more people die from second hand smoke each year then any type of car accident how do i have a better chance of dying in a car accident then by second hand smoke??? again...unless you can actually cite something to back up your claims what you think or says means nothing to me but my guess is there are people out there...maybe your family, friends, co-workers or some of the other yahoos on here that believe what you say...which just so happens to be FALSE. i applaud your effort though!!!!!! "
me wrote on Apr 18, 2008 7:05 PM:
" oh and there are laws out there to protect me while i am on the road...speed limits, seat belts, drunk driving laws, and many other traffic laws...so actually you helped my cause! the government is here to protect us from dangerout things. you can't drive 150mph through my neighborhood and you can't smoke next to me in public come july 1! "
kmh714 wrote on Apr 20, 2008 1:40 PM:
" "me" I agree with you that you should not be exposed to second hand smoke if you dont want to. You have a choice and a opinion. What others are trying to say is that congress should be more concerned about other crimes that are more life threatening. I do agree laws should be concentrating on other issues that cause more harm. "
mad wrote on Apr 21, 2008 6:56 AM:
" I can't wait!till the day comes when all of these people for these laws that take away all of our rights when we will be told when we can drive our cars, go for a walk,or even leave the house! I'll just laugh and sit at home and smoke my cigs. "
me wrote on Apr 21, 2008 10:08 PM:
" mad- this bill is not about your rights as a smoker but the rights of those that decide not to smoke. the government regulates many, many things. when your walking and leaving your house causes problems for myself and many other millions of americans then we will have to relook at if you should really be able to go for a walk or leave your house! "
KMH714 wrote on Apr 25, 2008 4:33 PM:
" Why the goverment pushed to get this smoking ban passed is beyond me. This is not to protect someones health or life. The goverment should be passing a law to have more police officers patroling our streets. With all of the shooting, murders and home burglaries we have here in Iowa (Waterloo). We need to be protected from one another. "
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.
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.
~ADVERTISEMENT~
NEWS |
SPORTS |
COMMUNITY |
BUSINESS |
ENTERTAINMENT |
FEATURES |
OPINIONS |
OBITUARIES |
CLASSIFIEDS |
PRIVACY POLICY |
CONTACT US |
CARRIER PAGES
|
me wrote on Apr 15, 2008 11:52 AM: