RSS Feeds
 |
|
|||||||||||||
News » Breaking News
Article rated a 5
by 1
users |
~ADVERTISING~
Third Iowa bar faces loss of liquor license over smoking ban
FRED LOVE, Courier Des Moines Bureau
DES MOINES – A Clinton bar faces the revocation of its liquor license for allegedly failing to comply with Iowa’s public smoking ban, becoming the third Iowa bar to face such a penalty for smoking violations.
The Iowa Attorney General’s office filed a complaint against Manning’s Whistle Stop today after the Iowa Department of Public Health received 22 public complaints that the bar was violating the smoking ban between July 5 and Aug. 20.
Public health officials have sent three notices of potential violation to the bar since July, according to the complaint.
Clinton police observed individuals openly smoking in the bar and employees doing nothing to stop them during checks on Sept. 17 and Aug. 8, according to the complaint.
Police officers also noted that the required “no smoking” signs had not been posted in the establishment.
No hearing had been scheduled on the matter today.
The Iowa Alcoholic Beverage Division will hold hearings in October on alleged smoking ban violations at Fro’s Pub ‘n Grub in Wilton and Otis Campbell’s Bar & Grill in West Burlington.
The law allows for bars and restaurants to lose liquor licenses for violations of the smoking ban.
Contact Fred Love at (515) 243-0138 or fred.love@lee.net.
DES MOINES – A Clinton bar faces the revocation of its liquor license for allegedly failing to comply with Iowa’s public smoking ban, becoming the third Iowa bar to face such a penalty for smoking violations.
The Iowa Attorney General’s office filed a complaint against Manning’s Whistle Stop today after the Iowa Department of Public Health received 22 public complaints that the bar was violating the smoking ban between July 5 and Aug. 20.
Public health officials have sent three notices of potential violation to the bar since July, according to the complaint.
Clinton police observed individuals openly smoking in the bar and employees doing nothing to stop them during checks on Sept. 17 and Aug. 8, according to the complaint.
Police officers also noted that the required “no smoking” signs had not been posted in the establishment.
No hearing had been scheduled on the matter today.
The Iowa Alcoholic Beverage Division will hold hearings in October on alleged smoking ban violations at Fro’s Pub ‘n Grub in Wilton and Otis Campbell’s Bar & Grill in West Burlington.
The law allows for bars and restaurants to lose liquor licenses for violations of the smoking ban.
Contact Fred Love at (515) 243-0138 or fred.love@lee.net.
 |
 |
More Stories from News » Breaking News
Waterloo, Cedar Falls, INRCOG get flood relief moneyIowa depth chart lists Stanzi as starterPart of River Road closed for Deere workLinn Co. man dies in skid loader accidentPICTURE: N.Y. jury to deliberate cat cruelty case for 2nd dayBremer Co. fatal accident cause listedThird Iowa bar faces loss of liquor license over smoking banThunderstorms comingProsecution close to concluding case in Harlston murder trialCity reschedules Waste Management service hoursIowa fires 2 officials faulted in investigation 
Former county supervisor Mosley testifies in Damm caseJesup votes down referendum for new city hallPICTURE: Vazquez flops again in White Sox opener vs. Twins
fordman1962 wrote on Sep 23, 2008 4:11 PM:
" Anyone who allows smoking in the bars should have their liquor license pulled. No if's and's or butt's about it!!! "
shouldbemayor wrote on Sep 23, 2008 4:59 PM:
" gkb32- Spoken like a man who will not suffer a bit when the law closes these bars down! "
cf1981 wrote on Sep 23, 2008 6:39 PM:
" Open defiance of the law requires punishment. Good to see these jokers forced to close their doors. Perhaps if they decide to abide by the law they can have their businesses back.
You can't smoke in bars anymore! Get over it! "
You can't smoke in bars anymore! Get over it! "
truthiness wrote on Sep 23, 2008 9:42 PM:
" Take their license away! They chose to break the law, let them suffer the penalties. Otherwise more bars will do the same.
You may not like the law, but it is what it is until the law gets changed. "
You may not like the law, but it is what it is until the law gets changed. "
kclark1515 wrote on Sep 24, 2008 7:00 AM:
" gkb32, give me a break - unconstitutional? How so?
I agree with truthiness - you may not like the law, but it is what it is - so abide by it, instead of ignoring it!! Morons. "
I agree with truthiness - you may not like the law, but it is what it is - so abide by it, instead of ignoring it!! Morons. "
gkb32 wrote on Sep 24, 2008 7:26 AM:
" if "open defiance of the law requires punishment", as you put it, then I hope that when you drive, you a) are wearing your seatbelt, and b) are going at or below the posted speed limit. Otherwise, I want your license revoked. The speed limit is posted and the law, but I bet most of you "opening defy" that law by going above the speed limit. Maybe not, but I'm guessing. Also, you better never make a lane change without signaling, better make sure you come to a complete stop at stop signs before proceeding, etc. These are also known laws that if you don't abide, you should lose your driving privileges. Mom and pop bars aren't hurting anyone by allowing smoking. If you don't like it, don't go in. It's that simple. And as previous posts on this subject, I'm a non-smoker but think age-restricted establishments should be allowed to have smoking privileges. Can you tell me why you would disagree with that? "
shouldbemayor wrote on Sep 24, 2008 8:02 AM:
" gkb32, I'm glad you are on the same page as the rest of us now.
I am certain that if I was given 22 citations for seatbelt violations in less than two months, I would lose my PRIVILEDGE to drive. I am certain the same would ring true if I got 22 tickets for speeding in a month and a half.
I do disagree with you on the age-restricted establishments being able to smoke. It's not about kids, it's about second hand smoke, that kills no matter what age. You can't disagree with that because it is a FACT. Like gravity and 2+2=4.
Before you jump up and down about casinos and VFWs, I think it is stupid they are not included in the law. I guess the government is classifying them as the "ambulance and firetrucks" of your driving analogy. They can do what they want, and don't have to follow the rules that make everyone safer. "
I am certain that if I was given 22 citations for seatbelt violations in less than two months, I would lose my PRIVILEDGE to drive. I am certain the same would ring true if I got 22 tickets for speeding in a month and a half.
I do disagree with you on the age-restricted establishments being able to smoke. It's not about kids, it's about second hand smoke, that kills no matter what age. You can't disagree with that because it is a FACT. Like gravity and 2+2=4.
Before you jump up and down about casinos and VFWs, I think it is stupid they are not included in the law. I guess the government is classifying them as the "ambulance and firetrucks" of your driving analogy. They can do what they want, and don't have to follow the rules that make everyone safer. "
halfpint wrote on Sep 24, 2008 9:24 AM:
" I think that in some stupid way you have all broke the law!
You think your funny taken away smokers places to relax! You had it all before and just like a spoiled brat you wanted it all! I really could care less if they closed every bar in the world! They still sell it at the store! This was suposed to be a free country and what is freedom! Build your own bars and make them non smoking.
If it is that bad stay out of the bars smokers are in! N YES john14541 i agree, CONTROL FREAKS! You have issues and its not just because of the smokers! Smokes should have rights just like you and areas they can go enjoy their time! "
You think your funny taken away smokers places to relax! You had it all before and just like a spoiled brat you wanted it all! I really could care less if they closed every bar in the world! They still sell it at the store! This was suposed to be a free country and what is freedom! Build your own bars and make them non smoking.
If it is that bad stay out of the bars smokers are in! N YES john14541 i agree, CONTROL FREAKS! You have issues and its not just because of the smokers! Smokes should have rights just like you and areas they can go enjoy their time! "
carrot311 wrote on Sep 24, 2008 9:37 AM:
" What baffles me is, can police just stop into any establisment to see if laws are being enforced? Sounds a little bit like a version of Marshall Law. Can a Police Officer just stop into anyones house to see if they are abiding all laws. I dont think they can. This whole "law" stinks. A lot more than the smell of smoke. "
halfpint wrote on Sep 24, 2008 9:39 AM:
" It should be by choice! It is a non-smokers choice to go into a smokers bar! I do agree that the eating astablishments and shopping areas should be smoke-free and even at the work place but, give smokers something!
It is by choice!!! "
It is by choice!!! "
myvoicematterstome wrote on Sep 24, 2008 10:36 AM:
" Well this all comes down to the government wanting to control EVERYTHING we do. I'm actually surprised they don't have cameras in each and everyone of our homes. You can bet that the ole governor doesn't smoke or this would have NEVER been even brought up. Maybe we should take away his soda or his coffee. Ban that!! You can bet that he WILL NOT get voted into office again. All this one has done is divide the state more than it already was. Good goin there ole gov!! "
Fordman1962 wrote on Sep 24, 2008 11:07 AM:
" No it should not be about choice. I see the effects every day of what years of smoking does to the body. You say it's your choice no it's not you are addicted plain and simple. No one else should have to pay for your addiction by breathing in your filthy rotten second hand smoke. You want to go smoke go outside. Hopefully more of Iowa will be like Iowa City and ban it everywhere. "
Hawkeye4ever wrote on Sep 24, 2008 11:21 AM:
" Let's see...less liquor consumed, less chances of DUI's or alcohol related crime, less people dying of cancer via first hand and second hand smoke...where's the downside of this? "
chief wrote on Sep 24, 2008 11:25 AM:
" I agree if the bar breaks the law the pull the license close them down. Second hand smoke is as bad as smoking it your self. I wish that Iowa would outlaw smoking completely. It would eventually improve the health of people and cut down on the amount of money the state has to spend to care for the people that are sick due to smoking. "
cf1981 wrote on Sep 24, 2008 12:14 PM:
" I agree that the state did not go far enough with this smoking ban. Smoking in casinos, VFW buildings, etc, it all should have been banned. No exceptions.
Public safety is more important than an individual's right to light up, inject nicotine into their bloodstream and spread cancer-causing agents into the nearby breathable air.
And really, smoking is DISGUSTING! Why should we as a society make allowances for people who want to kill themselves?
Finally, it would be foolish to assume a private residence is the same as a place of business open to the public. "
Public safety is more important than an individual's right to light up, inject nicotine into their bloodstream and spread cancer-causing agents into the nearby breathable air.
And really, smoking is DISGUSTING! Why should we as a society make allowances for people who want to kill themselves?
Finally, it would be foolish to assume a private residence is the same as a place of business open to the public. "
gkb32 wrote on Sep 24, 2008 12:34 PM:
" shouldbemayor, you say second hand smoke kills. It supposedly kills thousands of people each year. Can you provide 20 names of people who died of second hand smoke? Where the primary/only cause was exposure to second hand smoke? You probably can't provide even one name. And as for your comment on the 22 violations for different driving infractions, if you had a cop watching you every day, you probably would have 22 violations. And also, you argue about age-restricted bars and protecting from second hand smoke. If you're a non-smoker and don't like being around smoke, you fail to explain why you would even go to such a place. It's your choice to go in there. And if 20% of Iowans smoke, what is wrong if Iowa had 20% of their bars allow smoking? Maybe require a smoking license. All workers would know they are working in a smoking environment. All patrons would know they are entering a smoking environment. I still have not heard one valid argument why this couldn't work so smokers and non-smokers could be happy. And as I've mentioned, if it's about saving supposed lives from second hand smoke, why not ban tobacco products period? Children who live with parents who smoke are not protected. Plus, people who actually smoke are not protected. If you truly cared about others, you'd want smoking products banned period. Right? "
Hawkeye4ever wrote on Sep 24, 2008 2:51 PM:
" For gkb32 and anyone else who is in favor of smoking in public places, here's statistics that came directly from the American Lung Association:
About 8.6 million people in the U.S. have at least one serious illness caused by smoking. That means that for every person who dies of a smoking-related disease, there are 20 more people who suffer from at least one serious illness associated with smoking and second hand smoke.
Smoking by parents is also associated with a wide range of adverse effects in their children, including exacerbation of asthma, increased frequency of colds and ear infections, and sudden infant death syndrome. Secondhand smoke causes more than an estimated 202,000 asthma episodes, 790,000 physician visits for buildup of fluid in the middle ear (otitis media, or middle ear infection), and 430 sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) cases each year.
Secondhand smoke involuntarily inhaled by nonsmokers from other people's cigarettes is classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a known human (Group A) carcinogen, responsible for approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 46,000 (ranging 22,700-69,600) heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers annually in the United States.18
For more information on smoking, please review the Trends in Tobacco Use report and Lung Disease Data in the Data and Statistics section of our website at www.lungusa.org, or call the American Lung Association at 1-800-LUNG-USA (1-800-586-4872). "
About 8.6 million people in the U.S. have at least one serious illness caused by smoking. That means that for every person who dies of a smoking-related disease, there are 20 more people who suffer from at least one serious illness associated with smoking and second hand smoke.
Smoking by parents is also associated with a wide range of adverse effects in their children, including exacerbation of asthma, increased frequency of colds and ear infections, and sudden infant death syndrome. Secondhand smoke causes more than an estimated 202,000 asthma episodes, 790,000 physician visits for buildup of fluid in the middle ear (otitis media, or middle ear infection), and 430 sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) cases each year.
Secondhand smoke involuntarily inhaled by nonsmokers from other people's cigarettes is classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a known human (Group A) carcinogen, responsible for approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 46,000 (ranging 22,700-69,600) heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers annually in the United States.18
For more information on smoking, please review the Trends in Tobacco Use report and Lung Disease Data in the Data and Statistics section of our website at www.lungusa.org, or call the American Lung Association at 1-800-LUNG-USA (1-800-586-4872). "
gkb32 wrote on Sep 24, 2008 3:54 PM:
" Hawkeye4ever, you still don't answer my simple, and I mean simple question. Why can't 20% of bars be allowed to have smoking? It's a simple question. If smoking is not illegal, why not allow age-restricted establishments, with possibly smoking licenses and waivers for workers operate?
Second question, you say second hand smoke is "responsible for approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths". Once again, give me 1 name. One persons name who died due to second hand smoke. I've googled and googled, and did find a woman in Canada that had no pre-existing lung issue who died of lung cancer, but she worked in a bar for over 30 years, basically day and night. That's an extreme case and it doesn't touch on any family history of cancer either.
I guess what I'm just trying to understand is, why can't those against smoking simply stay out of smoking bars? To me it seems so simple. If I don't like like going to a bar that has mosh pits because I don't want to get hit, I don't go. I don't demand that the bar stop having mosh pits due to me possibly getting hurt. Second-hand mosh pit injury. "
Second question, you say second hand smoke is "responsible for approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths". Once again, give me 1 name. One persons name who died due to second hand smoke. I've googled and googled, and did find a woman in Canada that had no pre-existing lung issue who died of lung cancer, but she worked in a bar for over 30 years, basically day and night. That's an extreme case and it doesn't touch on any family history of cancer either.
I guess what I'm just trying to understand is, why can't those against smoking simply stay out of smoking bars? To me it seems so simple. If I don't like like going to a bar that has mosh pits because I don't want to get hit, I don't go. I don't demand that the bar stop having mosh pits due to me possibly getting hurt. Second-hand mosh pit injury. "
nmerrill wrote on Sep 24, 2008 4:30 PM:
" I've seen the light, every smoker in Iowa should switch to chew. Everybody wins just watch your step. "
DaddyTJ wrote on Sep 24, 2008 4:46 PM:
" Personally, I think if a bar wants to allow smoking, they should be able to. If a bar wants to disallow smoking, they should be able to. That's the way it was before the law changed. No one forces non-smokers to be around people who smoke. That is THEIR choice. No one forces you to walk in a bar where people are smoking. Same goes with bowling ally's, or even workplaces. No one forces you to go in there. No one forces you to work there. It's your choice, so if you get cancer because of second hand smoke, it's your own fault, not us smokers.
The law is unconstitutional. It's prejudicial to those who CHOOSE to smoke. No one forces us to smoke, we choose to smoke. The Iowa Government has overstepped it's bounds once again when it comes to smokers. They raised taxes on cigarettes citing that smokers were the reason for high health care costs. Now they outlaw smoking in public places such as bars, bowling ally's, business's, heck, even business vehicles. Tell me why I shouldn't be allowed to smoke in my work truck (which I do anyway) when I'm the ONLY person to even sit in it. The only time anyone else is in the truck is when I'm not there and after the truck has been sitting for 12+ hours, the second hand smoke would not be in existence. It would simply smell in there.
You say cigarettes smell? I say your cologne/perfume smells...or just your body, does that mean we can pass a law barring you wearing that? Cars let off harmful toxins into the air, far more than cigarettes do, does that mean we should bar them? Certain food has chemicals added to it which are harmful, what is our "great" state doing to ban those?
See, for every reason you can come up with for why we should not be allowed to smoke in PUBLIC, I can give you 5 reasons why something else is far worse for you than secondhand smoke. The chances of a person dying of secondhand smoke are slimmer than the same person dying in a car accident...it's just a way for the Democrats to try to control our civil liberties. "
The law is unconstitutional. It's prejudicial to those who CHOOSE to smoke. No one forces us to smoke, we choose to smoke. The Iowa Government has overstepped it's bounds once again when it comes to smokers. They raised taxes on cigarettes citing that smokers were the reason for high health care costs. Now they outlaw smoking in public places such as bars, bowling ally's, business's, heck, even business vehicles. Tell me why I shouldn't be allowed to smoke in my work truck (which I do anyway) when I'm the ONLY person to even sit in it. The only time anyone else is in the truck is when I'm not there and after the truck has been sitting for 12+ hours, the second hand smoke would not be in existence. It would simply smell in there.
You say cigarettes smell? I say your cologne/perfume smells...or just your body, does that mean we can pass a law barring you wearing that? Cars let off harmful toxins into the air, far more than cigarettes do, does that mean we should bar them? Certain food has chemicals added to it which are harmful, what is our "great" state doing to ban those?
See, for every reason you can come up with for why we should not be allowed to smoke in PUBLIC, I can give you 5 reasons why something else is far worse for you than secondhand smoke. The chances of a person dying of secondhand smoke are slimmer than the same person dying in a car accident...it's just a way for the Democrats to try to control our civil liberties. "
thecaveman wrote on Sep 24, 2008 4:57 PM:
" It seems through this whole mess that we (tax payers of Iowa) have been caught up in right or wrong neverland and are quick and ready to judge those who live life differently. You can not legislate morality at the cost of simple civil rights. Freedom is defined as a citizen's choice to do as they like. It doesn't matter if your a smoker or not... wake up people! Whats next in line for the " I know what's good for you and you don't congress?" They are your liberties... watch them go one by one. The government is basically saying that you or I or small business owners can't make safe decisions for themselves ie.. smoking or running with scissors so they are going to make them for you. Which liberty of freedom is next? P.S. I'm a non smoker. "
think wrote on Sep 24, 2008 5:17 PM:
" FEN-PHEN Was suspected of the deaths of a few people and was banned. Vioxx was suspected of causing the deaths of a few people. Banned. Why is it that tobacco is still allowed? It kills more people than heroine. Maybe because the Government is addicted to the taxes it brings in. Get real, if they really cared tobacco would be in the same line as heroine. A drug with no medical use. Pay the Lug for a permit and he'll go away. "
hetfield wrote on Sep 24, 2008 5:29 PM:
" One, the smoking ban is now the law. if you want to fight it, then unseat every liberal in office in this state. until then, you break the law, you do the time! tough cookies.
Two, liberals who are complaining about this law, and increasing taxes, as will happen with any liberal tax governing body, are hypocrits!!! stop complaining and vote for conservatives! "
Two, liberals who are complaining about this law, and increasing taxes, as will happen with any liberal tax governing body, are hypocrits!!! stop complaining and vote for conservatives! "
dac100181 wrote on Sep 24, 2008 5:55 PM:
" halfpint; last i checked a bar is a work place for some people "
timberlake wrote on Sep 24, 2008 6:03 PM:
" I love civil disobedience to unjust laws. Light 'em up! Blow smoke in their face! After all, they've been blowing smoke up our dark region forever. "
nmerrill wrote on Sep 24, 2008 6:30 PM:
" "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which thery are accustomed." 10 points Hawkeye4ever from California where this comes from. Nov. 4th folks, remember who gave what allowed you to live the way you do and what your vote means for your children and grand children. I have given my vow to the constitution and hold it, let's see the value and foresight of those that truly made us able to speak freely on this WCF forum. Forget the Lib. vs Consv. issue for a second and focus on the basics. "
myk5873 wrote on Sep 24, 2008 7:36 PM:
" Since when is smoking in a bar a right of passage? Both non-smokers and smokers should be allowed to enjoy drinking establishments equally. Smokers simply have to step out side to have their smokes. If you smoke inside the only group that gets to enjoy the bar is the smoker. Now the non-smoker has to breath unwanted second hand smoke. Is this really that hard to understand people? My god get over it! "
me wrote on Sep 24, 2008 7:38 PM:
" coem on people. just get over it and follow the law! we all know the government is about making money, but with more people quiting or smoking less since this law has been passed they have to be making less money off of smokers. so maybe they really were doing it to protect the health of those who don't smoke.... "
just me wrote on Sep 24, 2008 9:15 PM:
" gkb32 - I will give you one - my mom.
She never smoked - my dad did. Cancer in her lungs and she was a stay at home mom.
There you go, you asked for one - one too many!!!! "
She never smoked - my dad did. Cancer in her lungs and she was a stay at home mom.
There you go, you asked for one - one too many!!!! "
Fordman1962 wrote on Sep 24, 2008 9:20 PM:
" You smokers just don't get it you are addicts. It's the same as heroin. See you at the hospital when you are struggling for breath "
shouldbemayor wrote on Sep 24, 2008 9:58 PM:
" gkb32, if I had a cop following me everyday, I would probably buckle my seatbelt, stay within the lines and not speed.
This bar refused to obey even the slightest part of this law. They didn't post the required signs, didn't get rid of ashtrays, didn't warn patrons, didn't stop the help from smoking and then, after being warned several times, got threatened with their liquor permit.
What should the government do when people choose to violate....no not just violate, when people choose to ignore laws because they don't like them?
His livelyhood is in question and it is NOBODY'S FAULT BUT HIS OWN.
If you don't like the law, vote out the lawmakers. Hire an attorney, take it to court.
Ignoring it does not make it go away. It is still the law!
If abortion were illegal and a woman killed a fetus because she didn't like the law, should we not prosecute because she ignored the law? Of course not. We should follow the letter of the law, and when caught breaking or ignoring it, pay the piper. He should lose his liquor license for at least a year. "
This bar refused to obey even the slightest part of this law. They didn't post the required signs, didn't get rid of ashtrays, didn't warn patrons, didn't stop the help from smoking and then, after being warned several times, got threatened with their liquor permit.
What should the government do when people choose to violate....no not just violate, when people choose to ignore laws because they don't like them?
His livelyhood is in question and it is NOBODY'S FAULT BUT HIS OWN.
If you don't like the law, vote out the lawmakers. Hire an attorney, take it to court.
Ignoring it does not make it go away. It is still the law!
If abortion were illegal and a woman killed a fetus because she didn't like the law, should we not prosecute because she ignored the law? Of course not. We should follow the letter of the law, and when caught breaking or ignoring it, pay the piper. He should lose his liquor license for at least a year. "
highrolla7 wrote on Sep 24, 2008 10:10 PM:
" Pretty soon it will be a nationwide law, not just certain states.
As for the ruling, I notice the bars that I go too are more busy- there are a lot of non-smokers that didnt go because of the smoke.
Im a "social" smoker, but just quit and I have to say that its great not smelling like an ashtray. Even better is the idea of being able to go bowling without smelling like a bar. Im glad I quit and this law is for the better. The air in the bars is so much more clear I have noticed.
As for the casino, I dont see them getting rid of smoking there, but thats okay- Im trying to quit all my bad habits "
As for the ruling, I notice the bars that I go too are more busy- there are a lot of non-smokers that didnt go because of the smoke.
Im a "social" smoker, but just quit and I have to say that its great not smelling like an ashtray. Even better is the idea of being able to go bowling without smelling like a bar. Im glad I quit and this law is for the better. The air in the bars is so much more clear I have noticed.
As for the casino, I dont see them getting rid of smoking there, but thats okay- Im trying to quit all my bad habits "
cf4life wrote on Sep 24, 2008 11:13 PM:
" I'm baffled by the posters who keep repeating the same phrase of "it's by CHOICE a non-smoker would go into a smoker's bar/restaurant/whatever." Why yes, it is by choice. Should that matter? Really?
When bars and restaurants allowed smoking, it automatically eliminated what, 80% of the establishments we could "choose" from? And it's interesting that an establishment that allowed smoking was automatically a "smokers bar" or "smokers restaurant"...and now that it's a "non-smokers bar" or a "non-smokers" restaurant, you complain. Shut up already! Non-smoking sections were an absolute joke, and you know it! Why should I be forced to go elsewhere just because YOU want to smoke during a meal? I don't! So now you are inconvenienced by the smoking ban, just like non-smokers have been for years.
That being said, I don't agree with stripping the rights of business owners with this ban, but it appears none of the affected smokers really care about that part anyway... "
When bars and restaurants allowed smoking, it automatically eliminated what, 80% of the establishments we could "choose" from? And it's interesting that an establishment that allowed smoking was automatically a "smokers bar" or "smokers restaurant"...and now that it's a "non-smokers bar" or a "non-smokers" restaurant, you complain. Shut up already! Non-smoking sections were an absolute joke, and you know it! Why should I be forced to go elsewhere just because YOU want to smoke during a meal? I don't! So now you are inconvenienced by the smoking ban, just like non-smokers have been for years.
That being said, I don't agree with stripping the rights of business owners with this ban, but it appears none of the affected smokers really care about that part anyway... "
Steady wrote on Sep 25, 2008 8:02 AM:
" The democrats have found themselves in a sticky situation here. The intent of this legislation was never to have any real teeth. I know of law enforcement that has been contacted by democratic senators about not actively enforcing this law. They were in the hopes of appeasing liberals without having consequences for business owners.
This law will never be settled or agreed upon by everyone. It comes down to perceived rights and people will always believe their rights out weigh the rights of others.
Do you have the right to walk into a bar and not smell smoke? Do you have the right to walk into the same bar and have a smoke? Do you have the right of a business owner to decide if you will allow smoking or not?
The government has just told us in this law that they believe the rights of a citizen that do not smoke is more important than those who own their own business.
My only concern is where this will stop. This law prohibits smoking in places that are inside and outside, private and public. Will they ever reach into your own home? Will you believe the same way you do now? I guess time will tell. "
This law will never be settled or agreed upon by everyone. It comes down to perceived rights and people will always believe their rights out weigh the rights of others.
Do you have the right to walk into a bar and not smell smoke? Do you have the right to walk into the same bar and have a smoke? Do you have the right of a business owner to decide if you will allow smoking or not?
The government has just told us in this law that they believe the rights of a citizen that do not smoke is more important than those who own their own business.
My only concern is where this will stop. This law prohibits smoking in places that are inside and outside, private and public. Will they ever reach into your own home? Will you believe the same way you do now? I guess time will tell. "
Stana wrote on Sep 25, 2008 8:46 AM:
" One of the bars here in Waterloo allows smoking as I was unpleasently surprised to find last week. There is no way in a work environment like a factory or simular setting, it would be legal for me to be exposed to all that smoke and chemicals.
After not being exposed to them for a while I was coughing and my eyes were tearing and I had to throw away my contacts "
After not being exposed to them for a while I was coughing and my eyes were tearing and I had to throw away my contacts "
stenny1963 wrote on Sep 25, 2008 9:52 AM:
" I'm a smoker and i don't understand what the problem is with the ban.When I go out for a couple cocktails with friends I now smoke alot less than i used to when the booze takes over.It's actually nice to step outside for a few minutes.Get over it folks.these bars that blatently break the law should pay what ever penalty is laid upon them.I know my watering hole hasnt suffered any because of the ban and i find it hard to believe anybody elses has too. "
cf1981 wrote on Sep 25, 2008 11:54 AM:
" I am amused by the belly-achers in this forum who whine about losing their precious freedom of spreading cancer-causing agents to others in public. Your selfishness and short-sightedness is truly shameful! "
hmmm214 wrote on Sep 25, 2008 12:11 PM:
" Yea sure, it's ok to get a little fresh air now - just wait 'til this winter when it's 40 below with the wind howling at 50 miles per hour and you have to go outside to have that smoke - where's your rights there? "
gkb32 wrote on Sep 25, 2008 1:44 PM:
" 'Think' hits the nail on the head. All of you praising the smoking ban should've demanded tobacco being banned, period. If it is so bad and causes so many deaths, why wouldn't it be outlawed. Like Think says, Fen-Phen was suspected in a handful of deaths and it was banned. Lead paint was suspected and banned. Asbestos was suspected and banned. Then why, oh why, if tobacco is so detrimental to society and causes so much death, why wouldn't our ever caring politicians demand for a ban on this killer? Money, right? The hypocrisy is what gets me. Ban it in bars to protect people, but not all people (casinos, veterans, actual smokers, children of smokers, etc.). That's what drives me crazy. You folks happy with the ban are so quick to pat your politician on the back for a job well done, but had casinos been included, those same politicians would have voted against it. You are happy with sell-out politicians with casino money in their pocket. "
truthiness wrote on Sep 25, 2008 1:50 PM:
" So Stana, if this bar allows smoking in it, why not name it here? It's not like they're going to know who named them. In addition, call the Dept. of Health complaint line to report them.
If you don't want smoking in bars and restaurants, but notice owners allowing it to happen, don't hesitate to report it. "
If you don't want smoking in bars and restaurants, but notice owners allowing it to happen, don't hesitate to report it. "
gkb32 wrote on Sep 25, 2008 3:15 PM:
" Another couple points I forgot. If some posters and politicians think that it will actually bring more people to bars/restaurants who didn't go because of the smoke, wouldn't that logic be the same for casinos? Aren't there 80% of non-smokers in Iowa who would like to gamble in a smoke-free environment? By that logic, casinos are missing out on a huge market. Right?
Another point. Second hand smoke does not GIVE you cancer. It may exasperate a pre-existing condition (like it would asthma), but it does not give you cancer. Cancer cells are already in your lungs. In your whole body for that matter. If second hand smoke caused cancer, wouldn't that mean that every single person who was around second-hand smoke get cancer? Wouldn't every actual smoker have lung cancer? By your logic, they ALL would. The fact is, smoke/smoking does not give you cancer. I think people are pre-disposed or they have a family history in order to get lung cancer because of numerous triggers. Whether that trigger is second hand smoke, car exhaust, radon, pesticides, burning leaves, air in general, etc. I know some non-smokers who have never been around a smoker/bar in their lives that died of lung cancer. How are those explained? It's the same with heart disease. Heredity. Some people eat bacon every day and live to be 90. Some do it and have a heart attack at 35. When it's your time, it's your time. Gov can't protect us from everything. Sometimes, it's about living your life and using your own judgment to protect yourself from what you feel you need to. Don't smoke, don't drink, don't eat fast food, don't go out in the sun, don't drive, don't do anything that could cause you to die.
And 'shouldbemayor', abortion used to be illegal and guess what, women went out and got abortions illegally anyway. They then had that law overturned. So thanks for making my point. "
Another point. Second hand smoke does not GIVE you cancer. It may exasperate a pre-existing condition (like it would asthma), but it does not give you cancer. Cancer cells are already in your lungs. In your whole body for that matter. If second hand smoke caused cancer, wouldn't that mean that every single person who was around second-hand smoke get cancer? Wouldn't every actual smoker have lung cancer? By your logic, they ALL would. The fact is, smoke/smoking does not give you cancer. I think people are pre-disposed or they have a family history in order to get lung cancer because of numerous triggers. Whether that trigger is second hand smoke, car exhaust, radon, pesticides, burning leaves, air in general, etc. I know some non-smokers who have never been around a smoker/bar in their lives that died of lung cancer. How are those explained? It's the same with heart disease. Heredity. Some people eat bacon every day and live to be 90. Some do it and have a heart attack at 35. When it's your time, it's your time. Gov can't protect us from everything. Sometimes, it's about living your life and using your own judgment to protect yourself from what you feel you need to. Don't smoke, don't drink, don't eat fast food, don't go out in the sun, don't drive, don't do anything that could cause you to die.
And 'shouldbemayor', abortion used to be illegal and guess what, women went out and got abortions illegally anyway. They then had that law overturned. So thanks for making my point. "
DaddyTJ wrote on Sep 25, 2008 3:29 PM:
" myk5873 wrote on Sep 24, 2008 7:36 PM:
" Since when is smoking in a bar a right of passage? Both non-smokers and smokers should be allowed to enjoy drinking establishments equally. Smokers simply have to step out side to have their smokes. If you smoke inside the only group that gets to enjoy the bar is the smoker. Now the non-smoker has to breath unwanted second hand smoke. Is this really that hard to understand people? My god get over it! "
Smokers and non-smokers should be able to enjoy a bar equally, but that's about the only part you're correct on. No one makes you go to a bar that allows smoking. If non-smokers should be able to enjoy a bar that is smoke free, why shouldn't smokers be able to enjoy a bar where they can sit inside and smoke?
Again, it comes down to the fact that if a bar wants to be smoke free, they should be able to put up signs saying they are smoke free. If a bar wants to allow smoking, they should be able to allow it. Why didn't our wonderful democratic-run legislature think to charge a "smokers" fee? Let any bar that wants to allow smoking, but make them buy a smoking license for something like $1000 a year. Think of the revenue that would create. "
" Since when is smoking in a bar a right of passage? Both non-smokers and smokers should be allowed to enjoy drinking establishments equally. Smokers simply have to step out side to have their smokes. If you smoke inside the only group that gets to enjoy the bar is the smoker. Now the non-smoker has to breath unwanted second hand smoke. Is this really that hard to understand people? My god get over it! "
Smokers and non-smokers should be able to enjoy a bar equally, but that's about the only part you're correct on. No one makes you go to a bar that allows smoking. If non-smokers should be able to enjoy a bar that is smoke free, why shouldn't smokers be able to enjoy a bar where they can sit inside and smoke?
Again, it comes down to the fact that if a bar wants to be smoke free, they should be able to put up signs saying they are smoke free. If a bar wants to allow smoking, they should be able to allow it. Why didn't our wonderful democratic-run legislature think to charge a "smokers" fee? Let any bar that wants to allow smoking, but make them buy a smoking license for something like $1000 a year. Think of the revenue that would create. "
cfreader wrote on Sep 25, 2008 5:21 PM:
" I love how GKB32 always ignored the posts that don't agree with him. You are such a hypocrite. Americans enjoy more freedoms than any other country, thus we do not outlaw smoking. It is YOUR choice to smoke, so why should I have to deal with it if I want to go have a drink? If you want to smoke, that's fine, that's part of the freedoms we enjoy, but when it come to public health, that's a different story. Your argument that says smoking has NO effect on cancer just shows how unreasonable you are being. Apparently you are a doctor or researcher or just know more than anyone else. Have fun smoking outside this winter. I'll be sure to say hi on my way in. "
the_bat wrote on Sep 25, 2008 10:27 PM:
" Frankly, the petty fascism of those who support this law is far more dangerous to the crumbling remnants of civilization than smoking could ever be. But, since they've gone this far, maybe they just need to go the rest of the way and ban public consumption of alcohol altogether. Drunk drivers, despite your bogus statistics, kill more innocent bystanders than secondhand smoke. So, let's just close down all the bars and disallow alcoholic beverages in restaurants altogether. And you anti-smokers out there? Don't waist your time complaining about it when they do. If they make it against the law, it'll be against the law.
^o^
—"I have one rule about smoking. I never smoke when I'm asleep." --Mark Twain "
^o^
—"I have one rule about smoking. I never smoke when I'm asleep." --Mark Twain "
shouldbemayor wrote on Sep 25, 2008 11:55 PM:
" gkb32, Your point was not that people should go through legal channels to get the law reversed. You applauded this bar for breaking the law.
Doctors who were caught giving abortions when they were illegal were punished, sometimes losing their license to practice medicine. Just as bars that choose to ignore the LAW will lose their ability to sell liquor.
I'm not sure that you remember what your point is, but you have done a wonderful job of proving mine, and showing everyone how low a smoker will go when things don't go your way.
You never answered my question. What dog do you have in the fight? Do you have money invested in the bars that are "fighting the good fight" or just someone who doesn't care when people break the law and get their livelyhoods yanked out from under them? "
Doctors who were caught giving abortions when they were illegal were punished, sometimes losing their license to practice medicine. Just as bars that choose to ignore the LAW will lose their ability to sell liquor.
I'm not sure that you remember what your point is, but you have done a wonderful job of proving mine, and showing everyone how low a smoker will go when things don't go your way.
You never answered my question. What dog do you have in the fight? Do you have money invested in the bars that are "fighting the good fight" or just someone who doesn't care when people break the law and get their livelyhoods yanked out from under them? "
gkb32 wrote on Sep 26, 2008 9:09 AM:
" First, 'cfreader', I'm a non-smoker, so I won't be smoking outside. Plus, I rarely go to bars since I have two young kids at home. And not sure how you got that I said smoking has "NO effect of cancer". I said it does if someone is suseptible to airborne triggers. Re-read it please.
'mayor', I don't have a personal dog in this fight. I don't smoke, or own a bar/restaurant, or even go out that often for that matter. My whole argument is the law is unjust and going to court (like women/doctors did back during Roe v. Wade) is what these "lawbreakers" need to do. They are forcing the hand of "the man".
I still don't understand why a non-smoker who doesn't like being around smoke, cannot make the personal choice/decision to not enter a bar that allows smoking (pre-ban we're talking). It would be like a smoker going into a bar that doesn't allow smoking prior to the ban, and demanding the bar allows them to smoke. It makes no sense. "
'mayor', I don't have a personal dog in this fight. I don't smoke, or own a bar/restaurant, or even go out that often for that matter. My whole argument is the law is unjust and going to court (like women/doctors did back during Roe v. Wade) is what these "lawbreakers" need to do. They are forcing the hand of "the man".
I still don't understand why a non-smoker who doesn't like being around smoke, cannot make the personal choice/decision to not enter a bar that allows smoking (pre-ban we're talking). It would be like a smoker going into a bar that doesn't allow smoking prior to the ban, and demanding the bar allows them to smoke. It makes no sense. "
truthiness wrote on Sep 26, 2008 9:32 AM:
" GKB32, before the ban, nonsmokers really didn't have a choice of where to go where there was no smoking allowed. All of the bars and restaurants allowed smoking in certain areas. At some places, smokers were seated next to non-smokers. At Applebees for instance, smoking was on the main level, but they seated non-smokers right next to them on the elevated level.
Even though non-smokers outnumbered the smokers in these places, a few smokers can stink up a place and make the evening not as pleasant. I believe business owners and chain restaurant operators are happy with the ban. They wouldn't institute a self-ban for the fear of potentially losing customers to a place that allowed smoking. However, now that the state has come in with the ban, it makes everything a level playing field.
Personally, I like the ban and wish it could extend to casinos. However, to be fair, the state should have started with smaller steps and allowed the over-21 bars/clubs to be exempt. But if you serve food, the ban applies. I think Sen. Dotzler had a proposal like that, but it failed. The over-21 exemption would add an interesting twist in the college towns, as bars on the Hill would have to not allow a certain number of students into their establishments. "
Even though non-smokers outnumbered the smokers in these places, a few smokers can stink up a place and make the evening not as pleasant. I believe business owners and chain restaurant operators are happy with the ban. They wouldn't institute a self-ban for the fear of potentially losing customers to a place that allowed smoking. However, now that the state has come in with the ban, it makes everything a level playing field.
Personally, I like the ban and wish it could extend to casinos. However, to be fair, the state should have started with smaller steps and allowed the over-21 bars/clubs to be exempt. But if you serve food, the ban applies. I think Sen. Dotzler had a proposal like that, but it failed. The over-21 exemption would add an interesting twist in the college towns, as bars on the Hill would have to not allow a certain number of students into their establishments. "
Steady wrote on Sep 26, 2008 11:43 AM:
" If this was such a terrible problem will the revenue for bars and restaurants increase around the state now? Hardly. Either side would be hard pressed to show that non-smokers stayed away before the law or smokers will stay away because of the law now.
I just believe people are missing the bigger point here. It is not about non-smokers & smokers rights. It is the right of that private business. "
I just believe people are missing the bigger point here. It is not about non-smokers & smokers rights. It is the right of that private business. "
gkb32 wrote on Sep 26, 2008 2:46 PM:
" 'truthiness', your last point hits the point I've been trying to make for the past 6 months or so. Over 21-bars/clubs should be exempt. I think smoking should not be allowed in restaurants. I hate having smoke around in restaurants. You can eat for 1 hour and not need a smoke. But age restricted bars should be allowed. Most people catching a game will be there for 3-4 hours or longer. No kids are around. And just bar food it served. As I've said, I live in DM and prior to the ban, there were numerous places here that went non-smoking; The Game, Legend's, Warrior Lanes, Plaza Lanes, most restaurants, etc. Those places were always busy and I think more places were going that way. The market was dictating it. Government didn't need to come in and dictate.
I don't think there would be any sort of "stink" if age restricted/21 bars were exempt. Create a smoking license (like alcohol license), post signs, and add verbiage to hiring documents so employees know they are working around smoke. Maybe offer reduction in license fees if bars have certain smoke-eaters/air purifiers or something. This law was hastily run through and didn't need to be. "
I don't think there would be any sort of "stink" if age restricted/21 bars were exempt. Create a smoking license (like alcohol license), post signs, and add verbiage to hiring documents so employees know they are working around smoke. Maybe offer reduction in license fees if bars have certain smoke-eaters/air purifiers or something. This law was hastily run through and didn't need to be. "
css wrote on Sep 28, 2008 11:17 AM:
" As a non-smoker, this law is wrong. Business owners should have the right to choose to be non-smoking or smoking.
All the business owner has too do is post a sign that says "This business is a smoking establishment" then those that don't smoke can go somewhere else.
But instead, some over-zealous Democrat in DSM uses an excuse to get it passed and the now the truth is slowly rearing its ugly head. Something tells me this smoking law will get changed next year. "
All the business owner has too do is post a sign that says "This business is a smoking establishment" then those that don't smoke can go somewhere else.
But instead, some over-zealous Democrat in DSM uses an excuse to get it passed and the now the truth is slowly rearing its ugly head. Something tells me this smoking law will get changed next year. "
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
|
gkb32 wrote on Sep 23, 2008 3:42 PM: