Smoking issue all about ability to make choices
They say second hand smoke kills; there are so many other things out there that kill, too. But the same people choose to do these things anyway. They take a chance on getting killed in their cars every day. What do they think factory pollution is doing to them? But they still choose to use those products coming from those factories because they have that choice. We all have choices to make. Some of us choose to smoke. We know it's a nasty habit, it stinks and they say it's bad for our health. But it's our choice.
I believe there will come a day when the government will make all our choices, maybe not 10 or even 20 years from now, but some day. That's just way beyond being wrong. Today it's smoking, tomorrow it may be something you choose to do. How will you like it then? So it sounds to me like this man needs to stay in Illinois and leave us Iowans alone. The government will get around to us soon enough. Until then, you make your choices and let me make mine.
Paula Ziles,
Keokuk
ADVERTISEMENT |
| Central Lee student seeks help with school project | Keokuk streets, street department short changed |
Reader Comments
caustic - boycott smokey restaurants wrote on Mar 20, 2008 9:27 AM:
"
Be fair wrote on Mar 19, 2008 8:05 PM:
be a fair decision either way. It seems the only way to leave its up to the business. It's just common sense. "
Mike wrote on Mar 19, 2008 1:05 PM:
I fully agree that those with a habit, should not force others to participate in their habit. When I drink coffee at a restaurant, everyone at the table is not required to drink my coffee. When I have a beer, there is not requirement for everyone else to share my beer. When I decide to eat a nice think fatty chunk of prime rib, everyoen else can choose ot eat what they want. But when someone smokes, I am forced to either not enter the establishment or share their cigarette with them.
Why are some smokers so selfish about this issue. Banning cigarettes altogether is the simpleist and most logical solution, but I agree that would be going too far. The compromise is to ban it from indoor public places so not everyone is forced to share a smokers drug habit.
I'm not perfect myself. I have several habits. I exercise habitually, but I don't rub it in the face of those who don't. I consume caffine, but I don't need to take a coffee break 2 or 3 times a day. I ride motorcycles, but I always wear a helmet, jacket, boots and gloves, carry full insurance, have a quiet stock exhaust system and with a few exceptions, I ride within 5-10mph of the posted speed limit mainly to keep up with the flow of traffic and remain conspicuous.
If someone said motorcycles should not be operated between 10PM and 7AM because of noise (I hate loud motorcycles too). I'd disagree and say that a sound limit should be proposed, not a complete ban.. although EPA limits on noise alreay exist, but are not enforced. If they said motorcycles are too dangerous and cause an unfair health insurance burden on non-riders, then I'd reccomend mandatory helmet use, stricter rider licensing, reasonable HP limits, and be willing to increase my premium for medical insurance coverage to fairly reflect the statistical increase in risk.
Rational and mature adults listen to both sides and look for a fair compromise. "
Doug Buckert wrote on Mar 19, 2008 11:15 AM:
http://www.pjstar.com/stories/031908/REG_BG3IPNK3.033.php "
Al Smith wrote on Mar 18, 2008 11:39 PM:
Read the Constitution; smoking isn’t mentioned. Neither is the much-vaunted “freedom of choice,” by the way. Look it up. You are guaranteed freedom of speech, along with many other rights, but there is no Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of choice. Neither is there a Constitutionally guaranteed right to smoke..
It is quite understandable that smokers would believe that they are being discriminated against when smoking bans are enacted. People who are addicted to any drug react negatively when the opportunity to indulge in their drug of choice is restricted. I would probably react the same way if someone tried to prohibit me from indulging in caffeine.
There is a huge difference between my caffeine consumption and a nicotine addict’s smoking, however. I can sit and drink my Diet Coke any place where beverages are allowed without harming a single soul. A smoker who indulges in his or her drug habit, on the other hand, is a danger to anyone unfortunate enough to find themselves downwind of that person’s toxic cloud. This is especially true for young children and people of any age who suffer from chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma.
I agree that there should probably be places where the small minority that smokes should be permitted to gather and poison their own lungs. Bars and casinos are reasonable candidates.
Smoking should absolutely be banned, however, from public place where children are permitted to be present. Sounds like a reasonable compromise to me.
"
Outside smoking wrote on Mar 18, 2008 1:09 AM:
I read all the comments about our elected officials and going outside to smoke .First I would like to say our elected officials swear an oath to support the constitution .But how many of them pass laws that violate it all the time .We are to have the freedom to do what we want as long as it doesnt infringe on the rights of others.I might not mind if our officials respected our liberties .With me its not as much the smoking as the right to smoke if I want too .Just as some of these people are already talking about people in cities smoking out side bothered them .Farmers not being able to smoke in their fields .I read about people not being allowed top smoke on the beach. Just as with all our rights and freedoms have been steadily eaten away by government .This is just the start and before you know it they will be putting you in jail or prison for smoking cigarettes We have the (freedom of choice) it is the owner of the properties right to choose what he wants to do in his buisness that he ownes and pays the taxes on ,no one elses .Government has alredy enslaved us by taking our wages with out us having a choice .Controlling what we can put in our bodies with out us having a choice .Now controlling what we can do with our property with out us having a choice .Slavery >to be controlled by an outside force Slavery is just illegal for private persons now as we have all been committed to slaves by government .If we refuse we are imprisoned to to be enslaved to a greater extent .(Land of the free) Something is terribly wrong .Look at our prisons "
WQent downtown to see for myself wrote on Mar 17, 2008 3:23 PM:
Ruth G wrote on Mar 17, 2008 12:18 PM:
Mike wrote on Mar 17, 2008 9:34 AM:
I decided to start stealing gas because I can't afford my speeding tickets. Let's lift speeding laws.
Almost 100 years ago someone might have said....
My family owns a farrier business, these mecahnized tractors and automobile inventions have hurt our business, all motorrized vehciles should be outlawed.
-or-
My family owns a candlemaking shop. This electricity invention has killed our business, I propose we ban electricity.
I once had a girlfriend that didn't like going through the self check-out lines at Walmart because it took away the job of a cashier. I told her computers put millions of people out of work, but allows average salaries in the US to grow. We wouldn;t consider banning computers becase draftsmen and file clerks were now more effecient at their jobs. We didn't last long, I couldn't date someone that ignorrant. "
J wrote on Mar 15, 2008 11:37 AM:
To the woman with a mother who has asthma, I feel bad for you but should we tailor all of our laws to suit her needs? This is all about choice. If people are so passionate about wanting a smoke-free environment they should lobby their favorite eating/drinkning establishment to go smoke-free. This is the American way to do things. You think Hy-Vee just went smoke-free cause it was a nice thing to do? No, they received enough complaints and realized they needed to do this to keep the majority of their customers happy. So vote with your wallets, support an establishment that suits your needs, and boycott those that don't. Just LEAVE YOUR LAWS OFF MY CHOICES. "
mike wrote on Mar 14, 2008 2:45 PM:
So if I'm disabled and can't walk up stairs, instead of requiring a business to build a ramp, I should just turn around and go home? That's the same thing as saying that a non-smoker with a sensitive reperatory system should simply go home instead of being FREE (we love that word don't we) to enjoy a meal where they choose.
Fine, I won't disagree that the government exagerates the health risks to prove their point. But fo a less than scientific test, lets take a 30 year old non-smoker and a 30 year old smoker of similar size and both are out of shape. Lets have both of them start running up a set of stairs until they are coughing so hard they cannot continue. Being out of shape, both will struggle with this contest. Which do you think will stop first? What would this say about hte health issues related to cigarette use compared to other substances such as caffine, alcohol, and chewing tobacco.
My mother has asthma and is sensitive to cigarette smoke. She cannot enter any bar, and many restaurants without having the risk of going to the hospital because her airway has closed. She does not have thsi reaction from car exhaust, dust, polloen or other allergens. Only strong chemical odors or smoke. A colleague at work has a wife with the same problem.
Gasoline engines do not emit particulates, if they are a 6000lb SUV, or a 2500lb compact car. Smokers do. Burning leaves does (I also think that practice should be banned inside city limits).
You don't light campfires or burn leaves indoors. That would be rediculous. There are large fume hoods over fryers and open grills in the kitchen areas for a reason. Filling a room with smoke from a grill would be unhealthy. Yet it's tolerates when individuals need their chemical fix.
Perhaps restaurants should allow smoking if large dust hoods are mounted over the designated smoking tables. Seriously, that would be good enough to satisfy me. This is how OSHA handles other hazardous chemicals in workplaces such as labs.
Even smoking outside can be a problem. I visited NYC several years ago. On a busy street, you might see 1 in 10 or even just 1 in 20 people smoking. Due to the number of people on the street, you constantly had somebody wihtin 10-15 feet of you smoking. It was one of the many reasons that I decided not to consider living there after college. "
Eric Richard wrote on Mar 14, 2008 12:34 PM:
Take a moment to read what you wrote. "Well, if you know there are smokers in there, you have the choice not to go in."
Non smokers aren't the ones causing the health issue, right? This law needs to be passed, and soon. Whenever I come back to Keokuk, I cringe when I have to go somewhere to eat, and there's people lighting up all over the place. I shouldn't have to worry about fresh air while trying to enjoy a meal. "
Roger A wrote on Mar 14, 2008 10:20 AM:
BILLIONS, that money was used for everything from schools to roads to pork barrel spending. Only %1.1 was used for smoker sessation programs. Even though th U.S. Govornment concluded that tabacco company's manipulated the content of tabacco in order to increase addiction. Why would the government NOT want us to quit smoking you ask? #2 Because smokers paid $2.3 billion in taxes last year that nosmokers didn't pay. #3 The "fact" of second hand smoke is a falacy. Any study in order to be deemed efficient requires "%2.5 of any population to abtain a specific out come of %95 of participants,(United State Sergion General), however when the scond hand smoke testing was done they lowered the standards to %1.5 of %85 of participants. 20 times more strict than the testing used to determine if Sacarin was cancerous!!! And finally #4, as people complain about my second hand smoke and I dutifully step16 feet away from the entrance to have my smoke, I watch them cruise away in thier SUV and ingest thier exhaust with my niccotine, I wonder...should we have an exhaust tax too??? "
roger a wrote on Mar 14, 2008 9:55 AM:
mike wrote on Mar 14, 2008 9:29 AM:
For
http://www.tcsg.org/sfelp/economic.htm
http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/newsroom/200603/20060320-nr_SmokingBanStudy.asp
Against
http://www.forces.org/writers/kjono/files/economic_impact.htm
http://www.tlw.org/public/content/Documents/Smoking%20Ban/MN_Smoking_Ban.pdf
There's acutally more articles to be found against smoking bans. Although I think this blog proves that those against the smoking ban are more passionate about lossing a privledge they currently enjoy. I have trouble seeing smoking as a right. Clean drinking water is a right. Breathing clean air is a right. Safe food to eat is a right.
Look a prohabition in the 1920's. Although there was marked increase in organized crime in hte cities. Data supports that the primary goal to reduce domestic violence was sucessful outside the sities. There were fewer drunken husbands beating their wives. Although many breweries and alcohol manufacturers went out of business, the stronger ones survived and moved on. Bars and resturants that cater more to smokers or are mor efrequented by smokers may see a decline in revenues. I challenge that any business that failed due to the smoking ban was marginal already, or wasn't flexible enough to ride out the initial drop in revenues or attach a new mix of patrons.
Should we feel bad for Tobacco companies since revnues of cigraettes continues ot decrease? No, those companies have smart executives. they started diversifying ot other industries over 20 years ago. They knew there was an inevitable decline, so they moved on to other markets.
Like most arguments, you're not going to convince the other side to change their minds. I'm sorry if some small businesses close due ot lost revenue from smokers. But who's fault is that? The smokers could choose to continue ot support the establishment that they act so loyal to. If they had true conviction and sympathy, they would help patronize bars to support them after the ban, rather than sulk like a spoiled child.
If I had a bar in Koekuk, I would be making plans to build a covered outdoor smoking area 15' from the entrance now before the ban takes effect. Some restaurant owners in staes that passes smoking bans reported that they had difficulty obtaining the required zoning changes or building permits to build a covered area after the bans.
As a concession, the legislature, in conjunction with existing small business programs might consider making matching funds available for bar and restaurant owners to build covered outdoor areas for the purpose of accomidating smokers..
Ultimately nobody is going to change the opinions of either side. People do not like ot be told what they can or cannot do, but ultimately in poltics, public opinion and the majority rules. 75%+ are non-smokers, so while many have been accomidating in tolerating smoke for years, the time has come to do the right thing for employees and patrons in all public places. "
freebyrd wrote on Mar 14, 2008 8:49 AM:
Mike Byrne wrote on Mar 13, 2008 9:36 PM:
Mike wrote on Mar 13, 2008 9:18 PM:
I got back form dinner at the Warsaw Brewery tonight. Business seemed about the same I remember form last Fall for a week day evening. I ordered 2 beers and enjoyed dinner and a nice conversations. I previously would have only ordered 1 beer, and left much earlier. I didn't need to change my clothes and take a shower when I got home. The group I was with normally meets at a bar in Keokuk.
The hazardous waste anaology made a good example. A individual living in rural area might want to dump toxic chemicals and waste on their property. A company might even pay them to take the waste. It's theri property, why not? Why, because those chemicals will find their way to public water sources and impact the community. Absolute freedom is called anarchy. We live in an organized society with restructions on freedom for the benefit of the majority. The difference between a Nazi dictatorship or Communism, is that we have the ability to elect the oliticians that elect us. You can meet with thsoe politicians, write them letter and otherwise plede your case. In a police controlled state, they simply throw you in jail for disagreeing with the government.
The US was founded on the freedom to GOVERN OURSELVES, not on the freedom to do whatever you desire. Our disagreement was that the colonies were controlled by a Monarchy, Nobility and a Parliment where we had no elected representation. "
Won't hurt business wrote on Mar 13, 2008 8:47 PM:
I appreciate your reasoned opinions. You carry on a good debate.
To reverse your argument, why can't smokers understand that non-smokers want a clean environment in which to eat, drink, etc.?
What does the non-smoker do to infringe on the rights of the non-smoker? Nothing. But what does the smoker do to the non-smoker? Fouls the air with smelly, deadly carcinogens.
Why can't smokers take their habit outside, in the wide open, where it won't foul the quality of indoor air? Many states are requiring it, and you would be surprised how few problems it really has caused. "
Mike Byrne wrote on Mar 13, 2008 7:53 PM:
Won't hurt business wrote on Mar 13, 2008 6:41 PM:
You make some rather brash statements that simply are not true. You say that non-smokers are non-drinkers. This is not true.
This from WebMD: Americans are drinking alcohol more often, and beer is back on top as the beverage of choice, according to a new Gallup Poll....The poll, conducted July 6-9 among a national sample of 1,007 people aged 18 and older, showed 64% of Americans say they drink alcoholic beverages.
And this from the American Lung Association:
In 2005, an estimated 45.1 million, or 21.0 percent of, adults were current smokers.
So if 60 percent of Americans drink but only 20 percent of Americans smoke, there are a lot of drinking non-smokers.
As someone in the latter category, I would love to be able to go out for a social drink without coming home smelling like an ashtray.
"
Smoke free wrote on Mar 13, 2008 6:40 PM:
Mike Byrne wrote on Mar 13, 2008 6:06 PM:
Won't hurt business wrote on Mar 13, 2008 5:20 PM:
Just My Opinion wrote on Mar 13, 2008 3:55 PM:
KKS wrote on Mar 13, 2008 12:26 PM:
You need to read the post from Al Smith. Business owners have all sorts of regulations that they must adhere to. This is nothing new. There's no law against eating expired meat, but restaurants still aren't allowed to serve it to their customers. There's no law against cockroaches, but if a restaurant is filled with cockroaches, they're going to be fined. There's no law against being naked, but business owners aren't allowed to have naked dancers on their sidewalks. We can't live in a world without regulations. You wouldn't like it. That doesn't mean that we live in a NAZI society. "
Mike Byrne wrote on Mar 13, 2008 5:59 AM:
Al Smith wrote on Mar 12, 2008 10:32 PM:
In each case, someone’s liberties have been restricted, but not their rights. Why? Because there’s no such thing as a right to serve tainted food, to urinate or defecate on sidewalks, or to dump chemicals into waterways – just as there’s no such thing as fundamental right to indulge in a toxic addictive drug in a public place.
Each behavior has been tolerated in the past. Each is now prohibited - in the interest of public health. And the time has finally come for the restriction of smoking in public places - in the interest of public health. "
Yes, Let's Talk Freedom wrote on Mar 12, 2008 9:49 PM:
"
Mike Byrne wrote on Mar 12, 2008 4:15 PM:
Mike wrote on Mar 12, 2008 3:07 PM:
If I go to a bar but I'm a designated driver, I don;t want to drink any alcohol. However, the positon that some argue would say that when I go to a bar, if other drinkers are drinking beer, then I need to also drink a beer.
When smokers are smoking, I am smoking, they are making their chose for me. When someone else is having a beer, I'm not forced to consume their beer. If someone is chewing tobacco, I don't have to chew with them.
The only argument left is that non smokers that can't tolerate smoke, should simple not patronize those establishments. Please read that sentence 3 or 4 times, and then tell me whose rights are being restricted.
I'm not saying we need to ban chewing tobacco, caffine, alcohol or other legal substances. All of those have health risks at different consumtion levels and are potentially as hazardous as smoking.
But none of those others affect me directly when I'm in an enclosed space or downwind. This is the fundamental difference and the whole point of the ban. We're not banning it because it's unhealthy for the users, we're banning it because it's unhealthy and a nuisance for those around the user that do not wish to smoke. Why is this such a difficult concept to convey to some people? "
Eric Richard wrote on Mar 12, 2008 10:57 AM:
Mike Byrne wrote on Mar 12, 2008 1:41 AM:
Response to Mike wrote on Mar 11, 2008 2:18 PM:
There is no smoking in public buildings, work places, hospitals, stores, fast food joints, airplanes, and many other public places. There are very few indoor places left for smokers to smoke, and yet you want to take that away now. The only place I see for them to smoke after this lastest push, is outside and that is even becoming a issue now.
You try to make this smoking issue sound so innocent and the smokers are to blame for not wanting to work this out. Well I would say they have done their part and now you are not only infringing on their last rights as smokers, the last places they have to smoke without distain and ridicule, but you are also infringing on the rights of private business owners taking their rights away from them concerning their own establishments. Only they have the right to choose if they want their private business they pay for non smoking or smoking.
I don't like drinking and I personally don't want to be around people who are drinking, so I don't go in bars and when possible I choose resturaunts that don't service alcohol, that is my choice and my freedom, or does that mean I have to right to tell you or anyone else that drinks, you should not be allowed in public places either.
No matter how you spin this, it is wrong, not legal and not just, but like so many in power and with the money to control these days think they can spoon feed the masses into slavery or servitude for the better good. Where have I heard that before in history and what is going to be the next better good and the next, next, and next.
That is the scarey part what is next!. "
WHOA wrote on Mar 11, 2008 11:47 AM:
Mike wrote on Mar 11, 2008 9:02 AM:
Be open minded and honest and consider who is being selfish? The smokers or non-smokers?
Hospitals, airplanes, fast food restaurants, government buildings and many other public places have been non smoking for a long time. They all recognized that smoking was a nuisance and/or harmful and banned it from their buildings. Bars and larger resaurants are hesitant because they are more heavily patronized by smokers. "
"Cry Freedom you left out some! wrote on Mar 11, 2008 3:08 AM:
Car Seats for our children, I would do that anyway, but I don't like being told I have too.
We can't buy cold medicine unless we sign for it.
We have to pay taxes for things we don't recieve
Our tax dollars are spent for abortions, that is not my choice.
now they are going to give our social security dollars to people who have earned it in anyway and aren't even American, then what happens to us who counted on it, the ones who did pay it when it is all gone.
Yes it is time we stop this type of governing before we aren't free anymore and our children and grandchildren are forced to live a life of slavery or die to be free. "
are you serious wrote on Mar 10, 2008 11:27 PM:
Iowan wrote on Mar 10, 2008 10:35 PM:
"Cry Freedom" wrote on Mar 10, 2008 8:06 PM:
We are loosing our Freedoms inch by inch, do you actually think the government won't hit on a freedom of yours, the way the are governing now we are headed into socialism now. I would expect this if I lived in China but I don't I live the land of the free, the United States of America.
Look at the record, First is was,
Seatbelts
then
Pray in school
then
Pray in public
then
it has been religious freedoms
then
smoking
now it is
fat
would any of you or your family happen to be overweight, well don't go to Mississippi because if your BMI is to high you will not be allowed to eat at any resturaunts or the Resturaunt owner will loose his license.
We are Americans, we can make our own choices without the government telling us by law what we should or shouldn't be doing, we are not a heard of dumb animals that have to be hearded through life or is this what the majority of this country wants.
Cry Freedom, before we don't have the freedoms we have fought for and died for, or would you like to do that again only this time instead of reading about it, you live it and all it's horrors. "
Sue Payne wrote on Mar 10, 2008 7:06 PM:
complainers wrote on Mar 10, 2008 5:48 PM:
Complainers ,some people just have to complain about something .To make some one else miserable .That's why even though I don't smoke i set in the smoking section . Just because smokers seem like sociable people . The comment about the person at the next table affecting your health or making your clothes smell bad .How long has it been since you been in a restaurant that doesn't have another room or at least section away from smoke Nazis . But that's not good enough . They have to be completely out of the building and 10 feet away from it . Whats next smokers wont be able to go in places because they make nonsmokers clothes smell bad. Its more laws that are illegal ,Because slavery was made illegal by the constitution.Thats what our government has come to .Until 1914 we owned our bodies it was unconstitutional for government to tell us how to care for them .Or to take our money or property .Now they take what they want from our wages .They tell us what we can put in our bodies .They take our right to drive .They tax our property and take it if we refuse to pay The constitution says travel is an unrestricted right and he who takes nothing from the state owes nothing to it .All these things constitute a slave to the master .But what is a slave but some one controlled by an outside force .Every thing our government does is opposite the constitutional principles .These idiots that keep wanting more laws because it makes some one else miserable .Have no idea what kind of tyranny and oppression they are installing on the lives of their children .Who will either be totally enslaved not knowing what freedom is growing up enslaved and being told they are free .Or be lucky not to be killed when people try to revolt and cast off the chains of tyranny .Cant any of the brain washed idiots read the declaration of independence and see we are in a similar state of government now. Only the people have little chance of breaking free now days with out massive casualties being inflicted and the longer we idly accept our fate the worse it will be "
519 wrote on Mar 10, 2008 4:22 PM:
TRUTH HURTS DOESN''T IT? wrote on Mar 7, 2008 11:39 PM:
Mike Byrne wrote on Mar 7, 2008 4:53 PM:
| Please log in or create an account by filling out the form on the right. | |


Roger wrote on Mar 21, 2008 4:23 PM: