Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
Smoking ban all about the money - not health
Hurray for Larry Duncan. This is one man the government isn't going to bully. Duncan is right. It is not about public health. It is about the money. Follow the money, he said, and that is exactly right.
My husband had a heart attack five years ago and ended up with a quadruple bypass. His heart doctor and family doctor both told him his heart attack was not caused from smoking. They also said second hand smoke is no more dangerous then in an area where there is smoke from a fire.
They both told him smoking does not cause heart attacks or strokes. They told him his body is immuned to the nicotine and when you quit is when you get sick. The heart attack comes from the lifestyle you lead and food you eat.
Stop and think people. How many friends, relatives or family members were in good health who smoked? What happened to them when they quit? My great grandfather smoked a lot and he died at 98 and no sign of cancer. My father smoked for 60 years and when he died no sign of cancer. My grandfather died at 78 of lung cancer and he never smoked.
When my doctor was talking to me about the pneumonia I had and he asked if I smoked, I told him not to preach to me about smoking and cancer because I know better that smoking does not cause cancer. Guess what people. He told me he knows that but being in the medical profession he is required to tell me that. Proof your doctor will lie to you when money is involved.
Support Duncan on this. No one put a cigarette or cigar in your hand and said you had to smoke it.
As far as it also being a deterrent for underage to smoke, how stupid you are. You should realize when you tell a kid they can't do something that is the first thing they are going to do. Remember we were all underage at one time. Why do you think the underage drink? It's fun and it's illegal. Legalize them both and you will see the usage go down. That is a fact.
Janice Mercer,
Montrose
My husband had a heart attack five years ago and ended up with a quadruple bypass. His heart doctor and family doctor both told him his heart attack was not caused from smoking. They also said second hand smoke is no more dangerous then in an area where there is smoke from a fire.
They both told him smoking does not cause heart attacks or strokes. They told him his body is immuned to the nicotine and when you quit is when you get sick. The heart attack comes from the lifestyle you lead and food you eat.
Stop and think people. How many friends, relatives or family members were in good health who smoked? What happened to them when they quit? My great grandfather smoked a lot and he died at 98 and no sign of cancer. My father smoked for 60 years and when he died no sign of cancer. My grandfather died at 78 of lung cancer and he never smoked.
When my doctor was talking to me about the pneumonia I had and he asked if I smoked, I told him not to preach to me about smoking and cancer because I know better that smoking does not cause cancer. Guess what people. He told me he knows that but being in the medical profession he is required to tell me that. Proof your doctor will lie to you when money is involved.
Support Duncan on this. No one put a cigarette or cigar in your hand and said you had to smoke it.
ADVERTISEMENT |
Janice Mercer,
Montrose
 |
||
| Tower Road closing has far reaching implications |
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of dailygate.com.
The real dangers to our healt wrote on Sep 20, 2008 2:37 PM:
" THE APOCALYPTIC DANGER OF WIRELESS RADIATION
By Amy Worthington, Idaho Observer
Prior to 1996, the wireless age was not coming online fast enough, primarily because communities had the authority to block the siting of cell towers. But the Federal Communications Act of 1996 made it nearly impossible for communities to stop construction of cell towers "even if they pose threats to public health and the environment. Since the decision to enter the age of wireless convenience was politically determined for us, we have forgotten well-documented safety and environmental concerns and, with a devil-may-care zeal that is lethally short-sighted, we have incorporated into our lives every wireless toy that comes on the market. We behave as if we are addicted to radiation. Our addiction to cell phones has led to harder "drugs" like wireless Internet. And now we are bathing in the radiation that our wireless enthusiasm has unleashed. Those who are addicted, uninformed, corporately biased and politically-influenced may dismiss our scientifically-sound concerns about the apocalyptic hazards of wireless radiation. But we must not. Instead, we must sound the alarm.
Illa Garcia wore jewelry the first day she went back to work as a fire lookout for the state of California in the summer of 2002. The intense radiation from dozens of RF/microwave antennas surrounding the lookout heated the metals on her body enough to burn her skin. "I still have those scars," she says. "I never wore jewelry to work after that." Likely Mountain Lookout, on U.S. Forest Service land with a spectacular view of Mount Shasta, is one of thousands of RF/microwave "hot spots" across the nation. A newly-erected cellular communications tower was only 30 feet from the lookout. "One antenna on that tower was even with our heads," recalls Garcia. "We could hear high-pitched buzzing. There were also three state communications antennas mounted on the lookout, only 6 feet from where we walked. We climbed past them every day." Motorola company manuals for management of communications sites confirm that high frequency radiation from these antennas is nasty stuff. Safety regulations mandate warning signs, EMF awareness training, protective gear, even transmitter deactivation for personnel working that close to antennas. Garcia and co-worker Mary Jasso were never warned about the hazards. This, they say, demonstrates extreme malfeasance on the part of agencies and commercial companies responsible for their exposure.
By the end of fire season, Garcia and Jasso
You can find the complete artical on the net. Its not the dangers we can see that that are causing health problems "
By Amy Worthington, Idaho Observer
Prior to 1996, the wireless age was not coming online fast enough, primarily because communities had the authority to block the siting of cell towers. But the Federal Communications Act of 1996 made it nearly impossible for communities to stop construction of cell towers "even if they pose threats to public health and the environment. Since the decision to enter the age of wireless convenience was politically determined for us, we have forgotten well-documented safety and environmental concerns and, with a devil-may-care zeal that is lethally short-sighted, we have incorporated into our lives every wireless toy that comes on the market. We behave as if we are addicted to radiation. Our addiction to cell phones has led to harder "drugs" like wireless Internet. And now we are bathing in the radiation that our wireless enthusiasm has unleashed. Those who are addicted, uninformed, corporately biased and politically-influenced may dismiss our scientifically-sound concerns about the apocalyptic hazards of wireless radiation. But we must not. Instead, we must sound the alarm.
Illa Garcia wore jewelry the first day she went back to work as a fire lookout for the state of California in the summer of 2002. The intense radiation from dozens of RF/microwave antennas surrounding the lookout heated the metals on her body enough to burn her skin. "I still have those scars," she says. "I never wore jewelry to work after that." Likely Mountain Lookout, on U.S. Forest Service land with a spectacular view of Mount Shasta, is one of thousands of RF/microwave "hot spots" across the nation. A newly-erected cellular communications tower was only 30 feet from the lookout. "One antenna on that tower was even with our heads," recalls Garcia. "We could hear high-pitched buzzing. There were also three state communications antennas mounted on the lookout, only 6 feet from where we walked. We climbed past them every day." Motorola company manuals for management of communications sites confirm that high frequency radiation from these antennas is nasty stuff. Safety regulations mandate warning signs, EMF awareness training, protective gear, even transmitter deactivation for personnel working that close to antennas. Garcia and co-worker Mary Jasso were never warned about the hazards. This, they say, demonstrates extreme malfeasance on the part of agencies and commercial companies responsible for their exposure.
By the end of fire season, Garcia and Jasso
You can find the complete artical on the net. Its not the dangers we can see that that are causing health problems "
Food for Though wrote on Sep 20, 2008 2:21 PM:
" For the person who responded to my comment on Sept 12. I don't believe that cars put off toxic cancer causing fumes that will cause other people health issues. At least at this point there is no proof of that. My point was that this is not about car fumes it is about smoking which causes cancer. I know first hand; my father passed away several months ago from Lung cancer, he also unrelatedly to the lung cancer had mouth cancer many years ago--direct result of smoking. If there were a law I couldn't drive my car I would have to abide by that law because it is a law and that's just the way it is.
I posted a comment back to you a while ago, however for some reason it was never posted. Not sure if the Daily Gate City gang decided for me it wasn't worth posting or what. It was not a terrible reply or out of line at all especially compared to some of the posts I see on these blogs. Not sure if this will make it either, hope so!
But I do stand behind that smoking law. "
I posted a comment back to you a while ago, however for some reason it was never posted. Not sure if the Daily Gate City gang decided for me it wasn't worth posting or what. It was not a terrible reply or out of line at all especially compared to some of the posts I see on these blogs. Not sure if this will make it either, hope so!
But I do stand behind that smoking law. "
University Hospital Staff Member wrote on Sep 19, 2008 11:32 PM:
" Ms. Mercer, it appears to me that (1) you reinterpreted your doctors’ words to justify your own self destructive behaviors, (2) you are lying, or (3) your doctors are totally unfit to treat patients.
Tobacco use directly causes numerous forms of cancer as well as heart disease and a host of respiratory diseases. Additionally, smokers are far more likely than nonsmokers to experience postoperative infections as well as postoperative tissue transplant rejections.
If indeed your doctors made such statements, I strongly recommend that you carefully research their credentials to verify that they are actually licensed to practice medicine in this country. Ignorance of their variety died out in the medical profession in the U.S. about 50 years ago.
I encounter tobacco's victims ever day in my profession and can assure you tobacco smoke is a direct threat to life and health. When you consider that only approximately 20% of the adult population in the U.S. smokes, but that smokers comprise approximately 90% of lung cancer patients, any assertion that smoking is a harmless personal choice is ludicrous.
These facts notwithstanding, it is true that industrial pollution, wood smoke, leaf smoke, trash smoke, pesticides, herbicides, vehicle exhaust, and a host of other airborne toxins do contribute to cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases.
In an ideal world, none of those pollutants would exist in our environment, but as long as politicians, corporate executives, and private citizens regard our atmosphere as an open sewer, very little is likely to change.
Nevertheless, it is imperative that those among us who have the knowledge and courage to effect change must continue to do so. "
Tobacco use directly causes numerous forms of cancer as well as heart disease and a host of respiratory diseases. Additionally, smokers are far more likely than nonsmokers to experience postoperative infections as well as postoperative tissue transplant rejections.
If indeed your doctors made such statements, I strongly recommend that you carefully research their credentials to verify that they are actually licensed to practice medicine in this country. Ignorance of their variety died out in the medical profession in the U.S. about 50 years ago.
I encounter tobacco's victims ever day in my profession and can assure you tobacco smoke is a direct threat to life and health. When you consider that only approximately 20% of the adult population in the U.S. smokes, but that smokers comprise approximately 90% of lung cancer patients, any assertion that smoking is a harmless personal choice is ludicrous.
These facts notwithstanding, it is true that industrial pollution, wood smoke, leaf smoke, trash smoke, pesticides, herbicides, vehicle exhaust, and a host of other airborne toxins do contribute to cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases.
In an ideal world, none of those pollutants would exist in our environment, but as long as politicians, corporate executives, and private citizens regard our atmosphere as an open sewer, very little is likely to change.
Nevertheless, it is imperative that those among us who have the knowledge and courage to effect change must continue to do so. "
World citizen wrote on Sep 19, 2008 4:37 PM:
" Come on you are a true world citizen. There are so few of us. As hard as Al Gore has tried people in this country are to spoiled and selfish to give up things for the sake of the world. Do you know that according to reports released from the Chinese that the air quality in China is one of the cleanest in the world. We can't say that. All America does is pollute the entire world. Americans need to start listening to people like Gore and stop thinking about only themselves! We need to be WORLD citizens not American citizens! "
Come On wrote on Sep 17, 2008 10:58 PM:
" People that smoke, drink alcohol, don't recycle, eat meat, heat and cool their homes to much, drive cars that don't get good gas mileage, don't exercise, and have more than one child are enemies of the world! People need to start doing what is good for the world. If that means giving up things then fine! We have to do what is best! We can't just be able to choose and do whatever we want! We need to start doing what is best for the whole world. "
To Roflcopter wrote on Sep 17, 2008 1:29 PM:
" I'm pretty sure it isn't for God's sake!
To Communist State: Cigarettes do have filters, it's just on the wrong end for you~! "
To Communist State: Cigarettes do have filters, it's just on the wrong end for you~! "
Funny wrote on Sep 17, 2008 12:24 PM:
" First off roads are paid for by the tax we pay on gasoline .As is mosts services we use are taxed to pay for plus every service we use is taxed and government provides absolutely nothing to implement .Every thin we buy or sell is taxed both times. Any financial transaction made is taxed. Government was supposed to be financed by import and export tariffs.Tell me one thing any one uses that isn't taxed. Most several times.Some people pay more 50 percent of wages in tax. The bad part is with all these taxes it still isn't enough to support government spending .In 1980 the national debt for 200 years was less than 1 trillion dollars. Today it is 9 trillion and we are over taxed on everything and now government has made robbing and victimizing the people and prisons the leading industry .Still its not enough.So they will rob and victimize and enslave the people to a greater extent. Its not for the good of citizens . Now they are going to black mail businesses into putting gambling machines regulated by the state and taxed at an inflated rate in bars to allow people to smoke. So we are back where we started now with the dangers to peoples heath the same .Only now the state will get a bigger piece of the pie so its ok .Also its done again out of concern for the businesses loss of customers not because the state will get a big revenue increase from these machines robbing the public. Its not about smoking its about the rights of ownership of our property and the freedom of choice in our lives. Legislators can not pas laws that violate the constitution as this does. It violates the right to equal protection under the law and it violates the state is not to pass laws that in any way affect our right to contract. So the new law also would be unconstitutional making people put machines in a business to allow smoking The constitution grants no right to freedom of choice., look up the definition of liberty and freedom and you will know why "
Roflcopter wrote on Sep 17, 2008 11:22 AM:
" For God's sake, Communism is a social structure that strives for a stateless society based on common ownership. Stateless. Do you know what that means? You guessed it. It means you all fail. "
Cant pray wrote on Sep 17, 2008 11:13 AM:
" Who says you can't pray in public? Let's test that out. Walk out your front door, stand in your yard and pray. Did anyone stop you? Go downtown, stand on the sidewalk and pray. Did anyone stop you? Go to your church on Sunday and pray. Did anyone stop you?
I think you will find the answer to all these questions is "No." You most certainly can pray in public.
You CAN'T have a state sanctioned prayer, and in my opinion, that's the way it should be. I don't want the government telling me what kind of prayer is right and proper, and I don't want the government telling my Muslim and Jewish friends that their form of prayer is either correct or incorrect. "
I think you will find the answer to all these questions is "No." You most certainly can pray in public.
You CAN'T have a state sanctioned prayer, and in my opinion, that's the way it should be. I don't want the government telling me what kind of prayer is right and proper, and I don't want the government telling my Muslim and Jewish friends that their form of prayer is either correct or incorrect. "
Janice Mercer wrote on Sep 17, 2008 11:01 AM:
" On thing about highly educated people LOL they don't know how to think common sense.You really thing placing machines in bars is going to help. LOL. Go to a casino and see how many people are sitting at a machine with a drink and a cigarette. You can keep it in restaurants and public places, just let the bars have their rights back and keep their business open. For heaven sakes you know it isn't a health issue. If people don't want to go in they don't have to. It is a right they have. It was said decades ago that Russia would be a free country and the United States would turn communist. Well look where it is headed. All rights are being taken away. You can't even pray in public anymore. "
Communist State wrote on Sep 17, 2008 10:47 AM:
" Why is it that most everyone that thinks we're becomming over regulated and turning into a socialist or communist state, are the ones that most often benefit from the social plans. Unless your household paid over $10,500 in income tax last year, you are you are in part, getting a free ride. That's right. You are not paying an equal share for the benefits you recieve. Roads, welfare programs, defense, other governement services are all funded by the approx. 1.2 Trillion in income tax collect over the approx. 120MM households.
But yes, let's privitize everything. You want to use a roadway.... pay a toll...everywhere. You want the street in front of your house paved, then it's time to knock on your neighbors doors and start a collection. Snow removal, better just take turns contracting that out with your neighbors as well.
It's funny how people want all kinds of services from their government for their benefit, yet when a new law is passed that restricts freedoms, they scream bloody murder that we're becomming a communist state. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If I have no children in school yet pay the same amount of property taxes as my neighbor with 5 kids, then I don't see a problem with laws being passed to benefit the majority. Since my tax money is used in the same manner. Actually isn't it a little ironiic that the more children you have, the less you pay in taxes. Shouldn't it be the opposite?
As for Comparing cigarettes to moderns cars? That's rediculous. Get your facts straight. Most newer cars are partial zero emmission, or ultra low emmsions rated meaning that thepollutants are negligeable. And CO2, while considered a GHG, it is not a pollutant or toxin. Now if you want to put a HEPA filter on the end of your cigarette, then we can make a fair comparison. "
But yes, let's privitize everything. You want to use a roadway.... pay a toll...everywhere. You want the street in front of your house paved, then it's time to knock on your neighbors doors and start a collection. Snow removal, better just take turns contracting that out with your neighbors as well.
It's funny how people want all kinds of services from their government for their benefit, yet when a new law is passed that restricts freedoms, they scream bloody murder that we're becomming a communist state. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If I have no children in school yet pay the same amount of property taxes as my neighbor with 5 kids, then I don't see a problem with laws being passed to benefit the majority. Since my tax money is used in the same manner. Actually isn't it a little ironiic that the more children you have, the less you pay in taxes. Shouldn't it be the opposite?
As for Comparing cigarettes to moderns cars? That's rediculous. Get your facts straight. Most newer cars are partial zero emmission, or ultra low emmsions rated meaning that thepollutants are negligeable. And CO2, while considered a GHG, it is not a pollutant or toxin. Now if you want to put a HEPA filter on the end of your cigarette, then we can make a fair comparison. "
Roflcopter wrote on Sep 16, 2008 4:24 PM:
" @ To Which Toxins:
Do you even know what Communism is or what ideals members of its party hold? Oh, wait, you don't; never mind. Good job on completely contradicting your argument by trying to sound intelligent.
Why don't people read before trying to promote that they know what they're talking about? "
Do you even know what Communism is or what ideals members of its party hold? Oh, wait, you don't; never mind. Good job on completely contradicting your argument by trying to sound intelligent.
Why don't people read before trying to promote that they know what they're talking about? "
County Resident wrote on Sep 16, 2008 2:59 PM:
" smoker or non-smoker...is really not the point. I, myself am a smoker. I do not smoke in my home or car. I will not smoke in yours. I prefer (or did) to be seated in non-smoking sections in resturants. I know smoking is not healthy...a lot of things aren't. I exercise every day, but my neighbor doesn't smoke and weighs 300 lbs. I have no right to tell her to go on a diet. But, I feel very bad for the small bar owners that pay for everything to operate a business...fees, license, etc. but does not have the right to decide if he wants to be a smoking or non-smoking establishment. I feel even worse for the bar owners that are trying to accomodate both, by buiding outside areas for smokers, which are getting shot down by all of these stupid parts of this law at every turn. If the law gets to dictate inside areas, don't you think it's only fair to lighten up on outside areas? I have no problem going outside to light up, just cut the owners a little slack to give us bad, bad smokers an area to do it. We should have that right. For those of you that say there hasn't been any closings due to the law or drop in business...wait til winter. Ask bar owners how business was this past weekend when it was pouring rain. Take a stroll up main street and look at the sidewalks. If the laws' intent was to protect employees right to clean air, explain to me why most bars are having more problems covering employees that now expect a smoke break? If any of you have ever worked in a bar, you usually don't get regular scheduled breaks. What about all of you law thumpers there? What about private clubs and organizations? Those people have to pay a fee or something to belong. Don't their members have a right to vote on what they want?
It's about control...even non-smokers have to see this. What's next people? What other areas of your life are you willing to let the government control. "
It's about control...even non-smokers have to see this. What's next people? What other areas of your life are you willing to let the government control. "
To Which Toxins wrote on Sep 16, 2008 10:26 AM:
" How about the toxins my dad was still coughing up 6 months after he was done at still castings? But you're right those people that come out of the factories covered in black, that's all for show, it's not really bad to breathe in. They just paint there clothes, hair and skin that color.
When you drive your car you force me to breathe in your toxins from it. You don't need to drive, there are other ways of getting around. But driving is easiest so that's why everyone does it.
By the way I am not a smoker. I just have my own mind and know when the government is trying to slowly turn this nation into a communist one. Sorry if I thought for myself instead of agreeing with the masses. "
When you drive your car you force me to breathe in your toxins from it. You don't need to drive, there are other ways of getting around. But driving is easiest so that's why everyone does it.
By the way I am not a smoker. I just have my own mind and know when the government is trying to slowly turn this nation into a communist one. Sorry if I thought for myself instead of agreeing with the masses. "
Which Toxins wrote on Sep 15, 2008 2:53 PM:
" Karnie,
Please name which toxins are being spewed out of local factories? All the white smoke out of Roquette? Yes... that horrible toxic STEAM! Yes, all the plumes of white stuff out of roquette are harmless water vapor, nothing else. The new coal boiler has mllions of dollars worth of scrubbers and cyclones to capture sulphus and particulate emmissions. There are some other trace chemicals that may become airobrn, but they are no more harmful than any typical household cleaners.
I think there's a misconception that lots of tall stocks and "smoke" comming out means that there are toxic chemicals being released. Most of the time, the vapor seen is water.
Someone else will need ot commont on others.
Griffin Wheel? Metzler? Steel Castings? If you're concerned, feel freee to contact the Iowa DNR and ask them about that particular business. Most records are available to the public.
Ultimately the factories at least serve a greater purpose of providing jobs and producing goods while meeting goverenment environmental regulations. Perhaps the envirnmental regulations are not constitutional. Exceptions were made for some inductries. Perhaps we should have thrown out all of the emissions restrictions. We make exceptions in vechile emmissions for Trucks, SUV's, motorcycles, diesel engines. Perhaps we should throw out all thsoe regulations too. Are those unconstitutional?
The only purpose of smoking is to provide the individual puffing on it a nicotine fix.
It deserves being said again....
When I need my caffine fix in the morning, I don't force everyone else around me to drink coffee. When I want a beer, I don't force everyone near me drink beer. "
Please name which toxins are being spewed out of local factories? All the white smoke out of Roquette? Yes... that horrible toxic STEAM! Yes, all the plumes of white stuff out of roquette are harmless water vapor, nothing else. The new coal boiler has mllions of dollars worth of scrubbers and cyclones to capture sulphus and particulate emmissions. There are some other trace chemicals that may become airobrn, but they are no more harmful than any typical household cleaners.
I think there's a misconception that lots of tall stocks and "smoke" comming out means that there are toxic chemicals being released. Most of the time, the vapor seen is water.
Someone else will need ot commont on others.
Griffin Wheel? Metzler? Steel Castings? If you're concerned, feel freee to contact the Iowa DNR and ask them about that particular business. Most records are available to the public.
Ultimately the factories at least serve a greater purpose of providing jobs and producing goods while meeting goverenment environmental regulations. Perhaps the envirnmental regulations are not constitutional. Exceptions were made for some inductries. Perhaps we should have thrown out all of the emissions restrictions. We make exceptions in vechile emmissions for Trucks, SUV's, motorcycles, diesel engines. Perhaps we should throw out all thsoe regulations too. Are those unconstitutional?
The only purpose of smoking is to provide the individual puffing on it a nicotine fix.
It deserves being said again....
When I need my caffine fix in the morning, I don't force everyone else around me to drink coffee. When I want a beer, I don't force everyone near me drink beer. "
craziness wrote on Sep 15, 2008 1:37 PM:
" If we step back and take an honest look,
we can see that the government is taking away more and more of our freedom everyday.
Smoking is just one.
Our government has been two-faced for many many years.
Get used to it, cause it will keep getting worse until the oppressed American people
finally stand up for their rights again.
"The British are coming! The British are coming!" Remember Paul?
"The US Government is coming! The US Government is coming"
WAKE UP PEOPLE! PLEASE!
God save our children!! "
we can see that the government is taking away more and more of our freedom everyday.
Smoking is just one.
Our government has been two-faced for many many years.
Get used to it, cause it will keep getting worse until the oppressed American people
finally stand up for their rights again.
"The British are coming! The British are coming!" Remember Paul?
"The US Government is coming! The US Government is coming"
WAKE UP PEOPLE! PLEASE!
God save our children!! "
Karnie wrote on Sep 15, 2008 10:21 AM:
" Ok i have been following this story for some time and i would just like to point out to all of you who support the smoking ban that if the smoke comming off of my cigarette is so harmful why dont we take a look at the half a dozen factories in this town putting off more toxins in one day then all of us smokers could in a year. So i take it you are ok with the fact that these factories are poluting the air in this town to the point of making everybody in it near illness but the little bit of smoke coming off my cigarette make all of you mad and demand a smoking ban. And also if the smoke is such a problem then why is it our goverment decided that it was to toxic for us to have in bars but it is ok for us to smoke in a casino. That would be like saying that McDonalds is allowed to serve unhealthy food but wendy's is not. I would love it if somebody could explain to me why it is that it is ok for one but not the other? "
Read the first part of incorrent interretation over wrote on Sep 15, 2008 8:55 AM:
" to "to incorrect interpetation"...
You need the read hte first part of my response over again. My first point was that the right to smoke is not part of the constutution. And more importantly, an exemption for casinos does not discriminate against a particular group or class of citizens. For example, you cannot make a law that says those of african descent may drive 60mph on rural roads, but thsoe of european or or asian descent must only drive 55mph. However, it is allowable to say that vehicles over 13,000lbs , with commersial plates or of a particular type due to safety reasons may only drive 55mph, while all other passenger vehciles may travel at 60mph. Sometimes age descrimination is allowed. Only those over 16 years of age may obtain a drivers license.
Certian types of descrimination are allowed. More improtantly, I'm not sure you would need ot throw out the entire non-smoking law. You might only be forced to amend it to remove the casino exemption. I think it's the intent of the legislature to eventuually amend the law to include casinos. "
You need the read hte first part of my response over again. My first point was that the right to smoke is not part of the constutution. And more importantly, an exemption for casinos does not discriminate against a particular group or class of citizens. For example, you cannot make a law that says those of african descent may drive 60mph on rural roads, but thsoe of european or or asian descent must only drive 55mph. However, it is allowable to say that vehicles over 13,000lbs , with commersial plates or of a particular type due to safety reasons may only drive 55mph, while all other passenger vehciles may travel at 60mph. Sometimes age descrimination is allowed. Only those over 16 years of age may obtain a drivers license.
Certian types of descrimination are allowed. More improtantly, I'm not sure you would need ot throw out the entire non-smoking law. You might only be forced to amend it to remove the casino exemption. I think it's the intent of the legislature to eventuually amend the law to include casinos. "
southside wrote on Sep 14, 2008 4:27 PM:
" to 'to incorrect interpetation'
sounds pretty serious...didn't know smoking cigs was in the constitution/bill of rights/dec of independence...get a life.... "
sounds pretty serious...didn't know smoking cigs was in the constitution/bill of rights/dec of independence...get a life.... "
to incorrect interpetation wrote on Sep 13, 2008 1:27 PM:
" Your argument would be sound if not for one thing you failed to mention. No matter who is elected to office they swear an oath to support the constitution .No legislator has a right to ignore or violate the constitution. The founders of our country are not given credit for their ability to accurately predict the future 200 years after their death. As their writing of government actions are so accurate they could have been written today.They were also smart enough to make holders of office swear an oath to support the constitution.. If legislators were not bound by the constitution they would have had them swear and oath to support the laws of the current year. In order to keep members of government from distorting and twisting laws and stealing our rights. They are bound by the constitution and freedom it granted the people when written. When judges and legislator violate that solemn oath they should be prosecuted for treason no matter who elected them to office "
interesting wrote on Sep 13, 2008 12:16 AM:
" The wording of the uniform law code says - not grant any citizen or class of citizens immunities that shall no belong to all citizens. It says nothing about race of citizens or ethnic group. To say this is talking about discrimination of race is a perfect example of how judges have taken it upon them selves to twist and distort the meaning of rhe constitution to benifit government. Taking the protections of equality from the people it was intended for. With out going through the amendment prosess as is required by the constitution to alter it. Judges have done this same thing with every part of the constitution to the point that government uses the protections granted the people as tools to rob them. Our laws are now completely adverse of every founding principle of our constitution. The priciples it stands for is requality for all equally. So government cant pick and choose who it throws the book at and who it slaps on the hand as it does now..There is nothing in the wording of that law to indicate any thing else. I would say the owners of cassinos would qualify as an elite or upper class of citizens
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Article I, Section 10 effectively guarantees the right to contract and prohibits any State from passing any law that impairs this right.
I also would say smoking ban impairs a persons right to contract .Where it has adversely affected the amount buisness bars have "
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Article I, Section 10 effectively guarantees the right to contract and prohibits any State from passing any law that impairs this right.
I also would say smoking ban impairs a persons right to contract .Where it has adversely affected the amount buisness bars have "
Incorrect interrpretation wrote on Sep 12, 2008 1:48 PM:
" unconstitutional... Laws uniform. SEC. 6. All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens."
The intent of this rule is ot ensure that laws are mode uniform so a partcular group of citizens is not discriminated against. So unless you consider gamblers a new race of people or special ethnic group, it's not applicable in thsi case, and the courts will agree. Now if the law discriminated specifically aginst stores owned by minorities, or against only restaurants that served indian, mexican and any spicy food, then it would be unconsitutional. An exemption is made for casinos. I think it's reasonable because of the unique nature of their business. Practically, the exception was made because too many legislatures are in the pockets of the casinos, and it woudl have never passed without that exemption.
It's not easy to pass legislation that a very vocal minority disagrees with, but best serves the majority.
the trouble wiht laws like this, is that they are a little like speed limits, helmet laws and seat belt laws. Logic and reason says that these laws are good, nessesary and fair, but people in general preffer not being told what they can or can't do.
ultimately we elect the governement. So if the majority of the population wants to vote in legislatures that ban smoking, then smoking will be banned. The only alternative for the minority is to ban together and form a lobby to petition the legislature, take legal action, or support a cantidate financially to bakc their viewpoints. While many complain about special interests. Special interests do serve a purpose that allow a minority to have a stronger voice. "
The intent of this rule is ot ensure that laws are mode uniform so a partcular group of citizens is not discriminated against. So unless you consider gamblers a new race of people or special ethnic group, it's not applicable in thsi case, and the courts will agree. Now if the law discriminated specifically aginst stores owned by minorities, or against only restaurants that served indian, mexican and any spicy food, then it would be unconsitutional. An exemption is made for casinos. I think it's reasonable because of the unique nature of their business. Practically, the exception was made because too many legislatures are in the pockets of the casinos, and it woudl have never passed without that exemption.
It's not easy to pass legislation that a very vocal minority disagrees with, but best serves the majority.
the trouble wiht laws like this, is that they are a little like speed limits, helmet laws and seat belt laws. Logic and reason says that these laws are good, nessesary and fair, but people in general preffer not being told what they can or can't do.
ultimately we elect the governement. So if the majority of the population wants to vote in legislatures that ban smoking, then smoking will be banned. The only alternative for the minority is to ban together and form a lobby to petition the legislature, take legal action, or support a cantidate financially to bakc their viewpoints. While many complain about special interests. Special interests do serve a purpose that allow a minority to have a stronger voice. "
Roflcopter wrote on Sep 12, 2008 1:05 PM:
" @ To Food For Thought:
Emission standards. Tuh-duh, nullifying your argument about cars sure was hard. "
Emission standards. Tuh-duh, nullifying your argument about cars sure was hard. "
Unconstitutional wrote on Sep 12, 2008 12:50 PM:
" for all those that think we're nitpicking about little things on here when our country is falling apart because of the big issues: i thought this was a post to display opinions about this article? because we are commenting about this ban does not mean that we are not concerning ourselves with the bigger issues. it simply means that we are commenting on this particular subject. quit trying to argue that the government is winning because we're arguing over small things while they are currently destroying our country. maybe the government is (that's up for opinion), but i'm sure there are people out there trying to stop it.
Rofloctor- which "unconstitutional" are you sending your message to? there are 2 of us. "
Rofloctor- which "unconstitutional" are you sending your message to? there are 2 of us. "
cases prove little wrote on Sep 12, 2008 12:40 PM:
" The cases you have cited prove little. I notice not one is about rights of ownership or personal proprety rights .There is no question that the ban violates the uniform law of the Iowa constitution. This law is not about health is about money and liberty taken from the people.Here are a couple more things taken from the constitution that clearly over rule the cases you listed
Article VI: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States... shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding...
Where rights as secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which will abrogate them." Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436 at 491 (1966).
Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
There is also no mention in the Constitution of the phantoms some judges use as justifications for "interpreting" the Constitition: "Public Safety," "Public Interest," or "Public Policy." In 1968, in Columbia University's Charpentier Lectures, Justice Hugo Black I have no fear of constitutional amendments properly adopted, but I do fear the rewriting of the Constitution by judges under the guise of interpretation."
"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited "
Article VI: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States... shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding...
Where rights as secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which will abrogate them." Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436 at 491 (1966).
Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
There is also no mention in the Constitution of the phantoms some judges use as justifications for "interpreting" the Constitition: "Public Safety," "Public Interest," or "Public Policy." In 1968, in Columbia University's Charpentier Lectures, Justice Hugo Black I have no fear of constitutional amendments properly adopted, but I do fear the rewriting of the Constitution by judges under the guise of interpretation."
"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited "
To food for thought wrote on Sep 12, 2008 10:41 AM:
" I like how you don't want smokers to bother you but you're not worried about your car fumes. By the way I am not a smoker. Well, I don't drive, yet your driving effects my health. Where's my law protecting me from your car fumes. Oh there isn't one. Today we have the knowledge to make gasless cars. Yet there is very few out there. Don't you wonder why that is? Oh that's right, because if cars didn't use all that gasoline Washington couldn't make a killing. But you go right ahead and live with your head in the sand and continue to believe that the government is there to help the people. When will American citizens realize that the government likes to get us to focus on stupid issues that get the public all riled up? In the mean time, we ignore the bigger issues that face our country which is slowly falling apart. "
Roflcopter wrote on Sep 12, 2008 9:55 AM:
" @ Unconstitutional:
You may be better served in doing further research before peddling your pseudo-intellect.
Gasper v. Louisiana Stadium, 577 F.2d 897 (5th Cir. 1978) ruled that police in New Orleans can use their power to prohibit smoking in public stadiums.
Alford v. City of Newport News, 260 S.E. 2d 241 (Supreme Ct. Va 1979) ruled, as it pertained to restaurants, that "Whether tobacco smoke is toxic may be arguable, but that question is one for the legislature and not the court. And it is clearly within the police power of the legislature to abuse what it finds to be injurious to the public health."
Diefenthal v. CAB, 681 F.2d 1039 (5th Cir. 1982) ruled that no person has the right to a smoking section on an airplane.
Rossie v. State, 395 N.W. 2d 801 (Ct. of Appeals Wisc. 1986) upheld a smoking ban in the workplace despite smoking worker's arguments that their "private rights and interests" were being affected.
Craig v. Buncombe County Board of Education, 343 S.E.2d 222 (Ct. of Appeals NC 1986) ruled, as it pertained to schools, that "The right to smoke in public places is not a protected right, even for adults."
Grusendorf v. City of Oklahoma City, 816 F.2d 539 (10th Cir. 1987) ruled that a governmental employer may fire an employee from smoking only one cigarette, even off the job.
Washington v. Tinsley, 809 F. Supp 504 (S. Dis. TX 1992) ruled that even individuals sitting in jail should not be subjected to the harmful smoking habits of others.
City of North Miami, v. Kurtz, 653 So.2d 1025 (Supreme Ct. Fla 1995) rules that a municipality can refuse to hire persons who smoke, even in their own homes. Such rhetoric that can be found in the ruling states: "Clearly the 'right to smoke' is not included within the penumbra of fundamental rights [constitutionally] protected" as well as "the act of smoking a cigarette does not rise to the level of a fundamental right."
For the sake of those poor readers who may subject themselves to your nonsense, try a little harder next time to, at the very least, make it a "believable" opinion-piece. "
You may be better served in doing further research before peddling your pseudo-intellect.
Gasper v. Louisiana Stadium, 577 F.2d 897 (5th Cir. 1978) ruled that police in New Orleans can use their power to prohibit smoking in public stadiums.
Alford v. City of Newport News, 260 S.E. 2d 241 (Supreme Ct. Va 1979) ruled, as it pertained to restaurants, that "Whether tobacco smoke is toxic may be arguable, but that question is one for the legislature and not the court. And it is clearly within the police power of the legislature to abuse what it finds to be injurious to the public health."
Diefenthal v. CAB, 681 F.2d 1039 (5th Cir. 1982) ruled that no person has the right to a smoking section on an airplane.
Rossie v. State, 395 N.W. 2d 801 (Ct. of Appeals Wisc. 1986) upheld a smoking ban in the workplace despite smoking worker's arguments that their "private rights and interests" were being affected.
Craig v. Buncombe County Board of Education, 343 S.E.2d 222 (Ct. of Appeals NC 1986) ruled, as it pertained to schools, that "The right to smoke in public places is not a protected right, even for adults."
Grusendorf v. City of Oklahoma City, 816 F.2d 539 (10th Cir. 1987) ruled that a governmental employer may fire an employee from smoking only one cigarette, even off the job.
Washington v. Tinsley, 809 F. Supp 504 (S. Dis. TX 1992) ruled that even individuals sitting in jail should not be subjected to the harmful smoking habits of others.
City of North Miami, v. Kurtz, 653 So.2d 1025 (Supreme Ct. Fla 1995) rules that a municipality can refuse to hire persons who smoke, even in their own homes. Such rhetoric that can be found in the ruling states: "Clearly the 'right to smoke' is not included within the penumbra of fundamental rights [constitutionally] protected" as well as "the act of smoking a cigarette does not rise to the level of a fundamental right."
For the sake of those poor readers who may subject themselves to your nonsense, try a little harder next time to, at the very least, make it a "believable" opinion-piece. "
unconstitutional wrote on Sep 11, 2008 10:32 PM:
" For all those people who are asking why the law is unconstitutional this is from the Iowa constitution
Laws uniform. SEC. 6. All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.
As many of our laws today are unconstitutional do to the fact people have grown so used to obeying them with out question . Legislators have become so arrogant with the power they wield . They blatantly violate the oath and constitution they swore to support. Judges also violate the constitution and their responsibility to the people. They were to bind government with the chains of the constitution . Judges were given the title of honor after the 13 th amendment was stolen by lawyers because being charged with the protection of the people from government was the highest honor to bestowed on any person in this country .For with out that protection the people would become helpless victims to be preyed upon by government. Just as today has happened in our courts. Judges have traded all honor of their positions and justice for the people in our court for political interests. The results of that betrayal of the people are obvious and should be considered treason against the people and constitution "
Laws uniform. SEC. 6. All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.
As many of our laws today are unconstitutional do to the fact people have grown so used to obeying them with out question . Legislators have become so arrogant with the power they wield . They blatantly violate the oath and constitution they swore to support. Judges also violate the constitution and their responsibility to the people. They were to bind government with the chains of the constitution . Judges were given the title of honor after the 13 th amendment was stolen by lawyers because being charged with the protection of the people from government was the highest honor to bestowed on any person in this country .For with out that protection the people would become helpless victims to be preyed upon by government. Just as today has happened in our courts. Judges have traded all honor of their positions and justice for the people in our court for political interests. The results of that betrayal of the people are obvious and should be considered treason against the people and constitution "
Food for thought wrote on Sep 11, 2008 6:15 PM:
" We are talking about smoking here not vehicle fumes---I wouldn't talk about the vehicle fumes too loudly though because it could actually be the answer to stopping the obesity/diabetes problem in america, and that would be a health reason. Shhh, big brother his watching what we write you know.
PS: I agree with the ban. You wanna smoke that's your business, don't make it mine. "
PS: I agree with the ban. You wanna smoke that's your business, don't make it mine. "
Okay wrote on Sep 11, 2008 1:28 PM:
" My problem is not with the "smoking ban". My problem is with telling me it is for my health, and smoking causes blah blah blah, then allow smoking in Casino's. I guess gamblers don't get cancer. As I read in an article a while back, can't remember which, someone said if the bar owners push the issue, we will just ban smoking in casinos. Well don't you think that should of been done from the start? I don't see how you could honestly think that is right.
doolittle- Over 24 million children use the bus to go to school every day and are regularly exposed to harmful diesel exhaust emissions. Components of diesel exhaust include carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, formaldehyde and tiny soot particles that carry substances called polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. The EPA classifies diesel emissions as a "likely carcinogen." Diesel emissions are estimated to be responsible for 70 percent of the cancer risk arising from air pollution, according to the California Air Resources Board.
Dangers from diesel exhaust can range from respiratory illnesses including asthma and bronchitis to lung cancer and heart disease. According to the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a child riding inside a school bus may be exposed to as much as four times the amount of toxic diesel fumes as someone riding in a car directly ahead of it. (Paraphrased from an article I read)
Increasing exposure to tiny pollutant particles in the air including exhaust fumes ups the chances of suffering a deep vein thrombosis (DVT), or blood clot in the legs.
As the density of particulate matter rose, so did the likelihood of having blood clots. For every 10 micrograms per square metre increase, the risk of developing DVT went up by 70 per cent.
Looks to me smoking and driving a car have nearly the same effect. I guess we can't ban vehicles though.
P.S. I don't smoke and never have. "
doolittle- Over 24 million children use the bus to go to school every day and are regularly exposed to harmful diesel exhaust emissions. Components of diesel exhaust include carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, formaldehyde and tiny soot particles that carry substances called polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. The EPA classifies diesel emissions as a "likely carcinogen." Diesel emissions are estimated to be responsible for 70 percent of the cancer risk arising from air pollution, according to the California Air Resources Board.
Dangers from diesel exhaust can range from respiratory illnesses including asthma and bronchitis to lung cancer and heart disease. According to the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a child riding inside a school bus may be exposed to as much as four times the amount of toxic diesel fumes as someone riding in a car directly ahead of it. (Paraphrased from an article I read)
Increasing exposure to tiny pollutant particles in the air including exhaust fumes ups the chances of suffering a deep vein thrombosis (DVT), or blood clot in the legs.
As the density of particulate matter rose, so did the likelihood of having blood clots. For every 10 micrograms per square metre increase, the risk of developing DVT went up by 70 per cent.
Looks to me smoking and driving a car have nearly the same effect. I guess we can't ban vehicles though.
P.S. I don't smoke and never have. "
Unconstitutional wrote on Sep 11, 2008 12:46 PM:
" for all that think the ban is unconstitutional: my question is how so? i'm not trying to be condescending or disregard your opinion. i respect that although maybe don't agree with it. i just wonder why you think it is unconstitutional? is it only because you think the government is taking rights away from the people/ businesses? if so, look at it from their perspective- the government is protecting people who do not want to smoke. and the government has not said smoking is totally illegal. you can still do it, but not at the expense of others. is it because they are doing it for money (which i don't beleive)? if you think that ok, but that is not unconstitutional. taxes paid to the government are strictly to raise money. we don't like them, but we accept them because it is necessary. but not unconstitutional. this ban is for health concerns- protecting the health of others. if you can give me a reasonable argument for it being unconstitutional maybe i'll change my tune. until then, it's a matter of protection for me. "
to Unconstitutional wrote on Sep 11, 2008 12:24 PM:
" Last time I checked a laws a law til it's not a law----so yes it would be condsidered "Breaking the Law" until it's not a law anymore, then it's just beggn for cancer and spreading it to others which is just down rite mean. "
unconstitutional wrote on Sep 11, 2008 10:27 AM:
" To r u kidding me: Is it really breaking the law when the law is unconstitutional? In Illinois a bar owner has already went to court over it and the judge decided the law was unconstitutional and decided the government can't tell the business owner what can be done in his business. If you know how the courts work, you know that the rest of the cases will be based on the first case.
To Money: I am glad someone agrees with you. Personally, I found your post confusing. In the beginning you say it is all about the money with the government and the insurance companies. Yet you then say it's for people's health. Please elaborate a little, I don't understand if you agree or disagree with the letter or if you only agree with parts of it.
To Reggie: Well said, I agree 100%. We have a very corrupt government who only wants our money! For those who don't agree, just check out your property taxes this year. Isn't it amazing that the value of all houses is down quite a bit due to our economy. Did your property taxes go down? I know mine didn't. If my property value is less why aren't my taxes less? I know there was no new taxes voted in this year for property, so what's the deal? The deal is the government wants as much of my money as they can possibly get and they don't really care how they get that money. "
To Money: I am glad someone agrees with you. Personally, I found your post confusing. In the beginning you say it is all about the money with the government and the insurance companies. Yet you then say it's for people's health. Please elaborate a little, I don't understand if you agree or disagree with the letter or if you only agree with parts of it.
To Reggie: Well said, I agree 100%. We have a very corrupt government who only wants our money! For those who don't agree, just check out your property taxes this year. Isn't it amazing that the value of all houses is down quite a bit due to our economy. Did your property taxes go down? I know mine didn't. If my property value is less why aren't my taxes less? I know there was no new taxes voted in this year for property, so what's the deal? The deal is the government wants as much of my money as they can possibly get and they don't really care how they get that money. "
doolittle wrote on Sep 11, 2008 9:29 AM:
" Janice,
Nicotine isn't the carcinogenic agent in cigarettes. It is the Carbon Monoxide, Benzene, Formaldehyde, Ammonia, Acetone, Arsenic and over 4000 chemicals that are supposed to aid the delivery of nicotine to the blood stream with a "smooth and satisfying" taste. Why do you suppose people put Carbon Monoxide detectors in their homes? Because it is a poisonous gas!
Cancer is a genetic mutation to DNA that is caused by healthy cells being damaged after exposure to harsh chemicals, large doses of ultraviolet or radiation. The new cells grow abnormally at a rate beyond what the body can control (your body inhibits cellular growth to an extent). These cells take over vital organs and the host eventually dies. Why do you think it is unsafe to handle asbestos? Because asbestos fibers are easily airborne and can enter the lungs and cause this cellular mutation to occur. Same type of thing goes on when you breathe in ARSENIC and FORMALDEHYDE.
For your doctors to tell you that smoking doesn't cause cancer is irresponsible of them. I think it is more likely that you heard what you WANTED to hear, not what the doctor ACTUALLY said. Not all humans are genetically the same. Some are more susceptible to cancerous mutation, while other people’s cells are more resistant to it. That is a likely explanation as to why your grandfather was able to live to 98 after many years of smoking. Other people die slow horrible deaths from emphysema, lung and throat cancer.
The true issue here is about consideration. Sure, you have every constitutional right to put that crap in your lungs. I say, do it at will and do it often. But being considerate of others around you who choose not to smoke is what it's all about. For Larry Duncan (whoever he is) to break the law is selfish and despicable. Let me break it to you, you are not going to win, so get used to smoking outdoors. "
Nicotine isn't the carcinogenic agent in cigarettes. It is the Carbon Monoxide, Benzene, Formaldehyde, Ammonia, Acetone, Arsenic and over 4000 chemicals that are supposed to aid the delivery of nicotine to the blood stream with a "smooth and satisfying" taste. Why do you suppose people put Carbon Monoxide detectors in their homes? Because it is a poisonous gas!
Cancer is a genetic mutation to DNA that is caused by healthy cells being damaged after exposure to harsh chemicals, large doses of ultraviolet or radiation. The new cells grow abnormally at a rate beyond what the body can control (your body inhibits cellular growth to an extent). These cells take over vital organs and the host eventually dies. Why do you think it is unsafe to handle asbestos? Because asbestos fibers are easily airborne and can enter the lungs and cause this cellular mutation to occur. Same type of thing goes on when you breathe in ARSENIC and FORMALDEHYDE.
For your doctors to tell you that smoking doesn't cause cancer is irresponsible of them. I think it is more likely that you heard what you WANTED to hear, not what the doctor ACTUALLY said. Not all humans are genetically the same. Some are more susceptible to cancerous mutation, while other people’s cells are more resistant to it. That is a likely explanation as to why your grandfather was able to live to 98 after many years of smoking. Other people die slow horrible deaths from emphysema, lung and throat cancer.
The true issue here is about consideration. Sure, you have every constitutional right to put that crap in your lungs. I say, do it at will and do it often. But being considerate of others around you who choose not to smoke is what it's all about. For Larry Duncan (whoever he is) to break the law is selfish and despicable. Let me break it to you, you are not going to win, so get used to smoking outdoors. "
r u kidding me wrote on Sep 10, 2008 7:02 PM:
" Did the ban go into affect? I went to Chintzs a few nights ago and at least 4 people were smoking. Someone needs to tell Chintzs about this new law too I guess. LOL Oh wait, but I forgot, some bars that need the most attention in this community, never get any attention when it comes to breaking the law. "
No name wrote on Sep 10, 2008 4:22 PM:
" Money you are awesome. You said it better than I could have. "
Money wrote on Sep 10, 2008 11:42 AM:
" So I thought the topic was about money? The title of the letter seems to point towards someone in government or a company profiting from the smoking ban? In reality, selling cigarettes is a big business. It's profitable for the producers and the tax revenue is significant. Banning them would be bad for business. Smokers have higher rates of illness and a whle list of issues related ot long term nicotene use...even if you exclude lung cancer, the heathcare industry makes a lot of money off smokers.
Maybe the insurance companies pushed for the legislation? Simply put, all other things being equal, statistically, smokers are less healthy than non-smokers.
One final point.... If someone gets sick just after quitting while their body adjusts... that still the fault of smoking. To say otherwise, would be like saying that if you're driving 100mph, and you crash your car while trying ot slow down or manuever to avoid a slower vehicle, that the fault of the accident is the slower car because he made you slow down. If oyu never started smoking, you woulnd't get sick while trying to quit. "
Maybe the insurance companies pushed for the legislation? Simply put, all other things being equal, statistically, smokers are less healthy than non-smokers.
One final point.... If someone gets sick just after quitting while their body adjusts... that still the fault of smoking. To say otherwise, would be like saying that if you're driving 100mph, and you crash your car while trying ot slow down or manuever to avoid a slower vehicle, that the fault of the accident is the slower car because he made you slow down. If oyu never started smoking, you woulnd't get sick while trying to quit. "
Reggie wrote on Sep 9, 2008 6:48 PM:
" All the opinions on the smoking ban: If government could be trusted not to abuse power, there would be no need for a Bill of Rights.
Power always corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Government passes unconstitutional laws to oppress and victimize the people for financial gain.
Seat belt laws passed under the guise of safety giving police an excuse to stop people are unconstitutional. The government is dictating our safety because we aren't capable of making that choice ourselves. Yet government can let millions of our children get on school buses every day without seat belts. Seat belt laws have generated millions of dollars in fines to the state.
Now they dictate what people can do on the property we pay tax on. Which affects our ability to earn a living and support our families. Legislators know the law is unconstitutional. They blatantly ignore the constitution they by law and oath swore to obey. A judge by law and sworn oath to support the constitution violates his responsibility, and rules against people for the state.
Legislators aren't concerned that violating the constitution will hurt small business or cause them to close. They want to burden these people and their customers with fines to increase state revenue.
When the ban will cause a loss of revenue to the state, casinos are made exempt.
Our government at every level is so corrupt its only purpose is to rob and prey on the people. Passing unconstitutional laws forcing people into submission with an army of police.
People have become so used to obeying any law. The state has unrestricted power to make anything a crime. We are voluntarily enslaving ourselves to government.
Brainwashed by media and the smoke screen of safety to cover the ulterior motive. Which is not for the good of the people. When judges violate the constitution and are biased to government, what legal remedy is there. People say it's the law, you have to obey it. Isn't that what Germans thought about the Nazi government and their army of police? You can see the extent they obeyed laws without question made by government and how right they were.
Look at America, land of the free, imprisoning the people, the leading industry. Again under the guise of public safety.
* Our economy is on the verge of collapse, our money is worth nothing, the price of everything has doubled.
* Our government has lied, invaded countries, declared war illegally, overtaxed us, spent trillions we don't have.
* Society is forced to accept living on credit and debt.
* The government has stripped the people of rights and protections in the Bill of Rights.
All for our safety and security. Taken all justice for the people from our courts. Judges have traded honor and truth for political interests, biased to government, granting witnesses immunity for lying.
Our country is not even owned by Americans. Our children's destiny and future will be a life of misery, oppression and tyranny and total enslavement to a dictator government. "
Power always corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Government passes unconstitutional laws to oppress and victimize the people for financial gain.
Seat belt laws passed under the guise of safety giving police an excuse to stop people are unconstitutional. The government is dictating our safety because we aren't capable of making that choice ourselves. Yet government can let millions of our children get on school buses every day without seat belts. Seat belt laws have generated millions of dollars in fines to the state.
Now they dictate what people can do on the property we pay tax on. Which affects our ability to earn a living and support our families. Legislators know the law is unconstitutional. They blatantly ignore the constitution they by law and oath swore to obey. A judge by law and sworn oath to support the constitution violates his responsibility, and rules against people for the state.
Legislators aren't concerned that violating the constitution will hurt small business or cause them to close. They want to burden these people and their customers with fines to increase state revenue.
When the ban will cause a loss of revenue to the state, casinos are made exempt.
Our government at every level is so corrupt its only purpose is to rob and prey on the people. Passing unconstitutional laws forcing people into submission with an army of police.
People have become so used to obeying any law. The state has unrestricted power to make anything a crime. We are voluntarily enslaving ourselves to government.
Brainwashed by media and the smoke screen of safety to cover the ulterior motive. Which is not for the good of the people. When judges violate the constitution and are biased to government, what legal remedy is there. People say it's the law, you have to obey it. Isn't that what Germans thought about the Nazi government and their army of police? You can see the extent they obeyed laws without question made by government and how right they were.
Look at America, land of the free, imprisoning the people, the leading industry. Again under the guise of public safety.
* Our economy is on the verge of collapse, our money is worth nothing, the price of everything has doubled.
* Our government has lied, invaded countries, declared war illegally, overtaxed us, spent trillions we don't have.
* Society is forced to accept living on credit and debt.
* The government has stripped the people of rights and protections in the Bill of Rights.
All for our safety and security. Taken all justice for the people from our courts. Judges have traded honor and truth for political interests, biased to government, granting witnesses immunity for lying.
Our country is not even owned by Americans. Our children's destiny and future will be a life of misery, oppression and tyranny and total enslavement to a dictator government. "
LARRY DUNCANS RIGHT ON wrote on Sep 9, 2008 12:46 AM:
" the guy that owns otis cambells bar in burlington is doing what the rest of the bar owners want to do....stand up for what they believe in.he's laying it all on the line for a law he feels is unconstitutional.he hasn't been ticketed or fined for allowing people to smoke, yet the state is considering yanking his liquor license.what grounds do they have to do this?he's just been accused,not convicted or even disiplined by the local police.the state is trying to bully him into obeying this new law.i hope everyone can see the bigger picture here..its not just about the smoking that he's standing up to.first the government says trans fats have to be banned because they're bad for us...okay,then lets stop smokers from lighting up because its bad for us...okay.isn't basically anything in excess bad for us...whether its smoke or booze or red meat or too much sun,etc etc..if you're over 18 then you're an adult wether you like it or not and you should be able to use your own judgements that affect your health and lifestyle.people these are bars we're talking about,not preschools and churches,i can see duncan's claims going to the iowa supreme court and maybe above,unfortunately the old men that have the right to change this law probably won't because they're still able to smoke their hand rolled cigars in their private clubs while sipping on a martini in their favorite leather chair. "
Suzy wrote on Sep 8, 2008 5:15 PM:
" Darn it! I done gone and quit about 16 years ago...why did I do that? Now I know I never would have gotten cancer. "
by stander wrote on Sep 8, 2008 4:39 PM:
" You folks that don't smoke are just like those who don't eat meat, or those who damn McDonalds because they're fat.
Freedom of choice. You a$$holes better wake up. Because our "Land of the Free" is quickly turning to "Home of the Controlled" It's when you non-doers quit supporting the doers and petition to take away their rights, that's the pre-cursor for a tyranny- oppressive power exerted by government-Give them an inch and they'll take a mile.... "
Freedom of choice. You a$$holes better wake up. Because our "Land of the Free" is quickly turning to "Home of the Controlled" It's when you non-doers quit supporting the doers and petition to take away their rights, that's the pre-cursor for a tyranny- oppressive power exerted by government-Give them an inch and they'll take a mile.... "
Roflcopter wrote on Sep 8, 2008 3:54 PM:
" Beyond the cosmos, within them, and without, God has never created a more stupid person, ever, than Janice Mercer. May she rest tonight in comforting reassurance that there is no such thing as cancer, girls have not and will never poop, and that, yes, the Boogeyman is hiding in the closet after all.
And when you're done resting in the simplicity of stupidity, when you're done smiling at the thought of no thought at all, and when you're done stammering as if you know something, please feel free to visit the grave of my Aunt and tell her, in your complacency, that it was not the smoking that caused her cancer; it was the nonsensical bantering found in a local newspaper that unfortunate souls like myself have regretfully read.
For those who join Janice in her handicaps, I salute you. It takes courage to embrace death so readily. Good job on fail Janice Mercer. Good job. "
And when you're done resting in the simplicity of stupidity, when you're done smiling at the thought of no thought at all, and when you're done stammering as if you know something, please feel free to visit the grave of my Aunt and tell her, in your complacency, that it was not the smoking that caused her cancer; it was the nonsensical bantering found in a local newspaper that unfortunate souls like myself have regretfully read.
For those who join Janice in her handicaps, I salute you. It takes courage to embrace death so readily. Good job on fail Janice Mercer. Good job. "
wOOt wrote on Sep 8, 2008 3:24 PM:
" This might have been the dumbest thing i have read in 20 years. At least i know that if i stand by a campfire every day i will not get cancer and that if i don't smoke i will get cancer. If the smoking ban was all about the money wouldn't u think they would want you to smoke since you have to BUY them and they are highly taxed? Can we get the names of those doctors i would like them to tell me that eating fried food every day is good for a persons heart too. hahaha good luck with all those cancer sticks Janice and BTW enjoy the cold this winter when you are smoking OUTSIDE!! "
What a nut wrote on Sep 8, 2008 12:04 PM:
" Janice said, "second hand smoke is no more dangerous then in an area where there is smoke from a fire."
Well I don't know anyone who inhales campfires for pleasure, and I've never seen anyone try to carry one into a restaurant. There is probably some sort of law against it, as there should be for smoking.
Janice said, "No one put a cigarette or cigar in your hand and said you had to smoke it."
No, but smoking in an enclosed area is forcing others to smoke it with you.
What doctors have you been talking to? Did you take your Delorean back to 1920? "
Well I don't know anyone who inhales campfires for pleasure, and I've never seen anyone try to carry one into a restaurant. There is probably some sort of law against it, as there should be for smoking.
Janice said, "No one put a cigarette or cigar in your hand and said you had to smoke it."
No, but smoking in an enclosed area is forcing others to smoke it with you.
What doctors have you been talking to? Did you take your Delorean back to 1920? "
WTF wrote on Sep 7, 2008 7:14 AM:
" Yeah, we should make it legal for kids to smoke and drink and use drugs!!! You are so right, if it's legal they won't do it. That is perfectly logical. "
fiveonenine wrote on Sep 5, 2008 6:52 PM:
" This is one of the silliest letters I've ever seen printed in a long time...It seems to me the letter writer is more concerned with the fact that Iowa passed a law that says you cannot smoke in a bar...If the barowner Duncan is right and he is not to be bullied, try telling him that in a few weeks when they revoke his booze license and he is in front of a judge paying a fine...He might think he is making a stand but all he is doing is breaking the law....I feel sorry for the barowners that they were forced to comply with this new law, and I also read the letters before July 1st about how they were all going to go belly up and close, well I have yet to see one bar in this town close or lose any business...People want to drink in the bars so they still go and then just step outside and light up...
And when it is proven that smoking cigs is not a health hazard or 2nd hand smoke is OK, then I will start to smoke again like I did 10 years ago...and by the way when I did quit I felt so much better without the cigs than I ever did when I smoked, never got sick, never looked back...
And yes please, tell us all the name of these doctors so we can avoid them also !!! "
And when it is proven that smoking cigs is not a health hazard or 2nd hand smoke is OK, then I will start to smoke again like I did 10 years ago...and by the way when I did quit I felt so much better without the cigs than I ever did when I smoked, never got sick, never looked back...
And yes please, tell us all the name of these doctors so we can avoid them also !!! "
| Please log in or create an account by filling out the form on the right. | |
To food for thought wrote on Sep 20, 2008 7:53 PM: