News-Record.com

Read a excellent article on sugar yesterday.
Wonder how long it will take it to be next target for lawyers?

Just another weak scare tactic, Dog. A ban on public smoking has caused no such fallout in the states where the legislators have been smart enough to pass the ban. Infringement on a smoker's rights indeed. There never was a "right" to smoke period.

Uncle ted has killed more people than second hand smoke and I don't see any of the nanny staters demanding we ban him...

Other than Mary Jo, who else has he killed? He shoulda packed the kah in the habbah.

Every law passed is a freedom lost.

If you can keep your cigarette smoke out of my breathing air (and that of your children), smoke away. If you can't, DON'T SMOKE! Chew tobacco, dip snuff, get Nicorette, but don't pollute my air too.

Dog, people have a right to eat sugar. People who eat sugar are not inflicting harm on other people. Okay, I sometimes get cravings when I see people eating sweets, but the sugar-eater isn't responsible for those. It's not a good analogy.

And neo, as far as I know, "Uncle Ted" (Ted Kennedy) was responsible for one death (Mary Jo Kopechne). Second-hand smoke kills far more than that every year. Check this website from the American Lung Association http://www.lungusa.org/site/c.dvLUK9O0E/b.35422/k.7D0B/Secondhand_Smoke_Fact_Sheet.html . Second-hand smoke kills almost 50,000 people every year, including 430 babies.

There has never been a single fatality where the primary cause of death was second hand smoke.

You are much safer in a bar or restaurant where smoking is allowed than in uncle ted's car.

Besides, you smoke nazis have won this battle, time to start looking forward and devise ways to ban home smoking.

neocon, you remember they used to have leper colonies. maybe smoker colonies are next. i guess i'll meet you there.

brenda, I've brought this up before...smokers are the modern day lepers. They provide a good whipping post for the nannies who want control over other people's actions. It's not enough to simply stay out of an establishment that allows smoking, no, no, no... they want the ban in place just in case they decide to honor the privately owned establishment with their presence.

It's all about control.

neocon, that statement was just so un-PC! you know deep in your heart that the sanctimonious are only looking out for those of us who are too stupid to know what's best for us.

brenda,

I hate you feel like an outcast. As a person who is anti-smoking, it is not my intention to make you feel like a leaper. Some of the people I love most smoke. I think they make a bad choice to smoke but I have never thought them stupid or inferior. We have an understanding and respect for each other's opinion.

My objective is not to force you or anyone else to stop smoking. I have been clear about that point. It is, however, my intention to do everything in my power to restrict smoking in public places, be they privately or corporately owned. At present, I cannot avoid all public places where smoking is allowed, nor should I have to. You should be allowed to enjoy your ciggie and I should be allowed to breathe air that is not polluted by your ciggie. That means a compromise.

The problem arises because smokers want no restrictions on their habits, no compromise. Drinkers have restrictions and make no fuss about them.

What many fail to accept is only a few far, far left nuts are trying to eliminate smoking. A total ban on tobacco would work no better than a prohibition on alcohol. It is here to stay and most of us are rational enough to know and accept that. We only want to be able to breathe air without the stench of cigarettes when we go to a public place. We want to enjoy our outing without worrying about ending up in an emergency room with a full blown asthma attack. We want to have the same freedoms as smokers have had for over seventy years. I do not see that as selfish or controlling. I am saddened that you do.

Those pious folks who are so concerned about the effects of smoking and second hand smoke need to stop the posturing and prancing around on this issue.

They need to call for a complete ban on smoking ANYWHERE.

NOW, not later.

"Whenever my family and I leave a restaurant reeking of cigarette smoke, I’m reminded of how important this bill is. You’re supporting the wrong side of this debate, Mr. Caldwell"

Translated: "I care enough to whine about it but not enough to keep my family out of a place that endangers their health"

I'm in favor of a home smoking ban only when children live in the residence. Adults can choose whether or not to live with the second-hand smoke; children can't. I, like Yvonne, am realistic to know that that isn't going to happen anytime soon. But I can dream...

And children with smoking parents are more likely to smoke themselves later, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VC9-3SX4Y19-B&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=7fc0a6aa5978d4bac325dd009a5770af .

Well, seeing as my liberties are slowly but surely being stripped away, I believe a move is in order.

Smokers did try to compromise. We were willing to go to separate areas, post clear signs outside the establishment. But for the smoke-nazis, that simply wasn't good enough. When they do start to ban smoking in our cars and homes, or all together, are you going to rise up against Congress, or are you going to sit idly by?

You say that you are not against smoking, just smoking in public, but I bet that not one of you will stand up for personal rights. You already don't for personal property rights.

And smoking is a right. It's in the Preamble.........the pursuit of happiness. If smoking makes me happy, then who the hell are you to take that RIGHT away from me?

What, exactly is your definition of pious, Bubba? It must differ from the normal use of the word so I am curious.

Beadbaby,

Not only are children of parents who smoke more likely to smoke, they are more likely to die from SIDS, develop asthma, pneumonia and a mirage of other respiratory problems. Some of these conditions stay with kids throughout their lifetimes. It always amazes me when parents care more about sucking on that cancer stick than they do the health of their own children. Nothing, absolutely nothing is more important to me than my children and grandchildren. That is the reason I do not understand risking their health to indulge myself.

Geez - let's also make sure to include legislation that prohibits parents from using bad language at home because most kids who grow up around bad language are likely to use it as adults. Also, we need to prohibit alcohol, smoking and drug use in movies - this type of display has a negitive impact on youth and could possibly lead to such behavior in teenagers.

There are some perfumes that do not smell very good and are very strong smelling. Some have even contributed to some people having asthma attacks. My wife has experience migraine headaches from sitting in proximity of the smell of some of these perfumes. I would bet some of you cigarette Nazis wears some of these nauseous fragrances. TIME TO BAN PERFUME. After all no one has the "right" to wear perfume. And why should my and my wife's health suffer from your stinking fragrance?

My what a tangled web you nazis weave.

"What, exactly is your definition of pious, Bubba? It must differ from the normal use of the word so I am curious."

I refer you to Merriam-Webster's #4 definition of pious:

4 a: marked by sham or hypocrisy b: marked by self-conscious virtue

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pious

firerescuechick,

Your right to happiness does not trump my right to life.

I refuse to be subjected to cigarette smoke, but I am not in favor of mandating that bars and restaurants be smoke-free. Instead, I would much rather see some visionary entrepreneur who has the sense to understand that there are plenty of people who refuse to patronize certain establishments because of the smoke.

I keep hearing about a fantastic bar b que restaurant in my town. I went there once, but I never made it past the front door- the smoke was too strong. Haven't even tried again since. Instead, I go to the Mexican Restaurant 2 blocks down.

Panacea, you still did not answer my questions.

When they try to ban smoking altogether, are you going to protest, or are you going to sit idly by and let it happen?

Yvonne, I know about the other problems children of smokers have. I was lucky I didn't have them because both my parents smoked. It's why I feel so strongly about not smoking around children.

I hated the smoke enough to decide at age 5 that I would never smoke. And I never have, not tobacco and not marijuana. It's one of the best decisions I ever made.

Beachwalker, there's already some pressure against wearing perfume/cologne. Job seekers are advised not to wear scent on job interviews in case the interviewer is allergic. However, scent is harmful to only a few people; second-hand smoke is harmful to everyone.

On principle, I am against more intervention of government. That being said, I do smoke, but I do not like to smoke or smell it while I am eating. I understand non-smokers objections.

The smoking in restaurant issue should be decided by the owner. From my experience, the restaurants I visit do not allow smoking. A savy restauranteur will quickly realize that allowing smoking in his/her establishment reduces profits through the loss of patrons, in addition to the associated costs of cleaning, etc. Let the power of the market determine this issue.