Do you think Washington state should modify its anti-smoking law to allow smoking at cigar shops, former cigar lounges and private halls and clubs?
42 Comments
Darin said:
I am glad to see this is finally being addressed. It made no sense to ban smoking in places like cigar bars. People that are in these establishments are there to smoke or buy tobacco products. Allowing their patrons to smoke will not affect the non-smoking public. These places should have been excluded from the law in the first place.
James said:
Yes of course this should be done. It's a shame the initiative ONLY covers cigar shops, former cigar lounges and private halls and clubs, since there is no defensible excuse for banning smoking in ANY privately-owned business operated in a privately-owned building located on privately-owned property. The original smoking ban passed a couple years ago was indefensible to begin with, because the 62% who voted for it already HAD 73% of all restaurants and bars in the state VOLUNTARILY banning smoking from their premises! So non-smokers could NOT pretend they had "nowhere to go" to enjoy a meal or a drink. They already had 11% MORE than their fair share WITHOUT the ban!
S810 said:
Cigar shops and cigar lounges, yes. That is a no brainer. As far as private halls and clubs I think that should be a membership vote. I personally would not join the club if it was smoking so that is my choice. If I want a cigar and want to smoke it then it makes sense to go buy one and sit in comfort while I puff away.
Mr. Cyrixlord said:
I think people should be able to carry cards that allow them into these smoking clubs to smoke as they please provided that they also sign a waiver which exempts them from medical coverage for smoking related illnesses. This way, others will not have to share the burden of raised premiums based on high maintenance health insurance.
Smokers could also opt into a smokers-only health/medical insurance plan that can cover them, much like a high risk drivers insurance plan.
Bill said:
The smoking ban when it relates to any privately owned business should not have been put in place in the first place. Regardless of what the media or the government officials say it has hurt businesses. I have seen this first hand. Obviously if it hasn't hurt businesses there would be no question of whether it should be allowed in cigar shops private halls and clubs. Let's get real here.
Saera said:
I disagree'd with the original ban from the beginning. Most public places already banned smoking inside so there were lots of places non smokers could visit or work without having to worry about smoke in the least. When there used to be smoking allowed at certain restaurants, pubs and clubs, the staff was almost always of the smoking crowd as well.
I fully agree that smoking should be allowed in private clubs and cigar/smoking bars. People should continue to have freedom of choice. Stop the nannying already! If i want to open a club or what have you and allow smoking, that's my choice. Anyone choosing to apply for work there makes that choice themselves knowing ahead of time that smoking is allowed. Anyone choosing to attend events there would also be making their own choice to be in a smoking establishment. No one is forced to go to a place that allows smoking, so there should be no reason to ban smoking in privately operated places.
Mr. Conservative said:
I am opposed to all smoking anywhere and know its the Devils weed. There are no health benefits to anyone, including the idiot smokers. Tobacco is not liked by the church, therefore, we should not like it. I am for banning it everywhere because there is no reason to keep any tobacco legal. Same for alcohol. Trade them in for Bibles and vote Republican! Praise be! Long live Brave Bush and Scooter Libby!!
Mr. Conservative said:
I am opposed to all smoking anywhere and know its the Devils weed. There are no health benefits to anyone, including the idiot smokers. Tobacco is not liked by the church, therefore, we should not like it. I am for banning it everywhere because there is no reason to keep any tobacco legal. Same for alcohol. Trade them in for Bibles and vote Republican! Praise be! Long live Brave Bush and Scooter Libby!!
Mr. Conservative said:
I am opposed to all smoking anywhere and know its the Devils weed. There are no health benefits to anyone, including the idiot smokers. Tobacco is not liked by the church, therefore, we should not like it. I am for banning it everywhere because there is no reason to keep any tobacco legal. Same for alcohol. Trade them in for Bibles and vote Republican! Praise be! Long live Brave Bush and Scooter Libby!
di said:
Privately owned clubs should never have been affected by this law. P_R_I_V_A_T_E should this not explain it? A privately owned club, in a privately owned building, on privately own land should have the right to run thier business as they see fit- hence the word private. The law makers should use common sense! If I choose to join a private club, then I will choose to follow thier rules for smoking- allowed or not. It is my choice to join or not join based on the clubs bylaws and rules. What is next? Are they going to say that I can't smoke in my privately owned home, on my privately owned land or in my privately owned car? Smoking is a choice that every American has the right to make. As is patronizing a business that allows smoking. Let the business owners decide if they want to allow smoking in thier business. Then let Americans choose to either patronize that business or not. Isn't that what this country is based on- the right to make choices? Our governement needs to quit mico-managing, and our citizens need to use more common sense! If a shop sells and allows cigar or cigarette smoking inside, let Americans choose whether to patronize that business or not. A small sign posted on the front door that states "smoking allowed on these premises " should cover it. Then people wanting to enter that building can use common sense and make a choice whether they want to go in. End of problem!!
mcm said:
No on this one.
Looking at this from a health perspective, allowing cigar or any smoking in private clubs would be a step backward in reducing and eventually eliminating smoking in this state and country.
Also, much of what we are paying into health insurance premiums and into taxes that fund health care for the uninsured pays for smoking related health problems. That affects MY bottom line.
Note to smokers: if you quit, think of all the money you'd have available to pay for gasoline!
Mr JJ said:
Smoking is filthy, it stinks, people that smoke stink. Places that allow smoking stink. The smoke does not just stay in the room that the smoker is in. It goes throughout the building. You can smoke all you want in your car, your home, etc. But if I have to smell it, then it should be banned.
Keep your filthy stinky habit to yourself. But you can't, we all have to smell it. Keep the ban in place. There is no reason anyone needs to smoke.
There is no law in any land that allows you to pollute my environment.
No, don't change the ban, keep it in place.
vrl said:
People say "Cigarettes are bad for my health" I say "Take them away from me and it will be bad for YOUR health" Yes, that means YOU.....Mr JJ and Mr Conservative, talk about a bunch of cranky people!!! It should be a choice, of course. If you don't want to smell it, stay out of the places that allow it, that would be your choice. Outlaw drinkiing first, that's where all the death occurs from car accidents and why aren't the insurance rates raised for the drinking public? There are sooooo many smokers out there, if they were all as beligerant as you the law wouldn't have been put in place to begin with. To all the smokers out there, I would have to say Please stop throwing your butts down everywhere, it just gives these obnoxious people something more to b$#%@ about and they would have a valid point in that case.........Come on smokers, clean it up some if you don't want these extremists to get their way about it. They are just a bunch of big whining babies, don't give them the satisfaction..........also, respect other peoples' air space without being told, take on that responsibility yourself.
James said:
Smokers pay taxes on tobacco products which are there specifically to pay for medical costs. I, for example, did the math and have personally ALREADY paid more than $75,000 in taxes during my lifetime specifically meant to pay for any medical costs which might result from my smoking. What's more, there is MORE of that tax money available for those smokers than what any individual smoker has paid in, simply because not ALL smokers die from smoking-related causes: Countless smokers die (just like everybody else) in car wrecks, train/plane/boat/bus/etc wrecks, from non-smoking-related diseases, in swimming mishaps, sports mishaps, recreation mishaps, homicides, and countless other causes. What's more, countless smokers live to old age and die of natural causes. What's MORE, plenty of smokers have their own financial means and/or insurance, and therefore don't need to use any of the tax-dollars they've paid in. My point is this: The notion that smokers' health-related costs are a burden on NON-smokers is a long-debunked myth. Unless YOU are buying cigarettes (and therefore paying the taxes specifically set aside for smoking-related health costs), YOU aren't paying for any smokers' health costs.
James said:
Smokers pay taxes on tobacco products which are there specifically to pay for medical costs. I, for example, did the math and have personally ALREADY paid more than $75,000 in taxes during my lifetime specifically meant to pay for any medical costs which might result from my smoking. What's more, there is MORE of that tax money available for those smokers than what any individual smoker has paid in, simply because not ALL smokers die from smoking-related causes: Countless smokers die (just like everybody else) in car wrecks, train/plane/boat/bus/etc wrecks, from non-smoking-related diseases, in swimming mishaps, sports mishaps, recreation mishaps, homicides, and countless other causes. What's more, countless smokers live to old age and die of natural causes. What's MORE, plenty of smokers have their own financial means and/or insurance, and therefore don't need to use any of the tax-dollars they've paid in. My point is this: The notion that smokers' health-related costs are a burden on NON-smokers is a long-debunked myth. Unless YOU are buying cigarettes (and therefore paying the taxes specifically set aside for smoking-related health costs), YOU aren't paying for any smokers' health costs.
As for the complaints about being "subjected" to other people's smoke and stink, LOL, you've got that exactly backwards: Before the ban, smokers were able to smoke INSIDE the few privately-owned bars & restaurants where smoking was still allowed, and therefore weren't "subjecting" anybody to their smoke who wasn't there VOLUNTARILY (nobody was ever "forced" to eat or drink in any of the 27% of restaurants and bars where smoking was still allowed). But now that there's a nanny-state ban prohibiting smoking in ALL such places REGARDLESS what the owner of the property would prefer, smokers are forced OUTSIDE to places like the sidewalk, the parking lots, etc, where innocent bystanders and passersby ARE BEING involuntarily subjected to it! So the ban has had precisely the opposite result you were aiming at. Before the ban, nobody "had to" go to any of the few places where they'd be "subjected" to second-hand smoke, but after the ban, EVERYBODY on the sidewalk, in the parking lot, etc, IS being subjected involuntarily.
Sheesh people, use your heads for something besides hair-gardens. The smoking ban is not only a direct violation of property-owners' rights and business owners' rights, it is ALSO causing far more harm than "good". It was contemptible and inexcusable from the very beginning, and needs to be repealed ASAP.
James said:
I apologize for the double-post above. I was having trouble getting it to post. And one of the things I thought (mistakenly) was that it was too long, so I tried cutting it into two parts, which still didn't seem to work. Apparently it finally DID work, except the first one only contains PART of my post, and the second contains the whole thing. So please ignore the first one and read the second one in its entirety. It contains everything in the first one, PLUS the rest which ISN'T in the first one.
Sorry for any confusion.
Walt L. said:
No, definitely no. Define a Private Club?
Any bar and grill or restaurant, etc. can charge you $1 and you become a member and it’s a private club. There would be “Private Clubs” springing up all over.
We would be back to square one if we did that. The people have spoken, let the law stand.
Smoking and second hand smoke are dangerous, PERIOD. It’s a fact.
Smoking is on the way out. About the only hold outs who smoke now are teenagers, low income, under educated blue collar workers.
What we need now is more taxes on tobacco to fund emphysema and repertory problems which the general public monies are funding. Just like taxes on alcohol should be diverted to alcohol related problems.
Ron Larson said:
I for one quit going to my private clubs.I feel we need to keep our freedom.Freedom of choice. I enjoy smoking and don't intend to Quit.
James said:
Walt L. - You said:
"No, definitely no. Define a Private Club? Any bar and grill or restaurant, etc. can charge you $1 and you become a member and it’s a private club. There would be “Private Clubs” springing up all over. We would be back to square one if we did that. The people have spoken, let the law stand."
............
You claim to put a lot of stock in what "the people" want, and I agree with you 100%. So please try to think clearly here - If indeed these private clubs spring up all over, it will be because it's what the people WANT; because the people themselves will have spoken! If nobody anywhere WANTED a place where they can enjoy a smoke with their meal or drinks, no such clubs would "spring up", would they? So why would you be so adamant about prohibiting what the people themselves have spoken clearly about wanting?
And since not one SINGLE non-smoker will EVER be obligated to join or eat or drink in such a club, nobody anywhere can pretend non-smokers will be "victimized" or "subjected" to second-hand smoke "involuntarily". There simply isn't any logical or honest argument against allowing these business-owners to allow the legal consumption of a legal product on their own privately-owned property.
..........
And as for your claim about "emphysema and repertory problems which the general PUBLIC monies are funding", didn't you read the (rather long) post just above yours? That's nothing more than a myth, a scare-tactic employed by the nanny-state busybodies who support these nanny-state bans. There are huge taxes on each and every tobacco product which are there SPECIFICALLY to pay for such expenses, so nobody in "the public" IS being financially "burdened" unless they ARE buying cigarettes!
Robert said:
They should not modify the ban on smoking in cigar bars.
REJr said:
They should not modify the ban on smoking in cigar bars.
Percy said:
The smoking ban has hurt a number of businesses. Those who would frequent establishments are less likely to do so, especially for a venue where smoking was the main focus. There are those who are emphatically against lifting the ban. There are those who are obviously seeking some reprieve.
I am certain, just as in Ohio where the ban was modified to allow establishments (bars, smoking clubs, and adult entertainment venues), the Northwest can acheive some form of compromise.
ginny said:
Absolutely I agree this should be done. Further, any privately owned establishment should be allowed to designate smoking or non just as they did prior to this discriminatory ban. One has to wonder about the intelligence of the non smokers who were unable to locate a smoke free establishment in the state of Washington prior to the ban. One would also have to wonder why they would go to a smoking establishment in the first place if they were so concerned about compromising their health by doing so. Of course I assume they all own cars and freely walk along streets breathing in the carcinogens from the automobile exhaust and don't mind a bit. I guess owning and operting a car is something they want to do so those carcinogens are ok. As for the comment regarding smokers waiver of insurance for smoke related illnesses as a way to address rising health care costs, I would submit that all obese people, of which there are many, should do the same. There are many costly,chronic health issues and deaths that can be directly attributed to obesity; diabetes, heart and circulatory conditions, hip replacements, etc., just to name a few which have a huge impact on rising medical costs. Interestingly enough, I have been unable to find any statistics or documentation on the number of deaths or severe medical conditions directly attributed to exposure to secondary smoke which seems to make this whole hysteria about smoking rather ridiculous.
ginny said:
Absolutely I agree this should be done. Further, any privately owned establishment should be allowed to designate smoking or non just as they did prior to this discriminatory ban. One has to wonder about the intelligence of the non smokers who were unable to locate a smoke free establishment in the state of Washington prior to the ban. One would also have to wonder why they would go to a smoking establishment in the first place if they were so concerned about compromising their health by doing so. Of course I assume they all own cars and freely walk along streets breathing in the carcinogens from the automobile exhaust and don't mind a bit. I guess owning and operting a car is something they want to do so those carcinogens are ok. As for the comment regarding smokers waiver of insurance for smoke related illnesses as a way to address rising health care costs, I would submit that all obese people, of which there are many, should do the same. There are many costly,chronic health issues and deaths that can be directly attributed to obesity; diabetes, heart and circulatory conditions, hip replacements, etc., just to name a few which have a huge impact on rising medical costs. Interestingly enough, I have been unable to find any statistics or documentation on the number of deaths or severe medical conditions directly attributed to exposure to secondary smoke which seems to make this whole hysteria about smoking rather ridiculous.
David said:
Regarding private clubs, bars and anywhere else where only ADULTS are allowed, as adults have a choice as to whether to work in or patronize those establishments, I think the smoking ban was illegal from the beginning...check out what Roe vs Wade was really all about...it set a precident for rights for an indiviual under the three basic rights addressed in the constitution, right above where it says that these three rights cannot be removed without due process, which by the way is not a voter decision.
The constitution was set up that way to protect our basic rights, and Washington State consistently ignores that fact. Roe vs Wade was not just about abortion and the rights of a fetus, it was about the rights of the individual.
DBM said:
So I see there are a lot of folks on this blog that think that they have the right to decide how other people should live their lives....guess what folks, if you are over 21 in this country, you have the right to smoke, drink, act stupid and say what is on your mind...but as of yet you dont have the right to tell someone else how to live, who to vote for or what church to go to....but keep it up and someone will someday have the right to tell you how to live. You are just going to love that....right? Not me, I am one of those fools that went to war and got myself shot for your rights, so that I could come home to a country where I cant smoke in an adult private club where all the bartenders now have to go outside to smoke with the patrons....Oh, and you bleeding heart idiots also have the right to leave this country anytime you wish...be an american or leave.
Mr. Christian and Holy said:
MY GOOD PEOPLE, YOU CAN SMOKE YOUR BRAINS OUT IN THE PRIVACY OF YOUR OWN HOMES AND CHOKE AND SLOWLY KILL YOURSELF AND YOUR LOVES ONES, BUT NOT OURS. THAT IS WHAT THIS BILL IS ABOUT. PLAIN AND SIMPLE FOR YOU SLOWER FOLKS.
AND MR IRAQ VET, YOU SUCK! WHILE YOU WERE OFF SMOKING IN IRAQ & PARTICIPATING IN MR. BUSH'S ILLEGAL OCCUPATION, WE WERE HOLDING THIS GREAT COUNTRY TOGETHER FOR YOU TO COME BACK TO. NOW YOU FEEL THAT ENTITLES YOU TO SMOKE IN PUBLIC AND POLLUTE AND KILL YOUR FELLOW AMERICANS, YOU ARE A FOOL AND A TRAITOR!! SMOKING KILLS THE INNOCENT, LIKE THE U.S. TO IRAQI CIVILIANS.
SMOKING IS EVIL, SOME SMART FOLKS SEEM TO GET THAT, AND THE IDOITS DO NOT.
dbm said:
Mr. Christian and Holy...I respect your right to free speech even if I disagree. My hope though would be that you would think first and would not jump to uninformed judgements.
First off, I am not and did not say that I was an Iraq vet. Yes, I did serve, and yes I did get shot in another war but I was a medic and did not carry a firearm. I never shot or killed anyone. I also disagree with our entering into war in Iraq.
Additionally I do not support smoking in public places where children may be present...Adult private clubs are not public places where children are present. They are places where adults had the right to decide. Rights that were taken away....by misguided and uninformed zealots.
Mr Christian said:
Sir,
The only uninformed opinions I see are yours. You think it OK to kill innocent people with your cancerous smoke, we do not. That is an INFORMED decision, in case you have not read recent medical reports. Children are NOT the sole issue, it is all humans. You are selfish and care little for others, that is obvious. No one is taking away your right to smoke, just your right to kill others with it, why is that so hard for you to comprehend? Your Private Club is your house! Keep you murderous smoke their and kill your loved ones, not ours. Yeah, and I bet you disagree with Iraq, but how is this world safer after we disarmed an unarmed Saddam? And now the largest terrorist factory known to mankind has taken his place?? There is no way out of Iraq, there is no "victory" because they will NEVER EVER stop killing us as long as we illegally occupy THEIR Country!
RBL said:
I see a huge double standard here........I am one of those terrible people who smoke, I guess that makes me a reject. How many of you go out in public and drink, then drive, then kill people? Some (a lot) of people do. Does that give me the right to say that you should only be allowed to drink in your home? You would say "I'm not one of those people". Well, so what?! I'm not one of the people wh disrespect your air space but people are killed every day by drinking and driving so YOU should not be able to drink unless it is in your own home, or get a taxi or disignated driver. Once you have a few drinks in you, it doesn't happen that way, obviously, but that's alright........go ahead, kill other people and think it's ok. I see a bunch of self-righteous people out there with double standards!
Mr. Christian said:
Mr. RBL:
The only double standard here is in YOUR MIND dude. So, according to your logic, all those that do not smoke are drinkers who drive drunk?? Well, we don't SMOKE and we do not DRINK and DRIVE either,I think you are talking about your low class familiy and friends, not ours, nor the general public. Oh, and last I heard IT IS ILLEGAL TO DRINK AND DRIVE!! Forgot about taht didn't ya! Not sure what point, if any, you are attemting, but it went up in smoke like your cancer sticks! Instead of making up stupid, pointless arguments, go ahead and keep on being a selfish smoker, but just smoke and kill your own loved ones in the privacy of your dwelling, not leave our lungs alone! Oh, and pleae read the Bible and that part of doing unto others, as you would have others do unto you!
Bill said:
Dear Bible-Thumper,
If you expect people to do unto you as you would do unto them then you must not have many friends. The way you are treating people on this blog says alot about what kind of hippocrate you really are. So let me treat you as you treat others. You can take your semi-knowledge of the bible and your self superior attitude and put it where the sun don't shine. I hope you understand what my message here is because even a three year old could figure it out. Just in case let me spell it out for you specifically. People are more apt to listen to what you have to say if you put across in a way that doesn't make them feel like you believe you are better than them. GET IT??? Now of course you will probably take this bit of advice and disregard it because obviously no one knows more about anything than you do but that is your choice. Have a nice day.
Mr. Christian said:
Hey Billy-boy, Sounds like you just got back from another day of psychotherapy, and you are describing yourself to a T, just like the guy with the PhD dis today! You not once respond to the issues presented, but rather spend a paragraph name calling, but people will listen to you, right?? WRONG!! No-one, not even you, can make any sense on your incoherent, inept ramblings. You obviously forgot what blog you are even on, for its theme (and all commen sense for that matter)is lacking from your "thesis."
Respond to the issues Billy-boy and don't worry, I have plenty of friends, because I, unlike you, am not killing and damaging them with my self rightous arrogent second hand smoke! Ouch, that must hurt!
Mr. Christian said:
Billy, where are ya? I hope in a corner realizing how wrong and foolish you look. Again, not once do you respond to our issue of YOUR selfish second hand smoke and the destructivness it causes others. Instead, you lash out with name calling, even going so far as to call me selfish and superior. Well, I am superior to you because I care about others, where you obviously do not. I am not superior to other caring folks who despise your selfish ways and your blatent disregard of others health. For if you did care, your second hand smoke would be kept inside your home to kill and poisen you and your family, instead of ours.
But I now realize, you just can't make the ignorant educated, so why try?
James said:
Mr "Christian and Holy" - I'm forced to conclude your chosen username is meant as a joke, since I know plenty of Christians (and am a Christian myself), and I've never met one who was so rude and condescending before. PLEASE try to calm down and think clearly here: This is supposed to be a rational discussion, not a shouting match.
Every claim you've tried to "support" your position upon has been simply incorrect. The whole point here is that NOBODY will be "involuntarily subjected" to second-hand smoke if this perfectly logical change is made. Not you, not your children, nor anybody else. Nobody anywhere (yourself included) will EVER be "forced" to join one of these private clubs, or work there, or eat there, or drink there, or anything else. Every single person there will be there voluntarily, KNOWING full well that smoking is allowed, so it's patently ridiculous to pretend anybody is being "victimized" or being "involuntarily subjected" to second-hand smoke.
In fact, as pointed out earlier in this thread (did you even bother to read the posts before yours?), it's the CURRENT smoking ban which IS causing innocent bystanders to be subjected involuntarily to other people's smoke. Think about it carefully: Before the ban, the only people being "subjected" to other people's smoke were those who voluntarily entered establishments where they knew perfectly well smoking was allowed. But now, after the ban went into effect, smokers are forced OUTSIDE, onto the sidewalk, into the parking lots, etc etc etc, where innocent bystanders and passersby ARE being involuntarily subjected to their smoke!
There simply isn't ANY logical, reasonable, or honest argument against allowing privately-owned businesses to allow smoking in their places of business if they choose to do so.
Mr. Christian said:
Well, well, well, looks whos back..You still don't get it do you Mr. so called "Christian." You touch on the subject and then walk away from it. People are going to have to work at these private clubs, Right? Yeah, and more likely than not lower waged folks (Like kids!) who need the job, and will be then subjected to your poisenous second hand smoke. Your position is: You don't have to go there or work there if you do not want...WRONG Again egomaniac. There is no place for second hand smoke, but that fact cannot penatrate your PEE Brain when we as a civilized people, who have learned that it KILLS, should use this knowledge to save lives, not just kill fewer, like you and your ridiculous ramblings advocate. There is just NO logical reason to subject the great people of this nation to your selfish and Deadly Second Hand smoke. And that being outside bit does not hold water either, because we are suceptable to many more toxic items in our air than someones cigarette smoke. Again, so you can understand it: There simply is NO reasonable, or logical argument you can make that would defend your selfish second hand smoke and its deadly destructiveness on INNOCENT human beings. Grow up now and please read the Bible! It not once advocates your selfish positions of killing innocent human beings, so quit trying to justify it! Try caring about others lives, and not destroying them! That theme runs throughout the Bible, but you were too busy daydreaming to notice.
Bill said:
Dear Bible Thumper,
Obviously you did not take the time to read this blog before you decided to interject your narrow minded opinion into it. If you had you would have seen my comment earlier on in this discussion. But once again you show your interest in nothing but being a blow-hard that knows nothing about the subject other than what you choose to believe. I must admit this has been fun coming home to look at this blog just to see what irrational ramblings you have to offer in your most recent comment. Especially the way you show the way self righteous bible thumpers really do believe they are superior to anyone else when in all actuality the narrow mindedness and lack of enlightenment shows through. Please keep up the rantings.By the way, I don't smoke, hate the smell of it and am fully aware of the health affects of smoking. I just happen to believe that our basic rights as personal property owners are being slowly taken from us. That Mr. bible thumper should scare you a whole hell of a lot more than second hand smoke being contained in a building you don't even enter.
James said:
Well "Mr Christian and Holy", I see you're still incapable of rational discussion, and must resort to infantile insults and outright ignorance. The facts remain facts, regardless whether you keep dodging them or not: NOBODY will ever be "forced" to join any private club which chooses to allow smoking, or work there, or eat there, or drink there. That is simply an irrefutable fact. Therefore all your silly ranting about "innocent" people being "subjected" to others' second-hand smoke is pure nonsense. I'm sorry you refuse to face the facts, preferring to wallow in self-imposed ignorance. Perhaps someday you'll grow up, and begin to ACT like the Christian you claim you are.
vrl said:
This HAS been entertaining. Thank you "Mr. Christian and Holy". You are a joke and I am thankful that not everyone is as ignorant as you are. You are my laugh of the day when I come home and catch up on all your rantings. How can you not see it!!?? You are simply wrong. Since you seem to want to throw the Bible out there in everyone else's face........what about the part that says "Judge not, lest you be judged yourself"? Is it not God's right, only, to judge other human beings? Your ignorance is an insult to God and the Bible. You have a little man's syndrome and as a result you think you need to control other people, not happening, we are all laughing at you. Keep it up, it's good entertainment............
Holy said:
Well Mr. James & VRL & Bill!
You are an ignorant retch, who cares nothing about others, only your self, your rantings and ravings do not get around your narromindedness and absolute hate of others health. You are wrong on all points and all here plainly see it, cept you and your pee brain. You are a pathetic cancer stick smoker who litters this great country with your cigeratte butts and second hand smoke, I truly hope you die soon from the smoke you wantingly and recklessly poisen others with.
Theresa said:
Who do you think you are to declare what decisions I should make or that your choices are better than mine?
Creating a law taking away the freedom to make our own choices is plain wrong...To ban smoking in public places is inviting another "Prohibition" which promoted other more serious issues...Let freedom of choice ring, as long as we smokers are not infringing on the rights of others we deserve the same consideration.
Michelle said:
Smoking is a personal choice and establishments that wish to patronage those that do. Should be able to do so. Government bullying is wrong!!!! Judging others, for what ever, is not up to us and those that are doing so will be Judged themselves in the end.
Telling people "YOU CAN'T DO THAT" only makes them want to do it! The Rebel syndrome, just look at proabition and illegal drugs.
Smoking, alchol, and drugs are bad for your health, but it is still a personal choice!!!!!!
I am glad to see this is finally being addressed. It made no sense to ban smoking in places like cigar bars. People that are in these establishments are there to smoke or buy tobacco products. Allowing their patrons to smoke will not affect the non-smoking public. These places should have been excluded from the law in the first place.
Yes of course this should be done. It's a shame the initiative ONLY covers cigar shops, former cigar lounges and private halls and clubs, since there is no defensible excuse for banning smoking in ANY privately-owned business operated in a privately-owned building located on privately-owned property. The original smoking ban passed a couple years ago was indefensible to begin with, because the 62% who voted for it already HAD 73% of all restaurants and bars in the state VOLUNTARILY banning smoking from their premises! So non-smokers could NOT pretend they had "nowhere to go" to enjoy a meal or a drink. They already had 11% MORE than their fair share WITHOUT the ban!
Cigar shops and cigar lounges, yes. That is a no brainer. As far as private halls and clubs I think that should be a membership vote. I personally would not join the club if it was smoking so that is my choice. If I want a cigar and want to smoke it then it makes sense to go buy one and sit in comfort while I puff away.
I think people should be able to carry cards that allow them into these smoking clubs to smoke as they please provided that they also sign a waiver which exempts them from medical coverage for smoking related illnesses. This way, others will not have to share the burden of raised premiums based on high maintenance health insurance.
Smokers could also opt into a smokers-only health/medical insurance plan that can cover them, much like a high risk drivers insurance plan.
The smoking ban when it relates to any privately owned business should not have been put in place in the first place. Regardless of what the media or the government officials say it has hurt businesses. I have seen this first hand. Obviously if it hasn't hurt businesses there would be no question of whether it should be allowed in cigar shops private halls and clubs. Let's get real here.
I disagree'd with the original ban from the beginning. Most public places already banned smoking inside so there were lots of places non smokers could visit or work without having to worry about smoke in the least. When there used to be smoking allowed at certain restaurants, pubs and clubs, the staff was almost always of the smoking crowd as well.
I fully agree that smoking should be allowed in private clubs and cigar/smoking bars. People should continue to have freedom of choice. Stop the nannying already! If i want to open a club or what have you and allow smoking, that's my choice. Anyone choosing to apply for work there makes that choice themselves knowing ahead of time that smoking is allowed. Anyone choosing to attend events there would also be making their own choice to be in a smoking establishment. No one is forced to go to a place that allows smoking, so there should be no reason to ban smoking in privately operated places.
I am opposed to all smoking anywhere and know its the Devils weed. There are no health benefits to anyone, including the idiot smokers. Tobacco is not liked by the church, therefore, we should not like it. I am for banning it everywhere because there is no reason to keep any tobacco legal. Same for alcohol. Trade them in for Bibles and vote Republican! Praise be! Long live Brave Bush and Scooter Libby!!
I am opposed to all smoking anywhere and know its the Devils weed. There are no health benefits to anyone, including the idiot smokers. Tobacco is not liked by the church, therefore, we should not like it. I am for banning it everywhere because there is no reason to keep any tobacco legal. Same for alcohol. Trade them in for Bibles and vote Republican! Praise be! Long live Brave Bush and Scooter Libby!!
I am opposed to all smoking anywhere and know its the Devils weed. There are no health benefits to anyone, including the idiot smokers. Tobacco is not liked by the church, therefore, we should not like it. I am for banning it everywhere because there is no reason to keep any tobacco legal. Same for alcohol. Trade them in for Bibles and vote Republican! Praise be! Long live Brave Bush and Scooter Libby!
Privately owned clubs should never have been affected by this law. P_R_I_V_A_T_E should this not explain it? A privately owned club, in a privately owned building, on privately own land should have the right to run thier business as they see fit- hence the word private. The law makers should use common sense! If I choose to join a private club, then I will choose to follow thier rules for smoking- allowed or not. It is my choice to join or not join based on the clubs bylaws and rules. What is next? Are they going to say that I can't smoke in my privately owned home, on my privately owned land or in my privately owned car? Smoking is a choice that every American has the right to make. As is patronizing a business that allows smoking. Let the business owners decide if they want to allow smoking in thier business. Then let Americans choose to either patronize that business or not. Isn't that what this country is based on- the right to make choices? Our governement needs to quit mico-managing, and our citizens need to use more common sense! If a shop sells and allows cigar or cigarette smoking inside, let Americans choose whether to patronize that business or not. A small sign posted on the front door that states "smoking allowed on these premises " should cover it. Then people wanting to enter that building can use common sense and make a choice whether they want to go in. End of problem!!
No on this one.
Looking at this from a health perspective, allowing cigar or any smoking in private clubs would be a step backward in reducing and eventually eliminating smoking in this state and country.
Also, much of what we are paying into health insurance premiums and into taxes that fund health care for the uninsured pays for smoking related health problems. That affects MY bottom line.
Note to smokers: if you quit, think of all the money you'd have available to pay for gasoline!
Smoking is filthy, it stinks, people that smoke stink. Places that allow smoking stink. The smoke does not just stay in the room that the smoker is in. It goes throughout the building. You can smoke all you want in your car, your home, etc. But if I have to smell it, then it should be banned.
Keep your filthy stinky habit to yourself. But you can't, we all have to smell it. Keep the ban in place. There is no reason anyone needs to smoke.
There is no law in any land that allows you to pollute my environment.
No, don't change the ban, keep it in place.
People say "Cigarettes are bad for my health" I say "Take them away from me and it will be bad for YOUR health" Yes, that means YOU.....Mr JJ and Mr Conservative, talk about a bunch of cranky people!!! It should be a choice, of course. If you don't want to smell it, stay out of the places that allow it, that would be your choice. Outlaw drinkiing first, that's where all the death occurs from car accidents and why aren't the insurance rates raised for the drinking public? There are sooooo many smokers out there, if they were all as beligerant as you the law wouldn't have been put in place to begin with. To all the smokers out there, I would have to say Please stop throwing your butts down everywhere, it just gives these obnoxious people something more to b$#%@ about and they would have a valid point in that case.........Come on smokers, clean it up some if you don't want these extremists to get their way about it. They are just a bunch of big whining babies, don't give them the satisfaction..........also, respect other peoples' air space without being told, take on that responsibility yourself.
Smokers pay taxes on tobacco products which are there specifically to pay for medical costs. I, for example, did the math and have personally ALREADY paid more than $75,000 in taxes during my lifetime specifically meant to pay for any medical costs which might result from my smoking. What's more, there is MORE of that tax money available for those smokers than what any individual smoker has paid in, simply because not ALL smokers die from smoking-related causes: Countless smokers die (just like everybody else) in car wrecks, train/plane/boat/bus/etc wrecks, from non-smoking-related diseases, in swimming mishaps, sports mishaps, recreation mishaps, homicides, and countless other causes. What's more, countless smokers live to old age and die of natural causes. What's MORE, plenty of smokers have their own financial means and/or insurance, and therefore don't need to use any of the tax-dollars they've paid in. My point is this: The notion that smokers' health-related costs are a burden on NON-smokers is a long-debunked myth. Unless YOU are buying cigarettes (and therefore paying the taxes specifically set aside for smoking-related health costs), YOU aren't paying for any smokers' health costs.
Smokers pay taxes on tobacco products which are there specifically to pay for medical costs. I, for example, did the math and have personally ALREADY paid more than $75,000 in taxes during my lifetime specifically meant to pay for any medical costs which might result from my smoking. What's more, there is MORE of that tax money available for those smokers than what any individual smoker has paid in, simply because not ALL smokers die from smoking-related causes: Countless smokers die (just like everybody else) in car wrecks, train/plane/boat/bus/etc wrecks, from non-smoking-related diseases, in swimming mishaps, sports mishaps, recreation mishaps, homicides, and countless other causes. What's more, countless smokers live to old age and die of natural causes. What's MORE, plenty of smokers have their own financial means and/or insurance, and therefore don't need to use any of the tax-dollars they've paid in. My point is this: The notion that smokers' health-related costs are a burden on NON-smokers is a long-debunked myth. Unless YOU are buying cigarettes (and therefore paying the taxes specifically set aside for smoking-related health costs), YOU aren't paying for any smokers' health costs.
As for the complaints about being "subjected" to other people's smoke and stink, LOL, you've got that exactly backwards: Before the ban, smokers were able to smoke INSIDE the few privately-owned bars & restaurants where smoking was still allowed, and therefore weren't "subjecting" anybody to their smoke who wasn't there VOLUNTARILY (nobody was ever "forced" to eat or drink in any of the 27% of restaurants and bars where smoking was still allowed). But now that there's a nanny-state ban prohibiting smoking in ALL such places REGARDLESS what the owner of the property would prefer, smokers are forced OUTSIDE to places like the sidewalk, the parking lots, etc, where innocent bystanders and passersby ARE BEING involuntarily subjected to it! So the ban has had precisely the opposite result you were aiming at. Before the ban, nobody "had to" go to any of the few places where they'd be "subjected" to second-hand smoke, but after the ban, EVERYBODY on the sidewalk, in the parking lot, etc, IS being subjected involuntarily.
Sheesh people, use your heads for something besides hair-gardens. The smoking ban is not only a direct violation of property-owners' rights and business owners' rights, it is ALSO causing far more harm than "good". It was contemptible and inexcusable from the very beginning, and needs to be repealed ASAP.
I apologize for the double-post above. I was having trouble getting it to post. And one of the things I thought (mistakenly) was that it was too long, so I tried cutting it into two parts, which still didn't seem to work. Apparently it finally DID work, except the first one only contains PART of my post, and the second contains the whole thing. So please ignore the first one and read the second one in its entirety. It contains everything in the first one, PLUS the rest which ISN'T in the first one.
Sorry for any confusion.
No, definitely no. Define a Private Club?
Any bar and grill or restaurant, etc. can charge you $1 and you become a member and it’s a private club. There would be “Private Clubs” springing up all over.
We would be back to square one if we did that. The people have spoken, let the law stand.
Smoking and second hand smoke are dangerous, PERIOD. It’s a fact.
Smoking is on the way out. About the only hold outs who smoke now are teenagers, low income, under educated blue collar workers.
What we need now is more taxes on tobacco to fund emphysema and repertory problems which the general public monies are funding. Just like taxes on alcohol should be diverted to alcohol related problems.
I for one quit going to my private clubs.I feel we need to keep our freedom.Freedom of choice. I enjoy smoking and don't intend to Quit.
Walt L. - You said:
"No, definitely no. Define a Private Club? Any bar and grill or restaurant, etc. can charge you $1 and you become a member and it’s a private club. There would be “Private Clubs” springing up all over. We would be back to square one if we did that. The people have spoken, let the law stand."
............
You claim to put a lot of stock in what "the people" want, and I agree with you 100%. So please try to think clearly here - If indeed these private clubs spring up all over, it will be because it's what the people WANT; because the people themselves will have spoken! If nobody anywhere WANTED a place where they can enjoy a smoke with their meal or drinks, no such clubs would "spring up", would they? So why would you be so adamant about prohibiting what the people themselves have spoken clearly about wanting?
And since not one SINGLE non-smoker will EVER be obligated to join or eat or drink in such a club, nobody anywhere can pretend non-smokers will be "victimized" or "subjected" to second-hand smoke "involuntarily". There simply isn't any logical or honest argument against allowing these business-owners to allow the legal consumption of a legal product on their own privately-owned property.
..........
And as for your claim about "emphysema and repertory problems which the general PUBLIC monies are funding", didn't you read the (rather long) post just above yours? That's nothing more than a myth, a scare-tactic employed by the nanny-state busybodies who support these nanny-state bans. There are huge taxes on each and every tobacco product which are there SPECIFICALLY to pay for such expenses, so nobody in "the public" IS being financially "burdened" unless they ARE buying cigarettes!
They should not modify the ban on smoking in cigar bars.
They should not modify the ban on smoking in cigar bars.
The smoking ban has hurt a number of businesses. Those who would frequent establishments are less likely to do so, especially for a venue where smoking was the main focus. There are those who are emphatically against lifting the ban. There are those who are obviously seeking some reprieve.
I am certain, just as in Ohio where the ban was modified to allow establishments (bars, smoking clubs, and adult entertainment venues), the Northwest can acheive some form of compromise.
Absolutely I agree this should be done. Further, any privately owned establishment should be allowed to designate smoking or non just as they did prior to this discriminatory ban. One has to wonder about the intelligence of the non smokers who were unable to locate a smoke free establishment in the state of Washington prior to the ban. One would also have to wonder why they would go to a smoking establishment in the first place if they were so concerned about compromising their health by doing so. Of course I assume they all own cars and freely walk along streets breathing in the carcinogens from the automobile exhaust and don't mind a bit. I guess owning and operting a car is something they want to do so those carcinogens are ok. As for the comment regarding smokers waiver of insurance for smoke related illnesses as a way to address rising health care costs, I would submit that all obese people, of which there are many, should do the same. There are many costly,chronic health issues and deaths that can be directly attributed to obesity; diabetes, heart and circulatory conditions, hip replacements, etc., just to name a few which have a huge impact on rising medical costs. Interestingly enough, I have been unable to find any statistics or documentation on the number of deaths or severe medical conditions directly attributed to exposure to secondary smoke which seems to make this whole hysteria about smoking rather ridiculous.
Absolutely I agree this should be done. Further, any privately owned establishment should be allowed to designate smoking or non just as they did prior to this discriminatory ban. One has to wonder about the intelligence of the non smokers who were unable to locate a smoke free establishment in the state of Washington prior to the ban. One would also have to wonder why they would go to a smoking establishment in the first place if they were so concerned about compromising their health by doing so. Of course I assume they all own cars and freely walk along streets breathing in the carcinogens from the automobile exhaust and don't mind a bit. I guess owning and operting a car is something they want to do so those carcinogens are ok. As for the comment regarding smokers waiver of insurance for smoke related illnesses as a way to address rising health care costs, I would submit that all obese people, of which there are many, should do the same. There are many costly,chronic health issues and deaths that can be directly attributed to obesity; diabetes, heart and circulatory conditions, hip replacements, etc., just to name a few which have a huge impact on rising medical costs. Interestingly enough, I have been unable to find any statistics or documentation on the number of deaths or severe medical conditions directly attributed to exposure to secondary smoke which seems to make this whole hysteria about smoking rather ridiculous.
Regarding private clubs, bars and anywhere else where only ADULTS are allowed, as adults have a choice as to whether to work in or patronize those establishments, I think the smoking ban was illegal from the beginning...check out what Roe vs Wade was really all about...it set a precident for rights for an indiviual under the three basic rights addressed in the constitution, right above where it says that these three rights cannot be removed without due process, which by the way is not a voter decision.
The constitution was set up that way to protect our basic rights, and Washington State consistently ignores that fact. Roe vs Wade was not just about abortion and the rights of a fetus, it was about the rights of the individual.
So I see there are a lot of folks on this blog that think that they have the right to decide how other people should live their lives....guess what folks, if you are over 21 in this country, you have the right to smoke, drink, act stupid and say what is on your mind...but as of yet you dont have the right to tell someone else how to live, who to vote for or what church to go to....but keep it up and someone will someday have the right to tell you how to live. You are just going to love that....right? Not me, I am one of those fools that went to war and got myself shot for your rights, so that I could come home to a country where I cant smoke in an adult private club where all the bartenders now have to go outside to smoke with the patrons....Oh, and you bleeding heart idiots also have the right to leave this country anytime you wish...be an american or leave.
MY GOOD PEOPLE, YOU CAN SMOKE YOUR BRAINS OUT IN THE PRIVACY OF YOUR OWN HOMES AND CHOKE AND SLOWLY KILL YOURSELF AND YOUR LOVES ONES, BUT NOT OURS. THAT IS WHAT THIS BILL IS ABOUT. PLAIN AND SIMPLE FOR YOU SLOWER FOLKS.
AND MR IRAQ VET, YOU SUCK! WHILE YOU WERE OFF SMOKING IN IRAQ & PARTICIPATING IN MR. BUSH'S ILLEGAL OCCUPATION, WE WERE HOLDING THIS GREAT COUNTRY TOGETHER FOR YOU TO COME BACK TO. NOW YOU FEEL THAT ENTITLES YOU TO SMOKE IN PUBLIC AND POLLUTE AND KILL YOUR FELLOW AMERICANS, YOU ARE A FOOL AND A TRAITOR!! SMOKING KILLS THE INNOCENT, LIKE THE U.S. TO IRAQI CIVILIANS.
SMOKING IS EVIL, SOME SMART FOLKS SEEM TO GET THAT, AND THE IDOITS DO NOT.
Mr. Christian and Holy...I respect your right to free speech even if I disagree. My hope though would be that you would think first and would not jump to uninformed judgements.
First off, I am not and did not say that I was an Iraq vet. Yes, I did serve, and yes I did get shot in another war but I was a medic and did not carry a firearm. I never shot or killed anyone. I also disagree with our entering into war in Iraq.
Additionally I do not support smoking in public places where children may be present...Adult private clubs are not public places where children are present. They are places where adults had the right to decide. Rights that were taken away....by misguided and uninformed zealots.
Sir,
The only uninformed opinions I see are yours. You think it OK to kill innocent people with your cancerous smoke, we do not. That is an INFORMED decision, in case you have not read recent medical reports. Children are NOT the sole issue, it is all humans. You are selfish and care little for others, that is obvious. No one is taking away your right to smoke, just your right to kill others with it, why is that so hard for you to comprehend? Your Private Club is your house! Keep you murderous smoke their and kill your loved ones, not ours. Yeah, and I bet you disagree with Iraq, but how is this world safer after we disarmed an unarmed Saddam? And now the largest terrorist factory known to mankind has taken his place?? There is no way out of Iraq, there is no "victory" because they will NEVER EVER stop killing us as long as we illegally occupy THEIR Country!
I see a huge double standard here........I am one of those terrible people who smoke, I guess that makes me a reject. How many of you go out in public and drink, then drive, then kill people? Some (a lot) of people do. Does that give me the right to say that you should only be allowed to drink in your home? You would say "I'm not one of those people". Well, so what?! I'm not one of the people wh disrespect your air space but people are killed every day by drinking and driving so YOU should not be able to drink unless it is in your own home, or get a taxi or disignated driver. Once you have a few drinks in you, it doesn't happen that way, obviously, but that's alright........go ahead, kill other people and think it's ok. I see a bunch of self-righteous people out there with double standards!
Mr. RBL:
The only double standard here is in YOUR MIND dude. So, according to your logic, all those that do not smoke are drinkers who drive drunk?? Well, we don't SMOKE and we do not DRINK and DRIVE either,I think you are talking about your low class familiy and friends, not ours, nor the general public. Oh, and last I heard IT IS ILLEGAL TO DRINK AND DRIVE!! Forgot about taht didn't ya! Not sure what point, if any, you are attemting, but it went up in smoke like your cancer sticks! Instead of making up stupid, pointless arguments, go ahead and keep on being a selfish smoker, but just smoke and kill your own loved ones in the privacy of your dwelling, not leave our lungs alone! Oh, and pleae read the Bible and that part of doing unto others, as you would have others do unto you!
Dear Bible-Thumper,
If you expect people to do unto you as you would do unto them then you must not have many friends. The way you are treating people on this blog says alot about what kind of hippocrate you really are. So let me treat you as you treat others. You can take your semi-knowledge of the bible and your self superior attitude and put it where the sun don't shine. I hope you understand what my message here is because even a three year old could figure it out. Just in case let me spell it out for you specifically. People are more apt to listen to what you have to say if you put across in a way that doesn't make them feel like you believe you are better than them. GET IT??? Now of course you will probably take this bit of advice and disregard it because obviously no one knows more about anything than you do but that is your choice. Have a nice day.
Hey Billy-boy, Sounds like you just got back from another day of psychotherapy, and you are describing yourself to a T, just like the guy with the PhD dis today! You not once respond to the issues presented, but rather spend a paragraph name calling, but people will listen to you, right?? WRONG!! No-one, not even you, can make any sense on your incoherent, inept ramblings. You obviously forgot what blog you are even on, for its theme (and all commen sense for that matter)is lacking from your "thesis."
Respond to the issues Billy-boy and don't worry, I have plenty of friends, because I, unlike you, am not killing and damaging them with my self rightous arrogent second hand smoke! Ouch, that must hurt!
Billy, where are ya? I hope in a corner realizing how wrong and foolish you look. Again, not once do you respond to our issue of YOUR selfish second hand smoke and the destructivness it causes others. Instead, you lash out with name calling, even going so far as to call me selfish and superior. Well, I am superior to you because I care about others, where you obviously do not. I am not superior to other caring folks who despise your selfish ways and your blatent disregard of others health. For if you did care, your second hand smoke would be kept inside your home to kill and poisen you and your family, instead of ours.
But I now realize, you just can't make the ignorant educated, so why try?
Mr "Christian and Holy" - I'm forced to conclude your chosen username is meant as a joke, since I know plenty of Christians (and am a Christian myself), and I've never met one who was so rude and condescending before. PLEASE try to calm down and think clearly here: This is supposed to be a rational discussion, not a shouting match.
Every claim you've tried to "support" your position upon has been simply incorrect. The whole point here is that NOBODY will be "involuntarily subjected" to second-hand smoke if this perfectly logical change is made. Not you, not your children, nor anybody else. Nobody anywhere (yourself included) will EVER be "forced" to join one of these private clubs, or work there, or eat there, or drink there, or anything else. Every single person there will be there voluntarily, KNOWING full well that smoking is allowed, so it's patently ridiculous to pretend anybody is being "victimized" or being "involuntarily subjected" to second-hand smoke.
In fact, as pointed out earlier in this thread (did you even bother to read the posts before yours?), it's the CURRENT smoking ban which IS causing innocent bystanders to be subjected involuntarily to other people's smoke. Think about it carefully: Before the ban, the only people being "subjected" to other people's smoke were those who voluntarily entered establishments where they knew perfectly well smoking was allowed. But now, after the ban went into effect, smokers are forced OUTSIDE, onto the sidewalk, into the parking lots, etc etc etc, where innocent bystanders and passersby ARE being involuntarily subjected to their smoke!
There simply isn't ANY logical, reasonable, or honest argument against allowing privately-owned businesses to allow smoking in their places of business if they choose to do so.
Well, well, well, looks whos back..You still don't get it do you Mr. so called "Christian." You touch on the subject and then walk away from it. People are going to have to work at these private clubs, Right? Yeah, and more likely than not lower waged folks (Like kids!) who need the job, and will be then subjected to your poisenous second hand smoke. Your position is: You don't have to go there or work there if you do not want...WRONG Again egomaniac. There is no place for second hand smoke, but that fact cannot penatrate your PEE Brain when we as a civilized people, who have learned that it KILLS, should use this knowledge to save lives, not just kill fewer, like you and your ridiculous ramblings advocate. There is just NO logical reason to subject the great people of this nation to your selfish and Deadly Second Hand smoke. And that being outside bit does not hold water either, because we are suceptable to many more toxic items in our air than someones cigarette smoke. Again, so you can understand it: There simply is NO reasonable, or logical argument you can make that would defend your selfish second hand smoke and its deadly destructiveness on INNOCENT human beings. Grow up now and please read the Bible! It not once advocates your selfish positions of killing innocent human beings, so quit trying to justify it! Try caring about others lives, and not destroying them! That theme runs throughout the Bible, but you were too busy daydreaming to notice.
Dear Bible Thumper,
Obviously you did not take the time to read this blog before you decided to interject your narrow minded opinion into it. If you had you would have seen my comment earlier on in this discussion. But once again you show your interest in nothing but being a blow-hard that knows nothing about the subject other than what you choose to believe. I must admit this has been fun coming home to look at this blog just to see what irrational ramblings you have to offer in your most recent comment. Especially the way you show the way self righteous bible thumpers really do believe they are superior to anyone else when in all actuality the narrow mindedness and lack of enlightenment shows through. Please keep up the rantings.By the way, I don't smoke, hate the smell of it and am fully aware of the health affects of smoking. I just happen to believe that our basic rights as personal property owners are being slowly taken from us. That Mr. bible thumper should scare you a whole hell of a lot more than second hand smoke being contained in a building you don't even enter.
Well "Mr Christian and Holy", I see you're still incapable of rational discussion, and must resort to infantile insults and outright ignorance. The facts remain facts, regardless whether you keep dodging them or not: NOBODY will ever be "forced" to join any private club which chooses to allow smoking, or work there, or eat there, or drink there. That is simply an irrefutable fact. Therefore all your silly ranting about "innocent" people being "subjected" to others' second-hand smoke is pure nonsense. I'm sorry you refuse to face the facts, preferring to wallow in self-imposed ignorance. Perhaps someday you'll grow up, and begin to ACT like the Christian you claim you are.
This HAS been entertaining. Thank you "Mr. Christian and Holy". You are a joke and I am thankful that not everyone is as ignorant as you are. You are my laugh of the day when I come home and catch up on all your rantings. How can you not see it!!?? You are simply wrong. Since you seem to want to throw the Bible out there in everyone else's face........what about the part that says "Judge not, lest you be judged yourself"? Is it not God's right, only, to judge other human beings? Your ignorance is an insult to God and the Bible. You have a little man's syndrome and as a result you think you need to control other people, not happening, we are all laughing at you. Keep it up, it's good entertainment............
Well Mr. James & VRL & Bill!
You are an ignorant retch, who cares nothing about others, only your self, your rantings and ravings do not get around your narromindedness and absolute hate of others health. You are wrong on all points and all here plainly see it, cept you and your pee brain. You are a pathetic cancer stick smoker who litters this great country with your cigeratte butts and second hand smoke, I truly hope you die soon from the smoke you wantingly and recklessly poisen others with.
Who do you think you are to declare what decisions I should make or that your choices are better than mine?
Creating a law taking away the freedom to make our own choices is plain wrong...To ban smoking in public places is inviting another "Prohibition" which promoted other more serious issues...Let freedom of choice ring, as long as we smokers are not infringing on the rights of others we deserve the same consideration.
Smoking is a personal choice and establishments that wish to patronage those that do. Should be able to do so. Government bullying is wrong!!!! Judging others, for what ever, is not up to us and those that are doing so will be Judged themselves in the end.
Telling people "YOU CAN'T DO THAT" only makes them want to do it! The Rebel syndrome, just look at proabition and illegal drugs.
Smoking, alchol, and drugs are bad for your health, but it is still a personal choice!!!!!!