Just want your opinions on the proposed smoking ban

[Bluzmann57]

It looks like the smoking ban in restaurants and bars is moving forward in the Iowa House and I just want to get everyone's opinion on it, or any smoking ban. Mine is that it sort of seems big brotherish. I am a former smoker, and we may be bigger self righteous assholes than those who never smoked at all. But I still don't think the government needs to be sticking their noses into our business quite so much.
As many of you know, I live in the Quad-Cities and I personally know of a couple of establishments whose business has increased a lot directly because of the smoking ban in Illinois. It just seems to me that a person can choose to frequent a place where there is smoking allowed or not. Yes, I am familiar with the argument that the people who work in these places deserve smoke free environments. But there are more and more places which are going smoke free voluntarily. Why can't the servers, etc. get jobs in those places if they choose to be in that line of work? Just something to discuss. I will admit that my perspective may be different than others because of 1- my location, 2- my former smoking and 3- some "terrible habits" I may have had in the (recent) past.

[IADEMO2004]

1. Ban smoking in casinos first,

and if everyone is ok with that then later expand the law to other restaurants and bars. My last cig was 27 yrs. ago and to this day I will catch a whiff and wonder if just one.......

[haroldgiowa]

2. I have never smoked

But it has never bothered me to be in a smoke filled bar as long as they are not blowing smoke right in my face sober or drunk. I have seen plenty of occasions where people complain about smokers being near them mainly in restaurants. It seemed to be more self serving on their part. I have never heard a waitress / Waiter complain, at least in front of me.

I just wonder if brief exposure affects are as bad as constant exposure. I am not a doctor but I would imagine the later has more affect.

I used to work in a rubber plant. Worst carcinogen none to man comes off curing rubber. People stand in this all day long and ten insist on a smoke free break area.I am one of those wanting smoke free. I do feel they should provide an area to smoke in. At the plant now, they must smoke outside, no matter the weather.

U of I is one location that bans smoking even in your car. This is going a little to far. So yes there is a big brother system there. Okay fellow non smokers have your way with me.

[pstans]

3. All for it

There two great restaurants in Marshalltown that I love to eat at, but I don't go often because it is always smokey there. I have asthma, so if I go somewhere that is smokey then I have a cough for 3-5 days afterwards.

[Debi]

4. I'd rather see local control rather than the state making the decision for the communities n/t

[rurallib]

5. Why should employees be forced to work in unhealthy breathing conditions?

Many of the bartenders, wait people, etcetera are not working in bars and restaurants because they love it but because they need a job. Just because they can't get a better job must these folks be subject to health problems not of their own making.
And just as I do not want hog lots spewing their filth into air I have to breath, nor do I have a lot of sympathy for some one who seems to think they have a god-given right to foul the air around them with carcinogenic chemicals. And while I don't think government should control our lives, I do believe they have a role in keeping the air and water clean.
About 50 years ago in MAD magazine proposed a smoking suit for those who insisted on smoking. The smoking suit kept all the filthy air and chemicals inside the suit and did not pollute the air for others. Sounded good then, sounds good now.
So if you would fight a coal fired power plant as a polluter, I submit you must also fight a smoker who wishes to foul all the air in a business.
And yes I am a former smoker long removed. But even in my smoking days, I would only smoke in private so as not to bother others. And both of my parents died of lung cancer.

[progressoid]

6. This report agrees with you.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=404491

Objective: To determine whether there was a change in hospital admissions for acute myocardial infarction while a local law banning smoking in public and in workplaces was in effect.
Design Analysis of admissions from December 1997 through November 2003 using Poisson analysis.

Setting: Helena, Montana, a geographically isolated community with one hospital serving a population of 68 140.

Participants: All patients admitted for acute myocardial infarction.

Main outcome measures: Number of monthly admissions for acute myocardial infarction for people living in and outside Helena.

Results: During the six months the law was enforced the number of admissions fell significantly (- 16 admissions, 95% confidence interval - 31.7 to - 0.3), from an average of 40 admissions during the same months in the years before and after the law to a total of 24 admissions during the six months the law was effect. There was a non-significant increase of 5.6 (- 5.2 to 16.4) in the number of admissions from outside Helena during the same period, from 12.4 in the years before and after the law to 18 while the law was in effect.

Conclusions: Laws to enforce smoke-free workplaces and public places may be associated with an effect on morbidity from heart disease.

[CornField]

7. My conservative roots are going to show

First, I'm not really a smoker or a non-smoker... that is, I pause and unpause frequently. Currently, I'm paused.

This is not a communist nation that dictates where people must and must not work or even what vocation they must choose. For that reason alone, the whole "employees shouldn't have to do it" argument has no legs because employees *DON'T* have to. Further, if want to compare cigarette smoke to faulty or dangerous job equipment, then we can all agree on what brought about workers' safety. (Hint: they start with a 'un' and end with an "ion") Let the workers organize and place language about ventilation, smoke and so-forth into their labor contracts.

Because we do live in a free society, not to mention a capitalist society, our government should not be going around trying to buckle everyone's seatbelt or put out their cigarettes. The government should not be walking into a legitimate business and telling the owner what he/she can or cannot be doing or what is/isn't good for business.

Have you ever considered why no one is allowed to smoke in movie theaters anymore? It is because the people running the theater quickly learned that their business would suffer if they allowed it. It wasn't because of some glorified health advocacy plan, it was business.

Finally, if the state legislature is going to play mommy, my suggestion is that they go full throttle and ban cigarettes completely. No cigarettes for sale or to be smoked in the state whatsoever. Not in casinos, not in private homes, not in cars, not in restaurants, not in bars -- no cigarettes. Period. Because, if we really are saying that cigarettes and the smoke they produce is *that* dangerous, isn't that the logical outcome? Let's not pussy-foot around and simply ban them here and there. Let's not take this step and then decide in a year that we are going to remove children from parents who smoke because of the health hazard. Let's not give it another year and then allow insurers to refuse to pay for care of smokers or non-smokers because "they knew the risk." Let's go all the way. Stop making them here. Stop selling them here. Stop smoking them here. And throw any bastard who even looks like he might light up in jail for years to come.

[Huge Ego Sorry]

9. But if they banned smoking then they'd lose out

on all the tobacco tax money. This is where the hypocrisy becomes apparent. The "anti-smoking" folks are more interested in pushing for higher taxes (which also raises the prices of smokeless tobacco for no apparent reason) than in actually cutting down on smoking. If the "anti-smoking" groups actually wanted to cut down on the number of smokers, maybe they'd push for a program that would take some of the money from the ridiculously high tobacco taxes and, instead of using it for lame p.s.a.'s, would subsidize nicotine patches and/or nicotine gum for smokers that wanted to quit. Just an idea.

[CornField]

11. Yes, that is the point -- blood money

What else do you call it when the government condemns a product based on its societal danger, but refuses to stop turning a profit based on the same product's sales?

[Debi]

13. Welcome to DU H.E.S.

:hi:

[Debi]

14. Errr...does agreeing with you make me one of them too? n/t

[Vet31203]

8. I was a smoker

When I was in the army and found it hard to quit, but did the past summer and am better for it. It is a personal discision, but honestly, no matter how cold it was I would go outside for a smoke. On military bases you HAVE TO, you do not have a choice. And when my son, who is almost 5, was around I would not smoke or go at a suffiecent distance before he would see me.
My advice is to quit being lazy and just go outside. Soon bars will come out with outdoor/ patio service to accomadate smokers anyways, so its probably better

William J Meyers for House 2008

[Blue Gardener]

10. What really bothers me

Is the total ban at University Hospitals, including the parking ramps. When people are there visiting a family member that is very ill, or dying, they have nowhere to go for a cigarette break. I understand the hospital promoting a healthy lifestyle, but they could be a little more forgiving when people are under a tremendous amount of stress.

[4dsc]

12. Too many damn whiner's here

BAN SMOKING in all PUBLIC places!! I'm all for it and I'm a former smoker.. Its not communism or any other ism to look out for the safety of your fellow man and women..

I've been in many places across this country where smoking is banned, Florida, Utah, New York to name a few. And I will attest to the fact that bar's and resturants don't suffer any loss of business and its great going inside them to eat and enjoy the day..

[efilon]

15. My sister says

" Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a pool."

She's a former smoker with COPD. Has horrible asthma attacks from just a whiff of smoke. I try not to remind her of how much she smoked and never worried about whether there might be someone around with a problem with it when she gets upset about people smoking. ;-)

I just quit about 6 months ago so I don't have a problem with the smoke smell...yet. I kind of like to get a little second-hand smoke from time to time. Just glad I was finally able to quit. I am amazed at how I must have smelled all the time. I can certainly tell when I'm around someone who has been smoking now. I sure couldn't smell the difference before.

[progressoid]

16. Ha! I lke your sister's quote!

:thumbsup:

[Cairycat]

17. A question of dueling rights

Does the right of Person X to smoke supersede the right of Person Y to breathe without getting sick?

I don't know what the Constitution says about some rights being more important than others. But it seems to me that smoking is voluntary and breathing is not(and yes, I know about addiction to tobacco - I smoked a pack a day for over a decade). And some people get very ill from breathing smoke.

My choice would be to ban smoking in all public places. The focus of the ban then would not be protecting smokers from themselves, but the protecting the public (some of whom are greatly sickened by it) from smoke.

My understanding of Iowa law is that most restaurants and bars are public accommodations and thus smoking would be banned there. I suspect virtually all such establishments would recover from such a ban. (Although I do have visions of clandestine "smoking bars" like the basement-room saloon my paternal grandfather had during Prohibition. He provided boiled new potatoes and small dishes of salt to whet his friends' thirst. He rued the fact that he could never make decent-tasting home brew with an alcohol content higher than 3.2%.)

I think it's fine for the government to tax cigarettes, because smokers cost a great deal in public health costs, an amount that's increasing. Such taxes should be treated as "found money", not a steady source of revenue, and they should go for treating smokers, their children (my husband delivered God knows how many nebulizers to children of smokers, when he worked for a medical equipment store), and for help quitting, first and foremost.

It just weirds me out that the rethugs have taken up the side of the smokers, since they always paint themselves as the party of superior morals and staying away from vices. I guess maybe it links to their libertarian leanings, but mostly I think it's another ploy to get people to vote rethug whose interests otherwise would be much better represented by Democrats.

[roody]

18. former Iowan in California

California is heaven on earth because all public places are smoke-free. I love it. The bars are full of people having fun.