Letter: Why I’m against the statewide smoking ban

I don't think that bar revenue is a strong argument for allowing cigarettes. People can smoke outside, they can go back inside the bar when they're finished. If someone can't handle that kind of regulation, then I think the issue doesn't lie within bar rules but the with the person themself.

Secondly, I think that the statewide smoking ban is justifiable if only by acknowledging that cigarettes totally smell like sh*t. There. The answer. On the Kansan Web site. I don't think it matters that it's legal or perhaps less harmful than we once thought or if smokers vowed not to throw trash all over the ground (AS IF); Cigarettes smell really, really bad. Therefore, people shouldn't be forced to sit in smoke even if it is legal.

Take your cigarette outside, the fresh air is probably what you need more than anything.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by sbell10 on April 21, 2009 at 1:16 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Letter: Why I’m against the statewide smoking ban

I haven't seen the poster about not associating with smokers, but that's awful to encourage shunning.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Hendrix321 on April 21, 2009 at 2:18 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Letter: Why I’m against the statewide smoking ban

SBell: What in Kansas law makes it compulsory for you enter a smoking bar?

Mike Spatz is on the money in his comments. The Health Digest quote is actually from a 39 year study conducted by Professors James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat. It involved 118,000 people of whom 35,000 were married to smokers. It then goes on to say "Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, primarily asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema, has been associated with exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, but the evidence for increased mortality is sparse."

The danger of second hand smoke (SHS) was an invention of Sir George Godber, then the British Surgeon General and the American Surgeon General Everett Koot and I quote:

"...it would be essential to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their family and any infants or young children who would be exposed involuntarily to ETS." When asked by a reporter why he had exaggerated the risks of secondary smoke, instead of denying that exaggeration, C. Everett Koop the American Surgeon General is quoted as saying he had to be "forceful in warning of the ETS threat in order to win the public's attention."

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abridged/326/7398/1057

http://www.geocities.com/madmaxmcgarrity/Dale.htm

• Upvote 0
• Posted by DaveAtherton on April 22, 2009 at 2:02 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Letter: Why I’m against the statewide smoking ban

As I stated in my post following the column supporting a statewide smoking ban, I am not a smoker. I avoid smokers because they stink. I experience health problems when I am around smoke. I even become congested when a heavy smoker comes into my office. I do not allow smoking in my home or in my office. I will not patronize a business unless it is smoke-free.

However, this is not about smoking or the rights of either smokers or non-smokers. It is about private property rights. Just as I oppose requiring businesses to provide a place for smokers (a real issue 30-40 years ago), I oppose legally requiring businesses to be smoke-free.

I support a ban on smoking in publicly owned buildings, such as courthouses, city halls, etc. The government owns these buildings, and people are required to go into them. But no one forces me, or anyone else to patronize any restaurant, bar, hotel, or other private business. No one forces a person to work at a business that allows smoking. If a business cannot attract enough patrons or enough employees because the owner allows smoking, either the business will become smoke-free, or it will cease to exist. It is simple economics. In a free society, only the owner of the business has the right to make that decision.

Freedom requires that we allow people to do things with which we disagree. Even in Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union and Pol Pot's Cambodia, the people were free to do the things with which the government agreed.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by jbarrett on April 22, 2009 at 10:45 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Letter: Why I’m against the statewide smoking ban

I must correct several of the comments made on this issue, from Mr. Spatz's remarks to those of others: 1. There is no clear evidence that statewide smoking bans economically injure businesses; the only studies that show even some economic loss have been done by tobacco company-related interests. There are many more that show little to no economic loss, and in some cases an increase in business as the 80% of adults who do not smoke return to businesses they deserted because of the health risks or inconvenience. 2. There is no debate about the risks of secondhand tobacco smoke - at least not in the medical and health communities. As for SG Koop's strong statements on SHS smoke, we now have a much greater preponderance of evidence showing that exposure to SHS is risky - depending on the health of the individual, even small amounts of exposure can be dangerous. I suggest critics leaf through the 2006 SG's report "The Health Consequences of Involuntray Exposure to Tobacco Smoke" (I'm not suggesting you read all 700+ pages.) It is filled with evidence-backed research indicating the risks. Mr. Spatz admits that smoking is "proven" unhealthy (his word.) Does he - and other critics - not understand that only 15% of the smoke produced by a smoker goes into the smoker's body - the remaining 85% is released into the air around him/her - air that others may also be trying to breathe. 4. And this is the real issue - anyone has the right to smoke and absorb the health consequences themselves - I'd discourage it because one of every 5 deaths in the US is due to smoking-related illness. Anywhere from 1 of 3 to 1 of 2 smokers will die because they use that product - and, on average, 10 years sooner than if they had not smoked. But if the issue is "freedom" as some suggest, than why are smokers "free" to impose their deadly, toxic product on others. Why aren't non-smokers FREE to breathe air that isn't polluted by someone else. That's what SHS laws are about - protecting the non-offender. Just like speed limits protect the safer driver, and pollution laws against businesses protect those living nearby - or even hundreds of miles away. To suggest that such regulations on unhealthy behavior, to protect those acting more 'healthily' verges on elitism at best, anarch at worst. 5. Finally, I believe it's great that Mr. Spatz feels his lower use of cigarettes shields him from chronic use and addiction. I know that after 30+ years in the ATOD prevention field, I've never met an addict who intended to get addicted. They all intended to give it up eventually. But nicotine has proven to be one of the most addictive substances we know of, for many it's more addictive than heroin or cocaine, though the intoxicant effects are certainly more subtle. I'm hoping that you're able to quit completely before you become addicted as most regular users do. L. A. Didier

• Upvote 0
• Posted by ladidier on April 22, 2009 at 3:37 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Letter: Why I’m against the statewide smoking ban

ladidier – So far, I have not seen any proposal which would prevent smoking in parks or on the streets. The discussion is only whether to ban smoking in privately owned buildings.

You can certainly argue that smoking in the open involuntarily exposes people to second hand smoke. If you are on a sidewalk or in a park, you have a right to be there. If someone lights a cigarette, cigar or pipe, near you, that smoker is infringing on your rights. However, you have no right to enter into private property just because it is open to the public.

Unless the owner denies a person access because that person is a member of a “suspect class,” the owner has an absolute right to determine who is allowed onto his or her property. Again, it is called private property rights. You don’t have a right to be on someone else’s property! You cannot be involuntarily exposed to secondhand smoke by someone smoking in a restaurant, bar or other private business, because you have no actual right to be there.

Your speed limit argument fails because speed limits apply only to publicly-owned roads. There is no legally imposed speed limit at the Kansas Speedway or at any other race track. Speed limits also do not apply to privately owned roads, unless the owner voluntarily submits to governmental authority. This is actually a very good analogy, since anyone driving on a privately owned road or racetrack with no speed limit is voluntarily subjecting himself to the danger, just as someone entering a smoky bar or restaurant is subjecting himself to that danger.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by jbarrett on April 22, 2009 at 5 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Letter: Why I’m against the statewide smoking ban

ladidier,when you mean "toxins" you forget to mention,the same "toxins" in many other products. http://www.safecosmetics.org/article.php?id=426 Toxic Tub:Product Test Results Below are the results for all the products tested for formaldehyde and/or 1,4-dioxane for the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics report, "No More Toxic Tub." http://www.korhek.org/khb/khb_007_01-1.pdf snip~ Some of the synthetic or petrochemical ingredients of shampoo are known to be toxic and are reported to cause cancer, endocrine diseases, central nervous system disorders, birth defects, and organ or tissue damage.

Does Johnson&Johnson and other lesser known brands,still put "formaldehyde" amongst other things in their baby products? the "formaldehyde babies" I call them. http://www.ourlittleplace.com/chemicals.html Snip~ 2. BENZALDEHYDE (in: perfume, cologne, hairspray, laundry bleach, deodorants, detergent, vaseline lotion, shaving cream, shampoo, bar soap, dishwasher detergent)Narcotic. Sensitizer. "Local anesthetic,CNS depressant"."irritation to the mouth,throat,eyes,skin,lungs, and GI tract,causing nausea and abdominal pain." "May cause kidney damage." "Do not use with contact lenses." 3. BENZYL ACETATE (in: perfume, cologne, shampoo, fabric softener, stickup air freshener, dishwashing liquid and detergent, soap, hairspray, bleach, after shave, deodorants) Carcinogenic (linked to pancreatic cancer); "From vapors: irritating to eyes and respiratory passages, exciting cough." "In mice: hyperanemia of the lungs." "Can be absorbed through the skin causing systemic effects." "Do not flush to sewer." Ect, We are encouraged to eat eat five portions of fruit and vegetables a day? Rosies stuff Perhaps a change in the food provided, then there can be no confusion. "The Nicotine Content of Common Vegetables Vegetable Nicotine in ng/g g per 1µg nicotine Cauliflower 16.8 59.5 Eggplant (Aubergine) 100.0 10 Potatoes 7.1 140 Green tomatoes 42.8 23.4 Ripe tomatoes 4.3 233.0 Pureed tomatoes 52.0 19.2 Rose "The term "niacin" used interchangeably with vitamin B3 is actually a non-technical term that refers to several different chemical forms of the vitamin. These forms include nicotinic acid and nicotinamide. (Nicotinamide is also sometimes called niacinamide.) The names "niacin," "nicotinic acid," and "nicotinamide" are all derived from research studies on tobacco in the early 1930's. At that time, the first laboratory isolation of vitamin B3 occurred following work on the chemical nicotine that had been obtained from tobacco leaves." Smoke haters, were never "banned" from investing their own money into smoke-free venues, were they. Those that scream for smoke-free venues, do NOT compensate those, that do your bidding.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by mandyv on April 23, 2009 at 8:36 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal