[Peter B]

More evidence for those with their heads in the sand and unaware of their surroundings.

Smoking ban leads to major drop in heart attacks - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081231/ap_on_he_me/med_smoking_ban_heart - broken link)

[walls]

...heads in the sand????? I am fully aware of my surroundings, but how ironic of you,as it is YOU with your head in the sand, that is, when you are not being a small time tyrant. Smoking is a legal product, if I own a business and I want to smoke in it,what right do you have stealing my property. Read the constitution and the bill of rights.The takings clause. This is NOT a health issue, it is a property rights issue. People so uninformed as you, but still able to vote,may have caused untold heart attacks and strokes to people who still revere the liberty our fore fathers were prepared to die for.

http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=10095

[Peter B]

Newsflash! Mr. Harding is a chain smoker. Another person who cannot comprehend the detrimental effects of cigarette smoke on non-smoker. That was a funny quote, " Since no individual is forced to work or dine at any particular establishment, and plenty of choice exists between smoking and non-smoking ones". What an idiot. It's great, going to a bowling alley, and coming home smelling like cigarette smoke. As for having a choice of where to go? In Traverse City, Timber Lanes is the only large bowling alley within probably 60 -80 miles so don't spew that crapola "oh, the non smokers can go to a different establishment. Enough of this stupid rhetoric "property rights, personal rights", and all that other crapola. It is a health issue, pure and simple. Uninformed and uneducated folks will eventually comprehend this fact. But, until then, we still have the 15% of the population that smokes, dictating the air we breathe in rural, regressive parts of our great country.

[upandrunning]

This is a hard one. I do not mind people smoking around me, My wife on the other hand will have her meal ruined if someone is smoking and it wafts over to her area. Why should someone have the right to ruin someone else’s meal? What about when you were stuck on a plane and they allowed smoking? Or a movie theater? There should be smoking rooms for people who want to smoke and they should have to pay extra to cover the cost. Of they can wait and smoke a cigarette out side after the meal. I do not think that we should ban smoking or Tobacco. But we should not push the effects of our decisions on others. You have the right to smoke but not the to make others breath it. But if we go to far we risk the idiots of the world [and I have seen it done in some churches] telling people not to wear cologne or anything even deodorant as it bothers them. Its a tight wire to walk.

[xlabel]

Originally Posted by Peter B

Newsflash! Mr. Harding is a chain smoker. Another person who cannot comprehend the detrimental effects of cigarette smoke on non-smoker. That was a funny quote, " Since no individual is forced to work or dine at any particular establishment, and plenty of choice exists between smoking and non-smoking ones". What an idiot. It's great, going to a bowling alley, and coming home smelling like cigarette smoke. As for having a choice of where to go? In Traverse City, Timber Lanes is the only large bowling alley within probably 60 -80 miles so don't spew that crapola "oh, the non smokers can go to a different establishment. Enough of this stupid rhetoric "property rights, personal rights", and all that other crapola. It is a health issue, pure and simple. Uninformed and uneducated folks will eventually comprehend this fact. But, until then, we still have the 15% of the population that smokes, dictating the air we breathe in rural, regressive parts of our great country.

So move to Pueblo, Colo, and don't let the door hit you in the arse on the way out.

[1AngryTaxPayer]

I can't wait until the entire US is safe to breathe clean air in man made buildings. Bring on the bans!!

If someone wants to die this slow death they can always use Skoal. That way they can get all the cancer they want while sparing the rest of us downwind.

[ergohead]

Originally Posted by Peter B

Uninformed and uneducated folks will eventually comprehend this fact. But, until then, we still have the 15% of the population that smokes, dictating the air we breathe in rural, regressive parts of our great country.

Ironic, isn't it?

Walter Breuning of Great Falls, Montana, is now the nation's oldest
man. He is 112 years and 98-days old. It is hard to tell why Walter has
lived so long. Perhaps it is because of the cold-bitter winters in Great
Falls, or the fact that he has been smoking cigars for almost 100-years
(since the age of 13)? Maybe, a combination of both.

During most of his life as a railroad worker on the Great Northern he
was unable to buy expensive cigars. However, since he became Montana's
oldest man and then oldest person, many (including, the governor) have
given him the best cigars money can buy. Interestingly, at first the nursing
home forced him to smoke them outside so the other elders wouldn't be
subjected to second-hand smoke. :-) remember, it often gets -35 degrees
below zero in Great Falls. Think about that logic: Breuning is the oldest man
in the state (now the nation) and second-hand cigar smoke is considered
dangerous to health and longevity?

Perhaps all the old-timers at that nursing home and around the nation
should be encouraged to smoke cigars.

For those concerned about their health and lifespan, I have a partial list of
some of the cigar brands that Breuning has been smoking for the past 100-
years.

BillingsGazette.com :: Great Falls man is now the nation's oldest man (http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2008/12/29/news/state/37-old.txt - broken link)

[walls]

...it is a property right, pure and simple....to argue otherwise exposes an ugly truth about the endorser of the ban........contrary to your perceived grevence. When do you propose a ban on home smoking, it may leak out you know. This whole issue is only a hard question to answer if you believe your can subjugate people for your convenience. Some here would be tyrants, an easy concept to imagine, if you are a sociopath.

[xlabel]

One can manipulate statistics to suit whatever cause they want to. The pharmaceutical companies behind the scenes are all for smoking bans and outright illegalization of tobacco. They want the only legal nicotine available to come in the form of thier patches and pills, not because they give a damn about anyone's health but because of the profit.

[snoopygirlmi]

I have to agree with Walls....cigarettes/cigars are legal products. A business can choose whether they will allow smoking or not. A person can choose (for the most part) whether to go to places where there is smoking. I don't go to bars because I expect people to smoke in bars and I don't like the smoke.

Yes, there are health benefits if you do not smoke and choose to live a relatively smoke-free life. However, as long as cigarettes/cigars are legal products, people over 18 are free to purchase them if they so choose. You can go to gas stations, Meijer, Walgreens, Wal-Mart, K-Mart....it's not like they are hard to find! In fact, a lot of teenagers and tweens tend to find them easily accessible too.

Why don't all of you that want a smoking ban work to make the product illegal instead of forcing business/people in their home-car (wherever) to stop smoke for fear of penalty?

People still have the right to "sin" (if we want to use the language of the "sin" tax)-make bad decisions- if they want to....we really should be more cautious when talking about restricting people's freedom of choice.

We shouldn't go around restricting other people's freedom if 1) we claim to be a free people and 2) the product is legal. Also, keep in mind, that you might think it's a good idea to go after something (like smoking) you don't like, but then someone else might start trying to ban something you find perfectly acceptable and is legal. Banning stuff cuts both ways and everyone loses - unless it's really dangerous (like putting bad substances in food, etc)

Yeah, it sucks that people smoke and are overweight, but it's up to them to decide to take the actions they need to quit smoking and learn to eat right.

I don't want the government being the decider in those areas. Do we really want a government where our every action is controlled by the cigarette police? the food police? the liquor police? the sex police? I mean, it's really sad how much control of our lives and destiny we give freely and willingly to the government because we don't want to take the responsibility for ourselves.

Before some of you go into shock, I'm not saying that we shouldn't have any government. What I'm trying to say is that I don't think government should be allowed into every aspect of our lives and when you go around saying that you want to ban something that is legal - it takes a bit of our freedom away - even if you are a non-smoker.

I would support a ballot initiative and I'd accept a free and open election/result on the issue; however-that doesn't change the fact that I do not like the idea of the government being involved with this issue, in the first place.