Sioux City Journal

What about the rights of smokers?

Posted: Wednesday, March 05, 2008

DENISON, Iowa -- Why are the smokers not allowed to 25 percent of the places to socialize? They pay all the same taxes and more, have all the same rights to this country except to smoke and gather under a public roof.

I am talking of the bars and casinos. All the people that are employed in these places are of age. They do not have to work there. They do not have to go there. Why can't the smokers have their bars and casinos to do their thing without the nonsmokers coming in behind them and whining about their health?

Something else I was wondering about. If this law does pass, can a person have a private club for smoking, pay a token charge to belong, and keep out the nonsmokers? Or do smokers have to let the nonsmoker in, so they can fix everything there. -- Gary Preul

Story Comments

rocket wrote on Mar 12, 2008 7:03 PM:

" If this smoking ban was really because the fact, it is a health issue, why not make smoking illegal? Since smoking is STILL legal in this country, then there should be options available. I do not smoke and I do not enjoy the smell associated with it, however, I am able to make my own decision to not frequent smoking areas where I will smell the smoke or smell like the smoke when I leave. I am able to do that without the government 'helping' me make that decision. If the smoke bothers you, you are all still able to actually make your own decision to go elsewhere in this country. But keep whining about all these things and I'm sure you will get your way, and the government will save us all. "

birdie wrote on Mar 11, 2008 10:30 AM:

" FlimFlam, your grammatical innaccuracies are affecting my mood, will that make you shut up? Probably not, so let's get back to the real point. It's not about smokers and non-smokers, it's about the government taking away the right of the business owner to decide. If I were a business owner, I would make sure to have my "right to refuse service" sign posted, and flash it in anyone's face that cries about non-smoking rooms not being enough. (I am a non-smoker) "

FlimFlam wrote on Mar 6, 2008 3:06 PM:

" Joe and mandyv, are you two related. Either you participate with completely irrelevant information or it's completely incomprehensible. "

Catherine wrote on Mar 6, 2008 9:12 AM:

" Hmmm, Joe. What a logical and well-reasoning argument. Really contributing to a good discussion here. "

mandyv wrote on Mar 6, 2008 9:03 AM:

" There should be a choice for all. The argument of your right stops at the end of my nose,could also be applied to those who wear strong perfumes ect.Where does it stop?it doesn't,it just carries on with more and more intolerance of others.
www.ourlittleplace.com/chemicals 3.BENZYL ACETATEin: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."www.mamashealth.com/doc/cleanprod.asp FURNITURE POLISH:contain petroleum distillates,which are highly flammable and can cause skin and lung cancer.They contain nitrobenzene,which is easily absorbed through the skin and extremely toxic.
Read the Enstrom/Kabat study.Too many lies are being told to force the antis agenda through.What about the rights of those who do not drive? yet have to put up with filthy fumes?Read Kitty Little,or google diesal dangers
freedom2choose.info for tolerant non-smokers and smokers alike
forces.org
8th August 2006 the HSE in the document OC 255/16 Paragraph 14
" HSE cannot produce epidemiological evidence to link levels of exposure to second hand smoke to the raised risk of contacting specific diseases".

"