Commies Want To Ban Smoking in Cars and Language Suggests Your Home Might Be Next.

[SMOKE 1,426]

I would much rather my kid grow up around Cigaret smoke than Big Gov in every corner of his/her life.

*Of greater health concern should be HAPPY MEALS in cars or anywhere else..... what we gonna do about that?

Kids are at much greater health risk, both long and short term from being fatties than from smoke.

Whats next.... no gathering around camp fires?

i don't disagree with you about the happy meals or big gov't. i just personally make a conscious effort to not make my poor decisions affect others health. i've never felt cheated or punished for doing the common sense thing & keeping it to myself.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

i guess you & you're peers are just badasses paul.

yes, paul. inhaling smoke from burned leaves is harmful to your health 1st hand, 2nd hand ...i don't give a damn..pick a #. its bad for you.

prove it.

and guess what, you cannot.

Unless you actually have my genetic makeup (oh and yes it makes a HUGE difference) you cannot prove what first/second-hand smoke will/won't do to me.

[SMOKE 1,426]

prove it.

and guess what, you cannot.

Unless you actually have my genetic makeup (oh and yes it makes a HUGE difference) you cannot prove what first/second-hand smoke will/won't do to me.

i can't prove the sky is blue either. common sense tells me inhaling burnt leaves is not good for me & i shouldn't make people that don't want to breath smoke breath it.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

i can't prove the sky is blue either. common sense tells me inhaling burnt leaves is not good for me & i shouldn't make people that don't want to breath smoke breath it.

you aren't making anyone do anything if you do it in a restaurant/private business that allows it that you and they choose to patron.

As I said as well, there is no conclusive study on second-hand smoke that proves it's truly harmful. The EPA themselves even say this. They say that they SUPPORT the idea that it is harmful. It's amusing really. They "support" an idea, but have no direct evidence of the fact that they can hold up. Zero. Zilch. Nada that is actually conclusive. Yet we want to regulate it? It's HILARIOUS!

[Danno 1,228]

Again, Obesity is the real health problem,

Q: why are they targeting smoking?

A: To pave the way for happy meal regulation.

[Dakine10 5,452]

you aren't making anyone do anything if you do it in a restaurant/private business that allows it that you and they choose to patron.

Yeah you are, you are making patrons go to a different restaurant or breath your second hand smoke. Anyway, it's not like the minority got there way here. We do live in a democracy, and these smoking bans have been overwhelmingly supported. Even in your Libertarian utopia dreamworld, I'm not sure why you think your right to smoke is greater than someone elses right to not be subjected to your second hand smoke.

As I said as well, there is no conclusive study on second-hand smoke that proves it's truly harmful. The EPA themselves even say this. They say that they SUPPORT the idea that it is harmful. It's amusing really. They "support" an idea, but have no direct evidence of the fact that they can hold up. Zero. Zilch. Nada that is actually conclusive. Yet we want to regulate it? It's HILARIOUS!

A comprehensive study in the Lancet last year concluded 600,000 deaths annually are caused by passive exposure to cigarette smoke. 165,000 of those deaths are children. For reference 5.1 million deaths each year are directly attributed to cigarette smoking.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The first thing the politicians should do is remove ALL the tax on cigarettes. Federal, State and local taxes. Exempt them from sales tax. Remove any sort of tax at any level.

Next find a way to replace the tax revenue from the sale of cigarettes by taxing people for something else.

Then, just ban cigarettes.

Other wise they are nothing but hypocrites

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Yeah you are, you are making patrons go to a different restaurant or breath your second hand smoke. Anyway, it's not like the minority got there way here. We do live in a democracy, and these smoking bans have been overwhelmingly supported. Even in your Libertarian utopia dreamworld, I'm not sure why you think your right to smoke is greater than someone elses right to not be subjected to your second hand smoke.

A comprehensive study in the Lancet last year concluded 600,000 deaths annually are caused by passive exposure to cigarette smoke. 165,000 of those deaths are children. For reference 5.1 million deaths each year are directly attributed to cigarette smoking.

The majority should not rule in restrictions imposed on private property. If I own a restaraunt and I am responsible for it financially and I want to allow smoking, then I should be able to and people that do not like it can go to non smoking restaraunts. I do not care if 80% do not like it, those 80% can eat somewhere else.

Libertarins do not support smoking bans on private property. You have no "rights" on someone else's private property

Please link to a death certificate whch says cause of death is "Second hand smoke"

Edited February 7, 2012 by Gary and Alla

[Dakine10 5,452]

The majority should not rule in restrictions imposed on private property. If I own a restaraunt and I am responsible for it financially and I want to allow smoking, then I should be able to and people that do not like it can go to non smoking restaraunts. I do not care if 80% do not like it, those 80% can eat somewhere else.

A lot of things should be different. But assuming we can keep things in the realm of reality for a minute, the majority does elect a government that decides these kinds of things. And if the majority doesn't like it, they should vote for a different government. Maybe Libertarians would change this, but it's hard to effect change in government when right now Libertarians don't even support there own party in significant numbers, and the most famous Libertarian is running for the presidential nomination of a different party.

Please link to a death certificate whch says cause of death is "Second hand smoke"

Second hand smoke would never be listed as a cause of death. It would be listed as a contributing factor. When it occurs, for example in deaths caused by SIDS and infant respiratory distress syndrome, it is listed in the medical record.

[SMOKE 1,426]

you aren't making anyone do anything if you do it in a restaurant/private business that allows it that you and they choose to patron.

As I said as well, there is no conclusive study on second-hand smoke that proves it's truly harmful. The EPA themselves even say this. They say that they SUPPORT the idea that it is harmful. It's amusing really. They "support" an idea, but have no direct evidence of the fact that they can hold up. Zero. Zilch. Nada that is actually conclusive. Yet we want to regulate it? It's HILARIOUS!

no you're not making anyone do anything if you're in a resturant/bar that allows smoking. you are making kids breath smoke, if you light up in a car w/ kids present.

i support the idea that walking into a biker bar & asking 'which one of you puzzies is on that over grown vibrator outside?' is harmful to your health. i can't prove it, but i support the common sense reasoning that says its dangerous.

Again, Obesity is the real health problem,

Q: why are they targeting smoking?

A: To pave the way for happy meal regulation.

honestly, i don't have an issue w/ either

Edited February 7, 2012 by SMOKE

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I'm always amused by ####### like this. Everyone is OK with banning something they don't do or they don't like or they don't like what someone else's kids are being exposed to.

However when it comes to government touching something they like, they do, and they expose their kids to, they get up in arms like the hypocrites they are.

Remember, give the government an inch and they'll take a mile. Recent history shows us it all begins with the airlines as well and all in the name of "safety and security." (see smoking here and then move on down the line).

[SMOKE 1,426]

I'm always amused by ####### like this. Everyone is OK with banning something they don't do or they don't like or they don't like what someone else's kids are being exposed to.

dude, i smoke. i also have enough respect for others to keep my bad habit to myself. if people would be more respectful of others, we wouldn't need to make laws like the one being proposed....but, there's always one or two.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

As I said as well, there is no conclusive study on second-hand smoke that proves it's truly harmful. The EPA themselves even say this. They say that they SUPPORT the idea that it is harmful. It's amusing really. They "support" an idea, but have no direct evidence of the fact that they can hold up. Zero. Zilch. Nada that is actually conclusive. Yet we want to regulate it? It's HILARIOUS!

Stop lying, Paul.

Setting the Record Straight: Secondhand Smoke is a Preventable Health Risk

In early 1993, EPA released a report (Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders; EPA/600/6-90/006 F) that evaluated the respiratory health effects from breathing secondhand smoke (also called environmental tobacco smoke (ETS)). In that report, EPA concluded that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in adult nonsmokers and impairs the respiratory health of children. These findings are very similar to ones made previously by the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Surgeon General.

The EPA report classified secondhand smoke as a Group A carcinogen, a designation which means that there is sufficient evidence that the substance causes cancer in humans. The Group A designation has been used by EPA for only 15 other pollutants, including asbestos, radon, and benzene. Only secondhand smoke has actually been shown in studies to cause cancer at typical environmental levels. EPA estimates that approximately 3,000 American nonsmokers die each year from lung cancer caused by secondhand smoke.

Every year, an estimated 150,000 to 300,000 children under 18 months of age get pneumonia or bronchitis from breathing secondhand tobacco smoke. Secondhand smoke is a risk factor for the development of asthma in children and worsens the condition of up to one million asthmatic children.

A recent high profile advertising and public relations campaign by the tobacco industry may confuse the American public about the risks of secondhand smoke. EPA believes it's time to set the record straight about an indisputable fact: secondhand smoke is a real and preventable health risk.

EPA absolutely stands by its scientific and well documented report. The report was the subject of an extensive open review both by the public and by EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB), a panel of independent scientific experts. Virtually every one of the arguments about lung cancer advanced by the tobacco industry and its consultants was addressed by the SAB. The panel concurred in the methodology and unanimously endorsed the conclusions of the final report.

The report has also been endorsed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the National Cancer Institute, the Surgeon General, and many major health organizations.

[slim 1,530]

these smoking bans have been overwhelmingly supported.

Here in Ohio we had one of those "yes means no" votes on the ballot. It overwhelmingly passed and when the smoke cleared, people said, "Wait a minute. I didn't want to vote for the ban... I wanted to vote for smoking."

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Here in Ohio we had one of those "yes means no" votes on the ballot. It overwhelmingly passed and when the smoke cleared, people said, "Wait a minute. I didn't want to vote for the ban... I wanted to vote for smoking."

Sounds pretty clear to me:

To enact Chapter 3794. of the Ohio Revised Code to restrict smoking in places of employment and most places open to the public.

NOTE: Issues 4 and 5 are similar. If both measures pass, Issue 4 will take effect and Issue 5 will not. This is because Issue 4 is a constitutional amendment and supercedes the statutory provisions of Issue 5.

The proposed law would:

Prohibit smoking in public places and places of employment; - Exempt from the smoking restrictions certain locations, including private residences (except during the hours that the residence operates as a place of business involving non-residents of the private residence), designated smoking rooms in hotels, motels, and other lodging facilities; designated smoking areas for nursing home residents; retail tobacco stores, outdoor patios, private clubs, and family-owned and operated places of business;

- Authorize a uniform statewide minimum standard to protect workers and the public from secondhand tobacco smoke;

- Allow for the declaration of an establishment, facility, or outdoor area as nonsmoking;

- Require the posting of "No Smoking" signs, and the removal of all ashtrays and similar receptacles from any area where smoking is prohibited;

- Specify the duties of the department of health to enforce the smoking restrictions.

- Create in the state treasury the "smoke free indoor air fund;"

- Provide for the enforcement of the smoking restrictions and for the imposition of civil fines upon anyone who violates the smoking restrictions.

A majority yes vote is necessary for passage.

How much clearer should the language have been?

What did fail - overwhelmingly so - was a constitutional amendment protecting certain public places from any future smoking bans.

NOTE: Issues 4 and 5 are similar. If both measures pass, Issue 4 will take effect and Issue 5 will not. This is because Issue 4 is a constitutional amendment and supercedes the statutory provisions of Issue 5.

This proposed amendment would prohibit smoking in enclosed areas except tobacco stores, private residences or nonpublic facilities, separate smoking areas in restaurants, most bars, bingo and bowling facilities, separated areas of hotels and nursing homes, and race tracks. The amendment would invalidate retroactively any ordinance or local law in effect, and would prohibit the future adoption of any ordinance or local law to the extent such ordinance or law prohibited smoking or tobacco products in anyplace exempted by the amendment.

A majority yes vote is necessary for passage.