Oklahoma activists target smoking loopholes

I won't spam the feed. So, what Grant said.

Great post, harleyrider1978. Thanks for the additional information on the bogus propaganda.

Second hand smoke toxicity is a huge HOAX lead by the health lobbyists & your politicians.

The Myth of the Smoking Ban ‘Miracle’ Restrictions on smoking around the world are claimed to have had a dramatic effect on heart attack rates. It's not true. http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7451/


As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright that: "Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997
-harleyrider1978

SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A JOKE. Ask the anti-tobacco folks to tell you what truly is in second hand smoke...when it burns from the coal its oxygenated and everything is burned and turned into water vapor..................thats right water..........you ever burned leaves in the fall...know how the heavy smoke bellows off.......thats the organic material releasing the moisture in the leaves the greener the leaves/organic material the more smoke thats made......thats why second hand smoke is classified as a class 3 irritant by osha and epa as of 2006........after that time EPA decided to change the listing of shs as a carcinogen for political reasons.......because it contained a trace amount of 6 chemicals so small even sophisticated scientific equipment can hardly detect it ........they didnt however use the normal dose makes the poison computation when they made this political decision. However osha still maintains shs/ets as an irritant only and maintains the dose makes the poison position.......as osha is in charge of indoor air quality its decisions are based on science not political agendas as epa's is. We can see this is true after a federal judge threw out the epa's study on shs as junk science......... Wednesday, March 12, 2008 British Medical Journal & WHO conclude secondhand smoke "health hazard" claims are greatly exaggerated The BMJ published report at:

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

concludes that "The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer are considerably weaker than generally believed." What makes this study so significant is that it took place over a 39 year period, and studied the results of non-smokers who lived with smokers.....



meaning these non-smokers were exposed to secondhand smoke up to 24 hours per day; 365 days per year for 39 years. And there was still no relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality. In light of the damage to business, jobs, and the economy from smoking bans the BMJ report should be revisited by lawmakers as a reference tool and justification to repeal the now unnecessary and very damaging smoking ban laws. Also significant is the World Health Organization (WHO) study:


Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer-official By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent " The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: 'There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood.' " And if lawmakers need additional real world data to further highlight the need to eliminate these onerous and arbitrary laws, air quality testing by Johns Hopkins University proves that secondhand smoke is up to 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations.

The Chemistry of Secondary Smoke About 94% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a slight excess of carbon dioxide. Another 3 % is carbon monoxide. The last 3 % contains the rest of the 4,000 or so chemicals supposedly to be found in smoke… but found, obviously, in very small quantities if at all.This is because most of the assumed chemicals have never actually been found in secondhand smoke. (1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80). Most of these chemicals can only be found in quantities measured in nanograms, picograms and femtograms. Many cannot even be detected in these amounts: their presence is simply theorized rather than measured. To bring those quantities into a real world perspective, take a saltshaker and shake out a few grains of salt. A single grain of that salt will weigh in the ballpark of 100 million picograms! (Allen Blackman. Chemistry Magazine 10/08/01). - (Excerpted from "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains" with permission of the author.)


The Myth of the Smoking Ban ‘Miracle’ Restrictions on smoking around the world are claimed to have had a dramatic effect on heart attack rates. It's not true. http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7451/


As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright that: "Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997
-harleyrider1978

The whole point of the lies, half-truths and innuendo is to outlaw tobacco, full stop. Those who want to end people's freedom to do as they wish know full well that outright prohibition via Constitutional amendment will fail as surely as did the one on alcohol so they are trying a new approach, encouraging the states and cities to pass laws against it a little at a time until the entire opportunity is outlawed instead of the federal government propagandizing it to pass another anti-Constitutional amendment that can more easily be overturned.
And like a frog in a pan, if the heat is slowly turned up, the frog doesn't notice, similarly smokers find the curtailment of smoking to be slow and each step is bothersome but after a period, they become accustomed to it and the complain about the next step until they become adjusted, then on to the next step and along the way lies about the "dangers of smoking" are mandatory and many, if not most actually believe all the unabashed and biased propaganda. After all, it is backed by many politicians... which should make any thinking person cautious.

Joe, you are missing, or ignoring, the main issue here. It is not about the dangers of smoking. It is about the government being to intrusive in our daily lives. It is about our personal freedom. There are options other than banning. As stated earlier, I am not a smoker but I am aware that if this is successful, the next ban will be something that involves me.

There is a simple solution to all of this!

If smokers embrace electronic cigarettes, then the issue of smoking bans will be mute. There is no second-hand smoke, no odor, no carcinogens, no CO2, and no mess like ashes, butts, etc. from electronic cigarettes. If smokers of tobacco cigarettes would switch their habit to a non-tobacco electronic cigarette, we would have no further need to further infringe on the personal freedoms of any one group. Whether you are a smoker, or a non-smoker, you should learn more about this technology.

If you are smoker, consider it as an option. You won't be inhaling all the chemicals and carcinogens that you currently do from your tobacco cigarette.

If you are a non-smoker, learn about the technology, and pass the information on to your friends who are smokers. The electronic cigarette is a win-win in so many ways.

You can learn all about this technology at my website, http://www.NoTobacco.net

Thank you.

John, "Reefer Madness" was the equivalent of today's "dangers of tobacco" and just as laughable. It's all based in propaganda, from the way we view foreign countries and what we eat, to crime and everything else.
While the party machine churns out data that is questionable at best, they ignore the true dangers such as how many are killed and maimed each day by automobiles and exhaust. Like a magician, the control freaks are feinting with one hand while orchestrating with the other and the ignorant think its all real.
Truly sad that freedom has become synonymous with control.

Grant, Dan, Steven, excellent post. Of course to many in America, "freedom" means forcing others to live as they demand.
Ty, your dad may have lost a lung but you cannot say for sure it was because of smoking. You can pretend it was but the fact is, you simply don't know that to be a fact; people who have never smoked or been around smokers have lost lungs and it is a fact that EVERYONE dies and everyone dies of a reason. Just because a fascist government has declared war on tobacco with propaganda befitting Hitler does not mean the government is right because a lie remains a lie, even if told in an attempt to do something that could ultimately be good (it's not but since we're pretending here anyway, what the hell). I'm not telling you it didn't contribute, I'm saying anyone who says it did is a liar because again quite simply, no one actually knows. It all reminds me of 3rd graders who got it all knowed up as if nothing could be known if they didn't know it.
Jack, apparently you're noticing what you choose to see and are oblivious to all else. Check litter anywhere and get back to me. The vast majority is fast food sacks, wrappers and cups.
If non-smoking enterprises were so desired the owners would have bent to the non-smokers desires decades ago. However, freedom cannot go unchallenged, especially for some Nazi wannabes.
Joe, that's not smokers whose healthcare you're funding but welfare recipients, you know the democratic voter base.
I can't even read all the replies, I have to go obey Mein Fuehrer (the unelected bureacracy) and pay my taxes to enable it to give me orders.

This all started in 1937 when smoking cannabis became illegal.

If the goverment wants to ban smoking in subsidized housing(which they are doing),then in public eating places,which they are trying to do,does this mean that next they will TRY to tell me what I can do in my own home?? And make NO MISTAKE, TRY is the operative word!! Too much goverment!!!!

Some kids start smoking in HS because their parents did, or because their friends did, and they were too immature to think about 10 years later and being addicted. Only white trash smokes? What about the gangstas and their Newports? They aren't white trash. Obama-he isn't WHITE trash. No matter what you think of him, he IS the President, and he smoked. If he were white trash, would he have made it to the White House? My parents are loaded. I was one of the richest kids in school, and my dad smoked. I have a great job, nice house, pay for my OWN family's health insurance, and I smoke. White trash? If you want to contribute to the discussion and have people take you seriously, calling names is not the way to go about it. Dumbchit.

I can stand the smell of tobacco smoke a lot better than the stink of government meddling and tyranny. Let the venue owner set the standard and the public vote with their feet. The myth of "Second Hand Smoke" belongs with "Global Warming."

Joe, when does your white trash rearend stop eating french fries and making us pay for your clogged arteries?

Joe, when does your white trash rearend stop using pesticides and causing our children health problems?

Joe, when do you drop the stupid comments so a real debate can take place?

You fools!! When does it stop?? When do you white trash leeches stop smoking and spend the money on your families and stop making us pay for your health issues!!!!

Stephen, the line will be drawn when the pendulum swings the other way, forcing the enforcers to reply in kind. When we are all eating government mandated tofu and the FDA decides we need red meat in our diet, the vegans will only then see their hypocrisy.

Ok, having read everything and catching up with what y'all have to say, let me make this as simple as I can: Is there anybody willing to let the government make the decisions as to what you can and cannot do, whether it affects you or not? Where you stand on this issue pretty much dictates whether or not you are willing to let our government control every aspects of our lives. As a non-smoker, I choose to avoid places that allows smoking, but I will NOT dictate to them that they are not allowed to smoke anywhere. I am a strong believer in the free market, and it works much more effectively than a government fiat. Today, they're after the smokers, tomorrow they may be after unhealthy food and after they are finished with that, then they may go after what you drive, and then after that. . .

To ask the government to ban something sets us on a slippery slope, because it never stops there, and slippery lawyers, bureaucrats, politicians and activists can always cite "precedent" and go for more.

Again, where does it stop? Who draws the line?

I'm sooo glad I live in the country. You all the the city have lost your marbles. With everthing going on in the united states, why are we arguing about smoking? It really makes us Okies look foolish. How about you activists put your energies to work doing something worth while, like try to get more businesses to open in this state or get the state to open the boarders so we can get more competetive insurance companies to do business here. How about lowering the taxes for property owners and businesses. Just a few suggestions.

Insane. I am very allergic to many things, among them cats, certain perfumes & soaps, ragweed, cottonwood trees, pecan trees, etc. My neighbor has cats and pecan trees. Since they moved in after me it is MY rights that have been infringed upon. Shall I get the state to force them to remove that cat who ends up on my porch every night? Should the state force them to cut down the pecan trees?

WHen I go to the mall I get a serious sinus infection from all the perfumes. Shall I force all the department stores to stop selling perfume and all mall patrons from wearing them? These sinus infections cause me a great deal of distress, loss of work & pay. Should these people be paying me for my lost wages? My choice has always been to avoid the mall, but don't I have a right to shop where I want to, rather then being inconvenienced by selfish people?

I gag everytime I breathe in car exhaust. They drive right down my street, 40 feet from my front door. This offends me and makes me sick. Can the state ban vehicles from driving down my street? Can't the state force my neighbors to ride bicycles instead? I should seek out a government grant of 200k to study these effects on my street, then force my entire neighborhhod to either move, cycle or walk. After all these are my rights, aren't they?

Yes, very insane.

Look folks, it’s a simple issue. The question is not whether smoking affects the SMOKER, it’s whether second hand smoke is dangerous to OTHERS. Second hand smoke and OTHERS….

Rather than just accepting (swallowing) what health workers, politicians & anti-smokers have told you for at least 15 years, why don’t you ask just one question:

“How does one KNOW that second hand smoke is more dangerous than anything else you breathe in an industrialized society?”

…. Just because you accept a whole lot of other things at face value when ‘the experts’ say so doesn’t mean you are wise & knowledgable.

If you can swallow this load of crap, which is not backed by ANY science, just what is your problem with climate change science?

To show you how extreme things are getting, check out the signs on the front of the county court house and the parking garage across the street. Effective November 1 you are prohibited from somking outside, on the street. Where will it stop or will it?

Marcel, Thank you for your kind words. I too was a lifelong smoker and felt at the time that that was my right. I never looked at the bigger picture until I was forced to quit for health reasons. That is when the real truth about smoking kicked in for me. All of those years I thought I was never hurting anyone by my smoking. One day my Dad called me and informed me that he was dying of lung cancer. There was no history of cancer on his side of the family. My Mother was a chain-smoking menthol loving two-packer. The entire house was covered in a thick yellowish layer of residual nicotine and other exhalant chemicals from her cigarettes. The doctor told my Dad that it was likely the second hand smoke that he inhaled that triggered the cancer. I remember as a child smelling that smoke and it became a familiar smell. I believe that led me to smoke as a teenager, just as much as the peer pressure. I was a musician for 35 years and played thousands of shows in thousands of bars. I used to joke with my band mares that my smoking was self-defense against the second-hand smoke. Well now that I have COPD, the joke is on me. My music career is over and I cannot go into places where smoking is allowed. When I do, my lungs sart filling with fluid to fight the foreign particles of second hand smoke. If I remain in the environment, then my Bronchial tubes swell and breathing becomes difficult and my ability to absorb oxygen depleats. In other word if left in the environment long enough, death will ensue. So all of you deny that smokjing will not harm you or others, have no idea of the danger you are asking yourself and others to go through just for your selfishness...

Jack, for public events such as concerts and sporting events I support the current bans. It's not as though you have a choice, as a non-smoker, to go somewhere else. I am simply discussing bars and restaurants.

-Oct 30, 10:21 am, who forced you to go to a bar filled with smokers? Why can't you make your own decisions on where you drink? I hate smelling like smoke too but I don't impose my views on others.

BRAVO GRANT!!!!

I went to the U2 concert and right in front of me was a young couple. One of them couldn't wait to light up! Where is my choice? I went to an event and was forced to smell their nasty habit! Guess what else smokers do? They litter. Do smokers think thay have a right to just throw the butts anywhere they want. Someone has to pick it up! I for one am sick of walking into my office building or anywhere for that matter and see all the smokers at the door smoking and flipping their butts on the ground. Once again we have to walk through the cloud. It's every smokers right to smoke if you wish, it just should not be where the public gathers. I have nearly stopped going to clubs because the clubs are so smokey. I know there are those smoke free clubs but usually you go where your friends are or stay home. I feel for the poor employees who have to work in that environment. They may have a choice to change their jobs but have you heard, work is hard to come by and everyone needs a paycheck.

its about time! I cannot stand when i go out to a bar or club and there are hundreds of wrinkly, yellow teethed, raspy voiced people there chain smoking the entire time. Ugh, not only does the smell of smoke make me gag, but I am allergic to it as well. Not to mention you smell like an ashtray till you take a really good bath. Smoking is so retarded, why would you pay to kill yourself?

I completely agree with Grant let the owner decide. I will go to the places that do not allow smoking.

Phil, the proof I go by is my dad lost his life to lung cancer and he was a heavy smoker. No one else in my family's history has EVER had cancer. I do realize this could be a coincidence, but you can not tell me it did not contribute.

This stuff has got to stop.

It should be the owner of the business who gets to choose all of the rules of his or her establishment. And, it's up to potential employees whether or not they want to work there, and potential customers whether or not they want to patronize the establishment.

Hooters has delicious chicken wings. And, Hooters has a particular atmosphere that is unique. My wife could easily have worked at Hooters (she still could), but she chooses not to because she knows that if she was to work there, she'd have to wear a revealing top and skimpy orange shorts with hose underneath. Because she doesn't want to do that, she works somewhere else and Hooters hires girls who will accept the rules of the establishment. (Just like a worker could choose to not work at a restaurant or bar that allows smoking, thus forcing the establishment to hire someone who doesn't mind... or, the establishment will have to make changes...BUT, not because some activist legislation forced them to.)

Same thing with patronizing the establishments. I get so sick of all the people... especially parents, who support this junk because, they say, "Why should my kids be exposed to smoke when we go to Chilis!!! They have a right to eat their burger and not be exposed to cancer. I have a right to eat dinner wherever I want and not smell like an ashtray. Blah, blah, blah."

Listen. My mother doesn't appreciate the...uh, atmosphere at Hooters. She loves chicken wings, but chooses somewhere else to get them because she doesn't like various... uh, aspects, of eating at Hooters. Hooters knows this. They know that if they really want my mother as a customer, they'd have to change. Same with smoking. If you don't want to expose yourself and your kids to smoke, EAT SOMEWHERE ELSE!

And, if the restaurant is desperate for your patronage, they'll change (on their own) to get you back. And, if they like catering to the gravely-voiced, leather-faced crowd, they should be able to.

For a "free" country, we've got enough namby-pamby, nit-picky, costly, knee-jerk, "try to get the vote next election" legislation. This has got to stop.

BTW - I am a non-smoker, from a non-smoking family. Of all my friends, only 1 smokes.

Conservatives - if you really want less government and more personal responsibility, and you support measures like this, you're being hypocrites.

Liberals - if you really support rights for gays, tree-huggers and other groups by employing a "live-and-let-live" philosophy and a desire to stick it to popular views whenever you feel that "popular" doesn't equal liberty, and you support this measure, you are being hypocrites.

The argument about obesity and foods you eat are pretty weak. You are only affecting yourself. When you choose to light a cigarette you are affecting everyone within a 10 foot radius.

All the hype about the "dangers of smoking" is lies, half-truths and innuendo: propaganda. The anti-smokers are buying it because it doesn't invade THEIR rights, only others. Second-hand smoke doesn't kill anyone regardless the BS being spewed about by hypocrites and liars and I defy anyone to provide valid proof otherwise. (Proof is not "some doctor said" because there are as many idiot doctors as there are idiot politicians).
P.T. Barnum was right, there's a sucker born every minute and right now they're all on the anti-smoking bandwagon, which is also the same as the anti-freedom, anti-rights bandwagon, Communist in other words.
I just have one thing to say to all the anti-smokers: pound sand.

Willis,your 9:24 post is full of truth.After being a heavy smoker for many years and now have been quit for almost 4 years I can relate to your post.I was one of those smokers that didn"t think about how my habit was affecting my family and the people around me.My bull-headed smoking whenever and where ever I wanted to was not fair to other people.A non-smokers right to NOT smoke does not effect other folks health....

I think the current law is sufficient. I am happy as long as I have the choice to be in a non-smoking environment.

Sounds like a liberal tree hugging policy if I ever heard it. True conservatives would let the free market dictate which establishment allowed smoking and which one's do not. The current law is fine, leave it alone.

Activists learned years ago the most effective way to get their foot in the door to limit our freedoms. It started in 1973 when the CAB required separate smoking and non-smoking sections on commercial flights..ah we said, we can handle that..fast forward to 1983 when president Reagan signed the federal aviation act into law making domestic flights of 2 hours or less smoke free.. ah we said, we can handle that..fast forward to 1990 when a law was passed making all domestic flights of 6 hours or less smoke free..ah we said, what in the hell is going on!!! fast forward to 2000 when president Clinton signs into law making all flights between the US and foreign destinations smoke free. And now you know how it all started...domestic flights of two hours or less & we said yes, we can handle that....and now it goes on and on into other areas of our life.

as you have no right to infringe upon my right to smoke . you are no better than anybody else ... evrybody has a addiction of some sorts . weither it be soda pop , certain foods , whatever it is . look at all the preservitives in foods ... growth hormones in meats .. whos killing who ?? smokers are the targets today whos next ???

I love the argument "I want to be able to consume alcohol in a bar without the dangers of second hand smoke". Hypocrisy at its finest. I don't like viewing topless dancers so I don't go to Night Trips. I don't like firearms so I don't own one. I don't like tobacco smoke so I don't go to smoky bars. It really is that simple. I am willing to bet these activists have no intention of actually supporting the very businesses they are screwing with.

Excellent post, Stephen. These activists were once young kids, sitting around smoking a joint with friends and trying to figure out a way to save the world AND get paid to do so. It has very little to do with their causes and more to do with name recognition and a paycheck.

i swear this state is filled with more clueless people then any place i have ever been.

I am a former smoker who has family that still smokes. I believe that everyone can wait until after dinner to have a cigarette. And they can do it outside. I don't think bars will ever be smoke free and probably shouldn't because children don't go there but anywhere an innocent child can be there should be no smoking.

here is a idea, if you dont like it dont go there and dont work there. Stop trying to control everyone and everything.

Once again, I did not advocate banning anything, just merely pointing out a few truths. You can take it or leave it. This is my opinion not my edict....

My right to be a non-smoker is more important than your right to smoke. Period. If you want to do something that is disgusting and detrimental to your health. Fine. You have absolutely no right to infringe upon my right to live a non-smoking, healthy life. I should not be forced to smell or breathe your smoke. My children should not be forced to inhale your nasty smoke when they're leaving a store and you can't find a better place than right outside the door to smoke. Smoking in ANY public place should've been banned long ago. If you want to smoke, do it in your own home and keep it away from the rest of us. It is a disgusting, nasty, vile, and plain stupid habit. When you smoke, YOU smell bad, your teeth and breath are nasty, your skin wrinkles, your nails turn yellow, your lungs can't function in the manner they're meant to, you open yourself up to cancer, and the list goes on. If you want to pick a bad habit that eventually kills you, can't you pick one that works quicker and is less of a burden on others?

You know, I am getting extremely tired of activists trying to limit our rights and freedoms for their pet causes. They all need to get a life!! I am not a smoker, but I do have the option of going to places where they allow smokers or not to go to these places. DUH! That's common sense. When these activists get their way on this smoking issue, they will find a new cause...and this time, it might be the food we love to eat. What if they ban meat or fried food for health reasons? Or pop sodas? Where does it stop? I have found if you give them an inch, they will take 10 miles. These activists have no respect for your rights or mine, just what they want in their utopian universe that their warped little minds have conceived.

People, stop and think. How much freedom have we lost over the last 40 years due to activists getting their way? When are we going to draw the line? When are we going to start fighting back and reclaim our freedoms that were taken away one by one over the last four decades?

Leave these "loopholes" alone! These were the compromises made between the smoking and non-smoking camps. If the activists are not going to keep their word, why bother working with them?

Willis, I agree that smoking can be harmful, but so can eating, drinking, walking and driving. If we are going to ban smoking in public then we should shut down all restaurants that produce unhealthy food, all bars, clubs and liquor stores and make it illegal to own/drive any vehicle. Do you know that car exhaust is far more damaging than a cigarette? How would you react to a ban on the internal combustion engine?

If they ban one product that is harmful and/or offensive then they should ban them all.

David, Where in my post did I say you don't have the right to kill yourself? You can smoke if you want to. All I am saying is you are completely foolish to believe that no harm will come to you or others for your actions. Plus I can say it without attacking you on a personal level...

Holy crap! I have to say that I am very, very, VERY surprised that some of you don't acknowledge the adverse health affects caused by smoking. Also, the argument 'why don't you go outside if you want fresh air' is dumb. YOU are the one making it uncomfortable for everyone else here...so YOU go outside. Finally...In the words of Steve Martin...Q: "Mind if I smoke?" A: "No. Mind if I FART?"

dumb ass willis, living kills - everytime. living has the highest mortaility rate among all nations, all races, all classes, everywhere, evertime. you bitch about smoking but if people aren't dying after smoking they're still going to die. why not give someone their stupid little bit of pleasure while they're living.

so what gives these people the right to protect anyone? they remind me of a buch of religious zealots always pushing their idea of what is right and wrong, what will save you and what will not, on other people who basically don't give a s**t. and we all know how much religious zealots are hated and mocked.

Our right to Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness does not include the right to harm others. Those of you who think that second hand smoke doesn't harm others, are lying through the hole in your Trachia. The plain simple truth is, Smoking Kills. You smokers are committing suicide one puff at a time. If you don't think you are, you are in denial. Just read the side of that pack of smokes,it says smoking is harmful. The tobacco companies are well aware of the harmful effects of use of their products. You may not realize this but, when you are a smoker, your body processes the inhaled smoke out of the pores of your skin. This results in a foul odor that is imperceptable to the smoker. But the non-smokers can smell you a few feet away. Once you have quit smoking for a time, you will smell a smoker and the nausea will kick in. Just smell your fingers, that is what your whole body smells like, but you can't smell it because your odor recepticles in your nose have grown dull along with your taste buds. The effect of the tobacco use grow stronger with years of use. Even if you quit, it may take years for the health effects to kick in. Make no mistake, your health is at issue. The health of others is at issue. You are killing everyone around you with your habit. If you have children at home they will become smokers just by being in the room or the car with you. You say you would never harm your kids? That makes you a liar if you smoke around them. To deny the facts do not make them go away. Once you have kicked the habit, you will wonder why you got hooked on such a disgusting product in the first place. You do have the right to smoke but not the right to harm others people. Like it or not, believe it or not, you are killing others one puff at a time...

ummmm, Ty... Do they need an excuse? Have you not seen rabid opposition before?

I simply think the anti-smoking proponents have been fed propaganda their entire careers, they bought it & never questioned it, now they've been beating this drum for years (with the big lies...smoking = leading cause of preventable death & 2nd Hand smoke is worse than actually smoking. huh?) If these anti-smoking proponents even care to look for the research, they won't accept it. They have to save face.

It like they think they are the Pope of smoking, infallible. Anything that comes out of their mouths is never retracted!

It all boils down to whether second hand smoke is dangerous to non-smokers. My question is, What do the people who are saying that it is dangerous have to gain by saying this?

Ever since this became an issue in the eighties, I've never really understood the logic. If you want fresh air, why don't you go outside? Some towns have tried to ban smoking even outside, and many businesses and public buildings don't want smoking near entrances or even on the property. Well, hey, I really hate it when fast food wrappers and beer cans end up in my yard and I don't think it's right for my insurance premiums to go up because somebody can't keep their head out of the fridge or steer their cars past fast food outlets or their grocery carts past the cookie aisle. Let's regulate those and tax the hell out of them, too.

Once these ban lobbyists find gullible lawmakers, there,s no stopping them.

For those who say "it can't happen here", you must realize that a well funded "war on smokers" is underway. Here's where it started:

http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?ia=143&id=14912

And what the 99 million dollars was going to. Note on page seven the "inside -out", provision going for patios later, AFTER business owners spend thousands of dollars to build them to accommodate their smoking customers, clearly showing that the tobacco control activists have ABSOLUTLY NO CONCERN about local issues or businesses. You may need to CTRL and scoll to enlarge it.

http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/CIA_Fundamentals.pdf

Here's the "model ban" from page eight that many communities copied, printed, and passed. It's the "smoking ban for dummies" It only takes a few minutes to fill in the blanks naming your community, the administrators names, and blanks to customize it to your community.

http://www.no-smoke.org/document.php?id=229

Wow, sorry for the bad grammar in my post below... I must need more coffee today.

This is really the largest hoax perpetrated on the American people... When people make statements like this "Smoking is the leading preventable cause of death and disease, said Dr. Alan Blum" we must ask them to provide the evidence.

IF advocates of this law would provide just one single death certificate thatdenotes smoking was the cause of death they would go a long way in justifying the massive expense for business & government when this law is enacted.

HOAX! There is NO scientific evidence that second hand smoke (SHS) is dangerous for ANYONE. If any of these advocates know the source of research data backing up their anti-smoking statements is they are not talking. HOAX!

I think the owner of the business should be able to make the decision. I am not a smoker and do not go to places that allow smoking. I do not blame business owners for catering to their patrons. As for the health issues, I think it is pretty well documented. If their was a conspiracy I belive they would be telling you smoking is safe so the medical field would be getting your money. I lost my dad to lung cancer and the dr. told him 10 years before he died that his lungs were in terrible shape.

Smokin' & drinkin' go together--leave the bars out of this. No one HAS to work in a bar. I do not smoke--never have---but was married to one for 19 years. I destest the smell of ANY tobaco smoke & glad it is banned from hosp.& schools. Nice to go eat and not have smoke blown in my face before I have dessert. I think any tobacco products should be banned in & outside all bldg. receiving public $$.

Brad we smokers are limited as it is. fine with me but you can take the drive thru .. 38000 local or world wide ?? they leave that part out . i smoke and i respect others when in public but if its a smoking area get to steppin if it bothers you . but what about those that drink and drive have a wreck and kill innocent people. wheres the stats?? driving while reading the news paper , putting on make-up , shaving , cell phones ? which all have killed innocent people . wheres the stats ? i guess all theses are socially acceptable ... ive been a vol fire fighter for 10 years ive seen my share of stupidity just my 2 cents worth

Here is the point that all of us (except me) seem to be missing: Our government, through the power of special interests is taking away our freedom! In a free society, which America used to be, individuals were given the freedom of choice to visit establishments that allowed smoking. This left wing mentality that we must “protect the workers” is just an excuse to push for more restriction of our liberty. In a free society, those workers would simply choose not to work in a smoking environment. I know, someone is now thinking that workers have no choice, they are forced to work under these conditions. Come on! They chose to work at a restaurant, bar or casino that allows smoking, nobody forced them to take the job.

Folks, our liberties are being eroded everyday, it is time we wake up and smell the coffee. Go to www.GreggTunison.com for more.

All the well meaning in the wold doesn't erase the fact that it's just one more right being infringed upon! This is just nuts! I am not a smoker and neither am I a drinker but I don't believe the right to smoke and drink should be taken away from anyone. If the non smokers don't like it just don't go to those places!!!!

It is amazing how these folks come up with the numbers...38,000 where did it come from, is there any supporting documentation for the numbers? Sounds a lot like the 650,000 jobs saved as a result of the Obama stimulus. Go figure!

I am a smoker, but when I travel I always request a non-smoking room and sit in the non-smoking section of the restaurant. At home, I smoke outside only as well. Its not a health issue, in my opinion, its just a personal choice. The smoking areas just stink, literally. I agree with both sides that have posted here, but as a smoker, I have to say that my right to smoke ends at your nose...not because of health issues( I am not convinced of those either, like others who have posted here)but because I don't have a right to make others uncomfortable. I put smoking in the same category as public display of affection or flatulence...it definitely has its place, but a public restaurant is not that place. Just my opinion.

Brad, if you keep on allowing people to ban things they don't like, there'll come a time when they'll get to you. I personally can't stand to be near someone chewing gum, but I don't feel I have the right to demand a ban on gum chewing. I personally can't stand to be around people who have doused themselves with after shave or perfume that lingers long after they've left the area, but I don't feel I have the right to ask for a ban on aftershave or perfumes. Garlic eaters (of which I am one) also reek. How about them? If we ban smoking, then I may start campaigning along those lines I just talked about.

Bobby of Edmond: I couldn't say it better, so won't even try. And I'm not a smoker, either. If you don't like a place that allows smoking, don't go there. It's just that simple. In St. Louis they are trying to pass the same sort of laws but they want to leave off casinos. Of course, they can't take a chance that such a law would slow down the money coming in at such a money-maker as a casino, can they? Hypocrisy in action there by the non-smoking faction when all they have to do is allow establishments and customers to make their own decisions.

Brad, you are blowing smoke up your own #!@%%*!

Brad, you seem to be pretty demanding about your rights but what about others? What about personal freedom or property rights? Your rights end at the end of your nose. For the record, I am not a smoker. If someone owns a restaurant or nightclub, they should have the option to designate it a smoke free or smoking establishment. You and everyone else can make the choice to patronize that establishment or not. Your kind make me sick. This time it is a ban on smoking in public places, next it will a ban on smoking in the privacy of your home. What will be your next crusade?

Brad, your forgeting one thing ,freedom and, the ability to compromise. The more you put the government into everyones lives you are depriving someone from there freedom...There has to be away to satisfy both groups,smoking and non-smoking...Look at the price of automobiles, one-third of the price of vehicles are of govt regulations,not talking about polution control,anti lock brakes for one,arent you smart enough to stop your own car? Theres $8000.00 of electronics and hydraulics in there cuz the insurance companies want it in there and there discounts dont even account for that price..Im not saying compromise your health, but being Americans we can work together to satisfy both wants...But, being a jerk is not helping the issue, but consideration and compromise is the answer to our problem..
John

I find it quite comical that a majority of the people who yell and scream about the unhealthy effects of smoking are typically obese. I have seen a smoker live until 95, but I've never met a 95 year old obese person. Just some "food" for thought!

There shouldn't be a problem when resturants build separate smokin rooms etc. Smokers have the right to smoke, The arguement is getting old from these people, they don't even want to allow someone to smoke outside. There is not one solid proof that smoking causes cancer or second hand smoke does either. There are theories. I know people that have gotten lung cancer and have never smoked and My grandfather smoked his whole life and died at 97 from natural causes. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be respect for those who don't smoke but that works both ways. The same arguement that Brad makes about smokers going to casinos works as well it seems he still goes even though they allow smoking. I find it amusing when these folks are out chasing tail they'll patronize any bar thats full of smoke if the tail they chase is there. So its selective opposition. These yahoos want a complete ban of smoking, they want to push their beliefs and soon as they get it, they'll say that everyone should quit eating meat and that they have the right to not see anyone eating meat or smelling it cooking. Its time for respect of individuals, they say oh now we are looking out for the workers bull, the workers have a choice. This is about an agenda period!!

I can't wait for the many variations of the "fat tax" and "sin taxes" on alcohol to roll in so that all of these fanatical anti-smoking proponents can have a personal cause to fight for to give their lives meaning.

Christopher, I am NOT a hippie. Why should I have to leave a bar or club because you dont give a dam about others health and want to light up anyway. Don't even try to say it your smoke doesn't hurt me. I say...if you want to smoke...LEAVE! Sorry, but your analogy of the mom and pop place is just not true. If you cannot smoke at any public place then there is no other place to go...mom and pop will still get your business. I am sure you were one of those idiots that said they would quit going to Red Lobster (or any other place) if they banned smoking. Yeah right, now you just have to leave when you are done eating instead of sitting there taking up a table after you are done eating. It is YOU that needs to move out of Oklahoma to California so you can go smoke pot and marry your boyfriend. NON-SMOKERS are the majority here no matter what you want to believe.

Brad its people like you that well need to move to California. Granted I agree there should be a limitation to where smokers do their business. However all public areas? Smoking is no where near the healthiest habit granted that. Its their choice and in some cases if you do not like it then leave. If you walk into a bar and people are smoking and you do not like it then well LEAVE. Everyone has a choice. I find it pretty disturbing when they say "Blum said restaurant groups that oppose bans are influenced by tobacco companies that want to protect their profits." Ok look at this and think for a moment. Most of the places are owned by mom and pop's. They do not have the money to build or make changes to the equipment that some pencil pushing hippy has decided for them to do. The government is not there to help them. Yet 80% of their clientele are thats right you guessed it SMOKERS. So how about instead of helping someone get into a brand new car or bailing out the crooked banks. How about helping out little America. You want cleaner air help these folks out by giving them help to create it. Then again the health care industry would suffer from it then and all the hippies would have something else to bitch about.