Iowa Smoking Ban Passes Committee

“There is no risk-free second hand smoke exposure for Iowans or workers. This creation of smoke-free places will protect Iowans in 99% of public places and workplaces, including bars and restaurants.”

A statewide smoking ban moved one step closer to reality in Iowa. The House Commerce Committee approved a statewide smoking ban Tuesday. via KWWL-TV Waterloo

[Land of the Free]

What happened to our consitutional rights hear? When are they going stop? Does anyone see their are taking our rights away hear! I hought we lived in the land of the free!!
Bar owners ect. should have the right to choose to make their place smoke free or not! Me as a local citizien has that right to choose to go their or not! I have that right to aply their or not also!
These people that own the bars ect. they make payment on their loans they pay insurance. It's no diffrent then us making our house payments. So next are they going to tell me I can't smoke in my house!
We need to start voicing out hear it's not just this that has taken or rights away hear. We the people are alowing them to do this! Let's fight for our rights of the free back from or govement. I know I'm not the only person out their that's made about my rights getting taken away here. We all have to stand togeather hear for them to listen! If we don't I'm afraid what kind of country my children & grandchildren will live in! Not the land of the free that's for sure!!

[Sheri]

Land of the Free wrote:

What happened to our consitutional rights hear? When are they going stop? Does anyone see their are taking our rights away hear! I hought we lived in the land of the free!!
Bar owners ect. should have the right to choose to make their place smoke free or not! Me as a local citizien has that right to choose to go their or not! I have that right to aply their or not also!
These people that own the bars ect. they make payment on their loans they pay insurance. It's no diffrent then us making our house payments. So next are they going to tell me I can't smoke in my house!
We need to start voicing out hear it's not just this that has taken or rights away hear. We the people are alowing them to do this! Let's fight for our rights of the free back from or govement. I know I'm not the only person out their that's made about my rights getting taken away here. We all have to stand togeather hear for them to listen! If we don't I'm afraid what kind of country my children & grandchildren will live in! Not the land of the free that's for sure!!

Here's what happened. Go to this page, http://www.virginiasmokersalliance.com/RWJF%2... and go after them. I live in Ohio, and I can tell you that you must contact legislators, organize within your state, and fight for your rights.

[PROV1X81]

Land of the Free wrote:

What happened to our consitutional rights hear? When are they going stop? Does anyone see their are taking our rights away hear! I hought we lived in the land of the free!!
Bar owners ect. should have the right to choose to make their place smoke free or not! Me as a local citizien has that right to choose to go their or not! I have that right to aply their or not also!
These people that own the bars ect. they make payment on their loans they pay insurance. It's no diffrent then us making our house payments. So next are they going to tell me I can't smoke in my house!
We need to start voicing out hear it's not just this that has taken or rights away hear. We the people are alowing them to do this! Let's fight for our rights of the free back from or govement. I know I'm not the only person out their that's made about my rights getting taken away here. We all have to stand togeather hear for them to listen! If we don't I'm afraid what kind of country my children & grandchildren will live in! Not the land of the free that's for sure!!

"If we don't I'm afraid what kind of country my children & grandchildren will live in!"

If any of these laws kept your children and grand children from smoking or even start smoking,
how is that a bad thing?
even when I smoked I knew it was an awful, offensive, dreadful thing to do to your body and never in my wildest dreams ever thought about defending my habit to anyone.

[jimirhythem]

i think you're missing free's point,prov. i think we all know smoking is bad . we just want the Right to smoke if we care to.especialy if you own a bar and you prefer to let your customers smoke , does the bar owner have any rights?these dogooders can't realise what they're doing. won't be long now folks soon the govm't will tell you what to eat,what to wear,how many children you're allowed,the country would save a lot of energy if the city would just herd us to our workstations in busses and then they could feed us a few grains maybe a pc. of chseese on sat.a free t shirt and pizza for anyone that can work for 25 yrs. without filing an ins.claim. you don't have to defend your habits to anyone,prov,but it would be appreciated if you would stand up for Our Rights. i don't want my grandkids to smoke and i've quit myself. but i think if i want to smoke in a bar situation,and the owner of the property decides to allow it in his bar.we both should have the right. and the dogooders need to use there heads before they complain about other folks. the taxes the govm't gets from tobacco sales is enough to covince me that the govm't doesn't want to ban it. this is just another way for the govm't to kiss up to big business,and get the tax money too. god bless

[Morgan]

What I think is hilarious is the invocation of the Constitution. Did any of you take government? This is about the most constitutional thing a state CAN do. The federal government cannot pass a nationwide smoking ban because it is not in the enumerated powers of Congress; however, states reserve their police powers under, yes, the CONSTITUTION to regulate the health and welfare of citizens. Courts give high deference to these laws; all a state needs is a legitimate end, i.e., reducing exposure to secondhand smoke. Hugely legitimate. Does a law prohibiting you to drive drunk infringe on your right to drive? No. And a law prohibiting you from killing others with secondhand smoke does not infringe on your "right" either.

[Bill Hannegan]

Morgan wrote:

What I think is hilarious is the invocation of the Constitution. Did any of you take government? This is about the most constitutional thing a state CAN do. The federal government cannot pass a nationwide smoking ban because it is not in the enumerated powers of Congress; however, states reserve their police powers under, yes, the CONSTITUTION to regulate the health and welfare of citizens. Courts give high deference to these laws; all a state needs is a legitimate end, i.e., reducing exposure to secondhand smoke. Hugely legitimate. Does a law prohibiting you to drive drunk infringe on your right to drive? No. And a law prohibiting you from killing others with secondhand smoke does not infringe on your "right" either.

Has secondhand smoke ever killed anyone? Surgeon General Carmona, Stanton Glantz and James Repace with their statistical hocus pocus say yes. But why have I never known a single person in my 50 years on this earth killed by secondhand smoke? I remain sceptical!

[Boomer]

Morgan wrote:

What I think is hilarious is the invocation of the Constitution. Did any of you take government? This is about the most constitutional thing a state CAN do. The federal government cannot pass a nationwide smoking ban because it is not in the enumerated powers of Congress; however, states reserve their police powers under, yes, the CONSTITUTION to regulate the health and welfare of citizens. Courts give high deference to these laws; all a state needs is a legitimate end, i.e., reducing exposure to secondhand smoke. Hugely legitimate. Does a law prohibiting you to drive drunk infringe on your right to drive? No. And a law prohibiting you from killing others with secondhand smoke does not infringe on your "right" either.

Right on. We've had a smoking ban for a while here. Actually we also had a local waitress who died from exposure to second hand smoke over a long period of time. Her boss at the restaurant said that he would've banned smoking if he'd known the danger to the workers health.

'Waitress who never smoked' dies of lung cancer

Heather Crowe, the long-time waitress who contracted lung cancer after decades of exposure to second-hand smoke, has died. She was 61.

Crowe, who never smoked, became widely known as the face of the nation's anti-smoking movement after sharing her personal story in television ads for Health Canada.

In the advertisements, she describes how she contracted cancer from second-hand smoke at the restaurant where she worked for some 40 years.

Denis Choiniere, director of regulations and compliance for Health Canada said Crowe helped to put a face on the grim numbers.

""She had a strong and influential impact for our second-hand smoke campaigns," Choiniere said, appearing on CTV Newsnet.

"She was the figure, the face for the statistics that we've been using -- about 1,000 people every year dying from exposure to second-hand smoke in Canada," he said.

Crowe was diagnosed with inoperable lung cancer in 2002, and she fought the disease with chemotherapy, radiation and steroids before it went into remission.

But she learned last August that she was losing her battle with the disease.

Crowe was the first person to win a claim filed with the Ontario Workers Safety and Insurance Board for full compensation for lung cancer caused by occupational exposure to cigarette smoke.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/C...

[Kent]

Morgan wrote:

What I think is hilarious is the invocation of the Constitution. Did any of you take government? This is about the most constitutional thing a state CAN do. The federal government cannot pass a nationwide smoking ban because it is not in the enumerated powers of Congress; however, states reserve their police powers under, yes, the CONSTITUTION to regulate the health and welfare of citizens. Courts give high deference to these laws; all a state needs is a legitimate end, i.e., reducing exposure to secondhand smoke. Hugely legitimate. Does a law prohibiting you to drive drunk infringe on your right to drive? No. And a law prohibiting you from killing others with secondhand smoke does not infringe on your "right" either.

Second hand smoke won't kill you.
Worrying about it may shorten your life.

[Kent]

Boomer wrote:

<quoted text>
Right on. We've had a smoking ban for a while here. Actually we also had a local waitress who died from exposure to second hand smoke over a long period of time. Her boss at the restaurant said that he would've banned smoking if he'd known the danger to the workers health.
'Waitress who never smoked' dies of lung cancer
Heather Crowe, the long-time waitress who contracted lung cancer after decades of exposure to second-hand smoke, has died. She was 61.
Crowe, who never smoked, became widely known as the face of the nation's anti-smoking movement after sharing her personal story in television ads for Health Canada.
In the advertisements, she describes how she contracted cancer from second-hand smoke at the restaurant where she worked for some 40 years.
Denis Choiniere, director of regulations and compliance for Health Canada said Crowe helped to put a face on the grim numbers.
""She had a strong and influential impact for our second-hand smoke campaigns," Choiniere said, appearing on CTV Newsnet.
"She was the figure, the face for the statistics that we've been using -- about 1,000 people every year dying from exposure to second-hand smoke in Canada," he said.
Crowe was diagnosed with inoperable lung cancer in 2002, and she fought the disease with chemotherapy, radiation and steroids before it went into remission.
But she learned last August that she was losing her battle with the disease.
Crowe was the first person to win a claim filed with the Ontario Workers Safety and Insurance Board for full compensation for lung cancer caused by occupational exposure to cigarette smoke.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/C...

What a bummer of a hoax!

[SmokeFree]

Bill Hannegan wrote:

<quoted text>
Has secondhand smoke ever killed anyone? Surgeon General Carmona, Stanton Glantz and James Repace with their statistical hocus pocus say yes. But why have I never known a single person in my 50 years on this earth killed by secondhand smoke? I remain sceptical!

Willy, Willy, Willy, you never fail to amaze me.
Denial is the first stage!!! Once your bar employees start suing you you'll see the light.
We'll find a nice soup kitchen for you to work and eat in!!
Every workplace employee needs to work in a safe and healthy environment. Hellooooo Willy it's 2008.

[Sheri]

Boomer wrote:

<quoted text>
Right on. We've had a smoking ban for a while here. Actually we also had a local waitress who died from exposure to second hand smoke over a long period of time. Her boss at the restaurant said that he would've banned smoking if he'd known the danger to the workers health.
'Waitress who never smoked' dies of lung cancer
Heather Crowe, the long-time waitress who contracted lung cancer after decades of exposure to second-hand smoke, has died. She was 61.
Crowe, who never smoked, became widely known as the face of the nation's anti-smoking movement after sharing her personal story in television ads for Health Canada.
In the advertisements, she describes how she contracted cancer from second-hand smoke at the restaurant where she worked for some 40 years.
Denis Choiniere, director of regulations and compliance for Health Canada said Crowe helped to put a face on the grim numbers.
""She had a strong and influential impact for our second-hand smoke campaigns," Choiniere said, appearing on CTV Newsnet.
"She was the figure, the face for the statistics that we've been using -- about 1,000 people every year dying from exposure to second-hand smoke in Canada," he said.
Crowe was diagnosed with inoperable lung cancer in 2002, and she fought the disease with chemotherapy, radiation and steroids before it went into remission.
But she learned last August that she was losing her battle with the disease.
Crowe was the first person to win a claim filed with the Ontario Workers Safety and Insurance Board for full compensation for lung cancer caused by occupational exposure to cigarette smoke.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/C...

The woman became your poster child. Did a coroner rule that SHS was the sole cause of her death?

[Boomer]

Sheri wrote:

<quoted text>
The woman became your poster child. Did a coroner rule that SHS was the sole cause of her death?

The Ontario Worker's Compensation Board agreed that secondhand smoke caused her lung cancer, as was stated in the story. That would consist of a panel of doctors appointed by industry and government who all who all have to agree that a claim is justified. They're actually pretty hard to convince. I know a number people who've been turned down for compensation for workplace injuries or sickness due to lack of evidence.

[Sheri]

Boomer wrote:

<quoted text>
The Ontario Worker's Compensation Board agreed that secondhand smoke caused her lung cancer, as was stated in the story. That would consist of a panel of doctors appointed by industry and government who all who all have to agree that a claim is justified. They're actually pretty hard to convince. I know a number people who've been turned down for compensation for workplace injuries or sickness due to lack of evidence.

Perhaps. I am interested in how they knew that. I also know that the woman's exposure was extreme, working two jobs over 40 years. Did she have any other risk factors, such as a family history of cancer?

[Sheri]

SmokeFree wrote:

<quoted text>
Willy, Willy, Willy, you never fail to amaze me.
Denial is the first stage!!! Once your bar employees start suing you you'll see the light.
We'll find a nice soup kitchen for you to work and eat in!!
Every workplace employee needs to work in a safe and healthy environment. Hellooooo Willy it's 2008.

SMOKEY, SMOKEY, SMOKEY, you are the sue happy guy, aren't you? I think I would welcome such a suit, as it would require indisputable proof that SHS was indeed the cause of these conditions. I would like to hear that in court like it was heard and decided in Osteen's courtroom.

[Kent]

Boomer wrote:

<quoted text>
The Ontario Worker's Compensation Board agreed that secondhand smoke caused her lung cancer, as was stated in the story. That would consist of a panel of doctors appointed by industry and government who all who all have to agree that a claim is justified. They're actually pretty hard to convince. I know a number people who've been turned down for compensation for workplace injuries or sickness due to lack of evidence.

Since you are unable to answer the question, let me do it for you. The answer is NO.

[BEEN THERE]

Do they have radon in Canada?

[Freedom]

Kent wrote:

<quoted text>Since you are unable to answer the question, let me do it for you. The answer is NO.

Hi Kent. The PC agenda marches on.

So sad....

[Smoke Free]

Sheri wrote:

<quoted text>
SMOKEY, SMOKEY, SMOKEY, you are the sue happy guy, aren't you? I think I would welcome such a suit, as it would require indisputable proof that SHS was indeed the cause of these conditions. I would like to hear that in court like it was heard and decided in Osteen's courtroom.

Just a matter of time Sweetie.
Be careful what you wish for!!! What if they do and prove it once and for all. They may ban smoking period. Then what sweetie? Grow your own, dry it, smoke it in your basement. Start saving the seeds.
Again, be careful what you wish for....

[Freedom]

Smoke Free wrote:

<quoted text>
Just a matter of time Sweetie.
Be careful what you wish for!!! What if they do and prove it once and for all. They may ban smoking period. Then what sweetie? Grow your own, dry it, smoke it in your basement. Start saving the seeds.
Again, be careful what you wish for....

Bring it on. Take a look a few posts above. Care to attempt to address this?

Your whole movement is built on lies and deceit.

[Sheri]

Smoke Free wrote:

<quoted text>
Just a matter of time Sweetie.
!! What if they do and prove it once and for all.

Well, at least you admit that there is no proof of it now.