Debate on bill to ban smoking lights ...

Debate on bill to ban smoking lights up Pa. House

There are 28 comments on the The Herald story from Jul 13, 2007, titled Debate on bill to ban smoking lights up Pa. House. In it, The Herald reports that:

“This is, I believe, a profound moral issue. It's one of the few votes that we're going to cast that actually has life-and-death consequences.”

The state House, considering a statewide smoking ban Friday for the second time in eight days, defeated a key amendment that would have inserted additional exceptions into a Senate-passed bill. via The Herald

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Herald.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
just candid

AOL

#1 Jul 14, 2007
The good people living in Pa. have every right to be protected from cigarette smoke.Protected not only in the workeplace but also when they go out to eat or drink.
Justined

Oakland Mills, PA

#2 Jul 14, 2007
What a pile of horsecrap. For those of us who live in hollering distance of TMI, and were around in 79; SHS is so laughable that it proves the Antis are nothing but Sheep and control freaks.

Baaa Baaa Baaa

Here Sheep, Sheep Sheep!
just candid

AOL

#3 Jul 14, 2007
Addicted smokers will say,do and belive almost anything to protect their nicotine addiction.They may not even know it but they live a life as a veritable slave,and must always plan ahead to make sure they will have a chance to get that next 'fix'.
Justined

Oakland Mills, PA

#4 Jul 14, 2007
Addicted Antis will say,do and belive almost anything to protect their bigotry addiction.They may not even know it but they live a life as a veritable slave,and must always plan ahead to make sure they will have a chance to get that next 'fix'.

Baaa Baaa Baaa

Here Sheep, Sheep Sheep!
Sheri

Cuyahoga Falls, OH

#5 Jul 14, 2007
The risk of contacting lung cancer from secondhand smoke, based on the number of 3000 is 0.00004545454545454545% I used the world population figure of 6.6 billion as of 2007. Even though the number of 3000 is highly disputed because it addresses no other factors, I used your number. That is so statistically irrelevant that it would never be used in any other argument but this one.

The risk of getting any disease currently blamed on secondhand smoke is 0.006060606060606061 In that calculation, I used your projected number of 400,000 and the same world population of 6.6 billion. Again, not even close to statistically relevant based upon numbers and the fact that these deaths do not consider any other lifestyle and genetic factors.
just candid

AOL

#6 Jul 14, 2007
Smoking is not cool nor 'kool',just very yesteryear and stupid looking.In todays world smoking is only done by the backward,the slow to learn and perhaps older addicts who are unable to control their addiction.
History Buff

United States

#7 Jul 14, 2007
IF honest research were looked at;
If honest studies were not altered;
If reports were not summarized wrongly in the press;
there would be NO debate.
Freedom would survive and businesses could decide for themself.
I wonder how big the PA bonus checks are.
hereWegoSteelers

Pittsburgh, PA

#8 Jul 14, 2007
All health concerns aside, cigarette smoking is very annoying to those who don't smoke. It is not fair for the majority of those at bars and restaurants to have to deal with smoke while they patronize a business. The smell even lingers when you leave. Why is it such a big deal to make them smoke outside or on their own property? The majority of citizens support the ban... democracy wins (sheep ha, what a dumb comment)
Bill Hannegan

United States

#9 Jul 14, 2007
hereWegoSteelers wrote:
All health concerns aside, cigarette smoking is very annoying to those who don't smoke. It is not fair for the majority of those at bars and restaurants to have to deal with smoke while they patronize a business. The smell even lingers when you leave. Why is it such a big deal to make them smoke outside or on their own property? The majority of citizens support the ban... democracy wins (sheep ha, what a dumb comment)
It is quite common for the majority of a bar's patrons to smoke and the rest of the patrons not care about a little stray smoke.
just candid

AOL

#10 Jul 14, 2007
Bill Hannegan wrote:
<quoted text>
It is quite common for the majority of a bar's patrons to smoke and the rest of the patrons not care about a little stray smoke.
It's quite common for non smokers to stay away from smoke filled bars and spend their money in smoke free venues.
Dr truth

Cedarpines Park, CA

#11 Jul 14, 2007
just candid wrote:
Smoking is not cool nor 'kool',just very yesteryear and stupid looking.In todays world smoking is only done by the backward,the slow to learn and perhaps older addicts who are unable to control their addiction.
Uh, yeah it`s hard for someone to control an addiciton, hence the word ADDICTION! I see you are posting the same tired crap again! Do you understand the definition of addiction? UGH...
Bill Hannegan

United States

#12 Jul 14, 2007
just candid wrote:
<quoted text>It's quite common for non smokers to stay away from smoke filled bars and spend their money in smoke free venues.
Right. So lets have both sorts of places for both sorts of people, even if you consider smokers and their companions fools. Why would you have a problem with that? This is not a rhetorical question. Please answer.
Sheri

Cuyahoga Falls, OH

#13 Jul 15, 2007
Dr truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh, yeah it`s hard for someone to control an addiciton, hence the word ADDICTION! I see you are posting the same tired crap again! Do you understand the definition of addiction? UGH...
The word "ADDICTION" lost its shock value a number of years ago. The media and special interest groups started to use the word to describe any consistent behavior with a negative connotation. If you shop too much, you are a shopping addict. If you watch too much tv or play video games every day, you are a tv or video game addict. If you exercise too often, you are an exercise addict, etc. Previous to this, an addict was someone who shot heroin or snorted cocaine and ended up in a life of crime or dead on the coroner's slab. Now, most of the public is desensitized to the overused term of "addict" It is so yesteryear, so backward, so ignorant to expect shock and outrage when one describes a smoker or a shopper for that matter an addict.
Sheri

Cuyahoga Falls, OH

#14 Jul 15, 2007
hereWegoSteelers wrote:
All health concerns aside, cigarette smoking is very annoying to those who don't smoke. It is not fair for the majority of those at bars and restaurants to have to deal with smoke while they patronize a business. The smell even lingers when you leave. Why is it such a big deal to make them smoke outside or on their own property? The majority of citizens support the ban... democracy wins (sheep ha, what a dumb comment)
Why is it such a big deal for you to take a shower when you get home if you are so bothered by the smell? It is not a big deal for smokers to go outside to a patio bar in the middle of the summer. It is, in fact, preferrable to sitting inside. However, in January, when the patios are closed and the temperature is below freezing, it is a very big deal. It is also a sometimes dangerous deal to be outside in an alley or at the back of the bar. It is also simply a psychological ploy for anti-smokers to further erode the dignity of the smoker as a person. Forcing one outside says to the world that you are a secondhand citizen. I object to that because it is psychological brainwashing, and I refuse to participate in that. It is in the winter, not now, that the businesses who rely on the profits from smoking customers will find themselves out of business. Businesses in Florida, California, and other warm weather states are much more likely to survive the winter months than states like OH and PA. In NYC, many bars and restaurants are simply defying the ban after years of losing money. In Washington and in Oregon, there are now smoke easies, where owners draw the curtains after dark and allow customers to smoke. In CO, bar owners also defy the ban, collecting money from each bar within their organization to pay the fines rather than go out of business. It is a very big deal to tell people what they can and cannot do in places that you have probably never even visited.
Sheri

Cuyahoga Falls, OH

#15 Jul 15, 2007
just candid wrote:
<quoted text>It's quite common for non smokers to stay away from smoke filled bars and spend their money in smoke free venues.
Yes, please do that

Since: Jul 07

Pittsburgh

#16 Jul 15, 2007
Sheri, Your argument is a little ridiculous. You can't see past your addiction and how unethical it is. You are saying the majority of bars patrons smoke? I am not sure what "hole in the wall" places you patronize, but when I go out to bars/clubs around Pittsburgh the majority of people do not smoke. "Why is it such a big deal to take a shower when you get home"... such dumb reasoning. I do have to take a shower, and then drag my clothes to the laundramat (costs me money). A better argument would be, why don't you keep your addiction to yourself for a few hours at a bar by not lighting up?
Sheri

Cuyahoga Falls, OH

#17 Jul 15, 2007
hereWegoSteelers wrote:
Sheri, Your argument is a little ridiculous. You can't see past your addiction and how unethical it is. You are saying the majority of bars patrons smoke? I am not sure what "hole in the wall" places you patronize, but when I go out to bars/clubs around Pittsburgh the majority of people do not smoke. "Why is it such a big deal to take a shower when you get home"... such dumb reasoning. I do have to take a shower, and then drag my clothes to the laundramat (costs me money). A better argument would be, why don't you keep your addiction to yourself for a few hours at a bar by not lighting up?
I don't know about the clubs in Pittsburgh. I stopped going to clubs many years ago because I found them pretentious and overbearing, so you can have those. I do prefer, as you call them, hole in the walls because I know the people, and I like the conversation. I doubt that you would enjoy the places I go even if they were non-smoking, so there you go. You club yourself in the night scene all you want. I will continue to patronize the hole in the walls where you have no interest in visiting. You keep the "clubs" non-smoking, and I get to keep the joints that I prefer (and where 90% smoke...the remaining 10% really could give a crap)and we will all be happy because we had CHOICES. I won't worry about your ADDICTIONS because I am positive you have your own, and you won't worry about mine. All are happy.
Bill Hannegan

United States

#18 Jul 15, 2007
Sheri wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know about the clubs in Pittsburgh. I stopped going to clubs many years ago because I found them pretentious and overbearing, so you can have those. I do prefer, as you call them, hole in the walls because I know the people, and I like the conversation. I doubt that you would enjoy the places I go even if they were non-smoking, so there you go. You club yourself in the night scene all you want. I will continue to patronize the hole in the walls where you have no interest in visiting. You keep the "clubs" non-smoking, and I get to keep the joints that I prefer (and where 90% smoke...the remaining 10% really could give a crap)and we will all be happy because we had CHOICES. I won't worry about your ADDICTIONS because I am positive you have your own, and you won't worry about mine. All are happy.
Sheri, you write so well. That is a real gift! I wish you would write to as many lawmakers outside Ohio as possible.
WeScott

Omak, WA

#19 Jul 15, 2007
So why are all you health nuts going to the bar anyhow. Seems to me your risking costing the government alot more than us.

Twenty-five to forty percent of all patients in U.S. general hospital beds (not in maternity or intensive care) are being treated for complications of alcohol-related problems. 1
Annual health care expenditures for alcohol-related problems amount to $22.5 billion. The total cost of alcohol problems is $175.9 billion a year (compared to $114.2 billion for other drug problems and $137 billion for smoking).2
In comparison to moderate and non-drinkers, individuals with a history of heavy drinking have higher health care costs. 3
Untreated alcohol problems waste an estimated $184.6 billion dollars per year in health care, business and criminal justice costs, and cause more than 100,000 deaths. 4
Health care costs related to alcohol abuse are not limited to the user. Children of alcoholics who are admitted to the hospital average 62 percent more hospital days and 29 percent longer stays. 5
Alcohol use by underage drinkers results in $3.7 billion a year in medical care costs due to traffic crashes, violent crime, suicide attempts and other related consequences. The total annual cost of alcohol use by underage youth is $52.8 billion. 6
Alcohol-related car crashes are the number one killer of teens. Alcohol use is also associated with homicides, suicides, and drownings-the next three leading causes of death among youth. 7
Alcohol is the drug most frequently used by 12 to 17 year-olds-and the one that causes the most negative health consequences. More than 4 million adolescents under the legal drinking age consume alcohol in any given month. 8

“Just Say No to Smoking Bans”

Since: Jul 07

Location hidden

#20 Jul 15, 2007
Bill Hannegan wrote:
<quoted text>
Sheri, you write so well. That is a real gift! I wish you would write to as many lawmakers outside Ohio as possible.
Thanks. That is a wonderful compliment. I am working on a good letter, but I am having trouble getting it right. At the moment, I am just too angry, and that is not the right tone for such a letter. I am also collecting some mighty fine quotes to use as evidence as I attempt to build just the right letter. I did write to Senator Clinton, and that was a tough one. I am a life-long Democrat, but I did promise that no one supporting these bans would get my vote. We really need an organization in addition to these bitch sessions. If there is one thing I can criticize smokers for, it is their laziness to stand up for themselves. I know many who did not even bother to vote, and that is shameful.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Clymer Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Stephen Waugh arrested for rape, assault, etc. (Sep '14) 5 hr Dude 3
yard sale! Jun '15 yardsaleatmarionc... 2
News Son Accused of Bilking Dad Out $100k (Jun '10) Jun '15 Kelly Rowkorski 3
News Meet the candidates for Erie County judge May '15 Billy white shoes 3
Incompetent teachers and incompetent coaches in... (Apr '12) Mar '15 Joker85 5
Review: Quality Life Services (Aug '14) Aug '14 very unhappy 1
News Town meeting sets up tough crowd for Rep. Paul ... (Jul '14) Jul '14 conductor 8
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Clymer Mortgages