Foes of smoking ban frame debate as m...

Foes of smoking ban frame debate as matter of choice

There are 9 comments on the Argus Leader story from Oct 15, 2010, titled Foes of smoking ban frame debate as matter of choice. In it, Argus Leader reports that:

Two groups opposed to a statewide smoking ban in South Dakota said Thursday that the ballot issue voters will decide in November isn't about health and smoking, it's about freedom and choices.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Argus Leader.

Clark

Albany, GA

#1 Oct 18, 2010
This was what I originally thought, until I spent more than five minutes thinking about the issue. This isn't about the patrons, this is about the employees. As a society we have decided that jobs should be as safe as possible. We don't say that since people decide to be miners we shouldn't make sure that mines have the best support structure, ventilation, and other features to make it as safe as possible. Saying that the people who work in bars and resturaunts chose the risk and therefore don't deserve a safe working environment is no different then saying that we should get rid of saftey features in mines and just let the employees deal with it. This isn't about anyone that doesn't want to deal with smoke when they go to a bar, this is about making the safest work environments for employees across the state.
LibertarianForFr eedom

Newport, KY

#2 Oct 18, 2010
Clark wrote:
This was what I originally thought, until I spent more than five minutes thinking about the issue. This isn't about the patrons, this is about the employees. As a society we have decided that jobs should be as safe as possible. We don't say that since people decide to be miners we shouldn't make sure that mines have the best support structure, ventilation, and other features to make it as safe as possible. Saying that the people who work in bars and resturaunts chose the risk and therefore don't deserve a safe working environment is no different then saying that we should get rid of saftey features in mines and just let the employees deal with it. This isn't about anyone that doesn't want to deal with smoke when they go to a bar, this is about making the safest work environments for employees across the state.
Again, you're ignoring the bill of rights and constitution. We are guaranteed 'the PURSUIT of happiness', not 'insta-happyness'. No one puts a gun to anyones head to work somewhere.
UR Flawed Claude

Nashville, TN

#3 Oct 19, 2010
LibertarianForFreedom wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, you're ignoring the bill of rights and constitution. We are guaranteed 'the PURSUIT of happiness', not 'insta-happyness'. No one puts a gun to anyones head to work somewhere.
Pursuit of happiness, eh? In this context that means you are free to look around for someplace where it is LEGAL to indulge in your harmful little addiction. When that set of options no longer includes bars, casinos, or video lottery parlors, you are STILL being permitted to pursue happiness.

Seeking to keep smoking out of those places qualifies as pursuit of happiness for me and mine. Why are you talking as if we lacked that right?
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#4 Oct 19, 2010
South Dakota has one of the most restrictive preemption clauses the tobacco industry managed to saddle any state with. In order to prevent cities or counties from passing public health regulations as needed to protect THEIR communities from SHS, the industry lobbied for that power to be kept to the state(s).

In SD, even WITH a clause so strict that a school district had to turn to the state in order to add protection for their students and staff, the law that is on the ballot for next month was PASSED by the legislature and SIGNED by the governor.

So, the tobacco industry--through its catspaws in the hospitality industry--pushed through a petition process that delayed enactment of the law for a year and a half by putting it into a ballot measure.

Delaying for a year was good for the bottom line of the companies, which is all they care about. They got to siphon off more gross profits from the pockets of their addicted clientele.

It was good for the bars, casinos, etc. if and only if they used the extra time to prepare for the inevitable passage of the law by the general population.

It certainly was not good for the state of South Dakota, since the state had to lay out funds for a protracted court case regarding validation of signatures on the petitions as well as for the election process.

It wasn't good for the patrons of the affected establishments, as all of them had to deal with the effects of SHS for another year and a half.

But, then, the tobacco company is the only entity that matters, right?
Free_america

Stevens Point, WI

#5 Oct 19, 2010
UR Flawed Claude wrote:
<quoted text>
Pursuit of happiness, eh? In this context that means you are free to look around for someplace where it is LEGAL to indulge in your harmful little addiction. When that set of options no longer includes bars, casinos, or video lottery parlors, you are STILL being permitted to pursue happiness.
Seeking to keep smoking out of those places qualifies as pursuit of happiness for me and mine. Why are you talking as if we lacked that right?
You surely are flawed. The facts do not back you up.
http://veritasvincitprolibertate.wordpress.co...
Its Me Linda the Fat Hag

Saint Paul, MN

#6 Oct 19, 2010
Free_america wrote:
<quoted text>You surely are flawed. The facts do not back you up.
http://veritasvincitprolibertate.wordpress.co...
Ok, spammer. Nobody is going to click on your phishing links, so can it already. THE BAN IS IN EFFECT - YOU LOST - QUIT CRYING!!

"Waaaaaahhhh"
-you
Its Me Linda the Fat Hag

Saint Paul, MN

#7 Oct 19, 2010
Free_america wrote:
<quoted text>You surely are flawed. The facts do not back you up.
http://veritasvincitprolibertate.wordpress.co...
Also, you have no facts. Just youtube spam. Get a life buddy - what a lame and selfish issue you are devoting your life's work to. Do something productive.
wondering

Mitchell, SD

#8 Oct 30, 2010
If you want to smoke you can go to the new casino being built near Sioux Falls or to any of the casinos on the reservation. I wonder how our state will pay for the manpower it will take to patrol all the little bars in the many little towns in our state. Will they have a test to see if you smoked a cigarete or how will they know who to arrest? Just wondering.
just candid

AOL

#9 Oct 31, 2010
Always keep this in mind. For the most part, Drunks, Degenerates and Riff-raff type people are all people who smoke. 0>:-]

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Deadwood Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Sturgis Rally prompts cut in speed limit 11 hr hansena 1
News New chiropractic CEO cracks glass ceiling at Ph... (Jan '15) Jun '16 ChristopherDA 6
Full throttle saloon fire burned to the ground ... (Sep '15) Mar '16 wowitsgone 3
Election Who do you support for U.S. House in South Dako... (Oct '10) Jan '16 gi joe 12
Hells angels give head on the highway to every ... (Jun '11) Dec '15 HAwtf 23
(Harmon and Sexton, 1996), (Van Wagner, 1968), ... (Aug '15) Aug '15 Twil37 1
News 'The Bachelor' Season 19 (2015) Episode 6 Spoil... (Feb '15) Feb '15 deadwoodsouthdakota 1

Deadwood Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Deadwood Mortgages