Smoking out the latest smoking-ban poll

Jan 24, 2014 Full story: Grayson News Gazette 24

A recent poll by the Foundation for a Healthy Kentucky may initially appear to indicate widespread support for a government-imposed statewide smoking ban - even in privately owned restaurants and bars and in local communities that already have implemented their various policies.

Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Janet Arnold

Erlanger, KY

#1 Jan 24, 2014
I would support a Smoking ban,By having heart and lung problems its hard to breath around smokers,fresh air is a blessing, help us Kentucky to breath easier everywhere in KY...
up in smoke

Alexandria, KY

#2 Jan 25, 2014
i think they should to
your rights

New Albany, OH

#3 Jan 26, 2014
Why is it ok for someone else to tell you what to do? Its our right to smoke if the establishment allows you. Noone makes you go to a smoking facility. They are telling you no for smoking now, what right will be taken away next year for them to stay on pay roll...

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#5 Jan 26, 2014
your rights wrote:
Why is it ok for someone else to tell vyou what to do? Its our right to smoke if the establishment allows you. Noone makes you go to a smoking facility. They are telling you no for smoking now, what right will be taken away next year for them to stay on pay roll...
No one makes YOU go out. PERIOD. If you do not like the smoking ban- STAY HOME! You are an addict. Realize that. It is really sad that you cannot go the length of time it takes to have a drink or ten without a cigarette. The same goes for a meal. If you do not think KY can have a ban, just look at VA and NC. Both of those states are heavily involved in tobacco commerce and now both have a smoking ban in place.

As far as telling us what we can and cannot do, the government has deemed it illegal to have intercourse on a table in a bar or restaurant. Intercourse is a perfectly legal activity among consenting adults, given the proper constraints, has been engaged in longer than people have been smoking and is essential to the survival of the human race. If we can regulate that, we can regulate smoking.
Smokin Baboon

Winnipeg, Canada

#6 Jan 27, 2014
your rights wrote:
Why is it ok for someone else to tell you what to do? Its our right to smoke if the establishment allows you. Noone makes you go to a smoking facility. They are telling you no for smoking now, what right will be taken away next year for them to stay on pay roll...
Translation: ooh ooh aah aah!
Allen

Nicholasville, KY

#7 Jan 30, 2014
Their are some people who are so allergic to the smoke that inhaling it can send them to the hospital.
Smokin Baboons

Winnipeg, Canada

#8 Jan 30, 2014
Allen wrote:
Their are some people who are so allergic to the smoke that inhaling it can send them to the hospital.
All people are allergic to cig smoke. Its a testament to the body it can tolerate it at all, but more so long term. Personally I know guys who died by 50 because they smoked since their teens.
Mick

Nicholasville, KY

#9 Jan 30, 2014
Smokin Baboons wrote:
<quoted text> All people are allergic to cig smoke. Its a testament to the body it can tolerate it at all, but more so long term. Personally I know guys who died by 50 because they smoked since their teens.
I know genetics can play into how well the body can handle it.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#10 Jan 30, 2014
Allen wrote:
Their are some people who are so allergic to the smoke that inhaling it can send them to the hospital.
Then they should stay home.

The rest of the world shouldn't be expected to accommodate them.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#11 Jan 30, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Then they should stay home.
The rest of the world shouldn't be expected to accommodate them.
You are expecting the rest of the world to accommodate a bunch of weak willed nicotine addicts who would sooner see their kid die of SIDS than to smoke somewhere that the second hand smoke does not affect anyone. Thanks to people like me, it isn't going to happen.
Allen

Nicholasville, KY

#12 Jan 30, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Then they should stay home.
The rest of the world shouldn't be expected to accommodate them.
Fortunately laws being changed in most counties and you can stay home with your filth. Who wants to go around someone smelling like a dirty old ashtray. I guess your addiction to nicotine is more important than someone's life.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#13 Jan 30, 2014
bud_schmones wrote:
<quoted text>
You are expecting the rest of the world to accommodate a bunch of weak willed nicotine addicts who would sooner see their kid die of SIDS than to smoke somewhere that the second hand smoke does not affect anyone. Thanks to people like me, it isn't going to happen.
The poster made note of someone who's allergies are so severe that one whiff of cigarette smoke would consign them to the hospital.

This being the case, this person would be ill-suited to venture out in public. I mean, you can't simply wave a wand in the hopes that any and all things that other people do won't offend, annoy or impact you in any way./if it's not smoke, it's perfume or something else. You can style yourself as a crusader, but you're declaring that your enemy is "people" in general. They do things you don't like or that annoy you, and by God, you'll see to it that they stop. Bravo. Good luck with that.

I wasn't aware that there was a causal link between cigarette smoke and SIDS, but I'll be happy to look at a link to something that's from an impartial source.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#14 Jan 30, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
The poster made note of someone who's allergies are so severe that one whiff of cigarette smoke would consign them to the hospital.
This being the case, this person would be ill-suited to venture out in public. I mean, you can't simply wave a wand in the hopes that any and all things that other people do won't offend, annoy or impact you in any way./if it's not smoke, it's perfume or something else. You can style yourself as a crusader, but you're declaring that your enemy is "people" in general. They do things you don't like or that annoy you, and by God, you'll see to it that they stop. Bravo. Good luck with that.
I wasn't aware that there was a causal link between cigarette smoke and SIDS, but I'll be happy to look at a link to something that's from an impartial source.
From the CDC
"There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Secondhand smoke causes numerous health problems in infants and children, including severe asthma attacks, respiratory infections, ear infections, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)."
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fa...

Now, as a parent, why would I want to subject my child to that risk? If I were a smoker, I would smoke outside instead of inside. I would not smoke in the car with an infant or toddler. Yet, despite the warnings, smokers still smoke around their children. Obviously there are other risk factors for SIDS, but if you can easily reduce the risk that your child will die, why not do it?
Allen

Nicholasville, KY

#15 Jan 30, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
The poster made note of someone who's allergies are so severe that one whiff of cigarette smoke would consign them to the hospital.
This being the case, this person would be ill-suited to venture out in public. I mean, you can't simply wave a wand in the hopes that any and all things that other people do won't offend, annoy or impact you in any way./if it's not smoke, it's perfume or something else. You can style yourself as a crusader, but you're declaring that your enemy is "people" in general. They do things you don't like or that annoy you, and by God, you'll see to it that they stop. Bravo. Good luck with that.
I wasn't aware that there was a causal link between cigarette smoke and SIDS, but I'll be happy to look at a link to something that's from an impartial source.
http://www.askdrsears.com/topics/parenting/ch...
Dan

Omaha, NE

#16 Jan 31, 2014
bud_schmones wrote:
<quoted text>
From the CDC
"There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Secondhand smoke causes numerous health problems in infants and children, including severe asthma attacks, respiratory infections, ear infections, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)."
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fa...
Now, as a parent, why would I want to subject my child to that risk? If I were a smoker, I would smoke outside instead of inside. I would not smoke in the car with an infant or toddler. Yet, despite the warnings, smokers still smoke around their children. Obviously there are other risk factors for SIDS, but if you can easily reduce the risk that your child will die, why not do it?
The CDC isn't an impartial source.

Thanks anyway.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#17 Jan 31, 2014
Allen wrote:
The article you linked here isn't attributed to anyone, nor does it contain any citations.

Do you simply believe things to be authoritative if they agree with your pre-formed conclusions?
Allen

Nicholasville, KY

#18 Jan 31, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
The article you linked here isn't attributed to anyone, nor does it contain any citations.
Do you simply believe things to be authoritative if they agree with your pre-formed conclusions?
My pre-formed conclusions are based on studies and the news. Not counting I have watched family members die from COPD. Then again common sense tells me that inhaling all those chemicals they use to grow it can't be healthy. Just enter on the computer what is the link between SIDS and smoking. I'm sure you will find one creditable, it will bring up quite.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#19 Jan 31, 2014
Allen wrote:
<quoted text>
My pre-formed conclusions are based on studies and the news. Not counting I have watched family members die from COPD. Then again common sense tells me that inhaling all those chemicals they use to grow it can't be healthy. Just enter on the computer what is the link between SIDS and smoking. I'm sure you will find one creditable, it will bring up quite.
No one is stating that inhaling the byproducts of combustion isn't risky.

If SIDS was caused by cigarette smoke, it would still be called "SIDS". It'd be called "Sudden Infant Tobacco Smoke Death Syndrome".

The studies aren't conclusive RE: SHS.

No one's ever dropped dead from walking by someone who's smoking. Ever.

Ban laws do NOTHING for those who are at primary risk-that being the smoker. Their risk is quantifiable and undeniable, and they are left unprotected. How, again, can 20% of the population be left unprotected by something that purports to be for "public health"?

The answer is that they aren't "public health" laws-they're nuisance laws.

Dan

Omaha, NE

#20 Jan 31, 2014
Allen wrote:
<quoted text>
My pre-formed conclusions are based on studies and the news. Not counting I have watched family members die from COPD. Then again common sense tells me that inhaling all those chemicals they use to grow it can't be healthy. Just enter on the computer what is the link between SIDS and smoking. I'm sure you will find one creditable, it will bring up quite.
You just cited a web page to me that isn't attributed to anyone nor contains any citations supporting the statements. You apparently believe this to be authoritative to the degree that you'd pass it along to others as support of your position.

If I found an unattributed, non-cited web page that concluded that smoking was good for kids and they should start at age 7, would you accept that as authoritative at face value?

Probably not. Hopefully not.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#21 Jan 31, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
No one is stating that inhaling the byproducts of combustion isn't risky.
If SIDS was caused by cigarette smoke, it would still be called "SIDS". It'd be called "Sudden Infant Tobacco Smoke Death Syndrome".
The studies aren't conclusive RE: SHS.
No one's ever dropped dead from walking by someone who's smoking. Ever.
Ban laws do NOTHING for those who are at primary risk-that being the smoker. Their risk is quantifiable and undeniable, and they are left unprotected. How, again, can 20% of the population be left unprotected by something that purports to be for "public health"?
The answer is that they aren't "public health" laws-they're nuisance laws.
So, basically, you are telling parents it is OK to smoke around infants and toddlers, You are making the unequivocal statement that second hand smoke is NOT harmful and will NOT harm their children. If their children die, it must be a result of something else. Maybe smoking parents are just poor parents in general. Maybe they spend money on cigarettes instead of nutritious food. There has to be a logical reason why children of smokers are more likely to die of SIDS than children of non smokers that has NOTHING to do with smoking, right? Something that might explain why 80%-90% of lung cancers occur in smokers and non smokers. Maybe it has something to do with piss poor luck, That's it- smokers just have piss poor luck.
States are making it illegal to smoke in cars with children. You would think this would be common sense, but it isn't. Smokes are just plain ignorant. It really is that simple.

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.

Opinion Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second ... (Nov '13) 1 hr Squach 10,905
Opinion Line 1 hr woodtick57 123
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 6 hr NorCal Native 249
Vote on bullying a black eye for MP (Dec '12) 7 hr Fiberals 4
Local governments serve an important role 7 hr attempt 2 smuggle... 2
How long before being gay is a fireable offense? 8 hr Mitt s Airtight D... 32
Say it in six words (Jul '08) 11 hr lowtide 8,542
•••

Opinion People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••