Bill calls for more Alaska non-smokin...

Bill calls for more Alaska non-smoking areas

There are 67 comments on the KTOO-TV Juneau story from Feb 28, 2014, titled Bill calls for more Alaska non-smoking areas. In it, KTOO-TV Juneau reports that:

The measure by Anchorage Republican Lindsey Holmes includes a ban on electronic cigarettes, also known as e-cigarettes, in those places.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KTOO-TV Juneau.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last
Dan

Omaha, NE

#64 Mar 6, 2014
bud_schmones wrote:
<quoted text>
Getting back to the statistics of the matter.
People who are exposed to SHS are more likely to get a smoking related illness when compared to people who are not exposed to SHS. That does not mean that everyone who is exposed to SHS will become ill, just like not everyone who smokes will become ill. As a population, we have been getting healthier in the past 100 years and this holds true for smokers as well as non smokers. Exposure to SHS can cause illness, including immediate health problems for someone whose health is impaired. This includes short term exposure. SHS has triggered asthma attacks and heart attacks among other acute health problems. Obviously these people were not healthy to begin with.
As far as smoking v. nonsmoking establishments, prior to smoking bans there were a lot of places where there was no non smoking option for people who did not want to be exposed to SHS. That is why smoking bans were enacted. They were also enacted to protect the people who work there because for many that was the only job they could get. As far as outdoor bans, smokers have only themselves to blame. So many smokers seem to think that the world is their ashtray and that it is okay to litter. The amount of smoking related litter is amazing and that tends to be the driving force behind many of the outdoor bans. When an outdoor ban is proposed it is because of ETS AND litter. I have camped at many campsites where the smokers have been too lazy to even throw the butts in the fire.
With e-cigs, there simply is not enough information to say that they are safe. I highly doubt that a strawberry flavored ecig has all natural flavors. What happens to those chemicals when they are heated to a high temp? Also, most of those devices are made in place like China and I have a hard time trusting the Chinese to make anything safe. Since the safety of the devices is at issue, those of us who do not partake in them are reluctant to let them in where we have worked hard to eliminate second hand smoke. If the government decides they want to tax them- and they probably will, you will see tax stamps on the devices and the inhalants just like smokes and alcohol.
"They were also enacted to protect the people who work there because for many that was the only job they could get."

False statement. It's false every time you run some iteration of it out.

Why worry about "trusting the Chinese" when you're the one lying?
SMOKERS R Stink

Winnipeg, Canada

#65 Mar 6, 2014
antismokers are trolls wrote:
I'm a fag.
Yes U R

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#66 Mar 6, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
"They were also enacted to protect the people who work there because for many that was the only job they could get."
False statement. It's false every time you run some iteration of it out.
Why worry about "trusting the Chinese" when you're the one lying?
I was responding to someone politely and answering questions that were politely asked. If you look at the rationale for enacting smoking bans, it is specifically stated that bans are meant, in part, to protect workers. In FAQs they deal with the ability of some of these others to get another job- which for many people happens to be nil. I cannot imagine very many people working at KFC if they could find another, better job elsewhere. You may not think SHS is harmful, but I did not bring that into the workers equation. Protection of people working there is almost always one of the stated reasons for supporting a ban. That is not a lie. I also explained the rationale behind the support for outdoor smoking bans as well as the rationale for the support of e-cig smoking bans. Those are not lies, either. You may feel that e-cigs are harmless, and that is a legitimate position in a debate, but what is irrefutable is that some people believe that they may be harmful and some people believe they are harmful. Notice I said believe here. That belief is what drives the bans. You CANNOT argue that people do not believe, because they do. Therefore you cannot argue that the belief is not a cause of the ecig bans.
Robert Scott

Anchorage, AK

#67 Mar 11, 2014
bud_schmones wrote:
<quoted text>
The great thing about this country is that we are a society of laws and the constitution provides us ways of creating new laws for the good of society. Smokers are addicts, a fringe of society, who would harm others if given the chance. We don't let patrons drink in the library, we don't let people piss in the street, we don't let people have sex on the restaurant table, we don't let waitresses with feces covered hands serve you food and we don't let smokers fill the air with hot, toxic fumes just so the can assuage the pangs of an addiction.
You are an ignorant moron. Some people just like nicotine. It's a great stimulant, help me to focus in the day, and relax after a meal. ECIGS should not be included. PERIOD.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#68 Mar 11, 2014
Robert Scott wrote:
<quoted text>
You are an ignorant moron. Some people just like nicotine. It's a great stimulant, help me to focus in the day, and relax after a meal. ECIGS should not be included. PERIOD.
You are a pitiful nicotine addict who cannot think for themselves and feels like everyone else should have to suffer because you are not man enough to actually not ingest a hot, toxic gas. Everyone laughs at the drunk who pisses themselves and a nicotine addict is no better than that. You will justify any action as long as it allows you to engage in your addiction. Sorry that you life sux so bad that you do not care to extend it by quitting, but the rest of us are simply not going to suffer just because you do. Get over yourself and drop the idea that decent people are going to let you smoke or vape around them because it simply is not going to happen.

“Come and get it! ”

Since: Jan 09

Traverse City

#71 Mar 13, 2014
If you really want to ban something, why not start with that scrawny piece of crap sitting in the White House. He's more dangerous than your phantom E-cig ever will be.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#72 Mar 13, 2014
Sneaky Pete wrote:
If you really want to ban something, why not start with that scrawny piece of crap sitting in the White House. He's more dangerous than your phantom E-cig ever will be.
Uhhhh
You guys tried that.

TWICE

and failed

sort of like your failure to prevent bans and higher smoke taxes

I win. You lose.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
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.

Alaska Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Love to chat with anyone that lives in Alaska Dec 29 sure 2
News Alaskans dive into 0-degree water, some dressed... Dec 20 Spotted Girl 3
landwatcher Dec 19 godof uranus 1
News Still standing: Ancient Alaskan forest thaws fr... (Sep '13) Dec 18 glassdame 2
How to make fast $erious cash $$ with our hacke... Dec '16 Micheal 1
News Yukon Men: Is Tanana presented realistically en... (Aug '12) Dec '16 Elizabeth 63
Kitchen Showrooms Midlands Dec '16 desey001 1
More from around the web