Oregon smoking ban passes Senate, could change in House

It's a darn shame that politicians do NOT look at what is behind things and have not taken the time to do some research of their own to find TRUE reports and studies prior to fudges with those who have an agenda.

There's been so much deceit put out by the 'so called' national organizations due to grants by the foundation with a goal. It boils down to money by grants and gifts and it sure appears that Oregon politicians have been royally dupped while others are paid off.

Next comes the alcohol ban, the food bans and more. ONE foundation is behind it all.

Some News:

The claims heard now concerning COPD and smoking have NOTHING to do with smoking. SMOKING IS WAY DOWN and COPD is WAY UP. It does NOT compute to relate to smoking per figures within the last five years and the true cause needs to be looked at.

The last hour is what you mainly want to listen to but it's worth listening to all for a lot of insight into other illnesses.(Radio show at link below.)

The guests bio, Research scientist Clifford Carnicom: He was previously a research scientist and federal employee for 15 years with three different agencies, including the United States Department of Defense, the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. His technical background is extensive in the fields of geodetic science, advanced mathematics, computer science and the physical sciences. http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2007/05/2...

Isn't it wonderful how smokers can't eat at most restaurants, go to most parks, parades, community events, public buildings, take walks in town. And isn't it wonderful how smokers are looked down upon,(especially by "reformed" smokers. I understand that non-smokers don't want to be around smokers, but even smokers can't be around other smokers, unless it's "underground". Now where have I heard that word before?

I guess being second class citizens is the reason for the discrimination.

Isn't it wonderful to walk into an old smokey bar and not inhale a fresh plume of smoke?

I'll miss the beauty of a good dive bar. At least, I won't get into as many bar fights. It will be better for my health, too.

Smokin's still way cool, but then again, I'm not a big fan of my government, and they're more concerned about me and all the barmaids/barmen then I am.

God bless them. They're so smart!

aldona wrote:

Isn't it wonderful how smokers can't eat at most restaurants, go to most parks, parades, community events, public buildings, take walks in town. And isn't it wonderful how smokers are looked down upon,(especially by "reformed" smokers. I understand that non-smokers don't want to be around smokers, but even smokers can't be around other smokers, unless it's "underground". Now where have I heard that word before?
I guess being second class citizens is the reason for the discrimination.

Actually smokers can go where ever the heck they want! Free country! You might not be able to smoke there but you can certainly go there. Acting like a smoking ban makes you a second class citizen may seem a bit dramatic. It's the habit, not the person which is given any status here. So you like to smoke and want to do it everywhere you go. I can understand the desire for convenience, but it's your convenience vs mine. In which case, yay smoking ban, SCREW YOU. I could care less. Sound familiar? Right! It's the smokers yell (or wheeze). You could care less about me and my desire to NOT breathe your smoke. In reality smokers have had it in their favor since it became popular here in the USA, oh say Jamestown days? So how about we give a fair "convenience" turn to those who DON'T want to walk into an establishment and breathe someones personal vice? About 300yrs of anti-smoking trends sound fair? Think of all the positives; you won't have to sit around with your smoking friends discussing how you need to quit because it costs too much or how you just can't play ball anymore like you used to(or is that just small talk?), or how about the cash you'll save not having to have a smoke every time you blink? Just because you want to sit and smoke anywhere you please doesn't mean everyone should just have to "deal" for you and your friends' convenience. It's not right or fair. It's not that we don't want to habit non-smoking establishments, but theres not as many in some areas, and most of them are more expensive for booze or food. And smoking sections? George Carlin said it best; "Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a *******(urinating) section in the pool. Get it? Of course you don't. You never will. Just pass the law. And screw your whining, u can still smoke at home. DEAL with it, we have. It's your turn now.

Meat tube wrote:

Actually smokers can go where ever the heck they want! Free country! You might not be able to smoke there but you can certainly go there. Acting like a smoking ban makes you a second class citizen may seem a bit dramatic. It's the habit, not the person which is given any status here. So you like to smoke and want to do it everywhere you go. I can understand the desire for convenience, but it's your convenience vs mine. In which case, yay smoking ban, SCREW YOU. I could care less. Sound familiar? Right! It's the smokers yell (or wheeze). You could care less about me and my desire to NOT breathe your smoke. In reality smokers have had it in their favor since it became popular here in the USA, oh say Jamestown days? So how about we give a fair "convenience" turn to those who DON'T want to walk into an establishment and breathe someones personal vice? About 300yrs of anti-smoking trends sound fair? Think of all the positives; you won't have to sit around with your smoking friends discussing how you need to quit because it costs too much or how you just can't play ball anymore like you used to(or is that just small talk?), or how about the cash you'll save not having to have a smoke every time you blink? Just because you want to sit and smoke anywhere you please doesn't mean everyone should just have to "deal" for you and your friends' convenience. It's not right or fair. It's not that we don't want to habit non-smoking establishments, but theres not as many in some areas, and most of them are more expensive for booze or food. And smoking sections? George Carlin said it best; "Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a *******(urinating) section in the pool. Get it? Of course you don't. You never will. Just pass the law. And screw your whining, u can still smoke at home. DEAL with it, we have. It's your turn now.

Everything you just posted has been debunked on one of the Ohio forums, at length and in depth. Soon you will want to ban public toilets due to 'the odor', sanitation issues and people taking down their pants in a PUBLIC place.

It is the non-smoker that is the second class citizen now, because I can't go to a bar without getting sick. I like karaoke because I love to sing, but if I go my voice is ruined for a week. It is just stupid. I used to live in a town with a smoker ban and all the bars built little cover outside area for the smoker to go when they wanted a cigarette. It wasn't a big deal and everyone was happy.

Meat tube wrote:

Actually smokers can go where ever the heck they want! Free country! You might not be able to smoke there but you can certainly go there. Acting like a smoking ban makes you a second class citizen may seem a bit dramatic. It's the habit, not the person which is given any status here. So you like to smoke and want to do it everywhere you go. I can understand the desire for convenience, but it's your convenience vs mine.

So, if you know it's a smoking establishment, why go there? There are so many non-smokers around that the vast majority of bars/restaurants/etc. would happily go non-smoking voluntarily, leaving the few that wish to cater to smokers for smokers. You'd know it's a smoking place, so you could stay away from it. I can see banning smoking in places people *have* to go - public buildings, hospitals, etc. But no one forces you to go to a particular bar, store or restaurant. But then the out-of-staters Oregon has been getting for the past couple of decades are pretty big supporters of forcing people to do things *their* way.

greg wrote:

It is the non-smoker that is the second class citizen now, because I can't go to a bar without getting sick. I like karaoke because I love to sing, but if I go my voice is ruined for a week. It is just stupid. I used to live in a town with a smoker ban and all the bars built little cover outside area for the smoker to go when they wanted a cigarette. It wasn't a big deal and everyone was happy.

You might have been happy. The smokers weren't. Why is your convenience any more important than others'? Find a bar that doesn't allow smoking, stay away from the ones that do.

This is the first of five states I've lived in where you could smoke in a bar/ club/ whatever.... I love it, but am already use to having to go outside. It really isn't that difficult. My main concern is (I'm not 100% on the validity of it) I've heard rumors that parents can't smoke in their own home. Now I don't light up with one of my kids on my lap, but my bedroom is my personal space and I'll smoke in there with the door closed and window open when the weather is bad. If anyone can validate or squash the rumors for me, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Smokers are not being discriminated
against. No one is being discriminated against. The truth of the matter is, smokers can, and do, go to restaurants. They can go to parks, parades and everything else you have said that they couldn't go to--- the only thing that we non-smokers would like to see, and are getting it would seem, is no smoking in public. Not only does second hand smoke kill, but it is also something that, if we walk down the street behind a smoker, we are forced to inhale their smoke. That is why we don't want smokers to be able to smoke in bars and outside restaurants... so that people who don't want to inhale toxic, cancer-causing cigarette smoke don't have to.

I think that it's about time a more thorough and to-the-point law was drafted and signed.

aldona wrote:

Isn't it wonderful how smokers can't eat at most restaurants, go to most parks, parades, community events, public buildings, take walks in town. And isn't it wonderful how smokers are looked down upon,(especially by "reformed" smokers. I understand that non-smokers don't want to be around smokers, but even smokers can't be around other smokers, unless it's "underground". Now where have I heard that word before?
I guess being second class citizens is the reason for the discrimination.

Halifax wrote:

Smokers are not being discriminated
against. No one is being discriminated against. The truth of the matter is, smokers can, and do, go to restaurants. They can go to parks, parades and everything else you have said that they couldn't go to--- the only thing that we non-smokers would like to see, and are getting it would seem, is no smoking in public. Not only does second hand smoke kill, but it is also something that, if we walk down the street behind a smoker, we are forced to inhale their smoke. That is why we don't want smokers to be able to smoke in bars and outside restaurants... so that people who don't want to inhale toxic, cancer-causing cigarette smoke don't have to.
I think that it's about time a more thorough and to-the-point law was drafted and signed.
<quoted text>

I also think that it's about time a more thorough and to-the-point law was drafted and signed barring you from public places.

Wow, I just voted you out of existence. Hope you enjoyed it.

greg wrote:

It is the non-smoker that is the second class citizen now, because I can't go to a bar without getting sick. I like karaoke because I love to sing, but if I go my voice is ruined for a week. It is just stupid. I used to live in a town with a smoker ban and all the bars built little cover outside area for the smoker to go when they wanted a cigarette. It wasn't a big deal and everyone was happy.

I am annoyed by karaoke. It is loud and causes hearing loss. Studies have shown that many karaoke sessions exceed 95 db (85 db can be painful to the human ear, and 110 db exceeds OSHAs safety standards). Many bars I want to go to, or may want to go to in the future have started featuring karaoke on nights that I may (or may not) decide to go out. I think they should outlaw this unhealthy noise pollution. Employees of these establishments must be subjected to this dangerous level of noise night after night.

Also, I think karaoke singers should be assessed a tax to help support uninsured children. It is a fact that prolonged exposure to high sound levels (85db or more) can result in permanent hearing loss. Therefore, it is logical a karaoke tax should be used to fund children's health care (isn't it?).

I also believe that people who have suffered a hearing loss, or whose family members have suffered a hearing loss, or who attend karaoke nights and require future monitoring to see if they will at some point in the future develop a hearing loss should file class action lawsuits against karaoke machine manufacturers and the bars that feature this so called entertainment.

Someday, with your help, we can outlaw this nasty, unhealthy habit, nay some may say - addiction - so we can get on with identifying yet new pockets of unhealthy activities that we can tax, regulate and feel good about sticking our nose into.

Thank you. Remember to vote for me - Skreed - in November - a vote for Skreed is wasted indeed.

Skreed wrote:

<quoted text>
I am annoyed by karaoke. It is loud and causes hearing loss. Studies have shown that many karaoke sessions exceed 95 db (85 db can be painful to the human ear, and 110 db exceeds OSHAs safety standards). Many bars I want to go to, or may want to go to in the future have started featuring karaoke on nights that I may (or may not) decide to go out. I think they should outlaw this unhealthy noise pollution. Employees of these establishments must be subjected to this dangerous level of noise night after night.
Also, I think karaoke singers should be assessed a tax to help support uninsured children. It is a fact that prolonged exposure to high sound levels (85db or more) can result in permanent hearing loss. Therefore, it is logical a karaoke tax should be used to fund children's health care (isn't it?).
I also believe that people who have suffered a hearing loss, or whose family members have suffered a hearing loss, or who attend karaoke nights and require future monitoring to see if they will at some point in the future develop a hearing loss should file class action lawsuits against karaoke machine manufacturers and the bars that feature this so called entertainment.
Someday, with your help, we can outlaw this nasty, unhealthy habit, nay some may say - addiction - so we can get on with identifying yet new pockets of unhealthy activities that we can tax, regulate and feel good about sticking our nose into.
Thank you. Remember to vote for me - Skreed - in November - a vote for Skreed is wasted indeed.

lol <wink>

greg wrote:

It is the non-smoker that is the second class citizen now, because I can't go to a bar without getting sick. I like karaoke because I love to sing, but if I go my voice is ruined for a week. It is just stupid. I used to live in a town with a smoker ban and all the bars built little cover outside area for the smoker to go when they wanted a cigarette. It wasn't a big deal and everyone was happy.

Go the he!! back where you came from - everyone will be happy!

Ok we obviously don't care about any one else in America we only care about one person and that person is ourselves. Roughly 25% of America smokes. So that means if there are ten bars/restaurants and approximately 2 to 3 of them allow smoking that leaves 75% of all of them for non smokers and only 25% for smokers. If only smokers and non-smokers that don't mind the smoke, which by the way there are many of, go to the 25% and only the same group works there that should leave no room for the non-smokers to complain right? Wrong for some reason non-smokers think that they should be able to go to 100% of the bars/restaurants and not have to worry about a little smoke, but for some reason most smokers wouldn't mind only 25%. Why is this because we smokers don't want to inconvenience others with our smoking we just want the "FREEDOM" and "LIBERTY" to do so. Just in case you didn't realize i emphasized a couple words, a couple words that we founded our country on. How would it sound if we were the " Land of Freedom and Opportunity, oh but by the way you cant smoke" no that would be stupid. Oh and i know some one is going to come with the come back of well you can smoke just do it in private. Thats not the point, the point is we enjoy doing it, it makes us happy and we shouldn't have to only enjoy ourselves when were in our own homes. Let me quote a famous historical document "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". and if you don't know what document that is with out looking it up you don't deserve to argue against me as a voting American. But we also shouldn't enjoy ourselves at the expense of others enjoyment, because everyone has the right to pursue happiness. Hence making smoking establishments and smoke free establishments. If you can intelligently find a way to argue my point feel free to retort i have an open mind.

American1776 wrote:

Ok we obviously don't care about any one else in America we only care about one person and that person is ourselves. Roughly 25% of America smokes. So that means if there are ten bars/restaurants and approximately 2 to 3 of them allow smoking that leaves 75% of all of them for non smokers and only 25% for smokers. If only smokers and non-smokers that don't mind the smoke, which by the way there are many of, go to the 25% and only the same group works there that should leave no room for the non-smokers to complain right? Wrong for some reason non-smokers think that they should be able to go to 100% of the bars/restaurants and not have to worry about a little smoke, but for some reason most smokers wouldn't mind only 25%. Why is this because we smokers don't want to inconvenience others with our smoking we just want the "FREEDOM" and "LIBERTY" to do so. Just in case you didn't realize i emphasized a couple words, a couple words that we founded our country on. How would it sound if we were the " Land of Freedom and Opportunity, oh but by the way you cant smoke" no that would be stupid. Oh and i know some one is going to come with the come back of well you can smoke just do it in private. Thats not the point, the point is we enjoy doing it, it makes us happy and we shouldn't have to only enjoy ourselves when were in our own homes. Let me quote a famous historical document "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". and if you don't know what document that is with out looking it up you don't deserve to argue against me as a voting American. But we also shouldn't enjoy ourselves at the expense of others enjoyment, because everyone has the right to pursue happiness. Hence making smoking establishments and smoke free establishments. If you can intelligently find a way to argue my point feel free to retort i have an open mind.

Most of the anti-smokers had open minds at one time. That's when their brains fell out!:)

Kent wrote:

<quoted text>
Most of the anti-smokers had open minds at one time. That's when their brains fell out!:)

Oh yeah, baby: you are on a roll today, LOL

FlowerChild wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh yeah, baby: you are on a roll today, LOL

Hi sugar, yep, and this day is just gettin' better and better lol!

History Buff wrote:

It's a darn shame that politicians do NOT look at what is behind things and have not taken the time to do some research of their own to find TRUE reports and studies prior to fudges with those who have an agenda.
There's been so much deceit put out by the 'so called' national organizations due to grants by the foundation with a goal. It boils down to money by grants and gifts and it sure appears that Oregon politicians have been royally dupped while others are paid off.
Next comes the alcohol ban, the food bans and more. ONE foundation is behind it all.

[RESPONSE] If someone drinks alcohol sitting at a table with someone drinking herb tea, the tea drinker cannot get drunk. Any form of tobacco that creates smoke is ALWAYS a violation of another's right to NOT partake of the drugs in the smoke. It is time to grow up! What we eat or drink cannot be forced upon any other. Smoke by its very nature forces others to breathe it. That is a violation of everyone's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Tobacco is a medication delivery system. The medication is Nicotine. The smoke-creating forms of tobacco violate everyones right to due process. No one has the right to force a medication on another person without due process of law. E.G.: A mental patient in an institution can be compelled to take medication because that patient has been through "due process" in the courts. Tobacco smoke by its nature denies due process by forcing anyone within its area to receive the medication of the smoker. This is a no-brainer for those with a brain.
Tobacco smoking is NOT a right. The right to enjoy self-medication is a right. Tobacco products that do not create smoke that others must breathe are protected forms of freedom. It is about the SMOKE, not the tobacco! Get it?[/RESPONSE]