Smoking ban: 'Awesome' or oppressive?

Iowa really had a chance to take a stand against this ban but chose to follow suit and show once again what a sheep of a state it truly is. To the women concerned about her daughter in the bars downtown, "Your daughter now has a smoke-free enviornment in which to binge drink and develop all ailments associated with alcohol". It's a fact, "There are more alcohol related deaths a year than smoking". Isn't it all about choices? BAAAAA

I support the ban. When someone else drinks, it doesn't affect my liver. However, when they light up a cigarette, it DOES affect my lungs! I can choose whether or not to take a drink, but I can't choose whether or not I want to breath in 2nd hand smoke.

I am a 3 pack a day smoker and am not proud of it, however, it is my choice. By the way the state does get an extra $20-$30 dollars of week tax from me, if I don't sneak out of state to buy them and my health care cost will be nill, because I will die young. I have never had a real problem with an owner of any business that make it smoke free and I am very respectfull to non smokers. However, I will survive and continue to smoke somewhere, but, even those of you who support this must see the smokers frustration when the idiot legislators will allow smoking in a casino, but, not the local small town pool hall and pub. I rest my case. Just remember smoking is bad. Sex, violence, drunkeness and other vices are not. By the way I have never smoked a joint. Maybe we should make it illegal to be an elected offical if you have. Pay attention next year one of those idiots will try to legalize a different kind of smoke. Can't wait I haven't tried that yet.

Mee wrote:

I support the ban. When someone else drinks, it doesn't affect my liver. However, when they light up a cigarette, it DOES affect my lungs! I can choose whether or not to take a drink, but I can't choose whether or not I want to breath in 2nd hand smoke.

I am tired of hearing stories like yours. I don't have to go near alcohol and you do have choices to stay away from my smoke. Alcohol causes alot more problems than the the affect on your liver, but, all is OK, us smokers can now learn to gamble, I can learn to drink, then I can learn to drive drunk while I smoke. I can leave my non smoking wife at home while I meet a partially clad drunk lady at the casino and get one of those smoking motel rooms for the night. Then I can get a devorce and destroy a bunch of lives, but, I give you credit you protected them from the ill effects of second hand smoke. I'm not being smart, but, let's think a bit. I know smoking is not healthy, but, this is America, let be fair and ban all unhealthy behavior. There will be alot of people sitting at home like I plan to do the rest of my life.

Mee wrote:

I support the ban. When someone else drinks, it doesn't affect my liver. However, when they light up a cigarette, it DOES affect my lungs! I can choose whether or not to take a drink, but I can't choose whether or not I want to breath in 2nd hand smoke.

I would hope if you are smart enought to decide whether to drink or not you should be smart enough to go to a smoke free pub or resturant. Then there would be no second hand smoke.

Hey Smoker, just a quick financial calculation for you to think about.

3 packs/day =$12 (roughly)
=$80/week (roughly)
=$4000/year

If you took that money and continually invested it, gaining a modest 7% on average/year, it would equal:

in 10 years:$59,000 ($40k principle)
in 20 years:$$175,000 ($80k principle)
in 30 years:$400,000 ($120k principle)

About time you barbarians in the country's midsection owned up to fighting health care costs in some form. If there could only be a way to stop you from your twinkies and mayonnaise, resulting in the obesity epidemic, this country might have a shot at health care reform.

Nah, never mind. Stay on the train to oblivion earlier than you should. Oh, I mean the psychotic fantasy of your celestial dictator.