I know these bans are happening all over the US. It's a big issue in my little community right now. My state has the most smokers per capita, according to a recent news report.

What do you guys think of this? I don't have a problem with not allowing smoking in the courthouse, libraries, etc. - but when a little greasy spoon diner can't allow its patrons to smoke a cigarette, that property owner's rights have been violated.

I quit smoking over two years ago. I think it's a civil liberty issue. There's been enough of a ruckus here, that they're started to backpedal a bit. The below article is from today's paper

http://www.journalreview.com/main.asp?FromHome=1&TypeID=1&ArticleID=18093&SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1

Councilmen to consider non-smoking ordinance

By Maria J. Flora
maria@jrpress.com


Crawfordsville City Council members will consider a revised non-smoking ordinance today that allows smoking in bars.
Councilmen in May passed a first reading of the ordinance that brought much opposition from the business community. It must be read and voted for three times in public before being adopted.

Backers say the measure would protect non-smokers from secondhand smoke when they are in public or at work.

The Environmental Protection Agency classifies secondhand smoke as a “Group A carcinogen, which means that there is sufficient evidence that it causes cancer in humans.” Asbestos is also a Group A carcinogen.

“The health issue is a hard issue to ignore,” Councilman Chuck Fiedler said. “We’re not out to make people mad or upset, but we think it’s important ... We’re not trying to run people out of business. That’s why we’re interested in compromising as much as we can.”

The original ordinance banned smoking in public buildings and places of employment within the city, including bars, health care facilities, BINGO halls, polling places and more. It did not apply to private residences, certain hotel and motel rooms, retail tobacco stores and some patient rooms in nursing homes.

Now it’s been amended to exclude bars and private clubs, such as The American Legion and Eagles, except when those clubs host a public event, such as BINGO, Fiedler said.

Smoking still would be banned in open bars in restaurants, but will be allowed in enclosed bars such as the one in the C-ville Entertainment Center bowling alley, Fiedler said.

Indianapolis recently passed a similar non-smoking ordinance that exempts bars that do not admit persons younger than 18, private clubs, bowling alleys and cigar bars.

Bloomington and Fort Wayne councils have tightened smoking restrictions for restaurants.

Crawfordsville City Council members will meet at 6 p.m. today in the municipal building, 300 E. Pike St. They will consider revisions to the ordinance but will not make an official decision. A vote is expected at the next regular council meeting, 7 p.m. June 13.

....**** smokers and there rights!!! I don't want some jagoff blowing smoke in the same room I'm in. Weak minded slackers. If you want cancer that bad go get in the ****ing closet in your own house and have at it.

....**** smokers and there rights!!! I don't want some jagoff blowing smoke in the same room I'm in. Weak minded slackers. If you want cancer that bad go get in the ****ing closet in your own house and have at it.
Then I would expect you not to patronize an establishment that does not allow smoking.

That's the way to truly see what the people want - if someone suffers a loss of business, then they might change their policies.

There are a number of non-smoking restaurants here in town. If you were to visit, I would expect you to go to one of them, rather than to wander into Digger's Cafe and then ***** because you smell of smoke later...

They passed an ordinance like this in Bloomington, IN and a number of restaurant owners have a lawsuit stating that not every place in town is honoring the ordinance, and they are losing customers to establishments allowing smokers to go there and smoke.

Perhaps just putting a sign in the window that says whether smokers are welcome would be a sufficient compromise. It's not like it's illegal to light up...

I personally don't want to take my kids to a restaurant where they could see adults acting silly and boozing it up - so we usually don't go places where they serve alcohol.

Same logic should apply here...

What ****s me off is when people collect in the entrance to places to smoke and you have to pass through them to get in. In our town we have an entrance to a car park that is covered, that gets plenty. The hospital entrance is a classic, patients in gowns and visitors gathered around smoking whilkst you have to get a lungful as you pass by. Smoking is the main reasonb I don't visit pubs, I can't stand the smell when I've left and don't like having to shower after going for lunch because I stink of tobacco. If people want to smoke, do it in their own home or premises licensed to allow smoking. Separate areas in restaurants don't work as the smoke still drifts in.
The irony is most smokers can see nothing wrong in their sharing smoke with everyone else despite the dangers of passive smoking. Now if I were to fart repeatedly in their presence and it stunk they would be in uproar. BTW, I grew up in a house where both parents smoked and it put me off for life.

Lol

In my town they banned smoking in all bars and restaurants a couple of years ago and it made a lot of people upset. These days people don't talk about it much and everyone is used to it.

I've heard people say that anti-smoking legislation is on the increase now that smoking is considered to be more of a lower-class vice than something that rich people do. Remember that at the start to this cigarettes were thought to be sophisticated and aristocratic. This idea persisted until quite recently. So now that it's something that poor people do it's considered bad.

Having said that, smoking really is bad for you, and second-hand smoke is nearly just as bad. Hell, when people snort coke at least they're not affecting anyone else around them (unless they go nuts, of course :D ). I really think that 50-100 years from now the number of smokers will be way down, and these sorts of laws will be everywhere. It's the way things are going.

....**** smokers and there rights!!! I don't want some jagoff blowing smoke in the same room I'm in. Weak minded slackers. If you want cancer that bad go get in the ****ing closet in your own house and have at it.


I agree completely. Your rights end where mine begin. Smoking is a disgusting smelly habit. My family and I should not have to inhale second hand smoke while we are trying to enjoy a meal.

What ****s me off is when people collect in the entrance to places to smoke and you have to pass through them to get in. In our town we have an entrance to a car park that is covered, that gets plenty. The hospital entrance is a classic, patients in gowns and visitors gathered around smoking whilkst you have to get a lungful as you pass by. Smoking is the main reasonb I don't visit pubs, I can't stand the smell when I've left and don't like having to shower after going for lunch because I stink of tobacco. If people want to smoke, do it in their own home or premises licensed to allow smoking. Separate areas in restaurants don't work as the smoke still drifts in.
The irony is most smokers can see nothing wrong in their sharing smoke with everyone else despite the dangers of passive smoking. Now if I were to fart repeatedly in their presence and it stunk they would be in uproar. BTW, I grew up in a house where both parents smoked and it put me off for life.

Lol

LMAO. Great post.

Would you say that people should be allowed to release toxic chemicals in public places? Because that is what cigarette smoke is.

They should ban it at alot of other places too.

I'm not going to go say that if smokers want to kill themselves let them, just as long as I have nothing to do with it, because what if you have someone in your family who smokes, I will say this, though...they should illegalize cigarettes. It causes waaaay more problems than weed.

I agree completely. Your rights end where mine begin. Smoking is a disgusting smelly habit. My family and I should not have to inhale second hand smoke while we are trying to enjoy a meal.

What about the rights of a restaurant owner, who may own the building and pays taxes and is trying to earn a living. You can voice your smelly habit argument by not patronizing his business. But by losing profits by not allowing a legal act in a business, you're infringing upon his rights.

We're not just talking about going to a ballpark or to the courthouse, or even to just McDonald's or Applebee's or some other well-known franchises. We're talking about truck stops and small diners and tittie bars.

No smoking at the damn tittie bar...wtf?

They should ban it at alot of other places too.

I'm not going to go say that if smokers want to kill themselves let them, just as long as I have nothing to do with it, because what if you have someone in your family who smokes, I will say this, though...they should illegalize cigarettes. It causes waaaay more problems than weed.
remember, we're also talking about places you CHOOSE to go, not places you HAVE to go.

Along with the hospitals and public schools and government buildings (who already have no smoking policies), we're also talking about clubs you pay a membership fee too (the VFW, Moose Lodge, etc.), bars, tattoo parlors, whatever.

Your personal rights give you the freedom to choose to smoke or not. They also give you the freedom to choose not to go into an establishment that allows smoking. And I'm guessing you've never actually had an appointment to get loaded at a tavern or to go to a restaurant that doesn't really cater to families, or to go watch the loose girls dance for ones...

What about the rights of a restaurant owner, who may own the building and pays taxes and is trying to earn a living. You can voice your smelly habit argument by not patronizing his business. But by losing profits by not allowing a legal act in a business, you're infringing upon his rights.

We're not just talking about going to a ballpark or to the courthouse, or even to just McDonald's or Applebee's or some other well-known franchises. We're talking about truck stops and small diners and tittie bars.

No smoking at the damn tittie bar...wtf?

I agree with you on that. Drinking and any sort of drugs has that same implication. Drinking not only affects those who drink but those around them, following the smoking ban's argument, and should be banned. Drunk drivers kill or injure people as well, and some drunks become abusive, thus compounding an already bad situation. But the smoking ban's argument applies to virtually any drug IMO; therefore, I agree with neil that the smoking ban has gotten out of control despite its original good intentions.

What about the rights of a restaurant owner, who may own the building and pays taxes and is trying to earn a living. You can voice your smelly habit argument by not patronizing his business. But by losing profits by not allowing a legal act in a business, you're infringing upon his rights.

We're not just talking about going to a ballpark or to the courthouse, or even to just McDonald's or Applebee's or some other well-known franchises. We're talking about truck stops and small diners and tittie bars.

No smoking at the damn tittie bar...wtf?

You can only take that argument so far though...does a factory have a right to pollute the air and rivers just because it owns the building that does the polluting? Do smokers have the right to pollute the air and damage the health of other people?

You can only take that argument so far though...does a factory have a right to pollute the air and rivers just because it owns the building that does the polluting? Do smokers have the right to pollute the air and damage the health of other people?
The other people aren't innocent bystanders, if THEY ENTER THE SMOKING ESTABLISHMENT OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL.

The other people aren't innocent bystanders, if THEY ENTER THE SMOKING ESTABLISHMENT OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL.

So majority rules? Say you're a non-smoking truck driver and you're looking for something to eat on the road, and the only place available is a smoke-filled diner. Are you saying that this guy has no right to enjoy a smoke-free environment while he eats? Keep in mind that you don't always have unlimited choice. It's not like for every diner there's a smoke-free diner next door.

So majority rules? Say you're a non-smoking truck driver and you're looking for something to eat on the road, and the only place available is a smoke-filled diner. Are you saying that this guy has no right to enjoy a smoke-free environment while he eats? Keep in mind that you don't always have unlimited choice. It's not like for every diner there's a smoke-free diner next door.
Yes. There's nothing keeping that driver from packing a lunch or driving to the next exit.

There are some communities where the demand for non-smoking restaurants would be greater than in others. Let the people determine which establishments make money and which ones do not.

Some people forget that the government isn't here to be our mommy or our principal. If a great demand exists for a smoke free truck stop, one will open up. I don't need the city council telling me it's mandatory...

I just noticed your custom title, Bombardier.

Interesting - you're an enemy of big business, yet you support an ordinance that's biased towards small business.

You don't like big business, but you do like big government?

Yes. There's nothing keeping that driver from packing a lunch or driving to the next exit.

There are some communities where the demand for non-smoking restaurants would be greater than in others. Let the people determine which establishments make money and which ones do not.

Some people forget that the government isn't here to be our mommy or our principal. If a great demand exists for a smoke free truck stop, one will open up. I don't need the city council telling me it's mandatory...

I agree that this is a tough issue, but the Libertarian arguments aren't selling me. The free market can't solve all our problems, just like the government can't.

The problem is that human beings aren't just another consumable item in the free market. Think about it this way...say your Dad or someone else close to you went to the same restaurant every morning for his entire life. Now because of the smoke inside he develops lung cancer and has to have one of his lungs removed.

Now maybe then you try to tell him that this smoke-filled place he's been eating at probably isn't the best place to go to have breakfast anymore. You know what will happen? He'll probably say to you, "I've been eating there my whole life, I'm not about to change things now". People are stubborn like that. They don't respond to logic all the time. So are you going to say to him, "Well, then you deserve to die, because you are not behaving in a way that will maximize your health potential"? I'm guessing not.

I just noticed your custom title, Bombardier.

Interesting - you're an enemy of big business, yet you support an ordinance that's biased towards small business.

You don't like big business, but you do like big government?

I don't necessarily support the ordinance, but I don't buy some of your arguments. This has nothing to do with big or small businesses, imo...it's similar to environmental issues in the sense that you're determining if people have a right to pollute their environmets. I don't think big or small businesses should damage the planet.

I agree that this is a tough issue, but the Libertarian arguments aren't selling me. The free market can't solve all our problems, just like the government can't.

The problem is that human beings aren't just another consumable item in the free market. Think about it this way...say your Dad or someone else close to you went to the same restaurant every morning for his entire life. Now because of the smoke inside he develops lung cancer and has to have one of his lungs removed.

Now maybe then you try to tell him that this smoke-filled place he's been eating at probably isn't the best place to go to have breakfast anymore. You know what will happen? He'll probably say to you, "I've been eating there my whole life, I'm not about to change things now". People are stubborn like that. They don't respond to logic all the time. So are you going to say to him, "Well, then you deserve to die, because you are not behaving in a way that will maximize your health potential"? I'm guessing not.
My dad knows second-smoke is bad for him. If he chooses to breathe it everyday, it's his fault if it costs him his lungs, or his life.

He's a legal adult of sound-mind. It's not my job to babysit him.

My dad knows second-smoke is bad for him. If he chooses to breathe it everyday, it's his fault if it costs him his lungs, or his life.

He's a legal adult of sound-mind. It's not my job to babysit him.

So people you know have to be perfect, or else they don't deserve to live. Either a or b. Is that it?

The problem with Libertarianism is the same as with Communism...it would work great with robots, but humans are much more complicated.

So people you know have to be perfect, or else they don't deserve to live. Either a or b. Is that it?

The problem with Libertarianism is the same as with Communism...it would work great with robots, but humans are much more complicated.
You sound like you want to make cigarette smoking illegal. That's a different issue.

Why is it that people (not just you) don't actually respond to arguments with counterarguments, you'd rather label the arguments.

At least you're calling me a Libertarian. Much of the rest of the board likes to call me a liberal...

You sound like you want to make cigarette smoking illegal. That's a different issue.

Why is it that people (not just you) don't actually respond to arguments with counterarguments, you'd rather label the arguments.

At least you're calling me a Libertarian. Much of the rest of the board likes to call me a liberal...

Well, I work in high-tech, I can spot a Libertarian a mile away.

Seriously, though, there are a number of reasons why the free market can't decide everything. It would take a long time to write out all the arguments but I can point out one flaw right away. It seems like most Libertarians seem to forget the government services that are already provided, and how essential it is that they are regulated: public infrastructure and policing are good examples.

Okay, here's a good problem from the past to think about: back at the beginning of the railroad age, there were like a million companies all building rails and trains that would not work with each other's lines. Rail guage was the biggest problem. Now you might say that all they had to do was wait until one guage proved to be the most popular with train passengers, and then that one would predominate. The thing is that that simply was not working. The existing companies were all losing too much money to survive. Nobody could get it together enough to come up with a solution that everyone could adopt. Free market forces resulted in bankruptcies and frustrated passengers, along with mile after mile of abandoned rail.

It was only after government regulation that things started running smoothly. Certain guages were adopted and other rules were implemented that turned the rails into one continuous network. Without the "babysitting", as you say, the industry would have died.

As for the smoking, I'm not in favour of it being made illegal, or even necessarily in favour of it being banned in so many places. But it's more than just an issue about what certain property owners have a "right" to do, imo.

Anyway, hope there's no hard feelings here. Just debating your points is all.

There are places I don't go in town because of the clientele/smoking hybrid.

But I have to defend some of the townspeople's rights. These guys just want to be able to breathe in carcinogens while they watch the NASCAR race in the bowling alley bar. Is that so wrong?

(lol) I work in a factory in production on a shift with 25 or so people. The breakroom is nearly empty when I'm on break; we have a separate smoking breakroom where 4/5 people sit. This county and some surrounding counties have a large percentage of smokers. It's a cultural thing, maybe, or maybe we uneducated working class simpletons just don't know any better.

Did I ever show you guys my wedding picture? Be nice to me; it's been a few years...

http://img221.echo.cx/img221/4010/hillbillywedding0ht.jpg

I think that someone who owns a business has the right to determine what goes on inside that business (at least as far as smoking goes). If a guy owns a bar or diner, and wants to let people smoke there, he should be able to. After all, he does OWN the ****ing business and he is the one who will either profit or lose money based on it's success.
If you are someone who hates smoke and cant stand to be around it, then dont go in the ****ing restaraunt with the smokers. Only take your kids to places that dont allow smoking. It's really that simple. It's somewhat analogous to the whole FCC/Howard Stern thing. If you dont like whats going on/what your listening to, then go somewhere else/change the station.

Did I ever show you guys my wedding picture? Be nice to me; it's been a few years...

http://img221.echo.cx/img221/4010/hillbillywedding0ht.jpg

You are such a lucky dog...literally. :eek: :D

I'm not a libertarian, though some of my viewpoints go in that direction. I believe the government should take care of its citizens, but I don't trust it to do so. Since the government abuses its powers, I am in favor of individual rights in competent, adult-aged people. I think we should protect our children better. I think too few rich people run the world. I think they should have kept "In Living Color" on the air. I think innocent people die everyday so a few rich leaders can play around "Trading Places"-style. I believe that people have too be at least a little bit evil to advance to a level of government where I, as Joe Citizen, should know they're name. I think if I went out drinking in a controlled environment, where I didn't have possession of my children but they were with someone safe, where I didn't have to be anywhere the next day or wake up at a cerain time and was deferring driving responsibility to a sober individual, if I was out having some beers and watching some slutty girls who claim to be college students gyrate for my amusement, that I might reach into my pocket and pull out a pack of Sampournay Clove cigarettes or a pack of Newport Medium 100's that I purchased specifically for the evening, and might light the thing up and inhale. And if I did so, I don't think I should be removed from the establishment and fined by the local authorities. I also think Joe Calzaghe and Nicolay Valuev are bums, and I suspect Audley Harrison and Sam Peter are overrated as well.

What's that make me?

There are places I don't go in town because of the clientele/smoking hybrid.

But I have to defend some of the townspeople's rights. These guys just want to be able to breathe in carcinogens while they watch the NASCAR race in the bowling alley bar. Is that so wrong?

(lol) I work in a factory in production on a shift with 25 or so people. The breakroom is nearly empty when I'm on break; we have a separate smoking breakroom where 4/5 people sit. This county and some surrounding counties have a large percentage of smokers. It's a cultural thing, maybe, or maybe we uneducated working class simpletons just don't know any better.

Did I ever show you guys my wedding picture? Be nice to me; it's been a few years...


I can buy the cultural argument, I mean in Europe everyone smokes and there are nearly no laws like this (though Ireland recently banned smoking in pubs, with similar controversy). And yes, I can definitely agree that you can reach a point where the government is doing too much "babysitting". In fact that's why I could never be a socialist...I can't stand the preaching.

I'm not a libertarian, though some of my viewpoints go in that direction. I believe the government should take care of its citizens, but I don't trust it to do so. Since the government abuses its powers, I am in favor of individual rights in competent, adult-aged people. I think we should protect our children better. I think too few rich people run the world. I think they should have kept "In Living Color" on the air. I think innocent people die everyday so a few rich leaders can play around "Trading Places"-style. I believe that people have too be at least a little bit evil to advance to a level of government where I, as Joe Citizen, should know they're name. I think if I went out drinking in a controlled environment, where I didn't have possession of my children but they were with someone safe, where I didn't have to be anywhere the next day or wake up at a cerain time and was deferring driving responsibility to a sober individual, if I was out having some beers and watching some slutty girls who claim to be college students gyrate for my amusement, that I might reach into my pocket and pull out a pack of Sampournay Clove cigarettes or a pack of Newport Medium 100's that I purchased specifically for the evening, and might light the thing up and inhale. And if I did so, I don't think I should be removed from the establishment and fined by the local authorities. I also think Joe Calzaghe and Nicolay Valuev are bums, and I suspect Audley Harrison and Sam Peter are overrated as well.

What's that make me?

Add Sergei Lyakovich to the list of boxers at the end and I agree with you about that.

I completely agree with the first sentence I've bolded. As for the second, I think that the difference in our viewpoints is that I think that instead of individuals there might be some sort of community-based government that might prove to be more effective than what individuals could accomplish. I think people in the Western world have become so isolated that so many of them only think of what's good for them and their family in their giant suburban home. Before people had to rely on each other so much more to survive that community involvement came much more naturally. This is sort of how Germany was run for centuries, before they unified and went nuts. There was town governments, coutny governments and an overarching imperial government that had little power to micromanage. Obivously it wan't utopia but it's interesting to consider, at any rate.

If smaller communities of people could decide these sorts of laws for themselves than I think they would be applied correctly, in areas where they were wanted and needed, as opposed to places where like 90% of the people are smokers.

It's illegal to smoke inside any public building in California. As a smoker, I have no problem with this, if I want a cigarett I'll just go outside. If someone wants to complain about that, **** them. They can see me standing there smoking, dont walk by me and make any comments or talk **** or you might catch an ass whipping......

I remember back when Rick turned this into a non-smoking boxing forum. Man that made a lot of people upset :) .

How'd he do that? I dont smoke in my house either, it makes everything stink....

How'd he do that? I dont smoke in my house either, it makes everything stink....

Just kidding around...sorry, but I was so serious in this thread that I had to say something stupid to balance it out.

Oh, well I'm gonna go smoke, later....

It's illegal to smoke inside any public building in California. As a smoker, I have no problem with this, if I want a cigarett I'll just go outside. If someone wants to complain about that, **** them. They can see me standing there smoking, dont walk by me and make any comments or talk **** or you might catch an ass whipping......
We are on the same boat.
The way I see it in a couple of years they will get over it.

I'm down with what kaps said. I pretty much think people should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they can afford to do so, don't harm another person or another person's property.

Smoking in public establishments harms other people.

Is it really asking that much to step outside to have a smoke?

Update on what's going on in my community...

http://www.journalreview.com/main.asp?FromHome=1&TypeID=1&ArticleID=18184&SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1

Ordinance goes up in smoke

By Maria J. Flora
maria@jrpress.com


Crawfordsville Mayor John Zumer this week championed the city’s smokers, saying he’s prepared to veto a no-smoking ordinance promoted by city councilmen.
The council in July passed a smoking ban in all city-owned property, including vehicles and Milligan Park shelters.

The A.H.E.A.D. Coalition in February began presentations to the council promoting a smoking ban in all places of employment throughout the city.

Those who support, and those who object to, a no-smoking ordinance have packed council chambers in subsequent meetings. Discussions became heated at times, the audience often breaking into applause.

Supporters said they are motivated by health problems caused by second-hand smoke. Those who oppose the ban spoke mostly of choice, personal freedom and the right to operate their businesses as they wish.

Councilmen voted 4-3 in favor of an ordinance in May, but since modified it to exclude bars and private clubs. Ordinances must be read and voted on in public three times before being adopted.

A vote on the amended ordinance is on Monday’s council agenda, where it will stay, despite a letter Zumer wrote to council members, Council President Les Hearson said.

Zumer on Friday explained why he wrote the letter, saying, “I just wanted them to know where I stand at this point and what my reservations were.”

In the letter he said: “My firm belief is that smoking cigarettes has never done anybody a lick of good, and in many cases has brought premature death.” Zumer does not normally patronize establishments that allow smoking.

“It is certainly a complex issue with no easy answers, and I know you are wrestling with the right thing to do,” the letter continued. “Just what is right is subject to much soul-searching. I have reached the point where I can’t in good conscience support or fight for this ordinance.”

Zumer instead advocates requiring establishments that allow smoking to post a warning sign on the front door.

“This is where I stand, gentlemen, and I don’t see this wavering,” Zumer’s letter said. “If by some chance or design this ordinance is passed on third reading, it must be signed by me within 10 days for it to become law. I am prepared to veto if necessary. A mayoral veto requires a two-thirds (5-2) vote to overturn.”

Hearson and councilmen Charles Fiedler, Steve Frees and Loran Rutledge voted in favor of the ordinance. Roger Rockenbaugh, Dennis Cook and Charlie Coons voted against it. One of them would have to change their vote to overturn a mayoral veto.

Cook is vacationing out of state and could not be reached for comment. Rockenbaugh, also vacationing out of state this week, received word of the letter Friday, but declined comment pending his reading it.

“I’m not changing my vote,” Coons, a non-smoker, said. “The public and business owners can decide themselves and I don’t want to force their hands. I don’t think it’s right.” Coons said there are enough smoking and non-smoking restaurants for citizens to have a choice.

“I just totally think it’s a rights thing,” he said. “It can take care of itself.”

“I don’t really have a response until I have a chance to sit down and talk to (Zumer) and I’ll probably do that next week,” Hearson said. A second reading of the ordinance must remain on Monday’s council agenda since it passed first reading, he said.

Hearson said a third reading is planned for July and if it is passed, the ordinance would not go into effect until January.

“It will not be pushed through,” he said. “We didn’t want to move this through quickly. We want much discussion and to move at the slowest pace possible.”

“I trust our mayor and council to make good choices for the health and welfare of our community,” Kelly Trusty, A.H.E.A.D. Coalition executive director said. “Supporting this ordinance is one of the most significant ways they can do that. It would make me sad for all of us if they didn’t.”

Monday’s council meeting will be open to the public 7 p.m. in the municipal building, 300 E. Pike St.

They should ban it at alot of other places too.

I'm not going to go say that if smokers want to kill themselves let them, just as long as I have nothing to do with it, because what if you have someone in your family who smokes, I will say this, though...they should illegalize cigarettes. It causes waaaay more problems than weed.
you're right,that's why here in ireland,smoking ban in pubs,buses,public places etc..,has been effectively imposed and it's a success.passive smoking kills more than active smoking...

you're right,that's why here in ireland,smoking ban in pubs,buses,public places etc..,has been effectively imposed and it's a success.passive smoking kills more than active smoking...

Honey, there are NO figures to back that statement up.....because it ain't true.

i think it should be banned everywhere, except pro-gun or anti-abortion rallies..those ****ers can die

yea it should also be legal to smoke inside churches

just because some nervous loser is having a bad day i have to breathe in their drugs? that's bull****.

take your ****in sad ass outside in the rain and smoke.

i think it should be banned everywhere, except pro-gun or anti-abortion rallies..those ****ers can die

yea it should also be legal to smoke inside churches

just because some nervous loser is having a bad day i have to breathe in their drugs? that's bull****.

take your ****in sad ass outside in the rain and smoke.


...lol lol lol That's exactly what smokers are too. Do you know that smokers are like 4 to 5 times more likely to have mental problems. There is a reason they are smoking in the first place.

...lol lol lol That's exactly what smokers are too. Do you know that smokers are like 4 to 5 times more likely to have mental problems. There is a reason they are smoking in the first place.

Could say the same thing about people who drink.

Could say the same thing about people who drink.
yeah but drinking is totally different, since some people only drink on holidays, they can be considered 'social drinkers'

who do u know that only smokes cigarettes on holidays.its an everyday thing, and in other peoples nostrils, unlike liquor

...lol lol lol That's exactly what smokers are too. Do you know that smokers are like 4 to 5 times more likely to have mental problems. There is a reason they are smoking in the first place.
i agree...every person ive ever met that had to smoke 1 cig every 15-20 minutes had a major problem

yeah but drinking is totally different, since some people only drink on holidays, they can be considered 'social drinkers'

who do u know that only smokes cigarettes on holidays.its an everyday thing, and in other peoples nostrils, unlike liquor

I don't know ANYONE who ONLY drinks on hollidays.

But drunk people can be belligerent and fight those around them, OR kill them with their cars.

As a smoker, I have no quarrles about smoking outside. I dont even smoke in my own house. But I agree that it should be the owner of the establishments choice if he allows smoking or not. If you have a problem with that, go to a different place. Dont give them your buisness....

Could say the same thing about people who drink.


...Actually I don't believe that's the case. I am going to have to look up the stats and the correlation between mental illness and drinking versus smoking and see whats what on that topic.

...First bit of info.

Smoking and Mental Illness

A Population-Based Prevalence Study

Karen Lasser, MD; J. Wesley Boyd, MD, PhD; Steffie Woolhandler, MD, MPH; David U. Himmelstein, MD; Danny McCormick, MD, MPH; David H. Bor, MD


Context Studies of selected groups of persons with mental illness, such as those who are institutionalized or seen in mental health clinics, have reported rates of smoking to be higher than in persons without mental illness. However, recent population-based, nationally representative data are lacking.

Objective To assess rates of smoking and tobacco cessation in adults, with and without mental illness.

Design, Setting, and Participants Analysis of data on 4411 respondents aged 15 to 54 years from the National Comorbidity Survey, a nationally representative multistage probability survey conducted from 1991 to 1992.

Main Outcome Measures Rates of smoking and tobacco cessation according to the number and type of psychiatric diagnoses, assessed by a modified version of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview.

Results Current smoking rates for respondents with no mental illness, lifetime mental illness, and past-month mental illness were 22.5%, 34.8%, and 41.0%, respectively. Lifetime smoking rates were 39.1%, 55.3%, and 59.0%, respectively (P<.001 for all comparisons). Smokers with any history of mental illness had a self-reported quit rate of 37.1% (P = .04), and smokers with past-month mental illness had a self-reported quit rate of 30.5% (P<.001) compared with smokers without mental illness (42.5%). Odds ratios for current and lifetime smoking in respondents with mental illness in the past month vs respondents without mental illness, adjusted for age, sex, and region of the country, were 2.7 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.3-3.1) and 2.7 (95% CI, 2.4-3.2), respectively. Persons with a mental disorder in the past month consumed approximately 44.3% of cigarettes smoked by this nationally representative sample.

Conclusions Persons with mental illness are about twice as likely to smoke as other persons but have substantial quit rates.

JAMA. 2000;284:2606-2610

...more info

Smoking and Mental Illness

by Rethink
www.rethink.org

A proportionally large number of people with mental illness smoke. The smoking rate in the general population is just over 20% (Glassman 1999), while the proportion of people with schizophrenia who smoke may be as high as 90% (Glassman, 1993).

Why Do People With Mental Illness Smoke?

There are many reasons why any individual smokes. On top of the usual reasons people with mental illness may find other good effects from smoking. Positive effects of smoking for people with mental illness, include the following:

* Nicotine increases alertness. This may enhance concentration, thinking and learning. This may be a benefit to people with schizophrenia whose illness or medication leads to cognitive problems.

* Nicotine can help relaxation, and it can also reduce negative feelings such as anxiety, tension and anger. So smoking may help people with mental illness deal with stressful situations.

* Nicotine might have an antidepressant effect. Nicotine stimulates dopamine production in part of the brain and so may help negative symptoms of schizophrenia, such as lack of motivation, lack of energy and flat mood.

* Nicotine may reduce positive symptoms, such as hallucinations for a short period.

* There is some evidence to suggest that smoking is associated with reduced levels of antipsychotic induced Parkinsonism.

* Smoking can help to relieve boredom and provide a framework for the day.

* Smoking can improve social interaction, something that may be of particular benefit to people with negative symptoms.

Why Should Someone With Mental Illness Quit Smoking?

There are many reasons why any individual might want to quit smoking. On top of the usual reasons there are some that may be particularly important to people with mental illness. Negative effects of smoking for people with mental illness, include the following:

* Premature death rates are higher for people with mental illness than for the general population, even after suicides are discounted. Many of these deaths are due to cardiovascular and respiratory problems and smoking is thought to contribute towards this.

* Substances found in tar in cigarettes stimulate enzymes in the liver, which increase the metabolism of some antipsychotics, including clozapine, fluphenazine, haloperidol and olanzapine. This results in higher doses being needed.

* There is some evidence to suggest that smoking may increase some side effects of antipsychotic medication, including akathesia (restlessness) and tardive dyskinesia (slower involuntary movements).

* Smoking puts a heavy financial burden on the smoker, who, as a person with severe mental illness, is likely to be on a low income.

* Heavy smokers may find it difficult to participate in some activities where smoking is not allowed. This adds to social exclusion experienced.

Smoking and Medication

Smoking can have an effect on medication. Substances found in tar in cigarettes stimulate enzymes in the liver, which changes the way the body processes some antipsychotics, including clozapine, fluphenazine, haloperidol and olanzapine. This results in higher doses being needed. It is important to review medication regularly to ensure you are getting the best dose for you.

Smoking can also have an impact on the side effects of medication. There is some evidence to suggest that smoking may increase some side effects of antipsychotic medication, including akathesia (restlessness) and tardive dyskinesia (slower involuntary movements). So by not smoking you may find you have less severe side effects. However, smoking can help some other side effects such as parkinsonism.

Quitting Smoking

Changing habits, especially when addiction is involved, is very difficult and many attempts to stop smoking may be needed. It may be helpful to remember that -

* You can try to get someone to think about it by discussing the disadvantages of continuing and the barriers to quitting. Try to actively encourage quitting and offer support and treatment. Don't let the diagnosis of mental illness be an excuse for not attempting to quit, whilst also acknowledging the beneficial effects of smoking for the person with some types of mental illness.

* Feelings about stopping smoking may be affected by previous attempts to stop. Look at why previous attempts failed and try to find a way of overcoming the problems and the reasons for trying to quit. Try not to be disheartened by failed attempts to quit. Most people trying to quit smoking make many attempts before finally giving up forever.

* Quitting smoking can sometimes lead to psychotic relapse. Be aware of signs of relapse and be prepared to act. Depression may also result from cessation of smoking and should be treated appropriately.

* As smoking habits change the amount of antipsychotic medication needed may also change. This should be carefully monitored.

* Nicotine replacement therapy may help to avoid withdrawal symptoms. This may be particularly important for people with schizophrenia as these withdrawal symptoms may be confused with or exacerbated by symptoms of schizophrenia.

* Cognitive behaviour therapy and participation in self-help groups for people trying to quit smoking can be helpful in the cessation process. Participation in groups with other people with psychotic illness may be of particular value.

.....still more

Smoking and mental illness.

Leonard S, Adler LE, Benhammou K, Berger R, Breese CR, Drebing C, Gault J, Lee MJ, Logel J, Olincy A, Ross RG, Stevens K, Sullivan B, Vianzon R, Virnich DE, Waldo M, Walton K, Freedman R.

Department of Psychiatry, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Box C-268-71, 4200 East 9th Avenue, Denver, CO 80262, USA. sherry.leonard@uchsc.edu

Patients with mental illness have a higher incidence of smoking than the general population and are the major consumers of tobacco products. This population includes subjects with schizophrenia, manic depression, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), attention-deficit disorder (ADD), and several other less common diseases. Smoking cessation treatment in this group of patients is difficult, often leading to profound depression. Several recent findings suggest that increased smoking in the mentally ill may have an underlying biological etiology. The mental illness schizophrenia has been most thoroughly studied in this regard. Nicotine administration normalizes several sensory-processing deficits seen in this disease. Animal models of sensory deficits have been used to identify specific nicotinic receptor subunits that are involved in these brain pathways, indicating that the alpha 7 nicotinic receptor subunit may play a role. Genetic linkage in schizophrenic families also supports a role for the alpha 7 subunit with linkage at the alpha 7 locus on chromosome 15. Bipolar disorder has some phenotypes in common with schizophrenia and also exhibits genetic linkage to the alpha 7 locus, suggesting that these two disorders may share a gene defect. The alpha 7 receptor is decreased in expression in schizophrenia. [(3)H]-Nicotine binding studies in postmortem brain indicate that high-affinity nicotinic receptors may also be affected in schizophrenia.

....pretty good proof that I'm right.

Mental Illness and the Demand for Alcohol, Cocaine and Cigarettes
Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Henry Saffer
Dhaval Dave
Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to estimate the effect that mental illness has on the demand for addictive goods. Mental illness could affect the level of consumption of addictive goods and could affect the price elasticities of addictive goods. Demand theory suggests that mental illness would affect consumption if mental illness affected marginal utility. In addition, mental illness would affect the price elasticity if mental illness affected the rate at which marginal utility diminishes. The empirical models allow for endogeneity between mental illness and addictive consumption since prior research suggests such a relationship. The results show that individuals with a history of mental illness are 25 percent more likely to consume alcohol, 69 percent more likely to consume cocaine and 94 percent more likely to consume cigarettes. Individuals with a history of mental illness are responsive to price although the price elasticites differ somewhat from whose without mental illness. These results provide an added justification for higher taxes and other supply reduction activities since they show that these policies are effective with this high participation group. The results also suggest that an additional method of reducing the consumption of addictive goods is to subsidize the treatment of mental illness.

Having 1 glass of wine or 1 beer a day can actually be benificial.

The same can not be said about smoking cigaretts.

In fact, I believe that is why beer and wine can be advertised on tv and cigarretts can not.

Having 1 glass of wine or 1 beer a day can actually be benificial.

The same can not be said about smoking of any kind.

if you're comin off chemotherapy and can't eat anything, have zero appetite i would think a couple rips off my bong would help that dude out as in give him an appetite.

if you're comin off chemotherapy and can't eat anything, have zero appetite i would think a couple rips off my bong would help that dude out as in give him an appetite.

I was refering to cigaretts.

....pretty good proof that I'm right.

Mental Illness and the Demand for Alcohol, Cocaine and Cigarettes
Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Henry Saffer
Dhaval Dave
Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to estimate the effect that mental illness has on the demand for addictive goods. Mental illness could affect the level of consumption of addictive goods and could affect the price elasticities of addictive goods. Demand theory suggests that mental illness would affect consumption if mental illness affected marginal utility. In addition, mental illness would affect the price elasticity if mental illness affected the rate at which marginal utility diminishes. The empirical models allow for endogeneity between mental illness and addictive consumption since prior research suggests such a relationship. The results show that individuals with a history of mental illness are 25 percent more likely to consume alcohol, 69 percent more likely to consume cocaine and 94 percent more likely to consume cigarettes. Individuals with a history of mental illness are responsive to price although the price elasticites differ somewhat from whose without mental illness. These results provide an added justification for higher taxes and other supply reduction activities since they show that these policies are effective with this high participation group. The results also suggest that an additional method of reducing the consumption of addictive goods is to subsidize the treatment of mental illness.


Isn't Alcohalism an illness though?

I think some would call drug addiction and alcoholism an illness, and others would call it a weakness.

Obviously alcoholics would like to consider it an illness because than it alleviates them of the responsibility.

I smoke. I dont what the problem is. If you are smoker and they wont let you smoke in a certain restaurant dont go to that restaurant or bar. If you are bothered by smoke in certain restaurants or bars dont go there. They already all restaurants devided by smoking and non smoking. It is crap is local government legislate no smoking in any restaurants.

Like others have said, I totally feel it should be up to the individual business owner whether or not to allow smoking on their property.

The problem with the anti-smoking legislation do-gooders is they won't stop after one victory. I've already heard of people in California pushing to ban smoking in all apartment buildings as well. Where will they go from there?? If you're over a certain weight, you can't have icecream in your house?? Where does the governmental invasion end? Free country?? Not at the rate we are going.

And no, I'm not a smoker. Unless you're counting grass.

Complaining non-smokers are *******. Most people who go to bars or clubs DO SMOKE. Are you people retarded? Even most restaurants have bars in them. If you ban smoking in these places, the business will lose customers and lots of money. The day a non-smoking bar is opened is the day it will be closed. Don't mean to be so rude, but people know damn well where they're going and if they allow smoking, but they still go and then ***** on a message board about it. Isn't this why restaurants have non-smoking sections? And how are smokers weak-minded? Some may be crazy but most of them smoke because they are exposed to it and also go out alot unlike some of the dorks on here. I know plenty of smokers and they def. haven't been in any mental hospitals or therapy. I don't even smoke and this stupidity pisses me off.

Complaining non-smokers are *******. Most people who go to bars or clubs DO SMOKE. Are you people retarded? Even most restaurants have bars in them. If you ban smoking in these places, the business will lose customers and lots of money. The day a non-smoking bar is opened is the day it will be closed. Don't mean to be so rude, but people know damn well where they're going and if they allow smoking, but they still go and then ***** on a message board about it. Isn't this why restaurants have non-smoking sections? And how are smokers weak-minded? Some may be crazy but most of them smoke because they are exposed to it and also go out alot unlike some of the dorks on here. I know plenty of smokers and they def. haven't been in any mental hospitals or therapy. I don't even smoke and this stupidity pisses me off.

we arent all *******..im a complaining non smoker and could kick your ass with either hand blindfolded..
thats exactly why i dont goto bars ****in louisiana trash like u

Yeah and I guess New Jersey trash is better. HAHA, I don't even smoke. And by all means don't go to bars, I'm sure even the NON-SMOKING girls won't care.

we arent all *******..im a complaining non smoker and could kick your ass with either hand blindfolded..
thats exactly why i dont goto bars ****in louisiana trash like u
Sorry, I'm not into internet trash talk. It would make me look pathetic kind of like it makes you look toughguy. lol

The country i currently reside in has banned smoking in public buildings.

It's a ****ing joke, what's the problem with having a few designated smoking bars?

If you're a non smoker, don't go in.

Sorry, I'm not into internet trash talk. It would make me look pathetic kind of like it makes you look toughguy. lol

The sig that takes up half of the mother****ing forum is what makes him a tough guy.

Street boxing....BWHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!!!

The country i currently reside in has banned smoking in public buildings.

It's a ****ing joke, what's the problem with having a few designated smoking bars?

If you're a non smoker, don't go in.
Ye, simple as that. Put a smoking bar up against a non-smoking bar and I bet the non-smoking bar has to close down first due to no profit.

the reality..both of u are cunts

The sig that takes up half of the mother****ing forum is what makes him a tough guy.

Street boxing....BWHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!!!
HEHE!!!!!!!

the reality..both of u are cunts

Hey I want to see a few more pics of your big meathead ass in your sig. Preferably ones of you street boxing at a truckstop parking lot.

But I don't want to see any of you blowing the winner after getting you ass kicked.

The country i currently reside in has banned smoking in public buildings.

It's a ****ing joke, what's the problem with having a few designated smoking bars?

If you're a non smoker, don't go in.

The ordinance failed in my town:

http://thepaper24-7.com/main.asp?SectionID=23&SubSectionID=22&ArticleID=1842

7/15/2005 Email this article • Print this article
Council won’t challenge mayor’s veto

The smoking ordinance veto will stand and the council will not attempt to override it at this time, according to council members.

Mayor John Zumer’s veto ended the smoking ban ordinance on Wednesday. The city council can override a mayoral veto with a two-thirds majority, or a 5-2 vote, according to Indiana state code. Because the vote stood 4-3 in favor of the ordinance, one council member would have to change their vote for an override.

There was speculation that Roger Rockenbaugh would change his vote. During Monday night’s council meeting, he said he was conflicted up until the last minutes. Rockenbaugh said he no longer has any concerns.

"No. My position will not change at all," he said.

Les Hearson, council president said he spoke with Rockenbaugh who reaffirmed his vote against the ordinance. Hearson said he will not place the issue on the agenda for an override vote because there wouldn’t be enough votes. Council members are standing firm on their decision.

"I don’t see anyone changing their mind," said councilman Steve Frees.

Frees said if he has no plans to change his vote on this issue. As an educator for more than 30 years and in working with the PRIDE team, a youth drug prevention group, Frees said voting in favor of the ban was a "no brainer" for him. Loran Rutledge said he wouldn’t change his vote on this issue either. Hearson said, "being a progressive city and being concerned about the welfare of the citizens," he would vote in favor of the ordinance again if it came up. Chuck Fiedler said he was disappointed in the mayor’s decision to veto the ordinance.

"I felt it was important for the entire community," he said.

If asked to vote on the issue again, Fiedler said he would still vote in favor of the ban.

Dennis Cook said he wasn’t surprised by the mayor’s veto.

Though the ban didn’t go through other advocates aren’t considering it a lost cause.

"I hope AHEAD (Advocates Helping Educate Against Drugs), the Chamber and some others can work together to ask businesses to do it (go smoke free) voluntarily," Cook said.

If the ordinance came up for a vote again Cook said he wouldn’t change his vote and still vote against it. Charlie Coons was out of town and could not be reached for comment at press time.

I know , they should arrest anyone caught smoking in public, ****ing dumb****s

people who 'have to have a cigarette' annoy me.. its like wtf makes you so special where you can pollute all of our lungs just to calm yourself...i punked this smoker once in public for smoking around me inside a nonsmoking area

<a href="http://imageshack.us"><img src="http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/1170/cigseb5.jpg" border="0" alt="Image Hosted by ImageShack.us" /></a>

it should be illegal cause im not a smoker and i hate when ppl smoke in front of me.my ex's parents used to do that **** and my eyes used to hurt cause i wasnt used to it

in the philippines we dont have an anti-soking ban on public places(i know one city has it) but i think it is just ethical not to smoke in enclosed areaS. I SMOKE MYSELF BUT I DONT LIKE SMELLING SMOKE INSIDE A RESTAURANT. IN SOME BARS YOU HAVE TO GO OUTSIDE TO SMOKE IM COOL WITH THAT. its a matter of consideration for other people IMO.

Cigarretes are for ****ing losers, I don't give a **** who you are, you're a ****ing loser for it.

IMO cigarettes are for weak people.

Cigarretes are for ****ing losers, I don't give a **** who you are, you're a ****ing loser for it.

IMO cigarettes are for weak people.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! whatever you say to make you feel better dude.

I'm extremely happy they don't allow it in my state anymore. Also where we lived before they just made it illegal. My husband has asthma, so it's hard for him to work all day in a restaurant where people are smoking. His asthma was getting worse that's why he started working in FL to begin with. What I don't understand is why can't you go through a freakin meal without have to smoke? It just doesn't make sense to me. Those that smoke have always been the ones to stay FOREVER in the restaurant just smoking, drinking (most go hand & hand), while talking. We have to wait hours on them, that type of smoker is the most disrespectful one also. Blow smoke in your face when they come to pay their bill. :grr: I can't stand that! My brother smokes, but he never does or did when you could in a restaurant. He doesn't smoke in his house and he doesn't smoke around you to where it will blow in your face. If he's around others that are, he'll make them move so it's not blowing in my face. He's always been respectful of others.
I don't want to have to smell smoke while I'm eating also, I don't want to have to sit there with my kids breathing that crap in also! My middle child has asthma also. If you want to kill yourself, then you do it in your own space, not mine!
I hope they completely outlaw cigarettes altogether!!! I don't want to die from second hand smoke, I shouldn't have to worry about that possiblity, your infrenging on my rights! How many people die every year from second hand smoke like Andy Kaufman?

I ****ing love Andy Kaufman. I have to butt in and say that.

Given the detrimental affects of second hand smoke, it should not be allowed inside in my opinion.

When I go to bars I love to smoke, but at the same time it should be illegal. If I need one that bad then I'll go outside. Hate going places then coming homing smelling like an ashtray.