[The Brazil Times nameplate] Fair ~ 66°F  
High: 76°F ~ Low: 53°F
Monday, Oct. 5, 2015

Smoking debate continues

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Walter Young
Despite it not being an official agenda item for several months, the potential smoking ban ordinance was the main topic of discussion for the Common Council of the City of Brazil.

Only this time, smokers against the ordinance presented their side.

During the audience comments portion Wednesday's meeting, a few individuals opposed to even putting the proposed ordinance up for a vote, let their opinions known.

Jason Rushleau said the entire situation is a matter of choice.

"Employment does come with its risks, whether it be law enforcement or serving food in a restaurant," he said. "Some people, like myself, enjoy the privilege of smoking at work, and I have a problem with trying to take away certain risks. Children take risks all the time, one of which is riding a bike."

Walter Young, who has been at recent meetings to speak out against a smoking ban, added, "There are a lot of smokers who put money into the city. Do we really want to bite the hand that feeds us?"

Brazil Times' General Manager Lynne Llewellyn, who said she was at the meeting as a resident and representing some local business and private club owners, told the council the decision to be smoke-free or not should be left to the owners of the establishments themselves.

"We are here tonight asking that the council does not put this ordinance up for a vote," she said. "Some businesses have already decided to be smoke-free, and that is their prerogative, but there are only a few places left in town where you can smoke and we all feel it should be up to the businesses to make that determination."

Jack's Fine Foods Owner Chris Styleburg agreed with Llewellyn's thoughts.

"No one else is paying my mortgage, so no one else should tell me how to handle my business," he said.

Llewellyn added private clubs, like the Eagles and Elks Lodge, should have the right to use their own judgment.

"Private clubs are private, and they should be able to make their own set of rules for their members," she said. "As far as employees go, most of them know beforehand that the establishments allow smoking."

She also alluded to the idea that locally owned businesses would be the most affected by a ban.

"Places like Sunrise (Family Restaurant) have a lot of their business coming from smokers, and I think that is the best example of a business which would lose if a ban were enacted," Llewellyn told the council.

Sam Glover
Council President Sam Glover, who presided over the meeting with Mayor Ann Bradshaw unable to attend due to illness, asked all those who were attending in opposition of the ordinance to stand, at which time 13 individuals, including representatives from the Eagles, Elks and Gooseneck Brew stood up.

Upon being asked about the timetable in which the council could take action on this matter, Glover responded, "With this being an ordinance, it is a long process which requires a public hearing and possibly a couple of readings before it could be passed."

Other council members added that an official ordinance has not yet been drawn up, and they are in the process of contacting their constituents about their opinions on the matter.

The next meeting of the Common Council of the City of Brazil will be 7 p.m., Wednesday, March 9, in the Council Chambers at City Hall.

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on thebraziltimes.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

What a waste of time and money. Brazil people doesn't want a smoking ban, leave it alone.

The people that want the ban wouldn't go in the places that allow smoking even if they were non-smoking to begin with.

Sounds like the Have and the Have Not, put the money in the "pole hole fixing fund"

-- Posted by smallguysmalltown on Wed, Feb 9, 2011, at 10:05 PM

I wonder if these small businesses would be happy to pay for the treatment of a disease that might develop in an employee while working in a smoky workplace?

You know they probably don't have any kind of health care available for their employees and you know the wages aren't very good in most so; hmmm I wonder....

-- Posted by Take Action on Wed, Feb 9, 2011, at 10:35 PM

smoking isnt the only thing causing cancer , you can even develop it from substances at your workplace or even things you buy from your local nonsmoking establishments. Also if your so worried what about all the fast food places and the stuff they use in thier foods they sell you all that artery clogging stuff will kill you sowhy dont you regulate that to and close them down

-- Posted by brazil citizen on Thu, Feb 10, 2011, at 1:21 AM

"Children take risks all the time, one of which is riding a bike."

There is absolutely no logic in that argument.

That said, I do agree that if you own a business, you should get to choose whether or not people can smoke there. Employees can choose not to work in a place they believe is a detriment to their health; patrons can choose not to do business there. There is way too much regulation in private matters.

-- Posted by CountryandCityMouse on Thu, Feb 10, 2011, at 2:11 AM

Take action, your argument does not stand too long when you do a little research. Every taxpayer already pays for a myriad of treatments of conditions that occur in all workplaces through taxation and insurance premiums.

CountryandCityMouse -- I think what the person was trying to express can be best stated as "All living things are at risk of death as long as they are alive"

If anyone care to do the research, go to the American Cancer Society and search for "Carcinogens". You will find a listing and note that, by far, the most prevalent carcinogen that we are exposed to every second of our lives is radiation. Radiation is also the one carcinogen for which the most data exists that link it to cancer. As to other carcinogens, in several rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in cases involving cancer, expert testimony as to the cause of the cancer have been ruled speculation due to the many possible causes and the method used by the scientific community to determine if a substance might be a carcinogen, i.e. giving massive doses far beyond what a human could possibly be exposed to in a lifetime.

Smoking bans are not about health, they are about someone being able to control someone else using the government as a leash.

-- Posted by Leo L. Southworth on Thu, Feb 10, 2011, at 2:38 AM

Well said, Leo.

-- Posted by CountryandCityMouse on Thu, Feb 10, 2011, at 4:00 AM

It's hilarious reading this. I've seen this debate over and over in many different cities. Walter says "There are a lot of smokers who put money into the city. Do we really want to bite the hand that feeds us?"

Statistically, smokers are a "drag" (pardon the pun) on society, not a boon. Healthwise, they're the #1 hazard. Financially, they're a huge drain on our healthcare system. And every community that has enacted smoking bans has seen zero to a positive impact on the local economy.

Every smoker screams "Freedom!" until they get sick, at which point it's "Medicare!" (well, and "Oxygen" :) ).

-- Posted by CaptBrent on Thu, Feb 10, 2011, at 4:33 AM

Personally, I feel very limited on the restaurants that I can go into in Brazil because of the smoke. I hate it when I have been in a restaurant and go home smelling like an ash tray. Needless to say.... coughing and hacking while trying to clear all of the smoke from my lungs. I love going to Pappy's because it IS smoke free. Does anyone realize how few places there are that non-smokers can go in Brazil. Does anyone ever wonder why so many of us prefer to eat out in Terre Haute now???

Also, as to whether or not the employee has a choice.... since when is there an abundance of jobs to choose from in Brazil? Most people who work in Brazil have to take what they can get, as opposed to being able to choose a job that has a smoke-free environment.

As for the smokers, you can't convince me that you will stop going out to eat just because you can't pollute the air that everyone else is breathing. Obviously, you go to the restaurant for the food. If you were only going there to smoke, you wouldn't be there in the first place.

-- Posted by Born In Brazil on Thu, Feb 10, 2011, at 6:34 AM

Leo, I agree with you 90% of the time...this time I do not.

Smoking Bans ARE about health...the health of others. That is where this is different than other issues where government gets invovled in.

If this were a business decision by the government, there would be no anti-smoking legislation, as the government would make more money (in taxes) from the sale of tobacco. So if it is not in the government's best interest, then it must be a public health issue. What other reason is there for doing this? And no, I'm not buying "the big brother" theory here.

Interesting (and somewhat confusing) that you are this cynical about government intrusion, being that you ran for public office.

Really, I couldn't care less about this debate, because everyone is wasting their time. Because I guarantee you that the State of Indiana will trump this by passing their own law.

Get used to it folks.

-- Posted by ClayCountyGuy on Thu, Feb 10, 2011, at 7:46 AM

Everything will kill you one or another so if smoking will kill you because you are in the same food place then being on the sidewalk will kill you because the car that is coming down the road will hit you. Look Everyone is going to die of something personally i smoke and if i am going to die from it then it is my choice just like seat belts we are being made to wear them my mother died because of a seat belt trapped her in the car so i choose not to wear one i get tickets every time i turn around but it is my choice not to wear it so i will pay the price. FREEDOM i will do as I choose. People that choose to go with the ban risk loosing business from smokers that's what they choose to do. I will never go to a place i can not smoke. In some places it is not allowed to smoke while a child is in the car under age so you see a lot of children not going any where anymore. I also have my own business and if people that do not smoke come in and do not like people smoking will they can leave no harm to me. It is our right to smoke if we want to so we will choose to go where we can smoke.

-- Posted by oknow on Thu, Feb 10, 2011, at 8:08 AM

Born in Brazil, I agree with you 100%

A restaurant is a place to eat. Go eat and then go out to your car or home and smoke yourself to death. Who cares? You don't or you wouldn't be putting that junk into your lungs.

Most of the smokers I have noticed in restaurants are just sitting there taking up space for hours sometimes and the only thing they order is endless cups of coffee. How is that making a restaurant any money? While people who would like to just eat, pay and leave have to walk through the cloud and then stink the rest of the day.

-- Posted by Jolly on Thu, Feb 10, 2011, at 9:09 AM

Most all of the comments posted appear to take the position that people who support the smoking ban do so as a matter of idle preference. This is not always the case. I have no choice as to how smoke affects my body. For example, I have asthma and I am allergic to smoke. Whenever I am in the presence of smoke my lungs seem to close up. I experience difficulty breathing, my nose starts running, and I begin coughing which manages to bring up an endless supply of mucus from my lungs. Not exactly a tasty or unnoticed scene to the people unfortunate enough to be seated around me. This has happened many times over the years. So, am I supposed to stay home and never venture out for dinner with my family because someone elects to smoke? I don't think so. Since when does someone's choice of smoking supersede my right to breathe? Not to mention the right of other paying customers seated around me to enjoy their meal without having their stomachs turned from listening to my wheezing and mucus producing coughing? Keep you private club rules, but public places should be smoke free for instances such as mine. Eat your food, pay your bill, and smoke in your car on your way home. Perhaps one day I will be fed up enough to simply go sit with the offending smoker so he or she can get the true effect of their smoking privilege.

-- Posted by My opinion counts on Thu, Feb 10, 2011, at 9:10 AM

I believe it's about keeping current with the times in order to be competitive with other locations.

Yes I believe that there are real health concerns in cigarette smoke exposure but it goes beyond that. someone metioned riding a bike...In some states it is illegal to ride both bicycles AND motorcycles without a helmet BECAUSE it raises vehicle insurance AND health insurance rates for EVERYONE. The only people who benefit from the lack of helmet laws here in Indiana are organ recipients as those helmetless riders are known in almost every ER as "organ donors".

Like good schools, good roads, water systems, and other infrastructure, to be a place to which others desire to move, we must become more desirable.

We cannot continue to compare smoking regs to other esoteric remarks about water quality and such, Yes we are free to choose but a group of Clay citizens has realized that if we choose not to regulate smoking, it's just one more barrier to making this community attractive to those from elsewhere. If Clay County is going to climb out of this financial "grave" before the dirt starts to fill it up, we had better start somewhere.

In a community the rights of the "whole" sometimes supercedes the rights of the individual. If it didn't we would have no laws as surely many aren't directly beneficial to everyone.

For example: Some like to let their dogs run free but others have livestock and want dogs restrained. Still others have small children who may get attacked or at very least blinded by parasites they might get from the dog when they are playing in their poop strewn yard.

Same with police force....I pay for police force even though I hope never to have to directly use them. Still I realize that their presence benefits me as it deters crime so I need to pay for them.

A no smoking ban would help this community. It's been studied and documented ad nauseum. It may not benefit some of the individuals in this community but it will help the community as a whole.

Have a good day.

-- Posted by Jenny Moore on Thu, Feb 10, 2011, at 10:35 AM

Yes, smoking is a health risk. Being alive is a health risk. We can live in a country where we choose our own risks and accept the consequences, or we can live in a nanny state where the government is responsible for everything and we just do what we are told. Slippery slope.

Never smoked tobacco in my life, but I'm pro choice. When the choices are all gone, what kind of life is that? If you are OK with them banning smoking in restaurants, how do you feel about the government deciding what you can eat, and how much, and what you can feed your children? And whether or not you can have children, and how many? Be careful what you ask for, you may get it.

-- Posted by Baldgranny on Thu, Feb 10, 2011, at 11:38 AM

Our government is good about protecting citizens but they have left the tobacco industry alone. So smoking is OK but second hand smoke is NOT and proven a major health issue. Smoking health care costs all tax payers should be covered by business that allow smoking in public areas.

-- Posted by rlcez on Thu, Feb 10, 2011, at 12:26 PM

First I would like to thank our local news reporters for publishing qoutes and information in regards to last nights meeting. With that said ... I feel the need to clarify the logic behind what I actually said.

One of the key notes expressed throughout the debate has been in referance to the health risk that may or may not exist due to second hand smoke. That none smokers need to be protected from this theoretical "risk". Has anyone seen me drive ? My point is that we live around constant risks to our health. As a young boy I was free to take risk 24 hours a day 7 days a week. You can't take away our freedom of choice. It would be the same as banning bycycles, skateboards, going outside without a jacket on in January.... Where does it stop?

Rather then fight businesses that make money, pay taxes, and allow smoking. I say it's a great time for non smokers to open up businesses that cater to the non smokers, if it's that popular....FREEDOM OF CHOICE offer more options to wine and dine locally.

Thank you for the opportunity to be heard

Jason Wendell Rushlow (Rushleau)

-- Posted by Thud on Thu, Feb 10, 2011, at 12:30 PM

Why not just put it on the local ballot? Make it a referendum. Should all public buildings in Clay county be smoke-free? If 50.1% of the people vote for it, then it should be so. Politicians, yes even local politicians, know that it is easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission. Government should enact the will of the people, not protect us from ourselves. If you don't see that in years to come more freedoms will be taken away in the name of public well-being, then you won't see the benefit to not passing this ban. Let the public decide.

-- Posted by almostfootballfree on Thu, Feb 10, 2011, at 12:36 PM

Thud for Mayor!! Something tells me he and Jenny wouldn't be in the same party!!

-- Posted by almostfootballfree on Thu, Feb 10, 2011, at 2:07 PM

Cities and towns have led the way to statewide laws in example after example across the country. And it is no wonder people, even some business leaders, may believe the anecdotal and unfounded fear that businesses will crumble. The tobacco industry has spent the last 25 years trying to scare business owners into believing there would be a loss of business, mostly by releasing biased and faulty research through the auspices of state or local licensed beverage and hospitality associations, a strategy developed in order to scare these local business people into carrying their water for them, many times without even knowing it! However, the overwhelming peer-reviewed objective data clearly shows that in state after state, city after city, town after town, when they went back and looked at objective, empitical data such as food and beverage tax revenues, the data shows there is not a loss of business caused by smoke free laws.

Ok, now that we have that covered, which tobacco industry scripted argument shall we cover next? I like the "What's next, outlawing cheeseburgers?" argument. But I also like the, "Your taking away my freedom!" plea. Oh wait, I really like the "Business owner's right to choose." one too! So many to choose from!!!

-- Posted by Higher Thinking on Thu, Feb 10, 2011, at 2:20 PM

Thud, comparing the dangers associated with skateboarding or bike riding with the 7,000 toxins in cigarette smoke being allowed to fill the air of public places? You are really reaching here!

Skateboarding and bike riding offer a health benefit in addition to minimal risk. Cigarettes and their smoke, however offer nothing but disease and premature death WHEN USED AS DIRECTED!! There is NO safe way to breathe cigarette smoke either primary or secondhand.

-- Posted by Higher Thinking on Thu, Feb 10, 2011, at 2:35 PM

I support the fundamental right to live free, to make decisions for yourself. Societies fundamental freedoms erode severly when you take away the right to congregate with like minded individuals.

In regards to the risk involved .... skateboarding and bikes can offer instant consequences including death. Please see YouTube for video.

-- Posted by Thud on Thu, Feb 10, 2011, at 3:08 PM

Almostfootballfree apparently doesn't understand why this is a Republic, rather than a Democracy. Basing law only on the votes of the majority of the population will result in mob rule, eventually chaos, followed by tyranny. Happens every time.

And Higher Thinking apparently isn't aware of the research showing that smoking cigarettes is helpful in preventing Parkinson's disease, as one example. http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/ther... Unfortunately, big brother has squelched research into health advantages of smoking because it is politically incorrect.

Smoking tobacco is a choice. So long as the smoker is an adult, s/he should be allowed to make that choice and live with the consequences. That's what freedom is all about.

Sure, some people become deathly ill when exposed to 2nd hand smoke. Some people become deathly ill when exposed to honey bees. Some people become deathly ill when exposed to peanuts.

If we have to make the world completely safe for every single person, whether or not they want that safety, then we have absolute tyranny and little quality of life.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

-- Posted by Baldgranny on Thu, Feb 10, 2011, at 4:31 PM

So democracy fails every time? Wait....what??? You have one thing right, I don't understand that. I understand that we elect officials to weigh the facts for and against every issue and to make informed decisions about those subjects. But to throw out the opinion of the majority is not the basis of a republic either. All I intended by my comment is that if the council wants to adequately represent the will of the people, wouldn't it make sense to actually gauge the will of the people since this is not really a partisan issue so there was no real campaign platform built around this issue. I am quite sure that if it isn't resolved before the next local election, it will become a referendum of a different sort. Believe it or not baldgranny, we are actually on the same side on this one. I want government to let us live our lives how we choose. If we commit a crime, prosecute us, but what is becoming apparant is that in some cases no amount of prevention is worth the cure, because the side effects are worse than the disease.

-- Posted by almostfootballfree on Thu, Feb 10, 2011, at 4:45 PM

Almost, a pure democracy always fails. In a republic, "we elect officials to weigh the facts for and against every issue and to make informed decisions about those subjects." So listening to their constituents is of value. But to make the final decision based solely on majority vote would have left us with slavery at the time of the civil war. Sometimes the majority doesn't have or doesn't understand all the facts. Sometimes the majority doesn't care about the facts, only about the propaganda. And sometimes the majority is right.

A democracy always goes with the majority, regardless. Were we a democracy, we would not have entered WWII.

Sorry, I know we are on the same side of this issue. But it bothers me when people don't see the difference between a democracy and a republic, because the difference is crucial. You might enjoy taking some of the classes on the constitution taught by Hostettler in Greencastle.

-- Posted by Baldgranny on Thu, Feb 10, 2011, at 5:02 PM

What are you all going to do when the state legislature maked the State of Indiana smoke free?

-- Posted by fpitchsballdad on Thu, Feb 10, 2011, at 6:33 PM

FYI for all of you non smokers out there that have gone over the posted speed limit thank you for putting other peoples lives at risk because you want to speed! Pot meet Kettle!

-- Posted by Karma2 on Thu, Feb 10, 2011, at 10:37 PM

Get with it Brazil, smoking bans have been in effect for years in other Indiana towns and it's very much needed. What kind of message are you sending to children and young adults, when we tolerate such a nasty, filthy and deadly habit? Sure you can get cancer from a number of things...but quit thinking about yourselves and be more considerate of others. That's all there is to it. You don't have to stop smoking and destroying your thoat and lungs...just do it in your private home or outside away from others. Leave the public areas smoke free!

-- Posted by hoosier01 on Fri, Feb 11, 2011, at 12:23 AM

A true test of maturity is the willingness to accept our differences and agree to co exist, allowing each other to make our own decisions. Making people stand outside to smoke is rude and inconsiderate. I have yet to see a smoker deliberately act in a demeaning manner towards a non smoker, on the other hand I can not say the same for some none smokers. Teach our children not to hate, teach our children to love, yes even if our beliefs are different.

-- Posted by Thud on Fri, Feb 11, 2011, at 1:10 AM

My thinking is when is a privately owned business is public; dont they still retain the right to sell to whoever the product or service is that they are selling ; so how does it become a government job to tell them how to run their business, if some people do not like the way they run thier business let them open their own and compete for business instead of forcing them to succumb to their wishs

-- Posted by brazil citizen on Fri, Feb 11, 2011, at 6:27 AM

baldgranny says she is pro choice....Boy that sounds like the legal abortion position motto...to totally play devil's advocate here and not to state that I am on one side or the other, if we are to say that our right to choose is more important that protecting others' lives, what's the difference?

To be prochoice and exposing children and unwilling employees to a toxin that kills slowly compared to a law that kills unborn children quickly....hmmm. At the end of the day, what's the difference besides the age at which they die?

Individual choice is not always the same as the correct choice.

Another example: Many were raised feeling the lash of a belt or in my case, a wooden spoon. Since then we have learned that a punishment that severe is not the correct way to discipline a child nor does it work. Should I be allowed to keep that "choice" when it is proved to be the wrong one for someone else?

Someone brought up the speed limit issue ...No I don't speed. I will go as much as 5-10 miles an hour above the speed limit if I am impeding other traffic so I can get out of the way or not cause a big "log jam" as that can become just as dangerous as the person who habitually speeds, but no, I do not disregard speed limits as they have been proven to save lives. I personally am in favor of minimum speed limits on interstates as those going extremely slowly are just as dangerous as those speeding past everyone. I've actually called in drivers going 15-20 miles below speed limits as most likely they are impaired and over compensating.

When the time comes that it's costing "the people" vast sums of money from a practice, then a regulation has to be put into place so that community can continue to thrive.

By the way, in the '80's I worked with a person who belonged to the RJ Reynolds family. He told me that they had already divested themselves of all but 10% of tobacco products and put their money into other things...Now they are called RJR Nabisco. So RJ Reynolds as a company has already seen the writing on the wall.. YEARS ago.

It's time our community does as well. You cannot make tobacco illegal as it didn't work with the other toxin, alcohol, but if it is taxed high enough and regulated, there is at least some control over its use. Maybe like bars and liquor stores, we won't be able to take our children into places that sell or use tobacco??? Who knows?

-- Posted by Jenny Moore on Fri, Feb 11, 2011, at 10:11 AM

Again as I have said before ....nobody here truly gets the idea behind this, except maybe Higher Thinker.

This is NOT a ban!! Nobody is BANNING SMOKING!! It is about CLEAN AIR-Smoke FREE AIR. Period.

The Pro smokers can still smoke anywhere that is NOT a PUBLIC building and POISON the PUBLIC AIR.

You can smoke in your car and home which YOU have BOUGHT.

I guess with some of the mentality here you probably don't have a problem with poisoning your kids and grand kids in YOUR HOMES and CARS. But, YOU cannot POISON MY children or grandchildren while they are working or playing.

Whats sad is you PRO smokers don't realize that we are trying to benefit future generations;by breaking this cycle of addiction that comes with this poisonous.

-- Posted by Take Action on Fri, Feb 11, 2011, at 10:26 AM

Jenny, so now you want to bring up abortion, child discipline, and speed limits? We need to stay on topic.

The discussion here is related to whether or not the city of Brazil should pass an ordinance to ban smoking in all public places in the city because the risk of injury to the public is so high (debatable) and the public is so helpless (debatable) that it is incapable of choosing to avoid any perceived risk on its own.

Is the risk of injury to the public is so high that it is worth infringing on the freedom of other people who either do not believe there is a risk or are willing to accept that perceived risk? I'm thinking the risk of injury as a result of driving an automobile may be considerably higher. Along with many other risks. I think the City should examine the statistics on risks before making a decision. Or perhaps they would consider the risk of denying citizens their free choice is not nearly so important as the risk of them not being re-elected. Matter of priorities.

For Hoosier01: How other cities and towns have chosen to deal with this quandary is irrelevant. If all the other kids decided to go jump off a bridge to their deaths, does that mean you should too?

-- Posted by Baldgranny on Fri, Feb 11, 2011, at 11:04 AM

My last point on this subject is this. Inhaling smoke is bad for the lungs. I try to avoid inhaling smoke whenever I can. If I have to leave Hardees and go to Mcdonalds to avoid smoke, I may choose to do that. If I decide one day that I would love a good lung full of smoke with my cheeseburger, then I should be able to go anywhere which someone makes that space available to me.

Side note to Jenny, and I really don't know where to start. You say that it has been proven that the old ways of raising children doesn't work, but to that I would argue that we of that generation really aren't too bad, and that the crime rate, social dependency, and educational standards of this generation are worse. So, what metric is being used to evaluate the parenting technique? I will always stand by my statement that just because people stand up and yell that the sky is green doesn't mean I don't need to look up once in awhile to see for myself.

-- Posted by almostfootballfree on Fri, Feb 11, 2011, at 3:13 PM

Thud: Exposing people to cancer causing toxins is not only rude and inconsiderate, it kills.

Staying on topic and dropping the comparison game would be good here. The dangers of second hand smoke in the workplace stands alone. The Center of Disease Control has over 30 years of research and data to confirm non-smokers are dying a smoker's death due to exposure to toxins found in second hand smoke. The death rate is high and this truth can no longer be ignored or explained away.

Debate the right to own and run a business as you see fit all you like. Angel your position to include the McDonald's comparison, daily risks, bee stings, kids riding bikes, speeding, and any numerous unrelated topics. They are as pointless to this issue as to how deep a pan has to be before it is called a pot.

This is a health crisis issue. All arguments and perceived rights to smoke in a public work place fall short to this ultimate truth. People are becoming ill and are dying due to exposure to cigarette smoke.

Louisville Kentucky,where 3 home offices of big tobacco preside, went smoke free a few years back. Most states have smoke free work place air laws.

AND SO WILL INDIANA! The state may bring it come April or our local council may lead this policy to completion.

As correctly explained by Take Action, this is not a smoking ban. Smokers have the right to smoke but never at the risk of someone else's health.

A smoke free work place air law will protect all workers.

This law is long in coming. It is way past time for people to speak up and demand this health protection for them and their families.

-- Posted by yestosmokefree on Fri, Feb 11, 2011, at 3:18 PM

New_POV Nicotine addiction is a bad one to kick. My father in law was clean a sober for over 20 years when he died but told us that he just couldn't quit then cigarettes. Much tougher than alcohol. Unless someone were addicted, why would they continue to spend that kind of money to clowly kill themselves and harm others around them...Gotta feel some compassion for them even if you don't want the smoke in your lungs.

-- Posted by Jenny Moore on Tue, Feb 15, 2011, at 8:34 PM


I agree... This wasn't really to be directed just to you. Just wanted to make sure no one thought that the smoker should be "attacked" personally.

It's sort of like the hate the sin not the sinner thing....Not that this is a sin, just that some find it hard to separate the two when they don't know the person and judge them only by the one thing they don't like or disagree with....I've been on the receiving end of that sort of thing when I've disagreed with people who comment on the Times articles and when I had a blog. Very Hatfield and McCoy thinking and not very golden rule either. People forget that these are human beings at times and ok to disagree but not to point of putting the person down. Sort of kills their credibility too. lol I will now turn off the "Mom" in me nad stop the lecture... lol

Have a good day.

-- Posted by Jenny Moore on Thu, Feb 17, 2011, at 9:20 AM

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: