Second-hand smoke has big consequences for children

I also think store owners should be able to setup an area for their customers to smoke vent it well and maybe put up glass to separate the areas, but just like the other guy said loud music is bad for the ears fatty foods aren't healthy and alcohol kills people every year just as much as smoking if not more. My grandfather smoked for a long time and needs medications now for his asthma filling prescriptions locally would cause him to spend every penny he has on the medication so i've helped him out and fill them using a canadian pharmacy now which is 50% less or more sometimes then walgreens

There have always been plenty of non smoking options. Did it ever occur to the me, me, me crowd that a private business owner has a right to cater to his chosen consumer? I'm sure it did not. You have not been deprived of eating out opportunities have you? No, you just want the world to revolve around your opinion and preferences. I have a suggestion, invest your life savings and then let's see what you think.

Dimly lit rooms can be bad for your eyes.
Loud music can be bad for your ears.
Fatty foods are not healthy either.
While were at it let's get rid of alcohol because my kids shouldn't see anyone drinking.

Banning smoking in bars protects children from secondhand smoke? Wouldn't the better thing for health of children be to not be taking them to bars in the first place?

Banning smoking in places where only consenting adults can be forces smokers to go to places where children may be present.

As for the lie constantly attached to the claims of those against business rights that smoking bans universally increase sales, that is easily disproven by asking ANY bar owner suffering under a ban. Any.

If the numbers are correct (and I'm not sure of that) then the point of exposure must be the home not businesses. Kansas City already has a smoking ban, most areas of Kansas City are smoke free. However, there is no current law that prohibits one to smoke in ones own home but I fear that is the next target of the anti-smoking crowd. This nation was founded upon freedoms, with this administration chipping away at our freedoms I wonder why we would give some of our freedoms up by voting them away.

The last line of your post tells me that I am correct in my assessment of why most people who support a smoking ban do so. Because you like it better when there is no smoke.

So because you and others like it better let’s make a new law to tell bar and restaurant owners how to run their businesses. That goes against everything capitalism stands for.

To make matters worse; in your article published in today’s edition of The Star you say that the rate of heart attacks has gone down 17% in Scotland in one year since the smoking ban implementation. That is complete hogwash and you know it! You are quoting Bruce Atkins who is the director of the West Virginia Division of Tobacco Prevention and he doesn’t even name the study that he supposedly used for his source.

Everyone out there please read the real data.

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2007/11/new-data-from-scottish-national-health.html

Briefly, here’s what it says: “New Data from Scottish National Health Service Show That Smoking Ban/Heart Attack Study was Junk Science.” It goes on to say that the real data, “show a decline of about 8% in the year following the smoking ban, which is only slightly higher than the approximate 6% decline the year preceding the smoking ban.”

One more little tidbit; “If one looks at the trend in heart attack rates from 1998 through 2007, one finds that based on the pre-existing trends in heart attack rates, there has been no apparent change in the rate of heart attacks following the smoking ban, which was implemented in March 2006.”

Raspberries to you for using such phony statistics and to The Star for printing them.

Ross Balano Midwest Voices 2008

RE: Tiller --- “OPINION” ---- 3-15-08 Editorial

Smoking ban won’t hurt (KC) bars, restaurants -- Fortunately, “WE” have a solution: a public smoking ban, so “SEZ’ Denise Tiller! She offers her ‘WE” opinion from “Convention City” USA, the robust, thriving Metropolis of Stillwell Kansas.
Like many others, she believes individual and private rights can be violated with a public referendum. Two excepts from her reasoning prompted my closing re-post of a fetter entry on 3-14-08.
Denise Tiller’s Beliefs? – “I can’t condone any belief that places business income over the rights and health of people. It’s certainly not the values I want to instill in my family. --“If there is an afterlife” -- I want to be able to say I did all I could to save lives, then I believe it’s hypocritical for anyone to claim moral superiority if they put the business interests over the rights and health of people.” (You should find Moral Superiority a familiar term)
Tiller, yours, and those with similar views question the validity of what may be considered a “fair vote”? --The following re-post and request to a Mr. Lathop applies to YOU and your friends?

How does a “FAIR VOTE” work for you Lathop? --- So “you” and a non-smoking 18-year-old who couldn’t legally be served and has never purchased an alcoholic beverage can vote. -- Anyone belonging to a ---“religious organization”--- that declares smoking or drinking to be a transgression and does not now and never will patronize a bar can vote. -- Healthcare crusaders who question the intelligence of workers to manage their own lives without Big Brother or media meddling can vote?
It’s not the fist or last time the system will be abused, but Lathop and his kind will still be standing right there in line when the polls open to ensure “HIS” needs will no longer be jeopardized by private businesses he lacks the intelligence or option to avoid!