Comments on: An Oregon smoking ban prediction

By: Sex Machines

Sex Machines — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:18:09 +0000

This uplifting act will not only reduce pollutants, it would also help more people avoid the health risks associated with smoking, especially lung cancer and erectile dysfunction.

By: Miami Carpet Cleaning

Miami Carpet Cleaning — Sun, 31 May 2009 18:17:19 +0000

I'm a pro of smoking ban. It would lessen the case of people dying because of smoking. Also it will lessen the pollutants.

By: gogi

gogi — Sun, 31 May 2009 15:02:34 +0000

Companies are canceling their Christmas party reservations, taking with them all the revenue they’d promised. Combine this with the national recession and 2008 is turning out to be a glum year for area bars and restaurants. Let's just hope were wrong, and remain optimistic, optimistic but prepared.

By: Faye

Faye — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 15:20:26 +0000

I can not believe a country who is based on LIFE, LIBERTY, and THE PERSUTE OF HAPPINESS is banning people and business owners from their liberties and in some cases their persute of happiness, by making them ban smoking even if they don't want to. I AGREE WITH MANY OF THE SMOKING BAN LAWS, but I know of at least 2 taverns that are free standing buildings (so no smoke can “leak” into non-smoking establishments that SHOULD HAVE A CHOISE as to whether the allow smoking or not. After all non smokers can just say no I will not patronize a place that allows smoking. These taverns may find that their business will suffer and that they will ban smoking in the future. But, I think they should be given a choise how to run their own business.

By: teqjack

teqjack — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 21:22:38 +0000

These bans are for esthetic reasons – even people who smoke, like me, may not care for the smell – but of course the reason given is always the danger of second-hand (or Environmental Tobacco) smoke. Not that any actual study shows such, over fifty years after actually smoking was shown to have some effect: lots of “data dredge” studies, which are statistical monstrosities (one author, in another field, pointed out that an oft-cited “dredge” study showed a ninety-five percent increase for a certain illness given a particular condition – which amounted to one illness per three-hundred-thousand people, with a “confidence factor” equating to seven per one-hundred-thousand, rendering it meaningless).

Oh, well.

Occasionally, a bit of humor crops up. One town had banned smoking in any place open to the public, but allowed an exception – for holders of liquor licenses! A group was turned down for the license needed to allow smoking – because the officials did not think an A.A. group would actually serve liquor.

By: Derek

Derek — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 15:58:48 +0000

Thank you. The smoking ban was pushed through here in Madison, WI because the one in New York “worked so well” and “wasn't having any effect on businesses.” Never mind the fact that dozens of bars have closed (including one inside one of the local VFW posts), and that I can literally go across the street to a different bar to smoke if I want to (which I don't since I haven't smoked for years) because that municipality allows smoking in bars. All of this was pushed through by the city council without a vote by the general public because – according to the mayor – “it would have passed anyway if it was put to a vote.”

But I'm not bitter about it, thankfully.