Iowa Smoking Ban Passes House
Nathan Greene
in Statehouse Issues, Iowa Smoking Ban
|
5 Comments
I know that Ms. Geiger and I are on different sides of this issue, but legislation like this just makes me angry, and I don’t smoke. What ever happened to personal responsibility? The Iowa Smoking ban does noting but move us one step closer to being a nanny state.
Let me be very clear, if smoking is deadly to the person who smokes a cigarette and to the people around them make it illegal. All this smoking ban does is take away the rights of small business owners and protect a few favored businesses.
As a public service I will list where a person can still smoke while in Iowa.
1. Casinos
2. Private Residences
3. Hotel Rooms
4. Retail Tobacco Stores
5. Cars, Trucks, Semi Trucks, Tractors, Limos, but only as long as nonsmoking employee are not present.
6. Private and semiprivate rooms in long-term care facilities, occupied by one or more individuals, all of whom are smokers.
7. Private clubs that have no employees, but only when the public is NOT present.
8. VFW’s and similar halls.
9. The Iowa Veterans Home
If the goal of this legislation is to improve the health of Iowans, shouldn’t they just vote to make smoking illegal in the state of Iowa? Or maybe we just don’t care about the health of people like to gamble, people who work in smoke shops, and our Veterans.
Reader Comments (5)
actually, your list isn't quite accurate. the democrats sank an amendment to have smoking allowed in tractors. so if the tractor (combine, etc) is owned by a corporation (like many many family farms) a person CANNOT smoke in that tractor. in fact, they have to post a sign in the tractor that says no smoking and includes a phone number to report a violator of that.
This whole debate stems from a group of people who want everyone to think as they think, do as they do, and live as they live. These people are defined as special interest groups. They want everyone to believe that if you walk into a restaurant that has a smoking section, you are immediatly hit with a wall of toxic, deadly second hand smoke. And that every employee working there, are helpless slaves that have no choice but to work in a toxic enviornment. What a crock!! The question they fail to include, are how many of the bartenders and waitresses that work in those sections, smoke themselves? Shouldn't some of the responsibility fall to the person applying for the job, to ask if the establishment allows smoking or is smoke free? The same applies to the customer..if you know they allow smoking, and you can't tollerate it, then patronize one of the many smoke free bars and restaurants. And let me ask this question....How many of you have went to a restaurant, ordered your meal, and had someone sit at a near-by table, and smell like they bathed in cologne or aftershave? Or worse yet,( since here in the midwest, our summers are hot and humid,) had someone sit near-by that didn't know what deoderant was or else it had worn off quite somtime ago? What it all boils down to is choices, and common sense. Both as an owner, as well as a patron. If you can't tolerate smoking, then patronize a place that is smoke free. And the opposite is true..if you know that a place is smoke free, look for a place that allows smoking. It's so simple!! I know that smoking is bad, and the trend is to eliminate it from our society. But discriminating against people, over taxing them, and treating them like second class citizens, isn't the way to go about it. Smoker or non-smoker, we're all people, taxpayers and above all Iowans. Who cares what they do in California, or New York.That's there. Unless I'm mistaken, isn't that why this is the United States?
This, frankly, is the kind of patently offensive neo-fascist legislation that begs for a big walloping dose of civil disobedience. Yes, I said "neo-fascist." Neo-fascist as in "Nazi." Because, in fact, when the Nazis (National Socialists) seized power in Germany back in the 30's, one of the first things they did was ban smoking. This is not really about the so-called health issues of 2nd hand smoke, it's about government control. For a little historical perspective on this, see http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/smoking_ban_todays_smoking_purge_borrowed_from_nazis.htm.
This, frankly, is the kind of patently offensive neo-fascist legislation that begs for a big walloping dose of civil disobedience. Yes, I said "neo-fascist." Neo-fascist as in "Nazi." Because, in fact, when the Nazis (National Socialists) seized power in Germany back in the 30's, one of the first things they did was ban smoking. This is not really about the so-called health issues of 2nd hand smoke, it's about government control. For a little historical perspective on this, see Today's Anti-Smoking Purge Is Borrowed From The Nazis.<--Sorry. Had to re-do link.
And yet children are STILL not protected from second hand smoke. Even with the ban, a parent can still smoke in their homes and cars with their children present. So, my children are safe from the second hand smoke everywhere they go, until they go home with their father every other weekend.