Deseret News | Smoking bans pay dividends

Reader comments
Smoking bans pay dividends

smokeemifyagotm | 5:01 a.m. May 7, 2008

I don't even smoke but I'm considering taking up the habit just to spite all of these big government,nanny-state do-gooders. They couldn't care less about freedom of choice or private property rights.They simply want to control people's lives. If you want to be a bear be a grizzly- just outlaw smoking completely and stop passing silly laws that take more and more freedom from people.
I wish Obama would start smoking again and do it in public. I would actually vote for him if he did.

Mahonri | 6:17 a.m. May 7, 2008

You protect workers but fail to protect children.

Smoking around children is child abuse. When will you self righteous fools start prosecuting those who poison children?

You talk a good bit about this when it concerns adults who have a choice whether or not to be around it but don't care about the kids who have NO choice. They spend hours in enclosed vehicles in a cloud of smoke. They spend years cooped up in a house filled with smoke.

Why worry, you can always make more... right?

Get a clue, Mahonri | 8:27 a.m. May 7, 2008

Smoking in a car with a child is now illegal.

Comments continue below

re smokeemifyagotm | 5:01 a.m. | 8:31 a.m. May 7, 2008

One of the best things that government has ever done for me was to make it so that at my work place and when I go out to a resturant and when I fly on an airplane or go on a bus that I don't have to put up with other peoples annoying smoke.

If this is do-gooderism then bring it on.

Enough with your right wing limited government nonsense. I government that isn't empowered to do any good isn't worth (I'd better not say it or the desnews won't print this).

Sorry to protect you from yourse | 8:45 a.m. May 7, 2008

Hey, smokeemifyagotm ... are you going to help pay for my raising medical costs because you refuse to take care of yourself?

Oh, and by the way ... since you are insistent that the government not protect you, we will have the public utilities cut off, have 9-1-1 put a "do not respond" order on your home, and let you pave your road (yes, you do pay for those services, but not the infrastructure nor what they would cost if you were to buy them individually). By the way, do you home school?

digum | 8:44 a.m. May 7, 2008

I think the jury is still out on whether or not smoking bans actually reduce smoking rates. There have been studies(Australia, Toronto) that actually concluded the opposite.

There a couple of issues with smoking bans that often get ignored. The first is that smoking bans that affect businesses trample the property rights of the owners. I believe that cities, counties, and states can ban smoking in areas they own and operate for the benefit of the public but not in private businesses. At most business should have to clearly post whether they allow smoking or not.

The second issue is they are passed on "public health" concerns. By passing these laws on health concerns we give the government the right to regulate anything else on based on it being a "public health" issue. We've already seen this with the trans-fats issue and it will only be a matter of time before we start seeing legislation regulating who can buy ice cream, or what you can eat at a restaurant. If you don't believe me I think it was in Missouri that a bill along those lines was proposed.

uncannygunman | 9:13 a.m. May 7, 2008

Call me a contrarian, but I don't see where we should characterize children accepting a lack of freedom as the natural state of affairs to be a "dividend" of any sort. They're losing a lot more than they're gaining.

Ratman | 12:10 p.m. May 7, 2008

@re smokeemifyagotm 5:01 a.m.,

Nice try at jabbing the right; however, with that same logic, are you willing to let the government restrict abortions to protect the rights of the unborn? Hmmmmm??????

hurray government involvement | 3:11 p.m. May 7, 2008

What about my freedom to have a smoke free workplace and smoke free resturant?

If you want to smoke do it where it isn't going to annoy the living [ ] out of everyone else.

uncannygunman | 4:15 p.m. May 7, 2008

hgi: You do have rights to have a smoke-free workplace or restaurant if by "have" you mean "own." They're called property rights. Unfortunately, they're currently being infringed by laws that prevent you as the property owner from making that choice for yourself.

If you don't own the workplace or restaurant, then of course you don't have any right to make the rules there! Why on earth would you think otherwise?

re uncannygunman | 4:15 p.m | 5:42 p.m. May 7, 2008

Why would I think otherwise? Because finding a job is hard enough. I may have to take a job regardless whether or not smoking is allowed.

I really appreciate the government giving me a smoke free workplace. thats why

re uncannygunman | 4:15 p.m. | 6:11 p.m. May 7, 2008

Which is more important? The "right" of a business owner to allow smoking in his business or public health?

You'd probably say property rights of the business owner is more important, but when all is said and done, nothing is more valuable than ones health.

This is why the law is the way it is.

l | 7:42 p.m. May 7, 2008

Actually, getaclue 8:27, you might want to check out the utah legislature website and/or get a clue yourself. You'll find that the bill that would ban smoking in the car with a minor passed the senate but did not pass the house. That means it has a ways to go before becoming law. Maybe next year.

Walling | 7:46 p.m. May 7, 2008

The same would be true of alcohol if we had the guts to try it.

smokeemifyagotem | 8:56 p.m. May 7, 2008

You may like it when the Central Planners ban something you don't like. What will you do when the Central Planners come for you and makeit illegal for you to use a legal product that you enjoy in e.g. your own home? It's abut principle- not smoking. Beware the Central Planners.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.