MMA is a destructive activity that rewards causing a head injury (concussion),
but the combatants engage in it by mutual consent. Those who inhale second hand
smoke do not have the option of not breathing. As a sign in the UK said, "If
you must smoke, do not exhale."
From a medical standpoint, why is this even a question? Timid legislators
fearful of the tobacco lobby must face the reality that second hand smoke is a
public health hazard.
It is ok to smoke if your family or friends don't mind and you are ok with
shortening your life 10 years. That's an average so you may die in your
30's. Heart attack is the most common cause of death and it is very hard
to quit. Marijuana becomes an addiction in 25-50% of regular users and has a
number of harmful effects also a dumb habit. L Larry is right boxing should be
Assuming you smoke a pack of cigarettes a day in the State of Utah that is only
going to cost you an average of $2,500 a year. Chump change.Some of
the minor side benefits associated with smoking include a dulling of your sense
of taste, emphysema, heart disease, and cancer. Sounds like an intelligent idea
I think it's a work environment issue. The clouds make it hard to tell who
is saying what and photos are hard to take.Maybe fog machines in the
cloakrooms would be a good substitute.
airnaut - Everett, WA - just a bit of info and perhaps a suggestion.It is illegal to smoke inside any businesses and you must be at least 25'
from the entry doors to businesses to smoke. It has been the law for quite some
time. Utah followed this concept from New York City. As a
suggestion, people have a right to smoke, so on Capital Hill, perhaps there
could be designated, covered areas to smoke. That is done in a number of Utah
businesses that do exactly that.
One of the first real evidence of smoking causing deaths was, the Ottoman Sultan
Murad IV prohibited smoking in his empire in 1633 and had smokers executed."The first modern attempt at restricting smoking was imposed by the
German government in every university, post office, military hospital, and Nazi
Party office, under the auspices of Karl Astel's Institute for Tobacco
Hazards Research, created in 1941 under orders from Adolf Hitler." Well
ahead of Seattle.
"@Open Minded Mormon (and airnaut, both coincidentally of - Everett,
WA)" actually a Utah resident and one in the same.
"They outlawed indoor smoking over 30 years ago.I'm actually
shocked it's 2017 and Utah has still not caught up to that yet."Utah's 1995 Indoor Clean Air Act was expanded in 2006 to ban
smoking statewide in all enclosed workplaces in Utah, including bars and
restaurants. Most states did not enact this kind of legislation until 2004
through 2015. So there is an actual list available when each state enacted such
legislation. And given the attempt to denigrate the state of Utah no they did
not outlaw indoor smoking over 30 years ago. Facts bite, when making up
@liberal larry: "Why express judgement on just smoking?"It
wouldn't hurt my feelings a bit if limited tax dollars were not diverted
from classrooms (K-12 or University) to sports programs. But let's look at
this rationally rather than just trying to be argumentative.Any
single bill in Utah will only address a single subject. That doesn't mean
that the legislature or society is expressing judgment only on smoking. We are
lowering the legal DUI limit from 0.08 to 0.05%. We have outlawed texting and
driving. (Social acceptance and enforcement of that law is another matter.) We
have banned the use of wood burning stoves in many cases. We require
automobiles along the Wasatch Front to pass an emissions test. We routinely
discuss how best protect children from the risks of sexual activity. We've
imposed lifetime loss of RKBA on anyone convicted of domestic violence. Society
is having conversations on the risks of football and how to mitigate them; rules
changes have been made.Attacking efforts to improve society in one
area because 10 other areas are not yet perfect is not a very compelling
argument. Smoking is not an individual right we must accommodate.
@Laura Bilington: "This is the same state whose
governor--always concerned about public health-- argued that people were better
off without the Medicaid expansion?"No this is the State that
determined we were not prepared to sign up for an open-ended financial
commitment that we might not be able to maintain. While outside perspectives
are sometimes useful, I'm often surprised by how much non-Utahns care about
the public policies of this little State. Since you're so free to offer
unsolicited advice about how Utah ought to order itself, are you open to counsel
from Utahns about what Washington is doing wrong? After all, Wa State
doesn't have nearly as good of upward mobility as does Utah.@Open Minded Mormon (and airnaut, both coincidentally of - Everett, WA):1-Industrial pollutions are part of the cost of a modern society. The
work that produces such pollutions--like the pollution from heating homes,
having lights, etc--provides tremendous benefits to society. Smoking provides
no social benefits.2-Utah pollution doesn't affect Washington.
West coast pollution, does very much affect Utah.3-What
justification to violate rules with multiple accounts?
Re: justsomeguy... - Salt Lake City, UTJustsomeguy asks if a ban can
really be considered encouragement? No one is try to ban smoking
outdoors. Taverns and private clubs went smoke free in January 2009 over the
howls and screams of smokers, and smoking in airliners was banned in 2000. The goal wasn't to encourage smokers to stop. We just don't
want to be involved in that dirty, risky behavior. John Wayne could explain the
concept if he hadn't already died of lung cancer.
at liberal larry - Typical thought process from a liberal. Smoking is
offensive to anyone within 100 feet of the person smoking. Farther than that if
there is a breeze. MMA & boxing are only unhealthy to those participating,
and they know the danger before hand. MMA and boxing generate millions of
dollars from fans everywhere and make a lot of people rich without hurting
anyone other than the idiots participating. Tobacco has made a lot of money for
people but at the expense of the lives of not only those participating, but
everyone around them who don't have a choice to inhale the smoke or not.
Can a ban really be considered encouragement? Was prohibition encouragement not
to drink? Is the war on drugs encouragement to not use drugs? Isn't the
answer to all three of those questions an easy no? If you want to encourage
people to live their lives in a healthier way, you can not simply ban their
legal choice to engage in a particular behavior. To encourage isn't to ban
something. If that were to really be the case, there would simply be no crime.
isn't the far better way to encourage people to live healthier lives to
accommodate their choices, even if in a very limited way (i.e. - designated
smoking areas and the current policy on smoking) and then provide resources and
incentives to people to make choices to change their unhealthy behavior. In the
context of our constitutions and our basic liberties, I believe a tobacco ban is
a step over the line between living in a free society where we have the liberty
and freedom to make choices for ourselves, healthy or not.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its
victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under
robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's
cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated;
but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for
they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” - C.S.
A smoke free environment would be great. Now if I could just get my next door
neighbor to move away and stop filling my apartment with cigarette smoke.
@liberal larry wrote,"Shouldn't we ban activities like
boxing, MMA, and other sports that have been shown to cause long term health
problems?"I'm not sure if the question is serious, but, in
my opinion, yes. @DN Subscriber wrote,"The smoking
ban is not "encouraging healthy behavior" but a nanny state crack down
on legal (but very obnoxious) behavior."It is definitely
cracking down on behavior that is harmful to everybody who chooses to breathe.
And the truth is that it does encourage healthy behavior, specifically, quitting
smoking or not starting. They don't call my state Rain Country for
nothing. Here, the sight of tobacco addicts having to puff away outside,
huddled under an umbrella, seems to discourage teens from even starting to
smoke. More than a few employers, myself included, will not hire
I've never smoked anything. So, other than being interested in clean air,
I don't have an ax to grind. But I see an awful lot of hypocrisy here.
There is much evidence that tobacco smoke is dangerous to your
health. There is zero evidence that marijuana is addictive. Without even
touching on recreational use, there is plenty of evidence that it is useful for
treating several medical conditions. Guess which one is banned in
Utah. And the same commenters that decry this no-smoking proposal
as us libs wanting a nanny state, have, in this same forum, insisted that
marijuana use be banned--for everybody, in every situation.
Flying Finn - Salt Lake City, UTNov. 15, 2017 8:49 a.m.Open
Minded Mormon - Everett, WAIt's the concentration of poisons
you inhale when smoking that makes the difference. ====== Wrong -- It is a factor of concentration AND time exposed.A
single individual, starts to smoke as an adult, puffing a cigarette
for 5-10 drags over 5 minutes is less than,vs100% of the population,
inhaling 24/7, day after day, week after week, month after month , year
after year.1st breath to last breath.moment of birth until death.BTW -- I'm not promoting smoking tobacco.This is not a
"Word of Wisdom" issue, it is a health issue.and I'm just
being open minded to ALL the contributing health factors. BTW2 -- I
lived in Seattle for many years.They outlawed indoor smoking over 30 years
ago.I'm actually shocked it's 2017 and Utah has still not caught
up to that yet.
DN Subscriber - Cottonwood Heights, UT"So, they will also ban
sugary drinks at the Capitol?"I am not aware of anyone who has
gotten cancer because someone beside them was drinking a soda, the same cannot
be said of smoking.
DN Subscriber - Cottonwood Heights, UTThis isn't a "nanny
state" issue. The IMC Hospital in Murray is just one example of a smoke
free campus.Like somebody else already said - if you want to smoke
that's fine. We just don't want to participate.
So, they will also ban sugary drinks at the Capitol? Force Legislators to get
up and run around the complex for a couple of miles before sitting down to pass
new laws? Close the parking garage so government employees will have to take
public transportation and avoid fouling the air with car pollution?The smoking ban is not "encouraging healthy behavior" but a nanny
state crack down on legal (but very obnoxious) behavior.If they want
to stop smoking, just make tobacco sale, possession or use illegal and that will
totally stop unhealthy behavior. Oh, wait, banning marijuana and a host of
illegal drugs that are all far more harmful than tobacco does not seem to cut
their use.You cannot legislate common sense or force everyone to
stop doing stuff that they know is harmful to their health. No matter how hard
The state capital doesn't promote MMA, or other high risk sports, but our
high schools, state universities, and heavily subsidized private schools, spend
millions on sports like football.It seems that if you are advocating
for public safety in state sponsored activities a degree of consistency should
be observed.Why express judgement on just smoking?
Several years ago, Washington State banned smoking in ANY place of
employment--that included taverns as well. The response was overwhelming
positive. And the percentage of adults smoking, which was already low, has
dropped further.This is the same state whose governor--always
concerned about public health-- argued that people were better off without the
I don't hang around the Capitol much but I can say for sure I wish that
more Nevada casinos were non smoking. Especially those without really serious
HVAC, mostly the older ones. The old Utah ladies in West Wendover can just
about choke me out.
Open Minded Mormon - Everett, WAIt's the concentration of
poisons you inhale when smoking that makes the difference. Yes, we
could turn off all the industrial lights and send all those folks home but then
where would we get the taxes needed to pay for all our socialist programs?
Can someone please explain to the state legislators, there is no
difference between breathing tobacco smoke and industrial smoke.
liberal larry - Salt Lake City, UTNo one is asing to ban smoking.
Non-smokers just don't want to participated in that unhealthy activity.
@liberal larry:I don't believe the capital complex regularly
hosts MMA matches or other high risk activities. Also, unlike smoking which
imposes both inconvenience and real harm on others, participating in sports,
over eating, etc, directly harm only the individual choosing to participate.There are some 480,000 tobacco-related deaths in this nation,each year.
Nearly 40,000 of those deaths are among non smokers exposed to 2nd hand
smoke.Smokers also seem to be disproportionately inclined to litter.
A person might walk around the capital, a university, or a business and find
very few candy wrappers or other litter, but will almost certainly see a large
number of cigarette butts.While it must happen, I don't recall
the last time I saw someone throw a soda cup or food wrapper out a car window.
I can't go a week without seeing someone tossing a cig butt--often still
glowing--onto the road.High personal and social costs. Low or no
benefits. And not a recognized individual right. Time to further reduce the
legal ability to smoke in public.
When anyone would want to fill their lungs with pPoisonous gases is beyond me.
Your lungs are required if you want to get oxygen into your blood stream. If I ever decided to smoke I'd want to start a trend. I always
though that it would look cool to smoke two cigarettes at a time. One cancer
stick dangling from each corner of my mouth would make people sit up and take
There is no doubt that smoking is bad for people's physical, and financial
health, but shouldn't we discourage other behaviors that are dangerous to
one's health?Shouldn't we ban activities like boxing, MMA,
and other sports that have been shown to cause long term health problems?