28 Days to Smoke It Up!

Look forward to a LAST NIGHT TO SMOKE PARTY at Webster's Food & Drink Wednesday, Aug. 15, according to establishment manager and Director of Euphoria, Michael Mosley.

Thomas's post "Yes to the No-Smoking Ban" states:

"It is about the right to breathe clean, non-toxic air no matter where you choose to go. Whether it be the post office, the drugstore, or the local hang-out spot, everyone deserves the right to enjoy a healthy environment in public places."

The post office, the drugstore and most other places -- including most workplaces -- are already smoke-free indoors. And I believe they should be. I believe people have a right to clean air in places that they have to and need to be. The problem with this ban is that it is targeted at private businesses, namely restaurants and bars, which are for recreational, social purposes.

The ban has nothing to do with health. It is ultimately about infringing upon the rights of private business owners. That's unconstitutional.

Those who wish to avoid the by-products of smoke -- in the very few places that still permit smoke (at least for the next month, anyway) -- should simply use the feet God gave them and walk away from it.

Comments

Thomas is right, people should be able to breathe clean air while they guzzle a liquid that will ruin their liver right before they drive home intoxicated nearly missing trees, houses, and other cars. Who wants to die slow when you can make it instant with a head on collision.
Anonymous said…
I don't normally comment on the "dirt" but I feel that I must reply to Mike's post. Cigarettes have ZERO health benefits--not the first one. Alcohol, on the other hand, when consumed in moderation has many health benefits. Before you lash out at me, I will go ahead and admit that I consume more than the recommended servings! Also, there are laws in effect which attempt to dissuade those who choose to partake in a few cocktails from harming others--DUI, public drunkenness...I really don't see how different the smoking ban is...Just my opinion...everyone has one!
Anonymous said…
Effects on health
In the first 18 months after the town of Pueblo, Colorado enacted a smoking ban in 2003, hospital admissions for heart attacks dropped 27%. Admissions in neighboring towns without smoking bans showed no change. The American Heart Association said, "The decline in the number of heart attack hospitalizations within the first year and a half after the non-smoking ban that was observed in this study is most likely due to a decrease in the effect of second hand smoke as a triggering factor for heart attacks."[26]

Similar findings are beginning to emerge from other areas which have enacted bans. Researchers at Dundee university found significant improvements in the health of bar staff in the two months following the ban. They tested bar workers' lung function and inflammatory markers a month before the ban came in, and again two months after it had been introduced. The number showing symptoms related to passive smoking fell from more than 80% to less than half, with reduced levels of nicotine in the blood and improvements in lung function of as much as 10%.[27]
Anonymous said…
Johnny, I know you're tired and maybe disappointed by a few folks ---- and surprised by others. I've voted and the results look "correct". After all is said and done, it's not even the vote itself, but the raw fact that you acted on the conviction to do what was right for the people (young, old, educated, uneducated, those with and with-out the HABIT of smoking) and expressed that conviction clearly, consistently, and without compromise for the city of Greenwood. Thank you and I am soooooooooo proud of you. For many things and now I add this one...

We love you, your Carolyn and BILL

Popular posts from this blog

Official Delta Dirt Merchandise Now Available

Obama or McCain? You Decide.

Editorial: As Predicted, McCain Falls in the Polls