14 comment(s) on this story

Freedom of Choice is Right :  5/27/2008

I should be able to go to a place that is less than a mile from my house, has cheap darts/pool. I CHOSE to not go to the bar when they continued to allow smoking and now I CHOOSE to give them my business since they were fined for breaking the law. Smoking stinks.

Freedom of Choice :  5/24/2008

Why not choose NOT to go into an establishment that permits smoking? Everyone has that choice. Business owners should have the right to choose if they wish to permit smoking or not. If you don't like the smell of smoke or the risk of second hand smoke. Give your money to a smoke free establishment. Smokers choose to give their money to establishments that permit smoking. I know I now travel further to visit places that permit smoking rather than visit places just a few miles from home. My nearby 24 hour diner lost my business, but the local gas station gets more money out of me and another diner has a new regular customer. If all have to ban, I'll just stop using diners.

It can also be good for business. :  5/18/2008

I live in Tampa, Fl. and we have smoking bans...thank God. We have a little local bar near us that we STOPPED going to because they still allowed people to smoke inside. They finally got caught, fined and placed on probation and the stinky smoke is outside. Now, we actually GO to the place and we don't come home smelling like an ashtray. I do agree with it and just walking near a smoker or someone that is heavily fragranced, can trigger a debilitating migraine for me. Smoking is not a necessity and non-smokers have a right to breath clean air. I don't even understand why people still smoke knowing everything we know about the harm it does. I quit in 1999.

Strict smoking bans backfire! :  5/15/2008

Shouldn't government always try to err on the side of freedom and property rights? I believe than any independent consideration of the evidence will show that the Aiken City Council can responsibly allow smoking in bars and restaurants if appropriate air filtration and ventilation measures are in place. Numerous independent studies of the highest quality call into question the dangers of secondhand smoke, prove the efficacy of ventilation and air filtration systems to eliminate all airborne hazards in bar and restaurant air, and establish the harm a smoking ban would do to bars and restaurants. Indeed, Federal Reserve economist Dr. Michael Pakko recently found that the smoking ban in Columbia Missouri caused the Columbia bar business to shrink 11 percent. Columbia restaurants that serve alcohol lost 6.5 percent of their business and the overall restaurant trade shrank 3.5 percent due to the ban. Dr. Pakko cites further research warning that bar employment in some states may drop as much as 14 percent due smoking bans. http://research.stlouisfed.org/econ/pakko/mpbans.html Furthermore, smoking bans have other negative unintended consequences that someone needs to point out: Recent research has shown that a smoking ban would not reduce the overall exposure of non-smokers to secondhand smoke and would actually increase the exposure of young children to smoke as smokers are displaced to their cars and homes. http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications.php?publication_id=3523 Just released research also predicts that a smoking ban would increase drunk driving fatalities by 13 percent or more as smokers drive farther to find venues in which they can both smoke and drink. The authors of this paper also point out that heavy drinkers handle their alcohol better and drink less when they can smoke. http://www.econ.iastate.edu/calendar/papers/CottiPaperDrunkDriving.pdf Public health laws should be judged by their effects in the real world rather than their good intentions. A common sense public health policy would allow many well-ventilated or filtrated “smoking allowed” venues for adults within walking distance of most homes. I hope the Aiken City Council stands up for common sense against this smoking ban hysteria.

Too Many Problems with Smoking Bans :  5/14/2008

If "smoke free" were so popular, then all businesses (especially in hospitality) would have become smoke-free a long time ago. Voters do not OWN businesses that are open to the public. In a free market, consumers vote with their feet and wallets, not the ballot box. Smoking bans always hurt the general economy. Some businesses use a smoking ban as an excuse to downgrade their air systems. In other words, their current ventilation/filtration systems that remove MORE than SHS/ETS will be downgraded--this is no favor to smokers or nonsmokers. The health scare hype has been repeatedly exposed as a sham, usually funded by pharmaceutical or other antitobacco interests. Another bid downside to smoking bans is the divisiveness they inherently bring to a society. What began as a seemingly benign and accommodating question, "smoking or nonsmoking", becomes an excuse for the more ill-bred in society to throw tantrums because not every business caters to their demographic. And, yes, smoking bans are always the beginning of the slippery slope into an overbearing and oppressive Nanny State. Yes, attacks on alcohol are next, especially because smoking bans tend to hurt places that serve alcohol the most. The Food Police aren't far behind, again, marketing their wares for weight loss even to those who really aren't "obese". The Green Police ensue, sneering and/or issuing citations to those who aren't doing what the commercials say we need to do to keep the Earth green and rotating. (By the way, I thought the Earth was the big BLUE marble? So, why go GREEN? So much for educated environmentalists.) Plenty of other nannying is guaranteed to follow any smoking ban. At most, businesses could be required to have a sign at the door that says either "nonsmoking" or "smoker friendly". Problem solved.

For Profit Not Health :  5/14/2008

The ACS and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation provide the funds to get bans passed. This is not and never has been a grass roots movement. It is nothing less than a method of marketing in order to create a need for Smoking Cessation Products made by the Johnson & Johnson Co. They have made science a dirty word with their fraudulent studies. Money buys what ever conclusion they ask for. The EPA report of 3,000 killed by SHS/ETS, not a study, has been vacated by a Federal Judge and a Congressional committee as fraudulent. The report is still being used as proof of harm. They use fraud as proof of more fraud. Not one person has been proven to have died of SHS. Our Doctors have even been drawn into this fraud by the lies of pharmaceuticals who they depend on for truth. Even the studies by the ACS and the WHO found that SHS is no harm and the WHO found that it helps a child's immune system to develop in that a child raised in a smoking home is 22% less likely to contract cancer. It is truly about profit and not Health.

Imitate? :  5/14/2008

The word imitate is key in this article. Doesn't everyone know that imitations are fake? Does follow the leader ring a bell? Business owners and only business owners should decide the fate for Aiken and North Augusta. A smoking ban WILL put many of these business owners out of business. Anyone value freedom to choose? If you follow the money and do some research, you will find that not a single person has died from second hand smoke. Smoking bans are all about promoting big pharma and their sales of nicotine cessation products.

The REAL "stink" :  5/14/2008

Pete pretty much relays what these bans are really about. Some people don't like the smell. I don't like Old Spice. Should I ban it? Maybe if Pete owned a business in a smoking ban state, he'd see it (his bottom line) differently. An Ohio group recently put out this press release. How badly do you want YOUR state to pay, financially, for a smoking ban? Before you answer this, do you own a business? http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS175529+07-May-2008+PRN20080507 Why should businesses owners pay for bans with their businesses?

Learn the facts... :  5/14/2008

There is no sound reason for universal government-mandated smoking bans. Go to: http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4472 and read the "Generic Stiletto" you will find there. It briefly and clearly exposes the lies that smoking bans are built upon. Michael J. McFadden Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains" http://encyclopedia.smokersclub.com/130.html

Smoking Bans Hurt The Economy :  5/14/2008

In spite of what the anti-smokers are saying, smoking bans destroy many small businesses and bring extreme hardship to business owners' families. Think about it, if non-smoking bars brought in more customers, wouldn't all bars be smoke-free? Also, Minnesota did a study on charitable gambling receipts and discovered that charitable gambling saw a decrease of $40 million compared to the same period before the statewide ban took effect. www.freedomfight08.com

Smoking Ban :  5/14/2008

Please check out these stories to see the real picture of what life in a smoking ban area really is. http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080427/NEWS32/804270338 http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?ID=411068&Category=13&subCategoryID= http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070603/BUSINESS03/70603001 http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=518 http://governor.ohio.gov/Default.aspx?tabid=699

SmokeFree Is A Lie :  5/14/2008

I live in Ohio where we have had a comprehensive smoking ban since last May. Here is what happens when SmokeFree and other anti smoking groups take over city and state governments. Ohio has had over 29000 violations since the enforcement began. 14 of 88 counties have given up enforcement because it is too expensive. Over 350 locally owned bars and restaurants have gone out of business, with more to follow. Recently, the Governor of Ohio disbanded the anti smoking foundation. That group had stealthily stolen state tax monies when the government decided to use it for badly needed jobs incentive programs. The Ohio legislature had to enact an emergency law to prevent the anti smokers from sending $270 million to their parent organization in DC. The anti smokers filed a lawsuit against the state to get the money back, and the state of Ohio then simply voted them out of existence, calling them "rogues." I have a vested interest in Aiken since my daughter is a student at USCA. What I found particularly nice about the area was the choice in smoking or non-smoking that Aiken already has. Why would you want to change that? Is that not what the American way is all about? No one's life has been saved since Ohio's ban became law, but there have been many law abiding businessmen who have technically become criminals since the ban started. In Ohio, defiance of the law, especially by small business owners, is rampant. Every $100 fine costs the state $350 to enforce, and the state has collected few fines. Please do not destroy the character of Aiken by believing the lies of SmokeFree and other anti smoking groups. I had looked forward to one day moving to Aiken just to escape the repressive environment of my home state since the smoking ban began.

Will not stop there :  5/12/2008

There was a time when i would have supported this proposal. Being aware of what is happening in some places where the bans did happen, I can no longer support any of the anti smoking laws. Go to WWW. Forces website and see what is happening in Canada and some parts of the U.S. Every ban sounded reasonable when first introduced. Did not stopped there.

Yes, Please Pass a Smoking Ban :  5/11/2008

I travel around the country quite a bit. Most areas of the country now have smoking bans in effect. I really enjoy going to restaurants and bars in the areas with bans far more than those without a ban. Seconhand smoke burns my eyes, nose and throat, and I'm not alone. Never mind the stink that is difficult to get out of clothes. It's about time that we had a ban in this area.