Where there’s smoke . . .a reasonable approach to the smoking ban in North Dakota

Posted February 9th, 2007 at 12:51 AM by eggs ackley
in

Where there’s smoke . . .

The Minot Daily News, Minot, North Dakota -

Once again, smoking is a hot topic at the North Dakota Legislature.

Senate Bill 2164, which was defeated 30-15 by the Senate on Thursday, would have banned smoking in bars and truck stops. The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Ralph Kilzer, R-Bismarck, came two years after the Legislature approved a smoking ban in most buildings to which the public has access. Bars were exempt, as were separate, walled-off areas in truck stops where children were not allowed.

We were in favor of the smoking ban in all restaurants, and we still support that ban. But supporters of this bill had a tougher fight on their hands. They couldn’t use the health of children as one argument for banning smoking, since bars are a controlled atmosphere, with no one under the age of 21 allowed.

We do agree with the supporters of the ban on at least one point: There’s clear evidence that smoking and secondhand smoke contribute to or cause a wide array of health problems.

But we also agree with opponents of this bill on this point: If smoking would have been banned in bars, what’s next? Some states are considering whether to ban smoking in outdoor public places and whether to prohibit adults from smoking in a vehicle when children are present. Where will the fight against smoking end? It likely won’t end until smoking is banned everywhere – indoors and outdoors.

Just because something is bad for your health doesn’t necessarily mean the government should ban its use. Candy, donuts and soda all have proven health risks, but are still available. There should still be some personal responsibility in life.

Certainly smoking rises to a slightly different level, because of the health risks of secondhand smoke. But if the smoking ban supporters were truly concerned about public health issues, why weren’t they proposing a state ban on the sale of alcohol, which would eliminate the need for bars altogether?`

Jim Eykyn, Publisher; Bryan L. Obenchain, Editor

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
On February 12th, 2007 at 02:19 AM, Anonymous (not verified) said:

Doesn't it seem odd that the smoking issue has covered this country like a wild fire?  Why and how?  Who is bank rolling it?  Where are they getting their money from?

 
There's a giant radical foundation that grants funds for research, that is with the goal to show the results they want.  Funds come in from pharmaceutical companies for funding as they have their goals.  There's good in nicotine and they want it for prescriptions.  www.forces.org/evidence/hamilton/other/nicotine.htm
 
Meanwhile, over 30 years ago, fudged reports began coming out from main stream organizations to slowly maneuver the population into believing tobacco was bad.  Those reports are funded thru the foundation that has population agendas and tobacco is far from the only subject.
 
Follow the money (who makes it with the no-smoking products to who would gain if nicotine went into prescriptions, who owns the big blocks of pharma stocks, who is funded by who with political donations, ect) and you'll uncover more than you can dream of concerning deceit to we the people.http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/01/will-there-be-investigation-into-this.html (see links).
 
Next it will be alcohol and it appears it's already begun when you consider the current closings of bars in this country due to the tobacco bans.  WAKE UP PEOPLE!  That foundation even has it's arms in our health insurance and more!
 
If an establishment chooses to offer both smoking and no smoking and you have a complaint, take it to the business owner, not the government.  Society can handle this argument!  Don't destroy all our freedoms as that is what will happen little by little if this continues.
 

Ban the Bans!