Now
Fair
41°
High
73°
Low
44°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > Opinion > Editorial
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Smoking ban should apply to entire state

Comments 23 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

Friday, Mar 09, 2007 - 12:26:56 am CST

The watered-down smoking ban that won first-round approval from state senators Tuesday is not worth passing. Senators concerned for their constituents’ health should insist on a genuine statewide ban on smoking that applies uniformly throughout the state.

In its original version, the bill proposed by Sen. Joel Johnson of Kearney would prohibit smoking in virtually all workplaces, including restaurants and bars.

As amended on Tuesday, cities and counties could opt out either by a public vote or by the vote of a city council or county board.

The problem with the opt-out provision is that it would eliminate the uniformity that is one of the prime features of the statewide ban.

Revealingly, the Nebraska Restaurant Association, which supported the original version of the bill, said it could not support the amended version that would allow a patchwork of regulations.

The original version would have leveled the playing field among the restaurants and bars who compete for customers. The new version would not.

Sen. Tom White of Omaha, who offered the opt-out amendment, suggested that the Legislature could reconsider the issue in future years if opt-out votes produced a patchwork of regulations.

Why not just do it right the first time?

Passage of a loophole-ridden, halfway measure probably would just delay enactment of the uniform smoking ban that is needed for the health of Nebraska residents.

And there is no question that tobacco smoke is dangerous.

“The debate is over. The science is clear: secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance, but a serious health hazard that causes premature death and disease in children and nonsmoking adults,” Surgeon General Richard Carmona said last year at the release of a new report on secondhand smoke.

“There is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure, with even brief exposure adversely affecting the cardiovascular and respiratory system.”

The report goes on to conclude that even sophisticated ventilation systems can ensure that people are protected from secondhand smoke. As one Nebraskan told the Journal Star, “Choosing the nonsmoking section of a restaurant is like choosing the non-peeing section of a pool.”

In some rural communities, customers may have to drive miles to find a smoke-free place to have a drink or meal, or to work as a server, cook or bartender.

A uniform, statewide smoking ban is the fairest and most effective way to make Nebraska a healthier place.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Editorial > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
concerned wrote on March 9, 2007 5:20 am:
" If Nebraska wants to become this healthier state then when should also start looking at the chemical use on your lawns which in the spring the chemicals in your cities must be a cloud and your bodies are absorbing these chemicals as out in the country when farmers are applying their chemicals which can be so bad that a person can taste it. I know I live in the country. Let's not forget our water quality if Nebraska wants to become this healthier state we have got to look at these large and what's left of the small operations of livestock. Living in the country we have to put up with the smell of these large hog factories and cattle producers which apply the poop on the land over and over again trying to empty out their pits. Lexiington has just approved a cattle feeder to expand around the platte river and it's in the sand which will not hold the waste but will be washed down in the river and where do you think the water will go down towards you in Lincoln and Omaha. When Lincoln had problems with their water well let's just say that our river and streams which eventually dump into the platte got a good cleaning out from up the watershed. You know what farmers and these large hog and cattle factories will tell me don't live around here and isn't that the same argument that we tell people about the smoke in the bars? Actually smoking is just a small part of the problem in this state and actually we are telling a business owner how to run his business is it right, no it is not but if this smoking ban passes I don't want it to stop there and think Nebraska's problems are solved because their are bigger problems on the horizon and that is our water quality. Oh, you think you will drink that bottle water, well, chemicals from the plastic is breaking down and you are absorbing that as well--think about it smoking is just a small part in the big picture of our lives. "

 Driving Miles for Smoke Free Job? wrote on March 9, 2007 7:20 am:
" Isn't that what they are already doing? If you check, I believe that the majority of retaurant workers smoke anyhow. But to say that the failure to pass a total ban now will cause that to happen is bogus. "

 joke wrote on March 9, 2007 7:21 am:
" Don't you think all state laws should be enforced uniformly. If you support it for the smoking law you need to support it for the rest. Gun law maybe. Who writes this stuff, they need to have their heads checked. "

 eddie wrote on March 9, 2007 7:25 am:
" You betcha, LJS. Why do we let adults make any decisions for themselves? Its ridiculous that a 50 year old person should be able to decide what kind of an environment he or she should be allowed to eat, drink or work in. When are the people going to realize only the government knows what is best for all of them. Just ridiculous, these adults who want to make decisions that affect their lives. Indeed, there are many other areas in life where the government should be more involved in telling people what to do. Please LJS, do not stop pointing out the need for the government to take protect all these people from themselves. And another thing, where do people get this idea that business owners should be allowed to decide what otherwise legal activities may occur on their properties. And to think, some people (probably some of these adults who shouldn't be allowed to decide for themselves) think that property rights are very important, protected by the U.S. Constitution and property owners should be compensated when the government takes away their property rights. Ridiculous!!! We can only wish more people were as wise as the LJS and our government!!! Thanks again LJS for your willingness to stand up for our government and its determination to make sure everyone lives the same, without all these adults thinking in the U.S.A. people are free to decide what legal activities to do and not do. With your continued support, the government may be able to stamp out all of these liberty loving, freedom choosing, Americans. "

 Comm UnSense wrote on March 9, 2007 7:32 am:
" I disagree. If state senators are concerned with their constituants' health, they should make tobacco illegal in Nebraska. As long as they are dictating whether a private enterprise can allow a legal activity on their premises, they are sliding down a slippery slope. Either make tobacco illegal, or stay away from smoking bans in privately owned businesses. Waverly has the right idea. They have a non-smoking bar and a smoking bar. Both have their own clientel. That's the way it should be handled. "

 Central Nebraska wrote on March 9, 2007 7:48 am:
" It is so sad that the state legilators are spending so much time on this issue at a time when there are so many other important issues that are languishing because of no action. I guess it keeps them from having to face the huge budget that is about to be approved, and the increased taxes we will have to pay to support that budget. "

 Laura wrote on March 9, 2007 8:27 am:
" I think all the people for the state wide smoking ban should not be able to use anything that was made from the tobacco tax dollars. Fair is fair. "

 Confused wrote on March 9, 2007 9:23 am:
" Do you know what kills more people than smiking? Alcohol. Does anyone want to put a state wide ban on that? NO because the government already tried and failed. With smoking I can choose to walk away from the smoke. With a drunk on the road that kills me I have no choice. Oh, but alcohol is a disease and those people need help. No one is trying to stop alcohol because is is sociably cool to have a few drinks. I never saw a person smoke and get so mad for no reason that they started a fight, but give a few drinks to the right person and they think they are Rockey. Priorities change because the lawmakers only push the issues that they think they can control. They know they would NEVER be able to stop selling a drug that makes people depressed and angry killers. Lets work on something simple. That way it won't be so obvious when the government takes away all of our freedom. "

 Chip wrote on March 9, 2007 9:43 am:
" Amen. A statewide band is so much more equitable. People argue we are taking away local control, but sometimes it is necessary. People argue that we are not putting enough faith in our city councils and that what works in Lincoln and Omaha may not work in Wilbur or Stanton. Well, take all of their arguments and replace "smoking" with "slavery" or "segregation" and see if the argument still holds water. Sometimes mandates have to be made at the state or federal level for the right thing to be done. "

 Lisa wrote on March 9, 2007 10:02 am:
" Hello Big Brother, I see you have arrived!!! "

 For ban wrote on March 9, 2007 10:50 am:
" Used responsibly and correctly, alcohol does not harm other people. Used responsibly and correctly, smoking DOES harm other people. That is the difference and why a statewide smoking ban is a good idea. And yes, I am a non-smoker and do live in Lincoln which I am thankful for every time I visit another place that allows smoking. "

 Luke wrote on March 9, 2007 11:32 am:
" We should demolish the Statue of Liberty. We don't deserve it anymore. "

 Dave M wrote on March 9, 2007 12:05 pm:
" No! That is a false assertion you cannot backup. It's absolutely false to say alcohol kills more than smoking and I challenge anyone to give any credible source that says otherwise. What evidence do I have? Well the CDC is a good place to start don't you think. Here's a link to their smoking page. A quote to highlight is "Cigarette smoking is the single most preventable cause of premature death in the United States. Each year, more than 400,000 Americans die from cigarette smoking." http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/Factsheets/cig_smoking_mort.htm So how can alcohol kill more? Well maybe they slipped up so I checked the same source for alcohol and found this quote: "There are approximately 75,000 deaths attributable to excessive alcohol use each year in the United States" http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/quickstats/general_info.htm So - the official government agency tasked with reducing preventable deaths says that it's about 6 to 1 for smoking over booze. But let's believe an anonymous message board poster instead who made it up on the spur of the moment because they personally don't like alcohol and hoped nobody better informed would spot the false data. "

 Illegal? wrote on March 9, 2007 1:01 pm:
" As long as smoking is legal, you should be able to smoke wherever you want. If they want to make it illegal, go for it. Just be prepared to face the decrease in tax revenue. "

 Legal wrote on March 9, 2007 1:45 pm:
" As long as urinating is legal, I should be able to pee where ever I want. "

 Mike Honcho wrote on March 9, 2007 1:49 pm:
" Let's do the whole, "as long as it's legal..." comparison for a second. As long as alcohol is legal, you should be able to drink it wherever you want, like in your car...oops, turns out that drinking and driving is dangerous. Well, as long as defecating is legal, the you should be able to defecate wherever you want, like on the sidewalks downtown...oops, public health and decency concerns. Look...nobody is telling smokers that they can no longer smoke anywhere ever again. I'd be okay with the argument, "If they're gonna ban smoking, then they should give up the tax dollars!" IF it was a total ban on smoking, meaning that nobody could smoke anywhere but their own home...but it doesn't ban smoking everywhere, just in places of employment. Cigarette smoke is a proven killer, and it kills more people annually than alcohol, vehicles, firearms, and illicit drugs COMBINED! People need to quit defending tobacco, it's NOT cool, it's NOT safe, and it's most certainly NOT paying for the problems it causes. "

 Comm UnSense wrote on March 9, 2007 2:18 pm:
" No you can't pee where ever you want, but if I bar owner decides to install a urinal at the end of the bar, you can pee there. "

 Eric wrote on March 9, 2007 3:21 pm:
" A urinal at the end of the bar? Try and get that past building codes and the health department. Oops, there's that pesky government telling you how to run your business again. I wish they'd mind their own business and let you go back to raising rats and peeing in the food prep area again. "

 Dr Jack wrote on March 9, 2007 6:18 pm:
" Why in (Insert Deity Here) Name do we as a people even bother to elect legislators? They seem to be clairvoiant as a whole and "think" they know what we feel and want.. That smacks to me of the Thought Police of Japan in WWII. I for one believe pre-disposition to chemicals are hereditary in the first place. Just like the seat belt and mandatory auto insurance of the past, These present "SO-Called" laws for the good of the people are driven by the insurance and drug industries that cater to the political left or right of either party, depending on who is the hot ticket at the time. And any time a "Do-Gooder" has a complaint it usually finds the ears of a politician who has a need to make a splash instead of catering to the will of the people. So yes, I'll take the ticket if I'm "Caught" smoking an illicit cigarette, however the flip side to that might just well be someone getting the Martini knocked out of their hand because I feel drinking should be illegal as well... Just my 2 cents worth "

 Nebraskan in Colorado wrote on March 9, 2007 7:32 pm:
" Any exemptions in a smoking ban are a problem, trust me. Colorado exempted casinos from it's smoking ban, have realized the problem, and currently have a bill to amend the ban to disallow smoking in casinos. Smoking is obnoxious and a majority of the people in the state don't want to be around it. So you say I should choose to go to a bar that doesn't allow smoking? Where? Nowhere in Nebraska, outside of Lincoln, can a person go to a bar and not be forced to inhale the toxins of cigarette smoke (except for that ONE bar in Kearney). Smokers will still have their place to smoke. Places have outdoor smoking areas, with propane heaters in the winter, for smokers to get their "fix". Do I visit Nebraska more in the summer months? Sure I do! Why? Because, in the summer, there are outdoor areas at some bars, and I don't have to smell the noxious fumes coming from the three to five out of twenty people's cigarettes. I hate going to bars in Nebraska. Lincoln is the only place I can enjoy them. And to those who say we should just ban alcohol then, all I have to say is that my drinking alcohol is doing NO harm to you, but your smoking IS doing harm to me and everyone else around you. We need this ban, for the good of the great state of Nebraska! "

 bob m. wrote on March 10, 2007 5:49 am:
" The comment that cigarette smoke causes more deaths than alcohol is totally wrong. It did not include all the traffic related fatalities (unless police reports are wrong), Liver disease, throat cancer (yes attributed to alcohol), colon cancer, prostate, diabetes, brain disorders and the list goes on and on. So, be sure to check all sources of injury and death before making that call "

 Sir Walter Raleigh wrote on March 10, 2007 6:55 am:
" I propose a bold experiment. Suspend the smoking ban in Lincoln for a year. See how many restaurants/bars continue a no smoking policy and how many allow smoking. Then observe the difference in business between the two. If one believes the "ban smoking" crowd, the establishments that allow smoking would have to forbid it in short order or go broke, right? "

 Dave wrote on March 10, 2007 11:39 am:
" The decrease in Tax Revenue will be offset by the decrease in medical bills that the state pays when the smokers get lung cancer "

Ads by Yahoo!