Now
Fair
38°
High
51°
Low
29°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > News > Politics
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Lawmakers to push state smoking ban without opt out

Comments 97 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

By OSKAR GARCIA / The Associated Press

Wednesday, Jan 02, 2008 - 02:29:03 pm CST

OMAHA — A bill to ban smoking statewide could get enough support this year to pass without the hedging of a local opt-out provision, the only way its primary backer wants to see the bill go through.

“It’s our intention to put all our eggs in one basket,” said Sen. Joel Johnson of Kearney, a retired surgeon who says banning smoking is the easiest thing the Legislature can do to improve the state’s health.

Johnson said that if the bill doesn’t pass, organizations that still support the ban could then start petition drives to take the issue to voters.

Story Photo
Smoking ban question

Nebraska state senators were asked the following question about a statewide smoking ban:

Several cities across the state have approved or have considered smoking bans in businesses such as bars and restaurants. Do you support a statewide ban that cities and counties could not opt out of?

Yes: 18 (Aguilar, Ashford, Avery, Cornett, Fulton, Hansen, Harms, Howard, Johnson, Kopplin, Kruse, McGill, Nelson, Pankonin, Pedersen, Raikes, Rogert, Stuthman)

No: 12 (Engel, Erdman, Fischer, Flood, Friend, Heidemann, Janssen, Karpisek, Langemeier, Lautenbaugh, Louden, Wallman)

Unsure: 3 (Carlson, Christensen, Nantkes)

Not responding: 4 (Adams, Dierks, Hudkins, Pahls)

Not participating: 12 (Burling, Chambers, Dubas, Gay, Lathrop, McDonald, Pirsch, Preister, Schimek, Synowiecki, White, Wightman).

Of 37 state lawmakers who responded to a pre-session survey by The Associated Press, 18 said they would support the ban without any wiggle room for cities to opt out. Twelve lawmakers said no to the ban, three were unsure and four did not specify an answer. Twelve lawmakers did not return the surveys.

The issue pits individual rights against health interests, with some lawmakers arguing that the state shouldn’t be able to say how local businesses can operate. Other lawmakers opposed to the bill would support the statewide ban, but only if the opt-out provisions were included.

“This discussion is important, but it should be held at the local and business level,” said Sen. Philip Erdman of Bayard. “Workplaces, private businesses and their communities should have the responsibility to make that decision for themselves, their employees, their customers, and citizens.”

Johnson pulled the bill with two days left in the last session, saying the opt-out provisions would create a mishmash of local smoking laws.

The bill was originally an all-out ban similar to the one in Lincoln. But the state bill turned into a law that would have allowed city councils, county boards and voters to opt out of the ban or craft their own smoking laws.

Anti-smoking groups, including the American Cancer Society, opposed the bill in its final form last year and hope the ban as originally envisioned by Johnson will pass.

“Hopefully that will meet the standard of enough senators,” Johnson said. “We’re very close to that being the case.”


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Politics > 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  
BYOB wrote on January 2, 2008 3:19 pm:
" Quit lieing, Lincoln bar, keno operators and restaurants are putting pressure on you all to get business back in Lincoln. Since the smoking ban, The people that spend money on these vices are smokers that now go out of the city limits where they can be comfortable and not have to go outside to smoke, the do gooder non smokers just can't keep the business' running, where are they now? They're crying the blues because non smokers don't spend enough in Lincoln to mean squat, non smokers are the minority when it comes to keeping these establishments running and it took this long to find it out, oh yea, you non smokers really won a big one, I even heard a non say when I take my kids to the bar to play pool, they should'nt have to breath 2nd hand smoke, only a moron would take his kids to an adult establishment in the 1st place. "

 just like france wrote on January 2, 2008 7:53 pm:
" if the french can have a non-smoking law then this oughta be easy in lincoln "

 interesting wrote on January 2, 2008 8:45 pm:
" Do smoking and ignorance go hand-in-hand? It's interesting how the ranters can't seem to write legible English. Even in this spellcheck culture, BYOB can't spell 'lying' or construct an acceptable sentence. The smoking ban is the best thing about Lincoln! If only the power behind it would take up the roads! "

 Non-Smoker wrote on January 2, 2008 9:05 pm:
" As a non-smoker, I appreciate not having to smell smoke in every business I enter.

However, I don't feel that we have the right to force others to comply with our choices. I think the Opt-Out clause, if written properly, can be great. It should require that the majority of voters in a city/town choose to allow smoking in businesses. I think less communities would actually be able to over turn a ban than people think, and we would see an improvement in health.

Then we can work on the next step. Improving the issues of obesity, and alcohol and drug problems.
"

 Heather wrote on January 2, 2008 11:05 pm:
" So, are lawmakers mad because all the Lincoln smoker/drinkers come here to Waverly and spend their money now? Guess they should have thought things through a little bit before throwing their laws around. "

 former smoker wrote on January 3, 2008 12:52 am:
" Okay non smokers, I quit, but now I don't go to the bars anyway. My friends do not want to go because they can't smoke there. Business is down, the bars are boring anymore. So okay, take up the slack and fill the bars!
You wanted it YOUR way, now pay, pay, pay! "

 EH RN wrote on January 3, 2008 2:42 am:
" Where will you smoke if its a statewide ban? Answer: you'll smoke less. Less smoking=less admissions to the hospital for bronchitis, COPD exacerbations, pneumonia... these admissions being largely for a population of people who buy cigarettes instead of health insurance and complain they can't afford the latter. Less hospital admissions = less state money being spent on smoke related illnesses which are numerous. "

 I don't..... wrote on January 3, 2008 4:32 am:
" I really don't have a problem with the smoking ban. What I do have a problem with is the State is telling business owners what to do with THEIR own business. The state doesn't pay the rent, taxes, or insurance on the business. It should be up to whatever business owner to decide what to do. If a non-smoker doesn't like the smoke then they shouldn't be a patron at that business. Same for a smoker that doesn't want to patronize a non-smoking establishment.

There has been a lot of smokers that go outside city limits to go to places that still allow smoking. One doesn't have to look far to see the effect this ban has had. There are many clubs and restaurants that close during the week now. Providiing less choices for folks when they go out. "

 upinsmoke wrote on January 3, 2008 5:46 am:
" Let's ban obesety as well, I see far more obese people than I do smokers, If the state thinks it needs to decide what's healthy for it's citizens, then it should do it for ALL of nebraska's citizen's not just tobacco users. As it stand's right now, it's pretty much just bar's that allow smoking, so the bar's will be the most affected by the proposed statewide ban, you can rest assured that several small family owned bars accross the state will not survive the ban, Allmost all the bar owners that I have talked to in lincoln have told me that the winter month's are very lean times for them because the smokers either go out of town to drink or drink at home, If the statewide ban passes, the smokers will simply stay home. If there were a high enough demand for more smoke free bar's, there'd be more, let the private sector decide for it's self, we've got plenty of govenment the way it is, we dont need anymore! "

 private property zone wrote on January 3, 2008 7:15 am:
" once more no one respects private property. the right of a business owner to conduct his affairs is constantly attacked by the "law makers". The government does not make law. It uses force, violence, and fear to make citizens comply with the whims of the mob. In this case the mob are the anti-smoking zealots who would like to force you to live your life according to their rules. The owner of the business has more rights than the customers. The customers are allowed on the property at the owners sufferance and may be ejected at any time by the owner. What can't you understand about the basic right to property? Without that basic right, no one could keep anything that someone else couldn't make a claim to. You could live only at the whim of another. That is no way for humans to interact. Leave the property owners alone!!!! "

 non wrote on January 3, 2008 7:18 am:
" BYOB is so full of it. I'm a non smoker, and since the ban I've been to more bars than ever. It's not the non-smokers that are not going to Lincoln bars it's the smokers that are the cause of lack of business. "

 tax question wrote on January 3, 2008 7:29 am:
" How do you tax something that is ban by the State?? "

 Brian in Lincoln wrote on January 3, 2008 7:55 am:
" Only a moron would smoke !!!! "

 GIguy wrote on January 3, 2008 7:58 am:
" I guess if we don't VOLUNTARILY run our lives the way the state wants, then we'll be FORCED to. This state's fixation on making the individual "do what's right" (ie, the 6 month wait to remarry after your divorce is supposedly final) is a real pain in the arse. "

 What they are... wrote on January 3, 2008 8:20 am:
" Communists. Remember them? You know, the people who told you that they know better and are here to help you but you had better do what they say or else? Apparently, they're back!

If tobacco is the root of all evil in the world, next to the Big Mac of course, then ban the substance completely. Do not take tax revenue from it. Ban it. "

 Terry wrote on January 3, 2008 8:28 am:
" Another example of the "political class" that has taken over the legislature. How long are the people of this state going to tolerate this? Is it going to take violence to return to a system where the elected represent the people, and not dictate to them? "

 Mike White wrote on January 3, 2008 8:29 am:
" Other towns without a VISION group have and can see the devistation that has happened to the small business' of the big cities by having a smoking ban and they want no part of it, it's called learning from seeing other peoples mistakes.
Lincoln's smoking ban was mostly propelled by church leaders and other upstanding citizen groups that could care less about these small business' that produce a lot of revenue for a city. The small towns are thriving because of Lincoln's stupidity as Council Bluffs is thriving because of Omaha's. So I say to you law makers, the next time a church or do gooder group puts pressure on you to pass a stupid law like this, tell them fine, we'll just tax the churches and non profit organizations millons of tax free income dollars to make up for our tax shortages, Wow, not a bad idea at all, maybe instead of even looking at a smoking ban you should go after these multi million dollar groups to make up for the loses that they have caused.
At any rate, smoking bans greatly affect tax revenues and you all know it's true, I just have the cahone's to say it, how about you? "

 Mike wrote on January 3, 2008 8:45 am:
" How many people have gotten sick due to Lincoln's smoking ban? Maybe some have lost a little money and others have gained some money, but not one patron, worker or owner has gotten sick or will have long-term health effects because of the smoking ban. To me, Lincoln's health is more important than an alleged lost of tax revenue. As a non smoker I go to places now that I never did before. "

 mitchy_v wrote on January 3, 2008 9:09 am:
" As a non-smoker I am against the ban. If I don't want to be around smoke, I avoid those places. People need to keep the “I have the right to go there” comment to themselves. I don’t like hockey, so I don’t go to hockey games, it is not rocket science. I have family that smokes, my girlfriend smokes, and I never have. It should not be the government’s job to tell business owners that they can't have smoking. What is next, alcohol? Fried Foods? Fried foods are just as dangerous to our health. If the smoking ban goes through the cigarette tax needs to be lifted immediately with no complaints from anyone, just remember that those lost tax dollars will have to come from somewhere. "

 I agree with upinsmoke wrote on January 3, 2008 9:39 am:
" There are more fat people in this city than anyone can believe. Ban fast food first! Im a non smoker, but next thing you know I will be told I can only drink in my house. Another great example of State gov't wanting to run our lives. If the business wants to be able to smoke then let them, if a business doesn't then they don't have to. Supply and demand will overcome, a bar that doesn't allow smoking will do just as good as one that allows it, pretty simple. "

 So... wrote on January 3, 2008 9:39 am:
" The problem I have is that a person who goes to work at a bar knows exactly what goes on in a bar...drinking and smoking. They have made a choice. A patron who goes to a bar goes there, in part, to escape for a moment in time by doing what? Yup, drink and possibly smoke.

"

 Ridiculous wrote on January 3, 2008 9:41 am:
" I'll really laugh if this goes through, and then the legislature is going to have to figure out what to do with the lost tax revenues because the smokers are staying home instead of paying for their drinks and food at a bar. Then they'll also have to answer to all the small town bar owners whose businesses have gone under. I say, fine, let them do it. I've saved a ton of money since the Lincoln ban went through- instead of paying for overpriced drinks and cover charges, I've been able to enjoy the company of my friends while spending about 1/3 the money I used to, staying at home. Of course, when they increase the cigarette tax again to make up for the tax money they're losing from the bars, that'll all be over. Wake up, Nebraska. And come off your high horses, nonsmokers. You aren't supporting this ban for any reason other than you like to see things done your way, and you won't be satisfied until cigarettes are banned entirely. If health really is your concern, I hope you go after fast food and SUV's next. "

 Shadow wrote on January 3, 2008 9:55 am:
" get ready. this is yet another step towards the direction of gov't saying they know what is better for you than you do. soon they will dictate the type of health care, which doctors you can go to, how many days a week you can eat out and where your retirement money will go. after they arrive at that point, they will surely dictate how often a person can go to a doctor and it will become like car insurance, everytime you go your premiums will increase. i dont care about the ban but i do care that our gov't is continuing to cater to special interest groups, liberals and lobbyists. "

 Unlimited breaks! wrote on January 3, 2008 10:00 am:
" I can see why smokers hate losing the right to light up in a bar. But I would think they would love a workplace smoking ban. Who else gets to go outside for a break 15 times a day? Yeah, it's cold outside - but it sure beats working like those other suckers! "

 Addicted wrote on January 3, 2008 10:04 am:
" Studies have shown that nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke have about a 20 percent higher risk of lung cancer. They are also at a higher risk of asthma and prenatal complications such as sudden infant death syndrome. It's not the smokers "right" to inflict this damage on others because they were stupid enough to start smoking and get addicted. But now like any good addict these folks are trying to justify what they do to them selves and to others. Smoker’s rights don't outweigh the right of everyone else to be able to work, or dine, or drink in a hazard (smoke) free environment. "

 Brian in Lincoln wrote on January 3, 2008 10:09 am:
" Since less than 20% of adults smoke, businesses have the minority complaining about "their rights". I think that the voters should decide it in the end. Have a state vote and see what happens. Going out and eating fast food and obesity do nothing to harm the person working in the place or the person eating next to them. Can a smoker say the same thing? "

 my opinion wrote on January 3, 2008 11:02 am:
" I'm a pregnant, non-smoker, that enjoys going out with my husband and friends to see bands, watch football or just hang out. The smoke makes me sick and I hate being subjected to someone else's nasty, self-inducing death when I go out. I live in Grand Island and enjoy going back to Lincoln because I don't go home smelling like an ash tray. We went to Ireland this summer-if they as a country can do it with no problems, why can't we? Smokers complain about their right to smoke-what about my right to not have to stink and get sick when I go out? What about my right to protect my unborn child from someone's harmful second hand smoke? I think a state wide smoking ban is the way to go. Smokers-quit being selfish and sharing your cancer causing smoke with the rest of us! "

 Grundle wrote on January 3, 2008 11:10 am:
" Let's not forget that, with the proper amount of exercise and a good diet, you can eat an unhealthy meal here and there and not have negative health effects. Simply eating a greasy burger here or there doesn't guarantee you'll get fat, and it doesn't guarantee harmful effects on your health. Smoking, on the other hand, does. "

 Matt wrote on January 3, 2008 11:13 am:
" Is the economy of Lincoln and Nebraska at large really that dependent on a few bars staying open just to let people continue to smoke there? It sucks if a few have to close, but if they are closing because no one can smoke there any more, then they probably weren't that cool or fun to begin with. Good businesses will stay in business, period! "

 For those who say that it bothers them wrote on January 3, 2008 11:41 am:
" Can I ask you one question? Why do you go? If a bar allows smoking (and some don't) and it truly bothers you so much, why do you go? Answer that question. Why don't you opt to go to a different, non-smoking bar and leave the rest of them alone? If you are so inclined to apply for a job at a bar that allows smoking, aren't you assuming the risk of that knowing full well that a bar has smoke? Answer that question. None of the proponents of the ban can. "

 whatever wrote on January 3, 2008 12:01 pm:
" blah blah blah more of the same ole stuff.....smokers to the back of the bus please. "

 Matt wrote on January 3, 2008 12:21 pm:
" Oh you smokers are so right. There isn't a single small business, restaurant, or bar left in the states of California, New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Ohio, etc. In fact, I was just in Omaha the other day and couldn't find a single bar or restaurant open anymore because of the smoking ban. Are you so selfish that you won't support your local tavern anymore just because you have to step outside to smoke? "

 Tammy wrote on January 3, 2008 12:23 pm:
" It makes no difference to me, I don't go to bars. But, I do agree that a bar owner should be able to decide if smoking is allowed. Certainly, if there is a such a high demand for smoke free bars, then those that choose to remain smoke free will economically win out, thus possibly causing those who chose to allow smoking to change thier business plan. If an establishment does not serve food as it's main form of income, or if it does not serve food at all, then I think they should have the option to either allow or disallow smoking as they see fit. Certainly, no one is telling a non-smoker they have to patronize that establishment. Likewise with a smoke free place. Everywhere else should be smoke free. I also agree that if a state wide ban is put into place, the state should have to drop it's tax. The next chapter of this saga will be a ban on smoking in cars if minors are present (along the line of the new California bill). Personally, I think they should just outlaw it all together and get it over with. And I am a smoker. "

 Drinkers wrote on January 3, 2008 12:29 pm:
" Ban alcohol except at home and have mandatory breathalyzers in our vehicles so that they won't start if a person has been drinking. As a non-drinker, I would appreciate not having to share the road with drunk drivers. Oh, but too many people enjoy drinking, so that will never work. "

 Ed wrote on January 3, 2008 12:43 pm:
" I know here is a comprimise. If you smokers wanna puff away and kill yourself fine. Just make it so I don't have to breath in your smoke. Or, repeal the ban. then all smokers have to sign a statement saying they smoke in public, when i get a smoking related illness from their smoke, the bill can be divided equally amoung them. "

 Realist wrote on January 3, 2008 12:47 pm:
" So all you doom and gloom "the state wants to run my life" folks explain this one:

In Ames, Iowa, the city voted a no holds barred smoking ban, just like Lincoln's into affect. It passed easily, and wasn't really a close vote. So the ban was enacted, and worked great by local residents account. A year later the STATE of Iowa came in and said that "no local laws could supercede a state law". Basically, they told Ames that their ban was not allowed because the state didn't approve it. And since the state of Iowa hasn't voted on the ban since... Ames begrudgingly went back to a "smoking allowed" city.

So which is the right way? Do you want the city to vote it in or the state? "

 Dave wrote on January 3, 2008 12:50 pm:
" I have to laugh at the people who complain that business owners should not be subjected to laws that are aimed at protecting the health and safety of their patrons. For your information their are countless rules and regulations already in place that every business must follow before ever opening their doors. Buildings must be up to code, OSHA regulations must be followed, restuarants must pass helath inpections, etc., etc.

If left up to a business owner to decide, you can bet that they would always take the least costly option regardless of the health and safety risks involved. How many people would eat at a restuarant that didn't meet basic health code requirements? This law is aimed at protecting people from a proven health risk. There is no constitutional right to subject people to a health hazard because of an addiction.

"

 Live in GI wrote on January 3, 2008 12:51 pm:
" I hope the smoking ban passes! My husband and I would love to give our business to a lot of bar/grills in GI but instead we avoid them because we don't want to go home smelling like crap and suffering headaches from having to breathe in other peoples smoke. Places in GI like Carlos O Kellys and Ruby Tuesday's that only allow smoking in the bar area are a joke. There only has to be one inconsiderate idiot smoker light up and the whole places STINKS! Smokers are inconsiderate and only think of "their right to smoke if they want to". I say if they want to kill themselves have at it but I don't want to keep you company because smoking is most likely NOT your only very discusting habit!!! Please pass the smoking ban!!! "

 I say it bothers me wrote on January 3, 2008 1:01 pm:
" Why do I go to a bar? I go to have a drink, socialize and enjoy myself. I do NOT go to subject others to toxins and offensive odors which are a by product of my bad habit. Why would someone work where smoking is allowed if they don’t like it? Not many people have absolute control over where they can work. Some people need to take a job that is not ideal because THEY NEED THE MONEY. If your vocation is waiting on tables or tending bar, and absent a smoking ban, you would have very few choices of where to work if you weren’t able to “put up with” cigarette smoke. We don’t allow people to work in other industries without eliminating hazards or providing sufficient protections to nullify those hazards (see OSHA). But a waitperson is just supposed to put up with breathing your stinky toxic smoke? "

 nice eating out in lincoln wrote on January 3, 2008 1:15 pm:
" I have to admit that we are spoiled in Lincoln now. We can go out to eat and not worry about the smell of smoke intuding and ruining our meal. I travel throughout the state and I must say that the smell of cigarette smoke should not be the first thing you smell when you walk into a restaraunt. I believe the smokers here have adjusted to the new law and after this is in place (if passed) for a few months, it will be well received throughout the state. I for one would like to see this passed into law - NO LIMITATIONS. "

 Wake Up wrote on January 3, 2008 1:16 pm:
" I believe that Illinois just became the 22nd state to impose a statewide smoking ban on January 1st. No choice is personal when it has an affect on other people and their health. Many laws are passed in the interest of public health and safety. No one is telling you can't smoke, just that you can't do it in an enclosed environment where others are free to enter. The government's role is to do the will of the people while still ensuring certain personal liberties. In my estimation, a smoking ban improves the health of the population as a whole while allowing those who choose to continue smoking outdoors and in their private residence. This way I keep my right to live as healthy a life as I know how and you keep your right to choose to smoke. "

 Asthmatic wrote on January 3, 2008 1:19 pm:
" Second hand smoke makes me stop breathing. I am not the only one. I will never understand the selfishness of people who think that their right to engage in a harmful habit trumps my right to live. And don't tell me that I have to stay home. I cannot control that I have asthma. I did not choose to have asthma. Smokers chose to smoke. They can stay home. "

 Lets ask Philip Morris wrote on January 3, 2008 1:35 pm:
" From Philip Morris USA Web page:

"...We also believe that the conclusions of public health officials concerning environmental tobacco smoke are sufficient to warrant measures that regulate smoking in public places. We also believe that where smoking is permitted, the government should require the posting of warning notices that communicate public health officials' conclusions that secondhand smoke causes disease in non-smokers."

I don't believe that they are an anti-smoking organization. "

 JG wrote on January 3, 2008 1:39 pm:
" so what if bar business is down because smokers don't go there anymore. Does that mean they quit drinking or does it mean more alcohol sales elsewhere in the city. I used to be a smoker, I got no problem with smokers. I wouldn't go all the way outside of town just so I could smoke in a bar. Doesn't that sound kinda silly? I'ts cheaper to have friends over and drink at home anyway isn't it? "

 Ahavelock kid wrote on January 3, 2008 1:40 pm:
" For once our State Lawmakers our taking on the tough issues a smoking ban, the State fair location and they will probably bring up the poor murders on death row. But wont be able to quite figure how to solve the property tax issue thats starting to break the home owner. But I do congratulate them on my $14.00 property tax break from last year. "

 Hooray for the ban wrote on January 3, 2008 1:57 pm:
" The analogies linking the ban on smoking to banning other things such as obesity (I'm assuming you mean banning things that lead to obesity) is ridiculous. Over-eating affects one person, there's no such thing as "second-hand food" A far better example would be car emissions, since both result in toxic chemicals being released into the environment. We do limit what cars can and cannot emit, so why isn't it obviously the same for cigarettes. Cigarette smoke is dangerous to anyone who inhales it - simple fact - the ban isn't about trying to infringe on your rights, it's about public health. I for one support the ban whole heartedly, and patronize bars downtown more than I ever did. "

 oh mitchy_v wrote on January 3, 2008 1:59 pm:
" You might want to take a look at the websites for Phillip Morris - the cigarette companies themselves admit right on their home pages that cigarettes are dangerous when smoked, when second hand smoke is inhaled, and environmentally dangerous. "

 Question wrote on January 3, 2008 2:10 pm:
" How about those of you who like to drink do so only in your own homes and have vehicles with alcohol monitoring devices? That way you can't get in a vehicle and kill someone on your way home. I have the right to drive on roads and be safe from drunk drivers. Same thing, right? When the issue becomes one that affects your personal freedom, just remember that you encouraged this kind of government involvement and have no one to blame but yourselves. "

 i guess I am a moron now!!! wrote on January 3, 2008 2:22 pm:
" that was a good one Brian in Lincoln....real mature!!
I am a smoker and don't feel like a moron.

I would like to quit but I have to get it in my head to want to do it. I loved it when the smoking ban took place. I unfortunatly smoke but that doesn't mean I like to be in it, smell it, and smell like it.

Just like at home I am perfectly fine with going outside no matter what the temperature is. Actually the colder the better cause then I smoke less.

But overall I would support the statewide ban. I think it would be better for business in Lincoln cause then people wouldn't go out of city limits.They would stay local.

As a smoker I respect non-smokers and try not to smoke around them. It is a bad habbit that does have serious health issues. Mentally and physically. "

 A smoker... wrote on January 3, 2008 2:34 pm:
" I am a smoker, and I say if you want to ban smoking from every place, then quit taxing us so much on them. Get your tax dollars to pay for roads etc from some place else. I don't see any other vice being so controlled as this, yet the taxes we pay on cigs. is outragious, and should be stopped. We are only allowed to smoke in our own homes and cars (for now), so why should we be charged such high taxes all the time. Maybe build a toll bridge on the east and west end of Nebraska, charge 2.00 dollars per vehicle that goes through it, and leave us smokers alone. Enough of our rights have been taken away the way it is. Come on, just because people have died in auto accidents because of drunk driving, alcohol is still legal, and you can stay warm when you drink it toooooo. "

 The best thing... wrote on January 3, 2008 2:34 pm:
" about a smoking ban is the effect it will have on employees. Having worked in food service for years during college, I can tell you that when you can't find your server, or your food or drink takes a little longer, one probable reason might be a "smoke break." Smokers crack me up talking about their "rights." What they don't realize is that they cost their employers likely thousands of dollars a year in lost revenue and job productivity because they feel the need to run out for a quick smoke several times a day, while their non-smoking counterparts continue to work. Good riddance to cigarette smoke! Can't wait for it to come to the entire state of NE. "

 Pfft wrote on January 3, 2008 2:58 pm:
" Fellow smokers, we should all know by now that we are second-class citizens. The rest of the citizens of this state are perfectly happy to enjoy the Bob Devaney complex and other things our tax dollars have paid for (where we never COULD smoke, by the way), but they don't want to worry about breathing our second hand smoke for a half hour to have dinner or a few hours at the bar, even though they are probably breathing in more radon and CO in their homes and from their car's fumes than they ever did from us. Well, America has to have its scapegoats, you know... we just happen to be the favorite right now since it's no longer acceptable in the public eye to be racist or sexist. That's OK... eventually they'll move on to the flatulent. No one wants to breathe all that methane or smell like gas, after all. Then it will be the obese because their heavier weight makes their cars burn more gas and cause more pollution in the air.

It's a thin cover, nonsmokers... you say all you want that you're in support of this ban for health reasons. Keep telling yourselves that. But then be careful about giving that dirty look to that smoker who's standing outside, well away from your precious pollutant-free entryway, abiding by your wishes and the law by not smoking indoors or within 10 feet of a door. You'll give your true colors away if you do that. "

 PLEASE!!! wrote on January 3, 2008 3:26 pm:
" pass the law! It is the only right thing to do. Make Nebraska the good life! "

 upinsmoke wrote on January 3, 2008 3:28 pm:
" "wake up" Why dont YOU wake up? any one in this state & this country for that matter has the right to choose! are you saying that you as a non smoker are not smart enough on your own to figure out which busines's allow smoking & which ones do not? It's very sinple, if you dont want to be around smoke, then dont go to places that allow smoking! Why dont you & the other's behind this ban open up a non smoking bar or other business outside the city of lincoln or omaha & see how well it does, Like I stated before, if the demand for non smoking bars were so high, there'd be alot more of them! Dont try & tell the smokers how what they are doing is affecting your health when you have the abillity to decide if you want to be around the smoke or not! "

 smokey wrote on January 3, 2008 3:31 pm:
" It would be nice is places in these smaller towns would have a few bars and restaurants that were smoke free, but the reality is not many places do unless they are forced to. People would easily be able to choose to go to a place that they can smoke in or a place that is smoke free.

Another issue is the ventilation. If these places that allowed smoking had a good ventilation system that pulled the smoke up and out of the room, it wouldn't be so bad. "

 Asthmatic wrote on January 3, 2008 3:40 pm:
" I have it too. I don't like smoking but if I didn't like second hand smoke I didn't go to the bar that had heavy smoking.

So, you didn't answer the question. Why do you CHOOSE to go to a bar that allows smoking and place yourself in a position to have an asthma attack? Why do you CHOOSE to engage in a behavoir that will ultimately hurt you. In other words, you have CHOSEN to expose yourself. You know what goes on in a bar and yet you place your self in that position. "

 KR wrote on January 3, 2008 3:43 pm:
" I had a boss who had a cig in his mouth all the time. At
a young age he got a big lump on the side of his neck under his chin. His wife pleaded with him for years to
stop smoking, we at the office urged him to check out the
lump at the doctor. He'd just laugh and ignore us, and
finally went to the doctor and found he had cancer of the
lungs, and throat. Went thru all the chem & I'd go to
the restaurant a few times a day to get him a milk shake.
Couple months later he was dead. There were several
employees long before the no smoking band came along who
we watched suffer and die. The worst, a friend I pleaded
with to stop smoking after the band and they had to go
outside to smoke. Always told me, "no way in h--- are
they telling me what to do." A year later, had cancer
of the throat and TONGUE. Doc's had to cut out the
tongue and she suffered in and out of the hospital for
a couple years, couldn't work anymore. All these people
died young. If you've ever been around any of that
you would think twice. Just think what the doctors have
to suffer thru because people are stubborn. Not only
cancer, it does your heart up really great too!! "

 Julia wrote on January 3, 2008 5:28 pm:
" A smoking ban is no different than a ban on nudity in bars or spitting on the floor and other patrons at restaurants. It has been well established that the State has the responsibility to do this. As far as, "How do you tax something that is ban by the State?" Ever hear of Drug Stamps? "

 whatever wrote on January 3, 2008 5:35 pm:
" Obesity affects more than "one person". Obese people use more energy. Let's take driving for instance. An obese person or a car full of obese people use more energy to propel the vehicle. This causes the emission of more toxic substances into the atmosphere by the vehicle. Since it takes more energy to "move" these people it costs us all more money at the pump due to the increased use of fuel in a world where resources are scarce. And we all know obese people eat more and we all know it costs a lot of money and natural resources to produce food. I would venture to guess that the "carbon" footprint of all the obese people in the United States dwarfs the "carbon footprint" of the average smoker, unless of course you are an obese smoker, but an obese smoker would clearly be a smaller number than the obese non smoker. And let's talk about healthcare costs, the obese clearly spike all of our costs for healthcare. Some may laugh, some may wish to not believe but I can assure you once the war against smoking is done the war against the obese, and that's most people in this country, will begin. If we are going to carry the arguments against particular habits and behaviour to their natural conclusion, let's be a intellectually honest about it. "

 Addicted is right wrote on January 3, 2008 6:27 pm:
" Most of these anti-smoking ban posts are addicts trying to justify their behavior. Some are so absurd as to be humorous. Trying to equate an obese person hurting others to the damage caused by smokers (as if that is even relevant), because "An obese person or a car full of obese people use more energy to propel the vehicle." That's a good one! You forgot that obese people open the refrigerator door more frequently causing it to use even more energy. It takes more water to get them wet when they shower, don't forget that one. They also have bigger shadows and that sunshine could be used to grow food instead of warming their huge backsides. "

 db wrote on January 3, 2008 6:37 pm:
" I think the war against the obese should begin. I can start by giving fat people dirty looks and telling them that being fat is bad for them because they might not know. I will be able to fly more comfortably. I won't have to worry about as many broken toilets or chairs. Diabetes would also go down. Let's ban fatties! "

 oh whatever wrote on January 3, 2008 7:42 pm:
" If you yourself want to be "intellectually honest" you need to provide evidence to back up your claims. You can't just provide a bunch of assumptions no matter how you might dress them up as logical. Not to mention the fact that obesity is reversible - someone can lose weight. The fatality rate for lung cancer is 83% - not very reversible is it? And let's be "intellectually honest" with ourselves. If you're really being honest with yourself, you realize that there is a direct and dangerous effect of secondhand smoke on innocent bystanders, and no such effect with relation to obesity. "

 Again with the analogies wrote on January 3, 2008 7:46 pm:
" Obesity, generally, arises from consuming too much food. Food is necessary for survival. Lung cancer, emphysema and a host of other diseases and environmental consequences result from consuming cigarettes. Cigarettes are not necessary, and is the only legal product that when used exactly as the manufacturer intends, causes harm to the consumer. There is a huge difference - this analogy is ridiculous and makes smokers look more moronic. "

 andy wrote on January 3, 2008 8:08 pm:
" DAVE, yeah and many of those rules and regs are also unfair and abhorrent to a freedom loving society. Which this nation is not. It is better to let people kill themselves with bad habits than for the government to dictate to us. "

 DBM wrote on January 3, 2008 8:35 pm:
" Let's go a step further and lobby our senators and congressmen to get smoking banned in public places nationwide. That probably won't happen though because of the tobacco lobby in Washington. "

 Herb wrote on January 3, 2008 9:14 pm:
" If a business has the public in it then it has an obligation to look after their well being. That means their health and a place to be away from a drug that kills. That means that no business should be a place to expose its public to smoking. You smokers have let the nicotine go to your head. "

 Social Smoker wrote on January 3, 2008 10:23 pm:
" I've sure saved a lot of money since Lincoln implemented the smoking ban. I used to go out on weekends to happy hours or restaurants that had a smoking section and spend lots on martinis and good food, because I could relax and have a cig or two. Otherwise I really do not smoke. Now I spend that some of that money outside the city limits and have stopped going to most places in Lincoln. Why spend $5 or more on a drink that I can make at home for less than half that, if my rights are trampled on anyway? "

 concerned wrote on January 3, 2008 10:31 pm:
" Lets not forget the Harvard study that said Obesity is contagious. We can segregate fat people and skinny people, just like in the 40's!

The mean hyperbole on this message board scares me far more than the thought of the government trying to discourage a habit that jeopardizes the health of surrounding citizens. "

 Hjalmer wrote on January 4, 2008 6:45 am:
" What a great ballot issue! This would be a good opportunity for Nebraska voters to have a direct voice. "

 To Social Smoker wrote on January 4, 2008 8:13 am:
" Your rights are being tampered with? Remind of which amendment grants you the right to give other people lung cancer? I seem to have missed that one. If you actually think that sucking on that cancer stick is a right - you are sorely mistaken. Frankly, there's no reason cigarette should be legal at all. "

 Money wrote on January 4, 2008 8:52 am:
" To all the smokers telling us about the adverse affect on the economy because of the Lincoln smoking ban. Apparently your argument is, “I know it’s a smelly nasty habit, and it’s bad for my health and those around me, but you’re losing my money, so the jokes on you.” I go out several times a week to restaurants and bars, and have for many years. I sure haven’t noticed a drop in people going out, nor have I noticed a larger number of such businesses failing. So by all means, stay home and smoke your cigs. The money you save might pay for at least part of your upcoming medical bills. "

 Thank you govt. wrote on January 4, 2008 9:02 am:
" thank you for thinking for me and making decisions for me since i am unable to do so. "

 Fred wrote on January 4, 2008 10:10 am:
" I personnally don't care about the smoking issue. I grocery shop in Lincoln and prepare all of my meals. I never eat out in restaurants. I also never go "downtown". "

 Grundle wrote on January 4, 2008 11:09 am:
" If you're willing to kill yourselves, and those around you, in a slow and deliberate manner, then it is quite obvious that you can't make good decisions for yourself. So, really, you should thank the government seriously, not sarcastically. "

 Shep wrote on January 4, 2008 11:30 am:
" FACT---
More people die from medical malpractice than second hand smoke or drunk drivers every year but our law makers know better than to go after that $$$rich group. "

 Ah, but mitchy_v wrote on January 4, 2008 12:19 pm:
" alcohol is actually beneficial when drank in moderation, cars transport us from one place to another, and trans fats can act as a preservative in certain foods, extending their shelf life. Each of those things provides a beneficial main reason for their existance. Cigarettes don't - as much fun as you might find sucking on burning paper (and by your multiple comments I have to assume that you find it immensely enjoyable) it serves no purpose but to addict people and then kill. It has absolutely no benefit. The best thing you could actually compare it to - instead of all your inaccurate comparisons - would be cocaine. Cocaine is really fun, it makes people feel good, but doesn't actually do anything beneficial. Why don't you tell us how you feel about using cocaine in bars? "

 Non-smoker wrote on January 4, 2008 12:21 pm:
" All you smokers need to quit wining. No one says you can't smoke, you just can't do it in a business in Licoln. The bars are not hurting. The one's I go to are just as busy, if not busier than they used to be. Also, now there aren't the crusty looking men and women in the bars who don't care about themselves, much less anyone else. I would think guys would want non-smoking women in the bars - they're more attractive - no cigarette hanging out of their mouth, coughing their lungs out. Smokers, give it up. You don't have a right to pollute my air any more than I have a right to tell you that you shouldn't pollute my air. Leave it up to the majority in a vote. That's the only way things can legally be done and no one can legitimately have a gripe about it. "

 smoking ban wrote on January 4, 2008 12:26 pm:
" I can honestly say that every bar that I have been to in Lincoln since the smoking ban went into affect is just as busy as it was before the ban. It's probably the fact that now those who say there are less people can actually count how many people are in the bar without looking through the haze. If a bar has lost its appeal because you can't smoke there, it probably isn't much of a bar anyway, a place losers probably hang out. The whole "business is down" thing is coming from the smoking crowd that says "smoking isn't bad for you." How can you people live with yourselves knowing that you are killing yourself quicker, possibly those around you quicker and helping to keep health insurance costs up. Bravo to you all. "

 brian dunlap wrote on January 4, 2008 12:28 pm:
" so why doesnt the legislature allow the voters of nebraska to vote on this? do they think they know whats better for us than we do? i say we let the voters decide, put the power back in the people, and then there can be no more complaining from either side. "

 The Truth wrote on January 4, 2008 1:28 pm:
" "All restaurants, bars, and any other businesses that have been set up by an individual or group of individuals are PRIVATE ENTERPRISES! There is no getting around this fact. It is carved in granite. Our Constitution mandates the rights of private property as one of the most important rights we have! The fact that anyone should think they have the right to abrogate the very tenets of our Constitution demonstrates a colossal arrogance that we can not afford to have in this country" I do not smoke and don't care for smoking but defend the rights of smoker "

 Give me a break wrote on January 4, 2008 1:45 pm:
" Ok lets ban smoking and State, Cities and Counties do not accept the taxes paid for them. If you are so against it then do not accept the monies coming in via taxes on these bad bad products. "

 oh well wrote on January 4, 2008 1:52 pm:
" I smoke, i am annoyed that when i go out drinking i have to go outside to smoke, but i do it because its the right thing to do. I dont smoke inside my home either, i do that for my kids. I should quit altogether but its the only thing i have to keep me sane...We voted for this Lincoln, and if it were true that Lincoln has more smokers than not, where were you when we voted for this?? Get used to it, pretty soon, it will be a smoke free America, like it or not. "

 Get a Grip! wrote on January 4, 2008 1:53 pm:
" I can't believe all the comments, Their are many states that have restricted smoking in bars and restaurants and have done just as well if not better after the ban. SO the argument that smokers will just stay home> RIGHT!!.
I really don't have a problem them smoking if i don't have to breath it, SO if you can smoke and not exhale then I don't have a problem with you smoking!.SO work on that. Also to the Government making laws on restaurants and bars, I guess the Laws on who they serve too should go
away and maybe the restaurants so not have to obey the heath dept rules too as they are too demanding. Just get
real. Deal with the smoking ban as we have had to deal with your smoking for years.I for one don't care if you stay home and smoke your brains out. "

 Duh! wrote on January 4, 2008 2:20 pm:
" To Interesting; Of course ignorance and smoking go hand in hand.

Is there a single habit that could be more dirty, self destructive, costly, and imposing to the public?

The legislature needs to get in the 21st century and implement a total statewide ban on smoking. Its the easiest and single most effective move to improve health in this state and at the same time reduce health care costs.

Smoking in a public place has nothing to do with individual rights. Nobody has the "right" to harm another and smoking does indeed harm others.

Smoking bans do not prohibit smokers from participating in their addiction; bans just prohibit the behavior so it doesn't inflict harm and poison on others.

Only the smoker should get to enjoy the full effects of lung cancer and battery of other painful illnesses that this insidious product and habit will reward its users with. "

 Counselor wrote on January 4, 2008 2:28 pm:
" Can anyone point me to any evidence of serious he