Here in Ohio there will be two Issues, Issues 4 is a State Constitutional Amendment. It requires a limited ban on smoking in certain establishments where businesses are favored in the absense of a complete ban.
Issue 5 is a State Issue. It requires a complete ban on smoking in places of public accommodation (business or not).
At my local town forum, http://community.cnhi.com/eve/forums/a/frm/f/862107671 We have some very arrogant people, Who post things like this.
As I reach for my pack of Camels, I am left wondering about the proven scientific evidence about the adverse health effects of second-hand smoke. And I have to admit that the statement, "...quit complainint if you are a non-smoker" give me reason to pause.
So many instances of lung cancer and related health issues that have surfaced in NON-SMOKERS makes me wonder how we can blatantly ignore the evidence when it slaps us in the face.
The overarching issue is what to do about second-hand smoke when it is has been proven to be so unhealthy to smokers and non-smokers alike. If you believe issues 4 and 5 are about government control, then I would challenge you to expand your knowledge about the subject and actually consider the alternative.
These issues are about a problem in our society that causes higher instances of cancer rates, higher costs of health care, higher costs of insurance, etc. etc. etc. If you truly want to be a democratic voter, that process doesn't start on election day. It starts when voters educate themselves about the issues and cast their vote accordingly.
I also see people fall into the Slippery Slope fallacy.
.VOTE NO on both issues.
The commercials say have us to believe that the issue is smoking, to smoke or not to smoke. But think America, it's deeper than that. It has more government intervention, more government control. They claim it's for the healthy of America and it's people,(so was prohibition and that was a failure) but really what's the underlying cause.
Voting yes for either issue, doesn't just address the smoking controversail issues, but opens the door for other government interference and control; maybe the next issue will be forums. Maybe it will become illegal to write on these forums, because someone finds it offensive.
Solution to the smoking issue, is quite simple, quit complaining if your a non smoker, and if your a smoker be considerate. As for restaurants or other public areas, yes they should supply areas (and preferably something that is isolated from the non smokers).
The ads promote that workers are working in unsafe conditions. Well, I learned years ago that being a police officer is a dangerous position, so I am not a police office. Some factory workers work in high levels of toxics, and accept it. So saying the work area, is again a smoke screen on the underlying issues.
Think about it, and vote NO to both issues
And I think this one is the best b/c she thinks once the bill gets passed that she would not be able to smoke anywhere inculding her own house.
Would I be wrong if I use her logic here and say It would be ok for me to rob you and take all your money b/c crime happens all the time.?????I would say you had better come up with another reason than cancer to tell me I can't smoke. People die all the time from cancer that have never smoked. Especially north of Rt 20 and West of State Road. That would be like telling coal miners not to smoke cause they will die of lung disease. Wake up and smell the roses. You die when its your time to dies and it doesn't matter what its from.
I am considerate of the rights of non smokers when I smoke, but lord help the person that tells me I can't do it at all. Cause you will have a problem
