Now
Overcast
74.0°
High
74°
Low
60°
Full Forecast

Coupon

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

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

Smoking ban amendments pass at statehouse

Comments 90 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

BY JoANNE YOUNG / Lincoln Journal Star

Thursday, Feb 14, 2008 - 02:09:20 pm CST

The Kearney state senator pushing for a statewide smoking ban may be breathing a little easier.

Sen. Joel Johnson got a 33-13 vote Thursday on an amendment that took the smoking ban bill (LB395) back to its original form, without an allowance for communities to opt out or create a less strict ban.

An amendment by Sen. Phil Erdman of Bayard, also adopted, would make the effective date of the ban June 1.

Story Photo
State Sen. Joel Johnson

Related Link(s):


Around The Rotunda blog

The debate continued to be health vs. private property rights — allowing businesses to decide on their own what’s best for them. Some opponents of the bill want to leave smoking issues up to communities, especially smaller ones.

Sen. Tom Carlson of Holdrege suggested a county-by-county vote on the issue might be more fair.

“I think all 93 would ban smoking,” he said. “But if two or three did not, so what? The people would have spoken.”

With a statewide referendum, guess who decides?, he said. Lincoln and Omaha.

Sen. Ray Aguilar of Grand Island added: “We’re the only ones who can do it fairly.”

Senators turned down an attempt to exempt Horseman’s Park in south Omaha from the ban. Omaha Sen. John Synowiecki argued the exemption was needed so it could continue to compete with other parimutuel gaming establishments in nearby Iowa.

Johnson said accepting the amendment would open the door for a long line of other exemptions.

The Legislature will not meet again until Tuesday. Senators are expected to take up the smoking ban again late next week at the earliest, Speaker Mike Flood said.

Reach JoAnne Young at 473-7228 or jyoung@journalstar.com.


$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  
Thor wrote on February 14, 2008 2:21 pm:
" God help us. This is scary. Next is fatty foods, we'll be asked to step on a scale every time we enter a restaurant and if we weigh over a certain amount, we'll be turned away. This is a slippery slope and I don't want to be reincarnated anymore. And I'm not a smoker. "
Joe wrote on February 14, 2008 2:42 pm:
" This is just our government trying to control everything we do. Some day they will decide to ban smoking all together as part of the war on drugs. Just think 5 years from now you could go to prison for smoking in your own home or on your back patio. "
Nic F wrote on February 14, 2008 2:47 pm:
" I think this is great. I live in Lincoln and recently went to Bellevue. I ended up going to a bar and was struck immediately with smoke. When I got home my wife said I smelled awful, I had to agree with her. I hate having to go somewhere that allows smoking. I would rather not die as a result of someone else's choice. I have no problem with smokers having to go outside to smoke. My sister smokes, and she doesn't even like smoking inside because the smell sticks to your clothes that much worse. She has no problem smoking outside. "
mitchy_v wrote on February 14, 2008 2:48 pm:
" Hey Senators, hear our voices, NO SMOKING BAN. "
Yet another......... wrote on February 14, 2008 2:52 pm:
" And another supposed "law" to protect us has been passed. Don't they have better things to look at???? It should be up to the business owner to decide what THEY want to do in THEIR establishments.

It seems to me that the legislature SURE WANTS the smoking taxes but balks at ANY pleasures that smokers have. Let's see them tax something that THEY themselves use?????......Perhaps a higher tax on alcohol would be in order. Or do they plan on outlawing bars in the near uture???? "
Motor wrote on February 14, 2008 2:53 pm:
" Its about time the legislature got one right. You have to go statewide on this bill to give everyone a level playing field. I don't want to hear about any businesses saying they'll have to shut down becuase of it. If your a good business and have a good business model you will prevail. The only thing this Bill may do is wipe out the weak competition thats hanging on.

Oh, and when I go to bars I dont throw my beer bottles at you, so I don't want your smoke pushed on to me.

"
Jason wrote on February 14, 2008 2:54 pm:
" We shouldn't regulate clean water either, right. Let's just leave it up to each business to decide if they want to serve clean tap water or just re-use left over grey water to drink it's up to them. We shouldn't have laws about serving food either. If a business wants to serve undercooked meat and bacteria ridden rotten food that's their choice too. People can just make there personal choice about what business to go to. This is about clean air which I want. "
Omaha E wrote on February 14, 2008 2:58 pm:
" Senator Synowiecki: Please keep your nose out of District 5 - where Horsemen's Park is located - and concentrate on helping with the debacle in your own District 7. There's a little baseball stadium situation that needs some attention. "
HPG wrote on February 14, 2008 3:01 pm:
" This must be a joke. If smoking is so bad, outlaw it! But then there goes the revenue!
Why does the Peoples Republic of NE feel it has the right to limit where legal activities can be performed. More big government, less voice of the people. I now understand why NE has term limits when you get laws like this! "
T wrote on February 14, 2008 3:02 pm:
" Please tell me what "second hand fat" is - oh wait, unlike deadly second hand smoke - it doesn't exist. The comparisons between smoking and fatty foods are ridiculous and make no sense. "
X-SMOKER wrote on February 14, 2008 3:10 pm:
" It's not the government trying to control everything we do... smoking! can control everything you do. It is a drug...and smokers are already in prision...wheather you enjoy it or not...you're there. We just don't want to admit it! "
to Joe wrote on February 14, 2008 3:14 pm:
" there's no way they'll ever making smoking illegal. think of all the money they get from taxing the crap out of smokers. "
RN wrote on February 14, 2008 3:17 pm:
" "Hey Senators, hear our voices-PLEASE PASS THE SMOKING BAN!" "
Black lung wrote on February 14, 2008 3:20 pm:
" Your right it will stink being able to take my kid in to pay for my gas and not have to smell smoke. Let's not think about everyday things that effect our kids. Let's just take down all the traffic signs to. They are just there to protect us because some are to dumb to know better. Get a grip I guess your will be quiting your jobs because your boss makes you go outside to smoke? "
Mike wrote on February 14, 2008 3:32 pm:
" A person's right to a smoke-free workplace trumps a smoker's right to a leasure activity. One could argue that in a free market socitey, customers could simply not go to a smoke friendly establishment; but it's hard to argue that a waitress/bartender should find another line of work or get lung cancer. The Unicameral isn't taking away a person's right to smoke, they are limiting a destructive habit for the greater good, because that's their job. "
K wrote on February 14, 2008 3:42 pm:
" I was terrified when the smoking ban took effect in Lincoln... since I smoked myself. Fear of the government trying to "tell the public what to do / not do."... Unlike the fatty foods debate (Thor)- smoking IS dangerous not only to you - to EVERYONE around. If you CHOOSE to smoke - you can CHOOSE to go outside or you can choose to stay home. And as much as people moan & groan about how much it will 'change' things. It wont. People will continue to go to bars, casinos, restaruants, etc. A smoking ban to PROTECT the HEALTH of the public is a good thing... no matter what anyone says. IMO. "
Nathan wrote on February 14, 2008 3:44 pm:
" Smokers have no right to "share" their carcinogens with bystanders, period. "
Taxes wrote on February 14, 2008 4:17 pm:
" The tobacco tax revenue makes up a very small percent of tax revenue. The dip in tax revenue from tobacco sales from passing the smoking ban won't even register.

People will continue to smoke but they just won't be able to do in indoors where the public congregate. "
Comm UnSense wrote on February 14, 2008 4:47 pm:
" You wait until there is a legal activity that you enjoy that is banned, like driving an internal combustion vehicle in downtown. Oh, wait, they already want to ban that. Government is getting way out of control. "
Bill wrote on February 14, 2008 6:18 pm:
" I've been a smoker for over 30 years. I don't and never have smoked in my house or my cars, by my choice. Even before the Lincoln smoking ban, I did not like going to bars or restaurants that allowed smoking.

When the Lincoln ban went into effect, it did not impact me at all. When I travel, I really notice the smoke smell in restaurants and bars.

From my viewpoint, the smoking ban is a good thing. "
Clarence wrote on February 14, 2008 6:19 pm:
" As someone who never smoked, I am not for the smoking ban. We just do family things where the smokers are not. If we keep going the way we are, pretty soon the Democrats will totally control our lives. Are we on the road to a variation of a communistic society? "
Randy wrote on February 14, 2008 6:29 pm:
" If you don't like a smoke filled atmosphere...DON'T GO THERE! What ever happened to accepting responsibility for making decisions for yourself...you don't have a right to tell someone how to run their business, but you do have the right to vote with your feet, by going someplace else...so use it. "
scott wrote on February 14, 2008 6:52 pm:
" Why didn't they do this with the concealed weapons? "
Tom wrote on February 14, 2008 8:05 pm:
" So..it's hard to vote with your feet when you don't have any completely non smoking establishments to go to. There are some cities and towns in this state where that's not even a choice. How do you accomplish it then? There are plenty of examples from the numerous states and countries (Ireland with their pubs and France with their cafes) that show that nearly all businesses have no problem with the ban. "
Joseph P. Sokolovsky wrote on February 14, 2008 8:26 pm:
" I only have two things to say:

(1) Good it is about time.
(2) Ha...ha...ha...to all you smokers! "
John wrote on February 14, 2008 9:28 pm:
" good, pass this bill already. As a former smoker I can't stand the smell of smoke anymore, people that smoke stink and literally make my stomach turn. Ban it already "
L300 wrote on February 14, 2008 9:35 pm:
" Thanks to you for passing this health related law. Has anyone been at Heidelberg's in Lincoln on a Friday lately. Packed with people including kids. It didn't used to happen. This is a progressive step.
"
Smokefree wrote on February 14, 2008 10:05 pm:
" Let's lead by example and save the state millions of dollars in Medicaid costs. Smoking kills and the dangers of first and secondhand smoke are carcinogenic (unlike alcohol, the analogy frequently used which fails).
BAN SMOKING NOW! Or a statewide referendum will ban it for you, St. Uni! We nonsmokers with lung conditions will not wait any longer. "
JJ wrote on February 14, 2008 10:15 pm:
" THANK YOU!!!!!! It's about time!!!! "
Capt. Obvious wrote on February 14, 2008 10:18 pm:
" OK, show me how smoking in YOUR business benefits you so much that if you don't have it, you don't have "business" Sad, very sad. It is still a choice, to smoke a ciggy. So until you can make it required for your exsistence, get over it & go outside.

Thank you for your patronage at those establishments in your communities, let them know that it does matter & that smoking is NOT a needed business crutch for it is truly about the public, the people, your neighbor. "
Joe wrote on February 14, 2008 10:32 pm:
" It's about time. Sorry smokers but why should I suffer from your bad habit. "
Breathe wrote on February 14, 2008 10:48 pm:
" Oh, it will be so much easier without all that smoke. If you ask me, they should outlaw smoking all together. "
Puffin away wrote on February 14, 2008 11:14 pm:
" Where is there any VALID documented and scrutinized scientific proof that 2nd hand smoke is harmful... The government has a conglomerate of studies piece-mealed together which (on the surface) would lead you to believe that 2nd hand smoke is harmful. Taking pieces from one and another study and joining them together is not science...just convenience...to only prove the addage: Figures lie and liars figure. When will the citizens finally stand up and tell OUR GOVERNMENT to cease and desist from social engineering. If we do not act soon, we will be no better than a BIG BROTHER society where the GOVERNMENT knows BEST for all. How about a camera that comes through your TV that makes sure that your child is given a time-out instead of a spanking? That would ENSURE that there was no child abuse going on...why not do it senators??? Afraid that someone sitting in chambers would see you beat your grandkids when they were "getting smart" with you? Big Brother - coming to a home near you! Just wait...you will see (or they will). "
DMS wrote on February 14, 2008 11:31 pm:
" Fine ban smoking, but yets go all the way and ban fast food. The fat people on the bus/airplane infringe on my personal rights as well. While we are at it ban kids in public places, they also annoy me. Where do we stop!!! "
Lonnie wrote on February 15, 2008 12:06 am:
" I'm 100% for a state wide smoking ban.I farmed most of my life. Smoking is the cause of most Lung cancers. I smoked for 35 years. Starting in 1956. Bought cigarettes for 10 to 25 cents a pack in US Air Force. Took two years, but I finally quit in 1991. In Dec 2007 (16 years after I quit) I was diagnosed with STAGE 4 NSCLC. Only choice to extend your life is chemo. I knew the whole time that smoking was not good for you. Now I know smoking is like trying to beat a train to the crossing, when the engine is already entering the crossing. I hope to turn 70 in May 2008.

"
sorry, wrote on February 15, 2008 12:46 am:
" smokers, ya ain't ever going to win this one. doesn't matter where we go, we don't want to smell like smoke. "
Jane wrote on February 15, 2008 1:12 am:
" We smokers give you non-smokers carcinogens? Is it more than car exhaust? I have seen many people walking around downtown Lincoln around running cars. Oh my! We better ban those. And how is alcohol not worse than smoking? I have read/heard more stories about people dying from drunk drivers than I have from people getting cancer from "second hand smoke". Another issue is that "cancer from second hand smoke" cannot altogether be proven to be true. Sometimes, other situations such as bad luck, asbestos, and lead can lead to lung damage/cancer. Of course, those people would rather blame smokers. When this thing gets passed, many a small town bar is going to go under. Thanks, Nebraska legislators, for showing us whose side you are really on. "
mgt wrote on February 15, 2008 2:38 am:
" I find it strange all the efforts that are being made to prevent adults from smoking in public places and now private property when underage smoking is so blatant. Maybe if the laws were enforced regarding underage smoking, fewer people would smoke as adults thus eliminating the need for legislation. Need proof? Drive by a high school and you'll see large crowds of kids smoking on homeowners property or city sidewalks and streets across from the high schools. Better yet, walk the area and count the empty cigarette packs, disposable lighters and other trash (littering) that have been discarded on private property and city streets and sidewalks. As far as the cigarette butts, they are so numerous, they cover the grass in many areas. That brings up another question...why are they permitted to smoke across the street from the schools crowding on city sidewalks, yet they are not permitted to stand and smoke on the city sidewalks outside the school fences which are not part of the "drug free school zone". Let's enforce the laws on the books before more are enacted. "
Breather wrote on February 15, 2008 6:21 am:
" You can't get 2nd hand diseases from being by someone eating fatty foods or drinking alcohol. I'm all for the band and being able to breathe when I go out now. Keep it coming senators! "
SP wrote on February 15, 2008 7:07 am:
" I HATE smoking and cigarette smoke. I have asthma and I think smoking is a disgusting filthy habit. But the state has no right to force this ban on towns across the state. Leave it up to the locals to decide this issue. The state is taking too much control and should stay out of it. "
mitchy_v wrote on February 15, 2008 7:25 am:
" Smokers should have the right to smoke in establishments that the owners say they approve of it. Leave it up to the owners. This ban just proves that the government is just a puppet of whomever had enough money. It is not the right thing to do for the state, it is the right thing to do for their wallets. "
JDub wrote on February 15, 2008 7:32 am:
" I'm a smoker, I live in Lincoln, and I have no problem with the Ban. I dont smoke as much when i go out, sure I would like to stay inside where it is warm, but then again, it is a small inconvience and i know that i shouldn't be doing it anyway.

"
tom Issaquah wrote on February 15, 2008 7:32 am:
" L300 is right on. Smoke free businesses will grow. Many of the best places to eat with the best food and atmosphere will only grow with the smoking ban. Anyone had the barbecue at the RED FOX on west O in Lincoln? Taste even better now that there is no smoke. "
Dave wrote on February 15, 2008 7:40 am:
" Your eating fatty food does not affect me,Your right to smoke ends at the tip of my nose! Besides I don't want to help pay your Doctor bill if you get lung cancer. "
Perry wrote on February 15, 2008 7:40 am:
" From a nonsmoker...this is AWESOME! If you want to stink and kill yourself, do it your house. "
BiigMike wrote on February 15, 2008 7:47 am:
" If you are a none-smoker, and you're hailing the smoking ban as a win in your favor, you better reconsider what this actually means. What it really means is that yout fellow American's rights are being stripped from them. A business should be able to decide whether it allows smoking or not. It's not the governments or insurance companies job to decide for them. What is really at stake here is our freedom. The right to choose. How long will it be before something you feel is your right to do as a free American is stripped away? Only a fool would want their views forced on others, since you will eventually be one of the others. Did prohibition not teach us anything? Start stripping American's of their right to choose, and they will fight back - legally, illegally, piecefully, or forcefully - what ever it takes to hold on to their freedoms. So before beating your chest like this ban is some kind of victory, you better think what it really means as an American. "
Tammy wrote on February 15, 2008 8:02 am:
" Can anyone name a place of employment (other than a bar or restaurant) in the state that allows indoor smoking? Anyone? Many restaurants, at least in Lincoln, were already smoke free when the ban went into effect here. I think a bar should be able to purchase a permit to allow smoking as long as no food is served. Have it well posted that smoking is allowed. Anyone who applies for a job there would be well aware smoking is allowed. Then no one who didn't smoke or didn't want exposure wouldn't have to go there. Seems pretty simple to me. If a smoke free environment is such a great thing, then those bars who continue to be smoke free should make money, and those who choose to allow smoking would make money as well. Everyone would have a choice. And the government would make even more smoking revenue from the permits. "
scary wrote on February 15, 2008 8:07 am:
" Oh no I can't blow smoke in others peoples faces anymore! What is this Russia or something? At least I can throw my cigarette butts all over the place and have no clue that it's littering. whew.

Maybe If I was a little more considerate in the first place this never would have happened. "
Awesome wrote on February 15, 2008 8:23 am:
" This is AWESOME!!! The people HAVE spoken. I so appreciate going to public places and not coming out smelling like smoke. We never used to go out to eat as much, and now we are really enjoying ourselves by being able to do so. I will be able to take my kids to restaurants all around Nebraska and not worry about the smelly, person smoking at the table next to us blowing smoke in our food. GREAT JOB!!!!!! "
Breath of fresh air wrote on February 15, 2008 8:34 am:
" HPG--The government has always had the right to limit where we can perform our legal activities. Racing is legal....on a race track. If you do it on a public street, you get a ticket. Drinking alcohol is legal....in a licensed liquor establishment. If you do it elsewhere, you get in trouble. Boxing is legal....in a supervised arena setting. If you do it in public, you get an assault charge. Why is this so different? The government already supervises health related regulations, and attempts to make decisions about what is for the good of the masses. That's why we elect our representatives. If it's really that much of a problem, don't re-elect them. The problem is, the majority of the people have spoken in favor of this, and the representatives are finally backing the true will of the people. "
Can't Win wrote on February 15, 2008 8:46 am:
" I am a smoker, I don't smoke in my home or car. This is one of those battles that smokers can not win. As far as the comment about bars where families are at - Is taking your child to a bar where people are drinking better than where people are smoking? I appreciate all the comments from non-smokers who disagree with the ban. It is just one of those things that can't be won. When people talk of having to 'pay' when a smoker gets cancer because of high medical costs and insurance rates, we smokers have to pay when overweight people have medical issues. And don't try to argue that being overweight does not cause medical issues. Not supporting either side here, because it makes no difference in the long run. "
laura wrote on February 15, 2008 8:50 am:
" If we have the smoking ban, then let us go all the way and ban the sale of tobacco. That way no one can smoke and everyone will be healthier. The state can't put a ban on smoking but yet spend all the money made on the sale of tobacco. Conflict of interest. "
Hey Smokers wrote on February 15, 2008 8:53 am:
" You want the right to smoke where you please because it only harms you? Well we bikers feel the same way about being able to ride without a helmet! You want people to get behind stopping the smoking ban, how about backing other peoples rights to live free?! "
mitchy_v wrote on February 15, 2008 9:15 am:
" There is no proof that you can get diseases from second hand smoke. You can develop lung cancer from many other things. Should we ban those things too? Air pollution from vehicles, industry, and power plants can raise the likelihood of developing lung cancer. So does Radon gas and Asbestos fibers. Know your facts before you judge. "
To T: wrote on February 15, 2008 9:18 am:
" You don't understand. Obese people do have second issues to our society. They are a burden to the health system. So they are a "second hand" issue to my taxes.

This is a slippery slope.... Seatbelts, smoking, obesity.... AND IF SMOKING IS A DRUG..... THEN SO IS ALCOHOL.

When are we as citizens going to hold ourselves accountable? I am tired of losing little chunks of my liberties daily....

Maybe most of you aren't... "
El wrote on February 15, 2008 10:00 am:
" I am not a smoker but I think a statewide smoking ban is going too far. What's next? A law that bans people from smoking in their own homes and cars? As it is, the ban against smoking in the workplace hasn't protected me so much. I work with several people who smoke and when they come back inside from their smoke break, they hang their coats in the empty cubicle to my left. One of them sits in the cubicle directly in front of me and three more sit in the cubicles across a narrow aisle behind me. All I can smell is the cigarette smoke from their coats and clothes. Do I like it when I start sneezing and my eyes water? No. But they have a right to smoke and I respect that. And how do you ban people from carrying cigarette smoke/fumes back into the workplace with them? Make them leave their coats outside, change their clothes and wash their hair before returning to their desks? Maybe we can have a law that requires people to have smoking clothes and non-smoking clothes. It is scary to think just how far into the ridiculous this assault on smokers could go. "
Lincolnite wrote on February 15, 2008 10:03 am:
" I get so sick and tired of the, "the people have spoken." comments. What a joke. I understand that a majority of people don't smoke and don't like the smell of smoke. However, it should be a business owner's right to have a smoking establishment. YOU CAN CHOOSE NOT TO GO THERE! A majority of people don't like rap music. Should we ban its production? A majority of people loathe pornography. Should it be banned? We simply have too much government. If you've never read 1984, you need to go out and do so. George Orwell is laughing his backside off somewhere. "
mitchy_v wrote on February 15, 2008 10:06 am:
" It should be the bikers choise too. How far do you go to protect the rights of everyone. Can recovering alcholics ask for a ban on alchol so they can go to bars and not be tempted? Common Sense People! "
Nic F wrote on February 15, 2008 11:30 am:
" I think the state SHOULD go one step further, no smoking inside any building or car. You know how many children are effected by smoking because of inconsiderate parents who smoke in their house and car. I would personally consider it child abuse, but that may be pushing it a bit far. Really now people, why are we getting so upset that the government is trying to protect people's health? Is it too far for the government to have regulations on meat? The ranchers and butchers should be able to give us any meat they choose, we have a choice whether or not to buy it don't we? The government regulates emissions on new vehicles in order to help keep our air somewhat clean, they could be really mean and force all cars to fall under new emission laws, forcing people to buy new cars and thus increasing the economy...if they were really in this for money. People, hard to believe I know, but the government actually does care about people's health. You know why? Because the government is formed by people we vote for, people we hope will think like we do and care about the things we care about. Crazy, I know! "
Hate smoking wrote on February 15, 2008 11:52 am:
" About time Nebraska is progressive and ends smoking. "
JR wrote on February 15, 2008 12:04 pm:
" And while we are at it, let's stiffen the fines for throwing your cigarette butts out the window. I can not believe all the times I see someone throwing theirs out the car window. What, are they hoping to keep the car from smelling??? Dream on. If you smoke, we can smell it ... on your clothes, your hair, in your car, and on your breath. "
mitchy_v wrote on February 15, 2008 12:24 pm:
" The issue with cigarette butts is littering and that is illegal. Smoking is legal. alchol is legal. fast food is legal. But we seem to only be targeting the smoking. all affect our health and insurance rates. You are more likly to get lung cancer from a FEMA trailer than second hand smoke. I don't want lung cancer, so I don't go inside FEMA trailers. Common Sence. "
ALW wrote on February 15, 2008 1:01 pm:
" Children do not belong in bars. That is what family restaurants are for. Not everyone finds it as adorable as you do to watch your children play darts. Adults should not have to wait in line behind a five year old at Heidelberg's in order to play darts-a grown up game. If you want to sit with your frinds and drink beer around your kids do it at home or go to Chucky Cheese. They serve beer AND cater to children. "
Enough is enough wrote on February 15, 2008 1:17 pm:
" I am not a smoker but I feel that is sould be the right of each town to choose to ban smoking or not. I agree with all of you that said, If you don't like the smoking go somewhere else. If you go to Waverly and complain about the smoke, it is your own fault by going somewhere you know there is smoking??? I feel the government is going to far on this one. I am a law student and this may be going a little far for the law itself. "
Health Ed Student wrote on February 15, 2008 1:27 pm:
" In my opinion, this is not an issue of personal freedom or the government trying to control those freedoms. It comes down to the Constitutional Right to Life. Secondhand smoke kills. Its a fact. And my right to life (and the rights of all patrons and employees of establishments where smoking might take place) trumps another's right to smoke. Period. If your actions endanger the health and safety of others, which smoking does, the government will intervene. If that upsets you, then do not have the nerve to complain if your landlord knowingly exposes you to asbestos, or if police officers fail to protect you from drunk drivers. It's the same situation. "
Health Ed Student wrote on February 15, 2008 1:31 pm:
" And by the way, tobacco taxes aren't there just for the sake of money... they are levied as a deterrent so that some people might quit. The revenue is just a bonus! That's public health policy at work! "
peb wrote on February 15, 2008 1:47 pm:
" Well, good grief, who elected all these people who are passing state legislation? Oh, that's right, we did!! "
I wrote on February 15, 2008 1:49 pm:
" love when people say, "Great, what next, a fatty food ban?" Yeah, because when I eat junk food, that affects you. Right. "
ALW wrote on February 15, 2008 1:57 pm:
" So Health Ed where do you stand on abortion as you believe in "constitutional right to life"? "
Soylent Green wrote on February 15, 2008 2:05 pm:
" ALL SMOKERS MUST FREEZE! (Or fry during the summer) The State-wide smoking ban is the ONLY way to go. Good job. "
Put it to rest wrote on February 15, 2008 2:08 pm:
" Please put the lame, "if you don't like it go to another place." arguement to rest. In many of these small towns there is only one bar/restaraunt and going to "someplace else" means travelling to the next town, which also has smoking and only has one bar/restaraunt. Your right to smoke ends where my right to breath clean air begins. If I choose to be around smoke then so be it, don't force it upon me though. "
mitchy_v wrote on February 15, 2008 2:49 pm:
" "when I eat junk food, that affects you. Right." When you have a heart attack that makes all of our insurance premiums go up. You want clean air, you have the right to go outside. "
Oh Lincolnite wrote on February 15, 2008 2:57 pm:
" The day I can contract cancer from you listening to rap or watching pornography I'll want it banned. Until then - do whatever you want. I love how people against the smoking ban act as though their nasty cigarette smoke doesn't affect anyone else. It does. "
Soylent Green wrote on February 15, 2008 3:53 pm:
" Hey Mitchy_v, when you get lung cancer from smoking that affects all of our insurance rates too... You want to smoke, YOU go outside! I look forward to the day when smokers have to step inside a little fish bowl-like bubble to smoke. Next step is to ban smoking in homes and vehicles with kids in them. Violation of your rights? Freedom of choice? What choice does a kid trapped in a house or car with a smoker have and what about their rights? Good luck smokers...I hope your days are numbered! Oh wait, they already are. "
Homahak wrote on February 15, 2008 4:08 pm:
" Finally, the state of Nebraska is going to adopt a statewide smoking ban. Good. Our government is well within its authority to enact legislation such as this. It is why government exists. There is no doubt that second hand smoke causes a plethora of diseases so that means your smoking can give others lung cancer. Which the government can and should step in and protect its citizens. Your eating fatty foods does not make others obese. So eat as much as you would like. Your alcohol consumption does not give others liver disease. So drink up and have one on me. And if you drive after you've been drinking, well, that's already illegal a.k.a. banned. It's called Driving Under the Influence. And the day the government wants to restrict the use of automobiles, I'm all for it. The automobile is bad for the planet, its use makes citizens unhealthy, fat, and lazy, and it makes America dependent upon other countries (Saudi Arabia, Iran) for a single product (oil) which I don't think anyone agrees is a good idea. "
Grundle wrote on February 15, 2008 4:30 pm:
" Okay mitchy_v, the problem with your logic is that, if you're going to ban fatty foods altogether based on insurance premiums, then you should be for an all-out ban of cigarettes, too, because they also make insurance premiums go up. BTW, there was a study that was recently released that, because of the short lives of obese people, they actually don't cause higher insurance premiums. If you want to smoke, you have the right to go outside. "
upinsmoke wrote on February 15, 2008 5:05 pm:
" Go ahead & pass the ban, I'll be going to Council Bluffs once a week to fuel up & buy my cigarettes. I will not give a state that bans a product that's LEGAL for a person of age to buy & consume any more of my cigarette tax money. I think it's time that all the supporters of this ban get exactly what they want & have to pony up their wallet's to the tax collector like the smokers have for years. Dont think the revenue generated by tobbaco is significant? Who paid for the Devaney center? And that was when the cig tax was only a nickel a pack! Lets see, around 20% of Nebraska resident's use tobbaco, that's 350,000 people, times the cig tax by 350,000, once a day every day for a year. I think the tax dollars collected from tobacco are significant & I think it's time for the supporters of the ban feel this tax as well! Iowa will get my cig & gas tax from now on! "
DW wrote on February 15, 2008 9:17 pm:
" Ban smoking? Okay, then lets ban drinking then too, perhaps then fast food for overweight people. "
In what universe... wrote on February 15, 2008 9:33 pm:
" ...is it ok to obnoxiously spray chemicals around a crowd of people? Suppose I go into a crowded family restaraunt and start spraying a smelly, cancer-causing, carsinogent filled chemical around small kids and those who don't want it around. That's pretty much what smoking in a public place is. I don't recall anywhere in the US or state constitution that says smokers have a right to light up at the expense of others in public places. And don't try to make the fatty foods argument here. Fatty foods from one person aren't possibly harming or at the very least annoying someone else in the vacinity. "
Ban Ban Ban wrote on February 15, 2008 10:55 pm:
" Why do you go to a bar to drink if you don't like smoke. Drinking is just as likely to kill you as smoke. Government and some of you people just want to run other peoples life because you don't have one of your own. It doesn't matter to me, but lets go ahead and ban alcohol since you like to go to bars. I like the idea of banning KIDS from public places. They're really anoying and they'll grow up just like their opinionated parents. "
Mike wrote on February 15, 2008 11:07 pm:
" I love sitting in a bar or restaurant window in Lincoln during the winter seeing all the smokers huddling outside for warmth. It's quite amuzing and I could do it all day and night! It's amazing what some people will do to feed their addiction! "
Jimmy wrote on February 16, 2008 10:38 am:
" To "up in smoke": It's laughable that you think a statewide smoking ban will stop smokers from buying cigarettes, and in turn lessen the tax dollars generated from that. You're talking about the same group of people who will crowd themselves in tiny smoke huts in the winter, subjecting themselves to sub-zero temperatures just so they can get their "fix". Keep those tax dollars comin'!! "
WE wrote on February 16, 2008 10:43 am:
" WOOHOO, but I say ban it anywhere but inside private residenses, and only those without children. You smoke, you stink, and lot's of smokers can't afford to put food on the table for their kids, but they seem to manage to get their fix. Ban tobbacco alltogether, plain and simple. "
nora baker wrote on February 16, 2008 1:38 pm:
" If the government was truly trying to save people's lives, they would be looking at alcohol. Alcohol has caused more broken homes, auto deaths and injuries, crimes,poverty, and ill health. Yes, we are all affected by it no matter where we go. Innocent people pay the price. Is it because the rule makers enjoy their alcohol? What hypocrosy!!! "
whatever wrote on February 16, 2008 4:15 pm:
" I know many think smoking will be done in the state but when the day comes, and it will, that we have casino gambling in the state you can be sure an exception will be made for the casinos. "
Eric wrote on February 16, 2008 5:04 pm:
" I am all for the ban. I dont mind going out now that I can go into a bar in Lincoln without having to fight the haze and smoke. Maybe its time the smokers realized that smoking is a disgusting, filthy and nasty habit. They have no right to force me to inhale their leftover filth. "
Ironic wrote on February 16, 2008 7:29 pm:
" No smoking in eating establishments, fine, I totally agree with that. When you start talking about saying no smoking in bars it's like, please don't poison me with your poisonous SMOKE while I DRINK my poison... Plus, you would think if you left it up to business owners the ones who chose to be smoke free would be totally booming with all the people who are for this ban and the ones who stayed smoking would be forced to either go non smoking or go out of business. However that isn't the case, seems strange to me. "
slippery slope wrote on February 16, 2008 8:22 pm:
" A slippery slope argument is one the assumes that "if A then B" when there is no causal link established between the two events. "If smoking then fatty foods" fits perfectly in the realm of the slippery slope. This bill should be evaluated based on its value, and not in reference to other potential future legislation. Does the potential money saved in health bills, that would have been incurred due to second hand smoke, by the state outweigh the infringement upon our liberties? Is this bill really infringing on our liberties, or is it a public health issue? Because the law does not make smoking illegal it reduces the value of the argument that this is an infringement upon our liberties. This is a tough decision to make, I do support it. As long as we're concerning ourselves with respiratory health we should think about emissions standards as well as the chemicals used to clean our public buildings. "
Dave wrote on February 16, 2008 8:25 pm:
" on 2/15 Joe wrote to ban smoking NE would loose all the tax money. It costs more to care for cancer patients than is acculated by taxes "
Mark wrote on February 16, 2008 10:37 pm:
" Good luck with this one Nebraska. They banned smoking in Columbia, MO where I live and have killed the bars in one year. Now the schools are trying to figure out where they will come up with $10 million in lost rev's from alchol and tobacco sales in the city limits.
Ask the owner of the only non-smoking bar in Wahoo how well it works. They are right now trying to figure out how to let people smoke in a part of the bar without it flowing out into the rest of the area. They are about to go under because no one hangs there long enough. "

Ads by Yahoo!

Legislature Coverage