Now
A Few Clouds
67°
High
89°
Low
68°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

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

Heineman signs smoking ban

Comments 138 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

By NATE JENKINS / The Associated Press

Tuesday, Feb 26, 2008 - 03:22:19 pm CST

Gov. Dave Heineman on Tuesday signed into a law a statewide smoking ban that will go into effect in June 2009, outlawing smoking in bars, restaurants and most other workplaces.

“Some of our customers aren’t going to be very happy,” said Eliza Lee, who works at one of the only restaurants in Ainsworth that allows smoking, The Depot.

But in the end, public health concerns trumped those of business owners who have said they have the right to let patrons partake in a legal activity.

Story Photo

Related Media

Smoking restrictions by state

Compare smoking restrictions in Nebraska with those in other states. (Laura Meerkatz / JournalStar.com)...

Comments: 0
Rated:

“In weighing the merits of this bill, I took into account the valid concerns about local control and the rights of business owners, as well as the health concerns and the rights of the public to clean indoor air,” Heineman said in a statement. “The public health concern is a critical one, and that is why I signed” the law.

Under the new law, cities and counties won’t be able to opt out of the ban. It will apply to smoking in all workplaces in the state except for retail tobacco shops and places where smoking research is done.

Hotel rooms are also exempted.

Twenty-one other states have similar bans, according to the American Lung Association.

Lawmakers and public health advocates had pushed for a statewide smoking ban for several years and failed. But opponents of a ban came to believe that if the Legislature didn’t impose one, citizen groups would through the initiative process.

Believing a law would eventually be passed, lawmakers who opposed a ban tried for a state law that would let voters in cities and counties across the state opt out of a ban. Sen. Joel Johnson of Kearney and other supporters of a strict, statewide ban, however, convinced some lawmakers that an opt-out clause would lead to a messy patchwork of smoking rules that would actually harm businesses.

After Heineman signed the bill, Johnson, proclaimed it a landmark law in the public health arena.

“This is perhaps the most significant thing we could do to increase the quality of health of all Nebraskans,” Johnson, a retired surgeon, said after Heineman signed it into law.

“I didn’t know if he was going to sign it and obviously you get real nervous,” Johnson added.

Heineman’s decision was lauded by what may seem like an unlikely supporter — Nebraska Restaurant Association. It has opposed previous proposals for statewide smoking bans.

But the group decided to support the law because of growing evidence that secondhand smoke is dangerous, the fact many restaurants have already banned smoking, and the group wanted a uniform state law, said executive director Jim Partington.

He said none of the 700 or so restaurants that belong to the association across the state have complained about the pro-ban position.

“Lots of restaurants went nonsmoking years ago and with the bans in Lincoln and Omaha, if you don’t do something you’ve got a patchwork of different standards across the state...and businesses don’t have a level playing field. It’s absolutely ridiculous.”

Had Heineman vetoed the ban, it may still have been approved. Thirty-four of the Legislature’s 49 senators voted for the ban last week. It takes 30 votes to override a veto.

To the regular smokers who make their way into The Depot at 6:30 a.m. most days, the new ban may be a sign they are no longer shielded from the public health initiatives popular with city types.

“They’re just saying how bad it’s going to suck that it finally hit the small towns,” Lee said.


$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  
jake wrote on February 26, 2008 11:59 am:
" That is the first really good thing the governor has done. Kudos to him. "

 good wrote on February 26, 2008 11:59 am:
" i'm happy "

 D. Musky wrote on February 26, 2008 12:01 pm:
" This is awesome! Bout time NE stepped out of the dark ages. "

 HOO RAY!!! wrote on February 26, 2008 12:03 pm:
" Awesome! I'm really happy about this. California did this years ago, and no businesses went under and nobody lost out. I'm all for anyone's right to smoke, but when I have to breathe it that's when it becomes a problem. "

 mitchy_v wrote on February 26, 2008 12:07 pm:
" He had a rational thought, and then signed it anyway. "

 Agree or not, wrote on February 26, 2008 12:12 pm:
" It would have been sort of hypocritical of the governor had he vetoed this. He preached health and healthy living and this has been his number 2 agenda next to "belt tightening" (financially that is). So agree or not, the governor was between a rock and a hard place.
One of the biggest complaints has been unfairness for border towns. Well, Iowa looks to be following suit before the year is over with just as strict of a smoking ban. Soo... "

 Realist wrote on February 26, 2008 12:13 pm:
" Hooray! Thanks to the governor. He'll get my vote for this alone. "

 concerned wrote on February 26, 2008 12:18 pm:
" If public health is important to this state then why won't anyone help the rural people with these large CAFO'S. They are polluting our water and land and it will just be a matter of time before you cities are wondering why the water is polluted and by that time it will be too late. Iowa is already having problems with these large CAFO'S. You ban smoking because of public health then why not these CAFO'S?? "

 Smoker wrote on February 26, 2008 12:23 pm:
" Thank you to the Senators and Gov. that have taken my rights away by passing this law. Glad to know that i live in the land of the free!!!!!!!(free to do what the government wants me to do) "

 jay wrote on February 26, 2008 12:24 pm:
" There is another loss for the free market, capitalism, and personal freedoms. I am sooo glad the government is protecting me against myself. Next on the agenda ... weight control and make exercise mandatory. It's been shown that being overweight and a couch potato is less healthy than smoking. But wait! You can't take away personal freedom! Whatever. And for those of you that will say it's ok because smoking harms others, you didn't need to go to smoking establishments. There where plenty of non-smoking places before the ban. The free market would have worked it out itself and in the end, I may have had at least one place I could have a meal in the fashion that I want. Please stay out of my business and my life. If you don't want to be caught by my second hand smoke, don't come by. "

 pac wrote on February 26, 2008 12:26 pm:
" July 1 can't get here soon enough! "

 homer wrote on February 26, 2008 12:28 pm:
" Doh' "

 Rich wrote on February 26, 2008 12:28 pm:
" A great day in the health of Nebraska's citizens. "

 Jude wrote on February 26, 2008 12:29 pm:
" Smokers can no longer claim that they have a right to enjoy a legal recreation in public in enclosed places. Good. Sex is a legal recreation, but it is not allowed in public, nor should it be. Same goes with poisoning the air. "

 Ken Foner wrote on February 26, 2008 12:30 pm:
" Just wondering why, if this is so good for us and has such merit, why is it not effective until June of 2009? Shouldn't it become effective this year instead. "

 se wrote on February 26, 2008 12:40 pm:
" Well, the state will have to become creative with better ways to make money and not depend on imposing additional taxes on cigarettes. If people can't smoke, they'll stop buying cigarettes, and there goes all that income for the state. Though I am not a smoker, it doesn't seem fair that the state always adds additional taxes onto cigarettes and now tells the smokers they can't smoke just anywhere. Does anyone else see something wrong with this??? "

 Lisa wrote on February 26, 2008 12:41 pm:
" Kinda mixed feelings on this. Just glad small towns can't smoke, then use OUR hospitals for lung cancer treatment.

Signed: smoker "

 yeah wrote on February 26, 2008 12:45 pm:
" i'm really excited about this. i think it was a good move to sign this. the argument about banning obesity and requiring exercise is not the same thing as this issue. this bill did not go into affect b/c of the affect smoking has on the smoker, it was passed b/c of the affect on everyone around the smoker. if you are obese that has no direct impact to me sitting at the next table. can't wait for this to go into affect! "

 D wrote on February 26, 2008 12:48 pm:
" Freedom! Rights! Pretty soon you won't even be able to smoke on your on property. I'm not even a smoker! "

 Awesome wrote on February 26, 2008 12:48 pm:
" I have been waiting for this for a long time. We used to go to one of the only smokeless bars in lincoln when you could smoke in bars. Now I moved and I hate going out and coming home smelling like an ash tray. To all you smokers, start chewing. "

 Soylent Green wrote on February 26, 2008 12:50 pm:
" Now let's work on banning smoking in cars and homes occupied by minors. Their health is important too and they do not have a choice as to where they can live or who drives them around. "

 Geez wrote on February 26, 2008 12:51 pm:
" Well, Heineman just showed me that he doesn't have much respect for property rights. As much as I despise liberals, I'll vote for whoever runs against him. I voted for Heineman because Tom Osborne is the one whom I feared would try and say what we could and couldn't do at places we owned. Dave betrayed me "

 whatsnext wrote on February 26, 2008 1:00 pm:
" Leave it to a bunch of prunes to take away another personal right. "

 Yippee!! wrote on February 26, 2008 1:02 pm:
" I wish all the complainers would look farther than their own noses. This ban is not about protecting you from yourself (like a ban on obesity might be). It is about protecting all the people around you - like waitstaff or my two-year old daughter. I am so happy that now when I visit my parents in the small town I grew up in - we can enjoy breakfast at any of the diners in town without worrying about sitting my pregnant self and my 2-year-old across the room from the "smoking" section. "

 Public Choice wrote on February 26, 2008 1:02 pm:
" I have thoroughly enjoyed walking in to restaurants and bars in Lincoln the past couple of years and not smelling any smoke, for that matter not being asked if I want to sit in “smoking or non-smoking.” I'm all for promoting public health and reducing disease risk. I don't, however like being told by the government that I can't do something that is otherwise legal. I don't like the government infringing on my personal rights. In Lincoln every citizen had an opportunity to vote on the issue. The individuals of this city chose to limit their own freedoms in the name of public health and comfort. With the state law, however, individuals didn't get a choice. The legislature and governor chose for them. It is their job to represent the will of their constituents, and the public will may very well be to impose a smoking ban, but this is an issue that I think shouldn't be decided by representatives, it should be (should have been) decided by the individuals of this state. I don’t know if the state has a vehicle for such a public vote other than amendments to the constitution, but I don’t think 50 people should be able to tell 1.7 million people that they can’t do something that is otherwise legal under the US or NE constitution. "

 Deb wrote on February 26, 2008 1:06 pm:
" If everyone is soooo worried about clean air, they should BAN cars and trucks. Vehicles polute the air more than cigarettes. Next you will be told how to raise your kids, oh wait, that bill is coming next. I can't believe people are willing to let a personal freedom be taken away. Give the government an inch and they will take a mile... "

 Lincolnite wrote on February 26, 2008 1:07 pm:
" Gov. Heineman would have gained nothing by vetoing this. The Legislature easily had the 30 votes to override a veto. This is still a very slippery slope. I will appreciate going to these newly smoke free establishments, but I don't think this is right. "

 JT wrote on February 26, 2008 1:12 pm:
" I'm sure the governor will be assuring us that our health care costs will be going down now that the Demon Tobacco is out of the bars. I can't wait until the new stats come out on our health. Oh, yea can I now see the old stats? "

 What else! wrote on February 26, 2008 1:17 pm:
" Like he had any choice but to sigh it, As if he would of not sighed it, It would of made no difference anyway. He would of know that they had more than enough votes to override the veto. But anyway it is good that he sighed it as it was the only thing good he has done so far, Or is it the only thing he has done. But i guess you get the point. "

 Sure.. keep believing it's about health wrote on February 26, 2008 1:20 pm:
" If this is really about cleaner air and better health, instead of a few special interests with our legislators' and governor's hands in their pockets, then let's see stricter air emissions standards for industry and cars. Maybe when we apply the same "cleaner air" standards across the board and see better programs implemented to help provide healthcare for those who can't afford to be financially r*ped, I'll really believe that the state government gives a d*mn about our health. "

 GB wrote on February 26, 2008 1:20 pm:
" This is too good to be true! A republican govenor signing away freedoms! He ought to run for president! Rush Limbaugh is freaking out folks! "

 Re: Ken wrote on February 26, 2008 1:21 pm:
" I presume it's so that businesses have plenty of time to design/build outdoor smoking areas before the ban goes into effect. IIRC, businesses here only had a couple of months between the passage and start date of Lincoln's ban. "

 Kitsch wrote on February 26, 2008 1:21 pm:
" Hey, smokers! You STILL have the right to smoke!!!
Just do it at home, outside, or in your car. You're still allowed to smoke -- just not in other people's faces. My kids and their grandpa can now go to a restaurant, cafe or local pub anywhere across the state and breathe clean air. I can't wait until June 2009!!!!

"

 Can't wait ! wrote on February 26, 2008 1:24 pm:
" It will be nice to be able to breath fresh air now. and not worry about lung cancer and the like, Breathing somebody's second hand smoke. But it is more than far to allow the smokers some time getting used to their new surrounding outside. Thanks You Senators for Finally voting of this. It is about time. THANK YOU !!!!!! "

 nonsmoker wrote on February 26, 2008 1:25 pm:
" To all those smokers who talk about their personal freedoms being taken away...boo-hoo. What about my personal freedom to go wherever I want with my family without having to be around cigarette smoke? I always hear the argument, "Just don't go to those places that allow smoking". How about you just go outside to smoke and allow the rest of us to have an unpolluted environment indoors? Guess you'll have to now. Thank you Gov. Heineman! "

 Quit Complaining wrote on February 26, 2008 1:26 pm:
" Smokers need to quit complaining. They still have a right to smoke, just not inside a business. Everyone has rights and just because someone chooses to smoke I shouldn't be forced to smoke in the toxic air. I think people should understand that some of us want to try to lead healthy lives. "

 Tt wrote on February 26, 2008 1:35 pm:
" What happened to freedom of choice?
You don't HAVE to go into places that allow smoking...it's on of your freedoms.
This is just to scam votes and everyone knows it. "

 July 1, 2009 wrote on February 26, 2008 1:40 pm:
" Bar for sale. Make offer! "

 answerken wrote on February 26, 2008 1:42 pm:
" doesnt take affect until 2009 so the smokers can move to a state that honors individual free. wyoming here i come. "

 DonkeyFresh wrote on February 26, 2008 1:47 pm:
" Smoker? Please take it outside... we don't take too kindly to your type 'round here! Wheeeeaawwwwww!!!

"

 elizabeth wrote on February 26, 2008 2:01 pm:
" I'm with Ken Foner. If it's so imperative that our state become more healthy by being smoke-free, why wait another year? If Heineman is truly concerned for the health of the citizens of NE, the ban would become effective A.S.A.P. "

 For those who disagree with those who disagree wrote on February 26, 2008 2:14 pm:
" For those who argue that this is no big deal because "you can smoke outside" that is the next target of GASP, the Nebraska group who pushed this through the legislature. Their leader was on KFAB yesterday and said that they will try to get smoking banned in apartments, townhomes and, yes, outside of business entries. So, the floodgates have opened and, while I don't smoke, hate smoking and can't stand it, I appreciate freedom in this country and it has now been taken away in yet another small incriment. "

 m. delisle wrote on February 26, 2008 2:15 pm:
" whats the point in living in the 'LAND OF THE FREE" when we arent free to do what is leagal....how can we call this a free country, we dont live in a comunist country do we?
i am not a smoker but i do work in a bar and thats my choice if i want to be around it. i dont have to work there. before the smoking ban there were smoke free bars in lincoln. that should have been good. "

 non-smoker wrote on February 26, 2008 2:16 pm:
" good good comrades, now let us meet in red square to celebrate another chapter in the goverment controlling private business and lives. "

 m wrote on February 26, 2008 2:16 pm:
" I'm so happy about this! Too bad it won't be in effect for another year and a half. "

 me wrote on February 26, 2008 2:22 pm:
" What about the peoples rights? the goverment is just one step closer to controlling everything.. i think business should be able to opt out, they are tax payers also, and it's there business,not the goverments "

 Eugene wrote on February 26, 2008 2:23 pm:
" Nebraska has a tendency to pick on the old and the little people, it seems that they want to tax, tax and then take away individual freedoms. I smoke but by my own choice only outside my house, I go to restaurants that do not allow smoking and I accept that before I to go there. I also like to go to the local bar and have a few drinks and smoke and perhaps have lunch. No more thanks to people that like to get drunk get loud and smell from strong deodorant and perfumes.
However the state allows the farmers to contaminate the ground water with nitrates and other chemicals and expect the citizens to pay for expensive treatment equipment to remove it. The state also allows odors from cattle, dairy and hog confinements contaminate the air and affect the health and quality of life for its citizens. Nebraska the Good Life has become a joke. You can pay high taxes and then because you don't pay the tax at the time you have to get the money from savings, to pay for a major expense even though you pay at tax time they charge you a penalty.
I agree with Don's posting and look forward to the chance to vote Heineman out of office, and move out of Nebraska

"

 Question wrote on February 26, 2008 2:24 pm:
" Does anyone know if this really includes ALL bars or only the ones that serve food? I REALLY hope it means ALL bars. "

 Alan wrote on February 26, 2008 2:27 pm:
" Lets see, you cant smoke inside but when you walk outside you can inhale toxins from car exhaust, and it is perfectly okay for farmers to dump tons of cancer causing toxic chemicals on the land so that we can grow more corn to make cows fat and people fat.Wow "

 OmahaDave wrote on February 26, 2008 2:30 pm:
" Okay now it is now law. The train is coming, you can step off the tracks now or wait until the last minute to jump. Let's hope that progressive business owners step up to the plate and not wait until the deadline to implement it. "

 Ban It wrote on February 26, 2008 2:32 pm:
" Even if he'd vetoed, they had more than enough votes to override. It's bad politics to pick a fight you know you can't win, which is what a veto would have been. Now, ban the sale and possession of tobacco and tobacco products in the state, and kiss that million bucks a week cig tax (vote buying) money goodbye. I didn't think so. "

 Rusty wrote on February 26, 2008 2:44 pm:
" I wonder if doing a "Theater Night" where all patrons are "actors" would allow bars to bypass this law?

Others are doing it: http://www.boingboing.net/2008/02/25/smoking-ban-workarou.html "

 heros wrote on February 26, 2008 2:44 pm:
" To all of you saddened smokers...think of all the lives you are going to save. I know you feel your rights are violated but you could always start chewing. This would only endanger yourself and not others. You still have an option. Anyway, thanks Gov. for your support regarding my lungs. I appreciate it. "

 other sources of pollution wrote on February 26, 2008 2:49 pm:
" i am not an expert on this by any means...but the car emissions are alot less concentrated then cigarrette smoke in an enclosed building. besides that chemical use on land by farmers and car emissions are both regulated by the government! so your argument that smokers are getting an unfair shake is completely wrong, this is a regulation of a legal act just as is pollution standards, food safety standards, and the like. "

 R wrote on February 26, 2008 2:50 pm:
" To all of you who think that your personal freedom to smoke has been taken away, when the smoke clears from the nice establishments next year go to a few of them so you can finally get out of the cloud of smoke and think clearly. No one is saying you can't smoke, you just can't do it in a public establishment. People have been able to smoke for I don't know how long anywhere they pleased and the excuse is always the same - "if you don't like it go somewhere else." How does it feel to have that thrown back in your face. "

 from a small town wrote on February 26, 2008 2:54 pm:
" whats going to happen if someone lites up, get arrested? If you can't smoke in business or bars and people have to go out side, whats going to happen in the dry summer? grass fires, and whos to blame? the goverment....Stupid law, there's other things to worry about that smoking "

 Matine wrote on February 26, 2008 2:55 pm:
" Next agenda is criminated outside smoking,too.They are so concern for public health, wonder why they allowed conceal weapons which is killing everyday in publics? "

 mitchy_v wrote on February 26, 2008 3:00 pm:
" June 30, 2009 - The Great Nebraskan Smoke-in. We could also call it "Marlburo Man's last stand" "

 ~ wrote on February 26, 2008 3:03 pm:
" This is great for the state of NE. no rights have been taking away here at all. all you have to do is go outside not a big deal. It's just like drinking you can drink all you want in public you can't drive after you have had your drinks same differences. Obesity does not affect anyone else except for the person that does not take care of themselves, they have no one else to blame. I agree with "R" if you don't like go somewhere else! "

 bad choice wrote on February 26, 2008 3:07 pm:
" Though not a smoker, I don't agree with the statewide ban. With all of the bans or requirements related to public health issues, such as the helmet law, seat belts, and smoking ban, I think we are raising a generation of fools, too ignorant to make their own choices. It is about educating the public, not restricting free enterprise or freedom of choice.

To tell someone within the free enterprise system that they cannot cater to a certain faction is not right. It is very simple. If you don't want to be around the smoke, don't patronize those businesses that allow it. Would I like to go to a bar and have a drink with friends without the smoke? Sure. But, I don't deserve the right to do so ... I do have the choice.

We don't have a right to a smoke free environment in a private business. They should have the right to decide their customer base. The same is true for employees of these establishments. If you don't want to be around smokers, then don't work in a place that allows it.

At some point, we as parents, need to get back to instilling those decision-making skills in our children, without the government needing to raise our kids for us.

Behind the scenes politics had more to do with this decision than anyone realizes, I am guessing. "

 husker girl wrote on February 26, 2008 3:13 pm:
" I applaud the Gov's move. However, this shouldn't have to be a law. It should be a common courtesy that people do not smoke while in the presence of other people that are not smoking. Just like it's common courtesy not to fart in the middle of a room filled with people not farting. Similar toxic gasses and horrible smell. Why do people think smoking in confined places should be ok? Is it ok for my gas-filled husband to come into a restaurant, sit next to you, and start farting away? If so, i'll bring him over. "

 scott wrote on February 26, 2008 3:19 pm:
" I'm all for the smoking ban. However, if it such a health and safety issue, why wait until June of 2009 for it to become law? Why not June of 2008?? "

 Taxation wrote on February 26, 2008 3:28 pm:
" Isn’t this Taxation Without Representation? I think we had a Tea Party about this same kind of thing! (December 16, 1773) If I can not smoke anywhere in public then send all my tax money back!! Someone should file a class action lawsuit to get all our money back and stop the unfair Taxing of Cigarettes !!!! "

 Todd wrote on February 26, 2008 3:30 pm:
" Personal rights, property rights, who needs them? Thanks "Big Brother"!! "

 Michelle wrote on February 26, 2008 3:30 pm:
" I'm tired of hearing smokers complaining about their rights. Give me a break. What about the rights of those who don't smoke that want to go out and have a good time without having to stink when they get home? Don't give me the line about going to a non somking bar. Do you know how many non smoking bars there are outside of Lincoln? I bet I could count on one hand! And I don't know of any in Grand Island! Some of you are complaining about the government taking away your rights, again what about the rights of the non-smokers. You're lucky you got to smoke inside and pass on your stink and cancer for as long as you did. Way to go Government!!! Yippeeee "

 toolman wrote on February 26, 2008 3:31 pm:
" I'm sure it means all bars. That way you can go get drunk and your kids won't have to breath second hand smoke!!!! "

 Personal Freedom gone? wrote on February 26, 2008 3:31 pm:
" You can smoke in the street, smoke in your car/pickup, smoke in the park, open a tobacco shop and smoke in there, smoke in certain motel rooms, smoke in your home, smoke in your barn, smoke in your cornfield, smoke while fishing, smoke in your boat, smoke in your cabin, smoke on your lake deck, open up a smoking laboratory/research facility and smoke in there, smoke in your semi, smoke in your camper, smoke in your trailer, smoke on the sidewalk, smoke on your driveway...but,

You can't smoke in a / your business, bar or restaurant. I'm a little slow, but where has your personal freedom been removed?

"

 Der Kommisar wrote on February 26, 2008 3:32 pm:
" Hooray, comrades. Let's ban dirty magazines next. And high-cholesterol foods...oh, wait, New York is doing that already. Better get used to marching in formation. "

 Dano wrote on February 26, 2008 3:36 pm:
" Thank you sir. This has been long overdue. At least we weren;t the last ones to realize this, like some other things recetnly covered. Good work. "

 sorry wrote on February 26, 2008 3:36 pm:
" dont think theatre night will work, minnesotas law has an exclusion for theatre performances, nebraskas does not :) "

 Grundle wrote on February 26, 2008 3:40 pm:
" Before the smokers continue on with their misguided comparisons to vehicle exhaust, fast foods, farm chemicals, and industrial air pollution...I think the onus should be on the smokers to name ONE...just ONE, constructive use for smoking. Vehicle exhaust, which is much more diluted by outside air than smoke in a bar, is a byproduct of transportation. Vehicles move people and goods to their destinations...cigarettes don't do that. Fast foods, while not always healthy, provide nutrition and calories that are essential to the functioning of the human body...cigarettes don't do that. Farm chemicals increase production of human and livestock food crops by replacing lost nutrients, and be reducing pest and disease infestations...cigarettes don't do that. Industrial air pollution is a byproduct of manufacturing plants that produce goods that our way of life depends on...cigarettes don't do that. So what do cigarettes do? They provide a momentary fix to weak and addicted abusers...the last time I checked, that's not a constructive use...that's a destructive use. BTW, if anybody can point me to just ONE constitutional right that says smokers can force their nasty habit onto others by smoking wherever they please, I'll concede that smokers have a "right" to smoke. Methinks it's actually nothing more than a privilege that they've been taking for granted. "

 L300 wrote on February 26, 2008 3:41 pm:
" Thank you Governor. This is a great thing

To all of you who think you are losing a personal right, you are not. It has never been your right to interfere with others. "

 SoDak Husker wrote on February 26, 2008 4:03 pm:
" Congratulations Nebraska! Take a breath of fresh air for a bow. Hopefully Nebraska and Minnesota's influence will rub off on some short-sighted legislator's up here! "

 Jeff wrote on February 26, 2008 4:06 pm:
" Perhaps we should make it illegal for people to bring their screaming kids into public places...after all, that raises the blood pressure of those around them. By that line of thinking, screaming kids are just as dangerous as cigarettes. Leave it to the NE gov to be so short sited. "

 Rick wrote on February 26, 2008 4:11 pm:
" Tyranny is what happens when one side rejects all compromise and demands total submission from the other side. And whether that tyranny is the doing of an individual despot, or, as is the case here, the result of the majority tyrannizing the minority, it is still anti-democratic.

Bars that do not serve food should have the option of allowing smoking if the owner of the bar so chooses.

The public health issue is bogus. Banning smoking from bars is not going to magically make all of us live longer. The impact on the public health from smoking in bars is negligible.

Personal freedom in this country is being eroded bit by bit as zealots and fanatics try to make all of us conform to their personal behavioral code, one that will eventually have us all acting like Stepford Wives.

People have a right to drink, smoke, eat and get fat if they want to. It's the American way.





"

 smokers have rights wrote on February 26, 2008 4:14 pm:
" Agree with Grundle on everything. Apparently though there is a chemical or something to do with smoking that gives smokers extra rights. Maybe I need to start smoking to see how that works.......
If you don't wear your seatbelt or helmet, it won't kill me or make me sick. If you eat another cheeseburger, it won't kill me or make me sick.
It's just like Virgil Earp said in Tombstone - "It's not that you can't carry a gun, you just can't carry a gun in town."
Oh, and another thing. Hunting is legal - so do all of you smokers that live in town, do you mind if I come hunt in your back yard? I promise that I won't aim toward your house or pet. Watch out for ricochets though. "

 What next? wrote on February 26, 2008 4:26 pm:
" The coolest irony would be a lawsuit initiated by the ACLU on behalf of our illegal immigrants against the smoking ban.
Bad deal for the business owners. "

 Rights? wrote on February 26, 2008 4:33 pm:
" I just read the constitution - can't find a right to smoke in it at all. "

 BUDA wrote on February 26, 2008 4:34 pm:
" I guess the Governor will find out how many smokers he has displeased when he wants to run for office again, there's more of them than you think. "

 Representation wrote on February 26, 2008 4:34 pm:
" Sorry cigarette taxes are not taxation without representation. Your ELECTED representatives passed this tax. "

 former lincolnite wrote on February 26, 2008 4:38 pm:
" to the comment about "no rights being taken away" ... what about the rights of the business owners to choose to have a smoking/non-smoking establishment? "

 Enough Said... wrote on February 26, 2008 4:47 pm:
" " In December 2006, indoor air quality was assessed in 28 location in Lincoln and Omaha by Roswell Park Cancer Institute (13 in Lincoln and 15 in Omaha). Key findings from the Air Monitoring Study include:
-> The average level of fine particle indoor air pollution was 96% lower in Lincoln, where all venues are smoke-free, compared to Omaha, where smoking is allowed.

-> Employees in Omaha establishments permitting indoor smoking are exposed to levels of air pollution 5.6 times higher than 24-hour fine particle standard established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Oh, and for the outdoor car exhaust is worse argument... Omaha's smoking establishments had an indoor air pollution level of 365, Lincoln's non-smoking establishments had a level of 17, and the average outdoor air pollution level was at 9. "
"

 at what point? wrote on February 26, 2008 5:00 pm:
" At what point did it become a RIGHT for people to go out to eat or drink in a bar or walk in to any free-enterprise establishment and have it be smoke-free? There IS a difference between what is a "choice" and what is a "right" and what is a "privilege". The owners should have the "right" to decide whether their business is smoking or non-smoking. The customer has the "choice" whether or not to patronize that business.

We don't need the government making up our minds for us.

Let's see ... if deadbeat parents = deadbeat kids = huge welfare costs ... can anybody say "mandatory sterilization"? Oh ... wait ... is that a right or a choice? Or maybe a privilege? The line is getting very fuzzy. "

 Child of Former Smoker wrote on February 26, 2008 5:02 pm:
" I am celebrating! How wonderful! We went to a funeral recently out of Lincoln and on the way to the cemetary, we looked at each other and wondered about the VFW where the luncheon was being held at would be smoke filled. We assumed it would be and that our stay would have to be short b/c of asthma. We were grateful we were able to stay with our friend who had just lost their parent and was having a tough time. There was no smoking there after all. This is one of many things that a smoking addict should not be able to dictate. Signed-A child of a former smoker "

 Rick S wrote on February 26, 2008 5:08 pm:
" I agree with what personal freedom wrote. It sure appears that you have a lot more places that you can smoke than where you can not. I hope the places that make a special place for smokers to smoke outside choose an area that is not the exit or entrance. Maybe on the roof of the building, or across the parking lot, or in their own car. This designated smoking area "Outside" should not be where you have to enter or exit the building as a customer and walk through it. This will only promote anger between smokers and non smokers. I don't think anyone really cares that you smoke, we just don't want you to make us smoke part of your cigarette. This date is way to far off and we shouldn't be surprised. Thanks Gov, even though it takes you guys a long long time to do things, you done a great service with this one. "

 Nina Rohlfs wrote on February 26, 2008 5:37 pm:
" Whoa - What got into him! I guess our guv decided not to use his veto pen to beat a dead horse. Now if he will just help pass other bills that the MAJORITY of Nebraskans want done, he will truly be "our" leader. "

 Smokers are clueless wrote on February 26, 2008 5:45 pm:
" Smokers have plenty of places they can smoke legally. No one is taking away their right. It's legal for me to urinate - I just can't do it in the middle of a bar or on a cop car on O Street or in the face of some patron that is smoking. You don't see me griping about the government taking away my right to a basic bodily function. Get a grip - you smokers have just lost the right to infringe upon my rights - NOW WE'RE EVEN!!! "

 DR wrote on February 26, 2008 5:49 pm:
" By By tourism dollars. Just like the helment law Nebraska will get drove around. "

 One Out In The Third wrote on February 26, 2008 5:49 pm:
" I never smoked. The question is...since the best restaurants are obviously those where smoking was allowed...the non-smokers can now rush in for a great meal. But lo...in the ceiling tiles overhead and on the walls they sit next to...in the upholstery they sit on...and on the counters/tables they eat from...they are surrounded by a dark permeation left by the thousands of smokers that preceded them. I hope the Unicameral and Governor can fix that. The idea of brown ceiling tile hanging above my fresh green salad is nauseating me just thinking about it. Uggggh. Why would a non-smoker put up with such a dangerous threat? Somebody call the Health Board!! Oh...and did that guy that had an after dinner chew before I arrived really use my water glass? Oh the horrors!!! I don't think I will ever go out again. I am also glad I still have the freedom of choice...well for a while anyway. "

 Bill wrote on February 26, 2008 5:58 pm:
" Not all smokers are opposed to the ban. I'm a longtime smoker that smoked on airplanes when it was allowed. Can you imagine that today? I remember smoking in the hospital 25 years ago when I was there for an operation.

But for the last 25 years I have not smoked in my own house or car, nor for the last 20 years I haven't smoked inside at my place of work. For probably that long, I have chosen to sit in the non-smoking section of restaurants when dining out.

There have ALWAYS been a significant number of places that have not allowed smoking, and no one has ever questioned; theatres, churches, stores, lumber yards, schools, etc.

After a while you'll get used to it.

From a smoker; this was a good thing. And no, I'll probably won't quit as a result of this ban. "

 I want to know wrote on February 26, 2008 6:04 pm:
" the arguments from smokers doesn't hold water at any level. you still can smoke that right has not been removed. the comparison to tranny has no point. this ban will help non-smokers live longer. Im sure Dana Reeve (supermans wife) would still be here if she hadn't been exposed to 2nd smoke while performing in her younger years.
signed: former smoker "

 Smoker rights? wrote on February 26, 2008 6:23 pm:
" Smokers still have the right to smoke, just not to subject others to their stinky and hazardous habit. "

 smoker wrote on February 26, 2008 6:29 pm:
" This is total bull I thought this was a free country. If people dont like the smoke, then keep them out of the smoking establishments. By the way, wasnt the Bob Devaney Sports Center built with cigarette tax money? "

 w wrote on February 26, 2008 6:30 pm:
" i don't believe the major issue here is that smokers are whining about not being able to smoke ... the issue here is that the rights of the business owners are being taken away from them. "

 li wrote on February 26, 2008 7:02 pm:
" "the new ban may be a sign they are no longer shielded from the public health initiatives popular with city types."

"city types" ???!? either this is purposefully denigrating to the subjects of this part of the article or the author has not-so-well-hidden biases himself. "

 wayne wrote on February 26, 2008 7:36 pm:
" this should be left for the insurance companies, I dont feel that our government has the right to dictate items such as this. If insurance companies, whom pays most of the bills, refuse to insure smokers, you would end up with the same results. "

 Debra wrote on February 26, 2008 8:29 pm:
" For those of you griping that you are being kept from doing something that's legal - it's no longer legal to smoke in public - get over it! I'm sure you'll no longer whine because your main argument was that it was a legal activity. Well, not anymore. Actually, I am wondering why they are waiting until June of 2009 to implement this. "

 Mitch Wagner wrote on February 26, 2008 8:48 pm:
" Good to see the Gov. is another McCain supporting, blue-blood, country club, fake Republican. Liberty now has no party. Ding dong the party is dead. God help us when we become the USSA. Once again, they can get you to do anything if they can keep you scared -- second hand smoke, global warming, terrorism = smoking bans; light bulb, auto emissions, energy restrictions; The Patriot Act. "

 oh my wrote on February 26, 2008 9:23 pm:
" I feel sorry for the law enforcement officers in the western part of the state that try and enforcement that in the small towns. I understand that there shouldn't be smoking in eating establishments, but many people go to bars to have a smoke and a beer. I do. I think it should be up to the city/county board and the business owners. "

 Luke wrote on February 26, 2008 9:28 pm:
" All hail The People's Republik of Amerika.

I used to hope for a day when this would be a free and proper country. Now I can't wait for the day when this country falls. It seems that the latter is a prerequisite to the former. "

 John wrote on February 26, 2008 10:03 pm:
" Well, Iown a bar/restaurant in rural NE. The Gov has just issued a pink slip to every one of my employees. We didn't ask for this, and I will not be told how to run my business.

Moving my business to Iowa, or Kansas. "

 mike wrote on February 26, 2008 10:30 pm:
" I certainly love seeing the smokers huddled together to get their nicotine fix in the freezing cold outside but I have to wonder something. Now, perhaps I'm not up on OSHA code and how it applies, or who it applies to, but they say you can't smoke within 50 feet of a building entrance. Is there anyone out there that might be able to explain if this could in any way apply? "

 MP wrote on February 26, 2008 10:38 pm:
" This all comes down to who's rights are more important. I have the right to smoke but others have the right to clean air. I think we can all agree on one thing here SMOKING IS BAD FOR YOU. You know it I know it and that is why the people that don't smoke get there right to clean air. If smoking was good for you and improved your life then you might have a something to fight about. In return I think the state should lower the tax we pay on a pack of smokes. I have smoked for 14 years. I dont mind going outside to have one. I cant stand to be in a place and have a haze of smoke all over. Plus when you leave you dont stink. "

 Joseph wrote on February 26, 2008 11:06 pm:
" In regards to the Governor and legislature. two quotes from Ronald Reagan come to mind.
1. a man is not free unless government is limited.
2. The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would hire them away. "

 bs wrote on February 27, 2008 3:11 am:
" stop the semis the diesel exhaust is killing me all non smokers dont by food if production pollutes the air "

 JH wrote on February 27, 2008 3:12 am:
" Well Nebraska smokers, order your smokes on line, if close to a state line, go across to get your smokes because next thing they will be wanting is to use Nebraska cigarette sales tax money to build another sports arena or something of sort like they did when they used cigarette tax money to build the Devaney Sports Center.... "

 Steven Douglas wrote on February 27, 2008 7:15 am:
" It is about time this happened. Now I can got eat at some of the good small town restaurants without having to smell like smoke when I get home. "

 werdna wrote on February 27, 2008 7:30 am:
" How unpatriotic an act! This great land was built up with the revenues of the tobacco industry. If you support this ban you are un-American! "

 mitchy_v wrote on February 27, 2008 7:31 am:
" The Roswell Park Cancer Institute Air Quality Test is a joke. I could perfore the exact same tests with a completely different outcome. You can't prove that the higher levels are caused by second hand smoke. Size of the establishment needs to be the same. Any burnt foods in the kitchen lately? How close were these site to a major road? Go on and give me another study PAID for by the anti-smoking groups. Of course the results were in favor of the non-smoking. "

 Grundle wrote on February 27, 2008 8:32 am:
" Actually, if you buy your smokes online, you are still legally required to pay sales tax in your state of residence...what you're suggesting is tax evasion, which was illegal that last time I checked. Stop this horse-pucky argument of, "our cigarette tax dollars built the Devaney Center!" If the government had said that you could not smoke ANYWHERE in Nebraska, THEN you might have an argument based on taxes. "

 iconoclast wrote on February 27, 2008 8:40 am:
" I just can't get over how many whiners we have posting here. You'd think smokers would be tough, but the people opposed to the smoking ban keep moaning, repeating the same tired, stupid arguments. They're against McCain, Heineman, and Republicans. They claim freedoms are being taken away. The only freedom lost here is the one to give cancer to innocent people.
They bring up taxes on cigarettes, which is not related. you can still smoke, you just can't smoke on others.
This has nothing to do with car emissions or fatty foods.
Stop saying the same stupid stuff.
And I have a serious question. You see smokers driving around in the winter with a window cracked. What's up with that? Don't you want the smoke? Isn't that why you lit the thing in the first place?
Stop your whining, and keep your smoke to yourself. "

 kykp wrote on