Now
Fair
75°
High
75°
Low
66°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

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

Outside Lincoln, smoking ban raises some concerns

Comments 66 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

By HILARY KINDSCHUH / Lincoln Journal Star

Wednesday, Feb 27, 2008 - 11:41:15 pm CST

Katrinka Fullerton finished a cigarette after lunch at Leanne’s Restaurant in Cortland on Wednesday, the day after Gov. Dave Heineman signed into law a statewide smoking ban that will go into effect in June 2009.

Fullerton, 41, said she didn’t much care one way or another that smoking will be banned in bars, restaurants and most other work places. She’ll still eat at Leanne’s.

The three men sitting with her had different opinions.

Story Photo
A customer lights a cigarette at Sadie's Place in Hickman Wednesday afternoon. (Anthony Roberts)

Related Media

Small towns talk about smoking ban

Small town business owners talk about statewide smoking ban. (Anthony Roberts / JournalStar.com)...

Comments: 0
Rated:

“In the restaurants, it should have been (banned) years ago,” said Fullerton’s husband, Dean, 60. “But it should be left alone in bars.”

John Sieber, 68, thinks smoking should be banned in all public places, and he doesn’t think the ban will affect small-town businesses.

“So many places in small towns, you don’t have a choice where you go,” he said.

Evan Young, 85, wanted to know how the ban will be enforced.

“Non-smokers are going to be watching and call (police),” Katrinka Fullerton replied.

Scott Osander, owner of Leanne’s Restaurant, said he’s not too worried about the ban affecting his business.

For one thing, fewer than 10 percent of his customers are smokers.

“I can’t imagine people not going out to eat,” he said. “Most (smokers) are fairly considerate anyway.”

Even though supporters say a statewide ban levels the playing field among businesses, Osander said he still opposed the idea.

“There is a (public) health factor in everything from car exhaust to food additives,” he said. “I just don’t like the government interfering.”

Osander also worries about the enforcement issue.

“I don’t want to get forced into a situation where I have to get confrontational with one of my customers or I get fined,” he said.

About 14 miles north, a Hickman bar owner also wondered about enforcement.

The issue has been the butt of some jokes, said Sadie’s Place owner Mike Harral.

“I don’t know if (police) are going to drive around Lancaster County and look for the smoking butt instead of the smoking gun,” he said.

When the time comes, Harral said, he’ll be compelled to enforce the law, just the same as if a minor tried to drink or smoke in the bar.

“As a business owner and a citizen, I have to follow the laws, even if I don’t agree with them.”

Mark Rakowsky, owner of Whiskey River Saloon in Madison, said he already gives his customers a choice. One half of his business, in a separate building next door, is non-smoking.

“I don’t smoke but I think you should have the right to decide,” Rakowsky said.

One of Rakowsky’s customers, Stan Ponek, 57, said the public health argument wasn’t reasonable. “If this is a health issue, why doesn’t the United States ban smoking altogether? They want your tax dollars, but they want to tell you what to do.”

Josh Hicks, 28, took out a cigarette as he waited at the small bar in Sadie’s Place. He said he’s seen business rise in such towns as Hickman and Denton since Lincoln enacted its smoking ban in 2005.

If banning smoking in bars was profitable, Hicks said, “there’d be a lot more non-smoking establishments. I think it’s going to close down all these small town bars.”

Harry Swallow, 66, who was at Whiskey River in Madison agreed. “I think it’s going to break a lot of bars. I probably won’t come down here any more and I’m here every day,” he said.

“I don’t think it will hurt the big places, but the small towns, drawing on a small amount of people, what are they going to do?”

Charles Johnston, 54, doesn’t think the smoking ban will hurt businesses, but said it will be a pain in the winter.

“I do know that cigarettes are bad for you, and if I could quit today, I would,” Johnston said. “But I don’t think anyone should tell me I have to.

“If you’re not going to give me a place to do it, make it illegal.”

Johnston said he, too, isn’t sure how well the ban will be enforced.

“Farm towns are going to say, ‘Piss on you, Mr. Governor,’” he said.

While many of the customers at Sadie’s Place are smokers, Harral is optimistic the ban will bring in some new people, he said.

“We’ve had some complaints, people saying, ‘I’d come in here if it wasn’t so smoky,’” he said. “But it’s a guarded optimism at best.”

Reach Hilary Kindschuh at 473-7120 or hkindschuh@journalstar.com. Reporter Kendra Waltke contributed to this story.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Local > 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  
Here's to ya wrote on February 28, 2008 4:37 am:
" For all you who want our cops chasing all over town and country side, think about it the next time you have a life threating situation,being a car accident,thief,
assalt,rape,etc and the police are somewhere checking out a smoking violation and arrive just a little to late because they were out doing such an important job,TOO bad. You asked for it and in my opinion if you want them to waste time like this, YOU diserve the results. "

 mike wrote on February 28, 2008 6:09 am:
" Once again it is what ever they want to do. We really don't have the rights we had in the past. The smoking ban is just a stepping stone for more laws to come. It reminds me of the seat belt law, I remember being with the majority when we voted that down and then Ben Nelson gave us that one. It seems the people in office want our votes but don't care what "we the people" want. I can see a law coming that will make it against the law to smoke in your own home, it wouldn't suprise me in this state. "

 Mike in DC wrote on February 28, 2008 6:42 am:
" Police don't have to enforce it if the judicial system can take care of it. IOW, you want to get sued? But people are not very smart. Regulations almost NEVER kill business -- the CREATE opportunity. Those folk smart enough to take advantage --> clubs, etc... will be the ones that profit. As far as regulations go, almost to a 't' all businesses don't care so much as LONG as ALL are treated the same, and this does that. So, this is a victory for the workers, even if it's a small inconvenience for smokers. And, it's sure nice the JS uses annecdotal references with no data and little credibility about the bars south of Lincoln. Business has increased? Hmmm... is south Lincoln growing? Duh. "

 connie wrote on February 28, 2008 6:54 am:
" I don't smoke, but I really hate this. More and more and more of our individual freedoms are being taken away by the government and this is another step down that slippery slope. Soon we'll have total government control of everything and all of you who supported the ban will be saying, "this is awful, how in the heck did we get HERE???" "

 Tammy wrote on February 28, 2008 7:12 am:
" I don't really think that many businesses will be adversely effected. Certainly, some of the small towns around Lincoln are going to see their business decline in the short term, but most of these places were there before the ban in Lincoln, and they will still be there after the state wide ban goes into effect. For a bar that serves no food, I think it should have been left up to the owner to decide. "

 Jen wrote on February 28, 2008 7:19 am:
" Using Here's to ya's comment as a basis: when people start complaining that there aren't enough police to cover both the smoking criminals and real criminals, they'll be forced to increase the budget to hire more officers on staff, and raising our taxes to do it. It all comes down to money for the state. Period. "

 Debra wrote on February 28, 2008 7:21 am:
" "If you're not going to give me a place to do it, make it illegal?" How about your home, outdoors, your car, your patio, the beer garden at the bar - did I mention the outdoors? The ban isn't about making you stop smoking. It's about making you stop forcing others to breathe your smoke in an enclosed place that is intended for the public. If so many smokers are so considerate, why are they complaining about having to step outside so loudly? "

 small towns wrote on February 28, 2008 7:43 am:
" The argument that small town bars will close because of a smoking ban is a bunch of hooey (can't say what it really is here). As someone who grew up in a small town and regularly visits, I know that small town bars are not just places to eat and drink and smoke, it's part of the town culture. It's a social event. Its human nature to want to be with other people. Diners and bars are where people go to catch up on the gossip and trade stories. People can't do that in their own homes without creating an atmosphere of a bar in a house (dirty dishes, LOTS of ashtrays, stocking food, etc) If smoking is banned everywhere, then there is no place for the smokers to go...they will eventually shrug their shoulders and go to the bar, just like they always did. "

 Randy wrote on February 28, 2008 7:46 am:
" You mean there are people who live outside of Lincoln?


As far as enforcement goes, the anti-smoking Nazi Gestapo will just make citizen's arrests until the cops show up. I can just see people hog tied, lying on the floor wait ing for the cops.

"

 Oak williams: activist wrote on February 28, 2008 8:17 am:
" It's not about punishing the smokers. Its not about rewarding the non-smokers. It's the fact that cigarettes can shortin' a human life. And If I'm a non-smoker I shouldn't have to put up with your second hand smoke. (Ok it is a reward to the non smokers). And for all those who say they won't go out if smoking is banned, good I don't like whiners, at the bar anyway. "

 Pro Ban wrote on February 28, 2008 8:24 am:
" I am casual smoker and I really don't care that this passed. I can't stand sitting in the smoking section of a restaurant and I think that people will be better off with this ban. I don't want to take my child into an environment full of smoke. The "rights" that you say are being taking away are for the greater good and while you should have the freedom to choose so should others. You don't HAVE to wear your seatbelt, you might die in a car accident but you had the choice. You don't HAVE to smoke outside but you might get fined and asked to leave but this is America.
Oh and "Here's" last time I checked most counties have more than 1 cop on duty so I doubt the next time you get assaulted that you'll be left without protection. Or maybe this is a lead in to the concealed weapons ban... "

 settle wrote on February 28, 2008 8:25 am:
" It's not gonna be too hard to enforce the ban. You just cant smoke in a Bar. When Lincoln's ban came into affect, the police responded to about three calls for the first week of the ban. When bar owners know that they will be fined $500 for someone lighting up, they wont allow it.

Really are we going to have some rouge community out in the boonies lighting up at the local tavern laughing at the governor? I doubt it. "

 ryan wrote on February 28, 2008 8:36 am:
" No one is saying you can't smoke, you just can't do it in a public building. Businesses will be just as busy as they have always been (like in Lincoln). Smokers quit your whining. All these years you've been saying "if you don't like the smoke, don't go into the place." Well, now it's getting thrown back into your face like all of your inconsiderate smoke has been forever. If you don't like the smoke ban, don't go into the business. Sooner or later you'll crave that burger, salad, beer or mixed drink with the crowd of friends and family. You'll go to the bar/restaraunt eat and/or drink and then go outside to smoke and find out that you should have saved your breath and that you all sound like a bunch of 3 year olds. Grow up. My health is more important than your right to smoke in the same building I am in. Selfish, yes, but I can live with that. "

 Pete wrote on February 28, 2008 8:47 am:
" Hey you smokers, where is your outrage over the war against marijuana? A person cannot even use marijuana in the privacy of his or her home, alone, without fear of being persecuted. And good ol boy Karpisek wants to step up the penalties. The tobacco smoking ban is to protect other people from the well documented risks of second hand exposure. This ban is about harm reduction, not infringement of freedoms like the "war on drugs" is. "

 KC wrote on February 28, 2008 8:52 am:
" If smokers are so upset about not being able to smoke in bars, then don't go to the bars. Then, if your favorite place closes down, don't cry about the fact that it had to close because you, as a smoker, was mad that you couldn't smoke there and decided to quit going. Oh, and can someone show me where we have the FREEDOM TO SMOKE. I understand the freedom of choice argument, which I do agree, but that one is a two-sided argument as well. As a non-smoker, shouldn't I have the FREEDOM TO NOT HAVE TO BREATHE SECOND-HAND SMOKE? Look at Lincoln's ban - bars and restaurants suffered at first, but can someone give me a grand total since 2005 that have closed? Bars and restaurants will adapt and will make adjustments. No big deal. We do have a freedom of choice, but with this issue, one side's choice cancels out the other side's choice. "

 DP wrote on February 28, 2008 8:53 am:
" I doubt the police are going to be hanging out at the bars just hoping to write a ticket for someone while the criminals are out ruling the town. Have a little more common sense than that "here's to ya". As a non smoker I feel like this is adding to my freedom not taking one away. Let's be honest smoking is gross and unhealthy. Why should I have to come home from the restaurant/bar smelling like smoke, eyes irritated and lungs full of smoke just because someone has a bad habit? Sometimes the freedom to do whatever the heck you want, hurts other people. "

 Good grief wrote on February 28, 2008 8:54 am:
" Please realize that this ban doesn't mean you can't smoke. And quit with the "freedom" arguments. You don't have the right or the freedom to give me cancer. You know smoking is bad for you, right? "

 Grundle wrote on February 28, 2008 9:05 am:
" How difficult would it have been to seek out a few more citizens with arguments that support the smoking ban? "

 Beer Gardens Won't Work wrote on February 28, 2008 9:13 am:
" For those that say that smokers will have their beer gardens, I await the day that the complaints about THAT start. It'll still be the same thing...nonsmokers have a right to be out in beer gardens...blah blah blah. "

 Late O'Day wrote on February 28, 2008 9:20 am:
" I'd tell Josh Hicks that when those small businesses go broke, the nannies will chirp the same chorus they did here in Lincoln -- they'll blame it on the economy, the business was faltering anyway, and (heck, I dunno) sunspots. The one universal truth I've noticed about nannies is that they cannot accept responsibility. That's one of the reasons they are so eager to hand over their rights to big brother. "

 Non-smoker for citizen rights wrote on February 28, 2008 9:32 am:
" I think that each community or county, whichever, should have the right to vote for themselves. We had that priviledge here in Lincoln. If we followed the political process the way it was intended, this is what would happen. "

 CS wrote on February 28, 2008 9:34 am:
" In Illinois a local anti-smoking supporter, having gotten his pet law passed, is now going after people that have fireplaces in his relatively ritzy neighborhood. Where does it stop? "

 rick wrote on February 28, 2008 9:51 am:
" next thing you know they wont have strippers in this town and my world will be ruined. "

 Grundle wrote on February 28, 2008 9:54 am:
" Wrong...beer gardens will work, and do work in Lincoln already. Several bars have conforming beer gardens that provide some shelter for the smokers, while at the same time keep the smoke out of the bar. "

 Dano wrote on February 28, 2008 10:14 am:
" As a nonsmoker, I don't appreciate that I am classified as some socialist who is telling someone else what to do with their life. I am not in support of making smoking illegal. It would never work and just lead to black market and illicit activities. But, I think I do deserve the right to tell you how not to affect my life and my families' lives. The fact that you choose to smoke, doesn't mean I should have to suffer from your choice. I already do that enough through insurance and medical expenses, due to everyone's bad health habits. (not saying I am perfect, but control your fork once in awhile and get some exercise for cryin' out load)

I have no problem with smokers, heck my dad, my grandparents, and other relatives all smoke. They know my opinion of it, and I tell them everytime, that they are just shortening their time with us and our kids. The only issue I have with the arguements are that you say i can choose not to go there. Well, i say to that, I shouldn't have to choose, simply because of that reason alone. I would rather make my choice on the place itself, or the value of the food, the quality of the service and the people providing it. I, and the rest of us as nonsmokers, shouldn't have to choose to not frequent any business just because of smoking. Smoking is different from most any other legal drug, because it can affect everyone within the users range. You drink too much, I don't get drunk because of it. You eat too much, I don;t get fat because of it. You spend too much gambling, i don't lose my money because of it. Sure there are other side affects of those activities, but they are not directly related to my health or length of life.

Again, to each their own, but only when it doesn't directly affect me. "

 I wrote on February 28, 2008 10:16 am:
" I don't know why all these people think the smoking ban is going to break all the bars and close them down. People will still want to go somewhere to drink. "

 nonsmoker in small town wrote on February 28, 2008 10:33 am:
" I'm not a smoker. I come from a long line of smokers. It upsets me that the government can garnish my freedom. It is MY CHOICE to go to a smoke filled establishment. It should be the CHOICE of the establishment owner to allow smokers or not. It is NOT MY CHOICE to walk through second-hand smoke to get into an establishment, which now happens in Lincoln because of the smoking ban, and which will happen in the small towns. I'd like to mention the tax dollars spent to purchase a machine to pick up all the cigarette debris because of the smoking ban. Smoking is bad for you, second-hand smoke, over extended exposure, can be toxic. Over use of alcohol is bad for a body, too. Currently it is the drinker's choice to toxify his liver. While I HAD a choice to be exposed to smoking I NEVER had a CHOICE to be on the highway with a drunk driver. To my understanding drunk drivers kill more people than the limited exposure (eating in a smoke-filled establishment) of second hand smoke. If the government can initiate this kind of control with smoking, will it be in the near future that there will be a high blood-pressure ban? What about any other health concern? It saddens me that we live in America, land of the free, where freedom of speech is a right, but our rights are being diminished rather rapidly. "

 pac wrote on February 28, 2008 10:33 am:
" I think the small town bar and business owners will be pleasantly surprised come July 1, 2009 when their business actually INCREASES as a result of the ban. I live in, and near, small towns, and I NEVER go to the bars or restaurants that allow smoking in these towns. That will definitely change once the smoking ban goes into effect...and the only way they will then lose MY business will be due bad food and/or service. "

 Diane BLoch wrote on February 28, 2008 10:34 am:
" Society makes smokers feel like second class citizens. Non smokers are no better than I. If all smokers quit smoking today, THE US wouldn't have any of those extra tax dollars. Everyone benefits from the smoking tax dollars. So go ahead make smoking illegal then!!! "

 Grundle wrote on February 28, 2008 10:34 am:
" The one universal truth I've noticed about smokers is that most of them cannot accept responsibility...the responsibility to keep their habit to themselves. It is irresponsible to go into any public place and start smoking without consideration for others. You don't see people going into public places and dropping their pants to defecate wherever they want...why do you think that is? It's because society has come to the conclusion that doing so would be unhealthy, and also downright disgusting...smoking is no different. Just because all of you smokers bought into the 'Joe Cool' and 'Marlboro Man' ads that said smoking was the cool thing to do, doesn't mean that the rest of us were so easily convinced. You were duped...the rest of us weren't, and now all of the sudden you're mad because society has begun legislating common sense?? Get over it. "

 If your really....... wrote on February 28, 2008 10:36 am:
" That lazy to not be able to walk out side and stand for 5 minutes to save other peoples life, then you my friend are very very selfish. I smoke and live in Lincoln, I have NO problem stepping outside. Others should not have to suffer because of my habbit. Get over yourselves people! "

 Lisa, smoker wrote on February 28, 2008 10:40 am:
" I personally like the smoking ban. The only thing that really stinks is that IT IS NEBRASKA and DARN cold outside. Made me smoke less, or only go out when I REALLY wanted one.

One concern: picture your daughter outside smoking alone OUTSIDE a bar with a bunch of drunks. "

 Wow people are ignorant wrote on February 28, 2008 10:42 am:
" So all of you people would think my pregnant wife should stay at home next time I go to a bar because ignorant people like you think it is ok to smoke INSIDE an establishment? She is my dd and because people like you decide to kill yourselves slowly my child should be affected by it? Get real.Or wait let me guess she should stay home because she is pregnant. This is just as silly as smoking in airplanes it is just going to take a while for these people to realize it. "

 Gregg wrote on February 28, 2008 10:51 am:
" Soon to follow: coffee is banned, alcohol is banned, smoking in your own home is banned.

Time to bow down to your overlords. If people only actually read the research on second hand smoke, they'd realize there is NO statistical increase in cancer among second hand smokers vs. complete non-smokers.
This is just another piece of moral legislation. "

 reader wrote on February 28, 2008 11:01 am:
" I would like to know the percentage of people here that are complaining about the “freedoms” that Big Brother is taking away because they can’t smoke inside public places anymore that thought the Patriot Act was a sweet call. That is the official definition of Big Brother or did you not read that book and are just spouting off crap you saw in a magazine one time. "

 Lola wrote on February 28, 2008 11:09 am:
" Once again, the Nebraska legislature passes a law to benefit business. When are people going to start electing candidates who will work to benefit all Nebraskans or all Americans? Nebraskans have low wages, few workplace protections and an attorney general weak on issues of consumer fraud. Ask your candidate for the state or U.S.Senate what, exactly, he/she would do to help the rest of us. Elections have consequences and these are some of them. "

 DannyB wrote on February 28, 2008 11:33 am:
" r-"next thing you know they wont have strippers in this town and my world will be ruined." My name is DannyB, and I applaude this message. I am also a non-smoker, but don't think that the government should be able to dictate what LEGAL practices should be allowed in a private place of business. I'm a big fan of strippers, but not of smoking. Do I still go to the Night Before or the 20s? Yep. And as an adult, I can make that choice. Just like I choose to take the risk of driving there, the risk of walking on the ice, and risk the noise and air pollution to see me some ladies. Someday it will get to the point where the only place you can smoke, eat food that's unhealthy, or see naked people will be home. Hopefully, people will wake up before then and throw off the shackles of this puritan view forced on us. "

 Phil wrote on February 28, 2008 11:40 am:
" Smoking bans have worked pretty well in other areas of the country. After a fairly short period of time you generally get pretty close to 100% compliance. The argument that the police will be busy enforcing the smoking ban has never turned out to be the case anywhere else. I guess it's supposed to try to scare people out of supporting the ban?! "

 brian dunlap wrote on February 28, 2008 12:20 pm:
" why is it that towns and businesses can't opt out of this ban, but when it is something that people can choose to do, such as the concealed carry laws, businesses can opt out of that? "

 Western NE wrote on February 28, 2008 12:45 pm:
" To all of you that think there is nowhere other than eastern Nebraska. There is a western and northern part of the state and I feel for them. The bars(no food served), the Bowling Alley's, the pool halls............And you don't that they will be affected.
The bars in Lincoln that took a hit, had the popuation base to come back after awhile. But once those bars in small Western towns, go, then they go. The populaton base is not large enough to bring them back. One more thing, Main Street will now be a huge ashtray, or someone will try to smoke in the bathroom and put in the trash can and burn down half the town, because all the buildings are connected on Main Street. Anyway you look at, I think that it should be put to vote at the county level. "

 Darren wrote on February 28, 2008 12:46 pm:
" Smoking ban today and if they ever prove that non missionary sex is harmful in some way that will be next. The more control the government has over your life the more it wants. I'd hazard a guess that breathing exhaust fumes is more dangerous to a larger peercentage of the populous and in fact to the survival of the entire planet and yet no one had banned cars because that would inconvenience people in government. This forced health crap is just that. Crap. "

 TJ wrote on February 28, 2008 12:56 pm:
" I smoke...I live in Lincoln...I smoked in the bars. Knee jerk reaction is to complain, as for some people this has been the norm. What I think alot of these people are missing is this - The bans are successful because they are also supported by a chunk of the smoking 'community'. This is not a defined line in the sand between two groups. I enjoy the ban in Lincoln, we go out more as a group of friends because everyone is willing to go to the bars now. Businesses will not see a decrease if they provide a nice heated area outside for smokers. We also are able to take our kids to sports bars on Saturdays to eat lunch and watch football - I have been in Sadies Place, its a great small town bar with good food.....but it is also like walking into a haze of smoke! You leave and notice it.....give it a shot, if you dont like it then you can always introduce a bill to kill the ban. The only problems I have seen with the ban are drunk customers that think if they cause enough of a problem they can get away with it....but it never happens usually the staff give them the boot or other customers do (and that is smoking customers!). Its a good thing, sometimes people are too complacent to change for the better, that is why the government is stepping in! "

 Ryan wrote on February 28, 2008 1:05 pm:
" I think this says a lot to the level of addiction in these people. If you would rather not go out at all than, say, not smoke for a couple hours or *gasp* step outside for a couple of minutes then you've some major problems with control. "

 jojo wrote on February 28, 2008 1:25 pm:
" Ever notice that nobody made a law saying you can't shoot yourself in the foot? They did make a law saying you can't shoot me though. This is no different. It's not saying you can't smoke and harm your own body, just that you shouldn't be able to harm mine. As far as the people making comments about having the choice to drink and what's next a "high-blood pressure ban," those are choice that affect you, not me, so that's just flailing for an argument. You're right, you don't have a choice if someone gets in the car drunk and hits you. So they made a law against it. I lose my freedom of choice if you light up next to me at the bar, so they're making a law against it. I think most, if not all, non-smokers appreciate having a place where smoking is allowed, such as beer gardens mentioned in these comments. They just don't want to be subjected to smokers' choices where there's no division, like the "smoking section." It's just a respectful way to co-exist. We can sit together at the bar and have a good time talking sports and politics, but please step outside to smoke instead of subjecting me to it. Unfortunately, lawmakers feel the need to make a law telling people to be polite because too many people have lost those kind of manners. I'm sure plenty of smokers would gladly step outside to smoke if asked by a family out with their children. Unfortunately, the smaller portion with no decency ruin things for all. "

 peb wrote on February 28, 2008 1:33 pm:
" Someone voted for these people who made the law to be our state senators and governor . . . And those of you complaining, did you write your state senator and voice your opinions? If not, you had better not be complaining! "

 SJL wrote on February 28, 2008 1:45 pm:
" I don't smoke so it doesn't affect me, however I think it was working well the way they had it. First the non-smokers had no choice, then they banned it except for the smaller towns, which gave everyone a choice, and now they are back to no choice at all, but it's the smokers who don't have a choice now. Why did they think they had to fix something that wasn't broke? "

 Grundle wrote on February 28, 2008 1:56 pm:
" If the people in the small towns of this state are willing to let a little thing like a flaming, cancerous, toxic dump come between them and a good time by no longer patronizing the businesses that are owned by their friends and neighbors...then all I can say is that this is not the Nebraska that I grew up knowing and loving. It is sad to think that people would punish business owners just because they can't suck down some poison with their beer and food. "

 Dan wrote on February 28, 2008 2:14 pm:
" "Most smokers are considerate anyways?" NEVER! I have never met a smoker who was considerate of others. The reason this law passed is because their smoking intrudes on others and they think nothing of it. Now they are all up in arms that we are taking their "rights / freedoms" away when they have been taking mine away for years with their actions. They can be inconsiderate with their cancer stick but now it is payback time.

If smokers had done a better job of being considerate I wouldn't care what they do to themselves.

I am tired of hearing how individual freedoms are being taken away. It is a convenient yet ridiculous claim. Giving weight to this argument would give weight to Pedifiles who rape our children. Your opinion on your freedom to smoke is no different than their opinion on freedom to be a Pedifile. You are free to do what you want as long as it affects you and only you. However rules of society kick in when you intrude on others. You may now try to make the argument that we "non-smokers" are now intruding upon you but we are not stopping you from smoking just protecting ourselves. You just now can only do it where it affects only YOU!

We as humans are our own worst enemy. Laws like this come about because we as a society cannot behave ourselves.

Ultimately smoking is bad no matter what angle you take. It kills you and others who experience it, period. "

 Just the facts wrote on February 28, 2008 2:57 pm:
" cops should not have to waste their time inforcing this. WHY? b/c bar owners should care more about saving lives instead of be greedy for profits. "

 Taste of your own medicine wrote on February 28, 2008 3:30 pm:
" For the past week, I've read what seems like endless comments about having our rights taken away due to the smoking ban.

For years, as a nonsmoker, I have been told that if I can't handle the smoke, I should just stay home. How is that fair? I enjoy drinking at the bars and going out dancing. I enjoy watching the big game in the company of others while knocking back a few cold ones at a sports bar. My beers are not going to harm the person sitting next to me.

I look at the smoking ban as something that is giving me my own rights back. I guess if you can't handle not being able to smoke inside an establishment, it is now YOU who should "just stay home."
"

 mike macy wrote on February 28, 2008 3:32 pm:
" When it comes to banning smoking in public establishments, I'm all for it. When it comes to banning smoking in private establishments, ones owned by individules who have invested their own money, time and expertise, nothing could be more dangerous.

I continually hear about the health risks of second hand smoke, but after checking the internet and asking for any study that proves it is a health hazard, I have yet to find a single study that proves the dangers. The smell is bad, even to me a smoker, but if the government is going to ban something that is legal to do for the simple reason of smelling bad, shame on that government.

If a study comes along that does indeed prove the dangers of cigarette smoke, then that same study will also prove that fireplace smoke is just as dangerous. I can't wait to see what the reaction is from the non-smokers who rally behind the smoking ban, when they find they can no longer use their own wood burning fireplaces.

And while we are at it, I do know that studies have proven that too much red meat is a health risk. That being the case, isn't if about time that we ban all hamburger stands, steak houses etc. If, as Americans, we are going to down the slippery road of banning what is legal to do, for whatever reason, there will be no end in sight as to all the pleasures in life that can be legislated out of existance.

Thank God I am 61 years old and will not be around to see all the laws that will be passed in future that will make life as we know it today seem like just a pleasant memory. "

 To Lisa, smoker wrote on February 28, 2008 3:33 pm:
" If you are so concerned about your daughter being outside of a bar with drunks, it is your job to teach her to use her better judgement. Which is more important-your cancer stick or your personal safety? "

 Good piont wrote on February 28, 2008 3:59 pm:
" I agree with 'Just the facts' Bar owners need to step up to the plate on this. Cops shouldn't have to waste tax money to enforce this. bar owners should obey the law. Bar owners should care more bout health and less about profits. sounds like some bars are no better than the oil companies "

 Haylee wrote on February 28, 2008 4:28 pm:
" What is the big deal s for smokers to go 1-2 hours without smoking?! Have a cancer stick before dinner and then after...no need to give the rest of us cancer cause you can't wait a few hours. "

 Fact wrote on February 28, 2008 6:48 pm:
" Here's to ya: Police will not be stationed in every bar looking for smokers to bust. Bar owners will be the primary enforcers because each time a person is ticketed smoking in a bar, the business also gets a ticket and owners do not like paying fines for someone's stupidity. Police will only come and enforce the law when called.

True, some may check out some places at first, but only in conjunction with their normal rounds. So go ahead and smoke in a bar and I'll bet the owner will stop you before any cop.

"

 ss wrote on February 28, 2008 8:58 pm:
" The final verdict....the final analysis.....the final results....the reality.....

Talk to the MOM AND POP OWNERS....PRIVATE OWNERS OF THESE PUBS IN JANUARY OF 2010.....WILL YOU PAY THEIR BILLS???? All of you will forget....unfortunately, these folks can't forget and that is the reality....as Senator Joel Johnson comfortably pays his utility bills....

Stop by Exeter, Fairmont, Geneva, Friend, Cordova, Sutton, Wilber, Milligan, McCool, Hebron, York, Waverly, Malcolm, Denton, Dorchester, Crete, Davenport, Nelson, Superior, Hartington, Wausa, Bloomfield, Ong, Shickley, Crofton, Doniphan, Hastings, Bruning, Scottsbluff, Valentine, Strang, Harvard, Rising City, Bradshaw, David City, Wayne, Niobrara, Winnetoon, Oakdale, Elgin, Creighton, Fordyce, O'Neill, Ponca, Magnet, St. Edward, Ewing, Walnut, Center, Page, Red Cloud, St. Paul, Falls City, Wood River, Stromsburg, Ore, Henderson, Loup City....etc...etc...

Uhmmmmm.....you who support nanny government....remember these folks..... "

 PRO BAN wrote on February 29, 2008 7:54 am:
" and I smoke. With that said, there is not one documented case of cancer from second hand smoke.....non smokers, you never had a 'right' to go into a smoke free bar...you have the right to choose to go into a smokey bar. "

 Been There, Done That wrote on February 29, 2008 8:56 am:
" I don't smoke and I am for a statewide ban. I do believe that businesses should have the right to chose to be smoking or not smoking. The legislature should have allowed individual businesses to make an application with their area health department (city, county, or regional) to be a smoking establishment, pay a fee, and renew the application every 3 to 5 years. "

 Just the facts wrote on February 29, 2008 9:20 am:
" the E.P.A. has published this statement "Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen)." ahh so the USA GOVERNMENT does RECOGNIZE that second hand smoke kills.
"

 Grundle wrote on February 29, 2008 9:26 am:
" Wow...some of these comments truly show the level of desperation on the side of the smokers. If you won't believe the Centers for Disease Control or the American Lung Association in their conclusions regarding secondhand smoke...maybe you'll listen to Phillip Morris. Straight from from philipmorrisusa.com, "PM USA believes that the public should be guided by the conclusions of public health officials regarding the health effects of secondhand smoke in deciding whether to be in places where secondhand smoke is present, or if they are smokers, when and where to smoke around others. ... 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." Hmmm...so even the people that make cigarettes agree that secondhand tobacco smoke is bad enough to warrant such bans. Buy hey...don't take my word for it...take theirs. "

 Governments Attention wrote on February 29, 2008 11:50 am:
" You want the government to listen... Every single person in the State of Nebraska stop smoking and buying tobacco products on March 1, 2008. Don't ever pick up another one again..... "

 mitchy_v wrote on February 29, 2008 12:40 pm:
" On a positive note, the bar owner only has to have signs posted and tell people that the bar is non-smoking. The owner doesn't have to call the police if someone lights up. Small towns aren't going to waste the polices time. "

 Rob wrote on February 29, 2008 1:03 pm:
" Private owners should have a right to do what they want with their self-invested establishment. Like, prepare food without washing their hands for instance, or not have food stored at the proper temperature, or lock all fire exits. After all thats their establishment, right? Or is "big brother" (aka health insepector, fire inspector) bringing them down? It's about public safety. "

 Not quite so factual wrote on February 29, 2008 1:18 pm:
" Smoking not good, ya can contribute to cancer...despite what the FDA has said it is still a fact that there is not 1 documented case of cancer from second hand smoke. Can it happen, Im sure, but it is a fact! BTW the government also advocated the use of heroin for head aches at one time too! "

 I have learned...... wrote on February 29, 2008 2:54 pm:
" in the past few years that most smokers only care about their rights and no one else's. Live a healthy smoke free life you say? Nope you have smokers wanting to slowly kill you because they can't step outside for 5 minutes to slowly kill themselves. All of you who say business will suffer, that is a bold faced lie. Ask any of the bars in Lincoln and all of them will say if anything business has grown. Which sounds like most smokers need to do, grow up. Most of these people are the same people who smoke in their house killing their family and loved ones. Smoking inside is just as silly as smoking on an airplane, hopefully someday these people will realize it. "

 Just the facts wrote on February 29, 2008 4:03 pm:
" here is a quote from the U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona."The debate is over. The science is clear: Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance, but a serious health hazard," keep on mind this has spent almost half studing health.
oh and 'Not quite so factual' there was also a time when smoking was consider a healthy habit. its time to throw out the 1920's info some of you smokers are using.
"

Ads by Yahoo!