Isn't it human nature to want to do the things people tell you you can't do?

Eh? I haven't seen the CDC stats, but one reason we might move from 6th to 2nd involves other states smoking less.

John Howard for President.

Abdul, you've got to get over this obsession you've got with smoking. Here it is, real simple:

I don't care if you smoke. Enjoy it all you want. But in ANY place that is open to the public, you shouldn't be allowed to do so. Period.

Regardless what folks say, that is not infringing on your rights. Smoke is a known health hazard. That is not open for debate.

We banned asbestos, because airborne dried particles cause lung disease and cancer. Smoke is no different. It is full of man-made chemicals that can, in large concentrations or over a period of time, cause health problems.

A ban on smoking will not hurt businesses. Noplace that has encated a total public ban has seen that.

Hoosiers, like a few other states, have come to associate smoking with a few specific groups:

1. Habitual users—hooked since a young age
2. Bar patrons, who think a cig and a drink are constant companions
3. Experimenters, too many of whom get hooked

The smokers' open domains are rapidly closing. That is not a bad thing. It is a change. And that's hard for some folks to accept.

But it is coming. Sooner or later.

I think its possible that other states are quiting faster than we are. Is that a surprise?

I am glad you are watching out for the kids today. No matter that all people that enter into a bar that allows smoking (you have a choose of those who do allow smoking and of those who do not) We still need mommies and daddies to make us realize that others knows what is best for each and every one of us, no matter what age we are. Now go and have another drink.

It's a little early for some “hair of the dog,” Racer, but….it's 5 o'clock somewhere. A Bloody does sound kinda good.

I may “have a choose” (sic) of the bars I enter. But every single workplace in America has government-mandated safety regulations. Ditto every commercial establishment open to the public. Think Exit signs, safety crash bars on doors and kitchen sanitary standards. All of that govt. structure is in place for–drum roll–public safety.

If you want to open a business you've got to comply with those regulations. This is one more, and frankly, it's long overdue. This particular ban may pass, it may not. Frankly, it's just a matter of time. You'd better calm down and get ready for it, because it's coming.

Dunno, but whenever you ban anything it just makes people want it more.

They'll turn places like The Melody Inn into a private club. That's good. Maybe the stinking big government nanny state loving types will stay out.

TA, The problem for most here is that the anti smoking forces wont just stop here. They have already proven thought when they got the first ban passed. I'm not a smoker so let me ha ha clear the air right there. People are concerned and rightfully so that if/when this ban goes into place what is next. Will they ban smoking in apartments because the smoke affects maintenance staff or neighbors. The anti smoking group have proven they want a total ban (eventually) on smonking period. Then whats next….ban on alcohol…..ban on obesity…do you see the chain of events unfolding??? I do not need government telling me how and where I can go. They (govt) have to much power as it is and honestly, they need some taken away not more added.

Again, I will repeat….where will bans “stop”? You can make some of the people happy some of the time, but you can never make all the people happy all the time. People need to get out of their mind set that sense a ban doesnt affect me it must be good…..but only when the bans (any ban) hits thier back yard so to speak do they start to say hey???? and by then is to late to stop the rolling train.

With all that said…you really don't think that if this ban goes into affect that the anti smoking group will stop there do you??? How long till one of your hobies you like is determined to be “unhealthy” and some group becomes hell bent to ban it for you “your own good”?

I guess that would stop Think Again at the door.

“Private” clubs are still required to maintain health codes in the kitchen, fire and safety codes in building construction, etc. “Private” clubs may not sell heroin & needles to members nor can they sell alcohol to twelve year old kids. “Private” clubs are required to pay payroll taxes for their employees.

The ruse of making an open-to-the-public bar into a “private club” solely for the purpose of permitting smoking by a few is rather transparent and doesn't make a lot of business sense…

It's not just smoking. That's only the start. Is candy bad for you? Should it be banned or regulated? Soft drinks? Power tools? Mobile homes? Being outside after dark?

Asbestos in a building is something I won't readily know is there, so I think regulation and control of that is wise. Same for the food preparation areas and cleanliness. Smoking is something I DO know before I enter a public space, and CAN make an informed decision about (i.e., stay out of the area).

I look for it to pass with the exception of private clubs. But, there will be many voters that will vote against those who vote to pass it. Glad that we live in a state that government can control what people do or does not do in their own place of business.

The fact is those statistics (like those on numbers of people who smoke and how healthy people are) everyone throws out there are a joke. There is nothing scientific about how they come up with those numbers. Yet the media and interest groups use those numbers as if they are gospel.

I remember reading about the methodology used on one “obesity” state study. They look at how many health clubs you have, how many hiking trails, etc. They were using that to calculate how “obese” a state's residents are.

That was my point exactly John…where does it stop. Invoking regulations and bans is a slippery slop.

Whats next….cars make polution we all breath…do we ban cars.?

Farm animals make manure which stinks can cause headaches…and (sugested by liberal nut balls) adds to the greenhouse affect.

Alchohol consumption can destroy the liver, can create alcoholics which kills 26k people a year in drunk driving crashes… do we ban it??

Candy is bad….do we ban it???

The Sun is harmfull to the skin in large doses…do we ban people from being out in the sun for longer than 15 minutes with out sun screen to protect them from skin cancer???

Do we ban tanning beds???

At what point can people make choices for themselves without having the government force choices apon us?

You may never have a wreck or accident in your life but the government forces you to have drivers insurance….

IF the health care reform passes as is…you will be fined if you dont have health care even though you may never be sick in your life.

But hey..who am I to question ….. lets all be lemmings.

My point is if we baned everything that was bad for you or offended others…there would be very few if any freedoms left.

Please remember we have the right to pursue happiness….we are not gaurented the right to have it.

Randy, I completely understand and somewhat support your argument. Government has a responsibility to step in only when safety concerns are at risk. Private industry has historically shown they won't take care of these problems until they have to.

That evolves over time.

For instance, nobody used to think twice about coal miners' safety. Eighty years ago, they were inhaling coal dust and dying or getting maimed in horrible accidents, some of which could've been prevented. The government stepped in with tougher safety rules, and lives were saved.

California was the first state to ban public smoking. It was 1979. I don't necessarily want to look to that state for everything, but they were ahead of the curve, and their actuarial health is proven to be better. I visit there often, and I've asked longtime bar owners if it hurt their business. All laugh when asked the question. It did not affect them.

And here's another thought to ponder, Randy. None of the other vices mentioned here, requires innocent bystanders to participate in the habit as well. If I am 40 lbs. overweight and want to eat two greasy Five Guys burgers for lunch, my doing so does not impact the health of my co-diners.

Ok, except for the gas, perhaps…

Smoking by its nature discharges harmful chemicals into the air. If smokers could walk around in a bubble, it'd be different. But they don't and can't.

And a small point–not all smokers are this way–but in the arena of Public Debate, some smokers do great harm to their cause. Our streets are not their ashtrays, and it's disgusting. Too many smokers have zero disregard for others.

I have two good friends who smoke. Both have tried to quit numerous times. They're both very strong-willed individuals, and they've spent serious money on hypnosis, drugs, therapy. Nothing works. So I have sympathy.

But smokers cannot pollute air which is co-used by all of us. It really is that simple. No business owner can operate his establishment without government intervention with regards to safety.

A large, intrusive government can ban all sorts of things and call it science. Asbestos, for instance, is really quirky in that non smokers didn't seem to end up with lung diseases. I think, KENT, with the micronite filter, was actually an asbestos filter. Other nations are a bit more careful with their science and their parasite lawyers. Lawyer lies are endemic to America, Edwards, Bendectin, asbestos, radon, breast iimplants, and, probably, second hand smoke are scarlet letters on the oldest profession-that of lying. Prostitutes are only second hand liars. Folks interested in details need consult Science on Trial by the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, Maracia Angell, MD. I don't think she calls lawyers parasites but may have operated under constraints. It is nice to drive in the country these days where more honest folks still burn their leaves unhampered by the political that poses as science.

Is this is one of those rare occasions when Wilson make some since?

Back away from the pipe, pascal…asbestos hits folks who don't smoke in disproportionate ratios. Fact.

When it was developed, it was an effective fire retardant. As time passed, we discovered it had adverse impact. It was then banned.

Nobody did this on purpose, but we are better off that it's banned. It's not a lawyer thing. Although some made huge fortunes off the cases.

It's a science thing.

Just because Indiana dropped in percentage does not mean the number of people who smoke increased. Perhaps a lot of Hoosiers did quit, but other states had more people quit. I would like to see the raw numbers.

Abdul: Could you host a panel or show of people who have never smoked but are thinking about starting?

The issue is not about infringing on Abdul's rights as a smoker. The rights you're infringing on is the property owner. Anyone who claims this is about smoker or nonsmoker's rights is terribly misguided.

mobilene and jim -

Right question to ask. Anyone know?

Live long enough, TA, or read more, and you will find that lawyer scams abound and asbestos is one of them. The hysteria about it is only in America. What was the scam that made John Edwards rich? Why can't ladies with morning sickness obtain the ideal drug for it in America (where it is no longer sold)? Want to defend lawyer science on breast implants? Quacks and thieves generally don't really want science and one wonders about the incidence of “black lung” among non smokers.

Pascal, I read plenty. You're in denial. And hopelessly lost in Hannityland.

Breast implants/legal nonsense: is a subject on which you and I might agree. But we're talking asbestos and cig smoke pollutants. The science is decided on those pollutants. Definitively.

Try to keep up, huh?

I prefer real science to political science and can only take Hannity in small doses. European science does not bite off US political science in the matter of asbestos or second hand smoke. Most scientists don't believe in Global Warming either in spite of your expected comment that that debate is over, science has decided it, only dolts and the unwashed would hold a contrary opinion. I'd suggest that you read more science or books I recommend to you vetted of course by recommending only books I have read. Palin's book will be in that catagory by day's end but I've read enough of it to know that she is no flash in the pan but a substantial person of accomplishment, real accomplishments unlike, say, Indiana's current senators.

TA, One could argue that alcohol does affect other people when someone who drinks gets behind the wheel and kills a family of 4. Obesity affects us only in the wallet as the insurance costs to cover the diabetes rages out of control. Just food ( no pun intended) for thought.

My final question TA is can you gauntee me that if I where to agree with you and support the current ban that it will stop there and not come into my home? Problem is, you can't and that is why people fight so hard against a ban that doesnt even really affect them.

Pascal, I read plenty. You're in denial. And hopelessly lost in Hannityland.

Breast implants/legal nonsense: is a subject on which you and I might agree. But we're talking asbestos and cig smoke pollutants. The science is decided on those pollutants. Definitively.

Try to keep up, huh?

I prefer real science to political science and can only take Hannity in small doses. European science does not bite off US political science in the matter of asbestos or second hand smoke. Most scientists don't believe in Global Warming either in spite of your expected comment that that debate is over, science has decided it, only dolts and the unwashed would hold a contrary opinion. I'd suggest that you read more science or books I recommend to you vetted of course by recommending only books I have read. Palin's book will be in that catagory by day's end but I've read enough of it to know that she is no flash in the pan but a substantial person of accomplishment, real accomplishments unlike, say, Indiana's current senators.

TA, One could argue that alcohol does affect other people when someone who drinks gets behind the wheel and kills a family of 4. Obesity affects us only in the wallet as the insurance costs to cover the diabetes rages out of control. Just food ( no pun intended) for thought.

My final question TA is can you gauntee me that if I where to agree with you and support the current ban that it will stop there and not come into my home? Problem is, you can't and that is why people fight so hard against a ban that doesnt even really affect them.