18 comments

• 

  desmoinesdem

  11 months ago

  No one is telling Meyers or anyone else how to live or not to do the things they enjoy. He doesn't have the right to endanger other people's health for his enjoyment, though.
  
  Lots of adults and children suffer the consequences from smokers' enjoyable habit. At least most Iowa workers will no longer have to deal with secondhand smoke at work.
  reply
• 

  Al

  11 months ago

  Desmoinesdem, The state of Iowa is on a dangerous path. Where does it stop? I can think of something that is a lot more harmful than cigarette smoke. Alcohol. Are we going to outlaw the consumption of alcohol outside the home next? Once again I ask where does it stop?
  reply
• 

  generalsn

  11 months ago

  Here in Chicago, the ban is ignored in many bars to keep their customers. As time passes, it's slowly fading into a memory in many small, neighborhood bars, in areas where real crime is an issue. The crowds that gather outside the bars are more of an issue to the local cops than smoking inside.
  reply
• 

  Lorih

  11 months ago

  The difference between alcohol and cigarettes is that when someone has a drink in a restaurant, he isn't endangering the four-year-old at the next table. My father smoked for 50 years. He died at age 63 (thirty years younger than his parents) from a massive stroke which the doctors said was the result of his smoking. He smoked around me from the time I was an infant. Research has now shown that I have twice the chance of other non-smokers of getting lung cancer. I'd just as soon not increase my chances further by being around it in restaurants.
  
  I will not only vote for my state legislators who helped pass this ban, I will campaign for them any way I can.
  reply
• 

  KNichols

  11 months ago

  I am grateful for the smoking ban. Our family now has so many more choices of places to eat out, and we've definitely eaten out more with the kids since the ban has gone into effect.
  
  If the government can regulate whether restaurants serve clean, uncontaminated food and water, I do see any reason why it can't regulate air quality in public places. And government does regulate the use of alcohol to the extent that one's use of it affects other people, i.e., DUI, public intox, sale to minors, and so on.
  reply
• 

  Creed

  11 months ago

  In regards to Al's comments...maybe it will stop when we rid the planet of horrible diseases like cancer caused by tobacco use and secondhand smoke.
  reply
• 

  Am

  11 months ago

  Geez...hope everybody's ready to pay for my food stamps when I have to get welfare because the bar I work at closes down. I mean I gotta say, it's been really fun watching the non-smokers not come in and support their small town bar now that the ban has come in. And now, what customers I do have don't stick around as long anymore and in turn, I'm not making as much money nor is the bar making as much money. It's just been great! I mean, why would anyone come in to our place when the bar up the street has yet to enforce the ban? I don't trust that my complaint will remain anonymous and apparently no one else has a problem with people still smoking up there because I have yet to see any action taken against the business. Wasn't the law before based on the sense that a city or town could choose to make their businesses non-smoking? What was wrong with that idea? The ratio of smokers to non-smokers in my small town seems to be mostly smokers. Most of the non-smokers had no problem with smoking in the bar, they pretty much figured they were abusing their liver anyways, so what was the difference of breathing second-hand smoke?
  reply
• 

  Mike

  11 months ago

  If you have an issue with smoke at an eating establishment, take it up with the owner. The business can police itself, it doesn't need government involvement.
  reply
• 

  Citizen

  11 months ago

  MARINE’S NEW MISSION IS DESTROYING IOWA’S SMOKING BAN
  Former Congressional Candidate Arms Up for Battle Against State
  
  William J. Meyers, a Marine Corps Veteran and 4th District Congressional Primary loser has joined in the fight against the state of Iowa’s new smoking ban. Meyers, 33, of Humboldt officially launched a new website that he says will become the focal point in the battle against the state and proponents of the ban. Www.repealthesmokingban.org is already making a huge splash since loading up.
  
  Meyers official “Net” breaking was today, with official statement below:
  
  “The Iowa Governmental intervention with our recently imposed smoking ban is simply wrong. Our legislators and ban proponents didn’t stop to think about how this legislation affects all of us beyond it’s intent. These actions, without a doubt, will result in unintended consequences. This ban will not preserve public health that is something, which can only be done by the individual. These types of bans promote recession, limited freedom and the loss of our ability to choose for ourselves. If such bans are such great ideas, why didn’t they work out in the 1920’s when alcohol was banned?
  
  Businesses across our state are preparing to fight this new smoking ban, they know the impact of this ban will be a negative one on their client bases and could eventually put them out of business. The ban advocates continue to recite economic reports proving that areas with smoking bans have had economic growth. What’s wrong, with these reports, is that they were taken during President Clinton’s era, which was an enormous economic boom for our nation. Imagine how much better these establishments could have had it, if they weren’t under a ban.
  
  The business owners across our state who are concerned about the impact of the smoking ban are rarely franchise owners. The vast majority of them are sole proprietorships, independent 'mom and pop' businesses that have no corporate backing or support. If you own a tavern that relies on regular customers who happen to smoke, a smoking ban is going to hurt your business, period.
  
  This new smoking ban will probably show favorable results for family restaurants. If the town or city has a cigar bar, however, the ban is very quickly going to put some people out of work. Restaurants like family diners cater to, as one might imagine, families. Bringing children into a smoke-filled environment is a great concern for ban advocates. After all, children cannot help but breathe the harmful second-hand smoke. In adult environments, particularly places such as a VFW, a local small town tavern, or cigar bar I, there exists no expectation of a smoke-free environment.
  
  Is government intervention needed? Imagine you own a food joint with a limited menu. Every day, two to three people complain to you that you do not offer those fried cheddar cheese balls. They say that they are going to take their business down the road that offers these luscious cheese balls. Does it take a business guru to know that perhaps the time to offer cheese balls is now? Customer feedback is essential to making wise business choices. The customer may always be right but that doesn't mean that one customer gets to overrule the rest. But when the majority of customers all demand the same thing, any business that fails to comply will most likely not last in an ever-changing market where there are plenty of substitutes available.
  
  The point? Before you take your issue to the polls, why not take it to the manager or owner of the restaurant in question? Enough complaints about smoking could very well lead to that restaurant or bar going smoke-free without being forced by the government. If businesses are made aware of an increasing demand, they will be sure to supply. In this case, if consumers are demanding smoke-free eating environments, businesses will step up to the plate and offer smoke-free eating establishments. This is the reason why in cities without bans there exist non-smoking restaurants, and why in Des Moines, even before the ban took effect, there were a number of restaurants and bars that did not permit smoking. Let the market police itself.
  
  It is of the upmost importance to have someone, such as myself, being able to lead a statewide battle. It’s going to take representatives of each and every county, district liasons, and a state board of directors to repeal this. I have no doubt we can do it, I can organize it, we can raise the funds, and the great people of the state of Iowa will get behind us!”
  reply
• 

  Steve Hartwell

  11 months ago

  "The difference between alcohol and cigarettes is that when someone has a drink in a restaurant, he isn’t endangering the four-year-old at the next table." It never ceases to amaze me just how ignorant most people are, ignorant being the polite way of saying something far more derogatory. Just because you can't see it nor smell it, does not mean all those drinks are not a health hazard to non-drinkers. Aside from the probability that some drunk could kill the 4 year old at the next table in a car crash after dinner; or, in a drunken state beat their spouse and/or kids; or, develops alcohol induced disease that slowly destroys the drinker's abilities to function normally eventually killing that person also destroys the lives of those around the drinker. HOWEVER, drinkers expose all of us to those very same health hazards ! Alcohol evaporates rapidly, and all those alcoholic drinks' evaporations saturate the indoor air, affecting the health of everybody there. The long term effects, even the short term effects, never get related to the worsening health of those exposed to it all. And, a percentage of people lack the enzyme to metabolize alcohol, which upon exposure can trigger an allergic reaction, even death. Mass Evaporation from hundreds of drinkers and their drinks in an enclosed indoor space is that exposure. --- Scoff at and ridicule what I just said ? The WHO recently announced a global ANTI-DRINKING CAMPAIGN ! I ask, and YOU should ask too - What is it that YOU do that will one day be an Anti-Something Campaign -- WHO'S NEXT ? - steve hartwell, www.tobaccosmokersofcanada.ca
  reply
• 

  History Buff

  11 months ago

  All of the SHS hype was created for an agenda by big business to bring profits to itself. The world needs to wake up to corporate scams designed to bring profits to ‘their’ industry. In this case it would be the no-smoke products FOR STARTERS. It makes it VERY understandable why the same industry BOUGHT the smoking bans thru grants to the American Cancer Society. Tracking negative research funding from square one, the same fingers apply.
  
  ALL in the same FOOD GROUP, all belonging to the Nightshade family: Broccoli, Potato, Tobacco, Tomato, Green Pepper and other foods contain nicotine. We can eat them but can’t smoke them? Next we will NOT be able to eat them as that same industry will want to take it into prescriptions ALSO for the good it does. DO YOUR RESEARCH!
  
  Likes and dislikes are a fact in any thing on this earth. Choice is a God given right and natural.
  
  Free Enterprise (business owners choice).
  Free Choice (customers choice)
  And signs are a wonderful invention. What a novel idea, Made in the USA!
  reply
• 

  B W

  11 months ago

  Isn't this the guy who complained that the Democratic county chairs withheld information about who is on the county central committee? And kept secret the dates, times, and locations of their county central committee meetings? Even though that information is on line?
  
  If he runs his anti-smoking ban campaign like he ran his congressional campaign, then the 'nannies' as he calls them, should contribute to his efforts - after all, there's nothing like an ineffectual blow-hard to kill and opposition movement.
  reply
• 

  Mikey

  11 months ago

  Exaggerating BW, no one ever claimed anything regarding secret dates, times, or locations. No, that information isn't online.
  
  This guy is a hero. In effectual? Never, the movement is soaring. I would say, if it weren't for the disgruntled Clintonites, Greenwald wouldn't have had a chance.
  reply
• 

  Alex

  11 months ago

  Meyers obviously knows what he's doing and how to "level the playing field" to make his congressional race more competitive. This is a sure way to defeat both Latham and Greenwald. It's grassroots campaigning at it's finest and for a helluva cause! Repeal the ban!
  reply
• 

  Kathy

  11 months ago

  I believe the point that everyone is ignoring is the fact that America is a free country, built on the backs of her citizens. In a Free Country people have a CHOICE on what they want to do, where they want to go, how they want to live their lives. In a Free Country people are not told by government officials what they can and cannot do. Again, we have a CHOICE. Or I should say we did have a CHOICE. If I am a business owner and I pay all of my taxes to run that establishment to the State, I should therefore have the CHOICE of what kind of people I want patronizing my business.
  
  Non-Smoking sections in restaurants held more real estate per establishment than smoking sections. Smoking sections were also equipped with ventilation systems as to not drift over into the non-smoking section. That was a wise decision by business owners. Give each a little room and respect. But non-smokers have no respect for anyone other than their whinny selves. Therefore they deserve no respect from smokers either.
  
  You all keep running to the government to fight your battles, because the truth be told, they are cowards. They are unable to confront what bothers them themselves so they have Big Brother do their bidding. Naturally the ban was supported mostly by the Democrats in state government. Democrats seem to think that we need a Nanny State, they want a Nanny State and by God they are going to get it with the wusses out there today. You all will reap what you sow. Keep asking for more and more government intervention and pretty soon you can't even take a piss without asking for Gov. Chets permission.
  
  Freedom is never free, and this is one fight I intend to keep fighting. Why? Because I respect Freedom, obviously you whiners don't.
  
  By the way, I can't stand the sight of fat people stuffing their faces with foods that are bad for them, so if I whine long enough do you think ole Uncle Chet will make restaurants and bars have a "skinny section" so not to offend my sensibilites?
  
  Ban Fat People Now!
  reply
• 

  Helen George

  11 months ago

  I am just wondering if smoking is allowed at the State Fair (indoors or out) With all the food that is being served I would think smoking would be banned. I wonder how that will effect the numbers attending the fair.
  reply
• 

  Kevin

  10 months ago

  if your woried about the 4 year old at the next table then be a responceable adult and dont sit in the smoking aera. maybe we should have children or non children aeras? i dont enjoy having your 4 year old at the table next to me anyway.....
  reply
• 

  Cigar Aficionado

  4 months ago

  Interesting - I didn't think this would fly, but they are finding a lot of support.
  reply