Washington Votes Forum

Ya, ya sue the restaurant owner when you develope any illness, for allowing smoke in their est. Or make another decision. Ya ya sue the driver, the tav/rest owner, the distribution company, the distillers of alcohol bvg when there is an accident (pre-meditated) involving a driver under the influence...get real.

it is VERY hard for the powers that be to be reasonable, and I sure hope the citizens of Washington finally get smart! It's all about power and greed, and they should be taken down a bit. Smokers have very little "choice" right now... if I-901 passes, they will have none! And BTW...your kids will not be harmed by second-hand smoke....please get informed on the subject...it is a big farce and has been for years. All of you out there....please vote NO on I-901..especially if you value your freedom of choice...this is only the beginning of "COMPLETE" Government control!

Spoken Like a smoker You don't get it It has nothing to do with Big Brother taking over We non-smokers do not want to share YOUR habit

I wasn't aware you Had to!!! YOU are free now and will be then to go wherever you want. And if you don't think the Govt. is not taking control, think again..one of the first words in I-901 is Prohibition!! Do you realilize they won't stop there?? Use your Beanie for once and use it to "think". Do you just want to be a Robot walking around doing THEIR bidding? You can count on that in the future!

You don't want to share the habit...don't go to places that allow smoking. I don't. How much more simpler can it get. Or is it that you want big brother to make ALL your choices for you. Are you THAT challenged? Many of you are sheer hypocrits. You will be first to stick your head into clouds of charcoal smoke from the Barbee while raving about the smell of the steaks. You will sit for hours next to a smoky campfire and rave about the benefits of the 'great outdoors'. You will breathe diesel and gas fumes for hours on end while waiting to get home from work without trying to ban autos. You'll slap on heavy, obnoxious perfumes or overbearing colognes and after shave...But walk through a little wiff of cigarette smoke somewhere outside an entrance or endure it for a hour while you eat or drink and OH MY GOD!!! Hack hack,,,your all gonna die. You're so full of shit, a babies diaper looks empty compared to you. Perhaps it IS all about power and greed. There are plenty of places to go where smoking is not allowed, now days you can virtually find any entertainment, any cuisine, or any sport you want in a non-smoking environment. Just answer WHY it is you want ALL of the establishments. Why you want to legislate away liberty, freedom of choice, and private property rights? WHY cannot a business owner make a free choice in a free country? Better yet...why can't YOU make a free choice in a free country? What place (or places) do you want to go that are not offered someplace smoke free now? Are the hot dogs at Joes Bar, where smoking is allowed, that much better than at Dino's Grill where smoking is not? What till the majority goes after something YOU enjoy, then you'll scream. Remember this vote when it's YOUR turn!

You're paranoid. There's always a certain percentage of folks that need to incite fear, hate and paranoia in others. That's all this is. For once the government is doing something right and protecting us against the smokers. These folks hang in the entrances of offices where everyone has to walk. Some people already have respiration health concerns and don't need the added burden of the smoke. Find a real cause.

Oh Please. Are you done rattling your saber? There isn't such thing as a Right To Smoke. Get real. I'm not standing up for your right to smoke because you are obviously not smart enough to realize that your so called right can kill you. Your point is well taken on all the other hydrocarbons in the city air...we used to have a government that restricted these emissions. Now we have a government that only cares it big business gets richer. As for the wood smoke coming out the camp site...show me where these are toxic fumes. As far as I know...no one has the right to commit suicide and that is what smoking is.

Obviously a limited intellect

"Oh Please. Are you done rattling your saber? There isn't such thing as a Right To Smoke. Get real. I'm not standing up for your right to smoke because you are obviously not smart enough to realize that your so called right can kill you." So I suppose you take a similar 'tongue in cheek' approach to our Constitution. You couldn't be farther from reality with your obviously uninformed statement that there is no such thing as a 'Right to Smoke" let me refresh your obviously failing intellect with a refresher course on rights (as in Bill of: United States Constitution: Amendment IX - The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Smoking is one of those rights that can also be covered under "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" from another well known historical precedent. Care to guess which one? It resides right next to your right to go out in your yard and fire up your BBQ or mow your lawn or raise you arms to the sky and profess loudly, your undying love of the St Louis Cardinals. Oh, and by the way, last time I checked, use of tobacco products in any form was still legal in all 50 states. Go ahead...play your next one: "As for the wood smoke coming out the camp site...show me where these are toxic fumes." Do you always demonstrate the inability to conduct any real research before waxing moronic about something you obviously know so little about? You asked...you shall receive: Breathing smoke is not healthy. Wood smoke contains a mixture of gases and fine particles that can cause burning eyes, runny nose, and bronchitis. Fine particles can aggravate heart or respiratory problems, such as asthma, in people of all ages. Even limited exposure to smoke can be harmful to human health particularly to the health of children, the elderly, and those with chronic conditions. Smoke is made up of a complex mixture of gases and fine particles produced when wood and other organic matter burn. The biggest health threat from smoke comes from fine particles (also called particulate matter or PM). These microscopic particles can get into your eyes and respiratory system, where they can cause health problems such as burning eyes, runny nose, and illnesses such as bronchitis. Fine particles also can aggravate chronic heart and lung diseases—and are linked to premature deaths in people with these chronic conditions Wood smoke contains harmful chemical substances such as carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), dioxin, and inhalable particulate matter (PM). Some of the VOCs are irritating, toxic, and/or cancer causing. One of the biggest human health threats from smoke, indoors or outdoors, comes from PM. Wood smoke PM is composed of wood tars, gases, soot, and ashes. Toxic air pollutants are a potentially important component of wood smoke. A group of air toxics known as polycyclic organic matter includes potential carcinogens such as benzo(a)pyrene http://www.epa.gov/airnow/smoke2/smoke2.html Smoke from charcoal contains many of the same components as those most feared in tobacco smoke(carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, carcinogens and so forth). They are all forms of carbon. Charcoal briquettes add a little more than that -- they often have additives: borax to bind the charcoal; nitrate to ignite it; and lime to whiten the ash A ten pound bag of charcoal produces as much smoke (and harmful chemicals) as 160 packs of cigarettes. Are you ready to quit barbecuing yet? Probably not. Use charcoal Lighter of any variety? Add about a dozen or more know carcinogenic chemicals to your 'cherished' BBQ. The grilling of meat itself adds even more damaging chemicals to the 'mix' The worrisome chemicals created by grilling meats are called heterocyclic amines (HAs). They form during grilling, broiling or even searing meat in a very hot frying pan — when the very high temperatures break down the amino acid creatinine. There is also some concern that fats from the meat dripping onto coals create additional chemicals in smoke that may land back on the meat. http://www.discovery.com/ "As far as I know...no one has the right to commit suicide and that is what smoking is." Again...last time I checked, use of tobacco products in any form was still legal in all 50 states; whether or not it is committing suicide is not the question not the point here. Need further materials to digest? Try this: Second Hand Smoke is a big lie. Among other sources including www.forces.org are http://www.smokingsection.com/issues1.html You’re a real gas. Try again soon.

from what I see on here, there's quite a few people out there that just like the power of picking on other people, kind of like a "school yard" bully! They have NO idea what's in the Constitution, and have completely forgotten "THE GOLDEN RULE".This kind of thinking is what will destroy the world. Can you imagine the Hell that will take place if I-901 passes? Think about it people! In the future we will have no rights, and that will include EVERYONE!! This is only the beginning. Get informed!

First you say smoking is a right I'm guessing---it's your form of so-called "happiness" we could debate what the forfathers considered happiness to be ...and as you point out...still legal then the next line of so-called "proof" you say smoke is toxic make up your mind

Are you THAT mentally challenged? You can't even get your topics straight. First---you assume I am a smoker - I'm not --- thanks for the baseless classification of me. I am a non smoker who respects the private property rights of others. Second---What the Founding fathers thought was happiness or what was not, is about as relevant to this discussion as what they thought about the price of Tea in China; so whether we could 'debate' it or not is totally irrelevant. The fact remains that they SPECIFICALLY protected that right and other rights, both written and unwritten from the insolent attempts to demean them as non-existent as pontificated by you and your ilk! Third---The answer on smoke was in response to YOUR challenge and false innuendo about *WOOD smoke* and your pathetic attempt to pass it off as non toxic by having me prove it was. Had you really read the original post (or attempted to comprehend what it was you read), you would see the nowhere was I implying that Cigarette smoke is any less toxic. What I was pointing out is the hypocrisy of you and those of similar mindset who say that one kind of smoke should be banned but are quite content to bear with the other kind of smoke. The main issue being what YOU (they) like and don't like; what "YOU" like is fine but what "YOU don't like" must be banned. As for making up my mind...that has already been done and done by using that mind to discern what is relevant and true, and what has been conjured up in a blatant attempt to mislead the public and brainwash them into legislating away yet another freedom based on that conjured up, false information and hypocrisy. As for your mind - Please open your head and insert the brain before engaging your typing hand. Do come back when you have something real to contribute - you're great sport.

As a matter of fact, many smoked quite freely - anywhere they wished as did a vast number of the population back then. Granted, they did not have chemical anaysis or the American Cancer Society to guide their decisions but even if they had, based on their beliefs at the time, as manifest in their writings and doctrines, you can bet that they would not have forced private property owners to give up their rights based on hypocritical drivel or the overbearing wishes of a vocal (and over zealous) majority. That is why they opted for a representative republic rather than a true democracy as the form of government in this country. They recognized that the will of any majority was not necessarily the best or fairest way. Either way, if you want to invoke what they thought was happiness, you must include smoking as included in their list of tolerated and accepted happinesses.

intelligent posts. If we could only get "the sheep" to listen!! The ballots are out, and I'm afraid it's a bit too late, but people don't seem to realize what is going to happen if I-901 passes. I'm sure there will be plenty of lawsuits, and WHO is going to pay for those? The tax payers will no doubt get the brunt of it. If only this state would get their act together..lower the cig taxes to a reasonable rate, people would buy their cigs here and they might get enough money to balance the budget, if not..let them lay off all the assitants to one assistant,( Govt. is way too big,) fire their friends or tighten their OWN belts for a change..no pay raises! Use your votes to get rid of some of these ninnies!! Write them and tell them what you're going to do! Scare THEM for a change. I'm tired of them picking on the little people, and tired of all the hate and greed in this country any more. God is NOT going to be happy! I don't think most people even KNOW what the Constitution says.

The Smokers Club, Inc. and read The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter, under Wa; 25-foot Smoking idea Is a Real Drag, and read Norm Kjorno's letter.You will see WHY I-901 should be defeated!!!!! Want a police state?? I think not!!

the founders didn't ban raping their slaves but they did it. Does that make it right? Is that also on their list of tolerated happiness?

Wow! How intuitive and insightful... I'm certainly sure the readers here will be able to relate slave rape to banning smoking... Impressive mental stamina!

If you can stretch smoking into a consitutional "Right" ...then anything falls under the Right To Pursue Happiness...anything at all.

So have fun with your slaves.

...I've already seen what I'm up against and I'd rather not continue a battle of wits with an unarmed moron. I'll wait for someone with something relavant to contribute, obviously, anything 'Constitutional' goes way above the current thought level of this poster child.

Smoking is legal...rape and slavery are both illegal. Get the picture? So much for YOUR pursuits of happiness. Jeez! What a bozo!

I want this person to explain what part of the 9th and 10th Amendments it is that escapes them. Smokers have a right to enjoy their smokes just like this person has the right to enjoy their BBQ or automobile or any other thing not specifically covered by the Constitution but is still a right. I haven't even covered private property rights either which is what this particular issue is about. This person obviously hasn't a clue even about those rights of their own that are protected by the ninth and tenth. Sad but this is the state of our society today. Rights of others mean nothing as long as the wants and desires of those that whine are saved. The sadest part about it all is that these are the same people who would sell out our entire heritage a little at a time just to appease their own whims and selfish wants.

the disciussion is based on the premise of what the founders considered Rights. one citizen said that thr Right to smoke was covered under the Right to pursue Happiness. What exactly did the founders consider happiness to be? Slavery wasn't illegal in Thomas Jefferson's day and rape wasn't either. Bozo back.

neither Madison nor any of the other founding fathers ever stated just what they thought these rights were. Some people believe that they include the so-called natural rights including life, liberty, and property, or the right to pursue happiness. But this is NOT specified and clearly would cover a lot of territory. Including possibly the right to die. But this is not considered a right.

Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Exactly. So let the people of the state decide. Because clearly smoking is not necessarily a right but a HABIT.

One might remind you that it was YOU who was the intrepid soul who brought up what the founders thought was happiness or not in your feeble attempt to dodge the 'real' subject in the first place. However you were absolutely right about the ninth covering a vast amount of subjects but you forgot to include the rest of the post from your source (which, BTW, was very easy to find) here is the preamble part you conveniently left out: "James Madison's 42 rights did not cover all of the individual protections that he believed citizens needed, and certainly the 10 that were approved did not either, so he included Amendment 9. It states that there are certain rights listed in the Constitution, but that does not mean that there aren't other rights that the people have that are not listed. It assures people that there are other rights that members of a free society are entitled to." That being said, the 'right' to smoke falls right along with your 'right' to fire up your BBQ or light a nice fire in your fireplace, or to have whatever shade of carpeting you want in your home. Or pick the school you want your kids to go, or the type of coffee you wish to brew, etc etc. By your own analogy, to insinuate that people do not have a right to smoke because it doesn't say so in the constitution is pure nonesense. Yes it is a habit, yes it may be a nasty one, and obviously one you don't care for but, people have just as much right to do it as you have to do something say like ...drink your coffee or fire up your obnoxious gas burning car every morning and fumigate the public. So putting that aside, the Washington Constitution has this to say about the rights of private property owners: SECTION 3 PERSONAL RIGHTS. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. SECTION 7 INVASION OF PRIVATE AFFAIRS OR HOME PROHIBITED. No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law. SECTION 12 SPECIAL PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES PROHIBITED. No law shall be passed granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens, or corporations. So in light of these protections, how can the governmant of the State of Washington, step in and tell the owner of a business that he/she must ban smoking on his/her property. By the provisions of Section 12, if the government does so, it must then apply the same law fairly to all citizens equally thus effectively banning smoking everywhere to include private homes. Nonsense! Also, Tribal casinos, restaurants, and business establishments are exempted from the proposed ban further violating Section 12. What it boils down to is you (in the majority) blatently attempting to force a minority into submission. All fine and good until the majority of those who find cafeine to be a dangerous, addictive drug. attempt to ban it under the same premise. Likewise to fatty foods and fast foods that may be deemed harmful to your health. These are 'habits' too, and by your analogy, subject to the same jack booted thug attempts to ban them simply because someone, somewhere has a junk science study that 'proves' they are bad for you. Your argument simply does not hold water. Nice try though.

But let tem decide based on Constitutional law and equality and not some junk science brainwashing by a vocal, oppressive majority.

The last two posts were great! The best thing I've ever read was a newspaper article written by a lady lawyer in which she stated: The Framers rejected direct demoracy, saying that we need tools to balance the interests of the majority with the interests of the minority. Does I-901 do that? Of course not! Most initiatives are very bad.

Does insulting people make you feel better about your viewpoint? Everyone is entitled to a viewpoint even those that don't agree with yours. People that need to resort to insulting others do themselves no favors in making their point. Also, be reminded that younger people do post on this board.

What's-a-matter grasshopper? Let me remind you that if you can't run with the big dogs ....stay on the porch! If you can't handle some citizen calling you a bozo then don't offer clown-like posts and opinions based on some fantasy island mentality. Do a little research before writing. It does wonders for your own credibility. Also, I don't see any part of this last group of threads that even slightly falls in the catagory of being unacceptable to younger people. Except, of course, those adult ones that can't handle the heat.

"Slavery wasn't illegal in Thomas Jefferson's day and rape wasn't either." Nothing could be farther from the truth! While slavery laws varied quite widely throughout the known world at the time of early America, there were many societies the shunned it or banned it completely. Rape, on the other hand, has been a crime since the earliest known laws. Here are a few excerpts from the last thousand years or so: From William I (1066) onwards, rape was legally treated as a serious crime committed against the person of a woman. Only she, and not her family, could initiate legal action (``bring an appeal''). Further, she could claim the bot (civil fine) for the offense. And finally, if the victim pressed suit, the offense was ``bootless,'' i.e., the offender could not redeem himself in any way but was at the king's mercy. The offense of rape became a state crime at the end of the 12th century, answerable in the King's court, and not subject to private negotiation and compromise. It ceased being primarily a civil offense settled between families or between men. In 1285, the second statute of Westminster revolutionized English Criminal law. It defined rape as one act over which the state could exercise complete authority. That is, after 1285, the state could initiate a prosecution and secure a judgment of ``life and member'' for any rape, even when the victim chose not to complain and even if she refused to cooperate in the prosecution. In later English Common Law, rape was defined as the unlawful carnal knowledge of a female over 10 years of age, by a man not her husband, by force and against her will or without her conscious permission or where permission was extorted by force or by fear of immediate bodily harm. Carnal knowledge of any female under 10 years of age was also considered unlawful. English Common Law was powerfully consolidated by Sir Matthew Hale in the 1600s. His famous "cautionary rule" about rape was passed down through the centuries. Being somewhat still tied to English law: early on in colonial New England, rape was held as a capital offense. The mandatory death penalty was also prescribed for sexual intercourse with a child under ten. The court was reluctant to enforce the death penalty and rapists were rarely executed. Rape laws varied greatly from colony to colony. In Rhode Island's early laws, rape was a capital crime; in 1718 it was removed from the list of crimes against nature. In 1797, it once again became a capital offense until 1838. Settlement of damages in the form of monetary payments remained common and as we might expect from the previous centuries such payments devolved on the husband or father of the victim, rather than upon the victim herself. If one wishes to consider Biblical ramifications (of which the founding fathers were well versed) Rape has been a crime even since ancient times; among the most well-known of these ancient laws are those found in Hebrew Bible or Old Testament: "When a man is discovered lying with a married woman, they shall both die; the woman as well as the man who lay with her; you shall rid Israel of this wickedness. When a virgin is pledged marriage to a man and another man comes upon her in the town and lies with her, you shall bring both of them out to the gate of the town and stone them to death; the girl, because, although in the town, she did not cry for help, and the man because he dishonored another man's wife; you shall rid yourselves of this wickedness. If the man comes upon such a girl in the country and rapes her, then the man alone shall die because he lay with her. You shall do nothing to the girl, she has done nothing worthy of death; this deed is like that of a man who attacks another and murders him, for the man came upon her in the country, and though the girl cried for help, there was no one to rescue her. When a man comes upon a virgin who is not pledged in marriage and forces her to lie with him, and they are discovered, then the man who lies with her shall give the girl's father fifty pieces of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has dishonored her. He is not free to divorce her all his life long." -Deuteronomy 22: 23-29. The Islamic Koran also has similar language and harsh punishments for the crime of rape. Lets get the facts straight next time.

I smoke & live in Florida, where we have already voted on this issue - I voted too! Why should we (smokers) subject our smoke to others who do or don't smoke? But I would also like to see: A Bill against Public Drunkeness. A Bill against Verbal Abuse. A Bill against Public Profanity. A Bill against Bullying in the Workplace. A Bill against Excessive Public Cell Phone Use. Smoke or don't smoke, but if you do, don't blow it in or towards my face!!

As the Japanese Admiral said after the successful attack on Pearl Harbor..."I fear we have only roused the sleeping tiger". This measure has turned polite smokers into vengeful ones especially in the remaining few places where they can smoke in peace. You can bet the smoke will blow the direction of my face now...deliberately I'm afraid, and rightfully so. Even though I'm a non-smoker who voted against this travesty to uphold the private property rights of the business owners, I'm already beginning to see the effects of 901's tyrannical approach to a minority group of citizens who have been caste into the role of social pariah. At my favorite fishin hole just yesterday, a man lit up and the cloud drifted my way. A slight sniffle escaped as my nose stung a bit from the smoke. Even though non-confrontive as I usually am, that little sniffle resulted in the prompt exhalation of a cloud blown in my direction along with an extended finger. This time, it was me who had to move with my son in tow. We reap what we sow (actually-what others sowed). What's next, banning smoking everywhere outdoors? Poppycock! Some folks just can't leave well enough alone. I and everyone else for that matter had plenty of places to go smoke free. I have many friends who still smoke but did so politely. Now...the lines have been drawn. I also see former patrons of local establishments including mine, now crossing borders into neighboring states and reservations in search of new businesses in which to spend their time and money; states and businesses that still allow property owners to have a choice in what they will allow in their businesses and what they won’t; states that have not stooped so low as to become empirical against a group of otherwise good citizens. I just read in a Washington fish wrapper, that people in border communities now just drive across the state or reservation lines and not only smoke in the out of state bars, bowling alleys, and other establishments there but they can also buy cheaper cigarettes and spend their money in other ways as well. At the same time, they can buy cheaper gas with no increased taxes, and in many cases have an attendant pump it for them. Many can also buy a TV or a refrigerator with no sales tax along with a whole host of other things as well. Patronize Washington businesses? Phooey! Why should they? Considering that the fourth largest city in Washington is right across the river from a state that offers all of these things, and the remaining three largest are so close to numerous reservation lands as to make the prospect worthwhile, I'll not be surprised when Washington businesses and legislators start singing the 'Lost Revenue Blues" as a substantial chunk of their tax and income base migrates elsewhere. The more troubling issue however, is not how much income or business is lost, it’s what will be the next target of those who feel justified in trampling property rights. Are YOU safe in your home or business? I think not. Well done 901…Well done.

If more non-smokers felt as you do, we wouldn't be in the mess we are now, and I congratulate you for being one of the few remaining sensible people! This country and this state have completely lost it. It won't end here until all smokers are banished from the face of the earth. and all other rights are gone too. No one seems to "get it!" The only thing left to do is change our political system, and that had better not take long.

Why not ban smoking? It would be easiser for the smoker to quit smoking then the state too lose the tax revenue.And trust me they will get it somewhere.

This law is dictating to PRIVATE business what they may and may not allow on their own property. Has no one got it yet? This is just another step to many, many more property owner rights as history has proven. Even non smokers will not benefit from this law in the long run...soon you won't even be able to own a piece of land that isn't under strict government control. When the government has finally caused all PRIVATE and small businesses to close, what is left? Huge corporations and government...where does that leave "the people".

The State of Washington was once a nice place to call home, but with being one of the highest states for taxes, and all of the worthless laws on the books, one must start to wonder why we stay.In light of the new smoking ban, it appears that the state is forgetting about the other demo's that are raising our health costs, and also being a health hazzard, one being overweight people,and drinkers..now I think we should stop serving booze in public places because ,people leave and run over and or kill people,I have never been run over by a cig' but close by a car..my husband was hit on his motorcycle by a drunk driver and was so severely injured he was resusitated twice, and had to learn how to walk again. Fat people have all kinds of health issues including heart attacks ..So do you see us smokers..trying to take your booze away..or take your food !!! No, we don't ..the main word here is FREEDOM OF CHOICE..There are many non smoking places to go..just like when you take your screaming kids out..I stay away..This new law is bias and totally B.S I DON'T THINK VOTERS SHOULD endorse anyone who let this get on the books, because they are partial to one side. I also don't think the State of Washington should collect taxes on smokes, if they are not willing to support our rights...If the non smokers and lawmakers are going to play dirty..then I propose a bill re: no serving booze in public places, and Childless eating area's, movie theaters, and anywhere else we have to hear them scream !!!!!

Look it is called freedom of choice..I'm sure you have issues that ANNOY PEOPLE TO BUT WE DO NOT GO MAKE A LAW ABOUT IT !!!!yOU CAN NOT HAVE IT ALL YOUR WAY,,WE PAY TAXES TOO

NO NOT IN AN ENCLOSED ROOM,,AGREE THERE, BUT 25FT FROM ANY BUSINESS? THAT'S IN THE MIDDLE OF A STREET..ALSO IF YOU DRINK IN PUBLIC PLACES,,YOU MAME OR KILL SOMEONE ON YOUR WAY HOME...SO DO WE SMOKERS GET A BILL AGAINST PUBLIC DRINKING??

WOULD ALL THE WHINERS RE; us smokers go away..I'm sure we can find something bad on you to pass a bill on !!!!!!