Washington Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on January 13, 2005

Click here to view bill details.

There is entirely too much nanny-state thinking in Olympia. Almost everyone with an IQ greater than that of a rutabaga knows that smoking is bad for hims or her. I choose not to patronize "public" establishments, such as restaurants, that do not ban the smokers to some dark hole in the back. BUT there are those who seem to be able and willing to help reduce the crisis brewing in the Social Security System, by smoking themselves into an early grave. We should allow them and their enablers to do so on private property, even if it is open to the public. Even venues such as Safeco Field or SeaSlug Stadium may decide it is necessary to have some dank, dark place reserved for these people. We do not need the "help" of our legislature to make these decisions for us.

I don't smoke. I did smoke for many years. I quit cold turkey, never looked back. I hate the smell of smoke. I don't patronize smokey places. But....this type of legislation is the best example of the worst of our legislative endeavors. From cradle to grave the government wants to tell us what, where and how we do anything in our lives. ENOUGH!

I will continue to thoroughly enjoy helping to "reduce the crisis brewing in the Social Security System..." I smoke, I enjoy doing so, and I'll fight to the death for my right to commit suicide by legal means, as long as I can afford to do so. However, as you correctly noted, the Legislature certainly needs no "help" (the do-gooders and self-appointed PC Police are already taking care of such nonsense). The frightening aspect is the "nanny-state." Little by little, we are sliding into Orwellian oblivion. This is 2005, next year might well be 1984.

Why is it that anyone who tries to propose a reasonable, common-sense proposal like this is vilified as a "Nazi"? I was shocked by how many posts throughout this site use that term. You may disagree with them but they have the right to their opinions, the same as you, so get over it. Do I want to walk with my kids through clouds of smoke around the entrance to public buildings? No, I do not. Do I object to you smoking somewhere else, like your own home or car? No, I do not. As long as your bad habit has a second-hand effect on me and my kids, it's my right to try to limit the harm you do.

What makes you think this is a "reasonable, common-sense proposal"? As for your right to limit harm, fine. Take it to court. If you think you were injured, and the smoker did so with intent to harm, then you can charge the smoker with a crime, and you can try to prove it to a jury. Simple Common Law principles: Injury with intent is a crime. No injury, no intent; no crime.

What exactly makes you think it is reasonable to force me and my kids to breathe your nasty second-hand smoke? What gives you the right to share your bad habit with me without my permission? Smoke at home, smoke in your car, smoke somewhere else, I don't care. But not in public places. No thank you.

I don't smoke for lots of very good reasons, but I do respect the right of those who do (and don't). What I don't recognize is your "right" (or anyone else's) to hire government thugs to do your bidding unless you have actually been harmed. You said, "As long as your bad habit has a second-hand effect on me and my kids, it's my right to try to limit the harm you do." All I am saying is if you believe you are harmed by some kind of second hand effect, charge the guilty party and prove it.

Second-hand smoke, in a single instance, is not going to cause health problems. It's the cumulative effect of repeated exposure to second-hand smoke that causes health problems. Therefore, in order to charge the wrongdoer, one would have to charge every smoker that person has encountered whose second-hand smoke that person was exposed to. The same argument as what you propose could be used against the gas stations whose tanks leak MTBE into the soil and groundwater. If you have a problem with the MTBE in your water, sue the gas station whose MTBE it is. Can't prove which particular station is responsible for the MTBE? Then you're screwed. Or, on a larger scale, if smog harms you because you're asthmatic, sue the particular company(companies) whose pollution is causing your problems. Sue the particular drivers whose exhaust is aggravating your condition. Is that an unreasonable plan? Absolutely. Why insist on harming others for your own personal pleasure? If you acknowledge that smoke has harmful effects on the body (second-hand or otherwise), and you acknowledge that smoking is a voluntary action, and you acknowledge that one's rights end where one's nose begins, and you acknowledge that rights can be limited when failure to do so results in the direct violation of another's rights, and you acknowledge that your argument is entirely unrealistic and impossible to implement, then you must necessarily agree that this bill is worthwhile.

Is anyone is still trying to link secondhand smoke with heart disease? The University of Chicago’s Dr. John Bailar -- no friend of the tobacco industry-- published in the March 25, 1999, New England Journal of Medicine a devastating analysis of the alleged link between secondhand smoke and heart disease. (Ain't no "cause" and "effect" hen it comes to passive smoke, the Environmental Protection Agency doesn't let the facts get in the way of truth. :0 Neither will Gregiore. The largest-ever study on secondhand smoke and lung cancer, published in 1998 by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, reported no statistically significant increase in lung cancer risk associated with exposure to secondhand smoke.

http://www.cancer.ca/ccs/internet/standard/0,3182,3172_13127__langId-en,00.html An excerpt from that website: Second-hand smoke is linked to the deaths of at least 1,100 Canadians every year. The short-term effects include: eye irritation headache nasal discomfort and sneezing cough and sore throat nausea and dizziness increased heart rate and blood pressure increased risk for people with heart disease (angina), asthma, allergies Long-term effects include: Reduced ability to take in and use oxygen. Cancer of the lung. Research on second-hand smoke and the relationship with other cancers is in progress. Heart disease and stroke. Childhood asthma and other breathing difficulties. Or, let's say you don't trust those filthy Canadians. Would you trust, say, the National Institutes of Health? http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/secondhandsmoke.html That one site is a treasure trove of information from respected academic research institutions regarding the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. When you're done reading scientific facts, you can come back and apologize for perpetuating the tobacco industry's long-debunked argument that smoking MIGHT harm the smoker but definitely does NOT harm anyone else.

The first post was correct. This is all junk science with a political agenda. I suppose all of the symptoms you mentioned, short term and long term, are to be acquired in a few short seconds while walking into a public building. You would have to walk into lots of public buildings virtually all day long, each and every day, to have any kind of problem. During those few short seconds, most people, even asmatics, can hold their breath. But then if you do it all of the time ... You also said, "Or, let's say you don't trust those filthy Canadians. Would you trust, say, the National Institutes of Health?" I certainly don't trust the Canadians. Socialized medicine certainly has not been helpful. Also, why would anyone trust anthing that is government funded, such as the NIH?

First, you suggest people hold their breath while walking by smokers. So, what you're saying is the right of people to breathe must be given secondary consideration to the right of smokers to smoke? A necessary life function is further down the chain of priority than an activity that is recognized universally as at the very least recreational, and at worst detrimental to the health of the performer and those around the performer? You also say the information provided has a political agenda. What, pray tell, is that agenda? And whose agenda is it? Certainly you can buy cigarettes in Canada. And certainly you can buy cigarettes in America. Admittedly, the tobacco industry has taken a beating in recent years, but that is mainly because it had for decades not only hidden research it conducted that proved smoking harmful, but actually said it was harmless and, for a time, actually BENEFICIAL. Third, you suggest that no governmental agency or government-funded entity can be trusted in any way. However, the studies cited were not done by the NIH; they were conducted by universities and research institutes related to cancer and asthma. The NIH uses that information to formulate policy advice for the government. Finally, you say it's "junk science." Prove it. Show me research that refutes the claims made about second-hand smoke. Show me studies that say cigarette smoke does not aggravate asthma, stunt lung development or growth in children, or any of the other effects that the vast majority of research on smoking allege. You can't back up an argument against facts with opinions. So, put your proverbial money where your mouth is. Let's see the facts that prove all that research and the governments of the United States and Canada and all those researchers wrong. I, for one, would sincerely love to see it.

You don't believe there's a link between second-hand smoke and health problems? Do you belive in gravity?

Here's a reasonable solution... How about we let the smokers continue smoking but limit the smoking locations to prevent them from harming me and my kids? Oh wait! That's the point!

As a smoker, I love paying extra taxes to clean up Puget Sound, and for children's health care. It's part of being equal under the law, isn't it? If I had a magic wand, I would wave it, and no one would be a user of any kind of tobacco product. The catch would be, current users would have their taxes frozen at current levels. Then non smokers could congratulate themselves on all the programs they are actually doing something about, and move ahead with bigger and better social programs, which, of course, THEY would have to pay for.

While your cigarette taxes may pay for certain programs, everyone else is paying for all the health problems that healthplans cover. So, while you're feeling all proud about your contribution to certain programs, you're screwing others into higher premiums (your personally higher premiums in no way bridge the cost gap of covering all the maladies associated with tobacco use). Don't pull a muscle patting yourself on the back; the rest of us are responsible for paying for your recovery.

How does it harm your kids to walk through some tobacco smoke? Will they die in 2 minutes of walking through a cloud? Maybe they will get cancer and die in 20 years? You have no concept of how tough the human body is and what you can put it through. Since the definition of public place is very broad, it applies to private property, business etc. Tobacco is a legal product and as such it's use can't be banned from private or even in public places. I would advise you to keep your paranoid kids away from smokers, stairs, outdoors, roads, playground equipment, electricity, the sun, ..... why don't you just wrap them in plastic and keep them in their beds! Libertarian Larry

Dude, you don't think it is bad to walk through clouds of smoke? You must be smoking something other than tobacco.

If crack were a legal substance (why not, after all, if you claim to be a libertarian?), would you support the ability of people to smoke crack in public places? How about marijuana? Does the right of the people to breathe clean air supercede the right of a minority to poison themselves and, as a natural side-effect, poison people around them?

Yes, crack, marijuana and all illegal drugs should be decriminalized. How is it the government decides what I put into my body? If someone does absolutely no harm to anyone else, what they ingest for their own pleasure or pain is their business, no the governments.

Hope you dont mind care pollution too, or you going to ban that too!

"Yes, crack, marijuana and all illegal drugs should be decriminalized. How is it the government decides what I put into my body? If someone does absolutely no harm to anyone else, what they ingest for their own pleasure or pain is their business, no the governments." That is not a response to the particular question I asked. I did not ask if they should be decriminalized; I asked if you would support the right of users to smoke those products in public places, where children are likely to catch a second-hand whiff. I'm sure you wouldn't support the right of children to smoke it themselves, but would you support the right of adults to smoke those things in the public presence of children, thus exposing them to the same substances involuntarily that the adults expose themselves to voluntarily? That, ultimately, is the question. That, and do we have the right to breathe freely in public, or must the majority hold their breath so as not to infringe or otherwise impair the ability of smokers (of whatever kind) to smoke? Again, is the right to breathe to take a backseat to the right to smoke?

Next time, have a legitimate point. Necessary evils are not the same as recreational harms. Come back when you're not being a dope.

Right now an adult can drink alcohol in the presence of minors. Does this influence children's behavior? Are we seriously stating that particulates contained with the crack smoke are harmful to someone's health? Considering the billions of molecules within a cubic meter of air I'm not sure there is a scientific basis for a person objecting to drifting smoke. I think it has more to do with the smell which I also personally find objectionable, but not to the point to ban someone's freedom to smoke outdoors on a private businesses property.

I think the best solution to the entire issue would be to increase ventilation standards for indoor designated smoking areas and make them adults only. It would also be wise to post a notice on the door to make it clear that it is a smoking area. If a nonsmoker chooses to enter the designated smoking area, then they are choosing to second-hand smoke. Everybody's rights are protected with this solution. Smokers can smoke, nonsmokers can choose whether or not they want to be subjected to smoke, children are not subjected to smoke, owners of the establishment have a choice in whether or not to allow smoking, and employees have proper ventilation. Feel free to point out any holes in my suggestion, and I'll make improvements to it.

"Right now an adult can drink alcohol in the presence of minors. Does this influence children's behavior?" That might...MIGHT influence children's behavior. However, behavior and health are two different things. Drinking alcohol in the presence of minors will not affect their health. "Are we seriously stating that particulates contained with the crack smoke are harmful to someone's health?" I'm saying that crack smoke is harmful to someone's health. If it weren't, people wouldn't SMOKE CRACK. Do you think the smoke exhaled is significantly different than the smoke inhaled? Do you think children's lungs are less sensitive to foreign substances than adult lungs? Do you think children's brains are less sensitive to the effects of narcotics and other illicit substances than adult brains? Are you saying that crack smoke only affects the person whose mouth is on the pipe? Are you suggesting that blowing crack smoke in the face of someone is harmless to the person breathing the second-hand smoke because it's second-hand? Are you on crack? "Considering the billions of molecules within a cubic meter of air I'm not sure there is a scientific basis for a person objecting to drifting smoke." Please. By that faulty logic, it should be legal to blow cigarette smoke in the faces of babies, because of the billions of molecules of air available. "I think it has more to do with the smell which I also personally find objectionable, but not to the point to ban someone's freedom to smoke outdoors on a private businesses property." Smells don't trigger asthma, smells don't cause cancers, smells don't give you a buzz. Second-hand smoke does that (the last, obviously, from illicit smoke), and it's not because of their odors. If you're going to continue to pretend that only the smoker is negatively physically affected by smoke, you are too deluded to participate in intelligent discourse.

Why are you so paranoid about tobacco smoke. In this modern world in which we live (and the cleanest part of it!) everyday of our lives we are exposed to all sorts of pollution. The human body it’s frail, it’s quiet robust and can handle lots of abuse, hey we’ve evolved over 20 million years. You seem to have the idea that cancer can be caused by smoking 1 cigarette. Actually, the health care costs of smokers is less than non-smokers. They die quicker usually. So they are less of a drain on the health care system. They should get a rebate on their insurance. Those who try to prolong their lives w/ health food and exercise should have higher premiums, they will end up in the dementia units dying a slow death requiring lots of care. If you don’t want to pay for smokers health problems, then maybe we should stop ALL government health care to EVERYONE! Non-smoking Libertarian Larry

That suggestin is so absurd that I can't believe it is serious. So someone makes the choice, that's fine. Go for it. But around me or my kids? Nope. But I am willing to pay to help you pay for breaking your tobacco addiction. But of course, we progressives are nice like that.

"Why are you so paranoid about tobacco smoke. In this modern world in which we live (and the cleanest part of it!) everyday of our lives we are exposed to all sorts of pollution." So, is this the "why fight this small evil when there are so many greater evils around" argument? By that logic, why should cops give out speeding tickets when there are murderers and rapists walking free? "The human body it’s frail, it’s quiet robust and can handle lots of abuse, hey we’ve evolved over 20 million years. You seem to have the idea that cancer can be caused by smoking 1 cigarette." That's an exaggeration and you know it. If you're going to make an argument, please do so rationally instead of creating hyperbolic nonsense. "Actually, the health care costs of smokers is less than non-smokers. They die quicker usually. So they are less of a drain on the health care system." Really? Read this report: http://www.wmitchell.edu/tobaccolaw/resources/HealthCare.pdf (Granted, it's from Minnesota, but the scientific truths behind the statistics are universal and not specific to Minnesota.) "They should get a rebate on their insurance." Yes, because really, it's a service they provide by having higher healthcare costs, more illnesses (especially preventable ones), and greater chance of dying early, thus depriving the economy of valuable capital. Yes, that kind of math just makes sense. "Those who try to prolong their lives w/ health food and exercise should have higher premiums, they will end up in the dementia units dying a slow death requiring lots of care." Really? Are you sure about that? Here's another website that might change your opinion: http://www1.worldbank.org/tobacco/cover2a.asp And here's another: http://www.texaslung.org/educationalresources/factsheets/smoking.htm Whoopsy, I ran across yet another: http://www.uspharmacist.com/oldformat.asp?url=newlook/files/Cons/ACF2FE2.cfm&pub_id=8&article_id=121 Darn it, they just keep popping up! http://www.news-medical.net/?id=5803 Yet another: http://www.hillingdon.nhs.uk/Documents/chapter%204.pdf Heck, one more: http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/109/25/3244 "If you don’t want to pay for smokers health problems, then maybe we should stop ALL government health care to EVERYONE!" Maybe what you mean is, if smokers don't want to pay for their preventable health problems, then maybe we should stop treating the health problems of smokers entirely! Honestly, you're failing to make a cogent, much less coherent, point. Try again, Laurence.

Why do you take your children to places that offer smoking? There are many more "non-smoking" places where you can take your screaming brats! Perhaps it would be less intrusive to business owners to outlaw children in establishments if they offer smoking. You have no more of a right then the smokers. You make choices in your life just as smokers do. What makes you think you should have a right to tell a business owner how to run his business? Quit being so pompous and self righteous. Business owners don't need you or the government to decide if they have to rid their business of a legal (and quite profitable for the government) substance.

You are a female (or man who lives with a female) who wears "stinky" perfume! You don't believe in spanking children. You think our educational system is the best. You believe that our lawmakers have your best interest in mind with this proposed law. You love Socialism and/or fascism.

That's the way it already is. What you are trying to do is limit even further where smokers can go. Why do you feel you have more rights then the smokers? You already have more options on where to go than the smokers do! Admit it, you ARE a smoke NAZI.

"Does the right of the people to breathe clean air supercede the right of a minority to poison themselves and, as a natural side-effect, poison people around them?" I believe that the majority of people drive or ride in vehicles. Every time you start up a vehicle, you are letting carcingentics (sp) into the air. Do you plan on banning vehicles next? At what point do you stop? If you want to live where there is clean air, you best get out of the good ol USA now! ***WARNING WARNING****** Living on the planet earth may be hazardous to your health.

tell your politicians that we don't need the tax hike on cigarettes.

"By that logic, why should cops give out speeding tickets when there are murderers and rapists walking free?" Now you're catching on Randis. This tax hike is just another revenue source. Sure they tell you it is for the healthcare of smokers, but remember what happened to all that money won in the tobacco company lawsuit? That money was supposed to pay for smoker's healthcare. Ask Christine Gregroire....er better not. After she won on that stance, I believe she helped get the money into the general fund. Funny how that works.

That is what keeps some of us "down to earth". Why not get your head out of Uranus and come down to earth with us.

I swear, I tried to follow the logic of your post, but it was terribly scattered and random. And I'm not sure if you're trying to agree or disagree with me, much less if you've actually read any more than the post to which you responded.

Driving is a necessary evil. People must get to their places of work, and cars make it possible to do so. Smoking is an unnecessary evil. People don't NEED to smoke, and they don't need to smoke around non-smokers in public where the air belongs to, and is breathed by, everyone. Nice try.

"That's the way it already is. What you are trying to do is limit even further where smokers can go. Why do you feel you have more rights then the smokers?" Smokers have the right to poison themselves as they see fit. They do not have the right to poison others who don't share the desire to poison themselves. I think my right to breathe in public (a necessity of life) supercedes a smoker's right to smoke in public (not a necessity of life) and harm others around them (also not a necessity of life). "You already have more options on where to go than the smokers do! Admit it, you ARE a smoke NAZI." Well, you just lost your argument. You invoked Hitler/Nazis. Pathetic.