Washington Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on February 15, 2005

Click here to view bill details.

I can accept this if you will also make it illegal for FAT people to be seen in public. I find them offensive & upsetting and should not be exposed to such a disgusting sight. I am certain it raises my blood pressure and is therefore detrimental to my health. FAT people must be banned from public view. They should also be taxed to pay for their added cost of medical care.

While we're at it, let's stop people from wearing perfume or any type of fragrance in public. I am allergic and it causes serious discomfort and a risk to my health.

There's a difference between personal perceptions and unequivocal physical harm. It's the difference between saying something hit you like a ton of bricks and being hit by a ton of bricks. You can sue someone for the latter happening to you, but not for the former. How you perceive something is personal and subjective, but when someone does something that is unquestionably harmful to you physically, that is universal and objective. Your choice to smoke is not a physical characteristic, and being fat does not impose health risks to everyone around them. Would you want people to smoke crack around you, or would you rather not breathe in those fumes? How about marijuana? Because that's how non-smokers feel about cigarette smoke.

Don't we allow citizens to own property and do with it as they see fit? Don't we have freedom of choice in this country. This would be totally unconstitutional. Why don't they just make smoking illegal? Simple, becuase a majority of smokers are liberals! Libertarian Larry

...is that public property is not yours personally, unlike the cigarettes. While you may do with your cigarettes what you like, you may only do so in places where that is allowed, just like you can't bring your dog wherever you want, and just like you can't go without a shirt wherever you want. Public places belong to the public at large, not smokers in particular. The right to breathe clean air supercedes the right of smokers to smoke. That's right: the right to survive exceeds the right to drive yourself to an early, painful, and expensive death. WHEE!

If I own a business open to customers, is that the public's business?? I specifically don't go to bars and music venues because of the smoke but I believe it is unconstitutional to force/mandate/legislate business owners adhere to a non-smoking policy if they don't want to. Will our government and legislatures ever, ever think that maybe they are going too far? There is no scientific evidence that walking through some smoke on the way to a restaraunt does any harm. Let's also ban diesel cars from city streets. Every take a 'hit' of that while walking downtown?

I would like to see the State of Washington become the first state in the union to hold up the meaning of what America stands for: a place for everyone! Compromise is the key word, and I think the way it is now is more fair to all. Actually, nonsmokers are way ahead! There are hardly any places left for smokers to light up anyway, and NO ONE has to go there! It really should be up to the owners of business's to decide what THEY want to do! The Govt. has too much control on our lives anyway, and soon we will have lost all we enjoy. So get off your soap boxes and THINK of how we can all live together. It will be a better America.

I agree 100% on this issue, compromising is THE way to go, just wish more people would get on here and state their views! Get up a petition!!

Then WHY do you have such a problem with designated smoking areas, randis? Kind of like "have your cake and eat it too"? HUH? You don't want anybody to smoke any where and you know it!

All people can live together in harmony with a little compromise, isn't that what the constitution is all about?

Well, that's what it's SUPPOSED to be, but the government seems to have forgotton that. They seem to delight in picking on one segment of the population, but think nothing of allowing abortions. Wonder how God is going to feel about that???? I personally, am just about ready to quit voting for ANY of these idiots! I think we should kick them all out and start over again.

YOU are the most intelligent and reasonable person I have heard on here. Compromise is the thing to do, and the Govt. should keep their noses out of it. This is a world for ALL. If all non-smokers were like you, we wouldn't have these problems.

"If I own a business open to customers, is that the public's business??" The business is not the possession of the public, but that's akin to saying, "If I open a hospital to the public, is that the public's business? Why should anyone be allowed to tell me there can't be smoking there, or that health codes need to be followed? It's MY hospital, after all!" Opening a business means you have a responsibility to run and maintain your business in a manner that is safe for all customers. Home Depot lost millions of dollars because their stores didn't always close off aisles before using forklifts, causing many injuries and even deaths (for customers AND employees). Why should they be punished for someone getting hurt or dying when they choose to work at or patronize that business? "I specifically don't go to bars and music venues because of the smoke but I believe it is unconstitutional to force/mandate/legislate business owners adhere to a non-smoking policy if they don't want to." Which is why smoking licenses, just like liquor licenses, are a better idea. "Will our government and legislatures ever, ever think that maybe they are going too far? There is no scientific evidence that walking through some smoke on the way to a restaraunt does any harm." You cannot drink alcohol in public places. It's not as though being drunk in public is going to do any harm. Are you getting drunk by being next to someone who's drinking? At least with cigarettes there's passive smoking to think about. And I hope you don't ever complain about dragging your kids (if you have any) through clouds of smoke every time you enter or exit a building. Not a peep out of you! "Let's also ban diesel cars from city streets. Every take a 'hit' of that while walking downtown?" Actually, the state COULD enact tougher pollution standards...oh, wait...it's trying, but people here are kvetching about how WA already has clean air. Why don't you go reason with those knuckleheads?

I think the point trying to be made here is business's should be allowed to have both smoking and non-smoking areas......THEIR decision, not a complete ban by the Government! Seems FAIR to me! Isn't this America?

I say oust all the legislators that are sponsering this bill, and the ones who vote for it too! Enough is enough!! America?? I don't think so!!!!

Look at you! You found the exclamation point all by yourself. We're all VERY proud of you!

This bill hasn't passed YET, but I see they are still out trying to get signatures! Please, owners of establishments or someone, get out a petition of our own, this is still unfair AND discrimanatory!!!!

If you do, DO NOT vote on the complete smoking ban! Do we really want to be like the state of California? The Government has TOO much control as it is, and this should be up to the owners of establishments, NOT the Government! The way it is now is fair...at least there are still some places a smoker can go. AND, second-hand smoke has NOT been proven to be harmful.. if you don't believe that: go to www.forces.org, and get the REAL facts. Pretty soon ALL freedoms are going to be taken away, so you NON-SMOKERS should seriously think about this!! WHAT will it be next?? PLEASE..do not let the Government have it's way this time!! It's getting more and more communistic every day. Think VERY carefully!!

Why does everyone on here keep giving randis more ammunition to write his sooooo informative posts??? Ignore him and he might go away!!! There are better things to discuss!!

...randis will just make an appearance on on another thread. randis craves being the center of attention and the self-appointed "authority". Everyone else here is just blog-fodder for that omnipotent ego. He/she needs this blog like a junkie needs a fix.

But very sad it is!!

I'm waiting for the day randis goes to www.forces.org, and THEN see what he has to say! Or ANYONE..for that matter!

...why don't you direct me to sites about the Earth being flat, or unicorns being real?

randis..this is ALL you have to say?? The same old words we've heard a million times?? Unbelievable!! Sure is different when the shoes on the other foot,huh? Wake up!!

Smoking is bad, no doubt about it. Mandating how you go about it is worse. When you mandate this-or-that personal habit you have effectively lost control of governance. For example, let us assume that this law passes. What is to stop someone (like myself) from using this law as precedent for other morality-cum-health laws? How about one to keep you from driving? (Vehicles emit Carbon Monoxide and other lethal gases in far greater quantities than burning tobacco does). What about taking a run at cell phones, beer, or even the simple act of working for a living? After all these things do contribute to accidents and shorter life spans. Using the law to mandate morality is a sticky wicket. Using this approach brings to mind a very old saying: "Be careful what you ask for..."

Exactly! If we don't watch out, the Government will have us completely under control, just a bunch of Robots walking around doing THEIR bidding, without ANY freedom of choice any more!Let's show them...do not vote for this iniative, or SOMEWHERE down the line you will be very sorry you did.

Still waiting for your comments on www.forces.org. Could you possibly have nothing to say?? Can not believe that NOBODY has anything to say!!

When faced with real and tangible challenges to the randis 'opinion' you will find a distinct and expected lack of response from the master of 'reality'. What you may get is the canned response of the mighty master: You are an uneducated dolt or a bigoted loser or a delusional moron. "Why don't you send me to a site where Unicorns are real" Blah Blah Blah; where pigs fly, etc etc. randis can't disprove any of what Forces has already proven so the mighty mouth falls silent. Come on randis, where is that analytical mind when faced with a real challenge eh? What a blowhard ! Must be taking lessons from Sen. Kennedy. Like Star Trek's Kirk said. "Kahn, I'm laughing at the superior intelect!"

Now....if only we could get the citizens of THIS state to listen! BEFORE they vote for the complete smoking ban!

This is my ONLY response to the information at forces.org: Every major (and minor) branch of government from every major (and minor) nation, along with the scientific community (via 50+ years of research) have reached a consensus: tobacco is addictive, the chemicals in tobacco smoke (including raw tobacco smoke) are known carcinogens, and tobacco use shortens the average smoker's lifespan (as well as quality of life during those years). They have also agreed that children of smokers are far more likely than children of non-smokers to begin smoking. Most smokers began smoking before the legal age. It's odd that you consider my scorn of tobacco as a call for prohibition, or support of heavy taxation of tobacco. Arguing the legality of the law does not equal arguing the propriety of the law, much less agreeing with the law. I give little credence to tinfoil hat websites, but I do read them to understand what the undereducated are talking about (much like I listen to liberal and conservative talk radio to hear what all the idiots are listening to and thinking).

For someone who touts research, analysis, and education above gut reaction and emotional common sense, you sure put those aside when the points are contrary to yours. You use the words: consensus, 50+ years of research, agreed, etc etc however, when the 50+ years of research that these agreements, consensuses and findings are based on is erroneous 'junk science' that is more Tinfoil Hat than Forces.org, you still accept it without question. Hypocrit ? - Yes indeed. Then again, your inconsistency was and is expected. "It's odd that you consider my scorn of tobacco as a call for prohibition, or support of heavy taxation of tobacco. Arguing the legality of the law does not equal arguing the propriety of the law, much less agreeing with the law." Not odd at all. If you have a point to make or support, then MAKE IT! If you are not calling for support, prohibition, or taxation, then SAY SO! randis, you talk in circles and riddles and then fake suprise when others take your views face value. Again, that was and is expected coming from you. Makes it easy to rearrange your words and thoughts when challenged to paint yourself in the best possible light and(in your view) enables you to call other people(those who use the same tactics but disagree with you)idiots and morons. So much for educated research and thought process. Now we know what being a liberal is all about: Smoke and mirrors.

Randis leads you in but fails to deliver, pretty standard. Notice how he lures us in thinking we will find some meaningful commentary on the information at Forces.org. Instead, we see the same old bull crap randis spews in post after post. Rambling on an on about society this and government that, study this, research that. Bla Bla Notice how randis lured the readers into his post thinking they were going to get some kind of educated response or insight into the information and expose’ at Forces.org then gave us all a dose of the ole ‘randis rhetoric’, rambling on and again about how we should all believe false research and the erroneous, biased studies that fuel the fallacy of the second hand smoke agenda. All just because the majority of world governments and anti-smoking ‘pundits’ say so. Randis in fact, says very little about the second hand smoke studies, preferring instead to conduct a support session for the entire anti-smoking argument which has input into, but very little to actually DO with banning smoking in public places; a campaign that derives its entire argument from the false studies about second hand smoke. Falsehoods and junk science exposed on Forces.org. In fact, the only comment he made about Forces.org in the entire post was a derogatory whine about a Tinfoil Hat website. How astute and, of course, 'highly educated'. Typical, when randis cannot refute or disprove something, out come the ad hominem attacks; real cute. Guess we should have expected that though. Glad to know however, that randis is among the idiots(randis own analogy) who listen to talk radio. It is nice to know where he gets his talking points. Stay at home randis, we don’t need your style of propaganda and brainwashing here.

Glad I finally got some people to discuss www.forces.org. AND, finally a reply from randis, just what I exspected of course. Too bad..but guess no one can change his spots. Seems he is like most people these days, only out for what HE thinks is right, with no regards for anyone else OR what's fair in this world. I've always believed in compromise, but guess there's none of that in this day and age either. Wish there was some help out there!

There is help. It is called your Vote; and that is something randis will never have here (unless randis relocates that is - heaven forbid!) Keep the faith, you are not alone out there. Also keep up the writing, the more who get the word the better. Forces.org is one of many sites that are trying to expose the hype and bull that is being pushed up everyone's posterior rumpus endus.

Thank you for your kind words, I have always voted, but it seems hopeless at times. I don't really have any faith in either party any more, haven't for a long time, and there is no middle ground. From now on I will be an Independant. Could you please inform people of these other sites that we could get support from?

Try the Libertarian Party.

Check into it

that it took me so long to get back. I have checked into those two Parties, the Libertarian is certainly not for me(guess randis belongs to that!) the Constitution party looks a lot more promising, thank you. Now I would like to know if anyone has read the text on I-91? Viewpoints please?? I think it is assinine! Where are employees supposed to go to smoke on breaks? Employers are supposed to be able to get the 25 foot distance changed...yeah right! Anybody who votes for this IS completely paranoid! Discussion please?

If you value your freedom,DO NOT vote for I-91! This is discrimation at it's worst. A 25 ft distance from all entrances etc.? The Government is out of control, let's show them people! Smokers and non-smokers alike should take heed. What will it be next???