Tough Anti-Smoking Law Puts Consumers' Health First

Reader Comments
Back to article

I started smoking when I was 12 yrs old. I am now 30. I have been smoke free for almost 5 months now. I quit cold turkey. I do not agree with this bill, even though now I am a non-smoker. If someone wants to smoke, they HAVE the right to do it, perhaps not to the detriment of others around them, but in their own homes or cars. Now, there is not a PERSON in the USA that can say that they DON'T know that cigarettes are bad for them and cause cancer and could kill them. So why make the WARNING label bigger? People aren't stupid. They are just addicts. They are well aware of the health effects of smoking but they chose to do it anyway. So if they keep it away from non-smokers, who DO have the right to clean air (seeng how they are CHOOSING not to smoke)then why make the smoking corps. make those DUMB changes. Like I said, smokers are WELL aware of the risk of cancer and even death and they STILL continue to smoke, so I HIGHLY doubt a picture of someone with cancer, or a dead fetus or any other nasty picture put on a label to try to deter them, would work. My guess is that a lot of money would be wasted, and people would STILL smoke. How about taking a better look at alcohol, which causes liver damage, deadly crashes and a list of other things. Yet there are no WARNING labels on alcohol bottles. No one goes and smokes a few cigarettes and then gets behind the wheel and ends up getting in an accident and killing someone else or themselves. Yet people that drink, end up in deadly crashes all the time. Get your priorities straight Washington.

Started Out Hopeful for "CHANGE" of CO 11:52PM April 26, 2010

I started smoking when I was 12 yrs old. I am now 30. I have been smoke free for almost 5 months now. I quit cold turkey. I do not agree with this bill, even though now I am a non-smoker. If someone wants to smoke, they HAVE the right to do it, perhaps not to the detriment of others around them, but in their own homes or cars. Now, there is not a PERSON in the USA that can say that they DON'T know that cigarettes are bad for them and cause cancer and could kill them. So why make the WARNING label bigger? People aren't stupid. They are just addicts. They are well aware of the health effects of smoking but they chose to do it anyway. So if they keep it away from non-smokers, who DO have the right to clean air (seeng how they are CHOOSING not to smoke)then why make the smoking corps. make those DUMB changes. Like I said, smokers are WELL aware of the risk of cancer and even death and they STILL continue to smoke, so I HIGHLY doubt a picture of someone with cancer, or a dead fetus or any other nasty picture put on a label to try to deter them, would work. My guess is that a lot of money would be wasted, and people would STILL smoke. How about taking a better look at alcohol, which causes liver damage, deadly crashes and a list of other things. Yet there are no WARNING labels on alcohol bottles. No one goes and smokes a few cigarettes and then gets behind the wheel and ends up getting in an accident and killing someone else or themselves. Yet people that drink, end up in deadly crashes all the time. Get your priorities straight Washington.

Started Out Hopeful for "CHANGE" of CO 11:52PM April 26, 2010

Ban food for the 500lb people who want to eat cheese fries for dinner.... Number one cause of death right there

me of NE 5:31PM October 14, 2009

I am a 29 year old who lives in San Diego and yes there are a lot of smokers, but my only wish is that people would stop entirely cold turkey and not pick up a pack for ten years. Not one day goes by that I want fresh air. Second hand smoke is the killer I get after the first one. Every day I am now wheezing, coughing and suffering the smoke filled air. I saw in Geneva was a place where smokers every where I looked. I want in Geneva a Non smokers Place with comfy chairs and sofas. A fan with fresh air that smells of Hawaii.

Nik Kripalani of CA 1:10PM August 21, 2009

My name is pretty self explanitory to my cause. There have been previous remarks that only smokers are against this bill. It's the same way with any bill. Most of the people against it provocatively will be the gourp of people being antagonized by it. However I am a non smoker, i think smoking is nasty, but people have the right to do it. Perhaps not in public places but then again, obese people who CAN control their eating habits are a menace to society, as are alcoholics, crackheads, potheads. You cannot just outlaw one of them and say the rest are above it because quite simply their not.

a person against this bill who is a non smoker of CA 8:42PM July 21, 2009

ecxAmb

Zxgcrbta of IA 11:29AM July 15, 2009

Drawing generalizations from a selective sample of one is not exactly the highest level of reasoning. The AVERAGE cigaret smoker is less well educated and earns less money than the AVERAGE non smoker. To be sure, there are some smokers who are well educated and very bright. If they are honest with themselves, however, they will admit that smoking is not one of their more intelligent choices.
Fatty foods, alcohol, salt, are all injurious in excess. Tobacco smoke is injurious PERIOD. Smoking causes more premature deaths annually than automobile accidents and firearms combined.
So enough hysteria about "big brother" taking over our lives. In a Democracy, we ARE the government. The majority of American voters recognize the terrible cost of our cigaret addiction, and want it reduced. If you prefer living where there's no government to put any kind of restrictions on your so-called personal choices, try Somalia.

Doctor Paul of MI 8:02PM July 13, 2009

First, I have to address this idiotic statement about how smokers are "lower class, lower educated, lower paid, and apparently of lower IQ." I smoke, and there is, statistically speaking, a 99% chance that I'm smarter than you. Of course, the fact that you support the government being able to forbid personal choices for what you cite as financial reasons puts you pretty far on the western slope of that particular bell curve.
And then there's your buddy from CA, hanging out with you at the hind end of evolution. You know, the one who opens up with a logical fallacy and then dismisses using the same treatment for alcohol and drugs because they don't "cause health problems for the rest of us." I guess drug- and alcohol-related crimes, as well as the tens of thousands of D.U.I.-caused injuries and deaths every year don't constitute any sort of meaningful risk in your "educated" world.
And Fred, I have a hard time believing you hold down a job with grammar like that. If you want anyone to take you seriously, I recommend composing yourself like a literate adult instead of a cat walking across a keyboard. Must be hard for you.
As a smoker, I have absolutely no problems with the government telling me what I can and cannot do in the realm of public health and public safety. Protecting the health and welfare of the citizenry is government's chief purpose, and I get that. However, that does not extend to the government protecting a mentally competent adult from his or herself. One's personal beliefs on smoking should have no bearing on anyone else's actions. Well, really, one's personal beliefs on ANYTHING should have no bearing on anyone else's actions, but our government has made legislating morality one of its favorite past-times.
Regulating the level of nicotine may not necessarily be an overextension of government authority, but it is a breach of fairness. Why does the government not regulate the amount of fat, salt, and sugar in our food and drink? Our brains develop a fixation upon the taste of particular foods, and the massively unhealthy fast food and soft drinks on the market are loaded with these aforementioned ingredients specifically BECAUSE they engender this fixation (one might call it, say, an addiction). And I can assure you that the cost to the taxpayer (Hi, Tim) of medical care for the complications of the average American's poisonous diet far outweigh the cost of treatment for smoking-related illnesses.
But wouldn't that be wrong? I mean, everyone loves McDonald's, right?
And a final note: Gregory Connolly should be exiled from this country for this statement: "What we first have to do is stop innovation."
I feel no need to elaborate as to why. If you don't understand how frightening this idea is, go join Tim, Fred, and James over on the left-hand side of the IQ curve.

Neil of GA 9:52PM June 28, 2009

When you reduce the nicotine content in cigarettes, there is a possibility that now-addicted people will smoke MORE of them to get the same level of nicotine intake.
More cigarettes. More sales. More taxes. Don't be too sure that we're not being "had" in these changes.

Muser of NM 9:15PM June 23, 2009

Joe of Michigan is right on! Smoking very is bad for you. We know that. But so is alcohol. Why the double standard?
At least with smoking people get sharper, not dumber, when they have had too much to smoke.
Extraordinary numbers of deaths have been caused by accidents and many more due to long term alcohol effects. How many families have been destroyed by alcoholism or alcohol-related goof-ups?
I'm all for personal responsibility, but there is a massive double standard here. Why is it okay to blare alcohol advertisements at children all day long?

Dan of MD 1:06PM June 23, 2009