free news about cigarettes

http://smokker.com/news/12-07-06/Smoking-ban-eliminates-good-choices.1062.html

Here we go again! Assemblymen Dick Traini and Dan Coffey have introduced an amendment to the city’s no-smoking ordinance. They propose it be against the law for anyone to smoke anyplace in the city except for hotel rooms, at home and some places outdoors. Smoking would not be allowed anywhere the public congregates such as parks, ball games, patios, Blues on the Green, etc.
When this proposal became public, I was quickly reminded that when we were saddled with our present no-smoking law almost six years ago we were promised the law would not touch bars. Yes, that was a different mayor and different Assembly members, but wouldn’t it be nice if city hall would keep its promises no matter who sits in the chairs. Unfortunately, I believe much of this current pandering to special-interest groups is based on one man’s short-range plan to be a legislator and another’s burning desire to be mayor. Many who feel they can tell you how to live your life better than you would have you believe this is a health issue, and it is not. It is an individual and business rights issue, plain and simple. I personally do not like tobacco and may even agree that it should be outlawed. But, until that day, people should be allowed to enjoy a legal product. They say it’s about forcing people to endure secondhand smoke. Really? Then, answer me this. Why does this unenforceable plan exempt 25 percent of hotel rooms? Shouldn’t we care about maids, room service and maintenance staff or other customers breathing in secondhand smoke? Or, is it more in consideration of a fear about losing big hotel support during a future campaign? And, we should ask ourselves, is it better to allow a person to stop at a bar on the way home and enjoy a drink and cigarette with those around who engage in the same? Or would it be safer for that person to pick up a pack of smokes and bottle of whiskey to consume in the living room of their home with seniors and children present who have no option to go elsewhere? And, at a time when we are legitimately concerned with assaults against women, ask yourself, is it better to allow the continuation of smokers in a controlled bar atmosphere, or for women to go outside to smoke a cigarette to be the target of the sexual predators and violence we hear so much about? Proponents of this new ban claim there are no choices for nonsmokers. Not true. Right now there are over 200 establishments in town that serve alcohol but prohibit smoking. There are slightly more than 90 bars and private clubs that allow smoking. What is their true motive for trying to fix something that’s not broken? We’ve heard no outcry from customers, employees or anyone else, except, that is, those who benefit by spending tobacco settlement money on TV ads. We live in a free society and should be allowed to engage in free will. Independent responsibility and choosing should not be taken from us. We should not allow government to micromanage our lives. Most of us do not live in Alaska so we can be like New York or California, and few would be proud if we are labeled the nation’s No. 1 nanny state.