Is smoking coming to an end in South Dakota?

The word on the street is that at a legislative forum in Sioux Falls, one of the major hospitals noted that the American Heart Association is floating a poll that 70% of South Dakotans are supposedly in favor of completely banning smoking in South Dakota.

Is this true? I don't have full confirmation yet, but if it's even remotely the case, this is a major bombshell. They could either bring it to the legislature as a contentious fight, or they could take it to the people as a contentious fight.

Why would they? Right now, they're coming off of a November victory for a huge increase on tobacco taxes in SD. And they might be best in trying to strike while the iron is hot.

Higher sin taxes on everybody's favorite vice to hate are one thing. But will prohibition be going too far? Wait for this next session to see if we start hearing more about this...


Anonymous said…
Smoking should be a personal relationship between a smoker and his/her supplier.
Anonymous said…
pp--you're a moron.
Anonymous said…
I'm assuming this is an indoor smoking ban rather than a complete ban.
Anonymous said…
Do we live in America! Didn't they try this with booze! hummmm, and countries regulate how many kids you can have and tax ya for it! hummmmm. Okay so we should not smoke BUT, there are hundreds of things we should not do and there are items not allowed/outlawed and they are done anyway. Look at NewYork trying to tell restraunts what oils they have/can cook with.
First off on the smoking ban that is in place; a business should have the guts to say "I don't want smoking in my business" they should have not passed the buck to the legislature. There are jobs and places of emplyment that people will not work at i feel this same principal should apply here. SD and other states stop passing the buck to the legislature and get the guts to have the business you want! It is aas simple as a sign in the window or door Smoking Allowed or Smoking Not Allowed.
Anonymous said…
It's a clean indoor air law that is being looked at, not prohibition. There is huge public support across SD, across the nation and across the world for reducing exposure to second hand smoke.
Anonymous said…
I have a great idea. Instead of getting a sound bite from someone who heard about this at a meeting, gossip, call Dean Krogman or Darrin Smith with AHA and find out their plans for session. That would probably straighten things out more than this thread.
Wayne Gilbert said…
Anonymous 10:19
Shut up and go home to smoke.
Anonymous said…
When these anti-freedom Nazis are finished with all their do-gooding, we'll live in a utopia. Everybody will live in rubber rooms with nothing unhealthy to corrupt their minds or health.

Communism is right around the corner. All we need to do is forfeit a few more of our rights in the name of "health and safety" and we'll be prime for the plucking.
Anonymous said…
The most ardent supporters of this type of legislation won't be content until they have completely taken over every aspect of private business. Why can't they stop at their precious 300% increase in the tobacco tax? It's because now they're emboldened. Look for two big victories for them in the next year. A total ban on smoking in private businesses and a huge minimum wage increase. Then look for them to forge ahead with their agenda and start dictating what products can be sold by businesses. Gun bans are in the very near future.

But first....transfats.

Have no fear. All they're trying to do is save you from yourself.
Wayne Gilbert said…
Anonymous 3:21 and 3:28. You guys have picked a pitiful place to hang your freedom hat. I am a firm believer in freedom of speech. I cherish the right to bear arms. But "smoker's rights" is absolute B.S. If you think that true freedoms are going to be lost because you can't foul the air in restaurants and bars then you have a neandrethal concept of what freedom is all about.
Anonymous said…
The business should decide if they want smokng allowed or not, stop passing the buck off to the legislature. Step up to the plate and run the business how you want!
Stop having the government do it all.
Anonymous said…
They won't do it.

It would be tantamount to a tax cut. The tax and spend rinos and liberals here in South Dakota would have to come out of the closet if they lost smoking taxes as a revenue stream.

It's much easier to say you are for a healthy state than simply calling for higher taxes to support more spending.
Anonymous said…

I am not sure what your concept of "freedom" entails (you sound like you favor Berlin's 'positive freedom' more than 'negative freedom'), but allowing people to smoke on your own property would be encompassed in my "neanderthal" version of freedom.

The state does not own all businesses and should not be able to dictate whether or not smoking occurs within their property bounds. If you don't want to go to a smokey restaurant, go to a different restaurant. Or better yet, if there is 70% support for non-smoking places, start a non-smoking business. Just don't act like you should be able to tell other people what to do because it aligns with your preferences.
Anonymous said…
Well, there are hundreds of laws and regulations dealing with the "health and safety" of the public and you are going to see hundreds more. And it should be that way! I’m not an expert and not going to try and list all the negative issues associated with the use of alcohol. I’m sure the experts could list hundreds of cases of the negative results of alcohol use.

And yes, more rules and regulations concerning alcohol use are just around the corner! Everyone knows how alcohol destroys families and a lot of innocent people. We will not see prohibition, but we will see a lot more laws and regulations controlling the use of it.

If it was just the alcohol user that suffered maybe it would be somewhat different, but everyone knows how the innocent pay the price.

Smoking and alcohol use endanger everyone. You will see less tolerance of it because of the Christian influence on our political leaders. They have good Christian values and they are not going to stand for innocent people suffering because of the mistakes of others!

Yes, smoking laws are tough and are going to get tougher. Tougher alcohol use restrictions are just around the corner. And that’s the way it should be! Happy New Year!
Douglas said…
Yup, Merry smoke-free Christmas and Happy Near-beer New Year.

Recently heard about a woman making around $80,000 a year who spends enough time drinking that she can't pay her telephone bill.

The problems with alcohol and tobacco don't start or end at your front door.
Anonymous said…
VJ, I'm a born-again Bible-thumper, and I have never smoked and never will. However, the last thing in the world I would ever want to see is a world in which the government extends its long arm so far that the people no longer have any decisions to make for themselves.

BTW, smoking does not endanger everyone. The World Health Organization has issued two independent reports that arrive at that conclusion. Of course, that's not what people want to hear, so nobody hears it. All we hear is trumped-up statistics from organizations with vested interests.

Jake, well-said.

I'm off to church. Merry Christmas.
Anonymous said…
I guess I don't hold with completely banning cigarettes either. But if I were an employer and had the choice between hiring a nonsmoker and a smoker, I would choose the nonsmoker. Less illnesses, less insurance cost, less time wasted for the cigarette breaks, etc.

I wish no one smoked, but people will start because they think it's cool or whatever, and later when they either can't afford it or are ill and want to quit, it's too late for most of them. So therefore there will always be a steady stream of tax revenue from smokers.

What really irritates is when a person is destitute, on welfare, kids on medicaid, etc etc, but boy can they ever afford their cigarettes and/or booze. It should be before a person can collect welfare benefits of any kind, he/she needs to be off tobacco and alcohol. Guess that sounds harsh, but why should the taxpayers subsidize cigs/booze?

A smoker's right to smoke ends when his/her smoke reaches my nose.
Anonymous said…
Hey Nonnie, you usually make sense in your comments, but this time, I have to disagree with you.

You are opposed to "cigarette breaks" for employees. Nearly everybody gets breaks while they're at work. Whether they choose to smoke or nap is up to them. I know of no employer who allows an employee to take "cigarette breaks." If they do, they've got rocks in their heads.

As for your parting comment, consider it from a little different perspective. You say a smoker's smoke ought not hit your nose. Be advised that strong perfume/cologne odors can cause people with allergies to sneeze incessantly or can even trigger asthmatic reactions. So, I'm sure you'll refrain from wearing such scents and tell those around you to do the same.
Anonymous said…
11:55. I seldom wear perfumes, and if I do, they are barely noticeable for the reasons you cite.

I realize everyone gets breaks, and if a person smokes in a smoking designated area then, I have no problem with that. If they feel the need for cigarettes more often and abuse the breaks just to smoke when they should be working, that's what I'm talking about.
Anonymous said…
Nonnie, how do you feel about the terribly noxious fumes emitted from some big businesses? Does their right to emit overpowering fumes end at your nose?
Anonymous said…
I know of one big business that has been in Sioux Falls for 100+ years that emits noxious fumes. Nonnie would have that business closed down.

In fact, Nonnie's standard appears to be that if Nonnie doesn't like it then nobody has the right to do it anywhere around Nonnie. If government operated under that standard, then nobody will have the right to do anything because anything you might do offends someone.

If your pickup blows too much smoke for my liking - license plates removed. If your kids are too loud for my liking - kicked out of the mall. If size of your arse offends me - house arrest. Everybody's right to offend me ends at my senses. I have the right not to be offended by anything, including comments on this blog! Comments opposing mine - banned!
Anonymous said…
Good grief,I'm not the enemy here. I didn't advocate banning smoking. I simply agree with smoke-free environments, meaning people can go outside to smoke or in certain smoking designated areas. That's already the approved way of doing things in most businesses. That is because a smoker's right to pollute the air ends at my nose.

And if a person is taking many breaks during the day to get their nicotine fix, that is cheating their employer. That's all I'm saying.

If a business is emitting noxious fumes as you say, I thought there were OSHA and other standards that they are violating. If so, why isn't somebody doing something about it?
Anonymous said…
"I have the right not to be offended by anything..."

Seems to me that's the belief of many people nowadays who sue or complain about being offended at the drop of a hat. How about the school bus driver who wore a Santa hat and some kindergarten kid complained that it "offended" him. The bus driver was told to remove the hat. Now that is ridiculous!
Anonymous said…
Somebody tell Morrells. Their right to emit odors stops at Nonnie's nose. They must be shut down.

Nobody has a right to offend Nonnie. Nonnie has a right to dictate what everyone else can do or can't do. In fact, Nonnie even reserves the right to tell businesses what they can do inside their own buildings.

This is what's wrong with America. Nonnie wants to pretend that it's OTHERS who believe they have a right not to be offended by anything, but Nonnie is the one making this claim.

Nonnie, what's the difference between someone dictating clothing to a bus driver and you dictating what someone can do in someone else's business establishment?

Good thing you didn't live 100 years ago when the air was thick with smoke from people's chimneys when houses were heated with coal and wood. None of that would have stopped at your nose!
Anonymous said…
Most offices already push smoking outside or to certain isolated areas. Most of the debate seems to be with public places like malls, restaurants and bars.

I would rather just see tougher air quality and filtration standards be put in place. If a bar or restaurant wants to allow smoking indoors then they should be required to install a state of the art air exchange and filtration system and raise their ceilings if possible. This solves most of the problem with second hand smoke.

I am severely asthmatic but I can go into Stogeez and be comfortable because they have a great air filtration system. But I can't go into some other bars in town because they don't have any sort of decent air filtration or don't want to turn it on. I have lost count of how many times I have been someplace and if someone complains about how smokey it is someone from the bar will apologize and go turn on the fans. So many places have air exchange systems and don't even bother to turn them on.

Deal with the air quality issue instead of slapping more nanny state laws on everyone.

South Dakota is getting worse than California ever was with all these stupid laws.

Popular posts from this blog

Breaking News: Frederick not in SDGOP Chair Race

A strategic move by Sutton. Good for him, bad for Dems.