It's time... to protect the children hanging out in bars and playing video lottery?
According to the Argus and other sources this AM, Jennifer Stalley of the South Dakota Tobacco-Free Kids network issued the following statement in reference to Senate Bill 196, an act which revised where smoking is prohibited. The act eliminates smoking in bars, restaurants with a liquor license, and video lottery establishments:
Since she's talking about "a healthier, cleaner, safer environment for all of our children" and since she represents the Tobacco-Free Kids network, my thought is this - If there are kids hanging out in bars and video lottery establishments, they have much bigger problems than having a a smoke free environment to drink and gamble in. (hint: it involves law enforcement and/or social services).
For god's sake, let adults be adults. If they choose to drink, gamble and smoke, and to patronize establishments that allow that, that is their choice - isn't it?
God save us from the nanny mentality of some of those in government.
"We need to create a healthier, cleaner, safer environment for all of our children, our visitors, our workers and ourselves... It's time."Read that here.
Since she's talking about "a healthier, cleaner, safer environment for all of our children" and since she represents the Tobacco-Free Kids network, my thought is this - If there are kids hanging out in bars and video lottery establishments, they have much bigger problems than having a a smoke free environment to drink and gamble in. (hint: it involves law enforcement and/or social services).
For god's sake, let adults be adults. If they choose to drink, gamble and smoke, and to patronize establishments that allow that, that is their choice - isn't it?
God save us from the nanny mentality of some of those in government.
Comments
Apparently you’ve never been to Roslyn, Pukwana, Zell or any other of the numerous small towns where the only meal served is in a bar. Get out of Brookings and Pierre once in a while. Plus I believe her quote was children, visitors, workers and ourselves, not just children.
No one is forced - FORCED - to eat, work, or even go near any establishment where people smoke.
There's your right to clean air, you commie pinko.
Not everyone lives in Sioux Falls or Rapid City, not everyone is blessed with all those options. Tell that to the waitress in Faith or the bartender in Buffalo.
Wants AREN'T RIGHTS. If you choose to enter a bar or anywhere else that there is smoking, it's "your body, your choice". BTW, how many of the sponsors of this bill vote "pro-choice" on other issues???
So whose right trumps the other? The people that smoke, or the people wishing to be smoke free? Both? None? Who decides who has the greater "right"?
Boils down to this... let the free market, the free economy, and the FREE PEOPLE decide. Keep the Nanny State and the fringe moralists out of it.
The fact is there are very few "Rights" in this country and people throw that word around way too much. You do not have the "Right" to smoke.
However, I also understand that thanks to the most recent non-smoking laws which ban smoking in public places and restaurants without liquor licenses, I have choices. And for the most part, I do choose not to frequent establishments where smoking is allowed.
I agree with pp that this is an issue about child welfare, not smokers or non-smokers rights!
Last year I visited Deadwood, and my spouse and I were very surprised to see more than a few people gambling with their children just an arm’s length away. Apparently in Deadwood at least there is an ordinance that mandates that children in casinos (and I can’t believe I’m typing those words!) need to be kept a certain distance away from the machines. I am guessing this distance is only a few feet, as I saw a number of parents with babies in strollers and baby carriages which were just within their reach as they played the machines. And most of them were smoking. Ick.
For me, the bottom line is children don’t belong in casinos, period. And before someone jumps on me for that statement, let me say I am not opposed to gambling. I occasionally do it myself, but would never, EVER think of bringing my children into a casino to wait while I sat and gambled. Parents who do this should be ashamed!
I’m going to guess that the logic (and I use the term loosely) behind the Deadwood ordinance is that there are going to be tourists passing through the town with children, and without allowing their children in the casino, the tourists would not be able to gamble. Well, that doesn’t fly with me either. If you want to gamble on your vacation, leave your kids home. Or bring a babysitter who can care for them while you’re in the casino.
As for bars, I don’t think children belong in the smoking sections of bars, either. Most bars now have a non-smoking section. Take your kids there. And if your small town only has 1 bar and it is your only option for eating out, then stay home. Or order your food, pick it up and eat it at home.
Parents, this is a no-brainer. Nobody should have to tell you that children don’t belong in casinos, smoke or no smoke.
Smoking is losing its "right", and becoming more of a "nuicance" to the general public. I support the bill.
The issue, in my opinion, is that our economy of scale is too small to allow a bar to make money w/o the smokers. Banning smoking would would be a great thing for the workers, and ALL who enter the bar, not just the kids...which I think is an awkward way to go about introducing a bill! Keep the kids out of it!
The government should not be messing with ideas like this.
True, and now some legislaters don't want us to be able to smoke in them "because of the children" - lol
So you support rule of the perpetually aggrieved, a tyranny of the easily offended?
Just because a business is "open to the public" does not make it a "public building"...
When do free citizens not have rights? When that person is a woman who happens to have a tiny embryo residing in her body.
The 'Nanny' state in the sense of the nanny handling all the responsibility. No need to take responsibility for yourself on health care, employment etc, the nanny will do all that for you. A lot of democrats get hit with this.
Then there is the 'Nanny' state in the sense of the nanny telling you no you can't have gay marriage, you can't have an abortion, you can't have privacy etc. Republicans fall prey to this kind of 'nanny' or 'daddy' state.
Let's bring to light one more of my hypocrisies so we can avoid the accusation down the road. I firmly believe in the death penalty, yet I am pro-life. Those positions may seem at odds until you consider the fact that in one instance a guilty life is taken as punishment for crimes committed, in the other an innocent life is taken to lessen burdens faced by his or her mother.
Now, stop being amazed and start paying attention to the reasoning behind the stances I take. In the end, if you're honest with yourself, I think you'll find them morally consistent.
Another question -
If you could turn back time and there would have been more laws passed that would have encouraged your mother to stop smoking - and if that would have meant you would have had her for more years - would you have favored passage of those laws?
As to your inquiry regarding my mother, since I made her part of the discussion I'll answer your question, tasteless though it is. Even given your hypothetical circumstances, no I would not have supported any such law.
Fertilized eggs are lost when it does not stick to the uterine wall. Embryos are lost each day through miscarriages.
When one compares that with the health of a woman, especially if she is a mother whose existing children rely on her, most people would say the woman's health must be the top consideration.
I do not take abortion lightly, and I am most uncomfortable with abortions beyond the first trimester. I believe, however, that there are circumstances where the well-being of the woman must be the first consideration.
If the fetus is viable, then every effort should be made to save it. But if the choice is between whether the mother is going to survive the pregnancy without any disabling physical damage or whether she will be forced to carry the embryo or fetus to term, the woman should be the top consideration.
If that makes me a terrible person in some people's eyes, so be it. But my position is one that the majority of people share. The vote on HB1215 underscored that fact.
You don't want the government telling bars and small restaurants that they must be smoke-free. That is government intrusion.
You don't want the government to force you to put your children in booster safety seats. That is government intrusion.
You want the government to force women to continue an unwanted pregnancy, no matter what the circumstances or how early in the pregnancy.
That invasion of privacy is government intrusion at its worst.
Hypocrisy is alive and thriving in South Dakota.