We've moved!

Social Icons

twitterfacebooklinkedinrss feed

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Vote Now in New Poll: Smoking Ban!

The latest Madville Times poll is up and humming! Scoot over to the right sidebar, eager readers, and answer this question: "How will you vote on South Dakota's Referred Law 12, the smoking ban?"

Referred Law 12 is House Bill 1240 from the 2009 session of the South Dakota Legislature. The top line of the law says "No person may smoke tobacco or carry any lighted tobacco product in any public place or place of employment." The law defines "public place" as any enclosed area (i.e., indoors, not just fenced) where you and I are invited or permitted. It excludes cigar bars, tobacco stores, and designated hotel rooms. The law also excludes private residences unless they host daycare. (Interesting: does that mean if you use the house for daycare, you still can't light up after all the munchkins go home?)

Inform your vote with these resources on Referred Law 12!
  1. Read the full text of HB 1240 as passed by the Legislature and signed by Governor M. Michael Rounds.
  2. The Secretary of State offers this ballot measure pamphlet in PDF, complete with the Attorney General's (not the Surgeon General's) explanation and statements from folks on both sides of the issue.
  3. The American Cancer Society offers this website advocating the smoking ban.
  4. The Citizens for Individual Freedom lay out the opposing case here.
  5. Bar owner Don Rose leads the Citizens for Individual Freedom. I analyze his logical fallacies here... but hey! The fact that certain opponents of the smoking ban can't make a coherent argument doesn't mean opposition to the smoking ban itself is wrong.
The Madville Times poll runs through breakfast Thursday. Tell your friends, debate it over dinner with them, and vote now!


  1. A smoking section in a restaurant is like a peeing section in a pool. Since it's a public safety issue, that for me trumps the personal freedom issue. We aren't free to violate the fresh air of those around us in public places. It's also a courtesy issue for me. And, there is the matter that 3 days after the 08 election by nonsmoking mother died of a lung disease, six years after a lung transplant. Those who aren't hyper sensitive to smoke have no idea how hard it is to keep away from it.

  2. That was funny, Rev.

    Montana did this and it has all blown over by now; ip is a pipe smoker (yeah, that, too) and get told how good burning pipe tobacco smells.

    If anyone is old enough to recall the original Hawaii Five-O episode where someone offers McGarrett a cigarette and he remarks, "No thanks, I don't use them," hopefully thinks of cigarettes as perverse corporate welfare.

  3. Saying what I've said here already I'll clarify I'm only interested to ban smoking as it affects others in public places. I am among those who love the smell of a good pipe tobacco. I inherited all of my dad's pipes and even have a couple of my own and to my wife's chagrin, I even stoke them up on occasion - outside. (A minister once told my father the devil was in that tobacco and my dad replied he knew that and that is why he was trying to smoke him out.) For the record, I don't inhale. But, I do remember in the days before cars with a/c - going on vacation in the heat of the summer and my dad wouldn't do much more than crack the window. It was like Cheech & Chong in our car. My freedom stops where it affects others adversely.

  4. A smokeless environmnet

    I believe that non-smokers, like anyone else, have this right.
    But how far does that 'right' extend?

    Should it take prioity over some one else's 'rights'?

    Court houses, publicly owned buildings and any where else
    an individual might be forced to go should properly be included
    in any smoking law.

    What should not be included are places located in or on 'private' property,
    providing an individual is not compelled by necessity or law,
    to frequent or work at that specific location.

    Thomas Laprade

  5. Tomas, You will always have your freedom to smoke just as you have your freedom to shake your fist at anyone who does not agree with you, BUT, you do not have the right to take that fist and punch me in the nose.

    I have always said that we should treat smoking like we treat public sex. You "can do it" but do it in the privacy of your own home, with other consenting adults--NEVER in front of the kids. You can even "do it" in your own car, but PLEASE don't flick your butts out the window. :-)


    Dr. K

  6. Pastor Steve, "peeing section" may be the best line I've heard from any South Dakota politician yet this year. Dr. Kevin, your line about flicking butts is a close second.

  7. "A smoking section in a restaurant is like a peeing section in a pool."

    This seems to say quite a bit about human nature, when you look inside the bars the non smoking sections are always the only empty seats in the house.

    A sign on the door, is as far as the Government has a right to go, so far, on private property. Accommodating the fears, of those who actually believe their bodies are so frail and weak that a little tobacco smoke might damage them. First these people shouldn't be encouraged to go to the bars in the first place, because they obviously wouldn't survive an energetic night on the town and all the other toxins you find in the air, wherever people congregate. For the brave among them, they will always have the option of frequenting non smoking venues, which are identical, except smokers won't be intruding on your space, as smoking bans will certainly be eliminating theirs.

    The market has always found a way of sorting these issues out, which is what the opportunists and paternalists fear the most; co-operation and through that an elimination of any need, of more government encroachment. To think anyone believes health issues should be fought inside a bar, speaks volumes in regard to what this is really about and Health is obviously not on anyone's mind.

    Governments are funding these lobbies and trolls with your own money, because any law that allows them to take away your control and choices, is good news for them and bad news for the sparse power remaining, that we hold over them.

    Kevin Mulvina

  8. According to independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke........

    They did the figures for what it takes to meet all of OSHA'S minimum PEL'S on shs/ets.......Did it ever set the debate on fire.

    They concluded that:

    All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

    For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes

    "For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes

    "Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

    Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

    "For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes

    For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time

    The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

    So,OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

    Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA

  9. John erkle

  10. Looks I've been added to "John Erkle"'s spam list. Learn more about his propaganda here. Care to provide some credentials, Mr. "Erkle"?


Comments are closed, as this portion of the Madville Times is in archive mode. You can join the discussion of current issues at MadvilleTimes.com.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.