Comments on: Greenville smoking ban goes to SC Supreme Court

By: Matthew

Matthew — Mon, 12 May 2008 23:41:13 +0000

This is an absolutely ridiculous case. I can’t believe we, as a nation, as a state have devolved to this level. The first poster said that she has a right to breathe clean air. Maybe outside, but in a private establishment? I’m not saying that the owner can pump a toxin into the air, but he has the RIGHT to allow or disallow smoking if he or she so chooses.

Do you also like to fries, burgers, hot dogs while you bowl? What about drink beer? Well, what if I told you that I think fries and burgers and hot dogs are too fatty and I don’t think you should eat them. I shouldn’t have to look at your fatty-fat butt (and I have no idea who you are, but let’s say your fat, for the sake of arguing) the entire time I bowl. I want the government to step in and take away all the fatty foods at bowling alleys. Then we’ll have skinnier, more healthy people, which is good for everyone.

I CERTAINLY have no right whatsoever to do that. And you would agree with me. So why do you say you or the government has the right to tell a private citizen what he can and can’t do with his property? Can I come into your home and say you can’t have a TV because you watch too much and that’s dangerous to your health? Of course not.

Our freedoms are diminishing, slowly but surely and do-gooders largely are the reason why.

By: harleyrider1978

harleyrider1978 — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:47:13 +0000

This is more about people who hate smokers,its about rights freedom liberty,choise.
Its about everything we as a free people hold dear, individual freedom. The liberal progressives have forced this issue,the psudo sciences being used to perpetuate these draconian laws against people are but the beginning of liberal progressives foricng social changes thru another round of PROHIBITION. This is not about public health it never has been its about progressives wanting to force people to live by a standard that the proegressives decide. We have heard the ”ITS FOR THE KIDS” argument for so many years its no longer even feasible to believe anyhting more they have to say. They claim we know best whats good for you………Well let me tell you people are free,they will do as they please and when they want to…………If the laws become so overbearing the people will and can take up arms against such infringements upon their liberties………………is this an incitement of revolution, was thomas jefferson a revoltutionary,was washington………….all tobacco growers and all freedom fighters.
To fight against an overbearing and dominating govmnt is not unamerican it is AMERICAN……….To preserve the right of choise,self reliance and LIBERTY. We must fight all forms of tyranny that threaten the liberty and rights of the people. Thru south carolina the seat of freedom from tyranny take your stand and fight big govmnt oppression………..fore they will not stop until we say ENOUGH.

By: Barbara Pointer

Barbara Pointer — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 20:55:21 +0000

I must add one sad note. My sister, whom I dearly loved, died last week as a consequence of her husband smoking for many years. He died of smoking related heart disease at 56 years of age, long before his time. She had horrible asthma for years because he smoked. Four of her children have lung related illnesses. So please don’t tell me that it doesn’t harm anybody but yourself.

By: Barbara Pointer

Barbara Pointer — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 20:46:05 +0000

Well, yes there is a ban on alcohol and driving, as well there should be. I could care less about the tobacco industry, after the years they spent misleading people about the addictive nature of it’s product. They should go bankrupt. I don’t see what paying more taxes has to do with health issues. I think you miss the point I was trying to make. A person can not escape the harmful effects of second-hand smoke, in business establishments or recreational venues, even in the home if a partner smokes. Your right to smoke ceases to be a right when it harms another person. Just as driving under the influence when it endangers others, it is just as deadly. Your right to choose what you do is not being infringed, only your right to inflict it upon me. You know, as in the golden rule. I don’t have the right to go out on the road and drive while intoxicated, even though many abuse that process, so you should not have the right to contribute to me getting cancer or lung disease. By the way, with freedom comes responsibility.

By: Teah Mayben

Teah Mayben — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:20:18 +0000

You could make the same arguement about drinking with all the people that it kills, but you don’t see a ban on alcohol. I think it is rediculous how smoking is being targeted. What is going to happen to our tobacco industry if this happens? More people in the Carolinas out of is what will happen. We pay more taxes than alcohol sales tax. We also pay more than gas tax. Now nonsmokers want to ban smoking. Funny thing is I went to Target to buy a lighter and the man that I asked for help proudly stated, “We don’t sell tobacco products, but we do sell wine.” What made that funny was that I was wanting a long butane candle lighter. I never asked for wine. I also informed this man that I would no longer be doing any business with Target since it wasn’t ok with them that I slowly kill myself with Tobacco, but it was ok if somebody bought some wine and got drunk and killed someone that night.
What ever happened to my right to choose what I do? Why is someone taking my rights away from me? Isn’t this suppose to be America land of the free?

By: Barbara Pointer

Barbara Pointer — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:02:49 +0000

I understand where you are coming from. I used to smoke. My objection stems from the fact that smoking is detrimental to ones health. That fact has been proven over and over again. If we (non-smokers) participate in the activities we love, we can not escape the smoke. Your right to smoke, takes away my right to breath clean air and to enjoy good health. It is the government’s right to ban smoking because the health issues from smoking are costing our government millions of dollars a year.
If you wish to pollute your own homes, then by all means, smoke away, but please try to understand the other side of the coin.

By: Jody

Jody — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:38:12 +0000

I do not think that it is the governments place to say a company HAS to be non-smoking. If the company wants it that way then that is their business to do so but to take that right away is horrible. With the first comment it seems that she wants what is good for herself she may be able to go and do the things she loves but what about the smokers we have to walk outside and freeze or get soaked in rain to enjoy what we like to do. We live in a free country I wish that was actually being represented in the governments decisions.

By: Barbara Pointer

Barbara Pointer — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 00:40:15 +0000

I don’t know how to e-mail the SC Suprreme Court, but I would like very much to weigh in on the smoking ban controversy.

I would like to see the ban implemented. I love to do things that others enjoy, but have had to give up those activities because I can not tolerate smoke. For Instance, I love to bowl. I can’t because I literally get sick. People who are alergic to smoke should not have to give up things they enjoy. They have every right to breath clean air. It is well known that smoking causes so many detrimental illnesses, my own father’s cancer, my brother’s heart and lung problems, my sister’s asthma.

To whomever has the power to stop this madness, I urge you to vote for clean air and a non-smokers right breath unpoluted air.

Barbara Pointer
Spartanburg, SC