Supreme court against the current goper interpretation of clean air!

I wonder what Scott was talking about.

I wonder what IPP is going to do now that the supreme court caught up with their mighty plans.

Utahns may turn blue not because of a change in political belief but from the obvious pollution they tolerate to try and stay red.

Bob in Petaluma

I’m still in wonderment of it’s existence and how adaptable y’all are to it.

I would bet, at the south jordan race track no less, that the inversion is more a traumatic experience that someone taking a smoke break on state street especially for someone with asthma!

It is kind of amazing during the inversion that it is possible to get above, like when on the slopes, and then have to come back to that toxic mess to stay at one of the many hotels in the valley ripping off the touristas, and not allowing any smoking in the rooms.

Isn’t politically correct non-smoking and the naturally occuring toxic mess just a little too much.

I imagine that some people with respiratory problems, actually most people in that huge valley, may say a little extra prayer for a windy day or a torrential downpour so they may have a little break from gasping while living in that wonderful little toxic cloud that hangs in the heavens for weeks and even months at a time.

Good luck Utah!

Bob in Petaluma

That is the funniest and grossest comment ever left on this site. Thank you! While I agree with Dan on second hand smoke I’ll concede the point for argument’s sake that indoor second hand smoke can be dangerous in order to continue on to my main contention about the absurdity of any effort to ban smoking outdoors.

Jesse,

I’m sorry to hear about your problems with cigarette smoke. It sounds like you have an atypical issue that you should probably talk to a doctor about. Most people don’t react as you do when walking within 10 feet of a lit cigarette. If we decide to base our laws on ensuring that people with conditions like yours never encounter discomfort because of smokers, women with extra perfume, flatulent bovine, Ford f-350 diesel trucks or oil refineries (thanks ed) we will have made a significant portion of everything anyone ever wants or needs to do illegal. Your complaint is trivial compared to my freedom to light up (or my freedom to benefit from any of those other possible offenses) and the burden of solving your problem shouldn’t be placed on my head by a government dictate. Your problem is abnormal and it isn’t the purpose of government to make laws forcing the rest of us to compensate in an unreasonable way for your abnormality. Was that a direct enough response for you?

‘I don’t see the great need to ban smoking in outdoor public places. I don’t think an occasional breath of secondhand smoke, diesel fumes or drying paint will adversely affect anybody.’

I just was countering Jeremy’s claim that secondhand smoke is not a proven threat (indoors).

As for flatulent cows, I spent 8 years in Cache Valley, with it’s famous inversions. It was pretty disgusting to hear that one test showed one inversion there to be 25-35% flatulence from cattle. Love that diary air!!

Someone needs to tell Lewis Garrett that smoking is healthier than fascism. http://store.bureaucrashcontraband.com/sf1t.html

At times like these, I think it is important to remember the wise political philosophy of Joseph Smith to teach people correct principles and let them govern themselves. If people want to go into smoky establishments, then by all means let them. If people want to eat fatty foods, then by all means let them. When will Garrett tackle the problem of all of the fat people people in Davis county? These people are living unhealthy lifestyles and worse, they are passing on their unhealthy lifestyles to their children. Doesn’t Garrett care about chubby kids? When will he start mandating a certain regimen of diet and exercise?

While I believe that public policy should put a general effort behind reducing my family’s exposure to health risks, I don’t see the great need to ban smoking in outdoor public places. I don’t think an occasional breath of secondhand smoke, diesel fumes or drying paint will adversely affect anybody.

However, I disagree with you Jeremy on your comment that secondhand smoke has not been scientifically proven a health threat.

Here you’ll find a list of studies from such sources as the American Journal of Epidemiology, Toxicological Sciences Journal, European Heart Journal, New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of American College of Cariology, JAMA (Journal of American Medical Association) and more on the clinical health risks of secondhand smoke (SHS).
http://content.onlinejacc.org/cgi/content/abstract/24/2/546

Here you’ll find a list of studies linking SIDS, asthma, and exercise capacity to SHS from Archives of Disease in Childhood
http://adc.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/88/12/1086

If you finish those and still want more, let me know.

I have a child with asthma. Through that experience I have become acutely aware that even though George Burns can smoke until the day he dies, many people are not that lucky with air contaminants. Don’t be fooled by the numbers of people who have perfect lungs and can live in a smoking home without a visible health change. When my boy enters a place with cigarette smoke there is an immediate physical change. Face turns red, breathing changes, etc. I felt bad telling the smoking mother of one friend of his that my son couldn’t come over to play because he has asthma. I was not surprised when that friend showed up on our doorstep 2 months later saying, “Guess what, we found out I have asthma too.”

When my father was diagnosed with cancer, his physician first asked, “Do you smoke?” No. His next question, which surprised me, was, “Did you grow up in a smoking home?” Yes. That physician, based on clinical studies, based my father’s cancer at age 60 on living 16 years in a smoking home. Given the scientific evidence of hundreds of studies, I believe him.

I’m also giving you the benefit of a doubt when it comes to the effects of secondhand smoke. Having experienced such lasting negative effects from short exposure, I’m disinclined to believe that it’s a myth. I’ve also see what cigarettes will deposit when smoked in an area frequently. The nastiest sight you’ll ever see is the computer of an indoor smoker. There’s a thick layer of sticky ash inside the case and the entire PC is yellowed with nicotine deposits. It takes a lot of 409 to get that off. Too bad I can’t do the same for my lungs.

Hyperbole aside, you still haven’t explained how my right to avoid potential health risks is outweighed by someone else’s right to smoke when and where they please. You might as well defend the right to pee in a public pool because, hey, you don’t have to get in the water.

Of course you have a right not to experience the smoking of someone else in a public place. One effective way to do this is to take two steps back from the person who is smoking outside. This method can prevent hours of needless showering and laundry duty. Who else would you legislate out of public places because they offend you? Should we kick out all the strikingly ugly people so you don’t have to see them? Maybe we should use government’s police powers to force all stinky people out of public places so you don’t have to shower or wash your clothes quite so often. Sorry…concerns about possible stink contamination from a smoker who is outdoors and who you are not forced to be around are relatively petty when compared to government efforts to use force to prevent smokers from lighting up.

Your standards for who is allowed to do what in public seem pretty draconian. Have you ever considered moving to Singapore?