Comments

Well Said Gerry Z wrote on Jul 20, 2009 6:16 PM:

" This is what none of us are allowed to say. I, too, wonder why the millions of dollars aren't used to actually find a cure for this terrible disease that afflicts young and old and smokers and non smokers alike. "




JD wrote on Jul 18, 2009 4:33 PM:

" Yes, smoking is a freedom, and not all freedoms are result in positive things. Just like when people eat fast food, give their kids ice cream, wear clothing that some consider inappropriate, and the list goes on. We are free to decide. If we are going to start limiting freedoms based on the 'majority', you may find yourself without a voice in the near future. "




Gerry Zacher wrote on Jul 18, 2009 3:51 PM:

" I will NEVER donate to te American Cancer Society again. They are spending our donation money to PAY an employee to spend hours going through petitions gathered in good faith by many South Dakiota citizen volunteers for the cause top keep a FREEDOM. They are using the tactics of ACORN to tie up the courts and the State Goverment. Our taxes at work! Hello Minnesota Senator Race??? "




To freedoms wrote on Jul 17, 2009 10:34 PM:

" ......and it amazes me how baaaaad this sheep syndrome has gotten. Did you confront your 260# coworker with a twinkie and 32oz. soda in hand, too? According to CBS news, health insurance premiums have risen 120% in the last 10 years. I don't know how much smoking has decreased in the last 10 years, but I suspect it is quite a bit. So .....I'm getting pretty sick of this lame excuse for the ridiculous increase in premiums. "




non smoker wrote on Jul 17, 2009 12:08 AM:

" It is smoke free out in the bowling area at the lariat lanes but they still let people smoke is the bar area. "




Big Kahuna wrote on Jul 16, 2009 9:00 PM:

" Let the voters decide. Government is already interfering too much in everyday matters. And yes, the Lariat Lanes is now smoke free but Cactus Jacks (the lounge) still allows smoking. "




To To Holding Off wrote on Jul 15, 2009 4:50 PM:

" Are you sure that the bowling alley went smoke free June 1st? "




Freedoms wrote on Jul 15, 2009 1:11 PM:

" It absolutely amazes me when people talk about smoking being a FREEDOM. Since January, two workers in my office have been diagnosed with cronic health problems directly attributed to heavy smoking....and my medical insurance premium just went up.....again! All in the name of "Freedom". Oh wait.....if I don't like it.....I should find another job, right? What if it's MY business....can I cut these employees off? Nope. I caught one of them still smoking at a bar last week. He says if others are smoking aroung him, he has to. What?! "




XXSmoker wrote on Jul 15, 2009 11:31 AM:

" You can certainly understand both side - especially the owners. I cannot go into any establishment that has smoking due to health reasons and those health reason are due to years of smoking. People that don't like smoke should go to those eating places and drinking places that don't allow smoking. We can't do anything about the business who allows their patrons to smoke - but we can support the establishments that do not allow smoke. I hate smoking but I agree that the business owners do have the right to decide. "




Why doesnt South Dakota Get With IT wrote on Jul 15, 2009 10:11 AM:

" I don't understand why SD cannot seem to get with the times, I was shocked upon visiting that smoking IS still allowed in public areas. Get out and travel people and you will see most states do not allow smoking in public areas, and their businesses are doing BETTER than before. I had forgot how gross it is to go home after a night out in a bar that allows smoking, everything in my bag had to be cleaned from the stench of the items I wore that night, so GROSS. SD needs to get their act together! "




JD wrote on Jul 15, 2009 9:27 AM:

" If a smoke free bowling alley is that important to you, then you have the right and freedom to open one. The problem is that you do not want to do that, and instead expect someone else to be forced into doing it for you. It is all about you restricting someone else's freedoms, because you are too lazy to utilize your own freedom. "




to Dont you get it wrote on Jul 14, 2009 1:00 PM:

" I do get it. I understand more than you know about what this means to business. But to me....it IS about taking my family bowling. The bowling alley affects my health and one of my kids. The smell of the place makes us physically ill. Upon getting home, you need to change your clothes, throw them in the washing machine, and take a shower to get the stench out of your hair. Smoking is simply the most intrusive habit and it causes health risks in all of us....those who don't smoke as well. "




To holding off wrote on Jul 14, 2009 9:14 AM:

" As of June 1 the bowling alley is smoke free. Take your family bowling! "




Dont You Get It wrote on Jul 13, 2009 8:48 AM:

" It isn't about you and your family bowling. It is about business owner's rights! How about you buy a business -- you can pay for everything involved in that business -- then me and my buddies will come tell you how to run it? "




holding off wrote on Jul 10, 2009 12:50 PM:

" Well, I guess I'll wait a little longer until I take the family bowling. Right now the stink of the place is too unbearable. "




Still waiting..... wrote on Jul 10, 2009 12:40 PM:

" Just a few weeks ago I, my parents had come for a visit, we had the whole family out to a local tavern & steakhouse. As we sat eating, someone lit a cigarette. My father smoked for over 20 years and quite when his first grandchild was born. As we sat there trying to enjoy our meal, I asked if he ever missed smoking. He said he did from time to time, but he said most of all he is embarrassed now knowing how uncomfortable he made those around him. "




Come on SDakotans wrote on Jul 9, 2009 8:18 AM:

" Thank you Back to Basics! Couldn't have said it any better myself. The only reason so many are in support of the ban is because they don't smoke and don't like it around. They aren't thinking about the politics of it all. Wait until the government tries to govern something they DON'T agree with...they'll be singing a different tune. By then, we will have given the gov't so much power that it won't even matter anymore. Wait until they try prohibition on for size again! "




Elwood Blues wrote on Jul 9, 2009 8:06 AM:

" After this one I think there needs to be a push to ban drinking in bars. I am after all concerned about people heathy habits there. Also if no alcohol is served it will cut down on alcohol related traffic accidents...doing good has no end. Also has anyone noticed that the ban does not apply to RESERVATIONS...where is the concern their "




JD wrote on Jul 9, 2009 6:29 AM:

" I see many talk about smoker being forced to be 'courteous', but is that not a two way street? Almost every area has non-smoking establishments. Would it not be courteous for non-smokers to visit those establishments instead of forcing everyone to comply with their choice where ever they go? Smoking ban are about forcing others to comply with one segments choice, because that segment does not want to accept responsibility for their choices. Just as starting smoking is a choice, so is choosing to go into a business that allows smoking. "




Back to basics wrote on Jul 8, 2009 11:02 PM:

" Are you people forgetting that this is about NOT passing laws just because you find it "refreshing" or "enjoyable"? This is about private businesses that pay their own expenses deciding what group they want to target for their money and individuals "voting" with their dollars. "




ex-smoker wrote on Jul 8, 2009 7:30 AM:

" I grew up here and then moved away for many years and then came back. I came from a state that has a smoking ban and at first I was very opposed to it but I have to say I really enjoyed going into establishements and not coming out smelling like a dirty ashtray. I know that kids are not going into the bars and casinos but what about the bowling alley? To Come on SoDakotans alot of what is wrong with this state is the "good old boy" mentality. "




XDAK wrote on Jul 8, 2009 12:54 AM:

" As a resident of a non-smoking state I find it refreshing to go to bars and restaurants and know I won't have to deal with the cloud from the table next to me. It's great to go see the races where you're sitting elbow to elbow with people and know your not going to get stuck next to the marlboro man. We have basically legislated the smokers into being "courteous" enough to step outside and get their "fix". We all know they won't do it themselves. "




midnight rider wrote on Jul 7, 2009 12:52 PM:

" Whats wrong with this, smokers have a place they can go and not smoke in front of their kids or subject them to second hand smoke. Now we have the kids free network working to take that away and put those smoking parents back in the home lighting up with their kids. Sounds like a brilliant idea to me. Right along with the school teachers fighting a state income tax which would have given them better salaries. Must be something in the water.. "




Come on SDakotans wrote on Jul 7, 2009 10:20 AM:

" What happened to the SDakotans that refuse to be like Cali and have the government tell you what you can and can not do. Stand up for yourselves and open more bars that are non-smoking. Quit trying to force others to comply with your wishes. It's not like us. It takes our "good ol' boy" feel out of our beautiful state. Spend this time, money, and energy into starting a non-smoking bar craze. Whether you care for smoking or not--stop from being over-governed South Dakota! Make your OWN choices and prove we can do it without the government forcing us!!! "




Dave wrote on Jul 7, 2009 8:32 AM:

" Bruce, you find the constitution and the basic philosophy of freedom to be ridiculous?
In this country we have the right to do anything we want to as long as it does not infringe upon other's rights.
A business owner has the right to allow smoking in his business as long as it does not affect the rights of others. Since you have no NEED to go to said bar, then your rights are not being infringed upon.
You are insisting that your 'right' to go to a bar should overrule the business owner’s rights.
That's not worth discussing? "




Bruce McNeary wrote on Jul 6, 2009 5:02 PM:

" I am embarrassed to live in a state that is so backwards we actually have to argue this issue. It reminds me of an old movie from the 40's I watched where a doctor was smoking in a hospital. Kinda funny, but this is real life and the year 2009. Any argument against this ban is as ridiculous as the doctor in the movie. "




Full Disclosure wrote on Jul 5, 2009 10:01 AM:

" For once, would somebody tell me exactly where the money comes from for this fight FOR the ban. Mandatory tobacco tax money? American Cancer Society donations? What?? Where?? We know the ban opponents have been funded by private individuals and businesses, but WHERE do the legal and employee monies come from on the opposing side? "




sick of smoke wrote on Jul 4, 2009 10:47 PM:

" I want to thank the people who challenged this petition. The Sec. of State made it very clear that to sign the petiton you must be a registered voter. It is very clear that the State of South Dakota will now have to enforce the law. I will help fight for clean air, we all need to make sure that they are not allowed to go back on rules that were set! YEAH FOR US! GOOD WORK! To the smoker's out there, you need to get use to standing in the cold to smoke and maybe you will quit. "




JD wrote on Jul 4, 2009 5:27 PM:

" II have seen them take action like this before. They do not want it to go to a statewide vote, because they have not bought the people, just the politicians. A smoking ban, especially in this economy, is a really bad idea. Of course the big lobbying organizations do not care...they are tax free, supported by others money, and located outside the state. It will not be their pockets being reached into to cover the lost revenue. "




bob wrote on Jul 4, 2009 4:33 PM:

" American cancer society managed to get the state to collect taxes for a private entity. If you believe that tax is constitutional the dispersment of the money certainly is not. Tax dollars should not be used for private entities or to have some people pay other peoples property taxes.
Now these zealots are using tax dollars to promote their private agenda. Wonder if this is what our founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote our constitution. "




susie wrote on Jul 3, 2009 4:19 PM:

" Put the ban in effect now. What is the difference now or a year from now?Save the taxpayers money. "




Friday wrote on Jul 3, 2009 8:22 AM:

" Good job Jennifer Stalley and all who are working hard to clean up the air. "