Posted on 10/20/2007 1:52:53 PM PDT by Wheee The People
Poll: Two-thirds of Wyoming voters support statewide smoking ban
CHEYENNE, Wyo. - A statewide poll shows that two-thirds of Wyoming voters support a ban on smoking in public places, including restaurants and bars.
The poll, commissioned by the American Cancer Society in Wyoming and other health organizations, also found that 74 percent of registered voters believe the right of customers and employees to breathe clean air outweighs smokers' right to light up indoors.
"It shows that the people of Wyoming would absolutely support a smoke-free Wyoming," said Loretta Wolf, spokeswoman for the American Cancer Society in Wyoming. The American Cancer Society and the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, a national group that supports smoke-free legislation, also helped pay for the poll.
Harstad Strategic Research Inc. of Boulder, Colo. conducted the poll between Sept. 26 and Oct 1. They contacted 504 registered voters across the state. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percent.
A poll commissioned last year by the Casper Star-Tribune found 57 percent of Wyoming voters supported a comprehensive, indoor smoking ban. That poll, conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, Inc., surveyed 625 Wyoming voters and had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
The new American Cancer Society poll found that 92 percent of voters say they would go to restaurants more frequently or at least as frequently as they currently do if smoking were prohibited in them.
Only 6 percent of voters said they would go to restaurants less frequently if indoor smoking were outlawed, while 8 percent said they would be less likely to frequent bars.
While 66 percent of voters supported a statewide smoking ban, the American Cancer Society poll found 32 percent opposed it. Democrats and Republicans supported the ban at about the same level, 67 percent and 68 percent, respectively.
Support for the ban also remained constant among people of different ages, with support only varying a few percentage points between voters aged 18 to those 60 or older.
The poll found that 70 percent of women supported a smoking ban compared to 61 percent of men.
More than 70 percent responded that they believe exposure to secondhand cigarette smoke is harmful to people's health. Twenty-seven percent of voters surveyed said that exposure to secondhand smoke is "just somewhat" or "not at all" harmful.
The poll results were released while a legislative committee is considering whether to introduce smoke-free legislation at the upcoming budget session in February.
Wolf, of the American Cancer Society, said her group is pushing for a comprehensive bill that includes a ban on smoking in bars, restaurants or other businesses. About 27 states have adopted smoke-free laws but the restrictions vary.
Sen. Charles Scott, R-Casper, chairman of the Labor, Health and Social Services Committee, has said he only intends to introduce the bill in next year's budget session if a majority of the committee members supports it.
Rep. Dan Zwonitzer, R-Cheyenne, sponsored a similar bill in the last session, but it failed to make it to the House floor for a first-reading vote. Lawmakers anticipate a tough fight in the coming session if the bill moves forward.
Dan Hatanelas, manager of a bar in Cheyenne, opposed a citywide smoking ordinance that became law last year. He said he would also oppose statewide legislation.
However, Hatanelas said that a statewide ban might be more fair to businesses in Cheyenne that now must compete against nearby Laramie County businesses that are exempt from the local ban. He said his bar saw a 19-percent drop in revenue during the first 12 months of the local ban, which took effect in August 2006.
"I'd hate to see anything happen, but maybe on a statewide basis it would be less traumatic for us," Hatanelas said.
In addition to Cheyenne, the cities of Laramie and Evanston have adopted their own smoke-free ordinances. The Rock Springs City Council is considering a similar ordinance. Voters in Casper rejected a proposed ban in 2000.
Information from: Star-Tribune, http://www.casperstartribune.net
Weak sample: 504 registered voters out of a total population, 2006 estimate 515,004 (USA Quickfacts)Also probably skewedly seeking out latte sipping pinkie extenders since pretty much anyone else in the state is probably working during poll taking hours...
One has to wonder whether or not something incipient in the trappings of civilization like flush toilets or clean water causes a subtle genetic bias in favor of a pansy or statist bootlicker gene..
It is a state-wide smoking ban forpublicprivately owned indoor places such as resturants, bars and a few other venues.
A little less ambiguous there, if the state wants to regulate it, the state should make some "public" restaurants to regulate on the line of "public" restrooms, town squares, parks etc...
Of course, give the states track record of quality in pretty much any endeavour, I'm willing to bet vast sums of money that a state restaurant that prohibits smoking will echo with the sounds of crickets when competing with a private restaurant that allows it and to top off the irony, the morons wanting to ban the smoking will still be in the private restaurants...
Can I ask you what you expect non-smokers to do?
Seriously, do you want them to open up new restaurants across the state so that they can eat without having to come home stinking like a trashfire? Are they supposed to forget about going to chain resturants?
Do you think it’s okay for them to have to send their clothes to the cleaners every time after they eat out?
Do you think elderly people should be banned from restaurants? What about kids? What about people with asthma? What about people with COPD?
Do you think it is more reasonable to allow some to stink up the place rather than share the space then smoke outside?
Do you consider non-smokers to be the real rude ones?
For the life of me, I just don’t understand people who smoke. Everyone has to cater to them. They trow their trash all over the gound. They burn stuff down. They go to sleep with a cigarette in their mouths killing themselves, family members and neighbors. They start forest fires.
They go outside to smoke, take that one last puff then return inside to exhale. Then they notice their coworkers glaring at them and say, “What?”
I don’t care if folks want to smoke. I just don’t happen to be a person that would stick it to everyone else in the state just because I chose to develop a filthy stinking habbit and didn’t have the class to think of others once in a while.
It is equal when both parties enter a building so that the other can enjoy the experience. It is not equal when one set of people light up and defy others to stop them.
Honest to God, does smoking really affect your judgement to the extent that you think the state should build non-smoking venues across it’s landscape, simply because you won’t share the clean air with others?
Just damn!
And no doubt living in his/her mother's house.
Or the poll may have been taken in liberal celebrity/wannabe celebrity central -- Jackson Hole.
By the way the Department of Tourism Massachusetts is whinning about Boston's position on the food chain in tourism this morning in the Boston Globe - Boston losing tourism stature
Liberal freaks don't get the connection between banning adult entertainment (drinking and smoking in bars).
e.g. Family of 4 has a smoker. In spite of the nasty little habit, the smoker's family loves him/her anyway. So, the family is going to go on vacation someplace other than MA so the smoker is comfortable and can relax if he/she chooses to do so with a cigarette, pipe, or cigar.
e.g. 21, 22 year old college students and other young people ... social smoking mostly but they frequent nightclubs... Boston's nightclubs are mediocre according to the article above... reason: all the fun people like to drink and smoke socially... they create excitement... some of the anal retentive, stick up their behinds' liberals would know about... Young adult entertainment has most likely gone underground to private parties, etc. (The college students did bitch about the ban... so the nitwits in charge here can't say they didn't see it coming.)
Now they're are planning to build casinos. I predict a collosal failure in the making due to the fact that our nitwit governor is proposing to ban smoking.
Common sense isn't a strength here in MA as evidenced by the Big Dig and half of the Mom and Pop bars and restaurants that have closed due to the smoking bans.
Can't wait to get transferred to a Red State...lol
“”I support these laws for restaurants and bars. And your mentioning Chuckey Cheese is a great example of why. If these laws weren’t in effect those establishments would smell like a forest fire during business hours.””
**************
In my state, Chuck E Cheese banned smoking in their restaurants WAY before the state-wide ban and so did most of the chain restaurants - it’s their ‘private’ right to do that - they own their companies and can set their own policies - no argument there.
A private business owner should retain his/her right to run their OWN business the way they wish within guidelines; smoking cigarettes, pipes or cigars is a legal activity.
Would you force restaurants to only serve grains and vegetables because you are repulsed by meat? Many people want that to happen too; and they are feeling their oats and pushing for it, just like the trans-fat bans. (Many manufacturers are taking Trans Fat out of their products, because of the publicity - no ban is needed)
Would you ban BBQ’s and Fireplaces because it makes you ill? There are also people out there Hell-bent to do just that.
Step back a bit and see the Bigger issue.
This is not just about smoking.
“It shows that the people of Wyoming would absolutely support a smoke-free Wyoming,” said Loretta Wolf, spokeswoman for the American Cancer Society in Wyoming. The American Cancer Society and the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, a national group that supports smoke-free legislation, also helped pay for the poll.”
It really shows that the people of Wyoming absolutely disregard the right to private property and they are to weak to make free market decisions. They would prefer that the government enforce their preferences on private property owners, instead of using their commercial power to influence businesses to cater to their preferences.
The American Citizen has become to weak to care for themselves and would prefer that the government be their caretakers. The road to nationalized (socialist) health care is being paved very efficiently with these policies.
Congratulations on your success.
“Despite the rhetoric you read here, conservatives regularly go to the voting booth and freely vote to ban smoking.”
Correction, registered Republicans might vote that way, but Conservatives understand private property rights and the influence of the Free Market. That we see the registered Republicans disregard these things is just further proof that the Conservative constituency is being ignored.
“Personnally, I’m for no smoking in eating establishments but there should be NO ban all other places.”
So, as long as it is convenient for you, you are for usurping the private property rights of the owner of the eating establishment. Good to know.
Can I ask you what you expect non-smokers to do? Seriously, do you want them to open up new restaurants across the state so that they can eat without having to come home stinking like a trashfire?
That's a good start. Where's the problem there? The anti's would skreech like Hillary on a program cut if someone proposed opening a restaurant which explicitly catered to smokers and the reason is that a restaurant opened as such would become chic and cool and pretty soon non smokers would be going and wanting to once again screw up a good thing.
You don't have some kind of right to eat at a private smoke free establishment in any world which honored the Constitution and the right to free association. There are these things called "stoves" and "cookbooks" you know...
Do you consider non-smokers to be the real rude ones?
I consider non-smokers who think that they have a right to impose their will upon the proprietor of an eating establishment to be the rude ones. It kills me that there are non-smokers who'll bitch about smoke in eating establishments but won't pony up the time and effort to open their own establishment or the capital to invest in one that follows their ideology. Noooo, they have to run to Ma Government to find a fix and that makes me want to puke...
For the life of me, I just don’t understand people who smoke. Everyone has to cater to them. They trow their trash all over the gound. They burn stuff down. They go to sleep with a cigarette in their mouths killing themselves, family members and neighbors. They start forest fires.
Oh C'mon Dough, you can't tar every member of that group any more than you can tar everyone who drinks etc... as some highway mayhem generating neer'do well. That's just weak. If you see someone smoking who throws their butts on the ground, step up to the plate and chastize them. As for fires, sheesh, lets ban space heaters and lightning for pete's sake...
Honest to God, does smoking really affect your judgement to the extent that you think the state should build non-smoking venues across it’s landscape, simply because you won’t share the clean air with others?
I don't smoke, used to, but I'm not one of those crusaders who, upon quitting, became miserable and deemed it my personal mission to make sure everyone else who continues to pursue something I gave up becomes just as miserable and petty as I am (and that mentality covers a hell of a lot more peoples reactions to stuff than just smoking).
What I AM is someone who understands freedom, including that of association and business. A non smoker doesn't have some "right" to have any given restaurant be smoke free, especially as decreed by the long arm of the state. You can ask restaurants to go smoke free, you can start your own restaurants, or you can capitalize those who would start them and have them smoke free but to demand that the government step in and force PRIVATE business owners to conduct business based on the desires of some SPECIAL group is loathsome and pathetic and fitting of more of democrats and socialists than of anyone who calls themselves a conservative...
Those crazy folks want clean air. WHAT ARE THEY THINKING!
“Free markets work, you know.”
I live in a community that really favors it’s hole in the wall bars. Within walking distance of my house, there exist 4 bars. One is very smokey, one is midrange (meaning that they do a very good job of seperating the smoking and non-smoking sections) and one is smoke free. The 4th I have never entered as it seems to be a biker bar, as a result I can not speak for their environment.
As a smoker, the smokey bar is my favorite, but I do frequent the midrange bar for their great food and good specials. I used to go to the other bar, until they went smoke free. The only one that has an empty lot, when I am in the area and can directly observe, is the smoke free bar. In fact, they are the only one that runs specials and ads in the neighborhood “circulars.”
I am not questioning your statement, rather, I am showing that there is no real “market” for smoke free bars. As a result, the nanny’s can’t exert their control over that market and so they turn to government guns to enforce their preferences on that market. The result is that the number of bars, within walking distance for many folks, would greatly be reduced with mandated bans on smoking. I would imagine that of the 4 bars, 2 would cease to exist. The biker bar would probably survive as they would probably disregard the law and the bar with the great food specials would probably survive based on their food sales.
My favorite bar and the non-smoking bar would probably go out of business. The non-smoking bar is already on the verge, so I don’t see that thet smoke free customer is really desiring to go to the bar and the average customer at my favorite bar would just stop for 1, get sick of it and go home and drink there. Maybe they would invite other folks from the bar over to their house.
Of course, that would lead to disturbances in residential neighborhoods, requiring further legislation to eliminate large gatherings at private homes.....Nanny staters will never quit!
Tobacco is a legal substance. Either ban it or allow individuals to choose what bars and restaurants they want to frequent. Leave it up to the marketplace.
I appreciate your take on this. I expect to get skewered by some of you for my comments. You folks should do so if that’s your take. I deserve it.
This is about smoking. If another bill comes along, that will be about what it is about.
Sorry we couldn’t agree on this one.
Thanks for your response. I appreciate your difference of opinion on the subject.
Isn’t the libertarian motto (or what passes for one) supposed to be something like everything should be legal that doesn’t impact someone else?
This does impact others negatively.
They only want to breathe. You want to smoke.
I appreciate you expressing the views you have in order to defend your stance. You should if that’s the way you feel.
Take care.
Do you also agree with the Kelo decision? That was just about tax revenue, right?
“Isn’t the libertarian motto (or what passes for one) supposed to be something like everything should be legal that doesn’t impact someone else?”
Wow, I find it amazing how the term “Libertarian” is now being used by convenient conservatives to minimize true Conservative ideals. I guess if Walter Williams is now a Libertarian, then I will be proud to be represented by the likes of him. You really need to read this article by WW and titled, “Harm’s a Two Way Street.”
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2487
What about MY property rights??? I'm sick and tired of cleaning up cigarette butts in front of my house. Every week I'm out there sweeping them up. Would anyone here think about tossing a piece of trash on someone else's property? Smokers don't think twice about it. A hundred cigarette butts add up, trust me. Can someone explain to me why many, not all, smokers think it is okay to litter? I knew a chain smoker who lived near me. I actually respected the guy because at least he had the decency to carry an empty coke can with him wherever he went instead of stomping the butts out on the ground or tossing them out the car window on the highway. Would anyone here just think about tossing a fast-food bag out the window while driving down the highway? Smokers toss lit butts out the window on the highway ALL the time. If smokers want more rights and respect, they should at least observe some basic rules of etiquette and stop littering everywhere.
If another bill comes along, that will be about what it is about.
***************
I used to think that too until I started seeing all these regulations stripping rights away from business owners and home owners.
These regulations are connected, it’s Nanny-statism, it’s neo-communism.
From Kelo to banning trans-fat - it’s a loss of freedom.
What about MY property rights??? I’m sick and tired of cleaning up cigarette butts in front of my house
*****************
I pick up more than cigarette butts in front of my house, fast food wrappers, bottles and cans, lottery tickets, etc.
About once a month I walk my property line and on the other side of the street, 1200 feet, I usually garner a full leaf trash bag of trash, some of which are cig butts.
Throwing cigarette butts on the ground IS littering and should be treated as such, along with people who throw out their car trash so their vehicles are clean.
I for one always use an ash tray I’ve put in my car and always field strip my cigarette to find a trash can later.
Not all litterbugs are smokers and not every smoker is a litterbug.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.