The latest Grand Canyon State Poll, done by the folks at NAU, is out, and it shows that the foes of gay marriage and domestic partnership rights are in good shape.
While a late August poll done by ASU—which emphasized the fact that governments would not be allowed to offer benefits to unmarried partners—showed Proposition 107 failing badly, the NAU poll shows it supported by 51 percent of those polled, and opposed by 42 percent.
That was the only thing resembling a surprise in the NAU poll. It showed what you’d expect pretty much everywhere else—Napolitano and Kyl have big leads; both smoking measures are likely to pass, and both are running close in terms of support; the minimum wage increase has broad support; etc.
But this bit of news about 107 is certainly a downer. Sigh.
This article appears in Oct 12-18, 2006.
I was just reading Jim Nintzel’s “Butt Battle” – kudos to Jim – I like his style.
Anyway, one thing that just irks me is that I got down to Camilla Strongin’s (spokeswoman for the Arizona Non-Smoker Protection Act) response to the comment by Troy Corder “secondhand smoke is a health concern…there is proof that 2nd hand smoke causes cancer in healthy non-smokers”.
Apparently, Camilla Strongin says a good analogy is “That’s like saying ‘well, should we allow restaurant owners to serve french fries, because if you eat too many it’s bad for your health and can ultimately lead to diabetes…”.
WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING CAMILLA? Did you leave your brain at the border this morning? What a STUPID analogy.
First off, non-smokers HAVE the ability to CHOOSE whether or not they can eat or not eat french fries and abide by their healthier lifestyles. The non-smokers DON’T have much to say about the damn 2nd hand smoke lingering in the vicinity, crossing over the ‘invisible’ smoke / smokefree section of the restaurant/bar.
See the difference is CHOICE. You can choose to be FAT, while NOT making everyone else FAT around you. You CAN’T choose to be a smoker and not get away with effecting others around you.
What a damn dope.
Hugs & Kisses
Bud Thomas
By that logic Bud you could choose to stay away from some Tucson bars and other venues and enjoy yourself in other ways. Non-smokers can choose to not be around places that allow secondhand smoke to waft in the air.
As well, regarding “You CAN’T choose to be a smoker and not get away with effecting[sic] others around you.” — I’m sure that an extreme counterargument would be if someone chose to live alone and only smoke at their house patio. So it is possible, but it only works in a black-and-white logic pattern that doesn’t reflect real life.
Never say never, though.
Regarding the smoking issue, I have severe asthma, and I have an extreme adverse reaction to tobacco smoke. Banning smoking indoors only is not a good choice. People smoke along the walkway that leads to the building where I work. It takes only a small amount of smoke to cause a severe asthma attack. Several smokers I know have suggested that I go all the way around the building, out of my way, to avoid smoke, or ask my doctor for more medication. My questions is, WHY? Smoking is something a person CHOOSES to do, breathing is not optional. So, why should someone’s choice take priority over something that I HAVE TO DO?
If people smoking outside of an entrance is a major issue to you, I actually would recommend you choose 206 (bans smoking except in some bars) over 201 (bans smoking everywhere). There actually is a rationale here, because what happened when Washington State created a statewide smoking ban in 2005 was that all those people smoking inside the bars were pushed outside — and they all accumulated right at the entrance. From what I saw, a public smoking ban is only truly enforced inside a place of business. Now, imagine walking down 4th Avenue or Downtown? It will be smokers everywhere. You will see a larger prevalence of smokers on the streets among everybody instead of staying in the bars.
In some sense, that will be too bad, because kids really don’t need smoke around them.
Oh, and by the way, if the place of business doesn’t care about cleaning up the sidewalk outside and doesn’t provide any ashtrays — like (name-drop!) Talotti’s 211 in Spokane, Wash. — then it will be cig butts all over along the outside of that business, which gets disgusting quick.
As an aside, I wonder how a full smoking ban would affect Smiley’s Hookah Lounge over on 4th Ave.? Hookah is tobacco, and Smiley’s is a public place. From my experience, the Washington State ban put almost all of the cigar and hookah bars completely out of business de jure*.