Health board passes smoke-free rule

More government regulation of the kind that isn't needed. Let the smokers kill themselves and let businesses that cater to smokers steal more of the smoker's dollars. Employees can look elsewhere for work if they don't like smoking customers.
eyeson jackson

Finally. Not that there was a problem in most places. I just don't like being around the stuff. Clothes, hair, jackets all stink and no more hacking the next day after working around it the night before. Thankyou!!
Jackson

A sad day for Teton County and for Liberty in general. If there is such a strong demand for non-smoking establishments, why don't businesses capitalize on this demand through non-smoking policies? Oh wait...they have! In fact, except for the Virginian, every single bar and restaurant has a non-smoking policy. So, this leads us to a number of practical points: (#1) even if you abhor smokey bars, why do we need a smoking ban when 99% of establishments already have no-smoking policies? Aren't there more important things the Health Board could be spending their time (and your money) on, you know, like those types of things that actually make a difference? Do we really need more laws for the sole purpose of "making a point" and justifying the jobs of these board members? Do we really need this law? I would say no. (#2) Seeing that in effect, this law only affects the Virginian - do we think its right that an unelected board pass a law that singles out ONE establishment and has a directly negative impact on it? Because that sure doesn't seem right to me. Also, why are we punishing an establishment that serves a minority group - smokers - a group that isn't welcome anywhere else in town. If anything, we should encourage businesses to pursue minority groups. It makes for more interesting and diverse businesses. In fact, the American way is to find a need and try to fill it - not find an under-served minority and crush it. Going beyond the practical, let's consider the role of the Teton District Board of Health. This is an appointed panel of seven health professionals - that is, they are NOT elected. What authority do they have to do this? Not that of the voting people - we didn't elect them! Also, we can't even un-elect them! As an appointed board, their role is make suggestions and resolve technical matters - not legislate - we have people that do that already, they are called councilmen, and we elect them. And while the Board did vote unanimously for the rule, the whole effort was spearheaded by one man - Dr. Brent Blue. So really, what we have is ONE man, one UNELECTED man, forcing EVERYONE to live by his desires on a controversial issue. What will the unelected Health Board decide next - no SALE of cigarettes in Teton County? What about no smoking period in Teton County? What's stopping them? Not the voting public - we aren't able to. Even if you support the ban, I hope that you don't support the way it has about - through an unelected Board and the desire of one man to impose his beliefs and wants on to everyone else.
Peter Weiland

Interesting though... at a time when 500,000,000 Americans are losing their jobs every month, and thousands of Jackson Hole's public are dying due to second hand smoke absorbed into walls, why the extra 30 days until it goes into effect? We will probably have another 1,329 deaths in Jackson due to SHS during that time... this is about saving lives, right?
Guest

I bring a college group to the Tetons at least once a year, mostly students over 21 with a budget that includes plenty of money for meals in restaurants. Because we live in an area with absolutely all non-smoking facilities we have stayed away from Jackson restaurants that allow smoking, even in a designated area and done most of our dining in Grand Teton Park with its non-smoking policies. The main reason is that the drifting smoke from a smoking designated area does spoil the meal and can leave you smelling bad (restaurants and bars located in smokefree cities have 82% less indoor air pollution). The second reason is that secondhand smoke causes death and disease and we do not want to give money to businesses that make their employees breathe carcinogens. (The 2006 Surgeon General's Report showed that there is no safe level of secondhand smoke and that it causes immediate adverse effects on your cardiovascular system and heart disease and lung cancer.) Smokers who rail against this kind of rule need to learn more about the effects your smoking on those you force to breathe it, not only employees of places you frequent but especially children in your home or car. Children who are exposed to secondhand smoke are inhaling many of the same cancer-causing substances and poisons as smokers. Because their bodies are developing, infants and young children are especially vulnerable to the poisons in secondhand smoke. Babies whose mothers smoke while pregnant or who are exposed to secondhand smoke after birth have weaker lungs than other babies, which increases the risk for many health problems and are more likely to die from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) than babies who are not exposed to cigarette smoke. Secondhand smoke exposure causes acute lower respiratory infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia in infants and young children and causes children who already have asthma to experience more frequent and severe attacks. Again, the Surgeon General has concluded that there is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure. Even brief exposures can be harmful. Yet on average, children are exposed to more secondhand smoke than nonsmoking adults. Please spread the word.
customer

Hey customer, if you were arguing a different topic, and if your arguments did not need to meet scientific standards... perhaps what you say would work out. The 2006 SGR does conclude that they is NO risk-free exposure to smoke. Is it crazy for me to ask them/you to define "risk" and "harmful?" Reductio ad absurdum: So, if you walk along and faintly smell cigarette smoke from a camp 500 yards up-river, that is exposure, right? Dose is poison my friend, investigate how much arsenic is in SHS. Not worth the trouble? OK, here ya go: if you breath SHS in an average ventilated bar or restaurant for 165,000 hours - you will consume the same amount of arsenic as from 16oz of government approved tap water. So, ask any doctor, "Is any amount of arsenic risk-free?" She will answer that no level is risk-free. What about strawberries... they have arsenic? (I would like to stoop to a low level of intellect as I close, please indulge me) If you can't understand logic and science, and if you are going to join the government in believing that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and that the SGC 06 report's EXECUTIVE SUMMARY is good science; then Mr HU Jintao, you might be better off to just log on to Democracynow.org and chill wit dat crap too. (Gosh it feels good to let down my academic aloofness sometimes :) ) Hey, I love ya'll, even when your emotions and my science lead us to differing conclusions!
Dr. Lawjek

Dr. Lawjek's comment is accurate. The antismoking movement pushes these bans with yellow journalism scare tactics by yelling about how tobacco smoke contains arsenic and formaldehyde and how babies are getting poisoned by the same polonium 210 that "killed a Russian KGB agent." They never mention the arsenic/water comparison above, nor the fact that "safe" baby shampoos contain literally 87,000 times the concentration of formadehyde that secondary smoke concentrations do, or that for a baby to get the KGB agent's level of poisoning the kid would have to spend his entire days licking floors for 2.74 *trillion* years. (Really! Check out the figures at Global Health Law at: http://globalhealthlaw.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/third-hand-smoke/#comment-52 ) . - . - . - . Michael J. McFadden, author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Michael J. McFadden