Top Stories

Open letter to readers: Today and tomorrow

By Lynda Waddington | 11.17.11

Wednesday was a difficult day for The American Independent News Network, which is the larger entity that operates The Iowa Independent. Our chief executive and founder announced two of our sister sites would close and their content would be moved to The American Independent.

ACS lockout continues; plan emerges to repeal sugar protections

crystal_sugar_80
By Virginia Chamlee | 11.15.11

A recently introduced bill could have far-reaching impact on the U.S. sugar industry, including American Crystal Sugar, a farmer-owned cooperative that locked out 1,300 Midwest workers on Aug. 1.

Cain campaign: Farmers know more about regulations than EPA

hermancain_80x80
By Andrew Duffelmeyer | 11.15.11

The chairman for Herman Cain’s Iowa effort says the campaign “relied more on the word of farmers than Washington regulators” in deciding to run an ad containing claims the Environmental Protection Agency says are false.

Mathis wins, Democrats maintain Senate control

Liz Mathis
By Lynda Waddington | 11.08.11

The Iowa Senate will remain under the control of a slim 26-25 Democratic majority when it reconvenes in January 2012.

Press Release

PR: Nation should work to address veterans’ challenges

By Press Release Reprints | 11.11.11

BRUCE BRALEY RELEASE — As US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan ends, it’s more important than ever that our nation works to address the challenges faced by the men and women who fought there.

PR: Honoring veterans, help in hiring

By Press Release Reprints | 11.11.11

CHUCK GRASSLEY RELEASE — A difficult job market is challenging the soldiers, sailors and airmen who have protected America’s interests by serving in the Armed Forces.

PR: In honor of America’s veterans

By Press Release Reprints | 11.11.11

TOM LATHAM RELEASE — No one has done more to secure the freedom enjoyed by every single American than our veterans and those currently serving in the armed services.

PR: Honoring and supporting our nation’s veterans

By Press Release Reprints | 11.11.11

DAVE LOEBSACK RELEASE — Veterans Day is an opportunity to reflect on the service of generations of veterans and to honor the sacrifices they and their families have made so that we may live in peace and freedom here at home.

COMMENTARY: Smoke Ban Zealots Should Turn Off Their Lights

By Douglas Burns | 04.29.08 | 12:38 pm

One of the primary arguments for complete indoor smoking bans is that employees of restaurants and bars that permit smoking are at risk for the effects of secondhand smoke.

That fails to take into account the obvious fact that millions of employees smoke themselves and may desire to work in a place where they can do so.

Americans can choose to work in smoking or nonsmoking environments.

Using the workplace-protection theory, the strongest leg the smoke-ban zealots have to stand on, government should be far more interested in the health consequences of geographically isolated residents of coal-mining parts of the nation, but we aren’t banning the electricity they pull from the earth in spectacularly risky conditions.

To be consistent, those so worried about workplace safety, and how their own purchasing or lifestyle decisions affect employees, should live by candlelight so we can shut down coal mines and eliminate the often-fatal working conditions so painfully revealed in the mine accidents of recent years.

One more thing about choice.

A hidden element in what is now a global debate about smoking is this: If smokers can’t seek refuge in a bar, they are more likely to light up at home around kids, who have no choice in the matter.

The marketplace is moving us to a largely smoke-free environment. Why not allow a few bars out by the freaking airport or in forlorn small towns to allow their patrons to smoke? And, yes, there is a rural-urban element to this, as the impetus for the Iowa ban comes from Iowa City and Des Moines — even if some rural legislators voted for it.

Comments

  • D. Boone

    Consider Quitting Interesting, thought-provoking commentary!

    As we all know (but like to forget) smoking is a serious addiction that can be very destructive — not only to those who smoke, but to others around them who don’t have a choice.

    I scoff at the idea of smokers seeking refuge. What they are seeking is a place to satisfy the cravings/demands of their addiction.

    The idea of smoking as a purchasing or lifestyle choice, to me, is an antiquated notion — much like the notion that it’s still cool and socially-acceptable. It simply isn’t.

    Sadly, the smokers you described likely were already lighting up around their children. Children who one day may suffer from smoking-related illnesses — or children who may suffer helplessly as their parents battle emphysema and COPD.

    If smokers spent time in an hospital ICU with someone battling a smoking-related illness, I guarantee you, they could not hold onto the idea that smoking is a right to be championed. That idea would disappear as quickly as the smoke they exhale.

    Smokers, rural or urban or otherwise, don’t need refuge to indulge; what they likely need is help (and prayers) so they can quit for good.

  • PL

    huh? In only 10 rambling lines you manage to conclude:

    *Workers choose to be employed in smoky environments (with an underlying assumption that thre is ample employment available for them if they opt out of such)

    *Pollutants from coal mines are worse than those from cigarettes, so a smoking ban involves too much government interference.

    *Because smokers won’t be able to smoke in a bar (which is an extremely dishonest interpretation of the law) they will clearly have to smoke around children (as if the outdoors doesn’t exist).

    *Even though rural representatives voted for the bill, it is solely the fault of “city” dwellers in Des Moines and Iowa City (nevermind the fact that the bill–along with city statutes around the state–go farther than any law Iowa City has).

    So, railing against “the strongest leg the smoke-ban zealots have to stand on”, this is the best argument you can come up with? There is not a single line in this commentary that comes with any support. Conclusion after conclusion with a manifested level of disgust that would seem appropriate under a “No Spin Zone” headline.

    Who’s the ‘zealot’?

    You clearly own a bar in a small town or have some other personal interest involved (a smoker?), because this commentary is completely emotion-driven and has little factual support (some of which is blatantly false).

    I could care less about the smoking ban and I certainly am open to hearing opinions from those against the law, but this is not persuasive in any way. It is a diservice to your readers who (I assume) are much too reasonable to enjoy or even respect such an article.

  • D. Boone

    Consider Quitting Interesting, thought-provoking commentary!

    As we all know (but like to forget) smoking is a serious addiction that can be very destructive — not only to those who smoke, but to others around them who don't have a choice.

    I scoff at the idea of smokers seeking refuge. What they are seeking is a place to satisfy the cravings/demands of their addiction.

    The idea of smoking as a purchasing or lifestyle choice, to me, is an antiquated notion — much like the notion that it's still cool and socially-acceptable. It simply isn't.

    Sadly, the smokers you described likely were already lighting up around their children. Children who one day may suffer from smoking-related illnesses — or children who may suffer helplessly as their parents battle emphysema and COPD.

    If smokers spent time in an hospital ICU with someone battling a smoking-related illness, I guarantee you, they could not hold onto the idea that smoking is a right to be championed. That idea would disappear as quickly as the smoke they exhale.

    Smokers, rural or urban or otherwise, don't need refuge to indulge; what they likely need is help (and prayers) so they can quit for good.

  • PL

    huh? In only 10 rambling lines you manage to conclude:

    *Workers choose to be employed in smoky environments (with an underlying assumption that thre is ample employment available for them if they opt out of such)

    *Pollutants from coal mines are worse than those from cigarettes, so a smoking ban involves too much government interference.

    *Because smokers won't be able to smoke in a bar (which is an extremely dishonest interpretation of the law) they will clearly have to smoke around children (as if the outdoors doesn't exist).

    *Even though rural representatives voted for the bill, it is solely the fault of “city” dwellers in Des Moines and Iowa City (nevermind the fact that the bill–along with city statutes around the state–go farther than any law Iowa City has).

    So, railing against “the strongest leg the smoke-ban zealots have to stand on”, this is the best argument you can come up with? There is not a single line in this commentary that comes with any support. Conclusion after conclusion with a manifested level of disgust that would seem appropriate under a “No Spin Zone” headline.

    Who's the 'zealot'?

    You clearly own a bar in a small town or have some other personal interest involved (a smoker?), because this commentary is completely emotion-driven and has little factual support (some of which is blatantly false).

    I could care less about the smoking ban and I certainly am open to hearing opinions from those against the law, but this is not persuasive in any way. It is a diservice to your readers who (I assume) are much too reasonable to enjoy or even respect such an article.

Categories & Tags: |

Switch to our mobile site