*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.

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.

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.

*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.