Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Senate passes bill banning smoking statewide; doctor says move bodes well for cancer center designation

February 17, 2009, 4:01 p.m. Updated February 17, 2009, 4:13 p.m.

Advertisement

— A bill that would ban smoking in most public places in Kansas could help in the effort to attain national designation for the Kansas University Cancer Center.

That’s according to Dr. Roy Jensen, director of the KU Cancer Center.

“It’s helpful in that it confirms that the Legislature is thinking about the problem of cancer in Kansas from a very comprehensive standpoint,” Jensen said. KU plans to apply in 2011 for cancer center designation from the National Cancer Institute.

On Tuesday, the state Senate voted 26-13 for the bill that would apply a statewide prohibition of smoking in bars, restaurants, workplaces and government buildings.

But the bill’s prospects are iffy in the Kansas House.

Jensen acknowledged that the legislation faces stiffer opposition in the House, but said, “It’s important to keep moving the ball forward.”

Health officials said that 4,000 Kansans die each year from smoking-related illnesses and about 300 of those are from secondhand smoke.

Comments

gccs14r 5 years, 1 month ago

I have to turn off the blower or put it on recirc when I get stuck behind a smoker in traffic. It's really bad when sitting at a long light. Keep your windows rolled up so you can marinate in your smoke without gagging the rest of us.

0

saoirseglen 5 years, 1 month ago

Ban the smoke and particulate laden exhaust coming from the T buses please. While we are at it, ban the same from all the school buses too.

I am bothered by that more than smokers and their cigarettes. I have to turn off my heater morning and night while driving in traffic. If I were hot I could at least use the recirculating setting on the air conditioning segment of the system to move the air in the cabin.

But if the state wants to go this far, why not eliminate all tobacco taxes and also ban the sale, purchase, use, consumption and possession of tobacco products? Why all this waste of time? Then we can do the same for all alcohol products.

0

logrithmic 5 years, 2 months ago

Breaking news:

"Philip Morris was ordered by a jury Wednesday to pay $8 million in damages to the widow of a smoker who died of lung cancer in a case that could set a standard for some 8,000 similar Florida lawsuits.

The six jurors deliberated over two days before returning the award for Elaine Hess, 63, whose husband Stuart Hess died in 1997 at age 55 after decades as a chain smoker."

Nicotine pushers in trouble? Say it ain't so!

0

M. Lindeman 5 years, 2 months ago

ArumerZwarteHoop (Anonymous) says…

Maybe not, but I think I am qualified to do brain surgery on someone like you.
I will even give you a discount, the less I need to work on should be charged less.

0

Meatwad 5 years, 2 months ago

Good. Smoke should be outdoors, not inside. No big deal.

0

ArumerZwarteHoop 5 years, 2 months ago

rdragon

i'll bet you are not a brain surgeon.

0

M. Lindeman 5 years, 2 months ago

denak

I am not unreasonable either, I can get behind what you have to say. I don't see the point of smoking in resturants either, your there to eat. Bars on the other hand should be left alone, as for workers health. You damn well know there will be smoking in a bar so don't apply for that job if it bothers you. As for anyone who doesn't want to smell it in the bar, well find a different bar. It really doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure any of this out.

0

denak 5 years, 2 months ago

Personally, I would love to see a smoking ban in resturants. I never go to Topeka to eat anymore because Topeka still allows smoking. I don't care how far away I am seated, I can still smell it and I end up getting a headache. So, I happy to hear that this might happen.

However, I am not unreasonable. I do think there should be some exception for bars/dance clubs.

As for the cancer center, this is what this is really all about. The health of Kansans is probably second to getting a nationally recognized cancer centered. The jobs and the prestige that is would bring is much more important than a person's "right to smoke." So, if a public smoking ban is what is needed to get it, I say "go ahead."

Dena

0

herbalife4life1 5 years, 2 months ago

It is about freedom but truly it is about government making laws that make the marketplace unfairly weighted in the direction of the places that can still allow smoking. This is because those places, casinos and such where the state or local gov gets money when someone walks through the door, now have legalized unfair competition that will drive the smokers to those places and get more money for gov... This is just a government revenue scheme at the expense of the small business owner.

0

logrithmic 5 years, 2 months ago

How much more freedom will people give up before we say enough is enough?


It's not about freedom. It's about addiction. Your addiction.

0

lilgbear 5 years, 2 months ago

I'm a smoker and can see how a smoking ban could be a good thing, but why can't they just ban it for a set amount of hours then make it up to the owners. Like no smoking until 9pm, then non smokers can choose to stay at the place or go to a non-smoking place. I just think it's funny with all this fighting because I know that there are non-smoking bars/clubs in my town and they are never busy or fun and it seems that non-smokers want to party at smoking bars/clubs to have fun just without the smoke. I just wish they would think that maybe it's the fact that there is no bans at these places and that is what makes these bars/clubs soo fun.

0

RBAK 5 years, 2 months ago

LarryNative, you really think that this was passed becuase "all these boring people who sit at home do not want the rest of us to have fun anymore because it makes them feel like losers?" Really? I choose not to poison my body smoking. Why do you have the right to do so? Smokers always complain about their rights being taken away. What about mine as a non-smoker? No-one is forcing you to quit. Nor is this a complete prohibition of cigarettes which would NEVER pass and we all know that.

And all the people who say that we should ban soda and candy and all that other crap. There is a fundamental difference between smoking and those things. If I dont want candy or soda I dont buy it. If I dont want preservatives in my food I will buy organic products. Smoking on the other hand puts other people in danger. Thats the issue. Someone else's habit harming others.

0

classclown 5 years, 2 months ago

Does Obama go outside the White House every time he lights up?

0

MyOpinionCounts 5 years, 2 months ago

Dear Smoker,

When science allows you to contain your smoke within your own "bubble" and I don't have to smell it or breathe it, then you should be allowed to smoke where ever you want. Until then, smoking should be banned in all public venues.

0

Multidisciplinary 5 years, 2 months ago

Coming into this late...has couranna1 been disappeareded, or just this particular comment?

Jonas..how's that quitting smoking going?

SWKS is correct about the study.

Smokers die first, with less cost to insurance companies. The obese come next to die, still low cost to insurers. Longest living, and thus more likely to acquire long term health care needs, IE long term care facilities for Senility, Alzheimer's, etc..are the skinny healthy folks. Very expense to be healthy up into your senior years.

0

estespark 5 years, 2 months ago

Who really cares. Smoking is bad and I'm tired of breathing someone's exhaust while at a bar or restaurant. This is a concept most people can get behind. My suggestion is to embrace any smoking ban and save your breath for a true infringement of personal rights and/or property rights.

Where did the smoker's sense of entitlement come from? People haven't been able to smoke on planes or in the workplace for years...and I wonder why?

0

M. Lindeman 5 years, 2 months ago

kmat (Anonymous) says…

rddragon needs a smoke break. You're getting pissed and using analogies that don't apply here. YOUR smoke can cause me harm. Your above rant is just plain stupid.

And so many are complaining about the bar owners losing their rights. Where are the bar owners? Why aren't they on here complaining? Only pissed off smokers are whining.

Kmat Where did it say I smoked? I am just tired of all the infringements that we as americans are allowing to happen. In todays world we have let the few dictate there views and wants for everyone else. So when any of your rights or freedoms are taken from you, just remember your comment (your only whinning because your pissed)

0

ArumerZwarteHoop 5 years, 2 months ago

sunshine_noise trying to understand your posts is like trying to see the 3-D image in those “magic posters”. If I unfocus my brain enough, I can see your thought process and it looks like a pretty 3-D sailboat.

0

kmat 5 years, 2 months ago

rddragon needs a smoke break. You're getting pissed and using analogies that don't apply here. YOUR smoke can cause me harm. Your above rant is just plain stupid.

And so many are complaining about the bar owners losing their rights. Where are the bar owners? Why aren't they on here complaining? Only pissed off smokers are whining.

0

ArumerZwarteHoop 5 years, 2 months ago

Are they framing this action as a public health law? I don’t agree with that, but as a worker’s safety law I agree with banning smoking.

Bar tenders, wait staff, and buss boys should not have to break poisoned air for 8-12 hour shifts, it is that simple. It amazes me all the directions this debate goes when it is pretty simple. Business owners owe it to their workforce to make the work environment as safe as possible.

0

estespark 5 years, 2 months ago

matel - Now you're just being silly. A bar owner's shop is not an extension of his own home.

0

maetl 5 years, 2 months ago

rdragon, you hit it right on the head.

I smoke, and am trying to quit because I know it's not good for my body, and it is also expensive.

But that said, I would never tell another individual that he couldn't smoke, because I don't like it. I don't like the idea of cell phones causing cancer in my brain, so I think there should be designated cell phone areas that I can CHOOSE to stay away from. I don't like the fact that most of the food we eat has enough preservatives and chemicals in it that we're all going to get cancer anyhow, so maybe we should ban processed food. When does it end, you know?

There is a common courtesy argument involved. I have no problem smoking outside. I do so on my own property because I don't like the smell inside, nor the smoke staining my walls. But I enjoy smoking, and I excercise the right to do so.

The same should be applied in public. Smoke outside, don't blow in people's faces, try to avoid smoking in cramped areas like a bus stop, etc. Be polite. But don't infringe on people's rights to do as they wish.

My main problem right now with smoking bans is that it excludes public places in which the owners are ok about smoking. As I see it, a bar owners shop is an extension of his home. It is HIS property.

Thus, building owners should be allowed to say "yes, smoking is allowed in my establishment that I own." As a customer, you are allowed to choose whether or not to support that establishment with your business based on smoking, or anything else.

So if you're concerned with the horrid effects of "second hand" smoke, don't go in. If you think it's "icky" don't go in. Go to a bar that doesn't allow smoking.

If this bill goes into effect, it better allow for private business to authorize smoking on their facilities, because a complete ban as the anti-smoker's wish is complete crap.

0

Andrew Stahmer 5 years, 2 months ago

.....actually someone on the radio suggested that BEEF is probably another target that will be persued like tobacco. Doesn't sound far-feched to me.

I don't mind the smoking bans...but those environmentalists and animal rights freaks should stay away from our steaks and burgers!!

0

M. Lindeman 5 years, 2 months ago

gccs14r (Anonymous) says…

It's only a matter of time before tobacco is illegal outright. We should stop screwing around with incremental bans and just outlaw tobacco tomorrow.

Hell lets not stop there. Ban all soda, fast food places, candy because there is just too many fat people in this country. while we are at it we should take the driver license's of anyone who is blonde, too short, too tall, to dumb (that test will be designed by someone who has never had a drivers license but knows how it should be done)too fat, to skinny or anyone of asian descent, we all know how there driving causes second hand accidents. Then we need to ban vacuums, garbage disposals, washing machines, dryers, hair dryers and electric razors. Those could cause second hand hearing loss. Then we can move onto anyone left that any kind of freedom remaining.

0

spankyandcranky 5 years, 2 months ago

Glad to hear it. Hope it passes in the house as well. I don't have a problem with people smoking -- that's their decision. But I don't like breathing their smoke ... and they smoke EVERYWHERE!! I live in Lawrence, and you still get bombarded with smoke when you go in and out of bars. But at least it's not around constantly anymore.

0

gccs14r 5 years, 2 months ago

It's only a matter of time before tobacco is illegal outright. We should stop screwing around with incremental bans and just outlaw tobacco tomorrow.

0

M. Lindeman 5 years, 2 months ago

Fine ban it, so now that you feel you have made everyones lives more healthier. Now you can reduce the tax on tobacco, and what is collected can no longer go to any non tobacco programs. The extreme socialistic agendas that some in this country are pushing should be quite a concern. How much more freedom will people give up before we say enough is enough?

0

musbhiorlo 5 years, 2 months ago

the simple solution is to give all smokers space helmets, let them smoke wherever they want as long as it's in their space helmet.

0

kmat 5 years, 2 months ago

Hey crispy - listen real hard. Your arguement is that YOU shouldn't have to change your habits. Yes, everything in this world should be catered to what makes YOU happy. Who cares if it is detrimental to others health, YOUR happiness is what's important.

You shouldn't be segregated. Well, since smokers are in the minority, yes you should be the one's that are segregated. You are doing something that is harmful to others. Live with the fact that you will be segregated.

Whiners! No one is telling you that you can't smoke, just telling you to take it outiside like anyone with manners would already be doing.

0

crispysyn 5 years, 2 months ago

bndairdundat Stupid was a pretty harsh word, my apoligies. My point is that if they apply to work at a bar, they knew what they are getting into. If they are that concerned about their health, then apply somewhere else. I should not have to change my habits just to make someone else happy. I should not have to be pointed out and segregated for smoking. If you do not smoke and want to get something to drink, hey there is a liquor store around every corner in this town. Last time I checked, every person had the right to choose for themselves what they wanted to do, but I guess not anymore. Now we are told and ordered what to do like drones and it is rediculous.

0

RonBurgandy 5 years, 2 months ago

"Well, at least you're honest enough to admit that the petulant “icky” position is more important that this potentially illusory “health” issue, in regards to smoking in public places."

Nah, I believe there is a health issue. However, you are damn right that it is a "icky" position as well. Things are heading towards more and more smoking bans and you can fight and complain about it if you want, but it will continue to move in that direction.

You can call people "icky whiners" but with as much complaining as the smokers do, it's basically a pot and kettle thing.

Oh well, I'll enjoy my time in more and more smoke-free restaurants.

0

kmat 5 years, 2 months ago

Sounds more like the whiners are the smokers, not the other way around.

The stupid statements about how we need to ban fast food and booze since you think this smoking law is creating a nanny state are ridiculous. You eating a burger doesn't affect my health. You having a drink doesn't affect my health, as long as you don't drive. You smoking in an enclosed space does affect my health.

I used to smoke, heavily. I was smart enough after 20 years to quit. Best thing I ever did. You smokers have no idea how disgusting it is until you stop. My father chain smokes and I have terrible allergies that now start up when I have to be in his house. His smoke does affect me and your smoking does affect those around you. If you can't be grown up enough to respect others and smoke outside, then the law gets to tell you that it is the correct thing to do. Sorry. Your right to smoke doesn't trump my right to breath. You can still smoke, you just have to take it outside.

I find it amusing that crispy thinks that everyone else should have to live with his smoke in enclosed, public spaces, but yet doesn't smoke inside his house. Hmmmm. It's nasty to smoke inside your house, but you expect the rest of us to have to put up with your nasty habit in enclosed, public places? You aren't going to make your family suffer, just everyone else around you. Nice.

0

bndairdundat 5 years, 2 months ago

crispysyn (Anonymous) says… " Just because they are too stupid to get a job elsewhere, I am supposed to change my habits to make them happy. Hell No."

bndair says - You are undoubtedly the most ignorant poster of the current year. Many college students work in bars while attending school. There aren't enough jobs on campus, walmart, mcdonalds or any one place for all of them.

Go take another STUPID pill. They seem to work well for you......

0

bndairdundat 5 years, 2 months ago

So couranna1, with jobs being harder to get and hold on to, you think an employer has the right to subject his employees to harmful working conditions? Don't you think most jobs have enough hazards without forcing possible tobacco related deaths upon them?

Try watching a close family member who smoked for over 50 years die a slow, painful death over a period of months. Very educational if you have the stomach for it.

0

crispysyn 5 years, 2 months ago

JaneyB

"Just keep it at home" Because I shouldn't have to. I am not against the smoking ban in certain places. Restaurants, family places stuff like that, but bars, come on. People have been smoking in bars for years. When it all started they said it was to protect the people working there who don't smoke from 2nd hand smoke, well guess what, you applied to work at a bar, you knew what you were getting into. Just because they are too stupid to get a job elsewhere, I am supposed to change my habits to make them happy. Hell No. As far as smoking at home goes, My wife doesn't make me go outside, I just choose not to smoke at home.

0

Kat Christian 5 years, 2 months ago

LarryNative I agree with you. It's like 'they' are trying to create a world where everyone is the SAME and there are cliques - no competition everyone dresses, talks, mannerisms, behavior even what they eat is alike. Should someone think outside the box they are chastised or outcast. This behavior is sited in our sociology books in business about group behavior. My feeling is about smoking as in someone overweight eating a bag of chips. That's their business. I may not like looking at obese people with fat hanging out of their clothes or see someone with a cigarette hanging out of their month with brown teeth, so I look away - that's they way they want to live I have no right to impede on it. That has been the American way - freedom - the right to live your life as long as you do not impede on other's peace and pursuit to happiness. People drunk should not drive and the public education about this is a good thing. I have concerns with people who smoke and live in apartments but we have no right to control how people live. My feeling if you don't like it then don't go near it. They tried to ban alcohol once and look at the mess that made so I doubt that would ever happen unless our government announced Marshall Law in the whole United States. Then that would undermine our Constitution, what it stands for and the freedom of this Nation. So now they ban smoking but are deciding about passing a bill where you can drink alcohol walking around. Has this government lost it's senses?Another point is this germaphobia propaganda that's spreading around and causing hypocandra (sp?) in everyone. Grant it I don't like dirty/smelly people but I'm not going to turn into a Howard Hughes about touching things for fear of dying from it. Lack of faith, lack of faith - I feel when it is my time God will take me, but until then I'm going to LIVE. There is a saying "the brave die young, but without courage you never live at all."

0

jonas_opines 5 years, 2 months ago

"Oh no! I can't smoke anywhere I want to? Boo hoo!"

Oh no, I can't go anywhere I want to and never get exposed to anything that I think is gross! Boo hoo!

"Smoking is gross, you stink and you make everyone else stink."

Well, at least you're honest enough to admit that the petulant "icky" position is more important that this potentially illusory "health" issue, in regards to smoking in public places.

"Just take your own advise and stay home if you can't smoke at a bar or a restaurant."

Why don't we compromise. Smokers stay home and smoke all days but Tuesdays so as not to bother the rest of us. Anti-smoking "icky" whiners can stay home and pontificate all days but Thursdays so as not to bother the rest of us.; The rest of us can then have 5 days free from both smoke and petulant whiners, and everybody is happy, except the whiners who are never happy.

0

couranna1 5 years, 2 months ago

How many people die a year from second hand drinking (some drunk hitting them w/ a car), why don't they ban drinking!

kamyssa2000

Very good point point regardless of what people think. Gov for a long time has taken the stance "we need to tell the public what to do as they are stupid." I do smoke but I do not drink so it would be easier for me to say ban booze as it is bad. I won't do that as I believe people have a right to do that. The same with cigs you cannot ban cigs because you don't like them for whatever reason. However I do insist and like the drunk driving laws and the drunk in public, and drunk and disorderly laws that protect me from the people who attempt to do these. So I have no problem with people not wanting to be around cig smoke in public if it is proved it is harmful to those around you which it has. That being said also I think it should be up to the business owner to decide if he wants to allow smoking or not and be willing to pay the consequences (ie Profits) of that decision. So if we have to do anything to totally ban anything in public starts a slippery slope where Gov thinks it has the right to legislate how to live your life and it will only get worse

0

RonBurgandy 5 years, 2 months ago

Oh no! I can't smoke anywhere I want to? Boo hoo!

Smoking is gross, you stink and you make everyone else stink.

Just take your own advise and stay home if you can't smoke at a bar or a restaurant.

0

janeyb 5 years, 2 months ago

Why crispysn? Does your wife make you smokie outside? You are free to smoke as much as you want in your own home. Just keep it at home.

"The answer is to make everything fun illegal"

So LarryNative thinks drinkng and driving is fun? Such irresponsibility is why there is a need for the laws.

0

crispysyn 5 years, 2 months ago

The senate should NOT have the right to pass a bill for a state wide smoking ban. Those of us who smoke made the decision to smoke, The owners of the individual businesses should be allowed to decide if their establishment is going to be smoking or non-smoking. If you don't like places that allow smoking, then stay out. Go somewhere else it is that simple. I am going to leave instructions for my wife that if I get deathly ill from pneumona, then she is to SUE the state of kansas for making me go outside in the winter time.

0

monkeyhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

"A serious public health threat had to be manufactured, and in 1993 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stepped in to the rescue with their bogus environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) study that says secondhand tobacco smoke is a class A carcinogenic.

Why is it bogus? The EPA claimed that 3,000 Americans die annually from secondhand smoke, but there was a problem. They couldn't come up with that conclusion using the standard statistical 95 percent confidence interval. They lowered their study's confidence interval to 90 percent. That has the effect of doubling the margin of error and doubling the probability that mere chance explains those 3,000 deaths."

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/07/policy.html

0

logrithmic 5 years, 2 months ago

How about banning McDonalds or any fast food joint? How about banning alcohol and all bars? Banning cars anyone? How about banning salt or soft drinks? How about banning every single thing in this world that is in any way shape or form “bad” for us???? I'm not really for or against this ban but I think big brother needs to take a big flippin hike out of personal choices in this country of ours…


This law does not ban nicotine addiction. It does restrict it.

Marijuana is banned. Get the difference?

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 2 months ago

"Bad idea.. There was a study done in Europe that said it is going to cost a lot more in medical expense's if we stamp out smoking.. Something about living longer means it will cost a lot more to take care you.."

By that logic, we should just require anyone with a life-threatening and/or expensive-to-treat illness to commit suicide (tobacco smoking is merely slow suicide, after all.)

0

The_Voice_of_Reason 5 years, 2 months ago

How about banning McDonalds or any fast food joint? How about banning alcohol and all bars? Banning cars anyone? How about banning salt or soft drinks? How about banning every single thing in this world that is in any way shape or form "bad" for us???? I'm not really for or against this ban but I think big brother needs to take a big flippin hike out of personal choices in this country of ours...

0

gccs14r 5 years, 2 months ago

Fosso,

you're misinformed. Cigarettes are about ten times more polluting than car exhaust in both particulate matter and in carbon monoxide emissions.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/12481.php

http://faculty.washington.edu/djaffe/ce3.pdf

0

Multidisciplinary 5 years, 2 months ago

and don't use >< on LJW . Seems to mess up all you typed.-fosso

Best laugh of the day, thanks.

0

fosso 5 years, 2 months ago

Carbon monoxide from cars is more of a health hazard than tobacco leafs burning. That was supposed to be my statement.

It's just the "eww that smells" factor.

0

fosso 5 years, 2 months ago

and don't use >< on LJW . Seems to mess up all you typed.

0

fosso 5 years, 2 months ago

WTF? I Smoke. >I am and adult, I know the consequences< I drive a car. I know the consequences. Put a running car in my bar/business/restaurant. Watch everyone die. Oh, wait carbon monoxide is OK, odorless. Burning tobacco just has a >smell<. Smoker's second hand smoke is blown waaaay out of proportion. Ban all fossil fuel powered vehicles in Kansas NOW! They hurt more (second hand) than us heavily taxed nicotine addicted people. Big Gov is the end of this once great country.

If you don't want to go to a smoking establishment, don't GO. Should totally be a business owner's choice and the patrons!

0

bndairdundat 5 years, 2 months ago

Good to know smoke won't interfere with seeing if a ccw owner needs to protect himself or a loved one.

0

Pilgrim2 5 years, 2 months ago

Another sign of the apocalypse:

Kansas joins the Nanny States of America.

0

Flap Doodle 5 years, 2 months ago

Put your black hat on girlfriend & head uptown.

0

SouthWestKs 5 years, 2 months ago

Bad idea.. There was a study done in Europe that said it is going to cost a lot more in medical expense's if we stamp out smoking.. Something about living longer means it will cost a lot more to take care you..

0

Shelley Bock 5 years, 2 months ago

If "No night games" Marion asks the question, it isn't worth answering.

0

Steven Gaudreau 5 years, 2 months ago

Don't worry kamy, I'm sure alcohol is next on the chopping block of those who want to pass so many laws that all of us will sit in a white box and never leave our cubicle's. You see, all these boring people who sit at home do not want the rest of us to have fun anymore because it makes them feel like losers. The answer is to make everything fun illegal and then we will all be the same in our safe little bubbles. 1984 is upon us in 2009, Orwell was just a couple of decades off. Thanks for telling us how to live our lives though. Without you, we would all surely be dead. ""Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we are creating? It is the exact opposite of the stupid hedonistic Utopias that the old reformers imagined. A world of fear and treachery and torment, a world of trampling and being trampled upon, a world which will grow not less but more merciless as it refines itself. Progress in our world will be progress toward more pain." 1984

0

Eride 5 years, 2 months ago

Your argument doesn't make any sense kamyssa2000. Drinking and driving is illegal already while smoking indoors (and subjecting everyone around you to hundreds of toxins and carcinogens is NOT illegal... YET).

0

kamyssa2000 5 years, 2 months ago

and I forgot to add, I don't even smoke so I'm not supporting that either!

0

kamyssa2000 5 years, 2 months ago

How many people die a year from second hand drinking (some drunk hitting them w/ a car), why don't they ban drinking!

0

jayhawker2008 5 years, 2 months ago

Nice to know they got something accomplished today... now if they can work on state paychecks!

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.