It's always the democrats committing voter fraud.  People like to bitch about Ohio in 2004 and claim fraud took place there.  But the only fraud in Ohio in 2004 occured in Cleveland when two democratic poll workers were changing ballots from Bush to Kerry.

They call Republicans fear mongerers, but it's the Democrats who thrive off of fear and intimidation by running on platforms like global warming, gun-control, social security and abortion (claiming women would die in back allys) just to name  a few. 

No one is innocent in this, but I see nothing wrong with policies that require residents to have a state issued ID to validate that they are indeed whom they claim to be and are capable to vote.  Democrats oppose such legislation because a substantial portion of their voter base is unable to show proof of identity when voting which of course is a huge concern for voter fraud.  Obviously some people in that category are unable to legally vote for numerous reasons, so Democrats oppose legislation requiring stricter identification criteria because they thrive off of voter fraud.  Then again, when they can't win outright, they follow the law to a T and they just get the opposing guy kicked off the ballot as Obama did.

Here is the article:

The whole issue of the danger behind passive smoking came in 1993 when the federal EPA (warning signs should immediately begin flashing) issued its "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders." The study claimed that 3,000 people die annually due to second-hand smoke. In 1998, Judge Osteen of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina ruled, "The EPA's procedural failure constitutes a violation of the law" and "... EPA cherry picked its data..." Yeah, you read correctly, the court threw out the study saying it was biased and invalid.

Granted, organizations such as the American Lung Association, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association and U.S. Surgeon General all state that second-hand smoke is a killer. However, all of these organizations cite (yep, you guessed right) the flawed EPA study that was thrown out in a U.S. District Court. Furthermore, these organizations inflate the number of deaths each year from 3,000 to 50,000.

Do they cite scientific data to support this claim? Absolutely not, they simply issue a projection based on mortality rates from heart disease and other causes of death. In other words, if you bite the big one after having lived with a smoker, they simply chalk you up into their fabricated statistic.

But for argument's sake, let's use the EPA statistic and concede that 3,000 people die each year from lung cancer due to second-hand smoke. The EPA claims that you are 25 percent more likely to develop lung cancer if exposed to second-hand smoke. That sounds like quite an increase, but a normal person without exposure to passive smoke runs a 1:100,000 chance of developing lung cancer. According to the EPA, the chance increases to 1:80,000 if exposed to passive smoke. In other words, 10 people out of 1,000,000 will develop lung cancer without exposure and 12.5 out of 1,000,000 will develop lung cancer with exposure to second-hand smoke. This is statistically insignificant. So only 2.5 people per million develop lung cancer due to second-hand smoke, and that's if you buy into the EPA's flawed study.

We get it; some of you don't like second-hand smoke. If you don't like second-hand smoke, persuade a bar uptown to ban smoking and you can patronize that establishment. But don't stand here and tell me you're on some crusade to defend the health of those who work in these places, as well as your own, when you don't have a clue as to what you're ranting about. Those employees make a choice to work in an environment where smoking is permissible. Last time I checked, I wasn't stepping over dead bodies every time I walked into a restaurant or bar that allowed smoking, and I'm sure you haven't either.

------

My point is that no scientific study as of 2006 ( I havent looked since then) showed second hand smoke as statistically dangerous.  When only 2.5 people out of a million get lung cancer from 2nd hand smoke, we have to ask ourselves do those two individuals outweigh the freedom of the other million, especially when no one is forced to breathe second hand smoke.

They instituted the same law in Ohio and Washington, so I'm well aware of what it's like.   The point remains that dictating to a property owner what legal substance he can or can not allow on his premises is wrong.  What next, are we going to allow San Fransico to ban red-meat from restraunts because red-meat can cause cancer and the yahoos out there find eating meat barbaric?   Second hand smoke is an annoyance, not a threat.  The bans amount to people banning stufff that annoys them under the mask of psuedo science and outright bullshit.

ahh, the old second hand smoke causes cancer routine.  Here is an article I wrote on this in college that got picked up by alot of sources:

Simply put, second hand smoke causing cancer is bullshit and there is little to no science suggesting it does.

http://www.tobacco.org/news/221167.html

Such bans are a violation of property owners rights.  Just as I can't tell you what to permit and deny in your home, you shouldn't be able to tell me what I can allow or deny in my privately owned business.   Tom's bar isn't a place you need to go or have a right to enjoy.  If Tom wants to cater to smokers as his clientele, he should be able to.  No one is forcing you to enter that establishment.  Just because you don't like something doesn't give you the authority to outlaw it.  I don't like rap music and find it offensive, should I be able to pass a law that bans rap from public businesses?

And on the abortion issue, that itself begs many questions.  And to debate that would require many many hours of debate and the assumption you're read up on the numerous court cases that have dealt with it.  I am pro-choice or better put, I support the abortion of unwanted children that would grow-up in poor homes and serve as a burden to society.   But their is a fundamental problem with abortion that no one has been able to answer.   All Americans have a right to life as defined by our laws.  The question remains, when does one become a human being and thus an American protected by those laws.  Or better articulated, when does a fetus become a baby.  Any answer your provide me will be arbitray, so the only valid answer is really conception.  You could of course go the opposite route and say when it's capable of thought and feeling, but that would mean 3-4 months after it is born and I don't know if your or the public would want to endorse infanticide.   I agree that I have problems coming to my conclusion on this subject.   But in the original Roe v. Wade, the standard for life was when the baby could survive outside the womb.  With the increase in technology, that could soon be as soon as conception occurs.