I hate smoking with the deep and abiding passion only an asthmatic person can muster. The very idea of selfish nicotine junkies taking umbrage with my desire to enjoy a meal or cocktail without expelling phlegm is obscene. And I am giddy with delight over proposals to create smoke free workplaces for everyone, even those unfortunate enough to provide service to said nicotine users. 

(If you think I'm being mean or nasty, screw you.  Shove an inhaler in your mouth so you can catch your breath and tell me how mean I am ....I have no pity for smokers.  Get the patch and stop whining.)

The data is clear. Second-hand smoke kills people.  Smoking bans do not put restaurants and bars out of business.  Even the Pennsylvania Restaurant association is willing to support a 100% statewide ban if it includes casinos (I caught this on McIntire's show). 

And this is most decidedly a very important LGBTQ issue.  According to a 2001 study, lesbians smoke more than straight women.  Specifically, 35.5% of lesbians smoke compared to 20.5% of straight women.  Other studies have shown similar disproportions among gay men. 

Even more frightening was a 2004 study in which 40% of lesbian and bisexual girls between the ages of 12 and 17 report smoking, compared with 6% of heterosexual girls of the same ages.   Forty percent to six percent. 

There's a whole host of reasons this could be the case --- the history of the bar as a gay gathering place, societal pressure over gay identity, tobacco companies specific targeting of gay subcultures, and so forth. 

So creating smokefree spaces is critical for the health and well being of our community.  We need to push for environments in which people can be gay, find community and not have to inhale carcinogens. 

Personally, I would enjoy occasionally going to the local gay bars.  I like to dance, I like the shows and enjoy mingling with the homos.  But my recent foray to The Eagle was a disaster -- big kinds of fun followed by two and a half days of illness.  Who needs that?

Check out Tobacco Free Allegheny for local resources on smoking bans. 

Howard Dean weighs in on the NY Court of Appeals decision:

"As Democrats, we believe that every American has a right to equal protection under the law and to live in dignity. And we must respect the right of every family to live in dignity with equal rights, responsibilities and protections under the law. Today's decision by the New York Court of Appeals, which relies on outdated and bigoted notions about families, is deeply disappointing, but it does not end the effort to achieve this goal.

"As that essential process moves forward, it is up to the State legislature to act to protect the equal rights of every New Yorker and for the debate on how to ensure those rights to proceed without the rancor and divisiveness that too often surrounds this issue."

Pam asks "What is the goal?"   More specifically, will the Democrats EVER demonstrate real leadership in LGBT civil rights, including marriage?

The New York Court of Appeals ruled 4-2 that the state constitution does not guarantee the right to marry, but that the extension of marriage to include same sex couples must be undertaken by the Legislature. (PageOneQ)

The HRC response ...

"The court?s archaic reasoning is rooted in ignorance and completely contradicted by the facts of today," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese.

I'm sitting in a cramped waiting room in Oakland so I'll have to save my commentary for later ....

Bob Casey's campaign cashed the check.  You know, the contribution directed by advice columnist extraordinaire Dan Savage from the proceeds of his latest little amusing adventure  - Impeach The MotherF***er Already (ITMFA).  I presume you don't need a lot of explanation about that one ...

Revenue from the ITMFA merchandise is being donated to a range of progressive causes.  Bob was one of the first beneficiaries in recognition of his effort to unseat frequent Savage tauntee Ricky Sanctimonious.

Savage - who is one of the most awesome people ever for his never ceasing sex-positive writing and his uber-homo lovin' outness - has this perspective on Casey's anti-choice stance:

It's true: Bob Casey is opposed to abortion. But electing Casey we would take out Rick ?Frothy Mix? Santorum, a much more rabidly anti-choice senator. Frothy Mix doesn?t think you should be able to choose masturbation, for crying out loud. Moreover, electing Casey could help Dems take back the Senate, which will go a long way toward protecting choice, abortion rights, and other sexual freedoms, despite Casey?s stance on choice. So casting a vote for Casey, or sending a contribution to Casey, is a pragmatic, progressive, pro-choice bankshot. Electing or two pro-life Dems is the price we?re going to have to pay to put reliably pro-choice Dems in positions of power all over the Senate.

To "balance out the karma" of supporting Casey, Dan made a huge donation to Planned Parenthood from the next chunk of ITMFA profits.  Now see that's something productive to do in lieu of simply wringing your hands about the fate of Chuck Pennachio.  Suck it up, get Casey elected and go put some extra time and energy working for Planned Parenthood, NARAL, etc.  Then everybody wins ...

Savage's column runs weekly here in The City Paper.  You can also catch it online. 

PS:  Yes, I do recognize that the same advice applies to my previous whining about Casey's lack of LGBT outreach.  Suck it up, get him elected and go put some time and energy into working for a progressive LGBT political group ... or blog!   :-)