Hillary and smoking bans

[Cochise]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08282007/news/nationalnews/hill_eyes_national_cig_curb.htm

August 28, 2007 -- WASHINGTON - Hillary Clinton lavished praise on New York City's tough anti-smoking laws yesterday - and said she supports smoking bans in public places across the country.

Asked at an Iowa forum on cancer whether banning smoking in public places would be good for America, Clinton replied, "Well, personally, I think so. And that's what a lot of local communities and states are starting to do."

Clinton noted that when New York's smoking ban was being considered, critics claimed, "Oh, that's the end of, you know, the bars and restaurants in New York City."

But she boasted, "We are now having more business than ever before, because a lot of people who stayed away from going out are now going out again, because they feel like they can enjoy their time outside."

Asked whether the feds should impose a nationwide ban, Clinton deferred to local governments.

geoff.earle@nypost.com


I thought this was interesting. She says she's in favor of smoking bans in public places and speaks favorably of the bans in restaurants and bars. But what's telling here is that no one even has given a thought to banning smoking altogether.

Let's think this through - you have scientific consensus that it kills people. We've got no problem banning other things like industrial chemicals or pesticides or other harmful substances on that basis. In some cases it might be criminal to expose others to them. There are other organizations banning other things, like trans fats - some state fair I just read the other day has banned trans fats, and some major city wanted to ban them in restaurants I believe.

We make people obey speed limits because it creates some sort of perceived risk to go faster than 70, we make them wear seat belts to protect themselves, we make them get drivers licenses and get their cars inspected to supposedly insure they are safe. We arrest people for drunk driving even if they haven't hurt anyone else in the process.

If people need to be protected preemptively from this tobacco scourge, why not just outlaw it?

Well, of course, liberals can't bear to part with the tax revenue.

Taxes are about 25% on some of the more common products - in places like New Jersey the taxes come to more than $2.00 per pack. One estimate I found said that government takes 52% of the profits from tobacco sales. The money is spent supposedly on public health care programs or sent to the failing public school systems. But everyone knows that these programs would not shut down the day after smoking was finally banned.

Sometimes the "higher taxes reduce smoking" argument comes out - well, if that's true, why not make the taxes on them $10 per pack or $20? That would reduce smoking even more. But, that's if you take politicians at their word that they actually want people to stop smoking. Even better than the general public enjoying the blessing of uncontaminated respiration is the unrestriced flow of tobacco tax revenue into the coffers of government.

Let's not kid ourselves. If these folks were truly worried about public health instead of keeping the milk streaming from the cow, they'd either ban tobacco altogether or raise taxes so high it was impractical for anyone to smoke with any regularity. As always, taxes trump.

[Sully]

I understand your point, but I wonder what it has to do withbanning smoking in public places...

Seems like 2 different arguments.

[ENDelt260]

I don't think you do understand his point.

[Cochise]

I understand your point, but I wonder what it has to do withbanning smoking in public places...

Seems like 2 different arguments.

The point is that if they really cared about public health, they would ban smoking. But they won't do that because they care about tax revenue more.

[Sully]

So where's the windfall of cash they are getting for banning smoking one bar at a time?

That's the part that doesn't fit.

[Laz]

just proves there is nothing you won't blame liberals for


if they really did try and ban smoking completely you would be squealing like a little bitch about nanny governments.


hell .... if you want to really get down to it then what about guns. There only purpose is destruction. You see how some react to that.

bitch if they try to regulate
bitch if they don't regulate enough
bitch if they control ban
bitch if they don't just ban completely


why not just change your name to Bitch and be done with it.

[Cochise]

just proves there is nothing you won't blame liberals for


if they really did try and ban smoking completely you would be squealing like a little bitch about nanny governments.


hell .... if you want to really get down to it then what about guns. There only purpose is destruction. You see how some react to that.

bitch if they try to regulate
bitch if they don't regulate enough
bitch if they control ban
bitch if they don't just ban completely


why not just change your name to Bitch and be done with it.

I agree about the nanny-state stuff. The point is, don't act like your concern is public health when if you wanted to, you could protect just about everyone from ever dying of a smoking-related illness again.

I think that guns are a good example, actually. I think that many of these people would ban all guns if they thought they could do it and still retain office. The difference is that guns don't produce a steady stream of taxes, so they don't have a strong interest in keeping them around.

[Laz]

I agree about the nanny-state stuff. The point is, don't act like your concern is public health when if you wanted to, you could protect just about everyone from ever dying of a smoking-related illness again.

I think that guns are a good example, actually. I think that many of these people would ban all guns if they thought they could do it and still retain office. The difference is that guns don't produce a steady stream of taxes, so they don't have a strong interest in keeping them around.
i was in a pissy mood last night and overreacted.

sorry :(





you can still change your name to "Bitch" though :p

[frazod]

The bars that are getting crushed by this are the little blue-collar neighborhood places. The hip/trendy/yuppie shitholes are thriving. But, since those are the bars that garner all the attention, everybody thinks it's a great thing. Yet the small business owner of a neighborhood watering hole who's operated his bar for 30 years is losing his bar, his house and his ass because all of his smoking patrons (which was most of them) now stay home.

But none of this matters to the beautiful people. :whackit:

And NO, I don't smoke anymore, and have no problem with smoke-free establishments. But I do have a problem with facsism. There should be a choice, and that choice shouldn't be made by healthnazis or pandering twats like Hillary.

[Amnorix]

While I generally disagree with your stance, while seeing your point, I must fundamentally disagree with you here Cochise.

To draw a bit of a parallel, this is the difference between outlawing drinking and driving, and just drinking.

While smoking in public doesn't constitute the obvious and immediate threat of harm to others that drinking and driving does, it DOES have negative impact on others. That impact is both heatlh (second hand smoke) and simple comfort. While second-hand smoke doesn't bother me much, it drives my wife INSANE. She is very sensitive to it, and it affects her appetite immediately. She has absolutely no interest at all in being in a room where anyone is smoking.

Hillary's point here is valid -- smoke if you want to, but don't do it where other people are basically "forced" (if they want to enjoy whatever else is going on at that establishment) to share your smoke, in a confined area.

I also note that although some Democrats tend to nanny the populace "for their own good", other liberals want to give extreme latitude to people to do what they want, when and where they want, so long as it does not offend or harm others if you're talking about a public activity.

The decriminalization of marijuana, for example, is something that many liberals support. I would suggest, however, that even those liberals would not dispute that it would be valid for the government to bar smoking marijuana in all public places. The same thing goes here.

Your criticism of Hillary in this case, at least, I think is seriously mistaken.

Finally, I note that it would be silly for any candidate to suggest that she plans to make criminal the conduct of all smokers in this country. That opens a HUGE can of worms. Will the government fund treatment programs for the addicted? What would the punishment be for violation? Would we permit production/sale of cancer sticks for export overseas, or are we only going to ban use? That itself would put this country in the hypocritical position of exporting cancer sticks while saying they're too dangerous for our own citizens to use them.

And all of that is just the tip of teh iceberg.

[Laz]

The bars that are getting crushed by this are the little blue-collar neighborhood places. The hip/trendy/yuppie shitholes are thriving. But, since those are the bars that garner all the attention, everybody thinks it's a great thing. Yet the small business owner of a neighborhood watering hole who's operated his bar for 30 years is losing his bar, his house and his ass because all of his smoking patrons (which was most of them) now stay home.

But none of this matters to the beautiful people. :whackit:

And NO, I don't smoke anymore, and have no problem with smoke-free establishments. But I do have a problem with facsism. There should be a choice, and that choice shouldn't be made by healthnazis or pandering twats like Hillary.
you're just mad because you're not one of the "beautiful people"




ROFL ROFL



Jk :D

[BucEyedPea]

public places=govt owned
or
public places=privately owned but which serve the public and which public need not enter on a discretionary basis?

[frazod]

you're just mad because you're not one of the "beautiful people"




ROFL ROFL



Jk :D

Even back when I was young, thin, hairy and style conscious, I still hated those f#ckers. :)

[Cochise]

i was in a pissy mood last night and overreacted.

sorry :(

you can still change your name to "Bitch" though :p

Only if you change yours to Lass :p

[alanm]

The point is that if they really cared about public health, they would ban smoking. But they won't do that because they care about tax revenue more.
And in order to ensure that revenue you have to enable people to be able to use tobacco. All the anti smoking Nazis are going to have a conniption fit when loss of tobacco revenue suddenly shows up on their property taxes. :shake: But Hey.. it's what they want! :thumb:

[patteeu]

My wife led a smoking policy committee at the hospital where she works. It really turned her into a huge anti-smoking nazi. It's mildly embarrassing to tell you the truth.

[Cochise]

And in order to ensure that revenue you have to enable people to be able to use tobacco. All the anti smoking Nazis are going to have a conniption fit when loss of tobacco revenue suddenly shows up on their property taxes. :shake: But Hey.. it's what they want! :thumb:

Well, since by slush shuffling in most places they are able to say that the tobacco money funds health care or schools, if the money dries up they will say we need to raise something else, because of course these critical programs can't suffer... it's for the children...

[BucEyedPea]

Just wait to Hillary passes her universal health care...then the govt will really go to town in our personal lives about smoking, exercise, weight what we eat etc. Because we will be costing the govt too much money. It's just around the corner....courtesy of Bush!

[patteeu]

Just wait to Hillary passes her universal health care...then the govt will really go to town in our personal lives about smoking, exercise, weight what we eat etc. Because we will be costing the govt too much money. It's just around the corner....courtesy of Bush!

LMAO @ "courtesy of Bush!"

[BucEyedPea]

I added that for you guys. Tee-Hee! But t'is truth in it.

BTW, why do you make your wife work if you don't think woman should even have the right to vote or only women change diapers? Shouldn't she be a kept woman?

[patteeu]

I added that for you guys. Tee-Hee! But t'is truth in it.

BTW, why do you make your wife work if you don't think woman should even have the right to vote or only women change diapers? Shouldn't she be a kept woman?

Haha. I was just joking about the diapers. I have very little control over her in any event. She stubbornly clings to the idea that she's my equal.

[BucEyedPea]

You were joking about the diapers but not the right to vote?

[GoBobDole]

I agree about the nanny-state stuff. The point is, don't act like your concern is public health when if you wanted to, you could protect just about everyone from ever dying of a smoking-related illness again.


It's never been about the public health. It's about one faction of the public forcing their will on another.

If it was really about the public health, we'd put a limit on fat ****s buying high calorie foods, ban motorcycles, and put everyone in a big plastic bubble.

[D2112]

I smoked for 20 years, and have not touched a cigarette since Sept 2000. I still smoke cigars though.In the state I live in the no smoking law went into place in April 2006, I only noticed that my clothes didn't stink anymore when I'd come home from a bar, but other than that I hadn't really cared as long as the smoke wasn't blown in my face.

However, I just got back from Vegas and the second hand smoke was so bad that I was coughing and blowing my nose just like in the old days when I was smoking. when I got home it all went away. I've been to Vegas before with all that smoke, but it never effected me like it did this last time. so maybe these no smoking laws are a good thing.

FTR I was against the law in the beginning, but I support it now.

[NewPhin]

FYI: Huckabee is probably stricter on smoking than Hillary. A statewide smoking ban went into effect in Arkansas under Huckabee's watch.

I'm not insinuating that any of the cons in this thread are big Huck supporters. I'm just letting you all know.

[patteeu]

You were joking about the diapers but not the right to vote?

Er... no comment. :p

[Adept Havelock]

I'm not insinuating that any of the cons in this thread are big Huck supporters.

I don't care for Huck. I'd much rather his friend Jim had entered the race.

As for smoking bans, I quit years ago, but I think it's a pack of BS. Let each business owner decide for themselves. The dollars will follow the desires of the customers for Smoking or Non Smoking bars/restaurants.

[ENDelt260]

I smoked for 20 years, and have not touched a cigarette since Sept 2000. I still smoke cigars though.In the state I live in the no smoking law went into place in April 2006, I only noticed that my clothes didn't stink anymore when I'd come home from a bar, but other than that I hadn't really cared as long as the smoke wasn't blown in my face.

However, I just got back from Vegas and the second hand smoke was so bad that I was coughing and blowing my nose just like in the old days when I was smoking. when I got home it all went away. I've been to Vegas before with all that smoke, but it never effected me like it did this last time. so maybe these no smoking laws are a good thing.

FTR I was against the law in the beginning, but I support it now.
Maybe you should just not go to Vegas.

[Taco John]

As for smoking bans, I quit years ago, but I think it's a pack of BS. Let each business owner decide for themselves. The dollars will follow the desires of the customers for Smoking or Non Smoking bars/restaurants.


Yup. I don't even smoke (except for a cigar or two on poker night), and this is the way I see it. It should be up to the owner to cater to their crowd, and people can vote with their dollars.

[D2112]

Maybe you should just not go to Vegas.
**** that!

That's my favorite vacation destination. but I don't have to live there so they can keep the lawlessness the way it is. I like it.

[BucEyedPea]

I don't care for Huck. I'd much rather his friend Jim had entered the race.

As for smoking bans, I quit years ago, but I think it's a pack of BS. Let each business owner decide for themselves. The dollars will follow the desires of the customers for Smoking or Non Smoking bars/restaurants.
I think it was Village Inn restaurants that made their restaurants smoke free before the ban we had here. And Perkins round-robbined smoke free nights and smoking nights. I think if that's what the public wants, and I think many do, then restaurants have the flexibility to deal with it as they see fit to keep their public coming. Otherwise, be out of business.

Those that don't just have publics that don't mind.