Smoking Bans????

[ph4ever]

In 2004 in Madison a woman and her 4 year old grandaughter were killed by a driver because of cigarettes

That's not what's being discussed here, it's the effects of smoking.

I have to disagree - it is being discussed here and was previously brought up. Therefore it is revelant. The statement has been previously made that smokers did not cause auto accidents the way drunk drivers do.

[RinglingRingling]

liquor and tobacco... prices on beer and liquor here surged in response to a budget deficit the last two years. The Repubs in OH ran on a platform claiming their opponents were going to raise taxes once they were in office and scared everyone... of course, within a couple weeks of the election (after they were no longer in danger of being held accountable), talk about raising taxes on liquor, beer and wine, and cigarettes started and then the talk became reality. Evidently "sin taxes" are ok, and don't count against the "no new, and a lot lower taxes" crowd.

unfortunately you are right on the money

Now, don't get me wrong: I am not against increased taxes to balance a budget in combination with cuts in programs. If my home budget is showing some red ink, I have to find a way to cut costs and increase income, so doing it at the state level is not that hard a concept to master.

what I do have issues with is the disingeniousness of the process. If you lie to me, and you have a clear majority in the legislature and executive branches; you need to be held accountable and preferably treated in the same way that we as a society treat perjury in a court trial... and since it is public officialdom committing the perjury, the penalties should be excessively abusive and cruel to serve as a warning. But that would be me.

[Jahfin]

In 2004 in Madison a woman and her 4 year old grandaughter were killed by a driver because of cigarettes

That's not what's being discussed here, it's the effects of smoking.

Um, once again, you're wrong. I directly answered the statement that was brought up. It was an accident caused by cigarettes.

Not by the logic (or the apparent lack thereof) you're using. Going by your way of thinking the same case could be made for those stupid enough to spill hot coffee in their laps in fast food restaurant drive thrus.

I'm referring to the post that creates an analogy between the effects of smoking tobacco vs. consuming alcohol. The article you cite simply doesn't hold up because they could have dropped anything (including an alcoholic beverage) but in this instance is just so happens to be cigarettes.

[Jahfin]

In 2004 in Madison a woman and her 4 year old grandaughter were killed by a driver because of cigarettes

That's not what's being discussed here, it's the effects of smoking.

I have to disagree - it is being discussed here and was previously brought up. Therefore it is revelant. The statement has been previously made that smokers did not cause auto accidents the way drunk drivers do.

But I'm not referring to the careless of the driver, I'm referring to the effects of smoking vs. drinking which was addressed in the analogy earlier in this thread. The person in question could have dropped anything, it just so happened to be cigarettes. That's the result of that person's carelessness, it doesn't have a damn thing to do with the effects of cigarettes.

[7lords]

In 2004 in Madison a woman and her 4 year old grandaughter were killed by a driver because of cigarettes

That's not what's being discussed here, it's the effects of smoking.

Um, once again, you're wrong. I directly answered the statement that was brought up. It was an accident caused by cigarettes.

Not by the logic (or the apparent lack thereof) you're using. Going by your way of thinking the same case could be made for those stupid enough to spill hot coffee in their laps in fast food restaurant drive thrus.

I'm referring to the post that creates an analogy between the effects of smoking tobacco vs. consuming alcohol. The article you cite simply doesn't hold up because they could have dropped anything (including an alcoholic beverage) but in this instance is just so happens to be cigarettes.

You just don't understand a lot of things do you? Yes coffee or dropping something else COULD have caused it but the FACT is it WAS caused by cigarettes. It's not worth it Jah, say all you want, I won't buy it.

[sy]

In 2004 in Madison a woman and her 4 year old grandaughter were killed by a driver because of cigarettes

That's not what's being discussed here, it's the effects of smoking.

Um, once again, you're wrong. I directly answered the statement that was brought up. It was an accident caused by cigarettes.

Not by the logic (or the apparent lack thereof) you're using. Going by your way of thinking the same case could be made for those stupid enough to spill hot coffee in their laps in fast food restaurant drive thrus.

I'm referring to the post that creates an analogy between the effects of smoking tobacco vs. consuming alcohol. The article you cite simply doesn't hold up because they could have dropped anything (including an alcoholic beverage) but in this instance is just so happens to be cigarettes.

Smoking doesn't impair your ability to drive, unless you're so unbelievably taken by your cigarette that your attention is solely focused upon that. Cel phones do (for those who are attached to it and feel the need to talk the entire time they drive). Drinking does.

Accidents have been caused by people putting on makeup and staring in a mirror, same as someone having dropped a cigarette. Both are due to the inherent carelessness of the driver. Drinking scientifically impairs your driving, so that even if you want to focus on driving, you may not be able to.

I've dropped a cigarette a time or two in my car. I stomp on it and keep driving, or pull over. It's common sense. Same as if I drop my soda on my seat. I leave it, or pull over.

[Caribbean Soul Man]

Now, don't get me wrong: I am not against increased taxes to balance a budget in combination with cuts in programs. If my home budget is showing some red ink, I have to find a way to cut costs and increase income, so doing it at the state level is not that hard a concept to master.

several states pushing for these increases are flush with cash. Texas has plans to boost taxes by $10 a carton and I believe they currently have a $4+ billion budget surplus.

[Tiki Bar]

In 2004 in Madison a woman and her 4 year old grandaughter were killed by a driver because of cigarettes

That's not what's being discussed here, it's the effects of smoking.

I have to disagree - it is being discussed here and was previously brought up. Therefore it is revelant. The statement has been previously made that smokers did not cause auto accidents the way drunk drivers do.

But I'm not referring to the careless of the driver, I'm referring to the effects of smoking vs. drinking which was addressed in the analogy earlier in this thread. The person in question could have dropped anything, it just so happened to be cigarettes. That's the result of that person's carelessness, it doesn't have a damn thing to do with the effects of cigarettes.

In my opinion, it's perfectly logical, and relevant based on previous comments made about drinking and driving, but that's just me.

And I for one get high / lightheaded from smoking cigarettes, so I'd be just as dangerous driving after smoking as I am after drinking a beer.

[Cubbie Bear]

I am an ex smoker and I have just buried my father from the long term effects of +65 years of smoking. Also I am a former bar and restaurnat manager. So, I can see the side of the fox and appreciate the side of the hound (to paraphrase Richard Blain)

First, with the information there has been out about smoking since approximately 1965, there should be no smokers under 55, if there were any common sense what so ever. Believe me, if I had watched anyone suffer, before I started smoking, like my father did the last 5 years or so, I never would have conisdered starting.

Since there is no sense involved in this issue, we are left to deal with the fact that approximately 8.7%* of Americans still smoke. Civil liberties and freedom of choice are important, but do the rights of 8.7% of Americans supercede the rights of 91.3% of the country? Most of the laws do allow for "private clubs" to allow smoking and there has been a dramatic increase in these type of establishments, with the passing of smokong bans. Therefore, since the overal vast majority of Americans are non-smokers, I support smoking bans 100%, as long as they give those who are smokers a modicum amount of rights as well.

As an ex smoker, I find smoke much more ofensive than I had previously. I remember as a kid, the smell of the fluid from the Zippo lighter and the first few puffs of Dad's Pall Mall's being alluring. Couple that with people like John Wayne, Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, James Bond (Sean) almost always having one in hand, I can see why my generation had so many smokers.

What I don't understand is the spike in smoking during the late 80's and 90's when the evidence was totally conclusive as to the dangers of smoking. That shows what the power of peer pressure can do to sound judgement. While I was fortunate and quit rather easily, some 20 years later, I still have cravings. I understand for many, quiting is not a "simple solution"

The dangers of "second hand smoke" can be debated forever, but I have seen too many non-smokers dying from previously thought "smoking related illness" to debate it in my mind. So again, I am in favor of bans that respect rights to a degree.

As a former bar and restaurant manager, I have seen establishments burn to the ground (owned by friends) due to the deadly combination of smokers being drunk. So if a ban covers an area large enough, I would have had no problem with the ban as an owner/manager. I have friends who had places in Skokie, who felt that people were just crossing Howard Street into Chicago and leaving their business. They fought it tooth and nail, I understand their point of view entirely. Now that it is county wide (or at least City of Chicago) their business is back to where it was previously.

As too "Sin Taxes". If people are not smart enough to stop themselves (smoking and drinking) I have no problem with trying to price them out of it. I have a friend who is a Bud Distributor. A-B products true cost since I stopped buying kegs at $16.95 each have not gone up anymore than the rate of inflation. That means a keg should be about $25-30 now. However, in our area, they are pushing $75-80 and it is all federal, state and local tax. Thats is OK, I have probably built several schools with liquor taxes AND it has also helped me keep my drinking somewhat in line (I am compulsive) Also, just so you know, I stopped smoking when they went from 45 cents to 55 cents in the machine in my bar. (I am a cheap b@stard too)

*March stats from American Heart Association

[Cubbie Bear]

In 2004 in Madison a woman and her 4 year old grandaughter were killed by a driver because of cigarettes

That's not what's being discussed here, it's the effects of smoking.

Um, once again, you're wrong. I directly answered the statement that was brought up. It was an accident caused by cigarettes.

Not by the logic (or the apparent lack thereof) you're using. Going by your way of thinking the same case could be made for those stupid enough to spill hot coffee in their laps in fast food restaurant drive thrus.

I'm referring to the post that creates an analogy between the effects of smoking tobacco vs. consuming alcohol. The article you cite simply doesn't hold up because they could have dropped anything (including an alcoholic beverage) but in this instance is just so happens to be cigarettes.

Smoking doesn't impair your ability to drive, unless you're so unbelievably taken by your cigarette that your attention is solely focused upon that. Cel phones do (for those who are attached to it and feel the need to talk the entire time they drive). Drinking does.

Accidents have been caused by people putting on makeup and staring in a mirror, same as someone having dropped a cigarette. Both are due to the inherent carelessness of the driver. Drinking scientifically impairs your driving, so that even if you want to focus on driving, you may not be able to.

I've dropped a cigarette a time or two in my car. I stomp on it and keep driving, or pull over. It's common sense. Same as if I drop my soda on my seat. I leave it, or pull over.

Several states are considering "distracted driving" legislation and I applaude them. The drafts I have seen would lump smoking, drink of any beverage, eating, cell phones and yes....that b*tch that almost hit me Thursday, putting her freaking eye makeup on, as driving distractions and ban all of them.

[sy]

Several states are considering "distracted driving" legislation and I applaude them. The drafts I have seen would lump smoking, drink of any beverage, eating, cell phones and yes....that b*tch that almost hit me Thursday, putting her freaking eye makeup on, as driving distractions and ban all of them.

and as a smoker who does most of her smoking in the car, I would wholeheartedly support any ban like that if it encompassed all of that.

[RinglingRingling]

Now, don't get me wrong: I am not against increased taxes to balance a budget in combination with cuts in programs. If my home budget is showing some red ink, I have to find a way to cut costs and increase income, so doing it at the state level is not that hard a concept to master.

several states pushing for these increases are flush with cash. Texas has plans to boost taxes by $10 a carton and I believe they currently have a $4+ billion budget surplus.

I wonder who has the majority in that legislature...

[Caribbean Soul Man]

Smoking doesn't impair your ability to drive, unless you're so unbelievably taken by your cigarette that your attention is solely focused upon that. Cel phones do (for those who are attached to it and feel the need to talk the entire time they drive). Drinking does.

Accidents have been caused by people putting on makeup and staring in a mirror, same as someone having dropped a cigarette. Both are due to the inherent carelessness of the driver. Drinking scientifically impairs your driving, so that even if you want to focus on driving, you may not be able to.

I've dropped a cigarette a time or two in my car. I stomp on it and keep driving, or pull over. It's common sense. Same as if I drop my soda on my seat. I leave it, or pull over.

I've been behind people reading and driving at the same time, putting on makeup, eating and talking on the phone while driving, etc. I've also seen a driver who caused a bad wreck to avoid a squirrel...yes a freaking squirrel! There are plenty of numbskulls out there who get distracted while driving but we're not talking about jacking up the price of mascara or putting a 200% tax on lipstick to discourage its use while driving.

My whole point earlier when I brought up the fact that the smoking / beer drinking analogy was poor is that while some people claim that smoking may have cumulative effects over time, there's no need for cumulative effects if you get struck and killed by a drunk driver with little warning and zero time to react. And for the record, I'm sure deer kill more people in cars every year than smokers fumbling for a dropped cigarette...

[Caribbean Soul Man]

I wonder who has the majority in that legislature...

yep you're right. more feel-good politics and neither party has a monopoly on symbolism over substance. a little conservatism never hurt anyone - GOP or Dem

[Jahfin]

In 2004 in Madison a woman and her 4 year old grandaughter were killed by a driver because of cigarettes

That's not what's being discussed here, it's the effects of smoking.

Um, once again, you're wrong. I directly answered the statement that was brought up. It was an accident caused by cigarettes.

Not by the logic (or the apparent lack thereof) you're using. Going by your way of thinking the same case could be made for those stupid enough to spill hot coffee in their laps in fast food restaurant drive thrus.

I'm referring to the post that creates an analogy between the effects of smoking tobacco vs. consuming alcohol. The article you cite simply doesn't hold up because they could have dropped anything (including an alcoholic beverage) but in this instance is just so happens to be cigarettes.

You just don't understand a lot of things do you? Yes coffee or dropping something else COULD have caused it but the FACT is it WAS caused by cigarettes. It's not worth it Jah, say all you want, I won't buy it.

But I'm not referring to the carelessness of the driver in the instance you cite, I'm referring to the effects of cigarettes on one's health vs. those of consuming alcohol which was addressed in the analogy earlier in this thread.

[12 lb. nestle crunch]

You have a pleasure you like to partake in....smoking.
The residue from your pleasure is smoke.
It gets in my hair and my clothes, not to mention my lungs.

I have a pleasure, also.
I like to drink beer.
The residue from MY pleasure is urine.
Would YOU like it if I stood on a chair, and p*** on your hair, clothes, and up your nose?

there are folks who would pay for that service you know...

R. Kelly

[springparrot]

I am an ex smoker and I have just buried my father from the long term effects of +65 years of smoking. Also I am a former bar and restaurnat manager. So, I can see the side of the fox and appreciate the side of the hound (to paraphrase Richard Blain)

First, with the information there has been out about smoking since approximately 1965, there should be no smokers under 55, if there were any common sense what so ever. Believe me, if I had watched anyone suffer, before I started smoking, like my father did the last 5 years or so, I never would have conisdered starting.

Since there is no sense involved in this issue, we are left to deal with the fact that approximately 8.7%* of Americans still smoke. Civil liberties and freedom of choice are important, but do the rights of 8.7% of Americans supercede the rights of 91.3% of the country? Most of the laws do allow for "private clubs" to allow smoking and there has been a dramatic increase in these type of establishments, with the passing of smokong bans. Therefore, since the overal vast majority of Americans are non-smokers, I support smoking bans 100%, as long as they give those who are smokers a modicum amount of rights as well.

As an ex smoker, I find smoke much more ofensive than I had previously. I remember as a kid, the smell of the fluid from the Zippo lighter and the first few puffs of Dad's Pall Mall's being alluring. Couple that with people like John Wayne, Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, James Bond (Sean) almost always having one in hand, I can see why my generation had so many smokers.

What I don't understand is the spike in smoking during the late 80's and 90's when the evidence was totally conclusive as to the dangers of smoking. That shows what the power of peer pressure can do to sound judgement. While I was fortunate and quit rather easily, some 20 years later, I still have cravings. I understand for many, quiting is not a "simple solution"

The dangers of "second hand smoke" can be debated forever, but I have seen too many non-smokers dying from previously thought "smoking related illness" to debate it in my mind. So again, I am in favor of bans that respect rights to a degree.

As a former bar and restaurant manager, I have seen establishments burn to the ground (owned by friends) due to the deadly combination of smokers being drunk. So if a ban covers an area large enough, I would have had no problem with the ban as an owner/manager. I have friends who had places in Skokie, who felt that people were just crossing Howard Street into Chicago and leaving their business. They fought it tooth and nail, I understand their point of view entirely. Now that it is county wide (or at least City of Chicago) their business is back to where it was previously.

As too "Sin Taxes". If people are not smart enough to stop themselves (smoking and drinking) I have no problem with trying to price them out of it. I have a friend who is a Bud Distributor. A-B products true cost since I stopped buying kegs at $16.95 each have not gone up anymore than the rate of inflation. That means a keg should be about $25-30 now. However, in our area, they are pushing $75-80 and it is all federal, state and local tax. Thats is OK, I have probably built several schools with liquor taxes AND it has also helped me keep my drinking somewhat in line (I am compulsive) Also, just so you know, I stopped smoking when they went from 45 cents to 55 cents in the machine in my bar. (I am a cheap b@stard too)

*March stats from American Heart Association

[ToplessRideFL]

Civil liberties and freedom of choice are important, but do the rights of 8.7% of Americans supercede the rights of 91.3% of the country?

The people coming illegally in the country is what percentage? Under 1-2% the last time I looked.... they seem to have a pretty big voice these days.....

Just pointing out that while 8.7% of the country may be smokers, they are still free, over 21, tax paying citizans who deserve respect and compromise just like the other 90%.

That said, I am all for clean air in buildings and restaurants....I can even live with no smoking in a bar...... but to tell someone they cannot smoke on the sidewalk or a park or the beach....where no harm will come to others.... is a bit aggressive.

[springparrot]

Civil liberties and freedom of choice are important, but do the rights of 8.7% of Americans supercede the rights of 91.3% of the country?

The people coming illegally in the country is what percentage? Under 1-2% the last time I looked.... they seem to have a pretty big voice these days.....

Just pointing out that while 8.7% of the country may be smokers, they are still free, over 21, tax paying citizans who deserve respect and compromise just like the other 90%.

That said, I am all for clean air in buildings and restaurants....I can even live with no smoking in a bar...... but to tell someone they cannot smoke on the sidewalk or a park or the beach....where no harm will come to others.... is a bit aggressive.

But sometime that person you are walking by on the beach has asthma.
And harm does come to them....now what?

[Cubbie Bear]

Civil liberties and freedom of choice are important, but do the rights of 8.7% of Americans supercede the rights of 91.3% of the country?

The people coming illegally in the country is what percentage? Under 1-2% the last time I looked.... they seem to have a pretty big voice these days.....

Just pointing out that while 8.7% of the country may be smokers, they are still free, over 21, tax paying citizans who deserve respect and compromise just like the other 90%.

That said, I am all for clean air in buildings and restaurants....I can even live with no smoking in a bar...... but to tell someone they cannot smoke on the sidewalk or a park or the beach....where no harm will come to others.... is a bit aggressive.

Quote Me: "as long as they give those who are smokers a modicum amount of rights as well. "