Political Action Against Anti-Smoking Efforts (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

pinksugarsub -> Political Action Against Anti-Smoking Efforts (6/17/2008 3:11:18 AM)

i belong to some political action groups that monitor the activities of various levels of government, and oppose increases in 'sin taxes' on tobacco products as well as other anti-smoking efforts.

i find it very easy to participate; most groups have well-designed web sites that automatically locate Y/yr state representatives, etc.

Here's a link to many Smokers' Rights Groups:

http://www.nycclash.com/SmokerGroups.html
 
P/pl become 'activists' in the 'Smokers' Rights' arena for different reasons.

Some P/pl smoke, and are directly affected by increases in 'sin taxes' on tobacco products and other restrictions on their rights.

i belong to this catagory of activist.

Some P/pl oppose the folly of all levels of governments' growing dependency on 'sin taxes' (of all types) to fund recurring budget items, like education, corrections, etc.

Yup, i belong to ths segemt too.

Some P/pl's iivelihood is tied to tobacco use.

Some P/pl don't smoke but perceive the growing trend towards loss of the rights of smokers as part of a larger trend towards less and less liberty and privacy for E/everyone.

Well, i smoke, but i agree with these activists.

Obviously, some P/pl are in favor any anti-smoking action, not matter how extreme, because T/they depise tobacco use.

Please don't post about Y/yr personal hatred of smoking or smokers.

It's not the purpose of this Op to stimulate yet another thread on smoking.

Rather the sole purpose of this Op is to inform and encourage political action in the 'Smokers' Rights' arena by those W/who may oppose such government action.

pinksugarsub



pahunkboy -> RE: Political Action Against Anti-Smoking Efforts (6/17/2008 4:51:48 AM)

i live in an area where everyone smokes.  i am glad smoking doesnt happen in hospitals, stores. 

i dont see no smoking laws working here.  it is so engrained in the mentality.

i complain about air quality - which includes filthy desiel.    to be sure even when a good converstion has started and i as a non smoker migrate to the smokers area i get the why are you here looks.

on the one hand i dont like to smell it.  on the other i do feel govt should stay out of peoples lives.    practically speaking i am a loner and no one [as i get older] is worth me weazing over.   no disrespect- i tend to keep to myself.  

in terms of sin taxes i dont think we can go much higher so as to triggar a black market.... and defeat the purpose of the tax.



MmeGigs -> RE: Political Action Against Anti-Smoking Efforts (6/17/2008 4:51:51 AM)

I'm a smoker.  I don't think that smoking is a right.  I don't have a problem with most of the restrictions, and I don't think that they're the start down a slippery slope.  I don't really have a problem with the "sin tax" either.  The cigarette taxes come from the same place deductions for mortgage interest and working family credits come from.  Like it or not, tax policy isn't just about raising money, it's about social engineering. 



Aileen1968 -> RE: Political Action Against Anti-Smoking Efforts (6/17/2008 5:00:25 AM)

Cough.
I'm sooo glad NJ banned smoking in restaurants and bars.
I no longer go out to dinner and come out smelling like an ashtray.
Remember way back when people could smoke on airplanes?  International flights...  That was pleasant.
No sympathy here.



Smith117 -> RE: Political Action Against Anti-Smoking Efforts (6/17/2008 6:32:11 AM)

I just find it funny that everyone 'for' smokers' rights seem to be 'for' them over the rights of everyone else.



KatyLied -> RE: Political Action Against Anti-Smoking Efforts (6/17/2008 6:36:47 AM)

quote:

I just find it funny that everyone 'for' smokers' rights seem to be 'for' them over the rights of everyone else.


Yeah, sorry, but my right to breathe is a bit more important than your right to feed your addiction.



Smith117 -> RE: Political Action Against Anti-Smoking Efforts (6/17/2008 6:56:31 AM)

Don't look at me katy, I agree with you. I'm allergic to smoke so for me it's more than a preference thing.



pahunkboy -> RE: Political Action Against Anti-Smoking Efforts (6/17/2008 7:44:17 AM)

I do notice that of the folks I know who smoke, almost none of them do so inside their own house.   



pahunkboy -> RE: Political Action Against Anti-Smoking Efforts (6/17/2008 7:50:33 AM)

Here in rural PA we have a nasty practice of burning household garbage.    Ive had more problems with that seeping inside my place then other...

Supposedly it is only paper- but paper is recyclable, and one is required to recycle.   So no compliance tracking....means plastics, diapers, you name it gets tossed into burn barrel.   This practice is even worse in the country.  A party might let the barrel simmer all day,  drenching anyone downwind for many hours.

There is nothing that can be done about it.   Even when it is banned in one town, it blows over from the next.  This might have been ok 50 years ago- but there are more people now....and more plastics.

People seem to think they have a "right" to burn.

I should mention garbage fees are expensive.   $3.50 per bag...and talk of charging by the pound.

Summer has just started and we have had 4 ozone days here already.





MissSCD -> RE: Political Action Against Anti-Smoking Efforts (6/17/2008 7:55:33 AM)

While it is nice to be involved for a good cause, the individal has the right to determine whether they live or die.  I know because I am 48, and have quit smoking 5 times.  I quit once for 15 years.
Then I had the divorce, and started back up.  I quit when I had  my hystrectomy almost two years ago.
I can tell you one thing.   No one is going to listen to you until they decide on their own to quit.
I believe in regulated smoking areas.  High taxes.  Anything to make it more difficult to smoke.
Keep up the good work with the site.  That is really going to make someone quit. 
The best way, is to hang out with a lot of non smokers.  The temptation is not there.

Regards, MissSCD



Leatherist -> RE: Political Action Against Anti-Smoking Efforts (6/17/2008 8:25:28 AM)

You right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.
 
That's all that these laws are about-you not risking the health of others with poor health choices. It's perfectly appropriate.



BossyShoeBitch -> RE: Political Action Against Anti-Smoking Efforts (6/17/2008 8:34:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aileen1968

Cough.
I'm sooo glad NJ banned smoking in restaurants and bars.
I no longer go out to dinner and come out smelling like an ashtray.
Remember way back when people could smoke on airplanes?  International flights...  That was pleasant.
No sympathy here.

Ugh.. I am with you there. In college I used to sit in my closet and smoke and study.  My poor clothes!
If smoking restrictions had not been enacted by the gov't, it would have been much harder for me to quit when I did. 

Here is something I wrote last year about smoking that pretty much sums up how I feel about the subject..
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=1033004



MusicalBoredom -> RE: Political Action Against Anti-Smoking Efforts (6/17/2008 8:37:32 AM)

So one of the things I do is own a coffee shop/bar/restaurant.  We sell more booze than food so qualify as a bar.  The laws passed here on smoking and made smoking illegal in restaurants but legal in bars.  The whole thing was always silly really. 

There were always coffee shops where smoking was allowed and coffee shops where smoking wasn't allowed.  Those that smoked went the the ones that allowed it and those that didn't went to the ones that prohibited it.  Basically the patrons dictated what was allowed by their spending habits.  The absurd thing was when some non-smoker would come in and raise a big stink over smoking being allowed.  Maybe that person came in once or twice a year.  There are plenty of places that didn't allow smoking so why should every place ban it just in case they wanted to go there some day.  It really didn't make any sense and didn't really need any legislation. 

If you don't like smoke go to a non-smoking establishment.  If you do smoke go to one that allows it.  Places don't need to be required to allow smoking or prohibited from allowing it -- the economics of the client base will make it happen.



Smith117 -> RE: Political Action Against Anti-Smoking Efforts (6/17/2008 9:04:31 AM)

It's not that simple, Musical. The simplest law of capitalism means you try to do the most business you can do. Most places operate on what drives the business and, therefore, would not close their doors to an entire group of people voluntarily. If given the choice, they would allow smoking, which would then mean nons-smokers would have nowhere to go.
 
The best option is for smokers to ditch their ego and fight the urge to light up for the length of time it takes to eat, drink, etc. Because this is fact: smokers and nonsmokers can coexist in a non-smoking establishment. The smoker just has to induldge their addiction another time. The same cannot be said in reverse. If a non-smoker doesn't wish to be around smoke, he cannot coexist in an establishment that allows smoking.
 
The laws are not saying smokers can't go into a non-smoking place. The laws say they can't smoke in them. They are still, then, free to enjoy the same food, drink, and friendship that everyone else can, they just have to excuse themselves to smoke. However, with the rules of capitalism being what they are, to not have such laws means you effectively force non-smokers to make a choice between going out and not going out, because if it weren't for the laws, every business person worth a damn would allow smoking because in their minds, it allows the largest amount of people in at once.



KatyLied -> RE: Political Action Against Anti-Smoking Efforts (6/17/2008 9:18:46 AM)

quote:

so why should every place ban it just in case they wanted to go there some day. It really didn't make any sense and didn't really need any legislation.


There are these things called employees, who should have an expectation that their health is not compromised by their employer.



MusicalBoredom -> RE: Political Action Against Anti-Smoking Efforts (6/17/2008 9:53:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KatyLied

quote:

so why should every place ban it just in case they wanted to go there some day. It really didn't make any sense and didn't really need any legislation.


There are these things called employees, who should have an expectation that their health is not compromised by their employer.



Thanks for the hypothetical but in this case all employees here smoke as do most bar tenders that I know personally (not a claim for some national stat or anything just among the people I know).  Also, the market for bars and restaurants is very good here and people can choose which place they want to work in.  I think people should not have to work or eat or be around smoke if they choose.  I just also think that there enough places that if people do choose to do so there should be places that are free to allow it. 

Smith, nearly 80% of the restaurants here were non-smoking before there was a ban.  Those place made their decisions based on their customer base and employee base without the need for laws or legislation.  The reason they made the choice (I asked the owners where I could) was that there are more non-smokers than smokers and they could capture a larger market but advertising a "smoke-free" environment.

For the record, I quit smoking some time ago.



DesFIP -> RE: Political Action Against Anti-Smoking Efforts (6/17/2008 10:06:36 AM)

The problem here is that for uninsured smokers, I the taxpayer will be paying for their lung cancer surgery, chemo, radiation, nursing home care.

I have no interest in picking up the tab for your vices pink. Same as for helmet laws for motorcycles. You don't want to wear a helmet, then you ought to be required to have 5 to 10 million in insurance to pay for 40 years in a head trauma facility.

You don't get to charge me for your stupidity. So unless you're willing to get cancer, and die on the streets because you have no money for care, then no, the vices tax should remain.



Smith117 -> RE: Political Action Against Anti-Smoking Efforts (6/17/2008 10:25:02 AM)

That's a good point. Can't gripe about the vice tax when taxes are how the ininsured get medical care.



MusicalBoredom -> RE: Political Action Against Anti-Smoking Efforts (6/17/2008 10:31:25 AM)

I'm perfectly ok with cig taxes for exactly the reasons you mention.  Those taxes do exist here but I'm not sure about elsewhere.  I also have to point out that most states won HUGE settlements against the tobacco companies for just the reasons you mentioned.  Of course it shouldn't' surprise anyone that most of that money is spent on things other than the causes they used to justify the taxes and judgments.  (Not that I can really figure out what they actually spend any money on.)



kdsub -> RE: Political Action Against Anti-Smoking Efforts (6/17/2008 10:43:02 AM)

I am just wondering why you have an aversion to sin taxes?... I see nothing wrong with them as long as they are voted on by the majority.

Butch



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125