National Smoking Ban?

[zodiac66]

The vast majority of taxes are not earmarked for a single purpose. Most tobacco taxes go into government budgets, so you can't say 10 cents from this pack of cigarettes is going to help buy an iron lung for Washington Heights Public Health Clinic on Main Street. But you can say that X amount of money is going to the local budget. And X amount of money will be spent on public health.

Aside from that, increased taxes lead to lower smoking rates, which in turn leads to lower medical costs. And since the cost of smoking to society far outweighs any tax revenue it provides, the indirect benefits outweigh the direct benefits.

Isn't that all federal? Everytime a new arena comes into the pic..smokes go up. Lower medical costs for whom? Are you speaking of insurance rates? That is a non-issue here..this is a sin tax. Please tell me exactly how the counties who implement said SIN tax use that money for the health care of smokers.

Maybe I am mistaken, but please provide me a link that states that local governments pay for healthcare of smokers.

If you are going to use the arguement that the sin taxes of county governments fund healthcare for smokers..I need to see a bit of proof. Honestly, I would like for you to provide me some sort of documentation that the sin tax in Cuyahoga County Ohio goes towards health care for smokers.

I doubt if you can. Jacob's Field was built way before a smoking ban was in effect..but we paid for the building of it through sin taxes due to the tax abatements.

 

[Talga Vasternich]

Aside from that, increased taxes lead to lower smoking rates, which in turn leads to lower medical costs. And since the cost of smoking to society far outweighs any tax revenue it provides, the indirect benefits outweigh the direct benefits.

You're looking only at the direct and indirect costs of smoking. Don't forget about the direct and indirect benefits tobacco provides (see previous posts)
Ask any restaurant or tavern owner in Chicago's northern suburbs if this ban benefits their business. Also, the Tavern League in Wisconsin has shown the State legislature and many local gub'mints economic impact studies proving the loss of businesses and employment that such bans would create.

 

[Ranger14]

Glad you caught the references. There are a bunch of studies listed in the research and facts link that cover more than just taxation and health care costs.

Stevinator, we will just have to agree to disagree. Here in the Phoenix area there are a few 'burbs that have a ban on smoking dictated by the city. It has not impacted the business. I am very safe in saying that the majority of clubs and bars in the Phoenix metro voluntarily have no smoking policies implemented now and they have no trouble getting business. The only ones that do allow it still are the some of the "hole in the walls". Nothing wrong with that, but places I avoid now due to the smoking and it never seems to be too hopping in those places here anyway.

I went to a Denny's the other evening as I was craving one of their breakfast skillets. I requested non-smoking and I was seated 20 feet from the smoking section. I requested to be moved further from that section. It still was unbearable so I left. You say I don't have to go places that allow smoking and I say you don't have to go to places that don't allow smoking. Pretty much an impass.

 

[zodiac66]

It should be the business owner's decision period.

If I want to go out to eat and the restaurant is non-smoking, I don't have a problem. I smoke..I can do without it for 5 hours or so. The only problem I would have is if it were a social situation..where the need for indepth discussion is needed. That kind of ban would be up to the business owner..not the government.

 

[Dondrei]

Varje svensk medborgare är gentemot det allmänna tillförsäkrad rätt enligt denna grundlag att i ljudradio, television och vissa liknande överföringar samt filmer, videogram, ljudupptagningar och andra tekniska upptagningar offentligen uttrycka tankar, åsikter och känslor och i övrigt lämna uppgifter i vilket ämne som helst. Yttrandefriheten enligt denna grundlag har till ändamål att säkra ett fritt meningsutbyte, en fri och allsidig upplysning och ett fritt konstnärligt skapande. I den får inga andra begränsningar göras än de som följer av denna grundlag.
Vad som sägs i grundlagen om radioprogram gäller förutom program i ljudradio också program i television och innehållet i vissa andra överföringar av ljud, bild eller text som sker med hjälp av elektromagnetiska vågor.
Med tekniska upptagningar avses i denna grundlag upptagningar som innehåller text, bild eller ljud och som kan läsas, avlyssnas eller på annat sätt uppfattas endast med tekniskt hjälpmedel.
Med databas avses i denna grundlag en samling av information lagrad för automatiserad behandling.

Man, I wish my constitution had diacritical marks in it.

 

[Talga Vasternich]

Glad you caught the references. There are a bunch of studies listed in the research and facts link that cover more than just taxation and health care costs.

we will just have to agree to disagree.

Yeah, you're right.

It's a personal/government issue to smokers, non-smokers, and anti-smokers alike... just one that makes me believe that it's a small step from banning smoking in privately owned businesses to privately owned anything.
Someone before brought up the question of smoking in the presence of minor children. I doubt anyone would argue that this is good, but if banning smoking in workplaces protects employees, then doesn't the government then have the DUTY to protect those children and ban smoking in homes with children?
or elderly?
then to protect me from myself?(for the greater good, of course)
small steps that beg the questions; what's next? and who decides?

 

[Stevinator]

Yeah, you're right.

It's a personal/government issue to smokers, non-smokers, and anti-smokers alike... just one that makes me believe that it's a small step from banning smoking in privately owned businesses to privately owned anything.
Someone before brought up the question of smoking in the presence of minor children. I doubt anyone would argue that this is good, but if banning smoking in workplaces protects employees, then doesn't the government then have the DUTY to protect those children and ban smoking in homes with children?
or elderly?
then to protect me from myself?(for the greater good, of course)
small steps that beg the questions; what's next? and who decides?

congradualtions, you finally see where this is eventually headed. I'm not going to claim this is some big slippery slope conspiracy, but I will say from the venom you hear on this issue, you could easily see a complete ban on tobacco within our lifetimes. it is inevitable, government will continually erode at our rights and freedoms until the breaking point is reached. Populism is bad for America.

 

[Anakha1]

People that put anything remotely harmful in their bodies, generally don't affect anyone but themselves. Have at it. No problem whatsoever with that. When you are doing somethat that goes outside of harming yourself in public and it harms me and other people, that is a whole other issue. You have your choice to eat a candy bar, fried chicken...knock yourself out. That is your choice. When your choice affects other people around you and harms them, then something needs to be done. That is why there are laws against being drunk in public, DUI, etc. I just don't get why people can't see the difference.

I don't have a problem with not smoking in restaurants and bars. I like an excuse to go outside and have a smoke. Just as long as I can still smoke outside. I'm frankly just sick of people acting like they're better than smokers based on that quality alone. I'm also not going to stop smoking in public places in open air. That's where I draw the line and others can just deal with it. You'll get more pollution in your lungs from passing cars than passing me on the sidewalk with a smoke.

 

[Stoopid_NewB]

Isn't that all federal? Everytime a new arena comes into the pic..smokes go up. Lower medical costs for whom? Are you speaking of insurance rates? That is a non-issue here..this is a sin tax. Please tell me exactly how the counties who implement said SIN tax use that money for the health care of smokers.

Maybe I am mistaken, but please provide me a link that states that local governments pay for healthcare of smokers.

If you are going to use the arguement that the sin taxes of county governments fund healthcare for smokers..I need to see a bit of proof. Honestly, I would like for you to provide me some sort of documentation that the sin tax in Cuyahoga County Ohio goes towards health care for smokers.

I doubt if you can. Jacob's Field was built way before a smoking ban was in effect..but we paid for the building of it through sin taxes due to the tax abatements.

Are you being intentionally obtuse? I never said all taxes on tobacco go directly to healthcare. I said that's one of many good reasons to tax cigarettes. The fact is, tax money from cigarettes does go to fund healthcare. But the costs to the healthcare system outweighs the revenue raised as has already been demonstrated. And for the sake of redundancy, here's tax in Oregon where the money was specifically earmarked for healthcare.

http://www.blueoregon.com/2005/07/big_tobacco_and.html

 

[Stoopid_NewB]

You're looking only at the direct and indirect costs of smoking. Don't forget about the direct and indirect benefits tobacco provides (see previous posts)
Ask any restaurant or tavern owner in Chicago's northern suburbs if this ban benefits their business. Also, the Tavern League in Wisconsin has shown the State legislature and many local gub'mints economic impact studies proving the loss of businesses and employment that such bans would create.

You're only looking at myth, while I'm looking at reality.

Although one of the most common sources of resistance to bans comes from businesses concerned that they will suffer financial losses due to lost customers, research seems to offer them some reassurances.
In Ireland, the main opposition was from publicans, along with a minority of pub-goers. The Irish workplace ban was introduced with the intent of protecting others, particularly workers, from passive smoking ("secondhand smoke"). By and large, since the ban's introduction it has become accepted, due in part to "outdoor" arrangements at many pubs (involving heated areas with shelters). It is viewed as a success by the government and much of the public, and many other European governments are considering similar legislation. Public health lobbyists in Northern Ireland have lobbied for a similar ban there also.[citation needed]
Ireland's Office of Tobacco Control website indicates that "An evaluation of the official hospitality sector data shows there has been no adverse economic effect from the introduction of this measure (the March 2004 national ban on smoking in bars, restaurants, etc). Bar retail sales in volume terms have increased during the last three-month period (year-on-year) following a four-year decline. The numbers employed in this sector in the first quarter of this year have increased to 23,200 — up 1,400 from the previous quarter. This represents the most significant quarterly increase in employment since the second quarter of 2002."[13] Thus, even in a country with a relatively high percentage of smokers, the smoking ban did not seem to have a negative effect on business in bars or restaurants.
According to the 2004 Zagat Survey, which polled nearly 30,000 New York City restaurant patrons, by a margin of almost 6 to 1, respondents said that they eat out more often now because of the city's smoke-free policy.[14] Thus, research generally indicates that business incomes are stable (or even improved) after smoking bans are enacted, and many customers appreciate the improved air quality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban

 

[Talga Vasternich]

That may work in Ireland, but the enclosed outdoor areas you refer to would be against American anti-smoking bans.
This will be my last post in this thread. No one has convinced me that the gub'mint has the right to tell a private property owner that they cannot allow a legal activity on their property.
(sigh) someone will say that the government has the right to impose its will concerning safety issues for employees and will be wrong, since the OSHA requirement is direct injury or death due to employer action or inaction - OSHA Compliance Guide - 13th Edition (2004)~published by Aspen publishing
(access to this information is a benefit of having worked as a QA/Safety Manager for 10 years):thumbsup:

 

[Bowsen]

(sigh) someone will say that the government has the right to impose its will concerning safety issues for employees and will be wrong, since the OSHA requirement is direct injury or death due to employer action or inaction

I imagine exposure to Asbestos and Carcegenic substances is covered by some form of leglislation - and the effects of these are normally only felt years later.

 

[SaroDarksbane]

Ohhhh questioning my age. Good one. And you even steped of the main route to go with 10 year old instead of 13 year old. How creative of you. Come on everybody. Give the man a hand for using his "3" key instead of the usual "Ctrl-v" combo that you hit so frequent that the keys needs to roll over and have a cig afterwards followed my a whipe off with a cleanex for the whole keyboard and computer screen. Il just ask you this once. Do you really want to go down this road you little piss ant or would you rather get back on topic because otherwise Im all for pouring gasoline on the fire and watching it all burn.

So it is 10, is it?

So be it. Bring your worst, kiddo.

 

[Talga Vasternich]

So it is 10, is it?

So be it. Bring your worst, kiddo.

I'm popping popcorn and grabbing a drink waiting to be amused by this.
Saro, this will be so easy, why'd you even bother?

yes, I posted in this thread again I swear it'll be the last this time....really

 

[Stevinator]

You're only looking at myth, while I'm looking at reality.

Although one of the most common sources of resistance to bans comes from businesses concerned that they will suffer financial losses due to lost customers, research seems to offer them some reassurances.
In Ireland, the main opposition was from publicans, along with a minority of pub-goers. The Irish workplace ban was introduced with the intent of protecting others, particularly workers, from passive smoking ("secondhand smoke"). By and large, since the ban's introduction it has become accepted, due in part to "outdoor" arrangements at many pubs (involving heated areas with shelters). It is viewed as a success by the government and much of the public, and many other European governments are considering similar legislation. Public health lobbyists in Northern Ireland have lobbied for a similar ban there also.[citation needed]
Ireland's Office of Tobacco Control website indicates that "An evaluation of the official hospitality sector data shows there has been no adverse economic effect from the introduction of this measure (the March 2004 national ban on smoking in bars, restaurants, etc). Bar retail sales in volume terms have increased during the last three-month period (year-on-year) following a four-year decline. The numbers employed in this sector in the first quarter of this year have increased to 23,200 — up 1,400 from the previous quarter. This represents the most significant quarterly increase in employment since the second quarter of 2002."[13] Thus, even in a country with a relatively high percentage of smokers, the smoking ban did not seem to have a negative effect on business in bars or restaurants.
According to the 2004 Zagat Survey, which polled nearly 30,000 New York City restaurant patrons, by a margin of almost 6 to 1, respondents said that they eat out more often now because of the city's smoke-free policy.[14] Thus, research generally indicates that business incomes are stable (or even improved) after smoking bans are enacted, and many customers appreciate the improved air quality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban

considered a success among who? probably not the smokers, who are always pushed around. Probably not the business owners that had to build these "enclosures", I think only the legislators would be happy with this law, them and the outdoor enclosure manufacturers. You say so yourself in this post that bar sales dove for four straight years. Can small business owners weather a four year storm? will they ever see the kind of patronage they were used to before the ban? Is it fair to run these people out of business?

 

[Bowsen]

You say so yourself in this post that bar sales dove for four straight years. Can small business owners weather a four year storm? will they ever see the kind of patronage they were used to before the ban? Is it fair to run these people out of business?

It says the ban was enacted in 2004, while the decline started in 2002. This would suggest that the decline was not caused by the ban.

 

[Stoopid_NewB]

considered a success among who? probably not the smokers, who are always pushed around. Probably not the business owners that had to build these "enclosures", I think only the legislators would be happy with this law, them and the outdoor enclosure manufacturers. You say so yourself in this post that bar sales dove for four straight years. Can small business owners weather a four year storm? will they ever see the kind of patronage they were used to before the ban? Is it fair to run these people out of business?

Considered a financial success among businesses. I saw another link that said New York bar and restaurant receipts went up an average of 8% following the ban there. That and you have 85% of New Yorkers saying they eat out more often because of the ban. The same thing happened where I live in California. Sooo many people I know almost never went out because the smoke would bother them. After the ban, they're out 3-4 nights a week. Myself included in that. So basically, it's good for business. It's good for public health. If smokers don't think it's good for them,**** them. I don't need to breathe their toxic ****. Let them set at home alone like the social lepers they are.

By the way, you misread the quote. Sales were down the four years prior to the ban. After the ban, sales rose.

 

[Ranger14]

Well, studies and research show bans have had no change or a postive change on businesses.

Researchers studied the quality and funding sources of 97 studies on the economic
impact of smoke-free policies in the hospitality industry that were commissioned by the tobacco industry or organizations not
associated with the tobacco industry. They concluded that all of the best-designed studies report that smoke-free restaurant
and bar laws have no impact or a positive impact on sales or employment. Studies concluding that smoke-free policies
negatively impacted the hospitality industry were usually based on predictions or estimates of changes and funded by the
tobacco industry, and none were published in peer-reviewed journals. Lower quality studies were much more likely to
conclude smoke-free regulations adversely impact the hospitality industry, and weaker studies were much more likely to be
funded by the tobacco industry.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:wXXjw1q52DcJ:www.smokefreeohio.org/oh/about/documents/SFO_EconomicImpact.pdf+sales+increase+smoking+ban+tempe&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=6&client=firefox-a

The above report lists numerous states and cities that have not had a negative impact from smoking bans and the stats. Sources are listed at bottom of page.

 

[Bordillo]

Really because I kind of dislike you. But Im sure Smeg loves you.


Why? Do you tend yo light your candybars on fire and enter a confined space with other people?

If so then yes you shouldnt be eating them in public. Atleast not your way.


You can smoke all you want. Just dont do it near me. And if I come walking, stop smoking or go somewhere else. Respect my right to not be near you. (this peice has about 27% sarcasm in it)


What do you plan to do about it?
(I had problems finding a respsonce to this. I was going to say "my opinions doesnt burn and stink and bother everyone around me but that would feel futile)


Im cuting out this peice and puting it here due to a larger quite in response to it.

Here is my first ammendment.





I love how so many americans like to think that the world starts at Canada and ends at Mexico. With the exception of one tiny slot over in Australia where it says "Iraq" on the american world map.

Well if your not from america, or not american than stop posting opinions on american laws, we dont care

P.S. our country is better than yours

 

[Anakha1]

Well if your not from america, or not american than stop posting opinions on american laws, we dont care

P.S. our country is better than yours

Way to display that whopping maturity and intelligence, dude. You're a credit to your nationality.