Skip to comments.
Groups question tobacco ban: Measure would make it a misdemeanor crime to sell or use product
Grand Forks Herald ^
| Jan 15, 2003
| Associated Press
Posted on 01/15/2003 6:37:33 PM PST by Max McGarrity
BISMARCK - Health groups that discourage smoking lined up Tuesday to fight legislation what would make North Dakota the first state to outlaw tobacco, a stand that left some lawmakers perplexed.
The measure, introduced by Rep. Michael Grosz, R-Grand Forks, would make it a misdemeanor crime to sell or use tobacco. Sellers would face up to a year in jail and a $2,000 fine, while casual smokers or smokeless tobacco users could go to jail for 30 days and be fined $1,000.
"The education approach is obviously not working in North Dakota," he said. "Should we not prohibit the sale and use of tobacco just because it may be difficult to enforce, and let nearly 1,000 North Dakotans die every year?"
Bruce Levi, director of the North Dakota Medical Association, called the measure "novel," but said it "introduces an approach to tobacco control that has not been proven effective or even implemented in any other state."
"Our goal is to prevent and reduce tobacco use. There is scientific evidence to support the programs that are beginning to move forward in North Dakota," Levi said. "Prohibition has not been shown to prevent tobacco use."
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; US: North Dakota
KEYWORDS: butts; cigarettes; cigars; prohibition; pufflist; smokingbans; tobacco; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-52 next last
To: All
2
posted on
01/15/2003 6:38:54 PM PST
by
Support Free Republic
(Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
To: Max McGarrity
Of course, a bullet between the eyes is not the best for your health also.
Keep pushing....
3
posted on
01/15/2003 6:40:26 PM PST
by
Hunble
To: *puff_list; Just another Joe; SheLion
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list
Hmmmm, anti-smoker groups "fight legislation" to outlaw tobacco use...couldn't be because they depend on the money tobacco puts directly in their own pockets, could it?
This one's for She-Lion, our lion-hearted redhead who constantly says "If it's so bad, why don't they outlaw it?"
4
posted on
01/15/2003 6:41:58 PM PST
by
Max McGarrity
(Anti-smokers--still the bullies in the playground they always were.)
To: Max McGarrity
Never pass the fedgov won't let it( likes the revenue).
5
posted on
01/15/2003 6:42:43 PM PST
by
weikel
To: Max McGarrity
The cold weather up north must have frozen a few brain cells. No state could afford to ban tobacco because they make too much tax money from it. Besides if this widely used and legal product were banned I'm sure smuggling and bootlegging would become growth industries in North Dakota. I think this legislator needs to read the history of Prohibition.
To: Max McGarrity
I suspect this bill is being backed by the prison building industry.
7
posted on
01/15/2003 6:48:08 PM PST
by
per loin
To: Max McGarrity
. "Should we not prohibit the sale and use of tobacco just because it may be difficult to enforce, and let nearly 1,000 North Dakotans die every year?"I didn't realize that there were that many people in North Dakota.
8
posted on
01/15/2003 7:00:24 PM PST
by
templar
To: Max McGarrity
I'd vote for a tofu ban.
9
posted on
01/15/2003 7:01:52 PM PST
by
gitmo
("The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain." GWB)
To: Max McGarrity
Why can't people leave cigarette smokers alone? Smoking is A CHOICE! no one makes them do it, if they want to shell out $3.00 a pack let them. But don't make something illegal because a small group objects to it.
10
posted on
01/15/2003 7:07:34 PM PST
by
flynhghr
(Do not read this tag!)
To: Max McGarrity
I think that if the tobacco industry really wants to stop all this idiotic legal nit picking, they should pick one state, say New York, and refuse to sell their products there in any form. There would be such a revolt, both from smokers and those who live with them, and such a loss of revenue, that all the politicians would crawl back into their holes.
11
posted on
01/15/2003 7:08:26 PM PST
by
Grammy
To: Grammy
Now that is a very interesting idea.
12
posted on
01/15/2003 7:14:04 PM PST
by
Ken H
To: Max McGarrity
Thanks for posting this. I'm just surprised that the legislation wasn't sponsored by a democrat (you know, the ones who are supposed to be for personal freedom, but really aren't?). The legislation is sinking fast under practical financial realities.
To: alwaysconservative
This bill is gonna go over like a led zepplin I'm sure.This Grosz is going to have a smokers revolt on his hands if he continues with this effort.
14
posted on
01/15/2003 7:34:01 PM PST
by
Drippy
(Leave the faucet dripping or the pipes will freeze!)
To: Max McGarrity
If this ban passes, there will be a very lucrative enterprise in buying cigarettes on Indian reservations in Minnesota and smuggling them into North Dakota.
In any event, fools like this politician should be bodily taken out of the state legislature in front of the other legicritters while it is in session and soundly horse whipped on the steps of the ND House. After that as a minimum, I would recommend a course of tar and feathering followed by a week of time in stocks or pillory.
To: Drippy
LOVED your tag! LOL!! Grosz apparently didn't leave his pipes dripping. Something froze up, bigtime!
To: Max McGarrity
. "Should we not prohibit the sale and use of tobacco just because it may be difficult to enforce, and let nearly 1,000 North Dakotans die every year?"
These people are dying by their own hand and not hurting anyone else or infringing on anyone else's rights. I am so sick of politician out to save us from ourselves. I was not aware that the constitution mandated this type of action. Oh, thats right, it doesn't. I am surprised this is proposed by a republican, I'm sure he is a RINO.
To: Grammy
I think that if the tobacco industry really wants to stop all this idiotic legal nit picking, they should pick one state, say New York, and refuse to sell their products there in any form. There would be such a revolt, both from smokers and those who live with them, and such a loss of revenue, that all the politicians would crawl back into their holes.Big tobacco is not allowed to do that, the settlement says so, keep in mind if no cigarettes are sold... no settlement money........ it's all about money, has nothing to do with health.
To: WorkingClassFilth
Living in Minnesota, I am COUNTING ON IT!
Long live the Black Market. That is the one aspect of society that has always survived political changes. The more difficult they make it, the more profits an individual can make.
19
posted on
01/15/2003 7:54:28 PM PST
by
Hunble
To: Grammy
I'd like to see it as well, Grammy, even though part of the agreement they signed with the states is that they MUST continue to sell their products so they can pay the states. However, only 40 states or so signed on to the MSA...
Big Tobacco's "fighting" technique seems to be surrender...and pre-emptive surrender.
20
posted on
01/15/2003 7:57:34 PM PST
by
Max McGarrity
(Anti-smokers--still the bullies in the playground they always were.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-52 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
