Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rolling Smoke Ban Back Faces High Heat at Hearing
Journal Register News ^ | GREGORY B. HLADKY

Posted on 02/09/2005 6:22:08 AM PST by kahoutek

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-117 next last
To: Bigh4u2
"Palmieri replied: "I think it should be universal across the board. ..Make the casinos go smoke free, make the private clubs go smoke free."

I have a better idea.  Why doesn't CT just ban the sale of tobacco and be done with.  Stop the Tobacco Settlement money going into CT and let CT just pull all tobacco products off of their shelves.  How's that.


41 posted on 02/09/2005 7:10:28 AM PST by SheLion (God bless our military members and keep them safe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: standupfortruth
I suspect that the businesses that are hurting were hurting before the ban, but now they have an excuse.

Maybe that is true in Connecticut.......but it sure as heck isn't for Delaware.

42 posted on 02/09/2005 7:11:35 AM PST by Gabz (Anti-smoker gnatzies...small minds buzzing in your business..............SWAT'EM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: sdpatriot
the anti-gun people insist they will all *feel liberated* when they don't have to worry about someone owning a gun. you help to give that argument fuel. you are no conservative. people who pass these laws against the rights of private property owners are enemies of what makes this country free. the Writers weren't concerned about people smelling good.. they were concerned about the RIGHTS of individuals not being infringed on by the gvt. get a clue..

It constantly amazes me that folks consider the currently "afflicted" by regulation to have all of the rights. Yet, if this were the case, criminals should all go free. I am deeply offended that you would suggest I am not a conservative, without even knowing me or what I stand for. I may disagree with you on this one issue, but that certainly does not negate my credentials or beliefs in other areas. I don't need a clue..... I am more than aware that there are those who would remove incrementally all of the rights and freedoms we enjoy as American Citizens. That is why I covet my freedom not to smell like some kind of whorehouse honky tonk, just because I wanted to eat in a restaurant. Smoke at will......... just don't make me suffer for your ill habits. (that is a conservative philosophy btw)

43 posted on 02/09/2005 7:13:31 AM PST by standupfortruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: jjmcgo

You are correct about the Delaware racinos.


44 posted on 02/09/2005 7:14:23 AM PST by Gabz (Anti-smoker gnatzies...small minds buzzing in your business..............SWAT'EM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SheLion

" Why doesn't CT just ban the sale of tobacco and be done with."

I've said that from the beginning of the first ban that was put in place in New York.

If they were truly concerned for peoples health then making ALL tobacco products illegal would be the only responsible thing to do.

If you had an 'epidemic' of smallpox, would you just 'ban' the people infected, or treat the disease?


It's just a money game.

They're still sueing the tobacco industry and until they make it illegal, money will just be changing hands forever.


45 posted on 02/09/2005 7:14:55 AM PST by Bigh4u2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: -YYZ-

that's because the states get coersion money from the fed gvt under *education* if they implement anti-smoking laws. i'm sick of the fed. govt using my federal tax dollars as bribery and coersion in my state. and it's specifically against the constitution... but no one seems to care.

my state just passed a whole nother list of rules and regs against truck drivers (commercial drivers) ... they HAD to do it to get their Fed transportation dollars..
bribery, blackmail, coersion.


46 posted on 02/09/2005 7:16:02 AM PST by sdpatriot ("If I know the answer I'll tell you the answer, and if I don't, I'll just respond, cleverly." Rummy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
I don't think anyone is that selfish to demand smoke free at the expense of the business owner.

But they are.

47 posted on 02/09/2005 7:16:11 AM PST by Gabz (Anti-smoker gnatzies...small minds buzzing in your business..............SWAT'EM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SheLion

Most people don't realize that Connecticut is a tobacco state, that the light leaf (wrap) for cigars is grown here.

Before the embargo, Cuba was a big customer.


48 posted on 02/09/2005 7:17:06 AM PST by kahoutek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: standupfortruth
Did you get a good description of the man holding a gun to your head who was forcing you to go into restaurants that allow smoking?

There is no right at all to go into a certain restaurant. There is no "freedom not to smell like an ashtray." If you didn't want to do so, don't go into a restaurant that allows smoking.

49 posted on 02/09/2005 7:17:46 AM PST by TheBigB (Supporters of illegal immigrants are traitors to the United States of America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: TexasCowboy
No, I am not a CINO. But perhaps you should examine your own conscience with regard to how freedom loving and constitution supporting you are. I made a statement that you disagree with and instead of debating the other side of the issue you resorted to suggesting I am not a real conservative. Not extremely convincing or effective. Are you a DINO?
50 posted on 02/09/2005 7:18:25 AM PST by standupfortruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: -YYZ-
My favorite place to eat almost closed their doors after the first smoking ban in Maine in 2000.

The owner then invested in a very expensive liquor license and business started to boom again.

They then remodeled.  The place is beautiful.  4 big ceiling air purifiers.  Full menu.  A beautiful glass enclosed non-smoking section.  Sign on the entrance door "This is a smoking establishment.  No one under 18 admitted without guardian."

It is a Sports Bar with the full computer golf game across the back wall;  bunch of big TV's.  Just beautiful.

But that still wasn't good enough for the state.  A full no smoking ban went into effect a year ago January.  I went once after the ban, was so miserable that I couldn't sit there like old times and enjoy the evening that I haven't put myself through that again.

And do you think the state will reimburse this business owner for spending his own money to be able to accommodate everyone?  You can bet they will not.

51 posted on 02/09/2005 7:20:51 AM PST by SheLion (God bless our military members and keep them safe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: standupfortruth
"...............not to smell like some kind of whorehouse honky tonk..........."

Oh.

Well, you would also have the freedom to choose.

52 posted on 02/09/2005 7:22:34 AM PST by kahoutek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Bigh4u2
It's just a money game.

They're still sueing the tobacco industry and until they make it illegal, money will just be changing hands forever.

Especially since the Tobacco Settlement.  Big Tobacco fell to their knees in front of the Attorney Generals, now look where we are.

No one today can look at this issue and not know that it isn't about money.  It's about BIG money.  And smokers who pay taxes on cigarettes are the ones paying for all of the control, bans and restrictions.  Not the government and not Big Tobacco.  The smokers.

The non-smoker's should thank us.  Where would the government find this money if tobacco was banned?  It would set America in a tail spin.  But you can't tell anyone that.

53 posted on 02/09/2005 7:25:00 AM PST by SheLion (God bless our military members and keep them safe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: standupfortruth
Smokers can still smoke, but not in places where I have to deal with their noxious habit.

Wouldn't the better approach be for you and your wife to avoid places that allow smoking? If enough people like you speak with their feet, then bars and restaurants would voluntarily ban smoking without a government mandate. Sure, you might have to stay away from a few places you would otherwise enjoy in a smoke free environmnet, but that's what happens from time to time in a free, capitalistic society.

BTW, I am also an ex-smoker, and as much as I enjoy a smoke free environment, I should not have the right to force businesses to ban smoking just for me.

54 posted on 02/09/2005 7:26:15 AM PST by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
But they are.

I didn't word that correctly. I 'know' they are. Without a doubt. We see them in FR every day.

55 posted on 02/09/2005 7:26:34 AM PST by SheLion (God bless our military members and keep them safe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: standupfortruth
It pains me to say this, but I am a conservative in CT and I am grateful for the ban.

It should pain you. Because those two things are incompatible.

It's like saying you support the 1st amendment AND support the CFR law.

Property rights are a fundamental tenet of conservatism. If you don't support them, you aren't a conservative.

And please don't start crying about attacks and name calling and all those other things that liberals do when the truth is explained to them.

After all, you want want to stand up for truth, right?

56 posted on 02/09/2005 7:28:26 AM PST by Protagoras (Un-apprehended criminals have no credibility when advocating for the WOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kahoutek
One can hear the murmuring in the sacred halls of MADD about how much more funding will be needed to 'protect the children'.

It's already happened. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) which is behind many of the smoke bans has taken over funding of MADD.

57 posted on 02/09/2005 7:28:28 AM PST by Gabz (Anti-smoker gnatzies...small minds buzzing in your business..............SWAT'EM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SheLion

The brave new world.

Government sues private industry to line their own pockets and fill budget gaps.

As I've indicated before, if the lawsuits were about "obscene profits" then the government should be a defendant in future suits.


58 posted on 02/09/2005 7:30:10 AM PST by kahoutek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: SheLion

"Where would the government find this money if tobacco was banned? "

They would just figure out something else to 'ban', or sue.

Like McDonalds, Wendy's, or any 'fat' food restaurant.

The thing that galls me the most is they claim they are using the money for medical and 'rehabilitation' purposes, but the truth is less than 10% is used for those purposes.

All the rest is nothing more than a 'windfall' for the states.

Just like the 'education' Lottery.


59 posted on 02/09/2005 7:30:43 AM PST by Bigh4u2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos

Ex Smoker myself. I am against bans on smoking in any form. Until it is illegal to do at all, they should not outright ban them.


60 posted on 02/09/2005 7:30:57 AM PST by USAFJeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-117 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson