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.
Posted on 02/09/2005 6:22:08 AM PST by kahoutek
HARTFORD -- A proposal to roll back Connecticut’s ban on smoking in bars, restaurants and bowling alleys barely a year after it took full effect encountered fierce opposition at a legislative hearing Tuesday.
But the bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Leonard C. Greene, R-Beacon Falls, and a several owners of bars and bowling alleys insisted that many establishments are losing business to private clubs and casinos where smoking remains legal.
"Why not allow a smoker a place to go if a business wants to cater to him?" Greene repeatedly asked witnesses at the hearing conducted by the legislature’s General Law Committee. "If the restaurant or bowling alley or bar wants to allow (smoking in a designated room or area), who are we hurting?"
Walter Williams, pastor of the Walk of Faith Church in New Haven and a spokesman for the anti-smoking MATCH Coalition, rejected Greene’s arguments and their exchange turned into a mini-debate.
Williams insisted that filtration systems and designated smoking areas simply don’t work in preventing non-smokers from being harmed by second-hand smoke. "There really is no safety area," Williams said. "We know all too well that some are more concerned with their wealth than with our health."
"I have data that says otherwise," Greene replied. He insisted that his bill also provides protections for employees of bars and restaurants. "Anyone who goes into that (designated) smoking area are putting themselves at risk, and there’s nothing wrong with that," Greene argued.
Nikki Palmieri of North Haven, who won the title of Miss Connecticut last year, cited polls showing that 85 percent of residents in this state support the statewide ban on smoking in public places.
Palmieri, 20, is also a member of the MATCH Coalition board and she said other states have begun to follow Connecticut’s lead by enacting similar bans. She urged lawmakers not to allow this state "to recede back into darkness when those about us are finally seeing the light."
To complaints that the current ban creates "an uneven playing field" because it doesn’t cover casinos and private clubs, Palmieri replied: "I think it should be universal across the board. ..Make the casinos go smoke free, make the private clubs go smoke free."
But Bill Dedomaincis, owner of a Torrington bowling center and a spokesman for the Connecticut Bowling Proprietors’ Association, said the smoking ban is "the most detrimental and destructive thing I’ve witnessed in my 35 years in this business."
Dedomaincis said that 47 percent of league bowlers, which he said are the core patrons of his industry, are smokers. "Our league bowling, which is 70 percent of our revenue, is down by 3 percent" since the ban took effect, he said.
However, smoking opponents cited studies in New York City and elsewhere showing that restaurants and bars were actually doing more business after smoking bans took effect.
Connecticut’s ban on smoking took effect for restaurants in October 2003 and for bars and bowling alleys in April 2004. Private clubs and Connecticut’s tribal casinos are not covered by the law.
©The Bristol Press 2005
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.
Maybe that is true in Connecticut.......but it sure as heck isn't for Delaware.
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)
You are correct about the Delaware racinos.
" 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.
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.
But they are.
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.
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.
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.
Oh.
Well, you would also have the freedom to choose.
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.
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.
I didn't word that correctly. I 'know' they are. Without a doubt. We see them in FR every day.
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?
It's already happened. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) which is behind many of the smoke bans has taken over funding of MADD.
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.
"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.
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.
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.