ECONOMIC LOSSES DUE TO SMOKING BANS IN CALIFORNA AND OTHER STATES

United Pro Choice ^ | 3-6-05 | David W. Kuneman and Michael J. McFadden

[CSM]

The quote you referred to is actually a quote from another post, your response should be to the original poster of the quote. I believe we are on the same side of the issue.

[Lucky Dog]

"Why do you think health insurance companies charge smokers more?"

IT'S THE MONEY ... !

If it were only the money, then these insurance companies would be able to raise the price to everyone. To justify rate increases on a particular segment, insurance companies must be able to present a sound statistical case to insurance regulators. Such has obviously been the case for decades, now.

[CSM]

"Do you ever get of Maine and see how few smokers there are in other areas of the country?"

Do you ever leave your community, or change your behaviour, to see how many smokers there are in other areas?

[Just A Nobody]

"I'm still waiting for "smokeeasies"...

Already being done my friend. There are bars all over NYC that lock the doors at a certain hour or when only frequent locals are there...AND THEY SMOKE!

[Just A Nobody]

"Maine has opened THREE METH clinics! I couldn't believe it. Our tax dollars going into clinics for the druggies."

I KNOW!! It is a case of INSANITY GONE MAD! Is that statement redundant? ;^)

I for one am tired of hearing how as a smoker I AM COSTING the taxpayers a fortune. (I cost them NOTHING as I stated earlier in this thread) It is the drug addicts & alcholics that are putting the strain on the system...hello, hello, ???

[Just A Nobody]

"I suggest you consult the CDC statistics in this area and you will find a far different picture."

Don't be ridiculous! I have consulted ALL the statistics. Clearly, YOU have not. I regurgitated several during the course of this thread, & there are many other links that have also been sighted on this thread. Check THEM out.

[Lucky Dog]

Your argument on taxes is an interesting one. However, you have neglected to mention one of the most salient points about it: paying this tax is purely voluntary.

If you (or anyone else) wishes not to pay the tax on tobacco, do not use the product. Tobacco use is not essential in any way, shape, or form to your continued existence on the planet. Consequently, any tax on the substance is paid only if you wish to use the substance.

[Just A Nobody]

The quote you referred to is actually a quote from another post, your response should be to the original poster of the quote. I believe we are on the same side of the issue.


Whoops...sorry about that. I just get sooo angry about this.

[Lucky Dog]

You just made it clear that you do not believe in private property.

You are gravely mistaken. Private property that is in private use is not, nor should it be, subject to the same strictures levied on property that is intentionally opened to the public for business purposes. If you cannot see that difference, then perhaps you should search the net for sites dealing with logic as well as common law and other legal precedence.

Would you stand by and allow these elected representatives to confiscate a church to allow a private contractor to build condos?

No. However, I would support the condemnation (i.e., closure to the public) of any "business" property intentionally opened to the public for which the owner does not no comply with the legal requirements for operating that business.

...it is the property owner's rights that are being stolen for your convenience.

Sorry, your argument fails the test of logic.

[No Dems 2004]

I don't know about you guys but it seems a dead-end road to try to turn smoking into a 'right'. Smoking is disgusting, guys.

[Lucky Dog]

"However, let me point out that more than 80% of lung cancer is directly linked to smoking and the majority of premature heart disease is similarly linked."

IF that were true, what does that have to do with the subject of this thread? SHS is the subject....

Please note the the comment which you are questioning was in response to another poster's comment:

Me thinks both are compatible lest only smokers are surviving today

Not sure what you intended with this comment. However, let me point out that more than 80% of lung cancer is directly linked to smoking and the majority of premature heart disease is similarly linked. Consequently, it is safe to say that many smokers are not surviving to day.

[Lucky Dog]

Lucky Dog is not reading and accepting.

You are partially incorrect: I am reading. However, you are also partially correct in that I am not accepting your proffered support as definitive evidence in the argument.

The preponderance of the evidence as well as logic is against your position.

[Lucky Dog]

"You still have not countered the argument that everyone has to breathe, but no one has to smoke."

I go to many establishments where smoking is permitted. Seems to me that everyone breaths just fine.

A man with multiple gun shot wounds to his lungs may continue to breathe for a while as well. Additionally, a man exposed to asbestos may continue to breathe as might a man exposed to coal dust in a coal mine. The operative questions are how long will he continue to breathe and when he quits breathing what was the putative cause?

Your assessment of the potential damage caused to cigarette smoke neglects the impact of time.

[Just another Joe]

let me adress some of your issues.

Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a corner of the pool to pee in.

Please, there is a world of difference and it has been shown time and time again.
ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke) has not been proven to cause lasting physical harm to an otherwise healthy person with no pre-existing health conditions.
Pee in a pool has been proven to be harmful for a variety of reasons.

For example, consider fire safety laws, occupancy limits, sale/use of illicit substances, etc. Prohibiting smoking is no different than any of those other restrictions on a "private" business.

Sorry, but it is different. Again, all of these restriction have proof behind them that they can cause problems if not followed. Other than, perhaps, the sale/use of illicit (illegal?) substances.
There is no rock hard evidence that ETS causes any problems for otherwise healthy people.

I care if you make me pay through my taxes that support medicare for indigent smokers who have spent all their money on thier habit and its results. I care if you are responsible for taking up medical research money that could be going to cure some disease that the sufferer can not prevent through a simple act of will.

The smoker pays MUCH more in taxes, and the Master Settlement Agreement between the states AGs and the tobacco companies, than is used for medicare covered indigent smokers.
As for medical research money - do you really believe there is a disease that ONLY smokers get?
Look up the percentages of diseases between smokers and nonsmokers. You'll find it fairly close to the percentages of population that smoke and don't smoke.
Does smoking increase the risk of certain types of ailments? Yes. But genetics seems to play a much larger role than smoking.
Does being exposed to ETS increase the risk of certain types of ailments? The studies run about 80% to 20% against this. Proof? I hardly think so.

The will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives is within the bounds of "liberty" as long as there is no infringement upon the constitutions of either the individual state or the US.

While I believe there are constitutional issues that could be brought to bear - I'm not a laywer and no one to date has tried this approach with smoking bans.
I will say that I thought this was a Constitutional Republic, formed with, at least the thought of, protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Your mileage may vary.

The government of the people, by the people and for the people has the the right through their freely elected representatives to set reasonable restrictions upon property rights of anyone who holds himself or herself out as doing business with the public.

I have highlighted the pertinent part of this.
Is it reasonable to require a property owner to disallow the use of an otherwise legal product with no proof that the use thereof harms anyone with the exception of, perhaps, the user?
If the use of that product creates a dangerouse situation, (fireworks factory), then yes, that restriction is valid. If the use doesn't create a dangerouse situation, (restaraunt, bar), then it seems this wouldn't hold water.

Do you have the same objections to taxes on beer, wine, liquor, perfume, etc.?

If they are taxed at the same percentage as tobacco, especially pre-packaged cigarettes, then yes, I do have a problem with that.
Can you name one legal product that is taxed at the same percentage as pre-packaged cigarettes?
Good luck looking.

In the end, smoking will add risk for certain ailments. ETS has not been proven to do this.
Tobacco is a legal commodity. To sell, buy, and use.
Unfair restrictions are being levied upon the ability to allow it's use by a property owner based on outright lies, scare tactics, and junk science.

This isn't about your dislike of smoke or my convenience to smoke.
It's about the right of a property owner to allow, or disallow, the use of an otherwise legal product that hasn't been shown to cause harm to anyone not a direct user of the product.

[Lucky Dog]

How about it? Remove all the government inflation on tobacco, would you be for that liberty?

Yes, if the legislatures of the various states involved and the US Congress passes laws removing such taxes.

[Lucky Dog]

It all makes perfect sense now. Lucky Dog makes poor business decisions and would like the government to "level the playing field". Socialism is as fascism does.

Do you have any logic you wish to expound or do you merely prefer emotional retorts with little, or no, validity?

[Lucky Dog]

I'll reiterate, private property should not be taken for public use, without just compensation. Now, how does a smoking ban constitute "public use" and where does it offer just compensation?

...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Exactly where do you get that private property is being taken for public use?

A person who chooses to use his or her "private" property for a "public" business is subject all sorts of legal restrictions, e.g., public safety requirements, public decency requirements, public access requirements, etc. In none of these cases is that person being deprived of his or her property. If he or she wishes not to comply with any of these legal requirements, then all that is necessary is for that individual to withdraw said property from a "public" business.

[SheLion]

Gabz, I never get to talk to you.  Since you are in VA, and being on the BOD for Forces, are you living close enough now to go to the office?  That should really be exciting.  I had forgotten Forces was in VA. 

I love the look at the Forces site.  You all do a fantastic job.  Thanks, Gabz!

[Lucky Dog]

Since the government imposed the ban, that hurt the business, should the government also pass legislation demanding that all residents of that jurisdiction also be required to patronize an assigned business on specific days?

No.

It is not the smoker, nor the non-smoker, that is hurting the business person. It is the gullible politician catering to the anti-smoking lobby which is funded by tobacco taxation and fraudulent law suits.

I suggest, if this is your opinion, that you lobby your elected representatives to change the tax laws and pass tort reform legislation.

[SheLion]

You are partially incorrect: I am reading. However, you are also partially correct in that I am not accepting your proffered support as definitive evidence in the argument.

The preponderance of the evidence as well as logic is against your position.

The science and research links that I provide were not written by me!  If you can go to the links, email the authors and if they change their wording to make it read like you want it to read, then I, too, will abide by the links.  How's that.