ECONOMIC LOSSES DUE TO SMOKING BANS IN CALIFORNA AND OTHER STATES

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

[SheLion]

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.

And so is your personal opinion.  And everyone has one. 

[SheLion]

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 & alcoholics that are putting the strain on the system...hello, hello, ???

I know.  As you can see by this thread, I can count on my one hand the anti's in here.  The rest on this thread are very supportive.  Smokers AND non-smokers.  It's the Conservative way of life.  We can all see who the CINO'S are, can't we.

[SheLion]

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

You've got to be kidding me.  I follow the WHOLE COUNTRY!  Do you ever click on names in here and find out that we are from all parts of America not to mention over seas?  Where have YOU been?

So few?  I doubt if smokers 'are so few' as you put it.  55 million of us in America alone still choose to smoke.  We still outnumbers the NRA and the AARP.  So few?  Just where have you been fella?

And if there were 'so few' of us, why are the states still screaming for smoker's tax dollars so they can balance the state budgets?  If there were 'so few' of us, then it would be YOUR wallet the lawmakers would have their hands in.

[AGreatPer]

I did not go to Maine last year on vacation because of their smoking laws. I took my $4,000 and went to North Carolina. Hey, I know its a small amount. But if enough of us do that, it would add up.

[CSM]

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

Are you taking the position that the danger is in the dose?

[CSM]

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

You state support for government imposed smoking bans. You state you are a private business owner. You state that you have chosen to be a smoke free business. You state that being smoke free hurts your business.

It is clear the driving force behind your support of government imposed smoking bans.

[SheLion]

The posting spoke only of revenue growths and losses...I didn't see any links regarding the closures and bankruptsies unless some of the posters I haven't read on this thread yet have posted the links you speak of!

<--- click here and read all the closures and bankruptcies.

Click here to see the total impact on so many business's across the States.

[CSM]

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.

---

Let's see, a person buys a property/business, invests his time in making a successful venture. Let's say he starts a smoke free restaurant. He has discovered a market niche that is leading to a very successful business.

Now, the government comes along and passes legislation that forces all restuarants to be smoke free. The government now destroyed his niche, and the intended use of his property. Effectively, they have confiscated a portion of his property/money/profits, by passing bad legislation.

The bans do work both ways.

[SheLion]

I did not go to Maine last year on vacation because of their smoking laws. I took my $4,000 and went to North Carolina. Hey, I know its a small amount. But if enough of us do that, it would add up.

Well, that's $4,000 that Maine lost out on because of the anti's.  I hope Maine lawmakers are proud.

Maine is the second poorest state in the Union.  You would think the lawmakers would work hard not to hurt it even more but banning the revenue from 25-30% of their constituents.  It really stinks.

I did not go to Maine last year on vacation because of their smoking laws. I took my $4,000 and went to North Carolina. Hey, I know its a small amount. But if enough of us do that, it would add up.

Well, that's $4,000 that Maine lost out on because of the anti's.  I hope Maine lawmakers are proud.

Maine is the second poorest state in the Union.  You would think the lawmakers would work hard not to hurt it even more but banning the revenue from 25-30% of their constituents.  It really stinks.

[SheLion]

I did not go to Maine last year on vacation because of their smoking laws. I took my $4,000 and went to North Carolina. Hey, I know its a small amount. But if enough of us do that, it would add up.

Even though you can still light up in North Carolina, the lawmakers make no mistake about it that they want to raise cigarette taxes again so they can balance their state budgets!

[Ditter]

Sure we do. We take driving trips all over the country. Thats how I know some parts of the country don't have as many smokers as others. Small towns tend to have more smokers than large cities. I have one friend out of many many friends who still smokes. She would like to quit and says she hates the fact that she can't because she is so out of step with everyone else.

[Ditter]

I still think that smokers are in the vast minority. BTW I am not a fella, I thought you knew that by now. %;9)

[Gabz]

Of course smokers are in the minority - only about 20-25% of the population smokes.

I can't say if more folks smoke in small towns compared to large cities, as I avoid large cities if at all possible, but I would have to say that more folks I know in this rural area smoke than don't.

[Ditter]

That is what I have found as well. Smoking in large cities that I have visited has become social unacceptable. You smokers should try out Mississippi, we have driven the entire length of Miss. 3 times (the Natchez Trace Parkway) and there aren't even any non smoking sections in the restaurants. Beautiful state tho.;9)

[Lucky Dog]

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.

Perhaps, you could expand your discussion to include the objectionableness of either activity to those who do not engage in it nor wish to be exposed to it. If you examine the core of your argument it is the same as for publicly displaying items of pornography by a business owner. By extension of your argument, the property owner has the "right" regardless of what the people of the community and the representatives of their legislatures think about the situation.

...There is no rock hard evidence that ETS causes any problems for otherwise healthy people.

There is rock solid evidence for very few things in this life. The majority of decisions are made on the basis of probabilities and potential negative consequences versus any positive benefits. In this case the potential negative consequences could be life threatening to an involuntary bystander and there are no positive benefits.

The activity in question is purely voluntary. The activity provides no tangible benefit to either, the user, or anyone else and is potentially harmful to both. It is not an enumerated right in any government founding document. Consequently, there is no reason not to restrict its location/use in public situations by voluntary partakers, and thus, its potential undesired impact on bystanders.

The smoker pays MUCH more in taxes...

It is a purely voluntary tax. If you don't like paying it, then cease purchasing the product. The product is, in no way, a requirement for health or longevity.

Look up the percentages of diseases between smokers and nonsmokers... Does smoking increase the risk of certain types of ailments? Yes. But genetics seems to play a much larger role than smoking.

At this point in time, no individual can control his or her genetics. Anyone can control whether he or she smokes or exposes others to tobacco smoke. Consequently, if a person can reduce the risk of exposing others to a potentially deadly and costly disease, even incrementally, by a mere act of will, why should lawmakers not mandate such?

If the use of that product creates a dangerous situation, (fireworks factory), then yes, that restriction is valid. If the use doesn't create a dangerous situation, (restaurant, bar), then it seems this wouldn't hold water.

The point is that legislatures have examined the situation on behalf of their constituents and decided that restrictions are reasonable. If you, as a citizen, disagree, then it is your "enumerated" right to petition the government for redress. If your petition fails, then your rights have not been unlawfully curtailed, merely duly restricted by the will of the majority through their elected representatives.

Such restrictions happen every day, e.g., there are frequencies of the spectrum that are reserved for various uses and it is illegal for you to broadcast on those frequencies.

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.

If you feel that restrictions on smoking are "tyranny," then, as I have pointed out earlier, you have the right to peaceably assemble with others of like mind and petition the government for redress. If the elected representatives of the people disagree with your position, then you have the right to bring it to court for a judicial review to ensure compliance with the Constitution. IF the judicial body disagrees with you, the issue is not "tyranny" but the lawful exercise of delegated powers. But, wait... all of that has been done, hasn't it? And the result was?

Can you name one legal product that is taxed at the same percentage as pre-packaged cigarettes?

The rate of taxation of various commodities is not specified in any founding government document. Similarly, neither is the idea that the people's elected representatives are required to even consider such in exercising their delegated power to levy taxes. Therefore, this point is meaningless.

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.

You keep neglecting to consider the fact that it is not just a "property owner" that is under discussion. Rather, the issue under discussion is property that has been held out by its owner on which to conduct a business open to the "public." The very act of so designating such property means that the property owner is not the sole arbiter of what activities or conditions may, or may not, occur, or exist, on that property as long as it is open for "public" business.

[Lucky Dog]

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

I invite you to do the same for the authors of the CDC studies. Additionally, I'll throw in the authors of the various laws restricting smoking in various places. As my authorities are more numerous and older in terms of impact, you go first. After you have results, then I'll have a go at your challenge.

[SheLion]

BTW I am not a fella, I thought you knew that by now. %;9)

Oh I am so sorry! We deal with so many guys in here that I just take it for granted.

I apologize! :)

[SheLion]

I invite you to do the same for the authors of the CDC studies. Additionally, I'll throw in the authors of the various laws restricting smoking in various places. As my authorities are more numerous and older in terms of impact, you go first. After you have results, then I'll have a go at your challenge.

You don't understand.  I have been working with this issue for 15 years.  My sources and links I provide are my absolute.  I have complete faith in them, or else I wouldn't put them out there for everyone to read.

I sure hope you aren't fat.  It's been all over Fox News today that they are going after fat foods and fat people today.  Lawsuits up the whazoo.  At least while they go after fat, they will be leaving smokers alone.

[Lucky Dog]

You state support for government imposed smoking bans.

You are incorrect. I stated no such thing. However, by defending such, I will grant you that I made a very strong implication in that direction.

You state you are a private business owner.

Your are correct.

You state that you have chosen to be a smoke free business.

Your are correct.

You state that being smoke free hurts your business.

You are incorrect. I said that if it (being smoke free) hurts my business, then so be it. I never said that such (being smoke free) actually hurts my business. In fact, I have no evidence, whatsoever, that it does.

It is clear the driving force behind your support of government imposed smoking bans.

Sorry, I think this was where you intended to make your point, but your point is still unclear to me.

[Ditter]

I am a Christian and a 64 year old wife of 46 years. Mother of 3, lost one child 20+ years ago, Grandmother of 3 and native Texan. If I ever got around to editing my home page everyone would know but I tell so many stories on myself that I feel like everyone here knows me. I don't come on here to fight with you, I deplore fighting, but I want to express my opinion.