Groups question tobacco ban: Measure would make it a misdemeanor crime to sell or use product

Grand Forks Herald ^ | Jan 15, 2003 | Associated Press

[GailA]

They don't want the MONEY cut off.

[dtel]

I might be misreading this, but that has never stopped me before.
It looks like this might be a ruse to call their bluff.
Everybody knows they ain't gonna give up the cig money.
By sponsoring this bill and then having the anti's fight it, aand of course defeat it. It would take some legs from their movement.
I have found that this technique even works quite well on this board. ;^)
What do ya think?

[jocon307]

I have thought for a long time that we smokers should have a one day strike, a-la the euro-socialists (or a two day one a-la the ge workers)just to show the world who we are.

WE HERE, WE'RE SMOKING, GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!!!
(with apoligies to the gay lobby)

[Max McGarrity]

I think you might be right. I didn't post it because it didn't apply, but at the end of that article in "other news," we find that Rep. Mark Dosch, R-Bismarck, is sponsoring legislation to require state agencies to prepare an economic impact statement before they adopt new rules that would have an adverse effect on small businesses. The measure defines a small business as one with fewer than 25 full-time workers. That would have an effect on smoking bans should this bill pass while the antis are busy worrying about the first one.

[B4Ranch]

one word of caution.....RETRIBUTION from the feds or states might be too much too bear!

[sheik yerbouty]

That'll work as well as prohibition did. Why do liberals hate liberty? Why aren't liberals "pro choice" on tobacco use, guns, SUVs, etc?

[Just another Joe]

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.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
It's all aboot the MOOONEY!
Now we start to see where the anti groups are REALLY coming from.
I'll try to do some research on this guy and see if he's actually trying to prohibit tobacco or just trying to out the antis.

[MrLeRoy]

"Prohibition has not been shown to prevent tobacco use."

Or alcohol use, or drug use.

[Gabz]

The Taxation committee just released the bill from committee with a 9-4 vote.

It is scheduled for full debate next week...........

[Great Dane]

What do ya think?

I think you're right on the mark, force the ANTI's to say, show me the money.

[Just another Joe]

The Taxation committee just released the bill from committee with a 9-4 vote.

That'a a 9-4 vote FOR prohibition?
I'll be following this one with interest.

[dtel]

Show me the money.
After they have been exposed, if they file suit, these results would be part of the public record.
"Why should you follow the ANTI agenda and reward them, when they fought the chance to outright ban tobacco."
Could be a pretty compelling argument in court.
Then again, it could be too smart by half.
Clip and save for future reference.

[Wolfie]

Why not? Its working for the Drug War.

[Just another Joe]

Why not? Its working for the Drug War.

Ah, you sly dog, er wolf, you.
So much sarcasm in one little line.

[Max McGarrity]

Wolf, regardless what you might think, I'm not your enemy.

[Wolfie]

I was making a joke at Rep. Grosz's expense (who is, I think, having a laugh at the anti-msokers' expense. Sort of a "put up or shut up" proposal, IMHO).

[Publius6961]

BUMP!

[Centurion2000]

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.

WTF ????? A Republican is pushing for this ?

[Great Dane]

After they have been exposed, if they file suit, these results would be part of the public record.

This is a most delicious turn of events. :-}