Smoking's giving drinking a bad name

The Newark Star-Ledger ^ | April 01, 2004 | Paul Mulshine

[NJ Freeper]

It's nice to be right every once in a while. Last year, for example, I went to New York City immediately after smoking was banned in bars. I found it an altogether pleasant experience to be able to enjoy a few pints of ale without coming home smelling like I'd just rolled around in a gutter filled with cigarette butts.

[MEGoody]

"I am also saying that while in a building occupied and open to the public, having the presence of harmful by products of tobacco combustion is both irritating and potentially harmful to the health of others exposed to it, and it sure is unfair to the health of children forced to be exposed to it by circumstance. If a building is open to the public and the public has unfettered access to it, then it should be non smoking, especially restaurants."

If you were talking a place of business or a school or somewhere that people HAVE to go, that would be one thing. But no one HAS to patronize a restaurant, bar or even a mall. There are others they can go to.

I am sorry you lost your mother to lung cancer. That was a very painful thing for you to endure. I lost my mother to kidney disease. They had told her to lay off the coffee, tea and soft drinks. She just couldn't leave the coffee alone. Perhaps they should ban it.

[Mears]

So you like white wine and brie,Gabz. Well I have a confession to make,I wear Birkenstocks.

Smokers really are a varied bunch,aren't they?

[Terry Mross]

I find it highly offensive to have to sit next to someone who's drinking alcohol. And I shouldn't have to worry about getting run over in the parking lot. Booze drinking, like smoking, should be banned in public. Only a little sarcastic here.

[NYCVirago]

Okay, by popular demand, here's Mr. Mulshine's response:

No offense, but anyone who argues that smoking should not be illegal because it is legal does not have the intelligence to understand the issue. Please have someone intelligent read my column to you slowly.

The best part of his response was the fact that he sent me a blank email response first, where he hit the reply button without typing anything, before replying to my note and insulting my intelligence. So I sent him this response:

You sent me the blank email below before you sent your response. No offense, but anyone who argues that a reader is unintelligent, right after he sent that reader an empty email, does not have the intelligence to use a computer. (Hint: you’re supposed to put something in the response before hitting the send key.) Please have someone intelligent read my instructions to you slowly.

[NJ Freeper]

My b-day's the 14th of March. Wow, a pub crawl in Boston on St. Patrick's day weekend and it was your b-day as well. Must have been great! The reason the bars were packed was probably because of St. Patrick's day. What's the law in Boston? Are there some smoking bars and some non-smoking bars or does the no smoking ordinance you refer to cover all bars?

[NYCVirago]

I read some of Mr. Mulshine's past columns, and your description of him is on the mark!

[Renegade]

Must cover them all. No smoke to be seen. Did the same thing last year and there was smoking allowed. Must have been a new ordinance like the pubs in Ireland last weekend .

[Tall_Texan]

I've always assumed that the correlation between smokers and alcoholics is that there's usually only two things to do in a bar and being addicted to only one thing gets kinda boring after awhile.

Further, I would guess smokers and drinkers generally have less self-control than non-smokers and non-drinkers so there would be a greater chance of overlap among drug/drink/tobacco addiction than with those who want only one.

If they could first learn not to leave their litter (cigarette butts, needles, beer bottles and cans) strewn around the landscape like they were all biodegradable, maybe there would be hope you could ease them off their addictions.

[NJ Freeper]

I don't even smoke stupid. My problem is with the government telling private business owners who they can and can't have in their estableshment. Lots of restaurants and clubs have dress codes. If you're not dressed properly you won't get in. The government shouldn't FORCE these businesses to accept everybody.

It's the same thing with smoking. I don't think that all bars should have to accept smokers nor do I feel that all bars should be non-smoking. If you want to go to a non-smoking bar then go. If you want to go to a smoking bar then go. If there's a market for non-smoking bars then I'm sure business owners will open them and you can go to them. But for the government to PROHIBIT private business owners from admitting people to their establishment to engage in a LEGAL activity really bothers me.

If you consider yourself a conservative and someone who is for individual freedom and for getting the nanny state out of people's personal lives it should bother you as well. As many people here have said, if they can dictate what is good and what is bad, and can force free citizens to do or not do certain things "for your own good" we should all be very, very afraid.

Also, your previous comment that "smokers are losers" is one of the stupidest comments I've ever seen here on freerepublic.

[Tall_Texan]

I feel that taxation without representation is tyranny, if you tax cigarettes then they should be able to smoke where ever they want. If they want to control cigarette smoking then they should NOT TAX it.

If you go to the local dirty books store and buy porn, you pay a tax on it. Could I then presume from your above position that pornography should be unregulated?

If you're a libertarian, your answer is probably yes. If you are a parent, your answer is probably no.

[NYCVirago]

If they could first learn not to leave their litter (cigarette butts, needles, beer bottles and cans) strewn around the landscape like they were all biodegradable, maybe there would be hope you could ease them off their addictions.

Are you aware that it is now illegal for NYC businesses to even have ashtrays for their customers (like outside their establishments) and that businesses have been fined for possessing ashtrays?

[CSM]

"If you go to the local dirty books store and buy porn, you pay a tax on it. Could I then presume from your above position that pornography should be unregulated?"

What taxes are levied against porn? In my state, they only assess a "sales tax" that just happens to equal the sales tax for every other taxable item in the state. There is no Federal excise tax, no manufacturing tax, no master settlement agreement, no state tobacco tax, etc. The cost of a Playboy in my state is $4.95 + 6% to total 5.25. The cost for a pack of cigs should be $0.80 after the entire value chain is involved and profitable. Instead, after all the cumulative taxes get added on you end up paying $4.50. That is a tax rate in excess of 550%. Many of these taxes are cumulative so that you end up taxing taxes.

We say again, taxation without representation. Would you care to ammend your stance?

[Dan from Michigan]

I have a good idea. How about the public health big government Fascists start respecting PRIVATE PROPERTY(I repeat, PRIVATE, I'll say it a third time here for those that don't get it, PRIVATE) and let business owners decide if there is smoking or not.

[NJ Freeper]

I'm truly sorry to here about your mother. But she was a grown adult and had free will to choose to smoke or not. I'm an ex-smoker and I quit, it's not that hard. It really depends on the will power of the indiviual and the real desire to quit. I abused cigarettes and smoked too much. One day, if I feel like it, I may choose to have a cigarette from time to time.

It's obvious that you're too emotional to make a rational decision on this subject considering your mother's illness so I'll just ignore your rants as that of an illogical, emotionally charged, irrational person.

No one forced your mother to smoke, she made the choice. Be mad at her for choosing to smoke, not the cigarette. It's like gun control advocates being mad at the gun, not the criminal.

One last thing and if it angers you remember you said it, not me. If your mother was a smoker, does that mean you think she's a loser? I should hope not.

Think before you say stupid things and go putting your foot in your mouth.

[Dan from Michigan]

If you want no smoking in your business, that's your choice and I have no problem with it. The only problem I have is if you are one of those freedom grabbers who want to force government to make the choice for other places.

As for trends, I don't follow them. I set my own and let others follow me.

And for the record, I only smoke an occasional cigar about twice a month. I'm hardly a nicotine junkie. I am a freedom junkie.

[NJ Freeper]

Gotta love those sin taxes! (sarcasm) I even wonder if they realize that they're biting the hand that feeds them. And to compensate for smokers quitting, which is their excuse for taxing the heck out of cigarettes, they raise the taxes to make up for lost revenue. Let's not forget that the ends justify the means because it's "for our own good" (sarcasm)

[Tall_Texan]

We say again, taxation without representation. Would you care to ammend your stance?

No, I wouldn't. A sales tax is still a tax. There's additional taxes on gasoline too. Would you care to argue that gasoline should also be unregulated?

[CSM]

Yep. I stopped paying them about 5 years ago. I won't go into further detail. However, the manufacturer that I purchase from is now being forced to add a fed tax stamp and that alone increased the cost to me by $4 per carton. If one more tax hit occurs on them I will be rolling my own!

[Tall_Texan]

Are you aware that it is now illegal for NYC businesses to even have ashtrays for their customers (like outside their establishments) and that businesses have been fined for possessing ashtrays?

And that makes it okay to toss the butts on the sidewalk? NYC also fines you for not picking up your dog poop from the sidewalk. Smart people would learn to keep a container with them to keep their waste until it can be properly disposed should one want to take along a dog or a smoke.

[CSM]

Ah, now I see the disconnect in your logic. I certainly agree that we have far to many taxes. However, in the case of porn and sales tax, it is taxed at the same rate as any other items eligible for taxation. Newspapers, magazines, movies, etc. are all taxed at the same rate, regardless of content. With regards to tax on gasoline, I again think it is to high. However, the revenue generated is specifically earmarked (supposedly) for maintenance of the roads. The fed gas tax funds the fed highways and the state gas taxes are used by the states for maintenance of their roads.

By taxing the people that buy gas to maintain the roads they use, they are receiving an actual service for their investment. That is not the case with Tobacco. The MSA and state taxes are being used in the general budgets. The revenues are being used to fund anti tobacco groups. Without the tobacco money, these smoking bans would never be successful. IN REALITY THE TAXES PAID BY SMOKERS IS BEING USED TO FIGHT SMOKERS. That is even more evil than taxation without representation.

What do you think our Founders would have done if the British taxed us to buy the bullets used to shoot us?