Hopefully, Kerberos. See post 16!
Posted on 01/22/2003 3:56:17 AM PST by SheLion
BISMARCK - North Dakota House representatives Monday voted overwhelmingly against a bill proposing to ban tobacco sales in the state.
The measure, which would make selling or using tobacco products except for using it for relgious purposes misdemeanors, failed by an 88-4 vote.
The bill would have made it a crime to sell or use tobacco in North Dakota, with sellers facing a maximum penalty of a year in jail and a $2,000 fine. The bill labeled smoking, chewing or using smokeless tobacco as a less severe crime, punishable by 30 days in jail and a $1,000 fine.
GF sponsor
The bill's sole sponsor, Grand Forks Republican Rep. Mike Grosz, said he was disappointed by Monday's vote.
But "it did get a fair day in the sun and generated a lot of discussion," said Grosz, a member of the House Finance and Taxation Committee, which heard the bill last week.
Before the bill went to a vote on the floor, Grosz told his fellow representatives that tobacco costs the state close to 1,000 lives every year and $351 million in medical and productivity costs. Tobacco taxes are expected to bring $39.7 million to North Dakota's treasury during the state's current two-year budget period, which ends in June.
"It seems the only gainers from allowing the use of this product are the big tobacco companies and groups, such as the government and organizations, which tax the product or sue the companies," he said.
Grosz said he would vote against all other measures on tobacco, including a tax increase, because trying to reduce tobacco use through those measures is like "putting a bandage on a severed leg."
Gov. John Hoeven's proposed two-year budget for North Dakota state government includes an increase in tobacco taxes, which would increase the levy on a pack of cigarettes from 44 cents to 79 cents.
Passed committee
Rep. Wes Belter, R-Leonard, chairman of the Finance and Taxation Committee, said he decided to vote no on the floor Monday because he believe prohibition would drive smoking underground.
His committee heard the bill last week and recommended a "do pass" on the bill by a 9-4 vote. Six of the nine committee members who voted yes on the bill changed their vote on the floor Monday.
Belter told the House that committee members were frustrated last week with the testimony from anti-tobacco groups that testified against the tobacco ban, including the North Dakota Medical Association, American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, North Dakota Public Health Association and North Dakota Nurses Association.
There's no evidence banning tobacco would prevent and reduce tobacco use because no such approach has been implemented, the groups argued. The ban also could take away certain funding forthese groups for tobacco control programs.
The North Dakota Grocer's Association supported the bill. Tom Woodmansee, the association's president, told lawmakers during the committee hearing that retailers have to spend too much time and money training employees on proper procedures for proof-of-age in selling tobacco products. He said retailers are subject to undercover stings by local law enforcement, fines and license suspension.
Belter did point out that legislators are "hooked on tobacco," even though not all smoke.
"It is time for us to think about just how hooked we are on tobacco, whether we smoke or not," he said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zhang covers the North Dakota Legislature. She can be reached at (701) 255-5520 or xzhang@gfherald.com. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Just goes to show you that these organizations, with the possible exception of the ND Nurses Association (Most nurses are normally pretty tolerant), are NOT about stopping tobacco use. They just want the public trough to keep being filled for them and to be able to FEEL superior to a segment of society.
RINO,RINO,RINO and DemocRAT
Oh sure! Call out your personal little army. Can't stand in here like a man on your own, can you? Moron!
Hopefully, Kerberos. See post 16!
And they zero'd in on 25-30% of the popular. I guess they think we are weaklings!
You REALLY don't get it, do you???
He did this to show the hypocrisy of the anti-smoking NAZIs. You did see the part where he said he would vote against all other measures to increase tobacco taxes and further attempts to limit it's usage didn't you??
He KNEW the bill would be opposed by the Idiots clamoring for more controls, and he exposed their hypocrisy for all to see.
Just wanted to call it to some other peoples attention as to how good it is getting these days. Sorry that bothers you.
BINGO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You get the prize. This is the most delicious piece of idiocy the antis could have done for themselves.
The closest I saw them come to it personally was about 2 years ago when there was legislation in Delaware to make it illegal for the use or possession of tobacco products for those under 18 - the current law is that it is illegal for it to be sold to those under 18.
The only opposition the bill received was from the anti-smoker groups.
If I remember correctly it didn't make it as far as this bill did - it died in committee.
Hypocrites.
And that has always been the real kicker, of the various assorted substances that one could choose to take up, nicotine is probable the most addictive. In fact there are some studies that show it is right up there with heroin.
But I believe that the politician in the article here is the same guy I read about a few weeks back and what he is really trying to do is to point out the hypocrisy of the lefts position on cigarettes. And you have to admit he makes a good case.
If the figures he quotes are accurate, that the increased health care cost to the state from cigarette smoking is $351 million, and the increased revenue from the cigarette tax is $39.7 million every two years, then it is obvious that there is a substantial shortfall of income to cover cost. There can be only two solutions to this problem.
1.) Make cigarettes illegal, after all, we are trying to protect the health safety and welfare of the people.
2.) Increase the tax on cigarettes enough to cover the shortfall; essentially making them illegal, as only the very wealthy would be able to afford them and the black market would kick in to service the rest.
However the upside may be that this could initiate a discussion as to the validity of our other drug laws. He claims that 1000 people die every year in the state of North Dakota. Now North Dakota is not a real populous state but if we use that as a base number could we then say that if applied to the other 49 states that cigarettes are responsible for 50,000 deaths in the U.S. each year. If so then one would have to ask the question as to how many deaths are caused from smoking marijuana each year. I don’t believe it is anything close to 50,000.
At any rate this could get real humorous.
I personally have nothing against the legalization of cannibis, for example. But I do have a personal problem with cannabis users who think I am some kind of a low-life second hand citizen because I use tobacco and wish to legally continue to do so.
In my own personal experience I have encountered entirely too many people who I know to be cannabis users speaking out vocally in favor of further restrictions upon tobacco users, up to and including removing children from their homes.
maybe if the pro-cannibis people were a bit less like the anti-(tobacco)smoker types there would be less conflict between the two groups.
Well sure it does, especially if you’ re part of the group that is being targeted. The problem is the time to be concerned about that is when the people of the other groups, who you are not a part of, were being targeted. Now the machinery that was used to make criminals out of them is being turned on you and you don’t like it. But unfortunately you too are now part of a minority and there are going to be very few who are willing to speak up for your rights.
” I personally have nothing against the legalization of cannabis”
Then you are part of the minority. After all it is the heathen devil weed and we’ve got to protect the children.
” But I do have a personal problem with cannabis users who think I am some kind of a low-life second hand citizen because I use tobacco and wish to legally continue to do so.”
As do cannabis users who are stereotyped as low life stinking hippies who will never attain anything more than a job as a waiter. And keep in mind that their drug of choice was at one time legal. Personally, I am not aware of any cannabis users who are advocating further restrictions on cigarettes, but I am not going to doubt your personnel experience. However, if there are such users they are helping to slit their own throats.
” maybe if the pro-cannabis people were a bit less like the anti-(tobacco)smoker types there would be less conflict between the two groups.”
And then again maybe if a lot of people would stay out of other peoples business unless they had directly suffered harm from another’s behavior, as opposed to supposed harm, we’d all be a lot better off.
But fear not the collectivists are not going to outlaw cigarettes. The only interest they have in the matter is that it holds the potential for an increased revenue stream for them and I believe that is what the politician in the story is trying to put in plain view. Although their rhetoric sounds real good the issue is not about the health safety and welfare of the people, just as that is not what the issue is with marijuana users.
I couldn't agree with you more - I seeit happening day in and day out, butin general the sheeple don't listen.
And keep in mind that their drug of choice was at one time legal.
It is something I always keep in mind, and work to keep tobacco from going that way.
Personally, I am not aware of any cannabis users who are advocating further restrictions on cigarettes, but I am not going to doubt your personnel experience. However, if there are such users they are helping to slit their own throats.
I appreciate your acceptance of my experience. And I agree with you that those who advocate the illegalization of tobacco do no good toward their goal of legalization of cannibis. Personally I think pot should be treated in a manner that would be considered a cross between tobacco and alcohol. You must be of a certain age to purchase/use and penalties for doing stupid stuff when having overindulged.
And then again maybe if a lot of people would stay out of other peoples business unless they had directly suffered harm from another’s behavior, as opposed to supposed harm, we’d all be a lot better off.
and that about sums the entire thing up - on both issues.
Although their rhetoric sounds real good the issue is not about the health safety and welfare of the people, just as that is not what the issue is with marijuana users.
BINGO!!!!!!!!!!
IMO, that anti-smoking propaganda is pure bullshit. If heroin itself weren't illegal, could you imagine seeing the drug companies clamoring over themselves to put heroin in patches and telling addicts they can "wean" themselves off a "highly addictive" drug by taking diminishing doses, and making it available over the counter? Again IMO, it's the habit of the smoking ritual that's hard to break, not the physical dependence on the drug itself.
Actually it's both.
He KNEW the bill would be opposed by the Idiots clamoring for more controls, and he exposed their hypocrisy for all to see.
Funny, isn't it. As the saying goes, "believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see". I liken the whole anti-smoking crusades to be similar to alcohol Prohibition. Back then it was Baptists and Bootleggers for the illegalization of alcohol, each for their own reasons, and now it's Crusaders and Crooks for the bans and exorbitant excise taxes on smokes. I believe that's exactly what Rep. Mike Grosz was trying to do - expose the Crooks.
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.