To Smoke, or Not to Smoke (1 Viewer)

[D. Scott MacDonald]

Once again I agree, but I can't help but think that the media blitz is aimed as much at raising public support than it is at changing smokers behavior in their own homes. Who knows what people will vote for after several years of media conditioning.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Protected from what??? How can you protect someone from something they freely choose to do? There are already laws on the books that prevent someone from being forced to work at a job they do not want. No one is holding a gun to the head of anyone who wishes to work in a smoking environment. No one is holding a gun to the heads of those who choose to patronize such establisments. Everyone here has accepted "captive audience" laws for plays, movies, sports etc, so that argument is out.

What you seem to be saying is the wait/bar staffers of the country (not to mention patrons) are too stupid to take care of themselves and therefore need a nanny state to hold their hand at work and/or leisure? Sorry, but I have a much better view of the abilities of the average citizen to control their own lives when freed from the "protection" of the nanny state. The same nanny state that most certainly has our "well being" in the forefront of it's decisions (see eminent domain cases above).

PS: I'm a state worker. I work at a desk in an office. My brother is a state worker. He has to break down doors into heroin dens. Are we both "protected" equally under the law? Why not? Where are the laws protecting him? Furthermore, there are hamlets in this state that have maybe one crime a month. How come the cops in those towns are safe and my brother is not? Should he not have equal "protection"?

 

[WillG]

So it seems that Mayor Bloomberg wants to raise NYC cigarette taxes again in a personal agenda to end smoking

http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/62153.htm

Why doesn't he just propose a $1,000 a pack tax if he wants people to quit so bad.

It really does seem like this certain part of the population that indulges in this legal activity is being bullied.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Since I’m not a registered New York Post subscriber, I was unable to read the whole article. I did however, find a Reuters article with less hyperbole than what I read in your link. It appears that there is much more to this than the mayor’s personal vendetta against smokers, as you imply.

According to what I read, the governor wants some of the NYC cigarette tax for the State and the Mayor’s response is to get the cities revenue back by raising the current tax. It seems to me that this has more to do with local politics than with smokers.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

I'm sorry, but I just have to revisit this. You do understand that the phrase "equal protection under the law" has historically translated to "protection FROM the government" and not "protection BY the government"?

Given this, do you still think non-smoking laws fall under the phrase "equal protection under the law"?

 

[WillG]

The NYPost article does speak to the tax situation that you have mentioned. But, here are some quotes from the article.

"Here's our chance to save lives, particularly among our children who perhaps don't know how dangerous smoking can be," the mayor said.

"Bloomberg said he would use any extra revenue to help fund smoking-cessation and education programs."

"He argued that since the last increase four years ago, there are 200,000 fewer smokers and believes another increase would further keep teens from trying cigarettes."

"If we make any change at all in the cigarette tax this year, we must raise the tax that the city can collect on cigarettes, which would provide the city with additional revenues to spend on new public-health efforts to prevent and stop smoking,"

Of course I certainly do not endorse underage smoking and I am no longer a smoker. However, it seems very clear that a major part of this potential tax hike is an agenda driven attempt to extort citizens into abating a legal activity.

 

[johnnyPower]

I smoke 2 packs a day.

I completely respect the non-smoker who doesn't want to inhale my second hand smoke, and I try to not do it indoors or in their face.

BUT, what I can not stand is the non-smoker who gives me the dirty look, or the lecture about how I am killing myself, that makes me mad. It is my choice, I respect your wish for me not to blow smoke in your face, but please stfu and let me do whatever I want with my body.

I heard you the first time, yep, you don't like smoking, yep I'm killing myself, yep, maybe a bus hits me tommorow and my smoking wouldn't matter, yep maybe a bus hits you because you didnt stop for 3 seconds to light your cigarette and ironically you die before me without ever smoking BECAUSE you didn't smoke.

I don't care, just let me smoke in peace.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

There's often a good reason why threads drop off the page.

Welcome to the forum, BTW.

 

[johnnyPower]

ok.