While I'm somewhat opposed to banning smoking in bars, there is a difference. You don't live in a bar. You don't sleep in a bar. You don't raise your family in a bar.
While I'm somewhat opposed to banning smoking in bars, there is a difference. You don't live in a bar. You don't sleep in a bar. You don't raise your family in a bar.
Well, not generally, anyway.
I was going to take issue with this post, but the last sentence made me laugh. Nice post RD.
While I'm somewhat opposed to banning smoking in bars, there is a difference. You don't live in a bar. You don't sleep in a bar. You don't raise your family in a bar.
Well, not generally, anyway.
They're getting away with banning it in bars because they are a workplace.
Just wait ... pretty soon you won't be able to hire plumbers or painters or housekeepers or get the cable guy to come out if you're a smoker.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
My apologies. I didn't realize that tobacco companies are run by and employ only robots.
If all you're proposing here is a boycott, then I certainly respect anyone's right to not buy the products made by tobacco companies. However, the original poster to whom I replied was looking for the government to "go after" tobacco companies.
what most of you aren't realizing is that the suppliers of tobacco are poor farmers. so many that the government subsidises and suppliments their income. their farms are so small that the only products they can grow and make a profit are tobacco and pot. i know several that grow pot to make ends meet and i'm sure there's many more.
if you recall; the government already went after the tobacco companies. they received large fines and sanctions that will continue for many years to come.
Pardon my language but this is the biggest crock of shit I have ever heard. We are loosing our freedoms faster than I can count to ten....it's ridiculous.
What's next, charging us for the air we breathe?? Mark my words this will happen someday, probably sooner than we think.
Alpine Valley 06-13-99 [EV-Solo]
Alpine Valley 10-8-00 (The Icebowl)
Chicago 05-16-06, 05-17-06
Lollapalooza 08-05-07
Chicago 08-22-08 [EV Solo]
Chicago 08-23-09, 08-24-09
Chicago 06-28-11, 06-29-11 [EV Solo]
PJ20 Alpine Valley 09-03-11, 09-04-11
Wrigley Field 07-19-13
Wrigley Field 08-20-16, 08-22-16
Home drug use is certainly policed here in the States. Everyday in this country people are arrested and imprisoned for having possession of drugs in their homes or using drugs in their homes.
so the police should ignore violent crimes and stake out peoples houses looking for signs of tobacco use? i didn't realize san francisco was so crime free that the police have nothing to do.
what most of you aren't realizing is that the suppliers of tobacco are poor farmers. so many that the government subsidises and suppliments their income. their farms are so small that the only products they can grow and make a profit are tobacco and pot. i know several that grow pot to make ends meet and i'm sure there's many more.
I do realize that. Not sure what your point is here, however.
if you recall; the government already went after the tobacco companies. they received large fines and sanctions that will continue for many years to come.
i agree, smoking should be totally banned outright, the sooner the better. filthy friggin habit. i want my daughter to grow up in a world where ciggarettes were one of those stupid things humans did in ancient history.
car exhaust causes more medical problems than second hand smoke. not only do you breath it in; what excapes falls down upon you as sulfuric acid (acid rain) destroying the trees that purify the air you breathe.
so you want to protect your daughter from one poison but you feed her a more potent one. somehow that doesn't make sense.
I do realize that. Not sure what your point is here, however.
Certainly.
the point is that a total ban would instantly throw hundreds of thousands of people into deep poverty. a few states entire economy would colapse.
but you will pay to support these people. the government will have to buy out these farms; pay to relocate these people; and give them welfare until they can re-establish themselves. entering a work force with only the knowledge of growing tobacco.
since the governments money comes from you; you pay.
the current plan slowly trains these people for other jobs and helps to move the economy in preperation for the close of the tobacco industry.
also remember that many of the children in these households are home schooled. it's hard to get a school bus to drive 30 miles into remote farm areas to pick up a few children. i can't even get electricity to my ranch even if i wanted it.
the point is that a total ban would instantly throw hundreds of thousands of people into deep poverty. a few states entire economy would colapse.
Let's no go crazy here. I live in NC, the major tabocco producing state. And while a total ban would certainly harm the economy here, it certainly wouldn't "collapse". Nor would "hundreds of thousands of people" go into deep poverty. Even without a nickel of US consumer money, the international market for US cigarettes is very strong.
Banning tabacco use is simply wrong from a moral and common sense standpoint. The economic and health concerns are secondary.
I don't understand how they can ban cigarettes for private use as long as they're still legal? It would be more understandable (while not agreeable) if they planned on making the act of smoking tobacco illegal but that's not the case.
Start a thread about banning smoking in bars or businesses -- you'll see the opposite opinions when the ban wouldn't apply to someplace these people own.
I see the benefit in having smoke free bars and resturuants but I don't agree with a mandatory ban. I don't think that the government should force a private business, like a bar, to be smoke free, but should offer some type of incentive (tax break for example) to entice the owner(s) to make that choice.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I see the benefit in having smoke free bars and resturuants but I don't agree with a mandatory ban. I don't think that the government should force a private business, like a bar, to be smoke free, but should offer some type of incentive (tax break for example) to entice the owner(s) to make that choice.
Let's no go crazy here. I live in NC, the major tabocco producing state. And while a total ban would certainly harm the economy here, it certainly wouldn't "collapse". Nor would "hundreds of thousands of people" go into deep poverty. Even without a nickel of US consumer money, the international market for US cigarettes is very strong.
Banning tabacco use is simply wrong from a moral and common sense standpoint. The economic and health concerns are secondary.
so you don't think that maybe 10,000 people going on welfare in your state at once would collapse the economy? does NC have that much in extra funds? and if a total ban were enacted; tobacco would have to be illegal to grow or own. thus eliminating the international market.
Comments
Well, not generally, anyway.
I was going to take issue with this post, but the last sentence made me laugh. Nice post RD.
Just wait ... pretty soon you won't be able to hire plumbers or painters or housekeepers or get the cable guy to come out if you're a smoker.
what most of you aren't realizing is that the suppliers of tobacco are poor farmers. so many that the government subsidises and suppliments their income. their farms are so small that the only products they can grow and make a profit are tobacco and pot. i know several that grow pot to make ends meet and i'm sure there's many more.
if you recall; the government already went after the tobacco companies. they received large fines and sanctions that will continue for many years to come.
What's next, charging us for the air we breathe?? Mark my words this will happen someday, probably sooner than we think.
Alpine Valley 10-8-00 (The Icebowl)
Chicago 05-16-06, 05-17-06
Lollapalooza 08-05-07
Chicago 08-22-08 [EV Solo]
Chicago 08-23-09, 08-24-09
Chicago 06-28-11, 06-29-11 [EV Solo]
PJ20 Alpine Valley 09-03-11, 09-04-11
Wrigley Field 07-19-13
Wrigley Field 08-20-16, 08-22-16
so the police should ignore violent crimes and stake out peoples houses looking for signs of tobacco use? i didn't realize san francisco was so crime free that the police have nothing to do.
I do realize that. Not sure what your point is here, however.
Certainly.
Of course not.
car exhaust causes more medical problems than second hand smoke. not only do you breath it in; what excapes falls down upon you as sulfuric acid (acid rain) destroying the trees that purify the air you breathe.
so you want to protect your daughter from one poison but you feed her a more potent one. somehow that doesn't make sense.
the point is that a total ban would instantly throw hundreds of thousands of people into deep poverty. a few states entire economy would colapse.
but you will pay to support these people. the government will have to buy out these farms; pay to relocate these people; and give them welfare until they can re-establish themselves. entering a work force with only the knowledge of growing tobacco.
since the governments money comes from you; you pay.
the current plan slowly trains these people for other jobs and helps to move the economy in preperation for the close of the tobacco industry.
also remember that many of the children in these households are home schooled. it's hard to get a school bus to drive 30 miles into remote farm areas to pick up a few children. i can't even get electricity to my ranch even if i wanted it.
Let's no go crazy here. I live in NC, the major tabocco producing state. And while a total ban would certainly harm the economy here, it certainly wouldn't "collapse". Nor would "hundreds of thousands of people" go into deep poverty. Even without a nickel of US consumer money, the international market for US cigarettes is very strong.
Banning tabacco use is simply wrong from a moral and common sense standpoint. The economic and health concerns are secondary.
Exactly. Check out the lightbulb thread.
I see the benefit in having smoke free bars and resturuants but I don't agree with a mandatory ban. I don't think that the government should force a private business, like a bar, to be smoke free, but should offer some type of incentive (tax break for example) to entice the owner(s) to make that choice.
What about giving them free cigarettes?
i dont think there's anything profit doesn't over-ride in this country
What ever works.
so you don't think that maybe 10,000 people going on welfare in your state at once would collapse the economy? does NC have that much in extra funds? and if a total ban were enacted; tobacco would have to be illegal to grow or own. thus eliminating the international market.