Smoking Bans Are Not About Public Health
The cat is out of the bag. On the Early Spin this morning, Dan and Nicole interviewed one of the advocates for a smoking ban in Milwaukee. I only caught the last few minutes of the interview, so I can't say who they were talking to. I did hear that he was an elected official for Milwaukee or the region. If they post audio, I'll link it. I have a feeling I caught the good part, though, because Dan had the guy doing a major tap dance!
When asked about the impact this bill would have on businesses that generate revenue from smokers, for example: bars, smoke shops, and restaurants (basically the only businesses left that still allow smoking); the official said they wouldn't be affected because they could buy permits. Read that again, please: if a business wants to allow smoking, it can buy a permit. So, if a business thinks it needs to allow smoking in order to draw customers, they can just pay a fee. Given that all businesses that currently allow smoking do so because they feel it brings in more customers than banning it, nearly ALL of those businesses are going to want a permit. CHA-CHING!
So, the real motivation behind the proposed smoking ban is not public health. It's money; one more tax on an unprotected class. Well, not really, because the smokers won't be they only ones paying the price. Just in case you don't know how this works, businesses pass their costs on to the customers: ALL OF THEM. Whether you smoke or not, your dinner at the downtown steak house or poetry reading at the East Side coffee bar is going to cost just a little bit more. You may never notice. Certainly, that's what the people behind this bill are hoping for.
The real jab in the eye is that no anti-smoking proposal ever does anything to help smokers. There isn't a program to help smokers quit, and health care providers don't like to cover the drugs that help do the trick (ironic, isn't it?). Wouldn't it make a huge amount of sense to use any cigarette tax money raised to open supplemental health care accounts for smokers? When lawmakers get their hands on cigarette taxes, they act like Wynonna Rider on a shopping spree: spending it all, and then some.
Of course, you may see this as the ravings of a reformed smoker (only 5 months now). But, you'd be mistaken. I wasn't a smoker for long, and I thought that smokers took a lot of abuse long before I ever started. This is about asking for honesty and responsibility from our elected officials.
When asked about the impact this bill would have on businesses that generate revenue from smokers, for example: bars, smoke shops, and restaurants (basically the only businesses left that still allow smoking); the official said they wouldn't be affected because they could buy permits. Read that again, please: if a business wants to allow smoking, it can buy a permit. So, if a business thinks it needs to allow smoking in order to draw customers, they can just pay a fee. Given that all businesses that currently allow smoking do so because they feel it brings in more customers than banning it, nearly ALL of those businesses are going to want a permit. CHA-CHING!
So, the real motivation behind the proposed smoking ban is not public health. It's money; one more tax on an unprotected class. Well, not really, because the smokers won't be they only ones paying the price. Just in case you don't know how this works, businesses pass their costs on to the customers: ALL OF THEM. Whether you smoke or not, your dinner at the downtown steak house or poetry reading at the East Side coffee bar is going to cost just a little bit more. You may never notice. Certainly, that's what the people behind this bill are hoping for.
The real jab in the eye is that no anti-smoking proposal ever does anything to help smokers. There isn't a program to help smokers quit, and health care providers don't like to cover the drugs that help do the trick (ironic, isn't it?). Wouldn't it make a huge amount of sense to use any cigarette tax money raised to open supplemental health care accounts for smokers? When lawmakers get their hands on cigarette taxes, they act like Wynonna Rider on a shopping spree: spending it all, and then some.
Of course, you may see this as the ravings of a reformed smoker (only 5 months now). But, you'd be mistaken. I wasn't a smoker for long, and I thought that smokers took a lot of abuse long before I ever started. This is about asking for honesty and responsibility from our elected officials.
7 Amendments:
Keep an eye on their Audio Rewind section, they may post the audio to that interview, I would like to hear it myself. I have spoken against that issue in the past and would welcome the chance to do it again.
I am usually very Conservative, but when it comes to Smokers rights, I say that they don't trump my rights.
I've got a right to breathe fresh air.
I live in a state where smoking isn't allowed in any public buildings.
I love it!
When we go out to dinner we never have to answer the Smoking or non Smoking question.
I love the fact that when I go out to dinner, I don't have to breathe in your lousy smoke.
I say No to Helmet laws,
No to Seat belt laws,
and No to similar nanny laws.
While I really can't comment on the particular Milwaukee law, as for the California laws which are some of the strictest around, I say Right on!
I love my fresh air.
I do agree that "Smoking or non" is often a joke. My answer has always been "first available." When I smoked, I rarely lit up indoors, even where it was allowed.
If smoking vs. non is truly the issue, then the law should address THAT. The technology exists to prevent non-smokers from breathing smokey air. It's called a "wall." Alternate technologies, known as "fans" and "barriers" also work very well.
I can understand perfectly why people might want to enjoy a smoke free dinner. Bars, on the other hand: if you're drinking yourself silly and then driving home, a little cigarette smoke isn't any more dangerous than you are.
You should b fighting to ban all smoking then. What gives you the right to decide what a private business owner allows on his own property? You don't own a restaurant, so why do you trump the owners rights? It is a private business, it is open to the public, but it is not publicly owned. Once again we see private property rights destroyed.
BTW, I am a non smoker myself, I prefer to go places that do not allow smoking, but I don't think I have the right to force a business owner to do something he believes is in his businesses best interest. If you don't want to go to a smoking restaurant, then don't, go down the street and stop being a bully.
There are still a few dive bars around here with patrons and owners who don't give a rats ass about the law they smoke in those bars.
This is the way that it used to always be.
Smokers were once a pretty sizeable group, and they were the bullies.
If you don't like my smoke then get the heck out of here.
Then the nonsmokers finally got up enough courage and asked for non smoking sections in restaurants. Well we all know what a joke that is.
Well the tables have turned my friend.
There are a lot more of us non smokers than there are smokers.
We are simply not taking it anymore.
Non smokers have politely put up with smoke for generations, why I don't know, but I think that in the past if you complained about somebodys smoke, you were considered a sissy. Now if you do something about it you're a bully???
Now I do believe that this a States issue and not a Federal one.
In his defense, it sounds like California has actually passed a law and not just a new tax.
You may disagree with their principles, but the people of California certainly mean what they say in this case.
Oh yea. I really don't like sin taxes.
Which it sounds like the Milwaukee law is.
We've got a lot of stupid laws here in Cali. too.
If the people of Oakland has passed a lot of stupid resolutions.
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/001268.html
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home