.The news in Michigan is that the much sought after and popular workplace smoking ban, including bars and restaurants, is stalled in the Michigan Legislature, but the news in tobacco-rich North Carolina is that the state House just approved a ban last week on smoking in work places and restaurants.
North Carolina is home of the J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, the second-largest tobacco company in the United States, and maker of such well-known cigarette brands as Camel, Pall Mall, Kool, Winston, Salem and Doral. For a baby-boomer like me, those products are household names after years of heavy advertising on every medium available. A smoking ban in North Carolina is comparable to a ban on driving automobiles on ozone action days in Michigan or gambling in Nevada.
This comes just a month after news that the home of the largest cigarette manufacturer in the U.S. and home of the Marlboro man enacted a smoking ban when Virginia Gov. Timothy Kaine signed the bill into law in March.
North Carolina’s law is far from perfect, and it has its problems, including exempting bars. But it is a start, and it is more than Michigan has. If the two largest tobacco producing states can ban indoor smoking, why can’t Michigan?
The North Carolina law also exposes the danger of not enacting a complete ban and instead making exceptions like Michigan is considering. The N.C. Restaurant and Lodging Association is vowing to fight the bill as it moves on to the Senate because they fear patrons will choose to grab some bar food and enjoy a cigarette rather than visit a restaurant and go without a smoke. However, they also ignore the peer-reviewed studies that show that’s simply not true and how less than 24 percent of the population carries so much economic clout.
This situation is very similar to Michigan, and you have to wonder if the Restaurant and Lodging Association ever supported the bill. In Michigan, the Restaurant Association has fought any smoking ban bill tooth and nail, despite what its members think.
I’ll keep an eye on this to see if Michigan or North Carolina becomes the 36th state to enact an indoor smoking ban.
6 comments:
Louisiana, California, Lawrence Kansas, New Jersey, Illinois, all have studies that show that smoking bans have hurt businesses.
Businesses are closing, and if they aren't closing, layoffs are taking place due to the drop off in business since the smoking ban took affect and customer complaints are up.
Your facts are made up and/or those facts are gleaned from organizations in favor of the ban which are skewering the real information.
This is similar to your headline to this story. "Tobacco rich North Carolina approves workplace smoking ban". This is a lie. The House only has passed it. It still must be passed by the Senate and signed by the Governor.
One can only ask why the Democrats hate the workers of America and want to put them out of work?
That is pure bull shit. I have written and linked to study after study that shows smoking a ban does not hurt business, and in some cases improves it. You give me your questionable opinion. I say prove it. Indian University; there’s’ a real biased source.
How is it possible that less than 25 percent of the population carries so much economic clout? You always refuse to answer that question. It’s even more perplexing when you, or some other right-winger here, gave me a hard time saying the cigarette tax effects mainly low and middle income people. If they are so low-income, how can they single-handily close a bar or restaurant down? If they are low-income, how do they have all this money to spend in bars and restaurants?
The headline is accurate, and like it said in the body of the story, the Senate needs to approve it.
“One can only ask why the Democrats hate the workers of America and want to put them out of work?” Give me a break. Even you can’t be this dishonest and stupid.
Now, crawl back under your rock, brett.
Indian University? I didn't use Indian University as a source. I don't even know of a University named Indian. I thought that political correctness dictated that names would be changed to Native American University. But, I'll leave that to you to figure out. I can't give a response to a source I didn't give, nor to a University I've never heard of.
I can always tell when you've been caught in a lie because the four letter words start coming out.
Your sources are always those with ties to advocates of the ban.
Yes, you do always ask the question about how 25% of the people can dictate the economy. It varies from 23% to 25%, but you do always ask the question in each of your comments on smoking bans within your blog. I don't respond to it because I've never seen a source for that figure being the number of smokers around the country. With your proclivity towards making up numbers, I see no reason to answer a question like that. It would be like answering the question "so how long have you been beating your wife?"
It's always been a problem that those receiving welfare of one sort or another use the money in ways it wasn't intended. Booze, cigarettes, drugs.
It is a fact that lower income people make up the majority of the smokers. I gave you the source on that as well.
Yes, you did mention within the body of your writing that the Senate still had to pass it, but your headline is still a lie. North Carolina has not approved the smoking ban.
As for sources, why waste my time giving you sources? If someone hit you over the nose with a 2x4 you'd swear it was a sledge hammer, as you picked the splinters out of your nose.
But, a simple google search will give you the facts. Sales tax revenues dropped after the smoking ban was enacted. Businesses that had the ban forced on them report that they have had a drop off in business and whether or not they have had to close their businesses, lay off employees.
The facts are that you create the facts to fit your desired outcomes. You like to ask leading questions, but you berate a question asked in the same vein as you did this time.
A perfect example of this is you addressing two of us as Brett. I'm not Brett. Kevins says he's not Brett, yet you have this fixation on someone named Brett. It's much like your smoking ban fetish.
There is not one documented case of a death being attributed to second hand smoke, yet you continue to spew that propoganda.
You quote political groups, anti smoking groups, Democrat groups, and claim that some are independent groups, but after further research it's clear that those independent groups are receiving money from the anti smoking groups.
Smoking is a bad thing. It's not good for the smoker, and the non smokers usually don't like the odor. But smoking is still a legal choice of the individual. To put a ban on a legal substance is backwards at best.
I love the cigarette tax. This is a perfect example of the morons in the Socialist Democrat party. They punish smokers by raising the taxes on cigarettes. They claim that they will use that money to pay for children's health care. By raising the taxes, they may get less people to smoke. If it works and they eliminate 50% of the smokers, the taxes coming in will decrease, which decreases the amount of money for children's health care.
Using your 25% figure of smokers, if you cut that in half, how will you then pay for the health care for these children? I guess the argument could be made that the smokers are actually a benefit to society. First, they provide health care for the children. Second, they're more likely to die before collecting social security saving the government tons of money.
Socialist Democrats say that they aren't for abortion, but that it's the woman's body and nobody should choose for her what she does with it. Yet, you want to dictate to smokers what they can or can't do to their own bodies, and dictate to a business owner what he can or cannot have in his own business.
Before you restate your standard line about there not being any Socialist Democrats, perhaps you ought to look at the latest Rasmussen Poll on Socialism vs Capitalism. Socialist Democrats are split on whether socialism is better than capitalism, but Republicans and Independents choose Capitalism by a huge margin over Socialism.
Good job, you caught me in a typo, but that’s all you will ever catch me in, and that’s why you harp on it. It’s Indiana University, and here’s the link:
http://liberalmedianot.blogspot.com/2009/04/indiana-university-study-debunks-myth.html
I notice you had nothing to say about that post.
If you consider bull shit a four-letter word; that’s your problem, brett. You have and never will catch me in a lie. How is Indiana University, the New York Health Department or Ken Sikkema tied “to advocates of the ban?”
So that’s how you are ducking the question on how 25 percent of the population can have such a huge economic impact. Well, you can’t duck it anymore. Here the answer you are trying to avoid:
“Approximately 20.8% of U.S. adults were current cigarette smokers.” That’s from the CDC, and here’s a link:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5644a2.htm
Well, I disagree with your false and disgusting lie that the majority of welfare recipients use the money for “Booze, cigarettes, drugs,” but even if it were true it does not explain the huge effect they have on restaurants. Are they spending it on food in big restaurants that employee many people? Give me a break.
If you provided a source that “lower income people make up the majority of the smokers” I missed it. Provide it again. So how is it those low income people who smoke have such huge economic clout? Stop ducking that question.
The headline is accurate; NC did approve a smoking ban.
Great excuse, why waste your time giving me sources? Because you don’t have any. That’s your opinion that sales dropped after a smoking ban. There is not one, single fact to back up that false opinion, and you know it, brett.
There are over 3,000 deaths a year caused by secondhand smoke. I know right-wingers like you hate science, but it’s true.
This is not a choice issue, and it’s not about stopping people from smoking. If you want to smoke, fine, but you do not have the right to pollute the air I or any other person breathes. It’s a public health issue. Secondhand smoke is harmful and deadly, that is not in doubt.
There is no such thing as the “Socialist Democrat party” in this country, and that’s just a fascist republican talking point. No, they don’t “claim” that they will use that money to pay for children's health care, it’s a fact. The money lost on the cigarette tax if more people quit smoking will be more than made up in less health care costs and Medicare and Medicaid costs.
Once again, brett, there is no such thing as the “Socialist Democrat party” in this country, and that’s just a fascist republican talking point. I am a Liberal Democrat, and I do not favor abortion. I want it to be rare, safe and legal. I don’t care if smoker’s smoke, but they have no right to endanger the health of nonsmokers.
How can “Socialist Democrats” be “split on whether socialism is better than capitalism” when there is no such thing as Socialist Democrats in this country, brett?
Indiana University makes more sense, but using yourself as a source is really giving yourself alot of unearned credit.
Of course I didn't say anything about that post. I was looking for Indian University, which didn't exist.
Actually, that's two four letter words, but only one is considered vulgar.
Everytime you call me or anyone else Brett that tells you his/her name is not Brett, you're caught in a lie. But, there are plenty of other lies that you've been caught in just in the few months that I've been reading your crap. I can only imagine how many times you were caught in lies prior to my reading.
You disagree, but you have no proof to back up your assertion and admit that you have no proof by saying "but even if it were true..." This is a perfect example of you calling someone a liar without knowing the facts.
If you want the source, back up and look at your own blog. It's obvious that it doesn't matter if there is proof or not. You didn't accept the proof when the source was provided to you in the past but you expect me to dig it up again for you to not accept it again. I'm not ducing the question if I provide you a source (which I have in the past) and you choose not to read it nor accept it. Continue to hide your head in the sand. It's what Socialists do best.
Once again, your headline is a lie. NC did not approve the ban. The House approved the ban (maybe, since I'm only taking your word that the NC House did pass it), but the Senate hasn't approved it and the Governor hasn't signed off on it. So it's not been approved yet. Only one-third of the bodies that must sign off, have signed off on it.
I provide sources and you don't accept them because they prove you wrong. Been there, done that. If you were an honest person, you'd do full research before putting your words down. Want to see the other side? Google it. It's easy enough to do. Maybe you could get your wife, boyfriend or elementary school teacher to get it for you and explain it to you.
3,000 deaths per year. Well, that's easy enough to prove. Please show one documented case where someone has died due to second hand smoke. There aren't any, so you can't do it.
If you do not favor abortion, then you can't be for it being rare. If you're for it being rare, then you're accepting that abortion is okay. If you're not in favor of abortion, then you should not be in favor of it being legal. Quite a contradiction. But it's still better than Obama who is in favor, and has voted in favor, of killing a living a child, aka infanticide.
You spew rights but I can't find those rights in the Constitution. There is no right to health care. Your air is not being polluted by smokers unless you choose to stand where a smoker exhales and suck up that exhaust.
You're a typical socialist Democrat that whines about everything and tries to attaach rights where there are none, and has to lie about the facts to control how other people live their lives.
If you're interested in the truth, look it up. If you're not interested in the truth, continue to blame everyone else for your ignorance.
If you want to give me a hard time about typos, fine, but two can play that game, brett. Again, I do not use myself as a source. Sorry, I’m an adult, and I don’t consider the word bullshit vulgar. This in a blog for adults, and if words like bullshit, fuck or hell offend you then go somewhere else, brett.
Once gain, brett, you have never caught me in a lie, and you never will. I think on one or two occasions you may have found a mistake, and I have acknowledged it and corrected it. I consistently back up my positions with respected, mainstream sources and peer reviewed studies. On the rare occasion you do provide a source after I call you out on the fact you never do that, you provide me some off the wall opinion piece.
Once again, you need to provide a reliable source. The fact you can’t speaks volumes.
Once again, the headline is accurate.
That’s bullshit. You rarely provide sources, and on the rare occasion you do provide any, they are unreliable opinions void of facts.
That is correct, 3,000 deaths in Michigan. That comes from an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association called “Passive Smoking and the Risk of Heart Disease.”
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/273/13/1047?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Passive+Smoking+and+the+Risk+of+Heart+Disease&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
I am pro-choice. Abortion is not a decision I would choose, but it’s an individual, very personal choice. That "Obama infanticide" baloney is exactly that.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_alive_baloney.html
I also don’t find the right to smoke in the Constitution. This is a public health issue. Why is the minority allowed to engage in a practice that causes the death and sickness of innocent bystanders? Non-smokers are not endangering anyone’s health. Why did they have to go elsewhere?
I’m not a “socialist Demarcate” because there is no such thing in this country, and that’s just a fascist republican talking point. I’m interested in the truth, and that’s what I write. I see your frustration of not being able to defend your weak position with facts or sources.
Post a Comment