Smoking Ban Loses in Senate by 1 Vote

phoenix · 03-03-2007, 11:29 AM

the issue with trans fats is it is extremely harmful to you and if you knew it was in the food prepared at a restaurant then you could decide to eat or not eat. So as a compromise don't ban smoking or transfats or anything but just require a restaurant to post as you enter we put transfats in all our food and allow smoking anywhere so enter at your own risk

chipj29 · 03-04-2007, 10:53 AM

Here is my 2 pennies on this.
If you are a non-smoker, you do not have a choice on whether or not to smoke, if there is a smoker near you. Sure you can go somewhere else, or go outside, but whose rights are more important...the smoker or the non-smoker? Give the smoker the right to smoke, and he does it not really caring who is affected by it. Give the non-smoker the right to not smoke, and it affects no one around him/her.

There are directs impacts, and indirect impacts. For example, banning transfats. The eater of the transfats is directly impacted. No one else around them is impacted directly. Now you could argue that one could be impacted indirectly, as if the transfats make the eater sick, then healthcare costs can rise. But that to me is like in-indirect.
The helmet law has direct impacts on the rider choosing to not wear a helmet. It may also have direct impacts on the family of the rider emotionally. There are no concrete indirect impacts. Again...indirect impacts-healthcare etc.
In the case of smoking, the smoker is obviously directly impacted by the smoke, as are the people around them. Again with the indirect impact-healthcare thing.

You could also argue from the standpoint of a restaurant owner. Let's say you decide to ban smoking in your restaurant, while the place next door still allows it. That gives your customers the right to choose no doubt. I am not going to argue whose business is going to suffer. I am merely going to point out that one restaurants business WILL suffer. A smoking ban would level the playing field.

Hermit Cover · 03-04-2007, 11:28 AM

Sounds like all these issues have a common thread....."Oh...I guess one could say that smoking, trans fats and helmets don't really hurt anything or anyone....but healthcare." Looks like healthcare costs are going to keep rising....and rising...and rising...and......and the issues of smoke, fats, and helmets are going to fog the real problem.....we ALL agree that healthcare costs are a problem but it's easier to argue the finer points of helmets, fat, and smoke, and alcohol, and the air, and the water, and speed, and , and, and

rander7823 · 03-05-2007, 10:58 AM

Apparently my comments about Social Security were legislated out. All I say is that that is the greatest example of not being responsible for your own actions and it is digging deeply into your pockets.
I'll give up on the smoking ban if they suspend Social Security.

Gavia immer · 03-05-2007, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hermit Cover

we ALL agree that healthcare costs are a problem but it's easier to argue the finer points of helmets, fat, and smoke, and alcohol, and the air, and the water, and speed, and, and, and,

Skimming??

SteveA · 03-06-2007, 04:11 AM

It seems to me that this discussion, and I am impressed with the civility on this thread, is central to what makes this country a special place on this planet.The freedom to openly debate "rights".

Check this site out. I'll bet each of us can find support in our countries history for a thoughtful stance on every issue from smoking to helmet laws to transfat.

... and what about that flouride in our water?

I'm for it if it stays at least 150' away!!

http://freedomkeys.com/rights.htm

fatlazyless · 03-06-2007, 07:57 AM

Remember those guys, or make it that guy and the camel. No longer allowed, the Marlboro Man and Joe Camel were outlawed by the Feds under Ronald Reagan because they were targeted at teenagers to get them to start.

New Hampshire is short on its' tax revs and needs all the tobacco tax it can get so....... How about an Old Man Of the Mountain puffing away on a cigarette, ad campaign, that's targeted at New Hampshire teenage smokers. The State of New Hampshire needs to mine the cigarette tax right so's it can avoid the dreaded income tax. What could be more New Hampshire than the Old Man of the Mountain with a cigarette on one side of its' mouth while it says "Live Free or Die" out the other side. Live Free of Die......New Hampshire is smokkin!

Supposedly, twenty percent of New Hampshire adults are smokers, and the tobacco company stocks, mo & reynolds, have been excellent investments since President Bush became President.

phoenix · 03-06-2007, 01:03 PM

I would be ok with increasing the tax on tobacco as we are much lower than most neighboring states but i keep get reminded by JRC that the only good tax is a tax on someone else( i am a non smoker)

03-03-2007, 11:29 AM	#1
phoenix Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: phoenix and moultonboro Posts: 1,553 Thanks: 61 Thanked 275 Times in 193 Posts	the issue with trans fats is it is extremely harmful to you and if you knew it was in the food prepared at a restaurant then you could decide to eat or not eat. So as a compromise don't ban smoking or transfats or anything but just require a restaurant to post as you enter we put transfats in all our food and allow smoking anywhere so enter at your own risk __________________ it's tough to make predictions specially about the future

03-04-2007, 11:28 AM	#3
Hermit Cover Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Hermit Cove Posts: 354 Thanks: 20 Thanked 68 Times in 40 Posts	Healthcare 3.....Issues 0 Sounds like all these issues have a common thread....."Oh...I guess one could say that smoking, trans fats and helmets don't really hurt anything or anyone....but healthcare." Looks like healthcare costs are going to keep rising....and rising...and rising...and......and the issues of smoke, fats, and helmets are going to fog the real problem.....we ALL agree that healthcare costs are a problem but it's easier to argue the finer points of helmets, fat, and smoke, and alcohol, and the air, and the water, and speed, and , and, and

03-05-2007, 10:58 AM	#4
rander7823 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 303 Thanks: 550 Thanked 40 Times in 24 Posts	Legislated Out Apparently my comments about Social Security were legislated out. All I say is that that is the greatest example of not being responsible for your own actions and it is digging deeply into your pockets. I'll give up on the smoking ban if they suspend Social Security.

03-06-2007, 04:11 AM	#6
SteveA Deceased Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Gilford, NH Posts: 2,311 Thanks: 1,070 Thanked 2,054 Times in 497 Posts	Interesting discussion It seems to me that this discussion, and I am impressed with the civility on this thread, is central to what makes this country a special place on this planet.The freedom to openly debate "rights". Check this site out. I'll bet each of us can find support in our countries history for a thoughtful stance on every issue from smoking to helmet laws to transfat. ... and what about that flouride in our water? I'm for it if it stays at least 150' away!! http://freedomkeys.com/rights.htm __________________ "Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry he'll be a mile away and barefoot!" unknown

03-06-2007, 07:57 AM	#7
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,755 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 300 Thanked 1,010 Times in 736 Posts	Joe Camel & Marlboro Man Remember those guys, or make it that guy and the camel. No longer allowed, the Marlboro Man and Joe Camel were outlawed by the Feds under Ronald Reagan because they were targeted at teenagers to get them to start. New Hampshire is short on its' tax revs and needs all the tobacco tax it can get so....... How about an Old Man Of the Mountain puffing away on a cigarette, ad campaign, that's targeted at New Hampshire teenage smokers. The State of New Hampshire needs to mine the cigarette tax right so's it can avoid the dreaded income tax. What could be more New Hampshire than the Old Man of the Mountain with a cigarette on one side of its' mouth while it says "Live Free or Die" out the other side. Live Free of Die......New Hampshire is smokkin! Supposedly, twenty percent of New Hampshire adults are smokers, and the tobacco company stocks, mo & reynolds, have been excellent investments since President Bush became President.

03-04-2007, 10:53 AM	#2
chipj29 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Bow Posts: 1,874 Thanks: 521 Thanked 308 Times in 162 Posts	Here is my 2 pennies on this. If you are a non-smoker, you do not have a choice on whether or not to smoke, if there is a smoker near you. Sure you can go somewhere else, or go outside, but whose rights are more important...the smoker or the non-smoker? Give the smoker the right to smoke, and he does it not really caring who is affected by it. Give the non-smoker the right to not smoke, and it affects no one around him/her. There are directs impacts, and indirect impacts. For example, banning transfats. The eater of the transfats is directly impacted. No one else around them is impacted directly. Now you could argue that one could be impacted indirectly, as if the transfats make the eater sick, then healthcare costs can rise. But that to me is like in-indirect. The helmet law has direct impacts on the rider choosing to not wear a helmet. It may also have direct impacts on the family of the rider emotionally. There are no concrete indirect impacts. Again...indirect impacts-healthcare etc. In the case of smoking, the smoker is obviously directly impacted by the smoke, as are the people around them. Again with the indirect impact-healthcare thing. You could also argue from the standpoint of a restaurant owner. Let's say you decide to ban smoking in your restaurant, while the place next door still allows it. That gives your customers the right to choose no doubt. I am not going to argue whose business is going to suffer. I am merely going to point out that one restaurants business WILL suffer. A smoking ban would level the playing field.

03-06-2007, 01:03 PM	#8
phoenix Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: phoenix and moultonboro Posts: 1,553 Thanks: 61 Thanked 275 Times in 193 Posts	I would be ok with increasing the tax on tobacco as we are much lower than most neighboring states but i keep get reminded by JRC that the only good tax is a tax on someone else( i am a non smoker) __________________ it's tough to make predictions specially about the future