State Wide Smoking Ban?

maddmaxx2 · **Posted:** Mon Nov 17, 2008 3:46 am

Mirage wrote:

Tiger1 wrote:

Mirage wrote:

I have the feeling they probably would prefer to outlaw smoking period but settle for the next best thing since the states and Federal government make so much money off of unfairly taxing smokers and because we all know what happened when they outlawed booze with a Constitutional amendment.

YEP !!! People brewed their own. When I bought my old house on Pine 35 years ago, I found the remains of a Still in the coal bin, hidden by the coal. Old bottles, corks, pieces of pipe, the whole thing. :twisted:

Ban tobacco, and people will be growing their own, just like some do now for their weed. :twisted:

Weed was legal until about the same time as prohibition.

Since you mentioned it, years ago I used to dump out my ashtrays into the flower bed. Suddenly tobacco plants began sprouting up. I was going to allow it to grow and try smoking it but code enforcement called it a weed, which essentially it is. So the plants had to go. I don't think any viable seeds are in today's blend. Still, I was starting to get excited not to have to pay $1.50 a pack even then. LOL

It's legal and I had been looking into buying seeds. A years worth of tobacco would cost about $15.

maddmaxx2 · **Posted:** Mon Nov 17, 2008 3:51 am

Mirage wrote:

Then what's stopping you from trying to get it on the ballot?

Now in FL it used to be fairly easy to make about anything a constitutional amendment, even to the point of absurdity, so they made it a little harder. But in IN I'm not certain what the process actually is. Perhaps a legislator would have to propose it.

BINGO! Indiana has no initiative process (except for some vague water board thing) and you would have to beg a legislator to do it.

maddmaxx2 · **Posted:** Mon Nov 17, 2008 3:55 am

chuckmo48 wrote:

-={ARCLIGHT}=- wrote:

You know how the liberals love to legislate morality.

Like these:

Quote:

The State of Florida, controlled by Republican fundamentalists, has used its big government power to decide that a 13-year old girl, although she has clearly, repeatedly and cogently expressed her wish to have an abortion, cannot.

Quote:

Republican leaders in Congress push their anti-gambling morality. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 was rammed through Congress by the Republican leadership

Quote:

"The Congress and the states shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States". This was proposed by the Republican controlled congress.

See why we need to demand a full return to Constitutional limits? None of the above are the government's business.

sparks · **Joined:** Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:17 pm **Posts:** 3800

Mirage wrote:

sparks wrote:

And what do you base that on? Over 75% of the population doesn't smoke. Every non smokers I know are in favor of these bans. That's why over 50% of the people in the US already live in states that have complete bans on smoking in public places.Show me a politician who supports the right of smokers to pollute the air and I'll show you a politician show is about to be voted out of office.

Then what's stopping you from trying to get it on the ballot?

Now in FL it used to be fairly easy to make about anything a constitutional amendment, even to the point of absurdity, so they made it a little harder. But in IN I'm not certain what the process actually is. Perhaps a legislator would have to propose it. There has to be at least 1 legislator willing to take this on, so go twist an arm or two since you feel so strongly.

I don't buy your numbers and I'm pretty sure the tobacco industry will weigh in as well as some state officials worried about the loss of revenue. Don't forget! We even have part of the state tax going for health care for the poor. So even if I agreed your numbers were accurate I think in the end the thing would fall short at the ballot box. Just a guess, but a supportable one.

Here is the latest study regarding the % of smokers in the US. The headline reads that smokers have fallen below 20% for the first time. Since you don't buy my numbers, feel free to post a link that disputes them. It is kind of pointless to discuss things if you aren't willingly to acknowledge basic facts. Your comments about loss of revenue really don't hold water either.
When someone quits smoking, the revenue is not "lost", it is simply redirected to another use. The economic impact of smoking and the health care costs to treat smoking related diseases is far greater than the amount of taxes smoking generates. Sick,cancer ridden people are far more likely to become economic burdens on the economy.

born_again · **Joined:** Wed Aug 06, 2008 1:38 pm **Posts:** 1246

chuckmo48 wrote:

I forgot, you just care about them when they are embryos, the hell with the ones that are on the Earth now.

Typical liberal,

It's ok to kill a baby in the womb, it's ok reward laziness with welfare.

Typical.

Dick_Tracy · **Joined:** Sun Aug 31, 2008 10:16 am **Posts:** 374

maddmaxx2 wrote:

Quote:

The State of Florida, controlled by Republican fundamentalists, has used its big government power to decide that a 13-year old girl, although she has clearly, repeatedly and cogently expressed her wish to have an abortion, cannot.

If the 13 year old girl wanted to kill herself, drink alcohol, or smoke cigarettes should she be allowed?

mike3775 · **Joined:** Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:52 pm **Posts:** 2573

Dick_Tracy wrote:

maddmaxx2 wrote:

Quote:

The State of Florida, controlled by Republican fundamentalists, has used its big government power to decide that a 13-year old girl, although she has clearly, repeatedly and cogently expressed her wish to have an abortion, cannot.

If the 13 year old girl wanted to kill herself, drink alcohol, or smoke cigarettes should she be allowed?

Of course not, but these days that 13 yr old probably already has done 2/3 of that list already it seems

I have no problem at all if the state were to pass this, if it were VOTER approved, like California and Ohio(It was either Ohio or Pennsylvania who passed it in 2006) did

Dick_Tracy · **Joined:** Sun Aug 31, 2008 10:16 am **Posts:** 374

There's a reason why children have parents. Unless you want the government to take over raising your children including deciding if your grandchild can be killed or not, then parents should be able to make decisions on the health and welfare of their children as long as the child will not be harmed and according to state and federal laws.

tater · **Joined:** Sun Aug 10, 2008 10:40 am **Posts:** 143

sparks wrote:

Laws like this already exist in states all over the country, including Illinois. I love being able to go to smoke free restaurants and bars there. Smokers do not have the right to pollute the air that others have to breathe. I have already contacted my state reps,asking them to support this law.

You are right sparks , but owners should have the right wether to allow a legal activity on their private property and...

You have the right to patronize the bar of your choice

tater · **Joined:** Sun Aug 10, 2008 10:40 am **Posts:** 143

sparks wrote:

Mirage wrote:

mike3775 wrote:

If they are going to push this, put it on the ballot and let the voters decide it

They can't. It would fail.

And what do you base that on? Over 75% of the population doesn't smoke. Every non smokers I know are in favor of these bans. That's why over 50% of the people in the US already live in states that have complete bans on smoking in public places.Show me a politician who supports the right of smokers to pollute the air and I'll show you a politician show is about to be voted out of office.

the voters voiced their opinion on gay marriage in California but the " agenda " will void that instance of will of the people, anyway what gives you the right to tell me what to do with my property. I guess consenting adults only applies to the gay agenda, I don't agree with the practice but i CHOOSE not to participate.

Stay out of my bar and I'll stay out of the CHOICE to kill children or play butt pirate.

mike3775 · **Joined:** Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:52 pm **Posts:** 2573

Tater, voter approved laws are way better than laws passed be a select few though

I was living in California when they passed the law banning it indoors, including bars. It passed by a wide margin as well, same with Ohio a couple years ago(but was closer)

I have a better time swallowing BS laws when it is voter approved then when a select few make the law(like what happened in Valpo, 7 people based their vote on what 215 people stated)

happy jack · **Joined:** Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:32 am **Posts:** 3789

tater wrote:

the voters voiced their opinion on gay marriage in California but the " agenda " will void that instance of will of the people, anyway what gives you the right to tell me what to do with my property. I guess consenting adults only applies to the gay agenda, I don't agree with the practice but i CHOOSE not to participate.

Stay out of my bar and I'll stay out of the CHOICE to kill children or play butt pirate.

When it comes to the lefties, choice (like truth) is a very - how can I put this kindly? - flexible concept.
Having the right to kill a baby is â€˜goodâ€™ choice; having a say in the decision as to your own minor daughter killing her baby is â€˜badâ€™ choice.
The choice to partake in any and all forms of sexual deviancy is â€˜goodâ€™ choice; because of the organizationâ€™s stance on deviant behavior, the right to have your child join the Boy Scouts is â€˜badâ€™ choice.
The choice to mandate that private businesses conform to your idea of what legal activities should be allowed to take place within the confines of their establishment is â€˜goodâ€™ choice; the choice to allow consenting adults to smoke in your establishment is â€˜badâ€™ choice.
Allowing â€˜rehabilitatedâ€™ ex-cons to reside in halfway houses in residential neighborhoods is â€˜goodâ€™ choice; allowing the average law-abiding citizen the option of owning and/or carrying a gun is â€˜badâ€™ choice.
And on and on and on and on ...

tater · **Joined:** Sun Aug 10, 2008 10:40 am **Posts:** 143

mike3775 wrote:

Tater, voter approved laws are way better than laws passed be a select few though

I was living in California when they passed the law banning it indoors, including bars. It passed by a wide margin as well, same with Ohio a couple years ago(but was closer)

I have a better time swallowing BS laws when it is voter approved then when a select few make the law(like what happened in Valpo, 7 people based their vote on what 215 people stated)

mike, I would agree with the will of the people "thing" as long as it doesn't infringe on my rights such as personal property or free will.
I brought up the initiative to ban gay marriage to point out that those who wish to limit the rights of bar owners by banning smoking are so quick to follow the liberal agenda under the flag of "the voice of the people"although when it doesn't fit they oppose, smacks of hypocrisy.

I personally couldn't care less if two adults want to get married but don't legislate my acceptance or compliance if i disagree , that is my right to do so.

My fear is not smoking or gay marriage it is the larger issue of people giving away or trading their rights for these issues or the next pet project of anyones agenda.

tater · **Joined:** Sun Aug 10, 2008 10:40 am **Posts:** 143

happy jack wrote:

tater wrote:

the voters voiced their opinion on gay marriage in California but the " agenda " will void that instance of will of the people, anyway what gives you the right to tell me what to do with my property. I guess consenting adults only applies to the gay agenda, I don't agree with the practice but i CHOOSE not to participate.

Stay out of my bar and I'll stay out of the CHOICE to kill children or play butt pirate.

When it comes to the lefties, choice (like truth) is a very - how can I put this kindly? - flexible concept.
Having the right to kill a baby is â€˜goodâ€™ choice; having a say in the decision as to your own minor daughter killing her baby is â€˜badâ€™ choice.
The choice to partake in any and all forms of sexual deviancy is â€˜goodâ€™ choice; because of the organizationâ€™s stance on deviant behavior, the right to have your child join the Boy Scouts is â€˜badâ€™ choice.
The choice to mandate that private businesses conform to your idea of what legal activities should be allowed to take place within the confines of their establishment is â€˜goodâ€™ choice; the choice to allow consenting adults to smoke in your establishment is â€˜badâ€™ choice.
Allowing â€˜rehabilitatedâ€™ ex-cons to reside in halfway houses in residential neighborhoods is â€˜goodâ€™ choice; allowing the average law-abiding citizen the option of owning and/or carrying a gun is â€˜badâ€™ choice.
And on and on and on and on ...

I agree jack they are very hypocritical,
I really love the argument when thay compare the exucution of a murderer to the murder of an infant(abortion), in essence saying that if I oppose abortion that I should oppose the death penalty.

My answer to them is as follows,

Well, I would be for abortion if the infant murdered someone and against the death penalty if the accused did not.

Shuts them up but doesn't further the discussion too logical I guess.

Mirage · **Joined:** Mon Feb 14, 2005 10:08 am **Posts:** 4781

sparks wrote:

Mirage wrote:

sparks wrote:

And what do you base that on? Over 75% of the population doesn't smoke. Every non smokers I know are in favor of these bans. That's why over 50% of the people in the US already live in states that have complete bans on smoking in public places.Show me a politician who supports the right of smokers to pollute the air and I'll show you a politician show is about to be voted out of office.

Then what's stopping you from trying to get it on the ballot?

Now in FL it used to be fairly easy to make about anything a constitutional amendment, even to the point of absurdity, so they made it a little harder. But in IN I'm not certain what the process actually is. Perhaps a legislator would have to propose it. There has to be at least 1 legislator willing to take this on, so go twist an arm or two since you feel so strongly.

I don't buy your numbers and I'm pretty sure the tobacco industry will weigh in as well as some state officials worried about the loss of revenue. Don't forget! We even have part of the state tax going for health care for the poor. So even if I agreed your numbers were accurate I think in the end the thing would fall short at the ballot box. Just a guess, but a supportable one.

Here is the latest study regarding the % of smokers in the US. The headline reads that smokers have fallen below 20% for the first time. Since you don't buy my numbers, feel free to post a link that disputes them. It is kind of pointless to discuss things if you aren't willingly to acknowledge basic facts. Your comments about loss of revenue really don't hold water either.
When someone quits smoking, the revenue is not "lost", it is simply redirected to another use. The economic impact of smoking and the health care costs to treat smoking related diseases is far greater than the amount of taxes smoking generates. Sick,cancer ridden people are far more likely to become economic burdens on the economy.

Totally ignoring the question of why you don't take this appeal to Linda Lawson or some other legislator to put it to a vote, huh? That's the problem. Why not just let the people decide! That's the only survey that should really count when it comes to taking rights away.

Northwest Indiana Discussion

State Wide Smoking Ban?

Who is online