Ban smoking! Do it, it is addictive, harmful, and expensive! Get rid of it,
give people their lives back!
If the democrats are going to force healthcare on us, then we will force them to
free their lives of alcohol, drugs, tobacco......how do you Libs like those
Tobacco use is strongly associated with low socio-economic status. The
prevalence of current smoking is greatest among adults with working class jobs,
low educational level,and low income. In 2007, 29% of adults with incomes
below the federal poverty level smoked, compared with 20% of those at or above
the poverty level. 32% of men below the poverty line were smokers compared with
23% of men at or above poverty level. 26% of women below the poverty line were
smokers compared with 18% of women at or above poverty level. Lower education
levels are associated with significantly higher rates of smoking during
pregnancy. Nearly 24% of women with 9-11 years of education smoked while
pregnant compared with 15% of those with 12 years of education and 1.5% of those
with 16 or more years of education.Although I am strongly in favor
of banning smoking entirely in all public places, it is statistically clear that
those most affected by smoking are also those who are least able to afford the
costs associated with smoking. A recent study indicated that 3 in 4 smokers
attempt to stop smoking 3 times during the course of their shortened lives.
We've down this road before. Prohibition had a very short lifespan as a
To TRUTH,Being a person that tends to side with Democrats, I guess I
need to start smoking and do other drugs to fit in your paradigm. Thanks for
keeping me straight with your apples.
It's a double edged sword. On the one hand, I personally find smoking
repugnant. On the other, I'm a huge fan of personal freedom and choice, way
more so than the state of utah itself wants to tolerate. Smoking is a choice
that people make; a bad choice, and some people will always make bad choices.
I'm not sure we should let people who make bad choices dictate policy.
One of the few times I agree with you Craig Clark. Regulating something people
want is one thing. Making it completely illegal rarely if ever works. Making
cigaretts illegal would only make drug pushers richer. By the way, I've
never smoked, and don't like being around it. However think of the tax
money that would be lost if smoking were banned. Same with gasoline for
example. Look at how much state and federal tax is raised for every gallon of
gas sold. In other words, going smokeless and green will be costly to the tax
base of the state and federal governments. I wonder if liberals have ever
considered that point.
I don't smoke and I think is smoking is bad. However, I find it funny that
many Utahans deplore smoking, yet have no problem driving during a winter
inversion. An inversion affects more Utahans than smoking does. I no longer live
in Northern Utah, but when I did I took the bus and walked (yes, I had a car). I
tried to make wise decisions that would benefit others positively, however, no
one around me seemed to care. My friends would say taking the bus or trax was
too difficult. No one cared about how their decision affected others health, but
when it came to smoking they were for a ban. So, if we ban smoking because of
health reasons, shouldn't we ban cars during the winter inversions? They
both have negative impacts and I would say inversions affect more people than
@TRUTHOh yes, how awful of us to make sure people have affordable
healthcare coverage. Didn't you just vote in November for a guy who
instituted that in his state?
@craig I agree, it seems some refuse to learn fromhistory.
@atl134..Oh yes, how awful of us to make sure people have affordable healthcare
coverage?AFFORDABLE? What planet do you live on......my new rates
are twice what I use to pay and as has been reported overall, everyone will see
a minimum of a 10% increase! Of course its all based upon scale.....for your ilk
it is now affordable, so longs as someone else pays the bill!
I get a kick out of some of the posts the DN will not allow and some others that
they don't bat an eye at...
The nanny state strikes again. I do not smoke nor drink. But, we do not need the
state to determine what is in our best interests and what is not. The war on
drugs is a perfect example. A very high percentage of people in prison are there
for drug related offenses. We are not helping them by criminalizing this
behavior. If anything we are ruining their lives much more completely than if we
just allowed them their freedom. We also export violence to multiple central and
south American countries that feed our illegal drug habit. In other words the
negatives of drug prohibitions greatly exceed the benefits. We do not need to
add another drug to this failed effort. My drug of choice is chocolate. How long
before big brother decides my drug is addictive and bans it?
Again we see that the left (Democrats in general) always want to force their
agendas upon the rest of us! Ban this, mandatory this, force people to do this
ad nauseam. And they claim they are all for freedom? Living a lie must be
difficult for them.
Who among us wants to pay the additional taxes that would be on us if smokers
quit?Not me."lost in dc" I smoked for over 40
yrs. No longer do, but several times over the course of that 40 yrs. I asked my
health insurance carriers why smokers don't pay higher premiums. They all
said there was no noticeable difference in the amount of health dollars going to
smokers. Some even said smokers used doctors less than non-smokers. Maybe they
all got tired of being nagged to death every time they went to the DR.?I know I did.
At the very least smoking should be prohibited in any public place including
casinos and bars....Colorado already prohibits smoking in it's casinos and
it does not seem to keep the smokers away... they just have to go outside while
they smoke.. this make perfect sense. I don't care if other people smoke,
just don't do it next to me inside a building and blow the smoke in my
face... They can kill themselves if they want, I just don't want them to
take me with them!
"always want to force their agendas upon the rest of us! Ban this, mandatory
this, force people to do this ad nauseam. And they claim they are all for
freedom? Living a lie must be difficult for them."...Utah in a nutshell. Not
a lot of democrats caused it, though.
STOP Banning anything! If most smokers want to stop they will. Banning it will
only drive it to the black market. Smokes won't quit if their neighbor has
smokes for sale! STOP mentality of banning things, let the free market decide!
Hutterite, your Utah bias is showing. I dislike smoking, I don't smoke, no
one in my family smokes. But--if someone wants to smoke, probably in the
privacy of their own home, that should be their choice. I don't think
anyone has the right to tell another not to smoke if it doesn't impede
their space. If you want people to stop smoking, make a federal law which
prohibits it. lol. Boy would that be funny.
@ Hutterite. I don't live in Utah but I could not think of one thing that
has been banned in Utah exclusively or one thing that is forced upon others
exclusively in Utah! All the howling and hyperventilation for banning things
happen in NY, Chicago, San Francisco or most other liberal states from Guns to
soft drinks but never marijuana or alcohol.
We really have things backwards, society would be much better off if most people
wanted to ban alcohol. People don't go home and beat their wife's, or
sleep with a stranger because of to many cigarettes.
The ACA does increase premiums on smokers. Something conservatives complain
about. If you are a reckless driver auto insurance rates increase. Should be
the same for smokers, being overweight or other unhealthy lifestyle choices.
This science is a lie, proves nothing, and is not harmful as it is claimed to
be. Science and medicine cannot prove it is harmful and has no proof its
dangerous or unhealthy or invasive. If this science was as bad as
people claim why can't they prove anything with their accusations? Smoking
does not cause death, disease, or problems which are all imaginary and full of
holes and can't be proven in medicine, or science for what it does. The
lies will never prove anything except that all their evidences goes up in smoke
with shier lies.Besides, they can't and won't ban smoking
or cigarettes and if they ever do people better be prepared to double digit tax
increase on every thing including food. They might even have to start taxing
welfare as an unearned income like unemployment income.The economy
and individuals are not ready to cover such drastic tax increases so they better
think twice about what they wish for on an issue that is not even real or true.
They should start kissing smokers for keeping governemtn costs in other peoples
Government and big business work together in some of the wrong places.
Government will miss out on the tax dollars from tobacco. Companies will miss
out on the money they make in all areas. They have diversified into so many
other areas of the economy and not just tobacco. They always skew
the advertising to make it so appealing with a different approach and tactic in
their strategic planning. Just like the wine companies saying it is
good to have a little bit of wine for your body. They don't tell you the
cases of what it does in 50 per cent of the wine drinkers. Addiction and lives
ruined. A little lie, sin, and those types of vices are good for people since
the beginning of time, according to the non-God or God of this world.
I'm getting really tired of the snide remarks towards liberals. No matter
what the topic is, the self-righteous often steer off topic to slam others.
Please get off your pedestal before it breaks. Now, about smoking. From
personal experience, I smoked off and on for 35 years. I just celebrated 9
years of not smoking. I love being a non-smoker and letting smoking control
every aspect of my life. I feel that instead of making it illegal, to ban it
from all public places. And to promote more help to those who want to quit.
More "Americans" (meaning US citizens only?) want smoke bans because 99%
of the mainstream media promotes that exclusively, with nary a word or thought
about bans on industrial toxins, carcinogens and other deadly things
"legally" allowed in typical cigarettes..without any testing or humane
word of warning.References collected about this are at an easily-found
site called "Fauxbacco", or just search up terms like "pesticides
tobacco", "dioxin tobacco", "radiation tobacco",
"tobacco additives", "burn accelerants tobacco"...etc...and then
"health insurers invest in tobacco". How many Americans, including US
citizens, know about that to be able to say any informed thing pro or con about
"smoking" or "tobacco"?