hahnmeister's Blog

Oh are you going to get the comments. The Pro-Smoking people are very vocal about their addiction. They will use fake research and reports (usually sponsored by pro-smoking organizations) and whine about their so-called rights being taken away (since when was smoking a "right" and not a privilege?) and basically ignore anything else.

you may want to ease up on the smoking ban. You do not know what else they will ban next. In your case hahnmeister, they may ban Kleenex then what will you use when you are whining ?? If you do not like smoke, don't go in.

OMG...I have the same probelm with my blood pressure when they rearrange the grocery store and I can't find anything. Let's ban grocery store rearrangement too! LOL

But seriously, when it comes to government, less is more.

Thge major reason that it is not banned is the tax revenue that is generated on the sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products. The state and federal governments have so much revenue tied up in cigarette taxes that they don't dare reduce the sale of the nasty things. I quit 29 years ago and don't miss it. But if too many folks quit, the governments will be in serious trouble.

Okay, people might have a right to smoke, but other people also have a right to not smell it, right? If it wasnt for second hand smoke posing such a health risk, I could care less, but since there is second hand smoke, and it isnt good for you, I think the right that other people have to non-infested air trumps that of the smokers right to smoky air.

We do tend to ban most things that are horrible for our health and have little positive side-effects to be argued, esp those things which are drugs. Im not saying 'ban smoking everywhere', but just in any indoor public area... restaurants, bars, etc. You might want to double check your facts desertwindrider, there has been a noticable long-term increase in business for those counties that have gone smoke-free. It takes a while for the client change to happen, but it does happen. IMO, there are more people waiting at home who would like to go to the bar but dont because of the smoking than people who are at the bar smoking. Not to mention, as a rule of thumb, those who dont smoke have more expendable income because they arent spending thousands a year on smoking.

Also, many of those people who do think smoking & drinking go together might just not be as exposed to drinking w/o smoking. I know I started smoking during my college years due to exposure at parties and bars. If it wasnt for that, I most likely would have never started. I rather enjoy drinking w/o smoke, but when my buddies ask me if I want to go out for a bit, I have to ask where, and if its a smokey place, I have to pass.

Mr. Hahnmeister: as I have noted in our numerous discussions, from a political science perspective it all boils down to the role of government, what government can and cannot do and activities we as individuals are allowed to engage in, be them either "positive" or "negative".

And you are right, we do make alot of negative behaviors illegal (drug use). However, the libertarian in me would point that the War on Drugs has been one of the most costly in our nations history.

The U.S. federal government spent over $19 billion dollars in 2003 on the War on Drugs, at a rate of about $600 per second. The budget has since been increased by over a billion dollars.

Source: Office of National Drug Control Policy

State and local governments spent at least another 30 billion.

Source: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University: "Shoveling Up: The Impact of Substance Abuse on State Budgets," January, 2001.

Okay, a smoking ban in public areas hardly equals a 'drug war', esp in the cost department.