Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here's another indication that it's political: The public law putting tobacco under the control of the FDA does not apply to all tobacco companies. It only applies to 6 or 7 specifically identified "big tobacco" companies. Smaller companies are free from FDA control. That's also true of most, if not all, tobacco lawsuits filed by the various states.
It seems to me that the target is not tobacco use for public health reasons, but "big tobacco." Somebody has set out to literally destroy a few, legitimate, legal businesses and I, for one, would like to know why.
The thing is that Big Tobacco is both targeted and protected by government regulations and the Master Settlement Agreement. The regulations work in such a way as to prevent new competitors. It actually makes sense for the tobacco control crowd and regulatory bodies. A new tobacco company would be less vulnerable to lawsuits and wouldn't carry the same stigma as existing tobacco companies do.
One factoid that the anti-smoking movement always likes to bring up (and this one is true) is that tobacco company profits have actually gone up over the years. This is actually a direct result of the MSA and tobacco tax hikes. Cigarettes are cheap to make and a pack of smokes would cost about the same as a candy bar without all the excess taxes and fees levied on smokers, so it is really nothing for them to add another ten or twenty cents (which really would be noticed if the price weren't already inflated) to a pack of cigarettes which increases their profit margin.
The thing is that they want to punish tobacco companies and smokers, but they do want their sweet, sweet money and as long that they can harass smokers and occasionally lash out at Big Tobacco, all is well. It's the political equal to sleeping with a prostitute and then beating her up afterwards.
And, consider this: Precedent carries much weight in our system of jurisprudence and the precedent of legally raping and destroying legitimate businesses has been set by the tobacco litigation. There is now no question that it's legal to target businesses in the name of "health" and, given what we've seen recently, it seems that McDonald's is the next target, followed by....?
The Big Tobacco companies wouldn't go anywhere even if tobacco was outlawed. It is purely a money grab and scoring political points so politicians (like former tobacco farmer Al Gore) can talk about saving children and fighting big corporations. The two biggest tobacco companies have extensive non-tobacco interests. If you have eaten an Oreo cookie or drank Tang, you have put money in a tobacco company's pocket.
For those who support the drive of the anti's to wipe out "big tobacco," have you ever wondered WHY they're doing that? Or, who they'll want to destroy next? You'd better wonder because taken to it's potential extreme, it could result in the defacto destruction of our whole economic system.
Junk food followed by alcohol are next. How do I know? Because many of the major scientists and activists who played a role in the modern tobacco control movement have said so and are currently working on anti-obesity and anti-alcohol campaigns with the anti-tobacco movement as a blueprint. John Banzhaf (the first lawyer to successfully sue a tobacco, a fact that he constantly mentions) has compared Ronald McDonald to Joe Camel and has unsuccessfully sued McDonalds. You might remember him as the lawyer who was representing the obese girls in Supersize Me. Dr. Kelly Brownell is also calling calling obesity a health threat that surpasses smoking. David Kessler (former head of the FDA) who was instrumental in the Master Settlement Agreement is also author of the book The End of Overeating which argues for greater regulation of the restaurant industry in regards to how salt and fat they can use on their foods. There are countless others.
The irony is that the same people who portrayed tobacco company executives as villains or idiots for claiming that "Smoking is no more harmful than eating cookies" are now actually claiming that eating cookies is as bad or worse than smoking.
Non smoking rooms mean nothing to smokers. Smoking is an addiction
Sorry to hear you have no self control but some of us do. I've always respected non smoking policies and even have not smoked in areas where it was permitted if there wasn't already a whole bunch of people smoking. I've also driven in cars for hours upon hours without smoking even after being told it was OK to smoke because I knew the occupants were just trying to be nice.
Interesting story about this, I was traveling along the Pacific Coast Highway and we ended up in Big Sur and requested a smoking room. The clerk gave us the key and emphasized it was a smoking room which seemed a bit peculiar at the moment, sign on the door said differently and I went to get another room and again the clerk said IT WAS a smoking room. I'm guessing they had none left, ended up outside smoking because I just didn't feel it was right.
I called up north a fews yr back to get a room for the weekend and asked the guy " is it a smoking room" He replied " I dont deal with smoking and nonsmoking , in fact I dont think I have a room for ya" When I told him I actualy wanted a place I can smoke in he said " come on up"
If "third hand smoke" is such a mortal danger, why aren't my kids dead yet? Or, my grandkids? Or, great-grandkids? They ALL have grown up crawling around and playing in my house, which must be ankle deep in "third hand smoke" after 40 years of my wife and I smoking 2 packs a day in it.
(sarcasm on) Third hand smoke! Snort! You suckers will believe anything, won't you? (sarcasm off)
Don't forget "fourth hand smoke"!! That would be when the innocent person enters the home of a smoker, and the fumes/odors from the third hand smoke of the smoker's drapes and carpet soak into their clothes. Then the unsuspecting, contaminated visitor goes back home and their family members breath in the fumes that were trapped in their clothes.
My father used to call me "INF" as a nickname, because I always used to declare "it's not fair!!" Guess that's just my Libra nature, LOL. (as I'm certainly not a bully, in fact I was usually the victim of bullying)
But in this case, you are wrong about it being a childhood taunt... it's a matter of equality if you must, and a valid argument in the case of one person's rights over another. And we're not debating over who is being hurt, since you aren't really hurt by sleeping in a hotel room where somebody may have once smoked. If that were the case, hardly any buildings worldwide would be safe for occupancy. Thus the FAIR compromise here is to give businesses and patrons an option, and keep the government out of it.
Still no cigar. (No pun intended) No customers are being bothered by non-smoking rooms. Some customers are bothered by smoking rooms. Also, as detshen pointed out, this in an employeed issue as well. While true that no cusotmoer is going to get lung cancer or any other illness from second-hand smoke in a motel room, requiring employees to be around the stuff all day is defintiely bad for the employees (of the hotel/motel).
This kinda proves my point, when I said (earlier) that some people aren't even appeased by separate smoking rooms & floors. Next they'll tell me I can't smoke in my own car, because it might "seep" over to their car as we're stopped at a red light. I'm glad you can find 100% non-smoking hotels these days, but again that decision should be left to management. And if you're not staying in a non-smoking hotel, you shouldn't be offended or surprised that somebody down the hall is having a cigarette.
I really do try to be considerate of non-smokers, especially since I'm the only member of my family who smokes... but this whole issue is getting out of control, and I'm starting to wish they'd just outlaw smoking altogether. Might as well, as it's already moving that direction in some states.
LOL - you have me pegged! I keep windows rolled up and the air on recirculate, particularly if I'm at a light. It's not worth the hours of hacking cough, phlegm, labored breathing and migraine. I would have no problem w/different hotels choosing for themselves. I think a lot of the NS hotels I have found have simply chosen to be NS on their own. Whether it's an employee law or not, it makes good business sense.
Of course, I would selfishly love for smoking to be banned, but that's really ridiculous. I just have to go out of my way to avoid smokers as much as possible. That's my dilemma, doesn't have to be everyone else's.
This is an employment law, it's purpose is not customer happiness, it's meant to protect employees from being exposed to smoke 8-10 hours a day in their work place. A lot of people will say they should just work somewhere else if they don't like it, but that's not how employment law works, all employers are required to comply with the laws.
I'm glad you are able to travel and not get sick too, I'm just pointing out that the main purpose is employee health .
Oh boy, this one again. Yes, all employers are required to comply with the law. That is a no-brainer.
But as has been constantly pointed out, just because something is "The Law" doesn't mean it is good, wise, benevolent, and consistent with classical notions of a free people and a free society. And government regulations telling a business owner that they cannot permit smoking in their establishments is an assault on said freedoms (and would have been almost universally considered so in a saner day and age).
And again, yes; if you don't want to work in a place where smoking is allowed? Then don't apply for a job in the said business! There are plenty of them around, isn't that right?
But of course, I know, I know, there are going to be some who truly believe the above common-sense suggestion is outrageous because it goes against their ingrained thinking that the rest of the world must change to accomodate their desires. In this case, the business owner being forced to do something -- on his/her own property -- that might be harmful to the said business -- just to cater to the whims of an employee who knew full well ahead of time that smoking was allowed.
I swear, sometimes I really don't know what is worse: The short-sightedness of some of the "useful idiots" of the Health Police State...or just the "It's All About Me" attitude of so many of them.
Oh boy, this one again. Yes, all employers are required to comply with the law. That is a no-brainer.
But as has been constantly pointed out, just because something is "The Law" doesn't mean it is good, wise, benevolent, and consistent with classical notions of a free people and a free society. And government regulations telling a business owner that they cannot permit smoking in their establishments is an assault on said freedoms (and would have been almost universally considered so in a saner day and age).
And again, yes; if you don't want to work in a place where smoking is allowed? Then don't apply for a job in the said business! There are plenty of them around, isn't that right?
But of course, I know, I know, there are going to be some who truly believe the above common-sense suggestion is outrageous because it goes against their ingrained thinking that the rest of the world must change to accomodate their desires. In this case, the business owner being forced to do something -- on his/her own property -- that might be harmful to the said business -- just to cater to the whims of an employee who knew full well ahead of time that smoking was allowed.
I swear, sometimes I really don't know what is worse: The short-sightedness of some of the "useful idiots" of the Health Police State...or just the "It's All About Me" attitude of so many of them.
Smokers are looked down upon by non-smokers like they are the scum of the earth. That's how it is and it's just going to get worse over time. And there are many more non-smokers. That's just how it is. Many non-smokers will not visit smoker's homes, or go to dinner/events with them if smoking is going to occur. Basically, they lose some companionship over the smoking unless the other companions are smokers. Non smokers do not want to be near someone that is smoking, even outdoors(ever notice how they try to change position to get away from the smoke trail?)
More states will probably be passing laws over time that put more limits on smoking. The smokers will put up a stink for a short time, and then everyone will move forward and the complaints will go away. Eventually, the only place you'll be able to smoke is your home(if you own it, because many rentals won't allow it now, and that will get worse), your car (if you own it) and outdoors in some places. However, many outdoor places have been placed off limits already, and that is going to increase too.
Taxes for smoke related products will also continue to increase- driving the price higher.
By the way, on the subject of money, did you know those "big tobacco" companies now have to PAY for the right to be regulated by the USDA? The "fee" started out at something around $500 billion a year and is programmed to rise to about $900 billion in ten years after that act was passed.
Think about that last figure for a moment. That's almost a TRILLION DOLLARS A YEAR...FOREVER! Each and every year! And, that's just from 6 or 7 companies who, naturally, will pass on that cost to their customers, and not only their cigarette customers either! Those cookies and other products they produce will go up too, so the ardent smoke-Nazi's are essentially shooting themselves right in the wallet in the name of "health." :roll eyes:
Don't forget "fourth hand smoke"!! That would be when the innocent person enters the home of a smoker, and the fumes/odors from the third hand smoke of the smoker's drapes and carpet soak into their clothes. Then the unsuspecting, contaminated visitor goes back home and their family members breath in the fumes that were trapped in their clothes.
That's not funny! Don't give 'em any ideas!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(as I'm certainly not a bully, in fact I was usually the victim of bullying)
