Enough is Enough!

[stillkit]

Originally Posted by OA 5599

It tells me that most bars do not want to risk

That, I'll agree with. I have no idea if this would work or not, but maybe allow 25% of the establishments serving alcohol in the city to remain smoker-friendly (about the percentage of the population who smokes) and the other 75% smoke-free. As long as I can find a good number of smoke-free establishments to have a good time at, I'm perfectly happy if a few remain smoke-friendly, although I'd probably never visit them.

There, see? That wasn't so hard.

I don't know about a quota system, though, because it might curtail the liberties of those bar owners who wish to remain smoking but aren't allowed to. The mechanics of deciding which bars get to remain smoking and which wouldn't might open up a can of worms.

But, hey! It's a start!

[kshe95girl]

what I find most interesting is that that congress chose to ratchet up the tax on cigs by almost a dollar, yet the anti-smokers are still hollering.... does it not stand to reason they will benefit from this tax?
Just putting that out there, seems a bit like a double standard to me

[stillkit]

Originally Posted by kshe95girl

what I find most interesting is that that congress chose to ratchet up the tax on cigs by almost a dollar, yet the anti-smokers are still hollering.... does it not stand to reason they will benefit from this tax?
Just putting that out there, seems a bit like a double standard to me

Smoking is the current issue du jour, but that will soon pass as they think they've got it defeated. (Of course, they didn't take into account the law of unintended consequences. There's something in the bill giving the FDA authority over tobacco that might open the door to rolling back much of the anti's successes over the years, but I won't discuss that until Obama signs it.)

The next target to be dealt with by more governmental intrusion in our lives and heavy taxation will be the so-called "obese children crisis." If you think the anti-smokers were extreme in their treatment of a legal activity, just wait until the health Nazi's get through with the junk and fast food industries.

Remember, the precedent is there, clearly established by the anti-smokers and enjoying wide public support. This ain't the end of this dance, folks, and before it's over, it will adversely affect YOU TOO...not just smokers!

[ShadowCaver]

Originally Posted by kshe95girl

what I find most interesting is that that congress chose to ratchet up the tax on cigs by almost a dollar, yet the anti-smokers are still hollering.... does it not stand to reason they will benefit from this tax?
Just putting that out there, seems a bit like a double standard to me

FYI, per Single Largest Cigarette Tax Hike Goes Into Effect Wednesday - Political News - FOXNews.com

Tobacco taxes are soaring to finance a major expansion of health insurance for children. President Obama signed that health initiative soon after taking office. ... The tax increase is only the first move in a recharged anti-smoking campaign. Congress also is considering legislation to empower the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco.

Don't forget that manufacturers also raised their own prices, before the taxes hit - PM by 71 to 81 cents a pack. And that is more than what the tax itself increased.

Originally Posted by stillkit

Smoking is the current issue du jour, but that will soon pass as they think they've got it defeated. (Of course, they didn't take into account the law of unintended consequences. There's something in the bill giving the FDA authority over tobacco that might open the door to rolling back much of the anti's successes over the years, but I won't discuss that until Obama signs it.)

The next target to be dealt with by more governmental intrusion in our lives and heavy taxation will be the so-called "obese children crisis." If you think the anti-smokers were extreme in their treatment of a legal activity, just wait until the health Nazi's get through with the junk and fast food industries.

Remember, the precedent is there, clearly established by the anti-smokers and enjoying wide public support. This ain't the end of this dance, folks, and before it's over, it will adversely affect YOU TOO...not just smokers!

If the gov't wants to raise the cost for soda, so be it... Soda Tax Weighed to Pay for Health Care - WSJ.com IMHO, and this coming from a long-time soda drinker [pass the Pepsi please ]. HOWEVER - the bigger root of the problem is the gov't wanting to tax and tax its way out of budget problems. What the potential income for them on a tax as this is peanuts compared to what the potential could be by totally revamping the health care industry itself: Our view on paying for health reform: Soda tax falls flat - Opinion - USATODAY.com

The proposed federal tax on sugary beverages would raise perhaps $50 billion over 10 years, or about 3% of the $1.5 trillion needed to pay for health care reform. By comparison, limiting the tax exemption for medical insurance benefits could bring in $500 billion, and making Medicare and Medicaid more efficient could save as much as $600 billion. The soda tax deserves to be a fizzle.

MOD NOTE: before we all, myself included , stray too far... keep in mind that this is a discussion over smoking bans, etc. in the St Louis city and immediate area. Debates over the pros/cons of taxes, etc. are on the fringe, at best, to being relevant and on-topic to the discussion here. Thanks.

[linicx]

I've been on both sides of the issue. The businesses that seem to be most affectd by a state-wide smoking ban seem to be venues where smoking is the heaviest - but it does not seem to affect restaurants nearly as much. Sports bars and general entertainment areas do not seem to be affected any more than restaurants.

[CoffeeAndBeer]

I've seen another generation of St. Louis smokers arise from the casual smoking while drinking stuff. When I'm at parties in other cities, there just not as many smokers (if any). It's really sad, but there are a lot more smokers here than other places, and who am I to argue that bars should be required to be smoke free? St. Louisans in general are unhealthy though, say compared to even other midwesterners (especially the frozen Twin Cities!), and it wouldn't be the bloody end of the world if there was a ban.

[satx56]

Hope you all don't mind me chiming in here. I smoked for 35 years at least and quit a little over a year ago. My wife got the habit from me and started after we were married in 75' . We finally decided to quit after all the price increases. The 1 dollar tax added per pack by the state (Texas) I guess a couple years back was the final straw. We decided to both quit at the beginning of the year when the new tax took affect. We both quit and i had to go to the Gulf coast to my brothers and grabbed a pack!! Back on track about a year later I'm done. I always enjoyed smoking and didn't want to quit. I'd still love to smoke. I understand all sides of this issue. Your children and others shouldn't be subjected to second hand smoke. Which by the way, is in no way as bad as first hand smoke no matter what the nuts may say. But, just like booze it's a personal choice to smoke and both are surely unhealthy. So.. in my opinion as long as unwilling people are not subjected to the smoke it should be acceptable. Outdoors is not subjecting anyone to it. Unless a smoker is purposely blowing smoke in someones face. It's not a noble freedom but still a freedom. Would we stop people from consuming alcohol?? They get drunk and go out in cars and kill people everyday. Is this not a second hand effect?? Where do you wish to draw the line?
Smoking and drinking go hand in hand. I remember when I first started drinking...needed a puff of the cig. with each sip!! I would never had smoked as much if i hadn't drank!! I'm smoke free now and would tell anyone I care about to never start. It's not nearly as hard to quit as I figured and i smoked heavy. But, as I said I'd love to enjoy a smoke for the calming effect. People will do many things that are detrimental to their health. Can you really stop them? I was the one who was not going to smoke.... but peer pressure to drink really got me started smoking.
My final thought is smokers pay through the nose in more ways than one for the right to smoke. Just my two cents ! Thanks for listening.

[BoomBoxing]

Originally Posted by CoffeeAndBeer

I've seen another generation of St. Louis smokers arise from the casual smoking while drinking stuff. When I'm at parties in other cities, there just not as many smokers (if any). It's really sad, but there are a lot more smokers here than other places, and who am I to argue that bars should be required to be smoke free? St. Louisans in general are unhealthy though, say compared to even other midwesterners (especially the frozen Twin Cities!), and it wouldn't be the bloody end of the world if there was a ban.

Your screename immediately made me think of Foam, a cafe/bar in the Cherokee district Foam is open : Cherokee Street – St. Louis, MO. I haven't been yet, but I am dying to check it out since I <3 coffee and beer (though not at the same time...).

Anyway, I agree with your point here that smoking is way more common here than most other places. It is even more pronounced in the areas outside of St. Louis, where it seems you are ostracized for not smoking.

I do think there is a good amount of a health focused community here in St. Louis. The problem is that instead of being the prevailing culture, it is more of a sub culture. This becomes evident when the re-opening of a highway is hailed as a great event, while the creation of bike lanes or a new park is back page news that nobody cares about. Heck, people on STLToday are whining about how they didn't cut into Forest Park and Richmond Heights just more to add an extra lane to the new 64.