thanks for your honesty
IN MY VIEW: Anti-Smoking Movement on One Way Street Towards Promoting Prohibition
Actually, that's not the case. Wine and beer sales remain the same or go up when smoking bans are implemented.
Wine sales in the United States are a record levels. People still enjoy a glass of beer or wine, however, the do want the choice of not to not have to breath in cigarette smoke while doing it.
As for cigarettes, I don't see any state which has seriously considered banning them.
Having people smoke outside cannot be considered prohibition.
"Having people smoke outside cannot be considered prohibition."
Are you talking about Calabasas?
"Actually, that's not the case. Wine and beer sales remain the same or go up when smoking bans are implemented."
You mean there is a reverse association between smoking bans and alcohol sales?
Alcohol sales in restaurants go up un restaurants because more non-smokers go out? Wouldn't that mean that there is a direct association between non-smoking status and alcohol consumption?
In other words, human beings cannot live without toxic substances. If you can't smoke, drink ...
Erik: Pretending that wine and beer sales is an indicator of how restaurants and bars are doing is the type of nonsense I'd expect.
Not all wine and beer is sold in restaurants and bars.
Benpal - When one substance of pleasure is scammed, citizens go to other substances of pleasure. So when tobacco is heavily scammed, citizens take to consuming alcohol. That is what is going on. It is something that has been going on in the US since around 1950.
"The sum of vices is a constant".
Soren,
Well, I guess the list of alternative substances is shrinking while the nanny state progresses:
Should not the same reasoning apply to Chicago's ban on foie gras? After all, according to NBC Alderman Moore expressly justified the ban on moral grounds:
"Our laws are a reflection of our culture. They define our values and mores. They set forth the standards of behavior in a civilized society. Our culture does not condone the torture of innocent and defenseless creatures and we as a society, believe all God's creatures should be treated humanely," Moore said. "Our culture abhors the torture of small animals."
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article....aspx?
id=050406C
Culture (as perceived by a few privileged) imposed by law. Or by majority vote, as Bill promotes.
Erik - i think the Doc was talking about tobacco prohibition, not alcohol prohibition. Read better 
Benpal - the list of LEGAL alternatives is shrinking. But that does not mean people select only legal substances. However, I do think that citizens are increasing alcohol consumption in response to tobacco scamming.
Chicago banned foie gras???? Are you joking?
As you know, I do believe that prohibition has been the end-game all along (although I am still trying to grapple with the MSA question and all the money the states will lose if prohibition is enacted).
I've already outlined what I think the prohibition effort will look like in increments. Several of those increments have already happened or will be happening soon. But, that is just an educated guess on my part. For some concrete evidence, here is a direct quote from a NJ lawmaker:
March 1, 2005 Courrier News
http://www.c-n.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?
AID=/20050301/NEWS03/503010310/1007
contains following quote:
Assemblyman John F. McKeon, D-West Orange, sponsor of the Assembly
version of the bill, said he hopes the Senate and Assembly bills
are "first steps" in outlawing cigarette smoking in New
Jersey. "Tobacco should be illegal," he said.
That sounds like prohibition to me. (Never mind all the superfund sites in my lovely state that are still not cleaned up; I guess now smoking is the number one issue in a state that is known workdwide for it's pollution problems.)
So, Dr. Siegel, here is an example where a sponsor of a smoking ban bill was a publicly-acknowleged prohibitionist. THe fact that he made this statement in public several months BEFORE the NJ smoking ban was approved leads me to beleive that the prohibition stance either didn't matter to the legislators that voted in favor of the bill, or was tacitly approved.
The link above got cut in half. Try this:
http://www.c-n.com/apps/pbcs.dll.../503010310/
1007
Prohibition is definitely the ultimate agenda for part of the movement. I think the thing that stops it from explicitly pushing for this is financial; loss of money from cigarette taxes for the state in general and anti-tobacco in particular, and loss of revenue for the drug companies in selling their nicotine replacement products.
Outdoor bans aren't new either. In the early 1990s California cities, like Davis and DelMar were banning smoking outdoors, within x feet of buildings and a number of other places from New Jersey to New Engoand and even in Texas were beginning to ban it on beaches and in parks. Nothing ever said about the "dangers" of outdoor smoke, the given reason became "so The Children shouldn't see it."
David Burns, who would later be one of the EPA's 9 member Science Advisory Board (on it's infamous 1992 Report) had earlier testified on behalf of such an outdoor ban in California . An excerpt of his testimony, reprinted in the Bliley Report to Congress, went like this:
"In order to modify smoking behavior, one needs to look at... changing the public image of tobacco, changing the locations in which tobacco can be used to create an environment in the larger society that actively discourages [smoking] The key is... to change the larger environment in which [the smoker] functions....And to the extent that [the DelMar ban] changes the image of the cigarette smoker and changes the psychological and sociological rewards of smoking... it contributes to changing this environment."
See? Nothing about protecting the 'innocent"-- in this case not even protecting then from the "sight," This was simply about the nasty coercion of smokers with bans as a method of making them pariahs.
Then too, the Kessler-Koop Commission recommended universal outdoor bans -- everywhere outdoors-- all across America in its 1997 Report.
i smoked a cuban cigar last night. yum.
Soren:
Yup-the Windy City has lost it's cohones....no fois gras....
Escoffier is rolling and ranting in the heavens above even as we speak...
How disgusting is the USA today?
I am disgusted with the puppeteers of all ilks.
I am disgusted with anyone who "decides" it is for the betterment of "der faderland/moderland".
I am disgusted with those who would stand aside and let The Smoker become extinct.
The Smoker is not just lower class. The Smoker is male/female, worker/nonworker, out in the open-honest Smoker/closet-hidden and furtive Smoker (and I know lots of those kinds..), rich Smoker/poor Smoker, pretty Smoker/plain Smoker, educated Smoker/smart Smoker (and I differentiate there on purpose), old Smoker/young Smoker, hippy Smoker/rightwinger Smoker, and on and on.
Come on America-Wake Up-this is not and never has been about Smoking.
It is about THE SMOKER.
Dr Mike-I have asked you before, We Who Smoke Tobacco are different. Figure out why and how it makes us different chemically, brainwise and accept that we ARE NECESSARY in this world. We Who Smoke Tobacco do not follow anything or anyone "lockstep".
We Who Smoke Tobacco are considerate, accommodating, recalcitrant about our "habit"-and we have a BACKBONE. So-Dr Mike, please investigate "why" We Who Smoke Tobacco are who we are.
That would be the book of the century.
And I would venture to guess we would surprise you and your constituants.
and now I will go and ponder how to make pate without liver....ahhh the agony of "CLEAN LIVING"-it is soooo boring and plain and just darn grey...
This piece of satire by The Onion was funny when I first saw it. Now it's a metaphor for what's really happening out there.
Sigh.
Thanks for the article, it's refreshingly honest. I think a lot of nanny statists even lie to themselves about what their goals are until the ones they're willing to admit are met, and they find they can go further.
But to take a step back, this really characterizes the problem with using government to modify personal behaviors. No matter what anyone says, if you fight to expand the power of government to rule individual behaviors, the avenues that you open by doing so will inevitably be used by others for ends that you never intended or envisioned. People think they can expand government while controlling its growth to only the areas they approve of; that never has been possible, nor will it ever. Activists rarely stop to look at the larger picture and the potential consequences of their pseudo-religious crusades.
Hey, well, what do you expect from a bunch of sanctimonious busybodies, eh?
The politically-correct anti-smoking, anti-property rights movement has eked its way into my area... Springfield, Missouri. Flyover country. Middle of America.
IMO, it's okay to ban smoking in the post office or City Hall, but once you start mandating how private businesses deal with this, you've crossed the line. For example, how would one ban smoking in a tobacco shop that sells pipes and cigars? Well, that would happen if our smoking ban goes into place as written.
Let's not forget the tentative movements to ban private-residence smoking behavior. These nutbags will try anything to advance their agenda.
Have a government-approved day!
Commenting by HaloScan
