That's my favorite coffee house in Toledo since my chess and go club meets there, plus they have good coffee and food. Anyway, some of the chess players smoke there, and once the ban was put into effect they complied and stopped having a smoking section. Know what happened?
People stopped showing up.
I talked with one of the ladies there (the owners are very nice) and they said they couldn't afford to stay open like that so they opened it back up and now people are filtering back in.
So what do you do? The smoking section is a separate room with ventilation to suck the air outside.
It's a tough position to be in. I feel for non smokers, and for business who are being hit hard for this. You can never make everyone happy.
Personally I think the solution is a middle ground. Remove the 25 or 50 foot rule and allow people to smoke outside, that way you can keep the inside clean for everyone while still allowing people who want to smoke, to take their coffee outside for a bit.
posted by jshriver at 10:29 A.M. EST on Tue Apr 24, 2007 #
I definitely feel for the businesses who have gone non-smoking already, and are losing business to the places that are breaking the law. But as soon as enforcement is in place and most businesses comply, I just can't be convinced that there will be a major loss of revenue with this. Anyone who smokes so much that they stay home instead of taking a couple of smoke breaks outside of a restaurant or café has got bigger things to worry about.
posted by joshw at 10:38 A.M. EST on Tue Apr 24, 2007 #
I talked with one of the ladies there (the owners are very nice) and they said they couldn't afford to stay open like that
Josh - it's the owner's business. Theyre doing what they need to to stay open. If you dont like it, prove it by getting coffee elsewhere.
You're making a big groovy point with your little nark.com site but in the mean time small businesses such as the one you're ratting out here are suffering.
Speedway sells coffee and you cant smoke in there. Go check em out.
posted by billy at 10:57 A.M. EST on Tue Apr 24, 2007 #
...and for the record, I dont smoke. 'Cant stand the smell of it.
posted by billy at 11:00 A.M. EST on Tue Apr 24, 2007 #
If you dont like it, prove it by getting coffee elsewhere.
As I already said above, that's the whole point of the site: to be able to avoid a given business in favor of one that follows the law.
posted by joshw at 11:16 A.M. EST on Tue Apr 24, 2007 #
I do not allow smoking in my establishment, and I do not feel that this issue would have much effect on business. Nevertheless, the first question that comes to mind when I see topics posted such as this is:
Do you have nothing better to think about?
Is life that uneventful for you people, that you must invent valueless crusades? Maybe, after we as a society can remedy the 3,987,627 more important problems that affect us today, the issue of second hand smoke should be addressed. Prioritize man. Second hand smoke is a bit offensive, but not nearly as having to exist with nazis.
posted by nick44 at 11:21 A.M. EST on Tue Apr 24, 2007 #
I worked in a truck stop that complied with the law. First cpl days there were complaints. But most of the drivers say they came from states that already had the ban in place. It was nice for them to eat and not taste smoke. It also was a little bit inconvenient for them to walk outside to get their smoke in the winter time. I think given time, everyone will see it for the best.
Now lets work on laws regarding smoking in cars with kids, and driving around with kids that aren't seat buckled in.
posted by ToledoLatina at 11:25 A.M. EST on Tue Apr 24, 2007 #
I focus a lot of my time on causes that I believe in - big and small. If everybody only focused on genocide, starvation and disease (and Nazis, apparently), everyday life would suffer.
This is obviously not a trivial issue; just look at the passion on either side of the debate.
posted by joshw at 11:28 A.M. EST on Tue Apr 24, 2007 #
C O O L! Thanks so much for posting this site where folks can go and rat out these establishments!
Without this list, I wouldn't know where to go so I could light up while having a drink or where I could smoke in comfort after dinner and not have to take my business to Michigan!
(say, you're not the one of those that calls the 'Garbage Police' when your neighbor sets out his trash 1/2 early, are ya?)
posted by Plantman at 12:11 P.M. EST on Tue Apr 24, 2007 #
and driving around with kids that aren't seat buckled in.
Uh, correct me if i'm worng but isnt that ALREADY a state law?
posted by tm at 12:30 P.M. EST on Tue Apr 24, 2007 #
JoshW, Thanks for that list. Ive never been to Nick and Nancys in walbridge, i WILL definatly have to go there now.
posted by tm at 12:32 P.M. EST on Tue Apr 24, 2007 #
Thanks for the list. I will defidently patronize these establishments.
It represents those who stand up for their rights to run their business as they determine best in their interest; not to sucumb to some ill-concieved, mis-representated sanction which violates the rights of democracy and voted into law by a campaign of political banter and demogogary which misled the voting public and erodes away at the rights of every citizen (smokers and non-smokers alike) of this great nation.
posted by KraZyKat at 03:51 P.M. EST on Tue Apr 24, 2007 #
joshw - I can only speak for me, and the people I know. But people smoke for a lot of reasons - it's not always just the need for a nicotine fix. Many people have been smoking for decades & for some, it calms the nerves, relieves stress, a 'hand-habit'(nervous habit), helps them 'think' and/or 'cope'. Many other people take medications for these things - anti-depressants, tranquilizers, meds for ADHD, obsessive-compulsive disorders, or drink alcohol to take the 'edge' off. These people have used smoking as a crutch for decades - and you may consider that to be 'pathetic', keep in mind that by doing so, you are also referencing all people who take meds for those conditons as 'pathetic'. Many people cannot tolerate these meds, or choose to not be medicated. Personally, I would much rather be in a room with smokers, than people who take prozac, adderall,etc. - drugs that have been proven to produce horrific side effects such as violent (homocidal) or suicidal behaviour (also lesser side effects such as falling asleep, mental grogginess). Your comment that people who choose to not go to non-smoking restaurants, bars, etc. because they simply can't do without a cigarette for a couple of hours shows how uninformed you are. Of course we can go a couple (or more) hours without a cigarette, but why should we have to, when we can find places to go that do allow smoking? You also miss a crucial problem with your suggestion to just go outside to smoke. (I have pointed this out many times already, but here goes again...) IF I am out to dinner with one person & step outside (20 or more feet from entrance) to smoke, it leaves my one dinner companion sitting alone, which I feel is incredibly rude. IF I am out to dinner with more than one person & step outside to smoke - it excludes me from the dinner conversation, makes me feel like a leper. My husband (or friends) and I like to go out to dinner once or twice a week. We have NOT been to dinner in Toledo since the first smoking ban. Before this most recent severe ban, we'd go to Maumee, Oregon, Michigan, Sylvania, etc. NOW, we only eat out in Michigan. My daughter & I are the only smokers in the bunch, so yes, we feel bad about dinner limitations. I told my husband that if he really wanted to eat out at a specific restaurant, I'd go without whining, as long as we got there early so there wouldnt be a long wait for table or service (I get antsy - I HATE waiting) - but for now would prefer to not eat out in Toledo simply to make my dollar count. I want the receipts at the end of the day to reflect ban damage. Not to punish the innocent restaurants, but to make the point that this ban will cause damage. So far, nobody has had any problems at all just going to eat in Michigan. My husband (and friends) have limited free time to eat out - so when we go out, I want it to be a pleasurable, relaxing experience. And I most certainly would not abandon my dinner companions to 'step outside' to smoke - that is beyond rude to me. (Imagine you are the smoker that abandons his spouse to sit alone at the table while you 'step outside' to smoke). You also may not be aware that the crime rate, induced by the smoking ban - has increased worldwide. I've spent a lot of time tracking ban damage across the country & world. Rapes, assaults & robberies are the result of lone smokers standing in the dark (or cold or rain) - often 20 or more feet from the entrance. Why should I even HAVE to stand outside alone in the cold, rain or dark when I don't have to? This ban is entirely too severe. You think unemployment, foreclosures, city & state deficits are bad now? Just wait a year or so, see how bad it gets when the tax dollars are no longer coming in. There are so many reports of businesses dying over smoking bans - but the anti-smokers (who dont have businesses) are always saying that they don't see how a ban will hurt. If these businesess say they are hurting from a ban - then they ARE, and it's nothing short of smug & ignorant to presume otherwise. The smoke nazi's just don't like the smell & for that, Ohio will end up like Flint, Michigan or worse. I am furious about this ban - it was not voted in by the majority (like 40 percent of voters actually voted in the first place, because too many people never thought this ban would pass). Since the first smoking ban, it was near impossible to even find a restaurant in Toledo that had a smoking section. Now, it IS impossible in all of Ohio (unless it's a bar - and your stupid 'list' has no Toledo restaurants). Separate smoking sections would have sufficed. And all the owners who spent huge sums of money (and are still paying for them) for special rooms & ventilation systems to conform to the last ban are out of luck - money wasted, that the city won't reimburse them for. There's been a huge outcry - boycotts on donating any money, ever again to the Cancer society, United way - because they used donation money to pass this ban - money that should have gone to the cure they were donated to find. I know that the bikers who did their bike runs to raise money for the cancer society will no longer do so. This ban hurts far deeper than you realize.
posted by starling02 at 06:59 P.M. EST on Tue Apr 24, 2007 #
kat and starling - you go :-)
I don't think you'll have too much luck getting through to some people until it's an infringement on THEIR rights. They aren't too concerned with preserving life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness for OTHER folks......but the nannies will eventually get around to knocking on everybody's door.
:-) Better watch themselves around mine - don't take kindly to nannies on the lawn round here.
posted by katie82640 at 07:02 P.M. EST on Tue Apr 24, 2007 #
JoshW,
You admittedly "hadn't made it to Toledo for awhile". How pretentious of you to think you are entitled to require a business change it's policies to suit your occasionally blessing them with your presence. If they evicted the smoking patrons to create your perfect environment will you but three cups of coffee from them next year? Maybe 4?
You were saddened by a lady chain smoking in a room next to you; how tragic for you, it must have been a tramatic experience.
I advise you to wake up and smell the coffee. This is the real world you’re in, you should learn how to deal with it.
Put $180,000 of your own money into a coffee shop then decide if you want to cater to your customer base or someone who "occasionally" comes to Toledo and buys a cup of coffee.
posted by jimavolt at 07:53 P.M. EST on Tue Apr 24, 2007 #
NOW, we only eat out in Michigan.
This is one thing I don't understand. You live somewhere for awhile and find some favorite restaurants. Maybe you even are a regular and are friends with the owner. I personally like to support the local-owned mom & pop establishments. Then along comes a law that ALL restaurants in the city must follow. How do you react? Keep supporting the businesses you have had a good relationship with for a long time? Nope, screw 'em. Can't smoke there, so don't ever go back. Then the places close.
posted by Matt at 08:23 P.M. EST on Tue Apr 24, 2007 #
How pretentious of you to think you are entitled to require a business change it's policies to suit your occasionally blessing them with your presence.
Man, out come the pitchforks and torches...
I think Josh's site is a silly waste of time, but where did he say anything about forcing the business to change? He says he won't be going back to these places that allow smoking. The site is provided so other like-minded folks can do the same. It even has the side effect of allowing smokers (like the ones who only eat out in MI now) to know where that CAN go to smoke in the city. That's all.
Now that I think about it, his post almost seems a bit trollish. Anyone who has been on this site even for a short time knows this viewpoint will open the rantgates.
posted by Matt at 08:49 P.M. EST on Tue Apr 24, 2007 #
That web site works two ways y'know. If you'd like to find an establishment that does allow smoking - check the list :-)
It must be up to the business owner whether or not they wish to accommodate this LEGAL activity.
This whole thing will wind up just like the gun laws. It'll go up to the Supreme Court and they'll say what they usually say.....didn't you guys read the Bill of Rights? What're you thinking?
Basically a knock it off - you wasted your time and that Stu Kerr guy got a whole bunch of money for organizing a vote on a law that's illegal.
posted by katie82640 at 09:18 P.M. EST on Tue Apr 24, 2007 #
Hey, thanks for the list of businesses owned by people who still have balls, troll. I'll be sure to frequent them. LOL 8^D
posted by Darkseid at 03:44 A.M. EST on Wed Apr 25, 2007 #
Pretty funny. After everything the Smoking Gang posts here, there, and everywhere, this person is labled a troll for posting something from the other side.
You're fine, Joshw. The registered voters of this state voted overwhelmingly for a public smoking ban last November. The Smoking Gang doesn't like it and they've been spilling a river of tears ever since...as they take their money into Michigan while "caring" so much for Ohio business owners.
posted by McCaskey at 11:30 A.M. EST on Wed Apr 25, 2007 #
matt - the "list" does not include one restaurant in Toledo, or anywhere close to Toledo - why should I drive hours to eat out in a bar when I can be in Michigan in 10 minutes? I rarely go to bars - the ones that serve a great hamburger & allow me to smoke will get my business (does Delaney's serve a good hamburger?). Yes we did have favorite restaurants in Toledo, Maumee, etc. - but it's not my job to keep them in business if they no longer appeal to what I want, whether it's their fault, or not. That reponsibilty lies with all the anti smokers who voted FOR this ban - YOU are the ones who claimed a ban won't hurt, YOU are the ones who screamed for them all to be non-smoking, YOU are the ones who insisted that you'd patronize these places IF there was no smoking - so go at it, support these places so they do NOT go out of business. If they DO go out of business (restaurants, bars, bingo & pool halls, bowling alleys), it will be YOUR fault, NOT mine. Mccaskey - NO, it was no voted in by the majority of voters. YES, I hold the people who did not vote responsible - they assumed it'd never pass here - who'd a thought? But it was not passed by the "overwhelming" majority - horsefeathers. About 45 percent of voters actually voted. Of those, many voters claim they were misled or didn't understand parts of the law.
posted by starling02 at 12:38 P.M. EST on Wed Apr 25, 2007 #
Starling, 58% of the people who voted Nov. 7 voted yes on Issue 5, 64% of those no on Issue 4. This is overwhelming under any definition.
The people who sat out these issues and didn't vote? That's supposed to mean something now? All those people who did vote the way they did were tricked, connived, just too lazy to read the language on the two issues? Please. You're a day late and a dollar short.
Starling, what's the game plan when Michigan goes smoke free for indoor public places? Don't think that's likely to happen in the near future? When it does, are you going to get on the turnpike and head west until you get to Indiana? Guess what, they likely will a similar ban.
It's been suggested to you before on here and not by me---you could stop your addiction and your need to light up when the alarm goes off like Pavlov's Dog and then all this bullshit is moot.
Good luck to you on that and I mean it.
posted by McCaskey at 01:27 P.M. EST on Wed Apr 25, 2007 #
An interesting parallel discussion has come up - the 'Fat Tax' (google for 'fat tax' and there's over a million hits) and the 'Is obesity the responsibility of the Body Politic?'.
So all you folks who love the ideas of these bans - are you ready to be taxed according to your body mass index? Are you ready for the 'Body Politic' to start banning and taxing by how much you weigh?
After all, it's a national epidemic. It's causing great harm to those around obese people when they have to pick up the excess medical costs to treat these people.
posted by katie82640 at 01:40 P.M. EST on Wed Apr 25, 2007 #
After all, it's a national epidemic. It's causing great harm to those around obese people when they have to pick up the excess medical costs to treat these people.
Ah, but it's still not a societal issue. we cant make fun of drunkards or drug addicts, but fatties are still open game.
posted by billy at 01:44 P.M. EST on Wed Apr 25, 2007 #
That "List" only has 3 bars in Toledo (I don't go to bars) - NO restaurants. Every other place on that list is far from Toledo - no help to me at all. You know, they pushed & advertised this ban under the guise of protecting the 'children', but the wording of the law was carefully selected to specify the protection of "employees" - which allowed the law to encompass ALL businesses, in the name of protecting employees from SHS. However, I don't see outcries for the cook who grills or smokes your meat (ingests far more carcinigens than if he'd smoked several cigarettes), or wood burning fires & fireplaces, boy scout campfires, or factory workers who are exposed to many hazardous things (flavored popcorn workers are suffering lung cancers; many jeep veteran employees are suffering cancers of all kinds, etc.), alcohol fumes (yes, really) are far more hazardous than SHS (I'm talking the drinking variety - the gas pump variety is far worse), etc. (I could insert an enormous list of employee hazards here that have nothing to do with SHS but are far worse than SHS).
This was never really about the 'children' - although because they USED children to promote this ban, I now no longer will give to charities or causes that help children (Yes, I know - but it's how I vent my rage). Now, whenever I hear of money being raised to 'help' the children, I do a slow burn. One small example is the Edgewater school food money raiser - I gave them a couple of very large orders (I have no kids in school anymore, so it wasnt helping my kids) - until they used kids to promote the ban, now I refuse to give another order. No connection, & I realize my thinking is a bit off kilter on this, but it is what it is. All the smoke haters who are overjoyed about this ban - may be dancing their jigs to a different tune in a year or so when the tax dollars have dried up, and when they raise YOUR taxes to make up what was lost. Remember that when you see more tax hikes or new taxes - you brought it on yourself. There is an enormous Ohio population that refuses to buy their cigarettes in Ohio now - they buy online, or have friends mail cartons from out of state, or just make a monthly trek out of state to buy them, or roll their own - that means less cig tax money for Ohio. Strickland believes that because they are seeing less cig tax money already for Ohio, then it must be true that there are less smokers - very flawed thinking, he clearly doesnt realize Ohioans have simply taken their cig/tax dollar elsewhere.
Having said all this (ad nauseum) - my point is simply this: business owners should have the right to decide what legal activities to allow, post signs alerting the public to those activities (this is where personal choise & responsiblity comes in) - so you could choose to enter, or not. That's how it's always been in this country - and how it should always be, anything less is smacks of facism. If businesses chose to have a separate, enclosed smoking section - they should have that right. There is NO way that any non-smoker should have been able to object to that. But you all bought into the lies about SHS - you tell a lie long enough, people believe it. I keep reading 'statistics' of how many people (and children) die every year from SHS - that's bullshit and a lie. Name 3. You can't name 3 where it was the cause of disease or death, because it hasn't happened. Some people will get cancer regardless of what they're exposed to, or not exposed to. I know of a few people who got lung cancer - never smoked or was exposed to SHS. The actual statistics are that about 10 percent of smokers will get lung cancer. Also, of all the people who have died from cancer, or lung or heart disease - 25 percent were smokers. So that means that 75 percent were NOT smokers. I also read a letter from a woman who'd smoked for years & quit. She developed multiple chemical sensitivity - couldnt go to a mall even because perfumes, candles, etc. caused her to get extremely sick, couldn't breath (my sister has this problem at American Airlines in Texas - has had an attorney on it, she gets hives, coughs so bad she vomits, has lost 30 pounds). So the woman started smoking again & the chemical sensitivity went away - she said she doesn't know which is worse for her. She said that her doctor told her, that he sees more people get cancer who stopped smoking, implied that if they didn't stop, they wouldnt have gotten cancer - something about imunities or tolerance/resistance I think. I don't know enough to comment on that, I admit. But my point is that if the nannies feel they have to ban smoking - then they'd better ban candles with cotton wicks(required by Catholic Churches), incense, meat grilling, wood fires, perfumes, alcohol, etc.
I think the billions of dollars to pass this smoking ban would have been better spent on cleaning up the water, air, homeless or hungry, education - ONE glass of tap water has more arsenic than SHS. Or spent on finding the cure it was intended for. (But they don't WANT a cure - they HAVE a drug proven to destroy cancer cells that don't damage healthy cells. But they can't patent it because it's used for a non-cancer disease,so there's no money to be made in it. BIG Canadian news story, made the radio & papers all over.) My husband's cousin was head cancer nurse at a major hospital in Toledo for years & she said the same - that Cancer is big business, big money maker. My (retired) internist said the same for years. It's all about selling pharmacuticals - more big money. WHO stands to make money on smoking bans? Drug companies. WHO stands to make money on mandatory psychological testing on kids? Drug companies. Ditto for that shot for pre-teen girls to prevent cervical cancer (although that is a good idea).
I don't know anybody who stopped smoking for good with smoking cessation products. But I do know several people who were rushed to the ER for serious reaction problems, breathing & heart problems. The cessation drugs are more dangerous than SHS will ever be. But if joshw & matt prefer I go on prozac where I may go into a homocidal attack, or some other tranquilizer that causes me to doze off while I'm driving, or take a cessation drug that can cause an instant stroke - because it's better for me than smoking, & they won't have to deal with the smell of SHS (which you didn't have to DEAL with anyway in places that had separte sections) - then I say it is YOU who has the issues, not me.
posted by starling02 at 02:06 P.M. EST on Wed Apr 25, 2007 #
I don't know anybody who stopped smoking for good with smoking cessation products.
I did. I used that Nicorette gum. 3 1/2 years smoke-free and absolutely no desire to smoke now, even when I'm with someone who's smoking. Of course, the thing is you have to really want to quit.
Just sayin'.
posted by Rodney at 02:25 P.M. EST on Wed Apr 25, 2007 #
Billy - it's time to move from smoking to the next legal activity that has a negative ramification on anybody else.
I guess that discussion will be weight.
posted by katie82640 at 02:36 P.M. EST on Wed Apr 25, 2007 #
I quit a 2 1/2 pk a day habit in 1976, cold turkey. It wasn't fun. All kinds of odd physical miseries. The worst lasted about a month. After that it was all downhill. Three months and I was esentially comfortable without smoking in activities where previously I had relied on a cigarette for whatever reason. Second hand smoke? I believe that if I am uncomfortable with someone's smoke it is MY responsibility to remove myself from that situation - Not make the smoker move for me. I'm just not that selfish. That pretty much sums up my view of most of the rabid anti-anything folks. The have to have it their way at all costs - selfish.
posted by holland at 03:45 P.M. EST on Wed Apr 25, 2007 #
In my efforts not to hijack this post (Drinking Liberally in Toledo), I thought this response would be more fitting here.
I propose a new organization called:
SMOKING LIBERALLY IN TOLEDO
We could meet and engaged in the same type of discussions but instead of polluting our bodies with a legal substance of alcohol we could be polluting our bodies with a legal substance of tobaccos while we discussed the infrigments on our social liberties like the Ohio Smoking Ban.
After all, it is my choice (and right, as it should be) what I choose to pollute my body with.
posted by KraZyKat at 05:04 P.M. EST on Wed Apr 25, 2007 #
I (and many other people) cannot use the nicorette gum because of dental work (sticks & pulls bad). There are also many other side effects or hazards to many of the other cessation products (drugs) - as well as my HUGE distaste for adding anymore of MY money to the pharmacutical companies pockets after they bought & paid for this ban, so they can make billions of dollars selling their products. I know of too many people who've had serious medical problems on cessation products. My sister said they've hauled out a few people at American Airlines where she works on stretchers because of smoking cessation products. Several years ago, I paid $99 for a guaranteed to stop smoking gimmick on the radio - what I got was a bottle of Wellbutrin (sp) - a drug I cannot tolerate,and the guarantee only applied for the first 30 days - and you had to prove that you did Step number one - 'dispose of all cigarettes & ashtrays'. Hell, IF I could have done THAT, I wouldn't have paid $99 to stop smoking. Never did use it.
posted by starling02 at 06:56 P.M. EST on Wed Apr 25, 2007 #
Roughly 32% of The registered voters of this state who bothered to vote voted overwhelmingly for a public smoking ban last November.
-----------------------------------------
There. Fixed it.
posted by Darkseid at 09:28 P.M. EST on Wed Apr 25, 2007 #
Yes we did have favorite restaurants in Toledo, Maumee, etc. - but it's not my job to keep them in business if they no longer appeal to what I want, whether it's their fault, or not. That reponsibilty lies with all the anti smokers who voted FOR this ban - YOU are the ones who claimed a ban won't hurt, YOU are the ones who screamed for them all to be non-smoking, YOU are the ones who insisted that you'd patronize these places IF there was no smoking - so go at it-Starling
---------------------------------------------
Bravo. Couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you. I told all the restaurant managers at the places I went to a few months before the election-"If you don't fight this-HARD-and you let it pass-I'll never be back." They didn't. The restaurant association more or less rolled over and took it up the ass, smiling all the while. It's not my responsibility to keep them in business, it was theirs. Besides, McAsskisser will tell you it's great for business, dso why should we worry? They're all going to do fine, smokers are scum and don't matter. 8^)
posted by Darkseid at 09:37 P.M. EST on Wed Apr 25, 2007 #
ROLL YOUR OWN!! CUT THE STATE BASTARDS OFF AT THE KNEES!!
posted by Darkseid at 09:42 P.M. EST on Wed Apr 25, 2007 #
Smoking Liberally In Toledo-I like that, KK. Has a nice ring to it.
posted by Darkseid at 09:44 P.M. EST on Wed Apr 25, 2007 #
Dangit I missed something again. I was out smoking :-)~
posted by katie82640 at 09:54 P.M. EST on Wed Apr 25, 2007 #
The State of Ohio has suffered mightly in the cigarette revenue tax dept. with the drop in cigarette sales. They instituted a huge hike in the state tax on cigarettes a year ago last July. It hurt sales in Ohio enough that the state actually now collects less tax than it did before the tax hike. This was from an old Ohio Grocers Association bulletin. I haven't heard any revised numbers since the ban went into effect. Darkseid hit the nail on the head. The state is more addicted to the tax revenue from cigaretts than smokers are to nicotine. They WILL find a replacement stream revenue. I'm betting some kind of fat tax.
posted by holland at 10:16 P.M. EST on Wed Apr 25, 2007 #
Sure, why do you think Strickland the Saviour is going to appropriate all those bazillions from the great tobacco settlement? The Nazis at the ACS, AHA, and ALA are INFURIATED that they aren't going to get it all for their pockets. Strick is going to put it toward schools, roads,to help pay taxes for seniors, etc. -SO HE DOESN'T HAVE TO RAISE TAXES ON EVERYBODY ELSE-YET. But it's only a temporary measure, and sooner or later, all those people in oHEILo who laughed when smokers were bled dry (while at the same time being thrown outside in the winter-scum/slime Taft was the one driving the smoker tax increases, yet did commercials for issue 5)are going to be grabbing their ankles soon-I'd say sometime within the next two years for sure. The small businesses that are going to start to close (especially this coming fall & winter)will speed up the process.
posted by Darkseid at 12:37 A.M. EST on Thu Apr 26, 2007 #
Smokers!
Can't stand the high taxes?
Afraid to order off of the Internet?
Then start rolling your own!!! find everything but the machine downtown at the local Smoke Shop. Also, Rite Aid and grocery stores also sell the bags of tobacco and the filtered tubes.
roll out a beautiful carton for a little under $8 dollars. Premiums in the state up to $45-$50 a carton. Can you imagine the money you can save by rolling yourown? mind boggling.
machine around $50.00
Check StuffYourOwn.Com prices on tobacco
$1.99 for 200 filtered tubes
Make your own cigarettes for as low as $6.99 per Carton! Smoke Quality FILTERED cigarettes that you make yourself using cigarette tubes (like a cigarette without the Cigarette tobacco), cigarette making machines, and "roll your own" cigarette tobacco.
-Stop Paying High Cigarette Taxes
- "Roll Your Own" cigarettes!
CUT THE GOVERNMENT BASTARDS OFF AT THE KNEES!!
posted by Darkseid at 12:55 A.M. EST on Thu Apr 26, 2007 #
darkseid - any roll your owns that come close to Kool super longs? I havent ordered online because 1) can't find Kools online 2) I hear online buyers are getting hit with huge bills for taxes at the end of the year (some up to $8,000).
posted by starling02 at 03:11 P.M. EST on Thu Apr 26, 2007 #
Fumes, Fun, Sunshine and Smoke
Michael J. McFadden
http://www.freedom2choose.co.uk/art1.php?id=54
Michael as the author of '*Dissecting Antismokers' Brains'. Michael has been a constant supporter of Freedom2Choose.
Antismokers like to say, 'There is no known safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke.' They ignore the fact that the same is true for the Class A Carcinogens alcohol and sunshine, both also having "no known safe levels".
Sunshine? Is it really that bad? Well, the UN claims 60,000 people die annually from its cancerous effects. Even one quick peek out your window may kill you... if we use the Surgeon General's smoke exposure standards.
Antismokers might laugh and say 'Well, there's no avoiding sunlight, but you CAN avoid smoke by having bans.' They forget smoking bans are passed primarily to 'protect the workers' and there are many workers forced to serve self-centered Sunners desiring lunches on restaurant patios. Why should those workers be 'the only ones forced to work in a carcinogenic environment?' Should patio dining be outlawed? After all, it's no more necessary to the act of eating than smoking is to the act of drinking.
Speaking of drinking... Antismokers like to say 'You're not forcing others to drink!', but you certainly are forcing a carcinogen on them. The actual Class A components of a cigarette's smoke mass only .0005 grams. A standard martini puts out roughly one full gram of alcohol vapor per hour: as much Class A Carcinogen as 2,000 cigarettes!
See for yourself: pour a good jigger (48 grams) of grain alcohol into a martini glass. Two days later it will be gone. Where did it go? Well, unless your kittycat is a closet tippler, all that nice juicy carcinogen bubbled straight into the air inhaled by you and your family: almost 100,000 cigarettes’ worth.
Applying the same 'zero-tolerance' rules to alcohol as extremists demand for smoke would force us to ban alcohol from restaurants 'where people are forced to work.' Alcoholics could be told 'just step outside for a moment' between courses to grab a few quick gulps of wine.
It is not just sunshine and martinis though: think about the deadly popcorn fumes! Recent research indicates that workers exposed to that delicious buttery aroma can lose up to 80% of their lung capacity to bronchiolitis obliterans, a condition that literally obliterates the bronchioles -- the lungs' tiniest airways.
If 'first hand exposure' is that deadly, what about the 'secondhand exposure' you and your children get at the movies or while munching microwave popcorn on the couch? Picture hundreds of TV ads showing babies in the womb being force-fed butter flavored popcorn while their tiny computer-animated lungs slowly wither and die. Picture parents being denied custody of their children or losing their jobs because they are 'popcorn-eaters'.
The only thing unique about the 'deadliness' of secondary tobacco smoke is that a powerful lobby has focused our attention on it and magnified our fears of it. Having a patio lunch may actually be more dangerous than being inside with the smokers. Working in a poorly ventilated non-smoking alcohol-friendly restaurant may be deadlier than working in a well-ventilated smoking casino!
The hysteria surrounding secondary smoke is deliberately created to pressure smokers to quit, no more, no less. It's a hysteria fed by media outlets posing as good corporate citizens while making extra bucks from scary headlines. And it's a hysteria that has ruined the lives and livelihoods of many innocent people.
Reasonable restrictions on smoking are fine. Voluntary business choices to ban smoking are also fine. But government-mandated universal smoking bans and the social disruption attending them are most definitely not fine. They are not American, and they hurt our lives and our society far more than they help it.
References:
Sunlight -http://www.webmd.com/melanoma-skin-cancer/news/20060727/sun-kills-skin-cancer
Alcohol - http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/330/7495/812
http://alcoholism.about.com/od/cancer/Alcohol_and_Cancer_Risk.htm
Michael J. McFadden does not have any financial connections or obligations to Big Tobacco.
posted by starling02 at 03:35 P.M. EST on Thu Apr 26, 2007 #
Doesn't anyone remember Rush Limbaugh's diatribe some years ago that the states don't actually want you to stop smoking? To his credit, Rush understood what Darkseid and Holland have said, that the state governments are addicted to the tax revenue. Even worse, they have a lot of plans to offload their healthcare costs upon the federal government. As Mags can probably give us a lot of details about, our levels of government are busily playing "hot potato" with costs.
At any rate, rolling your own seems like a great solution for three reasons:
· It avoids state tax.
· It allows bulk buying.
· Most importantly, it allows people to avoid cigarette-industry additives, to find their own flavors, and to finally reduce dependence upon tobacco by becoming more concerned with quality over quantity (as happens when you eat better food).
Obtaining items via online sources will come under significant government assault for tax avoidance, however.
posted by GuestZero at 03:50 P.M. EST on Thu Apr 26, 2007 #
GuestZero's back!!!!!!!!!!
posted by MrsPhoenix at 04:57 P.M. EST on Thu Apr 26, 2007 #
Yes he is ain't he :-)
I had been told within the last year or so that you can order tobacco and papers in the mail. They're also carrying it at my corner gas station.
Would these mail order items be taxed if purchased outside of Ohio? I know cigarettes are taxed, but what about the components?
posted by katie82640 at 05:46 P.M. EST on Thu Apr 26, 2007 #
Just regular sales tax is about all they can hit you with. Price has went up some because more and more are doing it, but it'll take a hell of a long time to get in the same class as pre-made smokes. Star-you gan get a machine that makes the long cigs, and buy the longer tubes as well. You can get the tubes in regular filter, light, ultra-light. As to tobacco, you can get light, regular, menthol, ultra=light, just about any grade you want, and it's just like the Indians smoked-additive free, all natural. If your local store doesn't carry a type you like, you'll be able to find it on the internet. It's a bit stronger, but that way you'll smoke less, as GZ said. Takes you a few months to get the hang of rolling,, and you'll give up a few times, but eventually you get the hang of it, and you'll be able to whip out a carton in no time at all.
posted by Darkseid at 08:15 P.M. EST on Thu Apr 26, 2007 #
darkseid - do you have a website to buy the roll your own stuff?
posted by starling02 at 09:40 P.M. EST on Thu Apr 26, 2007 #
Here's but one-there are thousands.
http://stuffyourown.com/
.
posted by Darkseid at 11:19 P.M. EST on Thu Apr 26, 2007 #
One lb. of tobacco will make around two cartons, BTW.
posted by Darkseid at 11:20 P.M. EST on Thu Apr 26, 2007 #
How much does a carton of pre-mades go for now?
posted by katie82640 at 09:42 A.M. EST on Fri Apr 27, 2007 #
A carton of Marlboros is $40.69 (lowest legal price in Ohio). One pound of loose tobacco is around $14.69. The rolling papers are $1.89 pk(32). The one time investment for a top of the line rolling machine is about $42.00. Do the math!
posted by holland at 10:58 A.M. EST on Fri Apr 27, 2007 #
McCaskey - yes, it's possible that Michigan will get on the smoking ban bandwagon, and if it does, I'll have to deal with it - but will eat out far less than we do now. (We used to eat out twice a week, pre-ban - now we maybe eat out twice a month. And we're good 20 percent tippers, on steak or surf & turf dinners - with drinks & dessert, not cheap-o hamburgers. So our absense has been felt somewhat for waitresses.) I read an article that quoted Tracy Sabatta (sp) as being upset over Michigan's lack of enthusiasm for a smoking ban - she said "They pretty much sent it to the committees to die." - which implies to me, that she's frustrated, it's with the 'committees' where it won't surface again. I believe that Michigan also has a law that makes it illegal for such bans to supercede the existing laws - not sure of the wording, etc. but I've read that several places. That said - there are some restaurants in Michigan that have gone smoke free willingly, that were not smoke free a year ago. Two months ago, we planned to go to a late breakfast at Bob Evans in Michigan on a Sunday. They had a new 'rule' of no smoking allowed on weekends until 3 pm. The parking lot & restaurant were EMPTY, on a Sunday. The waitstaff was standing around bored, no customers, but were waiting for the non-smoking crowd to show up (they weren't coming). So we proceeded on to The Cracker Barrel - where we had a 25 minute wait for a table. The place & parking lot were packed, & there was still a 25 minute wait for tables when we left. Yesterday, we attempted a late breakfast AGAIN at Bob Evans (NOT a week-end) only to find it had gone totally smoke free. AGAIN, the place was EMPTY - waitstaff standing around bored. We again proceeded on to The Cracker Barrel, where, AGAIN it was packed. So guess where we'll end up next time for breakfast? We sure won't waste our time on Bob Evans anymore. What I found ironic, was that they had a menu posted featuring BACON, SMOKED HAM, & all kinds of artery clogging & fat producing foods. The NON smoking section was packed with fat people shoveling enormous amounts of food into their gullets. I am 5'2", & weigh 105 pounds, and am in good health, perfect to low blood pressure & am on NO meds - meaning that I am healthier than these fat asses in the non smoking section. As is my husband as well - fit & trim & healthy (a non-smoker who does enjoy a cigar).
What I do NOT understand, is how all the rabid anti smokers get so riled up over a bit of SHS, when many (or most) of them are overweight or obese, who drink alcohol (often to access), lay in the sun - and those things don't seem to bother them. MY guess, is it's because you cannot SEE the alcohol fumes or cancer in the sunlight (and they are WORSE carcinigens than SHS), and they don't SEE the food turn into fat before their eyes. You also cannot SEE Carbon Monoxide, but it's deadly. You will ingest MORE carcinagens around people drinking cocktails & martinis than if you sat near smokers. The studies PROVE that (do a search for alcohol & the fumes being a carcinagen). You have NO concerns for the safety of the bartender's health at being exposed to alcohol fumes. You have NO concerns for the safety of the COOK who is grilling your steak or hamburger or bacon. And yet you freak out over the safety of employees who work in a place with an enclosed smoking section (that they usually have the option to bid out of). You're all patting yourselves on the backs & laughing it up over this smoking ban - but you don't seem to realize that it's only a matter of time (short time) where there will be scales at places of employement (too fat to be employed for insurance reasons), and limits on what you'll be allowed to order in restaurants. It is just hypocritical beyond belief to me. I will say this ONE more time - 10 percent of smokers get lung cancer. MORE than that get cancers caused by sunlight or alcohol. Of all the people who die by heart, lung disease or cancer - 25 percent are smokers. The other 75 percent are NOT smokers. The countries that have the most smokers per capita also have the lowest lung cancer rates - and yet you ignore that. I am not saying that smoking is healthy - of course it's not. But the myth of SHS is absurd. Are all the smoke haters so pathetic that they are unable to use the power of personal choise - to enter, or not enter? They need the govt. to babysit them. I have news for you - NOBODY gets out of here alive. Everybody ingests about 60,000 carcinagens daily just by living in this world - that has NOTHING to do with SHS. When the majority of this country is overweight or obese - it's insulting & smug to be looking down on smokers. When this country is all physically fit - then you earn the right to be smug maybe. Maybe when the govt requires mandatory exercise daily on the workplace (some countries do) - our country will be more fit. But until they clean up the air & water they don't own the right to bitch about a little SHS in enclosed, separate smoking sections.
posted by starling02 at 01:00 P.M. EST on Fri Apr 27, 2007 #
If and when Mich. does it, you'll just do what smokers all over the country are doing-it started a long time ago even before smoker bans-it's called 'cocooning'. I have been to exactly TWO movies in the theatre in the last six years or so-the first two in the Lord Of The Rings trilogy. The rest of the time, I watch home videos.
My point is-from the time I was six years old, I went to the movies at least once a week-when it was still an enjoyable experience. They had intermissions for the super-long movies , showed two movies, not one, also cartoon, previews, and when I was real young, a newsreel. Somewhere around the 80's, it turned into a nightmare. Mostly teenagers in the audience, talking and swearing through the whole thing, only one movie, etc; and then came home video. I began to taper off on my theatregoing. I've saved a ton of money in the process. I can do the same thing with dining out now that that is no longer an enjoyable experience.
The rabid smoker-haters will cause a revisiting/resurgance of the once-dead art of visiting friends. I remember back in the 60's, my wife and I would take the kids over to our friends house each week to watch 'Laugh-in'. Back then, tv was still a big deal. Today, it will be the home entertainment center. People will discover closeness again like it used to be through the 70's, and smokers will have their own 'underground' economy, powered by home entertainment. People will begin to cook again to a degree, also. Either way, more get-togethers and more parties/visiting. And rabid smoker-haters will not be welcome.
posted by Darkseid at 03:32 P.M. EST on Fri Apr 27, 2007 #
Maybe we'll start opening smokeasy's.
:-)
posted by katie82640 at 03:36 P.M. EST on Fri Apr 27, 2007 #
According to the Tax Foundation, Ohio's cigarette tax is $1.25 per pack, therefore $12.50 per carton (assuming 10 packs/carton). Rolling your own should avoid that cost.
Is loose tobacco sold locally subject to the same tax?
posted by GuestZero at 05:56 P.M. EST on Fri Apr 27, 2007 #
Prohibition did not work on any level, and it won't work now. Randolph Hearst held 'booze cruises' so his friends could party & drink. Speakeasys were big, & the mob ran the show. Why the nannys think it will work this time around is beyond me.
posted by starling02 at 06:00 P.M. EST on Fri Apr 27, 2007 #
What I found ironic, was that they had a menu posted featuring BACON, SMOKED HAM, & all kinds of artery clogging & fat producing foods.
Mmmmm.....yum. My fried baloney sandwich at Village Inn tasted great tonight. It was pretty dang crowded, too.
posted by McCaskey at 09:19 P.M. EST on Fri Apr 27, 2007 #
There are those rabid smoker-haters who are thoroughly addicted to smoking threads and cannot quit them, because they will never be able to give up the need to gloat and feel smug and superior to other human beings. You know, usually the kind that had a rotten childhood, didn't get picked for teams, whatever, and need someone to look down on to feel important. To paraphrase their own words, if they didn't enter said threads, the point would be moot. They'll never be able to stay away, though.
posted by Darkseid at 09:37 P.M. EST on Fri Apr 27, 2007 #
GZ, thought I pointed it out before, but maybe not. All you pay on bulk tobacco would be regular sales tax, same as you'd pay on say, a quart of oil or a pair of pants. Nothing exorbitant as it is with 'pre-made', 'store-bought' cigs.
posted by Darkseid at 09:40 P.M. EST on Fri Apr 27, 2007 #
Here's the text of a request for injunctive relief will be decided next Tuesday.
http://pjpohio.com/Documents/Hamilton%20Law%20Suit.pdf
Interesting constitutional issue. Ohio law at odds with Federal law.
I can't wait to hear the wailing if the law gets delayed. OMG imagine what the Blade and SFO will do if the poorly written law is ruled unconstitutional . . . .
posted by jimavolt at 10:06 P.M. EST on Fri Apr 27, 2007 #
As I have said from the very beginning, if this issue reaches the ear of a court they're going to have a very hard time explaining their intent in infringing upon personal rights regarding a legal behavior.
This is the best thing that could have happened. This is exactly like Toledo and the rinse and repeat gun control resolutions that have been overturned - just on a State level. You cannot make a State or local law that undermines a Constitutional right.
They keep passing restraints on gun ownership and then it gets pushed up and up and then the Supreme Court gets it. They give out this heavy sigh. Oh Lord, here comes Toledo again. Didn't we SEND them a complete copy of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights something like three times now? Then they talk really slowly and explain the right to bear arms, overturn the thing and go home.
These endeavors completely violate the whole pursuit of happiness thing and the right to bear arms.
That pesky Constitution. It just gets in the way every time. The framers were very wise and very dedicated that these types of abuses wouldn't happen.
And we know that the anti-smoking Nannies don't have the courage to take on the tobacco lobby. That's why they tried this. It will be overturned upon judicial review.
posted by katie82640 at 10:48 P.M. EST on Fri Apr 27, 2007 #
Thank you for mentioning the gun laws. I find it quite ironic that the SAME people (nannies and politicos)who cried 'LEVEL PLAYING FIELD' for smoker bans-had to ban it statewide-then turn around and say (with guns) "We MUST have home rule".
posted by Darkseid at 11:04 P.M. EST on Fri Apr 27, 2007 #
jimavolt - I can't get the link to work. Are you saying this smoking ban may be delayed or overturned?
McCaskey - I also love all those artery clogging foods, greasy hamburgers, bacon, butter - won't bother with low fat anything. I believe in moderation in all things, as my doctor suggested years ago. I just find it ironic though, that the rabid anti smokers who are so paranoid about catching a disease from SHS don't EVER seem to have the same fears from the foods they eat, or booze they drink. It seems like they are only afraid of SHS induced cancers, diseases - but NOT afraid of induced cancers, diseases from their own indulgences. IF these smoke haters are sincere in their quest for health, then I'd expect that their behaviour would carry over to what food & drink they consumed. But alas, that never seems to be the case - you'll preach to the high heavens how evil smokers are & how they're polluting YOUR body, as you go about polluting your OWN body. Hypocrites.
posted by starling02 at 12:48 A.M. EST on Sat Apr 28, 2007 #
Why on earth are cigarettes subject to a tax that bulk tobacco isn't?
However, all this artificial market manipulation is only to the benefit of the considered citizen who rolls his own. I hear that places like NYC, Chicago and our other, great anti-civil-liberties American bastions have huge cigarette taxes (driving costs to over $5/pack), so it only follows that roll-yer-own would yield even higher returns in those areas. Yet, individual cigarette consumers seem to be overwhelmingly subscribed to buying pre-made cancer sticks.
Is there a word or phrase that precisely describes a negative market condition that co-exists with a positive alternative that is nonetheless seldom used? I'm thinking of that word or phrase right now, whatever it is.
posted by GuestZero at 12:58 A.M. EST on Sat Apr 28, 2007 #
LOL laziness, I guess. My Brother didn't listen to me for years-then he got busted by the state of michigan for about 5 thousand dollars for ordering smokes off the internet. He and his wife (both smoke menthols) have been rolling now for several years, and say they wish they'd have done it before.
posted by Darkseid at 02:05 A.M. EST on Sat Apr 28, 2007 #
Hmm. Well, at a good $1.25 excess cost per pack, I really don't understand why A LOT of folks don't just roll their own. Does anyone have a time estimate for rolling cigarettes? Unless the time it takes is exorbitant, rolling a batch of cigs every month or so should prove fruitful. With use of the fridge, you can roll every 6 months or so and just freeze your supply.
Of course, I'm the kind of guy that does his own dishes, and have said so to the people who use dishwashers ... just to watch the look of horror spread across their faces about how my life is going down the tubes or something. Is that really what it's all about? The time-convenience of buying pre-made cigs?
posted by GuestZero at 06:21 A.M. EST on Sat Apr 28, 2007 #
Hi Starling02,
It's a PDF file and worked well for me this morning? Go to JPJohio.com - maybe you can get it direct from there?
Starting on Page 7, the case is well made for a judicial review of the statute. The law was written by antismokers not by legislators. It's filled with vagueness and takes more control than it should. According to some, will be unenforceable in total.
Please review my earlier post on this thread. The law requires the posting of signs, removal of ash trays and that the proprietor request that individuals stop smoking.
Foolishly, the law also rquires that I ensure areas near my doors remain smoke free. How the hell does a person do that? Can I even stand outside the door and ask people not to engage in a legal activity on property I don't control? No is the only sensible answer. That section is absurd and completely unenforceable
Likewise, I need to stop smoke from migrating into the facility. With a bunch of fans? What? How? Why? Again, absurd and unenforceable.
posted by jimavolt at 07:38 A.M. EST on Sat Apr 28, 2007 #
I guess the reason I haven't tried to roll my own, is I assume (perhaps wrongly) that it'd be hard to duplicate a Kool. I've tried other menthols, not the same. I wouldn't switch to Salems if they were half the price - same reason. Maybe if they stopped producing Kools, I'd be more able to quit. But geez, it's the only vice I have. It's my valium, my adderall. I don't know that the non smokers who take those drugs (and those like them) are better off physically than I am - but they are respected, I am not. The fat ass who is carrying 50 or more extra pounds, is more respected if they don't smoke. The two martini lunch person is more respected. Hypocrites.
posted by starling02 at 05:40 P.M. EST on Sat Apr 28, 2007 #
Star, please don't ever be forced to quit-only quit someday if you WANT to-people smoke because they ENJOY it, and I'm tired of smokers going on a guilt trip -that's precisely what the Nazis want. As to time involved, it took me about five minutes eventually to make apack, after months of trial and error. Everybody progresses at a different rate.
posted by Darkseid at 12:40 A.M. EST on Sun Apr 29, 2007 #
Darkseid: Please continue calling 58% of Ohioans "Nazis". Every time you compare us to a group focused on the murder of an entire race, it makes your side look even more batshit insane. You're the best friend our cause could hope for.
posted by joshw at 10:44 A.M. EST on Sun Apr 29, 2007 #
There are those rabid smoker-haters who are thoroughly addicted to smoking threads and cannot quit them, because they will never be able to give up the need to gloat and feel smug and superior to other human beings. You know, usually the kind that had a rotten childhood, didn't get picked for teams, whatever, and need someone to look down on to feel important. To paraphrase their own words, if they didn't enter said threads, the point would be moot. They'll never be able to stay away, though.
Ah, isn't this cute? Darkseid, the pop psychologist. Of course, the same rational wouldn't apply to the Smoking Gang, now, would it? The need to post and comment on every thing smoking-ban related? Joshw posts something here that goes against the conventional take of the Gang, and of course you call him a "troll". Killed any more threads over at SwampBubbles lately? That's where the term "troll" applies.
Starling, obviously you're a commited smoker and don't want to stop. That's entirely your right. But of the millions that have quit smoking over the last couple decades they usually begin the sentence with "I quit smoking this year or month or whatever" and almost always finish it with "and it's the best thing I've ever done."
I'd think that'd be testimony enough, but yes, it's entirely your choice.
posted by McCaskey at 12:12 P.M. EST on Sun Apr 29, 2007 #
joshw - Perhaps you should browse the smoking ban archives on this site & you'd understand why the smoking ban lovers are referred to as 'nazis). It is a fact that Hitler (Nazi) was the first to enforce such a ban - he believed smokers were defective & would produce idiot children, they were no better than Jews, blacks or murderers. ALL smoking bans are created from the same, identical template that Hitler (Nazi) used to enforce his smoking ban. (There is a lot of data out there that proves this.) (Hitler was also a vegan & was against a great many things, including alcohol - so this smoking ban is just the beginning. Without fail, whenever a smoking ban gets passed, more bans end up following - and it's only a matter of time before there's a ban against something YOU like. Some places are already banning outdoor grilling of food, patio fireplaces, perfumes - all under this same Hitler (Nazi) template. They only START with the smoking ban because smokers are the easiest to target. Next is is fat people & alcohol - in fact, bans are already in the works for these things.). They say "A rose by any other name.....is still a rose". And a Nazi by any other name, is still a Nazi. You can't pick & choose which Hitler (Nazi) belief to endorse, & wave the American flag while you endorse stripping freedoms from private business owners. Of course this Nazi tag sticks to you - why would it NOT? America stands for freedom of choise. And those who voted for this smoking ban chose to strip those freedoms. Yes, to me, that is very Nazi like.
You ALWAYS had the choise to enter or not enter a place that allowed smoking. And since the last ban, at least 99 percent of all Toledo restaurants were already non-smoking - so you already HAD smoke free places to eat. Now, there are none. Toledo & Ohio have some of the highest rates of unemployment, foreclosures, & banrupsies - wait another year or two to see how bad it will get. So many people will lose their businesses, be out of jobs - but it's worth it to you because you don't like 'the smell'. How incredibly arrogant, self-righteous & smug of you. If you think for one minute this smoking ban will make you live longer or keep you disease free, you're deluded. All you "Chicken Little's" fell for the hype & lies. This ban is a money maker for the pharmacutical companies - there's a wealth of facts & data available that prove this was about the money. "Follow the money..." - (there's a thread about that on this site, including links). The tap water you drink has more arsinic than a cigarette does. The alcohol fumes you ingest while sitting at a bar or restaurant are MORE carcinagenic than SMOKING. You will ingest about 60,000 carcinagens DAILY that have NOTHING to do with SHS. The cook who grills your steak or hamburger ingests MORE carcinagens than if he smoked a cigarette. McCaskey commented on how he loves all that greasy food (ham, bacon, etc.) -as do I. But he found humor in it & completely missed the point (or chose to ignore the point) - that THOSE foods have MORE carcinagens than smoking a cigarette would. But McCaskey likes those foods, so he's not so 'afraid' of those carcinagens. Hypocrite. The sun causes more cancer than smoking does - it is a provable fact.
Next on the ban template list (Hitler/Nazi list) are bans about alcohol & fat people. In fact, these bans are already in the WORKS. They start with smoking bans because smokers are the easiest target. Then they move in for the kill. It NEVER ends with the smoking ban. Every place that has a smoking ban always takes it to the next level. In fact, there are already places in the USA that are banning outdoor grilling of food, patio fireplaces, wood burning fires, perfumes, cell phones. You think it won't happen in Ohio? Deluded. Everytime you vote to strip a freedom, you are stripping what America is about. Hitler would be so proud.
I realize the smoke haters are feeling all warm & fuzzy & smug about this ban, but I wonder if you'll still think it was worth it in a year or two. The cig tax money will evaporate (already IS) & they will tax YOU more to make up the loss. When more businesses die, & more people are out of jobs, the bankrupsy & foreclosure rates will climb, and Toledo & Ohio will be a ghost town. But as long as YOU think it's worth it....You don't believe this of course - even in the faces of business owners who can show ban loss. I have two sons that hate smoking, but are against bans of any kind. My 25 yr old son told me that "everything" causes cancer - he always chose to not eat in smoking sections. Smart guy - to have that ability to CHOOSE. He didn't need the govt to protect him.
I just think it's the height of arrogance to presume to tell a business owner what legal activity they may allow. Bowling alleys are really hurting - you simply cannot step outside to have a cigarette, they won't let you wear bowling shoes outside & come back in again. There is also a big concern about those who step outside & drink from their own bottle in the car - the bar owner can be held liable if that person kills somebody while drinking & driving. I hope Toledo (and Ohio) has very deep pockets to pay for all the appeals from these citations - it will cost the city/state about $3,000 each time a business owner appeals a violation. There's been about 17,000 violations reported already - do the math. (and the majority of those 'reported violations' were bogus made up ones, but Grossman doesnt believe it. Hell, my daughter made about a dozen herself to report smoke from chimneys, etc.).
All of this is just absurd to me - people always had the choise to enter, or not. But you still felt you had to strip American's freedoms - and that, sad to say, does imply you DO have Nazi tendencies.
posted by starling02 at 04:51 P.M. EST on Sun Apr 29, 2007 #
The lobbyists involved in setting up smoke bans well fit the model of a political arranger noted in the early days of the 1930s National Socialists. Early Nazi or late Nazi, we're supposed to LEARN FROM HISTORY instead of spending our time fucking time denying that history ever repeats when it involves our sacred cows.
We've illegalized performing a legal act in businesses which were fully cooperating. We talk about choice yet deny it at the point of application. If that's not a step towards Fascism, I'll eat Larry Sykes' cowboy hat.
Instead of bringing Fascism or Neo-Communism in through the front door, smoking bans merely bring it in through the back. Again, we need to stop denying historical truths and admit what's happening. WE are the bad guys here -- NOT the smokers.
posted by GuestZero at 06:06 P.M. EST on Sun Apr 29, 2007 #
McCaskey & joshw - you think this is NOT about money? Take a gander - the cancer society created a NEW sub entity for them so they won't lose their tax exempt status. (There are currently in the courts, fights against the cancer society about filing taxes, etc. & they are CROOKED. People donated to the cancer & lung society thinking that their money was going to find a CURE. Instead, they used donation monies to push this ban. So much for feeling warm & fuzzy when you send a donation in for Easter Seals. Follow the money........)
Copied & Pasted -
Know your enemy! I thought some of you would be interested to read
this most recent newsletter from the ACSCAN. They aren't targeting
Big Tobacco, they are targeting us!
Below I am also including a description of ACSCAN Remember, they are
the non-tax-deductible political lobbying division created by the
American Cancer Society. ACS could not continue their lobbying
efforts under the 501(c)3 tax exempt status, so they had to create a
new sister corporation.
______________________________
Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter -
http://www.smokersclubinc.com
Illinois Smokers Rights - http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/
mailto:garnetdawn@... - Respect Freedom of Choice!
-----------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 2:40 PM
Subject: May is Stop Big Tobacco Month - Easy ways to take action
May is Stop Big Tobacco Month
To Stop Big Tobacco, we must start Congress moving in the right
direction. At this moment, neither the U.S. House nor the U.S.
Senate has scheduled a vote on our tobacco regulation legislation.
How do we get them going?
Show them very clearly that this is an important issue for their
constituents … YOU.
Each week in May, ACS CAN will feature new ways you can help Stop Big
Tobacco. There will be a different theme every week and new
opportunities in your community and on our web site acscan.org for
you to take action.
Week of April 29 - May 5
Stop Big Tobacco from Marketing to Kids
Activities online at acscan.org
Be part of our Stop Big Tobacco story page.
You will be able to type why you think we need to Stop Big Tobacco
and upload a picture to go along with it.
Activities at home
Meet with your Members of Congress or their staff. All it takes is
one phone call to schedule a meeting at their local office located in
or near your community. We give you their office number and the
talking points you will need.
Week of May 6 - May 12
Stop Big Tobacco from Killing Women
Activities online at acscan.org
Send an online Mother's Day card to family and friends to spread the
word about our efforts to Stop Big Tobacco. They can then easily
forward the card to others to get even more people involved.
Activities at home
Create a Mother's Day card and drop it off at your Member of
Congress's office. We'll provide the information you need to find an
office in or near your community.
Want to receive regular updates about Stop Big Tobacco campaign
activities?
Click here to subscribe to our Campaign Insider.
----------------------------------------------------------
----------
As a postscript, I have included a blurb from the American Lung
Association too. I wonder how many people know that the ALA sponsors
conventions and lobbies with contributions, membership dues and
proceeds from their Christmas Seals drive? - Garnet
http://www.acscan.org/atf/cf/%7B2D9A46D9-9E8B-449C-A9E5-4628BA14BA2B%
7D/2005%20final%20ACS%20CAN%20FAQ.pdf
ACS has created ACS CAN - Politically Active
1. What is the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS
CAN)?
ACS CAN is a sister organization to the American Cancer Society (ACS
Inc). It provides certain legal
protection to the (ACS Inc.), allowing us to steadily grow advocacy
efforts without jeopardizing our
nonprofit tax status or violating IRS guidelines.
2. How is my contribution to ACS CAN different from the American
Cancer Society?
ACS CAN is a separate legal and financial entity from ACS Inc.
Contributions to ACS CAN are not tax
deductible.
3. What specifically will ACS CAN do?
Among other activities, ACS CAN will:
• Engage in more active lobbying on cancer issues for our constituents
• Educate the public and media more directly
• Create and distribute voter guides detailing candidates positions
on specific health-related issues
to volunteers and donors. Host debates, town forums, and other events
where candidate views on
issues are tested and discussed.
• Hold lawmakers accountable on their votes regarding cancer.
What does cancer have to do with politics?
Whether we like it or not, cancer is a political issue. Government
officials make decisions about health issues that affect your life.
Issues include cancer research, awareness, early detection and
prevention programs, treatment, and access to quality care for all
Americans. That's why the American Cancer Society, an organization
Americans have trusted for almost 90 years, is now enlisting the
public to help carry the fight even further.
Together we can apply enough pressure-through letters, emails, phone
calls and visits-that we can convince lawmakers fighting cancer
should be a higher national priority."
---------------------------------------------
http://www.hoovers.com/free/co/factsheet.xhtml?
&COID=46997&cm_ven=PAID&cm_cat=OVR&cm_pla=CO2&cm_ite=american_lung_ass
ociation&abforward=true
American Lung Association
"Many Americans breathe easier because of the American Lung
Association (ALA). With about 200 local offices, the century-old ALA
is dedicated to the prevention and cure of lung disease, giving
special focus to asthma management, tobacco control, and clean air.
The association funds research, develops public education materials,
disseminates information, sponsors conferences, and lobbies for
health legislation. ALA is also loosely affiliated with the American
Thoracic Society, a professional organization of lung physicians and
scientists. The ALA receives funding from donations, corporate
grants, membership dues, and other sources. One of its best-known
fund-raising programs is its annual Christmas Seals drive."
posted by starling02 at 06:24 P.M. EST on Sun Apr 29, 2007 #
Anyone who donates or raises ONE DIME for the Heart or Lung association, OR the Caner Society, is insane, especially if you are a business owner in the hospitality industry. Let the Taliban (since they don't like that term Nazis)make up the difference.
posted by Darkseid at 06:58 P.M. EST on Sun Apr 29, 2007 #
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/329/7480/1424?etoc
.
posted by Darkseid at 07:07 P.M. EST on Sun Apr 29, 2007 #
"Tobacco Taliban"? I like it.
posted by GuestZero at 09:06 P.M. EST on Sun Apr 29, 2007 #
Did anyone hear the radio commercial celebrating the smoking ban and encouraging people to go out to eat at Ohio resturants???
I was just waking up and only heard part of it, so I don't know who sponsored it...
posted by MaggieThurber at 07:11 A.M. EST on Mon Apr 30, 2007 #
More than likely, more of your donations to the ACS, ALA, and AHA paid for it, unless it was J.R. Block. His primary control -the-riff-raff wet dream is now realized.
posted by Darkseid at 03:26 P.M. EST on Mon Apr 30, 2007 #
http://www.preventcancer.com/losing/acs/wealthiest_links.htm
I'm not sure if it's listed here, but-the ACS was catching so much flak about their involvement in politics/smoker bans, they created a seperate branch to do the political involvement/contributions/ads, etc; in order to keep from losing their tax-exempt status.
posted by Darkseid at 04:39 P.M. EST on Mon Apr 30, 2007 #
Did you happen to notice that one troll can post ONE comment and we just go berserk? Look at the one above. Everybody responded as though he actually had anything to say.
It's sad if you stop and think about it.
posted by katie82640 at 08:59 P.M. EST on Mon Apr 30, 2007 #
He brings out the best in us, though LOL
posted by Darkseid at 10:02 P.M. EST on Mon Apr 30, 2007 #
Stuff like this:
points of interest and policy advocacy that Philip Morris and tobacco control advocates share.
Those with an interest in understanding some of the historical aspects of tobacco control and how both Big Tobacco and Big Drugs have hijacked – indeed, inspired and financed – that agenda to suit their own ends may find California’s Proposition 86: A Review of Voting Patterns and Broader Issues to be of interest.
Philip Morris loves it. Citizens who, like Philip Morris, support smoking bans assure a robust market for the company’s “Smoke Free” Aria nicotine inhaler that was announced October 2005. Those citizen voters also support the market for Philip Morris/US Smokeless Tobacco’s Taboka brand of snuff. Many of those citizens also support taxpayer subsidies of Philip Morris through Parity Pricing. Philip Morris exploits the financial advantage of selling its lower-taxed Other Tobacco Products (OTP) smokeless Taboka brand at the higher cigarette price, which is artificially inflated through tobacco tax advocacy. Philip Morris then pockets the differential between OTP and cigarette excise taxes as profit.
GlaxoSmithKline loves it. As the distributor for NicoDerm CQ patch, Nicorette gum, and Commit lozenge Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) products the company enjoys taxpayer funded enforcement of smoking bans that directly supports stability and expansion of the market for its nicotine delivery devices. It also enjoys artificially-inflated profits from sales of its “Smoke Free” nicotine delivery devices similar to Philip Morris. But Big Drugs enjoys an even greater economic advantage from Parity Pricing than Big Tobacco because zero excise taxes are charges on its nicotine products. Every dime of new cigarette taxes therefore translates to pure profit potential for GSK nicotine products. The only question left open is how high they can jack NRT prices in correspondence with increased cigarette prices. Aggressive promotion and enactment of smoking bans directly supports such price increases.
Johnson & Johnson loves it. The company’s ALZA Corp. subsidiary manufacturers NicoDerm CQ for GlaxoSmithkline. In addition, in June 2006 Johnson & Johnson announced its acquisition of Pfizer Consumer Healthcare for $16.6 billion. The purchase, which closed in December 2006, included reportedly Nicorette. Every dime of higher prices that GlaxoSmithKline can wring out of nicotine patch and gum products equals an opportunity for Johnson & Johnson to charge higher manufacturer prices to GlaxoSmithKline. Are “Smoke Free” nicotine monopolists using manufacturer and distributor agreements to distribute cartel profits?
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation loves it. Every dollar of profit derived through sale of NicoDerm CQ and Nicorette at artificially inflated prices supports both the market value of its reported $3.7 billion holdings in Johnson & Johnson and dividends paid on that stock. To grasp the importance of supporting dividends paid on the foundation’s massive holdings of JNJ please note that reported $446 million in 1992 – 2005 grants to tobacco control advocates is merely equal to or less than the dividends paid on its reported stock holdings in the company during that period. The foundation’s grant making is also focused on reducing barriers to use of Nicotine Replacement Therapy (see, for example, $29,833 grant to the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco).
The American Cancer Society loves it. When the American Cancer Society was the nationwide manager for the George H.W. Bush administration’s 1991 to 1998 American Stop Smoking Intervention Study (Project ASSIST) it was the recipient of considerably more than $10 million in grants from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Today the society is part and parcel of state tobacco control coalitions that receive tobacco settlement and cigarette tax funding as well. The more smoking bans to be passed the more funding that flows. The American Cancer Society often receives RWJ foundation grants for campaigns to pass smoking bans (see, for example a current $95,000 grant for a smoking ban campaign in Jackson, Mississippi and a $138,720 grant for a smoking ban campaign in Tiscaloosa, Alabama). It’s a great, risk-free business, if one does not mind closing down small businesses, imposing higher costs on consumers, and setting up taxpayers for higher taxes for a living.
Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights loves it. Current Robert Wood Johnson Foundation active grants to Americans for nonsmoker’s rights include $3 million for core support and infrastructure development and $1 million to provide “rapid response funding to enable communities and groups to support, protect or implement smoke free policies.” ANR is well compensated for its nationwide support of smoking bans.
The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids Loves it. Current Robert Wood Johnson Foundation active grants to the National Center for Tobacco-Free Kids include $14 million in support funding. total RWJ foundation support grants to date are reportedly $84 million. The center is highly compensated for its ongoing campaign to increase cigarette taxes.
Many city, county and tribal governments love it. See, for exa
Syndicate ToledoTalk
