"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"
Cicero Marcus Tullius
The idea of the government targeting smokers gives me pause because I'm not sure of their motives. The article wasn't clear.
If smokers are being targeted because government is viewing smoking as punishable, then yes, I do have a problem with that reasoning. I'm not keen on the government deciding my morality. That was one of my biggest issues with the Bush administration.
Right now I'm going to stick with "YAY" because SCHIP is needed so badly.
I am going to make some calls to try to find out what the reasoning was behind it.
I would chat with her when I'm feeling particularly snarky, but I wouldn't ever call her on the phone.
And I'm all for taxing smokers, personally. Should one group have to suffer for no apparent reason? No, but there is a reason here and I'd consider it payback since smokers put pollutants into the air that we all breathe in, not just them. There's second-hand AND third-hand smoke that are quite dangerous and lowers life expectancy. Why should they be taxed for something that doesn't benefit them? Why should I have to breathe their polluted air?
Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
Jon Huntsman for President
I, personally, would be more likely to go to a restaurant that didn't have smoking than one that did. Although it takes forever to get that stench out of the walls, floor, etc. I don't even see why smokers want to be in an environment like that. It's not like breathing smoke in that manner is enjoyable for anyone. I'm sure if smokers wanted to be "breathing smoke" they'd be puffing their own ciggs, not leeching off people's leftover waste smoke.
If a child doesn't get proper health care it can also increase the risk that his illness becomes chronic. This means that he will hard time with a regular job and making a carrier then he grows up because of the illness. This means that education he has gotten isn't used efficiently.
This article provides footnotes on the various studies that have been conducted addressing the economic impact of smoke-free air laws. It's very interesting.To summarize, numerous studies using objective measures of economic activity have been done over the past 10+ years looking at the impact of local, state, or national smoke-free policies on restaurants, bars, and tourism. From small towns such as West Lake Hills, Texas,52 to large cities like New York,38,53,54 in states as diverse as Arkansas,55 Oregon,56 and Texas,57 the vast majority of studies find that there is no negative economic impact of clean indoor air policies, with many finding that there may be some positive effects on local businesses (see Scollo and Lal58 for a comprehensive review of studies published through mid-2005). While the early evidence is mixed on the impact on gaming establishments, the recent expansion of smoke-free policies to cover these venues will provide new natural experiments for researchers to examine.
The Economic Impact of Clean Indoor Air Laws -- Eriksen and Chaloupka 57 (6): 367 -- CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians
You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo
Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville