July 25, 2007
Come January, All Smokers Must Dress for the Weather
Yeah, we know that this should have been weighed on yesterday, but better late than never. But you have to love the smoking ban that Governor Blagojevich signed into law Monday. If you're a non-smoker, that is. If you're a slave to the P-Funk, red apples, Camels, Virginia Slims, Newports and all others, you're probably cursing the Governor through smoky breath and receding gums.
Governor Blagojevich signed the bill into law at Northwestern Memorial in the presence of scores of doctors, smoking-ban activists, cancer survivors, and others, which goes to show that he at least hasn't lost his touch to turn anything he touches into a political dog-and-pony show. Anyhoo, the bill, which goes into effect January 1, 2008, ties together numerous smoking bans enacted throughout the state, toughening them by closing any loopholes like Chicago's "bars don't need to comply until mid-2008" ban, and makes Illinois the 19th state in the union with a broad smoking ban. One wonders how Mayor Daley and City Council feel about the Governor trumping the power of home rule?
There are gonna be a lot of cranky smokers come New Year's. In addition to the ban, there's also the possibility that your pack of smokes might cost more. The state legislature, whose pissing contest over this year's budget now enters a record 55th day, is looking at increasing the cigarette tax by seventy-five cents. State Senator John Cullerton (D - Chicago) estimated an increase in state revenues of $304 million if passed, not to mention all the lives saved because smokers would need an excellent credit rating to buy a pack of Marlboros. If signed into law, it would make Illinois one of the most expensive states in the nation to buy tobacco products.
|
Why smoke?
I've quit smoking, not because of the cost but because it's disgusting. That said, the constant sin tax on those who smoke, often the poorest in society, is a cheap political place to keep going back to for revenue. No one fights against taxing the evil smokers but that doesn't make it right.
I had NYC friends in town for Pitchfork, who were very surprised when the door guy at the bar told them to in fact go INSIDE to smoke their cigarettes. They had grown so accustomed to smoking outside the bar that they were stunned and wouldn't stop talking about that incident for hours.
So I guess my point here is, yeah, it's fucking cold in the winter, but I have no doubt we'll all adjust and move on.
The passing of anti-smoking bans is pretty much a clear-cut winner, from my personal viewpoint. Our government has the right, in my opinion, to control where individuals can release deadly carcinogens into the air. Issues surrounding the tendency for rising cigarette taxes to negatively affect low-income Americans brings up a much more difficult discussion, in my mind. I'll definitely claim some ignorance on this subject ... what are some other examples of previous sin taxes taken on products other than cigs? If breathing in fire is a more prominent hobby among low-income groups, what would be a more economically neutral product/habit "to keep going back to for revenue"? Or are these, and similar tax hikes, a pretty bunk revenue-generating scheme to begin with? These are my questions.
As an "always quitting" smoker, I'm all for the ban. Anything you wanna do to make it harder for me to smoke is brilliance.
I'm also for a tax hike. But I say tax the shit out of it. Make smokes 100$ a pack.
I claim ignorance too on the taxing of the poor, but I don't get it. How is taxing the poor on something they/we/no one should be buying in the first place on their heads alone?
Tax it up. 'Cept in Vegas. Smokes should be like 2 cents in Vegas.
for the last time:
unless you're a young child, exposure to second hand smoke is no more dangerous than breathing the air in this city generally. period.
the research people which people usually cite to refute this claim in fact supports it. no epidemiological study has EVER provided an iota of support to the ridiculous claims of the american cancer/heart/lung societies. this is about making the lives of smokers tougher in an effort to make us all quit.
let's admit this is a campaign against dry cleaning bills and not a public health measure.
god forbid we let the damn free market do it's job.
also, good hustle to our boys in spy-town for helping everyone forget, at least for a moment, that these ass clowns are wasting time on crap like this while NEGLECTING TO FINALIZE A BUDGET.
your tax dollars at work.
Thank goodness the air will be clean when I go to kill my liver next year. But seriously, smoke free bars are nice but I tire of the public health angle used to justify the move. The fact that SUV's (and cars in general) fill the the skies with sh*t on a daily basis without non-smokers saying boo about it, is enough for me to identify the real motivation. If they would just come out and say that cigarettes make you smell, I'd appreciate the honesty.
Do you suppose the rise in child asthma rates can be linked to secondhand smoke in bars? Let's ban driving in public!!
Smoking bans are fantastic. I have always been a non-smoker, but never thought that the bans were a good idea (If your going to a bar you should expect it to be smokey, its part of the ambience) However, after relocating to Florida, which has had such a ban for a couple of years now, I can say that the quality of experiences at bars, clubs, concert halls, etc. is greatly amplified. Now when I go to a bar which allows smoking inside, I notice that my hangovers are worse, my throat always hurts, and my clothes smell like ass.
I don't care about the inconvenience to smokers, because they inconvenience everyone with their filthy habits.
can i say how becoming i find the condescending tone non-smokers always adopt when addressing smokers?
i am better educated and more cultured than any jackass that writes for this site. i know cigarettes are bad for me, just like people all know that junkfood and booze are bad for them.
don't get all high and mighty about my kink. the costs of alcohol and obesity on our national healthcare system are FAR more severe than the costs associated with second-hand smoke (other than childhood asthma there aren't any!). what is it they say about people in glass houses?
"How is taxing the poor on something they/we/no one should be buying in the first place on their heads alone?"
You're taxing addicts. You know someone "needs" to buy a product--an unpopular one-- so you tax it up. Not sure I could sign off on that one with a clear conscience. Personally, I don't buy the "it's for their own good" rationale. If you're that concerned, outlaw them.
I say we tax toilet paper five bucks a role.
If you're a slave to the P-Funk, red apples, Camels, Virginia Slims, Newports and all others, you're probably cursing the Governor through smoky breath and receding gums.
Eh, everyone who smokes isn't some filthy chain smoker. You might as well say that everyone that drinks gets hammered day and night. There are a lot of us who don't smoke every day or even during the week and enjoy a smoke or two when we're having a drink at a *gasp* bar.
With the smoking ban and high cigarette prices I'm glad to see we're finally catching up to NYC, you know minus the *good* stuff like trains that run regularly and such.
As much as I like my clothes to not stink when I get home, I'm not looking forward to this ban going into effect. As a non-smoker with friends that are almost all smokers, I'm going to get stuck with the lovely choice of staying in while the cool kids all collude outside, or freezing and not smoking just to hang out. Great. Just like high school all over again.
But then, half my friends are perpetually trying to quit. This should help.
Someone sitting next to me smoking a cigarette is about the same as me sitting next to someone blowing a whistle in their ear. It's annoying and unpleasant to everyone around, and is completely unnecessary. Though, if the only way you could convince people that someone should not be allowed to continuously blow a whistle next to someone else's ear on account that their hearing *might* be damaged, well, aren't we all better off when it's all said and done?
And, as far as the comment about the "poorest in society" being most likely to smoke -- uh, what? where'd you pull that out of?
"....can i say how becoming i find the condescending tone non-smokers always adopt when addressing smokers? i am better educated and more cultured than any jackass that writes for this site...."
To whichever smoker wrote that, thank you for bringing a smile to my face.
If public smoking is so damn bad for everyone and their fragile, asthmatic children, then why doesn't the government ban tobacco sales and production altogether? Oh right- tobacco funds politics.
"And, as far as the comment about the "poorest in society" being most likely to smoke -- uh, what? where'd you pull that out of?"
As income increases the likely hood that one smokes decrease, 30% for those making under 10,000 to 10% for those making over 50 000. Also cigarette taxes are disproportionate to other taxes on tobacco products, here in the state of Illinois cigarettes are taxed at 43% while cigars are taxed at 18%. (http://tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0169.pdf) so why single out cigarettes? Why not all tobacco products?
This is great! Starting in January, I can stop by a bar and not come out smelling like a smokestack. And smokers will still be able to feed their monkey - they'll just be feeding it outdoors, where they'll get breaths of nice, clean, fresh air while rewiring their addicted brains by satisfying the self-induced craving.
Sounds like a win-win to me. Thanks, governor.
"As income increases the likely hood that one smokes decrease, 30% for those making under 10,000 to 10% for those making over 50 000."
Correlation is not causation. In other words, being poor does not necessarily mean you will be more likely to smoke (nor does smoking mean you will be poor). Therefore, taxing smokers does not necessarily mean you are targeting the poor.
1.) "i am better educated and more cultured than any jackass that writes for this site. i know cigarettes are bad for me, just like people all know that junkfood and booze are bad for them."
2.) "the costs of alcohol and obesity on our national healthcare system are FAR more severe than the costs associated with second-hand smoke (other than childhood asthma there aren't any!)"
Yikes. Both of these are pretty baseless statements. I give some props to [16], and a few others I've noticed here recently, for actually providing a source for their statistical data. Despite writing FAR in all capital letters, I'm not convinced by the statements above ... nor am I convinced that this commentator, based on his statements, is any more educated and cultured than a bowl of waffle batter, let alone a Chicagoista.
"The condescending tone non-smokers always adopt when addressing smokers" ... at least in the context of the smoking-ban debate ... might be caused by the fact that people are rarely force-fed hamburgers and vodka in public places. Do medical issues caused by alcohol and fast food put a strain on the American health care system? Yep. FAR more of a strain than lung cancer, heart disease, asthma, etc.? I'm not sure, but I'll Google it and get back to you.
No epidemiological studies can support second hand smoke's harmfullness? Even anectdotal evidence can refute that. Oh please tell me you are not an mph - frightening if true.
There should be gads of lung cancer deaths concentrated among urban non-smokers if we are to believe it is more unhealthy to live in a city than regularly breath 2nd hand smoke. Pray tell, where are they?
Speaking as a previously poor person, other poor people shouldn't be wasting money on smoking. If this deters them from doing so while also subsidizing public services that they use than all the better.
What's wrong with a campaign against dry cleaning bills?
The statewide smoking ban is fantastic news.
It's about time that all those selfish smokers were told to take it outside. Their "rights" end where my body begins.
It's about time that all those selfish smokers were told to take it outside. Their "rights" end where my body begins.
I feel the same way about all the cars and trucks in the city who spew real polution that really does harm us but we like our vices and luxuries don't we...
#6, For evidence on the dangers of second hand smoke, please refer to a few journal articles:
Short-term cigarette smoke exposure potentiates endotoxin-induced pulmonary inflammation. By Kulkarni GS, et al.
The relative effect of household and workplace smoking restriction on health status among Chinese Americans living in New York City. Shelley D,et al.
Chronic exposure to second hand smoke and 30-day prognosis of patients hospitalised with acute coronary syndromes: the Greek study of acute coronary syndromes. Panagiotakos DB, et al
Association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and the development of acute coronary syndromes: the CARDIO2000 case-control study. Pitsavos C, et al
Cardiovascular effects of second-hand smoke help explain the benefits of smoke-free legislation on heart disease burden. Barnoya J,et al.
Challenging the epidemiologic evidence on passive smoking: tactics of tobacco industry expert witnesses. Francis JA, et al.
And from the CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/Factsheets/SecondhandSmoke.htm
Can you provide an epidemiological evidence from an investigator that was not funded by the tobacco industry? I would be very interested in reading it. Thanks!
When nons get all huffy about "good, now I can come home from the bar & not smell like an ashtray & not have to shower before bed & get a haircut & get all new clothes & a skin transplant", it makes me want to run to their house and blow smoke in their face.
It's not rocket science that it's likely for the greater good, this ban, but sheesh, the attitude! Ouch!
"nons"? seriously?
maybe the attitude is because smokers think its their god-given right to blow smoke wherever they damn well please?
Well, Leah, not all of us want to smell like a skank, I guess.
7 sez: "Do you suppose the rise in child asthma rates can be linked to secondhand smoke in bars? Let's ban driving in public!!"
I don't think that the rise (in diagnosis??) of childhood asthma can be blamed on automotive or industrial pollution alone--it is a plain fact that the ambient air quality in Chicago (and other major cities) is dramatically better than it was 20, 40, 100 years ago.
Perhaps there is some toxin produced by some industrial process which has gotten worse, but the increase in asthma is almost as likely to be the result of household cleaners or better diagnosis.
The annual cost of secondhand smoke exposure in the U.S. is approximately $10 billion. (Society of Actuaries)
In 2000, the total cost of obesity in the United States was estimated to be $117 billion. (CDC)
Each year, alcohol abuse costs the United States an estimated $185 billion. (National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism)
I agree that increasing the tax on cigarettes is disproportionately harmful to the poor. It's all well and good to say that no one should be smoking anyway, but the fact of the matter is that it's an addiction.
Many smokers don't pay the tax because they don't buy their cigarettes in Illinois. They have the financial means to leave the state and buy many cartons at a time, and they do so. Poor people don't necessarily have the cash needed to drive to Indiana and pay a couple of hundred dollars for a few cartons.
Granted, my claims here are based on anecdotal evidence. But it seems likely to me that the people who end up paying Illinois cigarette taxes will be the people who don't have the financial means to avoid doing so.
Hey Chad aren't you glad no one can smoke in this healthy den of alcohol consumption?
Oh yeah man I was thinking about that while I was jogging down Clark st. today
But Chad aren't you worried about breathing in all those truck, car and SUV fumes from that thick ass traffic everywhere?
Dude it's not like it's second hand smoke or something besides it's our right to pollute the city.
Err I'd be willing to bet it's much worse for us than second hand smoke but anyway, so man why were you so late? You should have been here if you walked or biked
Dude are you crazy? I drove my jeep
#29- That's not a valid comparision. You are comparing people who are obese and who abuse alcohol with non-smokers who are affected by someone else's cigarette smoke. If you want a valid comparison then you should be comparing smokers to the obese or alcoholics. The CDC lists the cost to the nation in lost productivity and medical costs for smoking at over 150 billion.
http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r020412.htm
So the reasoning is that we shouldn't ban smoking in public places because car exhaust/pollution is worse?
Sparky -
Wonderful stats. Comparing SECOND HAND exposure of cigarette smoke to TOTAL costs of obesity and alcohol abuse.
Apples and Oranges.
haaaahaaaa skanks! good one. So what to drinkers smell like? Hookers? No, douchebags! Please oh please let it be dbags.
Re: Nons, I meant, of course, non-smokers, I goofed! killmeforIamunconsciouslyhateful.
I am a smoker and am fine with the ban. The indignance is just sorta grating. You should be pleased & joyful that this positive thing is happening! Happy, even! Not take it as an opportunity to lord your superiority (on the Internets!) over folks.
We're all winning here, people.
So the reasoning is that we shouldn't ban smoking in public places because car exhaust/pollution is worse?
Ban em' both!
I thought that's what everyone's beef is? How the peoples' rights who don't smoke are infringed, aka exposure to second hand smoke? Surely the uproar isn't about the smokers' health & the victory for all us skanks out there.
But I'm drunk right now so.
Nobody is lording anything over anyone. Smokers just happen to be disgusting human beings -- FACT.
they look so dumb
Nobody is lording anything over anyone. Smokers just happen to be disgusting human beings -- FACT.
15 year old Gadfly alert!
This is gonna fuckin rule (and sooner than expected)!
Actually, I mistakenly deleted the cost of smoking in my post...thanks 32 for the link to the CDC.
I do research in cancer, specifically prevention. I support the ban--it will reduce cancer risk as well as improve cardiovascular health (see links to articles above).
And yes, obesity and alcoholism are also big problems in our country, so I am in favor of measures such as banning soda and unhealthy snacks in public schools and taxing alcohol.
Yay! Now I can go out to bars more often. It's so nice going out in smoke-free New York.
Now if only we can keep our public transit running so that we don't have to DRIVE to the bars and then try to drive home.
You guys do know that you're not to be in an enclosed environment with that SUV, right?
To post 44, just running on the street is worse for your health than running indoors because you are breathing faster and harder you inhale more exhaust fumes. blowing smoke outdoors doesn't make it magically dissipate.
Guest 45, that's probably one reason they don't hold track meets in bars or parking garages..
no but thousands of people go running everyday. The air they are breathing is harmful to them.
Well, since outside is, apparently, insanely dangerous -- it's a good thing we're taking big steps to make sure we're safe inside!
As always the "justification" for smoking bans produces the usual statistical "evidence" as compiled by the Robert Wood Johnson (Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical) Foundation. In other words there is no evidence as statistics have Never been "proof" of anything. It is not science or the scientific method. In fact the "statistics" supplied by Johnson & Johnson do not even qualify to be published. RWJ published them on his own. They are trash among non-science. RWJ does this propaganda to dupe idiots who don't read the "studies". The phoney surgeon general report is a perfect example of this capital fraud. NEW word: Bansturbator-one who derives deviant sexual pleasure from using fraud and lies to ban products that cause no harm and falsely elevate themselves to no where. It's a liberal disease. It takes Medical Scientific Biological Clinical Research and never statistics to prove causation. RWJ and the anti-smoking nuts cannot document a single death caused by smoking - not one. Look upon the no smoking sign as the liberal swastika - they do.
I think #49's smoke of choice is crack.
An excellent example of this type of statistical fraud can be seen in the recent media hype of the dangers of Avandia. The docs used the New England Journal of Medicine to convince people that this drug caused a 43% increase in heart attacks.
After a real scientific panel reviewed (actually read) this statistical "study" they reported it was crap, actually full of it. The docs had a financial intrest in the competition but it did not stop the media.
This is the exact method used by Robert Wood Johnson, the financer of ALL smoking bans in the world. He has a financial intrest in selling smoking cessation pills and products. It's only marketing a product. His next target is alcohol and prohibition.
I wonder if people are selling cigarettes on the black market yet. I also think it should be illegal to throw your cigarette butts outside as well, it is a disgusting habit that makes roads, yards and parking lots look horrible. Why are so many people so eager to slowly kill themselves? Yuck
I think #49 is the poster-child for registration.
Oh, and #45...are you really trying to compare the entire atmosphere of the planet to a bar?!?? They both dissipate, but one takes just a little longer than the other. If you're talking about walking/jogging along Lake Shore Drive in rush hour you might have a point, but an average street?