Tweet
Re: New smoking ban
<quote> I will say that in the case of tourists from Australia and Canada, the smoking bans here are totally irrelevant in their decision to come to Hawaii or not, seeing as how both those countries have anti-smoking regulations that are, in many ways, stricter at home than what exists in Hawaii and the rest of the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_Australia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans#.C2.A0Canada[/quote]
Allow me to provide a comment from the frozen north. In my province, the push for tobacco bans/restrictions has been ongoing for a long time. Previously, the provincial government mandated that indoor smoking would be restricted to bars, if they were completely enclosed and separately ventilated. Of course, many bars opted to spend the considerable amounts necessary on construction to accomodate the law, and thereby retain the smoking crowds, who accounted for a disproportionately large amount of their profit margin. The idea was to allow for a phase in period over a number of years, to allow the public to get used to the idea of eventual total bans on indoor smoking, and also let the bar owners recoup their investment. So of course, we have a change in governing parties, and their first mandate is to ban the smoking rooms, years ahead of the original plan. The result is that once again, small business owners pay for the vagaries and hypocrisies of our duly elected leaders; and of course, many bars close, and many more lay off staff. The predicted influx of non-smokers who would flock to bars if only the smoking was banned? I guess they stayed home.
For my two cents, the government's policy on smoking is pure hypocrisy. Tobacco is a legal product, and no one is more hooked on it than those who tax it. I won't elaborate on the many other debates except to say that those non-smokers who claim to be "paying" for smoker's health care costs seem to neglect a couple of facts: smokers are paying the same amount in health care costs, plus the additional taxes on the product itself. I've never seen a credible study that shows the cost of health care for smokers versus the extra taxes contributed by smokers; I suspect that such a study would not bolster the arguments by the abolitionists. (By credible, I mean not sponsored or inspired by either side of the debate). Second, while smokers are more likely to get sick, the grim reality is that they typically get a lot sicker, and die much more quickly, than the non-smoking crowd. Net result: lower life expectancy = lower health care costs.
One final tale: Ontario just banned smoking in cars when children under the age of 16 are present. Shortly thereafter, a cop pulled over a car where he recogised the passenger to be underage, and the parent was smoking (small town, cop knew them by sight). While writing the ticket, the "underage" passenger got out and lit up. WTF??, you say? Yes, it's true; while the parent can't smoke in the car with said minor, and while said minor can't legally purchase said smokes, there is nothing illegal about this minor using the product.
It's pretty clear just how much the government cares about its citizens here in the People's Republic of Ontario.
<quote> I will say that in the case of tourists from Australia and Canada, the smoking bans here are totally irrelevant in their decision to come to Hawaii or not, seeing as how both those countries have anti-smoking regulations that are, in many ways, stricter at home than what exists in Hawaii and the rest of the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_Australia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans#.C2.A0Canada[/quote]
Allow me to provide a comment from the frozen north. In my province, the push for tobacco bans/restrictions has been ongoing for a long time. Previously, the provincial government mandated that indoor smoking would be restricted to bars, if they were completely enclosed and separately ventilated. Of course, many bars opted to spend the considerable amounts necessary on construction to accomodate the law, and thereby retain the smoking crowds, who accounted for a disproportionately large amount of their profit margin. The idea was to allow for a phase in period over a number of years, to allow the public to get used to the idea of eventual total bans on indoor smoking, and also let the bar owners recoup their investment. So of course, we have a change in governing parties, and their first mandate is to ban the smoking rooms, years ahead of the original plan. The result is that once again, small business owners pay for the vagaries and hypocrisies of our duly elected leaders; and of course, many bars close, and many more lay off staff. The predicted influx of non-smokers who would flock to bars if only the smoking was banned? I guess they stayed home.
For my two cents, the government's policy on smoking is pure hypocrisy. Tobacco is a legal product, and no one is more hooked on it than those who tax it. I won't elaborate on the many other debates except to say that those non-smokers who claim to be "paying" for smoker's health care costs seem to neglect a couple of facts: smokers are paying the same amount in health care costs, plus the additional taxes on the product itself. I've never seen a credible study that shows the cost of health care for smokers versus the extra taxes contributed by smokers; I suspect that such a study would not bolster the arguments by the abolitionists. (By credible, I mean not sponsored or inspired by either side of the debate). Second, while smokers are more likely to get sick, the grim reality is that they typically get a lot sicker, and die much more quickly, than the non-smoking crowd. Net result: lower life expectancy = lower health care costs.
One final tale: Ontario just banned smoking in cars when children under the age of 16 are present. Shortly thereafter, a cop pulled over a car where he recogised the passenger to be underage, and the parent was smoking (small town, cop knew them by sight). While writing the ticket, the "underage" passenger got out and lit up. WTF??, you say? Yes, it's true; while the parent can't smoke in the car with said minor, and while said minor can't legally purchase said smokes, there is nothing illegal about this minor using the product.
It's pretty clear just how much the government cares about its citizens here in the People's Republic of Ontario.
Now the gum and patch people get the money, sans federal and state tobacco taxes. The price increases tagged onto a recent bout of bronchitis along with continuing complaints from condo neighbors accumulated to break the camel's back. 
Comment