NYC C.L.A.S.H. NOTE:  NYC C.L.A.S.H. generally agrees except for accepting that there's anything reasonable about not being allowed to smoke indoors in a designated room if the owner wants to allow it (or more) or that, in comparison to "car exhaust and industrial pollution," that secondary smoke "causes lung cancer too."  That remains controversial and unproved.

Why is it that it's alright for our young people to join the armed forces and to go to war and die for our country but they can't buy cigarettes. Why is it that young people can drive at sixteen but they can't buy cigarettes until they're 19 to 25. People can legally drink when they are 19  but they can't buy cigarettes. This is absolutely ridiculous. Young people can go to work and pay taxes at 15 to 18 but they cannot buy cigarettes if they choose to.

TB

Do we want to be treated like this any longer?  We will be as long as all we do is complain.  We need to stand up and holler too.  Let our voices be heard in unison throughout the nation!  How about a nationwide protest on the 4th of July with a rally at every cityhall and capital building throughout the country?  It can be done, if we all band together.

Fighting for our rights should not be left for just a few.  The antis has an army and we can be one too.  Unfortunately, it does take money to get the word spread throughout the world and who has that money?  Must be the smoker, seeing we get taxed everytime another State program comes into jeopardy of being under fianced.  They say that there are 25 million American smokers.  Can't we all afford one dollar a month or 12 dollars a year?  If that small amount of money was donated to NYCCLASH and then routed to a bigger pot, we could buy our own advertising and get the word out on the lies and the dangers of discrimination.  Is that to much of a price to pay for truth and freedom?

If you say "Yes" then it is your own fault for being treated as a third class citizen and sitting in an alley, hiding your legal cigarette.

Diane Wrobel

Priscilla

Carolyn
Orlando

Leon and Ann H.

Thanks for asking.

Sherry R.

barb

GET OFF OF YOUR BUTTS AND STOP TALKING THE TALK IF YOU ARE UNWILLING TO PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTHS ARE, OR IN THIS CASE WHERE YOUR BUTTS ARE, and I do not just mean the ones you sit on!

I am so very tired of hearing that we as a minority group are being discriminated against. 

Smokers are being unfairly taxed and then taxed on top of that! 

Double taxation, sin taxation and more taxation! Enough already! 

Once upon a time in this country folks with a nasty little tea drinking habit said enough already and they were not just whining in their recliners about it either. Those folks really liked their tea and some probably even craved it intensely. I know some had withdrawals when it went into the harbor! They were mad and they made that point strongly and what do you know, a place was born where double taxation and that sort of thing would not be tolerated!

I believe they would have continued drinking their tea instead of wasting it on principle if they could see us today!

Some equal opportunity employers will not hire us; fair housing allows us to be discriminated against on the mere fact that we have a nasty little LEGAL habit! Don’t sit there and doubt the above either, because just today in reading the classified ads in the local newspaper I read at least three that said "No Pets or Smokers! I looked in the employment section as well and guess what? There were a few that stated they were a smoke free, drug free and alcohol free employer. I would never doubt their right to be drug free, as drugs are ILLEGAL. Smoking tobacco is not ILLEGAL however! I could even understand not being allowed to smoke on their premises while at work. Not hiring a person who is not smoke free constitutes a breach in anti discrimination law. Let them wrap it all up pretty by stating it is allowed on condition of health mandates if they will, but it is discriminatory!

The yo-yos in Washington speak about raising the cigarette taxes over and over again because the habit is so unhealthy and they only intend to address health issues with this sin tax. They say they only want to make it a deterrent. Maybe if the prices are high enough on a pack of smokes, more people will quit smoking? That is what they say, I say bah humbug! 

If they really believed we would quit smoking, do you honestly think that they would continue in this manner? NO! If we quit smoking where would that nice little extra tax revenue come from? If they were concerned about smoking being the crux of all health issues in this nation, wouldn’t they go ahead and make smoking illegal? Big Daddy being so caring and all?

NO! That will never happen! Tobacco companies are a huge part of the economy and the tax revenues from cigarettes are the backbone of our national treasury!

This brings me closer to one of my points on this issue. Why is this charade of concern for a healthy nation being allowed to continue? Smokers and non-smokers, why are we allowing government to break a constitutionally given right? 

I may be wording it wrong, but is there not something written against unfair/double taxation?

Why do we say ok to discrimination against a group of folks who are breaking no laws?

This is what I propose: Smokers stop whining and take back your rights! The only way to do this is to actually stop buying tobacco products. Hit them where the money is! 

Let us have a Boston cigarette party and say NO! We will not be taxed unjustly anymore!

The government will have to find another source for their revenues!

While we are at it, let us insist that smoking is made illegal so that we can all qualify for government funded detox programs and big, concerned Daddy can really put our money where his mouth is!

Tereasa Sanders-Halligan
Meridian, Idaho 

Stetower

You see, my husbands job in transportation requires us to move every couple of years.  Between this job and the 20 years we spent in the military, we have moved a total of 24 times in 31 years of marriage.  Normally we are only at one assignment for 2 to 3 years at the most and depending on the housing market in the new area, we have to decide on purchasing a house or renting.  In the past, we had only bought 2 houses and still own one in New York State.  It usually is more feasible for us to rent, get in and out and not have to worry about lost equity or having to sell the property.  Up until 2001, the only restrictions we had encountered in a rental agreement was whether we had pets or a waterbed.  We had both, so we purchased additional insurance coverage for the waterbed that it has never been used and we would pay an additional deposit for the dogs and they never caused any damage.  I have seen houses where children have caused more damage than a pet, but never was I required to pay an additonal $500 for each kid in our family.

 In 2001, we moved to Seattle, WA, where for the first time in all our moves, I thought I would be living in the car and maybe calling in "60 Minutes" to do an expose' to our predictment we had found ourselves in.  Our crime?  Both my husband and myself smoke and we refuse to make someones mortgage payment or increase their investment and be forced to go outside to smoke a cigarette.  Neither of us are slobs.  I am a Virgo by birth and my motto is "Cleaniness is next to Godliness."  We feel that if we are making your mortgage payments or increasing your money portfolio and if we keep your house spotless, make necessary improvements as promised, take care of minor repairs to your property, keep the yard and gardens neat and trim and are generally good neighbors, we should beable to live in the lifestyle we enjoy and we shouldn't have to freeze our butts off or in the case in Seattle, get drenched doing it.  Yet, for the first time in our lives we were faced with being homeless.  We finally found a property manager who understood what we were facing and she had a home for us to look at.  The house was only 5 years old and had been on the market for 2 years, with no offers from a buyer.  The owner decided to rent it so to defray her cost/payments to the bank.  It was a real nice house, but it was also obvious that it had been empty for sometime, as there was dust everywhere and the carpets were in dire need of a good shampooing.  While living there, she had hung pictures with roofing nails and had tried to spackle over it but never painted over her blobs of spackle.  The only restrictions in the rental agreement were pet deposits and waterbed insurance and no mention whatsoever about smoking.  We insisted that a smoking paragraph be inserted giving us permission to smoke inside.  The landlady agreed, signed and initailed the added clause.  We gave her a check for the first and last months rent, deposit equaling one months rent and a deposit of $500 for each of our 2 dogs.  I then came in with buckets and cleaned the house, hired a carpet cleaning crew and fixed the spackle job on the walls and made the house livable once again.

I found out from neighbors that she had the house on the market at a price of $216,000.  One day the landlady showed up at my door and asked me to buy the house and she would sell it to me for $200,000.  I wasn't interested as I knew that we were only going to be there for less than 3 years, Boeing was laying off big time and to be truthful, I was afraid of having to sell it myself, but I assured her that I would keep the place in great shape and would move heaven and earth to help her sell it when the time came to relocate.  My rent was electronically withdrawn from my bank account and on the first of every month, she knew that a deposit of $1495 was added to her account.  All was happy until the day came when I gave my notice to vacate.  After storming the property managers office and declaring that she would not return any deposit money to me, because I had smoked in the house, saying that I had discolored the appliances with my smoke, she was told that it was we who protected ourselves with the demand that a smoking paragraph be added and she couldn't reinvent the wheel while we were vacating.  She was taught the difference between white appliances and the color almond which is what color the appliances were. She then said that the house would go back on the market and there was no way she was going to make a mortgage payment of the month of March and we were not to get a penny of the deposit.  The house went on the market.  It first showed up on the MLS listing on a Friday and it was so clean that the next day, the second family who viewed it, bought it.  They paid $240,000 for it.  I had paid her $50,830 for rent over a 34 month period and it was so nice and clean, she still sold it for $24,000 more than what she was asking for it before.  To me, that is alot of money.  I kick myself for not buying it at $200,000 as it could have been me who made that $40,000 extra and gotten some of my $50,000 plus back.  It turned out to be all about money.  This lady refused to give me back my deposit, but believe me, I did get it back and I consider myself as being the one who sold her house for her, just for keeping it in great shape, even with the "almond" appliances.

Then I arrived in Dallas, Texas.  We found a house that only had restrictions on the dogs.  We agreed to the extra deposit for them and went to sign the lease at another property managers office.  The house we found was brand new, never lived in before.  The area is growing like wildfire and is owned by a lady in New York City who purchased it as an investment, along with 4 other houses in this development.  While signing the lease, we had a questionaire to fill out, asking about jobs, children, pets and the last one, do we smoke?  Being an honest person, I checked off yes for the smoke.  Afterall, there was no restrictions about smoking in the advertisement for the house, but the property managers were not sure how she felt about it, so they added in the contract that there would be no smoking allowed, but then turned and said, "You can smoke in there, we just are not sure how the owner feels about it and this is to protect us."  Protect you?  Well, according to my calculations, for the year that we signed this contract for, we would be investing another $14,388 in someone elses bank account.  I vowed then and there that this would be the last of it.

Thanks to the hatred and vilification of the anti tobacco, I had been discriminated to the tune of $65,218 in less than 4 years.  That is what I have paid for rent during that time.  I signed this contract, settled myself in, offered an ashtray to people who came to the house, whether it was the cable guy or a neighbor and friend.  I pay my rent.  You can change your calendar by the day the rent check arrives.  I also continued my housing search, but this time, I bought my own once again.  I will no longer pay your bills or add to your investment.  I had my custom built house built to my specs.  There is an ashtray on every table and they are there for your use and comfort when entering my house.  Any more money spent from my checkbook will go towards my house to do what I please.  I am living in my new custom built house and I still have 2 months left on my latest rental agreement and the last 2 months rent will be paid on time each month.  I have no desire to try to wiggle out of it and I left that house so spotless, it would not only pass a white glove inspection, you can eat off the floors.  I am only making sure of 2 things.  I will get my deposit back in full and that house will not be shown and rented again until all parties have honored each paragraph of the contract.  In other words, the landlady will not recieve money from me after the 1st of March and no one will move into it, paying more money til the 31st when my contract expires.  No keys will be returned from me until the 31st and it will not be shown to another party until at least the 1st of April.

I consider the no-smoking, but give me your money as another form of hatred.  So, thankyou anti's for opening my eyes.  When it is time to relocate, I will have the choice to sell my house and it will be me who recoups her equity and makes the extra $40,000 or else maybe I will rent it to only someone who smokes.  Afterall, we all deserve a huge, beautiful custom built home to live in too.

Sincerely,
Diane Wrobel
Keller, Texas 

Ive been in the restaurant business and it's not right that I or anyone else breathe cigar and or cigarette
smoke. Nobody wants to choke and gag and suffer any illnesses including cancer in the future while doing
their jobs. Multiply the average of three cigarettes times the number of smoking seats and you have a no
win situation for a nonsmoker.

Smokers, you know that you will get cancer. You know you will die earlier. You know that it is bad. You
know its the nicotine, tar, ammonia, the freakin cig companies, etc. And its YOU. You have NO regards or
respect for others. It's You who worry only about yourself. Dont be a SLAVE to the cigarette and cigar
companies. 

David J.

From Tennessee

Strong perfume
Bad breath
Body odor
Audible eating
Belching
Vomiting
Nose-picking
Flatulence
Bowel movements in public restrooms

Does this seem ridiculous to you?  That's because it is!  I tolerate the things that annoy me and make me sick.  How is my smoking different?  I haven't seen any other offenders pay $7.50 per day to commit any of their offenses, yet it is legal for them to offend me.  By the way, about 90% of that $7.50 goes to taxes.  Imagine how many New Yorkers smoke and spend $7.50 on one pack of cigarettes every day?  If we all quit smoking, where do you think the government is going to get all that missing tax money?  Think about it…all of it!

"Smokers Are People Too"
By M. Danielle Farrell
(11/8/2003)

Hook

RP

Carolyn Beyner
Orlando, FL

Cindy 

Filthy Lucre (money) has a higher priority than human life and liberty, thus the tax on cigarettes will rise. The nonsmokers will get their way short of a total ban and the smokers will have what remains, which will then become known as "smokers rights". That is, if we can pay for it. The tyrants which anti smokers have created, will turn coat as other tyrants in history have done. When this happens and it will happen. I will very quietly sit back. Open a slightly chilled One Hundred dollar ($10) bottle of wine and an Eight Hundred dollar ($1.25) pack of cigarettes, fresh mind you. Fire up one of those bad boys, and watch while the tyrants eat you anti-smokers alive. Oh, and I will be here to watch. Why? Because of the efforts of anti-smokers, I'm going to live longer, no.. really they said that. So the answer to your question is no smokers are not being treated unfairly, unless they get the cheap seats, then yes I would say that's not very fair, after all smokers should have the best seats, because we're "stinky" and the tyrants only chew on us. Which would not make for a very good show...you know same old same old... in closing I would just like to add that we really should think about installing some type of hold down system to prevent those smokers most effected by the Obesity Crisis crack down, from being sucked up into the exhaust fans. By the way could any of you anti-smokers tell me if their has been any reseach done on the words Puff Puff Cocoa Puffs. Recently right before I light my cigarete those words come to mind. I guess what I,m asking is, could it be that smokers are going to be left only with the wonderful chocolate flavor of Puff Puff Cocoa Puffs and if so will it make me Fat. Really, please ask one of your wizards.

David PA. 

Susanne

Most smokers I know know of my problem and are considerate.  I will give them a plus for that.

It would be much better for them and others if they would stop.  My dad quit by going cold turkey.  He smoked 4 packs a day.  Think of all the money that would be saved for original purchases and for health treatment.

Mac

NYC C.L.A.S.H. NOTE:   When someone states something as "the truth" [Over 55,000 non smokers die annually from second hand smoke] it is our duty to provide counter evidence so that you can make up your own mind based on facts -- not rhetoric. 

Please read:  Heart Disease and Secondhand Smoke (53,000 "Deaths")

David

I think addict smokers should have their rights limited just like I did as a drinker.  What they do in their own home or around it is their business, however I think smoking around an under age child is child abuse and should be punished just like I would have if I got a minor to drink alcohol.

All this sounds radical but smokers don't worry, the cigarette companies have more than enough politicians in Washington and State government bought off. 

 Oh one last parting shot, I am pissed off that I have to pay through higher medical insurance cost for smokers rights to slowly comment suicide.  Either get treatment or just smoke yourselfs to death, soon.  Thank You.

Greg

Patti

Ontarian smokers like members of our family and those who are present in our home, at their own choice for any number of reasons, can be "legally" prosecuted within our home for smoking or for merely leaving an ashtray visible. This has been made possible by the passing of County and Regional bylaws right across Ontario throughout 2003, that define these levels of unaccountable beaureaucrats as "the municipality" and
also define "employee" to include volunteers and self-employed persons - our homes and vehicles are now perversely and fraudulently defined as a "workplace" by the presence of one or more of these newly-defined
"employees", who may also be prosecuted within our homes if they are deemed to be "in charge" at the time the bylaw officer enters our home, search warrant in hand and accompanied by a police officer.

These powerful bureaucratic bodies, comprised of appointed representatives, enjoy the provincially-granted power in Ontario to overpower the more accountable decisions made by our elected municipal officials (which represent citizens within their individual municipalities) who do not follow the "majority of decisions".
Additionally, the province has kindly provided these upper-level municipal bodies of appointed bureaucrats with a "no repeal" clause for any bylaws they implement. Instead of abolishing locally elected municipal governments like Hitler did, they are merely over-ridden in Ontario these days - same end to a different means.

These bylaws, already passed by unelected County or Regional bureaucratic bodies in Ontario, are to be enforced by bylaw officers employed by our equally citizen-unaccountable Public Health Units that operate also at the County or Regional level. All these unaccountable and powerful bodies, comprised of bureaucrats and provincial government employees, are a drain on taxpayer dollars and are also funded and supported by other unaccountable drains on our taxpayers - Ontario's (and Canadian/global) union-backed lobby groups & NG0's, non-profit and charitable organizations. This explains the skyrocketing costs to maintain Ontario's "public" systems and why there is little money left for the actual supply of accountable service to our citizens. This is also the reason there is a lack of funding available for federal-provincial transfers to finance all of Canada's costly and unaccountable "public" systems.

It is in this manner that our current Ontario PC government hopes to be re-elected and quietly "escape" blame for the pending destruction and prosecution of private business owners, their customers and smokers in their own homes or others within their homes, and the fact that our lowest level of elected officials have already been stripped of their status and ability to represent their citizens and to implement their own decisions locally.

It's unbelieveable, but true - Ontario's "Conservatives" have supported and helped fund this federal Liberal initiative that is based on Marxist principles and philosophies. Ontario's smoking ban legislations will create as many or more new paper criminals out of non-malicious, formerly law-abiding citizens, both in their homes and in their places of business (or one and the same for home-based business owners) as has Canada's most recent federal gun control and registry legislation. Our most vulnerable citizens will suffer greatly and possibly face forced government-funded institutional care (by unionized and "properly-trained" employees) once their families and supports at home are eliminated due to increasing allowances for prosecution of their family members and home-based supporters that are either paid or volunteer.

Ontarians face a provincial election in October 2003. Who shall Ontario's smokers and all who depend on or love them vote for? The PC's who have already enabled their prosecution at home and and within their vehicles and business properties, the Ontario Liberals who intend to make smoking bans a provincial dictate (even though they are already in place provice-wide) or the Ontario NDP's who are currently little more
than a Liberal collaborator/ally?

Ontarians now wait for public exposure of our next jihad - will it be against our citizens who are obese, scented product users, alcohol consumers or who (since "against what" invariably becomes "against who"
in the end)? Few citizens will remain non-criminals as these creative jihads (dependent upon imaginary liabilities, lies/false assumptions, citizen intimidation and the creation of public hysteria for their success) extend in variety. In the meantime, we have no legal recourses to prevent the advancement of what is really bearing down upon us all as we await our almost inevitable prosecution and destruction. The next federal election in Canada is looking mighty good for the Liberals and the Public Health and Safety Gestapo that drives them, given Ontario's weight federally. Too bad Canadians don't read bylaws or recognize communism and its historical methods for implementation.

We have requested our responsibilities to be borne by our government, allowed them to make our decisions for us with little accountability in return and even paid them excessively to do so - it should come as no
surprise that we have simultaneously been relieved of our accompanying economic and individual liberties. Isn't hindsight clear?

Faith, Hope and CHARITY (are no longer an option for Ontarians)

M.W.

Bob

Churnin

I work in an office of a manufacturer where 25% of the people who work there smoke. Why can't we still go to the break room designated smoking? In the winter what will these people who can't quit do. Especially if we have a winter like last year with weeks below 20 degrees? If someone catches pneumonia, don't you think they should be able to sue New York State?

P.T.

Priorities... we live next to a river laced with a million pounds of the cancer and chloracne causing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs.) We have mutated wildlife, have not been able to fish in it for near 30 years, and the federal government has named this river a "toxic waste site." Yet they focus their attentions on passive smoke.

Morals... New York residents cannot order tobacco from its neighboring native nations. Where did the government obtain the right to impose laws on nations not their own? (I wonder what would happen if our government continued, or reverted to, repressing other minorities in the ways they have repressed the natives?)

Standards... double ones, I mean. I find any decision which allows our government rights its people are disallowed, hypocritical. NYS elected government officials can order tobacco products from the internet and native nations, but the average 'Joe' could not. Hail, Communist States of America!

Are smokers being treated unfairly? I think the question should be: is everyone directly or vicariously involved in the tobacco industry and trade being treated unfairly? 

Yes, they are, for the reasons above, but most importantly because NYS is in a recession:
- I think it's unfair to the small business owner (ei. restaurant and bar) that will go bankrupt.
- I think its unfair to the many people who are or will be laid off in NYS due to the industry moving elsewhere.

Perhaps I am a minority, but I'd rather feed my kids...

Davinya

Carla

CTyclark

I am a smoker and have been for many years. I am not a psycho looking to blame the cigarette companies for the harm I am doing to my body. I do not smoke in places that would be offensive to non smokers or smokers. Having a cigarette with a meal, in an elevator, airplane or some other confined place that I and the people that I offend are in, is something that should be naturally avoided against if you have morals and concern for those around you.. However, a BAR, does that mean that if I go into the bar because I do not drink I can force all others to stop drinking? I find the behavior of alcoholic drunks offensive..And have lost many adult friends due to the stupidity of drinkers...So what to do...I don't go in bars. (Which doesn't really solve the problem either, because drunks drive. Are you going to stop selling alcohol?) Logical. I did not need a law to tell me that.. You are trying to turn this into a corporate state. How? By enticing big businesses to agree with the bills you propose because it is cheaper for them to agree than to fight. What about the mom and pop tavern, pub, etc that make their living from the patrons that will no longer come to their establishment. You are ruining the lives of so many. How about making a law that if you have no common sense you shouldn't be in office. You have always been for the guy with the big buck, not the ones struggling to survive day to day. How are you going to make up the monies paid with cigarettes? A pack of cigarettes in new york costs approx. $1.50 the rest being tax, again, approx. $4.50. Is the difference going to be made up in the fines you impose for smoking in a public place or the fines received for bringing the alcohol outside in order to have a cigarette. I would quit smoking for my own reasons if I was so inclined. I have 4 children who do not smoke. They hate me smoking, so concessions are made but they are not so Nazi that they feel they can get without receiving. I will look after my own health issues and do not need the government or it's representatives (by my choice or NOT) telling me what is in my best interest and when I don't agree having them force their opinion upon me. Concessions need to made!!! I can tell you this, this is not the city. You can't judge the whole world by the little window you look out of.

An opinion from someone in the real world

Vince

Bonnie R. Thompson

Remarckable

George Apostolos

Tricia Rivera 
NYC

[Source: NY Daily News; March 4, 2003:  Philip Morris to quit city - Mayor's smoking ban seen behind Va. move]

Larry

Carla

Neither my husband, daughter, son-in-law or myself wishes we could quit smoking.  As a matter of fact, we enjoy the product and the choice to do so.  Maybe your poll is being held in the wrong place.  I'm thinking an anti-tobacco convention, maybe?  Try pulling your head out of the sand Scott, maybe you will breathe easier then.

Diane 

Scott Verzi

NYC C.L.A.S.H. NOTE:  Not me.  Guess that ruins his poll.

John Mrozek

[Continued]

Diane

When Florida’s Supreme Court approved The proposed Amendment 6 to be placed on Florida’s ballot, not only did the members of the Court violate their oath of office to uphold our Constitution, but they dealt a crippling blow to our “Republican form of Government” guaranteed by Article 4 Section 4 of the United States Constitution, and endorsed direct democracy___ a mob rule system intentionally forbidden by our nation’s Founding Fathers.

In support of my above statement, the following is a 1977 Attorney General's opinion that addresses the issue of government regulation of private property [privately owned businesses] for the "health, safety and welfare" of the populace, which an intolerant mob has asserted is the primary purpose of amendment 6. 

But there are rules to be followed concerning our existing system of government which come under the heading called “constitutional law“. What makes decisions of the Supreme Court of Florida valid, and in compliance with our constitutional system, is, decisions made by the Court must be grounded within the rules of constitutional law, and not be a reflection of the Courts’ personal predilections as was the case when it approved amendment 6 to be placed on the ballot! 

In reviewing the rules of constitutional law we find “Perhaps the most basic of all the rules of constitutional construction (since it is the rule which all other rules may be said to be designed to implement) is the principle that a constitution is to be given the effect and meaning contemplated by its framers and by the people who adopted it.” [ see Vol 16 Am Jur (constitutional law) Sec. 91] 

Please note: William F. Fann, Jr. uses the same source material [Vol 16 Am Jur (constitutional law) ] see 4th par Attorney General's opinion as I have also referenced.

In the instant case the Supreme Court of Florida approved an issue to be placed on the ballot involving constitutional rights which individuals have over their property as well as other individual constitutional rights___ allowing such rights to be made susceptible to the whims and passions of a majority of those who may decide to vote rather than a deliberate and inquisitorial investigation into the subject matter taking place by elected representative, and a determination being thus made with a delicate balance between individual rights and the health safety and welfare of the State as is done repeatedly in the Attorney General's opinion , and is the constitutional method to solve such matters when individual rights and a public passion collide!

Florida’s Bill of Rights declares “The enunciation herein of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or impair others retained by the people.” These words apply to property and business owners as well as patrons; to the rich and poor alike, and to an employer as well as those who are employed. Constitutional rights are forbidden to be used by one faction to deny or impair other constitutional rights retained by the people! 

In our system, the determination of such matters as raised in amendment 6 has been delegated by Florida’s Constitution to elected representatives, and is what distinguishes our system___ a constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government” guaranteed by Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution___ from that of a democracy, or “two wolves and a sheep voting for what shall be for dinner.” 

As Madison points out while talking about "democracies", he says in Federalist Paper No. 10. 

"...have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths..." 

And so, the Founding Fathers gave us a system intentionally designed to protect the unalienable rights of individuals, including their proper rights, by a constitution, which forbids such rights to be susceptible to a mere majority vote of those who may decide to vote.

If you read the Attorney Generals’ opinion , I think you will agree, maybe begrudgingly, that indeed, the general public will not be basing its amendment 6 vote upon the delicate balance between individual property rights and public safety as carried out in the various cases contained in the Attorney General’s opinion, but will use their vote [direct democracy, forbidden by our constitution] to express their personal passions and desires, without regard to constitutionally protected rights of others, which is exactly what the Founders of our system of government intended to prevent.

If I were able to require each voter prior to their casing their ballot to answer but one question concerning the approval of the subject matter being placed on the ballot, I would ask each for a list of those objects which they believe, and will guarantee, will henceforth, never be decided in such a fashion. 

The documentation showing the Supreme Court of Florida has violated the intent of the Founding Fathers [the guarantee to a Republican form of Government and protection from democracy is found in Federalist No 10
 

Related information:

http://www.cfis.org/ubb/Forum3/HTML/000305.html

http://www.jeffersonreview.com/articles/2002/102102/florida.htm
 

John William Kurowski, Founder
American Constitutional Research Service
Seminole, FL

"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there is a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of darkness."___Supreme Court Justice William Douglas
 

READ MORE (Updated since Floridians Voted Yes to this Amendment)

You made mention of the warning, "lable on the pack". If that is the message by the US Surgeon General, lets remember, he represents a profession that is responsible for 100,000 deaths caused by medical error (annualy), nation wide. Maybe his door needs a "label".

Thom

Jim, Florida 

For years after the war, the majority of Canadians smoked. Cigarette advertising on TV was the norm, with images of dancing cigarette boxes, midget bellhops and celebrity endorsements. Smoking looked like a lot of fun. If your own doctor didn’t smoke, he may very well suggest that his patients do, as an aid for losing weight. 

Smoking wasn’t a smart choice then and it’s not a smart choice today, but who should be the arbiter of that choice. Out of the three groups involved in the smoking debate -the smokers, the anti-smokers, and the government - the smoker’s position is the easiest to understand; they have a habit and want cheap cigarettes. The governments’ interests are rather transparent. The anti-smoking groups insist it’s a health issue and believe free choice is possible… under their conditions. 

It is not unreasonable for non-smokers to prefer a smoke-free restaurant simply for the smell factor alone. It is disingenuous, however, to suggest that a mere whiff of secondhand smoke will contribute to the death of your child (as was demonstrated last year in city council). How trapping a rat in a glass cage with no option but to breathe the smoke from a lighted cigarette came to equate with humans smoking in an adequately ventilated restaurant, still baffles me. And how did secondhand smoke become more lethal than actually smoking? If research scientists have determined that secondhand smoke contains hundreds of carcinogens and thousands of chemicals, comparable to the toxicity of asbestos dust, it begs the question: Why haven’t they informed Anne McLellan, or anyone at Health Canada? Maybe the science is bogus, or maybe the government has more at risk than our health: tax revenues.

Under the guise of reducing the number of smokers, our governments are free to raise the retail price of cigarettes at any time, to any amount, on a legal, highly addictive product they neither grow, package nor distribute. And they can do this while vilifying the nasty tobacco companies. The governments’ percentage of the "take" is so high, it would make the Medellin Drug Cartel drool.

So what’s the solution? If cigarettes are that detrimental to everyone’s well being, maybe we should consider getting our government (meaning us) out of the drug trade by delegalizing smoking altogether. With the smoking debate finally out of the way, scientists could then spend more time studying the effects of carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide on our environment. Of course, with a revenue shortfall of billions of dollars from the tobacco industry, the government can simply impose an additional tax on gasoline (user’s fee). The tax can be rationalized as a way to reduce carbon emissions, greenhouse gases and the numbers of cars on the road. I’m no actuary, but should the government choose that road and find that those former eight million smokers are now living well into their eighties, producing an added strain on Canada’s Pension Plan; not to worry, raise the gas tax again. Hey, maybe Al can live to be ninety, whether he wants to or not. 

Thom Nelson

Gary

Cathie Kennedy

NYC C.L.A.S.H. NOTE:  With all due respect, the owners of the restaurants -- you know, the ones who put their life savings into opening a private business -- should be the only ones deciding what serves their customers best or how to run their business.  Not smokers.  Not nonsmokers.  And absolutely not government.  And once the owner has made his/her choice we, as uninvited customers, can decide whether or not to go there or stay if the atmosphere doesn't suit us.  So we disagree.  You can take your son to a place that meets your own tastes.  I won't go to a nonsmoking establishment.  Why do others insist on entering smoking allowed restaurants and demand it change to suit them? 

I first became aware of your organization through an emailed copy of an article in The New Yorker, describing the dialogue of the 4 people who showed up at one of your luncheons.  I thought it must have been a joke so I looked on the internet and sure enough your organization really does exist.

I guess it’s not that shocking, every group should have its voice.  Thank god we are in America where you can speak your mind.  I will give you that!  You deserve your voice (as scratchy as it may be from years of smoking). 

Well, to answer the question posted on the site, are smokers treated fairly, I say No!  Fair would be giving you your own space to smoke.  I would just prefer that it be in an enclosed fire-proof room, where there is no chance of any toxins leaking out and hurting me any further than first and second hand smoke already has.  Fair would be you smokers not standing in front of my office building congregating around under a cloud of smoke that I have to walk through in order to leave the building.

I am not mad at smokers for smoking around me.  It is utterly disgusting, dangerous to my health, and annoying though.  I have compassion for you though because I know its not your fault, you are controlled by the most evil addiction on the planet.  I know because I was controlled by it when I was much younger.  Thank God for the fact that I developed a rare form of Emphysema at the tender age of 17 years old or I would probably still be smoking.  Now I just get to deal with the ensuing surgeries, fear of early death, and trying not to get hit by the electric (non-polluting buses) as I dodge the plumes of smoke from all the friendly smokers on the streets of Seattle.

I know you probably won’t publish this on your website because you don’t want to scare any smokers into thinking that maybe their really is something to the millions of people who die from smoking related causes in this country every year.  If you lose any more smokers, prices will probably have to increase to cover the cigarette companies costs of all the “frivolous” law suits they are paying out.  I see your point.  Not to mention, misery loves company, a bum on the street has a ten times better chance of getting a cigarette than a buck to buy something to eat…hmmm.

Well, do me a favor, at least don’t go blowing smoke all over your dogs and cats, studies have shown that animals who live in the homes of smokers die of cancer twice as often as those who don’t.  If you aren’t worried about polluting your kids lungs (because they might get hit by a bus anyway), at least protect your animals.

Krissy
 

NYC C.L.A.S.H. NOTE:  Unlike the anti-smoker sites we do publish opposing opinions.  Imagine that... the group demanding freedom is fair while the groups that look to eliminate freedoms are not.  We are not afraid of opposing opinions because they speak for themselves, making the smokers' rights case for us.

Additionally, the writer claims "studies" (plural) have shown smoke harms dogs AND cats.  She refers to ONE study just released about cats ONLY.  We have that study and we've taken a good look at it.

This is not only wrong, it is the very thing that our nation was founded to protect us from.  Our mighty U.S. government is not allowed to force people to say "one nation, under God" but can force us to stop smoking?  Where is the logic in that?

Recently, in Ohio, Republican Governor Bob Taft (who is up for re-election in November) has implimented an increase in the state cigarette tax from 26 cents a pack to 76 cents a pack.  Why?  Well, most certainly it has to do with the fact that since he's taken office, he's ran the state budget into the red, and this tax increase will generate (according to his estimates) 400 million dollars annually for the state.  On a side note, he says that it is a great way to deter children from smoking, by making it too expensive for them to continue.

As a smoker, I'm getting sick and tired of incompetent politicians using me to fix their budget problems.  Our governments would find it very hard to function if everyone stopped smoking.  What's even more important is that the rest of society understand that if smoking were to be eliminated, so would a good many government funded programs.  They would see an increase in their alcohol, gasoline, and sales taxes across the nation to compensate for the loss of our smoking related revenue.

Brian Fetzer
Smoker from Ohio

KMarquardt

I always hear about "the children" as if they were my children. True, I smoke but I wouldn't encourage a child to smoke. Why don't today's parents parent their own children and stop blaming everyone in sight for their lack of parenting. Smoking is my pleasure. I have severe RA and I can't drink and sex is not an option so I smoke. This all began because a few folks just didn't like the smell of cigarette smoke. Talk about something 
getting out of hand and going to far.

VALA265

This new law is the start of the anti-smoking holocaust in Holland: smokers are now the victims.

What's so wrong about this new law? Here you'll find the answers:
- the obligatory smokefree workplace
- any form of advertisement for tobacco products is prohibited (no sponsoring, no clothes and/or lighters with brand names on them, etc.)
- huge penalties for those who trespass this law
- part of the money paid by trespassers will be used to finance anti-smoking groups (we all know what this means).

It seems that our Government doesn't know what democracy is all about: they see democracy as a way of deciding about people's (smokers) lifestyle, instead of deciding together (smokers and non-smokers). Our Government loves the anti-smoking stuff, although there is no scientific evidence!

Remember: anti's don't stop, even with our new law. They always find ways for further suppression of the smokers. It is our job to fight back with (at least) equal force!

Jan Ruitenbeek
Netherlands

Just how worried are you about your son's health?  Contrary to your own popular opinion, mine or any one else's cigarette is not harming your son's health.  If anything, it is you who are harming him.  My guess is that he is not holed up in his bedroom, waiting for his 18th birthday, to go out and see the light of day.  Everytime a car, truck or bus goes by him, he is inhaling more dangerous pollutants than a lifetime of cigarettes ever will do.  I live in the State of Washington, and perhaps I get more west coast news than you all do on the east coast, but I can tell you that a study was done in California about 3 months ago that said that school buses were the worst contributor to air pollution.  They also said that it would be to costly to rectify the problem.  Taking their study, Washington did their own study.  Yep, buses are a big problem.  Yet, millions of school children are loaded on those buses everyday and they inhale those fumes all the way to school and all the way home.  If school buses are so bad, I can only imagine what those big 18 wheelers are doing.  You know the trucks, the ones that brings your groceries to the supermarket, your clothes to the mall, the hamburger patties to Mc Donald's!  Let's stop hiding behind our children.  You have the problem with someone doing something you don't like or can not control.  For me, a cigarette relaxes me.  Some people prefer to take prozac.  Myself, I do not care to take any pill stronger than an aspirin.  If taking a pill is what relaxes you, fine, but remember that people overdose from medications.  No one has ever overdosed from a cigarette.  As for second hand smoke, it just is not true.  If you would rather believe what the wealthy and greedy health 
organization tells, fine.  Just ask yourself one question when you are listening to all their anti hype.  How come, with all the money they have begged from people over the last 30 years, they have not found a cure for 
cancer, or even a vaccine for cancer?  When the CDC spouts off about the dangers of cigarettes, just ask yourself, is this coming from the supposedly best Doctors in the land, the people who had no idea how anthrax was spread, the study of anthrax that should have been covered in pre-med 101.  Think about it.  These people had no idea how anthrax was spread, just 5 months ago, yet they are able to play God and determine how you and me are going to die, or rather if we will experience asthma any time in our life time.

[Continued]

Diane

Rich

Can you think of ANY other group in America that has been treated this way?

As far as "the cost of treating smokers" goes...  if your journalists did any of their homework at all instead of just passing on press releases from biased sources they would be familiar with such things as the following:

"Health care costs for smokers at a given age are as much as 40 percent higher than those for nonsmokers, but in a population in which no one smoked the costs would be 7 percent higher among men and 4 percent higher among women than the costs in the current mixed population of smokers and nonsmokers. If all smokers quit, health care costs would be lower at first, but after 15 years they would become higher than at present. In the long term, complete smoking cessation would produce a net increase in health care
costs,"

--The Health Care Costs of Smoking, Barendregt JJ et al,  N Engl J Med, 337(15):1052-7 10/09/97

Or... if that wasn't enough, they could look at the Congressional Research Service report of 1995 that reached almost the same conclusion, the Manning article in JAMA:261:1604 (1989), or the US Office of Technology Assessment Report of 1993.  **ALL THREE** of those also reached the conclusion that
smokers are being unfairly taxed.

As far as "saving the children" by reducing their smoking rates: teen smoking rates rose by almost 50% between 1991 and 1997, and have only gone down about a third of that amount since then despite the incredible tax increases, the massive propaganda media campaign that's stripped the power of the antidrug
movement, and the ghettoization of smokers based on gross exaggerations of scientific findings.

Are smokers treated fairly?   As I say...  you've got to be kidding.

The answer is no.

Michael J. McFadden
Philadelphia PA

Let's try attacking, I mean helping, fat people.  We can make them go outside to eat, especially in the winter, for their own good (more exercise & cold burns more calories), up the taxes on fast food (except the salad bar items) 3000% and then deny them medical care because they caused their own problems.

Next, let's harass & overtax the drinkers (wine spritzers count) and the gamblers (do you really need to play bingo?).  That's better than asking politicians to stop wasting our money & it's certainly easier to implement.  We need the extra money!

Of course at this point, we'll be left with a bunch of skinny politicians who exercise daily so we'll have to move on to what kind of car they drive (gas mileage & emissions),  what chemicals they use on their lawns, and if they knew there was a genetic disorder in their family before they decided to have children.

I think anyone who makes poor lifestyle choices thus making medical care necessary and immortality impossible OUGHT to be harassed and taxed - they're being unfair to the rest of us.

Terry

Is this why you ask if, "SMOKERS ARE BEING MISTREATED?"  "There is no man so blind, as he who will not see."

Carol Jensen,
San Rafael, CA