The Best Solutions?

[mikeky]

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/06/opinion/06KAUF.html

...Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg wants us to ban smoking entirely.
...
So I have a plan. It's very simple. The city wants to protect people from second-hand smoke. We restaurateurs want to keep doing business. And the city needs money to close its huge budget gap. So I propose a smoking license for restaurants, hotels and bars. It would be similar to a liquor license. For let's say $1,500 or $2,000 a year, a restaurateur, hotelier or bar owner could obtain a license for each of its venues. With the license, we would simply maintain the current smoking laws, which confine smoking to the bar area in all restaurants with more than 35 seats.

We'd post a sign out front, letting people know we're a smoking establishment. And here's a grown-up idea: let people make their own decision about whether to enter. As far as the employees go, it's up to them, too. Since not all restaurants will choose to be smoking establishments, the work force will have other options.
...
Elaine Kaufman owns Elaine's restaurant in Manhattan.

I thought this was a good example of an ordinary citizen bringing forth a great compromise idea. I'm sure there are issues to impementation, but overall, seems like it could work, and everyone would benefit over an outright ban on smoking.

I wonder if it will get any consideration by Bloomberg. I wonder how many great ideas submitted to our elected leaders are flushed without consideration because it wasn't theirs or didn't fit their current agenda; I've seen it happen at the local and state level many times. Does a leader feel threatened or think they will be perceived as weak when faced with an idea that didn't originate with them or their inner circle? When they do, it's a real shame.

[ethics]

Compromise?

Not sure if I agree. It looks to me as if people (read, politicians) just want to get more taxes out of things we got for free.

[mikeky]

If you mean that smoking shoudn't be banned, I agree with you. Just saying that this seems like a good alternative to a total ban.

[ethics]

It seems as if the people are offering a good compromise. I don't see it from the government. The government, and Bloomberg notwithstanding, sees dollar signs.

The cigie prices today are tremendous, the areas where you can smoke are getting smaller where I can see smoking going ways of the pot.

Sorry I am not as coherent as usual, just had a tiring night and trying to type something half intelligent.

All I mean to say is that cigarette smoking will soon be illegal OR will be legal at a tremendous monetary expense.

[RRedline]

I don't like that idea at all. Why should a business owner have to pay the government to allow its patrons to smoke? I am in favor of an outright ban, but I feel that restaurants, bars, etc. should be permitted to have completely separate, well-ventilated rooms for smokers. I said "permitted" - not required. They could spend several thousand dollars for such rooms and save the money that would go towards yet another silly tax like the one you propose.

On a similar note, I have to say that I am extremely disappointed with the states' unfair taxation on cigarettes. I understand that smoking is very bad. I DON'T SMOKE! I will never start because I understand how damaging and expensive it can be. However, we have a large number of people in this country who are ADDICTED to cigarettes. Their bodies crave tobacco like I crave food at noon. The states' current trend towards high cigarette taxes just goes to show you how low they can go. They are taking advantage of people, many of them poor, who are ADDICTED to a substance. The overwhelming majority of these people are not going to quit smoking or even cut back just because the taxes go up. Any politician who says that they tax tobacco for any reason other than generating revenue is a damned liar or a fucking fool. Those tax dollars brought in from cigarettes are not even being used to prevent people from starting the habit or even towards helping people quit. It just gets lumped in with the states' other tax dollars and gets spent on who knows what.

I hate second hand smoke. I would even go out much more often if I didn't have to deal with it. However, I don' feel that it is the government's right to force business owners to pay more taxes just so they can offer a place for their patrons to smoke. I fail to see any logic in it at all, just as I fail to see anything logical about the states' high taxes on cigarettes. Is there nothing at all in the Constitution that prevents such taxes to be imposed? How is it justified to tax one product or service more than another?