Smokers get the boot

No more smoke wrote:

<quoted text> I agree 100%. Now I can hang out again!! I had stop going out to clubs and bars because I got tired of coming smelling like a chimney!!! This law is long over due!!!

Soon you won't have to tolerate the overweight either. We tried to warn your kind that this kind of madness was only the beginning.

http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/2008/pdf/his...

Mississippi Legislature
2008 Regular Session
House Bill 282
House Calendar | Senate Calendar | Main Menu
Additional Information | All Versions

Current Bill Text:|

Description: Food establishments; prohibit from serving food to any person who is obese.

Background Information:
Disposition: Active
Deadline: General Bill/Constitutional Amendment
Revenue: No
Vote type required: Majority
Effective date: July 1, 2008

History of Actions:
1 01/25 (H) Referred To Public Health and Human Services;Judiciary B

----- Additional Information -----

House Committee: Public Health and Human Services*, Judiciary B

Principal Author: Mayhall
Additional Authors: Read, Shows

Title: AN ACT TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS FROM SERVING FOOD TO ANY PERSON WHO IS OBESE, BASED ON CRITERIA PRESCRIBED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH; TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT TO PREPARE WRITTEN MATERIALS THAT DESCRIBE AND EXPLAIN THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS OBESE AND TO PROVIDE THOSE MATERIALS TO THE FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS; TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT TO MONITOR THE FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.
----------

First they came for the smokers....and I said nothing. Next they came for the overweight...and I said nothing. Then they came for me...and it was too late.

Anyone know the way to start a repeal of the law?

Carol wrote:

And one thing is true, that we need bloody, bloody revenge against this filthy lying government that persecutes us and spews defamations in our faces. We should put an end to this filthy government!

Rather wound up today aren't we ?

Smokers complain about their rights being violated if they can't smoke. But when a smoker gets cancer from smoking they want their insurance or Medicare to pay for their treatment. That means that the costs of the smoker's medical care are being covered by everybody, including non-smokers. If there was a way to force smokers to pay their own medical costs without using insurance or Medicare then I would be more willing to listen to the "rights-complaints" of the smokers.

Hector wrote:

Smokers complain about their rights being violated if they can't smoke. But when a smoker gets cancer from smoking they want their insurance or Medicare to pay for their treatment. That means that the costs of the smoker's medical care are being covered by everybody, including non-smokers. If there was a way to force smokers to pay their own medical costs without using insurance or Medicare then I would be more willing to listen to the "rights-complaints" of the smokers.

Well bright eyes, who was paying for the smokers insurance for all those years? It certainly was not you!

It's well known that over 35% of smokers have mental problems. Its also well known that most degenerates, low life riff-raff type people are cigarette smokers. I guess we should just be glad there're not more of them.

MY cigarette taxes are paying for your kids healthcare; Thank me for smoking!

In this analysis, the federal government saves about $29 billion per year in net health
and retirement costs (accounting for effects on tax payments). These include a saving in
retirement (largely social security benefits) of about $40 billion and in nursing home costs(largely medicaid) of about $8 billion. Costs include about $7 billion for medical care under 65 and about $2 billion for medical care over 65; the remaining $10 billion cost is the loss in contributions to social security and general revenues that fund medicaid.(Note that medical costs already include offsetting savings for premature death and thus are much smaller in the aggregate than in the Rice estimates). The federal government also collects $5.6 billion in cigarette taxes. This calculation implies that smokers (past and present) currently save the federal government almost $35 billion per year.

State governments also have an overall saving, though smaller, of $2.1 billion. This
saving takes into account the large saving in nursing home costs financed through Medicaid ($4.8 billion) which exceeds net medical costs of $1.5 billion. The remaining difference reflects a cost of $1.8 billion from foregone contributions and a benefit of $0.6 billion in retirement savings. States also receive about $7.6 billion of cigarette taxes, for a total annual saving, including cigarette taxes, of almost $10 billion.

http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsrepo...

screw da law

Joe H wrote:

Anyone know the way to start a repeal of the law?

we over throw this corrupted government

just candid wrote:

It's well known that over 35% of smokers have mental problems. Its also well known that most degenerates, low life riff-raff type people are cigarette smokers. I guess we should just be glad there're not more of them.

History knows your kind.

http://www.adl.org/Braun/dim_14_1_nazi_med.as...

Tobacco was said to be a "corrupting force in a rotting civilization that has become lazy." The Nazis' anti-tobacco rhetoric drew from an earlier generation's eugenics rhetoric and also reflected an ethic of bodily purity and zeal for work.3 Tobacco use was attacked as an "epidemic," a "plague," as "dry drunkenness," and as "lung masturbation"; tobacco and alcohol abuses were "diseases of civilization" and "relics of a liberal lifestyle."

What differentiated National Socialist public health from genuine public health in a reasonably civilized society was the exclusive nature of what the Nazis considered "the community."

Smokers should not be eligible for health insurance. Their health costs us all higher premiums and increased taxes for Medicare. If you smoke, no Medicare, Medicaid, or private hralth insurance until they quit. I am glad companies can fire workers for smoking. It raises the cost of medical coverage for all the other employees. The govt should ban all tobacco products from the market.

Lee wrote:

Smokers should not be eligible for health insurance. Their health costs us all higher premiums and increased taxes for Medicare. If you smoke, no Medicare, Medicaid, or private hralth insurance until they quit. I am glad companies can fire workers for smoking. It raises the cost of medical coverage for all the other employees. The govt should ban all tobacco products from the market.

The Government should provide you with a certificate of lobotmy to go with your understanding of who pays for what in the USA.

Next these liberal Democrats will be telling us what we can and cannot eat, drink, etc. No Government has the right to tell us how to run our business. It should be left up to the proprietor to post a disclosure in there ads and on there doors that this ia a smoking or non-smoking establisment.

I do believe this this ban will hurt a lot of small corner taverns, but I do believe it will help the larger clubs.

But again we do not need a socialized Government which these Democrats have created.

Just remember one thing, it is the democrats that keep taxing us. and it is the person who has very little that suffers the most. Corporate America passes the taxes on to the small business and small business passes it on to the consumer. And sadley it is the poor person that keeps voting Democrat, The only reason some of the extreamly rich vote Democrat is they feel guilty.
Hillary and Bill Clinton went into the White House with a net worth of $110,000 and now their estimated worth is between 40 to 60 million dollars.
Any Governor in the State of Md spends one term as Governor and gets $50,000 a year pension with full medical and can start collecting at the age of 55. And then we have our U.S. Senator's who only have to spend one term and the get about $133,000 a year plus full medical when they retire.
Remember most of these Democrats Politicians are Attorneys and they all look out for themselfs.

If you think taxes and the cost of everything is killing you. Well Vote Hillary Clinton with her Universial Health Plan.
You will never have money.

Wake Up America do not trust these Democrat Attorneys that are getting ritcher and the all poor keep getting Poorer.

Lee wrote:

Smokers should not be eligible for health insurance. Their health costs us all higher premiums and increased taxes for Medicare. If you smoke, no Medicare, Medicaid, or private hralth insurance until they quit. I am glad companies can fire workers for smoking. It raises the cost of medical coverage for all the other employees. The govt should ban all tobacco products from the market.

Are LEGAL lifestyle protected by the constitution?

If we can get together on this, mass civil disobedience would be the way to go. Everyone light up at one minute after mid-night next Saturday night. We can take our rights back, but we are going to have to take them, they will not be given to us. We could take a lot of our rights back this way, but getting two people in Maryland to agree on the color of the sky is a problem. I don't drink, however, if we can get together on this, I will be in a bar next Saturday.

CONGRATULATIONS ON SMOKING BAN, It will be nice to come to Baltimore now and enjoy the fine hospitality with out all the smoke in bars and restaurants.

I find some of the arguments on both sides to be, umm, extreme. To me its simple.

Why can't the open market determine what the public wants? Obviously if there was a higher demand for non smoking establishments there would have been more of them by now.

Why aren't the business owners,(remember, the people that invested THEIR money) allowed to determine what clientle they wish to cater to?

Why was there no discussion about a happy medium?

How can the government on one side ban smoking, but on the other, continue to accept the tax revenue and continue to increase so called sin taxes?

While the feelings on both sides of this argument have merit to some degree, it is very concerning for me to see the government, any government, take unilateral action without doing its due diligence. At the very least it should have been put to a vote.

It's about time. There must be 25 bars and restaurants in the city that I've avoided because of all the smoke and the smokers who don't care if they blow this garbage right at you. I predict business will only improve in the majority of these establishments. I've never understood why people want to pay good money to put ashes in their mouths anyway.

In todays world it's only the backward and slow to learn who still smoke.

Well, I went out last night to The Fireside Inn in Glen Burnie, and things seemed fine to me. That was the first Friday that I have gone there in some time because of the heavy smoking. There was a good crowd but not overflowing. I did see a couple chain smokers there when I came in. They go there 7 days a week. One stayed and seemed fine. The other though was clearly agitated and ended up leaving. I asked the bartender if there were people complaining about the ban and she quickly said yes, but she herself a smoker actually said she was for the ban. That made little sense to me and I asked her to explain. She said the constant exposure to all that smoke she thought had been affecting her health. But other then that, the only thing that really stood out as you might expect was the smell of the place. It was strange at first, but then it just reminded me of being in a restaurant. I was curious as to whether or not people would be defying the ban and whether or not the employees supported the ban and if they were taking it seriously. Well, no one while I was there defied it. And the employees I talked to definitely were happy with it and taking it seriously. (I don't know how the actual owner feels though)