Oh, Boo Hoo....... (2014, schools, price)

[Grandpa Pipes]

Originally Posted by STLMetro

From a strictly economic standpoint I still disagree with you. The elasticity of addicitive drugs have proven rather inelastic over the years. This is why we can continue to raise the tax on cigarettes; you can say it's a sin tax, but it does relatively little to stem the tide. In this respect, I believe that passing a law against smoking will not deter most smokers from engaging in it. Therefore, I don't think it will diminish the tax revenue for the state very significantly.

While I don't have the exact numbers the banning of tobacco from bars, casinos etc. surly has had a negative impact on tax revenue from those businesses.

[cubssoxfan]

Originally Posted by Tightwad

It may ,or may not, have but without fail some moron will crawl out from under a rock in every discussion about tobacco , or smoking, to take over the discussion with anti tobacco bull crap in an attempt to shut the discussion down.

With Illinois in the midst of a budget crisis to pass laws that ban smoking is like shooting ones self in the wallet causing tobacco tax revenue loss. Real smart. Yep, super smart..........

I just figured I'd get my licks in early.

It's all about the second hand smoke. I have a right to clean air. So unless they invent a mask for smokers to wear(and they're used), so all the second hand smoke is self contained and doesn't poison my lungs, then your argument lacks credibility. Now you may come back with the private business argument, but I have yet to find a private business that does not have to comply with local, state and federal PUBLIC law. Maybe if the establishments would have invested in better air filtering systems or better physical barriers between smoking and no-smoking sections the state and local government would not have had to step in. I do not care if you smoke, as long as I don't have to inhale it and it does not infringe on my right to breathe clean air in public places. I consider businesses public places.

[Grandpa Pipes]

Originally Posted by cubssoxfan

It's all about the second hand smoke. I have a right to clean air. So unless they invent a mask for smokers to wear(and they're used), so all the second hand smoke is self contained and doesn't poison my lungs, then your argument lacks credibility. Now you may come back with the private business argument, but I have yet to find a private business that does not have to comply with local, state and federal PUBLIC law. Maybe if the establishments would have invested in better air filtering systems or better physical barriers between smoking and no-smoking sections the state and local government would not have had to step in. I do not care if you smoke, as long as I don't have to inhale it and it does not infringe on my right to breathe clean air in public places. I consider businesses public places.

The rock lifts to give us our first comment. The question as to where one persons "rights" end and another persons "rights" begins is never considered in discussions about tobacco or smoking and never seem to be consider by people who both don't understand the topic in depth or personal liberties. All these people care about is telling a total stranger that they dislike smoking which was NOT the topic here at all. The topic was about the use of the money from the MSA and the anti tobacco group trying to tell a state how to spend it.

I'm amazed by how many supposedly intelligent people buy the junk science involved in the anti tobacco war wholesale.

[Avengerfire]

This topic has been discussed several times including these threads:

https://www.city-data.com/forum/illin...oking-ban.html

https://www.city-data.com/forum/chica...oking-ban.html

In fact, this thread should be merged into one of them.

[Grandpa Pipes]

Originally Posted by Avengerfire

This topic has been discussed several times including these threads:

https://www.city-data.com/forum/illin...oking-ban.html

https://www.city-data.com/forum/chica...oking-ban.html

In fact, this thread should be merged into one of them.

My God can't people read simple english!

As I said before......" The topic was about the use of the money from the MSA and the anti tobacco group trying to tell a state how to spend it. "



It is NOT about smoking per se!

[ImaloneJill]

Pay for chemotherapy?

[Grandpa Pipes]

Originally Posted by ImaloneJill

Pay for chemotherapy?

That might be one use.

[STLMetro]

Originally Posted by Tightwad

While I don't have the exact numbers the banning of tobacco from bars, casinos etc. surly has had a negative impact on tax revenue from those businesses.

Studies show that at the very least you are embellishing....



Check it out:

Study Says Smoking Bans Do Not Hurt Jobs in Bars, Restaurants (http://www.voanews.com/specialenglish/archive/2009-05/2009-05-26-voa2.cfm?CFID=337430107&CFTOKEN=10227768&jsessioni d=003010145a5e6d9d5283604a36326f5f4c55 - broken link)


www.no-smoke.org/doc/EconImpact_MikeFox1004.doc

My final determination (as quoted from the above scientific study):

Summary

Evaluating the existing literature on economic impact of indoor smoking bans leads to the following

1. Though no studies are without limitations, the overwhelming majority of studies that maintain a rigorous scientific element suggest that the economic impact of a smoking ban is minimal if it exists at all.

2. The leading researchers who appear to argue consistently against smoking bans give little evidence of objectivity in their work in this or other areas they are involved in.

3. Arguments that mask the economics of the issue, such as smoker/non-smoker or business “rights,” are issues entirely separate from those having to do with economic impact, and should be separated out from any discussion of them.

[linicx]

State rights normally supercede individual rights. The State of Illinois believe every business should be smoke free to 15 feet outside of the main entrance.

[Grandpa Pipes]

Originally Posted by Tightwad

While I don't have the exact numbers the banning of tobacco from bars, casinos etc. surly has had a negative impact on tax revenue from those businesses.

I can only judge the economic impact based on local report of sales are bars and casinos which is way off from years past.

Originally Posted by Tightwad

My God can't people read simple english!

As I said before......" The topic was about the use of the money from the MSA and the anti tobacco group trying to tell a state how to spend it. "



It is NOT about smoking per se!

Originally Posted by STLMetro

Studies show that at the very least you are embellishing....



Check it out:

Study Says Smoking Bans Do Not Hurt Jobs in Bars, Restaurants (http://www.voanews.com/specialenglish/archive/2009-05/2009-05-26-voa2.cfm?CFID=337430107&CFTOKEN=10227768&jsessioni d=003010145a5e6d9d5283604a36326f5f4c55 - broken link)


www.no-smoke.org/doc/EconImpact_MikeFox1004.doc

My final determination (as quoted from the above scientific study):

Summary

Evaluating the existing literature on economic impact of indoor smoking bans leads to the following

1. Though no studies are without limitations, the overwhelming majority of studies that maintain a rigorous scientific element suggest that the economic impact of a smoking ban is minimal if it exists at all.

2. The leading researchers who appear to argue consistently against smoking bans give little evidence of objectivity in their work in this or other areas they are involved in.

3. Arguments that mask the economics of the issue, such as smoker/non-smoker or business “rights,” are issues entirely separate from those having to do with economic impact, and should be separated out from any discussion of them.

Please see my statement in red above to get back on topic .