So long as government’s nose is allowed into the health care payment tent there will be honest reason for government to seek to lower those un necessary costs. The far out libertarians who wish to smoke need to be willing to bear all of the costs of their behaviors just as those who knowingly contract AIDS should, or those who choose to ride motorcycles without helmets. I’m sure that any decent actuary could devise insurance policies that these anti-social behavior folks could be compelled to purchase.

As long as you people stay out of my private club and Cigar Bars, I frankly don’t care what you do!

Let me see if I got this right—according to your statement–smokers are libertarians because of their behavior choice. Interesting, as I have smoked for over 50 years (starting back when it was fully an acceptable behavior) thus I am now labeled a libertarian. Glad to know since I have long had a problem defining myself as to whether I was a liberal conservative or a conservative liberal since I am very uncomfortable with either end of the current definition of liberal or conservative.

Pascal, Mr. Economist, where have you been for 55 years? The government has been heavily involved in the health care payment mechanism for five decades.

It is therefore in their best interest to promote policies which reduce their costs. Seatbelts to reduce auto injuries. Ditto helmets for cyclists.

Health experts will tell you, there are two huge health care costs which can be reduced, if government adopts different policies: diet and smoking.

Diet is a constant battle for many of us. But however fat I get, as I move about the world, my weight or lack thereof, do not harm others by my mere presence. If I’m fat, the cost of taking care of me is a burden to all of us.

Smoking? As for the affecting-others argument, except for cost, the exact opposite.

Until and unless smokers can walk around with a giant five-mile tube over them, that directs smoke elsewhere, they’re damaigng my lnugs and yours. Severely. Smokers can run from that fact, but they cannot hide.

And to top it off, a small annoyance perhaps, I see daily examples of smokers throwing their butts into the street or on sidewalks. It may be a small act, but it demonstrates the overwhelming lack of respect too many smokers have, for our property and health rights.

Our streets are not their ashtrays. And our lungs can no logner be permitted to be the repository of their smoke.

Sorry, Abdul…this statewide law is the best answer for those bar owners. All will be on a level playing field. You’ve let Brad K influence you too much. If North Carolina can do it, so can we. But you can peddel that tired argument all you want. If not this year, ultimately, by rule of common sense, you’ll lose.

It’s just a matter of time.

Aren’t labels great?

For this modern-day miracle/hinderance, you can thank the 20-second-soundbite whores.

Of all three political stripes.

In this instance, “mute” and “moot” are roughly the same.

Think again, how many arrest has there been because of smoking? How many stories have we read in the paper about people having crashes and killing people on the road by the driver that has been smoking? Now how many have we seen that has been drinking. Seems that the anti smoking people are more concern about smoking then they are about the real killer. If they really wanted to fight for something, how about the ban on the sale of all tobacco product? No? To many taxes paid?

Tobacco taxes paid–that’s a solid argument. If those revenues went down, we’d have to find other areas to tax, or cut spending, or both.

Driving a vehicle is a privilege, not a right. You have to obey certain laws to have a license to drive. You have to purchase insurance not to protect yourself–but to protect others you might injure or property you might damage. It’s a solid pretext of law and custom for over a century. Hold onto that thought.

Besides, if you think more people are killed on highways, than by tobacco, you’re way under-informed. The smokers themselves deserve dignity and all access to our health care system. Their smoke does not stay strictly within their bodies. It goes elsewhere, and it inflicts others. At huge rates.

Please don’t trivialize the anti-smoking crusaders by minimizing their concern for other deaths. That’s a huge leap, and it’s unfair. It’s not true, either. They are passionate. I wish they’d be a little more civil, but smokers have made this civility bed. They’ll have to lie in it.

The anti-smokers’ message is strong, and their common sense is pretty solid. The other side, well…there’s not much common sense there. Just protectionism at its ugliest.

Abdul, the bar owners who object, and others, are only waiting-against-time. This will ultimately pass. Nationwide.

Tobacco taxes paid–that’s a solid argument. If those revenues went down, we’d have to find other areas to tax, or cut spending, or both.

Driving a vehicle is a privilege, not a right. You have to obey certain laws to have a license to drive. You have to purchase insurance not to protect yourself–but to protect others you might injure or property you might damage. It’s a solid pretext of law and custom for over a century. Hold onto that thought.

Besides, if you think more people are killed on highways, than by tobacco, you’re way under-informed. The smokers themselves deserve dignity and all access to our health care system. Their smoke does not stay strictly within their bodies. It goes elsewhere, and it inflicts others. At huge rates.

Please don’t trivialize the anti-smoking crusaders by minimizing their concern for other deaths. That’s a huge leap, and it’s unfair. It’s not true, either. They are passionate. I wish they’d be a little more civil, but smokers have made this civility bed. They’ll have to lie in it.

The anti-smokers’ message is strong, and their common sense is pretty solid. The other side, well…there’s not much common sense there. Just protectionism at its ugliest.

Abdul, the bar owners who object, and others, are only waiting-against-time. This will ultimately pass. Nationwide.

What about your anti-social behavior? I wouldn’t want to foot the bill for you to have that looked at by a professional.

So let’s just all man up, make smoking illegal and be done with it.

Abdul, The budget is $2,345,000 for the state. 45% of that will be spent in Indy.But not to worry, Mitch has this one in his cross hairs. It will not be here after the first quarter.But then you have to worry abotu the smoke free indy folks with Bruce Bryant.They are even more hardcore.

Eventuall he Medicaid and insurance rates would go down and that is where the savings will be.

Yikes.

Oh please. Stop pouting.

You engage in an activity that causes harm to others. No debate about that any more. Conduct that activity solely in the privacy of your home or car. Then we’re fine.

But don’t throw a pity party, and say “woe is me, the world’s against me.” It’s pathetic.

Pascal, No the oney comes ot the state fromthe Tobacco settlements.However we get over $125 million an year form them.Most of it goes to roads and projects for Mitch.It was a great windfall for him.

I don’t think he was asking about the settlement fund. I think he meant federal growing subsidies.

The answer is yes, sadly, and here’s an excellent database for all ag subsidies, by county, nationwide. It’s both chilling and maddening. Seems like we should be able to find a way to feed our fat society properly without subsidizing tobacco at all, but…

http://farm.ewg.org/

Are you saying, that Indiana farmers participated in federal tobacco subsidies? Or that Indiana provided its own separate subsidies?

There are indiana tobacco farmers today who get federal subsidies. Not many, but some. I wasn’t aware the state ever provided separate subsidies.

I think Indiana has their own that were in addition to Federal BS.