• Twitter
  • Facebook
News-Sentinel.com Your Town. Your Voice.
Opening Arguments

Clash of the vices

One estimate says the Illinois smoking ban has cost the state $800 million in casino-tax revenues. So the sanctimonious numbskulls who keep going on and on about how they're doing everything for our good health are prposing a change:

SPRINGFIELD — The Illinois House voted Tuesday to lift a smoking ban in all of the state's casinos during a debate that pitted the health of bettors and casino workers against hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenues.

The proposal, which passed 62-52 and now moves to the state Senate, represents a significant softening of the state's 2008 anti-smoking law that banned tobacco use in virtually all indoor public areas

Ladies and gentleman, if we're serious about our budget crisis in Illinois, let's be real. This is not about the smoking issue. This is about the money,” said Rep. Dan Burke, D-Chicago, the bill's House sponsor.

"About the money" -- well, duh, as Charlie Sheen would say. So go ahead and smoke till you die, already, but not before you drop lots of hard-earned money in a casino, and, by the way, drink lots of tax-laden booze while you're at it. Your sins must pay for the sins of the state, chief among them wanton profligacy.

And this just in: The sponsor of Indiana's smoking ban said he plans to drop it because some supporters wouldn't shut up about all the exemptions, but now he says he retracts that

Comments

Tim Zank
Wed, 03/30/2011 - 3:51pm

"

littlejohn
Wed, 03/30/2011 - 4:58pm

I take your point Tim. I'm not crazy about social engineering through taxes.
On the other hand, a case can easily be made that discouraging smoking saves government money (fewer uninsured persons showing up at emergency rooms with lung cancer, e.g.).
The best solution might be to forget Federalism and use federal laws to restrict smoking. That way, smokers couldn't simply take their money to another state.
After all, we saw some Fort Wayne bars lose money when the city banned smoking. A statewide ban would have fixed that.
Frankly, I'm in favor of adding cyanide to all tobacco products. If you're going to kill yourself, do it quickly.

Tim Zank
Wed, 03/30/2011 - 5:21pm

Littlejohn: "Frankly, I

gadfly
Wed, 03/30/2011 - 10:23pm

How about a federal law that bans the growing of tobacco and its manufacture and sale in any form in the United States? Then we can put all those tobacco farmers to work growing corn for ethanol. Some of that ethanol could end up in gasoline and some of it could be bottled, just like we did during Prohibition!

No. wait, I am confused. The old saying of "Smoke 'em if you got 'em" would be replaced with the single phrase of "Prohibition II" -- and we all know how well Prohibition I worked out. But follow me on this. Without tobacco, smokers will want to drink more which will increase the demand for corn. This will be good since state legislatures will be hot to pass DWS laws, so DWI laws will be ignored by the constabulary.

Nah -- lets let the stupid smokers die young which will offset those imaginary health care costs that smoking brings. But if they want to gamble in smoke-filled rooms in Illinois (while consuming alcohol), lets be good neighbors and encourage it.

... and "what goes around comes around," so we can expect an uprising among the populace to ban "adult beverages' in about ten years.

Harl Delos
Thu, 03/31/2011 - 10:24am

Gadfly, there's a compromise available here. There's no reason why people should be denied the enjoyment of tobacco, as long as they assault others with their tobacco. That means that we prohibit smoking tobacco (because of the second-hand smoke problem and because of the fire problems) but we allow chewing tobacco, as long as they don't spit.

Just as we allow people to drink as long as they don't operate machinery while under the influence, and they don't engage in public drunkenness.

Quantcast