Here is a blog, that will not allow comments after October 1, 2012. So, I am copying and pasting these comments as they pertain to the
charitable contributions that
big Pharma is making to the anti smoking groups:
My own comment is the last entry, unless each and every vaper steps up to the plate. This should be copied, pasted, tweeted, facebooked, blogged, google #oned, pinterested and in every manner blown up to the FILTHY DISGUSTING ASH OF A GOVERNMENT, HELL BENT ON SUPPORTING ILLNESS PROFITEERING INSTEAD OF WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE, REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!! phew................... But my phew would be hackkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk chhhhhh gurgle wheeze, if it weren't for this miraculous available AFFORDABLE self administered cure from smoking! LOVE and PEACE UNITE BOOMERS!!! WE ARE THE GENERATION THAT ROCKED THIS WORLD!
The Rest of the Story:
tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: European Union Poised to Ban Electronic Cigarettes, Forcing Smokers to Be Able to Use Only the Most Hazardous Possible Nicotine-Containing Products
This commenting widget will be discontinued on October 1st, 2012
Echo 39 Items
Admin
enemy guest
here's another advertisement for your wall of fame siegel....
Doctor blasts St. Louis health director for letting MAC smoke
Doctor blasts St. Louis health director for letting MAC smoke : Stltoday
5 days ago, 08:19:23 – Reply
sheri
That's what happens when you take the power of individuals and the government and turn it over to doctors and health fanatics. There is no end to their quest for control and the greed that comes with it.
5 days ago, 11:27:08 – Reply
ladyraj
It's really enlightening to observe the purported developed societies who promote democracy and/or entrepreneurial attitudes respond to directives for their country by a multi-national board on tobacco issues. When it comes to tobacco it appears democracy is dead...or soon will be.
In other news...the city of Omaha in Arizona has come up with a new tax for tobacco products that include e-ciggies. The "occupational privilege tax" places a 7% tax on retailers and will help offset a busted budget as well as finance a building.
http://www.cspnet.com/news/tobacco/...l-seeks-7-occupation-tax-all-tobacco-products
Hmmm....perhaps the EU should adopt the "Occupational Privilege Tax" rather than issue directives against free market principles. After all, the name of the tax is really descriptive of what the EU is actually doing to those countries under their directive.
5 days ago, 12:01:42 – Reply
terri
OBVIOUSLY, BIG TOBACCO/BIG PHARMA IS BEHIND THE PUSH TO GET RID OF ELECTRONIC CIGS. MY SUGGESTION? WHY DON'T THEY JUST JUMP ON THE BANDWAGON...AND MAKE/MARKET THEIR OWN ELECTRONIC CIG?? IF IT'S THE $$ THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT, THEY'LL MAKE TONS OFF THE ELECTRONIC CIG!!
5 days ago, 12:25:59 – Reply
Guest
Lorrillard bought Blu Cigs this year. Reynolds and PM are in development stage of an e cig, so all have begun to enter the fray. BP will only offer something that looks like a tampon, tastes like crap, and is ridiculously priced because, well, that's just how they are. BP would never create anything that LOOKED or tasted like smoking because they are idiots.
5 days ago, 15:01:36 – Reply
stubby
Michael you are incorrect in that snus is currently banned in the EU. The exception is Sweden where most snus is made. There has been a push by the Swedish government to lift the snus ban and there was hope that reason would prevail with a lifting of the EU ban on snus.
No such luck. In fact Denmark has recently banned the sale of loose snus, which is a traditioanl tobacco product for them because of pressure from the EU. Also, EU snus users have been much more restricted as to snus sales via the internet as the EU is clamping down.
The EU is looking more and more like germany in the 1930's.
5 days ago, 13:44:29 – Reply
Harry
Have you no comment for us, doctor, on the recent news item stating that, according to a new study, low-income smokers in New York spend 25 percent of their income on cigarettes?
I note as well that Russ Sciandra of the ACS states that the poor pay $600 million in cigarette taxes, which, you must admit, is a substantial amount coming out of the pockets of the poor, as well as one helluva burden on them. He also stated that "low income smokers trying to quit were hampered by being around smokers and having less cash to buy smoking-cessation aids." Now we all know how effective those aids are. While Audrey says that that "busts their theory that high taxes equal submission to their coercive measures."
Since you yourself have been a big advocate of those "coercive measures," don't you think it incumbent upon yourself to justify the $600 million snatched out of the pockets of the poor? Or do you believe that the ends justify a $600 million coercion that only deepens the poverty of poor people?
5 days ago, 15:05:11 – Reply
stubby
Thanks for bringing that up. I would expect no comment on that from Michael on the turning of the screws on low income folks. I would also expect Bill Godshall to stay far away for that one as he to is an advocate controlling the masses through taxes.
Of course it is the progressive liberals (whom I agree with on many issues) that scream loudest for higher tobacco taxes, even though they are the most regressive taxes out there. I guess its okay to screw over the poor folks as its for there own damn good.
Becasue I said so
5 days ago, 15:21:46 – Reply
Bill Godshall
In contrast to stubby's claims, I've been pointing out for the past several years that NY cigarette tax rates have reached the point of diminished returns for the state (in terms of revenue), have significantly increased contraband cigarette sales in NY, and imposes taxes on smokers that exceed state and local government expenditures for treating diseases and disabilities caused by smoking.
I've also posted the new Farrelly study on various websites, and included it in my Tobacco Harm Reduction Update this week.
5 days ago, 16:00:41 – Reply
stubby
Bill, you are among those that advocated for the SCHIP bill that raised the taxes on RYO tocacco by 2500%. Who do you think was buying RYO? It was lower income working class people that got screwed over by that one. Out of the mouths of babies and into the hands of TC.
So how much is okay with you as far as taking money from the lower classes. Is 30% of income to much, but 20% is okay. Perhapes $12 a pack is to much, but $10 is okay. What is the line when you say enough already.
5 days ago, 16:20:43 – Reply
Bill Godshall
Its unfortunate that several news articles that quoted ACS' Russ Sciandra (calling for more tobacco tax revenue to be spent on ineffective smoking cessation drugs marketed by companies that have given the ACS hundreds of millions of dollars) failed to point out that the ACS has received that massive amount of money from drug companies and has recently urged the NY legislature to raise the state cigarette tax by an additional $1/pack.
5 days ago, 16:04:58 – Reply
Kevin
This one should be drawing laughter, that has them rolling in the aisles.
"Dr. Laugesen goes on to write: "Persistent tobacco smokers face a lifetime 50 percent risk of dying early,"
An average lifetime estimate demands that half die before and half after the average, meaning smokers just like everyone else, will die in equal proportions half before the average and half after.
IOW 50% of non smokers will die prematurely, because they don't smoke?
A 50% risk of dying early sounds pretty scary at first glance, if you don't take the time to consider what is being said.
5 days ago, 18:06:05 – Reply
Harry
If I read Godshall's comment correctly, his concern is imposing the right amount of taxes that will recoup state and local government expenditures for treating diseases and disabilities caused by smoking. If that's it, then he hasn't the same motive as Dr. Siegel, which is to stop people smoking by onerous taxes, a point of diminishing returns (for revenue) or not. So with Dr. Siegel, diminishing returns in terms of revenue simply doesn't apply. Lots of food for thought there, if that's correct.
5 days ago, 22:04:48 – Reply
Michael Siegel
I do think that the study showing that poor smokers may pay 25% of their income for cigarettes has important implications. For one thing, it demonstrates the addictive power of cigarette smoking and makes it clear that it is not so easy to just quit smoking. It also shows that despite price increases, there are going to be addicted smokers who continue to shoulder the burden of increased taxes. In my opinion, this argues against the current tobacco control policies of indiscriminately supporting cigarette taxes, as we have been doing since the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids came on the scene. I only support cigarette tax increases when the revenue is used to provide benefits to smokers - the ones who are paying the taxes. Otherwise, the taxes are indeed regressive and unfair.
4 days ago, 09:47:37 – Reply
Kevin
"I do think that the study showing that poor smokers may pay 25% of their income for cigarettes has important implications."
Expand on that train of thought and go beyond the Glanz claims, that bans don't harm businesses. Think about the 20?% of the population who smoke and at minimum another 10% who they include in their activities outside the home. How do smoker's remember a night in a bar that doesn't allow them to smoke, or to carry their drink to an area where they can. Think about sitting through a movie or sporting event that is longer than 2 hours in duration. An air flight, A hotel stay or even renting a car. Do you seriously believe for someone who smokes; who will not consider quitting an option in play, that they are not avoiding the businesses that don't accommodate them?
How many times can you multiply the number of dollars, beyond a bar's income that are already lost as smokers adjust to their surroundings, as smokers? How many businesses are loosing millions of dollars every day, while pandering to only one segment of the population who are obviously not motivated to change their habits, inciting the promised new clients to replace the old. At first light smokers would put up with inconveniences and gradually they realize, they don't have to, with a growing memory of being uncomfortable at an entertainment venue, should they really grow to believe the higher prices as a necessity of their absence, offers them good value?
Smokers are saving money and the non smokers are paying for their comfort every time they are asked to fork over 10 dollars for a hamburger, or 100 dollars for a concert ticket.
Some will say it is worth the extra expense, however I can't help but wonder how much is being lost in the overall economy, to serve only a part of the population while isolating another.
4 days ago, 15:09:57 – Reply
Kevin
There are probably as many as 100,000 people nation wide, who would leave a restaurant, even today, only because smoking was allowed. Compare that to the 60 million who still smoke and are walking by the no smoking signs, which designate them as, not welcomed to enter.
Glanz was paid to produce a lie, that defies all forms of logic and common sense.
Eventually the large venues who are looking to increase their bottom line profits, or even to survive, or perhaps when the thousands of politicians at all levels, currently struggling to increase sales and income tax levels, all sit up and take notice of the real numbers, of an abundance of neglected or rejected sales transactions, sitting right under their nose. A potential increase of trade at close to 50% or more in some venues.
Trust the free market to do what it does best, and TC will soon be a regrettable stain in our past.
It is going to be, although a long time coming, entirely satisfying to watch.
4 days ago, 16:05:01 – Reply
Stephen Helfer
The history of public health is scarred by policies which, pursued in the name of health protection and promotion, have served to intensify public vilification and state-sanctioned discrimination against already disadvantaged groups.
Professor Hilary Graham, York University, Daily Mail, February 28, 2012
Tobacco taxes are worse than regressive. Regressive taxes, such as sales taxes, impose a greater burden on low-income people, because they take a larger portion of a low-income person's earnings. Because the poor and the mentally ill smoke at higher rates than other Americans, tobacco taxes, don't even affect the affluent classes--they hit almost exclusivly the poor and transfer wealth from them to wealthier citzens.
Obama and Democrats were delighted to fund SCHIP with tobacco taxes because they affected only the the poor who have little political power.
4 days ago, 16:10:39 – Reply
Kevin
The link to Stephen's referenced quote also included the following;
Anti-smoking campaigns turn those who light up 'into lepers' warns Department of Health adviser | Mail Online
"The vilification is also stoking up prejudice against the poor because those who are already on low incomes or at a disadvantage are most likely to be smokers, the report by Professor Hilary Graham found.
Smokers are like ‘migrant and indigenous groups’ in past centuries who were seen as contaminating the rest of society and threatening the way of life of normal, healthy people, Professor Graham, of York University, added.
Her report calls for anti-smoking campaigns to be redrawn so they try to help the poor improve their lives.
The study, published by Cambridge University Press, suggests the tightening of laws controlling smoking, mean smokers are held in contempt by the non-smoking majority."
4 days ago, 17:36:14 – Reply
Harry
Dr. Siegel seems to have this grotesque idea that it’s OK to help a person -- whether that person wishes to be helped or not, and whether he resists being helped or not -- by taxing him for a behavior he, the doctor, personally disapproves of IF the taxed money is used to provide "benefits" to the ones who are paying the taxes, benefits such as helping these people correct their behavior by “anti-smoking advertising campaigns using the mass media” and in seeking a cure for diseases smokers may or may not incur as a result of their behavior. Otherwise, he adds, the tax is regressive and unfair! Well, doctor, you’ve previously admitted that such taxes are regressive: “I agree that cigarette taxes represent a monetary transfer (I wouldn’t call it theft), and that they are regressive and targeted.” And now, suddenly, abracadabra, they’re NOT regressive IF the taxed money is used to provide "benefits" to the ones who are paying the taxes? Just exactly how does that work, doctor? And so, it seems, we have a new principle at work: taxing a person without that person’s consent is “fair” if it’s for that person’s own good, and even though that person may not wish any damn assistance and may never come down with a disease incurred as a result of his behaviors so as to benefit from it? Just exactly what despotic contortions of thought produced that gem, doctor? So tax unhealthy food as well for the very same reason and stipulations? And if not, why not? You know, doctor, your trying to separate yourself from the coercive reasons for hefty cigarette taxes is nothing but trying to crawl your way out of the deep hole you’ve dug yourself into. You’ve previously stated: “I also agree that [cigarette taxes] are a coercive intervention. I do believe there can be a justification for this type of intervention, as the externalities associate with cigarette smoking are substantial.” And those “externalities”? You afterward explained that they were “simply the societal costs of treating smoking-related illnesses (particularly among those who are on Medicaid because they are not paying for their health insurance; the taxpayers are).” So back then, the “coercive intervention” was justified on the basis of “societal costs,” none other stipulated. Moreover, as part of your old proposal, you stated that an intervention which has “been conclusively shown to reduce smoking” is “Increasing the price of cigarettes through substantial cigarette tax increases.” What is that but coercion, standing all by itself, and how are you suddenly not an owner of it since it was one of the building blocks of your proposal to lower the number of smokers? The fact remains that the 25% of their income poor people pay for cigarettes is your own personal property, and there’s no way you can weasel your way out of it. But why be so modest? Wasn’t further impoverishing people already impoverished foreseen in that proposal of yours, which was supposed to be a handy-dandy way of reducing the number of smokers? Responsibility where responsibility is due, doctor.
4 days ago, 17:20:09 – Reply
Kevin
Harry; it does seem by the evidence, that Medical ethics are a long way removed from where they used to be.
Informed consent, by taking someone's money and investing it in providing their own good, whether they want to be left alone [constitutional rights?] or not?
Mind rights guide 3: Consent to treatment | Mind
"This page explains the rules on consent to medical treatment and outlines the situations when treatment can be given without a person’s consent."
Perhaps Michael could splain his self to us simple folk, by pointing out the politoco loophole, he believes exists...
4 days ago, 17:59:03 – Reply
Guest #13
I never did understand the reasoning behind punitive taxes for smokers, especially the children's health care thing. Are smokers making the kids sick? Do smokers have more babies who need health care? Are the children smoking and making themselves sick? If raising the price makes people smoke less, why do the tobacco companies keep raising their price, at least once a year - do they want me to stop smoking too?
If the taxes actually went to benefit the smoker, that would be a different story. But they don't - they benefit everyone else, mostly nonsmokers. And anyway, who is going to decide what smokers need. Maybe we could use some help on insurance payments and unemployment benefits - not more harping and carping on why we should quit.
After my recent foray into the land of the Hoity-Toity (AKA California) I would like to report that it's still perfectly okay to get drunk and hoot and holler in the street at midnight. And to the airline stewardess who was worried someone might light up after they disembarked -- here's one for you.
4 days ago, 20:39:07 – Reply
Kevin
They call it the TC master plan;
The State must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.
— Adolf Hitler, “Mein Kampf”
4 days ago, 21:52:02 – Reply
Harry
I don't know what name medical ethics goes by these days, Kevin, but I never knew that it included "coercive interventions" as an ethical part of it. And the cancer has so infused society that listening to an entire long segment about 16-ounce containers and obesity the other day, I never once heard mentioned the fundamental question that should have been asked and answered first and foremost before all other questions: What business is it of government to interfere in the habits of it's citizens? What's the justification; by whose mandate? And just who in hell is "the government," anyway? It's apparently a cabal of whoever can control the national conversation to the extent that first questions are buried, barbaric positions are normalized, and people get used to not thinking about it. It's the world that Dr. Siegel has helped create and is turning us into a nation of sheep by barbarian hoards of super-nannies led by the likes of Bloomberg et al.
4 days ago, 22:03:38 – Reply
Sir Jay R.
I would disagree with the use of the term "addictive", commonly by health care and tobacco control.
Tobacco use is "compulsive" as are most other choices that enhance life. Yes, very compulsive in some. Although many, the early quitters with a low FTND, did so very easily. So, the compulsiveness is unique to the individual.
But there is no euphoria. Those who smoke tobacco are not getting high, as in the recreational use of illegal drugs.
Its use is simply pejorative, to create a spoiled identity and make people feel bad, ....and easier to control.
4 days ago, 22:14:55 – Reply
enemy guest
and so it begins, the money grab for soda...
Michael L. Marlow: Soda tax war in California takes no prisoners - Press-Telegram
well done siegel!!
3 days ago, 01:07:44 – Reply
Harry
Again: "I only support cigarette tax increases when the revenue is used to provide benefits to smokers - the ones who are paying the taxes. Otherwise, the taxes are indeed regressive and unfair."
If a thief relieves you of your wallet at gunpoint, that's theft. But if after relieving you of your wallet he gives you a lecture for your own good about the danger of walking in deserted streets carrying a lot of money, then it's no longer theft, it's no longer unfair, it's something else. He's doing you a service for your money. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is Siegel logic.
3 days ago, 02:28:30 – Reply
Walt
Everything Harry said (and will ever say in the future).
I believe the militant Do-Gooders punish the poor because the poor, being weakest, are the easiest to punish and the DGers are just so f'ing angry that they can't control everyone, they have to lash out and take who they (think they) can get, and besides, it's cathartic. So tax 'em. Evict 'em. Fire 'em. F 'em, the disobedient wretches!
What "benefit," pray tell, is provided to someone who's under the stress of poverty or unemployment or disability or--as Jay reminds us, combat-- (states our good statists themselves will never know) by depriving him of his habitual (and heretofore, affordable) form of simple pleasure and relief. And thereby merely increasing, instead of relieving, his stress?
That the poor continue to smoke is not a sign of addiction (the rich, after all, are physiologically the same) it's merely a sign that smoking actually works to relieve stress, both physical and mental, and the poor are more stressed. End of report. That, and the fact that the poor, as opposed to the rich, can't afford stress-relieving cruises to Tahiti, or memberships to Racket Clubs, can't let off steam by racing their Ferraris or relaxing in hot tubs. And can't afford the pleasures of Kobe beef and 20 year old Scotch and the soothing feel of mink against well-oiled skin. So instead, they have a smoke. F'r chrissake.
The answer to the age old question "Who benefits?" turns out to be the turkeys in Tobacco Control and some advertising writers, and some people who "just don't like the smell of smoke."
3 days ago, 04:39:22 – Reply
Kevin
Walt, from day one the WHO have identified the reason that kids in third world countries smoke at earlier ages and in higher numbers than in other countries. Kids who live in garbage dumps and sustain themselves on the cast off of others. They smoke simply because cigarettes are cheaper than food and smoking eliminates hunger pains. The solution came from people like Michael to raise the price and redesign supply and demand assessments. If we can see the effect in 25% of incomes here spent on cigarettes, what did they inspire by the same, kick them and they will behave mindset, in the countries where they have even less? And no one is going to jail?
3 days ago, 05:25:43 – Reply
Kevin
Doctors who prescribe torture as a valid medical treatment, are not healers or doctors.
We know who they are.
3 days ago, 07:39:47 – Reply
Kevin
TC retiree
PICTURES
3 days ago, 17:06:25 – Reply
Michael Siegel
Stephen - For the record, I was vehemently opposed to the funding of the SCHIP expansion with an increased cigarette tax.
Harry - I would agree with you that taxing smokers would be unfair to them if the money was not used to benefit them. However, it the money is used, for example, for the treatment and cure of smoking-related diseases, then I think it is appropriate because the people paying the taxes are the ones benefiting from the revenues. Your argument that smokers may "not wish any assistance" would only hold if they agreed to forego medical treatment if they become ill from a smoking-related cause. So far, 100% of smokers that I know have agreed to medical treatment when they become sick from a smoking-related disease. Thus, the argument that they don't wish to have assistance is bogus. When they become sick, they not only want treatment but they need it. And the money is coming largely from other taxpayers. So it doesn't seem unfair to reduce the burden of the taxpayers by offsetting some of the treatment costs with revenues from a dedicated cigarette tax. But again, I strongly agree with you that when the revenues are not being used to benefit smokers, these taxes are quite unfair.
3 days ago, 17:38:21 – Reply
Kevin
What is bogus is your portrayal of "smoking related diseases" as all caused by smoking and thus self imposed. There are none which are definitively" caused" by smoking and that non smokers are not subject to. Just as there are no non smokers who are immune from diseases, that smokers don't share in the equal payment to treat. What you are promoting is bigoted and targeted discrimination, having the largest effect on those most at risk [to borrow one of your own soundbites] that demands smokers alone carry a larger burden for diseases in general, with absolutely no legitamate science or economics, to justify your stance that smokers actually cost the rest of the population, one cent more or less, than they would pay if everyone quit this instant or indeed had never smoked.
You are promoting the very worst in the human condition and that promotion in and of itself is inexcusable, especially when it arises from someone who should be educated sufficiently to know better.
3 days ago, 18:33:40 – Reply
Kevin
Smoking only kills people who would otherwise be seen as immortals.
How exactly only the immortals are all conned into smoking, has yet to be discovered.
3 days ago, 18:58:05 – Reply
sheri
Since Friday, I have been bombarded with bad news about two of my favorite people in the world and one person I was acquainted with but not close to. All are/were non-smokers. The first is my extremely close friend who found that she has breast cancer. Second was my sister/friend who is undergoing open heart surgery this Thursday. Both are mid fifties. The third was a casual friend who recently died of pancreatic cancer at 62. All are tearing my heart right now. Would I feel worse if they had smoked and "caused" their disease? No. Do I need something to BLAME for their illness? NO. Human frailty is gut wrenching, especially when it is close to one's heart. Finding someone or something to blame is a worthless pursuit.
2 days ago, 21:19:46 – Reply
Guest #13
I have known smokers (and nonsmokers) who refused treatment. They lived on their terms and died on their terms. I have also known smokers who did get "treatment" and lived to regret it. As a matter of fact, I live with one. But these people all had medical insurance which they paid for on top of the tobacco taxes. Is there some large pool of money and benefits available to smokers I am unaware of? Or are you talking about all uninsured people?
3 days ago, 19:05:05 – Reply
Walt
As though nonsmokers never had a heart attack and or any kind of cancer (since all cancers lately are "related" no matter how obscurely, to smoking). So they, the nonsmokers, can be allowed to "free load" (in your terms) but only the smokers can't?
And, taking another angle, this is punishment in advance. More along the lines of fining a driver because he might, in another mile or two, run a light or tailgate a schoolbus. Or as the Red Queen put it "First the verdict, then the trial."
Another angle still: your way lies the slope of exorbitantly taxing everything that current fad says could be "related" to disease-- alcohol, Peosi, any food with salt, any food with fat, any red meat, and as latest fad has it, anything with sugar and anything with carbs. Ah! here's another thought. Tax all women of child-bearing age because, married or single, they might some day have a "special needs" child.
Then, too, add the fact that smokers' cigarette taxes go to building stadiums and plugging holes in budgets.. and, oh yes, the rest of it goes to TC groups to pay for commercials that demonize smokers and to lobbyists who lobby for banning them from parks.
2 days ago, 00:13:09 – Reply
Harry
It's always ring-around-the-rosy with you, isn't it, doctor?
We've been through this cost question before, and it was pointed out to you that several studies, figuring in all costs, found that smokers cost less to society than non-smokers. That Dutch study of a few years back, for example, found that smokers came in third after non-smokers (1st) and the obese (second) in costs to society because they tend to die earlier. And when those studies were pointed out to you at the time, we got no response from you whatsoever. No damn response. None. Not a word. Nothing. Nada. Nil. Zilch.
So until you address that point (in the context of your having brought up the subject of fairness!), why in hell are we NOT entitled to think of you as a complete, utter and unconscionable shyster?
Why aren't we?
You want civility, doctor? Then address the damn question!
2 days ago, 01:29:21 – Reply
enemy guest
On the smoking ban, only Geneva voted slightly in favour of tougher controls, while results from the country’s other 25 cantons showed that 66 per cent rejected it, the ATS news agency reported.
The Swiss Business Federation called it a “heartening” result, saying the stricter laws would have been a burden on the economy, especially the restaurant sector.
Hotelleriesuisse, representing the hotel sector, said it was relieved by the outcome, adding that a “yes” vote would have made “some investments obsolete.”
The referendum had asked voters whether to strengthen a smoking ban in indoor workplaces and public spaces.
Bid for tighter cigarette rules goes up in smoke - The Globe and Mail
naaa...smoker bans don't cause financial damage do they siegel...
2 days ago, 06:32:20 – Reply
Guest
A breath of truthful air and the usage of e-cigarettes! Very refreshing and KOOL pardon the pun! Breathing easier since May 2010 correction millions of VAPERS!
Today, 11:49:47 – Reply – Delete
)
