Comments about ‘Utah Legislature: Lawmakers take aim at tobacco products’

so sad that all these busybody lawmakers can't just let people live as they please....

People in Utah are little off their rocker for endorsing a ban on anything that started this country (i'm from VIRGINIA) and keeps people working in this bad economy. Let's ban cars and trucks, they also are dangerous and kill. Detroit would just love it.

Here is hoping the legislature has the guts and wisdom to do all it can to restrict and discourage tobacco use. Most particularly increasing the tobacco tax a significant amount. Anything we can do to help decrease use is a good thing. I agree with Rep Ray that making tobacco illegal would be nice, but I think it would create more problems than it is worth. I am so tired of trying to help people who keep shooting themselves in the foot (with tobacco use). I am tired of the increased cost we all pay for this addiction. I am tired of seeing people throw their butts out the window and onto our streets.

Candy-like caffeine products that could deceive children has got to be controlled. An all-out ban might be going too far. Some legislators go too far and try to legislate a way of life.

Any legislator that doesn't do everything in their power to decrease tobacco use is derelict as a public servant. If 400,000 died every year from auto accidents or in plane crashes, the country would come to a halt.

Conservative Republican lawmakers should be ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES for even considering this issue, which basically is even more encroachment in our personal lives.
HOW/WHY do they call themselves conservatives when they won't BUTT OUT (pun intended) of peoples personal lives?

LEAVE US ALONE PLEASE, or run as Democrats next election!

1901: REGULATION: Strong anti-cigarette activity in 43 of the 45 states. "[O]nly Wyoming and Louisiana had paid no attention to the cigarette controversy, while the other forty-three states either already had anti-cigarette laws on the books, were considering new or tougher anti-cigarette laws, or were the scenes of heavy anti- cigarette activity" (Dillow, 1981:10).

1904: New York: A judge sends a woman is sent to jail for 30 days for smoking in front of her children.
�
1904: New York CIty. A woman is arrested for smoking a cigarette in an automobile. "You can't do that on Fifth Avenue," the arresting officer says

1907: Business owners are refusing to hire smokers. On August 8, the New York Times writes: "Business ... is doing what all the anti-cigarette specialists could not do."

1917: SMOKEFREE: Tobacco control laws have fallen, including smoking bans in numerous cities, and the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho and Tennessee.

I have absolutely no problem with people who choose to smoke but when their right to smoke costs me in higher health care premiums, poses a risk to my health and stink up my office space, I say tax the product as much as possible. Those who want to smoke will continue to do so regardless of the cost and those who want to quit will have further incentive.

Yes, I agree that there are many other products which pose a risk to health and well-being but today, we are addressing tobacco. When and if taxes are raised on junk food and soda I will probably support that, but generally someone else's consumption of junk does not endanger my health or stink up my workplace. It does increase health costs so for that reason alone I would support higher taxes.

I know from experience that breaking the nicotine habit is the hardest of substances to break. Any reduction of nicotine is a good thing. The smokeless cigarettes have no health damaging properties so should be benign to any legislation that places the product in the same category as tobacco products.

As a smoking cessation device the e-cigarette has not been tested thoroughly so the manufacturers cannot make claims that their products reduce or mitigate nicotine addiction.

One must note there are other devices that contain no nicotine, battery free and non-combustible therefore share the same benefits as the electronic version. These types of smokeless cigarettes make more sense.

We need to raise the tax on cigarettes to be at least on par with the surrounding states and the national average.
It is a health issue and we need adequate tax funds to cover the cost of treating those who smoke and helping to prevent smoking by our youngsters.

The statement that the breath-mint-type tobacco products have two to three times the nicotine is completely false.

The problem is that there is no distinction made between the amount of the nicotine in a product and what is actually absorbed. There is about 10 mg. of nicotine in a cigarette and about 1-2 mg. of nicotine is actually absorbed.

Oral nicotine products have about the same rate of absorption, so if they measure between 8-12 mg. per portion they are roughly equivalent to one cigarette in absorbed nicotine. My guess is that most of these products are well under 8 milligrams per portion.

The science should be checked before misleading statements are made to the public. I want to see actual measurements of the individual products and actual numbers of how much nicotine is absorbed. These results should be directly compared to cigarettes. Scare tactics based on supposition and bad science are in my opinion just political propaganda. Plain and simple.

Make it a FELONY to smoke around underage kids. They have no choice but to be stuck in the poisonous air. Actually enforce the 25 foot barrier in front of doorways also. Quit giving lip service if you are not going to enforce the laws!

Why don't the government ban tobacco products like they did asbestos in the 60s'. Oh yea, to much money in taxes! Guess that would never work!

Why is it that smokers are always targeted? Why not all the FAT people? Where is the junk food and fast food tax? Unhealthy weight and eating habits are just as much or more damaging to your health as smoking. Have you ever considered the rising costs in heath care associated with obesity as well? There are a host of illnesses that are self inflicted by choosing to be fat. Just as well as smoking. Both a personal choice. When will this issue ever be brought up in Legislation??? Oh, I know why.... because it is a larger population than the smokers and our lawmakers might lose their voter population by proposing such a change. I do not approve of the unequal taxation of smaller populations based on health ie smokers, drinkers until our government really adresses ALL health issues EQUALLY!!!

I've quit smoking for 6 months now with the help of electronic cigarettes! Why do you want to ban something that's been the only thing that's actually worked for me and many close to me? I feel the deep pockets of big-pharma and big-tobacco have a hand in this. If you're going to ban e-cigarettes, you'd better ban mint tasting nicotine gum delivered in much higher doses than an e-cig. How much are your senators and congressmen being lobbied by these types of organizations?

I have yet to see any proof of claims that tobacco causes to warrant such discrimination and hate.

These hate taxes are being used to punish and segregate taxation by lifestyle rather than a fair tax for all. If the tobacco industry is so bad then why does it still exist? It still exist for one reason, a popular scape goat to tax because of deceit and lies by advocates of hate. Non smokers should give a smoker a hug and thank them for keeping other taxes down. Sales tax would be well over 10% were it not for tobacco users being forced in to excessive taxation. And this continuing to tax one segment of society demonstrates the discrimination and hate it embodies as justification.

If people hate it so dearly, then lets raise all sales tax to over 10% as well and make tobacco illegal. Any takers?

With Utah's economy moribund and more businesses failing, it's nice to know that Rep. Paul Ray, R-Clearfield only cares about keeping as much smoke/nicotine out of Utah as possible while a truck loaded with nuclear waste drives down our freeways. Whoever voted for this man, do Utah a favor and never vote again.

Yes, raise taxes and health insurance premiums on smokers, the overweight, people who refuse to exercise, people who eat red meat, and people who use caffeine (it's an addictive stimulant!). Also on people who have genetic predispositions to disease--after all, their parents could have chosen not to reproduce.

People who think smokers don't pay their way are uninformed. They *more* than pay their way.

And banning smokeless tobacco and e-cigarettes is ridiculous. Despite the massive misinformation campaign most people swallow whole, smokeless tobacco is about 99% safer than smoking. E-cigarettes are probably even safer than that.

Ray ought to be voted out of office at the first possible opportunity.

An examination of the bill may reduce the number of concerns raised above. If e-cigs are found by the FDA to be an acceptable method to stop smoking, they will instantly be legal to sell in Utah. Since there is not reliable, objective research on e-cigs, the Legislature is erring on the side of safety. Again, as soon as the FDA says, they're legal--that provision is in the bill.

I smoke and have never done so near anyone. I have always made sure that my somking wouldn't be able to offend someone. I just stared using an e-cig to help me stop smoking becuase nothing else has worked over the years. I must say that for me and a few others that convenced me to start that I've not touched a real cigarette since I started. When I tried to quite with the patch I was using it and smoking so that couldn't of been good for me. Again this state would rather make 2 more dollars off of me and keep me smoking a known hazard rather than let me use a safer device to quite. It seem that they spout that they want you to quite but deep down they don't because they want my tax dollars to pay for everything that the rest of you are unwilling to pay for. I pay higher taxes than anyone else in the state and they would rather keep me smoking real cig's so they can have their money. Shame on you for your immoral acts. Not very christian of you to punish me.