Verra verra interesting....

Posted on Wed, Jan. 15, 2003
NORTH DAKOTA LEGISLATURE: Groups
question tobacco banMeasure would make it a misdemeanor crime to sell or use
productAssociated Press
BISMARCK - Health groups that discourage smoking
lined up Tuesday to fight legislation what would make North Dakota the first
state to outlaw tobacco, a stand that left some lawmakers perplexed.
The measure, introduced by Rep. Michael Grosz, R-Grand Forks, would make it a
misdemeanor crime to sell or use tobacco. Sellers would face up to a year in
jail and a $2,000 fine, while casual smokers or smokeless tobacco users
could go to jail for 30 days and be fined $1,000.
"The education approach is obviously not working in North Dakota," he said. "Should we not prohibit the sale and use of tobacco just because it may be difficult to enforce, and let nearly 1,000 North Dakotans die every year?"
Bruce Levi, director of the North Dakota Medical Association, called the measure "novel," but said it "introduces an approach to tobacco control that has not been proven effective or even implemented in any other state."
"Our goal is to prevent and reduce tobacco use. There is scientific evidence to support the programs that are beginning to move forward in North Dakota," Levi said.
"Prohibition has not been shown to prevent tobacco use."

Aww..I've been looking all over for this darn link. So tell me, tell me true, why if prohibition has not been shown to prevent tobacco use, why o why are they going crazy to prohibit it in restaurants/hotels/etc? If it doesn't work, then you're just being an asshole. And who says that it has to be proven in another state before ND could do it? Seems a catch 22 here. But here's the million dollar question: Why is it the anti-tobacco organizations the ones that cried the loudest AGAINST it?

At a hearing where the House Finance and Taxation Committee voted 9 to 4 in
favor of tobacco prohibition, a line up of anti-tobacco special interest groups
denounced the bill in no uncertain terms. Given the chance to support
their goal of a smoke-free society The American Lung Association, American Heart
Association, North Dakota Medical Association and North Dakota Public Health
Association all spoke out against the ban on Tuesday, much to the dismay of some
lawmakers on the committee.
Even in written form their panic was palatable. How can this be? To oppose this bill is the only proof anyone needs that all the talk about health and reducing death rates is a complete lie. The anti-smokers are frantic that the cash flow they receive
from cigarettes may come to an end. Their greed can their only motive
since, if what they have been preaching for years is true, allowing cigarettes
to be legal means that those who permit it have blood on their hands.

Perhaps it's because they would have to find new jobs? Yeah, this happened back
in 2003..it was never passed, but I wouldn't be quite so quick to push it under
a bridge. If you are against smoking you need to ask yourself a few questions.
One of the excuses given by the anti groups is it would drive smoking
underground. Wow, with that kind of logic why even have drug laws? Or rape laws?
Or murder laws? I mean, you're just "driving it underground". What interest would these groups have in pushing how "deadly" a product is, but keeping it legal, all the while imposing more and more taxes, prohibitions, etc on the user? If smoking is really killing so many and this is a matter of public health, what do they have against making the manufacture, sale, and use of it illegal?

It's really funny how disgusting, evil, distasteful, sickening, etc smokers are until you have their money in your pocket.

http://www.tobacco.org/news/114664.html

Belter told the House that committee members were frustrated last week with
the testimony from anti-tobacco groups that testified against the tobacco ban .
. .

You should wonder if the anti-tobacco groups have your best interests at heart, or their wallets...