Reply With Quote
......and why was he 'forced out'?
I've read Carmona quit, was forced out and that he simply left on his own accord.
Depending on which explanation you believe, Dr. Carmona either resigned as head of the federal Public Health Service or he was not reappointed by President Bush when his four-year term expired on July 29 - the equivalent of being fired.
Some sources indicated that Dr. Carmona was told that he would not be retained as surgeon general, but who ushered him out and the reason were not revealed by the hunker-in-the-bunker folks at the White House.
......and why was he 'forced out'?
They didn't like him.
If the amount of money taxing tobacco outweighs what they could make fighting it I could see why they wouldn't want his opinion.
The post of SG is re ed. He's a political appointee that was shocked that politics came into play on cigarettes(wanted to ban them), stem-cell research, global warming, etc.
Political pressure on the SG is nothing new.
My friends at work are reading this topic.
Off-topic, but there's an intriguing contrast.
Consider the present "accepted facts" and regulatory policy respecting confined-animal feedlot operations (CAFO's).
CAFO's have empirically established environmental and food-safety impacts, but EPA has not only exempted them them from reporting emissions, it has revoked extralabel (i.e., preventive) use of cephalosporin antibiotics in food animals.
Why should we care?
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/12/12/133814/68"These important drugs are the only effective therapies for serious gastrointestinal diseases in children and also the best treatment for antibiotic-resistant infections in cancer patients. Easing restrictions on the use of cephalosporin on factory farms jeopardizes the effectiveness of these drugs and needlessly imperils our public health.
"In addition, the overuse of human antibiotics in farm animals is driving up the cost of healthcare. For example, in 1998 the Ins ute of Medicine estimated that antibiotic-resistant bacteria generated an estimated $4 billion to $5 billion per year in extra costs to the U.S. healthcare system.
"The misuse of antibiotics in animal agriculture helps fuel the increase in antibiotic-resistant infections -- a fact long acknowledged by the American Medical Association, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and even the FDA.
"The incoming Administration and the new head of the FDA need to examine the overuse of antibiotics on factory farms. They must take the advice of the doctors and other public health professionals who have raised the alarm about antibiotic misuse and put the health of people -- particularly susceptible groups like the elderly and children -- ahead of industry profits.
Sometimes the lobby is political. Sometimes it is an industry group. But for the last eight years science has been a red-headed stepchild at EPA, OSHA and the FDA. True science and the public interest have been sidelined in favor of industry insiders and special interest lobbies. Politics, not safety, is the driver.
Relying on public health officialdom and "enlightened" public policy to keep you healthy and safe may not be the way to go, Blake.
The gods help those who help themselves. Big brother ain't your friend.
Strike that.
I meant to say he ain't mine. You can speak for yourself, and I'm sure you will.
This is a heated topic!
Paradise Billiards
Down 18%
-------------------------------------
Martini Bar
Down between 15%-20%
-------------------------------------
Cody's Sports Bar
Down significantly - Might have to close doors.
---------------------------------------
Whiskey River
Cowboy Dancehall
Down slightly but not significantly
------------------------------------------------
Murdocks
Sports bar
Down 10%
-------------------------------
Crystals Restaurant Confectionery Bar
Out of business
Pins 100% of the blame on the smoking ban. It was sad to see this restaurant bar going from being standing room only just an average restaurant. There bar money is what ran that place.
------------------------------------
It'll Do Saloon
Down at both locations around 15%
---------------------------------------------------
Clicks
Down 22%
Possibly closing
------------------------------
Bair's Den
Down significantly
No figure
-------------------------------
Slick Willie's
Pool Hall for minors
No change
----------------------------
Theo's
Down significantly
Rumored to be changing owners
-----------------------------------------
Rascals
Down
5%
Owner thinks they haven't been hit as hard because they're right next to a strip club.
-----------------------------------
There were two sections that I didn't get to see. So the list is quite a bit longer than this.
We'll see how it all stabilizes but the reality is that a large majority of businesses are hurting because of this.
Adult only businesses where minors aren't allowed.
These are statistics compiled by a local Pool hall owner. I'm not saying who or where but it was a pretty comprehensive write up he let me in on. There going to remount a pretty substantial fight here in about three months.
Originally they needed 5k signatures on a pe ion to fight this. They got over 10,000. However only 3,400 were registered voters. So they got nailed on a technicality.
I'm glad to see a large portion of these owners attempting to come together to fight for this. They're private owner and should never of had their rights stripped in the first place.
Oh and I could careless if you don't like my source or lack of scanned files or whatever. The real point is that the larger majority of business are suffering from this uncons utional stripping of private owner rights.
Deaths due to secondary smoke:
Down 100%
The smoking ban here in College Station has worked out great. I can go to a club or shoot pool and when I leave, my eyes do not burn, my clothes do not need to be dry cleaned, my car does not stink the next day from carrying us home with clothes that smell like an ashtray.
The smokers just go outside to smoke and they then just come back in afterwards, it works out for everyone.
Oh, it is not private owner rights if all members of the public are welcome. If you have an exclusive club with memeberships, then you can decide to let your members smoke, but everyuone that joins has to be made privy to that before they join.
In what way is this uncons utional?
I still think this is stupid, but it has caused me to smoke less...
You're welcome to go back and read the thread.
As a business owner its his/her business. They can run it like they see fit. Especially if its adults only. I understand that some minors can't help themselves but be exposed in certain situation and I'm all for protecting their rights but an adult's only establishment shouldn't be subject to the same stipulation.
A private business open to the public doesn't mean its public property. Its still a privately owned business.
Its the adult general public's choice to enter or not. The owner isn't obligated to protect the public.
That says nothing about the issue of cons utionality. If you claim it's uncons utional you need to say what part of the cons ution a local smoking ban violates. You made an argument, but it's not a legal argument and certainly not a cons utional argument.
Okay. I think its bull to tell someone how to run their private business. An adults only business.
I'll leave the cons ution out of it.
Fair enough.
Are you also against restrictions on hours businesses may serve alcohol?
I have put zero thought into that.
I'm not the only one that considers it a violation of Property rights.
As President Calvin Coolidge once said, "Ultimately property rights and personal rights are the same thing." Property rights are at the heart of the smoking ban debate, but they are often overlooked at the expense of what is perceived to be the "greater good." A true respect for property rights requires that business owners be free to make decisions on their own, with the marketplace rewarding or punishing them accordingly for their choices.
Many businesses have already chosen, without government intervention, to go smoke-free or to offer their customers smoke-free environments. That decision should be theirs to make. Businesses make such decisions every day, always aiming to please their customers and satisfy a marketplace demand.
Smokers should not be turned into second-class citizens for using a legal product when the free market offers both smoking and non-smoking environments for employees and customers to choose from.
Smoking bans restrict consumer choice and infringes upon property rights. The community is better served when businesses, employees, and consumers are allowed to self-regulate and reach accommodations among themselves, rather than punishing some by legislative force.
The following articles offer additional information on the consequences of lost property rights due to smoking bans.And the courts have ruled that one must be secure in their property and economic vocation for the sake of happiness (Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746). Even though smoking bans have been upheld in state supreme courts, including South Carolina’s, it would seem to me they may not hold up in federal court as they may be seen to interfere with private business owners’ ability to conduct business as they see fit.
To answer your question I'm likely against restrictions of drinking hours.
Austin's smoking ban was upheld in a federal circuit court of appeals.And the courts have ruled that one must be secure in their property and economic vocation for the sake of happiness (Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746). Even though smoking bans have been upheld in state supreme courts, including South Carolina’s, it would seem to me they may not hold up in federal court as they may be seen to interfere with private business owners’ ability to conduct business as they see fit.
That's consistent. Are you against the geographical restriction of adult businesses as well?
Yes I'm against that as well. If I want to go buy a hung pulsating dong for my wife I shouldn't have to drive 20 ing miles out of town to do so.
I had no idea it was held up in federal court.
Still think its bull . If its my private business I should be able to run it as I see fit. Without restrictions on things that are already legal. I'm not saying I should be allowed to open up an acid shop or anything....just be allowed to function within the current laws. Smoking is legal. I'm not saying I should allow smoking in a privately owned daycare either. We're talking about an over 21 establishment not a grocery store where minors have no control about whether or not they enter.
The key is a purely adult only establishment where 100% of the people who enter wouldn't be under the care of a guardian or parent. 100% adult only. Its a reasonable compromise.
Personal agendas and political jostling is the only reason they took this away from the pool halls and bars. It was already outlawed in restaurants and other like places that were open to the public.
I think restrictions on serving time are different from restrictions on allowing patrons to smoke. Serving alcohol past a certain hour can arguably affect people outside of your business. There is no such consequence for allowing customers to smoke. Their actions only affect people who have chosen to enter your bar/restaurant.
that right there is goddamned thoughtful!Yes I'm against that as well. If I want to go buy a hung pulsating dong for my wife I shouldn't have to drive 20 ing miles out of town to do so.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
