Click The Logo To Donate
Posted on 01/22/2003 3:56:17 AM PST by SheLion
BISMARCK - North Dakota House representatives Monday voted overwhelmingly against a bill proposing to ban tobacco sales in the state.
The measure, which would make selling or using tobacco products except for using it for relgious purposes misdemeanors, failed by an 88-4 vote.
The bill would have made it a crime to sell or use tobacco in North Dakota, with sellers facing a maximum penalty of a year in jail and a $2,000 fine. The bill labeled smoking, chewing or using smokeless tobacco as a less severe crime, punishable by 30 days in jail and a $1,000 fine.
GF sponsor
The bill's sole sponsor, Grand Forks Republican Rep. Mike Grosz, said he was disappointed by Monday's vote.
But "it did get a fair day in the sun and generated a lot of discussion," said Grosz, a member of the House Finance and Taxation Committee, which heard the bill last week.
Before the bill went to a vote on the floor, Grosz told his fellow representatives that tobacco costs the state close to 1,000 lives every year and $351 million in medical and productivity costs. Tobacco taxes are expected to bring $39.7 million to North Dakota's treasury during the state's current two-year budget period, which ends in June.
"It seems the only gainers from allowing the use of this product are the big tobacco companies and groups, such as the government and organizations, which tax the product or sue the companies," he said.
Grosz said he would vote against all other measures on tobacco, including a tax increase, because trying to reduce tobacco use through those measures is like "putting a bandage on a severed leg."
Gov. John Hoeven's proposed two-year budget for North Dakota state government includes an increase in tobacco taxes, which would increase the levy on a pack of cigarettes from 44 cents to 79 cents.
Passed committee
Rep. Wes Belter, R-Leonard, chairman of the Finance and Taxation Committee, said he decided to vote no on the floor Monday because he believe prohibition would drive smoking underground.
His committee heard the bill last week and recommended a "do pass" on the bill by a 9-4 vote. Six of the nine committee members who voted yes on the bill changed their vote on the floor Monday.
Belter told the House that committee members were frustrated last week with the testimony from anti-tobacco groups that testified against the tobacco ban, including the North Dakota Medical Association, American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, North Dakota Public Health Association and North Dakota Nurses Association.
There's no evidence banning tobacco would prevent and reduce tobacco use because no such approach has been implemented, the groups argued. The ban also could take away certain funding forthese groups for tobacco control programs.
The North Dakota Grocer's Association supported the bill. Tom Woodmansee, the association's president, told lawmakers during the committee hearing that retailers have to spend too much time and money training employees on proper procedures for proof-of-age in selling tobacco products. He said retailers are subject to undercover stings by local law enforcement, fines and license suspension.
Belter did point out that legislators are "hooked on tobacco," even though not all smoke.
"It is time for us to think about just how hooked we are on tobacco, whether we smoke or not," he said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zhang covers the North Dakota Legislature. She can be reached at (701) 255-5520 or xzhang@gfherald.com. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Pulling more figures out of da butt I see.......
Gee, one guy voted against the bill because he was worried that "prohibition would drive smoking underground." Whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. In other states it's been driven out of workplaces, parks, and "public places." The only place left IS underground. And so what? Illegal drugs are consumed "underground." I'll bet he's not for legalizing them.
The "North Dakota Medical Association, American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, North Dakota Public Health Association and North Dakota Nurses Association" were all afraid that prohibiting tobacco won't prevent its use (although that is exactly what they claim happens when smoking bans are imposed) and they don't want to lose their funding for tobacco control programs.
Why in the %$#^ world would anybody need tobacco control programs if there was no tobacco to control? And I don't think smoking compares with Prohibition. It isn't the same. People hole up and drink for a part of the day. Smoking is 24 hours a day minus sleep time wherever you are. It's much more visible.
And what's with The North Dakota Grocer's Association supporting the bill? Retailers "spend too much time and money training employees on proper procedures for proof-of-age in selling tobacco products."
Jeez, don't they sell alcohol in that state?
I read that Texas convenience stores average $312,000 per year in cigarette sales. I don't know how that compares to North Dakota or to grocery stores, but it would take a lot of convincing for me to believe they lose money selling cigarettes.
.......The Above Was Written by Squeezer
A Republican started this?!
It's all about the money and not about health at all. Good to see these slime balls admit it, however inadvertantly.
The best part:
The measure, which would make selling or using tobacco products except for using it for relgious purposes misdemeanors, failed by an 88-4 vote.
Imagine if all the states were stupid enough to pass a law like this! Remember that religious sacrements are tax free!
What could they do if we all exercised our 1st Amendment rights to freedom of religion? Kill the cash cow.
"1966??!!" Your kidding me! ugh!
Can we say "RINO???"
Which reminds me:
"It's all about the money and not about health at all. Good to see these slime balls admit it, however inadvertantly."Exactly. I bet the "anti-tobacco" groups about crapped their collective shorts when this bill made it out of committee. LOL
Your just a nicotine addict dude. (Nothing personal just applying drug warrior logic here)
Milk?
Peanut butter?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.