I am a smoker, and I find this absolutely ridiculous. If she gets elected, what else would she do. I am a female, and I think women should have a chance, but I dont think miss. EVERYTHING NEEDS TO BE MY WAY should get elected. If she does, it is going to turn into a reinactment of the Salem Witch Trials, except they will hunt smokers. I do not mind paying more taxes, but will someone please remove the fat guy down the street ordering pizza, because if you can "catch" cancer, then I am going to "catch" obesity. What about that Hil?? Are you going to make food illegal? Do you want to turn us all into rabits next? Fix the obes people and leave me alone. You will never get close enough to a community, to breathe the horrible pollution from smoke. If she does decide to ban smoking in public, my answer is tough shizz, cuz no one is going to be fine with that, and no one is going to do it. Is she going to build the jails for all the public smokers? I think not. IT ISNT ALL ABOUT YOU HILARY!! We know it sucks to have your man cheat on you, but do not take your anger on us. I am a democrat, and I am not fond of GWB, but if he was running, I would vote for him, b/c this is just nuts.

Tom, Campbell, Ca,

"lets do that on all of Mcdonalds, Wendys, Buger King, etc, etc food because they are responsable for a huge % of our nations number one threat, obesity"

When someone eats a Big Mac next to you, is he/she automatically forcing the food down OTHER people's throats too?

"ban public pools"

When someone swims in a pool do YOU automatically get wet too if you're nearby? Not unless your ALSO in the pool or unless someone is ignorant enough to SPLASH you right?

"ban auto racing"

Again, when someone gets in a race car, does that automatically put everybody around him in the car with him?

LIKE SECOND HAND SMOKE DOES?

I have an idea, lets ban stupidity – [...]!

Next time, read the existing posts in a thread and maybe you'll get an idea of what the issue is you before you say something as asinine as what you just posted.

By the way, I'm sure Hillary will do just FINE without your vote.

Increase taxes on smokes…ok, now lets do that on all of Mcdonalds, Wendys, Buger King, etc, etc food because they are responsable for a huge % of our nations number one threat, obesity. If you think not, just look at the reports. Oh yes, we must also ban public pools, since they kill many people a year, oh ya, lets ban auto racing, because it kills people too, oh ya, lets ban anything that is bad for you, meaning, lets ban life, as it eventually kills you!

She just lost my vote.

Bob, I am in favor of having taxes raised for cigarettes and other tobacco products because it discourages the purchase of such items. If there are lower sales, then there will be less smokers. I don't care where that money goes as long as it doesn't fill the pockets of our politicians.

As I pointed out in my initial post, cigarette smoke affects everyone, smokers and non-smokers alike. So why are you defending something that harms YOU in the process? You cannot deny this, the health hazards of smoking (like lung CANCER) have been well-proven.

And Jon in Sacramento, it's not just a little "discomfort". Like I said, I can DIE from an asthma attack. People like myself are the reason for local smoking bans around the country. And it can be especially harmful to young children, expectant mothers, the elderly, and heck, anyone. Aside from asthma attacks, other immediate symptoms include stuffy or runny noses, watery or burning eyes, sneezing, coughing, wheezing, a feeling of suffocation, etc.

It's not my fault I have asthma. It certainly wasn't my choice to put up with a lifetime of pills and inhalers. But smoking those cancer-on-a-sticks definitely is.

David ~ Salinas

You wrote, "What you’re saying is that Mary’s freedom to breath fresh air is less important than your freedom to blow smoke in her face."

David, what I don't support is the "victim" mentality. Personally – I don't smoke. My parents did and I understand the feeling of being "trapped" in the backseat of the car while both parents puffed away (windows cracked enough to blow the smoke to the backseat).

So not being a fan of cigarette smoke I make adjustments. If I'm walking behind someone smoking either I walk faster to pass them or I slow down letting them get farther ahead. If I'm standing outside and someone is smoking – I move to a smokeless area.

MOST people who smoke understand it can bother non-smokers and are pretty considerate. I've only ever asked a few people if they didnt mind waiting or not smoking in situations where I had my kids or unable to "adjust". They (smokers) were very respectable and agreed not to smoke in that moment.

Blowing smoke purposely into someone's face isn't acceptable. But heavens we have become such a fragile society that every little "discomfort" means restricting someone else's right?

raise taxes on cigs! another way for the federal gov to make money.

for seven years, the fda did not release nicotine amounts for different brands of cigarettes, as they had been doing for previous years.

All the while, nicotine levels rose in all major cigs. At the same time this information was not being released, states across the country pushed for raises in federal cigarette taxes.

Raise taxes to lower smoking rates, while allowing big tobacco to raise nicotine levels, making them more addictive, and efectively cancelling out any lowering of cigarette smokers.

Jon -

Freedoms are often in conflict. The freedom to blast music conflicts with other's freedom to sleep. Freedom to fire shots in the air conflicts with freedom to walk through the park. Freedom to go shopping in the nude conflicts with freedom to protect children from sexuality. We make laws to resolve these conflicts. That means limits on some freedoms, like it or not.

What you’re saying is that Mary’s freedom to breath fresh air is less important than your freedom to blow smoke in her face.

Mary ~ Mountain View

You wrote, "This is all about protecting those who DO NOT SMOKE. So get off your high horse."

- – - – - – -

Sorry you have asthma but should your "condition" restrict the rights and choices of others?

How about we restrict public consumption of alcohol? It would dramatically reduce DUIs, and the deaths/injuries associated, right?

How about we confiscate all the privately owned firearms? Then they wouldn't be available to rob or kill others, right?

Our fore fathers (some tobacco farmers) fought and designed a country of freedoms. Besides.. if you don't like the someone smoking in California – duck into a bar!

Hillary = No Public Smoking Allowed

I love these posts from the crybaby smokers:

"WHAAAA! They wont let me be ignorant and make others deal with MY ignorant habit that effects those around me!"

"Everyone ELSE is just too lazy to get up and MOVE so I don't blow smoke in their faces!"

LOL! Don't forget to sue Big Tobacco when you get cancer from your OWN STUPID DECISIONS too!

After all, it's certainly not YOUR fault right?

Now keep crying people!

So Mary your okay with the idea that smokers should pay for poor childrens health care by paying even more taxes? Those smokers didn't make those children poor but of course they should pay more taxes just because.

When I think public places I think parks and other open places. Is anyone making you stand next to a smoker and inhale the fumes? People always seem to ignore the fact that the air isn't exactly clean to begin with and want to blame smoking for 100% of the respiratory problems.

Now if she was talking about smoking in your car when your children are present I would be all for banning it in this case because of the fact that someone else is being forced to put up with it.

So before you start talking about who is selfish and who isn't I suggest that you take a look in the mirror ma'am. I am sick of people who think that the Constitution allows for the banning everything under the sun. This is supposed to be a free country but some people seem to have forgotten that small detail that our founding fathers paid for in blood.

I have asthma. When I inhale secondhand smoke, my lungs tighten. If I am exposed to this long enough, it becomes an asthma attack, from which I can DIE from.

Why are you people defending a habit that not only kills you slowly, but harms non-smokers as well? You smokers are being incredibly insensitive and selfish. My right to breathe clean air and not DIE from an asthma attack trumps your supposed "right" to smoke in public.

And by the way, perhaps some of you should check your reading comprehension. No has said anything about banning smoking outright (i.e., in your own home). This is not about going after you smokers or discrimination or anything like that. This is all about protecting those who DO NOT SMOKE. So get off your high horse.

So go ahead, smoke. Just don't bring me down to the grave with you.

Starting to smoke is a choice. Stopping is very difficult for some people as there is the addiction issue. However, without knowing what the definition of a public place is here, it is difficult to say how invasive she is proposing to be. Can you see college campuses with total bans on smoking? I can't. People should be free to make choices even poor ones. Seems hypocritical to be anti-choice for smoking because it has health risks that people can be well informed about and PRO-CHOICE for other things that have health implications.

Ok… to recap Mrs Clinton's positions:

1) Voted FOR the war with Iraq
2) Voted FOR funding the war
3) Voted AGAINST funding the war
4) Says progress is being made in Iraq
5) Wants the democratically elected leader of Iraq removed
6) Criticizes Obama for engaging in hypotheticals
7) Says (hypothetically) a terrorist attack will help Republicans
Wants to ban smoking in all public areas of this country

WHY is she considered the "front-runner"??

No wonder all the states are pushing forward the democrat nomination… the longer Hillary campaigns the more she loses support!

Hillary would support NAMBLA if she thought it would get her more votes.

I second Andy's post, what does Kim mean by Bush fooling people in regards to smoking? Another minor point, how could Abe Lincoln say something about the current President aprox 150 years ago. Yes, I am making a stupid point, but not near as stupid as Kim's post.

See, I told you that she was a socialist who wanted to limit your freedoms "for your own good, because she knows what is best for you." We don't need more laws forced down our throats by professional nannies, busybodies, and health nazis. Limiting choice is not what freedom is about. How about less laws and more courtesy and accommodation on both sides of this issue? I don't smoke, but I respect your right to do so.

Totally insane!

Since it's 'politically correct' to go after people that smoke…(because we all know they're such bad people) this type of stuff comes out. Why not ban cars, they contribute far more to 'global warming' than cigarettes.

Or, since it's in our "best interest" not to smoke, ban cigs or make them illegal.

It's time for politicians to put up or shut up! I'm a smoker, and since moving to Ohio from Florida, I notice the proce on my carton of smokes has gone from 28 dollars to about 40. On top of that, we have the ban in Ohio that prohibits smoking indoors at "public places" (read bars). The bar owner has no right to establish HIS/HER local policy and run their business the way they wish, the government tells them what to do.

I say that this is a perfect example of how freedoms in this country are being eroded. Does a non-smoker have the 'right to choose' when it comes to patronizing an establishment with such a policy? If you don't like it, don't go there. Likewise, a proprietor has the right to not allow smoking in their establishment.

But, you'll never see any politician on either side go for an all out ban on smokes. Why? Too much revenue for them to spend on pork-barrel projects.

I just wonder if she really feels this way or said that because the crowd was definitely and anti-smoking crowd.

Have a good day,

Chip

I don't smoke, but I'm fat, and I'm going to blame this on the fast-food companies who make it too easy for me to pack on weight.

I really hope the Democrats will outlaw fast food as well and make it easier for me to sue the ones who marketed this fatty food and made me buy it against my own free will.

And while we're at it, let's put a $2.00 gallon tax on gasoline, so the poor won't be able to afford driving their cars and only the rich will have the option of private transportation.

Dear smokers; there's nothing to say if you say that you live in free country and right to smoke. I volunteer at Hospital so I have seen thousands of sick patients, I was very sad. If you think you are in free country why don't you enjoy your life without serious illness. Prevention is the best for your health, non smoking is a part of prevention of sickness and cancers. Life is the blessing, health is a better blessing, we all deserved to be happy. Hillary Clinton trys to help American's health. I think smoking is a part of environmental disruption. I stop to breath when I smell smoking because it stinks.

Ban and Veteo the most popular political words in todays society.

Ban overweight citizens and tape their mouths shut.

Ban junk food so kids and teens can be healthy.

Ban guns so people can be safe.

Ban cars run by petro vs. hybrid models so people can breath cleaner air.

Ban violence on TV, in Video Games, in Theatres to save our children.

Ban Rap and like music to protect our children from lewd language.

Ban certain religions that do not meet the required scriptures of those in power.

Ban muslims as they are presumed to be terrorists.

Ban knives, sharp objects, aerosol containers from flights to provide paying flyers safety.

Ban racist comments from public airways to preserve our moral fibre.

Veto everything that is not productive to the Republican Party.

Ya gotta love our Democratic Society. Justice and Freedom for all!

But Alcoholic Beverages are alive and well!

Senseless Insanity.

Hey Van, you can tell us all about the polls in California, she's gonna finish third in Iowa. And then, people are actually gonna pay attention, and then she's gonna start to lose that support in California. I could be very wrong about all this….but so could you.

Smokers aren't being discriminated against…they're simply not being allowed to contaminate the air shared by others in public places. I mean, if you think it's that big a deal, you could always quit.

Smokers DON'T have the right to contribute to other people's health problems as second hand smoke has been proven to do. If I want some of your smoke, I'll ask you for a drag.

No one is saying you CANT smoke, just don't make others who DON'T deal with it. Keep your ignorant behavior to yourselves. You guys are the same morons who increase the cost of everybody ELSE'S insurance and then turn around and sue tobacco companies for your own continuous stupidity when you get cancer or emphysema.

I think the next time some ignorant moron smokes in front of me (therefore making the decision FOR me that I should breathe in HIS cigarette smoke), I think I'll start picking my nose and wiping it on him.

Maybe then ignorant smokers will start getting the picture.

Typical left-winger. Democrats attempt to ban things that are "bad for us" in order to compensate for their overall lack of faith and morals. If only they had more faith in God and the individual and less in government spending, taxing, and regulation. If only everyone did.

Let's ban people with bad breath.

I can summon up Hillary Clinton in one sentence; Presumptive democratic nominee for president!
Even better, Lance-
Did you know that Hillary is ahead by THIRTY PERCENT(OMG!!!) in (say it with me) CALIFORNIA! That primary can't come too soon can it?

Van

Smoking isn't right or wrong. It's simply an option. Options and choices are freedoms we have as Americans. It's not just that smokers should be allowed to smoke. It's that everyone, you and me, are entitled to the inherent, unalienable right to smoke. It's time we give smoking the right it deserves!

Well, there goes my support for Hillary. I don't mind banning some smoking in public places, but bars and the like should only have to put in non-smoking areas. Futhermore, cigs are taxed enough. And I am about fed up with govt officials MANDATING health policies. Warnings are fine, but this is a FREE country. If you start banning cigs, then how bout carpet with thier secondary fumes? Or paneling? Or people who have had the aforementioned installed, from breathing withen 15 feet of you (secondary chemicals!). Oh, we are SO getting to be like RUSSIA !

I'd love to see an end to smoking — having lost both grandparents to lung cancer (and believe me — it is a tough way to go). But, the answer is NOT raising taxes on the product. That isn't going to stop someone with an ADDICTION from smoking. All it does is make it harder on the working poor (who are a large market for the tobacco companies).

I have a couple of suggestions for "liberal" Clinton:

1. If tobacco is so freaking bad — force tobacco companies to take it off the market. How many other industries are allowed to keep a product on the shelf where there is absolutely no safe level of usage and even non-users who happen to just be in the vicinity are exposed to harm? The fact is this will never happen. Not just because the tobacco lobby has bought enough politicians but the major reason is that all that tax revenue will have to be replaced with increased taxes in other areas and people hate politicians who raise their taxes.

2. Force the tobacco industry to at least clean up their product. Regulate them. Don't allow them to increase the level of nicotine to make it more addictive. A great deal of what is so dangerous in cigarettes isn't necessary to the product. The additives and pesticides are a major factor in the danger of smoking. While smoking itself still wouldn't be safe, it would be a whole lot safer if the product was regulated and since the industry can't be trusted to do it themselves, it means governmental regulation.

This is just political pandering on Clinton's part. Trying to appease some voters but sending a clear message to the lobby that they have nothing to fear — it will be business as usual. Clinton isn't even a real Democrat. The only priority Clinton has is getting herself elected and she'll sell out to anyone who can help her get there.

I'd love to see a woman president, but a REAL woman — not a woman who is trying to ooze more testosterone than the male candidates by being a war hawk and helping to usher in a police state in the US. I hope women won't feel pressured to vote for her just to try to break the glass ceiling. We need it broken — but the stakes are just too high right now to break it with the wrong woman. And Clinton is definitely the wrong woman.

If a corporation produced a children's cereal with addictive ingredients, should parents feel free to serve it to their kids? If a corporation produced an addictive perfume, should women be allowed to wear it? If a hamburger chain produced curly fries with an addictive ingredient, would that be ok? Of course not.

A simple solution offers itself. Require all tobacco products to be nicotine free. This will separate the addicts from those who just like a good smoke. If cigarettes cost $50 or $100 a pack, smokers would be breaking into our houses and stealing our stereos to support their habit, just like other junkies.

Those individuals who speak of our right to damage our own health have a point though. The medical bill for all those fatsos out there will be enormous. The health of obese people deteriorates steadily. Should we outlaw fat? Round up all those chubbos and put them in boot camp environments until they are healthy again? Ditto for alcohol. We can predict that drinkers will cost the public a fortune in health care, car repairs, road repairs, etc. etc.

A lot of people do self-destructuve things that the public will end up paying for. Telling people to buck up and develop some will power has not worked for the last hundred years, but if we keep doing the same thing, maybe the problem will go away.

Smoking isn't right or wrong. It's simply an option. Options and choices are freedoms we have as Americans. It's not just that smokers should be allowed to smoke. It's that everyone, you and I, are entitled to the inherent, unalienable right to smoke. It's time we give smoking the right it deserves!

It isn't defined here exactly what "public smoking" means. Is it smoking any place someone might be exposed to smoke, or any place someone might see someone else smoking? Some parks have smoking bans. Does Clinton support a ban on smoking on any public property outside since this is in the public. Would smoking on a college campus be banned? Would smoking be allowed in your own fenced yard?

You can argue that no one would choose to die prematurely. Particularly since tobacco is an addictive substance and many people would have a hard time choosing to quit. It is as though tobacco takes away free will. But does banning smoking take away a right to choose? MY RIGHT to choose?

Clinton supports the right of a woman to choose an ABORTION (I put this in bold only to catch the eye of casual readers, it is not meant as an internet shout), so clearly the right to choose, even if others find the choice an unwise, even horrifying choice, can be defended. Why shouldn't I be able to have a choice? If a woman can choose to have her own unborn child terminated, why in the world can't I choose to smoke a cigarette! Which is more detrimental to health!

Jon, Woburn, MA- You can't compare banning fast food, banning video games, and talk radio to public smoking because all three of those only affect the person who eats, plays, or listens to it. Smoking affects everybody around the smoker and second hand smoking has been scientifically proven to be just as hazardous to those around the smoker. If everybody chewed instead of smoked i'm sure the argument wouldn't be as large. And for anybody who says smoking is a right, it's not, it's a privelidge earned when you turn the age of eighteen and can be taken away if abused, just like drinking if you drink and drive.

I agree with Andy in regard to Kim in St. Louis? What did the comment have to do with the subject?

Ah, the smoking ban subject again. Let this be clear, brief exposure to secondhand smoke poses no health risk. Do the research please. Working in a restaurant and inhaling smoke for prolonged periods of time can pose a health risk. What we are forgetting is that we have a choice. I am a non-smoker and I do feel smoking should not be allowed in public buildings such as offices and government buildings. Restaurants, bars, pubs, casinos etc… these should be the choice of the owner. Don't like the smoke where you wait tables? Tough. Work somewhere else. What needs to be controlled is the chemicals put into processed tabacco. These are the real dangers in the smoke that comes from it. I've got a feeling that amonia and arsenic(sp?) are not naturally accuring substances in tabacco. So while we sit here as hammer it home to all these smokers we watch our children go to school and eat prepackaged food stuffed full of preservatives and other unsavory additives. We take them to fast foods joints because it's easy and allow constant mindless entertainment to relieve us of our parenting skills. Then we wonder why our youth is overweight, unhealthy and has no attention span. Go on and make a huge deal over smoking. That Big Mac and those video games will cost you must more than a cigarette hanging off someone else's mouth. We need to get over ourselves and leave other people alone. There are obvious places to not smoke and most smokers know that. It has been my experience that the majority of smokers do not smoke in there own homes. Making smoking illegal will be amusing at best. We are too young to know prohibition but by all accounts it was laughable. The government did nothing except make criminals. In short, I'm tired of extreme left and right thinking they know what is good for all of us. You know who you are, stop pretending, everyone sees right through you. I know you also doubt your own positions. This is a society you morons. Take care of your own before you throw stones. I now open the floor to the radicals. Please make it good as I have probably heard your rantings many times over.

Finally, A breath of fresh air

That one is rare in Politics, usually the same old smell.

I guess the Tobacco Money didn't sway her vote.

Smoking isn't right or wrong. It's simply an option. Options and choices are freedoms we have as Americans. It's not just that smokers should be allowed to smoke. It's that everyone, you and me, are entitled to the inherent, unalienable right to smoke a cigar or cigarette. It's time we give smoking the right it deserves!

ALTHOUGH PEOPLE IN COLORADO COMPLAIN ABOUT HAVING TO LEAVE A PUBLIC PLACE TO SMOKE, FEW HAVE KICKED THE HABIT. ANYHOW, THE AIR INSIDE THE BUILDING IS MUCH CLEANER TO EVERYONES BENEFIT

If smoking is eliminated or taxed out of existence, I don't want to hear the non smoking zealots complain about how their other taxes are raised to make up for the over $48 billion in annual taxes now generated by the tobacco industry and US smokers.

Mrs Clinton is talking about banning cigars only. She doesn't like cigars and doesn't want Mr. Clinton, her husband, to use them.

Liberals don't want to ban smoking. Ani-smoking crusaders want to ban smoking. I am a liberal, who smokes and she just lost my vote. That's not liberalism, that's nannyism. And as far as public smoking goes, anywhere outdoors where there is a running car, or a building burning trash or running an a/c, there should be smoking. You cannot possibly die from occasionally inhaling a tiny bit of smoke in an open air situation.

I agree with eliminating smoking from bars, restaurants, airplanes, hotels and other enclosed places, but get [...]off our backs for having one outside. Sanctimonious jerks.

And stop equating it to murder. If you think it's that dangerous, you shouldn't even leave the house considering your power probably comes from a coal plant belching far more smoke into the atmosphere daily than all the smokers combined.

Andy writes: “Less govt = Less govt spending”

A University of California economics study puts the combined health care costs of smoking in the U.S. at $72.7 billion per year. Here’s the story:

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/1998/0916/smoking.html

Sometimes less costs us a lot more.

Here's an idea, let's ban the left-wing Hillary machine!

Actually smoking is not an inherent right. It does not say in the Constitution an individual has the right to smoke unfettered. Smoking is a privilege just like driving a car is a privilege. Whether or not an individual can smoke in a public building should be up to each state dictated by the desires of the state's citizens. There are issues the federal government should leave up to states, smoking being one.

Arizona passed a state wide law barring smoking inside any public building, including bars and restaurants. Many people likened the law to banning smoking. The reality is the smoker still has the luxury of smoking. They just can't do it in a public building.

It is unfortunate that people have to smoke outside when it's 115 degrees but the smoker also has the option of quitting. Imagine all the money they would save by doing so.

Hillary does sound like a tax and spend democrat with her proposed tax increase on cigarettes. Typical for a Democrat.

I never could understand the logic behind this. If a person is around someone smoking POT, they DO NOT get a contact high or WILL TEST POSITIVE for THC. It can't happen. So how will second hand smoke give some one a CONTACT CANCER or TEST HIGH FOR CANCER! This is all a B/S excuse and manipulation for others that DON'T HAVE A CLUE!! Find another agenda. STOP ALL ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION !!! It is now and always has been the number 1 gateway drug for addiction. In our neck of the woods, we call in EVERYONE that has ANY KIND of a drink before they get in a vehicle and drive. Even those GOOBERS that say "I ONLY HAD ONE DRINK" or "I WAS JUST A GLASS OF WINE". Those are just an excuse to drink and drive and possibly kill someone.

I guess she is against smoking after what her husband did with his cigar.

To the lady Senator: At least death from smoking is a 'choice' for the afflicted one. Why can't she let each person choose for themself? Ofcourse, anyone with a track record of letting 'live' humans die without a 'choice', like the aborted baby, could hardly be expected to refrain from 'choosing' for the adult as well. She may next try to be annointed as a Goddess.

I dont smoke ,but respect the right of those who do. It's not as if you see pollution from smokers. What exactly are they doing that's so wrong?

Smoking isn't right or wrong. It's simply an option. Smokers are entitled to the same rights as everyone else. It's time we give smokers the rights they deserve!

Yes. Banning fast food will be a good day for America. banning video games will be a good day for America. Banning talk radio will be a good day for America.

Banning everything until America is dead and buried will be a good day for Liberals only.

Hillary Clinton\

I can sum up Hillary Clinton's experience quite succinctly.

1980's = Board of Directors for WalMart.

1990's = Horribly botched an attempt at universal healthcare.

2003 = Voted to go to war in Iraq.
Versus Obama's experience.

2003 = Said Iraq was a "dumb war" when it was political suicide to say it.
2006 = co-sponsered and passed first ethics reform bill in 12 years of Republican congress.

1990's = State Senator that signed more bi-partisan bills than anyone else, 230 bills.

1980's First African American editor of Harvard Law Review, who turned down 17 job offers from corporations that would have paid at least 170,000 a year salary, to instead be a community organizer on behalf of the poor for 14,000 a year.

Which one of these two do you think is more qualified to represent the American People?

Obama 08.

It's been observed that a quirk of human nature causes low IQ people to WANT to be deceived. That's what makes the Tobacco War and Hitlery possible.

Two-digit IQ people are one individual away from being a majority. God help us all.

Hillary will turn this into a true Nanny state. We need less government intrusions not more.

Increasing taxes on legal smokers, who is next, red meat eaters, people that like an occasional twinkie or holy bleep, people that don't chew sugarless gum?

The "I know what's best for you" crowd and if it doesn't move, "tax it" crowd must be drooling over her candidacy.

sure it'll be a great day in America, but what about when it begins to affect the farmers who have grown tobacco all their lives?

JUST ANOTHER POLITICAL MOVE……

OUTLAW Self Righteous too.

Next is drinking ,ice cream, fat people, religious freaks, sex(see
Bill Clinton), and then LOVE.

This is one step closer to Russia.

WAKE UP DREAMERS……

One more thing here, Hillary has led a life of lies and politics lets get someone who works everyday at a real job and is in a real relationship.

This time do what you promised us Hillary. Health Care???

Great post, Isaac

I wish congress would just make cigarettes illegal in this country. It causes cancer. It's worse than alcohol yet safer than marijuana.

Doesn't Willy like cigars?!

Hilary becoming President will be a good day in America!

IMPEACH BUSH & CHENEY NOW…..
Posted By Wende, OKC, OK : August 27, 2007 2:59 pm
limiting individual freedoms is the reason we should have hillary in? so what would be the difference between bush-cheney, and bush-cheney lite? i'm not a smoker, but this is absurd. and no matter who was saying it, i'd still have the same response.

The Republicans attack privacy rights, the Dems attack personal liberties. It's these "nanny state" issues that really prevent me from wholeheartedly supporting the Democrats and why I'll skip voting for the first time in my life if Hillary's nominated. When will the calls for censorship of music, film and video games start? What choices we have in this country…

Also, I could be wrong, but by saying "public places," it doesn't sound restricted to indoor facilities. Does that include if you want to have a smoke walking down the street or outdoors in a park? If so, it's all the more ridiculous as the damage caused by the pollution that I breathe from cars every day far surpasses the damage done by outdoor 2nd hand smoke.

Um, everyone realizes what's going on here, right? When a national health care plan is rolled out, and it's going to happen, smoking will be banned. Then, a few other things will be banned, like trans fat was in NY. The higher the taxes go, the more people will still pay to smoke, so they'll tell you that it's for your own good that they're outlawing it, so it will save them money from medical bills that they'll be paying. I mean, I'm sorry, the medical bills that your grandchildren will be paying for when this country goes totally bankrupt.

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa (AP) — John Edwards and Hillary Rodham Clinton tussled over accepting campaign contributions from powerful health care groups Monday at a forum on cancer that attracted four Democratic hopefuls.

Each candidate spoke separately at the Iowa event, with Edwards and Clinton focused on the ongoing debate among the party's top-tier rivals over accepting campaign donations from lobbyists.

Clinton has refused to forsake such donations. Edwards doesn't accept money directly from federal lobbyists, but he is not above benefiting from the broader lobbying community, accepting money from firms that have lobbying operations.
Clinton defended her decision to accept campaign contributions from health care groups, saying she has a long track record of fighting for national health care that demonstrates she's not influenced by special interest giving.

I want to know if Hillary has ever accepted money from the tobacco lobby.

Thanks for taking care of me, Mrs. Government. I can't do a thing without you here by my side. All that will soon be left is for our government to show up at our houses to wipe our butt for us since we can't be trusted with the responsibility to take care of ourselves.

Thank you, nanny government. Thank you!

This is in response to Isaac in Louisville, KY. You're right, my right to swing a fist does stop at anothers nose.

As such, it is your right to not go to a restaurant or other establishment that allows smoking. With that though comes the right of others to chose to go to such. If you want to have a smoke-free bar, for instance, buy a bar and make it smoke-free. Do not however, insist that others that do not think as you do, must do so.

Hillary would be an advocate for NABLA if she thought it would get her votes.

I'm going to start swinging my arms wildly and walk directly at a smoker, if he doesn't get out of the way it's his own fault for getting beaten up…

Kim in St. Louis,

What does your comment have to do with the above post? Was President Bush fooling people into smoking?

Less govt = Less govt spending.

Who gives a damn if I smoke outside. Mind your own business instead of minding mine. Try to think BIGGER.
I don't drink. To follow your logic, no one should drink around me because it is soooo dangerous. You might hurt someone.

That's right smokers are voters too. Making us pay higher taxes is just wrong and discriminates against us. I try very hard not to bother people with my smoking. So, why treat me with disrespect?
I don't mind not smoking in public building but I DO MIND PAYING MORE TAXES THEN OTHERS JUST BECAUSE I SMOKE. Smoking isn't about quiting over money, it's an addition. Do drug addicts quit when the dealer raises his price? If it were only that easy we wouldn't be having this conversation. All I'm saying is I won't blow smoke around you and you don't steal my money.
Thanks HC for pointing out another reason not to vote for you.

Hillary really just wants to ban cigars in the Oval Office

This will be a very good day for America, but a bad one for white trash.

Smoking is idiotic and harmful– just ban it already.

I have asthma and I suffer when I am around smokers. I cannot avoid them. I spend over a thousand dollars a year because the smoke causes me to have trouble breathing. The smokers don't care who they hurt. It is time they get hurt in the pocket book for hurting other people

" where your smoking causes harm to the health of others.

Really, if one thinks about it, smoking in public places amounts to a very slow form of homicide (that culminates in a very horrible death). So, while anyone is free to drink antifreeze, no one in this country has the right to force another person to do so."

Bullhockey. The secondhand-smoke scam remains as unsupported by actual evidence as it was when Kessler came up with his original cooked-statistics study. By bogusly converting 'you annoy me' into 'you harm me' the health Nazis get another round of oppressive laws.

I wonder if Hillary has accepted money from the tobacco lobbyists? She is a hypocrite!

Smokers have as much a "right" to have their smoke waft into my eyes and mouth as they have to splash their urine on my person.

She'd like to ban her husband's cigars!!!

I have always been VERY proud – and shocked – that Americans have stopped smoking. Thank you, and keep up the good work!

She also wants to ban her husband's cigars!!!

You go Hillary. Just a few more years and you'll stop those people from living their lives as they want! That's what America is all about! I hope you'll start telling me what to eat and drink as well, as I'm pretty clueless over here.

Should just out law smoking then they can go and Tax some thing else

Either out law it or leave it alone – - I don't need the nanny police

No one's right to smoke is in danger.

Just as "Your right to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose", your right to smoke stops in places and situations where your smoking causes harm to the health of others.

Really, if one thinks about it, smoking in public places amounts to a very slow form of homicide (that culminates in a very horrible death). So, while anyone is free to drink antifreeze, no one in this country has the right to force another person to do so.

If you enjoy sniffing glue, more power to you. However, you do NOT have the right to take a bowl of the stuff to a family restaurant, arguing that it is well within your rights to do so DESPITE the fact that the smelly stuff is quickly filling up the entire dining area and killing the brains cells of EVERYONE ELSE TOO (people who have no interest in sniffing glue because of its ridiculousness and harmfulness).

Typical overgovernment regulation by another who thinks you cshould baby us cradle to grave, it is the power of government to limit itself and give the power back to the people. It is not th etobacco but the addictive additives added, why not legalize herbs for medicinal value, and walk away from mandating my life.

Hillary now threatens the right to smoke?How about the right to breathe?Do you oppose that right? Please,restricting smoking only affects the few so addicted that they might as well quit anyway.

Thank you Hill…I WAS on the fence between you and Obama…Big "O" get's my vote now.

Signed,
Tired of the Big Nanny Government.

PS: Hill, put that in your Presidential Campaigning pipe and smoke it.

Smoking taxes are just another fine example of un-Constitutional taxation imposed upon this country by the loons in Congress. The whole idea of one group of people being taxed to pay for health insurance for poor people is absurd.

The founding fathers never intended for taxation to work like this and it is about time Congress started following the Constitutional guidelines for taxation.

As a smoker, I'd have to say 'Hillary, please put down what you're smoking and return to reality'. As a smoker that believes in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I'd have to say 'Hillary, please put down what you're smoking, return to reality, and quit trying to mess with peoples rights again'.

Interesting that someone can find a way to bring Bush into a conversation about this story.

Not belonging to any political party, from time to time Clinton says something I identify with. In this case, employing the "Your right to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose" argument, I think a clear and powerful argument can be made for outlawing smoking in public places. Any move like this might require building lots of new smoking areas, though.

I suppose the biggest question would be: Why would Clinton make a statement like this? It seems that any benefit would be small, but the potential losses are great. A large percentage of America's smokers are registered Democrats. I'm not certain if a statement like this would cause a Clinton supporter to switch their support to Obama or Edwards, but I don't see it helping her.

Regardless of the political implications, I do believe smoking is on its way out. In this country it's only a matter of time before something as indefensible smoking in public places, something that could be likened to a very slow and subtle form of homicide (with selfish obliviousness substituted for motive), is dealt with.

In America, the free world, we are supposed to be able to do essentially whatever we wish to… provided it doesn't hurt another person or trample their rights.

But your right to smoke infringes on my right to live happily. Because i sure don't like getting lung cancer because of someone elses folly. Especially when they know what they are doing. Smoking doesn't only effect you, it effects those around you. So as are as your constitutional right to smoke, thats debatable.

Hillary can't control her man who sleeps around…but she wants to be Big Sister of America and curb smokers……What a joke she is.

Senator Clinton needs to remember smokers vote too, and are getting pretty sick of being discriminated against, and taxed to death. This is a free country right? All rights need to be preseved including our right to smoke!!!!!!!!!

So Hillary wants to raise taxes on cigarettes, for your own good… Leave it to the dems to find new reasons to raise taxes. Any taxes will do..

What's next? Coffee, tea, candy anyone?? And where is that exercise tax? Its only fair to those of us who do and are in good health because of it, right…., Hillary?

Or is this just another meaningless promise from a do nothing Senator??

Disclaimer: This Post contains heavy sarcasm.

Hey Hilary, how IS that war in Iraq that you voted for going these days? Oh?! SMoking ban!?!? way to go hil! USA! USA! USA! The land where freedoms are stipped from you daily!! Go hilary, really tackling the problems and social injustices around the world with her tea party EXPERIENCE! yeah! america is perfect now that smoking is banned!

Hilary becoming President will be a good day in America!

This is yet another reason why she is the best choice for President!

IMPEACH BUSH & CHENEY NOW…..

A good day in America will be when Hilary Clinton is annouced President of the United States!

This is just another reason to vote for her! She is wonderful!

I wonder if Hillary has every accepted money from a tobacco lobbyist? Personally, as an ex-smoker (two packs a day), I dont even like to be around places where there is smoking these days. But to ban it in all public places seems to be an abuse of power. How would you enforce that? Smoking police? Shouldnt our police officers be catching those that murder, rape, steal, etc.?

To take away the one of the freedoms we enjoy is not the way our founding fathers would have envisioned the world of today. Besides, more than a few were tobbacco farmers, so they might have had a personal issue with this type of govt. interference.

What's next, banning trans fat? oh yeah, they already have done that in some places.

Ban red meat? Oh yeah, there are groups that want that done too.

Ban anything deemed "bad for you"? Its not that far off if we keep letting the govt micro-manage our lives and businesses.

P.S. I do think that smoking is a nasty habbit, and people should quit on their own, not by a govt. action.

I wonder.. are the anti-republicans (who accuse conservatives of controlling the rights of others) bothered by Hillary's statements?

"A national ban on smoking was impractical because of local zoning laws"… "We'll eventually get there".

What's next on your list of prohibition, Hillary? Alcohol and Firearms?

I'm sure she is also trying to tell people about Obama's former smoking habit. The senator from New York is currently suffering from diarrhea of the mouth…

Nice. Sen. Clinton is in favor of a police state.

To Kim from St. Louis, what does a proposed supporting a public smoking ban have to do with President Bush? Oh yeah, absolutely NOTHING.

I thought smoking was legal in our country. we are blurring the lines between legal and healthy…. If we go down that road… I'd like to hear the presidential wantabes, talk about unhealthy eatting habits…..lwts charged double for fries or candy etc….. I am tired of the double standards for the feelgood hot buttoms and sound bites the media uses to help an election.

Meanwhile the morbidly obese person curses out the thin smoker for killing them slowly with second-hand smoke… when are people going to realize that smoking isn't the problem… if it's such a big deal, ban it in this country… obesity is 100 times the bigger issue and it's being swept under the rug

Way to go Hil!!!

Yes! Finally someone who will prevent me from having to walk by people who smoke outside of public places. It smells awful, and I don't want to smoke–if I did I would have my own cigarette lit.

Doesn't Obama smoke?

Van

I'm a Democrat and I've been quietly waiting in the wings, taking in all the information, and then making my decision about where my volunteer work and support will go.

These comments DO NOT help Clinton in my opinion. They're definitely pushing me in another direction. While I'm not a smoker, I believe that smokers have the right to light up.

Bad call, Hillary. She needs to stay away from those Bush-like, Gestapo-like comments.

Yea. We tried controlling drug usage back in the 20's. Gave rise to the "Smoke Easy's" or something like that. Must have worked. Have't heard anything about'em since.

As a bar/clubgoer I'm happy about smoking bans. Boston is 100x better place to go out in when you don't have to dryclean everything you wear after going out one night (and detox your lungs) after being at a bar for a few hours.

I don't like it any more whenever I have to walk into a building and there's a huge crowd outside smoking. It's just not nice to other people around you. We don't consume alcohol on the streets, why do you need to smoke on the streets?

Legalize it. Yes, IT.

Yeah, tell that to the smokers.

I think Abraham Lincoln wrote this about George Bush: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.