August 27th, 2007
01:50 PM ET
3 years ago

Clinton: public smoking ban a 'good day for America'

WASHINGTON (CNN) - New York Sen. Hillary Clinton promised to fight to reduce smoking during an appearance at Lance Armstrong’s presidential forum on Monday. The presidential hopeful also said she thinks smoking should be banned from public places.

"Well, personally I think so," Clinton said when asked if banning smoking in public in public places would be a "good day for America."

Calling tobacco an "an addictive, deadly substance," Clinton said the FDA should be able to regulate tobacco products and advertising for cigarettes. She said a national ban on smoking was impractical because of local zoning laws, but said it's possible to further limit it by increasing taxes and prices for cigarettes.

"We'll eventually get there," she said. "We're lowering the rate of smoking now, and I think over the next decade we'll really push it way down."

–CNN Associate Producer Lauren Kornreich


Filed under: Hillary Clinton
soundoff (110 Responses)
  1. A New Obama Supporter, Anytown, AZ, USA

    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.

    August 27, 2007 03:30 pm at 3:30 pm |
  2. Ed,Ellenville,New York

    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.

    August 27, 2007 03:31 pm at 3:31 pm |
  3. Mark G., Boothbay ME

    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.

    August 27, 2007 03:32 pm at 3:32 pm |
  4. Isaac, Louisville, KY

    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).

    August 27, 2007 03:32 pm at 3:32 pm |
  5. Michael I Minnesota

    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

    August 27, 2007 03:34 pm at 3:34 pm |
  6. Mike, NY

    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.

    August 27, 2007 03:35 pm at 3:35 pm |
  7. Dan Lagrangeville, NY

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

    August 27, 2007 03:35 pm at 3:35 pm |
  8. jondoe, atlanta

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

    August 27, 2007 03:37 pm at 3:37 pm |
  9. Dan, Lagrangeville NY

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

    August 27, 2007 03:40 pm at 3:40 pm |
  10. Marshall, New York NY

    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.

    August 27, 2007 03:40 pm at 3:40 pm |
  11. Anon.

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

    August 27, 2007 03:45 pm at 3:45 pm |
  12. Bill, Richmond, Virginia

    " 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.

    August 27, 2007 03:45 pm at 3:45 pm |
  13. Richard, Columbia, SC

    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

    August 27, 2007 03:45 pm at 3:45 pm |
  14. Joe, Boulder, CO

    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.

    August 27, 2007 03:51 pm at 3:51 pm |
  15. Jim, Passaic, NJ

    Hillary really just wants to ban cigars in the Oval Office

    August 27, 2007 03:52 pm at 3:52 pm |
  16. Cathy Turtletown Tn

    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.

    August 27, 2007 03:52 pm at 3:52 pm |
  17. Barclay, Dallas, Texas

    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.

    August 27, 2007 03:54 pm at 3:54 pm |
  18. Andy

    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.

    August 27, 2007 03:57 pm at 3:57 pm |
  19. Ken, San Fran, CA

    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...

    August 27, 2007 03:59 pm at 3:59 pm |
  20. John

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

    August 27, 2007 04:03 pm at 4:03 pm |
  21. D. Colorado Springs, CO

    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.

    August 27, 2007 04:09 pm at 4:09 pm |
  22. Lee

    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!

    August 27, 2007 04:10 pm at 4:10 pm |
  23. Anny

    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.

    August 27, 2007 04:13 pm at 4:13 pm |
  24. Aaron, Bondurant, IA

    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.

    August 27, 2007 04:13 pm at 4:13 pm |
  25. Ryan, New York, NY

    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.

    August 27, 2007 04:17 pm at 4:17 pm |
1 2 3 4 5