Here is information on all remaining presidential candidates (Clinton, Obama, McCain, Romney, Huckabee, and Paul) from their records concerning the smoking issue.

We can all make up our own minds. We’ve been lied to, stolen from, told what to do, and used by anyone with an agenda quite enough as it is.


Hillary Clinton

We know the gig --

“Hillary's Midas Mandates” (excellent article on tobacco views and pharma ties)
http://www.forces.org/Forces_Articles/article_viewer.php?id=517


Barack Obama

What will this recent ex-smoker do --

Obama his own words on smoking bans (Hillary Clinton also):
http://www.forces.org/Multimedia_Portal/index.php?selection=21

S. 625: Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act -- co-sponsored by Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-625


John McCain

This as much I could stand to look at regarding McCain on this subject --

"The aides note that despite their political differences, Kerry and McCain … worked together on tobacco-control legislation."
www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/04/06/for_kerr...ill_as_running_mate/

"Related is McCain's view of government as national nanny. He has crusaded against the tobacco companies..."
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11231

"McCain … is also as good as any mainstream Democrat on issues like gun control and fighting tobacco..."
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0205.green.html

The full articles for the following three references are not available without registration or fee:

Many advocates of tobacco control, most notably former surgeon general C. ... the global settlement — which was sponsored by Senator John McCain (R-Ariz. ...content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/350/3/293?ijkey=wu2XDA.y8UygU&keytype=ref&siteid=nejm

For years, including during the fight over the McCain tobacco control ... for Tobacco-Free Kids Washington, DC- Senators Bill Frist and John McCain today ...www.tobaccofreekids.org/search.php?zoom_query=mccain&zoom_page=3&zoom_per_page=10&zoom_and=1... - 21k

US Senator John McCain (Republican from Arizona), who led the recent fight for comprehensive tobacco control legislation in the US Senate, invoking his ...tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/7/3/304


Mitt Romney

Romney as Governor who inherited the Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program and its inevitable push to a statewide ban --

“…then-Governor Jane Swift (R) repeatedly cut funding for tobacco prevention …. In FY2002, she issued an executive order "freezing" $17 million of the $48 million appropriated by the Legislature over her veto, leaving funding of $31 million…. but three subsequent rounds of cuts by Gov. Swift reduced funding to just $4.8 million...

In 2003, the Legislature approved $2.5 million in funding for the program but then-Governor Mitt Romney vetoed this budget and proposed the program be funded at $1.7 million. The Legislature overrode the Governor's veto and restored funding to $2.5 million. Similarly, in FY2005, Governor Romney proposed the program be funded at $2.5 million, but the Legislature overrode the Governor's veto and funded the program at $3.75 million….” http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/reports/settlements/state.php?StateID=MA

“Governor Mitt Romney's office said last night that it would review the ban if passed by the Legislature, but did not commit to supporting it. Earlier in the year, a spokesman for Romney had said the governor preferred to leave such measures to cities and towns to decide.” http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2003/10/21/ho...r_backs_smoking_ban/

“The House of Representatives … 125-to-25 vote appeared to make the ban immune to a veto from Governor Mitt Romney, who had said earlier in the year that he preferred to leave smoking laws to individual cities and towns, but whose administration now says it is willing to consider a statewide ban.” http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2003/10/23/vo...lose_to_smoking_ban/

“Gov. Mitt Romney announced yesterday he will sign the statewide smoking ban ….
"Gov. Romney believes this is an important public health initiative,"
Feddeman said. "People have a right to breathe clean air, be free from
second-hand smoke and the serious health problems associated with it."
http://www.ucsf.edu/its/listserv/stanglantz-l/0156.html


Mike Huckabee

Started 2008 Campaign openly in favor of a national ban –

Great research on Mike Huckabee compiled by NYC C.L.A.S.H. http://www.nycclash.com/Vote2008.html

This video also provided --
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch1SZQUNEu0

Recently changed official position saying he is no longer in favor of national ban (also more about other candidates in this article) --
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/huckabee-about-face...king-2008-01-16.html


Ron Paul

Could be "only his hairdresser" knows for sure --

Antis think Ron Paul is probably on their side because he said –

“The air can certainly be identified. If you have a mill next door to me, you don't have a right to pollute my air -- that can be properly defined by property rights.”
http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/10/16/paul/

Ron Paul also said –

"When all forms of physical trespass, be that smoke, particulate matter, etc., are legally recognized for what they are -- a physical trespass upon the property and rights of another ... "
http://greenpieceblog.blogspot.com/2007/10/ron-pauls-environmental-q.html


Contrary to all Ron Paul’s characteristic views on private property, individual liberties, and states’ rights was his answer of “yes” when an interviewer asked, “Would you support a private healthcare approach that rewards behavior that promotes moral lifestyles-- that is, avoiding alcohol and tobacco consumption, as well as obesity reduction, exercise and nutrition that promotes health?”
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Health_Care.htm

From those who see him on our side, the following three statements have been attributed to Ron Paul –

1. “…if you want to smoke a cigar the federal government says you can’t…”
This statement is not exactly true. Apart from the implicit requirement of cigar smokers to refrain on House airplanes, in federal buildings, military property, and the White House, the federal government has no policies to speak of on cigar smoking.

2. “… if you want to regulate tobacco, that should be up to the states…”
This statement is not accurate. Tobacco commerce is an interstate enterprise which regulation is constitutionally granted to congress (federal).

3. “Dr. Paul believes that as president he would have no constitutional authority over such bans…” This statement is not at all true. At the very least, a president would have authority to act on bans just described under the first quoted statement in this section

Check out Mitt Romney's universal health care reform results:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped...alth_reform_failure/

Has anyone seen McCain's commercial? At the beginning, there's a brief clip of him smoking during Vietnam...Here's a photo of him from wikipedia:
McCain smoking

Notice the pack of Marlboros and ashtray?

Wonder if that's an underhanded way to try get smokers votes? Once he quit, he bacame pretty anti-smoker, I thought. Same old crap-if he doesn't see it anywhere, he won't want one. There's NOTHING worse than an ex-smoker.

I predict that in 2 to 3 years there will be a nation-wide ban on smoking in public places. for the sake of the workers and kids, of course.

Here is why; none of the presidential candidates are actually pro-smoking.

The Pelosi/Reid congress is definitately anti-smoking.

There are about 25 states with one form or another of smoking bans.

Congress will mandate a national ban,with exemptions,and then mandate a total ban.

Here,we look at a little history concerning alcohol.(Emphasis added by me)

http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/00492/Prohibition_Laws.htm

In 1735, the first statewide prohibition began in the state of Georgia. This was a complete failure and was quickly abandoned seven years later, in 1742.

In 1851, Maine was the 2nd state in the history of America to attempt a statewide prohibition, and it turned out to be a major success. By 1855, 12 other states had joined Maine in becoming dry.

These were the first successful alcohol Prohibition laws passed in the United States.

In 1917, the 18th amendment was proposed to ban the sale and manufacture of liquor. Many states did not agree with this view, so it remained in debate for 2 years.

By 1920, 33 states had voted themselves dry, and the movement for national prohibition was passed. The prohibition party had finally won its' biggest victory yet.

January 29, 1919. The 18th Amendment was ratified and all hard liquor with over 40% alcohol content (drinks over 80 proof) were banned. Officially, it banned the “manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors…for beverage purposes.”

Many people supported this act, thinking that it was only banning hard liquors, and thinking that a glass of wine with dinner or a beer after work would be fine. The Amendment took effect one year later on January 29, 1920.

However, in October of 1919, the Volstead Act was passed. The Volstead Act banned all alcohol that had more than 1/2% alcohol content. This effectively banned all forms of alcoholic beverages, with the exception of some non-alcoholic beers.

After the 18th amendment was ratified, the Volstead Act was brought into the light by the Prohibition supporters.

Many of the original supporters of the 18th amendment who just wanted a little wine now and then were left empty handed. Many of these supporters felt betrayed, as anyone would be.

I am not certain how the Pelosi/Reid congress will fit the S-CHIP bill into this;but,they will try.

Shamelessly stolen from Free Republic:

AND NOW FOR THE REST OF THE STORY: Hillary Rodham Clinton, as a New York State Senator, now comes under the “Congressional Retirement and Staffing Plan,” which means that even if she never gets reelected, she STILL receives her Congressional salary until she dies.(Would it not be nice if all Americans were pension eligible after only 4 years?) If Bill outlives her, he then inherits HER salary until HE dies. He is already getting his Presidential salary until he dies. If Hillary outlives Bill, she also gets HIS salary until she dies. Guess who pays for that? It’s common knowledge that in order for her to establish NY residency, they purchased a million dollar-plus house in upscale Chappaqua, New York. Makes sense. They are entitled to Secret Service protection for life. Still makes sense. Here is where it becomes interesting. Their mortgage payments hover at around $10,000 per month. BUT, an extra residence HAD to be built within the acreage to house the Secret Service agents. The Clintons charge the Federal government $10,000 monthly rent for the use of that extra residence, which is just about equal to their mortgage payment. This means that we, the taxpayers, are paying the Clinton’s salary, mortgage, transportation, safety and security, as well as the salaries for their 12 man staff — and, this is all perfectly legal! Who pays for this? WE DO. Now that she’s running for President, will you vote for her? How many People can you get this to?

WAKE UP AMERICA

There has been a Bush or a Clinton in the White House for twenty eight years, to date.
Beginning with Bush, Sr. as vice prez in 1980.
Concievably, that could be 36 years, total, twenty years of Bushes and sixteen years of Clintons. Plus the set up you have described in your post, sounds a lot like royalty, to me. Queen Hillary and King William, and Princess Chelsea...

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Maxine,