Echoing misleading NY Post headline, Drudge reported that Clinton "supports national smoking ban"
SUMMARY: Linking to a New York Post article, whose headline asserted, "Hill Eyes National Cig Curb," Matt Drudge wrote "Hillary Supports National Smoking Ban." In fact, as the Post article noted, "Asked whether the feds should impose a nationwide ban, Clinton deferred to local governments."
For its August 28 article on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) comments about anti-smoking laws at the August 27 Livestrong Presidential Cancer Forum, the New York Post used the misleading headline, "Hill Eyes National Cig Curb," to which Internet gossip Matt Drudge later posted a link with the headline: "Hillary Supports National Smoking Ban." In fact, when asked during the forum whether she would support the federal government "outlaw[ing] smoking in public places nationally," Clinton asserted: "I think the way that we're proceeding is probably the smarter way right now, which is locality, community, state." Indeed, the Post article noted in its final paragraph that, "[a]sked whether the feds should impose a nationwide ban, Clinton deferred to local governments."
During the forum, moderator and MSNBC host Chris Matthews asked: "Senator Clinton, would the day that America banned smoking in public places be a good day for America?" Clinton responded: "Well, personally, I think so -- and that's what a lot of local communities and states are starting to do, Chris." Matthews then asked: "[C]an you do that at the federal government, outlaw smoking in public places nationally and would you support something like that?" Clinton replied:
CLINTON: You know, Chris, I think the way that we're proceeding is probably the smarter way right now, which is locality, community, state, and the reason for that is that a lot of it depends upon local laws and regulations like zoning.
[...]
CLINTON: You know, the federal government has never gotten into that, but what I do think we can do is a much more aggressive outreach. That's why I favor the FDA being able to regulate advertising about nicotine and tobacco products, and we're going to push through, I hope, a bill to get that done. So, we'll have a lot of different forces moving all at the same time to really limit it, increase the excise tax, increase the cost of cigarettes. We'll eventually get there. We're lowering the rate of smoking now, and I think, over the next decade we'll really push it way down.
Full text of the New York Post article:
Hillary Clinton lavished praise on New York City's tough anti-smoking laws yesterday -- and said she supports smoking bans in public places across the country.
Asked at an Iowa forum on cancer whether banning smoking in public places would be good for America, Clinton replied, "Well, personally, I think so. And that's what a lot of local communities and states are starting to do."
Clinton noted that when New York's smoking ban was being considered, critics claimed, "Oh, that's the end of, you know, the bars and restaurants in New York City."
But she boasted, "We are now having more business than ever before, because a lot of people who stayed away from going out are now going out again, because they feel like they can enjoy their time outside."
Asked whether the feds should impose a nationwide ban, Clinton deferred to local governments.
From the 11 a.m. ET hour of the August 27 edition of MSNBC Live:
MATTHEWS: Senator Clinton, would the day that America banned smoking in public places be a good day for America?
CLINTON: Well, personally, I think so -- and that's what a lot of local communities and states are starting to do, Chris. You know, when some of the cities -- a big city like New York City said we're going to ban smoking in retail establishments because of the impact on the smoker, and we now know because of the impact of secondhand smoke, everybody said, "Oh, that's the end of, you know, the bars and restaurants in New York City." We are now having more business than ever before, because a lot of people who stayed away from going out are now going out again, because they feel like they can enjoy their time outside.
So, I think more and more cities and states are taking this on and I think that's all to the good, because -- what is it, Lance? A third of all cancers are caused by smoking, and it is indisputable that secondhand smoking now causes not only cancer but other diseases. I had a friend die of lung cancer, who never smoked a day in her life, and I bet every one of us would have an example like that.
So the more that we can limit smoking, especially because most people start smoking between 13 and 15 and 70 percent of smokers want to quit, so, in my healthcare plan, I would also help pay to have smokers quit by paying for the programs that work, because that is a lot cheaper than paying for end-stage lung cancer. And I think the more we can do to prevent it in the first place, the better off we'll be.
MATTHEWS: Well, could -- to follow up with Lance's first question -- could a big goal of your administration be a national ban for the reason that -- you're an attorney, of course, and you know in the '64 civil rights bill, the federal government assumed the right to say "no more discrimination on race in places of public accommodation, restaurants, hotels, etc," can you do that at the federal government, outlaw smoking in public places nationally and would you support something like that?
CLINTON: You know, Chris, I think the way that we're proceeding is probably the smarter way right now, which is locality, community, state, and the reason for that is that a lot of it depends upon local laws and regulations like zoning.
MATTHEWS: Right.
CLINTON: You know, the federal government has never gotten into that, but what I do think we can do is a much more aggressive outreach. That's why I favor the FDA being able to regulate advertising about nicotine and tobacco products, and we're going to push through, I hope, a bill to get that done. So, we'll have a lot of different forces moving all at the same time to really limit it, increase the excise tax, increase the cost of cigarettes. We'll eventually get there. We're lowering the rate of smoking now, and I think, over the next decade we'll really push it way down.
MATTHEWS: Thank you. Lance?
ARMSTRONG: My question was -- just with regards to the FDA -- so, you would be in favor of the FDA regulating tobacco.
CLINTON: Yes.
ARMSTRONG: A deadly drug.
CLINTON: It is. it is. It's an addictive, deadly substance, and we need to regulate it.
More MMFA word parsing. Asked if she thought it would be a good day in America if smoking were banned in public places, she responded that personally she thinks so. So, she supports a national smoking ban, doesn't she?
Just because she isn't gun-toting ready to introduce legislation for the nationwide ban, she nonetheless thinks it would be a good day in America if it were so.
Drudge's headline was not inaccurate as to her personal feelings. If someone read some legislative agenda in what he headlined, then they should read the article linked for clarification.
Wow, I finally found it on Drudge's POS site using a text search. You'd think with all the money this chickenhawk makes from his site, maybe he could hire a real web author.
I agree though, Hillary, in effect, said it would be a good day for America if there were a smoking ban. But is it part of her agenda? Is she going to pursue it?
Exactly. Personally, I hate smoking. There are certain bars in Austin I will never go to again because the smokers are so rude that they light up in the non smoking sections and laugh when you point it out. But a national ban will never happen as long as Virginia can grow tobacco.
If it is her agenda...she just lost any chance of me voting for her!!
Just kidding ;-)
I'm a smoker. Half a pack a day. Would like to quit...someday.
I don't mind public bans. In fact I think that's fair to non-smokers...plus it keeps my own consumption down.
I don't think raising taxes on cigarettes is fair. Unless the government is willing to raise taxes on all the other bad habits we humans have. Like booze & fattening foods.
I agree! I drink more than I should, I'd definitely cut back if it cost 2x or more for a pint. I probably should anyways considering my dad was killed by a drunk driver, guess that's my personal hypocracy in life.
Yeah right.
From the New York Post article:
"Asked whether the feds should impose a nationwide ban, Clinton deferred to local governments."
Right wing echo chamber?
What right wing echo chamber??
From Clinton's interview with Armstrong and Matthews:
"MATTHEWS: Well, could -- to follow up with Lance's first question -- could a big goal of your administration be a national ban ...would you support something like that?
CLINTON: You know, Chris, I think the way that we're proceeding is probably the smarter way right now, which is locality, community, state, and the reason for that is that a lot of it depends upon local laws and regulations like zoning."
Right wing echo chamber?
What right wing echo chamber?
"Asked if she thought it would be a good day in America if smoking were banned in public places, she responded that personally she thinks so. So, she supports a national smoking ban, doesn't she?"
No she doesn't support the federal government banning smoking in public places.
She believes there's things the federal government can do to get the rate of smoking down but defers to state and local governments on the question of outright banning.
This is clear from the interview and the NY Post saves that fact for the last paragraph of their article because it would spoil a juicy headline.
Such is the state of journalism in Murdochland.
Ehh? Speak up, all these echos are making it hard to hear. :-)
In Murdochland it seems if you say state and local governments are better equipped to handle smoking bans you're in favor of the federal government stepping in.
I wish she would support a smoking ban. Smoking kills and it is disgusting.
With this paltry defense of Hillary...mmfa just promotes one of the worst things in politics and the media.
She clearly supports a smoking ban. She wants the feds more heavily involved in regulation. She thinks it would be a good thing...and "we'll eventually get there".
Her comments are just typical smarmy political speech...and mmfa's support of this type of speech supports that dishonesty.
She may not be the Carrie Nation of tobacco...but she is definitely in favor of the ban...so just say so.
could you tell me where hillary supports a "national smoking ban"? that implies she want to ban smoking period.
Exactly what part of " You know, Chris, I think the way that we're proceeding is probably the smarter way right now, which is locality, community, state, and the reason for that is that a lot of it depends upon local laws and regulations like zoning." don't you understand?
Oh, my GOD! Pull out your hair and run screaming down the streets! HILLARY SUPPORTS A NATIONAL SMOKING BAN! If she becomes president, this will become a REALITY!!!!
No, she doesn't. She'll leave such decisions to localities, so you pulled your hair out for no reason ... oh, wait! There WAS a reason; Drudge and the rightwing misinformers want you FOOLED into believing things that are not TRUE. They want you scared, in panic, and terrified of Hillary, so they will appropriately misinform you.
How very little these rightwing pundits must think of the public, that they could be fooled by such obvious misinformation so easily. The rightwing think we citizens are the stupidest creatures on earth, and they adjust their commentary appropriately.
As for counting those "stupidest creatures", just look on this thread to see who defends Drudge. That's them!
First of all, the comment that she supports a national smoking ban clearly indicates that she would support a ban on smoking in public places similar to what some state and local governments have enacted.
Second, why is this being taken as a negatve? This would be a great thing for America, to have such a national ban in place. Smoking has outlived it's usefullness, you know that pesky thing called science that you all like to fall back on? Yes, science and medicine has determined that smoking is no good, let's move it on out.
yes, that pesky thing called science we like to "fall back on". it's a cross we must bear. i think you're making an analogy between smoking and global warming. there is none.
You know I agree with the science of global warming so I don't understand your point other than you must agree with me on my smoking stance.
you brought it up. you made the remark about falling back on science. i don't think anyone is denying that smoking is a health risk. that doesn't mean that anyone is calling for a ban on smoking. if you actually had a point, maybe i could address it.
and i know you did not call for a total ban on smoking, but you seemed to suggest some hypocrisy here, with your "pesky science" remark.
My point is clear. Over the years science and medicine have determined that cigarette smoke is very harmful both to the smoker and also as second hand smoke. This is information that wasn't previously available when cigarettes were considered a normal activity.
So, knowing what we now know, I think a national smoking ban for consumption in public places is a great idea. I don't know why that idea would be looked upon negatively, knowing what we now know about cigarettes. Hillary should embrace it and so should you.
your "point" has nothing to do with this thread. no one is arguing the science here. this article is about drudge manufacturing a headline that hillary wants a "national ban on smoking". that implies that she wants to outlaw smoking period. it's another attempt to portray her as the advocate of big government. this is not a debate about whether public smoking bans are good or bad. i thought perhaps you might want to go back and reread and get the point here, but you want to stay with your strawman argument. if you have a comment about drudge's misrepresentations, i will address that.
I think our difference of opinion is in the word "supports". I don't read that as saying she would actually try to make it illegal and apparently you do. To me, "supporting" a national smoking ban only makes sense as good public health policy and she said she hoped things would move in that direction. If you hope things move in that direction then you "support" it in my view.
that is not our difference of opinion. drudge said hillary "supports a national smoking ban". she does not.
I understand your point. Drudge misrepresented a position Hillary should be taking but isn't. You convinced me.
Alot of the right wing radio personalities constantly bring up drudge news stories. (Ingraham, O'liely, Bortz, Doyle, Mcconal)
Drudge is damn near tabloid news. Why do so many right wing personalities look to this man for obvious BS stories.
I'm a non-smoker and I prefer smoke-free air to one in which there is plenty of it.
To a right-wing neocon, this means I want a federal ban that will throw offenders into mandatory sentences.
Such is how the conservative mind works.
Clinton asserted: "I think the way that we're proceeding is probably the smarter way right now, which is locality, community, state."
CLINTON: You know, the federal government has never gotten into that, but what I do think we can do is a much more aggressive outreach. That's why I favor the FDA being able to regulate advertising about nicotine and tobacco products, and we're going to push through, I hope, a bill to get that done.
I found these statements to be a bit....contradictory? Ironic? hypocritical?
I'm all for it myself. Ban it all, everywhere. Smoking prohibition would be even better. BUt that's just me. Obviously, I'm a non-smoker, and live in "smoking Heaven" (North Carolina), where up until just year the general assembly could still smoke in the NC legislature. Unheard of. We have 4 smoking rooms in the facility that I work in, and people are given a certain amount of time during the day to go and smoke, if they so choose. Also, most restaurants are not separated into smoking and non-smoking. No no. It's all next to each other. Then again, where I came from or lived before this, Maine, public smoking bans are everywhere. Bars, public places, restaurants, and you have to be a certain distance from a door before lighting up. Now THAT'S something I could get on board with in NC.
This isn't really about a smoking ban at all you know. What it really is about is creating a frame wherein Hillary is a big bad federalist who wants all laws to come down from Washington as well as to fit in to the Right Wing portrayal of her as someone who wants to make government into everyone's mother.
that's exactly it. these right wingers are trying to spin this into some other argument.