Cob Pile
I'm not a smoker, never have been, but AMEN. It's about property rights, but even more than that, it's about individual responsibility and how far we're wiling to let the government go in keeping us "safe"--even from ourselves.
In addition to the governor, we need to write our state senator. The bill passed with 34 votes, it only takes 30 to over ride a veto.
Spot on as usual, pt. I myself have burned several hudred bales of the Devil's Weed my ownself - back in the "Who Knew?" days. Managed to kick it man years ago, and twas the biggest favor I ever did for this sorry old body.
That being said, I still strongly oppose any kind of government nanny-izing, and most especially when such interference constitutes bald-faced abridging of a whole slew of rights that the Fathers said were mine.
I would go even deeper than the property rights issue to point out that the simple right of self-determination underlies virtually all of the others - and to those who complain that someone smoking an El Ropo in their hallowed presence is stepping on their rights, may I just invite them to vote with their feet. IOW - if you don't like the peaches, then find another tree.
Only thing dumber than using tobacco is passing a law banning it.
Self-determination? Hasn't that been scourged from the lexicon like personal responsibility?
Seriously, self-determination is one of those concepts that is external to constitutional systems. Like free speech, it isn't so much a right a a power. Constitutions are often said to limit the power of government. I don't see it that way, except in the case of documents like the Magna Carta, where the government thus limited was not in any real sense democratic.
In my view, modern constitutions are made to limit the people's power of self-determination, since even in a representative democracy like our republic, the people are the government.
An example: if the cats in Selma, Alabama had been afforded self-determination in the 50's, Selma blacks might still be sitting in the back of the bus. Our constitution thwarted their exercise of self-determination.
Another example: if a big majority of American voters elect communists to office, they would claim a collective right to self-determination when they nationalized your business and ordered you out into the fields to dig sugar beets. Will our constitution stop them?
Free will is what being human is all about. Government is all about you thwarting your neighbor's exercise of his or her free will through persuasion and coercion, ideally such that you might live better at their expense. Better living through government. I don't buy it.
If I can't be both, I'd rather be a free man than a citizen.
I'm gonna steal your last sentence (with proper attribution, of course) ... unless you tell me not to.
Lift away. No worries.
So what exactly foes the ban encompass? Just bars, resturants, hospitals, schools and offices? If so what are you whining about? That is the norm most places now and its all for the good. Non smokers don't want smoke in their faces. Do yourself a big favour, give up smoking PTG. (I am assuming you are a smoker)
BTW, regarding your statement "Medical doctors change their minds all the time. Remember when eggs were bad for you?".
Are you seriously trying to say that maybe some day, the docs will pronounce that smoking is not harmful to health? Surely you jest.
"does' not 'foes'
Canuckguy -
They're talking about banning drunk blogging too. Right your 'foes' and see if that 'does' it.
I am a non smoker, but I am willing to learn. I don't think any one denies that smoking is bad for your health. This is about property rights. Can a business owner decide for himself, if his customers can engage in a LEGAL practice. The left wants to ban smoking because it is bad for our collective health, don't think your chille cheese fries wont be next. The right, for all their talk of freedom from big government, doesn't seem to be able to keep their noses out of our personal lives. How is it that free markets work for everything but, booze, smokes, and titty bars?
I don't smoke. I don't drink. I don't frequent titty bars. I used to do them all, but quit. I have smoked, drank and ogled enough to last me a lifetime. I will, however, defend everyone else's freedom to indulge. Except for Canadians, who bend their knees to the queen. I'm writing Parliament right now to get poutine banned.
Remember when Canuck smokes cost about $5 a pack? When the Solons of the North tried to control smoking by taxing the shit out of tobacco? I was driving through some little berg in Ontario and flicked a longish cigarette butt out the car window. Before it hit the pavement, three Canucks were fighting over it.
I guess we can all bitch till the canucks come home but it has'nt resolved anything- just remmber, we're out gunned. Thats the reason they get their way.
What I'm worried about is when the canandian rmp start coming into the US to enforce the law, american Law...
wait!
I am a non smoker, but I am willing to learn.
( :
Talk about drunk blogging, it is 'canadian' not 'canandian' , mickey. At least I have an excuse, the 'd' is next to the 'f' and I was hunting and pecking without my reading glasses. You can't spell, what, you drop out of 3rd grade when you turned 16 to slop the hogs?
BWAH WAH WAH WAH WAH
Yer fulla poutine, CG. I know mickey was in high school once.
cg-my editor-ess was at lunch. And who the hell' BWAH WAH?
I like
"BWAH WAH WAH WAH"
Stole it from a lunatic republican blogger on Blogs for Bush a while back.
Oh wah.
It's been banned in the area i live in for over a year now, and it's been great.
I have ex-smoker friends who have long wanted to quit, and the ban was the kick they needed to finally do it.
The argument it's the same as butter is so pathetic it's laughable. Everyone around you doesn't leave with butter infused into their lungs and clothing.
If we go with your thinking.. why have fire or building codes? It should be the property owner's right to have unsafe buildings. Heck, why even have traffic laws? I should be able to do what i want in my car.
Grow up.
I feel that the smoking ban does indeed infringe on our personal freedom. If businesses are open to the general public (smokers & non-smokers) then by all means ban smoking. However, if a private business not open to the public choses to allow smoking, I believe they should be allowed to do so. I also think that having a smoking area outside any building should be OK. I was reprimanded in my car in a back parking lot by security because I was smoking. Now that is nonsense!
Grow up? I'm over 60 years old, Glitch.
Old enough to have seen our freedoms erode alarmingly here in America. Just keep on justifying these "bans". One of these days, your ox will get gored and no one will hear your complaints.
To paraphrase an old saw that isn't old enough: First they banned being Jewish but I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
---
Yup, Kay. How long before your neighbors complain that they can smell you smoking on your front porch? Or in your kitchen? Glitch thinks you should "grow up'. Why bother, when the state treats you like a child no matter how grown-up you might be.
Commenting by HaloScan
