Posted on 08/24/2014 5:48:10 AM PDT by Kaslin
The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is trying to ban smoking… Everywhere. Well, at least everywhere someone might be working, so I guess that’s not as many places as you might think. (Hat tip to Obamanomics.) The CDC’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has suggested banning all tobacco consumption at every work place in the nation… Because, ya know, the nanny-state can never be too big, right?
The ban would apply to not only office buildings, restaurants, and retail stores, but it would also apply to any outdoor location (such as construction sites, landscaping work, and even places like commercial farms). Oh… And it’s not limited to only cigarettes. Even smokeless alternatives would be banned under the Nannycrats vision for a tobacco-free labor force. As a side note: unconfirmed reports of Michael Bloomberg weeping with joy have been trickling in since the CDC decided to out-nanny the former NYC Mayor.
But, really, why stop at merely banning a legal (albeit unhealthy) activity (on private property owned by private businesses)? The CDC, apparently, felt that Bloomberg style regulation wasn’t quite enough overreach for their self-righteous vision of compulsory national health initiatives… Which is why their plan also incorporates a lovely dimension of state-sponsored shaming. According to the Free Beacon:
[The plan would] ban smoking in outdoor work areas and have bosses ask which of their employees smoke so they can “promptly provide encouragement to quit.”
I can only assume that the original language of the proposed regulation – asking bosses to arrange a public flogging for current tobacco-consuming employees – was struck down as “too severe.” Maybe we should just start publicly beating anyone that dares to take a puff from a Lucky Strike... At least that would be more straightforward than crafting a lengthy regulation that usurps property rights and individual sovereignty.
The point of government (according to the notes I took from the Federalist Papers) isn’t to compel the public into making healthy life-decisions… Smoking bans, of any nature, that are imposed by government on private businesses are already an egregious violation of property rights. Oh sure, it might be nice to grab a beer without someone blowing mentholated cancer in your face; but that’s not really the point. Quite frankly, if a private business wants to allow private individuals the choice to light up on private property… well… who is the government protecting in banning such a voluntary arrangement?
The ban on smokeless tobacco and outdoor locations, however, takes things to an even more absurd level. After all, the primary argument behind banning smoke is that other people are exposed to it “against their will”. (Am I supposed to assume that before our current criminalization of puffing away indoors, non-smokers were hog-tied and hauled into smoky bars while they screamed out in protest? Because I don’t really remember those days that well.) Let’s face it: it’s not really possible to get a “second hand” cancer from chewing tobacco. (Eew… Move on before you think about that too much.) Apparently the real objective here is to regulate all you unhealthy tobacco consumers into being healthier, well-adjusted, Americans. I guess we’ll get to banning those high-capacity sodas in the years to come.
To make matters worse, the liberals in DC have also decided that some animals are more equal than others. After all, these are (largely) the same heartfelt progressives that think it’s inappropriate to drug-test welfare recipients. Heck, in Colorado there are activists who are trying to make sure EBT cards will continue to be allowed at marijuana shops. So, go ahead and get high on taxpayer dollars; just don’t you dare smoke a Camel Light, or take a dip of Copenhagen Snuff, if you’re landscaping someone’s yard for a living.
With their latest proposed regulation, the CDC has fully embraced the nannyism of Bloomberg & Company. The trend of using government to inflict “appropriate” life choices on the masses is growing. And while the CDC’s proposed ban will undoubtedly make for a marginally healthier workforce (again… that’s not as big of an impact as it probably should be, given our current employment situation), it’s at the cost of individual sovereignty.
Cigarettes are certainly an unhealthy, unwise, and ultimately devastating habit to pick up… but, then again, so is voting for big government (and that doesn’t even have a 1-800 quit-line).
Liberty and freedom is racist, sexist, and homophobic. Women, children, minorities, and the elderly most affected.
I heard this folksy phrase the other day: "Never slap a man when he's chewin' tobacco."
Now you can't smoke within 50 feet of the door, (in North Dakota--think WINTER). It is a case study in the camel's (small 'c') nose under the tent eventually kicking the Camels out (along with the Marlboros, etc.).
The establishment owners who went to the expense of remodeling and revamping could have saved their money, for all the difference it made.
The moral of the story is that "reasonable" is just a stepping stone to a ban. What sounds "reasonable" just might be, but more often than not, the people pushing for it are not.
Your logic applies to ‘reasonable’ gun control measures as well.
Especially those.
And guess who runs the nanny-state? Liberals and their army of freedom hating bureaucrats, of course.
For liberals, this is a “virtuous cycle” of power. More regulations mean more agencies, more money and more power, which inevitably leads to even more regulations.
Its not just the suppression of freedom. Its also the abuse of power. The Founding Fathers wisely warned us about this encroachment and wanted to limit the size of government. Power not only corrupts; it destroys.
Tobacco will be banned, but you’ll be able to smoke marijuana everywhere soon. Our government is insane.
I claim that the Feds are hazardous to your health...and to your Freedom.
Isn’t progressivism grand...
well open borders are bad for our health too but don’t see the feds doing anything about it
i suppose any freelancer or telecommuter would be banned from smoking in their home since that is where they work.
Private businesses like bars and restaurants should never have been told they have to restrict smoking in the first place. If someone doesn’t want to be exposed to smoke they don’t have to work at or patronize the business. A sign at the door would work.
Already happening with the PC idiots I work for. Not a smoker so I am not directly affected (with this particular intrusion at this particular time) but they are constantly nagging about one health issue after another - and it's all about covering their asses, not any sincere regard.
It's all offered up with cutsie videos and condescending language that reminds me of junior high school.
That was my solution, too.
A conspicuous warning sign that tobacco was smoked in the establishment, or that it was not to be smoked, posted on the door.
If tobacco-free, fines for violating that (at the owner's discretion), like a traffic ticket. Offenders could be 86'd.
If an establishment had the signs up saying tobacco is in use on the premises, either don't come in or don't complain.
The library in a small town near me (I’m out in the boonies) has just posted a sign that no smoking is allowed on the outside, windswept patio.
This is the same outfit where I had to show an ID to get a library card.
Rather die a short, unhealthy life than to live a long, healthy one without my freedom.
Always follow the money. Tobacco companies contribute to Republicans - rich liberals who enjoy a toke now and again give to Democrats. Seems pretty sane to me. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.