Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Crusaders for the Nanny State
EverVigilant.net ^ | 05/10/2004 | Lee R. Shelton IV

Posted on 05/11/2004 1:11:05 PM PDT by sheltonmac

Some people are moved to champion a particular cause because of a tragic event in their lives, like the loss of a loved one. Others, like St. Paul City Council member Dave Thune, are motivated by a guilty conscience - and Minnesota residents are the ones who will suffer the consequences.

Thune recently proposed a ban on smoking in all of St. Paul's bars and restaurants. His reasoning? "This is a public health issue," the admitted smoking addict said. "We need to protect patrons and staff at our establishments."

Ah, yes! The "public good" has long been a refuge for many a political scoundrel.

My suspicion is that Dave Thune is having pangs of remorse. "More important than my personal fight against my addiction is what it is doing to other people," he said. "It's wrong for those of us who can't give it up to make people breathe our smoke." Poor guy. I can only imagine the guilt he must feel for all those innocent people he killed with his second-hand smoke.

Other cities in Minnesota have already imposed fascistic bans on the use of tobacco. Rochester, home of the Mayo Clinic, and Duluth have both been smoke-free for some time now, and the Minneapolis City Council will be proposing similar restrictions later this week.

Opponents of these bans fear an adverse affect on the local economy. People are constantly flocking to Minnesota - the Twin Cities in particular - for professional and collegiate sporting events, plays and musicals, concerts and conventions. Visitors come from all over the world for business, vacation or a weekend of shopping at the Mall of America.

Dan Bostrom, St. Paul City Council president, said, "If a restaurant wants to be smoke-free, it just needs to put up 'No Smoking' signs and take away the ashtrays.'' But a solution like that is too simple for politicians like Dave Thune to understand. It is his belief that families "should not have to choose restaurants based on their health and the health of their children."

What Thune doesn't realize - or, more likely, refuses to admit - is that many families choose restaurants all the time based on their health and the health of their children. Some avoid places like Old Country Buffet because of the tendency to over-eat. Some stay away from McDonald's and Burger King because of the lack of healthy options. And believe it or not, some avoid establishments that allow smoking because they don't want to contract lung cancer and die in the next 40 or 50 years.

There was once a time in America when the freedom to choose was something to be cherished and protected. It was all part of living in a free society. Today, having to make such choices is considered an inconvenience, and Thune's prescription is to have elected officials make the difficult choices for those he deems incapable of handling that luxury. Besides, the good people of Minnesota will probably be much happier without the burden of excess responsibility and may reward their bureaucratic benefactors with votes and tax dollars.

Listening to these politicians ramble on and on about how they are only doing what's best for us, it's a wonder any of us survived the days before the nanny state. What's next? Will the government expand its role of caretaker by banning smoking in our cars? Our homes?

The state of Minnesota, like the rest of the country, was founded on the principle that the function of government is to protect the inalienable rights of the people. Dave Thune apparently believes that isn't enough; government should control how people live if they refuse to follow his concept of an ideal society.

To Mr. Thune and other crusaders for the nanny state, let me say this: public service is not an appropriate venue for exorcising your own personal demons. See a shrink or talk to your pastor. I really don't care as long as you get off your power trip and stop saying you know what's best for me. If I want to brave the toxic cloud of tobacco smoke in my neighborhood bar, that's my choice to make.

And to the ill-informed, masochistic citizens who keep voting these tyrants into office: grow up. You may be miserable, but don't take it out on me. In your efforts to feel better about yourselves you are contributing to the bastardization of the democratic process by using it for no other purpose than to force your lifestyle choices on the rest of us. If you believe you must do something to help better society, try staying home on election day.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: pufflist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-151 next last

1 posted on 05/11/2004 1:11:05 PM PDT by sheltonmac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2grit; Abe Froman; Abigail Adams; AdGal; Aeronaut; Alpenkatze; Andrew Lanz; antidisestablishment; ..
*Ping* to my fellow Minnesotans...
2 posted on 05/11/2004 1:12:33 PM PDT by sheltonmac ("Duty is ours; consequences are God's." -Gen. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
I tend to have problems with using Public Policy as a vehicle of Grief Therapy.
3 posted on 05/11/2004 1:16:27 PM PDT by camle (keep your mind open and somebody will fill it with something for you))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
Nice rant! I agree wholeheartedly with the author.
4 posted on 05/11/2004 2:14:15 PM PDT by mfulstone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
God help us all!

Nice article.
5 posted on 05/12/2004 6:54:25 AM PDT by mn-bush-man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
Ah, the old, tired, discredited notion that laws somehow rob people of their free will and make zombies out of them, as if the enacting of laws is not an act of free will choice, too.
6 posted on 05/12/2004 7:00:05 AM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *puff_list; SheLion; Gabz; CSM; Conspiracy Guy
Puff
7 posted on 05/12/2004 7:02:25 AM PDT by Just another Joe (Warning: FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
In your efforts to feel better about yourselves you are contributing to the bastardization of the democratic process by using it for no other purpose than to force your lifestyle choices on the rest of us.

That almost says it all.

8 posted on 05/12/2004 7:04:10 AM PDT by Just another Joe (Warning: FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
Ah, the old, tired, discredited notion that laws somehow rob people of their free will

No, these type of laws do not, "somehow rob people of their free will". They just rob people of being able to make a choice, from property owners down to the consumer.

9 posted on 05/12/2004 7:06:44 AM PDT by Just another Joe (Warning: FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Nanny state call-up!

Some simply horrible freepers are slagging one of your socialist soul-mates!
10 posted on 05/12/2004 7:08:25 AM PDT by headsonpikes (Spirit of '76 bttt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
Will the government expand its role of caretaker by banning smoking in our cars? Our homes?

They are ALREADY doing just that. Not yet in Minnesota but in other states.

I'm almost to the point of sitting back and laughing when these types will scream about one of their oxen getting gored.

11 posted on 05/12/2004 7:08:55 AM PDT by Just another Joe (Warning: FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes
If the establishment is privately owned (restaurant, motel, apartment, store, etc.), I am in favor of letting the owner set the rules. ALL rules. If he wishes to exclude a particular group of people, fine. If he goes out of business because of his poor decisions, also fine.

That said, I am also in favor of allowing the people in the community to decide how they will live. If they wish to ban an activity, fine. If that results in bankruptcies and no more tax revenue, also fine.

Do you favor a repeal of the 14th amendment to make this possible? Do you also favor a repeal of the 17th?

12 posted on 05/12/2004 7:23:13 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Don't you mean the 15th amendment?

And yes, I would support the repeal of the 17th amendment along with the 16th.

13 posted on 05/12/2004 7:28:18 AM PDT by Just another Joe (Warning: FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
...I am in favor of letting the owner set the rules.

Splendid, robert! Just splendid - it's great to see that you respect American principles.

Unless it involves wacky tabaccy, or some other fetish or taboo of your state religion, of course.

14 posted on 05/12/2004 7:28:39 AM PDT by headsonpikes (Spirit of '76 bttt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
Excellent read.
15 posted on 05/12/2004 7:30:50 AM PDT by Gabz (Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than second hand smoke.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
"That said, I am also in favor of allowing the people in the community to decide how they will live. If they wish to ban an activity, fine. If that results in bankruptcies and no more tax revenue, also fine."

Yes banning the activity, in its entirety, at a local level is fine. However, these communities love to reap the benefits in the form of revenues from the activity and then turn around and eliminate the ability to allow the activity on certain private property. Very hypocritical of these local governments.

Do you also support the local communities ability to ban/allow personal consumption activities at the local levels?
16 posted on 05/12/2004 7:41:19 AM PDT by CSM (Vote Kerry! Boil the Frog! Speed up the 2nd Revolution! (Be like Spain! At least they're honest))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: CSM
"Do you also support the local communities ability to ban/allow personal consumption activities at the local levels?"

Of course, provided those activities do not violate state or federal laws.

"these communities love to reap the benefits in the form of revenues from the activity and then turn around and eliminate the ability to allow the activity on certain private property."

So if marijana were legal and taxed, you would want to be able to smoke it in public. Hmmmm. Whatever happened to, "Why can't we smoke marijuana in the privacy of our home? We're not harming anyone."

It's not even legal and you're on the warpath to smoke it anywhere you want because it's being taxed.

17 posted on 05/12/2004 7:56:15 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
"Don't you mean the 15th amendment?"

No, I do not wish to deny the right to vote to any race. I meant the 14th amendment.

The 14th amendment essentially applies the Bill of Rights to all the states. This means that if the USSC interprets the 1st amendment to allow nude dancing, then all states must allow nude dancing. If the USSC says that the 1st amendment forbids a commencement speaker from saying "God" at graduation, then all states must honor that. If the USSC says that the "right of privacy" in a penumbra of an emanation of the U.S. Constitution allows a woman to kill her unborn child, then all states must abide by that.

Get rid of the 14th amendment and allow each state to operate under their own Bill of Rights contained in their own State Constitution.

18 posted on 05/12/2004 8:07:41 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes
Do you favor a repeal of the 14th amendment to make this possible? Do you also favor a repeal of the 17th?


19 posted on 05/12/2004 8:09:56 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
"Of course, provided those activities do not violate state or federal laws."

Therefore, any law that the Federal government wants to pass, regarding consumption of substances, is a valid law and you would suppor their right to do so? How about federal bans of red meat, fast food, Coke, etc.?

"So if marijana were legal and taxed, you would want to be able to smoke it in public. Hmmmm. Whatever happened to, "Why can't we smoke marijuana in the privacy of our home? We're not harming anyone."

It's not even legal and you're on the warpath to smoke it anywhere you want because it's being taxed."

Go back and read what I wrote. You stated you supported the local communities right to ban an activity, smoking in public, and I stated that the same community should then forego the revenues by banning cigarrettes in their entirety!

You can't support the local communities ability to regulate the consumption of substances, free from Federal involvement, and then advocate Federal involvement regarding consumption of substances.

I agree with the local communities ability to ban substances, however that means ban them in their entirety, not just the consumption on some private property.
20 posted on 05/12/2004 8:10:32 AM PDT by CSM (Vote Kerry! Boil the Frog! Speed up the 2nd Revolution! (Be like Spain! At least they're honest))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-151 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson