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.
--Boot Hill
Protagoras: I will not tolerate any personal abuse from you like I've seen here. Not on a thread and definitely not in a private reply. DO NOT EVER freepmail me with that kind of adolescent crap again. Knock it off. NOW.
--Boot Hill
I do notice that my response to the persistent Protagoras has been removed. I must have hurt his feelings.
Yes, I noticed that, too. But I also noticed that his derogatory posts, that may have prompted your response, still stand.
--Boot Hill
I really don't mind. His posts and attitude pretty much speak for themselves...my comments weren't necessary to point that out.
You're confused. The Constitutional authority for the Fair Housing Act (and the Civil Rights Act) is primarily the Commerce Clause. Don't know why you're talking about some need to repeal the 14th.
Here's a couple that sound like what you're looking for:
A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. US (1935)
Carter v. Carter Coal Co. (1936)
Please post the freepmail so others can evaluate whether or not it is an outrageous attack.
I have not posted to this thread because I was asked to take it to the Smokey backroom by another poster. I have respected that. Others here, including you, have not.
In respect for others, if you have anything further to say on the subject, please contact me via freepmail. Thank you.
I agree with the court. Unlike a prior case, Local 167 v. United States, 291 U.S. 293 (1934), there was no connection, direct or indirect, between the intrastate activities and interstate commerce. But when there was a connection (as in Local 167), the court ruled that intrastate activities had a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
Re: Carter v. Carter Coal Co. (1936)
Well, we have the Poultry case on the receiving end of commerce, and the Carter case at the beginning. I can see why you included both.
But as with the Poultry case, I again have to agree with the court. There was no connection, direct or indirect, of "struggles between employer and employees" and interstate commerce.
Now, both cases do bring up the "direct/indirect" argument. In Poultry, the court stated, "The precise line (between direct and indirect effects) can be drawn only as individual cases arise, but the distinction is clear in principle." And I agree.
For example, I concur with both recent decisions, Lopez and VAWA precisely for that reason.
How about abortion or the Texas sodomy case? The Ten Commandments case? Saying "God" at a commencement ceremony? A Nativity scene at City Hall?
I believe repeal of the 14th should take care of those issues, and hundreds more, and return them to the states.
Sorry to see the thread moved. You tried. Better luck with the next one.
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.