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.
Not at all.......actually these laws do rob the owners of the free will to target their market to a certain type of clientele.
How would this sound? "You stated you supported the local communities right to ban an activity, smoking drinking in public, and I stated that the same community should then forego the revenues by banning cigarrettes alcohol in their entirety!"
If a community bans smoking in public and smoking in private estabishments, they run the very real risk of losing cigarette tax revenue and the tax revenue from businesses that file for bankruptcy.
The federal government has nothing to do with this issue. Maybe you can make the case that smokers are being discriminated against. But there is that bogus second-hand smoke argument that is making all this discrimination possible that has to be overcome.
I support their right to try. I doubt they would be successful.
Do you vote? Have you ever talked to your congressman when he was in your area? You seem to be really out of touch with the way things work in our government.
Who is going to write a law banning Coke? Some dictator? Familiarize yourself with, "How a Bill Becomes Law" so you don't make such silly statements.
If it is a local law, the business has the opportunity to locate in the adjoining community and let them receive the tax revenue.
Federal laws have a different effect. They force the owners to accept business from clientele they don't want (ie, religious apartment owners forced to rent to an unmarried couple or a homosexual couple).
This is called "freedom of association". If you are a deeply religious apartment owner, you should be free not to rent to an unmarried couple or a homosexual couple, or anyone for that matter. It's your private property. Now, having that attitude may put you out of business (either through lack of clientele or protesters out front), but that's your decision.
Does this, should this, include blacks? Read what Walter Williams has to say about that in Economic Straight Thinking, an excellent article.
Agreed, however, why should the financial burden of relocating be placed on the business person who was a productive member of the community before the rules got changed mid game????
I am as opposed to such laws as you suggest about forcing people to accept business from a clientele they do not want as I am to laws forcing businesses to not permit a clientele they desire.
Once we have accepted the idea the government can force an owner to do something, we are accepting it can also force them to do the exact opposite.
Please don't get me wrong, I am not supporting or promoting any type of anarchy......there is a certain amount of governmental regulation that is necessary for the safety and well being of the citizenry. However micro management of individuals and private business owners is going far beyond that concept.
I hear you. The owner is then faced with the decision of the cost of staying vs the cost of relocating.
When Boeing relocated, other cities offered tax incentives. Isn't it possible for a business owner to negotiate with a city council to relocate there?
If your boss says that the company is cutting back and wants you (and everyone else) to take a 3% pay cut, you're faced with a similar (unfair) decision -- stay or go.
At the very least. Ask yourself, seriously, what is the difference between living in Ohio vs. South Dakota?
Maybe slightly lower taxes. Maybe better weather. Maybe .... THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE! We're becoming one state!
Where's the state pride? Where's the competitiveness? We have basically one set of laws that govern all of us. This is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind.
There are, IMO, two reasons for this.
One is because the fedgov wants control of everything.
Two has to do with globalization.
I may have to move to the booneys in the Philippines within my lifetime to live free.
Mr. paulsen...you are for federal supremacy at the same time you mouth platitudes about local choice. That is the contradiction I'm noting.
As to why I decline to answer your queries re dropping the 14th and 17th Amendments, it is merely a becoming modesty on my part. ;^)
Frankly, the Amendment to be dropped is the 16th - once that goes, the American Socialist project falls to the ground.
IMO.
As I pointed out, the 14th amendment prohibits the religious apartment owner from renting to an unmarried couple. How can one be for local choice without repealing the 14th amendment?
That's why I asked if you wanted to get rid of the 14th. But you'd "rather not say". Hey, fine.
But it's hard to take you seriously when you say you want something but refuse to do what's necessary to get it. I guess it's easier to complain than to actually do something about it.
On the plus side, at least we're receiving some revenue from the group that uses most of the social services yet pay no income taxes.
. . . actually these laws do rob the owners of the free will . . .
Using this political fantasy that laws somehow rob people of their free will, here is their argument to its logical conclusion: "Laws against bank-robbery rob would-be bank robbers of their free will choice of whether to rob or not. They are just zombies without any self-control or personal responsibility in the matter."
Ah, the same old, tired, discredited notion that you can make a strawman argument that anyone falls for.
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.