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.
You can twist words all you want to but to be able to ban a legal product, do not read outlaw, there should be a clear and scientifically proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, danger to the public.
There is no such thing in regards to ETS.
Different guidelines occur if you want to outlaw, read prohibition, a legal product.
I know that you are IN favor of some smoking. And freely ignore some laws while committing crimes.
Nonsense
Really? You mean the owner of a bar/lounge/restaurant can make me stop wearing a condom? Legally?
Hilarious huh?
Ole CJ has hit the bricks again. And the cat's got your tongue, so on to the next thread......
What an illogical, anti-liberty and actually anti-American argument.
Last I checked, theft, of any kind, including bank-robbery, is and always has been a crime. Smoking, on the other hand is not now, and has never been, a crime. The principles of liberty, which our founding fathers well knew, but modern Americans--like yourself--have forgotten, is that if actions cause no harm to others then freedom dictates we permit them. Indeed, freedom dictates that government does not even have the right to forbid them.
On private property, legal activity should be permitted. Period.
If you carefully investigate the "science" on 2nd hand smoke, you'll find, its just not there. Of course the science against smoking (1st hand, if you will) is there--by the tons. However 2nd hand smoke--due to the number of variables (ventilation, numbers of smokers, airspace of the room, time in the room, frequency in the room, etc. etc.) are so great, its nearly impossible to do meaningful studies. That hasn't kept those who PREFER not to smell smoke (its not, at bottom line a health issue), from forcing, with a fascist mentality, their opinion on private property owners, and their patrons.
No one is forced to go into a particular establishment--nor are employees forced to work there--so no one is EVER forced to breath in 2nd hand smoke. Why is it an issue then?
Neurotic, feminized, freedom-hating individuals just love to run the lives of others, that's why. It's very sad that numbers of "conservatives" are among them.
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.