Skip to comments.Pennsylvania Nanny State Alert (HB 1489)
Posted on 07/26/2005 12:02:18 PM PDT by Tribune7
The Pennsylvania legislature is considering bills that will prohibit smoking "in the workplace" as I've been told, and this will include restaurants.
Hearings will soon be held on this. The House Bill is HB 1489 and the Senate Bill is SB602.
Among the claims are solons are making is: (5) Second-hand smoke causes close to 54,000 deaths 6 annually in the United States.
(Excerpt) Read more at legis.state.pa.us ...
That's already law in CA. That's nothing.
Wait until the government is keeping track of people's illnesses and "intervenes" in their treatment for their own good, of course. THAT's already about to happen in NY.
N.Y. Diabetes-Tracking Plan Draws Concern
Conceived after a sharp rise in diabetes deaths over the past 20 years, the plan would require medical labs to report to the city the results of a certain type of test that indicates how well individual patients are controlling their diabetes.
There will be some people who will say, 'What business of the government is it to know that my diabetes is not in control?'" said Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, the city's health commissioner.
The answer, he said, is that diabetes costs an estimated $5 billion a year to treat in New York and was the fourth leading cause of death in the city in 2003, killing 1,891.
By pinpointing problem patients, then intervening ever so slightly in their care, Frieden said the city can improve thousands of lives. "I don't think we can afford not to do anything," he said.
Oh here's another one.
More government intrusion into our lives.
The PA General Assembly is also considering a bill to mandate the use of seatbelts for dogs.
I'm not making this up!
Aren't these always the people that are against the Patriot Act because of its intrusion?!
I'm against all of the nanny BS. Including the "patriot" act.
Hell, NJ is trying to ban smoking in cars!
Thats what all the other smoking bans are about as well. Far to many people, even many FReepers, are under the impression that the smoking ban in restuarants and bars is for the health or and concern about the patrons. Wrong. It is about the employees who work at the bar.
Of course it has been proven that by promoting stopping smoking people are living longer and thus incurring more medical costs as they age instead of dying younger. Same thing will happen if we keep more diabetics alive, they will live longer and incur more medical costs. Just liberals trying to save us money.
Yeah California is always looking for ways to dictate our personal business. I'm surprised they've made the stupid decision to ban cigarettes in the prisons. I'm no fan of prisoners, but geez what else have they got. (Well i guess there are one or two things they can do). If they are concerned about the health of these prisoners why not get them out there doing some physical labor. Being idle all day can't be good for their health either.
So I guess you won't be able to smoke in your car at a drive-in restaurant.
Whether second hand smoke causes any illness or not, whether these employees have chosen to work in a bar/restaurant or not, whether the bar/restaurant owner has decided to have a no smoking policy or not, the state will tell them what to do? If there was such a demand for no smoking in restaurants and bars, there would be more nonsmoking establishments. All this will get you is unemployed bartenders, waiters and waitresses and lower tax receipts when people choose to eat at home, where, so far, they can smoke, as has been the case in Ireland, or cross over into New Jersey, Ohio, West Virginia, Delaware and Maryland, which are accessible to many Pennsylvanians for a leisurely meal.
No. These days the right to privacy applies to sex, and little else.
Let them smoke, but ban talking on a cell phone while driving.
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.