The REAL reason behind anti-smoking laws.
Posted on 09/25/2005 9:27:16 AM PDT by elkfersupper
The REAL reason behind anti-smoking laws.
Hardly.
There are more than plenty "conservative" control freaks.
If YOU do not like smoking - STAY the F'nKerry OUT! NOBODY asked you to come in - NOBODY forced you to come in. Tobacco is a LEGAL substance. Did this council put it to the entire city to vote on? I would bet against that one.
IF the city voted as a whole to ban smoking then that is our system - the current dicatorial system, at the least, merits TAR n FEATHERS!
-----
"I support restrictions in public places which are produced by local officials"
-----
So you support the emminent domain of the city taking YOUR property because they can make more money selling it to their friends who will kick back millions to them for their service?
Sounds like a tryrannical plan to me --- I think Stalin and Lenin would have LOVED you !
What happen to Freedom of Choice, Freedom of Privacy, and the Freedom to be let Alone!
Well, true, but I was really just addressing this article.
In Lawrence that's quite possible...
Thanks, but I get no more than a 'finder's fee' on that one. ...It was someone else's creation. Just found it lying along the road as I went by.
Who let the cops in after hours. We always locked the doors at closing time.
Fair enough. However, smokers seem to be just sitting up and taking notice. Had they done that before "the good of society" came after them, they might not be in this position.
The faster we can add them to the bandwagon, the faster we can fight the socialists who would like to "take care of us".
You're absolutely right, but unfortunately, there is no one bandwagon -- people are still seeing these issues too narrowly.
For example, many people who are outraged by anti-smoking controls support the war on marijuana smokers. Many people who are appalled by government seizing land for private development support government seizing guns, or shutting down strip clubs. And so on. Until we all unite behind a common principle of property ownership and personal liberty (even if we don't personally like the use to which the property is being put, or how some people are using their liberty), we won't have the numbers to stop the exploding growth and power of government.
It wasn't that long ago that the liberal supreme court could not find any justification for confiscating real estate, nor restricting private property owners from conducting a legal business enterprise. I paid little attention to the recent Kelo vs. case because, no-one in their right mind could ever construe away private property rights from the US constitution. Right??
It is clear that our form of especially local government is wholly ill-equipped to cope with the fear of litigation coupled coupled with an apparently antisocial, psychotic judiciary. Where else do convicted felons vote for judges and magistrates? Our representative-democracy is broken in several key areas, this was not by accident. Write your congress and get involved daily. It's vitally important that your concerns enter the national "consensus".
Actually it is not. We have a system designed to protect minority rights. Voting bans will always pass if put to a vote. This doesn't make them right (or necessarily constitutional).
A don't know who coined this saying but it fits: "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner."
uncommon sense
I disagree, some locally mandated restrictions are appropriate... Ya know , it's not worth it to teach "constitution-based federal republic" 101 on a Sunday.
bbbut, I thought it was BUSH who was "taking away our freedoms"? The only people who are really resticting freedom are liberals. Is there ANYTHING (besides abortion) that they DON'T want to regulate/ban?
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.