Posted on 06/02/2006 5:40:02 PM PDT by sweetliberty
You may be right. A local tobacco country judge, having grown up there most likely would certainly know a lot more than professional doctors and scientist and statisticians, and biologists, and immunologists, etc. And of course it would be un-American to to suggest he might just have a built in bias, but only reasonable to suggest all of those others are engaged in a years long conspiracy to prevent a completely healthy activity.
That makes sense.
Sadly you are probably right. Slowly "big brother" is taking away our rights and private property. Smoking is legal, yet smokers have become the whipping boy.
When the anti smoking movement first started pushing for non smoking areas we were told this was needed b/c non smokers wanted to have their own smoke free space. Smokers didn't object to this and were considerate enough to understand the rational of non smokers while in a confined area. Smokers compromised; we agreed to sit in "smoking sections", but smoking on our own property or outdoors was ok. Now smoking outside is being chisled away as being offensive to non smokers. The anti smokers decided they wanted the entire building smoke free, saying the smoke still polluted their lungs. Smokers grumbled a bit, but understood; so they would stand outside to smoke so not to offend. Then the non smokers decided that smoking outdoors also bothered them. Some beaches, where there is plenty of "clean air" have banned smokers; parks, again plenty of open space there, have banned smokers too. So the logic of non smokers being trapped in a confined space no longer applied. Yet smokers still had the freedom to smoke in their own cars or their homes without worrying about objections....until lately. Now the push is to find reasons to ban smokers from lighting up on their own property.
Each time a non smoker reminds me how my righteous they are I think back to something I read years ago about "first they came for the jews, but I was not jewish...", except this time it's "first they came for the smokers, but I didn't smoke." I look at these same righteous people, some who drink alcohol and others who are overweight, and tell them "next they will come after you", especially since "it's for their own good". The handwriting is on the wall; those with some extra poundage will be the next target, it's already started. So while I sit in their "clean air", chewing my Nicorette gum and slapping nicotine patches all over my body, I will snicker as they're told they can't order highly caloric foods at restaurants b/c it's against the law if their BMI is over 25.
Can you name any successful nation in the history of the world that hasn't had laws that control behavior?
I grew up with two parents who smoked. Try driving somewhere in the Winter with the windows rolled up and two cigarettes going.
GRINGOS UNITE????
Surely this isn't the "Gringo" that you are referring to????
"I did at first, but am so used to it I don't think twice about buckling up."
Well, at least you admit to being a sheep.
"US Constitution which enumerates those rights recognized for all persons."
Amendment Text | Annotations
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Thanks Clint. I'm glad somebody else is talking about the myth of this "free country." We're a regulated, litigated, legislated, emasculated nanny state.
"This is not about ownership but about the major function of government - protection of citizens from those who would do them harm."
Not according to the USSC.
"Again, neither has rights in this discussion."
On that, you are correct. It is the right of the property owner to make that decision. Neither the smoker, nor the non-smoker, can usurp that right.
BTW, a privately owned car is private property.
Well if you sit there steaming for 5 minutes evry time you get into your car, that's your problem. See a psychiatrist. Sometimes they can help with that out of control disease Beltaphobia.
...including the absolute right to do what you please no matter how may others you may irritate or harm. Yes, now that you mention it I do recall that. If I were you, I'd bring a discrimination charge against Arkansas immediately. I'm sure you're not the only one who sees a constitutional right to drive on a public highway without seatbelts and being able to smoke with children in the car. Go for it.
And all those darn unconstitutional laws involving vehicles. Does this mean that as long as you are in your vehicle (private property) you can rape someone? Can you smoke dope? Can you drive drunk? Can you operate it without certain safety equipment? Can you disengage the smog prevention equipment? Can you beat someone in it?
Oops.
Transporting children in motor vehicles is the single riskiest behaviour that our society partakes in. If you don't yet believe that, spend some time on NHTSA's website. You advocate the removal of ALL potential harmful situations from children's lives.
What makes the single riskiest activity to our children a "straman?"
"Ah yes, the smoker's holy grail...the straw man."
Ah, taking your logic to it's conclusion is considered a "strawman." Interesting, you aren't willing to abide by your own position. Of course, when you lack principles, emotions rule your life.
Who was the one talking about strawman arguments? Once again, your lack of principled positions is beginning to show.
They banned that in CA a while back.""
What they haven't banned in Kalifornia by now, they have taxed to death.
I don't miss living there. I only miss riding my horses in a few places.
Why don't you go to DU with your liberal brethren. Did you get your ass kicked one too many times when you were a kid?
Why don't you go to DU with your liberal brethren. Did you get your ass kicked one too many times when you were a kid?
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.