Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: wideawake

while i am a non-smoker as well (and a former North Carolinian..), I do NOT support such a ban-these type of public "place bans" reeeeeeak of Big-Government Statism: Firstly it violates one's "right to property" (ie the bar-resturant owner's rights), 2ndly these type of bans were instituted by liberal-anti-smoking campaigns (led by lawers not really concerned about the public health of the American people, but of making themselves a butt-load (not puns intended) of money off the Big Tobacco Companies)-Wasn't John Edwards a Lawiar?, 3rdly These "bans" run contrary to competition and the "Free-Market", if someone doesn[t like smoking in a resturant/bar: DON'T GO TO IT!! It's that plain and simple, Go to a new place that doesn't allow smoking instead!! 4th, and Lastly-> It is anti-freedom/libertarian to restrict what someone can do on their own property that doesn't violate someone'e explice and implicit civil rights!


7 posted on 10/03/2006 10:28:26 AM PDT by JSDude1 (www.pence08.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: JSDude1
I do NOT support such a ban

Neither do I.

But a good way to appeal to people to get a law going is to speak to their creature comforts.

22 posted on 10/03/2006 10:48:51 AM PDT by wideawake ("The nation which forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten." - Calvin Coolidge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: JSDude1

"if someone doesn[t like smoking in a resturant/bar: DON'T GO TO IT!! It's that plain and simple, Go to a new place that doesn't allow smoking instead!!"

Further to my last post, you're completely correct, of course. But most people don't really give a flying fig for broad concepts like "freedom" and "liberty" and just want what they want. And the majority of those "most people" are now non-smokers. I've given up on the whole fight - it's a losing proposition, at least for the forseeable future.


70 posted on 10/03/2006 12:15:45 PM PDT by -YYZ-
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: JSDude1

"these type of public "place bans" reeeeeeak of Big-Government Statism...."

It is a mistake to believe that governments come up with the idea of smoking bans on their own. Politicians are pushed by the American Lung, American Cancer Society, Non-Smoker's Rights, etc. all organizations which are funded by a pharmaceutical nicotine backed Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (J & J Co.).

Why would a pharmaceutical nicotine conglomerate want laws passed which ban tobacco nicotine use?

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/09/now-that-rwjf-has-put-smoking-bans-in.html

If more non-smoker's stood up against these bans politicians would tell the pharmaceutical interests where to go. Alcohol and food are the next bans.....but if people stand by to let the smoking bans pass unchallenged, so too will the future bans easily pass based on the earlier smoking ban precedent.

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2005/11/beware-next-ban.html


86 posted on 10/03/2006 5:30:25 PM PDT by mwernimont (The facts on secondhand smoke don't support the smoking ban agenda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson