Posted on 01/21/2007 5:56:10 AM PST by NJRighty
Well, I totally understand your point. There is a lot of Nanny state crap where they remove the responsibility from the person. That even happens with cigarettes - they blame the manufacturers. The fact remains that while the cigarette serves no real purpose (i.e. nothing good can come of it) it's still the person's decision to use them.
Here's my take on the lawmakers:
As I see it, most of our lawmakers ARE corrupt and the ones who aren't are too scared when they go home at night to stand up to the corrupt ones.
Who would protect them? So, the good lawmakers have to be "good little people" and just go along with the corrupt lawmakers or else! Pity, isn't it.
And so do I. And I refuse to spend my money in a reform school setting! Who needs it!!!
Amen to THAT! These anti-smokers are so hate filled for we the American smoker, that is all they can think about. Getting rid of US! Well, maybe one day they WILL be rid of us, but what will they be left with? All Illegals and Terrorists controlling them then.
Then they might long for the day that smokers were back along with our freedoms!!!
I'm stealing that pic!
Thanks for the ping!
"Do they know who they emulate?"
Hahahaha you are kidding, right?? Of course they do, many have openly joined, or at least embraced, the party!
The government controls countless aspects of what the owners of private property can and cannot do.
For example:
A bar owner cannot sell beer to 12 year old kids.
A store owner cannot sell cigarettes to children under 18.
An apartment owner cannot deny leasing to a minority.
A restaurant owner cannot serve meat that is not inspected.
A day care center owner cannot store toxic waste at the day care center.
A bar owner cannot pump toxic air into his bar.
Each of the above government regulations are instituted to protect the public safety or at least the perceived public safety. Thus as long as their is a perceived public safety threat from ETS there will continue to be smoking bans.
The stark reality is that within 10 years there will no be a jurisdiction in the U.S. where there are not smoking bans.
The principle involved is that one's body belongs to the State. Once that's accepted by the hive, such as yours, it's a fait accompli that the State is given permission to extinguish all individual liberties for "the greater good."
barely even peripherally associated with it.
It's central to the discussion, despite your shrieking protestations.
Yes they can. I have the perfect right to lease my apartment to anyone I wish, or deny leasing it to anyone I wish.
So your position is that anti-smokers are so irredeemably stupid that they can't make a decision not to enter a place that allows smoking.
That the only way they can face this life-changing decision is to call in the force of government to save them from their thumb-sucking selves.
Health and safety regulations are for the protection of the public in areas where the public has no visibility (filthy kitchens, adulterated alcoholic beverages, etc.).
What kind of idiot couldn't tell whether smoking was allowed or not at the front door?
I encourage you to try.
I encourage you to then tell the authorities that the Fair Housing Act does not apply to you. Maybe you're ignorant and you really don't understand the concept, or maybe I'm wrong and you're in the extremely narrow minority of property owners that are exempt from the Fair Housing Act.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
You your self called smokers a minority - I don't have to rent to a minority.
The point I was making is I can deny renting an apartment to anyone and give any reason I choose.
You're apparently operating from the premise that second-hand smoke is a killer. Sorry, you don't get to define the terms of the argument, painful as it must be to a narcissist such as yourself.
I love arguing with brick walls (and naive extreme libertarians).
Of course you don't love "arguing."
You require complete acquiescence to any assertion you make.
Do you buy your brown shirts off the rack, or are they tailored?
Read the Fair Housing Act. I'm not going to tell you anything other than that.
I'm not going to continue this dialogue if you don't acknowledge that secondhand smoke is harmful.
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.