They're Coming After You

Worldnetdaily/Creators Syndicate, Inc. | 3-6-02 | Walter Williams

[Gaston]

Once again, another giant I TOLD YOU SO for Limbaugh. He, virtually alone, said that fatty food would be target #1 after the nico nazi were successful with their tobacco shakedown.

Here is one Rush didn't tell you about. Under the same premise that smoking bothers the breathing of others around them, they will also go after the women (or men) who wear too much cologne.

[NMC EXP]

“Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.” -- Noah Webster

Sowell and Webster are correct. Bottom line is the primary function of the state is to seperate us from as much of our cash as possible. The favored excuses for this theft are 1) "do it for the children" and 2) "[you fill in the blank] results in higher health care costs which must be paid for by all".

I reject the notion that I am responsible for the care of anyone other than me and mine. So did James Madison when he said;

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article in the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.... With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.“

Grab your a** and run.....the only true criminal class in America is poised to strike again.

Regards

J.R.

[Phantom Lord]

Actually, i have heard him speak about "mutliple chemical sensitivity."

[Gaston]

Actually, i have heard him speak about "mutliple chemical sensitivity."

Maybe you are right about Rush's ability to predict the future is better than anyone else on the political front. I must have missed that one. I stand corrected. Thanks.

[newgeezer]

I get your point about someone else's eating not affecting you like smoking near you kicks in your asthma, I just don't agree with your conclusion that because of that, the government should regulate - if not ban - smoking.

Then you have never had asthma.

My wife is terribly allergic to most cats; if she gets near one or goes into a house where one even used to live, she experiences respiratory distress, sometimes severe, much like asthma.

So, should the government regulate or ban cats?

[biblewonk]

Close the cat show loophole!!!!

[biblewonk]

Most Americans were pleased with the legislative attack on cigarette smokers, not to mention confiscatory tobacco taxes.

I don't think Americans would even recognize a similarity to a situation 225 years ago if the government attacked tea drinking by taxing it to death. Boy how we've changed.

[Sabertooth]

Once again, another giant I TOLD YOU SO for Limbaugh. He, virtually alone, said that fatty food would be target #1 after the nico nazi were sucessful with their tobacco shakedown.

Rush absolutely nailed it, but just for the record, Dennis Prager was also right on top of this from Day One.

[jaq]

Well, I have asthma, and I almost died of it two years ago. It was triggered by my beloved German Shepard.
Since I smoke, being next to a smoker doesn't bother me ... strong perfume or cologne DOES. I have to leave the area if someone is wearing it; however, I don't ask the government to force them not to wear it in public.

[newgeezer]

when a guy at the table next to me but across that invisable line that denotes the smoking section, desides to light up while perusing his menu.

Given your asthmatic condition and your sensitivity to cigarette smoke, one has to wonder why you would sit at a table so close to -- let alone next to -- the smoking section.

I know people who merely dislike cigarette smoke enough to ask for a table far away from the smoking section, and they don't even have a medical reason.

Oh, and although I'm not a smoker, I believe restauranteurs should have complete freedom to make the rules in their places of business. Let them appeal to the market as they wish, and let potential customers vote with their feet.

[Sloth]

Too many Freepers can't appreciate the difference between an inherently intrusive activity like smoking and a non-intrusive one like over-eating at a buffet.

[mysterio]

Oh, cry me a river. Go to a different resteraunt. Ask to be moved. Smoking is almost illegal already. If you are too slow to find a place where there's no smoke, then I have no sympathy for you.

[LouD]

CSPI Nazis see...riding instead of walking, as contributing to obesity.

How about when I drive to the gym? Do I get a rebate?

[farmall]

a local restarant was so smokey we walked out. @ 1 year later we checked it out again, no smoke at all. i told the manager what happened in the past and he said they put in a smoke eater.

did'nt know what a smoke eater was, but it sure cleared that place up.

[farmall]

run to the gym and back ----save your membership fee.

[Fred Mertz]

Walter Williams tells it like it is.

[Wolfie]

Bottom line. Williams' premise is flawed. I know from whence this madness was spawned, and it wasn't the tobacco settlement.

[Just another Joe]

And, as they see it, just as tobacco companies were responsible for people smoking, television manufacturers are responsible for people being couch potatoes, automobile companies are responsible for people riding instead of walking and the food industry is responsible for people eating too much.

We told them so!

[Just another Joe]

Thats why smokers are hated.

If you hate them all for the actions of one you are as bad as the Ku Klux Clan used to be.
Did you ask him politely to extinguish his smoke while he ate?
Or do you just complain about it here?
Realizing that he COULD have told you to shove it because he was in the smoking section, he might have realized that it bothered you and not smoked again while he was there.

[newgeezer]

Too many Freepers can't appreciate the difference between an inherently intrusive activity like smoking and a non-intrusive one like over-eating at a buffet.

Some of us appreciate the difference, but still fail to see any need for government regulation. Can you appreciate that difference?

You want to talk "intrusive"? Let's talk about government intrusion on the free market with laws like these.

Some of us -- even this non-smoker who hates the smell of cigarette smoke -- think the mere suggestion of anything resembling any sort of "right" to a smoke-free restaurant dining experience is absolutely ludicrous, bordering on nanny-state insanity.