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

Skip to comments.

IF THEY WEREN'T SERIOUS, THIS WOULD BE HYSTERICAL
The Cigar Show ^ | 2 October 2002 | Chuck Cason

Posted on 10/01/2002 11:16:00 PM PDT by SheLion

The movement to get the Dallas City Council to pass a city ordinance to make ALL establishments 100% smoke free is gaining momentum. They advocate preventing a bar or restaurant owner to make his or her own decision about giving a choice to the customer. They advocate putting into LAW that you can't... CAN NOT... smoke anywhere in the City of Dallas. "Well, how about the cigar bar in Del Frisco's after a big steak dinner?"

Nope. In fact if they get this passed, they might come back and try to get a law passed that we can't eat a big steak dinner because they found a study that suggests that the side-effects of other people enjoying a steak is bad for "the children".

In fact, there is no stopping a group of people organizing, coming up with their own "research", and lobbying to take our rights away because they don't like what others do.

 I know that sounds ridiculous and that is why no normal citizen, who enjoys the rights that people before us fought and died for, ever thinks that anything as absurd as a law to take away any of those rights could be even considered as serious. That is where we have been wrong... dead wrong. It seems that advocates share a certain trait with politicians: they both feel the need to get "involved" with the issue of guiding our citizenry. In the meantime, our citizenry is comfortable knowing that our Constitution is protecting us so we can go about our daily lives working and enjoying life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Well, guess what? We were wrong.

There is a group in Dallas that is working hard to "ban" smoking in any establishment in the city limits.

They contend a restaurant owner has no business making a decision about his or her own policies. They think that the local government should decide what type of customers they should try to attract. This group has even stooped to the over-done, we-should-do-it-for-the-children-and-if-you-disagree-with-that-you-hate-children tactic.

 They wonder why when they are with their "children" (because after all, they are pro-family... aren't you?) and someone in a restaurant lights up, the government isn't there to protect the health of their family. They wonder why they are expected to make a decision not to go to that restaurant instead of making everyone around them change so they don't have to.

To find the wisdom in our system, it is often necessary to read what our leaders said a long time ago. It was Abraham Lincoln that had words for this situation:

"Those who deny freedom for others deserve it not for themselves".

Let me be clear. I do not smoke cigarettes. They are nasty and dangerous. There are probably many chemicals and poisons that are let out into the air by smoking. But I reserve the right to smoke one day, if I want to. I won't smoke at your church, school, or in your government building. If you don't allow it in your home, I will totally respect that. I won't smoke in your car, or even near you when I can... I am not rude. However, when I choose a restaurant that wants me as a customer so much as to have a section for me, and you want to go there too (because the food and service are great), we have both made a decision based on personal freedom. Since you have made that choice, why is it my fault that you aren't comfortable? Why do you insist that city government get involved to make sure your dining experience is more pleasant? If you walk by a club and the rap music from inside is so loud that it seems offensive, will you go inside? No, of course not, and you wouldn't run to the city council wanting a law against rap music.

You simply wouldn't go. Get it?

I am not even going to start in on the junk science and so-called "surveys" presented as "irrefutable fact" by this poster group for political correctness. I will give you the link to the web site. Twenty years ago this web site would have made a great satirical magazine. It would have shown, in a ironic way, how fanatics try to push their agenda using any scare tactic they can. Sadly, this is not satire. It is a group that will not be content until others behave the way they think they should. It is time for common sense to replace political correctness.

It is time that people realize a perfect world is not formed by laws.

 

Here is the web site. Enjoy. http://smokefreedallas.org/


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Culture/Society; Government; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: antismokers; butts; cigarettes; individualliberty; michaeldobbs; niconazis; prohibitionists; pufflist; smokingbans; taxes; tobacco
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 521-538 next last
To: Roscoe
No smoking in restaurants ruined California?

Liberals, and their social engineering ruined California. Their smoking policies are just another nail in the coffin. I see you're pounding in some nails for them.

241 posted on 10/03/2002 9:18:23 AM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
Their smoking policies are just another nail in the coffin.

No smoking in restaurants is "another nail in the coffin?"

Is there any substance behind all that smoke?

242 posted on 10/03/2002 9:21:45 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
I've got to disagree. Its not amazing, its expected from these authoritarians.

I meant it was amazing that someone who's arguments had been so totally demolished still clung so tenaciously to the false premise.

I agree with your point about expecting it from certain circles. Witness those who have just showed up at the party with the turd for the punch bowl..LOL

243 posted on 10/03/2002 9:24:25 AM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
You won't find spittoons in California restaurants either.
244 posted on 10/03/2002 9:29:27 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
Post 244 is the first evidence of the changing nature of the thread, watch for future developments. :-)
245 posted on 10/03/2002 9:32:30 AM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
You guys are desparate to change the subject of the thread.

Too bad.

Smoke cigarettes, chaw tobacco and spat, puff cigars all you want. California law just says you can't in a restaurant open to the public. The sky hasn't fallen in.
246 posted on 10/03/2002 9:37:35 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
California law just says you can't in a restaurant open to the public. The sky hasn't fallen in.

Slavery was legal..

Laws don't define rights. Property rights are not at the whim of thugs.

You really want to have a discussion of rights? LOL, C'mon goofy, revert to form. Degrade to your usual rant

247 posted on 10/03/2002 9:44:48 AM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
You guys are desparate to change the subject of the thread.

The subject of the thread is the rights of the property owner to allow a legal commodity to be consumed in their place of business.
Any thoughts on the subject?

248 posted on 10/03/2002 9:47:26 AM PDT by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
Slavery was legal..

After all the hypocrital posturing about changing the subject, you try to change the subject.

Sorry, no go.

California law says you can't smoke in a restaurant open to the public. The sky hasn't fallen in, your hyperventilating notwithstanding.

249 posted on 10/03/2002 9:48:21 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
C'mon, change the subject to what you really want it to be.
250 posted on 10/03/2002 9:49:26 AM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
The subject of the thread is the rights of the property owner to allow a legal commodity to be consumed in their place of business.

If the business is open to the public, it's gonna be regulated. In California no smoking is allowed where members of the general public are present.

Private clubs are another matter.

251 posted on 10/03/2002 9:52:11 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
First of all, the thread has nothinwhatsoever to do with California. Your reading skills haven't changed.

No one disputes that laws have been passed to suspend certain property rights. The thread is about property rights. Your attempts to change it notwithstanding.

Now why not change the thread into what you really have in mind?

252 posted on 10/03/2002 9:52:38 AM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
C'mon, change the subject

Don't beg.

Do you have anything to say specific regarding "no smoking" laws?

253 posted on 10/03/2002 9:53:49 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Private clubs are another matter.

Anything is allowed in private clubs? I'm glad to see you support that. LOL

254 posted on 10/03/2002 9:53:50 AM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Do you have anything to say specific regarding "no smoking" laws?

The thread is over 250 posts long, try to keep up.

255 posted on 10/03/2002 9:54:33 AM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
First of all, the thread has nothinwhatsoever to do with California.

The "no smoking" proposal for Texas has already been successfully implemented here. No catastrophe, no apocalypse.

256 posted on 10/03/2002 9:56:06 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
Anything is allowed in private clubs?

Wrong again.

Smoking cigarettes and cigars is frequently allowed.

257 posted on 10/03/2002 9:57:47 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson; Roscoe
California law says you can't smoke in a restaurant open to the public. The sky hasn't fallen in

Well now I've seen it all. A "conservative", on FR of all places, defending Davis and the People's Republik of Kalifornia's liberal laws.

Surreal.

258 posted on 10/03/2002 9:58:21 AM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
defending Davis

Wrong again. California's laws restricting smoking in restaurants were around long before Davis.

259 posted on 10/03/2002 10:03:04 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
The "no smoking" proposal for Texas has already been successfully implemented here.

So you change the subject to California at your whim? LOL

No catastrophe, no apocalypse.

The catastophe is that property rights have been suspended. I recognise that you concider that to be a positive and therefore cannot understand the catastrophe.

Now change the subject to what you really want, c'mon, it will make you feel better. I'm sure the veins are sticking out on your temples in anticipation. LOL

260 posted on 10/03/2002 10:03:42 AM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 521-538 next last

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.

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