Crusaders for the Nanny State

EverVigilant.net ^ | 05/10/2004 | Lee R. Shelton IV

[sheltonmac]

Some people are moved to champion a particular cause because of a tragic event in their lives, like the loss of a loved one. Others, like St. Paul City Council member Dave Thune, are motivated by a guilty conscience - and Minnesota residents are the ones who will suffer the consequences.

Thune recently proposed a ban on smoking in all of St. Paul's bars and restaurants. His reasoning? "This is a public health issue," the admitted smoking addict said. "We need to protect patrons and staff at our establishments."

Ah, yes! The "public good" has long been a refuge for many a political scoundrel.

My suspicion is that Dave Thune is having pangs of remorse. "More important than my personal fight against my addiction is what it is doing to other people," he said. "It's wrong for those of us who can't give it up to make people breathe our smoke." Poor guy. I can only imagine the guilt he must feel for all those innocent people he killed with his second-hand smoke.

Other cities in Minnesota have already imposed fascistic bans on the use of tobacco. Rochester, home of the Mayo Clinic, and Duluth have both been smoke-free for some time now, and the Minneapolis City Council will be proposing similar restrictions later this week.

Opponents of these bans fear an adverse affect on the local economy. People are constantly flocking to Minnesota - the Twin Cities in particular - for professional and collegiate sporting events, plays and musicals, concerts and conventions. Visitors come from all over the world for business, vacation or a weekend of shopping at the Mall of America.

Dan Bostrom, St. Paul City Council president, said, "If a restaurant wants to be smoke-free, it just needs to put up 'No Smoking' signs and take away the ashtrays.'' But a solution like that is too simple for politicians like Dave Thune to understand. It is his belief that families "should not have to choose restaurants based on their health and the health of their children."

What Thune doesn't realize - or, more likely, refuses to admit - is that many families choose restaurants all the time based on their health and the health of their children. Some avoid places like Old Country Buffet because of the tendency to over-eat. Some stay away from McDonald's and Burger King because of the lack of healthy options. And believe it or not, some avoid establishments that allow smoking because they don't want to contract lung cancer and die in the next 40 or 50 years.

There was once a time in America when the freedom to choose was something to be cherished and protected. It was all part of living in a free society. Today, having to make such choices is considered an inconvenience, and Thune's prescription is to have elected officials make the difficult choices for those he deems incapable of handling that luxury. Besides, the good people of Minnesota will probably be much happier without the burden of excess responsibility and may reward their bureaucratic benefactors with votes and tax dollars.

Listening to these politicians ramble on and on about how they are only doing what's best for us, it's a wonder any of us survived the days before the nanny state. What's next? Will the government expand its role of caretaker by banning smoking in our cars? Our homes?

The state of Minnesota, like the rest of the country, was founded on the principle that the function of government is to protect the inalienable rights of the people. Dave Thune apparently believes that isn't enough; government should control how people live if they refuse to follow his concept of an ideal society.

To Mr. Thune and other crusaders for the nanny state, let me say this: public service is not an appropriate venue for exorcising your own personal demons. See a shrink or talk to your pastor. I really don't care as long as you get off your power trip and stop saying you know what's best for me. If I want to brave the toxic cloud of tobacco smoke in my neighborhood bar, that's my choice to make.

And to the ill-informed, masochistic citizens who keep voting these tyrants into office: grow up. You may be miserable, but don't take it out on me. In your efforts to feel better about yourselves you are contributing to the bastardization of the democratic process by using it for no other purpose than to force your lifestyle choices on the rest of us. If you believe you must do something to help better society, try staying home on election day.

[Protagoras]

Well, lets try this for a third time also. Are you too cowardly to answer the question directly without referring to other things? I'm not a Libertarian, you claim you aren't, Cj claims he's not, so it's irrelevant.

Do you defend drug users or condemn them? Or are you yellow?

[CWOJackson]

Yeah, sure I'm yellow. I'm so terrified of your cyber manliness that I can hardly type I am shaking so badly. Why, I may just...yawn...faint away from fear.

I really don't think you're getting the message here sparkey. For some reason you seem to think that I have even the slightest bit of concern over your wanting to play some silly arsed word games. You are sadly mistaken, but that seems to be a condition you have made a hobby of. So yes, I am so terrified of you...oh, oh.

LOL!

[Old Professer]

the good thing about mobs is they have no conscience; the bad thing is they have no conscience.

[Gabz]

There is a section of FR called the smokey backroom that is much more suited to this nonsense than this thread.

I am asking you nicely to please drop this line of conversation on this thread. Please.

[Gabz]

That is actually very funny.

[Old Professer]

If you take away their toys, you have to tuck them into bed.

[Protagoras]

Girly man. You claim to be a conservative. You claim to represent law and order. You claim to support the WOD. You claim to detest the Libertarian Party.

Yet you support criminal scum bags who advocate anarchy and drug usage while the Libertarian Party merely wants to influence (properly, and legally and within the system) the citizens to change the laws on drug usage. You are the quintessential coward. You cannot bring yourself to condemn the things you say you condemn. Anyone must then logically conclude you support illegal drug usage.

How do you look yourself in the mirror? Yellow belly.

[Gabz]

OMG I just spit beer all over my monitor...........I do not even wish to discuss how long it took us to get our daughter to bed tonight.


All kidding aside, I grew up in Brooklyn and actually had friends with parents who were "connected" and my dad was NYPD...........talk about dichotomies!!!!!!

[Protagoras]

This thread belongs in the Smokey backroom in case you haven't noticed.

But you can stay here and molly coddle these two criminals if you want, I'm through for the night.

[CWOJackson]

You know, Gabz is right. If you want to pound your cyber chest and show your friends how big and strong you are why don't you take it on over to the smokeyback room and leave the thread to people interested in the discussion.

That's just common courtesy.

[Gabz]

This thread didn't belong in the smokey backroom until it started getting hijacked by someone else's agenda.

I don't molly coddle anyone and I never tolerate criminals, which is why I verbally, vocally, and loudly oppose the government forced bans on smoking.

[Gabz]

I appreciate your input (heck I didn't even start this thread!!!!)

The only thing I can figure is that someone has brought a feud from another thread over to here. I just have a personal problem with thread crossing. I'm not a moderator wannabe and avoid hitting the abuse button as much as I can - heck I have not hit the abuse button on posters who I told I would do it to.

Anyway, thanks again for your input and courtesy.

[CWOJackson]

"I don't molly coddle anyone and I never tolerate criminals, which is why I verbally, vocally, and loudly oppose the government forced bans on smoking."

I would suggest you stay away from Seattle. About the only facility you can smoke in there are the gay bath houses; for some reason they are an exception. But that is Seattle politics.

I quit after I retired, because I wanted to not because I was told to. Prior to retirement, after lunch in the galley, I always enjoyed a decent cigar at the end of the dock.

I remember a young chief coming up to be and telling me that I wasn't allowed to smoke there (not a posted smoking area, no hazard of any kind). It only took him a couple of seconds to fully understand that as far has he was concerned there was a permenant smoking area ten feet around me.

[Gabz]

I have no reason to visit the left coast anytime in the near future, so Seattle has no worries about me darkening their doorways.

I only recently moved out of Delaware where the only places you can smoke are the fraternal and veterans establishments or the volunteer fire companies - what a hoot!!!!!

The state exempted the VFDs (all but 1 fire company in the entire state is volunteer) most especially for their bingo nights which are a primary fund raiser for them. When the Catholic Church in Dover requested an exemption from the ban for their bingo nights they were denied. The CHURCH was considered a public place, yet the VFD that gets taxpayer money was excluded from the law.

Go figure.

[Cultural Jihad]

... and you whining anti smokers come in and determine I can't do it and seek the power of the government to change it - you are ...

Not really true at all. Where have I expressed any sentiment which is anti-smokers? You might find posts supporting the right of people to determine what kind of a society they are to live in.

[Gabz]

As I said, grow up.

And while you are doing that, stay out of establishments that permit adults to consume legal products of which you disapprove.

Everyone will be better for it. (you staying out of those establishments, that is)

[camle]

help yerself :_)

[Gabz]

And all along I only thought you were witty in the classroom!!!!

Silly me.

[camle]

you only THOUGHT I was witty in the classroom? I thought you KNEW!!

At my age I can be witty wherever I want as long as I don't witty on the rug!

[CSM]

If the people supported banning other consumables at the Federal level, would that be right? The bottom line is that this support of the people to use the Federal government to regulate consumption of drugs has given them the ability to regulate any consumable at the Federal level.

"Most other issues (guns, abortion, education, welfare, etc.) can and should be dealt with at the state level."

I agree that abortion, education, welfare, etc. should be dealt with at the State level only. However, guns are specifically to not be "dealt with" at the State or Federal level.