Posted on 05/11/2004 1:11:05 PM PDT by 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.
I've stated before that I would support a constitutional amendment turning the drug legalization decision over to the states just like we did with alcohol. I wouldn't vote for it, of course, but I support this fair approach to changing our existing drug laws.
"and an end to the New Deal interpretation of the Commerce Clause."
The "New Deal" interpretation? Oh, please. Was there ever any other interpretation contrary to the "New Deal" interpretation? You previously admitted there wasn't, and now you're implying otherwise.
"As it is, he opposes the unconstitutional federal social programs and bureaucratic intrusion into people's lives in practice"
As I said, an RLC kind of guy.
The federal government doesn't "deal with" guns. They "deal with" "commerce", which of course makes it a completely different matter.
Really? I think that statement will give anyone who's familiar with my views on the issue a firm basis to establish the degree of veracity to attribute to your comments.
They have had the ability to regulate the interstate commerce of any consumable since 1789.
Both you and tacticalogic have this problem that any regulation (via the commerce clause) that you don't like you call unconstitutional. I have yet to see that supported by either of you.
"However, guns are specifically to not be "dealt with" at the State or Federal level."
Guns are currently "dealt with" at the state level. I don't want that to change.
Your myopia is not my problem, and probably not CSM's either.
Well, what do you say we re-familiarize your constituents:
robertpaulsen: "Maybe you have one where the court ruled that Congress had no authority to regulate intrastate activity, despite the fact that the activity substantially affected interstate regulation?"
tacticalogic: "Not going to work. Prior to FDR, no Congress or Executive was so socialistic, irresponsible, or manipulative to even consider trying, so there was nothing to rule on."
Ergo, one consistent interpretation.
And if they determine that rights can be usurped then you are all for it, correct?
Who's agenda? The guy who brings his obsession against libertarians? He didn't seem to bother you.
Or the guy who thinks that people can violate the rights of others because of a majority vote? The same guy who is a criminal and maintains that he can choose which laws to obey and which ones to ignore? That 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.
Good. Then don't tolerate the anti-freedom agenda or the hypocrisy of the criminal.
Carry on.
A common misconception by the Chicken Littles out there.
Just because Congress has the power to regulate something doesn't mean they must or should regulate it. It simply means they can.
"I seem to remember a good article pointing out that the Honorable Thomas wrote an opinion supporting this."
Yeah, right. Justice Thomas was warning about Congress being out of control, passing regulations under the Commerce Clause that reached into the state, and what are we to do, blah blah blah.
Ironically, he wrote this opinion as he and the other Justices were ruling congressional legislation unconstitutional. What are we to do, indeed.
Nor do I, but the other two do.
I've got nothing against libertarians, I'm married to one for pete's sake!!!
They do, and it is off topic in any case. They bring it to this thread, not you or I.
I have said it before and I will say it again, there is a certain amount of government rule necessary for the general welfare of the populace.
Ya Think? Please name anyone who ever disagreed with that statement on FR.
Because it has never been said
..I only make it because I have been accused numerous times of being in favor of anarchy because I am against government mandated smoking bans
By people like CJ, who threw the term around on this very thread.
There are some who believe that because I disagree with the government mandating the clientele of private businesses I am in favor of ridding society of all government. Something I have never or would ever advocate.
It is the typical and oft used straw-man argument of the authoritarians, who reflexively support any power of government.
When you denied it, you played into their hands.
We agree on this issue, and most others I suspect. Carry on.
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.