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.

[CSM]

"How would this sound? "You stated you supported the local communities right to ban an activity, smoking drinking in public, and I stated that the same community should then forego the revenues by banning cigarrettes alcohol in their entirety!"

That is exactly what I was saying. You keep using the logic that they should be able to ban smoking in public places (private property) because they have the ability to ban alcohol. Well, in reality with alcohol they ban the sale as well as the use in public places. When it comes to smoking they don't ban the sale, just the use in public places (private property) so they are hypocritical. They still want to benefits or revenue and yet they want to restrict the use.

"If a community bans smoking in public and smoking in private estabishments, they run the very real risk of losing cigarette tax revenue and the tax revenue from businesses that file for bankruptcy."

Exactly. If they have the nerve to dictate legislation banning it on private property, they should have the nerve to ban it in its entirety. The point is that while the villify smokers, they fund a good portion of that villification with the revenues from smoking. Hypocrits!

"The federal government has nothing to do with this issue. Maybe you can make the case that smokers are being discriminated against. But there is that bogus second-hand smoke argument that is making all this discrimination possible that has to be overcome."

Except the federal government is also reaping large rewards from tobacco. Of course they have nothing to do with the bans, but that is also my point. What would stop them from banning tobacco? They seem to have the precedence (sp?) set up just fine, with your support, from the WOsD.

---

To post #24
"I support their right to try. I doubt they would be successful."

Really? They have already been successful, what makes you think that they couldn't add more substances to that list of success?

"Do you vote? Have you ever talked to your congressman when he was in your area? You seem to be really out of touch with the way things work in our government."

Yes, I vote. I haven't talked to my personal reps but I have talked to other non-snake reps. The way things work today isn't entirely consistent with what is supposed to happen.

"Who is going to write a law banning Coke? Some dictator? Familiarize yourself with, "How a Bill Becomes Law" so you don't make such silly statements."

It could be anyone. Cold be health board of state or health board of fed or the supreme court or any number of a myriad of appointed, non elected officials that are currently making law. Why don't you sing the law for me and for the SC and for the 9th circuit and for the various state health boards and for any number of the non elected bodies making laws that could very well transfer into beverages or food in the name of health.

[CSM]

"Where's the state pride? Where's the competitiveness? We have basically one set of laws that govern all of us. This is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind."

Are you not supportive of this when it comes to the WOsD? If I am confusing your opinions with other posters, I apologize. It just seems that you are supporting states rights here, when normally you support the feds right to usurp the state's rights........I'm not asking out of any vindictiveness, just asking for clarification.

[CWOJackson]

Quiet? Not at all...I simply can keep things in perspective. There are a lot of important things going on that kind of get my attention. You people are nothing more then comic relief.

[Protagoras]

YOU people? What people are those? The ones you find amusing? Which one? What is amusing about them? Is you buddy CJ the criminal comical?

Must be tough looking down on people from a deep hole. How does that work exactly?

[jmc813]

Neurotic, feminized, freedom-hating individuals just love to run the lives of others, that's why. It's very sad that numbers of "conservatives" are among them.

I added this comment to a new section of my profile page called "Favorite Quotes from other FReepers". If you have any objection to this, let me know and I'll remove it.

[robertpaulsen]

I've always been a supporter of states rights.

Congress, with the support of the people, has chosen to regulate drugs at the federal level. If drugs are to be regulated, then I think it should be done at that level. I believe that it would be unworkable at the state level.

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

Take away the drugs, and I'm an RLC kind of guy. Ask jmc813.

[robertpaulsen]

Your "Comments From Fans" section seems to be a little light on the "Fans" side.

Maybe the title should be, "Comments From People Who Really Don't Like Me Plus One Who Does".

Just a suggestion.

[jmc813]

Maybe the title should be, "Comments From People Who Really Don't Like Me Plus One Who Does".

Who's the one who likes me?

[american spirit]

A couple things to consider.... if a citygov passes some sort of code or regulation concerning a subject like this....is it really a law that has to be followed by citizens or just a policy code passed by the board of directors (a.k.a. city council) for those associated in some or fashion with the MUNICIPAL CORPORATION?

Simply put, are codes and regulations created by citygov's "positive law" or are they formed under the "color of law"? It's my understanding that our enforceable laws can only be passed by the legislature and as far as codes ,rules, reg's etc. are not positive "laws" and are unenforceable.

Those codes and reg's should be no more enforceable on citizens than those created by other corporations for their employees. Imagine IBM coming into your town and telling everyone that they have to follow IBM's dress or conduct code.......it would be ludicrous.

This whole effort by city & county gov's to gain more control and revenue bears serious examination because they've become income starved (allegedly) and seemingly have an insatiable lust for more and more.

[robertpaulsen]

"Really? You mean the owner of a bar/lounge/restaurant can make me stop wearing a condom? Legally?"

Nah. That's not what CJ meant.

You can wear one. You just can't smoke it.

[tacticalogic]

Take away the drugs, and I'm an RLC kind of guy.

Funny, I don't ever recall anyone at RLC saying "Who's to say that 'substantial effects' isn't the correct interpretation".

[robertpaulsen]

Maybe they're afraid to ask the question. I'm not.

[tacticalogic]

Maybe they're afraid to ask the question. I'm not.

Why don't you show up on a property rights thread once in a while and ask. I'm sure you'll get lots of support.

[robertpaulsen]

You want me there, ping me.

[tacticalogic]

Okay. Care to place a bet as to how many will agree with an "RLC kind of guy" such as yourself?

[jmc813]

Funny, I don't ever recall anyone at RLC saying "Who's to say that 'substantial effects' isn't the correct interpretation".

RP said that he was an RLC type except for the WOD.

This distinguishes him from the great majority of pro-WOD FReepers who think that Ron Paul is more of a threat to America than Democrats. He also does not hail every unconstitutional social program tht the Bush administration supports, which is another charactaristic of the drug warriors.

[tacticalogic]

I'd be a little more convinced of that if he'd support a constitutional amendment for the drug war, and an end to the New Deal interpretation of the Commerce Clause. As it is, he opposes the unconstitutional federal social programs and bureaucratic intrusion into people's lives in practice, but tacitly supports it in principle. IMHO

[Cultural Jihad]

What an illogical ... argument.

Yes, it is illogical to claim that laws somehow rob people of their free will choices.

... our founding fathers well knew ... that if actions cause no harm to others then freedom dictates we permit them.

Case in point, supposedly, is the one Founder who crushed the Whiskey Rebellion. Then, again, it harms no one when a private property owner decides what lawful products are allowed and not allowed on his own private property, including smoking.

[Cultural Jihad]

... our founding fathers well knew ... that if actions cause no harm to others then freedom dictates we permit them.

You make the Founders out to be moral-liberals or something. Speaking of which, the reason they all enacted in their respective states anti-homosexual sodomy laws, which stayed on the books for hundreds of years, was _____________?

[CWOJackson]

CJ...you're still here. I guess the reports of your demise were greatly exaggerated.