Posted on 12/04/2001 11:59:43 PM PST by JohnHuang2
Maryland's Montgomery County Council passed a measure whereby smokers whose neighbors are offended by the odor of cigarette smoke wafting from their homes would be fined up to $750.
After the measure passed, County Executive Douglas Duncan promised to sign the bill giving Montgomery County one of the most restrictive anti-smoking measures in the nation.
Council member Isaiah Leggett explained the proposed measure by saying, "This does not say that you cannot smoke in your house; what it does say is that your smoke cannot cross property lines."
Less than a year ago, the Montgomery County Council, by a 5-to-4 vote, approved the outdoor smoking ban adopted by its nearby neighbor, the Village of Friendship Heights, Md. That ban prohibited smoking on or in sidewalks, lawns, parks, buildings or other areas owned by the Village. First offenses would be subject to a warning, and subsequent offenses subject to a $100 fine.
Dr. Alfred Muller, the mayor of the village, justified the adoption of the ban saying there are residents who have health problems, such as asthma and emphysema, plus, "We are trying to change the social norm concerning tobacco use."
Last March, a judge found the Village of Friendship Heights' health claims ridiculous and threw out its outdoor smoking ban.
Douglas Duncan didn't wait for the courts. After he promised to sign the anti-smoking bill, six days later he reversed course and vetoed it. Duncan's decision had nothing to do with coming to his senses over the issue. It was the massive national ridicule heaped upon Montgomery County officials over their heavy-handed tactics.
The health arguments offered about the harmful effects of tobacco smoke crossing property lines are but so much bunk. Yes, there are some who have emphysema, asthma or allergies and are annoyed by cigarette smoke. These people may also be annoyed by other air borne products such as hair spray, after-shave lotions, perfumes, clothing softeners, fireplace smoke, cooking odors and deodorants. Should they be able to make a complaint and have the police knock on their neighbor's door and tell them to cease and desist?
Should we change airport announcements that say, "In the interest of a healthy indoor air quality, smoking is not permitted in public areas"? Should a more health inclusive announcement say, "In the interest of a healthy indoor air quality, passengers are not permitted to smoke, wear perfumes, use hair sprays, deodorants or after-shave lotion, or wear clothing that's been rinsed in fabric softeners"? Or should we just have odor and odor-free seating sections on airplanes?
America's cigarette Nazis, like any other tyrant, cannot be satisfied. In the '60s, when they started out, they wanted no-smoking sections on airplanes. Had they revealed their complete agenda of no smoking in airplanes, airports, restaurants, jobs, streets – not to mention confiscatory taxes – they wouldn't have gotten anything.
Regarding confiscatory taxes, cigarette Nazis are being challenged by one of my heroes – the smuggler. Some states, such as Washington and Michigan, have taxes that make a carton of cigarettes cost as much as $48. Why is the smuggler my hero? It's easy. People want to and have the right to engage in peaceable, mutually agreeable, voluntary exchange, and a third-party – government – tells them no.
The smuggler thwarts the government's mission of interference. Before we go bad-mouthing smugglers, we might consider that a number of the men we celebrate each Fourth of July, including John Hancock, the first signer of our Declaration of Independence, were smugglers. At that time, it was the British Parliament imposing confiscatory taxes – today it's federal, state and local governments.
Confiscatory taxes are an abuse of power regardless of what government levies them.
Come visit us at Freepathon Holidays are Here Again: Let's Really Light Our Tree This Year - Thread 6
and be a part of something that is larger than all of us.
Alone, we are a voice crying in the wilderness. Together we are a force for positive action!
Don't be left out!
Be one who can someday say..................... "I was there when..................."
Thank you to everyone who has already come by and become a part!
I agree. Many here claim to like him as well. But then they find out he's a libertarian and they silently slip way.
Yet another reason for the nico-nazis to stop the harrassment.
You really ought to post that as a seperate article. That way we could flag the puff list to it also.
I don't speak for Williams, I only know how he describes himself. Why not read his columns and books. Both can be found on the net.
I have read him extensively as well as having heard him speak on occasion. The answer to your questions might surprise you.
And it might be helpful to correct your terms, it's re-legalizing all substances. And prostitution is already legal some places.
I'm not disappointed. It never occured to me that you would actually find out what the man really thinks, even though you said "he rocks".
You do not know what he thinks and you think it "not worth your time" to find out, but somehow you have come to the conclusion (with no data) that he is
A. wise
B. "Into the bible"
The next thing you need to do is not change the advocation of re-legalization of behaviors by individuals which do not violate the rights of others into "thinking such things are OK". It is very misleading to some people. (I am not one of those misled)
I don't think that even the most IQ-challenged of the anti-smoking nazis would argue that the odor of cigarette smoke is a carcinogen. I assume that there must be some claim of damage involved for action to be taken.
And proof is absolutely necessary. Air sampling bottles should be required; after all I don't think any little burgh run by controlling twits can trump due process.
Since you are the bible wonk, maybe you could help me out with a few (in context) verses that quote Christ as having advocated human beings using force on other human beings to deter behaviors such as prostitution or use of mind altering substances. Thanks
And the false filer must thereinafter submit color chips for approval to the victim whenever the exterior of the false filer's house is to be painted, lest the color offend the victim, triggering psychosomatic illnesses. Landscaping choices could also be included.
Is that the chip on my shoulder, the fried chip made of potato, or the candy chip in my cookies? heh heh
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.