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.
LOL! Sounds like the Homeowners Assoc. where I used to live...
Chip off the old block would do, too.
This is probably where the whole thing started, come to think of it...
Dear Mr. Jefferson, I submit that you (or I) can find SOME disagreement with ANYONE.
I also submit that, despite any perceived short-comings, Mr. Williams is still a breath of fresh air in this current putrid atmosphere of political, economic and social commentary by main-stream media.
Seems that you are pretty good at evasion when it comes to the questions and more keen on asking some of your own. It would help to change the subject, I suppose.
I guess that means that you admit that Jesus Christ, our lord, never thought it important enough to include in all the things he told us that we should use force to make people obey when he had the chance. Evasion isn't very good when it comes to answering questions about the bible when you name yourself "biblewonk".
Do you believe that Jesus is a libertarian, I've certainly seen posts with that title?
I haven't claimed Jesus to be of any particular political bent. Please do not project onto me what anyone else in the world has said.
To say that Jesus uttered words that indicated some governmental authority on some subjects is a slam dunk. (which is why you chose it) Trying to nail that down to specific authority will be quite a different matter.
I would be happy to engage you in a discussion about his comments on "what belongs to Ceasar" if you would like, but it is off topic.
Can I also assume from your non-response that you agree with my comments on your ignorance (and therefore inability to credibly address) of Walter Williams' stands on topics such as you questioned?
I also submit that, despite any perceived short-comings, Mr. Williams is still a breath of fresh air in this current putrid atmosphere of political, economic and social commentary by main-stream media.
I'm not sure whether you are agreeing or disagreeing with me.
I opined that many people who embrace statements and/or ideas expressed by Dr. Williams are not such vocal supporters when they find out he is a libertarian. I submit it is because they have been misinformed about what a libertarian believes and have made up their mind to oppose libertarians on that basis and find it hard to reconcile to themselves that they agree with the philosophy about so many things.
Do you agree or disagree that people are not as vocal about their support when they learn that his philosophy is libertarian?
Both, I guess.
Agree that some libertarian philosophy does not appeal to me, at this time.
Disagree in that, after having read a number of articles and a couple of books by Mr. Williams, I found him to be a champion for American liberty more than a shill for the Libertarian party.
My point was that detractors can be found for ANY individual or organization.
For example; According to some, there are problems with NRA leadership. Do I believe it? Sure, but I am a member. Same thing for GOA (Gun Owners of America). Yeah. A member. Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. Ditto. United Negro (it's o.k., if you give money, they let you say that) College Fund? I've heard it's not a perfect organization. (But I donate money to it).
I simply say that to demand absolute, total and exacting adherence to MY philosophy (or yours), is to wake up one day a very lonely man.
One more and I'll quit. Two guys and me, on a river bank early one morning, 'starved to death'. NOTHING left but 3 cans of pork and beans, cooking on a wood fire. I accidently stumble and kick a chunk of mud in the skillet of beans. You DO know what happened, don't you?
Set the mud aside, friend. Embrace the beans.
That means that there is time. There is hope. :-)
Disagree in that, after having read a number of articles and a couple of books by Mr. Williams, I found him to be a champion for American liberty more than a shill for the Libertarian party.
I can't imagine where you got the idea that anyone was suggesting that Dr. Williams has anything whatsoever to do with the Libertarian Party. I have no data on that. He describes himself as a libertarian and I agree with that based on everything I have observed about him.
My point was that detractors can be found for ANY individual or organization.
I agree but I'm not sure why you feel compelled to keep making a point that has nothing to do with anything I said. It's a mystery.
One more and I'll quit. Two guys and me, on a river bank early one morning, 'starved to death'. NOTHING left but 3 cans of pork and beans, cooking on a wood fire. I accidently stumble and kick a chunk of mud in the skillet of beans. You DO know what happened, don't you? Set the mud aside, friend. Embrace the beans.
You should have quit before you told this little story. You seem to have ingested some mud with your beans, it has muddied up your thinking. :-)
C'mon, Mr. J., you mean you didn't laugh at that 'bean' thing? Not even once? I've been laughing at myself all day. (Yes, I am easily entertained).
No, I don't think we have any disagreement. I read your post as a charge. I realize now that it was merely an observation. I beg your pardon. My only excuse is that it had been a very long day, it was late and I should have been in bed, not on-line. It's 1am and I'm very tired (or maybe it's that 'mud' thing again), so once again, I'm sorry that I misunderstood you, and thanks for straightening me out.
There is a good possibility that the city will not like what they say. they don't particularly care about the interest of who is paying them - they do the study based on the numbers, not for the interest of a particular group.
It will be interesting - especially if the city doesn't like what they say. My suggestion is keep an eye on it - and make sure the city releases the results, regardless of which way they go.
Well Gabz, so far they have done a quarterly study, and claim there has been no ill effect, that in spite of my non-smoking pro-ban daughter says, "She has never seen so few people at The Outback....... 14 people tops."
Publius, one of the biggest (in all senses of the word) antis, attorney and founder of ASH John Banzhaf, says "If you can smell it, it's killing you." Of course there's no proof that's so, but that doesn't stop him from spreading the myth around or brain-dead antis from believing it.
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.
And here's the rub: Even though every single chemical ever measured in secondary smoke has an acceptable level according to OSHA and the EPA (arsenic, for instance, which is still in our drinking water at some level). BUT, there is NO acceptable level for environmental tobacco smoke. Antis have fought tooth and nail to make sure of that. Therefore they can say "there is NO safe level of shs," and be believed. Anyone with a brain knows the dose makes the poison, but those people apparently think with their arses.
Peat Marwick has been on the receiving end of several lawsuits, including one by the SEC, the Law Society and this one: "KPMG Peat Marwick, LLP. (KPMG) has agreed to pay the United States over $9 million to settle allegations of preparing false hospital cost reports that were submitted to Medicare and Medicaid, the Justice Department announced today."
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.