IF THEY WEREN'T SERIOUS, THIS WOULD BE HYSTERICAL

The movement to get the Dallas City Council to pass a city ordinance to make ALL establishments 100% smoke free is gaining momentum. They advocate preventing a bar or restaurant owner to make his or her own decision about giving a choice to the customer. They advocate putting into LAW that you can't... CAN NOT... smoke anywhere in the City of Dallas. "Well, how about the cigar bar in Del Frisco's after a big steak dinner?"

Nope. In fact if they get this passed, they might come back and try to get a law passed that we can't eat a big steak dinner because they found a study that suggests that the side-effects of other people enjoying a steak is bad for "the children".

In fact, there is no stopping a group of people organizing, coming up with their own "research", and lobbying to take our rights away because they don't like what others do.

I know that sounds ridiculous and that is why no normal citizen, who enjoys the rights that people before us fought and died for, ever thinks that anything as absurd as a law to take away any of those rights could be even considered as serious. That is where we have been wrong... dead wrong. It seems that advocates share a certain trait with politicians: they both feel the need to get "involved" with the issue of guiding our citizenry. In the meantime, our citizenry is comfortable knowing that our Constitution is protecting us so we can go about our daily lives working and enjoying life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

There is a group in Dallas that is working hard to "ban" smoking in any establishment in the city limits.

They contend a restaurant owner has no business making a decision about his or her own policies. They think that the local government should decide what type of customers they should try to attract. This group has even stooped to the over-done, we-should-do-it-for-the-children-and-if-you-disagree-with-that-you-hate-children tactic.

They wonder why when they are with their "children" (because after all, they are pro-family... aren't you?) and someone in a restaurant lights up, the government isn't there to protect the health of their family. They wonder why they are expected to make a decision not to go to that restaurant instead of making everyone around them change so they don't have to.

To find the wisdom in our system, it is often necessary to read what our leaders said a long time ago. It was Abraham Lincoln that had words for this situation:

Let me be clear. I do not smoke cigarettes. They are nasty and dangerous. There are probably many chemicals and poisons that are let out into the air by smoking. But I reserve the right to smoke one day, if I want to. I won't smoke at your church, school, or in your government building. If you don't allow it in your home, I will totally respect that. I won't smoke in your car, or even near you when I can... I am not rude. However, when I choose a restaurant that wants me as a customer so much as to have a section for me, and you want to go there too (because the food and service are great), we have both made a decision based on personal freedom. Since you have made that choice, why is it my fault that you aren't comfortable? Why do you insist that city government get involved to make sure your dining experience is more pleasant? If you walk by a club and the rap music from inside is so loud that it seems offensive, will you go inside? No, of course not, and you wouldn't run to the city council wanting a law against rap music.

I am not even going to start in on the junk science and so-called "surveys" presented as "irrefutable fact" by this poster group for political correctness. I will give you the link to the web site. Twenty years ago this web site would have made a great satirical magazine. It would have shown, in a ironic way, how fanatics try to push their agenda using any scare tactic they can. Sadly, this is not satire. It is a group that will not be content until others behave the way they think they should. It is time for common sense to replace political correctness.

We outlawed those just like we should outlaw the wretched tobacco weed, as dangerous a drug as any that have gone before... Pot and tobacco are both filthy and dangerous, and anyone who uses tobacco is just as bad as someone who smokes pot. They ought not to be allowed to corrupt other people's children into the drug-addicted lifestyle, nor to blow their disgusting drug smoke into the air where other people have to breathe it... Does anyone doubt that these pathetic junkies would commit crime to feed their addiction if they couldn't afford to pay for their smokes? (That's why I think tobacco ought to remain legal while one is in one's own home.) ... Why do you assume I use anything? There are other ways to relax than using drugs, dear. Though I wouldn't expect a drug-addled junkie to know that...

I am perplexed as to how someone could have such hatred for a plant (tobacco).

I also find it frightening how so many anti-smokers like to use dehumanizing language when talking about smokers (“bad, pathetic, drug-addled junkies”). There are some habits I find annoying, but I don’t feel anything close to the level of hatred some anti-smokers feel towards people who smoke.

It is the American way. Your in denail that this trend can be reversed. Its a done deal.

That may be the case, but I believe the general theme of this thread is “what should be,” and not “what is,” in regards to smoking laws. Smoking bans may be a “done deal,” but that does not make them practical or moral.

The major chains want the laws changed and the end result will be increased profits for everyone in the business because maintaining the staffing and the equipemt for providing smoking and nonsmoking sections will be eliminated and with a state wide ban the income will remain the same.

If it will lead to increased profits for everyone in the business, why must the government be involved? Can’t the owners simply ban smoking in their own restaurants?

Of course, the truth is not everyone will benefit from this law. In some establishments, smokers may make up a considerable portion of the customers. A smoking ban will weaken or eliminate these establishments. The major chains are using the power of government to eliminate competition. Do you not think that is wrong, and against the free-market system our country is supposed to have?

My point exactly. If you want to smoke your demon weed in the confines of your own house, or piss in your own pool, go right ahead.

Tobacco is not evil- its an inanimate object.

But if you think you can build a swimming pool, open it to the public, charge admission, and then put up a sign saying "Pissing Permitted" or "Pissing zone at east end of the pool", then you have another think coming, courtesy of the county health department.

No one is denying the existence of public health regulations. What is being discussed is the appropriateness or morality of these regulations.

How is this different from keeping disgusting, unsafe tobacco smoke out of restaurants and bars? Private homes are not the same as restaurants and other public accomodations. This has been settled law for decades.

I believe you pointed out in an earlier post that slavery and wife beating were once legal. Obviously, the law is not always right.

No serious Republican challenges the right of local governments to regulate filth in public swimming pools or spoiled food in restaurants. Nor should they object when the public decides they are sick of having smoke junkies polluting the air in bars and restaurants.

If you disagree, based on your own weak-willed dependence on nicotine, then maybe you ought to leave the Republicans and join your fellow drug addicts in the Libertarian Party.

This may surprise you, but not every conservative is a Republican. Furthermore, not every Republican is a conservative.

" Telling "someone else what rules to make for the use of their private property" is exactly how a community organizes and protects itself."

Then you have just dictated the basic tenant of socialism which is that no property is "private" but is part of the community or commune.

"A person either wants community to a more or lesser extent or he doesn't want community at all. Most people freely choose to want community to some extent. And they decide, under a set of cultural and constitutional rules, to what extent."

So according to you, if a community passes a law restricting a businessman who owns a fabric shop to sell only red fabric, then he must abide by that. And if he does so at a loss, because he opened the business before said law was passed, he must accept the loss because another law was passed banning all businesses from closing. Your logic is purely Hegelian. And quite Leninist. Read your history.

"That's why the community will punish you if you use your private property to shoot and kill or wound your neighbor or a stranger on a street. That's why the community will punish you if you drive your private automobile into a pedestrian who is "following the accepted rules."

A non-starter. You are basically comparing the "use" of private property against another individual. A business (for example a bar) is open to all individuals, but no one is forced to go in there and endure any smoke which might be in the air. There are other businesses which offer the same services without smoking. But if there are not, you are saying since there are not, and because you as an individual, a non-capitalist who is too lazy to start a competeting, non-smoking establishment, have the right to deny the entrepreneur the right to profit and to run the establishment within the established laws before you came along. Wow, what a facistic communistic view you have. Congrats. You've got your degree in Stalinism now.

"All laws put people on notice of ways their conduct is restricted and that, if they violate those restrictions, they're liable to punishment."

So according to you, all fast food places must be closed down as they are harmful. All liquour stores shut down. All wine and beer banned. All red meat banned. All chemically enhanced or treated produce, processed foods, or foods not deemed 100% healthy by the medical profession must be banned. SUV's, luxury sedans, banned. Nice list. You must have this desire to live in 1970 Albania. And what a sucessful model for society that was.

"How those laws are made, how those restrictions are decided, is the key issue. By fiat? Edict? Representative vote? While the founding fathers professed "limited government," acceptable limits change and the community reflects that. The founding fathers accepted slavery and wrote it into the Constitution with the infamous 3/5ths clause. Most of us don't. The founding fathers accepted "indirect" election of Senators. Most of us don't. The list goes on."

According to your rules though, we have the right to ban individuals whose lifestyles are abhorrent to us from our "community". In other words, if in the village of Facistville, two lesbian couples move in and they appall the residents, we would have the right to have a vote and they would be banned from working or being seen in public during limited hours of the day. 1984 or worse. Simply amazing.

"Are smoking bans in public spaces beyond the extent that we want community? Not, apparently, for some people. A medical and legal argument can be made that all people exposed to tobacco smoke are harmed, including those not smoking."

Yes, but this goes against the equal treatment under the law principle. If I object to fat people because they are a drain on our community and ruin it's appearance, your logic gives me the right to have them banished or worse. Pure Stalinism.

"A political argument can be made that I am harmed when you smoke in the privacy of your home -- if I and others are then liable to pay for the treatment of your smoking-related illnesses. Why should I be barred from restricting your conduct in this instance and then forced to pay for the consequences of your conduct?"

Why should I be barred? Hmmm, according to your logic, I should be able to ping JR, and have you banned from this board for being a facist. But being a true objectivist Libertarian, I just ignore your opinion and shoot it down with logic. You are basically wanting a 100% government controlled and maintained society. If you really want that, please, publish your name and address and I PERSONALLY will take a portion of my profits and purchase the visa and tickets to relocate you to North Korea. It's what you really want, so don't be shy.

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.