Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

IF THEY WEREN'T SERIOUS, THIS WOULD BE HYSTERICAL
The Cigar Show ^ | 2 October 2002 | Chuck Cason

Posted on 10/01/2002 11:16:00 PM PDT by SheLion

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.

Well, guess what? We were wrong.

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:

"Those who deny freedom for others deserve it not for themselves".

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.

You simply wouldn't go. Get it?

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.

It is time that people realize a perfect world is not formed by laws.

 

Here is the web site. Enjoy. http://smokefreedallas.org/


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Culture/Society; Government; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: antismokers; butts; cigarettes; individualliberty; michaeldobbs; niconazis; prohibitionists; pufflist; smokingbans; taxes; tobacco
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 521-538 next last
To: RabidBartender
"Libertarians are not belittled, castagated, bashed, grouped, and labled anymore than any other political species on this forum. We're all belittled, castagated, bashed, grouped, and labled more or less equally. By the way, since when did libertarians take up the liberal victimhood status?"

Great quote on your homepage!
301 posted on 10/03/2002 11:24:49 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
You'll abide by the law or you'll be out of business.

Come yourself to tell me I can't have smoking in my business place. Don't be a coward, come yourself. Hint, the second amendment was written with guys like you in mind.

302 posted on 10/03/2002 11:26:40 AM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
What's wrong with letting the restaurtant owner decide if his establishment is to be non-smoking, have a non-smoking section, or allows smoking? Isn't this the free market in action?

Nothing, I support this. However, NY changed the issue. The restaurants have chosen to go non-smoking provided their is a state wide ban to protect them. Therefore, these private property owners have made their decision and its not favorable to smokers.

303 posted on 10/03/2002 11:26:46 AM PDT by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Tell the health inspector that he hasn't proved that your failure to clean a filthy restaurant has harmed anybody yet.

You have assumed again. I am agreeing with you that if you don't clean your restaurant, don't keep the vermin away, serve spoiled meat, don't wash your hands after using the bathroom and then preparing, or serving, food that there IS proof of harm in those things. It can be, and has been, proven. There are no dissenting scientific views on these things.
Cite me the scientific study that has not been debunked, thrown out of court, or used cherry picked data that Environmental Tobacco Smoke harms anyone that does not have a pre-existing medical condition.
I'm willing to bet that I can find a study that says it doesn't for every study you find that says it does.
THAT is lack of proof of harm.

304 posted on 10/03/2002 11:27:07 AM PDT by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
The restaurants have chosen to go non-smoking provided their is a state wide ban to protect them.

Where did you see this? Did I miss something THAT big in this story?

305 posted on 10/03/2002 11:28:39 AM PDT by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
Hint, the second amendment was written with guys like you in mind.

Thanks!

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws." -- John Adams

306 posted on 10/03/2002 11:28:53 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
The restaurants have chosen to go non-smoking provided their is a state wide ban to protect them.

Let's edit that for accuracy:

Some restaurants have chosen to go non-smoking, provided they can also make this decision for their competitors who still cater to the wishes of the marketplace.

307 posted on 10/03/2002 11:30:47 AM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
Now he is talking health regulations. I warned everyone he would try to change the subject. But I must have headed off his real agenda, he hasn't launched his regular screed yet. It must be killing him. LOL
308 posted on 10/03/2002 11:31:37 AM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
But I must have headed off his real agenda, he hasn't launched his regular screed yet. It must be killing him. LOL

I try to keep everyone on topic.
It's hard sometimes.
I don't know what his agenda is but I'm beginning to suspect.

309 posted on 10/03/2002 11:34:52 AM PDT by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Now taking the liberal bent of denying the purpose of the second amendment. Good stuff to watch here.

"except in private self-defense".

I would be happy to defend my self against you ordering me what to do on my own property. Cowards never come alone though, they send hired thugs.

310 posted on 10/03/2002 11:36:08 AM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
I don't know what his agenda is but I'm beginning to suspect.

LOL,, you new around here pardner?

311 posted on 10/03/2002 11:37:06 AM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
you new around here pardner?

Not THAT new but I haven't run into Roscoe that much.
I get the feeling he is a regular on the WOD threads. I've stated my opinion on that topic and normally don't mess around much on them.

312 posted on 10/03/2002 11:39:56 AM PDT by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
I wrote:
What's wrong with letting the restaurtant owner decide if his establishment is to be non-smoking, have a non-smoking section, or allows smoking? Isn't this the free market in action?

To which you replied:
Nothing, I support this. However, NY changed the issue. The restaurants have chosen to go non-smoking provided their is a state wide ban to protect them. Therefore, these private property owners have made their decision and its not favorable to smokers.

I support the decision of any restaurant owner making their business a non-smoking establishment. I do not support the state government making this same decision for all restaurant owners in the state. If the state government steps in and makes law on this subject, then it is not the private property owners who have made their decision -- to the conrtary the state government has made it for them to the exclusion of any other decision the restaurant owner may have made.

A statewide ban on tobacco smoke does not protect non-smoking establishments, it simply makes criminals out of any restaurant owner who allows someone to light a cigarette. This is the free market?

313 posted on 10/03/2002 11:43:46 AM PDT by Liberal Classic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
Not THAT new but I haven't run into Roscoe that much.

Some people have all the luck

I get the feeling he is a regular on the WOD threads. I've stated my opinion on that topic and normally don't mess around much on them.

He is a regular anywhere people expound the principles of individual rights. He is opposed. He favors the primacy of the state and he abhors freedom loving people.

314 posted on 10/03/2002 11:53:26 AM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
who can say fer sure that the nicotine-nazis can even enforce it
315 posted on 10/03/2002 11:55:03 AM PDT by InvisibleChurch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Good grief, roscoe is on his anti-gun soapbox again!

[Gotta love it when he outs his anti-constitutional agenda like this.]
316 posted on 10/03/2002 12:00:40 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: ccmay
I'm surprised I made it as far as this post before I responded. There is a possibility, I suppose, that you are a witty Libertarian, hoisting the pig-stupid statists on their own petard.

I reject that possibility because of the inimitable odor of smarmy and priggish 'Whited Sepulcherism', America's leading form of political thought, in your flatly Fascistic posts.

You understand, of course, that you are setting yourself up as the enemy of all Americans interested in maintaining a culture of liberty. That someone such as yourself, no dummy, I'm sure, can actually believe the numbing principles of totalitarian socialist utopianism, is a sad comment on American society and schools.

Frankly, I pity you. But not too much--you will deserve whatever grief comes your way as a result of your bloody-minded authoritarianism.
317 posted on 10/03/2002 12:08:11 PM PDT by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Still sp[reading the LOOOOOOVe everywhere , I see.

I hope there's a pike just for you, sonny boy.

And I hope it's a dull one. ;^)

Have a utopian aryan day.
318 posted on 10/03/2002 12:16:49 PM PDT by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Good grief, roscoe is on his anti-gun soapbox again!

He seems to have slinked away. He betrayed his real beliefs again.

319 posted on 10/03/2002 12:27:52 PM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
It's lunchtime in sunny LA for minor civil 'servants' like roscoe.
I suspect hes telling all the other clerks at the hall of records lunchroom what a buzy morning he's had filing property tax papers.



320 posted on 10/03/2002 12:41:40 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 521-538 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson