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/
Nonsense. Liberals, Libertarians, anarchists and your various comrades despise the rule of law.
"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
Backwards. Criminals have cause to fear an armed citizenry.
Liberals, Libertarians, anarchists and your various comrades despise the rule of law.
"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
Minnie, minnie, minnie. So much misinformation, so little time. The income does not remain the same, the income drops by 20-30% and often never recovers. For small businesses with a small margin of profit, that's the kiss of death. Of course, when they're gone, the customers they had left move on to the Big Boys who could weather the storm. So, yeah, it's good for some, but not for the small business owner--remember? He's the guy who built this nation.
Backwards. The 2nd Amendment isn't a call to anarchy.
Find one.
LOL
That's right, we live in America, a Democratic Republic, where people are allowed to organize, associate, and speak freely.
If you have a problem with that, you should move to Canada.
The issue is whether a resturant is a public venue or conveyance. Can a member of the public choose another bus line or find another ball park right field to sit in? Hardly. Therefore some regulation of conduct of all has some precedent. But he dang sure can go to another restaurant, bar, or private business to trade.
That’s a tolerable arrangement, I’d say, but if the community disagrees and works through the chosen framework of representative democracy to establish other arrangements, who’s arrangement should prevail -- mine or the community’s? I can propose my arrangement in the political marketplace and work toward its adoption, but if another arrangement prevails I will respect it or risk punishment for violating it.
As the fundament of our chosen system resides the Constitution. But who decides what the Constitution means and how it is to be applied in any particular dispute? Each decides for himself? Let the lawyers decide? Recognize the “superior intelligence” of one or a few and let them decide? The Constitution itself did not resolve those questions. In Marbury v. Madison the Supreme Court declared its power to decide what the Constitution means and the two other branches of government accepted that, as did the citizenry. That settled the matter and, ever since, the Supreme Court has continued to decide constitutional disputes -- sometimes in ways that I liked, sometimes in ways that I didn’t. It is not mere defiance for a person to insist that he does not care what the process says, he will decide for himself what the Constitution means. It is a challenge to the fundamental framework of the community. Those who reject the process can be heard as a matter of right, but the community will resist, as it has done, their efforts to destroy that process and set themselves up as final authority.
Where did you see this? Did I miss something THAT big in this story?
No, you didn't miss it, but as you may or may not know, all the downstate counties (Westchester, NYC, Nassau, and Suffolk) are all having "talks" to follow in NYC's footsteps, so as to insure that the NYC ban doesn't stand alone, which would, of course be devastating to the restaurant and bar business there.
In fact, one Nassau County (Long Island) Dem actually uttered these charming words: "If you are downstate, the only place you'll be able to smoke is in your own little closet."
I've said it before and I'll say it again: The only law on this matter that should be enacted is this one: ALL BUSINESSES SHALL CLEARLY POST THEIR SMOKING POLICIES AT THE FRONT DOOR OF THEIR ESTABLISHMENT.
I must say, I have been watching and reading these threads, and am utterly shocked and terribly dismayed to see so many so-called Conservatives supporting these kinds of laws. I just don't understand what has happened to us --what changed us from a people who used to make decisions for ourselves into a people who turn to the government to make them for us. I find the whole thing disgusting.
Regards,
PS: If these smoking bans are such a wonderful and fantabulous idea, why oh why do they need a law to enact them?
"Unless smoking were specifically protected by the constitution(Bill of Right, not the Constitution.) like guns, the press, speech, religion etc then its perfectly alright for the majority to ban it."
The Bill or Rights does protect some rights, but that, and it says so clearly, does not limit any other rights that are unmentioned.
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.