IF THEY WEREN'T SERIOUS, THIS WOULD BE HYSTERICAL

The Cigar Show ^ | 2 October 2002 | Chuck Cason

[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/

[SheLion]

Smoking tobacco (or pot) ought to be legal in one's home and a jailable offense outside it.

Smoking cigarettes (not weed) just tobacco which is a legal commodity.........is the relaxation of choice for 55 million Amercians. I wonder what ccmay prefers........prescription drugs.......or booze?

[muggs]

My husband and I just got back from Kali yesterday. I was sitting on the boardwalk smoking a cigarette when a woman came up to me and thanked me for smoking. She just arrived there amd said she felt like a crack addict whenever she lit up.

My husband is always talking about how great it would be to live in San Diego. If it wasn't for all the liberals it would be great, as it really is a beautiful state.

[Protagoras]

I don't know about the other poster, and I don't want to turn this into another drug war thread, there are already pleanty of those, so I just confine my remarks to property rights and those who pretend to embrace them while they advocate the usurpation of them on their pet issues.

It induces vomiting in me when I see them on this site. Every right which is legislated away and ignored by the people just brings us closer to the shooting, IMO.

[SheLion]

Your opinion ought to be legal in your own home and jailable outside it. Don't foul the air for the rest of us.

THANK you! Like I have said before: I bet he/she has habits that SMOKERS would find disgusting. heh! I will leave it to your own minds to figure out what I mean. hehe!

[Great Dane]

All I do is if I was there before them I wish they would ask if it would bother me and if the wind is blowing towards me we can switch tables.

There is alway sensible solutions, with your attitude, you would have nothing but cooperation.

[SheLion]

Wow!!! Powerful picture!

[SheLion]

She just arrived there amd said she felt like a crack addict whenever she lit up.

What the general public has not raised their shades yet to see the light about is: The health fascists in every state are getting big funding to ban, control, restrict and highly tax the smoker.

First: it was FOR THE KIDS. Then, when they thought “Oh, kids are not allowed in bars.” They started their spin on “It’s for the WORKERS. Workers can NOT be subjected to second hand smoke. Second hand smoke is a KILLER.” Well, we all know THAT is not true! Several reports and documents on record disputing this. (Ask me for them if you want them. )

Everyone knows that bars permit smoking. No anti or non smoker would ever take a job in a bar if they were against being around second hand smoke. Just stands to reason. Also, why would a bar owner ban smoking in the bar just to accommodate ONE EMPLOYEE! Better to fire the employee then lose all the revenue the bar takes in.

It’s all a bogus ploy.

[SheLion]

It induces vomiting in me when I see them on this site. Every right which is legislated away and ignored by the people just brings us closer to the shooting, IMO.

With all the RINOS cropping up! And we wonder why our wonderful party is going to the damn dogs. Sorry, but I get fired up over THIS issue AND the smoking/property rights issue. I am fed up!

[Whilom]

Only someone who has the mistaken idea that they have a right to tell someone else what rules to make for the use of their private property would make such a comment. The home and the business place share the same property rights. Anyone who suggests otherwise should be jailed. It should be a jailable offence.

Telling "someone else what rules to make for the use of their private property" is exactly how a community organizes and protects itself. 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. 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." All laws put people on notice of ways their conduct is restricted and that, if they violate those restrictions, they're liable to punishment. 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. 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. 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?

[metesky]

Well, sir, you probably make eye contact, smile and make a polite request (with a hint of authority) and things work out fine unless you're dealing with a whacko.

Anti-smokers, on the other hand, start with the fake coughs, rolling their eyes and making personal comments sotto voice (sp?). They try to make the smoker blow up so they can point out their own moral superiority.

People like you get much more co-operation than they do.

[ohioman]

I would just love to see you try to enforce your Nazi policies on myself and many other people I know. Idiots such as yourself should certainly be confined to their home. I would not want you near my kids.

[Protagoras]

With all the RINOS cropping up!

Sorry to quibble, but I think that Republicans called RINOS are now the mainstream Republicans.

And we wonder why our wonderful party is going to the damn dogs.

Cause it lost it's soul in a quest for power. It ain't wonderful, and it hasn't been for a long long time IMO.

Sorry, but I get fired up over THIS issue AND the smoking/property rights issue. I am fed up!

Fed up enough to do something about it? Like what? Leave your party? I'm guessing not. As soon as they dangle the spectre of a Democrat like Gore getting elected, almost all of the disaffected Republicans will put their toes to the party line.

Please don't take it personally, it's not meant to be personal.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Communists smoke like chimneys.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

While I am extremely uncomfortable with the methods and goals too often used by the anti-smoking fanatics, too often forgotten by those complaining is the way people were treated 30 years ago who merely expressed an opinion against smoking.

IOW, What goes around, comes around.

[freeeee]

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

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."

This I just love, the bait and switch. Here, you make an argument for laws that restrict initiation of force, ie, aggression. That is a libertarian argument. Then you pull the fast one, hoping the reader won't notice, linking rules against aggression to rules that have nothing to do with aggression and everything to do with mob rule. You think we don't know the difference?

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?

When given a choice between fighting socialist entitlements that are the cause of your tax liability, or limiting other's behavior, you choose the latter.

Why is that?

[Protagoras]

Telling "someone else what rules to make for the use of their private property" is exactly how a community organizes and protects itself. 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. 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." All laws put people on notice of ways their conduct is restricted and that, if they violate those restrictions, they're liable to punishment. 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. 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. 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?

Breathtaking in it's wrongheadedness. I would take it apart on a point by point basis if I thought there was a chance in a million that your mind could be changed, but it is pointless. As for anyone else reading it, I'm sure anyone with an oz. of freedom in their blood already understands how off base the post is.

If anyone with an open mind wants an explanation of it I would be happy to address it.

[Just another Joe]

If anyone with an open mind wants an explanation of it I would be happy to address it.

Go for it, TJ.
I'm in the middle of a tobacco tax battle and I need all the logical thinking I can gather.

[metesky]

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

Zoning is the only analogy I can see to the point you're reaching for and zoning has failed miserably in most cases, giving us the patchwork quilt we so abhor today and todays planners are planning on making it worse.

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."

False analogy, sir. You're implying that it would be OK to shoot and kill someone while on public property. Murder among the tribal members was taboo long before the advent of any notion of private property.

How those laws are made, how those restrictions are decided, is the key issue. By fiat? Edict? Representative vote?

More and more, these regulations and laws are promulgated by unelected planning boards, environmental authorities or "boards of health". This is not the way our Republic is supposed to work.

The founding fathers accepted slavery and wrote it into the Constitution with the infamous 3/5ths clause.

The "infamous 3/5ths clause" was inserted by the Northern states to stop the South from counting the slave population to give themselves more representation in the House, while denying the slaves the franchise. It was an anti-slavery clause, sir.

The founding fathers accepted "indirect" election of Senators. Most of us don't.

Now there's a case where the founders knew what they were doing. The 17th Amendment has turned the Senate into a dog and pony show and deprived state legislators of their voice in national government. It should be repealed ASAP.

The list goes on.

As do you, sir. Paragraphs are our friends.

A medical and legal argument can be made that all people exposed to tobacco smoke are harmed, including those not smoking.

These arguments have all been pretty well refuted, which you'd know if you'd been paying attention around here.

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?

Your energy and ire would be put to better use if you'd join the fight to get government the hell out of the medical business, but then you'd have no reason left to castigate and tut-tut your fellow citizens.

[MortMan]

Why should I be barred from restricting your conduct in this instance and then forced to pay for the consequences of your conduct?

In an extension of your thought process, why shouldn't I be able to restrict your right to express your opinions because they might raise my blood pressure? Eroding private property rights further in the name of "health concerns" is no different than stifling free speech.

[ccmay]

Smoking cigarettes (not weed) just tobacco which is a legal commodity.........is the relaxation of choice for 55 million Amercians.

This is a circular argument. You can't say that something should be tolerated just because it's now legal. Other kinds of drugs were once legal too, and for that matter so was slavery and wife-beating. 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.

In fact tobacco is far more addictive than pot and maybe ought to be treated more harshly. The vehemence of the militant smokers on this thread is just more proof of the depths of their addiction. 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.)

I wonder what ccmay prefers........prescription drugs.......or booze?

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...

-ccm