Posted on 08/13/2004 5:24:43 AM PDT by Hatteras
Mom Sent To Jail For Smoking Around Kids
POSTED: 6:43 am EDT August 13, 2004
BOWLING GREEN, Va. -- A woman was sentenced Thursday to 10 days in jail for defying a court order not to smoke around her children.
Tamara Silvius was banned last year from smoking around the youths, now ages 8 and 10, as part of a custody arrangement with her ex-husband.
(Excerpt) Read more at wral.com ...
Untrue. My father whom I loved was a heavy smoker. I know what it's like for second-hand smoke before any such studies came out.
You bought into the BOGUS second hand smoke studies, because you have always hated smoking, and are an avowed antismoking nazi, admit it.
You do not know me at all. So don't presume to have the brains to tell me why I think the way I do or what I am. It only serves to make you look like an imbecile when you're wrong as you are now.
You're threatened because a staunch conservative looks at things logically and reasonably and doesn't toe the same line you do and follow Rush Limbaugh to a TEE. I like Rush, but he's wrong on some things and this is one of them.
It's because I have a BRAIN and am not afraid to use it.
You're forgiven.
Sorry. I'm using logic, reason, and personal experience eating in restaurants around selfish smokers. No studies necessary for common sense.
Are you saying drinking is more dangerous than smoking?Never heard of second hand drinking.By the way, I don't believe second hand smoke is all that dagerous either. Did you know that some studies say that everyone gets cancer at leats three times in a lifetime? It is the human body that has the ability to correct that anomoly.Most times it does, some times it does not.
Your entire premise is flawed. Yes, I beleive it is the side of conservatism to allow the free market to drive the business decisions on who to allow on private property, on what condition the property must be maintained. However, you seem to think conservatism means the market isn't smart enough to decide what conduct they want the private property owner to engage in.
The market can dictate business decisions much more efficiently than the government. You however, seem to be very comfortable with the government taking that burden from your shoulders. Conservatism means taking on these decisions as an individual, not asking mommy and daddy government to make the decision for you.
When that single issue involves the use of government force in order to get one's way, thereby placing unreasonable restrictions upon the PRIVATE property of others, then that makes you a liberal, my friend, regardless of what other positions you take on any other issues...
By the time thesecond hand smoke, reaches the nonsmoker, it is so dilute by comparison, it can't possibly casue harm.
Blah blah blah. You are saying nothing related to this thread.
Who is asking for Government force? Not me. We have all manner of laws protecting the health and wellbeing of the general populace. Clean-Air laws are no different.
You nailed it - The part that gets me is, this guy "HawkeyeLonewolf" seems to think that being a conservative means using government force to protect the "rights of the majority", rather than the rights of the individual - which is what our system was originally intended to protect...
Since I DO have a brain and AS I'VE REPEATEDLY MADE CLEAR, I'm not basing my opinion on any studies.
You believe what you want. Wallow in your ignorance, that's fine.
I'll stick with conservative common sense.
"Untrue. My father whom I loved was a heavy smoker. I know what it's like for second-hand smoke before any such studies came out."
Are you really sure you want the government to make laws and policy based on individual experiences? Would you, as a "staunch conservative", not prefer the government be able to prove the "harm" beyond any doubt before passing legislation and making policy that infringes upon private property rights and individual liberty?
Are you sure that you want me as an individual to dictate your choices of use of your property or your ability to consume legal products because I have had one negative experience?
What you want is anarchy -- NO LAWS WHATSOEVER.
Sorry, I'll stick with the Constitution and laws based on that. When have I said anything about protecting the RIGHTS. I've said protecting the HEALTH against the whims of a few.
You want anarchy.
You want racism.
I prefer to be conservative.
"Blah blah blah. You are saying nothing related to this thread."
By answering your questions, I get this as a response? It certainly looks like your arguments for government involvement in the use of private property in the post that I replied to are shown to be irrelavent, by your own response to me.
She's beautiful! She has a babe of her own now and married to an Air Force Man. She works out at the gym 3-4 times a week. In fact, she is headed there now.
And she SMOKES. hehe!
Yes, you are. When you advocate laws whcih criminalize certain behaviours, you are in fact asking for use of government force - who do you think enforces the laws? Teh Easter Bunny? Nope. 'Fraid not. Government does. Through Force.
We have all manner of laws protecting the health and wellbeing of the general populace. Clean-Air laws are no different.
Most of which are based on junk science, conclusions for which were reached BEFORE the evidence was weighed. It's agenda-based science. Period.
But you fit right in with the "Tyranny of the majority" that the founding fathers so reasonably feared, and attempted to safeguard against.
More than one has said that - and I'm one of them!!!!
Ok, show me one smoking ban that passes constitutional muster. Just one.
Use the "brain" you claim to have. The only means that the government has to enforce its policies and legislation is by force. You are advocating government involvement in private property, you support government bans on smoking. The only way they can enforce those bans you support is with force, or the threat of prison.
You need to sit back and learn a thing or two about conservatism. FR is a good place to do just that.
You weren't watching the news when the word "conservative" was redefined to moderate? Hey, get your head out of the sand.....Conservatism is dead, until the 2nd revolution that is.
I find it amazing, that you focus on the "evil clean air laws" and refuse to answer any of the perfectly parallel examples I've suggested.
Do you think the government should do anything to prevent "Whites Only" restaurants?
Do you think marriage should be recognized by the state at all?
Do you think marriage should be limited to one man/one woman? Or should a group receive special rights based on a personal choice of behavior (homosexuality, smoking, it's all a choice)
and most related...
Do you think the state should require buildings (PRIVATELY OWNED) to be up to public code to insure the safety of the patrons?
If an area has imposed building codes, clean-air laws, and segregation-free laws, then a business owner can CHOOSE to operate under those restrictions *OR* they can choose to operate the business somewhere else where the restrictions are not in force.
Pretty obvious (as opposed to your oblivious view).
You're offering the same brain damaged argument that liberals do on censorship issues.
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.