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

To: MissouriConservative
"So you're ok with government making the use of a legal product illegal??"

No

"You have not also answered the other part of my post. You say you're against the nanny state, but your posts indicate otherwise. Can you explain the contradiction?"

I believe you are defining "nanny state" incorrectly. Protecting the public from being harmed by other members of the public is one of the two key things government does.

Smokers wish to be able to freely harm others. The government is preventing that. That's not a nanny state any more than laws designed to stop one person from shoving another one.

The only reason this causes such an uproar is that almost all smokers are addicted and addicts tend to lose perspective when it comes to their addiction. I support their right to addicted but not to inflict it on others.
163 posted on 03/15/2006 8:31:07 AM PST by gondramB (Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies ]


To: gondramB

Your answer does not go with your post. You're ok with making smoking illegal in places that you select. That is a nanny state.

"I believe you are defining "nanny state" incorrectly. Protecting the public from being harmed by other members of the public is one of the two key things government does."

Yes, in a way. Government, whether state or local or federal, is to protect the peaceful from the not so peaceful, the ones called criminals. But you, as a customer, are not forced to go to an establishment that allows smoking. Therefore, government does not need to protect you, you can do that yourself, but you are wanting government to save you from yourself. You want government to take your bias against smoking and make it law, that is the perfect definition of a nanny state. Don't like smoking, choose a restaurant or bar that does not allow it, but leave those who do their rights to allow it on their property. Why make business owners bend to your will? You're using government to enforce your beliefs.

"Smokers wish to be able to freely harm others. The government is preventing that."

Your line there is slightly wrong. It should read "smokers wish to be able to freely exercise their right to use a legal product. The government is preventing that." You make smokers sound like thugs on the street with guns who are out to get you. You need to take a serious look at your beliefs and come to grips with what you believe.....in government being a nanny that takes care of you and enforces your bias against others who may do some things that you don't like.

"The only reason this causes such an uproar is that almost all smokers are addicted and addicts tend to lose perspective when it comes to their addiction."

That is the first step the nanny state takes, demonize the criminals as mindless addicts that need to be saved. It's already happening outside of the tobacco issue. Now they are coming for your food, higher taxes on "low nutrition foods" and then the banning starts. What is after food? Perhaps it will be something you love, something you can't live without, but then when you begin to object, someone, somewhere, will remind you of your stance on smoking and inform you that you are getting what you asked for, a nanny state.


170 posted on 03/15/2006 12:19:38 PM PST by MissouriConservative (People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid - Kierkegaard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies ]

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