Posted on 01/20/2007 1:19:51 PM PST by sh0tgun willie
What next?
Will smokers demand to be a class included in the Americans with Disabilities Act?
Do smokers have rights? Yes the same rights as everyone else. What they don't have are special rights, by merit of their addiction.
I predict that within two years there will be a movement to include smokers as a class in the American with Disabilities Act.
I would not be surprised if that movement takes root right here on FR.
Forget the ADA, how about the constitution? Ladies and Gentlemen, I bring you the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution:
Amendment XXVIIISection One: The Right of the People to be secure in their Addictions shall not be infringed.
Section 2. The Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
The Activism sidebar is reserved for Activism, protests, news and business of Free Republic Chapters.
Not this.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1611173/posts
AM
Smokers have the right to suck in all the smoke they want I just dont like when they exhale and go into my smoke free zone.
FMCDH(BITS)
I quit last spring, so I'm not sure.....
is smoking illegal now?
And now, jail time:
http://www.nj1015.com/absolutenm/templates/?a=5499&z=3
NJ Lawmaker Proposes Ban on Smoking in Car With Kids As Passengers
Excerpt:
If approved by both houses of the Legislature and signed into law by the governor, it would make smoking in a car with a minor a disorderly persons offense.
Violators would face a maximum jail term of 30 days and a 500-dollar fine....
Few people remember or acknowledge that if it weren't for tobacco, this nation might not have arisen. The wealth generated in the colonies by exporting tabacco played a crucial role in developing this country's financial independence from the British throne.
Section One: The Right of the People to be secure in their Addictions shall not be infringed
Great idea!
It unfortunately arose the Gore family too.
And your smoke-free zone is how wide? City-wide? State-wide?
A semi-related FYI response:
Two elections ago our state had some strange ballot issues proposed. Strange enough that they made me question them. I did some internet investigation as to the people who were proposing them and they had ties to liberal groups and "supposedly reform" groups.
This further raised a red-flag, so I did my little "local poster-campaigning" against the issues and luckily they didn't succeed. (Not through MY efforts)
However, I remembered what the issues were and I was surprised to see them surface again this past election, however with some changes.
They proposed anti-smoking legislation (Two DIFFERENT issues with two different results) There was also a statewide gambling issue which was tied to "education and public school funding".
Smoking? Gambling? Schools?
The ploy was to get as many people, as possible, to the polls in an off-year election.
How and why? Smoking, gambling, and school funding are all emotional issues. The types of issues that draws people to the polls.
I believe that the sponsors felt that if a lot of people turned-out it would be beneficial to the democrats. AND any of the issues that DID pass would be to the liberal's advantage and just be "icing on the cake".
What happened? We had a much heavier than normal turnout for an off-year election.
The more severely restrictive smoking issue passed.
The gambling issue failed.
Some additional obviously liberal issues failed.
The heavier than normal turnout, in a state that's close to 50% democrat, resulted in losing a Republican Senator and a Republican Governor.
Did WE lose some votes because of disaffection with the republicans we had - probably. Would those votes lost have been enough by themselves to oust the republicans, I doubt it.
Without the ballot issues that were here I think we'd still have the same party in control.
Why post this here?
As a warning to you, out there, that if you see similar proposed legislation on your statewide ballots, be prepared for an assault on any Republicans in your state who are holding office.
Nanny State PING..............
It is obvious the Free Republic contingent of Nanny State Lovers did not read the article.............they see the word "smokers" and that is all that matters.
It's a shame there are so many so-called conservatives that pick and choose what rights they are willing to say American citizens should have.
I would guess that a majority of smokers respect your right to prohibit smoking on your property, or to enjoy the property of others who also choose not to allow smoking.
Do you grant smokers the same courtesy, to set the rules as they like on THEIR property (or the property of like minded individuals)?
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.