posted 04-29-2002 01:26 PM            

Ever since the early 1900's, people in government - or people who like government - have seen what they consider a vacuum of services and support in the private sector, and have moved the government into that role. In the 1900's, it was government deciding who could be a monopoly and who couldn't (Sherman Antitrust Act); who should be responsible for the quality of the meat products in packing houses (the government, of course); and, by the 1930's, who has the responsibility to care for old people (the government again, with the development of Social Security).

Historically, Americans say they are against "Big Government" -- but they're not really. Most Americans believe that they have a "right" to "free" healthcare, "government supported" retirement and disability plans (which aren't, of course, supported by anyone but the taxpayers), and so on. Most Americans believe that the government should decide what is the least amount a worker can be paid (which is why we have the minimum wage); more and more people today, believe the government should set limits on what the most a person can be paid, given the calls for "progressive" income taxes and laws against a CEO making more than a set percentage of the wages of the workers he employs.

Ironically, most people believe that the government needs to take care of people who are too stupid to care for themselves, but never number themselves in that group. Large corporations decry individual welfare but are strangely silent when the subject of their welfare comes up! This myopia extends to the choice of making laws, too: gun enthusiasts call for Second Amendment freedoms but have no problem with the government locking up people who want to exercise their First Amendment freedoms - and vice versa. People who want to outlaw smoking based on whatever grounds the choose express outrage at the government taking away the rights that they happen to approve of.

I could go on and on, but the bottom line is that the government knows that people want a big nanny government, and they're more than happy to fill the vacuum! All they have to do is to figure out which things to ban, based on how little outrage it would engender from the people.

And the worst thing is that the people, short-sighted as they are, seem to go along with it! What so few people seem to fail to realize is that the government that bans abortions today bans guns tomorrow. The government that bans homosexual marriages today bans bibles tomorrow. The government that bans cigarettes today bans unions tomorrow.

It doesn't matter if you're pro or anti gun, pro or anti abortion, pro or anti gay rights, pro or anti prayers in school, or pro or anti whatever you can think of.

Everything the government bans is taking your freedom away.

Yet, since so many people fall for the belief that the government should ban stuff they disapprove of while allowing us to keep those things they approve of, they - we in this case - will end up losing everything.

posted 04-29-2002 02:14 PM               

No smoking out here. This is a park.
FRIDAY, JUNE 15, 2001
By Ron Scherer
Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
NEW YORK

Johnny Toreros is marching around the southwest corner of Bryant Park with a lit cigarette in his hand and telling everyone within hearing distance that he has a right to smoke outside wherever he wants. "What's next: Are they going to tell me I can't smoke in my home?" he asks.

What has Mr. Torres upset is a new set of signs nestled in the ivy. Their message: If you want to unwind here, you can't light up.

As smokers such as Torres are now finding out, even the great outdoors is fair game for smoking restrictions. According to the American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation, 93 communities now have ordinances covering smoking outside. While most of the new laws concern sports facilities or the entrances to buildings, almost half of them also restrict smoking in parks, plazas, or even beaches.

"More communities are looking at regulating smoking where people congregate, because nonsmokers find the exposure troubling," says Tim Filler, associate director for the foundation, which is based in Berkeley, Calif.

But the new regulations are about more than secondhand smoke. Today, communities are also trying to cut down on litter and prevent children from adopting what officials see as bad role models.

"It signals a change in the public mind with respect to smoking in public places," says Cliff Douglas of Tobacco Control Law & Policy Consulting in Ann Arbor, Mich.

Cigarette companies, however, say outdoor bans go too far. Instead, smokers should be "courteous" to nonsmokers, says Billy Abshaw, manager of media programs for Philip Morris USA, the nation's largest tobacco company. "Drifting smoke can be annoying," he agrees.

Even some antitobacco groups have some qualms. "We don't want to push people to move from outside to indoors to smoke," says Mr. Filler. But he adds that outdoor smoking can be "bothersome" in terms of the litter and the safety of people walking barefoot and stepping on a recently disposed cigarette.

Smokers, step over to the hemlock tree

So far, most prohibitions have involved relatively small areas. In New York's Bryant Park, for example, the no-smoking zone represents only about 2 to 3 percent of the land. "Smokers are an important constituency. We don't want to ban them," says Dan Biederman, president of the Bryant Park Restoration Corporation, which manages the city-owned park.

However, a New York City smokers' rights organization is less than convinced of the park's aim. Last Sunday, the NYC Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment held a "smoke-in" at the park. "It's ridiculous," says Audrey Silk of the group. "You are outside - it belongs to everyone. If you don't like my smoke, you can move."

Ms. Silk thinks nonsmokers will keep decreasing the space smokers can use. That's the aim of a proposed New York State law that would ban smoking in most parks and beaches. Local communities could designate smoking areas if they wanted to.

While Bryant Park is filled mainly with adults eating sushi, listening to bands, or just soaking up the sunshine, some public officials are concerned about parks where children play. That's the case in Greenburgh, N.Y., which has banned smoking in playgrounds and restricted it around city pools.

"If we limit the amount of smoking that children see when they are growing up, subsequently it might have a positive impact in discouraging them from smoking when they get older," says Paul Feiner, town supervisor.

No more butts in the sand?

The seaside community of Belmar, N.J., has gone further. A group of young antitobacco advocates had asked the city council for a total ban on smoking. Instead, Belmar decided to set aside designated smoking areas from the boardwalk to the waterfront.

The city has installed ashtrays in the hope that smokers won't bury cigarettes in the sand. "For the mayor, this was a big environmental issue. It takes 15 years for a cigarette butt to disintegrate. That's the main reason they did it," says Margaret Plummer, the town clerk.

In fact, that's why Pete Grannis (D) of Manhattan has proposed legislation in Albany. In a May 12 letter to the Albany Times Union he wrote, "Cigarette butts are probably the most littered item in America." The butts, he said, can be washed into water supplies, where "the toxic chemicals the filters are designed to trap leach out into sensitive ecosystems."

Mr. Abshaw of Philip Morris counters that smokers should be more mindful of where they put out their cigarettes.

In New York, the plan is to soft-pedal enforcement at first, says Mr. Biederman. "We're trying to be patient and make this work," he says.

In fact, as Mr. Torres marches around with his cigarette, no one stops him from smoking. http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/2001/06/15/p1s4.htm

Smoking Bans
Going Too Far To Restrict Smokers

Commentary
By John Stossel
ABC News.com

Nov. 28 — Smokers have been banned from the office, airplanes and restaurants. Isn't that enough?

Some politicians are trying to take legislation even further.I don't particularly like the smell of smoke. But isn't your home your castle? Don't smokers at least get to smoke there? Running Others' LivesMontgomery County, Md., seems like a nice place to live. It certainly doesn't look like a police state. Then again, it's right next to Washington, D.C., where politicians get famous by running other people's lives.

Last week, the county council voted for a measure that would outlaw smoking at home if the smoke bothers a neighbor. Last year, a town in this county passed a law that says: If you dare smoke outdoors, on the sidewalks, the streets, you'll have to pay a $100 fine.

The mayor said his town must protect its residents from secondhand smoke. "A couple of whiffs of smoke can set off a serious medical condition," Alfred Muller, then mayor of Friendship Heights, said in an interview last year. "And why should that be for someone that is a nonsmoker on their public area?" Couldn't someone just move away from a smoker if they found it unpleasant? "Because someone is in a minority that has a medical condition, they shouldn't be restricted in their use of the public area simply because they're a minority," said Muller.

But smokers are a minority, too. And are they getting a fair shake? Shouldn't they be allowed to do this outdoors?I said to Muller, "You're another of these busybody politicians who want to tell other people how to live their lives." "We're elected to promote the general welfare, and this is part of the general welfare," he said.

Exaggerated Claims
It's not surprising we fear secondhand smoke, given the publicity campaigns we've seen, including the anti-smoking ad that says the smoke from the tip of a cigarette is 20 times deadlier than what a smoker inhales. Come on, that's only if you inhaled right from the tip. The claims about secondhand smoke are based on studies of people who've lived with smokers, who were inside with them for years. No studies have been done that show passive smoke hurts next-door neighbors or people outdoors.

"If this was your child, would you want to take the chance that there might be a problem?" asked Muller.Oh, the politicians are always protecting the children. Shortly after I spoke with Muller, he went to a bathroom in the National Cathedral, where he fondled a 14-year-old boy. Muller later pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor sexual abuse charge in the case.

He lost on the smoking front, too: After two court challenges, the town dropped its outdoor smoking ban. But then, other Montgomery County officials went further, passing a measure saying you may not smoke at home if a neighbor complains about the smell.

For many residents, politicians have gone too far."Nobody is telling me I can't smoke!" said Lester Brodsky, a lifelong smoker. "I'll die with a cigarette in my hand like my father did."Brodsky and his son, Jake, who is also a smoker, are furious about politicians telling them how to live. "What I do in my home behind closed doors is nobody's business but mine," he said. "The government has no business ever sticking their nose into it … It's not their place to tell me what I can and cannot do in my own home."

"Nonsmokers are doing things I don't approve of," said one resident. "Do I go around messing with them?"

posted 05-01-2002 07:49 AM            

quote:

---

4/30/02
Republican Chair Clarifies Position

The Republican party of Lubbock County is clarifying its position
supporting the Vote for Freedom Coalition's push to do away with the
smoking ban. Republicans joined Libertarians in the fight for Lubbock
business owners' rights to allow smoking. Incoming party chairman Dan
Isett made the announcement Monday.

On Tuesday, he clarified that he was simply articulating the position of
delegates to the Republican party convention. Isett says delegates passed
a resolution on April 6th in support of the smoking ban repeal on the
ballot. They say it's not a smoking issue but rather one of freedom and
property rights.

---

posted 05-01-2002 08:08 AM            

I hate cigarette smoke, nothing ruins a nice restaurant like the stench of stale tobacco. That being said, enough with the socialism already.

Duncan, IMO you are wrong we didn't bring this on ourselves. Most of us weren't even alive back then. The collective "we" of our grandparents probably repected freedom, liberty, and a strict work ethic more than any of the commie conditioned masses of sheeple today every dreamed of. This was brought about by the elite (illuminati) not the everyday Joe.

posted 05-01-2002 01:13 PM            

God knows it's difficult for anyone - including myself -- to stand up and take responsibility for the state of our country. Most of us would like to either let the government do it all for us, or blame our problems on someone else, like the "illuminati".

I personally think both approaches are cop-outs.

Anyone strong enough to be a citizen instead of a resident will say that it was on our watch (and our parents' watch, and their parents' watch) that the government went from servant to master. And now we will take the steps that we (and our parents, and their parents) should have taken all along, to return to a government subservient to the citizens, and not the other way around.

posted 05-01-2002 02:22 PM            

In the beginning there were no laws. Nothing was prohibited in the Garden of Eden with the exception of eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge. Of course, having been given free will, Adam and Eve chose to disobey God and do the one thing they were prohibited from doing. (That’s one…) After munching down on the fruit of the tree, they realized they were naked (or nekkid as we say down South) and hid from God. When God asked why they were hiding, they tipped their hand when they told him they were hiding because they were naked. (That’s two…) Then, when God asked them how they knew they were naked, since it never bothered them before, they proceeded to try and weasel out of the truth by blaming each other for eating the fruit. (That’s three!) They were outta there!

For a long time there was no law. That didn’t work too well…the people did exactly what they wanted to and got into all sorts of trouble…hence the Flood. Eventually, when the world got repopulated, we ended up with the Law and various penalties for breaking that Law. Basically, the Law just showed us how impossible it is for us to obey, being the decadent creatures we are, but it was better than nothing. Without the periodic sacrifices and the priest interceding annually, we were still pretty much still up a creek without a paddle. Then came Jesus, the ultimate sacrifice, who was willing to give up his life so we could have access to forgiveness…providing we wanted it and believed He could provide it. Unfortunately a lot of folks still try to handle things on their own, so we still have lots of problems.

I said all of that to say this…

We have to have laws and some things have to be prohibited. The trick is having the wisdom not to abuse the privilege of power and create laws for the wrong reasons or just because we can. God gave us a pattern to follow so why mess with a good thing? We don’t want any limitations. We justify changing things to suit ourselves because we think God’s way is “outdated” and we think we know better. If we operate on the premise that we can’t prohibit anything because we may go too far, we risk not going far enough. It’s a delicate balancing act best left to God-fearing folks using God’s wisdom and not their own. Unfortunately, those seem to be in short supply amongst TPTB! All I can say is God help us!

posted 05-02-2002 09:52 AM            

Heard on the radio this AM about an enterprising young couple in my area that had a little cottage industry going. They had a bunch of marijuana plants growing in their apartment! Some people would argue that what they were doing in their own apartment was nobody’s business. The difference in smoking cigarettes and smoking (or growing or selling) marijuana is that it is currently illegal. If we made smoking illegal I doubt it would stop the problem. Organized crime would just take over, prices would go up, and people would still find a way to smoke themselves to death. So, does that mean we should make marijuana and/or other currently illegal substances legal? I don’t think so! Those substances are not only unhealthy, they mess with your mind and cause other crimes. Smoking cigarettes is unhealthy for the individual doing it (and maybe others around him) but the currently illegal drugs contribute to crime as well as wreck your health, your finances, and your family. Think I’ll stick to coffee…..and chocolate!

posted 05-05-2002 07:20 AM            

Out of 20,817 total votes cast, the private property rights side took 36.2% and the antisecondhand smoke side took 63.8%. That means that in three years all 18,000 Lubbock businesses will be smokefree, unless the owners want to install completely separate ventilation systems for smoking sections. This will be hard for Jiffy Lubes and beauty parlors, so most businesses don't really have a choice.

posted 05-19-2002 07:42 PM               

OKLAHOMA CITY, May 18 (UPI) -- State lawmakers in Oklahoma will renew their efforts next week to ban smoking in restaurants without separately ventilated areas.

Gov. Frank Keating, R-Okla., said he would sign the bill. The governor, however, added that getting the bill passed "would take a lot of work."

Under the provisions of Senate Bill 696, which cleared conference committee this week, restaurants could only allow smoking in separate, self-ventilated rooms. Main dining rooms of restaurants would be totally smoke free. The new law would not impact bars that serve only minimal amounts of food.

"The time has come to get serious about the issue of annoying and dangerous second-hand smoke in public places like restaurants," Keating said. "What we are not saying with this bill is that smoking is illegal."

The Senate will hear the bill, which was co-sponsored by Sen. Den Robinson, D-Muskogee and Rep. Ray Vaughn, R-Edmond, before it goes to the House of Representatives for consideration.

If approved the new regulations would take effect July 1, said Robinson.

The governor rejected similar regulations when the Oklahoma Board of Health submitted them earlier this year because they would have violated state law reserving the right of making such restrictions to the Legislature.

Vaughn said he pressed for the measure following the passage of a ban on smoking in the State Capital, and his constituents saying it didn't go far enough.

"I believe the people of Oklahoma don't want to dine in clouds of smoke," he said. "This legislation will take care of that problem."

Oklahoma Restaurant Association officials were unavailable for comment.

A statewide poll conducted last year by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that 94 percent of all Oklahoma adults and 85 percent of Oklahoma adult smokers believe that smoking in restaurants should only be allowed in rooms where the smoke in vented to the outside, or not allowed at all.

In a survey released earlier this month, the state Health Department found that tobacco use is epidemic, with 550,000 adult Oklahomans, nearly one on four, currently smoking.

Tobacco use also costs Oklahomans over $2 billion in medical expenses and lost production every year, or an average of about $600 per person.