For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com
Premium Left blogad
Left Blog Ad

Advertisement
Mob Rule, Alive and Well, Despite Coughing on Second-Hand Smoke
Written By : Lori Ziganto

As I was roaming about the house, muttering under my breath with outrage at yet another “How dare you question The One! Racist Crackers! ” demonization of conservatives, I couldn’t help but think, and thus become further dismayed, that I wasn’t really surprised.

It is obvious that few, including Congress, understand that America is a Constitutional Republic and not a Pure Democracy. The reason: Our founders, in their infinite wisdom, made it so that mob rule cannot reign. So that mobocracy does not occur and individuals, even a minority in number, are protected from a tyranny of the majority. This is supposed to be done by checks, such as actually following that pesky old Constitution and not legislating morality or behavior.

Seems easy, right? Makes sense? Well, apparently sense and principle and beliefs upon which our Nation was founded go right out the window if you simply don’t like something. I speak of smoking bans, which have now gone so far as to ban smoking outside. No, really. In Seattle, natch (excerpt from Reason.com:

Yesterday, overruling an advisory panel’s recommendation, Seattle Parks Superintendent Timothy Gallagher imposed a comprehensive tobacco ban on the city’s parks. Although protecting bystanders from secondhand smoke is the most common justification for such bans, Gallagher’s rationale is wider:

“The negative health effects of tobacco are well documented. As an agency that has a fundamental mission to support the health and well-being of Seattle residents, it is appropriate and beneficial to prohibit the use of tobacco products at parks and park facilities.”

In other words, Gallagher is intent on using his power as parks superintendent not only to protect park patrons from the occasional whiff of someone else’s cigarette smoke but to protect them from the ill effects of their own unhealthy habits. Hence the inclusion of smokeless tobacco, which poses no conceivable threat to passers-by (and also is much less hazardous to consumers than cigarettes).

Anyone who believes in freedom and liberty should be outraged that the rights of private citizens and business owners are being usurped, all for “your own good”.  And, if you oppose Obamacare, you should oppose smoking bans. It has nothing to do with whether or not you personally smoke. It has everything to do with freedom.

Where are the rallying cries of “My body, My choice” now? The cries of “Stay out of our bedrooms” now? The new cries are Stay out of my uterus, but come on into my lungs ? Stay out of my bedroom, but welcome to my private business, my apartment, my condo, my car and the AIR? Because it has come to that.

The city of Belmont passed a law banning smoking everywhere except for single family detached homes. Which means you can only smoke in your own home if you are posh enough to afford a single family home there (about $900,000.00). Own a condo? Too bad.

Minnesota legislators put forth a bill last year to ban smoking in your own car. Yes, your car. If they plan on making my car payment for me, then maybe. Otherwise, keep your Nanny State nose out of it, thank you very much.

Minnesota has banned smoking in workplaces, bars and restaurants. Some suburban communities have banned smoking in parks, and university campuses are taking up the fight, too.

Now, under a bill expected to be introduced today at the state Capitol, lawmakers will consider extending that prohibition to your ride.

Backed by the same groups that helped enact the statewide ban on smoking in bars and restaurants, the new bill would prohibit smoking in cars when children are present.

It’s For The Children ™ ! And probably for The Middle Class as well, somehow. I guess I’m just a girl, thus I don’t understand science thingies, but I simply don’t fathom how we all aren’t gasping our last breaths from all the second hand smoke that we breathed in as children in the 70s!

Like everything else that is allegedly for the children, it comes down to money out of taxpayers’ pockets; it’s funny how the government relies on smoker’s money. They passed an increase in the SCHIP (children’s health insurance ) so that people making up to $63,000 a year now get “free” health insurance for their kids. They plan to pay for this by the increase of the Federal excise tax on cigarettes from 39 cents to $1.00 a pack. So, you want people to smoke for the revenue you receive? But then, after they’ve paid, they should just shut up and crawl back into a corner? The criminalization of smokers; outside bars you see them all huddled together like Fagin’s Gang.

And I suppose that workers out of a job due to declining bar revenues can take comfort in the fact that they weren’t exposed to smoke. While they collect their unemployment checks.

Liberals and Conservatives are united in this. Conservatives conveniently forget their belief in limited government, liberty without government intervention and the free market. A private business owner should have the choice to run his or her business the way he or she chooses. If he wishes to accommodate smokers, that is his right. He OWNS the property. You are not required to enter. Do not enter, if you do not want to be exposed to the evils of second-hand smoke and the cooties of smokers. It is truly that simple.

They are in collusion with the liberal Nanny Staters who believe it is their right, as they are so much smarter than I, to tell me how to live my life. They are both wrong. Dangerously wrong. Where are the people standing up for private rights now? Everyone has rights, except for the new second-class citizens, smokers.

Thomas Jefferson once said “If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.

Eerily accurate, no? People want the Government to protect them from absolutely every single risk, even just the mere potential of harm? Good old TJ also said this:

“ Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have … The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases. “

When we begin to censor – even criminalize – one segment of the population, including what results in the seizure of their private property, it is inevitable that it will happen again and again to curtail other liberties (that old slippery slope.) Which sort of brings me back to what outraged me originally; the next target is any speech that hurts anyone else’s feelings, isn’t showing “Unity” or that any group deems offensive.

It started with smoking, it is moving on to trans-fats and high fructose corn syrup — just wait and see what happens if Socialized Medicine in the form of Obamacare comes to pass and they really have a say in every single thing you do, with the ability to determine your personal choices in the name of protecting you from yourself.  Because, when fascism comes to America, it will come wearing a white coat, carrying a stethoscope and asking you to bend over and cough.

P.S. Prohibition never works. Ever. How’s that War on Drugs going?

(cross-posted at iowntheworld.com and David Horowitz’s NewsReal)

0
  • Power_System_Oper

    Actually it is wise to ban smoking in a lot of places. There are enough carelesss smokers slogging around who create the potential for fire which might do harm to more than just themselves and their own property such as in condos, public parks, apartment buildings, resturants etc.

  • Bildo

    1. If smokers weren’t the rudest people on the planet, there wouldn’t be any smoking bans. They brought it upon themselves.

    2. I find it sad every time somebody makes the ignorant claim that we aren’t a Democracy. Republic and Democracy are not mutually exclusive. We are a Democratic Republic in that we elect our leaders by direct vote. The President is the only representative that is not elected by direct vote, but he is still elected via a Democratic process. The next time you hear someone utter that “we are a republic, not a democracy” slap them upside their head. We’re both.

  • http://www.superdickery.com mightysamurai

    Posted by Power_System_Oper
    2010-02-27 17:28:18

    I guess by that logic we might as well ban matches, campfires, and gasoline.

  • Power_System_Oper

    Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

    Who’s life, liberty, and happiness has greater priority?

    One who wishes to smoke in his own apartment, or the baby in the apartment above who might die as the result of a fire caused by the actions of a careless smoker in the apartment below?

    A judgement call yes, but a type often required from those elected to make our laws.

  • http://aposematic.wordpress.com aposematic

    Great, all the Left wing head bangers are reading your posts…or maybe just making foolish comments.

    Great Libertarian piece!

    to mightysamurai: they are working on that–”Cap and Tax”

    to Bilbo:
    In a Republic, the people are represented by elected officials or the people represent themselves, in either case, the people retain the power.

    In a Democracy, the power is held by the elected officials. The possibility that the people can vote them out doesn’t reduce their power; it may cause them pause, but they still have the power to do whatever they want.

    So, America started out a Republic, but definitely is now a Democracy.

    Slap whose head?

  • the_hawk

    Having grown up in a household with two heavy smokers, and having not experienced a single negative health problem because of it (nor my three siblings), I find these claims of the effects of second hand smoke to be laughable. A great strategy by the anti-tobacco folks, but really, in my lifetime I have never met anyone who experienced a second hand smoke health related problem, or anyone who knew anyone who did. And yet they claim that millions lose their lives every year because of it. Up to 70,000 in this country alone. And yet there hasn’t been a single death that has been proven to be SHS related.

    And for Power_System_Oper: How about the baby who might die because of the careless NON-smoker in the apartment below who leaves their iron on and causes a fire?

  • Power_System_Oper

    hawk,

    Just another judgement call regarding competing interests which arise for life, liberty, and happiness which our law makers are often called on to make. In the example you raise, it comes down to the acceptability of risk of harm to an infant posed by the use of a device which is largely utilitarian in nature vs the acceptability of risk of harm to an infant posed by a device which is largely pleasurable in nature.

  • DrEvil

    Democracy is guaranteed to take away fundamental rights that clash with what is best for the mob.

    A Republic is based on the rule of LAW. A Democracy is based on the rule of men, which usually degenerates into mob-rule, which generates into despotism.

    A Republic respects the rights of the individual and the minority.

    For a real life example of pure American Democracy in action look no further than the Jim Crow laws passed in the last century. The laws were passed by the legally elected representatives of the people. The laws reflected the will of the people, a reflection of the local majority’s beliefs, in true democratic fashion. Those laws violated the God-given rights of American citizens and violated the basic tenants of the Constitution and are a stain on our history that will never be completely erased. Democracy equals Jim Crow type laws and group identity politics.

    Republic equals the Constitution and respect for individual rights.

    Have an Evil day

  • http://www.superdickery.com mightysamurai

    Posted by Power_System_Oper
    2010-02-27 18:46:32

    I see we have Hoggo the Clown on board to ban irons, stoves, matches, hot plates, microwaves, wood, and every other damn thing that might possibly be flammable in a house/apartment. All to prevent the possibility that someone might start a fire.

  • marbee

    Smoking bans are DESIGNED to close pubs, kill two birds with one stone, take away private property rights, and destroy individual freedom. People do like to congregate in pubs, after all. It drives the need for big pharma’s products and force behavior control so sheeple feel the need to purchase their products. They aren’t shy about it, it’s right on their tax exempt foundation’s website. In fact, you can buy their book on Amazon for $80.00: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Series on Health Policy, Tobacco Control Policy. http://www.amazon.com/Tobacco-Control-Johnson-Foundation-Anthology/dp/078798745X

  • http://snarkandboobs.wordpress.com Lori_Ziganto

    2006 Surgeon General’s Report (excerpts)

    Yes…the 1992/93 EPA report was thrown out by a judge for fudging the numbers. Essentially, the standard for scientific significance which demonstrates if a variable has an effect at all was lowered. But the judge’s ruling doesn’t stop the anti-smoking advocates from citing bad science.

    Here’s some other findings that have been taken so far out of context it defies the imagination:

    2006 Surgeon General’s Report (excerpts)

    The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between maternal exposure to secondhand smoke and female fertility or fecundability. No data were found on paternal exposure to secondhand smoke and male fertility or fecundability.

    The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between maternal exposure to secondhand smoke during pregnancy and spontaneous abortion.

    The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and neonatal mortality.

    The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and cognitive functioning among children.

    The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and behavioral problems among children.

    The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and children’s height/growth.

    The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between maternal exposure to secondhand smoke during pregnancy and childhood cancer.

    The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke during infancy and childhood cancer.

    The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between parental smoking and the natural history of middle ear effusion.

    The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between parental smoking and an increase in the risk of adenoidectomy or tonsillectomy among children.

    The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure from parental smoking and the onset of childhood asthma.

    The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between parental smoking and the risk of immunoglobulin E-mediated allergy in their children.

    The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and an increased risk of stroke.

    Studies of secondhand smoke and subclinical vascular disease, particularly carotid arterial wall thickening, are suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and atherosclerosis.

    The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among persons with asthma.

    The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among healthy persons.

    The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and chronic respiratory symptoms.

    The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between short-term secondhand smoke exposure and an acute decline in lung function in persons with asthma.

    The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between short-term secondhand smoke exposure and an acute decline in lung function in healthy persons.

    The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and a worsening of asthma control.

    The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

    And finally…..

    The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and odor annoyance.

    Source: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondh

Advertisement
Featured Video

The History of Ernesto Che Guevara – A Short Story

php developer india
Premium Right Ads
Blogads Right
Previous Features

Ads

The Best Quotes From “Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To”
Hey Lady Gaga, Kids Have a Time-Tested Answer for Bullies: Punch Them in the Mouth
Seven Differences Between Winners And Losers
The Problem With The Occupy Wall Street Generation
The 20 Most Influential Black Republicans
Talking With Chuck D. From Public Enemy About Farrakhan, Air America’s Failure, And Open Borders
Advertisement
User Info