Smoking bans....
I preface this post by admitting, up front, that I am an ex-smoker. Ex-smokers are the WORST kinds of non-smokers in the world (any smoker will tell you). We will be more than happy to regale you with all the reasons why you should quit smoking (because if I can do it you certainly can) and how you will feel so much better if you quit (because if I did, certainly you will too) and how you should quit because after all..it worked for me! We love to brag how long we have been "smoke free", how much money we are saving (now that we have quit throwing the money away on that "expensive habit"), how our clothes and homes don't smell like ashtrays all the time...the list goes on. Having said all that, let me just add that I think smoking bans (like the ones enacted in Hennepin and Ramsey counties) are nothing more than thinly veiled Nazism!
The "smoking police" - those people who are writing anti-smoking regulation "for your own good" are at it all over the place. In Arkansas, Democrat State Rep. Bob Mathis (himself an ex-smoker) wants to make it illegal for women to smoke while they are pregnant - as it hurts the developing fetus (I wonder if he thinks that abortion is good for a developing fetus???). There there is John Banzhaf who has already been successful in getting smoking banned outdoors, in private homes (in custody cases or foster homes), apartments (if the neighbors complain) and in cars (if children are in them). Now HE wants legislate what a woman can or can not do with her body!!!
I wonder if these two "gentlemen" (and I use the term very loosely here) have ever heard of a little thing called the personal responsibility? Now I realize that Mr. Banzhaf apparently thinks that this kind of nannyism is legal...
"Since court after court has held that smoking is not a fundamental right like voting, and that smokers are not a protected class like African-Americans or women, the government has wide leeway in fashioning a remedy for whatever it concludes is a problem requiring corrective action.”
However, there are those who believe that these bans are unconstitutional, restricting the free access of a smoker. Now, Mr. Banzhaf has argued that it does not restrict them from going out to restaurants and bars, it just stops them from smoking while there, but nonp-smokers "rights" are infringed by smokers. The same logic that Mr. Banzhaf uses apparently (in his mind) does not work the other way around! Non-smokers are not prevented from going out to restaurants and bars, but if they want to go to a smoke bar, then they need to go to a smoke free bar and not force the bar owner to go smoke free (and thus not allowing the bar owner to use his/her property as he sees fit and thereby infringing on the bar owners rights!)
The only "rights" that Mr. Banzhaf and his friends seem to be interested in maintaining are their rights to sue people who dare to want to smoke. As I said.....I chose to quit. However, where Misters Banzhaf, Mathis and I disagree is whether I will choose to force my choice on someone else. I do not have the right to do so and neither do Misters Mathis and Banzhaf.
The "smoking police" - those people who are writing anti-smoking regulation "for your own good" are at it all over the place. In Arkansas, Democrat State Rep. Bob Mathis (himself an ex-smoker) wants to make it illegal for women to smoke while they are pregnant - as it hurts the developing fetus (I wonder if he thinks that abortion is good for a developing fetus???). There there is John Banzhaf who has already been successful in getting smoking banned outdoors, in private homes (in custody cases or foster homes), apartments (if the neighbors complain) and in cars (if children are in them). Now HE wants legislate what a woman can or can not do with her body!!!
I wonder if these two "gentlemen" (and I use the term very loosely here) have ever heard of a little thing called the personal responsibility? Now I realize that Mr. Banzhaf apparently thinks that this kind of nannyism is legal...
"Since court after court has held that smoking is not a fundamental right like voting, and that smokers are not a protected class like African-Americans or women, the government has wide leeway in fashioning a remedy for whatever it concludes is a problem requiring corrective action.”
However, there are those who believe that these bans are unconstitutional, restricting the free access of a smoker. Now, Mr. Banzhaf has argued that it does not restrict them from going out to restaurants and bars, it just stops them from smoking while there, but nonp-smokers "rights" are infringed by smokers. The same logic that Mr. Banzhaf uses apparently (in his mind) does not work the other way around! Non-smokers are not prevented from going out to restaurants and bars, but if they want to go to a smoke bar, then they need to go to a smoke free bar and not force the bar owner to go smoke free (and thus not allowing the bar owner to use his/her property as he sees fit and thereby infringing on the bar owners rights!)
The only "rights" that Mr. Banzhaf and his friends seem to be interested in maintaining are their rights to sue people who dare to want to smoke. As I said.....I chose to quit. However, where Misters Banzhaf, Mathis and I disagree is whether I will choose to force my choice on someone else. I do not have the right to do so and neither do Misters Mathis and Banzhaf.
posted by The Lady Logician at
4:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home