I'm not alone
In previous posts, I have given you all of my reasons why we should not only not enact a statewide smoking ban but rescind the county wide ones already in place. Now another quarter is heard from.
"I don't smoke. I don't like smoke. But my distaste for the habit doesn't give me cause to have the state manage individual rights.
The new junta of Democratic legislative leaders has declared a statewide smoking ban as the top priority on their thin agenda for the upcoming legislative session."
What about tuition increases, property tax reform and funding roads and transit? Weren't those the hallmarks of the DFL agenda during the campaign?
"A statewide smoking ban in Minnesota is a dangerous constitutional precedent. If the new regime wants the ban to pass, it very likely will pass. But we should at least call it what it is as we plummet further into the nanny-state formerly known as Minnesota.
America was founded on principles of freedom and the right of the individual to self-determine. As a "free" society, the laws we enact must necessarily be directed toward protection of individual freedoms."
I know that I am not the only one to believe that smoking bans are a dangerous Constitutional precedent. I am just oh so glad to see that there are some members of our state house that feel the same way.
"I expect those who want to dictate our freedoms will cry out that the smoking ban is altogether different from the examples offered.
Secondhand smoke obviously affects workers in bars and restaurants. Of course no one wants to suggest that employment is voluntary. Evidence of the negative health impact of secondhand smoke has been presented as indisputable.
If this is such an indisputable truth, then why does the federal government rate secondhand smoke below cell phones as a carcinogen?"
That is an excellent question. Perhaps ALA Bob would be able to provide us with an answer?
"The new junta of Democratic legislative leaders has declared a statewide smoking ban as the top priority on their thin agenda for the upcoming legislative session.
That baffles me. How property taxes, education reform, health care reform and funding for roads and bridges do not top that list of priorities is, in a word, outrageous! Apparently promises made during recent campaigns can now be forgotten."
Another excellent point. I mean the DFL told us that their legislative priorities were property tax reform, health care reform, tuition credits and transportation funding (the order of priorities differed from district to district). What happened to change those priorities?
"The real issue is much larger. The real issue is how far we are willing to let government rules erode our freedom.What will stop the regulatory engineers from focusing their sights on the freedom to consume certain foods they consider unhealthful foods? What will stop them from outlawing certain expressions, like no one should be forced to sit in a public place next to someone spouting profanity or praying aloud? What will stop them from determining who can own and hold certain property like a farmer's right to decide how and what to farm? What will stop them from legislating who we can associate with by restricting procreation based on genetics? What will stop them from legislating our religious freedoms?"
BRAVO Rep. Emmer bravo. Your constituents are well served. We need many more like you both in our state legislature and in the national legislature.
(H/T AAA at Residual Forces)
"I don't smoke. I don't like smoke. But my distaste for the habit doesn't give me cause to have the state manage individual rights.
The new junta of Democratic legislative leaders has declared a statewide smoking ban as the top priority on their thin agenda for the upcoming legislative session."
What about tuition increases, property tax reform and funding roads and transit? Weren't those the hallmarks of the DFL agenda during the campaign?
"A statewide smoking ban in Minnesota is a dangerous constitutional precedent. If the new regime wants the ban to pass, it very likely will pass. But we should at least call it what it is as we plummet further into the nanny-state formerly known as Minnesota.
America was founded on principles of freedom and the right of the individual to self-determine. As a "free" society, the laws we enact must necessarily be directed toward protection of individual freedoms."
I know that I am not the only one to believe that smoking bans are a dangerous Constitutional precedent. I am just oh so glad to see that there are some members of our state house that feel the same way.
"I expect those who want to dictate our freedoms will cry out that the smoking ban is altogether different from the examples offered.
Secondhand smoke obviously affects workers in bars and restaurants. Of course no one wants to suggest that employment is voluntary. Evidence of the negative health impact of secondhand smoke has been presented as indisputable.
If this is such an indisputable truth, then why does the federal government rate secondhand smoke below cell phones as a carcinogen?"
That is an excellent question. Perhaps ALA Bob would be able to provide us with an answer?
"The new junta of Democratic legislative leaders has declared a statewide smoking ban as the top priority on their thin agenda for the upcoming legislative session.
That baffles me. How property taxes, education reform, health care reform and funding for roads and bridges do not top that list of priorities is, in a word, outrageous! Apparently promises made during recent campaigns can now be forgotten."
Another excellent point. I mean the DFL told us that their legislative priorities were property tax reform, health care reform, tuition credits and transportation funding (the order of priorities differed from district to district). What happened to change those priorities?
"The real issue is much larger. The real issue is how far we are willing to let government rules erode our freedom.What will stop the regulatory engineers from focusing their sights on the freedom to consume certain foods they consider unhealthful foods? What will stop them from outlawing certain expressions, like no one should be forced to sit in a public place next to someone spouting profanity or praying aloud? What will stop them from determining who can own and hold certain property like a farmer's right to decide how and what to farm? What will stop them from legislating who we can associate with by restricting procreation based on genetics? What will stop them from legislating our religious freedoms?"
BRAVO Rep. Emmer bravo. Your constituents are well served. We need many more like you both in our state legislature and in the national legislature.
(H/T AAA at Residual Forces)
posted by The Lady Logician at
7:15 PM
3 Comments:
I'm all for a ban on smoking in public places. Smoking is a public health hazard. Second hand smoke causes deaths from lung cancer and other ailments. I feel sorry for people who are addicted to cigarettes thanks in part to the criminal tobacco companies. But we have the public health to consider here.
By
Anonymous, at 3:48 PM
So are you saying that a smoking ban is a more important issue than education or transportation or the rising cost of health care?
By
The Lady Logician, at 3:41 PM
They're all important issues.
By
Anonymous, at 1:42 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home