Let’s get to the issues that fire me up and deplete the blogsphere.
This gradual path we are taking as a nation to full-blown mob rule style democracy is frightening. We must fear such a path. I believe that conservative British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli said it best:
“If you establish a [true] democracy, you must in due time reap the fruits of a democracy. You will in due season have great impatience of public burdens, combined in due season with great increase of public expenditure. You will in due season have wars entered into from passion and not from reason; and you will in due season submit to peace ignominiously sought and ignominiously obtained, which will diminish your authority and perhaps endanger your independence. You will in due season find your PROPERTY is less valuable, and your freedom less complete.”
There has been some recent debate over the statewide smoking ban among my fellow Republicans. I can read about it in many local blogs, newspaper articles and etc. Some in the GOP argue for the ban and some in the GOP (like myself) argue against it. I decided to counter point all ten main arguments/points for a statewide ban and show how they are wrong and a threat to conservatism.
1. BAN IS A THREAT TO PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS-It stops private property owners from allowing a LEGAL activity in their establishment. It takes away their free choice to pursue a market force in a free market system. Therefore, it IS an infringement on the right to trade. Private property is sacred! It is sacred by law! We must remember the U.S. Supreme Court decision Lloyd Corp v. Tanner which upheld that a place of business does not become public property just because the public is invited in;
2. THE BAN MAKES SOME RICHER AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS-Casinos are exempt from the ban while regular bars and/or restaurants are not. How is it just to bar and/or restaurant owners in areas close to casinos? How is it just to use big government to drive a market force to certain, exempted establishments while taking that same market force away, thereby hurting, other establishments? If the state is truly so concerned about the health affects of secondhand smoke then why does the ban allow exemptions?
3. THE SCIENCE BEHIND SECONDHAND SMOKE IS FLIMSY-The 1993 EPA ETS Secondhand smoke study was thrown out by known anti-tobacco federal judge William Osteen for biased science and manipulated statistics/research. The American Lung/Heart Association, as well as the U.S. Surgeon General in his 2006 pro-smoking ban speech, all use this thrown out study as their pretext for supporting bans today. How is this ethical? Even more studies have proven the actual risk of secondhand smoke is inconclusive. I’m not saying that it’s good for you but it isn’t as deadly as assumed. A 1999 Environmental Health Perspective survey of 17 ETS-heart disease studies found only five that were statistically significantly positive. This study is important because it brings to the debate what many refuse to talk about, statistical significance. Statistical significance refers to whether an increased or decreased risk falls outside the bounds of what could be expected by chance. A 2002 analysis by International Agency for Research on Cancer, Unit of Environmental Cancer Epidemiology, which looked at 48 studies regarding a possible ETS link to lung cancer found 10 that were significantly positive, one that was actually significantly negative, and 37 that were insignificant either way. Many may not want to hear it but the science behind how deadly secondhand smoke is still very much inconclusive regardless of the current roar of screaming propaganda.
4. NO ONE IS FORCED TO BE AROUND SMOKE-No one is forced to work, eat, or visit any establishment that allows smoking. We have the free choice to use our own intelligence to decide where to go and where to work. If you have medical problems, allergies and etc then you don’t have to go to places that allow smoking. Why should private property owners change their business policies to accommodate every single individual likes or dislikes? People who choose to go to places that allow smoking but then complain about it are like people who complain about high gas prices yet they refuse to drive less or adjust their budgets to accommodate the increases. The same can be said for those who suffer from asthma yet choose to go into places that allow smoking then complain about their condition acting up. No individual responsibility. Banning private property owners from wanting to allow a legal activity on their property just because some don’t like that activity, even though they have the right to choice to enter that establishment or not, is the ultimate in selfishness.
5. LET THE FREE MARKET WORK-The market is already making establishments go smoke-free on their own. I have heard those in the GOP in Santa Fe attacking the minimum wage increase (rightfully so), and other big government attacks on business/private property, as an attack on the free market. So, how is it that advocating for the free market is ok in the fight against the minimum wage increase, and other issues, but not in this fight? More establishments are going smoke-free on their own due to the market. If you truly believe in the free market then let in work in all cases.
6. SMOKING BANS ARE ONLY THE FOOT IN THE DOOR-The same people/groups who have pushed smoking bans in the past were behind the trans-fat bans in NYC and are pushing unrealistic and anti-private property rights laws against trans-fat, alcohol consumption, SUV’s, gun rights and even driving while talking on cell phones (even though we already have reckless driving laws on the books.). The same council members in Philadelphia who pushed last years smoking ban there are now pushing for a trans-fat ban. Same in California, Ohio and Louisville, Kentucky. These people are promoting an entire agenda to force us to their way of thinking via big government.
7. BIG GOVERNMENT ONLY GROWS TO CONSUME EVEN MORE-California’s statewide ban, approved in 1997, allowed exemptions but eventually has evolved to allow municipalities to ban smoking even in your own car when you are by yourself and anywhere outside. Big government only grows to consume. Over time the exemptions in the proposed New Mexico statewide ban will be gradually removed and the places smoking is banned will only grow, even in private homes, regardless of private property rights.
8. THE ‘COST TO HEALTHCARE’ ARGUMENT FAILS-One can not use the ‘cost to state healthcare’ argument to push a ban on smoking on private property. They can’t because cholesterol is the number one killer and cost to healthcare, so, under this argument the state would have to regulate what we eat and drink as well.
9. JUST BECAUSE A MAJORITY WANTS IT DOESN’T MEAN THEY GET IT-We are a constitutional republic, not a mob rule democracy. The Founding Fathers, when writing the U.S. Constitution, feared that ghost from England’s previous Civil War that was the English demagogue and military dictator Oliver Cromwell. The Founding Fathers, in their realist wisdom, created an electoral college to prevent urban and population heavy states and areas from terrorizing the rural and sparsely populated states and areas. They also made the U.S. Senate an even numbered institution regardless of the population size of a state. It is interesting that at the founding of our Republic only males who owned property (PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS!) were allowed to vote. They founding fathers held private property as sacred and credited private property owners as being extra knowledgeable. There was a healthy fear of ‘the angry mob’ in the Founding Fathers thinking. The very fact that we have a representative republic and not a mob rule democracy is a testament to the Founding Fathers realist world view. If every Greek were Plato all together they would still make a mob. In our republican form of government the will of the angry mob is BALANCED against individual/private property rights. In our form of government the rights of the majority are considered but not set into stone. Just because a majority of citizens want this ban is NOT a good or constitutional reason to give it to them. It is sad when conservatives, traditional opponents of mob rule, coward before the angry mob when the ban passed the New Mexico House unanimously with not even one conservative asking why.
10. THE PRO-BAN SIDE ARE THE TRULY DANGEROUS-Beware do-gooders baring gifts. The most fundamental problem of modern politics is self-righteousness, NOT the control of wickedness. Nothing is more dangerous than people convinced of their own moral superiority because they deny their political opponents that very attribute. Why has there been no mention of compromise by the pro-smoking ban side? Because they view compromise on this issue as a threat. THOSE WHO OPPOSE ANY COMPROMISE ARE THE TRUE THREAT TO PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS AND FREEDOM. Tyranny is the result of the self-righteous via their new tool in the form of big/nanny government. The anti-smoking/freedom activists want a government effort to stamp out a habit THEY don’t like. There was once a nation that did this. They restricted tobacco advertising, banned smoking in public, restricted and regulated tobacco farmers growing abilities, and engaged in a sophisticated anti-smoking public relations campaign. In fact, the leader of this government gave gold watches to all his ministers who quit the tobacco habit. Plus, the phrase ‘passive smoking’ (i.e. secondhand smoke) was coined by this government. You want to know of what nation I speak of? Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany. Makes one think.
As conservatives we must remember the wisdom handed down to us by Reagan’s mentor and the grandfather of the conservative movement:
“I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.”
-Barry Goldwater
Amen..Amen..Amen!! Too bad other NM Republican bloggers do not argue their points this precisely.
Slapping former First Lady Dee Johnson’s name to a terrible bill is like putting lipstick on a pig. When will our Republican legislators get back to being Republicans?
Remember…The GOP has a platform you guys are supposed to pushing. I don’t believe “do-gooder or nanny-government” to be a part of that platform.
I remember back when the city council of Albuquerque forced the inclusion of a non-smoking section on restaurants in the city.
I was about 15 at the time, a rabid anti-smoker, yet even then I knew what they were doing was wrong. Even then, when I was an idiot in so many ways, I knew how important private property rights were.
I need some information, please:
1) WHO are the so-called Republicans that are likely to vote for this ban?
2) Where are the local political blogs?
3) When is this awful…thing….likely to come to a vote? How long do we have to fight?
Thank you.
Thank you for writing this article. It should be on the must-read list for every representative we have. I think they all have to be reminded.
NMGOP,
Thanks again for the kind support. We must fight to keep limited government in our party philosophy. Looking at the current stock of potiential 2008 GOP candidates I can’t help but wonder if our party is now that horrible hybrid that is big government conservatism. Some will argue that the people don’t want limited government or that it doesn’t ’sell’ during elections. Both Reagan’s campaigns and the 1994 Contract With America prove those concepts to be hallow shells.
Dean
Jason,
We need to start playing offense. This is about private property rights, not smoking. It is also about where it leads too, not the present. I got your e-mail and will send you the info you want via a private e-mail.
Thanks for viewing,
Dean
Marlene,
Those GOPers in the NM House definitely need to be reminded of the sanctity of private property rights and the danger of zealots.
Thanks for the support and I hope you keep reading.
Dean
Great post. Here in the Republic,I mean Commonwealth oh whatever in MA. we have in less than 2 weeks time the following. Helmets for kids when sledding and ,No smoking in your car when occupied by a child. The use of bad science and sentiments to prop up bad legislation is rampant nationwide. Good luck on your end
Thank you. Sadly, it appears that the statewide ban is going to pass the Senate and be signed into law. I am currently looking into finding a business ally to go the ‘legal way’ to defeat it. If the executive and the legislature take property rights away to please the plebian mob then the last avenue is the courts.
Thank you for your kind comments and I hope you keep on reading.
Dean
The real small government Libertarian Republicans are very sparse in number. They support Constitutional proponents like Ron Paul. I would urge you to think about joining the Republican Liberty Caucus if you can’t bare to join the Libertarian party out right. Those groups are the last of the real small government Reagan and Goldwater types of Republicans. I am a Libertarian and I totally agree with all your arguments about these sorts of silly smoking bans. I have seen way too many big government Republicans who are nothing more than rightwing socialist.
2008horserace.info,
“The real small government Libertarian Republicans are very sparse in number.” I agree.
“They support Constitutional proponents like Ron Paul.” I am looking at him, BUT, I have some issues with his foreign policy/war stances. I’m not 100% Libertarian. In fact, I consider myself conservative with a large libertarian streak. Even Goldwater advocated and supported an active foreign policy and strong/activist military strength to help keep the Soviet Union in line. Paul seems to be more of an old fashioned isolationist which we can not afford to be in modern times. Plus, I am for tough border security and I still oppose legalized gay marriage.
“I would urge you to think about joining the Republican Liberty Caucus if you can’t bare to join the Libertarian party out right.” I have been looking at the RLC and I do want to join. How can I do this?
Your ally,
Dean
Great site! I am a former bar owner in Toledo Ohio. Our city imposed a harsh smoking ban which we amended. I never recovered after a year. I was forced to sell at auction and took a great loss. Now we are facing a statewide ban which will kill alot more businesses. On my web site I am in contact with people all over the world facing the same trouble. When will this ever end? Welcome to America. This is only the beginning.
Joyce.
Joyce,
Thanks for the compliment. Your site is awesome. We do have rights. I am sorry to hear about the crime committed against you. And yes, I do call it a crimie. Your attacker were certain interest groups who were vocal and got big, liberal, nanny government to infringe on your rights as a private property owner. Of course the anti-private property/liberty types always say that smoking bans help business, BUT, what most don’t know is that their ’studies’ combine all forms of food/drink establishments to get the biased results they want. For example, their studies use results from combining fast food markets and bar owners markets to get the results they want. I am sure that your market WAS DIFFERENT from McDonald’s market.
It makes me mad that you lost your bar due a ban.
“When will it end?” I don’t know. We need to keep fighting an educating. One avenue our side hasn’t gotten to use a lot yet is the courts. We need to file more lawsuits and etc.
You are right, this IS only the beginning. We have already seen how those in local and state governments who pushed for smoking bans are now pushing for trans fat bans, cell phone while driving bans, gun ownership bans via mroe regulations, the gradual reintroduction of alcohol prohibition via regulations and etc. Soon it may be contact sports, SUV ownership and, God forbid, sex.
Freedom is slowly being taken away thanks to big, nanny government.
We do need to keep fighting Joyce. Thank you very much for the comment. I usually get only anti-smoking zealots who only attack. It is refreshing to hear from those who believe in liberty and private property rights. Thank you for sharing your story which exposes the truth that bans HURT business and freedom.
Dean
Liberty is nothing is people do not understand their rights and obligations. A free society requires commitment to principles. We have lost those principles and deserve what we get.
Couldn’t disagree more with this entire article.
Especially this statement:
4. NO ONE IS FORCED TO BE AROUND SMOKE-No one is forced to work, eat, or visit any establishment that allows smoking. We have the free choice to use our own intelligence to decide where to go and where to work. If you have medical problems, allergies and etc then you don’t have to go to places that allow smoking. Why should private property owners change their business policies to accommodate every single individual likes or dislikes?
When I have a drink, I don’t throw my beverage all over the person next to me? Why is that different when someone smokes all over me? They are invading my privacy. I am not invading in someone else’s privacy when I drink in an establishment. Because I don’t smoke and want to actually be able to breathe I can’t go to a bar and enjoy myself? That makes zero sense. Smoke goes everywhere and if you want to deprive your body and smoke, you have to realize the consequences and go outside. As a non-smoker I should be able to go into a bar and not have someones respiratory germs and secondhand smoke in the air all in my lungs. That’s so invading, overall rude and disgusting. I believe that if you want to smoke, you should have to go to a private establishment, but not a public bar or restaurant.
Angela,
Sorry, but you are totally incorrect. You state:
‘When I have a drink, I don’t throw my beverage all over the person next to me? Why is that different when someone smokes all over me? They are invading my privacy. I am not invading in someone else’s privacy when I drink in an establishment. Because I don’t smoke and want to actually be able to breathe I can’t go to a bar and enjoy myself? That makes zero sense.’
What doesn’t make sense Angela is the fact that you CHOOSE to enter bars that allow smoking. If you don’t like it then YOU DON’T HAVE TO ENTER THAT BAR! I love your type because you REFUSE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS. It still amazes me how you hate smoking yet enter a bar that you know allows it. If it does bother you so much then why don’t you patron a bar that is non-smoking? Why do you refuse to take responsibility for your own actions. You choose to enter a bar that allows smoking. You choose to stay at a bar that allows smoking. The responsibility lies WITH YOU. This is what people like you don’t get or refuse to accept is that it IS YOUR FAULT for choosing to stay in a bar that allows smoking. Nobody puts a gun to your head and forces you to enter a bar that allows smoking. The choice is yours.
‘Smoke goes everywhere and if you want to deprive your body and smoke, you have to realize the consequences and go outside.’ Unless I OWN the bar which means that the bar is my PRIVATE PROPERTY which means that the choice to allow smoking in my bar is MY DECISION. Therefore, if you enter my bar and then complain about the smoking which I choose to allow as the property owner then it is YOU who has to go outside my private property/bar. People like you are a great threat to liberty and freedom because you are so self-righteous that you want to use big government and new laws to force private property owners to ban an activity you just don’t like. That is called facism.
‘As a non-smoker I should be able to go into a bar and not have someones respiratory germs and secondhand smoke in the air all in my lungs.’ Sorry Angela but you have NO ‘RIGHT’ to not have smoke enter your lungs if you choose to enter and patron a bar that allows smoking. When you first walk into a bar that allows smoking then you should act your age and leave if it bothers you so much to find a bar that is non-smoking. You only have the right to take your business elsewhere.
‘That’s so invading, overall rude and disgusting.’ As usual, we get to the TRUTH of the matter. You just don’t like it so you want to use government to ban it. People like you are also banning trans-fat, cell phones, metal baseball bats, toy guns and etc. It is ridiculous. You are ‘offended’ so you want to ban everybody else’s freedom. You are a facist.
‘I believe that if you want to smoke, you should have to go to a private establishment, but not a public bar or restaurant.’ Angela, there is no such thing as a public bar or restaurant! There are no bars or restaurants that get taxpayer money. ALL BARS AND RESTAURANTS ARE NOT OWNED BY THE PUBLIC BUT BY INDIVIDUALS OR COMPANIES. City hall or the public library is public property because it is paid for with taxpayer monies. However, a corporations headquarters, your house, a bar, a restaurant, your local coffee shop, cd store and etc are all private property because they are owned by private people or private companies. I mean private as in non-government. When the government owns something then it is public.
I know where you are going with this but sorry you are wrong there too. Just because the public is invited in to a restaurant does NOT make it public. The Founding Fathers made us a republic, not a democracy, because there had to be a system of government in which the rights of individuals and property owners was not trampled on by the angry mob or the masses. All one has to do is look at the U.S. Supreme Court case Lloyd Corp vs. Tanner U.S. Supreme Court decision Lloyd Corp v. Tanner which upheld that a place of business does not become public property just because the public is invited in. It remains PRIVATE PROPERTY.
Sorry Angela, but no cigar
Thank you! Keep up the good work. It is amazing to see the blindness and selfishness of the anti-smoking movement. Personal property rights are a big reason for the success of this country, and ignoring this fact will eventually come back to bite them in the fanny…when something they enjoy is taken from them.
One point on selfishness…I have very seldom heard smokers complain about PRIVATE establishments that decide on their own to ban smoking. Smokers usually respect the decision and utilize their free choice of not frequenting that location.
By the way…I don’t enjoy second-hand smoke, but I realize that it is my duty to make the decision to stay or leave.
Mike,
Anytime my friend. I will definitely keep it up.
“Personal property rights are a big reason for the success of this country, and ignoring this fact will eventually come back to bite them in the fanny…when something they enjoy is taken from them.” You are exactly right. Their double meat cheeseburgers, soda pop, beer and etc are already under the regulation sight by the same groups who push smoking bans. Once you make private property rights moot then it is fair game for whatever ‘offends’ anybody to ban legally.
“One point on selfishness…I have very seldom heard smokers complain about PRIVATE establishments that decide on their own to ban smoking. Smokers usually respect the decision and utilize their free choice of not frequenting that location.” Exactly, a lot of the pro-smoking side accuse us of being selfish, however, we are simply fighting to maintain the freedom of choice by property owners. We are trying to ban anything or anybody, we just want bar and restaurant owners to be free to choose. The number of establishments that allow smoking are slightly decreasing on their own with the free market. Then you are seeing a rise in businesses that want to allow smokers developing a smokers niche market. Let the market work. It is funny, yet tragic, to me that all non-smoking zealots have to do is go somewhere that doesn’t allow smoking. THAT’S IT! All they have to do is use their own freedom of choice and personal responsibility.
“By the way…I don’t enjoy second-hand smoke, but I realize that it is my duty to make the decision to stay or leave.” We need more Americans like you my friend. Keep up the good fight for private property rights as well.
Thanks for reading and commenting.
Dean
Dean,
“Exactly, a lot of the pro-smoking side accuse us of being selfish, however, we are simply fighting to maintain the freedom of choice by property owners.”
I believe the saying that my Grandfather always used (which, by the way, can be used against most political opponents of individual rights and freedoms) was, “A dog always smells its own *&^% first.” And they accuse us of being selfish…
Mike
Dean, nice site and I’m writing from Wales, UK.
Got to pick up Angela’s gripe back on May 8th. She is labouring under the delusion that when she drinks she keeps it to herself because she doesn’t throw her beverage over the person next to her. She considers, subsequently, that she is not invading someone else’s privacy.
Well actually she is, and one of the amazing facts about the anti smoking racket, and it is a racket, is that the indoctrination stops people thinking and taking proper note of their own actual experience.
So I say to Angela, Angela, which world do you live in? We are perpetually breathing the air which others expel from their lungs especially when we share a room or confined space with them. Breath travels and how do you think it happens that when someone smokes the expelled smoke moves from one part of a room to another? Two factors cause this: the exhalation of breath and the ventilation in the room. Now it you want proof, go out on a cold day and breathe out. You will see how far your breath travels. Likewise, when you drink, the alcohol from your body moves into a room in the same way. Just because you can’t see it doesn’t mean it isn’t there. So please think a bit more before you excuse your OWN invasive conduct!
I wish Mr Goldwater would come over the pond to England and teach our bunch of so called democratic politicians the meaning of private property.
Hi all!
Very interesting information! Thanks!
G’night
right on. point 4 is the best
The author is a dumb ass. Second hand smoke is a deadly to the individual who is doing the smoking. I’m talking about public housing here, where I have a neighbor who sits outside her balcony, sucking down one cigarette after another while she exhales her deadly poison into my apartment windows. I don’t HAVE a choice, asshole, but to inhale her carcinogens! I’ve lived here three years. My neighbor has for six months! And, she doesn’t want to STINK up her own apartment, so she sits outside and spews her venom into my living/breathing space. There’s a giant hole in your theory. And, it matches the one in your head!
What a shock….instead of attacking the points he instead begins with a personal attack. This has, happily, only proven my point number 10.
“Second hand smoke is a deadly to the individual who is doing the smoking. I’m talking about public housing here, where I have a neighbor who sits outside her balcony, sucking down one cigarette after another while she exhales her deadly poison into my apartment windows.”
Sorry Jaba but your point here does not make sense. You say that secondhand smoke is deadly to the person smoking. Yet, you then go off attacking how she is threatening you. I will assume that you meant that it is deadly to you and others….which it is NOT.
Let’s look at the science:
1. 1993 EPA Secondhand smoke study was thrown out by known anti-tobacco federal judge William Osteen for biased science and manipulated statistics/research. The American Lung/Heart Association, as well as the U.S. Surgeon General in his 2006 pro-smoking ban speech, all use this thrown out study as their pretext for supporting bans today. How is this ethical?
2. A 1999 Environmental Health Perspective survey of 17 ETS-heart disease studies found only five that were statistically significantly positive. This study is important because it brings to the debate what many refuse to talk about, statistical significance. Statistical significance refers to whether an increased or decreased risk falls outside the bounds of what could be expected by chance.
3. A 2002 analysis by International Agency for Research on Cancer, Unit of Environmental Cancer Epidemiology, which looked at 48 studies regarding a possible ETS link to lung cancer found 10 that were significantly positive, one that was actually significantly negative, and 37 that were insignificant either way.
Naturally, this is the science I mention in my point number 3 above. Yet, you don’t even attack me with points or fact. You just scream….not uncommon with big government nanny types.
“I don’t HAVE a choice, asshole, but to inhale her carcinogens! (see above paragraph that tears apart your ‘carcinogens’ word usage) I’ve lived here three years. My neighbor has for six months! And, she doesn’t want to STINK up her own apartment, so she sits outside and spews her venom into my living/breathing space.”
So, none of the vehicle exhaust, pesticides, body odors, animal smells and etc that are outside bother you? This sounds like someone is attacking an annoying person next door. Yet, you present no science and no arguments against property rights. Complain to the owner.
“There’s a giant hole in your theory. And, it matches the one in your head!”
Oh Jaba….how stupid thy are. Actually, you are NOT forced to be around that smoke. You have the right to seek living arrangements elsewhere. You see….YOU CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT YOURSELF AND THERE IS NO NEED ASSUME THAT IT IS SOMEONE ELSE’S RESPONSIBILITY.
Jaba, I would advise that you politely (which, obviously is a new concept to you looking at what you said to me) talk with your fellow dweller. If nothing happens, then talk to the super or owner. If that fails then find another place to live if it bothers you so much. Or, fight fire with fire until they agree to a compromise.
I don’t see how your annoying neighbor allows government to violate private property rights by forcing private bar/restaurant owners to not allow a legal activity in their establishment even though no one is forced to patron or work there?
Sorry Jaba….but your logic is all emotion and no reason.
Dean
Dean,
I couldnt agree with you more on this topic. Ive been researching this topic for a few weeks now for a final paper in college and your writing has been the most helpful/inspirational. #4 has to be my favorite. I often hear the arguement that i am disturbing someone at the bar when im smoking. I was even approached by a woman who said the smoked bothered her child. My response was sincere and kind when i asked “Why did you bring your child to a bar?” I never saw a bar as a family place yet parents yell at myself and others for smoking there. I fully support you and the fight for private property rights, and the rights of smokers.
Justin
I have to say, I’m thrilled about this site.
I’m a manager at a bar and grill in Ohio, and, to get it out of the way, yes, I’m a smoker.
Nonetheless, I do have to say that both sides have their extremists and have their flaws…don’t misinterpret that though…the ban is absurd, ludacris, and disturbing.
Yes, smoking is bad for you. Any smoker that denies that is lying through their teeth and they know it. But then again, anyone screaming bloody murder about SHS is guilty of not looking into the facts too closely…check out http://www.davehitt.com/facts/helena.html for example. Many studies are shoddily done, and as a sociology major, it is easy to fodder statistics based on biases…for either side, I might add.
But think again about the crying outrage of all the nonsmokers screaming about how they’re going to wind up with lung cancer because they sit next to someone in a restaurant that’s smoking. I serve people constantly that are wasted filthy drunk, that have lovely tanned skin, screaming about cancer from SHS…a naive hypocrisy from folks who ignore all the stats on cancer from both sunlight and alchohol.
Added to that, is my own personal experience. Cancer runs in my family–variations are genetic–and I’ve had a great deal of exposure to it. But then again…my ailing grandfather passed away early this year from a laundry list of ailments–everything from renal kidney failure on to dementia–and had smoked since he was 12 years old, non-filter cigarettes. And the man had not one issue pertaining to smoking. My father, an avid 3 pack a day smoker, wound up having surgery to remove cancerous cells…for basal cell melanoma–from the sun, not the cigarettes. I’m not at all denying the fact that smoking is a detriment to anyone’s health, since doing so would be ignorant and foolish. What frightens me most about this subject is people’s lack of knowledge.
But closely behind that lack of knowledge is preservation of our liberties…as people and as business owners. Is smoking bad for you? Absolutely. But so is drinking, obesity, and sun-exposure. I doubt highly anyone will be banning going out into the sun.
What it comes down to is a reasonable accommodation, as best can be done for all, since obviously, there is no way to make everyone happy. What’s reasonable? Private business owners should have every right to decide for themselves if they want to run a smoking business or smoke-free business. It should be posted on all doors, to allow all patrons AND prospective employees to be aware of what they’re walking into. Then as each of us, smokers and nonsmokers alike, go out to eat, drink, bowl, play bingo, work, etc, etc, we can CHOOSE for ourselves what is best for us. Businesses that allow smoking should have to install smoke-eaters or something similar. Don’t like smoke? Go to a non-smoking facility or work for one. Enjoy a cigarette now and then? Go work or patron one that allows it.
I know a lot of smokers that hate smoke while they eat. And I know a lot of nonsmokers that socially smoke when they drink. What it boils down to is a morality issue…and if people really were thinking about our morality problems, they would want to resolve it fairly for all those involved.
I’ve spoken with dozens of patrons at our bar…and surprisingly, the most adament ones against the ban were nonsmokers.
Let’s use rationality, instead of our gut moralities, to put into place the best solution possible. Everyone’s entitled to their health, of course, just as much as everyone’s entitled to partake in a legal substance. Freedom’s not free though…it’s going to take work and rational solutions to turn this mess around.
Good luck all, if we feel passionately about this, let’s do something about it!
Dean:
You are a selfish, hard headed, ignorant bag of monkey shit.
Carlton,
What strong facts, arguments and evidence you presented. OH! Wait a minute….you didn’t present any. You just made a personal attack. Carlton, I am sorry the truth hurts and that you can’t handle it.
Dean
If I refuse to address the actual issue but continually quote famous dead guys’ opinions on the 2nd amendment for example I win the smoke ban argument every time. That is what you are doing here which demonstrates that you are a selfish, hard headed, ignorant bag of monkey shit.
Let’s see….I address the health evidence. I address the private property arguments and previous court ruling. I address the logic of the arguments used. I use history. I use fact. I also go over the philosophy and constitutional arguments. I also go over the question of separation of powers. I go over the ‘cost of health care’ argument.
Basically, I have addressed the issue thoroughly. You, in your own selfish self-righteousness, can’t handle the fact that anyone disagrees with you.
Carlton, if anything, you have proven my point…that the self righteous are the true threat to liberty because they refuse to give any moral authority to those who disagree with them.
How am I selfish in asking to let the owners of these bars and restaurants decide their own policies on smoking? Since the 80’s, a lot more places have gone non-smoking voluntarily. This is great! Because it is the property owners doing it….not those wanting to force their own views via big government simply because they don’t like it.
Once again Carlton, your name calling and obvious refusal to once again address the issues shows that all you are is a self-righteous zealot who can’t handle the truth or even a civil debate.
How have I refused to address the issue with all of the ten points/arguments are mentioned in my post?
Sorry Carlton…you are full of it and afraid
All that not withstanding the 2nd amendment was written as an individual right just as the rest of the bill of rights. Once again Dean, your name calling and obvious refusal to once again address the issues shows that all you are is a self-righteous zealot who can’t handle the truth or even a civil debate.
When challenged you NEVER even attempt to conduct a civil debate.
Sorry Dean…you are full of it and afraid.
BTW what is that long brown round thing in your mouth in the picture?
Carlton,
What name calling have done against you? None. So, why do you accuse me of it? Oh….I forgot….because you, once again, show no evidence or real arguments of our own. In fact, you continue the name calling on the lewd cigar comment which is the only thing you have since you have no EVIDENCE.
Evidence-something that furnishes proof. Obviously something your mind can not comprehend.
Where have built the crux of my entire post on the 2nd amendment? Let’s review:
1. I mention private property rights argument and the court cases and historical documentation:
2. I look at the flaws of the health studies and show opposite science;
3. I got the personal responsibility argument;
I have been civil by the way. I have used foul language or made any lewd comments to you in reply? No.
In fact, your very first comment to me, and I quote, was:
“You are a selfish, hard headed, ignorant bag of monkey shit.” So Carlton….how do this prove that I am the rude and self righteous one and you are not? It appears that EVIDENCE, your own words, speaks for itself.
Once again, you resort to name calling and, once again, NEVER state any counter arguments or facts. You are a desperate, self-righteous, facist loser
I can’t stop laughing at this debate with you.
Once again, no facts and no arguments, means that you are out of luck and have no arguments of your own.
Get help.
Laughing AT YOU,
Dean
Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist, No. 29, did not view the right to keep arms as being confined to active militia members:
What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen…The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution… Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped ; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
First,
This post is not about the second amendment so I don’t know where you are coming from. However, on the gun debate you are wrong. The Federalist Papers are NOT the constitution even though they greatly influenced the constitution.
You quoted a founding father. Let me quote some too (as well as a few of the ancients who inspired them):
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
Thomas Jefferson
“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that… it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824
“…It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control…The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.”
Samuel Adams
“Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit,
occidentis telum _est” (”A sword is never a killer, it’s a tool in the killer’s hands”)
Lucius Annaeus Seneca “the younger” ca. (4 BC – 65 AD)
“There exists a law, not written down anywhere, but in our hearts; a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading; a law which has come to us not from theory but from practice; not by instruction but by natural intuition: I refer to the law which lays it down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right.”
Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BC-43 BC) Roman Orator and Statesman at the trial of T. Annius Milo in 52 BC
“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”
Thomas Jefferson, 1791
“Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us.”
Thomas Jefferson (Declaration of the Causes and Necessities of Taking up Arms, 6 July 1775)
“It does not take a majority to prevail … but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”
Samuel Adams “The Father of the American Revolution”
“The right of self-defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals.”
President James Monroe (November 16, 1818)
“Any single man must judge for himself whether circumstances warrant obedience or resistance to the commands of the civil magistrate; we are all qualified, entitled, and morally obliged to evaluate the conduct of our rulers. This political judgment, moreover, is not simply or primarily a right, but like self-preservation, a duty to God. As such it is a judgment that men cannot part with according to the God of Nature. It is the first and foremost of our inalienable rights without which we can preserve no other.”
John Locke (1632-1704) English philosopher and political theorist.
“We may be tossed upon an ocean where we can see no land nor, perhaps, the sun and stars. But there is a chart and a compass for us to study, to consult, and to obey. The chart is the Constitution.”
Daniel Webster
“I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the Federal government as they are already guarded against their State governments, in most instances.”
Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788. ME 7:98
“I learn with great concern that [one] portion of our frontier so interesting, so important, and so exposed, should be so entirely unprovided with common fire-arms. I did not suppose any part of the United States so destitute of what is considered as among the first necessaries of a farm house.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Jacob J. Brown (1808)
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
Thomas Jefferson
“I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”
Thomas Jefferson
“Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.”
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President
“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that… it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824
“One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.”
Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776
“For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well organized and armed militia is their best security.”
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President. Source: Eighth Annual Message, November 8, 1808
“None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important.”
Thomas Jefferson 1803
“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
Thomas Jefferson (attributed without source)
“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.”
Thomas Jefferson’s advice to his 15 year-old nephew
“God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion…. And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms…. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Thomas Jefferson, in letter to William S. Smith, 1787
“Let us contemplate our forefathers and posterity and resolve to maintain the rights bequeathed to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. The necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude, and perseverance. Let us remember that ‘if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom.’ It is a very serious consideration that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event.”
Samuel Adams speech, 1771
“Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.”
Samuel Adams
“…It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control…The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.”
Samuel Adams
“The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”
Samuel Adams of Massachusetts — U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
“[Tyranny cannot be safe] without a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace.”
James Madison, In his autobiography
“Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense.”
John Adams (1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US President
“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large, is that they be properly armed.”
Alexander Hamilton
“…but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights…”
Alexander Hamilton Federalist 29
“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”
George Washington
“I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole body of the people except for a few public officials. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them…”
George Mason
“The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.”
Patrick Henry
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe.”
Noah Webster
“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
Richard Henry Lee
Sorry Carlton….looks like the Founding Fathers views gun rights as a liberty to be protected and they said it, even Hamilton, in their own words when it came to writing the Constitution.
Once again…no cigar for you.
Dean
Here’s another famous dead guy. “Some people tap their feet, some people snap their fingers, and some people sway back and forth. I just sorta do ‘em all together, I guess.”
-Elvis in 1956, talking about his way of moving on stage.
Elvis is not talking about the smoking ban but that does not matter to you. If it fills up a column it is OK.
Carlton,
It looks like someone can’t stand to debate actual arguments or facts. You just like to change the subject.
Sorry you can’t handle losing.
Dean
Pot calling the kettle black. You’ve lost. Smoking bans proliferate while you argue property rights. Arguing gun rights is just as effective against smoking bans.
Just noticed your bio. You’re a 26 year old punk still wet behind the ears. You have a head full of a bunch of useless facts. The truly smart man knows where he can find the facts he needs. His head is not cluttered with facts. He needs only a few principles.
Please grow up!
Carlton,
Once again, another attack. This one at my age. Once again, you have PRESENTED NOT ONE COUNTER POINT, COUNTER ARGUMENT OR COUNTER FACT TO ANY OF THE POINTS AND FACTS I HAVE SHOWN.
How have I lost when the whole argument has been personal attacks from you AND a debate over what the founding fathers meant on the second amendment which I clearly won by quoting actual statements from the vast majority of them when you just took piece of one statement from Hamilton? How have I lost when you have NOT presented one counter point, study, report, or FACT against anything I have said?
Why is it that my being young makes me wrong? Are all young people wrong about everything and all older people right about everything? Sorry, but I disagree. It is up the individual.
First, you tell me to grow up when you are the one who consistantly uses personal attacks and name calling which only proves my last point in the list of ten that y’all are so extreme that you can’t stand to hear a different view point without personally attacking the person. Plus, you have proved my point that the self-righteous are the truly dangerous because they don’t give any moral legitimacy to their opponents.
Your very first statement was:
“You are a selfish, hard headed, ignorant bag of monkey shit.”
Not one counter fact or counter argument and not one piece of decency. I may debate to win but at least I strive to not use foul language or show respect unless it has not been shown to me. If anyone needs to grow up and act their age it’s YOU.
Useless facts….I have seen known from you. I guess my FACTS go against your radical ideology so you simply attack me personally instead of arguing the facts.
I guess Facts and Carlton Jenkins just don’t mix. Maybe because you have none. If we look at the content of our debate, if you want to call it that, you have PRESENTED NOTHING. You simply see smoking as a great evil. So, as any radical zealot, you see anyone who disagrees as evil. Someone like myself who believes that the choice to allow smoking belongs to private property owners, you see as more than evil and therefore open to contempt because in your deluded and senile mind I am evil.
You call me selfish even though I want property owners to decide the issue for themselves even though you are the one who wants to use government to ban it on all property owners.
Yes, smoking bans are spreading. However, history has shown, even the history of past smoking bans, that all prohibitions come to an end. Plus, we have more victories for property rights then you think. State wide bans have failed in Pennslyvania, Texas, Alaska and etc. Several towns have refused to pass them. You can check http://www.smokersclubinc.com for reports of victories as well as losses.
I am grown up. I have shown it in that I have not used foul language against you nor did I get anywhere mean until you did. I am tough in debate but always stay within boundaries. You do not.
You are the one who needs to grow up and act your age as your very first statement shows. You also have lost because I have yet to see any counter anything from you. Sorry if the facts upset your radical ideology.
Act your age Carlton,
Dean
The FACT I present is that like a gun rights debate, your property rights debate has absolutely nothing to do with a smoking ban. Yet you continue to hammer away because you can shut others down by arguing propertry rights. All you want to do is LOUDLY proclaim, “IT’S ABOUT PROPERTY RIGHTS!” Thus to you the discussion is all over.
You demonstrate that you are a fool and an idiot because you totally missed the point of introducing gun rights. I introduced gun rights as an illustration of the futility of arguing property rights.
You did not even notice that my quote SUPPORTS the right to keep and bear arms. “Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist, No. 29, did not view the right to keep arms as being confined to active militia members…” Please re-read it very slowly.
Then you post smokersclubinc! No doubt they are unbiased!!! In your little mind a FEW victories posted there wipe out the wave of smokefree states.
“You’ve lost” means you’ve lost with your property rights argument. Bans continue to pass while you argue property rights. In that way you have lost.
Nationwide roughly 80% of people do not smoke. Smoking wastes your health and your money. It wastes the health of your friends and family. It stinks, it is filthy, it contributes litter everywhere because smokers are inconsiderate and rude and it is the world’s stupidest habit. A few of you scattered about everywhere we go have expended the patience of the VAST majority of the non-smoking majority.
So while you conduct a high minded and noble debate about property rights the majority will continue to IMPOSE their will regarding this issue because the majority understand just how simple it is as explained in the previous paragraph.
If you are like most smokers once you grow up you’ll see the folly of what you are doing and switch sides with a vengence. Our side could use a zealot like you but sadly the debate will be over by the time you wise up.
@Carleton. Since this thread continues to come up in my “my comments” section I’m gonna chime in. It is my thought that Dean believes property owners,be it cafes,bars,clubs or whatever the owners have the right to allow legal behaviors to occur. Under the principles off capitalism behaviors that are contrary to the desire of the majority would prove unprofitable and be dropped. This has been a process seen in the existence of non-smoking sections etc. To impose the smoking bans on private property owners for it is they who it is imposed on is ludicrous. The smokers smoke outside of the establishments that the laws are imposed on.they don’t stop smoking. There’s part of the irony. The State still sucks up the tax money. The state wnts people to smoke if for no reason the $$$ . Bottom line imposing your will via laws of questionable Constitutional merit is rather un American no matter how noble.
Dean believes property owners…
principles off capitalism…
The State still sucks up the tax money…
The state wnts people to smoke…
imposing your will via laws…is un American
Noble thoughts indeed. But it’s not about that.
Carlton,
Can’t you debate directly?
“Yet you continue to hammer away because you can shut others down by arguing propertry rights. All you want to do is LOUDLY proclaim, “IT’S ABOUT PROPERTY RIGHTS!” Thus to you the discussion is all over.”
It IS about property rights. Those who have imposed smoking bans have also begun pushing other bans on legal activities via big government. Take NYC Health Commissioner Friedman who pushed NYC’s smoking ban. After its successful passage, he thened passed a cell phone while driving ban, a trans-fat ban, a ban on walking while listening to an IPod and there has been discussion on banning people from smoking in their cars. This IS about private property rights. Smoking bans are leading to food bans, phone bans and etc by the same people and organizations. One of the major trial lawyers behind smoking bans and etc is John Banzhaf. He started with ‘evil tobacco’ and now he is after fatty foods and promoting food bans on private property establishments.
“You demonstrate that you are a fool and an idiot because you totally missed the point of introducing gun rights. I introduced gun rights as an illustration of the futility of arguing property rights.”
First, another personal attack and name calling…..a sign of a weak mind. Second, how did it show my futility? Seriously, is your main argument that I could argue the constitutionality til I’m blue in the face but YOUR view is still right. How is it that you get to be absolutely right and me relatively wrong? Sounds like a double standard to me.
“You did not even notice that my quote SUPPORTS the right to keep and bear arms. “Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist, No. 29, did not view the right to keep arms as being confined to active militia members…” Please re-read it very slowly.”
Actually, I DID call you out on your misuse of the Hamilton statement via my statement, “…when you just took piece of one statement from Hamilton?” The one piece showed that you were selective in your choice via a manipulation. Sorry you were not able to catch that
“Then you post smokersclubinc! No doubt they are unbiased!!! In your little mind a FEW victories posted there wipe out the wave of smokefree states.”
As much bias as the anti-private property beliefs you hold? How is it that any site that disagrees is automatically wrong? I take care to read up on the Non-smokers rights studies and new reports. I have advocated in past posts for compromise between both non-smokers and smokers. I have been firm, but fair and devoid of foul language, in this debate with you even though you continue to show me no such respect. I got tough only when you got tough.
““You’ve lost” means you’ve lost with your property rights argument. Bans continue to pass while you argue property rights. In that way you have lost.”
Oh really:
Michigan: Killed statewide ban
Virginia: Killed statewide ban
Pennslyvania: Killed statewide ban
Texas: Killed statewide ban
Tennessee: Watered down statewide ban to still allow smoking in bars, clubs and other adult places
Logan County, Ohio: Voted to no longer enforce county ban
Sedgwick, Kansas: City vote kills ban.
Netherlands: Kills ban on terrace smoking
Phoenix, AZ: Elks lodges vote to repeal smoking ban on lodges.
California: Governor vetoes bill to tighten exemptions on statewide smoking ban.
Nevada: amends new statewide ban to expand exemptions and allow more cigar lounges.
Mission Hills, Kansas: City kills ban.
I personally helped defeat a ban in Amarillo, TX and to pass a very watered down one, that allows businesses that allow smoking to simply put up signs saying they do and that’s it, in Midland, TX.
and there are more and more and more. That ‘biased’ website I gave you has a button called “Another Ban Fails’ Try hitting it to read the endless thread of news stories sometime. All types of prohibition eventually end…history teaches this. This is not the first time those few have tried to ban smoking. They tried and failed. Just like, in the end, you will fail or we will reach an a compromise that radicals like you don’t like because it is compromise.
“Nationwide roughly 80% of people do not smoke. Smoking wastes your health and your money. It wastes the health of your friends and family. It stinks, it is filthy, it contributes litter everywhere because smokers are inconsiderate and rude and it is the world’s stupidest habit. A few of you scattered about everywhere we go have expended the patience of the VAST majority of the non-smoking majority.”
Now we get to the REAL reason you want it banned….because you just don’t like it. You want everything that offends you banned. Sorry, but in a free country just because something offends you doesn’t all you to infringe on the rights of private property owners. Just goes to prove my 10th point:
Beware do-gooders baring gifts. The most fundamental problem of modern politics is self-righteousness, NOT the control of wickedness. Nothing is more dangerous than people convinced of their own moral superiority because they deny their political opponents that very attribute. Why has there been no mention of compromise by the pro-smoking ban side? Because they view compromise on this issue as a threat. THOSE WHO OPPOSE ANY COMPROMISE ARE THE TRUE THREAT TO PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS AND FREEDOM. Tyranny is the result of the self-righteous via their new tool in the form of big/nanny government. The anti-smoking/freedom activists want a government effort to stamp out a habit THEY don’t like. There was once a nation that did this. They restricted tobacco advertising, banned smoking in public, restricted and regulated tobacco farmers growing abilities, and engaged in a sophisticated anti-smoking public relations campaign. In fact, the leader of this government gave gold watches to all his ministers who quit the tobacco habit. Plus, the phrase ‘passive smoking’ (i.e. secondhand smoke) was coined by this government. You want to know of what nation I speak of? Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany. Makes one think.
By the way, the studies behind how ‘lethal’ second hand smoke is have been ruled biased, see that paragraph above, and therefore you still use disproven and thrown out arguments to attack. This is the sign of a zealot, not a man of reason.
“So while you conduct a high minded and noble debate about property rights the majority will continue to IMPOSE their will regarding this issue because the majority understand just how simple it is as explained in the previous paragraph.”
Well, I have fought three smoking elections and one two of them. I won the two, after the first failed one, by arguing private property rights. People then see the light and that is why two cities of your ‘majority’ killed proposed bans. As I have shown above not all of ‘your majority’ agree with how far you want them to go. Plus, just because a majority wants something doesn’t mean they get it. We live in a REPUBLIC, NOT A DEMOCRACY. To quote James Madison:
“Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; have in general been as short in their lives as they are violent in their deaths.”
To quote Madison again in the Federalist Paper #10:
“A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of PROPERTY; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”
The pre-World War II U.S. Army Training Manuel’s definition says it the best in my opinion:
“Democracy: Attitude towards PROPERTY IS COMMUNISTIC – negative property rights. Attitude towards the law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. It results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.”
Finally some wisdom from Conservative British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli:
“If you establish a [true] democracy, you must in due time reap the fruits of a democracy. You will in due season have great impatience of public burdens, combined in due season with great increase of public expenditure. You will in due season have wars entered into from passion and not from reason; and you will in due season submit to peace ignominiously sought and ignominiously obtained, which will diminish your authority and perhaps endanger your independence. You will in due season find your PROPERTY is less valuable, and your freedom less complete.”
In our American REPUBLIC the majority (or the mob) does NOT have absolute rule. We are a nation governed by laws, not mob rule. Carlton, I mentioned a Supreme Court ruling that stated that just because the public is invited in to a private property establishment doesn’t make it public property….it keeps it PRIVATE. Just because a majority of a city don’t like smoking, or cell phones, trans-fat, etc doesn’t give them the right to violate private PROPERTY rights. Your side has scored some victories but a day is coming when a court of law will give you and yours a bad awakening that just becaus you are the majority doesn’t give you the right to impose your will on private property owners.
Our REPUBLIC was founded as a system that takes majority opinion into consideration but protects the sanctity of private property rights and individual liberty from it.
“If you are like most smokers once you grow up you’ll see the folly of what you are doing and switch sides with a vengence. Our side could use a zealot like you but sadly the debate will be over by the time you wise up.”
Sorry Carlton, as the FACTS I presented above of anti-ban victories show…the fight is not over yet, AND, I, like my grandad and dad will continue to enjoy that occasional cigar and enjoy what life has to offer.
The fact that you continue to ridicule instead of debate, name call instead of presenting facts and use curses instead of presenting reasoned arguments in a polite manner show you for the dangerous zealot you are.
Thank God we have a written Constitution to protect us from people like you.
Dean
You’re a jack ass as well. It’s property rights blah, blah, blah.
Carlton,
Are you not open to any compromise in which each side can co-exist?
Is there not one place you would allow those of us to enjoy a cigar?
Is it not an individual’s CHOICE to enter and patron an establishment that allows smoking or not?
If a bar or restaurant owner wants to ban smoking in their place that is fine by me if the owner choses to do so. Why is it not fine with you if an owner chooses to allow smoking, a legal activity, on HIS PROPERTY?
Thank you kindly,
Dean
“You’re a jack ass as well. It’s property rights blah, blah, blah.”
Why can’t you be respectful? And you call us who enjoy a fine cigar the rude ones.
Dean
in2thefray,
Thanks for your comments and reason. Much appreciated.
Dean
“Why can’t you be respectful?”
Do you mean respectful as in all these quotes from you?
“sorry but you have smoke for brains, Ye of little brains, To not fear big, nanny government is the carelessness of an idiot, you are a liar, Then you are truly a fool, concerning the idiot and fool labels…sorry but I call them as I see them, I guess you can’t take what you dish out, If you want ultra-civility then go to Sunday School and not a blog pal, If you can’t take the heat then get out of the kitchen, Sorry you’re a poor loser.
THEREFORE you’re a two faced, illogical, inconsistent bag of monkey shit. But who cares? It’s all about property rights anyway.
“I’m just an entertainer, honey. I’d rather keep my opinions to myself.” Elvis (paraphrasing)
Maybe you should consider that. Lord help the politician you are assisting.
Carlton,
As usual you use personal attacks and name calling….not facts. How is my using quotes in a debate about the framers intent being disrespectful. As usual, you present nothing because you having nothing but your radical ideology.
Take care living in fantasy land.
Dean
Well sure! But what about this?
One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.
— Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
(NOTE to Dean: TJ is speaking of firearms not literal arms.)
Evidently then, my personal attacks and name calling are disrespectful while your personal attacks and name calling are not.
Obviously then you are a symphletic nipple head. Please grow up.
Carlton,
Where have I used foul language or gone personal before you went personal? You will not find one example. Once again, no evidence, no facts and no counter-arguments to the ones I have presented.
Get a life,
Dean
P.S.
What was your opening statement in the very beginning…..oh ya….the line where you called me monkey shit. Truly shows your age and maturity (eyes rolling).
Dean
EACH quote pasted below was posted by you elsewhere on your website. Obviously you OFTEN go personal.
“sorry but you have smoke for brains, Ye of little brains, To not fear big, nanny government is the carelessness of an idiot, you are a liar, Then you are truly a fool, concerning the idiot and fool labels…sorry but I call them as I see them, I guess you can’t take what you dish out, If you want ultra-civility then go to Sunday School and not a blog pal, If you can’t take the heat then get out of the kitchen, Sorry you’re a poor loser.”
Carlton,
I show respect until it is NOT shown to me. When I am attacked first, then I attack back. Rules of the game. You, however, attacked first and without reason. Once again, show’s your maturity.
Get a life,
Dean
What part of “elsewhere on your website” did you not understand?
Carlton,
Yes, I KNOW you were talking about elsewhere in my blog. Sorry, but my rule still stands. I am firm, yet, fair in that I don’t use foul language and unnecessary attacks unless attacked first….something you know nothing about.
Get a life
Dean
Carlton,
Still have not answered my questions from above I see.
Dean
Questions?
I believe it is the business owners right to decide if they allow smoking in thier place of business.i am a smoker and i could care less if a person doesnt smoke. but since they want all the fresh air why isnt it the non smokers that need to be outside? wide open fresh air loving people just should stay out of places that have smoking allowed
Carlton,
These questions I asked you above on January 7, 2008 at 7:56 pm
[Carlton,
Are you not open to any compromise in which each side can co-exist?
Is there not one place you would allow those of us to enjoy a cigar?
Is it not an individual’s CHOICE to enter and patron an establishment that allows smoking or not?
If a bar or restaurant owner wants to ban smoking in their place that is fine by me if the owner choses to do so. Why is it not fine with you if an owner chooses to allow smoking, a legal activity, on HIS PROPERTY?]
Dean
This is an exercise in futility but I will indulge you anyway. Regardless of my response you will post a 5,000 word essay about property rights with dozens of quotes from famous dead guys. Besides SHS is not dangerous, flawed EPA study, etc. That, along with some hateful remarks of your own.
Additionally this discussion is moot as laws have already passed in many states.
Compromise? Yes.
Please propose a system wherein the number of smoke free places to work, dine, entertain, socialize, travel, etc. parallels the ratio of non-smokers to smokers. I could live with that. If you insist upon engaging in that addiction, so be it. Bear in mind that past practice indicates that ANY loophole brings about litigation to close the loophole from the business interests who did not get through the loophole.
If government or voters do not intervene, in time the system proposed above will develop on its own. How many lives will be destroyed while we wait thirty to fifty years? Had we waited thirty to fifty years Hitler (famous dead guy) would have died on his own. But it made more sense to go kill him.
The cigar issue is a canard. Twenty percent of citizens (smokers) tend to smoke cigarettes in one hundred percent of places. Cigars are encountered in public much less frequently. The issue is smoking EVERYWHERE.
An individual’s choice? Until now, the vast majority of citizens could choose to endure the smoke or stay home. Finally, the tables have turned and the small minority has that choice, endure the non-smoking or stay home. We non-smokers understand first hand how annoying that is to you. But even in a representative republic we don’t generally establish public policy upon minority rule. Allowances are often made for the minority. Hence, the system you are to propose from the paragraph above.
In America all businesses already comply with numerous health and safety standards for employees and patrons. Smoking is just one area of safety and health. Historically, businesses do just fine in all the states and localities already under ban based upon actual, verifiable records, not the word of a bar owning smoker.
“This is an exercise in futility but I will indulge you anyway.”
No, it’s called civilized debate. By the way, I appreciate you, regardless of the coming slams I get, for answering the questions.
“Additionally this discussion is moot as laws have already passed in many states.”
Incorrect, just because it is current law in some states does not mean it will survive future voter approval or even constitutional tests. Just look at alcohol prohibition in the 1920’s and past smoking prohibition in the 1910’s and 1920’s. Both failed to muster on both fronts.
“Compromise? Yes.”
Good to hear.
“Please propose a system wherein the number of smoke free places to work, dine, entertain, socialize, travel, etc. parallels the ratio of non-smokers to smokers. I could live with that.”
While it sounds good, economically, it can’t be done due to allowing certain bars to allow smokers while preventing others by law violates due process and fair business practices.
I would advocate allowing each establishment owner to decide for themselves and put a sign up right next to all entrances announcing that either this place is smoke free or that smoking is allowed. This allows the patrons to use their own judgement, before entering, to either enter the establishment or not enter.
I would also support a compromise of allowing businesses to allow both, IF, the smoking section was completely walled off, with a venhilation system, whose wait staff agree legally to work in the smoking section, and if it has its own entrance and exit separate from the non-smoking section. To be fair, I would give property owners who do this separation but allowing both large tax credits or write offs to afford building a wall, new entrance and exit and etc.
“If government or voters do not intervene, in time the system proposed above will develop on its own. How many lives will be destroyed while we wait thirty to fifty years?”
This is a tad bit alarmist don’t you think? I mean don’t people choose to go into and/or stay in a place that allows smoking? They can CHOOSE to avoid it if they want too by not going to said bar or establishment. Plus, fat, sugar, butter and salt actually kill more people than smoking. So, under your ‘lives lost’ argument we would have to regulate what people eat, drive and do every day of their lives.
“The cigar issue is a canard. Twenty percent of citizens (smokers) tend to smoke cigarettes in one hundred percent of places. Cigars are encountered in public much less frequently. The issue is smoking EVERYWHERE.”
I used the cigar example as just what I prefer. It refers to all tobacco/smoke usage be it cigarette, cigar or pipe.
“An individual’s choice? Until now, the vast majority of citizens could choose to endure the smoke or stay home. Finally, the tables have turned and the small minority has that choice, endure the non-smoking or stay home. We non-smokers understand first hand how annoying that is to you.”
No, free choice is allowing private property owners to decide to allow it or not then the patrons will decide. I love how the anti-smoking crowd tries to play the non-smoking public as not having a choice. You do….to enter and stay or not enter at all. If one doesn’t want to enter a bar due to not liking the music we don’t try to ban that music from all bars. Just because you don’t like something doesn’t give you the right to ban it via big government.
Plus, let’s let the free market work. If most Americans don’t want to be around smoke, as you say, then most bars, restaurants and businesses would go smoke free on their own to avoid losing market shares and profits. Yet, before bans passed this didn’t happen and money talks. So, if smoking was so abhorred and feared by the public then why did they not mind sitting in places that allowed it? Economic trends or changes is voting by feet. If a majority of a bar’s patrons don’t like smoke then they can go somewhere else or lobby the owner who, wanting to remain profitable, will change his policy to survive. This is basic economics.
Hell, since the 70’s more and more businesses had been going non-smoking on their own. This means that there WAS competition between non-smoking and smoking establishments. Yet, both types seemed to do very well to survive side by side.
You argue that non-smoker didn’t have a choice BUT THEY DID. This isn’t about ’saving lives’ or ‘public health’…..bans are about those simply not liking a behavior to ban it only because they don’t like it.
What happens in a free country when you ban every thing that offends every person? You end up with nothing.
“But even in a representative republic we don’t generally establish public policy upon minority rule. Allowances are often made for the minority. Hence, the system you are to propose from the paragraph above.”
So, as I explained above, why is it that smoking establishments thrived with there were non-smoking establishments in competition before bans? It only shows that those wishing to ban all smoking from any establishment are the loud minority wishing to force their will on business owners. I think most people would approve of a fair compromise. But, why can’t we get compromise? We are seeing total bans?
In America all businesses already comply with numerous health and safety standards for employees and patrons. Smoking is just one area of safety and health. Historically, businesses do just fine in all the states and localities already under ban based upon actual, verifiable records, not the word of a bar owning smoker.”
True, BUT, the smoking is done by the customer on their own….not as a service of the bar. If one orders a steak from a restaurant then one is relying on the staff of the establishment to give them a healthy meal. When I go into a bar and have a cigar I am the one who brought the cigar and, if the owner allows, I am the one smoking it. Annoying others isn’t a health issue. It may be bad form and manners but not a health issue. Plus, as I have shown above in my post, the studies on Secondhand smoke have been thrown out legally as junk science. So, there is no lethal health threat yet we still use that false fear to push bans. Isn’t there something wrong with making laws based upon fairy tales?
I thank you Carlton for answering the questions and having a REAL and civil debate.
That wasn’t so hard.
Dean
You are a hard headed idiot talking in circles.
This guy is just flaming you
This is an exercise in futility but I will indulge you anyway.”
No, it’s called civilized debate. By the way, I appreciate you, regardless of the coming slams I get, for answering the questions.
Dean, you are conducting a civilized debate NOW only because I started out very forceful. (Perhaps you’ve grown up a bit or perhaps you are minding your manners so as not to reflect badly upon the politician you are currently assisting.) A brief trip around your archives reveals instances when your uncivilized debate matched mine because “you fight to win.”
“Additionally this discussion is moot as laws have already passed in many states.”
Incorrect, just because it is current law in some states does not mean it will survive future voter approval or even constitutional tests. Just look at alcohol prohibition in the 1920’s and past smoking prohibition in the 1910’s and 1920’s. Both failed to muster on both fronts.
Wishful thinking on your part. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN. Eighty percent of citizens (non-smokers) have endured it far longer then they ever wanted to. Smoking is NOW a socially unacceptable behavior like farting , belching and nose picking. Get used to it. I noticed many hotel chains like hospitals have become totally smoke free. A 71 store grocery chain in Pennsylvania has stopped selling ANY tobacco products. It is filthy. It wastes your money, your health and the health of your friends and family. Ninety percent of smokers start as MINORS!!! Please wake up and smell the coffee.
“Compromise? Yes.” Good to hear.
“Please propose a system wherein the number of smoke free places to work, dine, entertain, socialize, travel, etc. parallels the ratio of non-smokers to smokers. I could live with that.”
While it sounds good, economically, it can’t be done due to allowing certain bars to allow smokers while preventing others by law violates due process and fair business practices.
I’m glad we both feel that…”it sounds good economically…” But, Dean, you conveniently chose not to cut and paste this sentence of mine. I already acknowledged that it cannot be done for LEGAL reasons.
Bear in mind that past practice indicates that ANY loophole brings about litigation to close the loophole from the business interests who did not get through the loophole.–CJ
I would advocate allowing each establishment owner to decide for themselves and put a sign up right next to all entrances announcing that either this place is smoke free or that smoking is allowed. This allows the patrons to use their own judgement, before entering, to either enter the establishment or not enter.
I would also support a compromise of allowing businesses to allow both, IF, the smoking section was completely walled off, with a venhilation system, whose wait staff agree legally to work in the smoking section, and if it has its own entrance and exit separate from the non-smoking section. To be fair, I would give property owners who do this separation but allowing both large tax credits or write offs to afford building a wall, new entrance and exit and etc.
Why certainly! Let’s let non-smoking tax payers support smokey bars for twenty percent of citizens who tend to be at the lower end of the social scale.
“If government or voters do not intervene, in time the system proposed above will develop on its own. How many lives will be destroyed while we wait thirty to fifty years?”
This is a tad bit alarmist don’t you think? I mean don’t people choose to go into and/or stay in a place that allows smoking? They can CHOOSE to avoid it if they want too by not going to said bar or establishment. Plus, fat, sugar, butter and salt actually kill more people than smoking. So, under your ‘lives lost’ argument we would have to regulate what people eat, drive and do every day of their lives.
You are rather dense but let me try this illustration. Informal discussions would indicate that the majority of drivers find slow drivers in the left lane annoying. However often times all lanes are bumper to bumper. Hence there are not enough linear miles of “slow lane” to accommodate all the slow drivers. If all were forced into the right lane there would be huge backups at every on ramp. SIMILARLY the previous arrangement did not provide enough places to work, entertain, dine, socialize, etc. for non smokers WHO ARE THE MAJORITY.
“The cigar issue is a canard. Twenty percent of citizens (smokers) tend to smoke cigarettes in one hundred percent of places. Cigars are encountered in public much less frequently. The issue is smoking EVERYWHERE.” I used the cigar example as just what I prefer. It refers to all tobacco/smoke usage be it cigarette, cigar or pipe.
OIC. Then it’s not a canard. It’s just wrong for reasons already discussed.
“An individual’s choice? Until now, the vast majority of citizens could choose to endure the smoke or stay home. Finally, the tables have turned and the small minority has that choice, endure the non-smoking or stay home. We non-smokers understand first hand how annoying that is to you.”
No, free choice is allowing private property owners to decide to allow it or not then the patrons will decide. I love how the anti-smoking crowd tries to play the non-smoking public as not having a choice. You do….to enter and stay or not enter at all. If one doesn’t want to enter a bar due to not liking the music we don’t try to ban that music from all bars. Just because you don’t like something doesn’t give you the right to ban it via big government.
WOW! WHO WOULD HAVE GUESSED? IT’S PROPERTY RIGHTS. LET’S JUST DEBATE GUN RIGHTS. WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?
Plus, let’s let the free market work. If most Americans don’t want to be around smoke, as you say, then most bars, restaurants and businesses would go smoke free on their own to avoid losing market shares and profits. Yet, before bans passed this didn’t happen and money talks. So, if smoking was so abhorred and feared by the public then why did they not mind sitting in places that allowed it? Economic trends or changes is voting by feet. If a majority of a bar’s patrons don’t like smoke then they can go somewhere else or lobby the owner who, wanting to remain profitable, will change his policy to survive. This is basic economics.
WOW! WHO WOULD HAVE GUESSED? IT’S PROPERTY RIGHTS. LET’S JUST DEBATE GUN RIGHTS. WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?
Hell, since the 70’s more and more businesses had been going non-smoking on their own. This means that there WAS competition between non-smoking and smoking establishments. Yet, both types seemed to do very well to survive side by side.
WOW! WHO WOULD HAVE GUESSED? IT’S PROPERTY RIGHTS. LET’S JUST DEBATE GUN RIGHTS. WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?
You argue that non-smoker didn’t have a choice BUT THEY DID. This isn’t about ’saving lives’ or ‘public health’…..bans are about those simply not liking a behavior to ban it only because they don’t like it.
Yes, and now you have the SAME choice. STAY HOME. What’s your problem with that? We did it.
What happens in a free country when you ban every thing that offends every person? You end up with nothing.
This is a tad bit alarmist don’t you think? No one has proposed banning everything.
“But even in a representative republic we don’t generally establish public policy upon minority rule. Allowances are often made for the minority. Hence, the system you are to propose from the paragraph above.”
So, as I explained above, why is it that smoking establishments thrived with there were non-smoking establishments in competition before bans? It only shows that those wishing to ban all smoking from any establishment are the loud minority wishing to force their will on business owners. I think most people would approve of a fair compromise. But, why can’t we get compromise? We are seeing total bans?
80% is not a loud minority.
In America all businesses already comply with numerous health and safety standards for employees and patrons. Smoking is just one area of safety and health. Historically, businesses do just fine in all the states and localities already under ban based upon actual, verifiable records, not the word of a bar owning smoker.”
True, BUT, the smoking is done by the customer on their own….not as a service of the bar. If one orders a steak from a restaurant then one is relying on the staff of the establishment to give them a healthy meal. When I go into a bar and have a cigar I am the one who brought the cigar and, if the owner allows, I am the one smoking it.
SO… the same smoke that ruins your health does not bother mine?
Annoying others isn’t a health issue. It may be bad form and manners but not a health issue. Plus, as I have shown above in my post, the studies on Secondhand smoke have been thrown out legally as junk science.
OMG! Once again WHO would have guessed this was coming?
So, there is no lethal health threat yet we still use that false fear to push bans. Isn’t there something wrong with making laws based upon fairy tales?
Concealed carry is done by the customer on his own not as a service of the business. Many businesses prohibit it. This even though permit holders VERY rarley misuse their weapons. A weapon in the hands of a permit holder is FAR less dangerous than a smoker.
I thank you Carlton for answering the questions and having a REAL and civil debate.
Isn’t this sweet! Why, why did the asshole (DEAN) change now? Fascinating.
Now I’m going to cut and paste a bunch of already posted stuff like you do. I don’t know why really.
Once again, another attack. This one at my age. Once again, you have PRESENTED NOT ONE COUNTER POINT, COUNTER ARGUMENT OR COUNTER FACT TO ANY OF THE POINTS AND FACTS I HAVE SHOWN.
How have I lost when the whole argument has been personal attacks from you AND a debate over what the founding fathers meant on the second amendment which I clearly won by quoting actual statements from the vast majority of them when you just took piece of one statement from Hamilton? How have I lost when you have NOT presented one counter point, study, report, or FACT against anything I have said?
Why is it that my being young makes me wrong? Are all young people wrong about everything and all older people right about everything? Sorry, but I disagree. It is up the individual.
First, you tell me to grow up when you are the one who consistantly uses personal attacks and name calling which only proves my last point in the list of ten that y’all are so extreme that you can’t stand to hear a different view point without personally attacking the person. Plus, you have proved my point that the self-righteous are the truly dangerous because they don’t give any moral legitimacy to their opponents.
Your very first statement was:
“You are a selfish, hard headed, ignorant bag of monkey shit.”
Not one counter fact or counter argument and not one piece of decency. I may debate to win but at least I strive to not use foul language or show respect unless it has not been shown to me. If anyone needs to grow up and act their age it’s YOU.
Useless facts….I have seen known from you. I guess my FACTS go against your radical ideology so you simply attack me personally instead of arguing the facts.
I guess Facts and Carlton Jenkins just don’t mix. Maybe because you have none. If we look at the content of our debate, if you want to call it that, you have PRESENTED NOTHING. You simply see smoking as a great evil. So, as any radical zealot, you see anyone who disagrees as evil. Someone like myself who believes that the choice to allow smoking belongs to private property owners, you see as more than evil and therefore open to contempt because in your deluded and senile mind I am evil.
You call me selfish even though I want property owners to decide the issue for themselves even though you are the one who wants to use government to ban it on all property owners.
Yes, smoking bans are spreading. However, history has shown, even the history of past smoking bans, that all prohibitions come to an end. Plus, we have more victories for property rights then you think. State wide bans have failed in Pennslyvania, Texas, Alaska and etc. Several towns have refused to pass them. You can check http://www.smokersclubinc.com for reports of victories as well as losses.
I am grown up. I have shown it in that I have not used foul language against you nor did I get anywhere mean until you did. I am tough in debate but always stay within boundaries. You do not.
You are the one who needs to grow up and act your age as your very first statement shows. You also have lost because I have yet to see any counter anything from you. Sorry if the facts upset your radical ideology.
Carlton,
You call me an asshole and then proceed to still go negative. I never changed. Your very first statement to me ever called me a bag of monkey shit.
As usual, I am the only one who presents any form of evidence. I have remained civil until you went uncivil first.
In2hefray is right…you want to fight just to fight. Carlton does not want to listen or learn….just to use profanity and call anyone who disagrees with him on this issue an ‘evil person’. Of course, he never presents any facts or etc.
I’m done with it. I welcome all others to comment but I’m done fighting with you Carlton because you only want to fight, not discuss. All you do is call anyone who disagrees with you a name and make personal attacks and never really presented any FACTS or TRUTHES.
You may be older, you show this hand by attacking me for not ‘knowing what I am talking about’ due to my age, BUT, your use of personal attacks, lack of facts and use of profanity show that even though you may be older in years you are way more immature then I am. When presented with facts and sound arguments that attack your zealot beliefs you lash out.
All previous comments of our debate will stay up but no more are welcomed from you. I love to get, as once can see in my entire comments section, comments from those who disagree. I love to debate. But, I do not welcome those who just want to pick a fight for no real goal or reason.
You lost, get over it, you have no facts or figures….
Have a nice life.
Dean