Mike Huckabee wants to take away your cigarettes
Ah, the nanny stater comes out in the second-tier candidate
By Jeff Emanuel Posted in 2008 — Comments (102) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
On Hardball, Mike Huckabee just called for a national smoking ban.
Very nice.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Hiding The Evidence — Comments (20) »
Mike Huckabee wants to take away your cigarettes 102 Comments (0 topical, 102 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
mbecker908, after reading most of your posts on this site, a Paul/Huckabee ticket might be the best idea you have ever had. Seriously.
It'll get rid of both of the lightweights in one felled swoop. I do feel a bit bad about pairing Huckabee, who at least has "some" accomplishments to his name with the phony of the current age, RonPaul™.
The rationale, however, is simple. Huckabee is a So. Baptist minister. Who better to deal with the Messiah cult RonPaul™ supporters have formed.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
You obvious don't know Dr. Ron Paul. Here's an interview he did with the The American View, a Christian consevative radio and internet show.
In summary, the guy is a complete phony, is 100% incompetent at the job he's had for 20 years and isn't qualified to be a trash collector let alone POTUS. With apologies to trash collectors.
I know Dr. No quite well. Heck, I even voted for him in '88 (actually I voted against Bush41). He is a complete and utter fool.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Unless i fry them myself. I can't even eat Dunkin' Donuts anymore.
Everytime some "gets rid of the transfats" they replace their oil with Peanut Oil. And I can't STAND Peanut Oil.
I am so glad I'm not allergic to anything. If you're allergic to soy or Peanuts, you're screwed...
"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army
which is to
1) maximize taxes collected
2) use illnesses to push for HillaryCare
I'm all for it. Smoking SHOULD be banned, and I believe that to be a valid conservative position.
Smoking SHOULD be banned, and I believe that to be a valid conservative position.
Care to elaborate on this and defend your assertion?
Not really. There is not much to explain. I'm a conservative, not a libertarian.
Besides, as mentioned below, it is a lot better than devising a bunch of taxes and countless regulations.
That is quite a tepid response after your enthusiastic embrace of the nanny state a few moments ago.
What principles of Conservatism do you apply to assert that smoking cigarettes should be banned? Explain your application of the principles. Explain why any competing principles that favor not banning cigarettes should be disregarded.
Bonus: explain how your application would not also demand the banning of bacon, eggs, and other high-fat, high-cholesterol foods, the consumption of which increases the risk for arterial blockage and heart disease.
"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army
I can't explain it. It just sounds right to me. It may not be part of a "principle" of conservatism, but it certainly is not one of liberalism either.
Anyway, I don't think anyone should ban foods. That sounds silly. Besides, you could probably find a health risk with any food, including some that some people need to live.
The great problem with American liberals is that they are not liberal (this has been a much commented upon subject for nearly a century now). When an American says that they’re a liberal they are really saying that they are some variety of socialist/collectivist.
The major principles/goal of collectivists is to cede as many choices as possible to the state. American liberals are collectivists. Therefore it stands to reason that smoking bans are consistent with modern American liberal principles.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
and we are finding that out about more than a few "conservatives" too.
Molon Labe!
What is conservative about banning smoking? I understand not being a libertarian, but banning smoking seems like a liberal position to take, not a conservative one.
Yes, dictatorial nanny state bans are so much better than taxes. :(
Reagan/Goldwater "where are you?"
Molon Labe!
Okay, explain how this is a valid conservative position. I'm dying to hear it.
------------
This kind of liberty is, indeed, but another name for justice; ascertained by wise laws, and secured by well-constructed institutions.
-Edmund Burke
that bans on drug use are Conservative in nature?
Cigarettes kill more people that pot, heroin, and cocaine combined. BY A LOT!
The health care costs are pretty massive as well.
IMO, banning things that are very harmful to society supercedes political identity.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
A conservative position, that is.
And re: "IMO, banning things that are very harmful to society supercedes political identity."
Should we, then, ban Twinkies and bacon or potatoto chips or video games or candybars or...?
"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army
If enough Americans feel that Twinkies or bacon or potato chips cause severe public harm then we should.
Do you support drug banning laws? Do you support drunk driving laws?
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
If we were on the brink of banning Twinkies, the response would be predictable: hoarding. People would stock up and eat them over the next 50 years. And down to the very last one they'd maintain their wholesome "freshness".
a certain end of the world appeal to them, don't they?
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
There is a difference in banning something that hurts innocent people, and banning something that only hurts yourself. Many bans on drugs are there to protect other citizens. It would be a crazy world if you could buy heroin at your local 7-11.
If you go for cigarettes, throw in fatty foods, recreational sex, driving, drinking alcohol, exposing skin in the sun and anything else that can kill people or cost our health.
Those who criticize the *national* nature of Huckabee's proposal would presumably support the dissent in Gonzales v. Raich (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html), which argued that the Controlled Substances Act exceeded Congress's power under the Commerce Clause.
If Congress has constitutional authority to ban marijuana, why not cigarettes?
is the ability to ban RonPaul™.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
You know there are all sorts of Ron Paul "perpetual content" threads being posted on this site, yet you apparently can't control yourself enough not to inject him into a thread like this, twice now, in response to a post/comment that had absolutely nothing to do with Ron Paul whatsoever.
Does mbecker908™ have a serious RonPaul™ mental problem we should be aware of, or can mbecker908™ stop the pointless threadjacks?
confronted by a member of the Ronettes™ I just couldn't help myself.
Sorry.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Check out my earlier post on this thread. Listen to the interview. Then you might realize that Ron Paul is not this person you all are making him out to be. If nothing else you'll be able to speak a little more intelligent about him. Please learn about him first hand and not second, third and fourth hand. Hear-say in not allowed in court for a reason.
Ignorance does not equal stupid, it does equal mis- or uninformed.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Read my earlier comment, dummy. I know RP very well. I've followed him for years. I'm mostly Libertarian. RonPaul™ is a dreck. He is a man of absolutely no accomplishment. Not only has he not managed to get a vote on any piece of legislation that shut down a federal department, he's not even managed to ex out one federal employee. He's done nothing about the IRS that he hates so much.
In twenty years in Congress he's not even managed to get ONE additional CongressCritter to join forces with him in his assault on the federal bureaucracy. The guy is incompetent. And he's not managed to put together a plan to accomplish anything either.
You want ignorance, go look in a mirror. You and your little group of Messianic acolytes following RP around are totally ignorant of what it takes to actually DO something. You're just oxygen thieves.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
That's pretty good, Messianic acolytes. Not me, however, my great uncle was a Potentate.
Us oxygen thieves are only trying to get conservatism back in the conservative movement.
So maybe if you'ld consider a truce on the venom spewing at Dr. Ron Paul, I'll quit being compelled to defend him.
Less spending, Lower taxes, Smaller government,...MORE FREEDOM!!!
It actually means "grab the door." Unless by forem you mean the alternate form of the first-person singular imperfect subjunctive form of sum, but that would make no grammatical sense.
future infinitive of sum.
It's the name of my venture capital company. You're right it doesn't make literal sense(sounded better than carpe posterus and a lot like carpe diem). Shhh, don't tell anybody.
Okay, I won't tell anybody else, but the future infinitive is fore not forem. There seems to be some bad information floating around on the internet on this point, but the authorities in print all agree, and there are no Latin infinitives ending in m like this.
Still, "grab the door" could work if you ever find yourself doing a hostile takeover. ;)
If the conservatives backing RP want to be taken seriously, then they need to purge their ranks of the Democratic pacifists, the Nazi 'white nationalists,' and all the other freako hangers-on his Internet grassroots campaign has attracted.
Denounce them. Get Ron Paul to denounce them.
Then you'll have a lot less defending to do.
------------
This kind of liberty is, indeed, but another name for justice; ascertained by wise laws, and secured by well-constructed institutions.
-Edmund Burke
Individual freedom is part of the message. As long as they don't infringe on each others rights, they can be what they want to be.
With your plan. By doing that there would be no supporters left.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
he has run for president in 1988 as a Libertarian. He has long been a champion of libertarian principles and ideals.
Can you tell a single piece of legislation that has been passed with his name on it? He must have gotten some of his proposals through congress, right?
In 1988 Ron Paul got around a half million votes (as a Libertarian). Since W only won the presidency by a few thousand votes, it might be smarter not to alienate the libertarian faction of the Republican Party. Unless, of course, you like the idea of Comrade Hillary at the helm.
Yes, this is a libertarian idea. However, most believe it should be done legally. Libertarians believe in the rule of law, they just believe there are a lot of unjust (and unconstitutional) ones currently on the books.
is that you cannot think of any legislation he has gotten through congress?
Oh, 430,750...but who's counting
in the same comment thread? I've lost count in this one.
Here's a hint, "I don't think that this is a conservative policy" is an entirely different proposition from "I don't think that Congress has the authority to do this."
This reply goes for the rest of the Huckabee fans in this thread who have missed this relatively simple distinction as well.
------------
This kind of liberty is, indeed, but another name for justice; ascertained by wise laws, and secured by well-constructed institutions.
-Edmund Burke
I suspected that you would be on the majority side of Gonzales v. Raich, and obviously, the question of "congressional authority" is entirely different than the question of "good policy."
Answer this, though, why the emphasis on *national* in your comment? http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/mike_huckabee_wants_to_ta...
Are you suggesting that smoking bans are good conservative policy on the state level, but not at the federal level?
That they are bad policy on any level, insofar as I believe that the owner of private property ought to be able to utilize his property for the availment of a privilege that has enjoyed the status of a legal right for several centuries (smoking tobacco). That's a conservative position.
Generally speaking, policies of questionable value (such as smoking bans) particularly those that impinge on the free use of private property, become even more questionable (or just plain odious) when they are imposed upon the country at large by a national bureaucracy that is far removed from the wishes and morals of particular communities. That is why federalism, generally speaking, is one of the prime conservative virtues.
The great conservative thinkers throughout time have recognized the principle that "veneration withers on the pavement," which is to say that respect for ancient institutions cannot easily survive the migration from the rural to the urban, and the migration to the national policymaking center of Washington, DC exacerbates this problem.
------------
This kind of liberty is, indeed, but another name for justice; ascertained by wise laws, and secured by well-constructed institutions.
-Edmund Burke
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
------------
This kind of liberty is, indeed, but another name for justice; ascertained by wise laws, and secured by well-constructed institutions.
-Edmund Burke
What part of trampling of private property rights is conservative?
.
Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake - Napoleon
There are some excellent arguments posted below. I'll just add that it is not private if others have to breathe it in. They should not have to relocate because someone near them feels like smoking. Also, it cannot be "property" under the law if the sale and import of cigarettes is banned in the first place.
is tired as well as absurd. The same premise could be used to ban internal combustion engines, powerplants, factories and any other exhaust emitting process. Still, combined manmade toxic emissions pale in scope to natural toxic emissions.
p.s. I am an ex- smoker. I can't stand the smell any more but a ban is just populist pap.
Please, for fear of harm to yourself, remove your portable generator from your basement. The carbon monoxide fumes will kill you.
I mostly support Hackabee on this one. Smoke at home.
How can you ban something that is NOT illegal. No laws are on the books that tobacco is illegal. Try getting a law against tobacco through Congress. It ain't happening.
Huckabee just lost the south.
Your question answers itself. One can ONLY ban something that IS legal. If it is illegal, it has already been banned and can not be banned again unless legalized. There is a different verb tense.
You are right about Congress. 60 Senators won't agree on any significant change in public policy. I don't know about the states though.
However, Huckabee is not running for Congress. His approval only means that he would not veto a ban that came to him. Presidents do not introduce bills.
Enough of this hypocritical taxing the cigarette companies to death, forcing them through litigation and huge out-of-court settlements to pay for healthcare for children (then, in fact, using that cigarette money to float government mis-management of state budgets).
I prefer an HONEST approach. Make all tobacco products illegal. If tobacco is the terrible health risk the government tells us it is, we need to ban it completely.
ONCE TOBACCO IS ILLEGAL, ONLY ILLEGALS WILL HAVE TOBACCO!
he is only following in the footsteps of Hillary Clinton.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/27/clinton-public-smoking-b...
I am an ex smoker, who is at this point prone to gag reflex to smoke, and a ban on smoking in public, is in my opinion, pure lunacy.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
...kept my grandpa from living to 100. He only made it to 99 and a few months. Damn tobacco!
plus liquor and trans fats and salt and sugar and all the other stuff that makes life a little easier.
Dang if Hill get's elected..hell I'm going to start eating them. Right out of box and chase it with a bottle of good old Jack Daniels.
---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
Don't Ban Smoking, but instead prohibit by the mass production or importation of cigarettes.
The law simply stated would be on January 1,2012 the mass production and importation of cigs is prohibited. PERIOD
No large bureaucratic agency needed to enforce.
If you live in a climate and have a desire to grow your own tobacco for personal consumption. NO PROBLEM
If you want to travel out of the country and bring back a suitcase full of cigs. GO FOR IT.
You just won't be able to go down to the local convenience store for a pack of cigs because there just won't be any there because they are no longer manufactured.
Sure there would be some smuggling but SO WHAT How much could possibly be smuggled in compared to what Big Tobacco manufactures now.
I am guessing that cigarette consumption would be reduced 95+%
within 1 to 2 years of the law being enacted.
Big tobacco companies have five years to find something else to manufacture. Smokers have 5 years to quit. Interested to see how the government would cure it's tobacco addiction.
Compared to what is produced now?
Why not ask "The Untouchables" that question about alcohol in the 1920s?
"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army
Those two things are somewhat different. I suspect that we'll have them banned in the workplace and all restaurants by the end of the decade any ways.
He didn't call for a national ban on smoking-his point was to ban INDOOR smoking in all public spaces.
If you cannot contain the damage that your behavior causes, is there not a case for making that behavior illegal?
That's why we ban heroin and drunk driving, after all.
In the case of smoking cigarettes, it's been shown to cause cancer, which in theory leads to higher medical bills, some of which drive up private insurance costs, and some of which end up being payed by taxpayers (Medicare etc). (Actually, wasn't there the novel argument once that cigarette smoking reduces the cost of medical bills by killing people at a younger age so they use less medical care overall?)
And then there's the damage of second hand smoke.
And finally, think of the children -- If just one child's life is saved by a ban, or doesn't lose a parent, isn't it all worth it?
(OK, I've wandered from entirely serious to entirely unserious somewhere in here, and don't know where. But, right there, that's where the line between keeping people from harming others and regressing into a nanny state is...)
this is insane, cigarettes and yes I am a smoker are legal. I made fun of Hillary earlier by pretending to go around a corner and take a couple of puffs and look around for the social police and everyone laughed but it really isn't funny. I cannot believe how un-free America is allowing itself to become and by the way when we all stop smoking who is paying for SCHIP?
Just try to do the revenue assumptions on a national sales tax without cigarette sales.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
I feel so sorry for the goverment(s) -- Federal, State and Local. Look at everything they have to do these days! They are so very, very busy. It's amazing they can even find the will to get up and work in the morning with everything that's their responsibility nowadays.
And some people want them to keep doing more, and more and more. Why don't these people give the government a break once in a while? Don't they realize the government can only do so much before it gets tired, like any other nanny? Look at all the things some people want the government to do:
1) Protect us against terrorists from everywhere in the world
2) Provide free healthcare for everybody
3) Educate everybody for no money at all
4) Cure cancer
5) Make sure the poor people aren't poor any more
6) Give everybody a job, no matter how incompetent they are
7) Make sure all the immigrants have a place to live and have a school to send their children to OR
7a) Make sure all of the immigrants go home, period
8) Fix all the bridges and highways and build all kinds of fancy-dancy new ones -- some to no place at all!
9) Save the planet by stopping global warming
10) Rebuild New Orleans and make sure the sea and the wind never bothers it ever again, even if it should technically be under water
11) Help gay people get married, even though most people don't want them to
12) Keep the Chinese from selling lead paint to our kids
13) Make sure everyone can get an abortion if they want one
14) Stop stupid people from taking out no-money-down mortgages
15) Stop craven people from offering no-money-down mortgages
16) Stop mortgages by buying everyone a home
...
I mean, this is just the beginning! How can the government do it all? It makes my head spin, that's for sure. Doesn't Mike Huckabee know that it already has enough to do?
OK. I'm confused. The headline reads "Mike Huckabee wants to take away your cigarettes." In the video, he says that he's in favor of a national ban on smoking in the workplace. I don't see those as the same thing, but I'm not a smoker. Are these the same to you smokers?
Is banning cigarette smoking in workplace a conservative issue? It is if you are a conservative smoker. Probably not if you are a conservative non-smoker.
Is banning cigarette smoking in the workplace by the Federal Government a conservative issue? Maybe, depending on your Libertarian leanings. Huckabee argues that this is a workplace safety issues in which the Federal Government has a long history. But, nothing comes without a cost.
If you haven't watched the video, follow the link and do it. THEN comment.
Giving power to the nanny state for something that ought to be a personal responsibility without substantially proven facts of substantial damage to the public well being is NEVER a conservative position, no matter how you try to fuzz the issue.
I don't smoke because of my allergies and a firm belief that if I ever took up the habit I'd be dead within a decade. My nose gets irritated when I am in the prescense of second hand smoke. I like going to resteraunts with firm no-smoking policies, and grant that the nanny state here in the People's Republic of MD spare me the smoking or non-smoking question, and generally make my life more pleasant on that count. Once upon a time I proudly wore a "Cancer Cures Smoking!" button. That does not mean I can support a smoking ban as a conservative position, or even a politic choice for national government.
Do you support the Federal ban on smoking on airplanes?
Do you support state laws that outlaw smoking in just about every public place other than bars and restaurants?
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
Do you support the Federal ban on smoking on airplanes?
No. Of course now with our ultra-paranoid ban on hair gel and matches it probably is a moot point anyway, but airlines should be free to set policies for their passengers, and their customers should be free to go to their competitors if they don't like those policies. Airlines are smart enough to figure out what their customers want - if they don't they wont survive.
Do you support state laws that outlaw smoking in just about every public place other than bars and restaurants?
No, where public place means non-governmental buildings, like a bookstore, or a taxi cab, or a movie theatre, or a cemetary, etc. Illegalization of smoking is an un-necessary coercive measure that prevents property owners and customers from making the decision that's right for them.
"Airlines are smart enough to figure out what their customers want - if they don't they wont survive."
I don't believe that for one second. People are forced to use them in order to travel. What else are they going to do, take private planes, drive, and/or sail? It's like the old "Phone Company." Remember the old comedy routine with Lily Tomlin as the telephone operator Ernestine randomly disconecting calls, laughing and saying their motto, "We don't care, we don't have to, we're the phone company." Well, it's the same today with airlines (and phone and cable companies). They've all gone WAY overboard trying to maximize efficiency, and it has turned into a disaster. Airlines NEED to have some tough federal regulations imposed upon them to protect customers from the egregious violations of their rights that have occured in recent years. Primarily, people are physically detained against their will when the planes cannot take off for many hours; ailines overbook and overcrowd planes; they eliminate "frills" that were once commonplace; and they don't really care what customers want because they don't have to. People will always have to travel; they don't choose these conditions.
An airplane is one of the most practical and commonsense places to ban smoking.
Now I realize my position here on airlines is not in line with most conservatives, and it is indeed one point where I strongly disagree with them.
The airlines are not monopolies. The will either respond to their customers demands or go out of business in the long run. Take a look at some financial reports for the airline industry, you will find that the companies such as Southwest that are consumer friendly constantly end up in the black. The old legacy airlines (companies that developed their culture and operating procedures during the era of intensive government regulation), which are infamous for poor treatment of customers are consistently in the red.
P.S. You might also look at what the airlines were like prior to deregulation (it was a nightmare for consumers, the airlines loved it).
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
>>>An airplane is one of the most practical and commonsense places to ban smoking.<<<
I agree. Furthermore, I sympathize with your statement:
>>>Now I realize my position here on airlines is not in line with most conservatives, and it is indeed one point where I strongly disagree with them.<<<
I find myself in that same boat around here occasionally. I believe that supporting "unrestrained capitalism" is not a prerequisite to being a conservative. Sometimes, restrictions on corporate behavior are OK.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
My view on smoking. Leave the health risk aside(can anyone really look me in the eye and tell me inhaling smoke isn't harmful?, but I'll leave that as personal choice) and look at the irritation and nuisance smoking imposes on others without their consent. Other vices are pretty much self contained. People who overeat, overdrink basically harm themselves and don't have a direct effect on others. If I can come home from a public establishment and have my clothes NOT smell like an ash tray I'd be all for it. But until then I didn't ask to be smoked out.
If most every time people out in an establishment were thrown up on a little by a drinker, how long would it take for some serious action? Or if many people farted in an establishment and you came home smelling like a big ol stink bomb? Things would get ugly in a hurry. That is the difference for me when it comes to smoking and individual rights.
I don't know how smoking can be justified when it directly impacts others. Smoking is much different than other vices and goes beyond the individuals rights discussion.
That said it was disgusting what the government did with the witch hunt on tobacco. Government was NOT looking out for anyones health but it's own. They did not want to shut down the evil tobacco for the health of America but wanted to raise money to support their spending habit. The billions that went to states were promised to be used for anti-smoking campaigns but soon melted into the general pig trough of spending.
Big government will not do much in the way of banning because it would cut off their extortion money. It will be left up to communities to do anything. I wish they'd do more of that now I think of it!
BTW, if anyone hasn't seen the movie "Thank You for Smoking", you should. It is a funny movie.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
If you go to a bar, expect people around you to smoke (unless you go to one of those new No Smoking bars) or you could open a bar that doesn't allow smoking. I don't think you'll get much business, but there you are.
Go to a restaurant that doesn't allow smoking or sit in the No Smoking section of a normal restaurant. Avopid the Smokers' Aquariums that are popping up in designated smoking areas everywhere. Avoid Designated Smoking Areas.
And in case you haven't noticed, smoking in the workplace IS prohibited already, except for the above listed locations.
"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army
My view on body odor. Leave the health risk aside(can anyone really look me in the eye and tell me inhaling nasty BO isn't harmful?, but I'll leave that as personal choice) and look at the irritation and nuisance nasty armpit smells impose on others without their consent. Other vices are pretty much self contained. People who overeat, overdrink basically harm themselves and don't have a direct effect on others. If I can go to a ballpark and NOT nearly faint from the stink emanating from Mr. Know-No-Soap in the row in front of me, I'd be all for it.
If most every time people out in an establishment were thrown up on a little by a drinker, how long would it take for some serious action? Or if many people farted in an establishment and you came home smelling like a big ol stink bomb? Things would get ugly in a hurry. That is the difference for me when it comes to body odor and individual rights.
I don't know how nasty BO can be justified when it directly impacts others. BO is much different than other vices and goes beyond the individuals rights discussion. You MUST wash, every day, and the government should force you to take daily baths, with government approved soap, and put on government approved deoderant.
It will be left up to communities to do anything. I wish they'd do more of that now I think of it!
Just say NO to BO!
-TS
"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt
I just got off a flight from LA to NY, sitting next to a 500-lb obese monster with rolls of disgusting sweaty fat hanging over the armrest. Did I ASK to be touched by someone's upper arm fat? No. This is a clear public annoyance.
My view on fatness. Leave the health risk aside(can anyone really look me in the eye and tell me being 300lbs overweight isn't harmful?, but I'll leave that as personal choice) and look at the irritation and nuisance being fat imposes on others without their consent. PLUS! Let's not forget I have to look at the fatties in all their atrocious glory. My romantic dinner with my sweetheart at the restaurant is simply ruined, RUINED, I tell you because of the couple of whales at the next table stuffing their pieholes as fast as they could, and revolting me and the girlfriend.
Government won't do anything, but it will be left up to the communities to do anything.
Fat people should be banned from indoor public spaces, any public transportation, and should have to wear a bell on their ankles so I can know when they're coming to avert my eyes.
-TS
"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt
UGLY people should also be banned. Who the hell wants the irritation and nuisance that the ugly @(#)*% imposes on others without their consent? Go be ugly in private, behind closed doors, please.
Oh, and STUPID people should just be banned. Being stupid is bad for your health, but also my health. I didn't consent for you to be stupid, and your stupidity is irritating me and causing a nuisance to me, without my consent. Ban 'em.
You know those annoying ice cream trucks? They should be banned. I never consented to be irritated and nuisanced by their infernal jingling.
Goes without saying that all guns have to be banned. Do we even need to discuss this?
We need to ban sick people too of course -- I mean, did I give you my consent to infect me with your nasty cold? No, I don't think so. You want to have a cold, or sneeze -- do it in your house, pal, not in public where you can irritate and nuisance me without my consent.
Whew -- this is hard work! Just the sort of thing we need the government to do for us!
-TS
"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt
That's the biggest public nuisance I run into on a daily basis.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Let me first state I do not support a ban on smoking in public places. No one forces anyone to go into or be employed at a specific place of business that allows smoking.
I do want to take issue as to whether this is conservative or not though. Why isn't it conservative to ban smoking?
Both conservatives and liberals pass laws (or try to) that limit "damage" done to society by our ills.
Aren't conservatives trying to ban gay marriage for the good of society? Gambling, pornography?
Aren't liberals trying to ban trans-fats for the good of society? Guns?
Perhaps Conservative meant small government once upon a time, but not any more. Conservative government is just a right wing brand of big government now-a-days!
PS - I don't support Ron Paul.
"I do want to take issue as to whether this is conservative or not though. Why isn't it conservative to ban smoking?"
I do not think that you even understand what the word Conservative means. Do some reserch.
"Both conservatives and liberals pass laws (or try to) that limit "damage" done to society by our ills."
No. Conservatives work for laws that protect the individual's natural right to life, liberty, and property. Any benefit or harm to an abstraction such as society is merely coincidental.
Aren't conservatives trying to ban gay marriage for the good of society?
No, you cannot ban something that has never existed. The Conservative position is the defense of the long established definition of marriage.
Aren't liberals trying to ban trans-fats for the good of society? Guns?
No, they are doing it to gain power via new patronage opportunities (trans-fat regulators), and to make the citizenry more dependent of the their patron client network of government agencies.
“Perhaps Conservative meant small government once upon a time, but not any more. Conservative government is just a right wing brand of big government now-a-days!”
Conservative in America means advocacy of limited government. It always has. Limited government is both the tradition and intention of this republic (deal with it). Small is a meaningless relative adjective.
I am sorry, but to what Conservative government are you referring.
“PS - I don't support Ron Paul.:”
Now this I do not buy.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
I'm referring to the "conservatives" and their actions over the course of the last 8 years or so. You can say conservatives stand for pie in the sky but their actions speak volumes.
I recognize that not all Republicans are conservatives, but can you remind me again...
How much did government shrink since we took over both houses of Congress and the Presidency (you can even exclude military growth if ya want)?
The 2 terms are not mutually exclusive, but neither are they neccessarily Inclusive.
"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army
The problem for us conservatives (probably paleo in my case) is that W, although a right-leaning moderate, appropriated the conservative label in his first election with his "compassionate conservatism" position. So instead of the blame for government growth falling where is should, we now shoulder that burden -- whether we like it or not.
"I'm referring to the 'conservatives' and their actions over the course of the last 8 years or so. You can say conservatives stand for pie in the sky but their actions speak volumes."
Who are these conservatives that you are refering? Please name a few names. I suspect that you do not understand the political right.
"I recognize that not all Republicans are conservatives, but can you remind me again..."
Very few Republicans in Congress are Conservatives. Only a handful of Republicans in the Senate are Conservatives.
"How much did government shrink since we took over both houses of Congress and the Presidency (you can even exclude military growth if ya want)?"
Who is the we that you are refering. Are you a member of Congress?
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
That's fine with me. No problem. While I'm puffing away at home and reading the newspaper about yet another proposed tax hike on cigarettes because they aren't getting enough revenue from current taxes, I giggle like maniac.
It's funny watching them try to squeeze blood from a stone. I'm smoking less and less now due to Ohio's recent public smoking ban, although I prefer to look at it as weaning the government off my money.
The anti-smoking lobby has been doing quite well so far. I fail to see how the Fed govt's involvement would change things (just might make it worse). This should be matter best left to local govts.
Besides, shouldn't conservatives be trying to achieve a smaller govt?
There are still approximately 15 years of payments left on the Master Settlement Agreement between the tobacco co's and the states attorney generals. That is at least for the states that did not collateralize their annuity payments. What is this Arkansas hick going to propose to do about that? We have experienced one disaster from AR, we don't need a second.
You can take my cigarettes when you pry them from my cold dead fingers. All you really have to do is wait for them to kill me without any intervention from you. Living in Florida (yes, most of us can successfully cast ballots down here) smoking is not allowed in too many places. Bars that generate less then 10 percent of revenue from food sales are about the only indoor areas you can smoke now. I was bumming pretty hard while they were passing these laws. You get used to it. I try to keep my smoke away from non-smokers and if I see i'm bothering someone I will walk away or put it out. One positive thing to come out of these indoor bans is you don't have to wait nearly as long for a table at a restaraunt like you used to. Us smokers want that check before we finish eating so we can get outside.
All this being said. This is a state issue and should be left to state and local governments. The federal government has bigger things to worry about then if you can or can't smoke at Ruby Tuesdays.
by the government.
I like a RonPaul™/Huckabee ticket.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.