Thursday, January 25, 2007
Minnesota Anti-Smoking Nazis
Sig Heil Their Agenda
A bipartisan group of Minnesota lawmakers have proposed a statewide smoking ban that would include all Minnesota workplaces, including bars and restaurants.
Two Democrats and two Republicans said they have broad public support for their "Freedom to Breathe Act," which would outlaw smoking in indoor workplaces and public transportation. They said it's an issue of workplace safety, nonsmokers' rights and public health.
Once again we have government sticking its nose into the private sector. There is nothing stopping any business from voluntarily making its premises smoke-free. Any bar or restaurant can more than cater to the non-smoking crowd, but chances are that establishment won't stay in business for too long. We all go to bars because of the healthy environment they offer, right?
Beyond the fact that we have the state intruding on the private property rights of the property owner, we have a statewide no-smoking ban usurping and intruding into the rights of local cities to choose for itself whether or not to permit or ban their own smoking or non-smoking ordinances. If a town or city wants to permit smoking in bars it no longer will be able to do so, for it would be violating the statewide smoking ban. This is just another example of a long list of the state is telling the cities that it knows what's best for them. This is not how a state should govern.
If City "A" wants to permit smoking in bars and restaurants and City "B" wants to cater to the non-smoking crowd, then this is how it is supposed to work. If the non-smoking establishments in City "B" go out of business because of a lack of patronage, then this is exactly how the system is designed to work in a free market. And this is why both Minnesota Democrats and RINOs are taking it upon themselves to "level the playing field", primarily for the whining, crying, tantrum-throwing non-smoking business owners who found themselves customer-less, because the owners voluntarily made the decision to go smoke-free while the bar in the next town permitted smoking and "stole" all the customers from City "B".
It's not enough that someone stupid enough to open a smoke-free bar across the street from a bar that allows smoking would lose 95% of their potential customers to the bar that permits smoking and, recognizing this, change their policy. No, by god "the playing field needs to be leveled".
It's okay though. Sometime soon another issue will surface that will require "leveling the playing field". Maybe the issue will be one that smacks the self-righteous No-Smoking crowd right in their collective face. And they'll be crying about how wrong it is to "level their playing field" and they'll be looking for allies to support them. Don't look to the smokers, folks, we won't be there to assist you.
Our faux Republican governor, RINO Timmy-Tim-Tim Pawlenty, has said he will sign this into law. Or wait...is our governor Democrat Mike Hatch? I can't tell the difference between them anymore.
Smoke Out Gary
BTW I don't smoke (weird, even though it has been 13 years a friend still remembers my brand and decribed the box to some friends last week. Scary!) And you should quit but that doesn't mean the nanny state has the right to get all gestapo on people. I honestly believe if smoking is evil then go after big tabacco and just make cigareets illegal. Don't criminalize the smoker.
I would like to think that if I were a lifelong non-smoker, or the day comes when I quit - that I still would defend the right for people to smoke in areas designated to do so.
Regarding the info in the post and linked article, the issue is the private property rights of the owners of the bars and establishments. And, as I mentioned, the strong arm of the state no-smoking law that simply disregards the rights of cities and towns to decide themselves whether or not to allow smoking.
It's not the job of nanny states to "level playing fields". It's a start toward Facsism.
Thanks for visiting, as always, my friend.
Besides, if the state is so concerned about the so-called health effects from second-hand smoke, why will the statewide ban not apply to indian casinos? Yes, they are "soverign", but does sovernigty overrule the health impact of second-hand smoke? The Democrats sure seem to be afraid to tackle that one.
Thanks for visiting Marty.
Links to this post:
accordance and compliance with Fair Use Section 107 U.S. Copyright Code.
All other images and content © 2005-2009 David Drake.
Not responsible for content contained at linked sites.
Policy on commenting:
- Anonymous comments have little chance of being published.
- Comments made on posts 60 days old or older have little chance of being published.
- Published comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog author.
- Discretion of publishing or rejecting submitted comments rests solely with the owner and creator of this blog.
- Comments that egregiously "plug" (i.e. advertise or promote) another site or blog will be rejected. This doesn't mean you cannot include a link to your story, blog or to another site, but don't go overboard.
- Profanity is not a disqualifying factor, but profane rants solely for purposes of profanity are unlikely to be published.
- The owner and creator of this blog is not liable or responsible for the opinions of those who comment.