Shocker: New North Dakota Nanny State Bureaucracy Wants $2 Tobacco Tax, Bar Smoking Ban

When ballot Measure 3, which created a permanent anti-smoking bureaucracy in North Dakota, was being considered myself and others warned that it would be used as a perpetually-funded (by tobacco lawsuit settlement dollars and your tax dollars) campaign against whatever it is we’re doing that the nanny staters don’t like. Even to the point of campaigning against the will of the electorate.
Well today the newly-formed committee has announced its new agenda, and sure enough a $2-a-pack hike on cigarettes and a ban on smoking in bars is on the agenda even though a similar ban on smoking in bars died in the state legislature this session.

North Dakota’s newly formed anti-tobacco committee wants a $2-a-pack state cigarette tax and a smoking ban in all public places, an early draft of its agenda shows.
The idea of raising North Dakota’s cigarette tax, which is now 44 cents a pack, has not come up in the 2009 Legislature. The tax has not changed since 1993.
Any state tobacco tax increase would come on top of a newly increased federal tobacco excise tax, which jumped this month from 39 cents to $1.01 a pack.
The committee’s work has been the recent focus of a money fight in the North Dakota House. Republican lawmakers argue the panel is unnecessary, even though voters endorsed a November ballot initiative to establish it. Measure 3 won approval from 54 percent of the voters last fall.
The committee, which is independent of the state Health Department, has been given the job of drafting a state tobacco control plan using recommendations from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Funny how the Measure 3 proponents are standing behind their mandate from the electorate as represented by the fact that their measure was approved, yet want to take up a ban on smoking in bars that was already killed by the representatives of the people in the legislature. We’ve now gone, thanks to Measure 3, from policy being set by a legislative assembly made up of our duly-elected political leaders to policy being set by a bunch of unelected bureaucrats.
Wonderful, right? And there’s no doubt that this unelected bureaucracy will act as a nanny state advocacy group essentially using our tax dollars to campaign against the will of the people. Because they know what’s best for us.
Frankly, this isn’t at all unlike the Temperance Boards that were set up by the proponents of prohibition to battle anti-prohibition sentiment among the public. Except now we’re talking about tobacco, and the idiots are operating on our money (and the money of the companies whose product they’re crusading against).

Tags: , , , ,


«
»
  • http://Array robert108

    All this lying smear and attempts at character assasination because I questioned Rob about his victim entitlement position.
    Pathetic.

  • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

    It’s your life’s ambition to be shout (sic) through a bullhorn and say nothing.

    While you, on the other hand, Hannitwit, say less than nothing, say it poorly while misspelling much of it, and only want to say it through someone else’s bullhorn!

    But, please, Yellowstain, do comeback and insult your host some more while you dither on about absolutely nothing at all!

  • FlybyKnight

    Dodge it all you want, H, but the fact remains that you can’t seem to decide not to be a “whining pussy” on your own. That isn’t a failure of the smokers – it’s a failure of yours.

  • robert108

    I have never called you a liar, Rob; I have just pointed out when you have lied about me

    Sigh…

    You are usually truthful, Rob, except when I disagree with you on this subject and the subject of drug use; then you start lying about my positions and my political persuasion.
    That doesn’t make you a liar, it just makes you reactive to the point of irrationality.

  • http://www.dartemis.net/blog/ sayanything-42

    How sad that we have to hope for sparklesses incompetence to be writ large in the best interests of those in search of education…

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    Robert, there have been other discussions where I thought you were in favor of an outright ban on smoking in restaurants/bars.

    That’s the impression I got whether you meant to convey it or not.

  • Hannitized

    So then why did you accuse me of dismissing it, moron? [sic]

    Oh aunt Proofreader? Did you see the inappropriately placed question mark?

    Heck. Maybe it is not misplaced? Maybe he is truly questioning whether or not I deserve that criticism?

  • robert108

    I just said that reports indicating that one whiff of second hand smoke causing cancer are absurd.

    In fact, the disease of smoking is emphysema. You use the straw man argument about cancer to debunk the fact that smoking is unhealthy for all those affected by it, especially those who are trying to exercise their freedom to not smoke.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    i do teach undergraduates. i am not a professor.

    keep with the personal attacks. its all you have, apparently.

    Let me guess, you teach a course on capitalization.

  • robert108

    In this case, the origin and cause are one and the same.

    Take responsibility for your own actions, sparkiestem.
    You choose to spread your lies and bullshit on this blog. I have nothing whatsoever to do with it.
    I know if you had an argument, you would make it.
    Instead, you continue to whine like a victim, and to blame someone else for your own choices.

  • robert108

    Says the guy whose only response to disagreement with his version of how everyone should live their lives is “You’re a liar.” I have never called you a liar, Rob; I have just pointed out when you have lied about me, like calling me a “liberal”. That’s just not true, and it doesn’t prove your point, in any case. It’s just a personal attack, which signifies a lack of valid argument.

    I don’t go ballistic, robert. Yes, you do. You deal with my disagreement by trying to smear me, when you can’t come up with a counter argument. I just point out that you’re a liberal. And you are. No, I’m not. I simply disagree with your victim mentality with govt. If you don’t like what govt does, elect the politicians who will do what you like. It’s called representative govt. Because you just can’t stand the idea that somebody, somewhere might be doing something you don’t like. Absolutely false. I have never told you what to do or not do; I just point out the truth about it. I think adults are free to do what they choose, but they have to accept the consequences for their actions. You want to use govt to relieve them of those consequences.

  • Headward

    And the fact that nobody is forcing you to go to any given bar.

    If Obama gets his way he’ll tell us when do anything.

  • andophiroxia

    your ransom notes are getting tiresome. in one place, you cite me out of context to slander me. over here, you are using the negative connotations (in this anti-intellectualist milieu) of ‘college professor’ to slander me some more. If you must resort to ad hominems, perhaps you should get your facts straight.

    I do, perhaps you should go and have data and actual reasoning from my own experiences and conclusions rather than sounding important.

    I call you ‘college professor’ because you claimed to have taught students even though you have used that claim to be immune to debate. I also got my facts straight when I gave you your quote straight back to you in regards about you being bigoted against Christians and not holding militant Muslims (like the Taliban) to the same account. Also, I pointed out your logic hole is that if you were indeed not beholden to any morality and if you thought any sort of morality was restrictive, you would not hold others according to their own, since they had no value to you.

    You only talk pretty, as any intellectual does when they meet real life applications of which disprove their nice little theories. Hitler and Marx were intellectuals. Stalin and Trotsky had a bunch of bloody infighting because their two different ideas of Communism didn’t mesh so instead of debate, they and their followers resorted to thug tactics.

    I don’t get your ‘ransom notes’. I haven’t held anyone hostage neither have I participated in a kidnapping so your grasp on definition is loose.

  • Hannitized

    Rob contorts:

    Well, thanks, I guess. Except that I never said anything about second hand smoke being worse than smoking through a filter.

    No, I did.

    I just said that reports indicating that one whiff of second hand smoke causing cancer are absurd.

    Straw Man! Reports don’t talk about “one whiff” you douche. As Carrick said, the exception is being in a small confined area that is smoke filled.

    Keep spinning Angry Rob. It’s your life’s ambition to be shout through a bullhorn and say nothing.

    I know that you think setting up a straw man and attacking it viciously is a relatively good tactic for you, but I don’t think you know how dumb it makes you look.

    You are delusional pal. You are the guy offering the “one whiff” theory, not me. The lawyers are arguing the logic you oppose, I am simply explaining it to your ignorant ass.

    And there are smokers, whose rights and opinions are every bit as important and valid as yours are, who are tired of being treated like second hand citizens.

    So are arsonists. So are people who enjoy burning refuse illegally. So are people who like to pour oil in the gutter. So are people who like to abuse animals.

    Welcome to reality and the fact that irresponsible behavior is not a civil right.

    I think that banning smoking in truly public places (public-owned sidewalks, parks, buildings, etc.) is a valid public policy concern. I think that banning smoking in private establishments is not.

    Fine, then let me blast my music until 2am every-night. You can move if you don’t like it. Let me have sex in my car parked in the front yard every time your children come home. You can move if you don’t like it. Because of property rights.

    Because or property rights. And the fact that nobody is forcing you to go to any given bar.

    Nobody is forcing you to look into my car….while I am having sex when you bring your children home. Just look the other way.

  • Hannitized

    Ah, the republicans turn on each other in their inability to decipher what freedom is, and whose rights are infringed upon when freedom runs amuck and without personal responsibility.

    Rob fails to strike a balance between social responsibility, personal responsibility and freedom.

    Carry on shmucks. Give me something to laugh about.

  • robert108

    I mean, there was a time when R108 didn’t call everyone who disagreed with him a liar too.

    I still don’t; I point out individual lies, but only rarely call someone a liar, when they have demonstrated their inability to tell the truth about anything.
    More lying smear, which is just pathetic.

  • robert108

    The question would be why would it matter providing I’m not bothering anyone but guests that have accepted my invitation on a property that I own?

    Are you denying the difference between commerical property and residential property? You’re really stretching this “rights” thing, IMO.

  • Hannitized

    Carrick says:

    And he is capable of coherent reasoning, something most of the liberals on this blog are capable of.

    Thank you Carrick.

  • Hannitized

    Rob’s question mark was in exactly the correct place.

    The first part of his sentence was a question. The last part was a statement or exclamation.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    the republicans turn on each other in their inability to decipher what freedom is, and whose rights are infringed upon when freedom runs amuck and without personal responsibility.

    As compared to the Democrats that are trying to trample every right of every person legally in this country.

    I’ll take a healthy debate over your fascist overlords Hanjob.

  • carrick

    Rob, for whatever you say about Robert108, his interests are aligned with the best interests of the country. He’s obviously not as libertarian like you and I are with respect to social rights. And he is capable of coherent reasoning, something most of the liberals on this blog are capable of. He is also a hell of a lot better educated than Dino or Sparkie, who daily show their general ignorance on just about any topic.

    Finally he doesn’t go around “HATING” his country, or wearing like a badge the praise of liberal hate mongerers.

    So no I don’t agree with this:

    Anyone else thinking that r108 is as bad as Dino and Hannitized, but just from a different perspective?

    I wish he could chill a bit when people disagree with him though.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    BTW, if you think a business and a home are the same, try living out of your restaurant sometime.

    The question would be why would it matter providing I’m not bothering anyone but guests that have accepted my invitation on a property that I own?

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    Again, in the case of a bar, restaurant or any other private business, you don’t have the “right” to deceive people who might not want to come in there if they will be forced to breathe toxic waste from smokers,

    I agree that’s a reasonable regulation that doesn’t infringe too much on the property owners rights.

    I think the rest of your post is kinda cracked. I mean I wasn’t asking someone to provide cigarettes to the owner of the bar.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    I mean, there was a time when R108 didn’t call everyone who disagreed with him a liar too.

    You just made that up.
    ;)

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    I’d bet they make the same or less because they lose at least 20% of the potential customers, like myself, are going to stay away because I know I’ll be exposed to second hand smoke.

    The most profitable solution is to have smoker bars for the smokers and smoke free bars for the non-smokers.

    It’s actually a disappointment that for the most part the market wasn’t able to accomplish this.

    I really don’t understand why?

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    It’s a safe bet that it’s less educational than indoctrination.

    We can only hope that sparkie’s total lack of ability will keep the kids from being screwed up.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    So then you support the idea to get government out of traffic safety?

    As far as my safety from myself yes. (Seat belts). However where it risks someone else’s safety no. That is drunk driving laws protect a person from the drunk. But if it were only the drunk putting himself in danger, now.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    Don’t go into places where the owner allows them to smoke.

    If you want us to support you being notified before you walk in I think we do.

  • Hannitized

    I know exactly what I’m talking about, Hannitized, and I am 100% consistent in my views.

    Delusion is a requirement for you to retain your sanity. This is now a certainty.

    Tell you what bro, you have NO idea how delusional you are. If you are ever curious what a true conservative and man of principle looks like, I advise you to read Grims blog.

    He actually has balls, principles and the ability to discuss issues intelligently and honestly.

  • andophiroxia

    As compared to the Democrats that are trying to trample every right of every person legally in this country.

    I would say that. Our system was designed to have a debate and an ever-constant debate between more and less government. We are trying to define with whatever challenges come up what is the best way to go about it and where it applies against the definitions of obvious and stark examples.

    I can see the point for smoking and how taxes are used for morality, yet I can see how that can backfire. I see that a lot of tobacco is subsidized yet it is demonized. How can we tell our kids if it is bad and it can lead to bad things, yet if endorsed by legislature and government, how can we tell them not to? Also, we cannot ignore that when people start with the small stuff it is much more likely they will go up to the hard stuff. Another point is fine, you choose to do that, but where does it end as people can be adversely affected by cigarette smoke?

    I think we should be constantly assessing things like this. What I find interesting that Hannitized and his ilk think that this type of existence and debate as amusing but it is what keeps totalitarianism from gaining a foothold. I would prefer this than being killed/imprisoned/denied anything by having one difference of opinion, much like Hitler did. At least here, we are assessing the complete cost-benefit situation and total possiblities.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    That picture on the front page reminds me of a Wizard of Id commercial. They had a poster with the Wizard’s wife Blache (ugly) saying “Lips that touch wine will never touch mine.”

    The saloon keeper was in there saying that it was the best advertisement he had ever put together.

  • Hannitized

    Conservatism is supposed to be about limited government, right? Well smoking bans aren’t limited government.

    Hahaha.

    Great point Angry Rob. I mean, why should the government have ANY public safety laws. I mean, if you want to go play on the subway tracks, why shouldn’t you be able to do so at your own free will?

    If I want to run red lights, isn’t is MY choice?

    If I want to blast my stereo all night long and keep my neighbors up….isn’t that MY right?

    Angry Rob Port explains why it’s all about him.

  • Hannitized

    But, like a typical liberal, you’re less interested in freedom than in using the power of government to reshape society as you think it should be.

    Look Rob. You just dismissed medical reports that tell you second hand smoke is worse than breathing smoke through a filter. I allow you the right to be that stupid.

    But I object when your moronic views impede my ability to breathe safe air.

    I am tired of waking up to my neighbors smoking. I am tired of walking down the street and having to breathe some jackasses second hand smoke. I am tired of going to bars where smoking is allowed, because I leave smelly and having endangered my health.

    Lets face it. Where bars and clubs are given the option, they will allow smoking because why would they choose to limit their ability to make more money? If they all have to deal with laws, such as preventing the option to burn rubber in a bar or restaurant, why not deal with laws that prevent smoking?

    Would you object if I started burning rubber where you had to breathe? Or, are you going to limit my freedom to do stupid things?

    Or, should the restaurant list all of the stupid things people have the freedom to do so I can expect a safe place to breathe?

  • carrick

    This is classic:

    I assume I have permission to report it here.

    Photoshop?

    Can I get it in 19×27?

  • andophiroxia

    Hannitized, you’re jumping on the bandwagon here of which I think is funny considering you defended stalkerbob’s racism and then you were disproved by everyone else that what you posted as a definition of racism definitely fit the bill of what bob did.

    Really, revenge is so petty.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    I’m not in favor of making smoking a right. I’m saying that you have the right to enjoyment of your property which might include inviting people to your property and charging them for refreshments. That enjoyment of your property also includes deciding whether your guests can smoke or not.

    I’m not making up a new right here other than property rights.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    He should stop self-prescribing.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    I don’t know if I consider it a “right”, btw; I think it’s just another choice with responsibilities and consequences.

    Well, again a person has a right to do what he wants on his own property provided it doesn’t interfere with the rights of others.

    Now I know you’re going to find some exceptions to that (like making Meth and consuming it there.) Still we need to be very careful at eroding property rights.

  • robert108

    Well, again a person has a right to do what he wants on his own property provided it doesn’t interfere with the rights of others.

    Again, I think the “rights” meme is a straw man. When you buy a house, the only “right” you have is to do what it takes to maintain it for your own use. You have no “right” to have the lawn mowed, the roof fixed or the walls painted. Same with the plumbing and electrical. All those things are the responsibilities that go along with your ownership of the property. To assert that owning a piece of property gives you license to do anything you please on that property is nonsense. You are still responsible for obeying the law.
    Now, smoking on your own property is generally not a violation of the freedoms of anyone else, so that’s not really the issue here, is it?
    Again, in the case of a bar, restaurant or any other private business, you don’t have the “right” to deceive people who might not want to come in there if they will be forced to breathe toxic waste from smokers, so not informing them before they enter is violating their “rights”, isn’t it?
    I just don’t regard smoking as a “right”; it’s a behavior with consequences and responsibilities.

  • andophiroxia

    This is coming from a guy that defended another liberal’s blatantly racist remark and they keep stepping in it with constant racist remarks and no reasoning.

  • Hannitized

    Carrick,

    If I smoke without exposing others to the effects of second hand smoke, it may be personally irresponsible, but it has no impact outside of myself.

    I have no problems with you smoking if you keep it to the confines of your own personal space or property.

    The nanny state position is to ban it becomes it harms me. The “minimal government” libertarian position is not to ban it unless it harms others.

    Nobody is talking about an all out ban. It’s a ban to stop smoking in public places, such as a bar. You can’t contain your gaseous discharges in that closed system.

    What are the serial numbers for all the filers involved? To get these, telnet to the filer and run the command ‘sysconfig’. capture the output and send it to us.

    What licenses are currently installed? telnet to the filer, run the command ‘license’. capture the output and send it to us.

  • Hannitized

    There is no social responsibility beyond personal responsibility. When people are free to take care of themselves, society takes care of itself. – Angry Rob

    So then you support the idea to get government out of traffic safety?

    You support the notion that anyone should be allowed to use dynamite anytime and any place their heart desires?

    Yes or no?

  • Hannitized

    So then why did you accuse me of dismissing it, moron?

    So you agree then that second hand smoke is bad for you? Fine. I can agree with you on that. You appeared to suggest that second had smoke is not bad.

    Trying to pass along your “one whiff”, slight of hand, straw man is not an excuse to dismiss the scientific reports to the dangers of second hand smoke.

  • robert108

    …when you quit trying to tell everyone else how to live their lives.

    I don’t do that, Rob, so you are making false statements about me again. You’re on shaky ground when your arguments depend on personal attack and falsehoods. I have only shared my own knowledge and beliefs on this subject. I do support citizens who are tired of having their freedom to not smoke violated by thoughtless and inconsiderate smokers. I have my own way of personally dealing with this, and it doesn’t involve govt, as I have already told you multiple times.
    If you didn’t misrepresent my positions and call me names, would you have any arguments at all?

  • andophiroxia

    I think legislation has been really screwed over with “civil liberties”.

    For instance, I was checking into the cost-benefit of satellite TV versus cable. I couldn’t get it because my apartment did not allow it due to the installation aspects of satellite (it would have been a hazard to have it on the walkway or roof, I also had no balcony). I had then gotten informed that it was my FEDERAL RIGHT to have satellite TV if I did have a walkway or balcony that was independent and part of my apartment. It was ridiculous. I got cable because that wasn’t the deciding factor of me staying there.

    I don’t think the government should have any say in regards to my supposed RIGHT to have TV. That’s just damn stupid to me. I think that overall, if it is bad for public safety and personal property, the people do have that right to decide, namely my apartment complex. I also have the freedom and right that if I don’t like the way how they run things, I could just not live there. I think if people don’t want smoking they shouldn’t have it and should not be restricted in either way in saying or expressing so. I think sometimes it has been altered into thinking that people are either a collective instead a grouping of individuals and it runs pretty deep. That’s where I believe government becomes no longer of the people but more of a force run by a collective.

    Just observing in the whole drug debate.

  • robert108

    I really don’t understand why?

    It’s actually pretty simple. If there is no clearly visible and legible signage, people find a parking place, enter the restaurant, examine the menu, sit down and even order before they may become aware of the smoking. At that point, it requires a lot of energy to leave and go looking for another place, where they will have to go through the same process.
    This is why I have always supported clearly visible and legible signage as the solution to smoking on private property. Because it’s not required, smoking establishments weren’t subjected to market pressure, which is probably why non-smoking ordinances were originally instituted. It’s also more politically attractive to “ban” something, rather than to simply require better information.
    In any case, it’s not a matter of “freedom”; it’s a matter of information, and all this could have been avoided.
    If you read Adam Smith, TW, you will see that proper information is an important element to the proper functioning of the free market. As he put it, we want to get as close as possible to perfect information and perfect knowledge.

    If you want us to support you being notified before you walk in I think we do.

    I say again; I have always supported this. Even so, I have been attacked for saying things I have never said.
    Funny what emotions do to a normally clear-thinking mind.
    Generally, that’s a disease of leftieism.

  • robert108

    isn’t it funny when r108′s head assplodes just because everyone isn’t anti-freedom like him?

    More counterfactual gibberish from you, little sparkiestem.

  • andophiroxia

    I teach logic to undergraduates and you’d be surprised at how many of them shirk all the assignments, but when it comes time to argue about their crappy grade, they have closely studied the syllabus and the disclosed grading schedule… and display some of the logical skills I have been trying to teach in an effort to avoid being taught and still getting a good grade. Amazingly frustrating.Sparkie Arbuckle on April 10, 2009 at 05:47 am

    Same, earlier in the quote:

    Due to that, and do to the fact that we would like these people to get educations so they have options other than killing themselves or beating their girlfriends and wives, this video exists.

    Yet you do not display even logical reasoning. Why do you teach? Funny enough, you capitalize sometimes in your sentences, and then you don’t. I do wonder if there is a dual personality here.

  • robert108

    So we need a reasonable compromise. Why not post the smoking policies outside the bars/restaurants so that those considering entering can weigh the information in their choice?

    I have always supported this, Rob.

  • robert108

    I agree that’s a reasonable regulation that doesn’t infringe too much on the property owners rights. Again, I don’t regard it as any “infringement” at all.

    I think the rest of your post is kinda cracked. I mean I wasn’t asking someone to provide cigarettes to the owner of the bar. I made no such recommendation, and didn’t even address that subject, so I have no idea what you are referring to here. I was talking about the strawman “rights” argument, and nothing else.

  • robert108

    But instead of a government ban, why not just require that restaurants and bars post their smoking policies prominently so that customers know before they go in?

    That’s a common sense solution, but r108 rejects it because he can’t stand that anyone smokes.

    Wrong, Rob; I have always supported signage, and have said so countless times, since the beginning of my commenting on this issue. Again you try to smear me with false characterization.

    Again, I do not support govt bans; I have said this countless times as well. I support the right of people to vote on the matter for public places, and of private property owners to choose for their property, with signage.
    My position on this has never changed.

    It is pathetic if all you have to justify your personal attacks is false characterizations of my real positions.

  • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

    and so ‘sparkie arbuckle’ resulted.

    Blaming r108 for the creation of “sparkie arbuckle”?

    Dude! That’s harsh!

  • FlybyKnight

    Hannitized,

    I go where my friends go. I am not going to be a whining pussy about it on my night out, I just live with it.

    And therein lies the rub. When you walk into an establishment that allows smoking, you have performed a cost-benefit analysis and made a choice. Your aversion to being a “whining pussy” is stronger than your aversion to smoke.

    Unfortunately, you’d like the government to solve the problem of being a “whining pussy” rather than standing up for yourself to preserve the health you claim to value so much.

    Typical leftist reaction. I want to make a decision that’s personally inconvenient – can we change the law and inconvenience everybody else instead?

  • robert108

    You always blame the will of the people on the govt, Rob. If the voters really don’t want this, it will go away, and you know it.
    How do you describe Prop 8 in CA? Do you think that’s “the nanny state” as well?

  • robert108

    Where bars and clubs are given the option, they will allow smoking because why would they choose to limit their ability to make more money?

    In fact, 80% of the adult population does not smoke, so if there was clear signage on private establishments, the smoking ones would lose business to the non-smoking ones. When given a clear choice, non smokers will choose to stay away from smoking establishments.

  • robert108

    Choosing not to recognize something is not the same thing as prohibiting something.

    This is pure bullshit, and you know it. Prop 8, because the CASC overturned the previous proposition over a technicality over the definition of one word, was, in fact, a prohibition.
    Check your facts before you humiliate yourself further.

    That was a smear. To real liberals. It wasn’t a lie though.

    Wrong again; you try to continue the lying smear by lying again, but it won’t work. I believe in the freedom of non-smokers to not be subjected to tobacco smoke. I don’t support any taxes, instead being in favor of the will of the people through voting.

    For you to call out that claim every time the guy doesn’t agree with you…

    Another lie from you; I like disagreement, when it’s done factually and logically, but simply lying that I’m a “liberal” is just crap. I only call someone a liar when they lie. They could even agree with me, but if they lie, I would still point out the lie.
    I never called either you or Rob “a liar”, btw. I have called you both on individual lies, especially when you lie about who or what I am, or what I actually said.
    Live with it.

    And you’re not a liberal, robert108. You’re very much and in so many ways a big government LEFTIST.

    Another lie from you; you call me a leftist because I support the freedom of non-smokers not to be forced to breathe tobacco smoke. That’s pure bullshit.
    You call me a leftist because I disagree with you on this subject. It won’t work. I don’t bow to intimidation by smear.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

    robert108 – You always blame the will of the people on the govt, Rob. If the voters really don’t want this, it will go away, and you know it.

    You’re so accusatory and rude, with no explanations or anything approaching logic to back it up.

    Rob mentioned that the people voted in Measure 3 (the will of the people). Measure 3 created a bureaucracy that is now crafting proposals for new laws and regulations (the government).

    This proposed $2-a-pack state cigarette tax and a smoking ban in all public places did not come from “the will of the people”, nor was it proposed by “the people”. It comes from the government bureaucracy. Now granted, the will of the people granted the authority to this government bureaucracy, but nonetheless the distinction is still there.

    In any regard, you should acquaint yourself with the phrase “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.

    How do you describe Prop 8 in CA? Do you think that’s “the nanny state” as well?

    Choosing not to recognize something is not the same thing as prohibiting something.

    robert108, I’d like to end my comment to you here with a curt “and you know it” like you did to Rob. But the thing is, you really don’t know it.

  • carrick

    Sparkie:

    The Truth (h/t to ChiefRZ) is so brutal sometimes.

    Definitely a clenched fist salute to that.

  • Hannitized

    I’m don’t buy that second hand smoke is as dangerous as we’ve been told…- Angry Rob

    Oh spelling bea???? Where art thou?

  • FlybyKnight

    Well, I for one am glad that the voters, this committee, and r108 are all around to instruct me on the best way to live my life. I certainly can’t be trusted to decide for myself.

  • robert108

    Rob: Your false characterization of me as a “liberal” should come as a surprise to your leftie supporters in your attacks on me on this thread. They all have accused me of being “far right”, or a “right-wing extremist”. You guys should get your accusations straight.

  • andophiroxia

    I can attest for a fact that no, he is not “sparkie”. The writing style and level of reasoning is not subpar like sparkie’s.

    he does employ every tactic he, often mistakenly, attempts to take others to task for.

    This is from a person that demands I put up a link that proves my points, yet never does with his.

  • robert108

    Anyone else thinking that r108 is as bad as Dino and Hannitized, but just from a different perspective? Another smear attempt by you, Rob. Pathetic.

    There’s no discussing with him. You either agree with r108, or you’re a liar. Wrong again; I never called you a liar, Rob; I have just pointed out when you lied about me, calling me a liberal, for one. You have also twisted my words in the past. Your latest lie about me is to say that I can’t deal with disagreement; that’s you, dude. You have already tried lying smear on me twice because I disagreed with you on this thread.

    I generally find you a truthful guy, Rob, but on this subject, and on the subject of drug use, you go ballistic when I disagree with you, and start using lying smear against me, even though I have invited you multiple times to discuss and explain your views in a logical manner. I can only conclude that your emotional attachment to these issues causes you to react with anger to logical disagreement with your positions.

  • robert108

    Trying to confuse the issue with talk of “rights” is just another straw man, IMO. Rights are unconditional and general. A behavior so specific like smoking can never be a “right”, since it impinges on the freedom of others. This is the trick of the leftie civil rights strategy. Every time they try to make something a “right”(like abortion), what it does is to shut down all dissent and choice for everyone else.
    Some of the posters here are trying to create a special victim status for smokers, and that’s a leftie tactic.

  • Hannitized

    We should all have unlimited amounts of freedom until that freedom impacts the freedom of others.

    Like smoking. Got it.

    Disobeying traffic regulations makes the roads unsafe and impinges freedom of movement.

    Smoking makes breathing unsafe. It impinges on my freedom of choice on what restaurants I want to visit.

    If you are driving on the road, just pay attention to what others are doing. Accept personal responsibility. Don’t make the government infringe on my freedom of movement.

    A blasting stereo all night impinges upon my freedom to sleep, etc.

    What if the person who is blasting stereo lived on the block first? You don’t have to live there if you don’t want to. You have the freedom to move.

    What if the people who made the homes built the homes for people who believe in freedom? Maybe they want people to live on their block free?

    These are your arguments.

  • robert108

    I think you conflate “the will of the people” with “the will of robert108.”

    If only you knew how much of a liberal you really are.

    Lying smear. I don’t live in fear of the govt, and don’t whine about it. I’m not a victim, Rob. You owe me an apology, but aren’t man enough to give it.
    You whiff every time on the violation of non-smokers’ freedom to not smoke by public smoking. The continual violation of this freedom by smokers has created a pushback, and you don’t like it. If smokers respected the rights of others, this problem wouldn’t exist. You always ignore that reality, instead preferring angry namecalling and false characterization of someone who disagrees with you. Pathetic.

  • docdave

    Now here’s where you take a disagreement of opinion and will now probably call me a liar. *shrugs* It’s your tired M.O.

    Boy, if that ain’t the truth. Wish he would give it a rest especially since it doesn’t add anything to the discussion.

  • http://ndgoon.blogspot.com/ goon

    $2.00 on smokes is very New York like.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    I can attest for a fact that no, he is not “sparkie”. The writing style and level of reasoning is not subpar like sparkie’s.

    The variability in his writing ability is the main reason I decided he’s a big time glue sniffer.

  • Hannitized

    Da Wiz knows all about indoctrination, personally. That is why h holds a grudge against homosexuals.

  • andophiroxia

    The variability in his writing ability is the main reason I decided he’s a big time glue sniffer.

    It’s like he can’t keep the focal point in his argument straight and neither his premises down the line with logical reasoning along with failing to capitalize before every sentence. The premise of a “college professor” makes me even question his veracity even more.

  • Hannitized

    Carrick offers:

    The libertarian view … is that government’s role with respect to limiting individual freedom is to protect individuals from irresponsible actions of others. Driving drunk is an example of that.

    SMOKING….is an example of that. And you can blame me for making the argument the lawyers are putting together in order to make this a reality, but you are truly taking issue with logic, not me. You fool.

    Smoking IS an irresponsible action. It also impedes on the freedom of others. You can pretend to be smart on a blog if it makes you feel good in your pants. But watch the laws change all around you as reality sets slowly upon you, like the unavoidable night sets upon your day.

    Argue Carrick. Entertain me.

  • carrick

    Whistler:

    The variability in his writing ability is the main reason I decided he’s a big time glue sniffer.

    I figured it meant his meds don’t work all the time.

  • carrick

    Sparkie:

    i do teach undergraduates. i am not a professor.

    A grad student, I’ve always presumed.

    I have taught undergraduates and graduate students both, largest lecture hall size about 150. Wide range of courses too…

  • carrick

    Hannitized:

    Smoking IS an irresponsible action. It also impedes on the freedom of others. You can pretend to be smart on a blog if it makes you feel good in your pants. But watch the laws change all around you as reality sets slowly upon you, like the unavoidable night sets upon your day.

    If I smoke without exposing others to the effects of second hand smoke, it may be personally irresponsible, but it has no impact outside of myself.

    The nanny state position is to ban it becomes it harms me. The “minimal government” libertarian position is not to ban it unless it harms others.

  • carrick

    Hannitized:

    Look Rob. You just dismissed medical reports that tell you second hand smoke is worse than breathing smoke through a filter. I allow you the right to be that stupid.

    Your idea of intellectual superiority is kind of strange. Smokers inhale smoke from the air without a filter just as nonsmokers do. Only because of the way diffusion processes work, the concentration of the tobacco smoke/benzene/other additives is much higher near the smoker than the nonsmoker.

    The exception being a poorly ventilated room, say a bar or tavern.

    Where bars and clubs are given the option, they will allow smoking because why would they choose to limit their ability to make more money?

    I’d bet they make the same or less because they lose at least 20% of the potential customers, like myself, are going to stay away because I know I’ll be exposed to second hand smoke.

  • robert108

    Robert, there have been other discussions where I thought you were in favor of an outright ban on smoking in restaurants/bars. I was falsely accused of that, but the truth is that I have always recommended signage requirements; Rob is late to that party.

    That’s the impression I got whether you meant to convey it or not. How am I responble for your misperception? I never did anything to “convey” that; I disapprove of smoking, and have always said so. My basis for that is that smoking violates the freedom of those who do not wish to smoke. I have always acknowledged the freedom of private property owners to permit smoking on thsir property, but the movement of smoke off their property is a problem there. Some of this smear originated when I supported the right of some condo owners to ban smoking in their condo and common areas. I was villified for this, but I made it clear that it was about a majority vote, but the prosmoking Nazis kept up the smear anyway. I also think drug use is destructive and stupid, and have been falsely attacked for that position, as well. In telling people the truth about the consequences of their actions, a truth they don’t want to hear, often produces a violent emotional reaction. Witness what happened today.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

    Lying smear.

    That was a smear. To real liberals. It wasn’t a lie though. I’ve known Rob for years, and he may be many things, but a liar is not one of them. For you to call out that claim every time the guy doesn’t agree with you is pretty damn sad and pretty damn transparent. After all, he’s far from the only one you do that to.

    And you’re not a liberal, robert108. You’re very much and in so many ways a big government LEFTIST. You guys are cut from the same cloth.

    Now here’s where you take a disagreement of opinion and will now probably call me a liar. *shrugs* It’s your tired M.O.

  • andophiroxia

    i do teach undergraduates. i am not a professor.
    keep with the personal attacks. its all you have, apparently.

    Is this how you treat your students if they want to question your authority or debate with you on a matter? I think it is bad to even reprehensible if you use your position as a teacher to intimidate them in any way as you have attempted me with your ad-hominem victimization refuge. I would think at least in any sort of instructing position you could have some sort of debate skills rather than saying inflammatory and dismissive one-liners, with ambivalent logic processes. A true teacher would have been pleased that a student would surpass them, not be angry because they “showed him up”.

    You went on this in regards to a Texas Christian University thread of their Queer Dormitory.

    you want to know who the real degenerates are? the fundamentalist religious folks who believe in miracles, big guys in the sky, resurrections, satan, and hateful bullshit like what you have on offer here. those are the real stupid, fucked-up degenerate scumbags. they consume the most porn of any demographic, they divorce at higher rates than any other demographic. shit, those f*cking culters out in utah and new mexico that you degenerates defend f*cking molest little children and beat women. is nothing sacred?
    Sparkie Arbuckle on April 8, 2009 at 08:15 pm

  • carrick

    Hannitized is just being an idiot today.

    The libertarian view (which he should not have needed help in getting an explanation for) is that government’s role with respect to limiting individual freedom is to protect individuals from irresponsible actions of others. Driving drunk is an example of that.

    Riding a motorcycle without head gear or drinking responsibly are not.

    The government protecting us from ourselves, like we are little children, is the nanny-state left’s position.

    Preventing us from acting in an immoral fashion (as viewed by the government) is the radicals position. Think Nazi Germany, USSR, even China today. They all had totalitarian rule than included severe penalties for what amount to ethical transgressions. (People have been put to death in China for certain ethical violations like cooking the books of your company, or knowingly selling an unsafe product.)

    But go ahead “han-job” and act like a douche bag if you think it makes you so incredibly awesome compared to us eggnorant folks here.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    I’m just happy there is still hope.

  • robert108

    And smoking bans don’t impinge upon the rights of others?

    If smoking isn’t a “right”(and it isn’t), then, no. Such bans(which I don’t support when it comes to private property, as I have said countless times) are simply a matter of the public expressing its wishes about common areas.
    BTW, if you think a business and a home are the same, try living out of your restaurant sometime.

    Again and again, Rob, I favor signage for businesses, and have done so long before I came on this blog.

    I can only surmise that your vicious and untrue smear attempts toward me on this thread are a result of some deeply held emotional damage from your past. I have certainly done nothing to deserve the crap you have tried to throw at me.

    No, I did.

    So then why did you accuse me of dismissing it, moron?

    I have no idea of what you’re talking about here, Rob.

  • robert108

    …and r108 are all around to instruct me on the best way to live my life.

    Please list any and all “instructions” I have given you, Fly.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

    robert108 rewrites history, Some of this smear originated when I supported the right of some condo owners to ban smoking in their condo and common areas. I was villified for this, but I made it clear that it was about a majority vote, but the prosmoking Nazis kept up the smear anyway.

    That’s not exactly how it went down. You didn’t take the position of condo owners making that determination (that was the position of this “prosmoking Nazi”). You took the position of the government via some vote deciding.

    Nice slurs, btw. You bitch, moan and complain about such things before turning around and slandering the rest of us.

    When Rob said,

    Anyone else thinking that r108 is as bad as Dino and Hannitized, but just from a different perspective?

    By all means! He’s even got the projection down in spades.

  • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive
    So then why did you accuse me of dismissing it, moron? [sic]

    {sic}

    Oh aunt Proofreader? Did you see the inappropriately placed question mark?

    Heck. Maybe it is not misplaced?

    Han-job, you are the biggest world class moron I’ve had to deal with in a long time. You make Dino seem like a Rhodes scholar!

    Rob’s question mark was in exactly the correct place. (Why am I surprised that you didn’t know?) You know the funniest things you say on this blog are your attempts to correct other people’s spelling, grammar and punctuation!

    You, need to take your urine stained swim trunks back to the kiddie pool, so that no one will suspect what the dampness is from.

    Tell the maintenance guy to put a little extra chlorine in the pool. You’ve been especially incontinent this week!

  • Hannitized

    Your idea of intellectual superiority is kind of strange. Smokers inhale smoke from the air without a filter just as nonsmokers do.

    That is the risk they take for making the choice to smoke. Why should I be subjected to that risk because of their willful lack of interest in to their own health?

    The exception being a poorly ventilated room, say a bar or tavern.

    Well then, that would be the exception I am discussing. You were saying?

    I’d bet they make the same or less because they lose at least 20% of the potential customers, like myself, are going to stay away because I know I’ll be exposed to second hand smoke.

    I go where my friends go. I am not going to be a whining pussy about it on my night out, I just live with it. But if people are going to make laws to safeguard my health, I am more than willing to support it.

  • robert108

    Disobeying traffic regulations makes the roads unsafe and impinges freedom of movement.

    It’s not circular, little sparkiestem, it’s the difference between freedom and license. Freedom requires responsibility; freedom without responsibility is license.
    Using your freedom to drive without taking responsibilty for the consequences of your driving on others is license, and actually impinges on the freedom of others. Mutual agreements are necessary for real freedom.

  • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

    The first part of his sentence was a question. The last part was a statement or exclamation.

    What a maroon! Appending “moron” to the question only shows to whom the question was being addressed. If you ever finish third grade or obtain a GED, you might learn things like that!

  • robert108

    In addition, my only support of legislation is signage, clearly visible, to indicate whether or not private businesses are smoking or non-smoking, so that citizens have a clear choice where to take their business. I think every private property owner has the right to prohibit smoking on his or her property, including apartment buildings. Again, according to me, signage is the key, and nothing more.
    Your accusation that I want to tell other people how to live their lives is just false, Rob.

  • Hannitized

    Unfortunately, you’d like the government to solve the problem of being a “whining pussy” rather than standing up for yourself to preserve the health you claim to value so much.

    Typical leftist reaction.

    Uhh…that’s not quite it. I would also rather not have so many traffic rules and be able to caravan anytime I follow my friends; but laws sort of prevent me from doing that.

    I rather I could go hunting in any particular part of the countryside I prefer; but there are laws that prevent that.

    I rather go hunting without having to wear bright orange to better camouflage myself; but there are laws that prevent that.

    There are a lot of laws that are sort of inconvenient…..that are designed for my safety as well as others, and I accept them just fine.

    Typical conservative. Has not ability to discern between rights and responsibility.

  • http://www.dartemis.net/blog/ sayanything-42

    Whistler,

    It’s a safe bet that it’s less educational than indoctrination.

  • robert108

    If a bar owner wants to allow smoking that’s his right.

    I have said this again and again, providing there is adequate notification so that people can avoid going into the place if they will be subjected to the toxic waste from smokers.
    I don’t know if I consider it a “right”, btw; I think it’s just another choice with responsibilities and consequences.
    Rights are unconditional, which is why the homo terrorists want to make homo marriage a “right”. Then they can force it on everyone, and choice disappears.

  • robert108

    I do understand, Rob; if you admit the health hazards of smoking for all who are forced to breathe the smoke, then your “freedom” argument falls apart in this case. Endangering the health of others isn’t “freedom”; it’s irresponsible license.

  • http://www.dartemis.net/blog/ sayanything-42

    Proof,

    A fine example of the products of the California Public Schools is eunuchized!

  • http://www.dartemis.net/blog/ sayanything-42

    Whistler,

    Don’t forget them all running to offer apologia for blackwaterboob’s racist comments…

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    I have no problems with you smoking if you keep it to the confines of your own personal space or property.

    If a bar owner wants to allow smoking that’s his right.

  • Hannitized

    However where it risks someone else’s safety no. That is drunk driving laws protect a person from the drunk. But if it were only the drunk putting himself in danger, now.

    Smoking puts others health in danger. If he wants to smoke in his house, or outside, I have no problem, as long as I don’t have to walk through his desire to destroy his lungs on my way to visit the restaurant, or bar.

  • robert108

    that was the original problem that led me to even comment on this blog. you guys were giving his drivel passes where it aligned with your positions. and so ‘sparkie arbuckle’ resulted. Another lie from little sparkiestem. This is just the typical leftie bullshit of blaming someone else for their bullshit. You made the choice to spread your lies and bullshit here, sparkiestem; take responsibility for your actions.

    he does employ every tactic he, often mistakenly, attempts to take others to task for. Yet another lie and false equivalence. I don’t threaten, very rarely use mild profanity, and I make logical and factual arguments for my positions. Furthermore, I invite those who disagree with me to make real arguments instead of just flinging their own poo, figuratively speaking.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    polpot-bot108

    I invite those who disagree with me to make real arguments instead of just flinging their own poo, figuratively speaking.

    Meanwhile, Sparkie reaches into large box of acme keyboards for yet another…

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    Blaming r108 for the creation of “sparkie arbuckle”?

    Dude! That’s harsh!

    In this case, the origin and cause are one and the same.

    The Truth (h/t to ChiefRZ) is so brutal sometimes.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    So you agree then that second hand smoke is bad for you? Fine. I can agree with you on that. You appeared to suggest that second had smoke is not bad.

    Was it when I said that second hand smoke is unhealthy that you got confused?

    Or do you even bother to read my posts/comments any more, choosing instead to react on a purely emotional level to whatever the headline says?

    If smoking isn’t a “right”(and it isn’t), then, no.

    Property rights, pal. Property rights.

    And for all your back pedaling about signage (you weren’t in favor of that until I suggested it to you years ago), your general attitude about this issue puts you squarely on the side of the nanny staters.

    You just can’t stand people making choices for themselves.

    Liberal.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Anyone else thinking that r108 is as bad as Dino and Hannitized, but just from a different perspective?

    There’s no discussing with him. You either agree with r108, or you’re a liar.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    So you agree then that second hand smoke is bad for you? Fine. I can agree with you on that. You appeared to suggest that second had smoke is not bad.

    Was it when I said that second hand smoke is unhealthy that you got confused?

    Or do you even bother to read my posts/comments any more, choosing instead to react on a purely emotional level to whatever the headline says?

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    $2.00 on smokes is very New York like.

    The irony of it is that they’ll get used to this revenue, but then when their prohibition efforts start to work a little bit they’ll be screaming about a loss in tax revenue.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    I don’t live in fear of the govt, and don’t whine about it. I’m not a victim, Rob. You owe me an apology, but aren’t man enough to give it.

    It will be a lying smear, Robert, when you quit trying to tell everyone else how to live their lives.

    Until then just face it. You’re a liberal.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    The legislature already killed a smoking ban in bars. Now we’ve got an unelected committee pushing to enact it, and you’re saying the will of the people is being served?

    I think you conflate “the will of the people” with “the will of robert108.”

    If only you knew how much of a liberal you really are.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    I figured it meant his meds don’t work all the time.

    I’ll second that notion. There was a time when he commented here and made a little bit of sense. Now it’s mostly just drivel.

    Maybe the SAB commenting community did it to him? I mean, there was a time when R108 didn’t call everyone who disagreed with him a liar too.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Smoking puts others health in danger.

    Sure. I’m don’t buy that second hand smoke is as dangerous as we’ve been told (I’ve seen PSA’s suggesting that even a whiff of second hand smoke can cause cancer, which is just plain stupid), but it isn’t healthy.

    But here’s the thing: Whether or not you go into a smoky restaurant or bar or other privately-owned establishment is you choice. I’m more than happy to support laws that make your choice an informed one (thus, required signage indicating the smoking policy within) but bans should not exist in a free country.

    But, like a typical liberal, you’re less interested in freedom than in using the power of government to reshape society as you think it should be.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    I generally find you a truthful guy, Rob, but on this subject, and on the subject of drug use, you go ballistic when I disagree with you

    Says the guy whose only response to disagreement with his version of how everyone should live their lives is “You’re a liar.”

    I don’t go ballistic, robert. I just point out that you’re a liberal. And you are. Because you just can’t stand the idea that somebody, somewhere might be doing something you don’t like.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Carrick,

    So no I don’t agree with this:

    Anyone else thinking that r108 is as bad as Dino and Hannitized, but just from a different perspective?

    I wish he could chill a bit when people disagree with him though.

    Fair enough. But I do think he’s being a hypocrite. Conservatism is supposed to be about limited government, right? Well smoking bans aren’t limited government.

    Now, I think r108 has a legitimate beef when he talks about having to walk into a smoky restaurant to tell whether or not there’s smoking. I hate that too. But instead of a government ban, why not just require that restaurants and bars post their smoking policies prominently so that customers know before they go in?

    That’s a common sense solution, but r108 rejects it because he can’t stand that anyone smokes.

    And then I get called a liar because I point out that he’s inconsistent.

    For the most part, when r108 starts in I mostly try to just ignore him.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    I have never called you a liar, Rob; I have just pointed out when you have lied about me

    Sigh…

    Hannitized,

    I mean, why should the government have ANY public safety laws. I mean, if you want to go play on the subway tracks, why shouldn’t you be able to do so at your own free will?

    If I want to run red lights, isn’t is MY choice?

    If I want to blast my stereo all night long and keep my neighbors up….isn’t that MY right?

    We should all have unlimited amounts of freedom until that freedom impacts the freedom of others. Disobeying traffic regulations makes the roads unsafe and impinges freedom of movement. A blasting stereo all night impinges upon my freedom to sleep, etc.

    When it comes to smoking, citizens shouldn’t be required to be around it. But smokers shouldn’t be required to stop simply because other citizens want them to.

    So we need a reasonable compromise. Why not post the smoking policies outside the bars/restaurants so that those considering entering can weigh the information in their choice?

    This is the same sort of compromise we make with noise ordinances. Rather than telling you that you cannot ever play your stereo, we simply say that you cannot play your stereo past a certain reasonable time at night, or that you can only play it below a certain level.

    We all have to live with one another. These are reasonable restrictions upon our freedoms.

    Smoking bans are not reasonable.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Rob fails to strike a balance between social responsibility, personal responsibility and freedom.

    There is no social responsibility beyond personal responsibility. When people are free to take care of themselves, society takes care of itself.

    I know exactly what I’m talking about, Hannitized, and I am 100% consistent in my views. As opposed to you, who twists and contorts to support whatever Obama/Democrats are doing at the moment.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Look Rob. You just dismissed medical reports that tell you second hand smoke is worse than breathing smoke through a filter. I allow you the right to be that stupid.

    Well, thanks, I guess. Except that I never said anything about second hand smoke being worse than smoking through a filter.

    I just said that reports indicating that one whiff of second hand smoke causing cancer are absurd.

    I know that you think setting up a straw man and attacking it viciously is a relatively good tactic for you, but I don’t think you know how dumb it makes you look.

    I am tired of waking up to my neighbors smoking. I am tired of walking down the street and having to breathe some jackasses second hand smoke. I am tired of going to bars where smoking is allowed, because I leave smelly and having endangered my health.

    And there are smokers, whose rights and opinions are every bit as important and valid as yours are, who are tired of being treated like second hand citizens.

    I think that banning smoking in truly public places (public-owned sidewalks, parks, buildings, etc.) is a valid public policy concern. I think that banning smoking in private establishments is not.

    Because or property rights. And the fact that nobody is forcing you to go to any given bar.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    ando
    your ransom notes are getting tiresome. in one place, you cite me out of context to slander me. over here, you are using the negative connotations (in this anti-intellectualist milieu) of ‘college professor’ to slander me some more. If you must resort to ad hominems, perhaps you should get your facts straight.

    The premise of a “college professor” makes me even question his veracity even more.

    I never claimed to be a ‘college professor’, but its no surprise that ando is employing leftie, ransom note tactics.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    r108 is as bad as Dino and Hannitized

    that was the original problem that led me to even comment on this blog. you guys were giving his drivel passes where it aligned with your positions. and so ‘sparkie arbuckle’ resulted.

    he does employ every tactic he, often mistakenly, attempts to take others to task for.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    That’s not exactly how it went down.

    It hardly ever is. Thanks for the proper context, lik. Amazing (not really, unfortunately) that he was namecalling then and now and flip-flopping.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    No, I did.

    So then why did you accuse me of dismissing it, moron?

    Trying to confuse the issue with talk of “rights” is just another straw man, IMO. Rights are unconditional and general. A behavior so specific like smoking can never be a “right”, since it impinges on the freedom of others.

    And smoking bans don’t impinge upon the rights of others?

    Keep spinning, you self-righteous clown.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    isn’t it funny when r108′s head assplodes just because everyone isn’t anti-freedom like him?

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    i do teach undergraduates. i am not a professor.

    keep with the personal attacks. its all you have, apparently.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    NB: The following quotation is viciously circular, IMHO.

    Disobeying traffic regulations makes the roads unsafe and impinges freedom of movement.

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development