Say Anything Blog

Ahhhh… and that’s your best shot on why not Huckabee????

If our founders had intended for smoking to be illegal ... they’d have put that in the Constitution.

My history teacher once said, “You have a right to swing your fist but that right ends where my nose begins”.

The problem is that the smoke is getting in people’s noses.

Put them and their cigarettes in a glass bubble and I think everyone is happy… well maybe not the smokers

Why should we have less abortions if it’s not really killing someone?

The problem is that the smoke is getting in people’s noses.

Or, from a more reasonable perspective, the problem is that you keep choosing to go into restaurants or bars where smoking is allowed by the lawful property owner.

Your right not to smell smoke ends where my private property begins.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

so all drugs be legalized?

Why should we have less abortions if it’s not really killing someone?

“so all drugs be legalized?” [sic]

Short answer, yes. Ring the schoolyard with cops and shoot anyone who gives’em to kids if you want to, but otherwise quit hypocritically making some mind-altering substances illegal while leaving others legal, and conveniently forgetting the lessons of history (re-institute Prohibition, anyone?). If one adult citizen wants to make or import a substance that another adult citizen wants to buy from him and fry his brain with it, I resent anyone taking money from me by force to pay some gov’t functionary to try and stop him from doing so.

Would that ANY of the Repub candidates, Saint Fred included, would actually take action to stop the Feds from fraudulently invoking the Commerce Clause to run roughshod over the nation. I won’t hold my breath, however. The only faint hope I see is that, attempting to put some vaguely anti-abortion ‘conservative’ justice on the SCOTUS, a Repub prez (it shore won’t be no Dhimmocrat!) will put the likes of Scalia or Thomas up there. Then we MIGHT have a chance that they’ll actually rule the current abuse of the Commerce Clause out of bounds. Wouldn’t that be fun! O well, dream on.

“so all drugs be legalized?” [sic]

Short answer, yes.

Sounds like you’re a Ron Paul guy.

You have balls for putting Huckabee’s video up there.  I used to be a supporter of a person’s right to smoke.  I mean, if only black people smoked, there would be more objection to it.  But people have to work in these bars and 2nd hand smoke is killing them.  (My aunt was one of them, thankfully they caught her lung cancer soon enough)

He’s not telling you what you can and can’t do in the privacy of your home or in your car, he’s just telling you what you can’t do in public.

“You can come in” or “we’ll hire you if you want to risk your life with second hand smoke.”

I’ll tell you what, pay these people for working in a hazardous workspace or ban smoking.  How’s that for compromise?

Fred Thompson is a slow talking pitt bull who will get clobbered by Hillary Clinton if he gets the nomination.  The man was a lobbyist for 18 years, worked for a Haitian dictator, and is as much of a Washington outsider as Mike Huckabee is a golfer (fyi: he’s not).

Huckabee is the ONLY candidate who can beat Hillary.

www.ktracy.com

“He’s not telling you what you can and can’t do in the privacy of your home or in your car, he’s just telling you what you can’t do in public.”

How about in (what should be acknowledged as) the privacy of my own business establishment? This idea that the gov’t can simply declare any place it likes as ‘public’ even tho’ it doesn’t belong to the gov’t is another example of nanny-state idiocy. If I own a bar (as if!) and I want to allow my patrons to poison the air, and others want to, of their own free will (they don’t ‘have to’ work there, do they; they can choose to work somewhere else, it’s not slave labor!) come into the bar and breathe that air, I would resent you or any combination of you’s trying to stop me.

Huckabee is the ONLY candidate who can beat Hillary

Funny! That’s what they say about Ron Paul. You can’t both be right!
Why don’t you guys duke it out and come back in about six months after you decide which of them REALLY is the “ONLY candidate who can beat Hillary”!

Shrugging off the mindless, baseless attacks of Liberal hyenas and jackals since 2007

”(Proof) You’re, as we say in Hawaii, No Ka Oi!”

-unsolicited testimonial

Here’s my concern: Isn’t it congress that makes the Bill for the President to sign into law? Ithink that if folks have issues about President Huckabee signing a law to ban smoking in the work place, they should look at who they/we have representing us in congress - am I wrong?
We have a smoking ban in the workforce here in NYC for over 15 years - nobody complains…  even those that smoke outside in the dead of a blizzard - it’s just a way of life.. and personally, I don;t think it’s wrong to ban a person from doing something that adversly affects those around them - it’s their duty to protect them. I was a smoker and I did agree, and I’m no longer a smoker and still agree.

“he’s just telling you what you can’t do in public”

Wow, what a tribute to conservatism. Huckabee’s got no chance. I can see someone in THEIR house smoking with an open window, and all of a sudden the no-smoking police show up because his/her smoke is “poisoning” one of their neighbors…no thanks. That, and the fact that the state is going to come to me to make up the difference for all of the tobacco taxes they would no longer be getting.

“Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”

Kevin Tracy - But people have to work in these bars and 2nd hand smoke is killing them.

They have to? Bullshit.

I’ll tell you what, pay these people for working in a hazardous workspace or ban smoking.  How’s that for compromise?

That’s already happening, so what’s your complaint?

Bill Gracia - We have a smoking ban in the workforce here in NYC for over 15 years - nobody complains…

Nobody? No property owners who wish to smoke in their own establishment, but can’t because of people like you? I don’t buy that. NYC has millions of people. Surely there are still some there who respect property rights.

he’s just telling you what you can’t do in public.

No, he’s telling private restaurant and bar owners that they can’t allow smoking.

If we were talking about federal buildings and federally-funded parks/rec areas I’d be fine with it.  That is the federal government’s responsibility.  But privately-owned property in the various states?

This is about as anti-federalist as you can get.

so all drugs be legalized?

What drugs are and are not legal should be a states issue, not a federal issue.  And, personally, I think weed should be legal.  Though I’m fine with bans on substances like meth.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Huckabee is the ONLY candidate who can beat Hillary.

I don’t want a candidate who will out-liberal the liberals.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Ban old lady perfume next. Those chemicals literally take my breath away.

Then ban anybody who has imbibed from being out in public. Alcohol breath is just atrocious.

Maybe the nanny-staters can think up some new ones. We can work together to make the practice of private property obsolete.

I think weed should be legal.  Though I’m fine with bans on substances like meth.

This is my point, it’s hard to draw the line… your consistency breaks down at some point. Why weed and not meth? Why are you against a person’s right for using meth?

Why should we have less abortions if it’s not really killing someone?

Why weed and not meth? Why are you against a person’s right for using meth?

Well this is going in a bit of a different direction than the topic at hand.  Huckabee isn’t talking about a currently illegal substance, he’s talking about tobacco and forcing private property owners to ban it.

If Huckabee thinks tobacco is bad let him advocate for an outright ban, but not a pseudo ban which infringes upon the rights of property owners.

As for drawing lines, I think society is perfectly capable of recognizing that tobacco is a much different animal than meth.  But those lines should be drawn at the state level, not the federal level regardless.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Ban old lady perfume next. Those chemicals literally take my breath away.

lik, old lady perfume doesn’t cause cancer.

I’m all for the government getting the hell out of my life, but if it’s between the government in my face, or some ass whipe standing outside a building blowing smoke in my kids face as I walk by, I’ll take the government.

If you want to go in your basement and drink pine sol and sniff paint fumes, have at it.

Why should we have less abortions if it’s not really killing someone?

Why are you against a person’s right for using meth?

That’s the right question, will.  After you dispel the fog of claiming a “right” to do something(leftiespeak for “entitlement”), it comes down to making a cost/benefit decision, like anything else.  We have to calculate the cost of legalizing the drug in question, and compare it to the benefits.  That’s the way thinking adults do it, at any rate.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

will - lik, old lady perfume doesn’t cause cancer.

No. It just makes it so that kids with asthma can’t breathe around the shit. But what do I know? Owning your own body = “entitlement”. Except when it’s on someone else’s personal property, then it’s a right. Except when it’s your body on your own property, than that is an “entitlement”.

It’s all so confusing. I simply vote for private property rights. The nanny-staters, of which there are a couple here in this thread (though they’ll vehemently deny it), disagree. They will force their way onto our bodies and private property. Daddy knows best or something. I don’t know. I don’t have their controlling mindset.

If Huckabee thinks tobacco is bad let him advocate for an outright ban, but not a pseudo ban which infringes upon the rights of property owners.

So Huckabee endorsing taking more rights away would then make him acceptable?

To use this as evidence of not finding Huckabee acceptable is weak, especially given the other lame candidates that we have to choose from like Rudy and McCan’t.

Fred’s still not in, and I’m not crazy about him. But both of these guys are better than Rudy… so let’s not bash each other until Rudy is out.

Or maybe you think Rudy is better than Huckabee?

Why should we have less abortions if it’s not really killing someone?

Oh, and will? I’m sorry that you feel the need for big government to take care of an “ass whipe standing outside a building blowing smoke in my kids”. That’s something that real men take care of themselves. You shouldn’t invite government to work on your personal problem.

Sorry for the harshness, but you’re asking for the deadly power of government to intrude onto another person’s private property. To top it off, you want to limit a legal activity. You’re dangerous.

You’re dangerous.

How about smokers who deprive others around them of their ability to breathe non-smoky air?  Even if you deny the obvious health hazards of cigarettes, it is just offensive to many people, and they should not be forced to breathe the cigarette smoke of others.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

you want to limit a legal activity. You’re dangerous.

Having sex is a legal activity, but when I take my son into Arby’s, if somebody starts beating off in the order line, I’d expect an officer to be called IMMEDIATELY and the man be arrested.

That’s something that real men take care of themselves.

So, John Wayne, what are my options? Should I go Chuck Norris on him?

Why should we have less abortions if it’s not really killing someone?

Having sex is a legal activity, but when I take my son into Arby’s, if somebody starts beating off in the order line, I’d expect an officer to be called IMMEDIATELY and the man be arrested.

I’m sorry, is smoking a cigarette the same thing as beating off in public?  Because I thought the two were maybe completely different things.

By the way, Arby’s is private property.  I don’t have a problem with them allowing sexual activity on their property as long as customers are warned about it before entering.

But I’ve got a weird thing for freedom and property rights like that.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

will - So, John Wayne, what are my options? Should I go Chuck Norris on him?

Resorting to violence as a first step to handling a rude smoker?

Like I said above, you’re dangerous.

And, again, you’re going off in a bizarre direction here Will.  The problem is mostly Huckabee wanting a ban from the federal level.

That is not the job of the federal government.  A state-wide ban would be in keeping with federalism, though I’d still oppose even that on the basis of property rights.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Alcohol consumption is the perfect example of a legal activity that is limited.  In fact, it’s limited precisely for the same reason smoking is limited: It poses danger to some people.  Duh.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Watching this video actually makes me like Huckabee even more. I define myself as an “8” on a scale of 1 to 10 for conservatism. I agree with libertarians on several issues; I’m even questioning the wisdom of drugs being illegal. Furthermore, I am an avid supporter of capitalism and the free market, so the idea that smoking and non-smoking restaurants competing for customers is an idea I agree with as well. And yet, despite all this, I think Huckabee is right. We could sit an bring up a thousand examples of what a “public place” is, but there will always be someone suffering from second-hand smoke in a public place who truly couldn’t do anything about it. It infringes on the health rights of others.

Mike Huckabee has been my favorite ever since I first heard of him, watching the 1st Republican debate. I have lots and lots of love for Fred Thompson, too. Those two on the same team would be my dream ticket. The only thing I’ve ever heard Huckabee do that I thought was questionable is the recent comments about Fred Thompson. Why would he go to bat against the other leading GOP contender?

I find it hard to believe that you are not motivated primarily by your support for Fred Thompson, and are so silly as to wite something different from the very video that you yourself, posted in the article.

Huckabee explicitly said that he wouldn’t propose targeting consumers, but would consider it a workplace safety ban.  I am one of those conservatives that doesn’t like government regulating private business.  But, if Huckabee is going to address health care as no one has even after decades of talk and increasing health problems in The United States, it isn’t only foregivable, its economically necessarty that we address costs from the front end rather than on the expensive back end.

Mike Huckabee is perfectly cognizant of the 10th Amendment and respectful of its intentions, speaking as someone who has watyched his campaign constantly for over six months.

As Brian said, we have the costs of existing health care programs/promises to consider, and the enormous burden of ill health on Gross National Product, not to mention the personal toll of peoples’ unhealthy lifestyles.  If nothing else, I would just be relieved to give Democrats a reason to shut the heck up about national health care.  To be fair, I can understand that you haven’t been paying closer attention.  Please watch more closely.

My arguments were a) that Huckabee doesn’t support federalism and b) doesn’t respect private property rights.

You say:

Huckabee explicitly said that he wouldn’t propose targeting consumers, but would consider it a workplace safety ban.

Are workplaces not private property?  Since when is it the role of the federal government to address smoking?

You aren’t a conservative, Larry, because you can’t be a conservative and not be a federalist and respect property rights.

Alcohol consumption is the perfect example of a legal activity that is limited.  In fact, it’s limited precisely for the same reason smoking is limited: It poses danger to some people.  Duh.

Robert, if you don’t like smoke don’t go around smoke.  We’ve had this discussion before, and you lost before.

I’m all for requiring restaurants to post signs about their smoking policies outside so that you don’t have to go inside to find out.  But aside from that, why should your smoking preference dictate my smoking policy on my property?

I absolutely cannot stand so-called “conservative” who abandon limited government principles every time their pet issue crops up.  They represent everything that’s wrong with the GOP today.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Robert, if you don’t like smoke don’t go around smoke. We’ve had this discussion before, and you lost before.

So, in your opinion, spewing toxic smoke entitles you to possession of that territory, and those who don’t choose to breathe your spew should leave?  I don’t think so.  It’s precisely this attitude that calls forth ever more laws to protect the rights of non-smokers.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

So, in your opinion, spewing toxic smoke entitles you to possession of that territory, and those who don’t choose to breathe your spew should leave?

Well, if I’m smoking in my restaurant and allowing others to do so why should you get to change the rules?  If you don’t like the way I do things on my property, leave.

It’s precisely this attitude that calls forth ever more laws to protect the rights of non-smokers.

I see.  So it’s people like me, and not whiny busy-bodies like yourself, who are responsible for smoking bans.

Got it.

By the way, I don’t ever want to hear you complain about big-government lefties again you unprincipled lout.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

If you don’t like the way I do things on my property, leave.

You are wrong in your assumption.  I never said that, so you lie.  If you permit smoking in your place, I have no objection to that, but you should take responsibility for your decision, and inform people before they enter your place, so that they can choose not to give you their business.  It is dishonest to entice them in, then blow smoke in their faces without warning them, IMO.

So it’s people like me, and not whiny busy-bodies like yourself, who are responsible for smoking bans.

Absolutely.  When you aren’t honest enough to give them a chance to deny you their business, you call forth the consequences of that arrogance and dishonesty.

BTW, I’m no supporter of Huckabee, nor do I favor federal antismoking legislation.  I would require visible signs announcing the presence of offensive smoke, that’s all.  Others less tolerant than I do desire legislation, though.  Every action calls forth an equal and opposite reaction.-Ike Newton.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Huckabee isn’t really a ‘roll off the tongue name’ and more of a ‘just plain goofy sounding name’. Washington, Jefferson, and Eisenhower are names that roll off the tongue. As for goofy sounding names… that goes to Polk, Filmore, and Nixon, I.M.O.

As for rulers that want us to be as perfect as they are… neither conservatives nor liberals would ever want that kind of faux-benevolent personality. He does seem like he has everything together, though. Nobody knows what kind of president he would make, and that is a dangerous kind of situation to be in. I’ll pass.

By the way, I don’t ever want to hear you complain about big-government lefties again you unprincipled lout.

Ooooh noooo!  Rob has taken away my free speech rights for disagreeing with him.  What ever will I do?

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Rob, You’re missing Huckabee’s, Roberts and my point. To jump down people’s throats and scream NANNY STATER!! is a little disingenuous. All of our INTENTIONS are in protecting freedom. Freedom to breathe.

You make a great point, and I’ll give you credit for pointing it out. Here it is:

I’m all for requiring restaurants to post signs about their smoking policies outside so that you don’t have to go inside to find out.

A posting… I’ve not heard that being suggested before. And I’d bet that is something Huckabee (and the rest of us) could be fine with!

I just think it’s wrong to say we’re all nanny staters and Huckabee is philosophically corrupt for not wanting to come in a restaurant and be blasted by somebody’s smoke UNKNOWNIGLY. That philosophy, my good friend, is a cry for freedom too.

Why should we have less abortions if it’s not really killing someone?

Ooooh noooo!  Rob has taken away my free speech rights for disagreeing with him.  What ever will I do?

I haven’t taken away your free speech rights.  I simply reserve the right to call you a hypocrite from now on.  Because you are one.  A terrible, foolish one.  And it’s actually sort of funny.  For all your bluster about big-government “lefties,” you’re as bad as they are.  At least on this issue.

Will,

One cannot advocate for limited government and then jump on the “let’s ban the things we don’t like express” every time one of your pet issues comes up.

A federal ban on smoking is wrong because it flies in the face of federalist principle and it is disrespectful of private property rights.  Those are two things conservatives should hold dear, but many clearly do not.

I just think it’s wrong to say we’re all nanny staters and Huckabee is philosophically corrupt for not wanting to come in a restaurant and be blasted by somebody’s smoke UNKNOWNIGLY.

But that’s not what Huckabee is saying.  He wants a ban on workplace smoking.  Meaning that I, as an employer, cannot smoke or allow smoking in my place of business if I want.

And before anyone says this doesn’t apply to bars or restaurants, where is a waitresses’ work place?

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

One cannot advocate for limited government and then jump on the “let’s ban the things we don’t like express” every time one of your pet issues comes up.

So, I’m confused… you would not be a part of a ban against Meth like you said above or not?

You’re just drawing the line in a different spot than the rest of us. You say meth is “reasonable”. Well, I think a ban on smoking is reasonable. 2nd hand smoke causes cancer.

Why should we have less abortions if it’s not really killing someone?

So, I’m confused… you would not be a part of a ban against Meth like you said above or not?

Will, it would help if you would actually read my comments.

As I said above, I think a ban on meth is reasonable at the state level.

This is also part of my argument against Huckabee’s ban on workplace smoking.  He wants to do it from the federal level.  That’s not federalism.

Also, the meth ban is a ban on it’s use everywhere.  We’ve banned meth because we find it to be a danger to society.  We haven’t done that to tobacco.  Tobacco is still legal for adults to smoke. If Huckabee wants to ban it, let him push for an outright ban for the greater good (though that still wouldn’t be acceptable from the federal level).

But do we really want government so involved in our lives that they’re dictating smoking policy on private property?

C’mon.  What’s next?  A ban on salt for the greater good?  A ban on Mcdonald’s french fires?  What happens when the ban is on something that doesn’t happen to be a pet peeve of yours?

You need to think beyond your own selfish motivations.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Also, the meth ban is a ban on it’s use everywhere.

—> So banning meth federally is OK

We’ve banned meth because we find it to be a danger to society. We haven’t done that to tobacco.  Tobacco is still legal for adults to smoke.

—> Meth is a danger to society but tobacco is not.

If Huckabee wants to ban it, let him push for an outright ban for the greater good

—>But it’d be acceptable if he wants to ban tobacco anyway (assuming federally since he IS running for president)

(though that still wouldn’t be acceptable from the federal level).

—> But nevermind, it still wouldn’t be acceptable

But do we really want government so involved in our lives that they’re dictating smoking policy on private property?

That’s a TOTALLY loaded sentance. Private property is different than Private property frequented by the public.

Imagine you get a job at some office and you start working there for 3 months. You like your job and everything is great. Then the company decides to hire Camel “chimney sweeps” Joe and sticks his desk right next to yours. You either suck it up (literally), or you get a new job. Thanks for protecting my freedom.

You need to think beyond your own selfish motivations.

FYI, smoking really doesn’t bother me at all. But my wife can tell I’ve been to a bar the second I walk in the front door of my house. I’m not thinking of me, I’m thinking of the people who are totally at the mercy of inconsiderate smokers.

Why should we have less abortions if it’s not really killing someone?

—> So banning meth federally is OK

Do you read? Right above your comment, Rob stated, “As I said above, I think a ban on meth is reasonable at the state level.” This isn’t the first time he has said something like that.

—> Meth is a danger to society but tobacco is not.

That was never said.

—>But it’d be acceptable if he wants to ban tobacco anyway (assuming federally since he IS running for president)

What are you reading? None of this was said.

You either suck it up (literally), or you get a new job. Thanks for protecting my freedom.

You’re welcome. We’re protecting your private property freedoms. You are adamant on denying them and then you browbeat those who are protecting your freedom.

But my wife can tell I’ve been to a bar the second I walk in the front door of my house. I’m not thinking of me, I’m thinking of the people who are totally at the mercy of inconsiderate smokers.

Simple solution here: stay out of bars.

The owners there certainly don’t need inconsiderate citizens who whine, bitch and complain about what they are doing on THEIR property.

Open your own bar and ban smoking.

Heck if I had a choice I’d go to the non-smoking bar.

1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax.
5% of Americans pay 60% of the income tax.
10% of Americans pay 70% of the income tax.

Heck if I had a choice…

Choice? Freedom?

Surely you jest The Whistler. Our betters have already decided what’s best for us. Freedom be damned.

Do you read? Right above your comment, Rob stated, “As I said above, I think a ban on meth is reasonable at the state level.”

I’ll paste in in twice so that you won’t miss his quote:

Also, the meth ban is a ban on it’s use everywhere.

Also, the meth ban is a ban on it’s use everywhere.

See, when I see the word “everywhere” I guess I don’t think “state only”

Why should we have less abortions if it’s not really killing someone?

Ok, we’re going to slow things down a little bit so everyone can catch up…

We’ve banned meth because we find it to be a danger to society.

is equivelant to: Meth is a danger to society… right? Going too fast?

so, now we’re going to take a look at tobacco and see how it compares to meth… stay with me here…

We haven’t done that to tobacco.  Tobacco is still legal for adults to smoke.

so meth is banned because it’s a danger to society, but tobacco is NOT banned because…............

does somebody have any idea what is being implied here?? Johnny, can you help out lik, please…. yes… that’s right johnny, because tobacco is NOT a danger to society.

Why should we have less abortions if it’s not really killing someone?

look, i think designating private property open to the public as being a smoke zone is a great compromise and we should move on.

Why should we have less abortions if it’s not really killing someone?

Your right to smoke should not infringe on my right to breathe clean air. Your right to smoke should not infringe a deadly chemical on my right to live a healthy life. If everyone has a right to do what they please, then let’s have no punishment for murderers, rapist, or other people that cause harm to other human beings, its their right, right?

Cigarettes in a public place is unhealthy for those of us who care about our lives and who want to live without having to worry about lung cancer. Why should we have a death sentence because you have a right?

Huckabee is not trying to ban smoking…he is trying to protect the health of other people, so he spoke about a ban in public places.

My grandmother died from lung cancer, directly associated with second-hand smoke. The doctor thought she had smoked for at least 40 years, but it was due to people having to right to blow their toxic smoke in her face. Where is her right? Was it to die an unjustified death? I don’t think so.

Those who would deny this ban are those who only care about themselves, or else they would realize that they can smoke anywhere, except for where people who are choosing not to smoke are, unless it is in a bar.

Your right to smoke should not infringe on my right to breathe clean air.

Your right to clean air shouldn’t overrule my right to do what I want on my property.

IF you don’t like smoky bars or restaurants don’t go in them.

My grandmother died from lung cancer, directly associated with second-hand smoke. The doctor thought she had smoked for at least 40 years, but it was due to people having to right to blow their toxic smoke in her face. Where is her right?

Assuming that this smoke was from her job (as opposed to your grandfather) she should have found another job.  In case you hadn’t hear, Lincoln freed the slaves.

1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax.
5% of Americans pay 60% of the income tax.
10% of Americans pay 70% of the income tax.

Assuming that this smoke was from her job (as opposed to your grandfather) she should have found another job.  In case you hadn’t hear, Lincoln freed the slaves.

Sorry Nick, I guess your dumbass Grandma should have known better. But thank God her coworkers got their freedom to smoke!

Why should we have less abortions if it’s not really killing someone?

Actually, I’m surprised that somebody hasn’t sued a company for negligence in working conditions. Think about that for a minute. That alone could take care of this issue REALLY fast… you wouldn’t even need a law then. All you would need is one court case. I can’t believe it hasn’t happened yet.

Why should we have less abortions if it’s not really killing someone?

I believe the workers compensation laws preclude that bit of nonsense.

1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax.
5% of Americans pay 60% of the income tax.
10% of Americans pay 70% of the income tax.

I simply reserve the right to call you a hypocrite from now on.  Because you are one.  A terrible, foolish one.  And it’s actually sort of funny.  For all your bluster about big-government “lefties,” you’re as bad as they are.  At least on this issue.

I love the smell of personal attack in the morning…it smells like victory!

Actually, Rob, you’re just wrong here.  Smoking isn’t a one-sided freedom issue; it’s balancing the freedom of people to smoke, against the freedom of those around them to be free of their smoke.  I don’t think there’s a “one size fits all” solution here; it depends on the circumstances, and have said nothing different since the beginning.  I believe, to repeat myself, that non-smokers have the right to know about smoking in businesses before they go in.  If smokers had the sense to be reasonable about their habit, none of this would be necessary.
I guess I just don’t understand your hostility on this one.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

will - I’ll paste in in twice so that you won’t miss his quote:

What are you going on about?

See, when I see the word “everywhere” I guess I don’t think “state only”

That would make sense if Rob didn’t already explicitly state that he meant at the state level. You just ignore that part so you can argue this one. And you think that I am the lost one? Surely you jest.

does somebody have any idea what is being implied here?? Johnny, can you help out lik, please…. yes… that’s right johnny, because tobacco is NOT a danger to society.

What are you talking about and where are you trying to go? The implications have all been in your head so far. Your track record stinks will.

Nick said, Those who would deny this ban are those who only care about themselves…

You sat there and read that it’s about personal property rights, then you still had the absolute gall to spew this crap. That’s rude.

You may not agree with the other opinion Nick, but don’t lie about it.

...or else they would realize that they can smoke anywhere…

Do you have a problem with lying? You’re wishing to take away the right to smoke on private property and then tell us that smokers can go “anywhere” to smoke. Given those two opposite situations, this hyperbole (if that’s what it is) doesn’t help your argument. It makes it hypocritical.

Btw, who is “they”? Rob is a non-smoker who doesn’t like the smoke. In the end, this fact doesn’t even matter given that the reason for his position is private property rights. Ironically, if Rob were a person who “who only care about themselves”, as per your slander, he would take your position Nick. Chew on that one.

I don’t think that it’s about balancing the rights of smokers and non-smokers.

On publicly owned property there should be no smoking where it would actually bother someone.

However on private property it’s up to the owner to decide.

Simple.

1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax.
5% of Americans pay 60% of the income tax.
10% of Americans pay 70% of the income tax.

However on private property it’s up to the owner to decide.

Simple.

Not Simple. Private property doesn’t mean “I can do whatever I want”.

Can you have a nuclear missle on your property? Can everyone put a casino on their private property? Can you pile pig manure 10 feet high on your property right next to your neighbor’s house? Can you flash people on the street from inside your OWN house? Need more examples? So are you saying all of these rights should be legal on PRIVATE property??

With freedom comes responsibility. Extreme of almost everything is bad. If you want to allow smoking in your bar, fine… I have no problem with you designating your private property as a smoke zone and I’ll bet Huckabee would be just as fine with it too.

Why should we have less abortions if it’s not really killing someone?

Extreme of almost everything is bad.

All of the extreme examples came from you. We’re talking of smoking ciggs and you bring up nuclear missles. Get real will.

If you want to allow smoking in your bar, fine… I have no problem with you designating your private property as a smoke zone and I’ll bet Huckabee would be just as fine with it too.

Yeah right. You social busy-bodies never know when to quit.

I find it funny that you tell this to someone who lives a state where it is illegal to smoke in a bar. Ohio’s citizens thought it was a good idea to put infringements of private property into the state Constitution. Not the brightest bunch. Now you’re telling us what you wouldn’t have a problem with? Forgive me for not believing your assurances.

Not Simple. Private property doesn’t mean “I can do whatever I want”.

Of course that could be taken to an extreme, but when we’re referring to a legal (and taxed) activity then it really shouldn’t be that hard to understand.

Obviously activity that would affect other property owners wouldn’t fit in that nor activities that are illegal (doing drugs, having sex with underage parties etc).

By the way I’m a person that doesn’t smoke, never have and I would seek out non-smoking venues as much as possible.

1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax.
5% of Americans pay 60% of the income tax.
10% of Americans pay 70% of the income tax.

I should point out that I’m not a smoker either.  I don’t like to be around smoking.  When I go out to a bar, I always choose a non-smoking bar here in Minot (one that chose to be non-smoking to attract patrons like me).

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

I understand the importance of private property as a foundation of freedom and I’m sympathetic to the argument that a workplace is someone’s private place of business.

However, in a culture that approves of smoking, it’s mighty difficult for someone to be vigilant about their health and still have friendly relationships with those around them. Workplaces are no longer treated as private business, and are now highly regulated. While that’s regrettable, I think the good that’s come out of it is the realization that employees also have an interest in their place of work. If, say, waitressing is your only job option in a small town because you get paid better for shorter hours and work at night when the kids are asleep and everything else is closed, and smoking is allowed in every restaurant, what are you going to do? Pack up and move somewhere that has a nonsmoking restaurant? Then what if the owner decides to allow smoking? Move again? In a nation that is no longer agrarian (and hasn’t been for some time), most people’s employment is not connected to their own property. Most people go outside their property to work. Maybe it’s time to recognize employment as a quasi-property right.

I lived in London for four months, and every club, bar, pub and restaurant allowed smoking. Many apartments are too small for guests and do not have full kitchens. I want to believe in the market, but the market wasn’t doing much for those who want to avoid secondhand smoke and still be social. I believe it would eventually have worked itself out (a few pubs had small nonsmoking rooms upstairs), but what about the 20 years of secondhand smoke built up in one’s lungs between now and then?

Suicide is generally illegal in most states, as far as I know. Even in an era when voting rights were based on property (underscoring its importance), suicide was heavily punished. It was understood that the person was depriving the government and society of a useful citizen (and if male, a potential soldier). If the person attempted suicide, they would be jailed; if the person did in fact kill himself, his whole family would forfeit rights. This was intended to dissuade people from committing the act, even though it only punished the innocents. If a society deeply committed to Lockean property theory can ban suicide, then why cannot our society understand that a smoker is depriving not only himself, but society at large, of years of his life, as well as causing harm to those who breathe his smoke?

Get over yourself, sweetheart. The 3 “doctors” who concocted that study admitted to falsifying their results to gain further funding. Face it, no one gets out of life alive. And the Number 1 cause of death is anxiety over what you are going to die from.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

As a former busboy, who didn’t really have a choice about where he worked, I completely support a ban on workplace smoking.  A restaurant is a public place, which means we accept some government regulation (health inspections and bans on racial discrimination, to mention just two).  I’m thankful to Huckabee for banning smoking in Arkansas facilities last year, and my child with breathing problems is also thankful. As one of the few people who can say he voted for Ron Paul (in 1988) and Huckabee (in 2002), I am sympathetic to libertarianism, but I should not have to keep my child out of public areas. 

If tobacco growing states won’t take public health measures to protect their citizens, I have no objection to the federal government doing so.  And by the way, as long as there is federally-funded Medicare and Medicaid, treating people for lung, throat and other forms of tobacco-induced cancer, the federal government can and should encourage healthier habits.  If I have to pay the costs for smoking-related diseases, I think it is legitimate to support candidates who want to minimize these expenses and, most importantly, save lives.

As a former busboy, who didn’t really have a choice about where he worked

Lincoln freed the slaves if you hadn’t noticed.  If you didn’t like the conditions you shouldn’t have taken the job.

1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax.
5% of Americans pay 60% of the income tax.
10% of Americans pay 70% of the income tax.

The US is awash in jobs. Unemployment is at record lows. You don’t like cigarette smoke? Work somewhere else.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Seems to me a strong case could be made for banning public alcohol consumption as well. Certainly that would save lives and protect employees from the violence that is associated with alcohol not to mention they would be safer traveling to and from the workplace because there would be fewer drunks on the road. Plus it would encourage people to stop drinking and help prevent the enormous costs of alcoholism.

Seems to me a strong case could be made for banning public alcohol consumption as well.

Many local jurisdictions already have such laws; in mine it’s called an “open container” law.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

You know what we should do is just ban alcohol!  Then everyone would be safe!

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Rob: They would be safe from the ravages of alcohol, at least.  Banning behaviors is not the same as banning a substance.  You should know that.  Never generalize. /humor
Besides, this is local control; thought you liked that.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Well sure I like local control, but beyond local control there is still the issue of what’s appropriate for the government to regulate or stick its fingers in and what isn’t.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Well sure I like local control, but beyond local control there is still the issue of what’s appropriate for the government to regulate or stick its
fingers in and what isn’t.

The majority of the voters in that jurisdiction.  Isn’t that the definition of “local control”?

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

...there is still the issue of what’s appropriate for the government to regulate or stick its fingers in and what isn’t.

So, who decides “what’s appropriate for the (local) govt to regulate or stick its fingers in and what isn’t.”?  Shouldn’t it be the voting citizens of that jurisdiction?  And if it isn’t, who gets to make that decision?

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Robert, I’m not saying that voters don’t have the power to decide the limits of government.  I’m saying that, from my perspective, there are limits and boundaries.  And, obviously, those limits and boundaries aren’t the same as yours.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

I’m saying that, from my perspective, there are
limits and boundaries.

So, who decides what those limits and boundaries are?

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Prohibition. It worked so well before, lets us do it again.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

So, who decides what those limits and boundaries are?

The self-righteous and the do-gooders, apparently.

Wayne Bowen - And by the way, as long as there is federally-funded Medicare and Medicaid, treating people for lung, throat and other forms of tobacco-induced cancer, the federal government can and should encourage healthier habits.

Why stop there? Go after those who are overweight and “encourage” them to exercise.

Do you realize the can of worms you open with that position of yours? It’s not very “sympathetic to libertarianism” to say that the government should “encourage healthier habits”.

The self-righteous and the do-gooders, apparently.

Who decides who the “self-righteous and the do-gooders” are?
Under “local control”, the decision is made by the majority of the voters in that local area.  Duh.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Don’t forget the Ninth amendment: it bans most such Federal legislation, and, by extension of the Fourteenth, State legislation as well.  It’s the amendment that guarantees limited government and individual liberty.

No wonder the judiciary refuses to enforce it.  They prefer authority.

Huckabee has also signed a minimum wage increase in Arkansas, a state-wide smoking ban, and is a big friend to illegal aliens…

He is terrible on immigration - he actually called a good Conservative in the state who didn’t want to give illegals state benefits “un-Christian”.  This from a former minister and fellow Republican?

Also look at his rating as Governor from the Cato institute(or was it Heritage?) on taxes and fiscal issues - he’s the worst in the country, tied with a Democrat…

Don’t be fooled by Huckabee.  I live in Arkansas and do NOT want to have to vote for him against Hillary.  I will as a Conservative, but I will be very unhappy if this nanny-stater fools all these Republicans.

Just look at his record, people.

I agree that to be conservative is to be in favor of the majority of power in the states, not in the federal government.  But of all the conservative issues out there, of all our concerns, your biggest problem with Huckabee is that he wants to stop smoking nationwide?  Really? 

”[G]overnment simply oversteps it’s bounds when it starts dictating smoking policy to individuals.”

That’s a bit libertarian, don’t you think?  According to your logic, how can government—federal or state—dictate ANY prohibition on the smoking of ANY substance (including narcotics)?  Clearly there must be limits to individual autonomy, don’t you think?

It’s one thing for government to have the power to regulate certain products. 

Whether or not it’s a good idea is a whole different animal.

So yes they can regulate clearly harmful addictive products like Meth, but they shouldn’t ban the usage of a product like Tobacco that’s merely an annoyance to other people.

1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax.
5% of Americans pay 60% of the income tax.
10% of Americans pay 70% of the income tax.

Second hand smoking can be so dangerous. My aunt smoked all her life and got to die at 80. Her daughter was working for 5 years in a bar and at age 40 she was told she has lung cancer. When I heard of this I told my 20 year old smoking son I’ll force him into a drug and alcohol rehab center if I see him with a cigar or beer in his hand.

And another spambot slimes its way through.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

George:

Can you have a nuclear missle on your property? Can everyone put a casino on their private property? Can you pile pig manure 10 feet high on your property right next to your neighbor’s house? Can you flash people on the street from inside your OWN house? Need more examples? So are you saying all of these rights should be legal on PRIVATE property??

Hoo ah.

likwid:

All of the extreme examples came from you. We’re talking of smoking ciggs and you bring up nuclear missles. Get real will.

Debate often uses extremes to flesh out the boundaries of a cause. I’d guess you were never on a debate team. One more tip, likwid, even if I didn’t have an opinion on this issue and just came in to read the posts, your “What are you saying,” “Where are you going,” every time you don’t have a concrete answer to a point doesn’t make your side look that good.

because like granholm, he is an asshole from hell. he destroyed michgiigan to where alot of people moved out due to the governors laws they make up, they both need to move to an island and control each other, granholm with her choice to birth rights and believes in abortions and huckaberry in his so call unruled state and take away all benifits and making alot of places go out of business due to his stupid ass no smoking law\s, they both are not my choice for any office, not even a dog catchers assistant.