It seems like our rights are being taken away daily.
2007-01-30 00:09:22 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I agree completely. The food, smoke, weight and PC police have run amok. Problem is, once that pendulum begins to swing it gains momentum and is really hard to stop. Personally, I believe it will have to reach a point here in America where the people stand up and say stop the BS -- enough is enough. We haven't arrived yet........
2007-01-30 00:21:10 · answer #1 · answered by aiminhigh24u2 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Personally, I enjoy the smoke free environments because even at most restaurants the smoking sections are divided by a little wall... it never works. However, I think that there comes a point when government is controlling to many things. Private clubs? Why should people (voters) who don't go to these clubs have any say in whether or not people should be able to smoke in them. I heard recently that an official in Cali is trying to pass some legislation that would make it illegal to spank your children... come on. This is what the liberal agenda stresses... more governmental programs in areas that the government should stay out of. The problem is that the conservatives will fight for less government on some issues, but when it comes to something as convenient of banning smoking from private places they jump on the bandwagon. Where do we draw the line?
2007-01-30 08:31:46 · answer #2 · answered by Kevan D 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No majority vote of the general public should affect legal activities in ANY private organization or non-government business, church or organization. They should be free to have their own ballots covering anything they choose but to allow the general public access to control others is simply tyranny. There is no other way to describe it.
Perhaps in the not too distant future, these same tyrants will see fit to ban indoor carpet due to the health risks (whether they exist or not). At first it will be a general warning, then a partial ban, then a ban except for outdoor carpet then a total ban all with various steps inbetween each.
Even France, where smokers are at least 1/3 of the population has started a complete ban on indoor smoking similar to that in the people's democratic republic of Kalifornia.
Since the government has taken control over privately owned business, the next logical step is to mandate more control over lives of individuals, even more than it has already with social engineering of the past 40 years.
While the non-smokers outnumber the smokers, a small fraction of radical anti-smokers are provoking the war against tobacco, stirring the nation with falsehoods and half-truths. Of course the non-smokers, being more or less disinterested, let these radicals "research" stand as truth. After all, why would they doubt it, it is not a major concern to them (until they consider that if the propaganda is correct and second-hand smoke can actually kill in a matter of seconds, which I've seen published), it comes from the Government (with a capital "G") and we all know government officials wouldn't lie to us (think Clinton/Monica, Bush/Iraq, Nixon/Watergate).
They have managed to do this with smoking much like Hitler did with Jews (""Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it” and "“Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way round, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise.” or "All propaganda has to be popular and has to adapt its spiritual level to the perception of the least intelligent of those towards whom it intends to direct itself."
-Adolf Hitler. It's not just similar, it's duplicate with the only change being instead of Jews, smokers. Hitler felt that Jews were endangering the "purity" of Aryians; anti-smokers feel that smokers are endangering their "purity" while themselves engaging in far more atrocious and dangerous behavior. Just driving an automobile is far, far more polluting and much more dangerous than smoking.
Even charcoal grills produce more toxins and pollutants than tobacco. One must ask why worse things than smoking are completely acceptable.
The current anti-smoking crusade is an example of why representative government is better than democracy. In a democracy, the larger group controls the smaller, even eliminating the rights of the minority by their sheer size. It doesn't make them right, just bigger.
2007-01-30 10:07:44 · answer #3 · answered by Phil #3 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am a smoker.....trying to be an ex smoker but it is harddddddd. I am from Ontario Canada. There has been a smoke free ban her for a number of years and YES our rights are being taken away. It started off with NO smoking in public places restaurants, clubs, and the mall. Then it went to you can not smoke in shelters made by the company you work for..... outdoor smoke huts. Then it went to no smoking in your house with kids under the age of 6 soon to be risen to age 10. Now if you are a foster parent or caregiver ( which we are foster parents) we can not smoke at all because of our clothes smell. If we want to foster kids we have to quit smoking or only take older kids. What will be next? we can't smoke in public and we can't smoke in the privacy of our home..... um HELLO where can we smoke ?? In each others home? I will go to your place and have a smoke you come to mine!
2007-01-30 08:21:54 · answer #4 · answered by c0mplicated_s0ul 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No I dont. A private club is not open to the public and if the members of the club wish to allow smoking then I think they should be able to. Soon "they" will be telling us we cant smoke in our own homes even when we own them!! Private means that its out of the public eye so no one should be concerned about their actions in there.
2007-01-30 09:06:00 · answer #5 · answered by elaeblue 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The way this issue was presented on the ballot I'm sure most didn't know what they were voting for. That said, my favorite saying is "Let me put out my cigarette while I pull up behind this bus". LOL This is just another way to divide and police people. Read 1984. Were there.
2007-01-30 08:25:40 · answer #6 · answered by anya_mystica 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Do I think it should? Of course not. Nor do I think it should apply to any privately-owned business - that's why I voted against it.
2007-01-30 18:43:24 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hmm..not sure.
But, everyone has their oppinions.
2007-01-30 08:17:24 · answer #8 · answered by Phil 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
yes, its all or nothing
2007-01-30 08:18:29 · answer #9 · answered by Trac2100 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋