Topic: Letters to the editor
started by: GEOKARJO
Posted by GEOKARJO on Feb. 19 2004,10:25 am
Wednesdays Letter to the editor by the Freeborn county chapter of the American Cancer Association was pack full of exagerated information the truth is in front of your eyes here on this forum and the the links to the internet.The following letters were submitted to the tribune by the Freeborn County Freedom to Choose Committee
Freeborn County Smoke Free Colition is pushing a countywide ban on smoking in private restaurants and bars. The group argues that a ban is necessary to protect the rights of nonsmokers to be in smoke-free environments. But ban proponents misunderstand the nature of rights in a free society.
I have a right to smoke, and I also have a right not to smoke. But I only have those rights when I’m on my own property. When I voluntarily walk into someone else’s bar or restaurant, my right to smoke or not to smoke is no longer an issue, because I’m on his property, not mine. If a bar owner chooses to allow smoking on his property, that’s his choice. He has every right to allow smoking, just as he has every right to serve apple pie.
A smoking ban is an attack on freedom and an attack on property rights. Proponents of the ban want government to grant them the power to walk onto someone else’s property and have things exactly the way they want them. And that means sending the police after business owners who do not bend to their will. Property owners who refuse to comply will risk fines and jail time.
Even if a majority of Freeborn County Residents favors the ban, that does not change the basic fact that a ban violates the rights of property owners. America’s founding fathers understood the dangers of unfettered majority rule. The U.S. Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, contains numerous direct and indirect provisions for the protection of property rights against democratic majorities. Similarly, the Minnesota Constitution provides that our state and local governments “are established to protect and maintain individual rights.”
Government buildings are different, because they are not private property. Individuals have little choice about whether to enter a government structure. If you’re like me, you do not go voluntarily to the Motor Vehicle Division to get a new license or to the courthouse to fight a traffic ticket.
We could talk about the importance of property rights to the economy. After all, Freeborn County restaurant and bar owners have invested time, money and energy building their businesses, and they made those investments because they expected government would respect their property rights. If society is to remain productive, government cannot arbitrarily take away people’s rights to use their property as they wish. But the real issue is freedom: government cannot be allowed to infringe on the property rights of individuals.
We could also talk about the health of workers exposed to secondhand smoke, and the scientific research that has attempted—in vain—to find a link between environmental tobacco smoke and cancer. But even if environmental tobacco smoke were proven to cause substantial health risks, there would be no cause to regulate it in private establishments. When you walk into a smoky restaurant or bar, you can tell immediately that smoke is present, and you can choose to stay or leave. For comparison, it is infinitely more difficult to detect the presence of salmonella in a chicken sandwich, so a stronger case can be made for regulating the cleanliness of restaurant kitchens.
If you are looking for a smoke-free restaurant, you are in luck. Almost all restaurants nowadays choose to have separate smoking and nonsmoking sections, if they allow smoking at all. That is the product of the free market: Over the last 40 years, as smoking has declined in America, nonsmokers have demanded smoke-free restaurants, and business owners have supplied them.
If you are looking for a smoke-free bar, you will have a more difficult time. But if a bar is too smoky for you, go to another one, or open your own bar and cater to nonsmokers. Either way, you have no right to use government to force an owner to make his private property smoke-free. By imposing such restrictions, the proponents of a smoking ban risk causing more harm to society than secondhand smoke could ever do.
Patricia Hove
Vice Chairman
Freeborn County Freedom To Choose Committee
Smoking or non-smoking is business owner’s choice
We operators of neighborhood bars are against the proposed ordinance that would ban smoking in Bars in Freeborn County.
We would like to see the rights of business people respected equally with the rights of smokers and non-smokers.
This ordinance is not the cure-all that will eliminate smoking in our community. The proposal would only penalize small business owners if it passes. This ordinance is not about smoking, it is about regulating free enterprise, which is not appropriate for a governmental body to restrict. This ordinance is discriminatory to certain businesses and opinionated in its origin.
Our country provides free enterprise. As a governing body, it is the Freeborn County's Commisioners civic obligation to represent the community as a whole, not to play favorites or to pick and choose whose rights are more important. It is inappropriate to protect one person’s rights by infringing on those of others.
Why is there so much interest in the non-smoking issue while there are so many other health issues in the news lately? Have we heard of any similar ordinances in development that target businesses that serve high-cholesterol foods such as steak, fried items or ice cream?
Should this ordinance pass — which we hope it does not — let us pose some more questions for the Council to consider. Are you willing to offer interest-free loans to businesses like ours that will see a tremendous decline in business if the new restrictions are imposed? What financial or other assistance will be offered to businesses that are forced to modify their formats and operations if the ordinance goes into effect? Are you willing to offer job retraining opportunities to any displaced workers or business owners who lose their jobs as a result of the ordinance? Is this ordinance even necessary, or can business owners decide for themselves how to run their establishments? How will this ordinance affect the pollution in our city with everyone forced to smoke outdoors?
Before a rash decision is made with the quick stroke of your pens, the far-reaching effects should be considered. This proposed ordinance could have a negative effect on many businesses as well as the rights of individuals who choose to own and operate them. We have the right to earn a living in this community. Is this the best thing for our entire community, or is it a way of merely catering to a segment of the community.
George Gillespie
Chairman
Freeborn County Freedom To Choose Committee
Posted by minnow on Feb. 19 2004,2:57 pm
Drugs are drugs. You can't pick and choose your drugs. You're the same one calling for life terms for other drug users. We have war on drugs going on in this country and your next!
Posted by minnow fan on Feb. 19 2004,3:51 pm
| Quote (GEOKARJO @ Feb. 19 2004,10:25:am) |
| How will this ordinance affect the pollution in our city with everyone forced to smoke outdoors? |
Boy you are really reaching here GEO, come on.
Posted by minnow fan on Feb. 19 2004,4:06 pm
You know, you guys talk about your rights for this, your rights for that. Where in the bill of rights does it say you have the right to smoke & pollute the air I breathe? Smoking is very harmful and if you don't think second hand smoke is harmful you are delusional. So GEO, you are comfortable with having your young child sit in a smoke filled bar for hours every day, you don't think there would be any health repercussions? Everything you want to do is not a 'right'.
You keep beating the drum of how bad it will hurt businesses, how about a national ban then, once and for all, in all places of businesses? Then would you shut up?
This reminds me of back when the gov't wanted to make seat belt use mandatory, you would of thought the world was coming to an end.
Here you go smokers, here is what your lungs look like:
Posted by GEOKARJO on Feb. 19 2004,4:39 pm
Like I said open up your own business and cater to non smokers leave our business alone.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Feb. 19 2004,4:40 pm
A smoking ban also will ensure the death of norml
Posted by irisheyes on Feb. 19 2004,5:05 pm
Comparing this to making seat belt use mandatory? Your the one thats reaching 'minnow fan'. I don't remember anyone saying they were comfortable with their child sitting in a smoke filled bar for several hours (if you can find it, quote it). I don't like to be around alcohol, so I choose to not go into a bar. You can make the same choice about being around smoking.Only recently you've added more in your post's besides saying "minnow is right", but now that your useing your own opinion's, your logic is even worse than minnow's.
Posted by minnow on Feb. 19 2004,5:26 pm
Speaking of logic..."I don't like to be around alcohol, so I choose to not go into a bar. You can make the same choice about being around smoking."
Huh?
So, if I choose not to be around smoking...then I should choose not to go in bar (place that serves drinks) ...er...huh?
Look, there's no justification for you needing to do your drugs in indoor, public spaces where it affects other non addicts.
Why can't you simply do your drug taking in private? What can possibly be so hard about that.
Posted by irisheyes on Feb. 19 2004,5:42 pm
| Quote (minnow @ Feb. 19 2004,5:26:pm) |
| So, if I choose not to be around smoking...then I should choose not to go in bar (place that serves drinks) ...er...huh? |
I was useing an analogy minnow. Replace the words "bar" & "serves drinks" with, "allows smoking". Capeesh?
Sorry, I didn't realize this was to complicated for you.
Posted by minnow fan on Feb. 19 2004,6:47 pm
If you & I sit in a small 10' x 10' room and I drink a case of beer and you smoke 24 cigarettes, whose health is more adversely effected? The answer is mine or the non-smokers, you polluted my air which I require to breathe. Sure, maybe I am be even more of an ass after drinking 24 beers but health wise you would not be effected by my consumption what so ever. Comparing alcohol consumption to cigarette consumption isn't exactly apples to apples (or carp to carp if you like).GEO and CPU slave have posted on here that they don't think second hand smoke is harmful, if that is true, why would you have a problem with exposing a child to second hand smoke, according to them, there is no correlation between a persons health & their exposure to second hand smoke??? That is BS.
And minnow has a valid point as well. How can the gov't allow drug consumption in indoor, public spaces which pollutes everyone's air, but the same gov't says it is illegal to consume other, natural drugs in the privacy of one's own home?
As if you couldn't tell, I just don't have a lot of respect for smokers rights. If you want to smoke, fine, do it outside (10' from the doorways please) or in your home.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Feb. 19 2004,7:01 pm
I have a problem with exposing my children to smoking. I hope that they choose not to' when they do choose.
Posted by minnow on Feb. 19 2004,7:48 pm
Are you serious! LOL "Quote (minnow @ Feb. 19 2004,5:26:pm)
So, if I choose not to be around smoking...then I should choose not to go in bar (place that serves drinks) ...er...huh?
I was useing an analogy minnow. Replace the words "bar" & "serves drinks" with, "allows smoking". Capeesh?
Sorry, I didn't realize this was to complicated for you.
Back to top
-----------------------------------------------------
---------------------------
OK, I replaced the words. WHERE ARE THERE SMOKING JOINTS, smoking dens, smoking establishments you MORON?
Yer brain dead man...
LOL
You have no right to effect others with your drug taking, You're just rationalizing because you know it's difficult for you to have drink and not wanna pull out a drug delivery device and light up. You have no right to pollute public spaces with your drug of choice, yet at the same time tell others they can't smoke cannabis in their own homes. Can't you see how deeply sick and twisted that stinkin' thinkin' is?
Posted by irisheyes on Feb. 19 2004,9:41 pm
| Quote (minnow fan @ Feb. 19 2004,6:47:pm) |
| whose health is more adversely effected? The answer is mine or the non-smokers, you polluted my air which I require to breathe. And minnow has a valid point as well. |
I wasn't talking about health, I was refering to a person's right to choose what business they go to. If you don't like the smokey bar's, go to a non-smoking restaurant that serves alcohol. In other words, boycott smoking establishments, and use more strictly non-smoking ones. I know their's plenty of seats open in them, because they're business dropped as soon as they stopped allowing smoking!
Minnow has a valid point, huh? He's been focusing on name calling with me lately. When the vapor clears out of his room, maybe he can start doing more...
Posted by MrTarzan on Feb. 19 2004,10:03 pm
Private property rights distinguish our country from most others. As we throttle those rights, we head step by step to a society where a maniac can take control "for our own good". Let people do what they wish in their business, (and homes too minnow) as long as it is between consenting adults, without harming children. You want to have no smoking bars and smoking bars, fine, but a total ban on public smoking, way too far. It is bad enough we have so many unfair laws, let's not make more, (or champion them just to get even minnow, though I think you are just poking people with a stick) because soon we will need permission for everything, or a permit at least. Why is it that we send people to fight for freedom while we regulate that same freedom to oblivion?
Posted by minnow on Feb. 19 2004,10:05 pm
Let me get this straight. Here you are a drug addict, actually addicted to a much more toxic and dangerous substance than cannabis, yet still have the sheer nerve and gall to say idiotic crap like this!? "When the vapor clears out of his room, maybe he can start doing more"I'm sorry sir...but you ARE indeed a first class moron. That's not name calling that's calling a spade a spade.
Nowhere in the constitution does it provide for you to smoke your drugs in indoor spaces where it affects others. Outside..fine. Your own home...fine.
Other folks (non addicted addicts) have a right to have a drink in any bar of their choosing without some loser lighting cancer sticks in the same room. If it's a outdoor bar...fine.
Get da picture?
Posted by minnow fan on Feb. 19 2004,10:20 pm
| Quote (GEOKARJO @ Feb. 19 2004,7:01:pm) |
| I have a problem with exposing my children to smoking. I hope that they choose not to' when they do choose. |
That is strange since you find no tie between smoking and health concerns or perhaps you really know the truth but don't want to get off your high horse to admit it.
Well Marlboro man, maybe you should cough up some black lung cookies and ride that high horse off into the sunset.
-As for your kids making the choice not to smoke, I am sure they will choose not to. Kids these days are much smarter and well informed then kids in your day. Actually, many kids are smarter and more informed then half the people posting on this board.
Posted by minnow fan on Feb. 19 2004,10:31 pm
Private property rights...OK, since you guys love to pick on Jeff Fjelstad, I am wondering...
Jeff owns his bar, it is private property, right?
Why can't Jeff allow prostitution in his bar, within the boundaries of his property? I mean, it is his property right? And in theory, it wouldn't really hurt anyone.
OK, how about this one...
Let's say I own an apartment building. I don't rent to African Americans. It is my property, why can't I do what ever I want? It is my property right?
Why, because there are laws to protect the majority of the people and to attempt to maintain some fairness. An anti smoking ban would protect the majority of the people. And if your arguement against the ban is because 'we already have enough laws or enough freedoms taken away', get real.
Might as well of said 'we don't need women voting, we already have enough people voting'.
Again, where in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution does it ensure a right to smoke?
Posted by ICU812 on Feb. 20 2004,8:13 am
| Quote (minnow fan @ Feb. 19 2004,10:31:pm) |
| Jeff owns his bar, it is private property, right? Why can't Jeff allow prostitution in his bar, within the boundaries of his property? I mean, it is his property right? And in theory, it wouldn't really hurt anyone. |
Is Prostitution legal now?
Posted by Angel on Feb. 20 2004,11:29 am
Nowhere in the constitution does it provide for you to smoke your drugs in indoor spaces where it affects others.The consitution doesn't state I can't either.
Other folks(non addicted addicts) have a right to have a drink in any bar of their choosing without some loser lighting a cancer sticks in the same room.
Thats right Minnow nonsmokers have choices. Smokers have choices. There are restaruants that don't allow smoking at all. That gives people a choice to dine away from smokers allready. Just like people have stated before. These are private business and the government/county should not be able to tell a private busnessman who he can or cannot allow in his/her establishment. Let alone an owner that smokes they can't smoke in their own business.
By the way Minnow we are talking about a legal drug here not your drug of choice which happens to be illegal.
So $hit or get of the pot allready.
Posted by minnow fan on Feb. 20 2004,11:36 am
| Quote (GEOKARJO @ Feb. 19 2004,10:25:am) |
| Almost all restaurants nowadays choose to have separate smoking and nonsmoking sections |
Having a non-smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a pool.
As for the prostitution reference, my point was just because you own a piece of property does not mean you have a right to do whatever you want to with it.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Feb. 20 2004,1:00 pm
ok minnow fan I want you to put your coach on the west wall, your rocking chair on the southeast corner, All you family pictures on the east wall. and your TV in the Northwest corner. and oh my god that chair has to go.
Posted by LisaMarie on Feb. 20 2004,1:15 pm
Irisheyes, I think Minnow has a crush on you Oh, how sweet!!
Posted by GEOKARJO on Feb. 20 2004,2:17 pm
| Quote |
| you own a piece of property does not mean you have a right to do whatever you want to with it. |
As long as it is a legal act ......Since When
Posted by The Monkey on Feb. 20 2004,2:59 pm
Geo,If the ban does happen to pass, can we expect a smoking patio to be built in the back of Eddies? Might be the only thing to save it.
Monk
Posted by minnow fan on Feb. 20 2004,3:00 pm
Yes GEO, that is a true statement. Why isn't prostitution legal? Isn't what 2 consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home their own business? Why is smoking marijuana illegal? If you do so in your own home, why is that the gov't's business? There are plenty of laws that the gov't has which do infringe on civil rights but I don't think a smoking bad would be considered one of them.
When you smoke in public places, that does effect others. Despite what you believe, second hand smoke is harmful.
Sooner or later, you will see this ban happen. It will probably happen at a statewide or national level but it is going to happen someday. I would say you will see it in your lifetime but that is debatable if you smoke, chances are you may not live long enough to see it happen.
About 20-25 years ago, you could smoke anywhere, the workplace, airplanes, etc. Looking back, it is crazy to think that was tolerated. 20 years from now, when smoking is banned in places of business, most people will look back and won't be able to imagine life any other way.
Posted by minnow on Feb. 20 2004,5:53 pm
I think we're really on to something. This exposes a deep sickness in America...an embarrassment. Here we say drugs are the worst thing you can do and prove it with mandatory minimum drug sentences that are exploding the prison industry and at the same time forcing the realease of millions of violent career criminals, while at the same time giving probation to people who use a pipe to crush anothers skull. Of course taking drugs is worse than that...right?
People like Geo would like you to believe that, while at the same time fighting vigorously for the right to do the one of the most addictive and toxic substances, in public no less!
Europe and many civilized countries are not twisted in this way. This country is sick, but that will change...
It'll change because... even though I'm getting old...I can see that many younger people have been listening... and they're not weird and sick like their parents generation. I'm just ahead of my time. Most people will live like me in the future, where I'll be known as the father of coolness.
Posted by minnow fan on Feb. 20 2004,7:15 pm
| Quote (minnow @ Feb. 20 2004,5:53:pm) |
| Here we say drugs are the worst thing you can do and prove it with mandatory minimum drug sentences that are exploding the prison industry and at the same time forcing the realease of millions of violent career criminals, while at the same time giving probation to people who use a pipe to crush anothers skull. |
Couldn't agree with you more.
Posted by irisheyes on Feb. 20 2004,7:15 pm
| Quote (LisaMarie @ Feb. 20 2004,1:15:pm) |
| Irisheyes, I think Minnow has a crush on you Oh, how sweet!! |
LOL, I never thought of that. He's been calling me names several times a day lately! Mostly idiot, not very original... I thought weed helped people's imagination, time to step up to acid so you can think of something better minnow.
Now that you mention it though, reminds me of elementary school when girls would say I was cute, and then run up and kick me.
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Feb. 20 2004,10:20 pm
I talked to a gent the other day from S. Georgia(can't remember the city said it was by the Florida line), and we got on the subject of smoking bans. He said the city he lives in passed a smoking ban in public places and some parks and stuff, and now the council is repealing the ordinance, why? Lost revenue thats why, the city was loosing a bunch of cash everyday, as people went to a nearby city that allowed smoking in BARS, and Resturants. Also a bud of mine from NYC, told me that clubs and bars have private back rooms for regular customers that wish to smoke, despite the ban on smoking, just like the days of prohibition secret rooms are being constructed, and for every one that gets busted, a dozen more takes its place. Most bar owners in NYC are fed up with Gov't intrusion into their lives and their private property, so civil dis-obedience is their course of action right now, basically givin' the finger to Gov't.
As for a nation wide smoking ban, pfffst don't count on it, the Federale's make way too much money to allow that to happen.
Prohibition didn't work back then, and smoking bans won't work now, people will always do what they want, the more Gov't harps on something, the more the people will flip em off.
Remember they ain't the boss of us, we own them.
SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS
Posted by minnow on Feb. 20 2004,10:40 pm
It's not prohibition. It's just saying that drug addicts can't do their drugs, indoors in public spaces where it effects other non drug addicts. That's not prohibition, that's just common courtesy. Prohibition is when you insist kids do 10-20 years in jail for drugs, while fighting for the right to do your drugs in public.
That's prohibition!
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Feb. 20 2004,11:03 pm
Well if you want to get technical about smoking.........Nicotine gets the body to release dophimine (sp?). This is why nicotine is so addictive. So you better ban that too. How dare the body produce such an addictive substance.
As for your idea of public places, what do you consider public?
A bar or a resturant is not a public place, it is A PRIVATE place, owned by someone, not the gov't. A bar and or resturant can refuse service, can have someone removed, can close the store at 9am if they choose.
A public place would be a city park, a courthouse, ect..
A group of people have NO RIGHT, telling a private person on how to run his business, if they don't like it either go somewhere else, or start your own to your liking.
Whats next, a ban on smoking in your own home when the furnace repairman shows up? PFFFST, I think not....
Boston TeaParty II here we come, oooooo weeeeeeeeee...
Posted by MrTarzan on Feb. 20 2004,11:23 pm
I'll help you toss the tea Grinning Dragon. The government should stay out of private business more. It is hypocritical though the way we outlaw weed. I don't like it, but you will never stop it and I see minnows point on the contradiction. Legalize it, tax it, control the quality and prevent stuff sprayed with toxins from getting into people. It is stupid to run a "war" on it. It just fills jails and creates criminals the same as prohibition did. I used to support the war on drugs until I was called upon to help abuse the constitution in a raid on a whole town that even involved the Army. Not the Guard, the Army, and that was clearly over the line. When we get so wrapped up in the "cause" that we throw out civil liberties, it is time to step back and look at where we are going and what we are doing. That week, I decided things are going too far on the part of zealots, and I switched points of view. I don't know if pot is a gateway drug like people say, but I know that people all around the world smoke it, and you will never stop it. It is hypocritical to defend alcohol and tobacco and condemn cannabis. It does not even require as much processing as liquor, so technically it is more natural.Anyway, I know that many will take issue with this, but that is how I feel.
Posted by irisheyes on Feb. 21 2004,2:05 am
I don't see the logic in the "it's natural" arguement. Lot's of things are natural, poison ivy is natural, the venom from a snake is also, lots of things are, but how can that alone make it good or even okay. If you disagree with this statement wait for the misquitos come summertime, or get stung by a group of bees, that should prove my point. Not a good arguement with social policy's, great technique though if your an herbal remedies salesmen.I'll agree with you though regarding the punishment for drug offense's. Their not working, tougher penalties for possession and small-time distribution are worthless. Besides the financial burden of more people sentenced to jail or prison, for longer and longer mandatory terms it isn't fair, or necessary if a fine and treatment will help someone who has a simple drug problem. Focus on catching big shipments coming into the border, and bulldozing the cartel's mansions!
Posted by minnow on Feb. 21 2004,5:26 am
Tell me why you don't deserve a fine and treatment for your addiction. Would that help you?
Posted by irisheyes on Feb. 21 2004,7:01 am
For tobacco, their's no need for mandating (by court order) fine's or treatment unless they're not meeting the age restrictions. It might be better for the person's health in the long run if they quit, but the same can be said of people who eat foods with too much saturated fat or cholesterol. Would you fine or mandate treatment for people who have an unhealthy diet, or who don't excersize?Your drug of choice minnow, affects your behavior a lot more than me smoking tobacco. Your forgeting that although alcohol is legal for those who meet the age requirement, their are laws if the person's behavior becomes SEVERELY impaired (DUI, public drunkeness, etc.). Also if someone is out of control, they can lose their privilege to drink alcohol and be required to have mandatory treatment.
With the illegal drugs (like pot, meth, heroin), do you think its a coincidence that the more severe the impact on behavior the worse the penalty is? Most of the reasons you give for legalizing pot could be used for legalizing crack or heroin, so minnow, should they be legal also?
Posted by cwolff on Feb. 21 2004,8:52 am
Published February 21, 2004 Star Tribune Northern Minnesota Correspondent
DULUTH -- When the Hedins of Duluth recently sat down in a restaurant in Owatonna, 8-year-old Samantha declared: "It smells in here!"
It was smoke -- something the Hedins have rarely whiffed in restaurants since 2001, when Duluth banned smoking in most public buildings.
"My husband and I don't smoke anymore, and we really appreciate not having to breathe it," said Samantha's mother, Debbie Hedin. "My daughter could hardly eat."
Another Duluthian, Gary Koivisto, doesn't like the ban, and he doesn't even smoke. He said it restricts freedom. In his view, restaurant owners should get to choose, based only on what their customers want.
If Duluth's experience is any indication, a similar statewide ban would be loved and hated, would kill some businesses and boost others, and would be challenged and altered repeatedly while everyone slowly gets used to it.
"It's been a huge success for the city," said Greg Gilbert, a City Council cosponsor of the ban. "The vast majority of people love it, and they'd be horrified to go back."
Council Member Neill Atkins, an opponent, said it's hurt a lot of businesses.
"It's been divisive," he said. "It was confusing early on, and a number of mom-and-pop restaurants have gone under partially due to the ban."
Said Zeidan Zeidan, owner of Z's, which caters to a downtown lunch crowd: "We lost 30 percent of our business permanently. And we spent $10,000 for a ventilated room that made people feel like they were stuck in a box."
But restaurants such as the Buena Vista, overlooking Lake Superior, got a boost. "Ten compliments for every complaint," said staff supervisor Jeanna Gagne. "It definitely improved business -- perhaps because our clientele tends to be a little older."
Some smokers fled to neighboring towns without bans. While a statewide ban would put all Minnesotans in the same boat, Duluth still could lose diners to neighboring Superior, Wis. -- especially if the state ban included bars, said Atkins.
"It could be tough on border cities like Duluth and Moorhead," he said. "I don't want to see any more businesses closed and jobs lost."
Voters want it
The ban caused a political tug-of-war that continues to this day. Originally it applied to nearly all indoor public places except bars.
But it permitted sealed-off smoking areas in restaurants, and it allowed smoking after 8 p.m. in the smoking section of restaurants with bars. It also allowed exemptions for restaurants that demonstrated significant losses.
A few of Duluth's 180 restaurants openly defied the ban and got citations. The City Council, in answer to their complaints that the playing field wasn't level, voted to close the loopholes.
But then the local hospitality association collected thousands of signatures, forcing both the ban and its loophole-closing amendments onto the ballot in November 2001.
After a campaign that pitted the American Lung Association and other antismoking groups against the hospitality industry and tobacco giant Philip Morris, a resounding 65 percent of voters chose to keep the ban, and 56 percent voted to keep the amendments that strengthened it.
In a survey sponsored by the Lung Association in January, 63 percent of a sample of city residents again said they like the ban.
But the City Council, responding to continued lobbying by certain restaurants, voted in December to let restaurants allow smoking and sell food off the menu in their bar-area, provided it is sealed off from the rest of the restaurant.
As one of his last acts, outgoing Mayor Gary Doty vetoed the measure. But when the council tried again with new Mayor Herb Bergson, he let it go through.
Gilbert, who voted against weakening the ban, said the amendment "was not a reflection of community attitudes. It was a few elected officials pandering to people who helped elect them."
But voters may get the last word. Gilbert said antismoking groups are working to put a virtually bullet-proof ban on the ballot next fall. It would mandate that every workplace be smoke-free.
Larry Oakes is at loakes@startribune.com.
Posted by MrTarzan on Feb. 21 2004,11:55 am
Glad to see we have our priorites straight like getting a smoking ban, spending more money on debating it, surveying it, arguing it, and it will be challenged in court more than likely. If the ban gets imposed we can all sit in B&B and smell the fish rotting instead.
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Feb. 22 2004,12:09 am
| Quote |
| a raid on a whole town that even involved the Army |
Wouldn't this be a clear violation of the Posse Comitus Act?
| Quote |
| I used to support the war on drugs until I was called upon to help abuse the constitution |
You are not the first I have heard this from, I have chatted via internet, and talked, face to face, with countless people who have said the same thing, and have either transfered or just plain quit, due to conscience objector.
One tactic those jack-booted-thugs use, NO KNOCK RAID just gets my blood boiling. Seems to me it violates the 4th Admendment, and quite a few times they have gotten the wrong house, sometimes ending in a wrongful death.
I can also tell you, about the many men and women who serve our Country, that they take their OATH very seriously, and are quite scared of the times we live in, and if things were to come to head, and civil war was to break, said they would fight along side their fellow man against a tyrannical Gov't. But I have also talked with a few that would shoot their own mothers if given the order...
| Quote |
| Legalize it, tax it, control the quality |
Seems quite a cash cow, that should be tapped.
Alot of your drug laws, believe it or not were passed due to racism(I know I hate the race card). Not so long ago, one could buy drugs and needles thru Sears®
I myself, could careless if joe blow wants to stay home(<---key word here), and smoke himself silly, or shoot junk into his veins until he bleeds, what he does to his body is his to do with. If he dies in the process, then so be it, natural selection has been enacted....
As for a smoking ban on public places (ie.. private property) this says it best....
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of Life, Liberty, or Property, with out due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws.
and to back it up
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain RIGHTS, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the PEOPLE
Posted by minnow on Feb. 22 2004,6:47 am
Nope, drugs are the worst possible crime a person can commit and our mandatory minimum sentencing proves it. We need more jails, more prisons, more law enforcement officials, more automatic assault weapons, more search warrants, more raids, more investigation, more surveillance, bigger sheriff budgets, more prosecutors and we can win this war!
Just don't try to stop my cig smokin' and booze drinkin'...K?
Posted by MrTarzan on Feb. 22 2004,5:28 pm
Hey Grinning_Dragon, most people have never even heard of that act. I am impressed, and yes it was a direct violation, and ruined the good faith I had with the government. It is actually the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which was created in a broken nation shattered by civil war, to finally end the army's control of the south, and to ensure that the military is never used on American Citizens, in particular within the borders of our own nation, in a law enforcement capacity. The only exception is supposed to be civil disturbance such as riot. Several times in the recent past within the borders of the U.S. the military has been used directly against our own citizens, all in the name of the war on drugs, or for other reasons for our own "good". Granted the government has already created paramilitary organizations for many enforcement agencies that I am sure were never intended to exist by the constitution, but the Army and Navy are specifically prohibited from being involved, and they are often and routinely used now. That tells me we are heading the wrong way, and that tyranny will be possible if we don't do something. I know several people that have retired early, or simply left over these objections.
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Feb. 22 2004,10:10 pm
Yeah, I knew what the ACT was and why, just could never remember on how to spell the darn thing.What should be
If the Feds want to have troops attacking things in the US, why not put them on the US/Mexico boarder, and help those guys(police, border patrol, and civies) in the border towns and stem back the flow of illegals, hell shoot em all....
That action IS allowed by the enumeration of the Constitution..
The Bad
What about Ruby Ridge, and Waco, the Military was there, but according to the reports only on as an advisory role, YEAH RIGHT. That action I believe is a slippery slope, Ruby Ridge was a fiasco that should have never happened.
Sometimes neccesary
TimelineYou remember when the Guard was activated during the Viet Nam War, on those hippie peaceniks at Kent State?
Posted by MrTarzan on Feb. 23 2004,7:37 am
Remember that the Guard is excluded from the Posse Comitatus. They are allowed to be used in law enforcement because they are supposed to be from the community and controlled by the state. By being from the community it should limit their aggression and keep abuses to a minimum. A soldier from Georgia may not like Minnesotans, and vice versa, and therefore my be temped to use excessive force. Now what they were not intended to be was a standing Army sent overseas on a regular basis to augment an Army that has been shrunk to such a small size and spread so thin that they cannot do their job without the Guard. If you talk to most regular Army folks, you will find that they have no problem with the idea of patrolling the borders, as a matter of fact it would be very good training. They would be having an easier time closing the borders of Iraq and Afghanistan if they practiced it year round here. It is authorized by the act for them to protect us from infiltrators from other nations and for them to defend our borders. We have Guardsman from this area in Egypt, Kosovo, Iraq and now Afghanistan, and not just for a fight as in the past, but to help with nation building and security for as long as two years! I know that most of them did not sign on for that, but they are proud enough to go without much complaint. God Bless them.Meanwhile they are flooding over our borders at the highest rate ever, and still we argue over smoking in restaurants and other silly crap that should be such a low priority. I don't get it. Why change it now? Have we had a huge spike in local smoking problems? I mean if people are blowing smoke in peoples faces more this year call the cops, they have enough firepower now, and there are enough deputies now to grab these hooligans and get them if they resist
Posted by jimhanson on Feb. 23 2004,9:55 am
"Defend the borders and deliver the mail" the role of government as advocated by minimalist government advocates pre-WW I. I would submit that the government hasn't done a real good job of even these basic functions! Using the Army to defend the border certainly would be constitutional. Does anybody know what happened to the suits by the states of Arizona and California against the U.S. government for failure to defend the borders--causing huge costs for local law enforcement to do so?
Posted by MrTarzan on Feb. 23 2004,7:08 pm
I do not know. I know that FOX news was going to have a special on the border problem Sunday, but I was out of town and missed it. Anyone see it? I think the military should be on the border, it is ridiculous the way it is now. I lived in El Paso for 2 years and I will tell you that they cross the river all along in broad daylight. It is a joke.
Posted by minnow on Feb. 23 2004,7:26 pm
The military on the border?!I mean Canada needs to keep us out, we don't need to keep them from coming here. Are you mad?
Posted by Montyman on Feb. 23 2004,8:07 pm
Minnow, you are such a constructive thinker.
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Feb. 23 2004,10:15 pm
You could argue that the Guard is Federal, as they are paid with by tax dollars, and receive equip.,supplies from the Federal level. Yes their MOS is a state guard, to be used by the govenor, but can also be called into active duty as the Commander in Chief sees fit.Also you brought up the fact that the military is spread thin.
Kinda wierd that a Republican pres will build up a military, only to have a Democrat pres, cut way below rediness levels, why is that?
The other reason is the fact that the base pay grade now days is not enough, turning back possible good soldiers to look into fields in the private sector that pay high dollar amounts.
Pay should be re-examined and adjusted accordingly.
Another thing that cuts down the military numbers, is the fact that many do not RE-UP, as they have been circle-jerked one to many times. I can tell you numerous times my cousin never got a paycheck in months while stationed in Ramstein. Come to find out that welfare recipients get paid before most of our military personnel. To me that is BS, welfare recipients should get the bottom of cash barrel....
Posted by minnow on Feb. 23 2004,11:19 pm
What does that even mean...are you drunk? Corporate welfare like the 10's of millions that went to Enron will always come before stuff like paying peon soldiers in time. We son't care if they get paid as long as big daddy in suit gets paid first...and big. First and big pay policy for fat cats is da way of da world. I've got money now and I'll fight anyone who even wants a dime. Plus I'll still collect my gubment grants to boot! I ain't no sucka...I'm da minner.
Posted by jimhanson on Feb. 24 2004,10:28 am
Dragon--good point about the State/Federal relationship of the Guard. Normally, the Guard is paid from State money, but when called up for Federal duty, as in overseas deployment, they are paid with Federal money. In the case of the Minnesota Air National Guard, there are no less than 6 agencies paying for the troops. Too bad the troops get so little.One of the biggest problems in recruitment is that with the tendency towards long-term deployment lately, the Guard troops have a real financial problem. Activate a guy that has been making say $50,000 a year, and pay him a fraction of that--how does his family live? They can't "downsize"--how do they make house payments?
I know it is hard to sympathize with someone that makes a good salary, but I know several airline pilots that also fly for the Guard. As an airline pilot, they make over $100,000 per year. As a Guard pilot on year-long deployment, they make $35,000 per year--but their house payments go on. The same thing goes for technical specialists and engineers--even worse for medical professionals.
It is this economic sacrifice--as much as the danger or being away from the family, that is causing the mass exodus from the Guard and Reserve. There is such a shortage that I know of several who have put in their resignation papers, and been "frozen" in position--unable to get out without affecting their retirement that they have built up.
This will have a "snowball" effect--the Guard won't have trained technical positions, and won't be able to augment the all-volunteer army. In the next two years, we're going to have to face up to the facts--pay our troops better, or accept the fact that we can't deploy as many people around the world as we have now.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Feb. 24 2004,10:47 am
Minnow with your limited education I am amazed you can even turn on that puter.
Posted by cwolff on Feb. 24 2004,1:42 pm
I have a friend that put in his papers to retire before 9/11/2001, and still is not allowed to retire from the national guard. He served 110 days in Afganistan and is going to Iraq soon. His income is $130,000.00, but a lot less on active duty.
Posted by minnow on Feb. 24 2004,3:48 pm
So? I didn't see you voicing your opposition when the rubber met the road. As I recall, I was the only one.Tough turkey, you get what you deserve. I don't care in the slightest how much $ it cost him. I gots mine and I come first in this world. Hell, I ain't no dummy...I'm da minner..
Posted by MrTarzan on Feb. 24 2004,6:46 pm
I understand the point about the federal funding, but the Posse Comitatus directly excludes the National Guard and Coast Guard by name. They are not included in the act. Whether or not they should be is a different debate.Yes I know that you want to say we are all crazy minnow, oh well. I don't care if we put the Military on the Canadian border too just to be fair. I don't think it is a necessary, but fine. I just want a nation secure from invaders. Whether they are economic invaders, or military. Illegals are not screened for past crimes or diseases, and they should not be pouring in like they are. Legal immigrants are screened, and I think we have enough room for plenty as long as we stop the illegal flood.
The military is spread way to thin. The guard is being abused because we refuse to make an Army the right size. Yeah, we all know lot's of people being economically hurt by deployment I would guess. Lot's more will be before this is over. Two of my kids just got back safe, and I pray they don't have to go again.
I been trying to retire out of the reserves myself for a couple years now, hoping I still duck the deployment bullet. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.
jimhanson, did you say you had a shrimp boat once upon a time? You are'nt Forest Gump are you, I heard he moved up north
Posted by minnow on Feb. 24 2004,7:16 pm
Listen to the diarrhea driveling out of your mouth...! "I don't care if we put the Military on the Canadian border too just to be fair."---->Excuse me?...just to be fair! Oh, I see, it's really those dirty Mexicans you want to target but it just wouldn't look right unless we put the military on the Canadian border as well! LOL...
Oh my God, YeR insane man."I don't think it is a necessary, but fine."---->See?
" I just want a nation secure from invaders. "_---->invaders? Are they from some other planet or something?
"Whether they are economic invaders, or military."---->Oh I see, you're worried that Hose cleans toilets at McDonalds and it could have been your job. "Illegals are not screened for past crimes or diseases, and they should not be pouring in like they are. ---->Oh, I see, it's the health issue that REALLY bothers you...LOL Legal immigrants are screened, and I think we have enough room for plenty as long as we stop the illegal flood.-----> Oh, I see, you are really pro immigration, just as long as they are screened for diseases like cattle and rodents.Look, someone needs to set you down and force you to face reality. You and your old school thinking are on the way out...going the way of the dinosaur. Buh-bye...
Posted by MrTarzan on Feb. 24 2004,8:32 pm
Oh you are funny sometimes minnow, you should write for SNL. Actually I have lots of Mexicans in my family, and unlike you I lived and went to school there too. I don't see Canadians pouring across the border, just Mexicans, Nicaraguans, El Salvadorians, Guatemalans, etc. But you probably think they are all the same with your Yankee Gringo brain. The problem is not with the people coming across in search of a better life, I would cross also to get away from corruption and poverty. Actually the vicitmization of them by smugglers (coyotes) and businessmen that exploit them by working them overtime without pay, knowing they can't complain, forcing wages down for everyone, and the toilet scubbing job that they take from the disadvantaged from this country that don't have the capacity do more skilled labor does concern me. For the sake of the illegals themselves we need to control it. They are murdered by the hundreds and raped by the thousands getting here. If they knew the chance was small to make it, and we made legal immigration more accessable, they would not try. Why spend hundreds to get here if the legal way cost half and did'nt take forever? Actually the military on the Canadian border is silly, but your earlier posting made me address that to keep dolts like you happy, because we could do that too just to keep it fair. I don't see an economic disaster occurring North of the border in Canada followed by millions of economic refugees, just South in Mexico and Central America. So we should address the problem, not make up new ones to be politically correct. Yeah, believe it or not I am for immigration, but not lawless immigration. That's crazy and old school, thinking we can't stop it, and that it helps the economy. THATS insane. Of course, now that you make sooooo much money, I am sure you would hate losing the stream of people that you can exploit to clean your toilet, pool and do your lawn, because "yer da minner".
Posted by cpu_slave on Feb. 26 2004,9:35 am
| Quote |
| I didn't see you voicing your opposition when the rubber met the road. As I recall, I was the only one. |
Really? Perhaps you can go back and read through the threads on this board and see the lack of your own opposition. I’m not saying that you weren’t opposed, just that I really did not see you really voice it too often.
Now it’s time to put this topic back on track, and that is the ‘smoking ban’ for those of you with memory trouble. I see there have been a few posts since I last checked in so let’s get started.
| Quote |
| Where in the bill of rights does it say you have the right to smoke & pollute the air I breathe? |
Where in the bill of rights does it specifically say that I don’t have that right? Could you point that part out because after reading it several times I still can not seem to locate it.
| Quote |
| if you don't think second hand smoke is harmful you are delusional. |
As proven by the Congressional Research Service and many, many others, it's quite possible--and VERY likely--that NO people die from Second Hand Smoke. Ever! I challenge you to produce one death certificate that states ‘second hand smoking’ as the cause of death.
| Quote |
| how about a national ban then, once and for all, in all places of businesses? Then would you shut up? |
It seems that, like most safty-nazis who want the government to change everyone (else's) lives, a lot of things bother you. Get over it. This country was founded on the concepts of freedom and personal responsibility. There are plenty of countries that weren't founded on those principles, why would you want to change this country when there are plenty that would cater to your desires?
| Quote |
| Look, there's no justification for you needing to do your drugs in indoor, public spaces where it affects other non addicts. |
If you don't like smoke and think that it's not healthy or enjoyable, don't go to places that allow smoking. In that same regard, I won't go to a non-smoking establishment and bitch that I can't smoke there. Besides, it really depends on what the restaurant or bar owner has to say about it. Rights are never in conflict with a valid definition of rights. As a matter of fact, you really don't have a “right” to sit in a restaurant or bar at all. That is the owners decision.
| Quote |
| If you & I sit in a small 10' x 10' room and I drink a case of beer and you smoke 24 cigarettes, whose health is more adversely effected? |
The difference between active and passive cigarette smoke is about 100,000 times dilution. An < interesting chart >by an independent toxicologist proves that the number of cigarettes required to reach the accepted level of toxins published by EPA and OSHA runs into the thousands, and in some cases, the millions,- in a sealed 20' room with a 9' ceiling! I am, however, tired of this typical argument brought about by the pro-ban & anti-freedom squad:
Pro-Ban-Brigade: Second Hand Smoke will kill you!
Rational Person: You have no evidence to prove your claim.
Pro-Ban-Brigade: Prove it won't!
Why can’t they do their own work and try to prove their own claims, rather than having the rest of us trying to defend freedom? Let’s just change a couple of words to see how ridicules this type of argument really is:
Pro-Ban-Brigade: Tap Water will kill you!
Rational Person: You have no evidence to prove your claim.
Pro-Ban-Brigade: Prove it won't!
| Quote |
| according to them, there is no correlation between a persons health & their exposure to second hand smoke??? That is BS. |
For the rabid and the gullible, yes, there certainly are plenty of press releases stating such "official decisions." But for anyone who knows science...or research...or statistics...you won't be able to name three out of the hundreds that prove any such thing. Makes one wonder WHY--if there IS an elephant in the refrigerator, all the hundreds of "studies" and millions of dollars haven't been able to find her footprints in the Jello. The problem with most of the studies that I've seen, including the EPA study, is that the raw numbers are easily manipulated to show whatever the sponsors of the study want them to show.
| Quote |
| Nowhere in the constitution does it provide for you to smoke your drugs in indoor spaces where it affects others. |
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness? Seriously, where the hell does it say that your ‘rights’ supersede any one else’s? If you dislike smoking, great. Own it. Don't use specious science and a lobby backed by self important morons to try and have your opinion passed into law. Because honestly, if you can do it, so can someone else, and maybe something you do annoys me enough to have you and your family deported.
| Quote |
| There are plenty of laws that the gov't has which do infringe on civil rights but I don't think a smoking bad would be considered one of them. |
What we have here are a couple of hypocrites, who piss and moan about their drug of choice (and activities of choice) being illegal yet at the same time are crying from the rooftops to have a currently legal product banned. Look, the American public has been asleep when it has come to civil liberties and it is about time they wake up before there are none left! Personally, I believe drugs and prostitution should both be legal, as well as a whole host of other things I find wrong with the ‘rules’ placed upon me in this ‘free’ society. This country was founded on BOTH freedom and personal responsibility, but you two and the other idiots who like to parrot what they have been told to be the ‘truth’ (never mind actually looking at something as trivial as ‘facts’) and would rather have freedom stripped away and let the government baby-sit you. As I said before, if you want a government to take care of everything for you, even tell you what to do, there are several nations out there set up to cater to your beliefs. Let’s see, Cuba, North Korea, Libya, Sudan, Syria, Zimbabwe, China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Algeria, etc. Hell, I’ll even pitch in for the plane ticket so you can feel safer in a place where the countries leaders have seen fit to take away your ‘rights’ in the name of ‘safety’.
I find religion much more offensive than smoking and I don't hear anybody calling to have that banned in public places!
Posted by MrTarzan on Feb. 26 2004,10:35 pm
Wow, passionate, clear, concise, intellectually challenging argument cpu_slave. Kudos. However, you know someone who shall remain nameless will soon post to you "dat yer a idiot". So this should be fun to watch unfold as a debate.
Posted by jimhanson on Feb. 28 2004,3:39 pm
| Quote |
| jimhanson, did you say you had a shrimp boat once upon a time? You are'nt Forest Gump are you, I heard he moved up north |
"I'm just a simple person" (d'oh!--gave myself away!)
Posted by minnow fan on Feb. 28 2004,4:36 pm
So, driving around today, I am at a stoplight behind some gal. She finishes her cigarette & guess what she does? Flings it right out her window. I just love how smokers not only think it is their right to pollute the air the rest of us breath but their right to pollute the environment by throwing their refuse onto the ground as they see fit. And don't try & give me this BS that 'that is only a small select group of smokers', we all see it, everywhere, everyday.
But then again, who ever said smokers were a considerate bunch?
Posted by minnow fan on Feb. 28 2004,4:40 pm
| Quote (cpu_slave @ Feb. 26 2004,9:35:am) |
| I find religion much more offensive than smoking and I don't hear anybody calling to have that banned in public places! |
cpu_crackpot
How about the 10 commandments being removed from courthouses everywhere & the no prayer in school crusade for starters? I would say the gov't is doing everything it can to make sure there is no religion in public places.
Posted by irisheyes on Feb. 28 2004,5:34 pm
| Quote (minnow fan @ Feb. 28 2004,4:36:pm) |
| She finishes her cigarette & guess what she does? Flings it right out her window. |
Oh no, she threw her cigarette out the window!
(very sarcastic)The majority of time I'm smoking, I'm doing it in the car, I throw them out all the time. Several times when I've been pulled over the cop told me to throw the cig out on the ground, so it doesn't seem they're worried about it either. The only time I don't is if its summertime and its really hot and dry out, then I'll make sure to not throw it in an area of grass or brush, I think thats pretty considerate of me, "only you can prevent forest fires".
| Quote |
| But then again, who ever said smokers were a considerate bunch? |
I've seen a lot of people throw their gum wrappers on the ground, does that mean that people that chew gum are inconsiderate also?
Posted by GEOKARJO on Feb. 28 2004,5:41 pm
We will let you pray to whichever god you choose at Eddie's Bar but if you feel the need to pray to the porceline one in the back please stand close.
Posted by minnow fan on Feb. 28 2004,9:40 pm
The cop probably would rather have you litter then take the chance of you reaching in to put out your smoke & pulling out a piece from under the seat. You must get pulled over a lot huh?And nice try with the gum wrapper reference but that is a stretch. So it's OK that you throw a burning object full of carcinogens on the ground because someone else threw a piece of paper in the ground? Guess that is Albert Lea logic and it shows you why Albert lea is the toilet it is, people like you could care less about throwing your waste onto the ground.
Posted by minnow on Feb. 28 2004,10:07 pm
"I've seen a lot of people throw their gum wrappers on the ground, does that mean that people that chew gum are inconsiderate also?"Of course it does you simpleton!
This means your a litterer AND a drug addict. ...and what's worse than that is you're a worthless hypocrite...LOL
Posted by irisheyes on Feb. 28 2004,10:14 pm
| Quote (minnow fan @ Feb. 28 2004,9:40:pm) |
| Guess that is Albert Lea logic and it shows you why Albert lea is the toilet it is, people like you could care less about throwing your waste onto the ground. |
This might shock you, but people outside of Albert Lea throw their cigarettes on the ground, even in other states, and other countries. The only place I know of where they don't is in Singapore, I'd rather see cig butts on the ground then live someplace like that.
Posted by cpu_slave on Mar. 01 2004,3:09 pm
| Quote |
| cpu_crackpot How about the 10 commandments being removed from courthouses everywhere & the no prayer in school crusade for starters? I would say the gov't is doing everything it can to make sure there is no religion in public places. |
OOO- nice play on my screen name, think of that all by yourself? Should I start addressing you as minnow’s ass since that’s about where everything you two talk about originates?
Ok, let’s follow your logic and say that the government is “doing everything it can to make sure there is no religion in public places”. Since bars and restaurants are about as public as local churches, I want religion banned in them as well. Following the anti-smoker logic, even if I never actually even go to every church, I still have a right to go to any of them and yet not be offended by religion, so start banning!
So again for the mentally challenged, if smoking is banned I want religion banned in the exact same way! In my opinion, one is really about as harmful as the other.
Posted by cwolff on Mar. 02 2004,2:49 pm
Cpu_slave, obviously you know nothing about secularism or the separation of church and state!
Posted by irisheyes on Mar. 02 2004,4:21 pm
| Quote (cwolff @ Mar. 02 2004,2:49:pm) |
| Cpu_slave, obviously you know nothing about secularism or the separation of church and state! |
Why don't you explain it to us, cwolff? After reading all articles and amendments to the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, I don't see the sentence "seperation of church and state" anywhere. If I'm missing something, point out to me where its from, if you can, I'll start a new thread for it.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Mar. 02 2004,4:37 pm
Anytime religion is mentioned within the confines of government today people cry, "Separation of Church and State". Many people think this statement appears in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution and therefore must be strictly enforced. However, the words: "separation", "church", and "state" do not even appear in the first amendment. The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The statement about a wall of separation between church and state was made in a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. The congregation heard a widespread rumor that the Congregationalists, another denomination, were to become the national religion. This was very alarming to people who knew about religious persecution in England by the state established church. Jefferson made it clear in his letter to the Danbury Congregation that the separation was to be that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God. Jefferson's letter from which the phrase "separation of church and state" was taken affirmed first amendment rights. Jefferson wrote: I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. (1)
The reason Jefferson choose the expression "separation of church and state" was because he was addressing a Baptist congregation; a denomination of which he was not a member. Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the state would make dictates to the church. He was establishing common ground with the Baptists by borrowing the words of Roger Williams, one of the Baptist's own prominent preachers. Williams had said:
When they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day. And that there fore if He will eer please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world...(2)
The "wall" was understood as one-directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state. The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values.
The American people knew what would happen if the State established the Church like in England. Even though it was not recent history to them, they knew that England went so far as forbidding worship in private homes and sponsoring all church activities and keeping people under strict dictates. They were forced to go to the state established church and do things that were contrary to their conscience. No other churches were allowed, and mandatory attendance of the established church was compelled under the Conventicle Act of 1665. Failure to comply would result in imprisonment and torture. The people did not want freedom from religion, but freedom of religion. The only real reason to separate the church from the state would be to instill a new morality and establish a new system of beliefs. Our founding fathers were God-fearing men who understood that for a country to stand it must have a solid foundation; the Bible was the source of this foundation. They believed that God's ways were much higher than Man's ways and held firmly that the Bible was the absolute standard of truth and used the Bible as a source to form our government.
There is no such thing as a pluralistic society. There will always be one dominant view, otherwise it will be in transition from one belief system to another. Therefore, to say Biblical principles should not be allowed in government and school is to either be ignorant of the historic intent of the founding fathers, or blatantly bigoted against Christianity.
Each form of government has a guiding principle: monarchy in which the guiding principle is honor; aristocracy in which the guiding principle is moderation; republican democracy in which the guiding principle is virtue; despotism in which the guiding principle is fear. Without people of the United States upholding good moral conduct, society soon degenerates into a corrupt system where people misuse the authority of government to obtain what they want at the expense of others. The U.S. Constitution is the form of our government, but the power is in the virtue of the people. The virtue desired of the people is shown in the Bible. This is why Biblical morality was taught in public schools until the early 1960's. Government officials were required to declare their belief in God even to be allowed to hold a public office until a case in the U.S. Supreme Court called Torcaso v. Watkins (Oct. 1960). God was seen as the author of natural law and morality. If one did not believe in God one could not operate from a proper moral base. And by not having a foundation from which to work, one would destroy the community. The two primary places where morality is taught are the family and the church. The church was allowed to influence the government in righteousness an d justice so that virtue would be upheld. Not allowing the church to influence the state is detrimental to the country and destroys our foundation of righteousness and justice. It is absolutely necessary for the church to influence the state in virtue because without virtue our government will crumble -- the representatives will look after their own good instead of the country's.
Government was never meant to be our master as in a ruthless monarchy or dictatorship. Instead, it was to be our servant. The founding fathers believed that the people have full power to govern themselves and that people chose to give up some of their rights for the general good and the protection of rights. Each person should be self-governed and this is why virtue is so important. Government was meant to serve the people by protecting their liberty and rights, not serve by an enormous amount of social programs. The authors of the Constitution wanted the government to have as little power as possible so that if authority was misused it would not cause as much damage. Yet they wanted government to have enough authority to protect the rights of the people. The worldview at the time of the founding of our government was a view held by the Bible: that Man's heart is corrupt and if the opportunity to advance oneself at the expense of another arose, more often than not, we would choose to do so. They firmly believed this and that's why an enormous effort to set up checks and balances took place. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. They wanted to make certain that no man could take away rights given by God. They also did not set up the government as a true democracy, because they believed, as mentioned earlier, Man tends towards wickedness. Just because the majority wants something does not mean that it should be granted, because the majority could easily err. Government was not to be run by whatever the majority wanted but instead by principle, specifically the principles of the Bible.
Our U.S. Constitution was founded on Biblical principles and it was the intention of the authors for this to be a Christian nation. The Constitution had 55 people work upon it, of which 52 were evangelical Christians.(3) We can go back in history and look at what the founding fathers wrote to know where they were getting their ideas. This is exactly what two professors did. Donald Lutz and Charles Hyneman reviewed an estimated 15,000 items with explicit political content printed between 1760 and 1805 and from these items they identified 3,154 references to other sources. The source they most often quoted was the Bible, accounting for 34% of all citations. Sixty percent of all quotes came from men who used the Bible to form their conclusions. That means that 94% of all quotes by the founding fathers were based on the Bible. The founding fathers took ideas from the Bible and incorporated them into our government. If it was their intention to separate the state and church they would never have taken principles from the Bible and put them into our government. An example of an idea taken from the Bible and then incorporated into our government is found in Isaiah 33:22 which says, "For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king..." The founding fathers took this scripture and made three major branches in our government: judicial, legislative, and executive. As mentioned earlier, the founding fathers strongly believed that Man was by nature corrupt and therefore it was necessary to separate the powers of the government. For instance, the President has the power to execute laws but not make them, and Congress has the power to make laws but not to judge the people. The simple principle of checks and balances came from the Bible to protect people from tyranny. The President of the United States is free to influence Congress, although he can not exercise authority over it because they are separated. Since this is true, why should the church not be allowed to influence the state? People have read too much into the phrase "separation of church and state", which is to be a separation of civil authority from ecclesiastical authority, not moral values. Congress has passed laws that it is illegal to murder and steal, which is the legislation of morality. These standards of morality are found in the Bible. Should we remove them from law because the church should be separated from the state?
Our founding fathers who formed the government also formed the educational system of the day. John Witherspoon did not attend the Constitutional Convention although he was President of New Jersey College in 1768 (known as Princeton since 1896) and a signer of the Declaration of Independence. His influence on the Constitution was far ranging in that he taught nine of fifty-five original delegates. He fought firmly for religious freedom and said, "God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable and that unjust attempts to destroy the one may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both."(4)
In October 1961 the Supreme Court of the United States removed prayer from schools in a case called Engel v. Vitale. The case said that because the U.S. Constitution prohibits any law respecting an establishment of religion officials of public schools may not compose public prayer even if the prayer is denominationally neutral, and that pupils may choose to remain silent or be excused while the prayer is being recited. For 185 years prayer was allowed in public and the Constitutional Convention itself was opened with prayer. If the founding fathers didn't want prayer in government why did they pray publicly in official meetings? It is sometimes said that it is permissible to pray in school as long as it is silent. Although, "In Omaha, Nebraska, 10-year old James Gierke was prohibited from reading his Bible silently during free time... the boy was forbidden by his teacher to open his Bible at school and was told doing so was against the law."(4) The U.S. Supreme Court with no precedent in any court history said prayer will be removed from school. Yet the Supreme Court in January, 1844 in a case named Vidal v. Girard's Executors, a school was to be built in which no ecclesiastic, missionary, or minister of any sect whatsoever was to be allowed to even step on the property of the school. They argued over whether a layman could teach or not, but they agreed that, "...there is an obligation to teach what the Bible alone can teach, viz. a pure system of morality." This has been the precedent throughout 185 years. Although this case is from 1844, it illustrates the point. The prayer in question was not even lengthy or denominationally geared. It was this: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country." What price have we paid by removing this simple acknowledgment of God's protecting hand in our lives? Birth rates for unwed girls from 15-19; sexually transmitted diseases among 10-14 year olds; pre-marital sex increased; violent crime; adolescent homicide have all gone up considerably from 1961 to the 1990's -- even after taking into account population growth. The Bible, before 1961, was used extensively in curriculum. After the Bible was removed, scholastic aptitude test scores dropped considerably.
There is no such thing as a pluralistic society; there will always be one dominant view. Someone's morality is going to be taught -- but whose? Secular Humanism is a religion that teaches that through Man's ability we will reach universal peace and unity and make heaven on earth. They promote a way of life that systematically excludes God and all religion in the traditional sense. That Man is the highest point to which nature has evolved, and he can rely on only himself and that the universe was not created, but instead is self-existing. They believe that Man has the potential to be good in and of himself. All of this of course is in direct conflict with not only the teachings of the Bible but even the lessons of history. In June 1961 in a case called Torcaso v. Watkins, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others." The Supreme Court declared Secular Humanism to be a religion. The American Humanist Association certifies counselors who enjoy the same legal status as ordained ministers. Since the Supreme Court has said that Secular Humanism is a religion, why is it being allowed to be taught in schools? The removal of public prayer of those who wish to participate is, in effect, establishing the religion of Humanism over Christianity. This is exactly what our founding fathers tried to stop from happening with the first amendment.
Posted by cpu_slave on Mar. 02 2004,5:03 pm
| Quote (cwolff @ Mar. 02 2004,2:49:pm) |
| Cpu_slave, obviously you know nothing about secularism or the separation of church and state! |
and you know considerably less about sarcasm... or civil liberties...
Posted by irisheyes on Mar. 03 2004,12:44 am
Geo, you took all the arguements I was gonna use. We must be reading the same book about the subject.
Posted by cpu_slave on Mar. 03 2004,12:40 pm
George- I finally got through your post on separation of church and state and all I could think was cough*bullsh!t*cough! First off, your post made the claim that the three branches of government were taken directly from the bible and continued on from there. If I remember correctly, wasn’t the government built around historic accounts of Roman government? With all the hints of Roman and Greek civilization within our government, I have a tendency to believe this over the ‘government by bible’ that your post suggests.
Next, this line:
| Quote |
| The "wall" was understood as one-directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state. The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values. |
Wrong. The “wall” was not only put in place to protect the church from the state, but to protect the state from the church as well. The reason is even explained itself in your post, about worries over a state-sponsored church such as was the case in England. Sure, the country may have been founded by Christians, but they also had the foresight to see that if their religion can be persecuted (such as the case in England) then so could any others, thus protecting ANY religious practice, not just Catholicism.
| Quote |
| There is no such thing as a pluralistic society. There will always be one dominant view, otherwise it will be in transition from one belief system to another. Therefore, to say Biblical principles should not be allowed in government and school is to either be ignorant of the historic intent of the founding fathers, or blatantly bigoted against Christianity. |
Yet there are protections in the constitution protecting the minorities from the majorities if it infringes on basic rights, and freedom of religion is one of these rights. Besides, biblical principles seen in government could also be construed as simple common sense, like the line:
| Quote |
| Congress has passed laws that it is illegal to murder and steal, which is the legislation of morality. These standards of morality are found in the Bible. |
Is the bible suddenly the only place that murder and theft are frowned upon? Hardly, and using this same logic I would have an easy time making the case that the US was founded on morals found in tales by the Brothers Grimm. That goes for the bad logic stating that since the founding fathers were Christian, that they wanted a Christian nation. They were also slave owners, so it also could be argued using that logic that the founding fathers also wanted this to be a slave owning nation. Isn’t this bad logic argument fun?
| Quote |
| If one did not believe in God one could not operate from a proper moral base. And by not having a foundation from which to work, one would destroy the community. |
And this one line in that whole post shows the argument as the pro-bible propaganda it is. To say that lack of belief in god equates lack of morals is simply asinine.
| Quote |
| What price have we paid by removing this simple acknowledgment of God's protecting hand in our lives? Birth rates for unwed girls from 15-19; sexually transmitted diseases among 10-14 year olds; pre-marital sex increased; violent crime; adolescent homicide have all gone up considerably from 1961 to the 1990's -- even after taking into account population growth. The Bible, before 1961, was used extensively in curriculum. After the Bible was removed, scholastic aptitude test scores dropped considerably. |
So now we are saying that all this has a direct link to the lack of bibles and prayer in schools? Again, using that logic, I could argue that since the bible was removed that life expectancy has increased, infant mortality rates are down, standard of living has rose, technology has advanced, and so on and so on. Idiotic logic strikes again!
All of this and not one mention of the topic of this thread, smoking bans, unless we now trying to say that smoking and civil liberties are now sins and that gods will is a smoking ban.
Wake up, there are several religions out there all with the same basic messages, be good to and respect one another. Trying to promote one religion over another and trying to justify it through bad logic arguments is just nonsense. Didn't the bible at least teach people to be tolerant of others differences, including religious belief? Sadly, most modern day 'christians' are hypocrites, and man do I hate hypocrites.
Posted by minnow fan on Mar. 03 2004,12:59 pm
| Quote (cpu_slave @ Mar. 03 2004,12:40:pm) |
| Sadly, most modern day 'christians' are hypocrites, and man do I hate hypocrites. |
So true, too bad they can't be as perfect as you.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Mar. 03 2004,2:30 pm
You have to remember the founding fathers came here with the King James Edition of the Bible.
Posted by cpu_slave on Mar. 03 2004,3:11 pm
| Quote (minnow fan @ Mar. 03 2004,12:59:pm) | ||
So true, too bad they can't be as perfect as you. |
Where did I suggest that I was a christian or for that matter that I considered myself 'perfect'? Still, glad you at least agree with the part you quoted there minnow fan.
George, I thought the founding fathers were born here? If you mean the puritans, then why was the government not set up to the high moral standards that they lived by?
Posted by cwolff on Mar. 03 2004,4:57 pm
Geo, how would you add religion(s) back to the schools?
Posted by MrTarzan on Mar. 03 2004,5:30 pm
Keep my government out of my religion, and my religion out of government.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Mar. 03 2004,5:50 pm
I would first re-instate the "One Nation Under God" back in the Pledge of Alegence then offer an elective Class in High School in Theology
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 03 2004,6:39 pm
| Quote |
| I would first re-instate the "One Nation Under God" back in the Pledge of Alegence |