|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
GEOKARJO 
Google This!!!
Group: Members
Posts: 7799
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
 |
Posted 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
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
minnow
Group: Members
Posts: 2243
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted 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!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
minnow fan
Group: Members
Posts: 198
Joined: Nov. 2003
|
|
Posted 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.
--------------
Even if you think the ALEDC is a good idea, do you really want to put Sparks and Bishop in charge of all the economic development in Albert Lea?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
minnow fan
Group: Members
Posts: 198
Joined: Nov. 2003
|
|
Posted 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:
Attached Image
--------------
Even if you think the ALEDC is a good idea, do you really want to put Sparks and Bishop in charge of all the economic development in Albert Lea?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
GEOKARJO
Google This!!!
Group: Members
Posts: 7799
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 19 2004,4:39 pm |
|
|
Like I said open up your own business and cater to non smokers leave our business alone.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
GEOKARJO
Google This!!!
Group: Members
Posts: 7799
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 19 2004,4:40 pm |
|
|
A smoking ban also will ensure the death of norml
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
irisheyes
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 3040
Joined: Oct. 2003
|
|
Posted 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.
--------------
You know it's going to be a bad day when you cross thread the cap on the toothpaste.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
minnow
Group: Members
Posts: 2243
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted 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.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
irisheyes
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 3040
Joined: Oct. 2003
|
|
Posted 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.
--------------
You know it's going to be a bad day when you cross thread the cap on the toothpaste.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
minnow fan
Group: Members
Posts: 198
Joined: Nov. 2003
|
|
Posted 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.
--------------
Even if you think the ALEDC is a good idea, do you really want to put Sparks and Bishop in charge of all the economic development in Albert Lea?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
