You Didn’t Think it Would End With Seat Belts. . . Right?

Print Friendly

Mandatory buckle-up laws set the precedent: Even your own body in your own car is no longer your own personal space. 

Here’s how it works: The government decides that whatever it is you’re doing is “unsafe” – not specifically in your case, just generally - maybe, might be, could be – then asserts the legal authority to criminalize whatever it is you’re doing. Which means, it asserts the right to arrest you at gunpoint and threaten you implicitly and perhaps explicitly with lethal violence in order to force you to submit and obey. That is, to comply with the order. Failure to do so being sufficient provocation for the unleashing of escalating levels of  violent over-reaction. All the way to the end point of shooting you, if need be.

Now they’re coming for your cigarettes.

A study just released by the CDC (see here) characterizes second-hand smoke as the latest threat to “safety” – and of course, “the children.” It urges what you’d expect: That it be made illegal to smoke in your own car, at least, if “the children” are present and possibly even if they’re not. For as any smoker knows – as anyone who has shopped for used cars knows – any car that has been smoked in retains the essence of the Marlboro Man for years, even decades after the last butt was crumpled in the ashtray. There is no way to objectively tell whether a car was smoked in  last week – or 10 minutes ago. Hence, it is likely that any evidence of smoking – ever – will presently become  sufficient excuse for the police to issue tickets, stop people at gunpoint and perhaps even confiscate their vehicles (as is routinely done when another form of smoke is discovered).

“There is no risk-free level of exposure to second-hand smoke,” the CDC study states with authority. Except of course that’s anthead nonsense. Is the CDC really going to claim that, for example, a teenager who buys a used car that was smoked in previously is exposing himself to a measurable danger thereby? Or that if he accepts a ride in an adult’s car – said adult having smoked a cigarette a few hours previously – that the kid has thereby increased his risk of becoming emphysematic or developing lung cancer? It’s absurd.

This isn’t a defense of smoking. It’s a plea for the restoration of sanity. Please, people – how about some perspective – and proportion?

Notice the quasi-religious aspect, too.

You can almost hear the high-pitched sermonizing of these latter day secular Elmer Gantrys. “The car is the only source of exposure for some of these children,” says the CDC’s Brian King. “So if you can reduce the exposure, it’s definitely advantageous for health.”

For liberty (and reasonableness) not so much.

As with the jihad against alcohol – which metastasized from reasonable concern over cavalier attitudes toward drinking and driving into the absurd characterization of any drinking before driving as “drunk” driving –  smoking cigarettes anywhere, anytime, has been demonized as an evil on the order of pederasty that must be extirpated by any means necessary. It is no longer enough that smokers refrain from smoking in public areas. If there is any chance whatever that a non-smoker might catch a whiff, then it becomes a matter of public concern. Hence, smokers are already prohibited from smoking even in their own apartments or condos – and yes, even on the steps of their own porches, too. After all, someone might be exposed to second-hand smoke.

Shortly, you will not even be permitted to smoke in your own vehicle, for the same reasons. Doesn’t matter that you have the windows rolled up – and don’t have kids, for that matter. What about the poor attendant at the parking garage who might be exposed to the dangerous remnants of your anti-social choice to smoke? Or the child who might buy your ex-car three years from now? It’s no exaggeration. It’s depressing reality.

And it’d be comical – if it weren’t so tragic.

Peddling cigs to kids is one thing. Criminalizing adults for “exposing” a kid to a distant whiff of this morning’s Lucky Strike (or last year’s Lucy Strike) is quite another. The erosion of our personal space continues apace – and it will not end until we have no personal space left –  because in the minds of the collectivist thugs who control this country, there is no such thing as “personal” space. Anything you do could – conceivably – affect someone else. It need not be a specific, demonstrable harm – the standard of long-gone America. Just a theoretical “risk” – however vague, non-specific and generalized – will do just fine.  And it is going to become the all-encompassing rationale for total state control within the next 24 months, once Obamacare becomes the duly anointed “constitutional” law of the land. Nothing you do – not your recreations, not your dining habits not even your bedroom activities – will be outside the reach of “interstate commerce” and so, proper subjects for close and careful monitoring by your caring parents in loco in Washington, DC.

I’m at the point of packing my bags. How about you?

Throw it in the Woods? 

Share Button

eric

Author of "Automotive Atrocities" and "Road Hogs" (MBI). Currently living amongst the Edentulites in rural SW Virginia. 

  105 comments for “You Didn’t Think it Would End With Seat Belts. . . Right?

  1. February 13, 2012 at 5:13 pm

    Two things… :)

    (1) In terms of the science and the bans, I’d suggest reading (& Sharing!) “The Lies Behind The Smoking Bans” at:

    http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/PASAN/StilettoGenv5h.pdf

    It’s short and openly one-sided, but its facts are accurate and their presentation is honest. And, as I always offer, anyone who has any specific, substantive criticisms is welcome to share them: I promise I won’t mind!

    (2) In terms of the motivations behind the bans, I don’t think it’s any one, simple drive. For a good one-page summary of the first fifty pages of “Antismokers Brains” see Stephanie Stahl’s analysis of ASDS (AntiSmoking Dysfunction Syndrome) at:

    http://wispofsmoke.net/recovery.html

    It’s not so much a “conspiracy” as it is a “perfect storm” — different elements and drives that, unfortunately, come together in a disastrous way. Look around at the various Antismokers you’ve either known personally or seen in the news and you’ll almost always see one or two of these subtypes dominant in their psychology with bits of another one or two playing a supporting role.

    – MJM

  2. Mark Peyton
    February 13, 2012 at 10:37 am

    If average Joe was not so dumb, then these laws would not be necessary, init?

    • February 13, 2012 at 11:32 am

      That’s a common argument, but here are two objections:

      One, it’s not fair to treat everyone as a presumptive idiot because a few people are idiots.

      Two, dumbed-down laws only create more dumbed-down people. That is, people who “learn helplessness,” who cannot think for themselves or exercise initiative.

      Finally, it is not the proper role of government to hector (let alone punish) people for their private conduct. Only when there is a specific, demonstrable harm to a specific other person (or persons). I mean, like threatening to assault someone, or actually assaulting them. Nonsense about “secondhand smoke” or that people should be forced at gunpoint to wear seat belts doesn’t rise to that level.

  3. Paul Repstock
    February 12, 2012 at 8:49 pm

    Trouble with this world is that there are not enough “Montgomerys.
    Look this up:
    “Watching The Watchers”

    by Ron Marsh

  4. James
    February 12, 2012 at 3:59 pm

    I’m curious to know just how many readers here are aware that the whole “secondhand smoke” hysteria is based on junk science? And that the more-recent “thirdhand smoke” nonsense is based on even shakier scientific ground?
    I hope many. . . but I’d probably be disappointed.

    “If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

    My money. . . my cigarettes. . . my business. . . Sit! Stay!

    My money. . . my ci

    • February 12, 2012 at 5:36 pm

      I am –

      Of course, the real reason has nothing to do with “threats” to “our safety” (or “health”). The real reason is the further dimunition of our liberty; our right to make choices and decisions free of coercion.

      The sermonizing is just the cover. The object is control.

      Submit – obey.

    • Christopher
      February 15, 2012 at 3:32 am

      I’m quite aware of this, but think about it, there’s been a few generations now of people being spoon fed information on how horrible SHS is, all the way to college, and now they’ll even get it there. It’s honestly not surprising that people believe this crap. The average American is nearly mentally retarded, if you took everyone’s IQ and averaged it it’d be in the 80’s. Which by my knowledge is pretty bad, my brother did a study on that while he was in college, he got as many people from school to go online and take a test, and they averaged 84. Do you know how hard it is to slap down a foot thick stack of reports on Second Hand Smoke being horribly flaw in front of someone and have them tell you, it’s all wrong, that the pamphlet they read in Junior High was more credible. It blows my mind really.

      • February 15, 2012 at 11:17 am

        Hey Chris,

        You’re on to something there. Our society practices reverse eugenics. The worst elements (lowest IQ, least initiative, most inclined to Submit and Obey) are given every incentive to reproduce while the better elements are given numerous incentives not to reproduce.

        I have no doubt the Bell Curve has shifted to the left.

        Take these millions of average and increasingly sub-average people and bathe them in authoritarian propaganda from infancy onward; better yet, infantilize them by appealing to their lowest instincts. Get them to focus on sports and celebrities; foster envy and even hatred of “smart people.” Tell them they have a “right” to a job, to heaf cayuh and so on.

        Viola.

  5. Gail
    February 12, 2012 at 9:57 am

    John Illinois sez: “Google Shirley Allen Roby Illinois. When i built my current house, I put the well in the basement … Read the articles, and see why I did it that way.”
    ——–

    When I grow up, I want to be just like Shirley Allen Roby.

    The police left her a note, “We just want to make sure you’re okay.” I’d say a woman who withstood that long difficult ordeal as creatively as she did was way more than okay.

    We need to remember that trick with the petroleum jelly and the wet towels, gang.

    They signed the note, “Friends”. If I had friends who shot me with rubber bullets, I would have to, like, re-evaluate that friendship.

    Imagine! Refusing to submit to a forced psych exam without due process! What is she, crazy?

    Although, if I’m to be honest, I very much fear they’d have had me with the Barry Manilow. Especially if they played “Mandy”. If they played “Mandy” more than twice, I fear I’d have crawled out the door whimpering and waving a white facial tissue.

    No, I wouldn’t, either. I would remember these words of Sam Adams and stuck cotton balls in my ears:

    “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget ye were our countrymen.”

    • February 12, 2012 at 12:06 pm

      Several previous totalitarian regimes pathologized not just any objection to the regime, but any evidence of non-conformity.

      I honestly believe we’re headed down the same path. Consider the Clover Brain. It already demands that different life choices be criminalized on the basis that these choices have the potential to cause some theoretical “harm” to the amorphous collective called “society.” Is it that much of a leap from that to criminalizing and pathologizing inclination? For example, it infuriates Clover that people state that they disagree with seat belt laws, or that they regard most traffic enforcement schemes as nothing more than an excuse to fleece motorists. To Clover, such attitudes amount to anti-social, even deviant viewpoints that (naturally) could be said to represent a “threat” to “society.”

      Hell, the TSA is already profiling (and hassling) people based on their perceived thoughts (“malintent”) and it’s no great stretch to imagine that anyone who objects will shortly be characterized as suffering from “mental illness.”

      After all, they are just trying to keep us safe – and what normal person could possibly object to that?

      • Gail
        February 12, 2012 at 2:51 pm

        Yes. There was a time when a guy could walk around with a papier-mache parrot on his head, and he’d be adopted by his community as a harmless eccentric, part of the local human tapestry. Not today. Today he would be Reported (“the children!”). He would be Assessed and Dealt With.

        I have always despised the term “zero tolerance”. It perfectly combines harshness and sanctimoniousness in that nasty way that must have made the Puritans such a fun bunch to be around — and uttered with the same self-satisfied air, as if daring the listener to disagree.

        The real heartbreaker is that if you were to engage a Clover Brain in a debate — you know, pretending that they were actually making sense — and ask them to define what they meant by “society”, they wouldn’t be able to. What they mean is “people like me”, but they don’t know that.

        It would be like nailing jello to a tree.

  6. Puzzled
    February 12, 2012 at 1:56 am

    I think that the prototype for all this nonsense was the early religious wars on masturbation.

  7. K
    February 11, 2012 at 3:30 am

    They are going to kill us to keep us “safe”. Makes lots of sense. Same with the “War on (some) drugs”. Supposedly being done to keep people “safe” from evil drugs that cause them harm. So to keep people safe they throw them in prison to be gang raped, etc. How safe is that? The reality it keeps THEM safe from free market competition.

    • February 11, 2012 at 8:02 am

      Yes – and it’s also hugely profitable, in terms of both money and power.

      That’s the key to understanding the real reason for the “war” on (some) drugs.

    • Boothe
      February 12, 2012 at 2:16 am

      The free market competition angle is right on K. I read an article where they interviewed a Boston grower / dealer. He said he hoped they never legalized pot because he’d go broke! Outright legalization out in Cali failed in no small part, according to ABC News, because: “there is no reason to be surprised that Proposition 19 failed in Northern California, arguably the country’s region most associated with marijuana production, where many growers feared it would negatively affect their livelihood.”

      The fact is, many of those northern California towns’ entire economies are based on pot and local law enforcement protects the growers. If private production were legal (which it should be), the reefer economy would go in the toilet. Pot would be cheaper than potatoes because it’s easier to grow. This, along with the loss of police power and legal jurisdiction that would go with it, is the real reason the PTB don’t want it legal.

  8. Paul Repstock
    February 11, 2012 at 3:30 am

    I asked my doctor (who used to be a smoker) to show me a scientific study proving the ill effects of secondhand smoke. He could not do so. At 61 I have outlived a number of ‘nonsmoking’ freinds, one sadly died of lung cancer and a couple of others of different cancers? I don’t promote smoking and I actually wish I had never started. However, perhaps there should be “a defence of smoking”…It is certainly less harmfull than some other behaviors and habits. Everyone please realize that the “smoker’s lung” displayed in educational materials is actually a coal miner’s lung…ooops.

    Our sorry world is chok a bloc full of societal jihadists. These people take it upon themselves to be the police of morals and they are ever ready to find fault and condemn those who are less “pure”.

    Two years ago a police officer in Ontario Canada made a traffic stop on a multi lane freeway to charge the driver of a delivery truck who was smoking in a ‘company’ truck/”Public Place”???
    Last week, my wife who has switched to ‘E Ciggarets’, found an item on a forum about a ‘saftey worker’, in a remote oil camp who took it upon himself to have ‘E-cigs’ banned in the accomodation areas of the camp because Health Canada will not approve them??

    • Paul Repstock
      February 11, 2012 at 3:32 am

      Sorry about the spelling..Its because I smoke….:(

      • dom
        February 11, 2012 at 4:47 am

        S’all good, mang! I smoke cigars, chew tobacco, drink, and still workout everyday. I can’t spell for shet either!

        • Boothe
          February 11, 2012 at 7:06 pm

          I’m with you Dom. I smoked for years. I finally threw in the towel for several reasons: A) At about 47 I started noticing that I was really getting winded climbing hills, stairs, etc. B) I was travelling a lot and the airports were doing away with their smoking lounges. I was real PITA going in and out through security between legs of a long flight. But, C) more than anything, it was one tax I could take away from the officious pricks that would rule every aspect of our lives. I didn’t quit because they wanted me to, I quit in no small part to withhold a little more of my money from Big Brother.

          This year our grape wines should be getting big enough that we can produce some homemade wine. Soon I’m hoping they won’t be able to get that tax out of me either. Of course if the elite and their nanny state hadn’t villified and prohibited weed in the first part of the 20th century, I probably wouldn’t drink at all….

    • February 11, 2012 at 8:05 am

      As with so many things, it’s arbitrary. Smoking’s not “good for you.” Well, fine. Neither is being overweight (most people are) or sedentary (ditto) and yet there’s no unctuous, moralizing crusade against the pot belly or the couch potato.

      • Boothe
        February 11, 2012 at 7:12 pm

        Actually Eric, Michele Obama HAS taken up that crusade. Pretty soon eating healthy and excercising may very well be mandatory: http://www.letsmove.gov/

        • dom
          February 12, 2012 at 12:22 am

          The whole crusade against obesity is stupid beyond belief. If people want to be fat and eat like hogs I think they should do it. Personally, I don’t give a shet what people do as long as they don’t bother me. Sad when the first lady needs to tell the population to watch their weight. Ya’ll know she is not so thin herself!

          • February 12, 2012 at 1:33 am

            The concept of MYOB is something few current-era Americans seem to respect.. the change has taken place in my lifetime. When I was a kid, busybodies were despised. Today, busybodyism is the defining essence of people’s conduct. It is increasingly rare to find anyone who just want to do his thing, in peace – and leave you alone to do yours.

          • Paul Repstock
            February 12, 2012 at 8:16 pm

            MYOB,,there the rub my freinds..:(

            Idle hands are the Devil’s workshop, and all that. Including, ‘those that live in Glass houses’.
            Actually, guilt ladden smokers are too consumed with the same BS as most other people. There are actually a few studies (strongly suppressed) which document some benifits to smoking?? The constant irritation of the mucous membranes can stimulate them to protect against other harmful substances. A large part of what concerns me about this campaign is that it may psycologically predispose smokers to diseases. Mind over matter is very powerfull. Another funny thing is the whine about the ‘cost’ of smoke related health treatment; When that was first promoted, many more people smoked, and the tax revenues from ciggarets was larger than the entire budget for Health Canada?? lol

    • Boothe
      February 11, 2012 at 5:02 pm

      Paul, we had a an anti-smoking zealot at a power plant where I used to work who was simply incredible. To put this in perspective, this “lady” was a state trooper’s wife. She was so officious she stopped a young woman leaving work one evening to perform a “citizen’s arrest”. Madame Commissar claimed this girl was “speeding”. Thank God the judge chewed Madame Commissar’s butt and basically told her not to pull a stunt like that again. But that didn’t deter her from coming after us “nasty smokers”.

      We had always been allowed to smoke in the open areas of the plant like the turbine building, water treatment and service building hallway. After Madame Commissar’s hissy-fit over “secondhand smoke” management circulated a memo to the effect that if we didn’t keep cigarette butts off the floor they would ban smoking in the plant. We had some contractors in the plant that did stomp out butts on the floor but they were always swept up at the end of the shift. So some of us that were Liberty minded went around and talked to these guys. They started using the stand ashtrays around the turbine building basement and the floors stayed clean. Two days later management had the laborers come around and remove all the ashtrays!

      I was pretty incensed by this obvious subterfuge to force us, the targets of their oppression, to “leave them no choice” other than to take away our freedom. I approached the plant manager about this and he was obviously uncomfortable about what he was doing, but gave me the “secondhand smoke kills” and “my hands are tied” runaround. Two weeks later smoking was prohibited in all but the “designated smoking areas” outside.

      Fast forward a few months and I’m standing in the alleyway behind our shop having a smoke with some co-workers. Here comes Madame Commissar out the side door, walks past us, does a mock “cough-cough” and says “secondhand smoke kills”. I promptly informed her that she had no reason to come through there and there was no one smoking in the service building hallway since she’d had her edict implemented. She retorted that SHE would have to pay for my healthcare costs later in life for smoking induced illnesses.

      It was more than I could stand. I informed her that it would be ME paying for her knee and hip replacements and back surgery, since she had to be every bit of 75 pounds overweight. I went on to say she could come back and talk to me about my smoking when she lost that fat butt. She was literally speechless. She made two fists at her sides, her knuckles turned white, her face turned red and she stomped off! The two guys that were with me were freaking out; “She’ll file sexual harassment charges on you!” etc. She didn’t of course, because she knew what I’d said was the truth. And I was never “graced” with her company out in the alley after that either. Sometimes it’s the little things in life that just bring a wry smile to your face for years to come. ;)

      • Gail
        February 11, 2012 at 7:27 pm

        GREAT story!

        I also thought of a response to her as she walked past saying, “Second-hand smoke kills.” You could say, “But not soon enough.”

      • methylamine
        February 12, 2012 at 9:19 pm

        Boothe–beautiful, well done sir!

        And it demonstrates perfectly that all it takes is a few people to stand up to these bullies and they back off.

        They use the artificially-induced guilt to cow us. If you refuse to feel the guilt, and react with outrage to their intrusions, they’re speechless. They’ve lost their power over you.

      • Marc
        February 13, 2012 at 10:02 am

        Excellent story. The best part was when you recommended that she lose her fat but. It was probably the first time that anyone stood up to that so and so.

  9. Dave Webb
    February 10, 2012 at 6:11 pm

    In Ohio, it is illegal to not have your headlights on if you need to run your windshield wipers.
    I guess our legislature is bored. They have nothing else to do. You know, things like balance a budget, reduce taxes, figure out how to get people back to work . . . We have to get to important stuff like telling people not to smoke in their cars.
    I do not smoke. Most of my extended family of Uncles and Aunts did at one time smoke. They are all dead. Most of them died of cancer of one form or another including both of my grandfathers. Most died in their 70s.
    I have one Uncle and my parents that gave up smoking for us kids. My Uncle is in his 80s. My Dad died at 89 of a form of leukemia blood disease. He was the most long lived person with that disease ever. Had it for approximately 11 years before dying. Mom died at 91 from congestive heart failure. Given the history the only difference was taking supplements and not smoking for most of their lives.
    Several of my cousins in Canada also smoked. The ones that smoked are dead.
    Get the picture. There is definitely a huge connection between cancer and smoking. Second hand smoke also kills.
    Why do people smoke if it is going to kill them. I like to think they are trying to qualify for a Darwin award. Voluntarily removing themselves from the gene pool.
    The truth is smoking is more addictive than alcohol, heroin, or cocaine. The tobacco companies for years manipulated teens into smoking. They still do. It is a sign that you are growing up if you smoke? The psychology manipulation of the industry is a brilliant piece of salesmanship. History will show it to be one of the best brainwashing techniques ever produced. PR firms all over the country are envious.
    If you want to know about the rules of addiction, any Tough Love organisation in the country will be happy to help you.
    All of that said, I agree with one point made here. I have the right to decision making. I have the right to pursue happiness in any way that does not make a victim of another person. I have the right to make stupid or intelligent decisions about my own life. Nature is the judge of whether it was stupid or intelligent. The stupid often die.
    I do not want Big Brother making decisions because it is “Good For Me.” I would like to see all the Big Brother laws thrown off the books.
    Prohibition works for a little while until it irritates the majority of people out there. Then people rebel. The 55 mile an hour limit was a good example. Go out to any highway and you will find flagrant violations of the speed limits everywhere. It is hard for a traffic policeman to decide who to pull over. Everyone is over the limit.
    The current rule in Ohio is to give them a ticket if they are going over 9 miles over the limit. That is standard operating procedure. It is not a law. The exception might be the numerous speed traps set throughout the state. Fairborn has a four layne highway through the middle of town, It is set at 35 miles partway and 25 miles per hour in other parts. It is a lucrative speed trap through the center of town. Centerville has the same thing. Huber Heights has a section or two as well. These are major roads with huge amounts of traffic at certain times of day. Technically the state has them designated as residential.
    One major road changes speed limit over 10 times in a 20 mile stretch.
    Smoking in cars is a matter of judgement. It is also a matter of addiction. So no matter what law you put out there, people will continue to smoke in cars, restaurants, bars, and the workplace.
    Right now you have smokers all over the country taking 10-20 breaks a shift for a cigarette outside the workplaces. I wonder what that costs?
    The state can make as many laws as it wants. That is what lawyers do. Enforcing them without discrimination is any policeman’s nightmare.

  10. February 10, 2012 at 3:17 pm

    Oddly enough, I hated cigarette smoke when I was a kid, particularly in cars. However I also went through a period in my 20s/30s as a very active “anti-car” bicycle activist where I would experience very real (though obviously in retrospect, purely psychosomatic) allergic reactions to the smell of gasoline at gas stations and such.

    – MJM

  11. Art Thomas
    February 10, 2012 at 2:41 pm

    When I was a kid my dad smoked Chesterfields. I’d sit in the back seat of our car just waiting with great anticipation for Dad to light that cigarette. It was pure tobacco back then, and the smell was truly heavenly, to me.

    I was also delighted when we traveled behind diesel powered buses. Ah! the scent of burnt diesel fumes was perfume to my olfactory senses! Truly. And today my oldest grandson loves the smell while his younger brother hates it.

    Kids aren’t as filled with should’s and shouldn’t’s at an early age and they’re freer to follow the dictates of their senses, i.e. the truth.

  12. February 10, 2012 at 1:41 pm

    This is a bit long, but Eric’s note on “the children” makes me think it should be shared.

    Abusing our love for our children is standard practice for Antismokers. I addressed it several years ago in my book, Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains, in the following paragraphs:

    ==

    Protecting innocent and defenseless children is an almost universal aspect of the basic human psychobiological system. The knowledge of the extreme emotional reaction experienced by the average person when confronted with any threats to the safety and well being of children has been used by war propagandists since time immemorial.

    Whom is Cruella Deville mean to? Not just dogs, but “puppies.” How did Hitler rev up the Germans? By picturing evil Jews corrupting Aryan children and then drinking their blood in secret ceremonies. How did George Bush Sr. capture the energies of the American people and direct them against Saddam Hussein? By playing on an image of Iraqi soldiers grabbing incubators and dumping premature babies onto cold linoleum floors.

    Protecting our children is such a primal human instinct that the use of it in any political argument should be immediately suspect. Unfortunately, the blatant obviousness of this propaganda ploy is usually not enough to deter its use: the raw power of the imagery is far too useful to manipulators.

    Antismoking Crusaders have never been shy about playing the “save the children” card but the use of this stratagem has been increasing in recent years as the power of their other arguments has started to fade with familiarity. It has become a common phenomenon for children to be dragged to City Council hearings by parent activists to testify that they are being choked to death by the fumes of evil smokers in public places. Mothers even bring toddlers to hearings primarily concerning smoking in bars and actually dress them up in little gas masks to show the urgent need for fast implementation of universal bans.

    ===

    Shortly after I wrote the above I went to another City Council hearing on banning smoking in bars and strip clubs etc where the Antis had packed the place with children. This time they had the little darlings dress up as “Smoking Diseases” and parade up to the microphone one at a time with little prepared speeches like “Mr. Councilpeople, My name is Jennifer and I am BRAIN CANCER caused by SMOKING! Please don’t let me be killed by smoke Mr. Councilpeople!”

    No, sadly, I am NOT kidding.

    Michael J. McFadden
    Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”

    • Dottie
      February 10, 2012 at 3:58 pm

      The “save the children” mantra is very useful to those who wish to run our lives according to their own selfish wants and needs. If you agree with it then you are patted on the head and accepted into the PC society. If you disagree, then “you must hate the children” or you “WANT to hurt the children.” Kind of like the DUI laws. If you disagree with any of the ludicrous DUI laws then you are labeled as advocating FOR drunken driving.

      • February 10, 2012 at 11:43 pm

        Or if you advocate for an end to the failed War on (some) Drugs, you favor drug use. The statists always find an excuse to shove their business down our throats.

        • Dottie
          February 13, 2012 at 2:30 pm

          Sounds like Bush II – You’re either with us, or against us.

          • February 13, 2012 at 2:34 pm

            The Chimp merely helped an existing trend pick up momentum… the urge to control others, to force them to Submit and Obey, has been latent in America since the Puritans….

  13. Robert Sina
    February 10, 2012 at 11:16 am

    Don’t be shocked, but in Brazil, more specifically in Sao Paulo state, it is a crime to smoke in your own car.
    You can not even smoke outside buildings, you have to cross the street or stay somewhere empty!
    This was started for the ex-presidential candidate Jose Serra when he was Mayor of Sao Paulo city. He is a a maniac and a do-gooder and since his crazy policies proved popular (yes, that’s right!), all the next mayors and governors of that state created more and more restrictive anti-smoke laws.

    Your parasites are just copying our parasites…

    • February 10, 2012 at 12:27 pm

      Well, there goes my exit plan… I had thought that South America was more free than the USSA. Guess not….

      • swamprat
        February 10, 2012 at 1:24 pm

        S.A. is still a more disorganized police state than the USSA. I wouldn’t relocate to Brazil anyway. Cost of living is too high. Uruguay is a lower cost bet. I have heard that Peru is nice also.

        • February 10, 2012 at 1:32 pm

          I was thinking Argentina… it’s a big country, with lots of still wide-open (and minimally populated) areas.

          • Robert Sina
            February 10, 2012 at 3:56 pm

            Argentina is gorgeous, specially if you can stay countryside, but, be aware that government and stupidity are very much alive there. Uruguay and Chile are better options.

          • February 10, 2012 at 11:36 pm

            Welcome, Clover Werner.

          • February 10, 2012 at 11:39 pm

            Oops, jumped the gun. I was going to post that to an earlier thread, but decided to delete it. Not sure why it posted.

            What I was going to say is that Argentina loves it’s rugby.

          • mikehell
            February 11, 2012 at 3:58 pm

            I think all guns have to be “licensed” in Argentina too. That’s not so good.

    • BrentP
      February 10, 2012 at 3:15 pm

      Control freakism for our own good goes back to at leas 1620 in what is now the USA. Many of the original colonies were founded by control freak groups that were too controlling for europe.

      The modern preaching against substances started in the 19th century. It reached a peak in the early 20th century when just about everything became banned or regulated. A second climb began in the early 1970s and hasn’t stopped. The slope is getting steeper and steeper too.

  14. February 10, 2012 at 10:38 am

    I do smoke, and yes I understand and accept the life-shortening effect of this habit. As a champion of original American liberty and a passionate enemy of tyranny, I must ask this question:
    What “law enforcement officer” will understand and accept the life-shortening effects of attempting to arrest me for smoking in my vehicle?

    The line must be drawn at some point during the relentless march of tyranny; genteel debate and sweet reason leave us and we find the serpent at our neck.

    Indeed, with liberty in such hasty retreat, lead may kill me well before cigarettes do.

    Sic Semper Tyrannis!

    • February 10, 2012 at 10:47 am

      Hey Tom,

      True story: Years ago, I went for a visit to the Skyline Drive in Va. You have to pay a toll to enter and the toll is manned by a Park Cop. I rolled up to the booth, said hello and paid my fee. The cop “reminded” me to “buckle up for safety.” I conspicuously did not and proceeded on my way. He got in his car and came after me. Pulled me over. Asked me why I did not put my seatbelt on. I politely asked him whether he ate his vegetables today… and we got into a discussion (civil, this was pre-911) and I actually convinced him of the imposition on our liberty represented by these nanny state edicts and that if we accept one (seat belt laws) then we have accepted in principle endless micromanagement of our private lives and personal decisions.

      Today, though, I’d probably have been Tazered or shot for “resisting.”

      • February 10, 2012 at 3:46 pm

        I’d have loved being a fly on the wall. “…ate his vegetables….?” Brilliant

        Hard to believe a time when an “empowered one” did not take full advantage of his status and take you downtown.

        • February 10, 2012 at 7:38 pm

          It wasn’t that long ago. In the ’80s, when the 55 MPH speed limit was still in force (and mercilessly enforced) I routinely had chats with cops. You could even get out of your car upon being pulled over and approach the cop’s car – and not expect to be shot.This country descended into an overt police state fairly rapidly – in less than 25 years.

          • Jay Wocky
            February 10, 2012 at 8:46 pm

            Precisely why I maintain a studious habit, while on the road, of staying below the radar–both literally and figuratively (see other posts by me on this page).

  15. Tor Munkov
    February 9, 2012 at 8:44 pm

    On LA beaches it is now a $1000 fine to dig deeper than 18 inches in the sand unless you are a motion picture company with a permit.
    It is a $1000 fine to toss, kick, throw, or roll any object except a beach ball or volleyball.
    The root of Civil Wars and Nazis is currency devaluation. When prices are all false, social signalling is impossible.
    Convert paper and electronic $US into something of tangible value ASAP.
    But not elemental mercury, it is prohibited to sell transport or manufacture this common element at the end of this year. Gold and other precious elements cant be too far behind.

  16. February 9, 2012 at 6:39 pm

    Great post. I will link to it on my most recent post. Many of the above comments reference spoiled children or poor parenting. I think much of the crap (can I say that here?) coming from Washington (and our State Capitals), is coming from ‘leaders’ who have no respect for the people they ‘lead.’ Please see my post about this issue including a great article by John Rosemond at
    http://ttoes.wordpress.com

    • February 9, 2012 at 6:46 pm

      Thanks, Tom – appreciate it – and, welcome!

  17. Dottie
    February 9, 2012 at 5:03 pm

    I’m absolutely sick & tired of the do-gooders holding “the children” hostage in the name of safety, health, etc… in order to violate our rights by micromanaging our lives. It has done nothing for the children other than teach them they are little kings & queens to be revered & turn them into spoiled little tyrants. Not all kids are like that, but it seems to be a strong trend.

    There are so many things today that are “illegal” that were never given a second thought when I was growing up. Has society become so lazy that they no longer want or are unable to make any decisions on their own as to what is in their own best interest?

    • February 9, 2012 at 6:26 pm

      Me too – but it has a purpose: To wear us down; to destroy human initiative. To create a mass that is docile and submissive.

      • Werner
        February 9, 2012 at 8:56 pm

        “To create a mass that is docile and submissive.”

        I believe that is why they have been putting hexafluorosilicic acid (the rat poison sodium fluoride)into the tap water of almost all the big cities since 1945. It accumulates in the pineal gland over a person’s lifetime, as well as in the kidneys, the thyroid and in the bones. If one doesn’t have the right to clean air and clean water one has lost the most basic rights there are. Sodium fluoride is a method of mass medication via the water supply, without the consent of the patients and without control over total amount consumed! That, to me, is a much greater infringement than seat belt or smoking laws!

        How docile and submissive has the general population already become if the people don’t object to drinking the stuff and showering with it?

        • February 9, 2012 at 9:05 pm

          Yes.

          It’s one of the many reasons I’m glad we live in The Boonies – and have our own water source (well) that’s flouride-free.

          • John Illinois
            February 12, 2012 at 12:55 am

            Google Shirley Allen Roby Illinois. When i built my current house, I put the well in the basement, so there is no way to cut it off. I have a generator in the basement, too, with the exhaust to the outside. Read the articles, and see why I did it that way.

          • Boothe
            February 12, 2012 at 7:57 am

            John Illinois, the problem with Shirley Allen was probably anti-government phobia. I mean just because the government was actually out to get her didn’t give her the right to suspect they meant her ill will. After all, why would anyone think that when you’re surrounded by men with guns that have cut your telephone line, turned off your water and power, tear gassed you, played loud music and screamed at you over a bullhorn that they are there for anything other than to help you. A person who would think that must be mentally ill: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/anti-government-phobia-study-says-fear-of-the-government-is-a-recognized-mental-illness-recommends-afflicted-be-committed-to-mental-institution_022012

    • Marc
      February 9, 2012 at 11:38 pm

      The “spoiled little tyrants” seem to have acquired a few of the key characteristics of Hitler Youth. I wonder if ratting on others who are not fully compliant with any one state’s innumerable health, safety, and “environmental” mandates is one of them.

      • February 10, 2012 at 10:37 am

        Have you seen “See Something/Say Something”?

      • Dottie
        February 10, 2012 at 4:10 pm

        The History Channel aired a show called “Third Reich: The Rise and Fall.” Much of the footage is banned in Germany. It was very eye opening and part of it talked about the Hitler Youth “camps” they had for boys AND girls. Spooky stuff.

        • Boothe
          February 10, 2012 at 6:52 pm

          Hitler said “He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future.” Who needs youth camps? We have child prison…no, wait…publik skule.

          • Marc
            February 11, 2012 at 1:33 pm

            The stuff we learn as children sticks like glue. Later in life few will take the time to examine key concepts. The Germans fighting on the eastern front who had gone through Nazi programming as children couldn’t understand why their military was being defeated by “racially inferior” forces.

            • February 11, 2012 at 2:43 pm

              Given the public school system and its stated purpose (“socialization” and the inculcation of just enough in the way of rote skill to create – as George Carlin so aptly put it – obedient workers) it’s almost miraculous that a fairly large number of people nonetheless manage to develop the higher human faculty of conceptualization (as well as introspection). Unfortunately, they are still a small minority. Most people never rise above their conditioning, never learn to really think in the way that separates humans from animals.

              You can see the difference here merely by reading Clover’s (and Gil’s) posts and comparing them to the posts left by the non-Clovers.

        • February 10, 2012 at 7:35 pm

          Yup – it was called BDM. Just as rabid as the Hitler jugend, too.

  18. Blake
    February 9, 2012 at 5:02 pm

    As a filthy smoker – one of the reasons I STAY smoking (other than liking it) is because it upsets so many clovers. I’ve often wondered how (I live in Michigan) all PRIVATE businesses are considered “public” spaces.

    So – say I open a bar called “Smokers Only – if you don’t smoke, then you’re not welcome here” Then I’m fined when my patrons are “caught” smoking.

    “America…Where at least we know we’re free…”

    Yes – excellenmt point. Every behavior will become EVERYONE’S business when WE are all responsible for OUR collective health.

    Bring on the stubby mustache, Hitler hated smokers too.

    • February 9, 2012 at 6:28 pm

      I don’t smoke – but this makes me want to take it up, too. Just as I don’t wear my saaaaaaaafety belt – for the same reason.

      • John Illinois
        February 12, 2012 at 12:51 am

        My daughter in law is an FBI Agent–one of those who is packing heat and all that stuff. She is frequently sent in as a decoy because she is so short–if she stretches, she is 5 feet tall. One night, I ran into a check point and an Illinois State Cop tried to give her a hard time about not being in a booster seat. She flipped her buzzer out, grabbed him, and put him on the ground, flat out. His two buddies tried to interfere, but my son, who just got out of the Navy after 9 years as a SEAL had no problem dealing with them. I told them to be sure to take my license number down and broadcast it to their peers that this is somebody you do not want to screw with, because although I am old and fat, I am worse news.
        I live in a rural area, and know the law enforcement people quite personally. A couple of them told me that they had received notice that they didn’t even want to stop me because it could be real serious bad for them. They wondered what in the heck this was about.

        • February 12, 2012 at 1:30 am

          That warmed my heart, John – I only wish more “freedom loving” Americans were like you (and your daughter-in-law and your son) rather than what they are, in fact, like.

          • That One Guy
            February 12, 2012 at 5:44 am

            If you or I did this to police officers we’d be lucky to survive the experience. The difference is we’re not members of “the team.”

            Why isn’t Methylamine’s comment about “bury your head in shame that your son is a tax feeder” applicable here as well?

          • methylamine
            February 16, 2012 at 3:29 am

            It is. It just so happens she’s not one of us Mundanes–and so wasn’t pursued to the ends of the earth for punishment for touching one of the Exalted Ones.

            Ditto the son.

            They might be “nice people”, but never forget: they are tax parasites. They live because you are forced at gunpoint to pay their way.

            Moreover, as “nice” as they may be, they’re the hired muscle of a mafia government.

    • mikehell
      February 11, 2012 at 3:55 pm

      I’m not a smoker either, but smokers are so beleaguered these days that out of solidarity with their right to do with their bodies what they please, I sometimes deliberately stand near them and catch the 2nd hand whilst they grovel for a drag at state-designated smoking areas.

    • Toldev
      February 12, 2012 at 3:14 am

      While smoking bans just stink, “Then I’m fined when my patrons are “caught” smoking.” is the worst part of it.

      What the government has done is to conscript bar owners to enforce their unenforceable law. Of course the government isn’t going to give those bar owners the generous salary and benefits it gives to other government employees. The government is going to simply punish those who refuse to enforce it’s laws.

      • Boothe
        February 12, 2012 at 3:42 pm

        Toldev, it like the euphemisms “withholding agent” for employers and “enrolled agent” for accountants and tax preparers the IRS coined. It sounds better than saying “we are going to make you coerce money out of your workers for us” and “we will allow this other group to profit from aiding and abetting in this extortion”. So they force the owners of a private business to, as you so aptly put it, “enforce their unenforceable law” to the detriment of their own business. Then when their asinine edicts wreck the economy and reduce revenue, they inflate and borrow to pay their cronies while the productive bleed. It proves yet one more time that government is nothing but force, no matter the time, name or place. Land of the Free….yeah right…

        • February 12, 2012 at 5:30 pm

          Hey Boothe,

          Here’s Clover’s latest masterwork:

          “Since in most modern cars you can not see the back of a car past the rear door because of aerodynamic design and the same goes for not being able to see the front of a car, it is nice that you have x-ray vision to be be able to back up to another car to within inches or do not back over a 2 year old.”

          This is what’s dragging us down the drain.

          • dom
            February 12, 2012 at 5:34 pm

            You should see his comments on CloverCam.com, they are even better. It’s obvious he doesn’t fire on all cylinders. Every single instance of video documented cloverism he defends.

          • BrentP
            February 12, 2012 at 5:58 pm

            I especially liked when he defended the BMW driver who was doing at least 110mph and nearly removed the passenger side door mirror from my car.

  19. Jay Wocky
    February 9, 2012 at 4:44 pm

    In my state (Ohio), a Republican state representative (note they are called state representatives: a tautology rife with unintended irony) has introduced a bill to criminalize driving in any lane of a divided highway (oops, I almost wrote “free”way) other than the far right, unless the driver is passing or exiting.

    When I read this, I wondered how many terms this rep had served as his village’s idiot before he went to the legislature (to which his village’s idiot auxiliary–er, voters–helped elect him). In short order, I concluded that experience as a village idiot is an essential qualification to being a lawmaker.

    I would add: to being a bureaucrat, too. And this year–with one exception–Republican presidential candidate.

    • BrentP
      February 9, 2012 at 8:23 pm

      Nothing wrong with strict keep right except to pass… although I’d guess that was already the law. So what was special/objectionable about what he was trying? Actual jail time or something?

    • Doug
      February 9, 2012 at 8:24 pm

      Good for your State Representative! Rarely these guys actually do something worthwhile. Personally, I think driving on a multilane highway in any other lane but the right, except to pass, should be punishable by death. People who drive in the left or middle lanes for no reason other than they want to be there cause traffic distortions through unsafe passing-on-the-right, slower traffic-flow and tailgating – not to mention just pissing-off better/more courteous drivers.

      • Jay Wocky
        February 9, 2012 at 11:27 pm

        Doug (and Brent, before you), c’mon! I agree (without any death-penalty hyperbole) that slower traffic should stay to the right, except to pass or exit. I believe in this state that to unduly clog the faster lanes is already a potential moving violation. This bozo’s bill would make it–according to newspaper accounts–a crime. Furthermore, the complications and exceptions included in the bill would make it virtually unenforceable. Or, worse, subject to capricious enforcement. And, in the latter case, another revenue stream for the G. Not to mention an additional hazard to the health of anyone pulled over.

        Don’t the cops already have enough BS-law-based excuses to pull us over? Is either one of you eager to give them yet another? Don’t we already have enough laws governing the roads as is? Way too many, in fact?

        This is how state and federal legislators develop their “tough on crime” and “sponsored many bills” and “fought for your safety” reputations, which they then present to the sheeple as reasons for being re-elected. Look no further than the continuing escalation and ante-upping of laws concerning drinking and driving.

        I know that most people who blog on this site can see right through this kind of “legislating for dummies.” I’m betting that, once you reflect upon it again, you will also see through the particular example about which I posted.

        If not, let’s agree to disagree. Agreeably!

        • BrentP
          February 9, 2012 at 11:51 pm

          That’s what I was asking, was it the way they were doing it the objective part. I assumed you’d not have a problem with KRETP.

          It has been my position that KRETP is already the law in just about every state if not every state. The problem IMO is the speed limit. The LLB’s, control freaks, and other forms of clovers justify their occupation of the left lane because they are either going the speed limit or doing X over, where SL+X is what they have decided is a reasonable speed that nobody else should exceed.

          Furthermore it is my understanding that LLBism appeared rather suddenly immediately after the NMSL. I’ve seen this from various sources.

          Fix/remove the speed limits, and KRETP will re-assert itself as the natural law it is.

          • Jay Wocky
            February 10, 2012 at 2:25 am

            So Brent: we appear to be in agreement on essentials. Including fixing or removing speed limits.

            However, I would add this point, in re the latter. Obnoxious or impractical as they are, speed limits are a fact of life. I travel the roads legally armed. The last thing I want is to offer any excuse to any armed and costumed public servant to pull me over. Ergo, when I enter the passing lane, I am truly passing something. At the same time, I am taking care to exceed the speed limit by no more than 4-5mph.

            If some hairball comes zooming up behind me at 80 or better and pulls a tailgating hissy fit because I am not passing traffic fast enough to suit his agenda, then TS on him. I will not let him dictate my speed and driving style.

            Instead, I will complete my passing, re-enter the left lane at the first practical opportunity, and let the SOB fly by me (his middle finger typically extended) and be the rabbit. Occasionally, I will get the last laugh a few miles later, as he is being interviewed–at zero mph–by a patrolman.

            • February 10, 2012 at 10:26 am

              There’s a better solution: Buy (and always use) a good radar/laser detector. I have not had a ticket in almost five years now – the longest I have ever gone without getting one. And it was about five years ago that I bought my V1. It saves me at least several times a week and I am now able to drive again. I can safely (safe from the pigs, that is) run 70 on the idiotically low-posted 55 MPH rural highway that bisects my county; 50 in the stupid 35 zones – and so on.

          • BrentP
            February 10, 2012 at 4:08 am

            I don’t pass unless I can be reasonably certain I will complete it before other drivers reach me or the situation is already out of my control thanks to LLBs and micro-passers ahead of me.

            I drive exactly the posted speed limit on surface streets (and on weekend late nights often 5 under) and I feel that anyone who doesn’t like it should complain to these towns because I am selectively enforced upon anytime a cop gets a chance, so I can’t give them a chance. These N+ over clovers never get pulled over it, but if I were to drive like them I would be pulled over at least once a day.

            However that does not carry into blocking the passing lane on limited access highways.

            Legally armed or not, fearful of the state licensed highwaymen or not, it’s still rude driving as far as I am concerned to pull out into the passing lane and then expect other people to slow down and wait to pass at a rate that is practically indistinguishable from the speed of the lane to the right.

            Another thing… Illinois state troopers do 90-100+mph with no particular place to go and they will be on your ass in an instant. One mirror check there will be no one there, check again a few seconds later and there is a crown vic already way too close. They drive this way in marked and unmarked units. And by on your ass, I mean you’ll be lucky to see anything below the windshield wipers of their cruiser in the rear view mirror.

            I find it amusing when some micropasser ends up in this this situation.

          • Jay Wocky
            February 10, 2012 at 3:39 pm

            To Brent: When I pass on a divided highway, I pass at a rate reasonably in excess of what I am passing. I do not expect others to slow down for me. However, sometimes, in life, you just gotta cool your jets and be reasonably patient. At the same time, those driving at maniac speeds and tailgating have no right to expect me to adjust my more temperate driving to suit them. If anyone considers that attitude “rude,” well, that’s what these posts are for.

            To Eric: Buying and using any kind of fuzz buster (is that generic now?) strikes me as potentially buying additional trouble when there’s enough to buy already. I don’t want to be pulled over while I have a loaded gun in the car. Double that reluctance if I also had a working fuzz buster.

            • February 10, 2012 at 7:43 pm

              Jay,

              If you are alert (and discrete) the risk is low. I have not had any issue in five years. The unit is small – about the size of a pack of cigarettes – and unlike say ten years ago, dashtop electronics such as GPS and so on are common – so the radar detector does not stick out as much, visually. Plus, it warns you well in advance of the swine’s actual presence – time enough, in my experience, to snatch it off the dash and stash. Maybe Dom will chime in here, too. He recently got the same V1 unit I have…

          • BrentP
            February 10, 2012 at 4:33 pm

            I find 100mph to be a very comfortable speed when driving in a disciplined environment. 80mph is about the limit of my comfort in an undisciplined environment. It wasn’t that long ago that I was passing someone in my comfort zone for an undisciplined environment when an ISP cruiser appeared in my mirrors and closing fast. He was on my ass (see previous definition) before I could complete the pass.

            Should have I gotten all tough shit about his “maniac” speed?

            Or is “maniac” speed nothing but a personal opinion?

            Thankfully the clover to my right finally stopped accelerating to prevent my pass and I could move over only by speeding up a couple mph. The cop then continued on at 100+ mph.

          • Jay Wocky
            February 10, 2012 at 6:57 pm

            Whew! I think Brent finally passed me.

          • Toldev
            February 11, 2012 at 11:27 pm

            I happen to agree that the problem is probably under posted speed limits. The rural interstates are posted 65 mph or 70 mph on the turnpike and passing isn’t much of a problem. On the urban interstates are posted 55 or 60 mph. The problem with that is that some people obey it and some do not. Due to the higher traffic volumes on the urban roads, it can take a while to get around a goody two shoes going 55mph.

            The lawmakers have simply forgotten what the purpose of speed limits were. The purpose of speed limits was to serve as a guide for travelers who are not familiar with the road. If the lawmakers would use some sound traffic engineering standards to set speed limits, such as the 85th percentile rule, there would be a lot less problems.

      • John Illinois
        February 12, 2012 at 12:35 am

        If you are unable to navigate around obsticles such as assholes in the wrong lane, chuck holes, construction sites, etc, possibly you should consider lifting your foot.

    • February 10, 2012 at 3:49 pm

      Jay,

      “…state representatives: a tautology rife with unintended irony…” – one of the best lines I have read in months.

      Do you have a blog or do I just stay tuned here for more pearls?

      • Jay Wocky
        February 10, 2012 at 4:13 pm

        Tom, no blog of my own yet, but Eric lets me hang out here a lot. Thanks for the compliment!

    • Dottie
      February 10, 2012 at 4:38 pm

      Hello fellow Ohioan! I think it’s ridiculous the gov’t. feels they have to legislate common sense. I agree with you: Making it a “crime” to violate KRETP is ridiculous.

      Did you see where they are training law enforcement to spot “drugged drivers” as well as DUI’s? Look out! Here come the DUI/DRUGGED check points. Hope you don’t have allergies that make your eyes red and watery.

  20. Don
    February 9, 2012 at 3:13 pm

    Of course I disagree with the gov’t telling us what we can and can’t do with our own bodies. I hate cigarettes and cigarette smoke when I’m forced to smell it. But, if I’m in a private bar and the bar owner allows smoking then it’s my free choice to drink there or go somewhere else. I don’t believe that people smoking in public infringes or violates in any way, anyone’s rights. The amount of cigarette smoke per cubic inch of air space is miniscule no doubt.

    As for the kids. The kids do not belong to the gov’t, so the gov’t has not say morally. And who are they to say anyway what is the “best” parenting decisions? Parenting is on the job training and the numbnuts in congress learned the same way everyone else did, made the same mistakes and just because they have one opinion on it means nothing. As divinely wise as they’d like to believe they are, they’re just people with no more wisdom or insight than anyone else.

    • Boothe
      February 9, 2012 at 9:54 pm

      @Don “they’re just people with no more wisdom or insight than anyone else.” Quite right and usually, just to get into congress, they have to have considerably fewer moral principles than the rest of us.

  21. James
    February 9, 2012 at 1:07 pm

    I’m no fan of smoking, but I don’t agree with the outright persecution (yes) that smokers suffer these days.

    When I read articles such as this one, I’m reminded of my theory that if motorcycles didn’t yet exist, the inventor(s) couldn’t legally bring them to market today.

    Seems like your resto is going well. Blue smoke today, blue smoke tomorrow, blue smoke forever! ;^)

    • February 9, 2012 at 1:15 pm

      Hi James,

      Amen. I’m not smoker, either – but (unlike Clovers) I recognize that an assault on anyone’s rights is an assault on my rights, too.

      The bike’s coming along nicely – just waiting for my crankshaft to come back… then I can re-assemble the engine and (hopefully) get it running again!

      • Werner
        February 9, 2012 at 7:15 pm

        Children are too young to tell their parents not to smoke in the car, thereby being forced inhale second hand smoke. Responsible parents will respect the right of their children to smoke-free air.

        Since there are a lot of irresponsible parents who have no common sense and thoughtlessly do their thing – it is better that the government steps in.

        Seen one young female TEXTING for several miles in city traffic with the two offspring strapped in their child seats in the back. She repeatedly slowed down the traffic and even forgot to move after a light turned green until others started honking their horns!

        Unfortunately it is these idiots who tempt the government into action and to come up with more and more laws and prohibitions.

        • February 10, 2012 at 1:32 pm

          A quick note on texting by drivers: there was a study done just last year on the dangers and I took their figures and compared them to the figures in the US EPA Report that’s used widely by antismoking advocates. The results might surprise you: Basically riding in a car with a driver who texts once per hour is as “dangerous” as riding in a car with a passenger who smokes for 13,000 hours. Yes, you’re reading that correctly. The “texting” situation is literally 13,000 times as deadly. Perhaps even more so, since the EPA Report has often been criticized for exaggerating the secondhand smoke risks.

          – MJM

        • John Q. Parvenu
          February 13, 2012 at 12:51 am

          “Responsible parents will respect the right of their children to smoke-free air.”

          No, responsible parents simply crack their windows.

          The crusade against secondhand smoke is the work of junk scientists partnered up with bedwetting busybodies…

          http://www.sott.net/articles/show/236457-First-They-Came-for-the-Smokers-And-I-said-Nothing-Because-I-Was-Not-a-Smoker

    • JvG
      February 10, 2012 at 2:56 am

      Gosh, cigarette smoke in a car. This brings back some bad memories. I recall being in the center rear seat of a Corvair when I was seven years old. It was a cold winter night. One of the heat outlets was behind my legs. Some oil smoke came out too. That did not matter. there were three people smoking in the little car. I inhaled enough to feel the effects.

      In later years the cars did not stink so much.

      Still, smoking in ones car should be a personal choice. People should have a right to smoke in their own home or car.

      By the way. I am a non-smoker.

    • Baja K
      February 14, 2012 at 7:55 am

      As Jesse Vemtura says, repeated often during RT TV breaks,

      “When government says they’re gonna protect your safety,look out because they’re gonna take your rights”.

      As for “smoking” things, Google up “Fauxbacco” for references galore about the topic.

      Think it’s all about tobacco plants etc? Think again.

      • February 14, 2012 at 10:21 am

        Yup!

        Think about it: Who violates your right every day of your life? Is it ordinary criminals? Nope. It is government that systematically steals, assaults and otherwise tramples upon you (and me) with impunity.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *