Thursday, November 09, 2006

E tu Nevada?


Why is it that liberals, , have a compunction to promulgate legislation or constitutional referendums prohibiting the free exercise of tobacco by imposing restrictions on businesses. They are the first to cry foul when any purported civil right is violated...such as their right to view kiddie porn on the computer or the purported right to abortion on demand by anyone at any age at any time. Filters on library computers? They scream foul. Voter ID's...they scream foul. An infringement on their constitutional right to be left alone they will say. NSA wiretaps of foreign terrorists? Foul. Smoking weed in their house....and growing it for personal use? They say, it's our right, we're not harming anyone.
Yet....they promulgate anti-smoking legislation and referendums throughout the country like they did here in Florida. They are not happy to let the market place decide whether or not your establishment wants to be smoke free or not. They believe in pro choice, but only for abortion. Not for businesses. Like I say, if a business/restaurant/bar wants to allow smoking, it's their right. If they lose business because of it, then perhaps, they'll change the policy, or even better, set up designated smoking areas.
Nevada was the last oasis of common sense. You can smoke cigars in any casino or restaurant in Las Vegas. Yet now, I read this article today which states:
That on 11/7, Nevada voters approved a ballot initiative that outlaws smoking in bars, restaurants, and most other indoor workplaces, with an exception for casino floors and private homes.
54% of voters favored the adoption of Question 5, compared with 46 % against.

According to the Nevada sec. of state, voters also rejected, by a vote of 52 % to 48 %, Question 4, a less-restrictive smoking measure backed by business groups. Question 4 would have imposed minimal restrictions on smoking in areas of bars and restaurants that allow children. (This makes more sense, but no...they want to total ban).

Question 5, the so-called Clean Indoor Air Act, was backed by public health groups, including the American Lung Association and the Nevada State Medical Association. (The Pleasure Police).

Question 5 bans smoking in all restaurants, nearly every bar and tavern in the state, all areas of public buildings, on school property, and in slot-machine areas of supermarkets and retail stores where smoking currently is permitted. It also allows local governments to adopt regulations more restrictive than state law, which they are unable to do now.

-----------------
This is one of the reasons I supported Amendment 3 here in Florida, albeit too late for the stupid anti-smoking ordinance. So now, if you go to Vegas, you can smoke while you plunge your brains out at the Casino, you can legally get laid with a hooker, but you can't enjoy a cigar at the bar with your scotch (Alex doesn't have to worry about this because he hates scotch and cigars) or your vodka martini.
The American Lung Association is not a charity to help those with lung cancer. They are a liberal political lobby who wants to regulate people's lives through deceptive legisation and psudo science about second hand smoke.
Like I've said, they want to ban smoking and fatty foods, then they'll ban meat, and soon, they'll get their utopian dream of a vegetarian society where no liquor or tobacco is consumed. (But weed is ok if you do it at home). In other words, they want to turn the whole United States into a carbon copy of the People's Republic of Berkely, California.
What would Churchill say? I guess he'd say "They're a bunch of bloody wankers surrounded by a bunch of insidious little twits."

4 comments:

Alex said...

LOL, I said scotch sucks, not that I hate it. There's a difference. Cigars I do hate if they are smoked around me, they stink and cigar smokers who think they are "aromatic" are only deluding themselves.

That being said, here's one liberal that agrees with you, at least when it comes to businesses: restaurants, bars etc, should be allowed to decide whether they want to cater to smokers or not. Or if they want to serve you fatty food cooked with transfats and asbestos dust. I have the good sense to not go into a bar full of smoke and smokers should be able to patronize establishments that welcome them.

I also think the tobacco lawsuits and settlements are ludicrous. There's a big warning on every cigarette box and ad, if by now you don't know is poison, you are an idiot. And if you willingly poison yourself, more power to you. BTW, that entails no public assistance of any kind if you are disabled or sick with emphysema.

I draw the line at public or semipublic spaces where smokers and non smokers have to share. And the workplace. Other than that I support your right to kill yourself slowly (or quickly too, if you want to). Choice rules.

Srcohiba said...

Amen Alex. We agree on one thing!

The Universal Spectator said...

Health fascists.

ziva said...

Srochiba, great post. These health fascists(thanks G) have no limit to their intolerance. I'm not a smoker but the government has no business legislating what we consume. Someone should sue these anti-American hypocrites for infringing our right to the pursuit of happiness, and notice none of their preferred behaviors are banned. How about a ban on che and tofu?