Huckabee, another smoke control freak!

[johnwk]

.


GOP candidates: Ramp up cancer fight

The article says with reference to Huckabee:

He also said that if he were president, he would sign a bill to outlaw smoking nationwide in public places, and said he would go further to say "no smoking in any indoor area where people have to work."

Well, we now know Huckabee is another smoke control freak and is willing to subjugate federalism and rights associated with property ownership and impose a federal law forbidding property owners to allow guests on their property, such as in restaurants, bars, bowling alleys, etc., and who enter thereon by their own free will, to smoke.


So, isn’t this peachy, we have another smoke control freak, just like Mayor Bloomberg, the N.Y smoke control freak, but Huckabee wants to exercise federal power!

JWK

[bishop]

they all want to be our nanny.

why?

because voters get all sorts of excited when they hear politicians give promises of the different things they'll do for them (funded by the citizen's hard-earned money of course), and the different ways they'll protect them.

next thing you know, we'll be taking special pills because they're good for us, watching sanctioned government programming, living in the same colored/shaped homes, etc... a homogenous bunch of automons, all suckling at nanny's teet.

[Technosoul]

I wonder how that statement will reflect in his "polling status". I wonder if any Democart would "oppose that statement" publically?

He has taken the term Nanny one step beyond, the Na-enemy.

His idea is so stupid because he is trying to make the use of a lawful product unlawful in public. Next he will call for a prohibition.

I propose a new amenment "the right to bear cigarettes" amenment. We should have a smoke-in at his political headquauters.

But this is more then just an anti smoking policy to bring in the sheepe.

It is a totally unconsitutional attack on Ameirca's frist relgion and prevents anyone from worshipping as we please.

"Wild Horse". Native American Art & History. Native American legend of the Lakota Peace Pipe

[Praxius]

meh.... it's not too far off from the laws which are already in place here in Canada..... in fact, I think our's are still worse then the above.

I'm not saying that I agree with all our smoking laws, but ones like smoking inside a place in which one has to work makes sense.

Smoking in in-closed areas is something I can tolerate as being banned by law, but anywhere outside is BS imo....

[Osborn F Enready]

Techno said: He has taken the term Nanny one step beyond, the Na-enemy.

If the word Nanny is being applied to government, is already one step beyond.

Nanny government is the proverbial enemy of a free people.

How does a government that uses "subjective, politically correct" laws to put a gun to peoples head and force them to act certain ways, ever benefit a free people?

[grandpa]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready How does a government that uses "subjective, politically correct" laws to put a gun to peoples head and force them to act certain ways, ever benefit a free people?

Again, ask an "illegal."

As for smoking bans, yes this is very bad. A real kick in the face to basic freedom and individual choice.

Grandpa h.

[Osborn F Enready]

Gramps said: Again, ask an "illegal."

Illegals aren't citizens of my nation, my nations responsibility, or inclusive to any services provided by my government OTHER THAN corrections and law enforcement.

What you talk of is a nation with no border, no sovereignty, no national identity, and we were never designed or intended to be such nonsense.

[bishop]

soon they'll make it illegal to smoke in one's own home, or at least if you have children in any nearby vicinity.. maybe they'll outlaw soda because it's unhealthy, etc..

the government needs to get the hell out of our lives and let us be FREE to make our own decisions.

and, do not be ignorant to assume that it is only huckabee that supports the ever growing nanny state. hillary does as well:

HILL EYES NATIONAL CIG CURB | By GEOFF EARLE Post Correspondent | National News | US News | Current National News

Hillary Clinton lavished praise on New York City's tough anti-smoking laws yesterday - and said she supports smoking bans in public places across the country. Asked at an Iowa forum on cancer whether banning smoking in public places would be good for America, Clinton replied, "Well, personally, I think so. And that's what a lot of local communities and states are starting to do."

[The Decider]

Quote by: Technosoul It is a totally unconsitutional attack on Ameirca's frist relgion and prevents anyone from worshipping as we please. "Wild Horse". Native American Art & History. Native American legend of the Lakota Peace Pipe

Did Huckabee propose banning smoking in Lakota religious ceremonies? The indoor smoking ban in New Hampshire explicitly exempts smoking for "social, fraternal, and religious organizations" and there's no reason to think a federal law won't permit these exemptions also. Only in the case of banning cigarettes outright would the Indian reservations have to comply with the law (via the Commerce Clause), just as they do for other banned substances like marijuana and heroin. But nobody is suggesting a totally impractical cigarette prohibition.

N.H. prohibits smoking in bars and restaurants - The Boston Globe

As for smoking bans in general, I agree with Praxius--many make sense from a public health standpoint. Smokers have no constitutional "right" to endanger the health of non-smokers in confined spaces. Government already bans smoking in stadiums, jails, airplanes, and schools and those laws consistently pass constitutional muster. Additionally, employers who pay for workers' health insurance have a vested interest in their employees' health. A worker who smokes a proven carcinogen off-the-job has violated work rules and can legally be fired. The US Constitution provides no job protection for smokers.

Smoking Ban Not Unconstitutional - Read ASH's Brief [03/05-2]

As long as cigarettes remain legal, smokers have the right to smoke them, just as drinkers have the right to consume alcohol; but not anywhere they damn please. It's significant that a prominent Republican conservative like Mike Huckabee, who placed a surprising second in Iowa's recent straw poll, is moving toward the Democratic position.

By the way, Techno, your candidate, Hillary Clinton, basically agrees with Huckabee as Bishop pointed out.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Praxius meh.... it's not too far off from the laws which are already in place here in Canada..... in fact, I think our's are still worse then the above. I'm not saying that I agree with all our smoking laws, but ones like smoking inside a place in which one has to work makes sense. Smoking in in-closed areas is something I can tolerate as being banned by law, but anywhere outside is BS imo....

Each business should have a right to effect a policy about smoking on their property, be it one of tollerence or one of control. A individual has the same right not to eat at a place that allows smoking and go to one that does not premit smoking, to accept a job where smoking allowed or to find a job where the employer offers a smoke free work enivronment. Both of those private places would respond to public desires which are in the majority so they can get more people.

Any business can post a sign "no firearms allowed, no tobacco allowed, or 'no shirt no service". And those posted signs must be conformed to or they could get arrested. If a bussiness does not post a sign then people should be allowed to come as they are.

The government can dictate signs for governmental buildings or locations.
Which is their right.

(or course, not banning people due to race, etc.)

To tell a tobacco store they cannot allow smoking is like telling an auto dealership that people cannot test drive one of their cars for sale. The ban on advertising tobacco products is a direct violation of the freedom of speech values in the Consitution. They are breaking old laws to make new laws.

This is why it is important to make sure that Ron Paul wins the republican primary - to keep the Hucklebees out. I support his bid in the primary. (surprise surprise) and I support the will of the u-tube generation because they are the ones who must 'live in" the culture politics might effect. More so then us old-timers.

Likewise I am not for bannig Tomas Jefferson's hemp growing farm industry. If people are foolish enough to waste the product for smoking purposes rather then using the product to make paper, jeans, or bio-fuels, then so be it. We do not need a "war on products" such as those created by Bush Sr. What we need is a war on unconsitutional wars.

If we the people want to ban the bra of our own free will, individually, then that is okay, but the government should not do it for us. Bring back the topless beach and teach kids that it is not a sin and that feeling shame about their bodies is religious conspiracy.

Free the mind and your ass will follow. (my new Ron Paul bumper sticker). eh?

Would we ban the squeeze box in public to safe guard people from noise polution? (like that photo used).

However the Unions should work to insure that businesses have proper air circulation through out the building and in closed places. As part of the worker safty agenda, so that smoke or fumes can be properly reduced to safe levels for a more healthy working environment.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Technosoul This is why it is important to make sure that Ron Paul wins the republican primary - to keep the Hucklebees out. I support his bid in the primary. (surprise surprise) and I support the will of the u-tube generation because they are the ones who must 'live in" the culture politics might effect. More so then us old-timers.

To repeat, your candidate Hillary agrees with Huckabee.

[bishop]

i'm waiting for some spin... maybe techno will surprise us, but i have a strong feeling that he'll excuse away her comments.

strong words when huckabee supports the same nanny state policies as clinton - but excuses and kind words will be reserved for clinton.

[Osborn F Enready]

I am sure Bishop, and I agree on Techno.

More proof that both parties are working towards the same nanny-statist agenda.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: The Decider Did Huckabee propose banning smoking in Lakota religious ceremonies? The indoor smoking ban in New Hampshire explicitly exempts smoking for "social, fraternal, and religious organizations" and there's no reason to think a federal law won't permit these exemptions also. Only in the case of banning cigarettes outright would the Indian reservations have to comply with the law (via the Commerce Clause), just as they do for other banned substances like marijuana and heroin. But nobody is suggesting a totally impractical cigarette prohibition. N.H. prohibits smoking in bars and restaurants - The Boston Globe As for smoking bans in general, I agree with Praxius--many make sense from a public health standpoint. Smokers have no constitutional "right" to endanger the health of non-smokers in confined spaces. Government already bans smoking in stadiums, jails, airplanes, and schools and those laws consistently pass constitutional muster. Additionally, employers who pay for workers' health insurance have a vested interest in their employees' health. A worker who smokes a proven carcinogen off-the-job has violated work rules and can legally be fired. The US Constitution provides no job protection for smokers. Smoking Ban Not Unconstitutional - Read ASH's Brief [03/05-2] As long as cigarettes remain legal, smokers have the right to smoke them, just as drinkers have the right to consume alcohol; but not anywhere they damn please. It's significant that a prominent Republican conservative like Mike Huckabee, who placed a surprising second in Iowa's recent straw poll, is moving toward the Democratic position. By the way, Techno, your candidate, Hillary Clinton, basically agrees with Huckabee as Bishop pointed out.

Hucklebee said "in all public places". Not in "some of the places and not in some of the other places". Now most companies do not allow drinking on the job, and some companies regulate off-time drinking.
But most businesses allow drinking at the bar after work. A bar is sort of like a social club (organization) and so social smoking should be allowed. Hucklebee would outlaw such social behavior. A pipe, a cigar, a cigarette, all make tobacco smoke, what makes you think the ban is just for cigarettes? I do not believe for a moment that anti-smokers want to make "exceptions" for social organizations or what not.

Hucklebee did not say he would ban tobacco as lawful product and so you cannot compare it to unlawful products like pot. So the Commerce Clause has no bearing relative the tobacco case as he proposed it.

Banning smoking from all public places is like forcing a chain smoker to be jailed in his own house. and what about homeless people who smoke, are they all going to prison?

Banning smoking form jails or schools is done as a policy because those places are governmental properties and so the government can create whatever policy they wish. Same with courtrooms, etc.

The Airliner companies did so as a company policy, that policy was adopted by most airliners because the "worker unions" demanded it for their employees. Companies have the right to pass policy based on union contracts with their employees. Some do so because insurence companies offer discounts as a no-smoking policy is seen as a way of preventing accidental fires. I do not object to companies effecting private policies for their companies. For example, smoking and campfires are not permitted in some forested areas, makes sense. The idea you cannot smoke anywhere you damm please is not an issue, such as a gas station. But they want to enforce a law that we cannot damm please to smoke anyplace at all. big difference.

The 'known carcinogen" idea is a crappy base for your proposed law.
Car fumes are known carcinogens - why not ban tailpipes? Most companies are forced by state laws to post a sign that their company uses chemicals that are known by the state to be a known carcnogen (health risk) and those companies still have health plans for thier workers. If a worker comes to work he is explosed to all the car fumes and is being exposed to them all day long no matter where he goes, high levels of carcinogens are common to most industrialied cities. So you are just blowing smoke with your un-informed reasoning. Most companies have trucks that put forth massive amounts of carinogens that polute dock workers and the public at large. The kettle is blacker then the pot. The airline business generates more carcinogens then all the smokers put together. A ban on carcinogens is a ban on industry and on capitalism per-see. To blame it all on a smoker is silly nonsense.
You need a better health expert.

I know Hillary Clintons opinons about smoking, and I do not agree with her on this topic likewise. She is too much of a health nut in my opinon but that sort of became her famous trademark in poltical circles. The Reagan people created the health scare about smoking to distract environmentlist from protesting industry to concentrate all their attention on the average smoker instead. Neat trick. Hillary Clinton became the sheepe of that miss-direction for dealing with polution via governmental regulation. They do not even allow Santa to be seen with is pipe anymore.

Gaining "consitutional muster' to violate the consitution is an on-going problem that shold be overcome. America was founded economically on the exports of tobacco, lumber, and animal furs. Tobacco was the number one pioneering export product. It is as All American as apple pie and baseball. As All Ameican as the Consitution. Gee.. they did not write in the Consitution that smoking is one of our rights, you say. That does not mean anything logical at all. No one would have ever thought that we needed a right to smoke because that was one of our major national crops back then. And that right never became a factor until Reagan took office or until environmentalism gained poliical support about the hazards of chemicals. Your claim is not founded in historical understandings about the intent behind the Consitution. The founding fathers did not leave the right to smoke out of the Consitution on purpose so that you could ban cigarettes someday. That is silly.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Illegals aren't citizens of my nation, my nations responsibility, or inclusive to any services provided by my government OTHER THAN corrections and law enforcement. What you talk of is a nation with no border, no sovereignty, no national identity, and we were never designed or intended to be such nonsense.

So a nanny state is utterly terrible, but police state actions against certain groups are just fine.

As Bishop recently said in a thread, a little consistency would be nice.

Furthermore, national identity and citizenship are delusions, and deadly ones. These ideas are a major factor in such "nanny-statism." It means that one representative's views must represent some of my interests, which is sheer nonsense, no matter how you slice it. If a law is stupid, disobey it. It doesn't matter if it's an anti-smoking law or a law making it illegal for you to stand on a massive expanse of land. Both are statism, just you attach the word "nanny" to the one that isn't kicking certain migrants in the face.

Grandpa h.

[Osborn F Enready]

Granpa said: So a nanny state is utterly terrible, but police state actions against certain groups are just fine.

We are a nation of laws, and laws require enforcement. There is a line between enforcement of laws that uphold individual rights, and laws that violate individual rights.

Nanny-statism is the concept of creating laws that protect people from themselves, as if the law would curb the problem, which it doesn't.

WE have police to enforce laws, and those laws as designed were to EMPOWER CITIZENS (not illegal aliens) RIGHTS. Illegal immigration is a direct cause and effect relationship to damaging individual rights, and labor rights.

Gramps said: As Bishop recently said in a thread, a little consistency would be nice.

I am perfectly consistent. I support laws that protect individual rights. I don't support laws that don't protect, or infringe on individual rights.

Gramps said: Furthermore, national identity is a delusion, and a deadly one.

Prove it? My nation is the government in control of my regions land area, not Mexicos, Cubas, Guatemalas or Canadas. My national sovereignty is only second to my individual sovereignty.

Gramps said: It's also a major factor in such "nanny-statism."

Someday you may grasp, and be able to provide valid examples of cause and effect?

[johnwk]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I am sure Bishop, and I agree on Techno. More proof that both parties are working towards the same nanny-statist agenda.

A-freaken-men!

This Huckabee jerk is so stupid he doesn`t even know he is proposing to subjugate federalism and violate his oath of office by proposing such nonsense. Smoking is for people who make bad choices, but it`s none of the federal government`s business if the people within their state borders make bad choices.!


``The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce___ The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.``


Amendment X (1791)

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

This crack pot is another Washington Establishment team player, dedicated to protecting the millions of federal political plum jobs in Washinton! And, he even wants to create more federal plum jobs --- the federal smoking ban jackbooted policing squad.

Huckabee and Hillary should get married!

JWK

[Muckraker]

Yeah. I can't believe it. What next? Are they going to ban me from ejaculating on the clothing of strangers on the train? ...oh wait...

Smokers don't understand because their nostrils are irradiated and their tongues are dry and as devoid of sensory receptors as lumps of charcoal.

Let me spell it out for you smokers since you are missing a couple of primary senses: You stink. Your breath stinks. Your hair stinks. Your clothes stink. Your cars stink. And when a bunch of you get together, everything else around you stinks too.

Smokers partake of a habit for their own personal gratification that also happens to rub off on anyone near them. That is, by definition, NOT a social or publically acceptable behavior just as me ejaculating on the clothing of strangers is not socially or publically acceptable. It's also not acceptable for me to dump my dinner on strangers, spit my beer on strangers, spray my cologne on strangers, or do any activity that requires the strangers to go home and wash my self-indulgent habit from their clothing and bodies.

Your freedom to smoke is akin to your freedom to masturbate/urinate/defecate. Feel free to do it all you want so long as you aren't getting it on any unwilling participants.

If they invent a "smokeless ciggy" then I fully support people publically killing themselves all day long on them.

[bishop]

i'm not a smoker, yet i still can understand the concept of private property...

[Yarn]

Well, making life more annoying for smokers will probably reduce the number of smokers. Also, the less people breathing second hand smoke the better.

This could significantly prolong the lifespan of a significant number of people, so whats wrong with it?

Also read what that guy Muckraker said...