"Mother" Hillary is at it again, nation wide smoking ban.
By xfahctor
@xfahctor (14118)
Lancaster, New Hampshire
September 1, 2007 11:04am CST
Hillary Clinton has apparently that on her agenda is a nation wide ban on public smoking. How much intrusion in to our lives are we as americans going to allow? States and many cities aclready have such bans. Lets say I own a bar or restaurant, it is MY bar or restaurant, not the governments, I alone should have say wether or not I allow people to smoke in it. If you don't want to eat or drink in a smoking atmosphere, then go to a place that does not allow it. these bands are simply more attempts by government to erode the private property rights of it's citizens. I hear complaints constantly about how the republican party has taken more freedoms away from us than ever before and yet here are democrats doing the very same thing in a much more blatent way on a daily basius, banning smoking even in our own homes and vbehicals in some areas, trying to make private health care ilegal, trying to ban dicipiining our own children or teaching them what ever religion we choose. My state motto is "live free or die". Well, even in the conservative state of new hampshire, such things are starting to erode and soon the words of our motto will be "live as ther govt tells you or die"
4 people like this
5 responses
@sunshinecup (7871)
•
1 Sep 07
There is a ban on smoking in our own homes? I haven't heard of that one.
Look I am a smoker, but I don't mind these bans. They are basically preventing us from interfering with others who do not smoke. I decided not to smoke in restaurants years ago, or in my car since I have children. I choose not to smoke inside my own house again, for my kids sake. It makes sense to me, smoke travels and you know, maybe if my parent's didn't smoke around me, I wouldn't be a smoker today. Now add to the fact smoke is also a major trigger for asthmatics. I mean this can literally close off someone’s throat and prevent them from getting air. That is serious, you know?
Anyway, I don't feel like am losing rights, I feel like it's just protecting others and when it come to health and/or safety, yes one right supercedes another. Just like drinking and driving could be seen as a restriction of rights.
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
1 Sep 07
Yes, there are a few states that have dis-allowed smoking in homes and cars with children. Yes it's bad for health, but the bottom line is it's OUR HOME...whats next, banning driunking in homes with children? Ban fast food in homes with children? It boils down to controll over our own lives and families, how much of this can they actualy expect to regulate? Every time you createnew regulation you add enforcement and time and money taken away from things more important and grow government even bigger.
@sunshinecup (7871)
•
2 Sep 07
OH! I see. It kind of makes since, the states pay the foster parents for the care of the foster children, so I can see where they feel they need to issue this ban of smoking in foster homes. Like the article stated, the state is responsible for these chidren. However I am worried about the decline of foster care due to this new law. Even with what it pays, this may cause a decline in homes for these children.
@pendragon (3349)
• United States
1 Sep 07
I don't mind poison air being taken away from me.Second hand smoke has killed more people than imaginable and has intruded in more lives per se.If we cannot cure a cancer than we should get rid of one of the huge unnecessary factors that causes it, and stop letting people make money off of it, it's like one of those huge "oopses" that shouldve been handled years ago.Sometimes we can o.d. on our freedom, just because we have it.
@pendragon (3349)
• United States
1 Sep 07
..and wow.."mother"? I just noticed that due to some other sexist comments on this thread...would you have said "father" Obama?Probably not.I smell other issues besides smoke.
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
2 Sep 07
um, would it have been better if I had said "father" hillary? If I was talking about Obama I would have said "father" obabma. The suggested legislation was thyought up by Hillary clinton. The term mother was in reference to the attitude of Mrs. Clinton that the government needs to parent us in every turn and aspect of life. The topic had nothing to do with geneder. you are reading sexism in to a topic that was completely void of gener dependency. My issues with the N.Y. Senetor have nothing to do with gender, they are idealogical, quite simply I don't agre with her social or governmental ideals.
As far as the health concerns you raise, I do feel they are quite legitimate. That was never in question, if one chooses not to expose them selves to a smoking environment, then don't patron establishments that allow smoking.
1 person likes this
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
2 Sep 07
Would you have been less offende had used the term "parent" hillary? I'm sorry, but it simply was not a sexist post, period, read what you want in to it but I'm not going to defend it any further, some poeople are going to see sexism or racism everywhere they look whether it is there or not and I know I can't change that.
no, it doesn't take a village, it takes parents to raise a child. People in the comunity may have some influence but when it comes down to it, the parents are the only true authority over their children. It DOES NOT however take paernts to run a country. The place of government is not to run every apect and part of our lives. Government should be aproached from a minimalist philosphy. The bigger it gets, the more complicated it gets. The more people depend on it, the bigger it gets. Nothing from the government comes with out strings of some sorts. The more you depend on government, the more control they have over you. As much as our government stumbles and bungles, are these really the people you want having that much control over your personal life?
@Thirteenth (291)
• Malaysia
1 Sep 07
I agree with you. Bar and restaurant owners, or owners of other establishments, should be allowed to choose whether or not to allow smoking in there. If non-smokers don't like it, they can go elsewhere, nobody is forcing them to go to smoking restaurants.
But have they really banned smoking even in homes? And banning private health care and religion? I haven't heard of those, so a link to a news source would be greatly appreciated.
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
2 Sep 07
The "universal" health care plans being suggested by virtualy all candidates promoting the idea, all contain provisions that would transfer all health care to government control and dis-allow any private establishments to exist. I don't know where the religoun ban came from , I didnt mention that but it is being purged grwdulay from every public placer imagineable anyway, schools, etc, tht is nothing new.
@vijay1wdv (357)
• India
1 Sep 07
I respect your felings. We people should have freedom. People who come to bar are not going to be affected because of it. Most of them are going to be smokers. Even if they are not, its there responsibility to move away from smokers. But imagine, if you are not a smoker, and if someone in a public place is smoking very next to you, how is your health getting affected? Passive smokers are more affected. We all know this. How can we stand against a decision that tries to help the innocent people from health hazards? Think in this point of view.
@Thirteenth (291)
• Malaysia
1 Sep 07
But if you don't like smoking, and you know smoking is allowed in that place, why would you still go there? If you chose to go there despite knowing that there will be smoke, then you have no right to complain.
@vijay1wdv (357)
• India
2 Sep 07
That is right but, If smoking is not banned at all, then where is the place for non-smokers to go? That is what i am talking about.
@rjholley (19)
• United States
1 Sep 07
I agree with what you are saying completely. Here where I live at the cops will pull you over if they see you smoking just for suspicion of children being in the vehicle. It is getting to the point that the government is trying to run our lives in every way possible. What happened to our rights I thought that was what this country was founded for was our freedom. Our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom of choice. The way it is all going before our kids or grand kids are grown the government will have so many laws we will no longer be able to say the land of the free.
