/* ------------------- begin IP Block script ------------------- Block IP address script Points to php script on blog.racetotheright.com IP addresses are within the script ---------- */ /* -------------------- end IP Block script ------------------- */

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Let Them Know How You Feel on the Smoking Ban

--posted by Pete Arnold on 2/22/2007


Go HERE and Vote on what you think about the State of Minnesota's proposed Smoking Ban the want to pass, which would keep you from smoking in your own house if you have someone else working there (construction) or in your car if you are transporting you and one other person for work. I don't need to tell you about it, the bill speeks for it self.

Here is the letter that I sent with my vote:

It is not right that you are limiting someone's use of a product that is legally sold in the United States without a prescription.

If it is bad for you, it should be illegal completely or not at all. None of this Half-N-Half junk that allows you to make money on the taxes of the product AND fine people who use it. There are too many taxes on the product in the first place, and I don't even smoke!

Minnesota in general needs to lessen taxes, not raise them. We are the 4th taxed state in the United States, and that’s not a "Top Five" list I want to be on. I have lived in this state all my life, and the continued passage of "user fees" and taxes has been making me think about moving to the Dakotas for a year. $160.00 moving violations, Government making double the profit on Gasoline then "Big Oil," It all adds up. But then you are listening to someone who believes we shouldn't have speed limits on highways either (much like Montana did for a few years with a steep reduction in deaths during that time, and a jump after they put the speed limit back).

Government and Police are seen too much as Tax Collectors as it is. Add in the 4th most taxed state in the US, Government funded private stadiums, mass transit systems that cost billions (see light rail) to transport thousands, your new little rule about forcing energy companies to adopt overpriced enviro-power, and the amendment to the constitution that takes money from people who buy cars and gives it to people who ride trains (even though those train riders purchase things that are transported on the highway system) with no limit of the funds that can be diverted away from my roads… and you have convinced me to start looking else ware to live. Even though I don’t smoke, this is just a nail on the coffin. My wife and I will not be around for the laws that say we can get fined for eating McDonalds. The Government has NO PLACE telling me what I can do in my business or my home. If you really cared, You would make Tobacco Illegal. But then you can't make money on it hand over fist, like you do when you tax me or user-fee me for doing everything else.

My wife and I are both 26 years old, on our second home, own 5 cars and a boat, and it would be a shame to loose us and our taxable income, but we are fed up.

Keep up the good work guys.

Labels:

6 Comments:

Blogger Frank said...

That is almost identical to the letter I sent to my city government when they proposed a smoking ban a few months ago.

Alas, I fear it is all in vain. The great government nanny must protect us all from ourselves.

February 22, 2007  
Blogger Robert said...

"The Government has NO PLACE telling me what I can do in my business or my home."

- - -

I fear that what could otherwise be a well-founded and rational appeal to peoples' senses of freedom from the nanny state gets lost in this obvious non-starter of a justification.

Government can't tell you, don't behead your children - as long as you do it in your home? Or in your business?

This line just won't fly. Since the beginnings of this country, our government has told its citizens what we can't do in our homes and businesses.

February 24, 2007  
Blogger Denny said...

The smoking Nazi's continue their campaign of oppresive government.

I, on the other hand, have good news of great joy!

A new political party is being offered to the tens of millions of Americans who feel that the Republican party and the DemocRAT party have NOT lead them to achieve what they really want our government to do for them.

They want their borders secured and their immigration laws ENFORCED. They want tax reform-and they want it ASAP! They want much more efficient, innovative and effective SMALLER government that gives them more bang for their hard-earned buck. They want Senate rules that do not allow and up or down vote for executive appointment to the federal judiciary changed to allow a constitutional up or down vote. They want their second amendment right to keep and BEAR arms VIGILANTLY protected! They believe America's best and brightest days are YET to come! They yearn for REAL change that PRODUCES real results that truly satisfy them. And, they want it all RIGHT NOW!

The new party is called the 'New Republican Party' and can be further studied at my website. This party is what we, and millions of others like us, have all been searching for...but it has never existed before...until NOW!

February 26, 2007  
Blogger Tony said...

Funny thing. I interviewed Rep Severson (R-St Cloud) who is a co-author of this crappy bill. The justification for it went like this:
1. It is a public safety issue and thus it must be regulated. Why not go for an outright ban?
2. Because that would take away freedoms. But what about my freedom of association as a business owner, to cater to whomever I wish?
3. Because it is a public safety issue. Then why not prohibit people from smoking in a house that has children?
4. Because that would take away freedoms. Then why require people to notify customers (verbally and in writing) if there is smoking within the location during non-business hours?
5. Because 2nd hand smoke lingers enough to endanger customers for days later. Then why not prohibit smoking in any building where children live?
6. Because we only need to inform parents/customers that smoking occurs there. Then why not make it so that notification is required at bars/restaurants?
7. Because it is a public health issue.

You get the point. The logic does not follow, the reasoning is disingenuous at best and the bill is obviously only two things: (1) the cowards way to ban tobacco while allowing cowards (aka, politicians) to continuing to profit from tobacco sales, and (2) Stalinistic approaches to imposing the will of some upon others, the values of some upon others.

Among items that were discovered during the interview:
Non-smokers have a "right to taste their food" instead of having smoke affect the taste of the food.

Indentured servitude exists...people are being FORCED to work in places that allow smoking.

People should not be in a position to need a job that requires them to drive 5 or 10 miles, much less 15-30 miles.

What was more interesting is that while agreeing that the global warming reports by experts should not be trusted (along with experts at all) the Surgeon General's report is gospel...questioning it is not permissible or tolerated. Only those who are fueled by special interests would dare question the SG's report or any study on 2nd hand smoke.

February 26, 2007  
Blogger Sakthi said...

If the government want to ban smoking they should start from the top,it means they have to ban the production, cancel the cigars companies license. But they won't do that, because it'll affect their income from drug industry.
Low Cost European Roadside assistance

July 23, 2007  
Blogger JohnSunlight said...

My name is John and I work on the Congresspedia.org wiki - a non-partisan wiki reporting project on Congress. I saw that you have been covering Minnesota politics and stories on members of Congress from Minnesota (among other things) and we'd like to put you on our blogroll for that state. Can you email me at SunlightUser2 [at] Sunlightfoundation.com?

Thanks,
John

September 10, 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home