The Ultimate Wedge Issue or Final Straw for the GOP
The statewide smoking ban that will soon be forced upon us may be the final straw for the GOP base. If the Governor does allow this to pass (by not vetoing it, we all know the thought police DFL Senate and House are gonna railroad this through and the only one who can stop it is the Governor) it may be the final straw for those of us who still think private property rights are not something Government, especially a state, should take away.
The Governor is a HUGE opponent to smoking as many are, but that is not what this is about. This is about taking away a person and business’s right to do with its property what it wants and was licensed by the government to do. Not to mention, the Government did allow teh person to buy the right to have the smokes in the first place. And it is revenue they can’t live with out.
Contrary to ban propents’ claims people don’t have to enter a smoke filled bar if they don’t want to, but do you know what? In the suburbs and counties where the Bill of Rights and common sense still prevails, non-smokers still do enter bars and restaurants that allow smoking. Compare that to the places where the thought police have already won, where wait staff and profits are at a minimum due to the lack of customers. Many places have been forced to close the doors, or fire their staff. How is getting fired saving the health of the employees?
If this passes, it will be the final straw for many of us who are sick and tired of the MNGOPers cow towing to liberal big government ideology. We’re sick and tired of being told what we are supposed to think as Republicans. We know what we stand for and the government stepping in and banning behavior and telling people what they can and cannot do with their property is not what we do stand for, and in fact oppose.
It is a damn shame that the state government is banning a behavior, especially since it profits from said behavior. Governor Pawlenty, if you want to stop the growing divide with conservatives in this state you had bettter think about them, not yourself on this issue.
As Rep. Marty Seifert said on Saturday, there are a lot of different animals at the Minnesota Zoo, but we should be focusing on finding more elephants than RINOS. I’d go beyond that and say that we should stop feeding the RINOS.
Maybe it is time to start our own “not one more dime operation” in Minnesota. Maybe it is time to punish Republicans for being bad by putting an end to giving them money that they are just going to use against what we believe. With out money politicians and parties can’t do squat. Since they won’t listen to our platform or advice anymore, they will have to listen to the lack of financial support for them.
Maybe that will finally sink in. Maybe not having our money to use against us, will finally make a difference. You see, it is our money that they are using against us. Who’s the fool? Well, it won’t be me this time around. How about you? Send them a message in 2007. Don’t send them a dime, unless they deserve it. So far, I am not convinced they do.
Make them earn your money this year. Or, tell them that if we get our rebate money, we’ll consider it.
Ha ha, I know, they won’t listen. But at least they won’t have anymore of your money to use against you to campaign against what you believe in. The DFL already does a good enough job on that.
This is precisely the type of over-reaching, over-bearing government regulation for which Democrats are known and for which Republicans need to oppose to re-establish in the public’s mind that the Republican Party is the party of limited government. I don’t know if Pawlenty will oppose the ban, but, from the statements (from Emmer) I have read in the newspaper, it sounds as if House Republicans will oppose the ban. Good for them.
Way ahead of you. I’ve already sent in my “not one dime” letter. Here is where I think the legislature, and probably the governor, needs more “input” from the grass roots. I think the stadium could have been stopped if enough outstate Republicans had stood on principle rather than convenience. I know I had more than one response from a legislator, insisting they were RIGHT on principle. A few more of us and they would not have been able to hide behind such nonsense.
Anyway, on this issue, I suggest we pull out the old double reverse play. Tell your legislators, Democrat or Republican, that you have accepted the ALA’s contention that second-hand smoke is dangerous in ANY quantity (it’s complete and utter nonsense, of course), and you don’t think it is proper that the State of Minnesota should “profit” from “drug dealing” that kills children. Make them repeal all tobacco taxes, and maybe give up the tobacco lawsuit money. Maybe they should just ban the sale of cigarettes altogether. THEN their consciences could be clear, and they would have the moral high ground to tell us we shouldn’t allow smoking on our own property.
Just to be clear: I hate smoking. It’s not allowed on my property, at all. But I shouldn’t be telling you that you cannot.
Pawlenty has long been a proponent of the smoking bans. I highly doubt he will change his mind on this issue. I wish the House Republicans luck in stopping this tyrannical act by our government, but I fear there are just too few of them to stop it. I wish there was some willingness of our party leadership to engage in the fight for hearts and minds, but sadly we passed a budget for 2007 with zero money to do exactly that. No ads. No paid media. No public events.
Sadly, all we can do is hope and pray that common sense and freedoms prevail. I however am not too excited about the prospects of that happening. I am excited to see what Seifert can do, it is just a damn shame a fine conservative like that was left with such a skeleton crew. Too bad the caucus didn’t bother to make a bold move like this earlier, I bet under his brave conservative leadership, the results would have been different.
I’m not sure this is the ultimate wedge issue (or a wedge issue at all). I think the notion that we can buy prescription drugs from Canada without damaging the free market is one, and certainly socialized health care (call it anything else you want, it’s the same), are bigger. How to spend the budget surplus is bigger still, since it ought to all come back to us, as a check, just as we sent it in.
not going to argue the merits of smoking bans, i can see both sides of the coin, but:
“Anyway, on this issue, I suggest we pull out the old double reverse play. Tell your legislators, Democrat or Republican, that you have accepted the ALA’s contention that second-hand smoke is dangerous in ANY quantity (it’s complete and utter nonsense, of course)”
well, i will tell you that a year ago i was diagnosed with Asthma. i am a very health person, nearing 30. i ran all through high school (state finalist in track & cross country). never smoked a day in my life, yet i’ve spent loads of time in smokey bars going to concerts (upwards of 120 a year sometimes). when the doctor who diagnosed me with Asthma started going through my medical & personal history, the only logical explanation for how i developed asthma was from being around second hand smoke so much. now am i blaming anybody but myself? no, but i’m just telling you my own personal experience…
ML: Get your doctor to go on record and officially say you got it from second hand smoke. I hear that kind of story all the time. The on ly explanatoon…. is second hand. But I have yet to see official medical records state: caused by second hand smoke. Death due to second hand smoke. etc etc.
Free markets are a damn fine thing. Right now there is absolutely nothing stopping bars across this state from going smoke free. Except that they will lose customers. Well wait, wouldn’t they gain customers if it is such a despised thing? Most would not.
Hey, I am all for clean air standards, and let’s be honest there are a heck of a lot of joints that would be out of business if air standards were enforced. But That is really the only suitable way for government to get involved in my mind. They should set an air standard that bars must meet to have smoking.
Because the dirty little secret of all this lying crap being spewed by the ALA and Bob “The smoking nazi” Moffit is that the air can’t be clean. BS the smoke eater machines can actually make it even cleaner. Why doesn’t the government take a limited yet active role in taking a stand on the scientific side of the argument? Stating that each place which will allow smoking has to pay a $500 fee every year and the air has to pass certain clean air standards for all known types of pollutants, not just cigarette smoke. Because, you know, for the good of the employees, oh yeah don’t forget they are saying this is for the employees not patrons, they shouldn’t have to breath all those pollutants from cooking and cleaning processes.
And the explain “wedge”. It may be the final nail in the coffin between Pawlenty and the limited government Libertarian leaning conservatives if he does sign this thing into law.
And now for a rant:
If this happens he better be running for Veep in 08, because he will not get the GOP endorsement for reelection in 2012. That’s not a threat, just a warning that we have had about all that we can take. Government is getting bigger in Minnesota. Unlike the state party where everything is still Eibensteiner’s and the RNC’s fault for the election (yes the Carey folks actually believe that Carey is still dealing with the aftermath of Eibensteiner from pre-July 2005, and the RNC picked too much of our staff and Carey is trying to clean them out which is why the state party was a complete bumblef@*k) the buck does have to stop somewhere with state government and you can’t blame the previous administration or those up the food chain for everything. If Pawlenty continues to water down liberalism or big government nannyhood government so that the GOP can swallow it, we’re going to have a huge problem, or rather he is. We don’t believe it, and no amount of telling us to like it is going to work.
Andy, first off, maybe if i was going to sue someone i’d have gotten a “written official medical record”, but i didn’t care as to the reason why (she offered that explanation).
Also, i don’t understand why is it so hard to believe that being around cigarette smoke often will have some adverse affect on your health. the severity aside, i won’t argue that there’s debate in how much or how little second hand smoke effects someone, but to say it has NO bad side effects is being a bit naive imo. If you truly believe that second hand smoke has NO bad side effects, when you procreate, can i take your 2 month old baby and put him in a cigarette smoke filled room for 8 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year?
hell, 50 years ago people had no idea that cigarettes were even that dangerous if you smoked them yourself, boy did that change…
As someone who has been around a while, I can tell you that cigarettes have been called “coffin nails” for as long as any of us geezers, and our parents, can remember– much longer than 50 years. The reason most people think smoking is more dangerous today than they did 50 years ago is because of the marvelous propaganda put out by nanny-staters like the ALA and grubby lawyers like Ciresi.
The latest pronouncements from the ALA are that there is NO LEVEL of secondhand smoke that is safe. Therefore, if anyone lights up a cigarette, anywhere in the world, we’ll all die. The only proper legislative response, therefore, is to completely ban the sale of cigarettes, yet that is one the State will not even entertain. I wonder why.
huh, well i guess my parents grew up in a different 50’s & 60’s than you did then, because they both have told me that it wasn’t until the early to mid 70’s that people started waking up and the information about the true effects of smoking were publicized (which seems to agree w/ the research i’ve done as well).
i’m not saying some people were not aware that smoking was dangerous to their health in the 50’s & 60’s, but it wasn’t nearly as widespread as it should have been.
i see this as a public health issue (not saying the smoking ban, just the information about the dangers of smoking), i don’t see it necessarily as a political issue whatsoever. it may spark political debate, but that’s neither here nor there.
i’ve lost a grandfather and a numerous other relatives due to lung cancer caused by smoking, sorry if it’s a sore subject.
also, if i can find it, i’ll link you to smoking ads from the 50’s… they make it come off as though smoking cigarettes is as healthy as eating a bran muffin.
I think I can find cartoons and movies from the 40s or even 30s where the phrase “coffin nails” appears, though of course it would be a tad difficult. Of course, most people back then smoked because they wanted to, knowing the risks. They were presumed to be capable of evaluating advertising, and didn’t need some nanny-state government to tell them that smoking was bad for you. It was called personal responsibility, something of which we are apparently no longer capable.
then how do you explain RJ Reynolds (admittedly) covering up their OWN studio on the many of the harmful effects of smoking cigarettes for over 2 decades?
i realize there is “personal responsibility”, but there is also a matter of being honest and direct to the consumer too.
studio = study, sorry i’m dying here at work
Just because Reynolds may have kept the scientific truth under wraps (something I do not believe has been firmly established except in the minds of greedy trial lawyers and insufferable bureaucrats), doesn’t mean it wasn’t common knowledge, in more general terms. There have been warnings on the package for 40 years. Anybody that doesn’t know by now is being deliberately stupid.
40 years, yes, they started it in 1965, i was talking about the 40’s & 50’s above (thought that was pretty obvious)
but also, their wording at first was “Caution: Cigarette Smoking May Be Hazardous to Your Health”
the keyword there is “MAY”. now i know it’s still a warning, but i kinda wish the US would be like the countries in Europe in terms of cigarette packaging and advertising.
also, there has been hard cut evidence about them covering up their findings (they even admitted as such), you can do the research yourself if you’re really that interested (i’m guessing not).
I’m more interested in the general principle that government should not be banning the use of a legal product on private property. If the government thinks smoking is that bad, they ought to quit “profiting” from the sale and use, at minimum, and probably should outlaw it altogether.
Just as a point of interest, there is (or at least was) a brand of cigarettes sold in Europe, which came in a black package with the skull and crossbones on the front. The brand name was “Death” and they sold like hotcakes.
for me, the most annoying part about going to smoke filled place isn’t necessarily the smoke in my eyes/face, it’s how shitty it makes my clothes smell afterwards. that shit doesn’t wash out very easily either (as my denim jacket can attest). the funny thing is, most all of my smoking friends support the bans and realize that their smoking is an inconvenience to non-smokers for various reasons, and choose to smoke outside or away from their friends who don’t want to be around smoke, but obviously not all smokers feel that way.
as for those cigarettes in Europe… ALL cigarette packaging & advertising in all of the countries i’ve been to in Europe (like 6-7 countries) have very large “SMOKING KILLS” and other various things on them (Skull & Crossbones too). they have now since adopted these more graphic labels:
http://www.smoke-free.ca/warnings/Europe%20-%20warnings.htm
Australia has similiar ones as well.
You know what is really annoying from my point of view?
All the people who expect a bar, serving beer, booze, and burgers to be as clean as an ICU.
If we are now going to legislate annoyances, BOY DO I HAVE A BIG LIST for us to get started on.
I also have been emailed a big list of facts that dispute most of the second hand smoke is the cause of all illness crap. I’ll save everyone the trouble, and I don’t really feel like wasting my time to trample on someone’s hope to pin disease on something other than just plain bum luck. Face it folks no one is going to live forever. There are people who have never been exposed who get sick, and yet others who do get exposed who never get sick. How the heck do you explain that? If second hand smoke is so bloody dangerous, why doesn’t EVERYONE get sick and die? BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE ARE JUST PREDISPOSED TO GET SICK AND DISEASE. Sorry, it sucks, but it is just how life works. “Don’t take life to seriously, you’ll never get out alive”.
Oh, and if we ARE going to try to say that “its the second hand smoke stupid”, When will the push be made to ban EVERYTHING that contains the same hemicals claimed to be causing all people’s illnesses? You know, busses billow huge amounts of cancer causing chemicals. So do charcoal BBQs. Who’s gonna propose to ban the sale and use of charcoal? (I know some nazis in California have, but will someone here do it?)
start of cold sore…
Please note that aspirin should not be used as a cold sore treatment…