Residual Forces

One of the rays of hope from the 2006 Election Debacle here in Minnesota is that some fresh new conservative voices are finally being heard. One of them is Rep. Tom Emmer (R-19B). (Source: St. Cloud Times)

I don’t smoke. I don’t like smoke. But my distaste for the habit doesn’t give me cause to have the state manage individual rights.

The new junta of Democratic legislative leaders has declared a statewide smoking ban as the top priority on their thin agenda for the upcoming legislative session.

That baffles me. How property taxes, education reform, health care reform and funding for roads and bridges do not top that list of priorities is, in a word, outrageous! Apparently promises made during recent campaigns can now be forgotten.

Funny, the Legislative session hasn’t yet started, and already the DFL agenda legislation is already taking place. Its too bad Republicans weren’t able to successfully define the DFLers as who they really were in the last election, but then again, each Republican had to spend too much time defending their own record and actions, since too many were allowed to stray from the conservative path through out the last legislative session.

A statewide smoking ban in Minnesota is a dangerous constitutional precedent. If the new regime wants the ban to pass, it very likely will pass. But we should at least call it what it is as we plummet further into the nanny-state formerly known as Minnesota.

And that my friends is exactly the kind of talk I think we should be hearing out of the Republican party. We need to call our misguided elected officials what they are, nannies, no matter their party allegiance on the ballot.

America was founded on principles of freedom and the right of the individual to self-determine. As a “free” society, the laws we enact must necessarily be directed toward protection of individual freedoms.

That’s the central problem with government nowadays, they think that they need to protect minorities, which inherently takes away individual rights.

A tension exists, however, between the right to self-determine and our predisposition to control. Simply stated, we all want to make decisions about our personal liberties, but some also want to make decisions for fellow citizens.

Why? Is it because we believe only the uneducated would disagree with our enlightened position?

That’s exactly what the smoking nazis want you to believe. Have you seen their latest TV commercial? Did you know that 49,000 people died from second hand smoke last year? I think the ad even implies that is just in Minnesota, but an astute common sense oriented person would say, gee that seems awfully high. That person would be correct, since second hand smoke has never appeared on a death certificate, and 49,000 people is higher than that of the total number of deaths in Minnesota in 2003, of just 37,000. ( Source: www.fedstats.gov). But then again, the smoking nazis are not known for giving you good facts.

We are all concerned with health. In fact, we are all responsible for making healthful choices. The first law on the DFL legislative agenda is a statewide smoking ban.

The real issue is much larger. The real issue is how far we are willing to let government rules erode our freedom.

There is no limit, save abortion, that DFLers and all too naive RINOs, are willing to let Government go to regulate our society’s behavior. There is no longer a free market for behavior, the good nanny state project of Minnesota is stepping in with its agenda. Have you ever listened to Met Council’s plan for the Twin Cities? It has nothing to do with suiting our needs, and everything to do with stemming our free will and free choices of what, where, when, and how we live. Our founding fathers are probably spinning in their graves over that government bureaucracy. Taxation with out representation, anyone?

What will stop the regulatory engineers from focusing their sights on the freedom to consume certain foods they consider unhealthful foods? What will stop them from outlawing certain expressions, like no one should be forced to sit in a public place next to someone spouting profanity or praying aloud? What will stop them from determining who can own and hold certain property like a farmer’s right to decide how and what to farm? What will stop them from legislating who we can associate with by restricting procreation based on genetics? What will stop them from legislating our religious freedoms?

And so on and so on. They have already butted in to so many individual choices and punished people for their decisions. Think I am wrong? Have you ever heard of sin taxes? How about the gas guzzler tax? What about the tax rebates for hybrids? Is that not government stepping into facilitate our decisions with a carrot and a stick? What is next? That is the question that should scare you.

I expect those who want to dictate our freedoms will cry out that the smoking ban is altogether different from the examples offered.

Of course they will argue its different. Everytime I have engaged with one of them, it has always boiled down to the same thing, they don’t like smoke. It always ends with, “I hate coming home from a bar and having to leave my clothes outside because they smell so bad”. Now what the heck does that have to do with health? Except for catching a cold from running in off the back steps in your skivvies.

Secondhand smoke obviously affects workers in bars and restaurants. Of course no one wants to suggest that employment is voluntary. Evidence of the negative health impact of secondhand smoke has been presented as indisputable.

If this is such an indisputable truth, then why does the federal government rate secondhand smoke below cell phones as a carcinogen?

Uh oh, hole in theory, what’s next lung ass Bob?  Well, I’m waiting. I’d also like to argue that there are people who have gotten cancer having never been exposed to smoke. And don’t they use a heck of a lot worse chemicals of farms? What about those workers? And dry cleaners? Print shops? (For some fun reading, go find out how humans are polluting the air in buildings, according to OSHA)

I realize this train may be out of the station and that it seems to be picking up steam. I only ask that before we set this course we consider the impact on not only the many businesses that will be hurt, but also the dangerous precedent we set for liberty.

Ah, yes, remember the days of prohibition? Funny thing, last night I was flipping round the channels and came across a show that was advocating for legalizing drug use. Now many of the same medical people arguing for smoking bans are also leading the charge for legalizing pot for medical purposes. Lets say Minnesota legalized pot for cancer patients and they were prescribed to smoke pot by their doctor. Where could they do it if they were in a hospital? In their room? Well, pot smoke is FAR worse than cigarette smoke for carcinogens, what about the second hand aspect? Would you want a nurse or doctor with a contact high? Or what poor candstriper would be forced to wheel that patient 50 feet off hospital grounds so they could have their prescribed pot? Wouldn’t that person be exposed to harmful and behavior altering drugs, while on the job?

On can only hope the Republicans in Minnesota can find some more liberty and freedom minded people soon, and that they can get through to the ‘false gods of freedom’ that reside in the DFL and other ‘higher’ offices of this state. It is not too late to call Minnesota home of the free, we just have to finally convince our mothers that we don’t need a babysitter anymore.