Today, I was talking with someone about the idea that smoking ban proponents (such as Smoke-Free Wisconsin, Governor Doyle, Lance Armstrong, et al), really don’t care about the health of Wisconsinites as far as secondhand smoke is concerned, and that to use the health argument is disingenuous.
The person asked how I could believe such a thing. Of course they care! Lance Armstrong had cancer, for the love of Pete! (Sorry, I love throwing that ‘Sconie talk in once in awhile. Just keepin’ it real.)
Well, I asked this person if they could ever recall seeing a news story about Smoke-Free Wisconsin or any other smoking ban group standing out in front of a bar or other establishment that allows smoking, attempting to stop people from entering? If these people are truly concerned about people’s health, and if they truly believe that secondhand smoke kills, why are they not picketing outside of smoking establishments, discouraging people from walking headfirst into their certain death (by choice, no less)?
The reason is simple. This isn’t about health. Smoke-free Wisconsin knows full-well that secondhand smoke isn’t nearly as big of a threat as they’re putting forth. If I’m wrong, and if they do believe that it is a deathly threat, why are they not attempting to stop these innocent people from harming themselves? If they truly believe that people are harming themselves (or ‘killing’ themselves) by entering smoking-allowed businesses, and if they honestly care about these innocent people, wouldn’t they try to convince them not to enter the building?
When a group of individuals claims to ‘care’ by attempting to pass legislation to save you from yourself, ask yourself why–if they ‘care’ so much–are they not out pounding the pavement and getting up in your business by trying to save you, personally?
I’ll tell you why…because they don’t care. Personally, even if they did care and were getting up in my business, I’d still tell them to mind their own affairs, but that’s neither here nor there. The point is that their lack of desire to ‘make a difference’ in their own backyards and respective cities shows their disingenuousness. There’s a different motive afoot, and it isn’t to ‘preserve your health’.
What is their motive? That’s up to you to find out for yourself. I have my own ideas, but mainly I just think that it’s a tool for politicians to use to get re-elected by a vast majority of Wisconsinites (80% of Wisconsinites are non-smokers) who really don’t give a flying fig about businesses being banned from allowing smoking, and who have been charmed by the anti-smoking propaganda. It’s also a justification for more government and higher taxation. I don’t honestly believe that smoking ban proponents have this desire to take away the rights of property owners (that would be black-helicopterish). A little closer to the truth would be that they’re so excited to get re-elected, create more government jobs and raise taxes, that they really don’t care what liberties are trampled upon in the process.
This is why it’s so important that we stand up now, in the beginning stages of this insane ‘ends-justifying-the-means’ scenario. Once precedence is set on government’s intrusion into the private affairs of a property owner regarding legal activities performed on their property, all sorts of banning of legal acts on private property can be justified. The sky’s the limit.
The government’s perceived right to protect us from ourselves has reached the point of absolute intrusion. It started with seatbelts. They convinced us that they cared so much about us that they wanted to force us into complying with their nanny-ish laws (for our own good, of course). And now, they seek to disallow a private business owner from making business decisions regarding a legal act.
When do we stop justifying these intrusions into our private affairs? When we’re being mommied to death by our powerful government? Where is the line in the sand and when do we yell out that we’re mature adults, fully capable of making decisions for ourselves?
I think it’s different for every person, that line. But do yourself a favor, and ask yourself what line you would not allow the government to cross in regards to your individual freedoms. Answer yourself honestly.
What freedoms are you willing to give up for your own good?
Filed under: The Slippery Slope, reality check
What freedoms an I willing to give up “for my own good”?
That’s simple: not a goddamned one of them.
A government does not, and cannot have rights. Only a “natural person” has rights. What the government has is power and authority. It has the power to make law and the authority to do so – provided that law does not violate people’s rights or the Constitution.
While the jury hasn’t been convened to determine if smoking bans violate the Constitution, there is absolutely no question whatsoever that they violate people’s rights. That renders the passage of such laws an excesses of power without authority.
To remain silent while they commit this abomination is to support that abomination by default. To support them in these efforts betrays the very essence of this nations founding principles. I cannot say to a legal certainty that this violates the letter of the law regarding treason, but I have absolutely no doubt that it violates the spirit of the law.
To allow them to take your liberty is cowardice. To willingly hand over your liberties to empower them to rob others of the same is the essence of evil.
I am neither a coward, nor am I evil. I will not remain silent while they rob me of my birthright as both an American and a human being, nor will I willingly hand over what they want to steal from me. Ultimately the only thing that is for my own good is freedom. To quote one of our forefathers, “I know not what course others may choose, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death.”