Political News and Commentary with the Right Perspective. NAVIGATION
  • Front Page
  • News
  • Multimedia
  • RSS Feed


  • Tax Hike Wall of Shame























    No, don't be like New York City


    By jgillmanjr, Section News
    Posted on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 01:18:49 AM EST

    (Promoted by Nick...)

    The following is a letter to the editor I had printed in Central Michigan Life, Central Michigan University's school rag. I wrote it in response to a previous letter to the editor. Also cross posted at Random Rants

    Ban smoking in bars, restaurants, or any other private business? Absolutely not. Jeff Robinson's Sept. 17th letter couldn't be more wrong when he states that Mt. Pleasant should enact anti-smoking ordnances like New York City.

    He claims that due to his major being Health Fitness, he has been made "very aware" of the dangers of smoking. Good for him, but I've known that smoking is bad since elementary school. It's also irrelevant to the argument. I've worked as a bouncer for a bar in Traverse City in the past, and I can tell you that alcohol can lead to fights. Should we ban alcohol from restaurants and bars? No.

    So if smoking is bad for ones health, then why shouldn't the government ban it from restaurants and bars? It's quite simple, because restaurants and bars are private establishments. If one doesn't like the fact that an establishment allows smoking inside their premises, they certainly don't have to patronize it. Assuming a proprietor is competent, the smoking policy of an establishment will be more than aptly determined by the market. If a majority of patrons stopped going to a bar or restaurant because they allowed smoking, the owner is surely going to change the policy on it.

    Thinking an establishment is public just because it invites the public is a flawed perception that unfortunately many people have. It is this perception that empowers people to advocate banning smoking in restaurants and bars despite the fact that a majority of it's patrons have no issues that prevent their continued support of these establishments. I could have told you this even if I wasn't a business major. However, like I mentioned, it's a flawed perception.

    < John McCain Wins First Debate | PC harms Indian babies >
    Display: Sort:
    A journey of a thousand miles (none / 0) (#1)
    by RushLake on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 06:08:59 AM EST
    They've made war on big oil, SUVs, cigarettes (although they love the tax dollars they get from them), Christians, firearms. Ray Basham has been on this anti-smoking crusade since getting involved in politics. If/when he wins the debate, what will be next on his radar screen?  

    Bans (none / 0) (#2)
    by Eric T on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 07:07:39 AM EST
    Look at some of these and you can see there is going to be plenty on bans on all kinds of things, And Obama, with a Democrat House and Senate will be able to do pretty much whatever he wants, and nobody will be able to stop him.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0MO3bgvw0

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEB9QgU6w

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hvhZgUhpCEhc

    when I was a kid (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ed Burley on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:06:28 AM EST
    back before cigarettes became a prohibited substance for those under 18, kids could smoke, and risk getting their butts whooped by mom or dad (or both). Older kids would gladly buy us younger ones cigs because they didn't risk criminal charges (like with alcohol). The only risk those of us who smoked encountered was that dreadful run in with mom or dad.

    Today, it's all changed. Now kids can't easily get a hold of cigarettes, and so they steal them. In addition, if found using, they are charged with "Minor in Possession" (MIP) charges. We now have a whole new cadre of juvenile offenders -
    cigarette smokers. Rather than it being an issue for families, it is now an issue for the courts - all in the name of "health."

    Well, Ward and June, trust me, the Beav may be at higher risk for things like cancer and heart disease if he smokes, but there is only a correlation, not a causal link. There is NO cause and effect link of cigarette smoking with any of the health risks. There have been too many people who smoke who died of natural causes, and too many people who NEVER smoked who died of cancer, or heart disease. It's only heightened risk.

    For that matter, eating too much fat increases your risk of heart disease, and some cancers. There also appears to be a correlation between women who have abortions and breast cancer (due to the woman lactating during pregnancy, only to terminate before the milk is drawn). There are all kinds of health risks associated with a variety of behaviors - but they've singled out cigarettes. It's only a matter of time before it's fast food ("Super Size Me"), or sweets.

    Funny how the Democrats see nothing wrong with extortion, bribery, and adultery; but they want to control what we put in our bodies. I knew a man who once said, "it is not what goes into a man that defiles him, but what comes out of a man." IOW, the behaviors of the unrighteous are much more defiling and repugnant than are the substances that are put into one's body. Our society is calling what is good, "evil," and what is evil, "good." Not much hope if that doesn't change.

    Display: Sort:

    Login

    Make a new account

    Username:
    Password:
    Join the RightMichigan.com Facebook Group HERE!
    Tweet along with RightMichigan by
    following us on Twitter HERE!
    create account | faq | search