Why don't you go diddle youself?
Posted on 03/04/2005 9:46:33 AM PST by SheLion
Please note that several cities and towns in Ohio are about to make a mistake and put smoking bans on their books.
Could you please put together a State law now that smoking bans are not allowed?
This would save a lot of wasted court money in the future.
You see, smoking bans are not legal. NY and FL judges have already agreed that bans are not enforceable. (Links at http://www.smokersclubinc.com ) This makes all smoking bans illegal unless your State or town wants to train you, supply liability insurance, sign you on as police AND make it a law that anyone they want must be forced into police duty. Your 16-year-old son washing dishes in a restaurant would have to go to the police academy because he may have to uphold the smoking ban law. Remove these un-enforceable laws from your books NOW to avoid lawsuits. Every worker has the right to sue you when hurt; your ban opens you up for liability. There are already lawsuits started, check the newsletter and the Ban Damage and Ban Loss pages.
Granville, Newark, and Heath have adopted the Columbus regulations, which as written, if passed, illegally enslave every business owner as police for them. You can stop them all now before they become law, and then you would have to go back and deal with them later. Forces in Columbus, Cincinnati and other places are already preparing to fight in court. Why go through all of this for nothing? Why allow your State to be ripped apart at the seams over something that is not enforceable, and goes against the grain of private business ownership?
When people in a town are descended upon by the Anti-smokers whose only paid job is to spread their lies… most people don't take the time to research the situation, and tend to believe what they hear from people who appear smarter then them. It's only natural and I don't blame them. But by pointing out that you are not allowed to enslave citizens as your army, this situation can and will be rectified.
Thank you for helping to keep America free and uphold the memory of those wonderful brave Americans who fought and died to keep our freedom and way of life in tact for future generations. Any business owner who wants to make their own rules on their own property will. There will be enough; smoking, non-smoking, and accommodation of both in businesses, for the intelligent public to decide where they want to spend their money. Let freedom of choice dictate private business and private property. It is the American way.
Yours,
Samantha Phillipe
President
The Smoker's Club, Inc.
info@smokersclub.com
(This letter is going online at http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1167 just in case your spam protector does not allow mail from dotcom email addresses. I will ask if readers could also send you a copy of this from their computers to be sure that you see it. I'll remove this post note when a response from you, or your legal representatives is posted. Thanks.)
Governor Bob Taft
http://governor.ohio.gov/contactinfopage.asp
Attorney General Jim Petro
http://www.ag.state.oh.us/contact/inquiry.asp
Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell
guide@sos.state.oh.us
Senator Mike DeWine
http://dewine.senate.gov/request_form.htm
Senator George Voinovich
http://voinovich.senate.gov/contact/index.htm
Ohio Judicial Conference. Kenneth A. Rohrs, Executive Director
rohrsk@sconet.state.oh.us
(Contact your Senator)
Email Senator Zurz
Call Senator Dann at 614-466-7182
Contact your Ohio town or city.
State and Local Government on the Net:
http://www.statelocalgov.net/state-oh.cfm
Phone numbers for Ohio Department of Development:
http://www.odod.ohio.gov/PhoneNumbers.htm
How to write a snail mail letter to a politician:
http://literacy.kent.edu/Oasis/Resc/Educ/vote2.html
How conservative of you.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/ww20031119.shtml
Harm's a two way street
Walter E. Williams (archive)
November 19, 2003 | Print | Send
The largest losers of America's anti-tobacco crusade aren't tobacco companies and smokers, it's the American people who are incrementally giving up private property rights. You say, "Hold it, Williams, I agree that people have the right to smoke and harm themselves, but they don't have the right to harm others with those noxious tobacco fumes!" Let's look at it, because harm is a two way street.
If you're allergic to tobacco smoke or just find its odor unpleasant, and I smoke in your presence, I harm and annoy you. However, if I'm prohibited from smoking a cigarette in your presence, I'm harmed because of a denial of what I find a pleasurable experience.
There's an obvious conflict. One of us is harmed. How can it be resolved? There are several ways. You might consider the harm I suffer trivial compared to yours. You could organize a sufficiently large number of people and lobby lawmakers to enact smoking bans in bars, restaurants and workplaces. Alternatively, I might consider the harm you suffer trivial, and organize a bunch of people and lobby lawmakers to mandate that smoking be permitted in bars, restaurants and workplaces.
Let's think about this for a moment. If you owned a restaurant, and did not allow smoking, wouldn't you find it offensive if a law were enacted requiring you to permit smoking? I'm guessing you'd deem such a law tyranny. After all, you'd probably conclude, it's your restaurant, and if you don't want smoking it's your right. Similarly, I'd deem it just as offensive if smoking were allowed in my restaurant and a law were enacted banning smoking in restaurants.
The totalitarian method to resolve the conflict is through political power and guns. In other words, the group with the greatest power to organize government's brute force decides whether there'll be smoking or no smoking in restaurants. Totalitarians might justify their actions by claiming that bars, restaurants and workplaces deal with the public, and thus the public should decide how they'll be used. That's nonsense. Just because an establishment deals with the public doesn't make it public property.
The liberty-oriented method to resolve conflict is through the institution of private property. In fact, conflict resolution is one of the primary functions of private property, namely it decides who gets to decide how what property is used in what way. Put another way: Who may harm whom in what ways? In a nutshell, private property rights have to do with rights held by an owner to keep, acquire and use property in ways so long as he doesn't interfere with similar rights held by another. Private property rights also include the right to exclude others from use of property.
Under the liberty-oriented method of private property, as a means to conflict resolution, we'd ask the question of ownership. If the owner wishes his restaurant to be smoke-free, it is his right. Whether a smoker is harmed or inconvenienced by not being allowed to smoke in his restaurant is irrelevant. Similarly, if a restaurant owner wishes to permit smoking, it is his right, and whether a nonsmoker is harmed or annoyed is also irrelevant. In the interest of minimizing possible harm either way, it might be appropriate for restaurant owners, by way of a sign or other notice, to inform prospective customers of their respective smoking policy. That way, customers can decide whether to enter upon the premises.
In today's America, the successful anti-tobacco campaign has become a template for conflict resolution through the forceful imposition of wills through the political system. It's part of a continuing trend of attacks on private property rights. Private property rights are the bulwark for liberty, and should be jealously guarded and not be sacrificed for the sake of expediency.
Why doesn't Ohio just make posession and ingestion of tobacco illegal? Where would they make up for the tax revenue shortfalls?
"I'm sure you're well aware that that particular slogan is employed for all kinds of purposes. It doesn't mean anything."
Personal Liberty doesn't mean anything? Would you become an advocate for Soylent Green?
I have been a responsible smoker since I started over 30 years ago. And even back then, we knew that smoking was 'bad for us.'
Smoking does damage your health? Are you working hard and putting away money so that you'll be able to pay the medical costs your habbit will eventually result in, or are you planning on leaving those problems for our state taxes to cover?
How about Tricare Prime Insurance. Is that good enough for you? If I ever get sick from smoking or anything else, I will pay for myself thank you. The state nor you won't have to pay for MY health care, thank you.
I don't much care what you do as long as it doesn't effect anyone else.
Oh don't worry. I don't "hang" out with anyone that my smoking would effect! And even my non-smokers could care less.
I don't think there's a single real, scientific study that has shown a real danger from second hand smoke. It appears the biggest danger of me going to a bar where people smoke is that my clothes will smell horrible.
Oh really? I can show you so many studies about second hand smoke NOT being the big bugaboo that the anti's want you to believe. Looks like you fell for all of them. Pity.
Well, honey, don't HANG out where business's are still providing smoking areas and then you won't stink. Personally, I believe in good personal hygiene myself.
However, health care costs are expensive, and I don't like having my hard earned money being taken in taxes to pay the costs to treat people for self inflicted harm.
Here's a link you might want to read:
The BIG LIE That Smoking is an Economic Burden To Society
If you're willing to cover the costs and accept the responsibility for your actions, then I'll agree that the choice is up to you.
(Actually, it's none of your business since cigarettes are still a legal commodity).
It's always been my choice, thank you. I am an adult woman who can think for herself. Thanks for your concern.
Where I spend my money is my business and what I save is my business.
God help your "other half".
If you're willing to cover the costs and accept the responsibility for your actions, then I'll agree that the choice is up to you.
How about the other folks wko use Tricare that don't smoke? You make make their rates higher.
Cancer - it's not cheap. I'm damn sick of paying for other folk's stupidity.
So am I,and I'm a smoker.
People just won't stop taking risks and I'm damn sick of it.
LOL
And so am I! And what about the thousands of aids victims that can't even work to support their own health care now? What about them?
Oh no! It's all about the smokers. Well, most of us smokers HAVE our own health care, and I'm sick of it, Mears!
Why don't you go diddle youself?
So is AIDS buddy. And I bet you are paying plenty for those victims. But yet, to you, it's all about the smoker.
You are a vile human being. You are not on the Yahoo Smoking Board here. Grow up!
If people want to quit they will quit.
Telling people that want to smoke is wrong and none of your business!
LOL....go get em SheLion !!!
LOL....go get em SheLion !!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.