Puff-Snuff Huff (Pataki signs statewide public smoking ban)

New York Post ^ | March 27, 2003

[P.O.E.]

I suppose laws against those who spread AIDS to others will soon follow. /sarcasm

[metesky]

Yes we should overthrow many of our present local and state governments and send all the Federal NannyGov types home where they can be masters of their own small domains.

It's called elections. We have them every two years. Perhaps you've heard...

[MrLeRoy]

I guess Big Brother has turned into Big Mamma, knowing what's best for us and making us wash behind our ears and all that. They now form a tag team of motivation and rationalization to take property rights away under the guise of knowing what's best for you.

Pretty soon they'll be requiring you to order vegetables when you go out to eat

The War On Some Drugs was just the first step on a long slippery slope.

[TLBSHOW]

Seward amd Boelhert voted yes!

[VRWC_minion]

It's called elections. We have them every two years. Perhaps you've heard...

You mean the same folks who were recently elected that just raised your state tax on cigs by over 50 cents per pack in many states and banned smoking in public places ? Those folks ?

[metesky]

Don't worry, you smug ___, the tide is turning as more people see that they've placed small minded imps like you in charge.

[Protagoras]

Those Republicans are at it again, the start of a new prohibition and the reassertion of the states authority to govern the use of private property.

The "public" designation is another redefinition of property by those who have the guns.

[Wolfie]

That's the problem with chickens, they always come home to roost. You spend enough time and money telling people that the government has a right, heck, a duty, to tell people what to do with their lives, and sooner or later, someone takes you up on it.

[Protagoras]

"because he believes a statewide ban on smoking in the workplace will lead to a healthier New York and will reduce the cost of health care for New Yorkers."

Can't think of almost anything that can't be enacted under these guidelines. Banning automobiles would do a better job of attaining these goals.

[Protagoras]

Keep your powder dry.

[NYFriend]

I can't say for sure. The new law specifically prohibits smoking is restaurants, bars, bingo halls, etc. The Indian Casino's like Turning Stone in Onieda County, are, in practice if not by law, exempt for pretty much all local regulation. The Oneida's have actually towed and refused to return State Police cars that were parked illegally in front of their building, for example. However, the caterers who serve alcohol at private parties at Turning Stone (Onieda Nation members and former employees who, I believe only serve at the casino), have applied for and may have received a state liquor license. That may have been only to facilitate wholesale purchasing thoug. Basically, the N.A.'s seem to do what they want.

[NYFriend]

Boelhert is a Congressman, didn't get to vote on this.

[VRWC_minion]

The tide is turning ? New York just did a state wide ban and you think the tide is turning ? I suspect what your percieve as the tide turning is the receding of the waters before the tidal wave hits.

[VRWC_minion]

Absent an express statement by Congress on a particular issue, a state's power to assert its civil regulatory laws . . . on a federal reservation, turns on whether state law in that area is preempted by the operation of federal law. New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe, 462 U.S. 324, 103 S.Ct. 2378, 2386 (1983).

I would assume that federal law is silent on smoking bans.

[VRWC_minion]

On a related issue

In determining whether a state regulatory law applies to a tribe on a federal Indian reservation, the courts apply a two part test to determine if state law has been preempted: (1) whether application of state law would "interfere with reservation self-government," which inquiry is informed by traditional and historical notions of tribal sovereignty; and (2) whether application of state law "would impair a right granted or reserved by federal law." Rice v. Rehner, 463 U.S. 713, 103 S.Ct. 3291 (1983). In Rice v. Rehner, the United States Supreme Court expressly determined that: "tradition simply has not recognized a sovereign immunity or inherent authority in favor of liquor regulations by Indians." Id., 103 S.Ct. at 3297. The Supreme Court found that: "The State has an unquestionable interest in the liquor traffic that occurs within its borders, and this interest is independent of the authority conferred on the States by the Twenty-First Amendment." Id., at 3298.

[Leisler]

(Say with German Accent)"The State has an unquestionable interest ..."

I think that sums up your true fundamentals.

[VRWC_minion]

Those voters in New York ought to be sent to concentration camps where they obviously belong.

[Leisler]

Camps are for people who the state knows will think for themselves. Any person who obeys the dictat of the state is allowed to work, pay taxes and engage in permitted activites. Simple, no?

Of course, tomorrow will bring new "improvements." Your turn will come.

[VRWC_minion]

Any person who obeys the dictat of the state is allowed to work, pay taxes and engage in permitted activites

Fine by me so long as I don't have to smell their smoke.

[Leisler]

Usually lackeys sell out for status and/or money. The deliverance of increased power to the state for an annoyance, I believe, is a new low. Congratulations.

Quoting legal decisions in which state minions declare "unquestionable" rights, as if anything is unquestionable, and your usual justifications, only further illuminate your well expressed political ethos, such as it is. Anyways, weather Hitler, Stalin, Ralian cultists, or Pepsi vs Coke fans, someone somewhere will always support something. You are no different. I just like using you a foil and a tool, which you have done so well. Lastly, to be snide, would you support Article 15s for Marines smoking in Iraq? And if not, why not?