|
I don't drink, but I certainly can't (nor would I if I could) walk into a bar and request the taps be shut off because I can't stand the stench of THAT wretched poison. And by the way, on the scale of loss of life and human suffering, alcohol has caused, is causing, far more trouble, and is far more deadly than tobacco. No one was ever assaulted, arrested, PC 'ed, murdered, raped, etc., etc. under the influence of a Marlboro.
I will concede the point that smoking is a bad health risk.
I will concede the point that we would be better off without it.
It’s the how we get there that disturbs me.
We all have a constitutional right of free association and the right to own lawful businesses. If I don't want to be around drinking, I won't go into a bar. If I don't want my hearing damaged, I won't go into a club or concert. Those places are for people who choose to participate in that activity. I have and would stand up and defend their right to exist and your right to be there. When I CHOOSE to go somewhere where I know these things are occurring, I have made a choice. I certainly am not going to bitch about it. If I do complain, shame on me. I do not smoke in the company of those who do not. If you choose not to do so, or have quit, hats off to you sir!
Yes, you're right, you should be able to frequent establishments that are smoke free. I should be able to frequent establishments that are smoking. If it's just me and a couple of other losers in there, what do you care? It's none of your business. Ask yourself this question: Can't non- smoking restaurants and bars exist on their own merit?
And, in my opinion, it IS all about politics and ideology. The left would just love to take your guns, ban hunting, close the shoreline to fishing, outlaw smoking. They can't win a popular referendum on these issues even in a state like the Peoples' Republic of Massachusetts. So they skulk and slither their way through cracks and loopholes of the government, using the courts, the bureaucracy, etc., to legislate without the majority of the voters' consent. We could make it easier for them by amending the Constitution of the United States to provide for a self-appointed committee that tells you and me how to lead our lives.
I’m not defending big tobacco. They’re pushers just like all the rest of them (A-B, Miller, distillers ). Their tactics and philosophy were, and probably still are, indefensible. But do you really think they are the only “Big” business that has traded lives for profit (remember the big car makers’ death trap years)? Again, not to wear it out, but a feel good “Let’s all drink responsibly” ad that occurs simultaneously with a price war amongst the major suppliers is just plain hypocrisy. Didn’t I just read about the carnage on RI roads being at an all time high, or rising quickly?
The tool that the left is using in this jihad is litigation. Litigation is driven by lawyers. The overwhelming majority of law school graduates are liberals . Fear of lawsuits is one reason otherwise reasonable public servants will go along with this. Did anyone else think that a 100, 200,500 million or more lawsuit for the umpteenth time year after year was a bit over litigious? Juries who continue toward these settlements after 30 years have put all of our civil rights in jeopardy. These type of punitive awards are about class not justice. Maybe tort reform is worthy of another look?
I know I’ve been long winded, but this strikes a chord (can’t you tell?). We should be very leery about limiting any of our rights. I hope I have made a honorable attempt at defending some of my opinions, and addressing your rebuttals. Although I stand by the essence of my earlier post, I may have offended someone with my colorful characterizations of the loyal opposition. Please forgive me. I know not all liberals wear panties.
|