Wednesday, August 29, 2007
|
|
End of the Line, Huckabee
|
|
Posted by:
Mary Katharine Ham at
8:51 AM
|
I was willing to entertain the thought of you as a refreshing, charming, surprising second-tier candidate whose eloquence and wit would serve the party well (although trashing the Club for Growth was really pushing it).
But a national smoking ban? You're not running a health spa; it's a country, and you will never win friends in North Carolina talking like that. These big-time pound-shedders cum health nuts. You applaud them as they get healthy, but be careful putting them in power-- they'll take your food and other vices away from you quick as look at you. Because they know what's best for you now and don't care that they got to choose the time and place and manner of their own health reformation.
I'd like to have seen Gov. Huckabee's reaction had someone supported a ban on trans fats back when they were clearly his bread and butter, if you know what I mean. This is typical government overreach and liberal condescension and I don't like it one bit.
|
|
|
Much as with Mitt Romney, his healthcare plan while it irks me, isn't enough to lose him my vote. |
|
|
Once again, gang up on the smokers. I do not force my right to smoke, literally, in anyone's face so why force your choice to not smoke on me? Don't bring up the "X-factor" of how many people die from smoking, how much it costs, ets. either! How many people die on the nations highways each year? How many from obesity? How many from falling off ladders? I also do not like that funding for CHIPS is from new taxes on smoking. Taxing one groups money? Isn't that discrimination? Bet that wouldn't fly to tax gun owners to clean up lead dumping grounds. Smoker's just don't have as good a lobby! |
|
the same as Hitlary? Oh yeah, when they annointed bald Hillary as their front runner. Huckabee is just joining the rush to see who can act more like a Nazi first!
I wish more candidates would simply state that it is not the governments job to "nanny" every single citizen as to what is good or bad for you. Firstly, they don't know what they are talking about when it comes to nutrition and health, it is not a solid science because you can't perform proper scientific studies on peoples health without killing some. Therefore, all they have is theories as to what is good or bad for you and it is known that individuals have different tolerence levels to each variable in the equation.
Therefore, nothing in nutrition and health can be possitively known. |
|
Huckabee advocated a ban in PUBLIC PLACES, not in private homes. This is a public policy issue, and the evidence indicates that such bans save lives. In the 18 months following a ban on public smoking in Pueblo, CO, hospital admissions for heart attacks decreased by 27%.
Read the report here: http://www.heart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3043008
|
|
|
as I'm trying to return to the freedom that I had in the sixties and earlier. It is insane to continue to call America a Republic without States Rights! Federally Mandated "Bans" and interference is the road to tyrany regardless of the cause. Smoking is a decision that "Business Owners" should make, and allow the consumer the right to vote them out of business if they choose to not do business with them..........If he want's to protect the U.S. Citizen, then get the DRUNK MEXICAN CITIZEN OFF OF OUR ROADS!.......I'm disapointed in his position. |
|
If smoking is the public health issue that is made up to be, then why is it not outlawed completely? If it costs us so much money every year, would it not save us more money by outlawing tobacco than by taxing it?
My stance is let businesses decide whether to allow smoking on their premises. This nannification of society is too much to take. |
|
|
There is only one Republican Presidential candidate who understands the diffrence between freedom and liberty on one hand, and authoritarianism and government out of control on the other hand. That is our only choice for liberty and the Constitution: Ron Paul for President. |
|
|
Good article MKH. 'Nuff said! |
|
Next we'll require everyone to wear helmets.
All the time.
And knee and elbow pads.
And sensible shoes.
And sunscreen.
And sunglasses.
And padded denim blouses and pants.
... |
|
|
I was seeing and hearing good things about Mike H. When did he become a statist? It is sad to see a bright spot succomb to pandering. OBTW if this smoking ban were to take place, all states (and the Fed.) would have to scramble to cover a major tax shortfall. |
|
MK is none too happy at the thought of giving up her White Owls......
Just keep watching TV and continue to give up your freedoms one at a time.....
We no longer have Freedom of Speech (unless you're a Lefty), because we have been dutifully taught to be "offended" by "hate-speech" on television.
We no longer have Freedom of Religion, we have Freedom FROM Religion. Religion is divisive as we learned on television.
The Right to Bear Arms is now the Privilege to Bear Arms, because guns are scary as we learned on.....
Help me out here..... |
|
I'll let it slide, I can't agree with everything candidates say, and he seems a lot better than the others running right now.
And I wouldn't mind if he flip-flops on this issue either, saying something like "It's been pointed out to me that a smoking ban is not a prerogative of the federal government." THAT would surely get my vote.
http://www.countrymanscorner.blogspot.com
BTW, I just love your vids, Mary Katherine, you're brilliant and beautiful! |
|
|
Good Grief...with the illegals over-running our country, with the mess (as usual) in the Middle East, with the radical Islamists, with tainted Chinese products everywhere ... no one will be around to worry about smoking and health issues. |
|
|
Quit now before you dig in deeper. |
|
|
|
|
I'am still waiting for someone to write about Huckabee's record of pardons. |
|
|
I like the idea. I think banning smoking would be a good thing for the country. We banned marijuana and many other drugs, and cigarettes have been proven to cause lung cancer and end lives also. In fact, cigarettes may even be worse than some banned substances. I think Huckabee is just being consistant, just as he is consistant with his Christian beliefs by believing in creation, not the theory of evolution. |
|
Rather than having the courage to defend the constitution, Huckabee surrenders to "feel good" legislation. That's for the Liberals...not for Conservatives. I don't buy the "public places" argument. There's nothing public about private property. If we let the smoking police have their way on this, sooner or later they'll come into our homes.
Now that the Nannies have taken away most trans fat, Lays chips now taste like processed paper. Next up is Dunkin Donuts and KFC. They're kidding themselves into believing their product will tast the same. There was nothing wrong with Trans Fat if one didn't consume it every day.
Huckabee just joined McCain at the end of the line. He seemed way too smart to say something that dumb. |
|
Dear Mary,
Are you addicted to tobacco like so many other people in the world? It's almost impossible to give it up even though everyone knows it is destructive to a person's health.
I live in Montevideo, Uruguay and a year and a half ago, the government declared a ban on somking in public places. What a wonderful difference it made in the quality of the air. Smokers can still smoke, but not in my face.
The president here is a practicing oncologist and has seen first hand the damaging effects of smoking on health. He wisely moved to improve the health of the people by making it harder to smoke.
Now why would you fault Huckabee for doing the same thing to help improve the lot of Americans addicted or soon to be addicted to nicotine, and the rest of the people who have to "grin and bear" this nasty addiction of the people at the next table? |
|
Rather than having the courage to defend the constitution, Huckabee surrenders to "feel good" legislation. That's for the Liberals...not for Conservatives. I don't buy the "public places" argument. There's nothing public about private property. If we let the smoking police have their way on this, sooner or later they'll come into our homes.
Now that the Nannies have taken away most trans fat, Lays chips now taste like processed paper. Next up is Dunkin Donuts and KFC. They're kidding themselves into believing their product will tast the same. There was nothing wrong with Trans Fat if one didn't consume it every day.
Huckabee just joined McCain at the end of the line. He seemed way too smart to say something that dumb. |
|
but I hate government mandated behavior more.
Huckabee needs to sit back, have a good cigar and reconsider his position.
Next thing you know, state fairs will be regulating how much trans-fat we can have in our deep-fried Snickers---oh wait, they've already done that! |
|
ROBZUC,
You said, you do not "force my right to smoke, literally, in anyone's face". Actually, you do. Whenever I go to a restaurant and smell the "smoking section" - divided from the other section by some invisible line - you force your smoke in my face. When I went to the 4th of July fireworks this past year, I smelled "your" smoke in my face. Whenever I go by "your" car, I smell your smoke in my face. Smokers stink and they tarnish the quality of life for those who choose to take care of their bodies. Go find a place by yourself where you can smoke, and clean and launder your clothes before coming back to the real world.
|
|
|
Once again confirms why Huckabee is a 2nd Tier candidate. |
|
Registered North Carolina Democrats; sometimes casts independent votes: Lots of folks in NC are not only tired of watching our families and neighbors die in high numbers from tobacco-related illness BUT ARE ALSO ("p*ss*d-off" about the public having to pick up health care for the poor suckers who are enticed to smoke -- particularly as the so-called "Tobacco settlement" got companies off the hook for future compensation.
So, Mr. Huckabee, you've caught my attention. Your task now is to get to the specifics! Good luck!
|
|
It's ranting self absorbed people like you who give off hot air to our environment.
I cheer on Robzuc. I am a smoker, and I have always been considerate about my addiction to others who do not smoke, even to intolerant people like yourselves.
It should be left up to the business owner whether or not they prefer to have smoking in their facility. Period. If you feel business owners have no rights to make decisions regarding the runnings and the patrons of their own business, then move to Commie Country.
I never drink, oddly enough. Guess what may come next? You allow Nanny Nazi's to take away your trans fats, take away all smoking (even in casinos for chrissakes) then get ready for the new prohibition.
Drinking is bad....
Drinking kills families....
Drinking kills drivers....
Drinking is addictive.....
Drinking is the cause for numerous diseases.....
We don't want diseases....
Let's over tax alcohol.....
Let's tax it again.....
Let's ban it in 4 counties.....
Let's ban it in 12.....
Let's ban it in 10 states....
Let's ban it permanently.....
Just wait. Sometimes you need to suck an egg, Reader, because be careful what you wish for. |
|
....national Liberal ban....THAT I could go for...
|
|
has it right.
-------------------
"This is typical government overreach and liberal condescension and I don't like it one bit." per Ms Ham
---------------------
The Limbaugh wannabeeze oppose 'some' govt. restrictions but not others.
The judges they hate are "activists" while the ones who please them "follow the Constitution."
Some call this a joke but it's not funny.
|
|
|
You can drink alcohol and not get drunk or ruin your liver, as long as you limit your intake. Every cigarette, on the other hand, is a detrement to your health. It does you no good, whereas drinking alcohol has a few health benefits, such as keeping you healthier in countries where the drinking water is of poor quality. You can drink in healthy amounts, you CANNOT smoke in healthy amounts. |
|
sorry lando ... there is no such thing as a free ride when it comes to alcohol consumption or anything we injest into our bodies. some things may be less harmful (sic) but the body still has to process them through various complex interactions. about time you read up on some human science.
as to the smoking ban. as an addicted smoker, i always cringe when "the ban" is discussed or the pols ask for more taxes; however, if i am to be honest with myself, i have to support the public policy goals of these laws. banning smoking in public venues makes sense on many levels but the bottom line is still a healthier america which will make us in the long run a safer america. an argument that so many of the right seem to never understand.
finally, i suspect, mary, your real problem with the issue is how it relates back to national health care ... but as they say, that is a different debate for a different day. i will be anxiously awaiting that debate with the right as the spittle flies over the keyboards! |
|
I can't really understand what you're trying to say Bama. Are you claiming alcohol is as bad as smoking? Alcohol isn't less harmful than smoking, it's NOT harmful UNLESS you ingest too much. Also, I do not drink, so I'm not looking for a free ride.
Throwing out lame insults like "about time you read up on some human science" isn't a good way to debate people either, Bama. I can say the same to you, but it's pointless, and gets us nowhere. If you want to prove me wrong, give me a link to a scientific website or something proving me wrong that I can read and correct myself, otherwise don't bother commenting on my knowledge of "human science." |
|
Hi Rich,
You mused...
"I wish more candidates would simply state that it is not the governments job to "nanny" every single citizen as to what is good or bad for you."
There is only ONE candidate for you, then.
RON PAUL 08 - THE NEW GOP FRONT RUNNER
AND
The only candidate that can and will beat Hillary.
(IMHO)
JET |
|
|
Cigerettes dont kill people, people kill themselves and should have the right to do what they want if it doesnt interfere with someone else. I smoked for 30 yrs and have nothing wrong with me. Didnt I see in the DRIVE BY MEDIA were they had this 100 yr old woman who celebrated by smoking her 190,000th cig. I have known more people who have died of cancer and never smoked a CIG, The problem is if we change our name of cigs to F#gs like the British call them then maybe HITLERY will make a law allowing F#GS to still circulate since she supports GAY marriages. HA HA HA> |
|
Hi Rich,
You mused...
"I wish more candidates would simply state that it is not the governments job to "nanny" every single citizen as to what is good or bad for you."
There is only ONE candidate for you, then.
RON PAUL 08 - THE NEW GOP FRONT RUNNER
AND
The only candidate that can and will beat Hillary.
(IMHO)
JET |
|
Alcohol is not the next big health crusade. Obesity is. It is interesting to speculate on the roads this one will eventually take. I can say without fear of being incorrect, that obesity will be a far bigger crusade than smoking ever was or could be (yah, pun intended).
Due to the silly BMI, and lowering the "standards" for it, two-thirds of adults are overweight. Add in those who are obese, and you are looking at about three-quarters of the adult population.
Do you not read or hear on the TV news virtually EVERY day how fat we are all getting? Get a clue - that probably means YOU!!
Oh, I can see all kinds of goodies in store for you. Let's see, how about a yearly weigh-in, and if your BMI is too high, you can pay a couple hundred a month more in insurance premiums. Sound good? How about an additional state and/or fed tax? Sound good? Then there are the new "fat" taxes on your favorite snacks, cookies, chips, sodas, oh yeah, nirvana!
Nanny has only just arrived. Wait until she settles in. |
|
|
|
|
Most places do not allow smoking in restraunts and other locales of mixed company. I do not, however support a ban smoking anywhere else. If "walking by my car" is offensive to you, stay the hell away if you're walking that close. And meanwhile, keep your damned screaming kids and dogs outta my face while I'm enjoying the fireworks! Sniff |
|
|
...and look at me now. maybe i'd be better off puffing two packs a day than packing all these xtra pounds. |
|
|
...it was easier for me to quit smoking than it is to lose weight once it's on. You can quit smoking immediately without any immediate health consequences, but you will eat, and before you know it you weight more than ever before and it takes forewver to lose, and if you try to hurry the process drastically there will be health consequences. Dammed if you have the pounds, dammed if you loss the pounds too quick. |
|
lando: my my don't be so quick to fly off the handle. please, i merely made an observation about metabalizing any substance and you think i personally attacked you. i would have hoped you read the whole paragraph. now as to scientific articles, i will give you a quick way to pursue and to read at your leisure and/or interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_alcohol_on_the_body. the article in and by itself is rather sophomoric but it does give several links to more academic studies.
lando, let me be quite clear if that is possible. i was not trying to insult you ... if i had been you would not have been confused ... i was merely assuming a certain cognitive functioning on your part ... that was my bad. |
|
Yep, "they banned marijuana and other drugs" and marijuana is now smoked by even greater numbers of people than when they first banned it.
It sure worked that time, let's see what a tobacco ban would do. Anyone want to bet that nicotine would be the popular drug of choice among kids rebelling against their parents? |
|
You go girl! So many people want to stick their noses in others business.
At least they should be consistent in imposing their ideas of what is good for you and what is not. |
|
since around 2000. The formula was to gerrymander the districts, cater to social conservatives like Dobson, and then expect the rest of us to vote for anyone who isn't a Democrat. The most egregious example was the passage of Internet gaming restrictions last year. Talk about a nanny-state!
Well, it all started coming home to roost in Nov. 2006, and I can only imagine what Nov. 2008 will be like.
If the party ever decides to return to being the party of small government, well be here. Until then....best of luck guys. |
|
|
If the party ever decides to return to being the party of small government, we'll be here. Until then....best of luck guys. |
|
Being a long time resident of Arkansas, none of this Huckabee stuff surprises me. He was largely responsible for the misnamed "Arkansas clean indoor air act" which as far as I know does nothing to directly address the quality of indoor air. It just places severe restrictions on where people may smoke. After all there might all sorts of pollutants in our air. They rejected any solution that might have actually kept the air clean of smoke, short of banning smoking. I think at the root of the Hucksters "Nannyism" problem is that he is a former baptist clergyman. I am a Catholic myself, but Mind you I am against clergy of ANY denomination holding elected public office. It is particularly problematic with the baptists though, as they seem to have a strong puritanical streak.
Danny U |
|
Let's see. We have Iraq and Iran, to say nothing of Palestine and Israel. We have Mexicans and many others streaming across the Mexican border, and who knows exactly who is coming in from Canada, since we obviously let TB patients in. We have airport security octogenarians who screen 7-years olds with a wand. We have the threat of Hillary taxing the freaking daylights out of everyone (except of course for people like Hillary and Bill). We have the ATM, incredible bureaucracy within ICE, we have sanctuary cities and illegal "activists" like Elvira -- and Huckabee is talking about a national ban on smoking in public places?
Whew. He ought to drop below the second tier to right-outta'-sight. Obviously NOT a person to lead the nation. |
|
Come on people, look at this from the politicians standpoint. A National smoking ban is only going to effect who? The smokers and those who grow tobacco,and neither has very much clout anymore in Washington D.C.. But by enacting a National smoking ban the politicians can thump their chests and tell the public, "Hey look at me see what I done."
Its all about demography now, the federal government has sliced and diced and divided this country to the point that we are just mere groups within a much larger group run by the federal government.
As some of you have posted states rights don't count any more, but if we forced the federal government to go back to when the states elected Senators we wouldn't have the problem we have today with corruption on Capital Hill.
But who is to be blamed for this? We are, I listened to Rush Limbaugh today and there was a 31 year old single woman who has never voted her entire life, that is exactly why we have a unresponsive federal government. The major attitude is, "All I want is the government to take care of me, and I don't care how they do it." And old Mikey is more than happy to step in and save the day. |
|
I know Mike Huckabee has no shot whatsoever, but I like him as a person because I can relate to him. He has Type 2 Diabetes, like my Dad (diagnosed in April); he lost a ton of weight, like me; he's witty and funny, like I try to be; and he plays bass guitar...not like me (I play piano), but there's plenty of great bass guitarists in contemporary jazz, which I listen to...a lot.
So, MK, I really like you, but your line--"I'd like to have seen Gov. Huckabee's reaction had someone supported a ban on trans fats back when they were clearly his bread and butter, if you know what I mean."--was a bit of a low blow and I take it personally. (That's the second thing on here I've taken personally today. LOL.) This next sentence is being written after I paused to think, and now I don't know what else to say. But I think I made my point.
Incidentally, I had KFC crispy strips for dinner last night, which is now sans trans fat. |
|
|
|
When he referred to the Club for Growth as the Club for Greed he lost any credibility he had with me.
Another nanny stater masquerading as an (R) is really not necessary. |
|
There's just one big problem you forgot to mention about Ron Paul. He's a complete nutcase.
|
|
Countryman wrote: "It sure worked that time, let's see what a tobacco ban would do. Anyone want to bet that nicotine would be the popular drug of choice among kids rebelling against their parents"
Me:
It already is the drug of choice among kids rebelling against their parents. Cigarettes are the real gateway drug. How many people become crackheads without first starting to smoke?
Furthermore, the marijuana ban was put in place years ago, when there were FAR less drug addicts (not counting the nicotene drug addicts) back then. I don't understand the point of smoking. People start doing it to be cool (what other reason is there?), and it's completely downhill from there. Even if smoking doesn't kill you, it ruins your teeth, ruins your face and skin, makes you smell bad, and is a complete inconvenience to you your entire life. You waste thousands of dollars during your life smoking, and you waste time having spent smoking.
BTW Bama - I've seen enough "one glass of wine a day is good for you" kind of stories to know that alcohol consumption is not bad for you if consumed responsibly. That article doesn't prove me wrong. In fact, when I clicked on the link, there was no article. |
|
|
Mary Katharine Ham doesn't seem to realize that when somebody smokes, they affect the health of everybody around them. There is nothing "liberal" or "condescending" about trying to protect the health of people who do not want to be exposed to the dangers of breathing in second-hand smoke from somebody else's cigarette. Personal freedom does not mean that you can impede on the rights of others, and kudos to Mike Huckabee for saying that. |
|
I'm sorry I commented to this posting (I almost said "posted to this thread," which I'm used to saying). My comment was pretty much off-topic and an unpopular sentiment (liking Mike Huckabee as a person and taking the "trans fats" joke personally). I'll let you guys get back *on* topic.
NOTE: I am not a left-wing loon here to give anyone a hard time.
--Mike Chimeri
http://www.mikechimeri.com
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/asperger/asperger.htm (I put this link in because I have Asperger Syndrome. Not giving excuses; just want you to keep that in mind.) |
|
want proof?
The nicotine in cigarettes has been shown to possibly slow down the onset of Parkinsons Disease.
http://www.webmd.com/parkinsons-disease/news/20060811/nicotine-slows-parkinsons-disease
But seriously, I agree with indoor bans on smoking. It isn't fair to other people to be filled in a smoke filled room, but those people who choose to smoke out in a well ventilated area should be allowed to do so. What's next? Smog is unhealthy, especially in city areas. Are we going to ban the use of automobiles now? The war against smokers is getting way out of hand. |
|
|
All of you ganging up on Huckabee have NO IDEA what the heck you are even saying! He is saying he would support a ban on cigerettes in all PUBLIC places, meaning you could STILL SMOKE! Go in your house, in your car, go outside away from others. He isn't advocating a total ban on smoking! Where are all of your HEADS AT? Get with it and THINK a little bit before you ASSUME and make an A-S-S out of U and ME!!! |
|
I'm amazed by the so-called conservatives who want smoking bans. It's America's ultimate hypocricy that we pay for children's health care plans with cigarette taxes, the gov't makes several times more per pack than the tobacco companies, it's LEGAL, yet there are more wussy whiners on this subject than almost any other, especially from our side. Huckabee's an idiot on alot of levels, but he lost me long ago with his denial of dinosaur existence!?!the whole creationism thing is very, very strange to me.
Christians don't make up the huge majority they used to. I don't want to be in a party driven by ANY religion. I want common-sense, unobstructive leadership, and I don't need career politicians who have no idea what the real world is like telling me how to live, much less a bunch of isolated, judgemental Christians. I respect your right to practice your religion of choice as the Founding Fathers intended, but they also intended my freedom FROM your religion. Christians failure to accept that is nothing short forcing their way of thinking on the rest of us, and I'm sick of it. I shouldn't even know a cantidate's religious background, it should be PRIVATE. Those who wear it on their sleeves can't govern but through that prism, and I'll never vote for that again. |
|
robdawg writes: Thursday, August, 30, 2007 1:44 AM
What's WRONG with you people!!!???
All of you ganging up on Huckabee have NO IDEA what the heck you are even saying! He is saying he would support a ban on cigerettes in all PUBLIC places, meaning you could STILL SMOKE! Go in your house, in your car, go outside away from others. He isn't advocating a total ban on smoking! Where are all of your HEADS AT? Get with it and THINK a little bit before you ASSUME and make an A-S-S out of U and ME!!!
What's wrong with you? Huckabee is a NANNY STATER. He thinks he has the answers for you, and you may appreciate that, but he thinks he has them for me too, and I don't.
It STARTS in public places, then our cars, our homes, then everywhere. Huckabee would support ALL OF THE ABOVE. Then he's coming after WHAT YOU EAT. Maybe you need government guidance on your diet and your children's, I DON'T.
IF IT'S SO BAD THEN GET BHIND A TOTAL BAN. CREATE A BLACK MARKET. IMPRISON PEOPLE FOR SMOKING CIGARETTES. GO AHEAD. I DARE YOU. Are you a leftist or not Robdawg and other so called conservatives? It's time to decide. You can't pick and choose issues to be "conservative" on. If you think gov't should run people's lives then call yourselves what you are, SOCIALISTS. It'd be a much happier world. |
|
Respectfully, you are confused. You believe as long as a person is responsible and choses to drink in small doses that it will not affect their health in a negative way and can be beneficial. That is true, if you are lucky.
Some people hereditarily have more of a foundation to be an addict to alcohol, did you not know that? All it takes is one glass of wine for them to become drawn into an addiction. I've seen it among my friends and they are destroyed.
One cigarette will not kill you or me. Nor two or three. But what it will do is draw in the person who is suseptable to be addicted. I am one of them.
Second hand smoke causing cancer is a myth, it has been disproven but never flooded through the media.
People die of heart disease and cancer without ever taking a puff. Why? It's in their genes. People can smoke for decades and never have a health issue, and why? It's in their genes.
What I will say, it can be irritating to those who don't smoke due to the smell. I quit for 3 months, so I know how bad it does reek. I can respect people not wanting to be near it.
So don't think that alcohol is untouchable. It can be. For every negative you can list about smoking, I can match it and exceed it regarding negatives about drinking. So don't be surprised when the bans start happening. Dry counties already exist, and it's just a matter of time.
|
|
I really was beginning to like Huckabee. As another North Carolinian, I agree. The whole idea of deciding which vices are needing to be banned is right out of the nanny-state paradigm. "Sorry folks, you are TOO STUPID to decide for yourself. Our government committee has determined that smoking is bad for you. Since the PEOPLE are going to have to pay for your healthcare (HillaryCare 2008), we command you to take better care of yourself. You don't own your own body, and make decisions in your own life - WE DO."
Folks, if you haven't seen the excellent movie "Thank You for Smoking", it is worth putting in your Netflix queue. They use humor to show how stupid and how hypocritical the government is when they try to 'help' us.
No thanks, we can help ourselves. |
|
|
|
Huckabee is not trying to take someone's rights away or to ban smoking, but he is trying to protect the rights of others. Why is it wrong to murder, rape, or attack another person? We are free people, we have the right to make our own choices. It's wrong because you are allowing your "rights" to impede on the rights of someone else.
Mike said that it should be banned in a public place, where your right to smoke a deadly product impedes on the rights of me and others who do not smoke for the very reason that it harms our health and causes death.
You would be ignorant to think that cigarette smoke stays in the smoking section of a restaurant, and it is not your right as a smoker to interfere with or infect my health because you want to ruin yours. It is a proven fact that second hand smoke is worst than first hand and it is the second hand smoke that interferes with others.
Mike did not say he was wanting to ban smoking, and he did not say he wanted to ban it outdoors or in areas where people are not present, he even went as far to say that he does not think that it would be right to ban it in a bar, but it should be banned where families come together.
I cannot believe people who consider themselves intelligent can watch the video posted and still come up with a conclusion of, "Mike Huckabee wants to ban smoking!" - Get real people! |
|
Nick, I think that most everyone would acknowledge that Huckabee did not say he wanted to ban smoking. What he did say is that he wanted a "National" ban on smoking in public places. While that may sound like a good idea, the public places he's referring to is private property. Smoking has long been banned in government buildings across the country, so his plan would only apply to private property.
The Federal Government already overly intrudes in the lives of Americans. Most states have already passed laws regarding smoking in restaurants, bars, etc. We don't need big brother telling the states, and us, what's best for all.
That leads me to the concern I now have with Huckabee and that is the mind set that indicates it's the Federal Government's business to decide where people can smoke. That means bigger federal government and more control over our lives. I'm sure he thinkgs that it's a bad idea for people to smoke in their homes too. Real conservatives are against big/bigger and intrusive government. Huckabee has indicated to me that he's not a real conservative. |
|
Yea, I guess this is the issue worth taking a stand on! And we need to eliminate Huckabee for consideration based on this issue!
We need to go back to supporting Guliani becuase while he's for killing 1.5 to 2.0 million babies every year, at least he doesn't want to end our right to smoke in public!
Or not. It sounds like somebody doth protest too much. Making way for Fred?
Huckabee still beats the other top 4 in my book.
|
|
Huckabee is not a man. No man would say to another that he is no longer permitted to smoke.
Huckabee is Hillary in men's clothes. It is as simple as that. Given this choice, I recommend that everyone go for the real woman, Hillary. |
|
|
My brother-in-law, who is now 75 years old and an extremely accomplished professional, tells me that our legislators are seriously hypocritical because they are quite happy to ban smoking but refuse to touch alcohol. Yet alcohol causes far more health problems that smoking, just ask MADD. He tells me that our legislators reguse to touch alcohol because all of them drink alcohol and many of them drink excessively. Is this true, Mr. Huckabee? Do you drink? Do you favor a ban on alcohol in all public places, as you do on smoking? If not, why not? Are you a hypocrite? A Baptist minister should not be a hypocrite. |
|
Exactly. But who knows, if MADD gets Mad enough, alcohol will and should be next on the list, because let's face it....It's dangerous and the Nanny Nazi's need to protect us from ourselves.
Everyone can cheer and jeer on what's happening to smokers, but what they are allowing to happen will affect them in their future. The freedom of choice and personal, business, and financial responsibility will be taken away from them.
If anyone said to you 20 years ago that smoking will be banned in all states, and also, trans fats will be ommitted from fast foods you enjoy....you wouldn't believe it and laugh at the tin-hatted wearing person. Yet, here we are.
So next stop, Booze. Since people only think having a LOT of alcohol will hurt you, then let the government decide how much you will intake and how often you may purhase it.
Oh, and Nanny Nazi's will also tell us that loud music can hurt our ears and cause deafness, which is true. So, be prepared to have every new high tech goodie for your listening pleasure be capped at a certain "safe" volume for your own good. No need to crank those favorite tunes, you'll just need to play it softly, your ears will thank you. This will bleed into your car stereos, Ipods, Walkman's, home radios.
Now that that's done, what next?
|
|
|
I see everybody crying about their "right" to smoke in public. (we ARE only talking about a ban in PUBLIC places, you know) How about my right to breathe smoke-free air? Why does that not matter? Yes, it should be mandated because if it wasn't, the majority of you smokers don't have the decency to keep it in your own car and in your own house, with your own kids' lungs getting polluted. In CA, where it's largely controlled in public places, believe me, it's WONDERFUL! I can go to a restaurant or a doctor's office or whatever and not have to put up with the stink of cigarettes! |
|
|
Orlandocajun needs to realize that those of us (the majority, by the way) who don't smoke, have more efficient olfactory glands. You smokers wouldn't be noticing that the smoke from a "smoking section" of a restaurant permeates the air of the entire restaurant. Is that OUR fault? Smoking sections in 99% of restaurants are a joke. |
|
|
Who said I was a smoker? You don't get it either. This is not a smoking debate. It's a debate about conservative principles. Anti-smoking Nazis like yourself could care less about government intrusion in our lives. You're willing to let the government run your life as long as it makes you feel good. Restaurants are private property. You don't have to go to them. Do what I do and don't go to restaurants that allow smoking. |
|
I can see how you might look at it that way, and I think in CA we get used to having an ordinance for everything. But, you know, an awful lot of them are great. Laws are always for the protection of the people, or at least in SOME peoples eyes, and SOME of the people. You could find people on the other side of about any law you might mention.
But it comes down to quality of life. I believe that the quality of the majority of the people's lives is improved because of the smoking ordinances that are in place. Not allowing a husband to murder a nagging wife puts a crimp in his style, but the law is obviously necessary. |
|
|
I lived on Ca for 6.5 yrs and couldn't get out quick enough. You say "But you know, an awful lot of them are great." Fine stay there, be over regulated, over taxed, over-run. CA is the most regulated state, and it will be the ruin of all the good citizens that live there. I would recommend reading "Atlas Shrugged." |
|
Atlas Shrugged is one of my top 3 favorite books, but I think the whole premise would be missed on Kathylu.
No offense Kathy, but you like the laws as they are now, and that's a wonderful thing. Just wait until one day another law will be put into place which cuts into your lifestyle. Cheer it on and be complacent because one day you too will be controlled by the government telling you what's best for you.
You speak of the quality of life while living in smog-infested, heavily taxed, illegal alien infiltrated, California.
I think there's a bigger difference in what is the true quality of life than you do.
|
|
I tried to stick around here because I like MK. And I thought I felt welcomed in the comments for the Gonzales posting on Monday, but I just have to give up commenting on Townhall. I'll say it again: I'm just not conservative enough or into politics enough to be here. And I'm too nice. I get my news from "Special Report," "Your World," and especially from "The O'Reilly Factor"/"The Radio Factor." I don't know what else to say at this point. I know either way I'm going to get attacked as if I was a liberal (which in O'Reilly terms would be "far-left"), which I'm not.
If you want to e-mail me, write to mikechimeri@gmail.com
And if you do write, please don't tear into me too much.
--Mike Chimeri
Now, back to bashing Huckabee for not being conservative enough... |
|
|
Ms. Managing editor was busy licking Fred Thompson's nuts to listen to what Huckabee accomplished. |
|
|
...Huckster. What would he do in a second term? Soft drinks maybe, or lemon meringue (that always irritated me.) If he bans potatoes he can use Mr Potato-head for commercials. Headline: "DoJ cracks down on illegal smokers; while starches are on the rise" |
|
Yes, I have found Huckabee's thoughts very refreshing as well, and banning smoking in public places is like a cool breeze during a marathon. The thought that our health care costs could diminish without adding more to the national debt. Refreshing.
Should a health spa be the only place we are safe from cancer-causing chemicals and foul smells? Banning smoking in public places is not ONLY what's best, but the single most important step we can make immediately to lower the escalating cost of health care. Smokers would still be allowed to smell up their homes and cars, but would have incentive to cut down on their daily smokes, and the more the smokes, the greater the cancer risk. Those of us that are non-smokers would not have to face the two-to-threefold increase in cancer from hanging out with them. If we allow smoking in public places, we should allow asbestos workers to go without a mask if it is uncomfortable, as long as they change their clothes before they go home and play with their children...ooops, analogy lost. I guess protecting their children would be like protecting others from second-hand smoke.
It is interesting as well, that we live in a country where the government has taken asthmatic children from their smoking parents, but allows foster parents to take them to the mall and restaurants with smokers.
Why is this considered something only the Democrats consider? Should Republicans not be fighting to live long enough to hold their grandchildren, not just leave them a good trust in their will, when they die from second-hand smoke?
Oh, and Mike Huckabee corrected his ways in the fat category. Perhaps an analogous incentive, being uncomfortable in a typical airplane seat, made the difference. Though sitting next to someone very overweight on airline flights is not necessarily comfortable, it does not threaten your life. Lynne Eldridge MD, Author, "Avoiding Cancer One Day At A Time" http://www.avoidcancernow.com |
|
You're jumping to conclusions, as we people often do. I've chosen to live in a beautiful rural part of CA and I hope I never have to live in a "smog-infested" city again! The "heavily taxed" part, what can I say? We're doing fine... the federal portion of our tax returns hurts a whole lot more. And I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the problem of illegal aliens is very large in a good many other parts of the country also.
Yep! I'm stayin' alright! And breathing my clean, smoke free air! |
|
When you say "I lived on CA" was that a typo, or did you come here because of the much larger payments made to welfare recipients than they get in other states?
Shells says that I like the way the laws are now in CA. That's really not true. There are a whole lot of laws that stink in CA. But we choose our battles...one at a time. Just because I like to breathe freely doesn't mean that I like over-regulation. |
|
|
So big brother knows best huh? Interested to see what else he'll ban next. |
|
is looking out for you. Can't these guys just let us live our lives without hovering over us like Nurse Ratchett in 'One Flew Over the Cukoo's Nest'? God, the phoney John Edwards wants to implement a national health care program where compulsory visits to Dr. Stranglove are mandatory. Now, Gov Huckabee wants to ban smoking and anything and everything else he deems unhealthy.
Can't y'all just leave us alone, for crissakes. The overriding principle for any law is that, as a preamble, it must first be applied to all branches of the government to ensure it's fundamental soundness and workability. If after, say, 5 years, our intrepid congress has proved that they can live under its oppressive precepts and restrictions, then and only then, will it apply to the genral public.
|
|
|
|