🚀 go-pugleaf

andre@chezdre.com wrote:

> Ok, so... let's type about this old Smoking Ban,
> and get some discussion going.  A started might
> be to read some files on my site pertaining to
> the smoking ban, and if that gets some folks
> fired up... bring it back to this newsgroup?

I read in the G-T all the time about how harmful secondhand smoke is.  I
can agree with their statements; I really believe that secondhand smoke
is harmful.  

It's just not relevant.  

What *is* relevant is that the City Council overstepped their
authority.  Big time.  They took an action that had no basis in law,
just because they thought that it would protect people.  

What if the City Council, in its oh-so-infinite collective wisdom, voted
to outlaw drinking in bars next?  We'd see reams of statistics quoted
about how bad drinking is, and that it's "to protect the patrons and
employees of bars."  Never mind that it's legal, never mind that it's
the only remaining reason people go to bars.  Just because a vocal
minority of citizens could convince the City Council that it's a good
idea, it would become law.  

What about after that?  Ban the sale of fatty foods, "to protect the
consumers of Corvallis"?  How about the sale of gasoline, "to keep our
children's lungs clean"?  (Always a good idea to toss in a line or three
about "protecting the children."  I have a feeling that someone might
have even tried to say about the smoking ban in bars that it is to
"protect our children."  That would have simply confirmed my opinion of
the collective intelligence of our City Fathers (and Mothers -- how
about Motherfathers?).  

The bottom line is that the City Council acted without authority.  They
acted illegally.  The whole damned bunch of them should be tossed out on
their asses.  

Perhaps the worst part about the upcoming election is that the mayoral
race is between the current mayor of Corvallis and a current city
council member.  Either way we're going to get stuck with one of the
bastards.  

---
Making the world safe for anocracy!

archer@peak.org                         <*>  http://www.peak.org/~archer
Libertarian Fiction, Jack Chalker, Corvallis Gamers mailing lists.
        *  *  *  http://www.peak.org/~archer/maillist.html  *  * *
E-Gold transactions accepted!                     
http://www.e-gold.com/

In article <363177F4.42714ADE@peak.org>,
Chris Goodwin  <archer@peak.org> wrote:
>I read in the G-T all the time about how harmful secondhand smoke is.  I
>can agree with their statements; I really believe that secondhand smoke
>is harmful.  

The GT is not an expert on second hand smoke. Their statements are just
their opinion. They can hold the opinion that second hand smoke causes
cancer, but their sincerity does not make it a fact, nor does it mean
it isn't true. 

That's the problem with opinions and scientific data. The former does
not change the latter, and only rarely does the latter change the
former. More so when the issue gets clouded in emotion. Them damn big
tobacco companies are after our children, after all, and they have to
be stopped by any means possible.

>What *is* relevant is that the City Council overstepped their
>authority.  Big time.  They took an action that had no basis in law,
>just because they thought that it would protect people.  

I'm not sure this is true. Other localities have taken similar
measures.  What is true is that this issue is bigger than the seven
people on the City Council and should have been on the ballot in the
first place.

>What if the City Council, in its oh-so-infinite collective wisdom, voted
>to outlaw drinking in bars next?  We'd see reams of statistics quoted
>about how bad drinking is, and that it's "to protect the patrons and
>employees of bars."  

Well, now that you mention it, lots of people are killed by drunk
drivers.  And OSU has prohibited alcohol in the Greek system, even if
the organization has it's own house and the consumers are of legal
drinking age. "In-loco parentis".

>Never mind that it's legal, never mind that it's
>the only remaining reason people go to bars.  

Oh, I wouldn't say that. 

>What about after that?  Ban the sale of fatty foods, "to protect the
>consumers of Corvallis"?  

Heart disease IS a leading cause of death. It is a fact that some people
cannot control their consumptiom of unhealthy foods, just like some could
not control their consumption of cocaine when it was legal. Did you know
that? That's why it's called "Coca-Cola".

But now Coca Cola is under the microscope again. The same protective
interest group that burned the movie theater popcorn is now trying to
remove the fizz from suggary fizzy drinks. "Not good for kids". Well,
duh!

But that's what you get when you elect people who think that it is
government's job to protect people from themselves and not to provide
for the common defense against other nations.

-- 

The Constitution. It's not just a good idea, it's the law. Supposed
to be.