27 June 2006
Prohibition II?
4:12 PM
This report is sure to make the anti-smokinazis’ day. But if second hand smoke is as bad as this, then we need to outlaw the use of tobbaco products completely: “Breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can damage cells and set the cancer process in motion…. Brief exposure can have immediate harmful effects on blood and blood vessels, potentially increasing the risk of a heart attack. Secondhand smoke exposure can quickly irritate the lungs, or trigger an asthma attack. For some people, these rapid effects can be life-threatening. People who already have heart disease or respiratory conditions are at especially high risk.”
In a few weeks, smoking will be prohibited in open-to-the-public-but-privately-owned places here in Colorado. Notice that isn’t public places. No, the anti-smokinazis are finally going to get their way and make sure that wherever they go, they won’t have to smell that nasty smoke or catch some second-hand-smoke-riding virus. Never mind that, as a property owner, you no longer have the right to consider whether you want to cater to smokers, people knowledgable of the risks to themselves of their behavior. The anti-smokinazis have decided that if you are in business, they have a right against you to enter your establishment and have that establishment be smoke free. (If The American Psychological Association ever decides that viewing naked people is somehow injurious to someone’s health, you strip club owners and girlie magaizine publishers are in big trouble!)
The next move of the anti-smokinazis will be to ban smoking in your own home. Why? Well, if you have any friends who are non-smokers and they come to visit you, surely they have the same right to good health in your home as they do in a restaurant. And you won’t be able to go outside and smoke either (think of it, going outside at your own house in order to accommodate your friend) because your death-causing smoke will drift next door and kill your neighbors. And don’t think you’ll be free from all this nonsense if you live in the country. When PETA realizes that the anti-smokinazis are discrimating against our furry relatives, they will sue in court to ensure that your smoke doesn’t kill the spotted owl or the field mouse, or (God forbid!) the snake. Come to think of it, they may not want to permit you smoking inside your house, whether you have company or not, because you might kill the spiders.
Imagine MADD pulling a similar stunt, banning alcohol consumption in public places. It’s not so crazy when you think about it. People who drink in public will get in an automobile eventually. We all know that every person in a bar or club hasn’t got a designated driver with him. And in many states, having had even one drink consitutes being under the influence. And people who are under the influence and get behind the wheel of an auto have caused a great many deaths. Think of the lives that could be saved if people were banned from drinking in public places, and limited all of their drinking to their own homes. Of course, this would also mean that you could not give a party where there will be alcohol because when those under-the-influence people get behind the wheels of their cars they are putting lives at risk.
A question for anti-smokinazis, mad mothers, and people for the human rights of animals: Do you presently engage in any behavior which someone else might find injurious either to yourself or others, and which someone, somewhere, might want to deprive you of the freedom to engage in? Maybe you like to eat fast food? Perhaps you are the owner/franchisee of a fast food restaurant. True, this behavior affects only those who engage in it. But don’t worry. That won’t stop the anti-burgernazis.
In the meantime, I’m seeing an entreprenurial opportunity here: “smoke easies.” It came to me while I was down in my as-yet-unfinished basement last evening. I could turn it into a clandestine bar. Only, unlike the purpose of such places during Prohibition, it’ll be a secret “smoking allowed” establishment.
Sshhhhh. Don’t tell the New York Times. They’ll blab it to everyone.
In a few weeks, smoking will be prohibited in open-to-the-public-but-privately-owned places here in Colorado. Notice that isn’t public places. No, the anti-smokinazis are finally going to get their way and make sure that wherever they go, they won’t have to smell that nasty smoke or catch some second-hand-smoke-riding virus. Never mind that, as a property owner, you no longer have the right to consider whether you want to cater to smokers, people knowledgable of the risks to themselves of their behavior. The anti-smokinazis have decided that if you are in business, they have a right against you to enter your establishment and have that establishment be smoke free. (If The American Psychological Association ever decides that viewing naked people is somehow injurious to someone’s health, you strip club owners and girlie magaizine publishers are in big trouble!)
The next move of the anti-smokinazis will be to ban smoking in your own home. Why? Well, if you have any friends who are non-smokers and they come to visit you, surely they have the same right to good health in your home as they do in a restaurant. And you won’t be able to go outside and smoke either (think of it, going outside at your own house in order to accommodate your friend) because your death-causing smoke will drift next door and kill your neighbors. And don’t think you’ll be free from all this nonsense if you live in the country. When PETA realizes that the anti-smokinazis are discrimating against our furry relatives, they will sue in court to ensure that your smoke doesn’t kill the spotted owl or the field mouse, or (God forbid!) the snake. Come to think of it, they may not want to permit you smoking inside your house, whether you have company or not, because you might kill the spiders.
Imagine MADD pulling a similar stunt, banning alcohol consumption in public places. It’s not so crazy when you think about it. People who drink in public will get in an automobile eventually. We all know that every person in a bar or club hasn’t got a designated driver with him. And in many states, having had even one drink consitutes being under the influence. And people who are under the influence and get behind the wheel of an auto have caused a great many deaths. Think of the lives that could be saved if people were banned from drinking in public places, and limited all of their drinking to their own homes. Of course, this would also mean that you could not give a party where there will be alcohol because when those under-the-influence people get behind the wheels of their cars they are putting lives at risk.
A question for anti-smokinazis, mad mothers, and people for the human rights of animals: Do you presently engage in any behavior which someone else might find injurious either to yourself or others, and which someone, somewhere, might want to deprive you of the freedom to engage in? Maybe you like to eat fast food? Perhaps you are the owner/franchisee of a fast food restaurant. True, this behavior affects only those who engage in it. But don’t worry. That won’t stop the anti-burgernazis.
In the meantime, I’m seeing an entreprenurial opportunity here: “smoke easies.” It came to me while I was down in my as-yet-unfinished basement last evening. I could turn it into a clandestine bar. Only, unlike the purpose of such places during Prohibition, it’ll be a secret “smoking allowed” establishment.
Sshhhhh. Don’t tell the New York Times. They’ll blab it to everyone.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- James Frank Solís
- Former soldier (USA). Graduate-level educated. Married 26 years. Texas ex-patriate. Ruling elder in the Presbyterian Church in America.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(300)
-
▼
June
(70)
- Just a little bit more on the Hamdan decision
- Is the Supreme Court now an ally in the Left's War...
- Yes, both Democrats and Republicans are liberals, ...
- Dick Durbin's flag rhetoric is a desecration of logic
- Conspiracy Theory No. 73,410
- Prohibition II?
- When it comes to Democrats regaining power, no lif...
- O, the loyal (HA!!!) opposition
- More minimum wage nonsense
- WMD: an update
- Here's a strategy, Dick
- WMD found!!!
- Don't let them die...not like this!!!
- "Redeploy! Redeploy!"
- Drug cartels taking over big U. S. cities?
- A stroll down Amnesia Lane
- Under the gun
- When you can’t refute your opponent…
- Coming soon: A “conservative” judicial tyranny?
- Even in France?
- Another brilliant Christian shows the way
- Thor has video on Coulter
- Battle weary?
- Always in season
- Understanding Elites…of any stripe
- Now this is good news
- Coulter tweaks the left’s nose
- Krauthammer on the federal marriage amendment
- "Don't cry for me" -- al-Zarqawi
- On Rembrandt’s “Holy Family”
- O, Blogger! Where are thou?
- A little more on the Third Party issue
- The (marxist) social engineering goals of the inhe...
- More fodder from Molly Ivins
- Prager on target
- No good deed...
- Thank you, Zarqawi
- We're still glad he's dead, though
- Ding, dong, the wicked witch is dead
- Obscene oil profits: a post script
- Assimilation, yes, but…
- What I don’t like about the Federal Marriage Amend...
- Appropriations in S.2611
- “Innocuous” fiction
- More ad hominem in public discourse
- Speaking of Normandy
- Instapundit is the "instabeast"?
- Coming soon...
- Bogger for Word
- 060606: something a little more noteworthy
- How a nation can be its own worst enemy sometimes
- Clarification
- The DaVinci Gnostic Code
- 060606: just another day
- Why Canada???
- Ah, sweet land of liberty!
- Do we need a federal marriage amendment?
- Race isn’t an issue, but maybe…
- Freedom loving?
- And speaking of liberal strawmen...
- More on Mexico's economy
- Border hedging
- Please don't help us, Molly. Please.
- Which dike needs a helping finger?
- Self-loving in full display
- I can't believe I'm even thinking this...
- Why Mexico has no thriving economy
- If the shoe were on the other foot
- Human rights for us, too
- O, distracted multitudes!
-
▼
June
(70)
1 comments:
Actually, animals should have rights. They have the right to not be abused and tortured. And I eat hamburgers! There, I said it. But that doesn't mean that cows should be abused, neglected, and tortured while waiting to be humanely euthanized for our consumption. Just sayin'.