Consent of the Governed

Here comes butt-heads

I just heard news about a proposal to ban smoking in all indoor workplaces in Pennsylvania, including bars and restaurants. It is being pushed forward by state Sen. Stewart Greenleaf, R-Montgomery County. To tell you the truth, I'm getting sick of writing about this crap.

From the Pittsburgh Channel:

A state lawmaker says the time has come to ban smoking at all workplaces in Pennsylvania, including bars and restaurants.

State Sen. Stewart Greenleaf, R-Montgomery County, says he will push for legislation simlar to that of California, New York, Maine, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida and Massachusetts, where the law is already in place.

"It's not a question of if it will happen, it's a question of when," Greg Hartley, assistant director of Smokefree Pennsylvania, told reporter Kelly Frey in a Channel 4 Action News report from October 2003. "We think it will happen soon."

Secondhand smoke causes 53,000 deaths a year in the United States, according to the National Cancer Institute.

Rumblings surfaced early last year about a possible smoking ban at Allegheny County bars and restuarants. The noise was quieted by the state's Clean Indoor Air Act, passed in 1998, which establishes no-smoking sections in restaurants but prohibits most local governments from further restricting smokers.

Some eateries have voluntarily extinguished smoking. A Web site, NoSmokeDining.org, lists about 100 smoke-free restaurants in Allegheny and surrounding counties

I believe this to be an intrusion on our lives by an ever increasingly powerful government. I think that the free market should decide which establishments are smoke-free, or that allow smoking.

To me it is all about freedom of choice. There is the freedom of the owners of bars and restaurants to allow their customers have a smoke with thier meal or with their drink. If they want to be smoke-free, that’s their choice as well. A customer should also be able to choose a place to go when they don’t want to be around smoke, or one which allows them to smoke.

The government says this is all to protect your health. They have your best interests at heart. Well, there are a lot of things which are bad for you. Eating too much, eating fattening foods, drinking alcohol, and not exercising are just a few. Are they next?

The government cites obesity as a major health problem now. Is the government going to now tell a restaurateur what food he can sell? Or tell me what I can eat? Or force me to exercise? Twenty years ago the thought of a state-wide smoking ban would have seemed crazy so who knows anymore.

I am totally against this proposed law. It has nothing to do with my personal views on smoking; it has to do with my view on the role of government in trying to protect us from every little thing they view as dangerous. From seatbelts, to cell phones while driving, to cigar and cigarette smoke.

Here comes the nanny-state.

Free Market Rules

From his own web-site:

By borrowing from future generations to give tax relief to those who need help the least, George W. Bush’s economic policies have, for the first time in history, forced the federal government to spend $1 billion more EACH DAY than it takes in.

But little reported earlier this week comes this great news, as reported by Reuters:

WASHINGTON, July 13 (Reuters) - The U.S. government posted a larger-than-expected budget surplus in June, propped up by higher quarterly business tax receipts, a government report released on Tuesday showed.

Corporate income tax inflows grew 38 percent in June, when quarterly tax statements are normally filed, compared to June 2003. Individual tax receipts were nearly 9 percent higher.

Read that last paragraph closely. Income tax inflows from business grew 38% and individual inflows grew 9%. Wha' Happaned? If you listen to John Kerry you would assume that tax cuts would starve the government of needed funds and eliminate food from the mouths of poor children.

But as predicted, and as happened two previous times taxes were cut (Reagan and Kennedy), money coming into the treasury has actually increased!

If that isn't proof positive that tax cuts spur economic growth, and that growth in the economy happens best when the government gets out of the way, then I don't know what is.

The same tax cuts which are causing the economy to grow at such a substantial rate are the same ones which John Kerry wants to eliminate.
From his own web-site again:

To restore fiscal discipline and strengthen our economy, Kerry will repeal Bush’s special tax breaks for Americans who make more than $200,000.

Many of those people who 'make more than $200,000' do so because they own businesses. That income which is taxed as individual income is actually business income. By increasing taxes on these individuals (and therefore the business) you decrease the liklihood that they can invest in their business to increase productivity and grow and make even more money.

That means fewer jobs created, and a slower growing ecnonomy.

Now I am not saying that tax cuts alone get the job done. We are still spending too much. Bush is spending like a liberal, with the new drug entitlement program, and increases in many domestic programs.

But through a combination of tax cuts, and fiscally responsible spending, we can actually increase the amount of money coming into the treasury, pay down the debt, and maybe afford a few nice things for you and me.

More reading is available at Blogcritics

Guns guns and more guns

According to John Lott, a well-respected researcher in the effectiveness of Gun laws, and author of More Guns, Less Crime, the gun grabbers have gotten their hats handed to them. Gun control is a losing issue. The fat lady is warming up.

From his Fox News Article

This month, the Million Mom March in Washington drew an anemic showing of only 2,000 people, while this year, all of the Democratic presidential candidates— however unenthusiastically— spoke of Americans’ Second Amendment right to own guns. These are just a few of the signs that the facts finally seem to be catching up to the movement. The future for the movement looks even worse.

Whether the subject is concealed handgun laws  or bans on semi-automatic so-called “assault weapons,” gun control debates have been filled with apocalyptic claims about what will happen if gun control is not adopted. One common prediction is that laws allowing the carrying of a concealed weapon will result in crime waves, or permit holders shooting others. However, with 37 states now having right-to-carry laws, and another nine states letting some citizens carry, permit holders have continually shown themselves to be extremely law-abiding. It is becoming more and more difficult to attack those laws.

Gun control does not work. Proponents of banning guns says that it will reduce crime. In England, where handguns were banned in 1997, crime has rose an average of 29% in the period of 1997-2002.

In Australia where guns were also banned, violent crime rates averaged 32% higher in the six years after the law was passed (from 1997 to 2002) than they did the year before the law in 1996. The same comparisons for armed robbery rates showed increases of 45%.

All gun control laws do is remove guns from the hands of law abiding citizens who merely wish to defend themselves. Criminals will continue to break the law and carry guns.

Gun control supporters say we should rely on the police for protection. For the majority of Americans though who don't live 5 minutes from police, waiting for police to arrive could mean the difference between being killed, injured, or assaulted by people entering their homes, or bothering them on the street.

Many gun grabbers who tend to be liberal call themselves pro-choice. They are for the woman's right to choose, and believe that the government should keep it's hands out of a woman's womb. But when it comes to the choice of carrying a weapon to protect themselves, they are all for taking that right away. And it is a right.

Just read the Second Amendment.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The "Right of the People". People you and me. Just like the right of the people peaceably to assemble. People like you and me.

This entry and more can be found at The Nap Room

In walks Elliot Ness

Sometimes on Sunday, when it's raining or an important game is on the TV, I head over to the gun range to have a beer, eat a sausage sandwich and hang out. It's a nice bar. It's quiet and limited mostly to members of the club. Every Sunday they feature different menu items. Sometimes it's a sandwich, sometimes it's clams. Bottles of Yuengling are a buck as are all cans and bottles.

The trouble is, this bar is a speakeasy. They have no liquor license. If you know anything about Pennsylvania you'll know the Liquor Control Board doesn't stand for that.

Well, after 54 years of operating under the radar as a speakeasy, the gun club was raided last night.

The State Cops came barging in and made everyone leave. They confiscated the beer and the money and fined the bartenders $1,000 each.

I'm just glad they didn't come in when they had poker tables set up. That would have been really bad.

Now I know they broke the law, but it's a stupid law. The reason they didn't have a liquor license is because there were no liquor licenses to buy. The LCB is ironfisted in how they regulate liquor licenses. Some of their laws are draconion and stupid. Plus they are expensive. Very expensive.

The board of directors at the LCB are mostly a bunch of tea-toatlers who really don't like liquor and beer sales, but know it's great tax revenue. So just like cigarettes, they keep it around for the revenue but make it hard for stores to sell it; so much so that many bars which have been around for years and years are just closing up rather than put up with the LCB.

This is so much typical of the hypocrisy of many governments, especially Pennsylvania. They are against drunkeness, but promote buying alcohol in their state owned liquor stores. In Pennsylvania you can't gamble, but they promote their lottery. Cigarettes are horrible if you listen to them, but will never outlaw them entirely because of the needed tax revenue.

Smoking Ban to go after private clubs

People who annoy are many; New Jersey Drivers, people who have bullet stickers on their cars, and Notre Dame fans. But people who really get my blood boiling are those supporters of government rights over private rights who desire to ban smoking in every single place on Earth. I see no problem with a business, be it a restaurant or bar, allowing smoking, or not allowing smoking. If a business owner wants to allow smoking, it is his decision. If he doesn't want smoking, that is also his decision. On the same token it is my decision as a customer to decide where they want to shop and eat. But it is doubly true for owners and members of private clubs. These are only open to members and cater to certain groups. VFW's, American Legions, gun clubs, and other social clubs all fit the bill. But there are certain people who won't stop at banning smoking in publc places. From the the Boston Herald Veterans groups, fraternal lodges and other club members pledged to take the city to court if it one-ups the new statewide public smoking ban by expanding it to private clubs in Quincy. ``The veterans will not go softly into the night,'' Hayward said. Bill LaRaia, a retired Quincy EMT, said he's paid dues to a private club for 25 years. ``For you to tell me I can't go in there and have a cigarette - that's a disgrace.'' The issue pits private clubs against some restaurant and pub operators, who support the smoking ban expansion. Operators said they stand to lose business to private clubs. "`We feel if you're not going to allow people to smoke in a public place, why should they be allowed to go smoke in a private club?'' said Bill Damon, with Darcy's Pub. A state law went into effect this week banning smoking in public places, including offices, restaurants and bars, though not in members-only clubs or cigar bars. Under Scheele's local proposal, smoking would also be banned at private clubs in Quincy as of July 18. He has the authority to enact such health-related regulations under state law, said Monica Conyngham, the city solicitor. ``I don't think the state went far enough,'' Scheele said in an interview before the hearing. ``As long as we have scientific evidence that second-hand smoke does cause health problems we can impose it. (Private clubs) have employees, too, that should be protected.''

The anti-freedom patrol has a two part strategy to rid public places of smoking. First they ban smoking in public places like bars and restaurants. Then they pit the owners of those establishment against those of private clubs. Then it becomes a fairness issue.

That strategy shows the shallowness of their anti-choice crusade. When they go to ban smoking in establishments they say it will not effect the bottom line of the business. But if it isn't hitting the bottom line, then why are the owners of the bars and restaurants who are effected so determined to make sure that policy effects people who run private clubs?

The policy makers and do-gooders in this world cite how dangerous smoke is, and want it banned, but they are sure happy to feed at the trough of tax revenue and settlement money taken from these tobacco companies. I say if it is so damned dangerous, don't take any money from it!! Why would you want to benefit from such a dangerous and deadly product?

To me it is all a choice of freedom. There is the freedom of the owners of establishments who wish to allow smoking. If they want to allow their customers have a smoke after dinner or with a drink, that is their choice. As a customer I have the right to choose a place that doesn't allow smoking when I don't want to be around smoke, and allows it when I want to smoke my Cohiba myself.

Look at it like alcohol. If I don't feel like a drink with my steak, I will go to Hoss's near my house. If I want a beer or fine liquor, I will go to Greggory's. It is my choice. No one is forcing either place to be drink free or not. The market decides, and both places prosper.

People cite health over smoker's rights. I say that right now it's smoke, soon, it will be drink. If I go to a bar and drink a few drinks I am more dangerous to people health (by driving home) than I would be by smoking a double corona. So by so actively banning smoking, it stats the slipperly slope of total prohabition of almost any behavior some do-gooder deems dangerous.

Much to the surprise of many liberal, pro-government types out there the government can't regulate all danger out of our lives. With freedom comes a little bit of risk. As a mature adult, I have the ability to choose for myself what I want to do with my life. That includes choosing to indulge in a legal, taxed product or even an illegal untaxed product. (but that is another post)

If I owned a bar or restaurant, I should be able to choose what type of establishment I want to have. Then the free market will decide. If I could make more money by not allowing smoking, then smoke free it is. But the market should decide about this legal product.

This entry also found at The Nap Room