Smokes, Bikes, and Gulags OH! MY!
The forces of "group thought socialism" are marching on. One one front Amnest International has confused holding 540 military combatants at 'Gitmo', with the imprisionment of 25 million innocent Soviet citizens in their Gulag system. But two fellow bloggers say it better than me like the site sticks and stones, or even look at the blog at riding sun which have carried the ball much farther and better than me. Please go and have some good reading.Next up comes from our fine fellows from across the pond. Once again they want to micro-manage the individuals. Just a day or two ago it was the ending of happy hour. Now it's installing speed limiters on all motocycles, which will prevent the cycle in exceeding the speed limit. I would guess that this speed limiter would recieve signals from a radio source due to differences in speed limits through out the United Kingdom. I think that I take the same stand as the fellow blogger riding sun and his #2link that I have for him, that this is both dangerous for the biker's life and the continuation of individual rights. The excuse is that motocyles due to their lack of operator protection are dangerous when driven beyond the speed limit. I like to think of it more like since motocyles are both quicker in speed and control than cars, it's actually the intent of this law to restrict the speed of motorcycles not to save innocent lives, but to even the odds when a criminal chooses a motorcycle to commit a crime. My firm belief is that government does not want to save lives, but only to restrict lives.
HOLY SMOKES ! individual man, you may no-longer be able to smoke inside of a restaurant! In my wonderful 'work state' of North Carolina, the General Assembly is considering banning smoking in restaurants.
Back when Socialism was still using, military take over by force tactics. It was still safe in the state of N.C. to seek a job at one of the four tobacco manufacturers.
But the point is that the General 'Ass'embly of N.C. is considering banning smoking in restaurants. And a local news station asked it's opinion poll to reply. I will give the current vote, then my reply, then 4 for the ban, and 4 or more against the ban.
The Vote Total:
For the banning of Smoking 161
Agaist banning Smoking 60
My reply: "This is a bad idea, it's not the general assembly's job to ban smoking. The government should not be looked at to solve such problems on restricting where a legal product can be used. I watched a report on t.v. where a restaurant went smoke-free, according to management their sales increased 14%. But it was their choice as a business to do so, it should remain up to the owner of the business to give service to the customers of their choice, and to refuse service to the people of their choice." I have to speak gentle to this outlet for they reserve the right to edit, or disallow my true comments, but ironicly I can't edit theirs, or those whom support the station's veiwpoint.
Here are some ofthe opininons from some of the pro government side: "the sheeple baa' baa' baa." The names have been X-ed out to protect the liberals.
"Second hand smoke has been shown to be more damaging than first hand smoke. I think it is a great idea that when a person eats out that their health should not be in jeopardy because of some one elses unthealthy habits. I agree that smoking should be banned in restaurants." XX
"Smoking indoors should be banned everywhere (like NY, CA, etc) not just restaurants.....nothing is more annoying than 2nd hand smoke..." Miss xxx
"Thank goodness they are finally going to do this! People without self control (smokers) need to learn that not everyone wants to shorten their lives by this filth. Smoking is unattractive, makes you wrinkle, smell bad, and it gives you nasty teeth and breath. Who in their right mind would smoke? Ban all public smoking." xxx
"excellent idea! way should people that don't want to die of lung cancer have to suffer. Smoking if not good for anything, it has no health benefits and in fact even secondary smoke can lead to lung cancer, and astma in children." xxx
*I've tried to stay true to their quotes as written, they are as they are, or the best I could copy.
As for the citizens whom vote NO! against the ban, as I do. (The People speak)
"It's not about smoking. It's about a select group of people who want to control our daly lives. These people have found that "what the people want" has little to do with the results they intend to get by legislation. These "people of the law" force their ideas on us by having politicians make laws that deprive our rights. Most grown people can make very good decisions and do the right thing. These people, daily , are eroding your ability to decide what is right for your family. Wake up! xxx (I would like to think 'X' is talking about the state)
"Here we go again. I don't know if its purposely made-up "facts" or just plain ignorance, but second-hand smoke has NOT been proven to be worse than first-hand smoke. There is evidence that 2nd hand smoke can be bad for you, but the question here is about government control, not whether smoke is bad for your health." xxx (hear, here my friends)
"Owners should be allowed to operate their establishments, both restaurants and bars, as they see fit. They should be able to allow smoking if they choose, taking their chance of losing customers. I am a former smoker who doesn't want to be around it but the government should leave business owners run their business." xxx (that's it)
"If they ban smoking......I will quit going out to eat. Hey, looks like I will save a couple hundred dollars a month."xx (better save it, for the state wants to raise the taxes to $0.75 cent a pack)
"It's just another tool for the government to control peoples lives." xx (perfect)
We need individual rights back! Let us the the 'individual' have the right; to drive a vehicle of our choice, to the rate of speed as we choose, to consume our food in the resturant of our choice.
posted by John Galt @ 12:49 PM
<< Home