The Democrats know best. They value you your health and welfare more than you do. They know better than the voters in your community what the local laws on smoking should be. They know better than a bar owner what the rules of his establishment should be even though they've never stepped foot inside. They are that wise. At least this is what they want you to believe. The reality is they are on a massive power trip. They like telling people what to do.

Six of the eight presidential aspirants on the Democratic side told Tim Russert Wednesday night that they support a national ban on smoking in public places, which include privately-owned entities such as arenas, restaurants, and bars. Only Senators Clinton and Obama refrained from offering support to such an intrusive measure--for now. Senator Clinton affixed her favorite three words "at this point" to her statement opposing to a national smoking ban. Senator Obama, who actually seemed like a real person when spotted with a cigarette in flagrante delicto, explained in the New Hampshire presidential debate that he would like to see the progress that localities make in banning smoking before supporting a nationwide law. So oblivious to his own anti-smoking logic was Dennis Kucinich that, during the very next question about lowering the drinking age to eighteen, Kucinich supported the idea and admonished his debators: "We have to have confidence in young Americans."

How about trust in all Americans? Smoking is healthier than fascism.

Yeah, but have you seen Kucinich's 29 year old amazon internet wife? Wow!

Makes you think about taking a faux run at the Whitehouse.

Neither party understands the constitutional role of the federal government, nor does either party have any respect for state and local government. Or, I suppose, they're banking on the peoples' failure to understand or care about those things.

I bet most people I see every day would support the federal government banning smoking in public places. They'd think it was all hunky dory. Isn't that what the government is supposed to do? Impose one-size-fits-all rulings from on-high to protect us from ourselves.

I hate smoke/smoking but this makes me want to go light one up just to be a rebel. Who'd have thought walking into a privately-owned establishment and inhaling carcinogens to my heart's content could one day be an act civil disobedience. Move over, Henry David.

Dan,

Do you support the right to abortion via cigarettes? Should pregnant women be allowed to smoke? What about going where there is heavy second-hand smoke?

Should the minimum smoking age be raised, lowered, or should it stay the same? Should currently illegal substances be legalized?

If you support maintaining the status quo, you are a conservative in the truest sense, an authoritarian who follows established laws and culture as his authority. I must remind you, fascism is a synonym of authoritarianism.

Authoritarianism is such a ridiculous word. It is almost as meaningless as isolationism.

Labels!

Wait a second, there is a law against pregnant women smoking? Huh?

Brilliant, we need a national law for what all states seem to be on their way to doing anyway.

...and to the republic for which it stands. One nation...dammit!!...

For Hitlery specifically and for most other Democrats, using government to prohibit a personal vice like smoking is a double win: they get to pontificate to the dumb and unwashed so that they can feel superior and noble about themselves and they get to use government to separate more of our money from us in the name of protecting us from ourselves.

Except for a brief period of my life when it was part of a particular boring lifestyle, I’m not a smoker. But, it pi$$es me off when people want to demonize those who do. I’m not fond of the smell or the action but if others are, have at it.

As long as you’re not really hurting anybody else, there’s something un-American about taking away personal freedoms, don’t you think?

But nobody can hang the 'American' label on the Dems. Most are socialists and many are fascists.

"fascism is a synonym of authoritarianism" - Brian Rogers

No, it's not.

And besides, you are making the accusation with no evidence -- do you have evidence that Flynn or any of us posters would not aupport _any change_ to our current laws? Well then, why don't you comment on the post instead of somehow implying that to OPPOSE further smoking bans is fascist?

Hillary and free health care for illegals...

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2007/09/27/hillarycare_door_wide_open_to_illegal_aliens

"Do you support the right to abortion via cigarettes? Should pregnant women be allowed to smoke? What about going where there is heavy second-hand smoke?" - Brian Rogers

I can't answer for Dan but this is a separate issue from smoking in general, because there is the possibility that the rights of a second person (the fetus) are being unduly infringed upon by the mother. Thus one could argue it would constitute a crime against the child.

This is very different from arguing that people may not simply make the subjective utility valuation that the pleasure they get from smoking outweigh the cost of the health risks, and choose to do so.

"Should the minimum smoking age be raised, lowered, or should it stay the same? Should currently illegal substances be legalized?" - Brian

I would argue that illegal substances should be legalized, and the minimum smoking age should be abolished. The sovereign of the child is their parent/guardian, not the state.

"If you support maintaining the status quo, you are a conservative in the truest sense, an authoritarian who follows established laws and culture as his authority. I must remind you, fascism is a synonym of authoritarianism." - Brian Rogers

No it isn't. And authoritarianism as defined as:

"Of or pertaining to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered in one person or in a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people."

I'm not a big fan of democracy, but a constitutional democratic republic and authoritarianism are two different things.

"If you support maintaining the status quo, you are a conservative in the truest sense, an authoritarian who follows established laws and culture as his authority. I must remind you, fascism is a synonym of authoritarianism."

In that case, neither Mussolini nor Hitler were "true conservatives" because they changed a lot of stuff. We don't say that Mussolini made the trains run on time, because he just enforced the "status quo". How can you even begin to reconcile one of the forces behind the Beerhall Putsch, Kristallnacht and the Night of 1000 Knives as "an authoritarian who follows established laws and culture as his authority"?

Real thinking is more than glossing over how many elements there are in a "status quo" and claiming that two words are associated together.

The average gloss over fascism often ignores how revolutionary they were in spirit. Leading not back into an older time but a new and better time, realizing that they'd made a mistake with liberalism and moving on. With Hitler, it was basically refocusing on what he saw the purpose of life was: to struggle (Kampf) and survive and overcome. He evokes the "aristocratic principle of nature" as the sole judges of which races succeed.

Hitler wasn't "rolling back" anything, anymore than if you work out strenuously in high school, get lazy and put on a few pounds in your twenties, and work out in your thirties, you're "rolling back" the progress you've made "enjoying yourself". There was no "status quo" the Fascists or National Socialists were trying to get back to.

The "status quo" argument is something that liberals have invented because conservatives just don't want to endlessly shovel money to have, say, the law of gravity reversed. Think about all those people who have plummeted to the deaths because of gravity!! Don't you care?? If you don't care enough to send tax dollars endlessly, than you are for the "status quo".

Now does a lack of a government program against gravity mean that anybody is really happy to sit by and let people fall to their deaths? No. But it can be used in such a fashion if you have a difference of opinion on subject. (Believe the next part or not) And since it's mostly a liberal press feeding back to liberals what they say, you may never hear what a straw man "status quo" is.

Athena:

My "accusation" was purely conditional. Perhaps you need to look up what the definition of 'if' is.

Sea King:

If you have a problem with my definition of conservative, then look the word up. No reason to bring up Hitler or Mussolini.

I have a hunch that if tobacco cigarettes had been made illegal before Dan Flynn was born, and public marijuana bans were being discussed only now, he'd be ranting about how "pot is healthier than fascism" and he'd be silent on the subject of tobacco. The questions I asked him about the smoking age and illegal drugs were chosen specifically to help me confirm or disprove this hunch.

By the way,
conservative = "disposed to preserve existing conditions [...]"
status quo = "the existing condition [...]"

Therefore,
conservative = "disposed to preserve the status quo"

It's not some "liberal myth", it's the definition of the word.

Ben:

If there's a case to be made for banning pregnant women from smoking, then surely there is at least an equally strong case that poisoning children after birth is a crime. Of course, after birth, parents have the defense that they merely provided poison and the child chose to ingest it. Wouldn't you, then, have to argue that the child is not capable of "making the subjective utility valuation that the pleasure they get from smoking outweighs the cost of the health risks"?

If the child isn't capable of making his or her own decisions and must also be protected from any possible ulterior motive, incompetence, or indifference of the parents, then there's no way around setting a government-enforced minimum age for certain health-harming activities.

Congratulations on playing word algebra again.

But words are just descriptions. I brought nothing up, you mentioned that fascism ~ authoritarianism. Mussolini is a genuine instance of a fascist. Mussolini did not preserve the status quo. Mussolini is not a conservative, despite being authoritarian, or he is despite not preserving the status quo.

And way to miss the argument, I didn't say the phrase "status quo" is a liberal myth. I said the argument that you're for the status quo is a liberal myth and straw man argument. Here my exact words: "The 'status quo' argument is something that liberals have invented." Otherwise, by context, you could tell that I accepted that there was a more or less definite meaning to the phrase. So there's also no basis for thinking that I'm contesting the phrase itself--if you can read critically, that is.

Brian: dictionaries are not sent from heaven and infallible. Defining terms is hard philosophical work, and that some douche wrote the dictionary definition of conservative as wanting to preserve the status quo don't make it so.

I now know the use of the word "if." The dictionary really helped on that one. That's for the pointer. Nonetheless, your "conditional" accusation is simply idiotic, on two counts. You say, bascially, that if Flynn wants pot to remain illegal and doesn't want any more restrictions on tobacco, he is a status quo guy, thus an authoritarian, thus a fascist.

First count: if p, then q, r, s... isn't true here. Favoring the legal status quo on tobacco and pot doesn't make one favor the legal status quo on everything, and doing that wouldn't make one authoritarian anyhow, and authoritarianism is not the same thing as fascism anyway. Second count: you simply ask rhetorical questions, without waiting in any way for an answer, and then imply that if he answers the way you expect him to, he's a fascist. But, most conservatives, especially of the Ron Paul variety, don't answer those questions the way you imply Dan will. So the whole initial post from you rests on about five false assumptions.

Hello All,

I was reading around some of the posts here and I found interesting things that you guys talk about, I just made a blog about quitting smoking resources and ideas that you might want to check out.
If someone is interested in this topic just go to; http://endthehabitnow.blogspot.com and let me know what you think. Your honest feedback would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance.

It is bad enough when gamb1ing and pornography low-lifes set up robots to put ads on blog comments. I find it even more disturbing when anti-smoking busibodies do so. What do they want from me? Why can't they just let me be?

If you need an intervention exsmoker, go for it. But don't look for it here. You want to smoke, you want to quit, who gives a $h!t!. That should be the point.

I think more than discussing smoking as an issue in particular, this post could refer to any vice where government is interferring and being a pain in a$$ by telling people what they should or should not be doing.