Last week the IndyStar wrote a strong editorial in favor of a smoking ban. I issued a Challenge to them online and in a letter to the editor which has been ignored. The challenges were to:

1) Support surveying the workers they claim to represent to see if THEY truly want a ban to “protect” them. Antismokers NEVER support such surveys because they KNOW that outside of a few solitary voices they're able to dig up that the workers don't want anything to do with their bans.

and

2) For SmokeFreeIndy, with its 14 million dollars, and pro-ban Councilfolks, with their salaries, to stand behind their word that a ban won't hurt business and sign legal documentation to cover any ban biz losses that can reasonably be shown to result.

If they're telling the truth they should be happy to accept these challenges to get their ban. If they're lying they'll run like little girls from a flock of tarantulas.

So far they seem to be running. Readers, call your councilpeople. Barrister, challenge the Star to stand behind its position!

Oh… and Barrister? Don't for solitary moment think the Cigar Lounge will be immune. Once they're isolated and vulnerable the Antismokers *will* be back. And at that point they'll be easy pickins: there won't be anyone left to stand up for them.

Michael J. McFadden,
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers' Brains”

Last week the IndyStar wrote a strong editorial in favor of a smoking ban. I issued a Challenge to them online and in a letter to the editor which has been ignored. The challenges were to:

1) Support surveying the workers they claim to represent to see if THEY truly want a ban to “protect” them. Antismokers NEVER support such surveys because they KNOW that outside of a few solitary voices they're able to dig up that the workers don't want anything to do with their bans.

and

2) For SmokeFreeIndy, with its 14 million dollars, and pro-ban Councilfolks, with their salaries, to stand behind their word that a ban won't hurt business and sign legal documentation to cover any ban biz losses that can reasonably be shown to result.

If they're telling the truth they should be happy to accept these challenges to get their ban. If they're lying they'll run like little girls from a flock of tarantulas.

So far they seem to be running. Readers, call your councilpeople. Barrister, challenge the Star to stand behind its position!

Oh… and Barrister? Don't for solitary moment think the Cigar Lounge will be immune. Once they're isolated and vulnerable the Antismokers *will* be back. And at that point they'll be easy pickins: there won't be anyone left to stand up for them.

Michael J. McFadden,
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers' Brains”

Do you just make this stuff up?

This will be over tonight…I suspect the ordinance won't pass, although it should.

You see, this stuff never stops if we let it go on. First one thing, then another, and another. It's best to put the stake in the ground now. Smoking is a nasty, smelly habit that I abhore. But I'm not in favor of a total ban. It would certainly make me wonder, 'What's next?'

I'm in favor of laws that say how my meal is to be prepared safely, as it reduces my likelyhood of salmonella,etc. I can't tell what is in there so I need some assurance it's safe.

But with smoking, I have the knowledge of what I'm walking into and the sense to steer away. So there's no need to slap another on the books to outlaw it.

I would also have the sense to not work someplace if I personally thought it was hazardous to my health. Enough folks do that, and the 'problem' will self-correct without any legislative intervention required.

“Disagreement” about a legal activity, is not “curable” by an infraction of force or mob rule.

The most dangerous drug in the world is despotism; the delusion or pretense that an adult or adults (confronted with their own daily & lifelong struggles of self control), have the “right” to control the lives of sovereign, law abiding, fellow citizens. That's regressive, not progressive.

Numerous hospitals, the American Lung Association, and others have offered free or low-cost smoking-cessation clinics for years. I'm told that smoking is a harder addiction to break than almost anythingn else. Why the hell do you suppose the tobacco companies put nicotene, a highly-addictive drug, in cigarettes? Tobacco doesn't grow with naturally-addictive components–they have to be added.

Everyone I know who's tried to quit has had a very difficult time, some with, some without prescription drugs to help. So IO'm very sympathetic.

Here are a few of those smoking clinic citations:

http://www.keyconsumer.org/support_groups
http://tobacco.medicine.iu.edu/health-provider/...

Risk free living doesn't exist, and determination for the same rests exclusively, in the hands of the INDIVIDUAL. Smoking establishments & especially private clubs, should counter this nonsense on a “right to associate” basis.

Aires, keep on talking about guns. Don't stop. It's so effective.

I never compared 'zoning inspectors' to anyone. I use phrases such as “Much easier to have government employees with guns…”, or “Much easier, and safer for YOU, to get men with guns (force of government) to do this for you.”

Now, you imply that this is over the top. I disagree.

What do you suppose would happen to a property owner who was told to stop a legal activity occurring on his property, simply because some twits in government decided to trample on his property rights.

The PROPERTY OWNER (PO) refuses. Government issues a citation. The PO tears the citation into little bits, and mails it back to government. Government issues another citation. PO tears it up again. Government decides to close the business down, thus depriving the PO of the use of his property. The PO stands in the business doorway with his firearms (Art 1-32) to defend his property. Other government employees with guns arrive and order the PO to disarm and comply. The PO refuses, as he sincerely believes he is right, and defending his property rights. Government employees with guns attempt to rush the property. PO raises his firearm of choice in a 'threatening manner' (see police report). Men with guns execute the otherwise peace loving PROPERTY OWNER for not complying with government edicts.

TA, stuff like this has happened before, to people that honestly believe in property rights, the Constitutions of their state and federal government.

People have been executed by government employees with guns for far less.