![[Nameplate]](http://www.bannergraphic.com/images/nameplate.png)
|
|
Light Rain Fog/Mist ~ |
|
 Email link
 Read comments (12)
 Blog archive
 Share link
Tightening the RopePosted Monday, November 3, 2008, at 8:32 AM
As Europeans began to settle the vast wilderness that used to cover this great country, the Native Americans were forced into smaller and smaller areas. They fought hard to avoid this and won many bloody battles at a great cost in human life, but in the end succumbed to the will of their conquerors. They lost their ability to hunt where they wanted, to worship as they pleased and even to speak their own language.
A few weeks ago I wrote an article called "Freedom". In that article I mentioned the systematic elimination of simple freedoms we all enjoy in the form of ever-increasing legislation. Now I don't mean to correlate the events from the 17th to the 20th century with those happening in the 21st but there are definitely similarities. Consider if you will that bikers represent a group of people offended by the aforementioned legislation and fighting to get their freedoms returned. Consider a biker wanting to ride legally without a helmet. The territory he once was allowed to ride is severely limited. Let's say that this biker wants to have a loud motorcycle. This limits his territory even further. Now let's say he's a smoker. Here in Greencastle this biker who once patronized such places as Moore's Bar, The Rockhouse (now changed to The Cavern Club), Third Degree (now closed), Jackson's Restaurant and other places is no longer welcome if he wants to smoke inside. He must either smoke outside the building or find another place to go. He will often find another place to go and that place is usually outside Greencastle. A lot of businesses outside the city will benefit from this. Cloverdale has seen an advantage with increased patronage for example. Just north of Greencastle is Old Hickory Golf Course with a bar inside that has remodeled adding a pool table and a big screen TV to invite more patronage. They even have a sign at the door stating "Smoking Allowed in the Bar Area". They seem to be welcoming those citizens that are being displaced by the tightening grip of righteous legislation. Let me be quite clear. I accede the following points: Smoking is bad for your health, Helmets protect your head if you hit it in a crash, seat belts will keep you from hitting the steering wheel if you crash, red meat is bad for your colon and body odor is offensive. I simply have an issue with removing my right to make my own choices through legislation. I've never agreed with the government protecting me from myself. There is an old saying about tattoos. "The difference between people who have tattoos and those who don't is that people who have tattoos don't care if you don't have one." See you at The Links at Old Hickory. Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
MacGyver's Motorcycle Thoughts  - Archives - Blog RSS feed ![[Feed icon]](http://www.bannergraphic.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon} - Comments RSS feed - Login Dan Stockton is a Putnam County native and graduated Salutatorian from North Putnam High School. He earned his BA degree from Wabash College in Crawfordsville. He is a co-author of research for the Indiana Academy of Science Journal and currently writes a column for "The Hoosier Motorcyclist". He is often seen at the Putnam County Playhouse and is an avid motorcyclist. He and his wife of 25 years have two children.
Hot topics Hot Bikes and Cool Tips(3 ~ 7:08 AM, Jul 9)
Signals That Work ... Sometimes
Are We Becoming Weak?
May is Motorcycle Safety and Awareness Month
Horton Hears a Hog
|
Facebook
Twitter
del.icio.us
Digg
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Newsvine
Reddit
Google
Being an ex-smoker I enjoy non-smoking establishments however ?legislating? this is wrong. How can a government entity tell a person who owns property what he can do on and with this property? Let the people decide. Either put it to a vote or let the people decide by whether they frequent the establishment or not. You cannot legislate morality or a person's personal wishes so QUIT TRYING!! Do what you are elected/paid to do and that is to represent the people not personal interests!!!!
alot of good points in this article. Will this get us anywhere. NO. Maybe Mr Stockton should have run for mayor. I would've voted for him ,
Nice article.
Dan, I understand what your saying and why your saying it. But, I am a non-smoker, always have been. My mom has smoked my entire life, I have been to many bars that were filled with smokers and smoke, and I am glad that there are establishments that are smoke free. It is nice to go and shoot pool for a few hours and not smell like an ashtray when I get home. What I'm trying to say is that maybe being smoke free is a good thing, seeing how everything has been full of smoke for years. Lets give the non-smokers a break for a while. To hell with the helmet law, where one if you want to, and if you don't feel like it, don't!
Right now we have a choice. Smokers have places to go to if they leave Greencastle and non-smokers can go places as well. How long before we DON'T have a choice? I smoke cigars but am smoke free when in Greencastle. I haven't seen any non smokers from the Greencastle board or from the non-smoking public crying for this law patronizing these now non smoking establishments so who benefited?
ZRX - Totally agree with the smokey smelling clothes and I do like a smoke free environment. There are ways to accomplish this without legislation.
I understand your desire to exercise individual freedom. But the problem is more extensive and nuanced than you make it out to be. For example, smokers do not simply impact their own health. In addition to the problem of second hand smoke, smokers cost the taxpayers billions of dollars in health care costs (see: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/20...; consumers pay higher prices for consumer goods because smokers average higher absentee rates from work which means lower productivity and higher costs. Failure to wear helmets and seatbelts also impact the rates that I pay for insurance, health care, and taxes. http://www.ntsb.gov/Speeches/healing/rfh...
It would be nice if it those who want to exercise this conduct would also fully pay the costs of those choices, but they do not. Since they do not, these life-style choices in fact are the business of the rest of society and the community is fully within its rights, and arguably have a responsibility, to take measures to reduce the impact of these "choices" on the rest of us.
Your first link could not be accessed. I read your second link but it was a speech and not actual research or data. That is, it was designed to sway a vote. Smokers pay for their choices in the form of higher premiums. I will research the smoking issue and write about it at a later date. Thank you for reading and for your comments.
YEAH!!! DAN THE MAN....BRINGIN DOWN THE HOUSE!!!
The second link is sworn testimony. At least explain why this is not at as logically valid argumentatively as your own unsourced assertions.
Smokers' premiums do not cover the cost of care. Many smokers have no health insurance (many non-smokers are also without coverage), but we know that smoking is a major health hazared that costs millions of dollars each year. Health care costs are spread out across the populace, unless we decide to deny treatment to those who do not pay and that is not what this country has ever been about.
bondsman, please be specific in re methodology about how these statistics are being manipulated. To press an argument and make a blanket indictment is just a why of complaining when you haven't looked into methodology or results or don't know how statistical analysis is appropriately, or inappropriately, used.
Health care costs are driven in part by people who do not pay for care. But that is not the only factor. Huge costs for new drug treatment, the development of expensive, and often unnecessary equipment, the use of emergency facilities for non-emergency medical care all contribute to soaring health care costs.
Individual freedoms are not unlimited. Your freedom to swing your arm ends at another person's nose and the freedom to serve food is contingent, for the public good, on your following health codes to protect the public from unsafe foods. The civil rights movement (and the civil rights laws that followed) was, in part, about extending rights in public accomodation to all people, irrespective of race. This clearly indicated that ownership of property does not mean that you can do anything you like, that being part of a community means that you have rights but also responsibilities to the community. Smoking in public is no different, it is rightly regulated because it is a public health issue.
Finally, I'd be much more sympathetic to the originalist argument regarding the constitution if the folks who use "original intent" as a mantra applied the same standards to the 4th amendment as they do to the 2nd and--only occasionally--to the 1st. But I'm more troubled by bondsman's indictment that there is an issue with "allowing thought to permeate"...that is the fundamental right upon which democracy rests. What would you have us do, ban certain thoughts? This would be the ultimate in control of the individual, and you claim I want to control people's lives? Please.
Cheers.
My purpose in this article is to illustrate the ever increasing legislation that I personally feel is unnecessary. It is true that second hand smoke is annoying to those that do not smoke and it is also true that these people claim a health risk. However, there is no documented case of illness caused by second hand smoke. If anyone can cite one, I will happily retract my claim. Again to my point. Businesses should have the opportunity to decide how THEY want to run their establisment - not the government. Let the marketplace drive their profits. If non smokers do not patronize, perhaps changing their business VOLUNTARILY to non-smoking could increase their business. If on the other hand, they are doing well ALLOWING people to smoke, then let them do so in the name of a free country with free enterprise. It's not just the legislation. It spreads to enforcement by police, fines, court costs, time off work that lowers productivity increasing the costs of consumer goods (sound familiar?) and who pays for all this? We do as tax payers.
By the way the sworn testimony is still opinion and there are no citations of sources for any of the statistical claims. I submit to you that the number of people that misinterpret data is astounding.
Dan you sure opened a can of worms with this blog. Sure has made for some interesting reading though...
I hope you enjoy the fruits of your labor Dan, way to stir the pot! You carry a big spoon to stir with:)
I'm enjoying this immensely. The only way to come to terms with issues is to discuss them. We can agree to disagree but in the end we have to find a way to respect and tolerate each other regardless of where we stand on issues. I personally think stronger ties between people are created once we understand each other's thoughts. Again, we don't have to agree but we can certainly discuss our views. Keep reading everyone and keep commenting.