Irony can be defined as an incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs. That is precisely how to describe a piece of current legislation being considered in Kansas called Alexa’s Law. The bill was recently passed by the Kansas House of Representatives and is now awaiting the Kansas Senate to decide its fate. Alexa’s Law if passed, would be part of the Kansas criminal code allowing prosecutors to charge anyone who kills a fetus. Exceptions are made for the mother of the unborn baby as well as her abortionist. The law is named for the unborn daughter of Chelsea Brooks of Wichita, KS who was murdered while in her ninth month of pregnancy.

The glaring incongruity of this law is astounding, and not surprisingly, has not gone unnoticed by those in opposition to it. The wording of the bill states that its purpose is to deal with crimes committed against unborn children as defined to mean “a living individual organism of the species homo sapiens, in utero, at any stage of gestation from fertilization to birth.” It would seem any resistance to a law such as this would come in the form of protestations regarding the definition of the unborn as described in the language of the bill. The main concern, however, voiced by opponents of the measure is the negative ramifications that they believe would be inflicted on pregnant women by the new law; those negative effects being the unintended consequences of changes in abortion law. This seems an odd concern considering the bill explicitly gives exemption to women who want to end their pregnancy through an elective abortion. The exact wording of Alexa’s Law says that it shall not apply to: “1) Any act committed by the mother of the unborn child; (2) any medical procedure, including abortion, performed by a physician or other licensed medical professional at the request of the pregnant woman or her legal guardian; or (3) the lawful dispensation or administration of lawfully prescribed medication.” Alexa’s Law as written and passed by the House, goes to great lengths to make sure it could never be construed to criminalize women receiving an abortion.

With those exceptions so plainly defined why would abortion advocates be so opposed to this legislation? The irony of the law is not lost on those favoring abortion rights. The representatives behind the drafting and the nearly unanimous passage of this bill have emphasized that the bill has nothing to do with abortion, but staunch defenders of abortion can see the writing on the wall. They recognize that unborn victim laws shine a light on the personhood of the fetus and know that once our laws grant protection to the unborn, elective abortion becomes very hard to justify.

When a law like Alexa’s Law is passed in a country that has legalized abortion on demand, a determination has been made that a persons life is only valuable if that person is wanted. Should being “wanted” be a factor in deciding if a persons life is protected under the law? The answer we are forced to give in a society where legalized abortion and fetal homicide statutes try to coexist is yes. “It is wrong to kill a living individual organism of the species homo sapiens in utero”…unless you’re the mom. How ironic.

Uncle Sam
Father Knows Best

The state of Texas has a lot of admirable qualities and those who hail from that place have reason to be proud, until now. No longer the land of rugged independence, Texas seems to have transformed into a monarchy overnight with King Perry (formerly know as Governor Rick Perry) ruling that his subjects do not know what is best for their daughters. Thanks to their governor, who sidestepped the will of the people by issuing an Executive Order, they became the first state to mandate that all female children be vaccinated for the Human Papiloma Virus (HPV) prior to the sixth grade. HPV is a virus that can cause abnormal tissue growth on different cell surfaces in the human body and women who contract certain strains of the virus greatly increase their risk of developing cervical cancer. HPV is a strictly sexually transmitted disease, and cannot be contracted through casual contact.

The new vaccine is being touted as a medical breakthrough for its potential to “prevent” cervical cancer in women. Of course, upon closer examination it all sounds better than it really is. The vaccine only protects against four strains of HPV, with there being more than twenty different variations. Contrary to the vaccines own advertising, it cannot, and does not, “prevent” cervical cancer. It may reduce one’s chances of getting it from the four types of HPV for which the inoculation works. Also, because the drug is so new, nothing is known about how long the immunity will last. Sixth graders could be unprotected by the time they reach high school. Not to mention the long term side effects of this drug are a complete unknown. Despite all of these concerns the Texas Governor, and soon to be many other state governments, feel comfortable forcing parents to put this unnecessary drug in their child’s body.

There are mandatory vaccinations that children receive before entering the public education system. The HPV vaccine cannot be compared to those vaccinations that protect children from highly communicable diseases. While one student can casually pass Whooping Cough to his neighbor one desk over, potentially causing an epidemic, the same is simply not true for HPV. The HPV virus is one hundred percent avoidable without an inoculation.

The justifications of those who wish to force parents to give their daughter this drug are that it can significantly decrease her chances of developing cervical cancer. If preventing cervical cancer is truly the goal then why don’t the schools teach stringent classes on abstinence, and all the health benefits that that lifestyle affords? Abstinence reduces a girls chances of developing cervical cancer from HPV with one hundred percent efficacy. No takers? The attempt to prevent cervical cancer may be noble, but cervical cancer is not a public health risk, and is therefore none of the school’s business.

It is difficult to remain un-skeptical about the true nature of laws passed that take away a parents rights even though it all seems to be for the “good” of the child. Skepticism is necessary in this case. The facts are that cervical cancer in the United States kills an estimated 3,200 women a year. Statistically, that affects less than one percent of the U.S. population. That does not constitute an epidemic and definitely does not justify mandatory vaccinations. In fact cervical cancer does not even make the top ten list of cancers that kill women most often. Breast cancer is the most common form of cancer in women. If we allow the government to tell us that we have to be vaccinated for HPV to reduce cervical cancer, where do we draw the line? Can the government force citizens to have a mammogram for their own good? This would be a serious invasion of individual rights just as forced immunization for HPV is a serious invasion of parental and personal rights.

Other states had better be on their toes, prepared to inform our Legislatures and Governors that we still believe that where our children are concerned Father knows best, not Uncle Sam.

 

“Thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealed forever. You might dodge successfully for a while, even for years, but sooner or later they were bound to get you."
George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 1

The subject of hate crimes legislation is one that is being increasingly brought to the forefront of our consciousness. I guess a simple definition of a hate crime would be, any crime motivated by prejudice and hate against a social group. Upon first glance it would seem quite right to recognize the horrendous nature of prejudice by punishing, more harshly, crimes committed for that reason. That is the problem with much of our citizenry today, usually a first glance is all that is ever given to most subjects.

By seeking to punish more severely, those who are found guilty of committing a crime for reasons of prejudice or hate, a deadly blow is dealt to our very important concept of Equal Under the Law. For hate crime laws to be enforced, two things must occur, both of which are very problematic if a just legal system is the goal. Firstly, it must be assumed that crimes committed for certain reasons, or against certain people, are more serious than the same crime committed for a supposed non-prejudiced reason. Secondly, these laws require the courts to determine what a criminal was thinking and feeling when committing the crime.

If bias-motivated acts of violence are worse than other acts of violence, than a victim is deemed less of one if no evidence of prejudice on the part of the perpetrator is found. Common sense, however, shows instantly that this concept is faulty reasoning at best. Is a person any less raped or dead if the victimizer is a sociopath, choosing his victim at random? Hate crime laws are unjust for this reason alone.

The second major problem with hate crimes legislation is that it takes our laws uncomfortably close to the notion of thought crimes. To prosecute a defendant who is accused of a hate crime, the justice system is forced to prove what the defendant was feeling and what he believes. This concept would have been, and was, utterly rejected by the Founders of this country. Thomas Jefferson could not have been any clearer than when he said in his Bill for Religious Freedom in 1779, "the rightful purposes of civil government" are to punish "overt acts against peace and good order." Jefferson went on to say that no judge “can intrude his powers into the field of opinions". Hate crime laws do exactly that. Murder is an overt act, but hate stems from thought, an internalized process. Hate crime then, is the ability of the state to determine and then prosecute man based on his thoughts.

Hate crime laws are not only unjust they are completely unnecessary. Violent acts that are prohibited under hate crime laws are already crimes under previously existing laws. Not only are they unnecessary, they are contrary to the important ideal we call Blind Justice. Lady Justice is often depicted wearing a blindfold. This is to symbolize that justice is to be meted out objectively, without fear or favor, regardless of the identity, power, or weakness of the individuals brought before the courts. The very principle of Blind Justice is at the heart of a free society. Hate crime laws take off Lady Justice’s blindfold.

 

I guess I'm it. 

Here's the rules: "People who get tagged need to write a blog stating 6 weird things about themselves as well as state this rule clearly. In the end of the post, you need to choose 6 people to be tagged and list their names and links. Don't forget to leave a comment that says you are tagged in their comments and tell them to read your blog."

6 Weird Things About Me

1.)  Out of all the things I should be doing, I am doing this.

2.)  I lived in CA but do not speak Spanish

3.)  I was homeschooled while in high school

4.)  I am a certified sign language interpreter

5.) I cry EVERY time I watch It's a Wonderful Life

6.)  Me and my 2 sisters were all in the same tornado while in different locations in one afternoon 


I tag:
Last Best Hope for Earth

Scatbug's Scatterings

The Interface

 

Sir Winston Churchill once stated, “If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law.” And so it seems to be in my home state. We got our conceal and carry law….but not really. Liberals are psychotic, so I am not sure it is even really a good use of my time to point out the error of their insane thinking….but I can’t help it.

Arguments against conceal and carry laws are generally founded on the assumption that guns and those who would carry them are evil, deadly accidents waiting to happen. If guns were not inanimate objects, completely incapable of doing harm apart from the person possessing them, and if owning and carrying firearms were not a right expressly protected in the Bill of Rights, then one could understand the need to restrict gun access and possession at all costs. However, since a gun is only as dangerous as the person carrying it, those assumptions are based in hyperbole and unfounded fear.

These arguments hinge on the very scientific idea of “what if". Should the potential for causing harm be a valid reason to regulate a person’s activities or to remove a person’s right to ownership of certain property?

A person owning a home with stairs has the potential of becoming angry and pushing another down the stairs. Using this potential harm reasoning, persons owning homes with staircases could be looked upon as having suspect motives simply because they have stairs in their home. Basing our laws on the possibility of potential harm we could then reason that all homes with stairs should be confiscated and torn down. What about the more obvious example of the use of motor vehicles. Anyone driving a car has the potential for purposefully running over someone. Should cars, then, be deemed as evil or be banned because of their possible misuse?

This faulty logic, while seeming absurd when applied to other scenarios, is precisely the fallacious rhetoric used by anti-gun advocates. The difference is simply one of degree not of principle. It fails to acknowledge the rights of the individual regardless of the possibility of his future misuse of those rights.

No matter how illogical and wrong opposition to Second Amendment Rights may be, there are still people who feel uncomfortable at the thought of those they don’t know walking around with guns. One wonders how they feel about the criminals and thugs they don’t know who are walking around with guns? Not to worry, I am sure the criminals of Kansas will surely prove polite and heed the No Guns Allowed sign some businesses will choose to post.

 

 

 

Happy Solstice, Happy Hanukkah, 
Merry Christmas, Happy Kwanza

Sorry for the delay...My Legal Department just 
approved the following Holiday Greeting:

To Readers:

Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit my best
wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible,
low stress, non-addictive, gender neutral, celebration of the
winter solstice holiday(tm), practiced within the most enjoyable
traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular
practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular
persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to
practice religious or secular traditions at all . . . and a fiscally
successful, personally fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated recognition
of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2007, but not without
due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose
contributions to society have
helped make America great, (not to imply that America is
necessarily greater than any other country or is the only "AMERICA" in the
western hemisphere), and without regard to the race, creed, color, age,
physical ability, religious faith, choice of computer platform, or sexual
orientation of the wishee.

By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms:
This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is
freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting.
It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any
of the wishes for her/himself or others, and is void where
prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole discretion of
the wisher. This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual
application of good tidings for a period of one year, or until the issuance
of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is
limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole
discretion of the wisher.

(hat tip to my father-in-law)
_____________________________________________________
MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYONE!  and God bless you during this wonderful season which exsists, for the sole purpose of celebrating the incarnate birth of Jesus Christ, the Messiah of the world.      

When was the last time you found yourself thinking, “my, I can’t believe how well this government agency operates!” Was it while you stood in line at the DMV? How about when you were dealing with the Social Security Administration? Oh, I know, it was probably while you were reading about the latest pork barrel spending schemes being cooked up at Capital Hill. Needless to say, we all know that if the government is in charge it will be slow, ineffective, and expensive.

With that in mind, why would anyone possibly think that a universal healthcare system is what this country needs? A little research reveals the sad fact that an American diagnosed with cancer has a 50-100% better chance of surviving than a person living in Britain where they already have “free healthcare”.

Speaking of free health care, universal healthcare is not free. The government would pay for this somehow. It would be on the backs of American citizens. What good would it do to wipe out a few hundred dollars of monthly health insurance premiums if our taxes were to go up by that much or more?

Is it true that few people can afford healthcare in this country. No. If it were true then that would mean our government cannot afford any type of universal healthcare plan. Government does not produce wealth. It does not make money. The only source of income it has is us. Any type of socialized medicine will be one hundred percent funded by the citizens. If we can‘t afford healthcare then neither can our government.

As compelling as all these reasons may be to avoid government run health care, it is not the main reason it should be opposed. Universal healthcare, like any other socialist agenda, is morally wrong. Socialized medicine begs the question that healthcare is a right. It is not. Our Constitution defines quite nicely what every man’s rights are: life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.

These God given rights are all ours for the taking; meaning they are all a call to action on the part of the individual. They are not to be given to the individual by the government, but are to be protected from the government. The definition of these inalienable rights means that the government may not interfere with your pursuit of them. This action oriented view of rights is what made America a truly free country and has proved to be the moral view. It operates on the concept of individualism, not the infamous greater good.

Now, in the name of made-up rights, our true rights are being trampled. The elitist politicians think they know how best to run our lives, making up rights that require no action or earning on the part of the recipient. When this happens, my so called right to healthcare is at the expense of someone else, leaving that other person “rightless”. They become a slave to my rights. Thus, no one in this type of system is free.

When the government arbitrarily defines a right what must they do to guarantee that right? How do they ensure these free services to the citizens? Personal freedom is thrown out the window and citizens are forced to become slaves to the state. Made up rights eliminate TRUE rights.

The proponents of a nanny state healthcare system never debate on the substance of the issue. They rely on us to think only with our emotions, not weighing the facts and the transcendent truths of the matter. There are many tragic cases of families who do not have good health care. That, however, is irrelevant to the facts. I do not have a right to force others to be servants to my wants or even my needs. Healthcare is not a right.

When an outbreak of Ecoli was traced to fresh spinach in this country all spinach was immediately removed from grocery stores everywhere.  The Ecoli had tragically killed three people.  The abortion drug RU486, which has only been legalized for a very short time, has killed (that we know of) 8 women and the government and specifically the FDA has not batted an eye. All the feminist organizations have not demanded justice for these women and their families or for any investigations into the safety of the drug.   In fact they have said nothing.  Explain that.

 

“As for money, the relationship between it and effective schools has been studied to death. The unanimous conclusion is that there is no connection between school funding and school performance." Brookings Institution scholars John Chubb and Terry Moe, 1990

Below, are parts of an original 1895 eighth-grade final exam from Salina, Kansas. How many of these questions could you answer, let alone your eighth grader?

GRAMMAR

1. Name the Parts of Speech and define those that have no modifications.

2. Define Verse, Stanza and Paragraph.

3. What are the Principle Parts of a verb? Give the Principle Parts of do, lie, lay and run.

4. Write a composition of about 150 words and show therein that you understand the practical use of the rules of grammar.

ARITHMETIC

1. A wagon box is 2 ft. deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. wide. How many bushels of wheat will it hold?

2. If a load of wheat weighs 3942 lbs., what is it worth at 50 cents per bu., deducting 1050 lbs. For tare?

3. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7 percent.

4. Write a Bank Check, A Promissory Note, and a Receipt.

U.S. HISTORY

1. Give an account of the discovery of America by Columbus.

2. Relate the causes and results of the Revolutionary War.

3. Who were the following: Morse, Whitney, Fulton, Bell, Lincoln, Penn, and Howe?

4. Name events connected with the following dates: 1607, 1620, 1800, 1849, 1865

ORTHOGRAPHY

1. What is meant by the following: Alphabet, phonetic, orthography, etymology, syllabication?

2. Give two uses of silent letters in spelling. Illustrate each.

3. Use the following correctly in sentences:

Cite, site, sight

Fane, fain, feign

Vane, vain, vein

Raze, raise, rays

4. Write 10 words frequently mispronounced and indicate pronunciation by use of diacritical marks and by syllabication.

GEOGRAPHY

1.Name all of the republics of Europe and give the capital of each.

2.Why is the Atlantic Coast colder than the Pacific in the same latitude?

3.Describe the process by which the water of the ocean returns to the sources of the rivers.

4.Describe the movements of the earth. Give inclination of the earth.

Why are we so much less educated than our ancestors? We spend hundreds, in some cases thousands, of dollars per pupil in today’s schools and yet……what is ORTHOGRAPHY?

One of the best ways we have of gauging how our school children are doing (supposedly) is “The Report Card to the Nation and States”, administered by the National Assessment of Educational Progress. The NAEP tests students in reading, math, science, history, and geography. In 1990 the results for this test showed that not even today’s high school graduates could have passed the eighth grade 111 years ago, let alone our eighth graders. The NAEP showed that 2 out of 3 seventeen year olds did not know the reason for Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation. Less than half of high school seniors recognized the famous “Give me liberty or give me death” quote as having come from Patrick Henry. Even fewer knew of the existence of the War of 1812, the Marshal Plan, or Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. On a world map most could not even locate Southeast Asia.

This apparent lack of a well rounded and effective education is not due to a lack of time spent in school nor of money spent on schools. As a society we should all be concerned with what our children are being taught, or perhaps not being taught. Educated people are not as easy to manipulate and are therefore essential in maintaining a free society. Let us not assume too much in regards to what kind of education the children of this country are receiving. We must but be vigilant, demanding our children are being, at least, as well educated as our ancestors were.  

Maybe if the government schools spent even half the time on true acedemics (using true facts, not made up ones that better fit their worldview) that they do on social engineering, we would not have to be confronted with the task of having to help the young clerk count back our change when their computer fails them. Or more importantly, if citizens of this country were being truly educated instead of truly indoctrinated, the worry that a member of the Socialist Party (often times known as Democrats)  being elected could be eliminated.

   EMINENT DOMAIN PROTECTIONS WILL DIE WITHOUT IMMEDIATE ACTION

  We have only one week to pass Eminent Domain reform to counter the Supreme Court's disastrous Kelo VS New London decision that said local communities could take private property for use by private developers. That decision means no property is safe anywhere, as long as the local government decides it can make more money by throwing property owners off their land.         

  Last year, the House of Representatives passed the Property Rights Protection Act (H.R. 4128) by a vote of 376-38. The bill would give Congress the power to discourage Eminent Domain abuse by withholding federal funds from any city that use Eminent Domain to seize property for private developers.

  However, Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has deliberately held up the Senate version of the Property Rights Protection Act (S.1313) in the Senate. Specter is acting in partnership with the National League of Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors to kill the bill. They don't want to lose the eminent domain power over your home. Specter is playing a well-used game. He knows if he just holds on until Congress adjourns, the bill in both houses will die. We would have to start all over again in the Democrat-controlled congress next year.

  Here's the good news. Senator James Inholf has introduced an identical bill (S.3837) to get around Senator Specter. This means there is still a chance to protect property rights before the Republicans lose control of Congress. Urgent. We must take action right now!


  ACTION TO TAKE:    

    1. Call both of your State's U.S. Senators (no time to write) and urge them to support S.3837, The Property Rights Protection Act, sponsored by Senator Inholf. If this bill is not passed by the end of the Lame Duck session, the bill will die and we will have to start all over again to fight for property rights protection.

    U.S. Senate Switchboard: 202-224-3121. Ask for your Senators by name and the operator will connect you. 

    2. Call Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. Tell him you want S.3837 brought to the Senate floor for a vote. He has so far refused to do so. We must put pressure on him to act or the bill will die.  Senator Frist's office number: 202-224-3344.

    We can get S.3837 passed. But only if we apply enough pressure to Senator Frist to force a floor vote.

    Please pass this action alert to at least 10 more people. It's urgent that you act now. The lame duck session will only last about another week!

 

 

The Show Me State. Missouri. It looks as if they are indeed preparing to show the rest of the nation just how far down the slippery slope this country is. But, I guess Terri Schiavo’s family could have told us that. The state of Missouri just voted in favor of amending their state constitution which will now protect and fund Embryonic Stem Cell Research.

The proponents of this legislation went to great efforts to make sure that the public understood that this initiative, so cleverly titled The Missouri Stem Cell Research And Cures Initiative, does not involve cloning and in fact bans it. That’s interesting considering that embryonic stem cell research cannot take place without cloning.

It does not take very much research to get to the bottom of this seemingly confusing issue. The International Society for Stem Cell Research is a great starting place, straight from the horses mouth, as they say. Their publications and website contains all the information you would ever want to know (actually it seems most Americans prefer not to know) about the basic facts of somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), A.K.A cloning.

Look specifically for the section titled “Why is stem cell research confused with cloning?” I’ll give you the short, non misdirecting answer. It is confused with cloning because….it’s cloning. When it is all said and done cloning is what must take place for a blastocyst, also called an embryo, to come into existence. It is then, that the cells of the embryo are harvested for research purposes. How do they avoid admitting that this is cloning? Sit down for this one. According to those who are in favor of embryonic stem cell research, it is only cloning if the cells they have created (the embryo) is allowed to live. Given that they have no intention of letting that happen, what they are doing gets to be called stem cell research. To surmise, if you kill the clone you just created it isn’t cloning.

How can dissecting a blob of cells be considered killing? If the embryo is not human what is it? Human's change their entire life. Some stages are more dramatic than others - but they're still human the whole time. Technically we are all just a glob of cells...grown up or not. The embryo is either human or it is dead; because it is a human all along. No new genetic information is added or needed to make it human because it already is. It is not a potential human, it is potentially a full grown human. Since when is a person’s humanity dependant on their degree of development? The embryo is indeed at a very immature stage of development but a ten year old girl is less mature and less developed than a twenty year old woman. Is she less of a human?

I’d like to believe that the people of Missouri were just duped on this one; that they were misled and tricked into voting for what amounts to government sanctioned production and then destruction of human beings, all in the seemingly noble pursuit of possibly ending the suffering of so many people. Makes you wonder if all the therapeutic clones that will be sacrificed for our betterment wouldn’t have liked a chance at life, even if it meant living it with one of the diseases their death helped cure.

"It is not in violence and crime that our greatest danger lies. These evils are so perfectly apparent that they very quickly arouse the moral power of the people for their suppression. A far more serious danger lurks in the shirking of those responsibilities of citizenship, where the evil may not be so noticeable but is more insidious and likely to be more devastating.

We live in a republic. A vital principle of that form of government is representation. More and more, as our population increases, it becomes necessary for the people to express their will through their duly chosen delegates. If we are to maintain the principle that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, if we are to have any measure of self-government, if the voice of the people is to rule, if representatives are truly to reflect the popular will, it is altogether necessary that in each election there should be a fairly full participation by all the qualified voters."

President Calvin Coolidge~1926

 To smoke or not to smoke. That is not the question. The question is should the government tell citizens when and where they can smoke, thereby telling business owners how to operate their establishments?

There is no such thing as an inalienable right to be in a private place of business that meets all your personal preferences and needs. It may be good business to accommodate these needs, but it is not the customer’s right. Some, may have severe food allergies and need a restaurant to completely eliminate certain items from a recipe. Do these people have a right to eat food that will not kill them? Yes. But not necessarily at someone else’s private business.

People tend to only focus on the “health” aspects of a citywide smoking ban. In this light, how could a law banning harmful cigarette smoke in public places be a bad thing? A ban appears to be a simple and logical solution. It is not. We should prefer second hand smoke over second hand socialism.

Unfortunately, that is not the case for many Americans anymore. This can be seen in the increasing number of “public health issues” that are being taken on by our nanny state and, incredibly, given approval by citizens, from obesity to alcohol, and seat belt laws. Overeating when you go out is, in reality, more of a risk to your health then being exposed to some second hand smoke for a few minutes during a meal. Should the government ban large food portions at restaurants? After all, obesity is being defined as a public health concern.

People complain that being exposed to another’s smoke is not a choice they are making, it is being forced upon them; this is not true. The choice lies in where one chooses to do business. The great thing about a free market is that if enough people make their preferences known via the almighty dollar, many restaurants may decide on their own to become a smoke free establishment.

While breathing someone else’s cigarette smoke may indeed not be the healthiest thing, and may even have serious health implications for some, passing laws to impose one’s preferences on others is not a justifiable solution in a free society. When you place responsibility for yourself in the hands of the government, giving it the power to enforce what you perceive as the greater good, rather than taking personal responsibility for yourself, you have set the precedent that others can and will force their ideas of the “greater good” upon you. One day the greater good may not be so great.

As long as smoking cigarettes is legal, this decision does not belong to the government, but to private property owners. We may not have a right to have all other people cater to our every preference while in public, but there is such a thing as personal property rights and personal responsibility. At least there used to be.