Sioux City Journal

Smoking ban: A step toward communism

Posted: Sunday, February 24, 2008

SOUTH SIOUX CITY -- The smoking ban legislation being rammed through the Iowa Legislature is another step toward communism. Consider that socialism, as defined, is the intermediary between capitalism and communism. Government control and administration of all property (public and private) is a principle of communism. Bars, restaurants, hotels and casinos are examples of privately owned, commercial property. Yet, the Iowa Legislature and its willing cohorts in the media commonly refer to them as “public places.” I suppose, to announce a smoking ban in all privately owned, commercial establishments (including casinos) would not sell very well.

Moreover, the socialist Democrats claim they are protecting the health and safety of the public. This is based on anecdotal evidence and quack scientific theory that secondhand smoke will cause cancer. Correlation does not mean causation.

The United States fought many bloody battles in order to preserve its freedoms and liberties. Now, socialist Democrats are dishonoring the patriots of freedom and undermining the foundations of our country. Where are the Republican defenders? Have the Democrats beat them into submission? I thought there would be more of an outcry from the business community.

So much for defending property rights, we are about to give up a big chunk of it. -- Joe Reitman

Story Comments

Tom wrote on Jul 12, 2008 9:19 AM:

" You idiot cry baby commenters that would rather get cancer are the laughingstock of the internets. "

JWK wrote on Mar 25, 2008 12:43 AM:

" When the Government took the tobacco companies to court and sued them for the damage done to smokers the Government took on the responsibility and now they have to cover they�re back door. The Government should be held responsible when ever someone gets� injured in a car accident with a seat belt, when some one becomes ill from cigarette smoke, and many other things that they endorse. For those who falsely believe that the Government will protect them from second hand smoke you just as well believe that they will protect you from old age. I smoke and I at one time ate out of my house, if the restraint industry can handle one less customer in these economic times, so be it. I have the rite to believe in the enjoyment of a smoke just as much as the non-smoker has the rite to believe that the Government will protect them from old age. When I am told that I can no longer smoke in my own home I expect our food intake to be controlled, the pollen to be kept down during harvest, and the Government to take responsibility of my ageing process. Until then, I�ll die happy. "

Jen wrote on Mar 1, 2008 1:15 PM:

" Private Property Argument - Doesn't work. Remember when private property owners didn't want to allow "colored people" to use their property? Yes, the government can regulate. What about all those health code ordinances? Promotion of health is a compelling reason and the government can do this. I, for one, will consider going to the bars again.

After living in Tempe, with a major University, ASU, does not allow smoking, going to the bars here gags me and I cannot stand to go. I stay at home. Message to smokers - it is disguisting and we can all smell it on you. It is gross. Change is hard, but this is a good change. Good job Iowa! "

Keaton wrote on Mar 1, 2008 10:21 AM:

" Joe, do you honestly think that the carcinogenic toxins are just inherent in all smoke? There IS a difference in smoke between BBQs/fireplaces and cigarettes; however, even IF there was no difference in smoke, you do understand that BBQs are OUTSIDE, and fireplaces funnel up a CHIMNEY OUTSIDE, right? What a ridiculous argument. "

Dick wrote on Mar 1, 2008 1:37 AM:

" FMC, why is the location of the tobacco proprietor even an issue? Don't you have to be 18 to buy it? You need to relax. "