The Social Engineers have arrived. And apparently, they are us.
The social engineering effete liberal leftists of the Democratic party introduced a bill this week….
Oops. I almost forgot. It’s not liberal democrats who want to tell businessowners what to do in their place of business. Leading this charge are the GOP House and Senate Leadership who are supposed to know better, if they bothered to ever notice what the Republican Party is supposed to stand for:
SB 83:
Introduced by Senators Knudson, Adelstein, Dempster, Hansen (Tom), Heidepriem, Hunhoff (Jean), Miles, and Nesselhuf and Representatives Faehn, Curd, Cutler, Feinstein, Hunhoff (Bernie), Lucas, McLaughlin, Pitts, Rave, Sly, Thompson, and Tidemann.An Act to prohibit smoking tobacco or carrying lighted tobacco products in certain places and to require certain persons to inform violators of the prohibition.
Shame on our Republican legislative leaders. Shame on them. The party leaders that are supposed to be about valuing the individual and encouraging free enterprise are now all about the heavy hand of big government.
Again, shame on them.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
A smoking ban. I tell you that ranks about number 52 on the things that concern my family right now!
But PP I do agree with you on one thing: “shame on them.”
Shame on the Democrat and Republican leadership (or lack of) for allowing our wonderful country to get in such a mess!
Now what really scares me is that the same shameful people that got us into this mess are saying “don’t worry, we will fix it”! For some odd reason I just don’t trust ANY of them!
But item number 52 on my concern list is “I am in favor of banning smoking in businesses.” In fact I am in favor of banning smoking altogether, but that’s a whole different topic that doesn’t need to be addressed now. Besides, a total smoking ban is only 82 on my list of concerns! LOL
They’ve got both majority leaders, both minority leaders, both appropriations chairs, and the speaker as sponsors. That should have a good chance of passing, I would think.
SHAME ON the REPUBLICANS for supporting this!!!! Most of the voters DO NOT need more mama’s and papa’s telling them what to do! Where are your core principals!!!!!
I guess they should ban all booze too while they are at it! Ban this, ban that, ban food, people can live on pill form food. You know I think they made a movie years ago like this. It did not turn out to well then. Maybe it was not a sc-fi at all.
PP
You are morphing into a raging extremist, ala, Sibby. The state is turning from Red to Purple, even on state issues. Get used to it. Get used to the idea of a Democratic Gov in two years.
This IS a lot of FUN.
Although it’s been said, correctly, that “A cigarette is a pipe with a fire at one end and a fool at the other,” it has also been said, “The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes.” – Thomas Paine.
As I sat in the gallery and watched all the long faces during Gov. Rounds’ budget-cutting speech, I thought: “And these (Republicans) are the same people I’ve been listening to at Lincoln Day dinners for 15 years saying how much they want to cut government and get it off our backs. But they’ve never done it. Now they get their chance and they look like someone just told them their grandmother had died.”
Has the mantra “good government” become all you’re about? My advice: Leave us alone and get to work balancing the budget. And while you’re at it, remember: “Patrick Henry did not say, ‘Give me absolute safety or give me death.’ ”
- John Stossel
Anon 12:07, this is just for you, from the movie, Soylent Green:
“It’s people. Soylent Green is made out of people. They’re making our food out of people. Next thing they’ll be breeding us like cattle for food. You’ve gotta tell them. You’ve gotta tell them!”
Perhaps these will be Sen. Dave Knudson’s last words too?!
Todd Epp
SD Watch http://www.southdakotawatch.net
Scott:
I’m with you on this. Your Republican buddies always complain about the size of the gubmint. Here’s your chance to be the budget heroes you’ve always said you wanted to be. Who cares if it comes at the expense of three year olds with speech problems or deaf kids? This is a historic opportunity!
Carpe diem, my young Republican friends!
Todd Epp
SD Watch http://www.southdakotawatch.net
All sarcasm aside Todd, it is a historic opportunity. Lot’s of programs sound really good and give a lot of folks a “warm fuzzy” (who could be against helping deaf kids???). But when you’re broke, you have to make tough choices. Deal with it.
80% of the population will appreciate not smelling like an ash tray. Maybe our medicaid costs and insurance premiums will go down? Maybe it’ll drive revenues up and costs down at the same time?
Fact is, a small(er) percentage of our population smokes & I guarantee you that minority costs the rest of us money.
Geez, I’m for the smoking ban, against cutting B to 3, for right-sizing government, pro-life and think we have too many state airplanes. I better change my registration from R to I — if these things are the litmus test.
Please don’t use exagerated percentages to make a point. Even the South Dakota Tobacco-Free Kids Network (certainly an unbiased source?) says its polling only shows 65 percent of South Dakotans would support a state-wide smoking ban. I’m pretty sure that most respondents aren’t even of the details.
I’m sure that a majority might likely vote to support a ban, however lest we forget, our nation was founded as a democratic republice expressly to avoid the threat and abuse of a democracy.
This proposed ban, like most expansions of government power, is simply using incrementalism by using an unpopular activity as bait to entice the public to support an expansion of government that can lead to further limitations on individual freedoms they would otherwise oppose. How many supporters of a ban even realize that the ban would prohibit smoking in ALL lodging and PRIVATE clubs that limit membership to those wishing to join?
As is typical, perverting language and the use of junk science to create a “crisis”, are methods used by the ban’s proponents. Private property used as a public accomodation becomes “public property”; interest groups create scientific sounding studies and surveys to support their proposals and create target groups whose interest is threatened without governmental intervention (the children, the employees, unwitting bystanders, etc).
Regarding this specific proposal, justified as protecting children and employees (apparently indentured into involuntary servitude) the proponents are arguing for a ban in places that do not allow children and represent mployees that have not risen up to demand one.
The junk science used by ban proponents was originally based on the since discredited the 1993 EPA report;
“Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders”.
However, proponents of a ban know full well that ongoing repetition of a lie eventually becomes “common knowledge” for those that fail to exame their motives and methods. Criticism of any given studies funding are generally reported as biased when industry funded but interest group funding (and their sources) are generally unexamined in the MSM or reported without comment.
Even if SHS could be conclusivly established as hazardous, that should not be a valid arguement for limiting individuals to freely choose to accept a risk or prohibit a privately owned business from choosing to cater to that group. Prohibiting individual vices, or overtaxing them has historically proven self defeating by the results of the unintended consequences, as demostrated by THE PROHIBITION or our current “war on drugs”. Driving vices
underground has simply led to increased crime, violence, bootlegging and corruption.
Yes, there is a legitimate governmental role to play in controlling bad behavior, but govenment solutions such as bans and prohibitions have repeatedly proven to create bigger problems the the ones they purport to solve.
We have important issues to deal with this year in the legislature. This is pure crap. Legislators, get with the program of balancing the budget and forget this waste of time. No, I don’t smoke. I don’t like tobacco smoke. But I can choose to go near it or not, and actually I hardly ever do run into it anymore.
Get on with the important, necessary stuff this year. PLEASE!
When Canada went to a national health plan one of their objectives was to wipe out smoking–thereby wiping out smoking related diseases and lowering the cost of health care.
After apx 10 years they discovered that all those people who were not dying of smoking related diseases were getting older and continuing to need more and more medical care. This was far more expensive than the smoking related disease treatment with the early death of many citizens who otherwise continued to use the system’s resources.
Around 1990 they quietly stopped the “no smoking” advertisements.
a fine line between police power and social engineering. certainly, the state has the authority to enact such a ban, but whether it’s reasonable is the real question.
and excellent point, scott my good friend. excellent. even the best of republicans are squealing like stuck pigs. we have an excellent opportunity to cut the size of government, here. let’s not blow it.
Dare we say it?
En fuego.
I mean, Income Tax.
It’s not like the state budget is crazy with overspending, except for things like schools for deaf kids and speech therapy for kids who need help.
Seriously. Make that three legged stool we hear about a four legged chair. More stable and more comfy. And it will be the Republicans–not the Democrats–who make it possible. Only Nixon could go to China. Only Kirk could go to Klingon. Only the Republicans can make a SD income tax possible. And they will. If not this year, next year. I bet we hear it in Rounds last SOTS Address.
Otherwise, PP, enjoy the cuts to your kid’s program.
South Dakota will be the last state to ban indoor public smoking and have a personal and or corporate income tax. But both days are coming, sooner or later, like it or not.
Even the caveman evolved, which, I know, is a naughty word to some of you.
Todd Epp
SD Watch http://www.southdakotawatch.net
Income tax on the state level will not solve our woes. Just look at MN. They also have shortfalls, and they have a state income tax and higher license fees for cars. If we gave the gov’t more, they will simply spend more and still be broke. It’s time to make gov’t smaller. Period.
Todd,
I think we could sit down together to review the budget and come up with plenty of places to cut spending without needing to consider an income tax. Government is always ready to propose taxe cuts that will make the public go “OUCH” before they consider trimming unnecessary staff or wasteful spending. I don’t think I’ve ever seen an agency willingly return funds and claiming they get more money than they need.
Ok William,
What is preventing you from looking at the budget to propose these cuts?
And lest you forget there is an initiated measure process to protect us from representative democracy.
I am disappointed in the list of republican sponsors. No wonder the public doesn’t think there is a difference between republicans and democrats.
Scott, I loved Paine quote!
Anonymous 6p
In general, having worked in government for around 2 decades, my specific cuts would be to: first eliminate government funding for programs that can’t be justified as legitimate government concerns; programs that are justified would have cuts focusing on beauraucratic overhead and overlap; in education, politicians endorse vast expenditures on “technology” but fail to realize that the contemporary K-12 is failing to fully implement distance learning, remote broadcasts and the elimination of the age-grade class assignments; official travel is another area that could reduce costs by using technology to conduct meetings where personal travel is non-essential.
That’s a start, off the top of my head.
BTW, I view the initiated measure process as a weakness, not a strength, as it allows popular opinion to bypass the protections offered by a representative democracy. A pure democracy would be a lot like “America Idol” without the taste, class and restraint.
This is a perfect example of Pat making an argument based ideology over reason. It’s also a perfect example of why political bloggers are so silly.
There’s a reason that the great majority of states that have yet to enact this kind of legislation are found in the Southeast area of the country. SMOKING kills people and banning public smoking has been proven to SAVE LIVES.
Sorry oldhand, even if public smoking bans were proven to save lives (you fail to provide any evidence of that, I’m sure you believe that’s just a given), just because the government may be able to do something that is perceived as “good” doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s something the government should do, simply because it has the power to.
The power of government, even largely good and effective ones, is coercive. If you break laws or fail to pay your taxes, you go to jail, so we need just laws and fair taxes. Governments need to be restrained, checked and balanced, open to challenge and inspection, kept within bounds, always respectful of individual rights and liberty.
Just look at the list. It’s the usual suspects. Clueless, out of touch, liberal politicians who occupy their time on junk legislation just so they can exercise their power. Wow, aren’t they big, important people. You’d think there wasn’t anything pressing to take care of.
William, 10:38:
To apply your own stated framework…..Why is a public smoking ban unjust? Why would such a ban be closed to “challenge and inspection”? Do you really think a public smoking ban is unbounded, and disrespectful of individual rights and liberty?
We already ban things like public nudity, and there is a paucity of posts clamoring here for an end to those laws in the name of ‘individual rights and liberty’ and ‘injustice’.
A substantial majority does not smoke, and a universal majority is harmed by public smoking. This law does not outlaw smoking altogether, but confines it to private quarters. The experience of EVERY other state which passed such a law found NO impact financially on the number of bar-goers, and, usually, found an increase, thanks to the cleaner air.
Why is this law anything but in the best interests of our State?
I just noticed they dropped the Seat belt law. PP’s buddy Lederman is on that one, so that’s two nanny-state pieces of legislation that PP WON’T tag is friend and advertsier for introducing.
Anonymous 9:47a
1. The proposed ban is NOT a public smoking ban, it’s a ban on smoking on private property that offers public accomodation. The ban would not only prohibit smoking in privately owned businesses but would expand the prohibition to private clubs requiring membership and all lodgings such as hotel and motel rooms.
2. Public nudity is banned, but nudity on private property (open for public accomodation) in the form of Nudist Camps, or Nude Beaches is not (although it may be in SD for all I know, I don’t habitually wander around in the nude).
3. A universal majority CANNOT be harmed in the absence of the proposed ban unless there was a univeral majority that CHOOSES to expose themselves to what they consider a harmful substance or activity.
A majority of restaraunts and many bars in South Dakota have already chosen to prohib smoking as a business decision targeting the 75%-80% of the public that does not smoke. An effect of the proposed ban is to remove any option for a restaraunt, private club or lodging establishment to specifically target the remaining 20%-25% of adults who would prefer to do business with them.
4. You state that the experience of EVERY other state has been no ecomomic impact, but the facts appear to be otherwise.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/red/2008/01/Pakko.pdf
http://www.forces.org/writers/kjono/files/economic_impact.htm
http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2008/12/21/news/doc494d9f43dc609396475565.txt
http://www.ramw.org/Hospitality-News/Hot-Topics/RAMW-Survey-Reflects-Negative-Impact-by-Smoking-Ban.html
Anonymous 9:47a
I just got home and have things to do but here’s a quick reply to your points. Basically, I think adults should pretty much be able have choices and the ability to make them. Government can provide information to encourage or discourage choices, but for the most part really should not use its coercive power to simply abolish choices that happen to be a minority choice.
1. The proposed ban DOES NOT ban smoking on public property, we already have that. The government can ban pretty much anything they want to on or in public property.
This ban would prohibit smoking on private property that affords public accomodation. The proposed ban not only include businesses that open themselves to the public or serves them in an open public area but includes private membership clubs and lodging rooms.
My “guesstimate” is 75%-80% of South Dakota businesses have already made the decision to prohibit smoking, affording non-smokers and children a wide variety of options to choose from when “going out”.
The ban would prohibit businesses that wish to cater to the 20%-25% of the adult population that would actually prefer or would at least like the option to choose an establishment that caters to them.
2. Public nudity bans target nudity in public places, not (as far as I know) nudist camps, nude beaches or college art classrooms. I assume that if a group of people want to get naked in a private nudist club or something, most people wouldn’t know, or care.
3. A “universal majority” can only be harmed if said majority makes a “universal decision” to avoid places that are competing for their business and decide the only places they really, really want to go are places that allow smoking. If you’re referring to health care costs, or some other “public harm”, then it would be fiscally irresponsible for the government to prohibit smoking as smokers have a shorter lifespan as a group and cost less in Social Security and Medicare.
4. As to your claim that the ban only confines smoking to “private quarters”, please remember that the proposed ban includes “private property”, “private clubs” & lodging that provides “private rooms”.
5. I know that the anti-smoking lobby CLAIMS that there’s no economic downside to any of their proposed bans and they’ll be glad to show you the studies they paid for (unbiased, of course). The Restaraunt, Bar, Casino and Lodging establishments that actually have a FINANCIAL STAKE in these business report otherwise, as do other independent studies.
http://www.forces.org/writers/kjono/files/economic_impact.htm
http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/red/2008/01/Pakko.pdf
http://www.ramw.org/Hospitality-News/Hot-Topics/RAMW-Survey-Reflects-Negative-Impact-by-Smoking-Ban.html
http://www.tlw.org/public/content/Documents/Smoking%20Ban/Economic_Impacts.pdf
Well said, Shaky Jake…some of the same people who condone some of the DUMBEST things to be in our state budget i.e. thousands of dollars spent by our state government to hand out condoms at schools. Very shameful. They would say it is a health protection device. In truth, that way everyone can play “the game” and no one has to be accountable. When I think of the liberal thinking on the part of some of the legislators, it makes me sick. I also wonder what kind of a liberal lifestyle their own children lead.
William,
Sure, government needs to be restrained, checked, balanced, etc. But all I’ve said is that opposition to this measure is based purely on ideology and not reason.
I believe anytime we are for or against a policy based “on the principle of the thing,” we need to stop and rethink.
Oh, and yes, the most recent and comprehensive study shows that public smoking bans SAVE LIVES:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/31/health/main4694250.shtml?source=RSSattr=Health_4694250
Dear “The Truth” and others,
What about the Tobacco Settlement that Janklow sold to a bonding company? We would be fine with declining tobacco sales and bans, but if there lose in market share the tobacco companies do not have to pay. Which would be fine IF the state government wouldnt and sold the settlement! Sooner or later South Dakota is going to have to pay that company up to 600 hundred million!!
Anonymous 9:47a
Basically, I think adults should pretty much be able have choices and the ability to make them. Government can provide information to encourage or discourage choices, but for the most part really should not use its coercive power to simply abolish choices that happen to be a minority choice.
The proposed ban DOES NOT ban smoking on public property, we already have that. The government can ban pretty much anything they want to on or in public property.
This ban would prohibit smoking on private property that affords public accomodation. The proposed ban not only include businesses that open themselves to the public or serves them in an open public area but includes private membership clubs and lodging rooms.
My “guesstimate” is 75%-80% of South Dakota businesses have already made the decision to prohibit smoking, affording non-smokers and children a wide variety of options to choose from when “going out”.
The ban would prohibit businesses that wish to cater to the 20%-25% of the adult population that would actually prefer or would at least like the option to choose an establishment that caters to them.
Public nudity bans target nudity in public places, not (as far as I know) nudist camps, nude beaches or college art classrooms. I assume that if a group of people want to get naked in a private nudist club or something, most people wouldn’t know, or care.
A “universal majority” can only be harmed if said majority makes a “universal decision” to avoid places that are competing for their business and decide the only places they really, really want to go are places that allow smoking. If you’re referring to health care costs, or some other “public harm”, then it would be fiscally irresponsible for the government to prohibit smoking as smokers have a shorter lifespan as a group and cost less in Social Security and Medicare.
As to your claim that the ban only confines smoking to “private quarters”, please remember that the proposed ban includes “private property”, “private clubs” & lodging that provides “private rooms”.
I know that the anti-smoking lobby CLAIMS that there’s no economic downside to any of their proposed bans and they’ll be glad to show you the studies they paid for (unbiased, of course). The Restaraunt, Bar, Casino and Lodging establishments that actually have a financial stake in these business report otherwise, as do other independent studies.
http://www.forces.org/writers/kjono/files/economic_impact.htm
http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/red/2008/01/Pakko.pdf
http://www.ramw.org/Hospitality-News/Hot-Topics/RAMW-Survey-Reflects-Negative-Impact-by-Smoking-Ban.html
http://www.tlw.org/public/content/Documents/Smoking%20Ban/Economic_Impacts.pdf
As to your claim that the ban only confines smoking to “private quarters”, please remember that the proposed ban includes “private property”, “private clubs” & lodging that provides “private rooms”.
I know that the anti-smoking lobby CLAIMS that there’s no economic downside to any of their proposed bans and they’ll be glad to show you the studies they paid for (unbiased, of course). The Restaraunt, Bar, Casino and Lodging establishments that actually have a financial stake in these business report otherwise, as do other independent studies.
Anonymous 9:47a
I would include some links to some of the studies and reports that show the negative economic impact bans but apparently links aren’t posting tonight…
You know, I think we are fighting a losing battle in the US. With the hate crime laws expanding under Obama (i.e. thought police), with laws like this that ban smoking even in private businesses and worse, etc, we are rapidly becoming a state where privacy and individual rights are being slowly but persistently eroded, and when people finally realize this, it will be too late.
There’s an old saying by Pastor Niemoller:
“First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me.”
It’s time we start to speak up at the erosion of our personal liberties!
Those who complain about loss of rights under Bush ain’t seen nothing yet!
Springer, unfortunately you’re all too correct. I feel like far too large a percentage of our population is behaving like a frog in the slowly heating pot…
I don’t know if anyone will notice a new post way down here 7 months later, but I’ll give it a quick whirl.
Re Economic Damage: Virtually all studies showing no economic harms have been bought and paid for by organizations and funds explicitly dedicated to reducing smoking by the promotion of smoking bans. To see how that works visit Jacob Grier’s May 27th column and aftercomments at:
http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/2210.html
You’ll see how the researchers promise the “right” kind of results in their research proposals from the start and then juggle the data to hide the disasters caused by the bans.
For a broader, longer-term, multi-state study, see:
http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/economic.html
According to government economic reports and figures comparing the economies of smoking banned states to those of Free-Choice states the economic losses mount well into the tens of billions and possibly even into the hundreds of billions as multiplier effects take hold over the years.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
And a quick note on the law itself: “An Act to prohibit smoking tobacco or carrying lighted tobacco products in certain places and to require certain persons to inform violators of the prohibition.”
Sounds likes a …scrumptious … idea! We can apply it elsewhere too and command ordinary citizens, under penalty of law, to go up to litterbugs and illegal parkers and such and inform them that they are breaking the law. Think of all the fun interactions that will occur!
- MJM
Thanks for the comment. I’ve elevated it to a current topic of discussion…
I think what the legislators are looking at is the fact that 95% of the people they represent are in favor of this. the other 5% that want to want to blow smoke around in public are asking for too much. I think this debate was over in most states a long time ago.