The social engineers won in the house.
The Social Engineers in the House of Representatives won today in their continuing effort to tell everyone what to do, as the desires of small businessmen were superseded by the interests of nanny-staters:
The South Dakota House on Monday passed a measure that would ban smoking in bars, video lottery casinos, and restaurants that serve liquor.
The bill, HB1240, passed 43-27 and now goes back to the Senate, which earlier defeated a different version of the bill by one vote.
I’m waiting to see who was for this nanny state effort, and who wasn’t.
Because those who sat in favor of yet more government regulation will have some explaining to do for why they think an ever intrusive government is the best solution.
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
not related to this post, but thought you might find this amusing:
drove by the real estate office across from the brookings hospital and saw that PAT POWERS was the agent to call for a house.
Call Pat Powers at 690-6853
This could also be translated to 690-mule
or 690-nuke
(Heh. I’m not sure if I like Mule or Nuke better. Yes, I actually work. My number is also on an ad that flashes on this and several web pages on occasion, as well in my newspaper ad hitting statewide this week, and my TV commercial. Hopefully, you can’t fault a small businessman for trying to feed the family! -PP )
Mmm. Looks like somebody must have called their Congressmen. What’s wrong, Pat, don’t you believe in Democracy anymore?
HB 1240, House, Do Pass Amended
Blake Yea
Bolin Nay
Boomgarden Nay
Brunner Nay
Burg Yea
Carson Yea
Cronin Nay
Curd Yea
Cutler Yea
Deadrick Nay
Dennert Yea
Dreyer Nay
Elliott Yea
Engels Nay
Faehn Yea
Fargen Yea
Feickert Yea
Feinstein Yea
Frerichs Yea
Gibson Yea
Gosch Nay
Greenfield Nay
Hamiel Nay
Hoffman Nay
Hunhoff (Bernie) Yea
Hunt Yea
Iron Cloud III Yea
Jensen Yea
Juhnke Nay
Killer Yea
Kirkeby Nay
Kirschman Nay
Kopp Nay
Krebs Yea
Lange Yea
Lederman Nay
Lucas Yea
Lust Yea
McLaughlin Yea
Moser Yea
Noem Nay
Novstrup (David) Yea
Nygaard Yea
Olson (Betty) Nay
Olson (Ryan) Nay
Peters Yea
Pitts Yea
Putnam Nay
Rausch Yea
Rave Yea
Romkema Yea
Rounds Nay
Russell Nay
Schlekeway Yea
Schrempp Yea
Sly Yea
Solberg Yea
Solum Nay
Sorenson Yea
Steele Yea
Street Yea
Thompson Yea
Tidemann Yea
Turbiville Nay
Van Gerpen Yea
Vanderlinde Yea
Vanneman Nay
Verchio Nay
Wink Nay
Wismer Yea
Ayes 43 Nays 27 Excused 0 Absent 0
Greenfield, Noem, Solum–NE’ers who still fight the nanny state.
I think it may be in order to sue the state if signed. It keeps people, private businesses, from conducting business with a legal product. Do not give me the hogwash about public places…schools, libraries, city halls, etc are public places. Taxpayers support those places. Businesses are private entities that invite the public in but the the private businesses pay their own taxes. They also have the right to eject people who are out of line. The legislators really missed the boat on this one.
Wow- You are right, if the businesses main source of income was selling tobacco. 90% of bars and restaurants don’t even sell tobacco.
Dumb argument, but keep trying.
Where do you, Detroit, get your stats that 90% of the bars do not sell tobacco??? Did you pull that stat out of your ASS??? Anyway, that is beside the point…People who pay taxes do not need dictators. Why would tobacco as a main source of income make a difference??? Whoever is one’s customer needs to be served. I want to know your source about the 90% not having tobacco products for sale. You said it; now prove it.
You are the one saying that they should be able to sell a legal substance without the government intervening – and you are right. No one is banning alcohol and food sales – so I fail to understand your argument.
My argument is that when a business enters into sales with a customer and the item for sale is legal, there should not be restrictions in the transaction placed upon the customer or the business.
Right. So how is a smoking ban preventing businesses from selling food and alcohol, or even cigarettes?
It does not prevent them from the sale of but as people are saying if they go to a bar, they wish to smoke. If they cannot do so, they will choose not to go to bars or to casinos as often; therefore, it cuts down on the merchant’s business.
Question: do you think it may come to pass that we will lower the drinking age to 18, so bar owners can make up for lost income? I noticed that Minnesota has debated the issue.
Wow. That sounds suspiciously like an argument for recruiting new people to become addicted to substances so the State and Big and Small Business operators can make money exploiting and ramping up their using habit.
You’re not advocating for that are you?
No, certainly not. My point was that MN put through the smoking ban which hurt some of the bars. Then in order to compensate for money losses, they are thinking of letting a different clientele (i.e. youth) enter bars and patronize them. I would much rather keep smoking in place in these establishments than to have young people legally gathering there to imbibe.
“it cuts down on the merchant’s business.”
How? They don’t sell smoke, Mcfly. You know that, Right?
Bad Republican majority, bad, bad Republicans