/Unitedbank
/Eedition

When laws cause a sacrifice of freedom

Posted by
in Opinion
Thursday, December 31. 2009
Comments (28)
Texting while driving, smoking in public and cooking with artery-clogging trans fats will be that much harder under a bevy of state laws set to take effect around the country tomorrow.

Faced with huge budget shortfalls and little extra money to throw around, state lawmakers exercised their (inexpensive) power to clamp down on impolite, unhealthy and sometimes dangerous behaviors in 2009.

Please login or register to read the rest of this story.
Bookmark and Share
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
#1 Anonymous on 12/31/09 at 08:11 AM
It’s all about rising revenue. The new super speeder law that goes into effect at midnight should be on our mind. On the interstate anybody going over 85 MPH or on a two lane road going over 75 MPH will get an extra $200 tacked on to the already steep speeding fine. Interesting enough I don’t have a problem with it. Anybody going that fast needs to be slowed down a bit. The 9 mile over rule seems to work for me. Speaking of I 75, I take it daily…..when looking at all the different license plates make me wonder if there is anybody left in the state of Michigan.
#2 Anonymous on 12/31/09 at 08:24 AM
Many of these laws were passed in deep rooted traditonally "red states" so this is not some bed wetting liberal commie Bull Sh!#.
#3 Jarad on 12/31/09 at 11:14 AM
Regardless of the state's "color" this IS commie Bull Sh!#.
#3.1 Anonymous on 12/31/09 at 01:16 PM
However, it does make me wonder who the real oppressionists are.
Have we forgotten the Patriot Act...not very patriotic.
#4 Fed UP on 12/31/09 at 12:44 PM
" great Empire, like a great Cake, is most easily diminished at the Edges."

Open your eyes people. Our firearms are next, then comes the tyranny.
#4.1 Sheila Tolley on 01/01/10 at 02:11 PM
obama's body guards should be armed with sling shots.
#4.2 Anonymous on 01/02/10 at 12:20 AM
The Patriot Act is a huge violation of our Liberties....and your worried about firearms that have not even been taken away? Get a clue and see what the last 8 years have taken away.
Tyranny ended when Bush left office. The nation (majority) voted for Obama. There was no tyranny in that election. Do you recall how Bush first came into power? I dont believe that was the majority speaking. There is your tyranny. And it has cost the lives of many fine soldiers.
So where was the outrage then? Oh thats right..Fox News said it was unpatriotic to question the President of the United States..until now.
Bunch of sheep.
#5 Anonymous on 12/31/09 at 01:39 PM
These all seem like good laws.

Speeding kills people. Don't speed if you don't want to pay a fine.

Smoking kills people. Smoke where other people don't have to put up with it.

Bad kinds of cooking oil kill people. They can use better oil for people who like fatty food.
#5.1 jeb on 12/31/09 at 03:29 PM
You fail to notice the trees, as you look at the forest with that blind, dumbed-down attitude.
#6 Anonymous on 12/31/09 at 02:14 PM
This is just another great example of a lack of common sense by our politicians. If I had to guess, I would say that the geniuses who passed this law, which will obviously hurt the tobacco industry in N.C. and all of its low income workers, have a plan. If they can take away jobs, they can support you by giving you unemployment benefits/social security and if they can support you, they can expect your vote. This is not just happening in N.C. It is going on every day in Washington. These Statists, like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, want everyone to be on the welfare system so they can control us. I take that back. They want 51% of us to be on some sort of government support so they can stay in power and tax the HE-double hockey sticks out of the working 49%. To sum it up, they are all a bunch of idiots with too much power.
#7 Anonymous on 12/31/09 at 10:12 PM
Dont tell me what to eat, where to smoke, to whom to pray, and what sex to marry. TYRANNY!
#8 Anonymous on 01/01/10 at 01:18 AM
I agree.
Jus good ol fashion communism.
Like it or not, here it comes!!
#9 Steve the Rational One on 01/01/10 at 04:34 AM
It's seems to me that these laws are rational. I, for one, do not see why endangering the health of one's fellow citizens is a "right." Both tobacco smoke and speeding endanger the lives of others.

Why do you think, for example, that under most circumstances it is illegal to discharge a firearm within the city limits? Sure, people have a right to own firearms and shoot them, but at some point, other people's rights get trampled on.

No one has a "right" to speed on public roads or poison the air others breathe with toxic material. Those actions infringe on the rights of others to go about their business safely.
#10 Sheila Tolley on 01/01/10 at 02:34 PM
We are over regulated and over sanitized in The United States. Some idiot put poison in a pill and we started sealing everything in the United States so that we can import our poison from China. We have all these new virus breakouts because the immune systems nowadays are never activated. I am not saying that you should eat bird poop but I guarantee you a little real snow ice cream will have just an itty bitty trace to wake up your little body soldiers and train them to respond to life at later times of crisis. We need chain saws in the kitchen now to open a bag of Fritos. What's up with that? I buy arthritis medicine but can't open it. Mayo, mustard, ketchup is sealed so many times by the time you get it open, it is expired. As usual, we over-compensate to solve problems because we do not resolve problems while they are small. Just remember one day, years ago.....AN illegal immigrant came to America. But you can bet your sweet a$$ that all the millions here now cannot open their fritos.
#10.1 Anonymous on 01/01/10 at 05:58 PM
Lol. I bet the Indians were pissed when our ancestors illegally immigrated..and then took over.
#10.1.1 Sheila Tolley on 01/01/10 at 08:54 PM
And rightfully so.
#10.1.1.1 Anonymous on 01/01/10 at 09:11 PM
So who are true Americans again?
#11 Anonymous on 01/01/10 at 06:05 PM
I can understand the other laws but banning smoking in a bar is an infringment on the rights of the owner of the bar. Non-smokers can choose to go to a non-smoking bar. But if a bar owner wants to allow smoking, then it should be his call.
#11.1 Steve the Rational One on 01/02/10 at 04:50 AM
You raise an interesting point, Anonymous. A non-smoker could choose to go to a bar where smoking is not allowed. I do not have a problem with people who want to smoke in public. I surely do not want me or my children to breathe their smoke, however.

You would be in favor, then, of people being allowed to smoke marijuana in their homes or take other addictive drugs in private? Are you also in favor of those people paying an additional premium for health insurance because of the decisions they have made?
#11.1.1 Anonymous on 01/02/10 at 09:52 AM
Well, some smokers already pay a surcharge for their health ins (meaning me)..and a surcharge if they have family coverage and their spouse also has access to health care at their place of work.

I dont belive people should smoke in restaurants with small children. But smoking cigs in your home is perfectly legal. Dont try to discredit my argument by bringing illegal drugs into this.

My argument is for the entrepreneur who chooses to allow smoking in HIS bar.. that belongs to him. It is HIS business.
So whats next...smoking is not an illegal pasttime..are they going to tell buisness owners what color to paint the walls..or that they cant serve steak because it clogs arteries? Should I pay more for health insurace because I eat red meat and fried chicken occasionally?
#11.1.2 Anonymous on 01/02/10 at 10:53 AM
Should insurance companies be allowed into your home to decide what quality of life you live and base your rates on the level of risk. What should they assess? The food you eat, the amount you eat, is your home well maintained, do you watch too much tv, do you drink soy milk, do you exercise at least every other day..where do you draw the line?
Will you allow them to return periodically to decide if you are maintaining the level of risk previously asessed?
#12 cats on 01/02/10 at 08:37 AM
Back to the original question- I think smokers will find another place to smoke if they cannot smoke in restaurants and bars. Honestly, the ban on smoking in public places will not have one tiny bit of effect on the GNP of N. Carolina.
As an ex-smoker, I know I appreciate not smelling a cigarette everywhere I go.
If we want to worry about the monetary effects of the smoking ban, let's look at the lost productivity a company faces when it's smokers have to step outside to have their puff.
This is not an issue where I currently work, but at my previous place of employment, I can recall one employee who easily took 15 minutes each hour of the workday to step outside and smoke. In effect, this employee took 2 hours worth of paid breaks each day while the rest of us stayed in and covered her workload.
As far as the cost to health insurance, it's been my observation that the people with no or little health insurance are the ones who engage in the unhealthiest behaviours. And they won't be turned away when they show up at the emergency room. Who pays for the services they recieve? In the end, it's always the taxpayer. I certainly wouldn't mind the government throwing some regulations on the behaviors that my tax dollars end up paying for eventually.
#13 GM on 01/02/10 at 11:13 AM
MY OPINION: The FDA bans everything that causes cancer. I wonder why they never banned cigarettes. The government attaches a huge tax on cigarettes and they allow the FDA to allow the addictive chemicals in cigarettes. I don’t think the government wants to give away that tax base so they do what they can to keep people addicted. The more people that stop smoking the more the tax increases on cigarettes. The anti-smoking laws won't deter people from smoking; it only makes it more difficult for them to smoke and will at times start confrontations between smokers and nonsmokers arguing for equal rights. And government will still collect their tax.

I used to smoke but I quit two years ago. I feel so much better now days. It was difficult quitting and in my opinion the only way to quit is to stop. I woke up one morning and thought I haven’t had a cigarette in eight hours so I would just keep going. The first day was tough and the second was even worse. The third day I was a person no one wanted to be around and I really wanted a cigarette bad but I endured without it. Things started getting better on the fourth day and it was all down hill from there. I get the urge every once and a while but will never smoke another one because I know it would only take one. Once you decide to stop, you got to stop. The minute you say, I’ll have just one; you’ve actually started all over again. If you really want to quit; quit – stop – put them down. You will have a few rough days ahead but they do start getting better. The problem is getting the addictive chemicals out of your system. You really don’t need any quit smoking aid to help. You have all the help you need stored in your brain in the form of will power. Before those few days are over believe me you will be calling on willpower to help every 5 minutes. It was tough but it really is worth it.

I look at things about smoking differently now. To the kids – the best way to stop is to never start. To those addicted the best way to stop is cold turkey. STOP – you’ll feel better. I promise.
#13.1 Paul on 01/02/10 at 04:51 PM
They tried back in the early 90s, when David Kessler was the head of the FDA. Almost succeeded too. To make a long story short,for the FDA to regulate or even ban the tobacco industry would create a huge governmental problem affecting some 50 million smokers' rights.
#14 Anonymous on 01/02/10 at 07:27 PM
People have free will given to them by God..assuming their will does not affect the will of others. If someone wants to smoke, they can smoke. It is not healthy but it is their choice. If someone wants to open a bar where people can smoke, then he has that right. If the bar owner does not want smoking, then that is his call too. I cant understand why it would be ok for people to continue drinking but not smoking.
#15 Anonymous on 01/02/10 at 07:35 PM
I only know that I have been very spoiled in GA by not having smoking in restaurants. I travel to NC often and have been miserable taking the kids in to eat and having to have them in the smoke! GLAD it has changed and know too many smokers to think that this law will stop a single one of them from smoking!
#15.1 Anonymous on 01/02/10 at 08:31 PM
I am the author of #14. In no way am I advocating for smoking in restaurants. And you have nothing to fear unless you bring your children to a bar.
#16 J Willis on 01/11/10 at 07:04 AM
Just be thankful that you don't get all the government for which you pay.
Only registered users may comment on stories. Please login or register to post comments. Your browser must support cookies.
The author does not allow comments to this entry
Copyright © 2008-2011 The Herald-Gazette