Tyrants in Maryland do it again

[Ken King]

Don't see how Article 43 applies at all, and Article 3 is a "kitchen sink." I was looking for something a bit more specific. Like "The Maryland Legislature has the right to tell owners of private business how to run their businesses and who they have to cater to."

Come on 2A, the transitive verb maliorate - "to make better or more tolerable" is the open end catch all to everything a liberal legislature cares to do. The fact that the declaration encourages and promotes such activity is in itself a blessing for them to do so.

 

[awpitt]

And what constitutes that would be a matter of opinion.

Some say that swearing in front of your children is a form of abuse. Others insist that watching MTV is child endangerment. Some even say that leaving your 13 year old home alone while you run to the store is endangerment.

Do you *really* want the government deciding what you can and cannot expose your children to?

I understand how many different things can result in different opinions but there are some examples where common sense would, hopefully prevail. As an example. When confronted with seeing an adult smoking in a car with the windows closed and with children in the car, is there anyone who in their right mind would think, “Gee, what a great parent that is.”? Anyone?

 

[awpitt]

If you can abort your child and that is your choice, how could anyone possibly argue as to your right to smoke around your child? Or not seek the best possible education for them? Or not feed them well? Or see that they only watch some approved amount of TV? It's not such a great thing to think someone isn't doing right by their kid, but, at the end of the day, either we're free or we're not and if smoking around your kid is the same as molesting them or chaining them up in the basement, man, where does that end, utopia? Until it brings harm? How much? How little? How often? By whose rules?

I think you'd have every right to say "We don't take children of smokers because it stinks up our house." I think you have no right to say "You can't smoke in your home if you have kids."

Understand but that's a seperate thread. This is about the kids who are here.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Come on 2A, the transitive verb maliorate - "to make better or more tolerable" is the open end catch all to everything a liberal legislature cares to do. The fact that the declaration encourages and promotes such activity is in itself a blessing for them to do so.

The problem with Article 43 is "That the Legislature ought to encourage the diffusion of knowledge and virtue, the extension of a judicious system of general education, the promotion of literature, the arts, sciences, agriculture, commerce and manufactures, and the general melioration of the condition of the People. " does not invoke a power or right. It does says the Legislature ought to encourage but does not claim a right to the power to legislate in that regard. But, hey, lawyers can't read English anyway and ledgislators don't pay attention to constitutions.

 

[Ken King]

The problem with Article 43 is "That the Legislature ought to encourage the diffusion of knowledge and virtue, the extension of a judicious system of general education, the promotion of literature, the arts, sciences, agriculture, commerce and manufactures, and the general melioration of the condition of the People. " does not invoke a power or right. It does says the Legislature ought to encourage but does not claim a right to the power to legislate in that regard. But, hey, lawyers can't read English anyway and ledgislators don't pay attention to constitutions.

But as it is contained in the "Declaration of Rights" to the Constitution one could readily argue as it being a right.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I understand how many different things can result in different opinions but there are some examples where common sense would, hopefully prevail. As an example. When confronted with seeing an adult smoking in a car with the windows closed and with children in the car, is there anyone who in their right mind would think, “Gee, what a great parent that is.”? Anyone?

I would not base my opinion of the parenting skill of a person on whether they smoke around their children. Secondhand smoke is another flawed the sky is falling argument like global warming in many opinions including mine.

 

[2ndAmendment]

But as it is contained in the "Declaration of Rights" to the Constitution one could readily argue as it being a right.

But I think the "Declaration of Rights" was meant to be the rights of the people not the powers of the legislature.

 

[Ken King]

But I think the "Declaration of Rights" was meant to be the rights of the people not the powers of the legislature.

Read them all and you will see that the declaration seems to be for both the state and the people.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Read them all and you will see that the declaration seems to be for both the state and the people.

You are correct. Thanks.

 

[awpitt]

I would not base my opinion of the parenting skill of a person on whether they smoke around their children. Secondhand smoke is another flawed the sky is falling argument like global warming in many opinions including mine.

That's not what I asked. My question was... Is an adult smoking in a car with the windows closed and with children in the car a good act? You're right in that they may be a model parent otherwise but I was asking about that particular act.

On second hand smoke... Medical science trumps your opinion.
On global warming, most (not all) scientists agree on the global warming thing. The major disagreement is coming from governmental entities the big ones being the US and China.

 

[mAlice]

That's not what I asked. My question was... Is an adult smoking in a car with the windows closed and with children in the car a good act? You're right in that they may be a model parent otherwise but I was asking about that particular act.

On second hand smoke... Medical science trumps your opinion.
On global warming, most (not all) scientists agree on the global warming thing. The major disagreement is coming from governmental entities the big ones being the US and China.

My mother wasn't the model parent, but if I had to decide what was the worst she ever did to me, I'd put smoking in a small, enclosed space way down on my list of complaints. If so many people weren't out there freakin' out about second hand smoke, this question woudn't even come to mind.

 

[2ndAmendment]

That's not what I asked. My question was... Is an adult smoking in a car with the windows closed and with children in the car a good act? You're right in that they may be a model parent otherwise but I was asking about that particular act.

On second hand smoke... Medical science trumps your opinion.
On global warming, most (not all) scientists agree on the global warming thing. The major disagreement is coming from governmental entities the big ones being the US and China.

I answered saying that act is not a basis for my opinion, so it is neither good nor bad.

second hand smoke: not all medical people agree. My opinion is based on their opinion.

global warming: several (many?) of the scientists listed as supporting the U.N. study withdrew from the study. They could not get their name removed without taking legal action. Most of those supporting receive grant money for their support; that certainly is unbiased. Watch this http://forums.somd.com/showthread.php?t=99228 . It may enlighten you. It will certainly give you a different side to look at the facts from.

 

[Midnightrider]

I answered saying that act is not a basis for my opinion, so it is neither good nor bad.

second hand smoke: not all medical people agree. My opinion is based on their opinion.

global warming: several (many?) of the scientists listed as supporting the U.N. study withdrew from the study. They could not get their name removed without taking legal action. Most of those supporting receive grant money for their support; that certainly is unbiased. Watch this http://forums.somd.com/showthread.php?t=99228 . It may enlighten you. It will certainly give you a different side to look at the facts from.

You want to point us to these 'medical people'?

Even middleschoolers have done experiments showing the affects of secondhand smoke.

Now if thats a risk you are willing to take with your children ok, but dont ignore the FACT that it does increase the risk of potential health problems.

 

[bohman]

This is the part I just don't get about this argument: "If you don't like my smoking, go somewhere else." Well, Vrai... I like to chew my Skoal and spit it on the floor wherever I please. It should be my right to do so. So next time I see you at a restaurant I will be spitting my chew on the floor next to you and your family. If I happen to hit your leg, oh well, your smoke is hitting my lungs. Sounds fair doesn’t it?

I don’t want this sort of thing legislated, but I would just for once like to see you smokers have some sort of common courtesy towards non-smokers instead of taking your “I own the place because I smoke” mentality toward everything. I am in complete support of, and encourage owners of businesses to ban smoking. I'm fed up with having my meal ruined by it. Yeah, yeah, I know... if you don't like it eat somewhere else.

Boy, I get tired of typing this. But I'll do it again:

Vote w/ your dollars. As a (somewhat) sensible person, Vrai will choose not to eat at a restaurant frequented by people that spit tobacco on her legs. Lots of other people won't eat there, either. The owner will lose money, and quickly prevent people from spitting in his restaurant. No legislation necessary.

In fact, I'd venture to guess that this has already happened, given that I've never heard of laws about spitting tobacco, and also never heard anyone complain about that happening to them in a restaurant. There are ALREADY restaurants, and lots of other public places, that banned smoking prior to any laws. Give your money to THEM, not the places that still allow smoking.

Let's not forget that bar employees were not assigned to their posts, they CHOOSE to work there. Don't like smoke? Don't work there. Again, if owners have trouble finding decent employees because they allow smoking, they will ban it - with no help from Big Brother!

Bunch'a freakin whiners.

 

[2ndAmendment]

You want to point us to these 'medical people'?

Even middleschoolers have done experiments showing the affects of secondhand smoke.

Now if thats a risk you are willing to take with your children ok, but dont ignore the FACT that it does increase the risk of potential health problems.

...

The truth is every study used by the anti-smoking group on second hand smoke has been proven to be flawed and the data manipulated. A comprehensive list of these studies is illustrated in the Environmental Protection Agency document EPA/600/6-90/006F, page 5-28 and 5-29.

Writing in the National Post (Mar 25, 2000) Steven J. Milloy said,

"There is no controversy over whether second-hand smoke can be a nuisance. But scientific studies purporting to link second-hand smoke with health effects are invariably controversial. The Health Canada study is no different. . . The statistical associations in the Health Canada study are weak. And it has other shortcomings. Smoking itself is not an established risk factor for breast cancer. . . In the financial world, legal remedies exist for data omission and other fraudulent hijinks. Sadly, no system of accountability disciplines rogue government agencies and their scientists who put political agendas -- such as the anti-tobacco jihad -- ahead of sound science."

In fact, no study supports the anti-smoker's claims, even after being manipulated. But, they defend their second hand smoke propaganda because it effectively serves their purpose of advancing their socialist goals.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Boy, I get tired of typing this. But I'll do it again:

Vote w/ your dollars. As a (somewhat) sensible person, Vrai will choose not to eat at a restaurant frequented by people that spit tobacco on her legs. Lots of other people won't eat there, either. The owner will lose money, and quickly prevent people from spitting in his restaurant. No legislation necessary.

In fact, I'd venture to guess that this has already happened, given that I've never heard of laws about spitting tobacco, and also never heard anyone complain about that happening to them in a restaurant. There are ALREADY restaurants, and lots of other public places, that banned smoking prior to any laws. Give your money to THEM, not the places that still allow smoking.

Let's not forget that bar employees were not assigned to their posts, they CHOOSE to work there. Don't like smoke? Don't work there. Again, if owners have trouble finding decent employees because they allow smoking, they will ban it - with no help from Big Brother!

Bunch'a freakin whiners.

But the Maryland Legislature is Big Brother; they have already passed the law. The legislature is made up of predominately tyrants wishing to impose their will by law.

 

[mAlice]

...

In fact, no study supports the anti-smoker's claims, even after being manipulated. But, they defend their second hand smoke propaganda because it effectively serves their purpose of advancing their socialist goals.

Say it ain't so!

 

[Midnightrider]

...

I would have expected better than that from you:

In January 2006, Paul D. Thacker reported in The New Republic that Milloy has received thousands of dollars in payments from the Phillip Morris company since the early nineties, and that NGOs controlled by Milloy have received large payments from ExxonMobil [3]. A spokesperson for Fox News stated, "Fox News was unaware of Milloy's connection with Philip Morris. Any affiliation he had should have been disclosed."

and that was just the first link i got when i searched his name

 

[Midnightrider]

I dont discount the scientest just because of his funding. The Anti-Smokers are funded by those with an Anti-Smoking agenda why would their research be any less suspect?

Same with the Global Warming drama. the ones against Global Warming are decried because some/all of the funding comes from Gas Companies, yet those funding the Global Warming Alarmists are entities that have a stake in keeping the Global Warming Debate going. Like Gore with his own Carbon Sink company.

i discount Gore just for being an idiot
Seriously though, have such a huge conflict of interest puts anything this guy says on the subject under suspicion.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I would have expected better than that from you:


and that was just the first link i got when i searched his name

And the other researchers didn't get grant money to bias their views? I don't smoke, but I am tolerant of others' right to smoke. Oops. Who is being tolerant now?

Not everyone agrees that secondhand smoke is the threat that is claimed. You believe; I don't. End of conversation.