SPC for Senate: Part X

[Associate Justice PiT]

Vote SPC: He supports the right of smokers to give children respiratory problems.

     Every good thing can be spun to look bad. Case in point: the quoted post.

Please explain how overturning a smoking ban is a good thing. Not in terms of libertarian buzzwords (I know about personal and business freedom, blah blah), explain how it's better for society for second hand smoke to be everywhere.

You know, there actually is a libertarian argument to make for a public smoking ban. Second hand smoke harms the health of others, thus it harms their right to life, which justifies government intervention.

     Which assumes the existence of a right to life that is more than a simple corollary of the non-aggression axiom or alternatively assumes that smoking constitutes an act of aggression against those who breathe the smoke in.

[SPC]

Vote SPC: He supports the right of smokers to give children respiratory problems.

     Every good thing can be spun to look bad. Case in point: the quoted post.

Please explain how overturning a smoking ban is a good thing. Not in terms of libertarian buzzwords (I know about personal and business freedom, blah blah), explain how it's better for society for second hand smoke to be everywhere.

Your bill, as much as you would like to deny it, infringes upon the rights of restaurant attenders and movie goers. If they are willing to pay a few bucks less to go to a theatre or restaurant in which they have a slightly better chance at contracting a health issue in the future, who are you to stop them? What's next, are we going to ban the sale of fatty foods in restaurants and movie theatres to prevent heart problems?

[SPC]

I objected to the funding method but not the overall bill itself. I felt however after the devate that there wasn't a better method of funding it and even if there were, it would never pass via amendment. So I voted for the bill with the estate tax.

That doesn't excuse you from voting for a tax increase. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I'd rather not have the tax and leave the responsibility to the regions to respond to oil spills. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That would be a fair argument if you are referring to smoking on public property. However, the language of the bill referred to "areas open to the public", which includes private or public. One makes a conscious choice whether or not to be on private property, thus it can not be considered murder provided that the guest is aware that smoking is permitted on the premises.

[tmthforu94]

Vote SPC: He supports the right of smokers to give children respiratory problems.

     Every good thing can be spun to look bad. Case in point: the quoted post.

Please explain how overturning a smoking ban is a good thing. Not in terms of libertarian buzzwords (I know about personal and business freedom, blah blah), explain how it's better for society for second hand smoke to be everywhere.

Your bill, as much as you would like to deny it, infringes upon the rights of restaurant attenders and movie goers. If they are willing to pay a few bucks less to go to a theatre or restaurant in which they have a slightly better chance at contracting a health issue in the future, who are you to stop them? What's next, are we going to ban the sale of fatty foods in restaurants and movie theatres to prevent heart problems?

The only real difference is that when you eat fatty foods, that's a choice you're making. Someone else is making the choice to smoke around you.

[SPC]

Announcement from Atlanta, Georgia

  Hello, fellow IDSers! I am pleased to see that the results of the Survey Atlasia survey show our campaign trailing by only one vote out of 11 surveyed! I didn't think I would stand a chance when I entered the race, running against a popular four-term Senator, but it seems that this one is truly a nail-biter. I am looking forward to what the other two polls say about this race tommorow, but this is really encouraging news. Thank you all and Dave Bless the Imperial Dominion of the South!
 
UPDATE: Two more polls have come out that are more favorable to the incumbent, but I am remaining hopeful about my prospects. Due to the sample size and the polling techniques used, I suspect that the Survey Atlasia poll is most reflective of the electorate.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I objected to the funding method but not the overall bill itself. I felt however after the devate that there wasn't a better method of funding it and even if there were, it would never pass via amendment. So I voted for the bill with the estate tax.

That doesn't excuse you from voting for a tax increase. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I'd rather not have the tax and leave the responsibility to the regions to respond to oil spills. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That would be a fair argument if you are referring to smoking on public property. However, the language of the bill referred to "areas open to the public", which includes private or public. One makes a conscious choice whether or not to be on private property, thus it can not be considered murder provided that the guest is aware that smoking is permitted on the premises.

1. Why the hell do I need to be excused for voting for a tax increase. I frankly don't give a damn if taxes rise slightly. As long as they aren't excessively draconian or for a purpose that isn't worth it, I think it is better to balance the books then to adhere to "No tax hike ever" mantra.

2. We can look at reforming and devolving the bill to the regions. Now that there is a clear federal statute, the regions now how to form it and where to start instead of having to take the initiative on their own, which with present activity levels, is asking a lot.

3. And as can be seen in the debate, I had deep misgivings about the bill and no that line to marokai about hating smokers was not why I voted AYE. I had followed the debate in the thread and I came to the conclusion that the bill was good idea despite my misgiving about 1) that it should be at the regional level (Who says I don't care about regions ) and 2) That it had no real enforcement mechanisms. Being Senator requires that tough decision should be made sometimes separate from your personal views and ideology. My personal opinion was very clear in that thread and in this one what I think about smokers. These type of public smoking bans have been passed around the country and I think the overal effect on society has been beneficial and as far as I can tell there is no freedom poison yourself in the constitution and until their is, I won't have a crisis of liberty over whether a smoking ban passes. It doesn't hinder the smokers ability to smoke, he just has to do it alone, which hopefully will further induce him to quit, and everyone else benefits by reducing second hand smoke.

[SPC]

Yankee Votes for Moral Hazard?

It has come to my attention that yet another characteristic distinguishing myself from the incumbent senator is that I do not believe in moral hazard. However, Senator Yankee voted to have the government pay for people's electricity bills. If such a program must be implemented at all, it ought to be done at the regional level where the people have more say in the matter. If you vote for SPC, I promise to take my commitment to regions' rights seriously

[SPC]

Announcement from Charleston, South Carolina

Good evening fellow Southerners. I am pleased to announce that our campaign has gained vast momentum in the last few weeks. While Survey Atlasia showed our campaign as having a 9 point deficit last week, they now show us with an 11 point lead! We will be commissioning another poll shortly to confirm these results. Thank you and Dave Bless Atlasia!