Uncle Block's Torch of Freedom

My New Prayer:

O Bama!

Got any spare change?

Unfettered Hogwash - Marvin Caplan and Hamilton's Anti-Smoking By-law

To all Canadian smokers: Are you absolutely disgusted by the dishonest anti-smoking propaganda permeating the airwaves these days and which, in all likelihood, YOU ARE PAYING FOR? Check out The Facts About Second Hand Smoke It knocks the crap out of the second-hand smoke bullshit that is behind the serious erosion of personal freedom and property rights in North America. It also contains valuable links to sites of interest including advice on how to avoid being impoverished by the rapacious and thieving cigarette taxes smokers are being assaulted with.

Friday, June 30, 2000

Ever notice how some statists claim their ever widening control of the manner in which we conduct our personal affairs is done in the name of freedom?

I found an interesting link the other day in one of the The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletters so I sent that same link to Alderman Marvin Caplan, a strong supporter of this malicious and invasive Anti-Smoking By-law, under the subject, "The Nanny State" with the following comments, (note: everything I wrote to Mr. Caplan apears in blue)

Smoking is just the beginning. There is bound to be lots of work for busy-body politicians. You can't smoke at MacDonald's but you can fill your children up with crap food until they burst.

How about a new "No Crap Food" by-law, where crap food can only be served in establishments that refuse entry to those under 19? Huh, Marvin? You aren't just going to stop half way are you?

Mr. Caplan replied,

Marvin Caplan:
Thank you for sharing your opinion with me.

Marvin Caplan:
No, we won't be banning food, nor does anyone reasonable want to ban smoking. Second hand smoke however is an environmental pollutant that, in my opinion, we should address.

Marvin Caplan:
Just curious, in your opinion should we busy-body politicians ignore environmental pollutants totally, or just second hand tobacco smoke? In other words, and this is a serious question, "when do the 'rights' of the minority override the 'rights' of the majority?"

I replied,

Dear Marvin,

Thank you for taking the time to reply to my email.

Marvin Caplan:
Second hand smoke however is an environmental pollutant that, in my opinion, we should address.

Address it all you want, in your own home or in your own business. Leave peaceful citizens alone.

Marvin Caplan:
Just curious, in your opinion should we busy-body politicians ignore environmental pollutants totally, or just second hand tobacco smoke?

Nicely phrased. The BIG difference between most environmental pollutants and ETS is that the public have no choice about exposure to the former. Clearly, no one is forced to patronize an establishment which permits smoking. You might reply that children do not have a choice however, since we are talking about 'opinions' here, it is my opinion and that of a substantial number of other parents, obviously, that ETS is nowhere near the hazard it's been cracked up to be. Given the choice between acting on the basis of my own opinion or being coerced into acting in accordance with yours I would pick the former.

Marvin Caplan:
In other words, and this is a serious question, "when do the 'rights' of the minority override the 'rights' of the majority?"

How about at the property line.

The 'rights' of the minority should be respected. Therefore, the alleged 'rights' of the majority end exactly where the 'rights' of the minority are being trampled... unless you believe the the majority has the 'right' to trample the 'rights' of the minority, which you apparently do.

This isn't about the rights of smokers vs. the rights of non-smokers. Framing the debate in those terms is a 'smoke screen', political sleight of hand employed to manipulate a gullible and spineless electorate all too willing to be lead around by the nose.

The rights that are being violated here are the rights of the owners of the bars and restaurants and whatever other private establishments you and your enforcement machinery barge into, uninvited, to impose your preferences for risk tolerance. You may have a 'majority' applauding your interventions but you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. This is nothing more than a lynching masquerading as democracy. As James Bovard said (roughly) in one of his books, "Democracy is more than just two wolves and a sheep voting on the supper menu."

Again, Mr. Caplan replied, justifying the By-law on various grounds, including:

• Mr. Caplan believes the By-law is a 'reasonable' infringement of rights... however, it is clear that enforcement of the By-law relies upon something considerably more persuasive than 'reason', ie: fines, injunctions, and to the degree that individuals targeted by the law resist, ultimately jail or death.
• that some nebulous collective called 'people' would not want to return to a regime of voluntary decision making based upon individual sovereignty.
• that a large number of lobbyists, government officials and individuals capable of marking an "X" on a ballot wanted the By-law.
• that the "unfettered" freedom, I.E. freedom, to run one's own business as one sees fit was abolished previously by other legislation.
• that this particular piece of legislation is not as severe as that in other jurisdictions. Thus we should be thankful the government isn't even more oppressive.

Marvin Caplan:
You make several good points. However, at the end of the day, the question is "what is a reasonable infringement of "rights?"." Obviously on this issue we disagree.

Marvin Caplan:
When smoking was banned in retail stores in 1980 (I smoked back then) the majority of retailers including me complained and complied. I don't think people would want to return to the days of smoke everywhere.

Marvin Caplan:
I was in fact invited by a substantial number of people to be involved in the issue. The Medical officers of Health for both the Province and the Region wanted new restrictive legislation as does the Cancer society, the Heart and stroke and Lung associations.

Marvin Caplan:
Before drafting and passing the by-law there were extensive consultations with the industry and the wider community, and in the last municipal election over two thirds of those who voted supported the by-law in a referendum.

Marvin Caplan:
Yes it does interfere with the unfettered freedom of those in the hospitality industry to do as they will in their premises, but so does every piece of legislation dealing with their businesses..

Marvin Caplan:
The by-law passed in Hamilton is the least restrictive new ETS legislation passed in Ontario in the last five years. Least, restrictive and with the flexibility to allow operators to declare themselves bars and have a larger smoking area than under the old by-law. I am hearing from a number of people that in fact the by-law is not restrictive enough, as well as from those who want no legislation.

Marvin Caplan:
Before sending this, I had a brief look at your web site. My strong suspicion is that we will be unable to communicate very well. Your opinions seem quite, shall we say strong. In any event, Have a nice day,

I replied:

Your suspicion is correct. We shall not be able to communicate very well. I do thank you for clarifying your actions further with this last message.

This new by-law hardly affects me personally anyway, even though I still smoke the evil weed (I just don't go out much anymore). For the most part, those individuals who are victimized by this particular by-law support coercive uniformity (Your version of democracy) over voluntary unanimity (mine), in general, which reminds me of something H.L. Mencken supposedly said, "Democracy is where everyone gets what the majority deserves and they get it good and hard."

For the record, I do not believe you will *not* be "banning food" as you put it. It's only a matter of time before the Medical officers of Health for both the Province and the Region want new restrictive legislation as will the Cancer society, the Heart and stroke and Lung associations (and diabetes etc.) and a two thirds majority in some future referendum.

Since you clearly have no regard for "unfettered" freedom (what other kind is there? fettered freedom? even convicts and Cubans have that.) I see nothing in what you have written to me that would indicate a different position on the junk food issue when it becomes popular.

Anyway, thank you for your time.

...to which the ever patient Mr. Caplan replied still further....

Marvin Caplan:
Where we agree is that those actions which do not affect another should not be proscribed. I have no great problems with adults choosing to smoke whatever they like and eat whatever they like. My only worry is when an individuals choice has an effect on others. I will fight for your right to have, hold and express your opinions. I will also fight to protect others from inappropriate actions of others. Where the line is the question, it isn't over your right to eat whatever you want.

Marvin Caplan:
It is certainly offensive for you to suggest what my definition of democracy is, you obviously have gone from my opinion on one issue and generalised.

Marvin Caplan:
One of the best definitions of Law is, "law is those restrictions that make men more free." Unfettered freedom without responsibility is what I object to.

I can't imagine Mr. Caplan wrote this last piece with a straight face.... it is just too obvious based on his previous commentary and his actions on this matter that he believes absolutely nothing of what he says here. So I replied again:

Dear Marvin,

I must say I am surprised you should take so much time to reply to my objections. I am not even in your ward!

About thirty years ago when the area South of Limeridge Rd. near West 5th was still just vacant fields a group of us teenagers went up to this radio or TV tower to burn and inhale another controversial substance... when a police cruiser approached. We extinguished our contraband and started walking towards Mohawk Road but the cop stopped us. He wanted to know what we were doing up there by the TV tower. One among us told him we were just seeking privacy to take a leak. The cop stood there with his arms folded across his chest and replied, "Spread it on me, kid." I know what that cop felt like.

Marvin Caplan:
I will also fight to protect others from inappropriate actions of others.

I see. So if I go down to the Roxxy nightclub and ask the owner, Mr. Targhi if he minds if I smoke in his establishment, which he quite obviously does not... as I proceed to light up and inhale we are committing an "inappropriate action" the severity of which justifies summoning the City's smoke gestapo to slap another $5,000 fine on Targhi and whatever else on me. There is something very inappropriate happening here indeed....

On Mr. Caplan's taking offense to my interpretation of his definition of democracy (coercive uniformity)

I do not think it is unreasonable to generalize in this manner. There is a principle involved here which applies in any number of areas. If you don't apply your principles consistently you have no good reason to be offended by someone who has assumed that you do.

The bill of rights in the U.S. constitution probably comes closest to this definition.... though it is mostly a bill of restrictions on state power and yes, it has done a pretty good job of keeping men free. But when the law becomes a commodity, up for sale by willing politicians and eagerly sought by grasping special interests and covetous voters, freedom is doomed.

---

Unfettered freedom without responsibility is what I object to.

Freedom without responsibility is tyranny and *I* object to it. When I compare words with actions your sympathetic claim is unconvincing.

Unfettered freedom without responsibility is exactly what you are pandering to on this issue. You have given the Medical officers, the Cancer society, the Heart and stroke and Lung associations and over two thirds of those who voted in a referendum the "unfettered" freedom to dictate to and, in effect, expropriate the city's bar and restaurant owners even though these lobbyists and voters share absolutely NONE of the RESPONSIBILITY for building and maintaining those enterprises. And how much does this heroic crusade cost you (and your esteemed colleagues at council) ? If you have the power to impose severe costs upon or even ruin people's businesses and lives just by voting, sharing none of the cost, bearing none of the burden, without accepting any RESPONSIBILITY for the consequences, you have clearly exempted yourself from the very vice you claim to object to in others. Freedom without responsibility is indeed ugly, and it's running rampant in this country.

Uncle Block:
Spread it on me Marvin.

Uncle Block:
Regards, Uncle Block

The last message I got from Mr. Caplan on this subject was,

Marvin Caplan:
I guess we'll just have to disagree.

Best wishes

The only problem is, when you disagree with Mr. Caplan, you could wind up being fined or ultimately dead depending on the degree of disagreement.

 

This section also appears in Thank You for Smoking

A recent Hamilton Spectator announced, "Hitler's war on smoking put Germany ahead of the world." Hitler apparently decided what was bad for him was bad for Germany and used his power accordingly. Apparently smoking was heavily restricted in NAZI Germany long before similar draconian interventions became common in the U.S. and Canada. Quick, before any more time passes by, let's find out what the NAZI's were doing about eating meat. Hitler was a vegetarian as well as a non-smoker. Maybe NAZI Germany was ahead of the world in this regard as well!

More information as to the nature and extent of NAZI methods of tobacco control can be found in Robert Proctor's book, The Nazi War on Cancer

further reading

Modern anti-smoking dictates, it turns out, were a familiar aspect of one of the most brutal regimes in modern times. The methods used by the NAZI's to stuff human beings into it's mold were no different from the current fascistic campaigns.

A few Neo-NAZI sites on the Web:

• ANR
• Draft of a "Model" Anti-Smoking Ordinance... observe how the right to use and disposition of private property is systematically trampled by this piece of legislation. While reading it keep in mind this Webster's definition of fascism: "A tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial rule." I wonder if the NAZI's had any similar programs regulating food consumption for those of you looking for some model ordinances restricting fatty foods and dairy products.
• S.A.F.E.

last modified:Sunday,March 29, 2009 at 03:18

Send me your comments or insults.

Robert Green Ingersoll

"Without Liberty, the brain is a dungeon."

Oliver W. Holmes

"The very aim and end of our institutions is just this: that we may think what we like and say what we think."

from 21st Century Dictionary of Quotations.