My fellow Ohio Blogger Brain Shavings alerted me to this last evening. I was not aware that Mike Huckabee along with Senator Sam Brownback joined up with Lance Armstrong and his "War on Cancer".
Huckabee committed to sign a nationwide smoking ban in public places, should such a measure win approval in Congress. Brownback said he would let anti-smoking efforts continue under the authority of states and local communities.
I don't and have never smoked, but I think that Brownback has a much better stand on principle here. While Mike Huckabee seems to be an earnest believer in the power of government to fix things. The federal government does not have the freedom to pass any law that is in the public good without violating the tenth amendment.
If individual states want to ban smoking anytime and anywhere, that's probably OK, but the federal government should not do so. Mike Huckabee may call himself a conservative, but making decisions on behalf of people for their own good is not a conservative principle, and doing so at the fed level just doubles the problem.
I still think Huckabee has a good chance of breaking out of the second tier, and especially of overtaking John McCain, but he will need the energy of conservatives to push him there, and this is not the way to get it.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 2)
1. I quit a 3 pack a day habit several years ago, but I am not now so self righteous as to tell other people they cannot smoke.
Steve Bonomo at 5:52PM on Aug 30th 2007
2. Finally, a Republican who is truly interested in a public smoking ban. I read yesterday that Hillary would be for one and I applaud that. However, there is no way I could vote for her. A nationwide public ban would level the playing field for all businesses and noone would have to be concerned about going into a place and walking through the stench of tobacco smoke to get to a so-called non-smoking area.
Genny Wright at 9:43AM on Aug 31st 2007
3. A national smoking ban has a little problem in that it is blatantly unconstitutional. On the other hand, who pays attention to that old piece of sheepskin anyway?
Seriously though, this does show how few of even the neo-con candidates have actually read the rules and are aware of what their limitations should be.
Doctor_Bill at 9:29AM on Sep 1st 2007
4. Huckabee's idea of smoke free public space in Arkansas is barely recognized by national tobacco free groups for the exemptions involved. All workplaces should be safe and smoke free. We must be very careful that any national challenge to the tobacco cartel does not preempt stronger local smokefree legislation.
P at 4:36PM on Sep 1st 2007
5. Are you even sure that a national smoking ban is unconstitutional. Apparently, various court rulings point to the notion that a total smoking ban is constitutional. The only unconstitutional smoking bans are ones that are either only partial smoking bans or ones that are written in a vague way. The reason that partial bans are unconstitutional is that the Constitution calls for laws to be based on scientific fact. When a person claims that a partial ban is an effective way of protecting citizens, they cannot back their claim up with facts, because there are none. Nobody has proved that a partial ban is enough. This just makes total bans even more constitutional, especially since we now have so many European nations that have had success with such bans.
David at 8:32PM on Nov 4th 2007
6. Mike Huckabee can tell his congregation not to smoke but telling the American people as whole is a Socialist idea.He isn't a conservative as he claim to be.He's sounds more like a Democrat liberal.
KaM at 1:24PM on Nov 6th 2007
7. David said: "The reason that partial bans are unconstitutional is that the Constitution calls for laws to be based on scientific fact."
Where exactly do you find this requirement in the constitution? I certainly have never seen it.
Chad at 3:21PM on Nov 8th 2007
8. It seems to me that this is already being handled quite well at the state level. Why bring in the Fed to do this? It's another example of Big Government rule. My town (Fort Wayne, IN) passed a city wide ban earlier this year and it is working fine. California is one place I know of that has banned it statewide. I am against these politicians wanting to use the Federal Gov't to "fix" their pet peeves and use it for a pandering platform. Don't they have bigger fish to fry than smoking? How about bringing our troops home? How about paying attention to our economy that is on the edge of collapse? I want a politician that has his priorities straight. Huckabee is just another mouth mover and double talker. He is a big government/ more tax guy! Just check his Arkansas record. Also, the guy is only polling 8% in his own state. That ought to speak volumes to you folks.
wwrpd,org
Michael at 10:22AM on Nov 20th 2007
9. It's unconstitutional because it assaults the structure of our government. The nation was designed on a federalist principle of localities (states) wielding the police power within their own borders for things like crime, health, and the like. The national government was supposed to only have domain in areas where the Constitution authorized it -- interstate "commerce," taxation, etc. -- and that's how it stayed.
At least that's how it stayed until roughly 1940 when the Supreme Court committed treason via the "switch in time that saved nine." Until then, they had struck down the Executive and Legislative attempts of the FDR administration to super-Constitutional powers, but once FDR threatened to pack the court with his cronies in order to coerce acceptance of his programs, they caved and we descended into our current "the federal Congress can do and regulate anything" mentality.
A national smoking ban is blatantly unConstitutional. All one has to do is read the Constitution, consider its structure, read the federalist papers, read the historical discussions of our founding fathers, and the purpose and scope of our intended government becomes clear. The Supreme Court saying something doesn't _really_ make it unConstitutional anymore than if the president told us that the sky is red.
Huckabee is clearly an authoritarian crook who, like Hillary and most other politicians, will tell the people anything he can in order to take power. Read up about him...he's running for President of the United States because they've essentially run him out of Arkansas for stealing public money and assorted other financially-related acts of corruption.
Here's a story from the Aransas Times to get you started: http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/2007/01/huckabee_gimmegate_continues.aspx
David at 11:01AM on Nov 20th 2007
10. It's Unconstitutional due to the 10th Amendment. Any powers not granted to the federal government, nor denied to the States, is left to the States or the people.
Not that any of our politicans have bothered to read or take to heart what the Constitution has to say, or we wouldn't be discussing federal programs such as the Department of Education, Socialized Heathcare, or Homeland Security.
Tom at 12:26PM on Nov 20th 2007
11. the comments about whether this is or is not Constitutional is a rather moot point... if they can't simply ban smoking in public places they can simply place tobacco in the Controlled Substances Act and outlaw it that way.
If the Federal government can outlaw marijuana they can outlaw tobacco...
Brian at 2:22PM on Nov 20th 2007
12. Don't get me wrong, I HATE smoking! I was a long time smoker and it took a tumor on my lip (non cancerous and did go away...the second time ;o) to get me to quit. That was probably 26 yrs or so ago. As a side note I thought along with every one else that at the point where we quit our bodies would stop being damaged. So I've naively thought all these years that I probably didn't have much to worry about when it comes to lung cancer, etc. But with in this last month it's been reported other wise….. all those years that I did smoke, no matter how long ago it was STILL leaves me vulnerable to cancer, etc. Needless to say THAT was disappointing to hear!
But back to the point of a national ban on smoking, I just have to say our founding fathers must be 'turning in their graves'. They had NO intentions of banning ANY one from smoking. In fact I'd guess that several of them most likely lit up on occasion. I don't know that as a fact but imagine I'm probably correct. The point is though that they wanted to be FREE, free to CHOOSE whether or not to........
I like Mike Huckabee and have been hoping he'd move up in the poles. He's a devote Christian (as am I) and I think he'd been a good president judging on what I believe his morals to be. BUT....I don't think he or anyone else should be proposing a total smoking ban! I DO support banning it from INSIDE public places, but to ban it across the board is ridiculous and not even remotely related to the concept of freedom.
It's no doubt safer for a driver to wear sunglasses when driving with the sun glaring into their eyes. And wearing sunglasses would probably make others on the road at the same time safer from that driver also. But should the government (state or federal) be able to FORCE drivers to wear sunglasses when driving in very sunny conditions??? It would make the driver safer and the other people on the road at the same time. But does THAT fact make it a valid reason for the government to impose IT'S judgments upon all drivers?? I don't THINK so! Of course they did it with the forcing of adults to wear seatbelts so who’s to say that forced wearing of sunglasses while driving on a sunny day won’t be next??
(PS... I do think that children should be protected while in a vehicle and have no prob. with the gov. forcing that. It’s when they force ADULTS for ‘their safety’ that I have a problem. And just for the record…I DO wear a seatbelt, especially after being thrown into the upper windshield of our truck a few years back. Yet I still DON’T feel we should be FORCED to do so.)
Joanne at 3:47PM on Nov 20th 2007
13. The main reason people get cancer from cigarettes is because there are radioactive isotopes in the fertilizer they use to grow the tobacco.
Most sites you see talking about this say tobacco companies do this because it's cheaper. In reality I think it's something much more sinister than that. I think tobacco is a tool of the eugenicists that run the world.
There killing us on purpose.
--
Even still I don't think the federal government has the constitutional authority to do almost anything it currently does, including the banning of possession and ingestion of any substance.
Jeffrey Henderson at 10:41PM on Nov 20th 2007
14. Before he talks about clearing peoples'lung can Mike Huckabee clear his name from the immigration bill he signed into law allowing the State to pay for tuition of illegal immigrants?He's sure got a big hurdle to jump before the Primaries which will not in his favor.
KaM at 11:50PM on Nov 24th 2007
15. I believe there is a statement (from the Bible I think) which refers to "swallowing camels and gagging on gnats"....
And who is so worried about our "lungs" as to outlaw tobacco smoking...but doing little about global warming, chemical air pollution, or even those questionable "chemtrails" one sees from time to time.
I think the whole matter is laughable...stopping people from public smoking (to clean up the air) is like putting a bandaid on arterial bleeding....I do believe the federal government's position as a "nanny state" goes against our Constitution...but mostly.......it's usually due to a lack of common sense reasoning.
Barbara at 5:20PM on Nov 26th 2007