In the course of the current competition for presidential primary votes, I have heard and read a number of comments alluding to Ron Paul’s being on the side of antismoking. Most of these have been unsubstantiated, the mirror opposites of wishful claims from the pro-smoking camp such as Paul is “on our side,” or “our only reliable choice,” or “[he] thinks of smokers as human beings.”

No one knows what anyone else is thinking. However, at long last I did find one eloquently stated and substantive argument concerning Ron Paul and this issue. It’s author, perhaps out of his own childishly wishful but maturely offered view, makes a case to question if Ron Paul would be on the other side.
http://www.nolanchart.com/article1245.html

This is, of course, one man’s opinion. However, did Ron Paul ever say or do anything that would lead to its credible formation? Ron Paul said –

“The air can certainly be identified. If you have a mill next door to me, you don't have a right to pollute my air -- that can be properly defined by property rights.”
http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/10/16/paul/

Ron Paul also said –

"When all forms of physical trespass, be that smoke, particulate matter, etc., are legally recognized for what they are -- a physical trespass upon the property and rights of another -- concerns about difficulty in suing the offending party will be largely diminished. When any such cases are known to be slam-dunk wins for the person whose property is being polluted, those doing the polluting will no longer persist in doing so. "
http://greenpieceblog.blogspot.com/2007/10/ron-pauls-environmental-q.html

Touching upon environment, but as well on other aspects of the smoking question, a little troubling is “Dr. No’s” out-of-character vote of “yes” to bar a website from using a cartoon character to explain Yucca Mountain (a nuclear waste site) to youth visitors. The sponsor of the amendment supported by Ron Paul made the following equation –

“I would probably not be as upset with Joe Camel, excuse me, Yucca Mountain Johnny, if there was a more balanced approach on this Web site….”
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Environment.htm

Quite a bit more troubling and out-of-character is how Ron Paul responded when an interviewer asked, “Would you support a private healthcare approach that rewards behavior that promotes moral lifestyles-- that is, avoiding alcohol and tobacco consumption, as well as obesity reduction, exercise and nutrition that promotes health?”
His answer was yes.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Health_Care.htm

To recap information presented (which appears to be substantiated) as to why Ron Paul should be wished in favor of the pro-smoking side, I have thus far been made aware of the following three statements attributed to Ron Paul –

1. “…if you want to smoke a cigar the federal government says you can’t…”
True? Not exactly. Apart from the implicit requirement of cigar smokers to refrain on airplanes, in federal buildings, military property, and the White House [wonder if Bill Clinton refrained?], the federal government has no policies to speak of on cigar smoking.

2. “… if you want to regulate tobacco, that should be up to the states…”
True? Not accurate. Tobacco commerce is an interstate enterprise which regulation is constitutionally granted to congress (federal). Note: what words could Ron Paul have used instead to make this statement accurate? “Control” instead of “regulate”?

3. “Dr. Paul believes that as president he would have no constitutional authority over such bans…” True? No. At the very least, a president would have authority to act on bans just described under the first quoted statement above.

Now THAT's depressing as all hell. Guess I'll be writing in "none of the above" on my ballots. And I think everyone should just to send the message that we are no longer buying their bullshit.

Since we do need to get this idiot out and someone new in, that leaves us back to voting for the lesser evil, once again.

And THIS is why I think most people don't bother voting anymore.

I won't be voting for any candidate in 2008. It doesn't matter whether they are Democrat or Republican...they are all under the SHS spell. If our nation continues to follow its ever-growing Fascist path, I'll be leaving, anyway. Mexico is a serious possibility.

Whether or not Ron Paul personally likes or dislikes smoking isn't really relevant. I have no doubt that Paul probably personally dislikes smoking. However, Ron Paul is a Libertarian and, unlike most of our modern practitioners of politics, doesn't view the power of government as a authoritarian means for administering personal preferences, whether one is for or against something.

I support the Second Amendment. However, personally, I dislike guns and try to avoid being in their presence. Does that make me a "closet gun control advocate"?

quote:

“The air can certainly be identified. If you have a mill next door to me, you don't have a right to pollute my air -- that can be properly defined by property rights.”

As opposed to a third-party Government solution where arbitrary standards are imposed to meet the needs of special interests, who consistently seek ever higher standards to justify their existence.

Would you rather that a woodstove down the road be considered air-pollution due to some government standard, or would you rather that the woodstove owner be left alone if he isn't really bothering anyone?

quote:

"When all forms of physical trespass, be that smoke, particulate matter, etc., are legally recognized for what they are -- a physical trespass upon the property and rights of another -- concerns about difficulty in suing the offending party will be largely diminished. When any such cases are known to be slam-dunk wins for the person whose property is being polluted, those doing the polluting will no longer persist in doing so."

Paul is not talking about smoking tobacco here, so this quote is a bit out of context. Again, he phrases this in the context of property rights. When Paul says "legally recognized" in the context of this quote, it gives one the misleading impression that he is talking about a government standard being imposed. If one understands Libertarianism, one realizes immediately that this is not what Paul is suggesting. Rather, he is saying that one has the right to make a case that their property is being polluted, without the need for government to step in and impose a standard. A legal precedent would be established via tort, without the need for a government agency to tell us how we should all feel, with the government's view being broadcast on television and radio.

quote:

“I would probably not be as upset with Joe Camel, excuse me, Yucca Mountain Johnny, if there was a more balanced approach on this Web site….”

Quoting from Wikipedia, Yucca Mountain is "a U.S. Department of Energy terminal storage facility for spent nuclear reactor fuel and other radioactive waste." In other words, the facility is owned by the government, and the government has no business creating cartoon characters to tell us all how we should feel. The same could be said if the government produced cigarettes, and came out with a Joe Camel-like character. The people tell government how they feel, not the other way around.

quote:

“Would you support a private healthcare approach that rewards behavior that promotes moral lifestyles-- that is, avoiding alcohol and tobacco consumption, as well as obesity reduction, exercise and nutrition that promotes health?”
His answer was yes.

If it's private, who cares?

quote:

“…if you want to smoke a cigar the federal government says you can’t…”
True? Not exactly. Apart from the implicit requirement of cigar smokers to refrain on airplanes, in federal buildings, military property, and the White House [wonder if Bill Clinton refrained?], the federal government has no policies to speak of on cigar smoking.

Well, the Federal Government may not prohibit you from privately smoking a cigar, at least not yet, but they sure are busy using the EPA, CDC and FDA to establish misleading public health standards, and reward states with Federal funds for imposing these "public" standards on private citizens.

Anyway, doesn't the statement seem to implicitly suggest that Paul finds this level of government intervention to be ridiculous?

Here's him saying it on video. Judge for yourself. (Part 3 of 4, about 3 minutes in until end of video).

http://www.timesocket.com/political/ron-paul-on-meet-th...ipt-for-dec-23-2007/

quote:

“… if you want to regulate tobacco, that should be up to the states…”
True? Not accurate. Tobacco commerce is an interstate enterprise which regulation is constitutionally granted to congress (federal). Note: what words could Ron Paul have used instead to make this statement accurate? “Control” instead of “regulate”?

The "Commerce Clause"(Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) of the U.S. Constitution states:

"The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states..."

The "Compact Clause" Article I, section 10 states:

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation..."

The Master Settlement Agreement allowed the states to, in effect, form an alliance and sue tobacco companies, then distribute the money from the Agreement to individual states by standards imposed The Master Settlement Agreement. This was done without the approval of Congress.

A legal entity recently pursued this case. My understanding is that they lost and I, admittedly, have not read the court's decision.

So, Paul could have said "the individual states, or, otherwise, with the approval of Congress via the Compact Clause".

Here's what Paul wrote in his weekly column in 1998 regarding the MSA. You be the judge.

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst98/tst041398.htm

What Paul is saying here is that you limit the power of government if you limit the power to the states. That way, if I don't like the law in California, I can move to Nevada. When the Federal Government imposes laws and standards, no one can run away from them.

quote:

“Dr. Paul believes that as president he would have no constitutional authority over such bans…” True? No. At the very least, a president would have authority to act on bans just described under the first quoted statement above.

On Federal property, Paul may not do anything regarding smoking bans. But Federal property is, of course, owned by the government, and government can set its own standards for its own facilities. That doesn't mean that it should be imposed upon private property owners.

My goal here is not to defend Ron Paul, in the particular. Rather, I seek to defend the principles of Libertarianism, the philosophy from which Ron Paul frames his arguments according to his interpretation, from which my own interpretation sometimes differs.

Though I've never heard him say anything on the issue, Paul may even believe that secondhand smoke is dangerous. However, it would be completely inconsistent with Libertarian philosopy for Paul to state that he believes government should impose universal smoking bans on private property owners. Paul considers these issues from a Federal perspective usually, and there's little doubt, whatsoever, that Paul would oppose a Federal Smoking Ban.

The intent of our U.S. Government in its founding was to preserve justice and individual freedom for all, not to impose the personal preferences of a majority on an unwilling minority. Ron Paul is very aware of this.

Is Ron Paul a closet anti?

Well, he's a U.S. Congressman, and unless he, personally, is directly asked a question on the issue, he is probably going to reserve his personal opinion because it will immediately be misconstrued as public advocacy.

I can't help but think that misconstruing Paul's personal preferences with his advocacy for issues as an elected official is the purpose of this post.

Does Ron Paul personally dislike smoking?

He probably does. He probably dislikes heroine, too, but his position on the war on drugs is quite clear

Sorry, WS, I don't think I'm misconstruing anything. I never stated that I didn't believe a candidates politics are more important than his personal opinions. However, around the edges one's personal opinions will color their politics, and neither you, nor I, nor Ron Paul, or anybody else is better than that.

If any of Ron Paul's actions or statements might be adverse in any way to the issue of this forum, we as smokers, thus deserve to be informed.

I'm a little surprised by the uncharacteristically (for you) substandard quality of your response "if it's private who cares?" regarding the following --

quote:

Quite a bit more troubling and out-of-character is how Ron Paul responded when an interviewer asked, “Would you support a private healthcare approach that rewards behavior that promotes moral lifestyles-- that is, avoiding alcohol and tobacco consumption, as well as obesity reduction, exercise and nutrition that promotes health?”
His answer was yes.

If Ron Paul's so in favor of private property rights, why didn't he just tell the interviewer that the insurance companies were perfectly capable of deciding for themselves what kinds of incentives, if any, they considered it wisest to include in their plans? Couldn't resist jumping on the "I hate smoking" bandwagon, eh?

Also, regarding the following --

quote:

Paul is not talking about smoking tobacco here,

What kind of smoke do you propsose he is talking about? Do you think he's referring to a neighbor who might intentionally burn his whole house down just to annoy his neigbor by getting a little ash on his vinyl siding? When has "smoke" ever been used to define any type of pollution except cigarette smoke?

Your response regarding the government "telling people what to do" by having an informative website, is again a little substandard. If the government, or one of it's websites, gives people innacurate information, that's another matter, but the government has the same freedom of speech rights the rest of us do.

I'm a little confused why you, who have said on several occasions you are not even sure if you are going to vote for Ron Paul, still insist on giving him some kind of a "pass" I've never observed you giving to any of the other candidates.

You, not I, at one point troubled to bring up the bit about certain damning stuff in Paul's newsletters, once again stating you might not even vote for him because of it.

I didn't bring it up because (in addition to other concerns about this specific information) just like the war, the drug issue, or someone's personal religion, none of these issues have anything to do with what the focus of this forum is.

This is a smokers forum, and we deserve to be informed about how the candidates are potentially in our favor, or are not, on this issue, so we can make up our own minds.

I am a little confused why, despite the fact that you have repeatedly stated you are not sure whether or not you're going to vote for Ron Paul, you seem adverse to letting others decide for themselves.

Thank you very much for providing the link to Paul's comments on the MSA settlement. It doesn't conflict at all with what I have fairly presented here (because in it Paul keeps saying how awful tobacco is).

Note (with this link) for all the arm-twisting going on to get smokers to vote for Ron Paul, you are only the third person to actually back up what you say (on Ron Paul and the smoking issue) by providing any real information: the second being myself, and the first being the honest libertarian man who wrote the article I referred to.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: richlady248,

Thompson, Hunter, and Tancredo are out now, so I'm either voting for no one, or voting third party. I have come to the conclusion we need to concentrate on getting more conservatives (and hopefully more smokers) elected to congress than worry about prez, since nobody left is worth a tinker's damn.

Richlady,

Woodstove? How about a factory? Or a bonfire? There's some kind of wood heating contraption that I've seen in the news lately that produces alot of outdoor smoke, too, but I can't recall what it's called at the moment.

Reading these posts again, I think I'll hold with my original counterpoints.

Let's see if anyone else has thoughts on the points in our posts.

All of the candidates, including even the Democrats, have acknowledged that the federal government lacks the constitutional authority to impose a nationwide smoking ban. Though I think Obama said that he might try to impose one on states that don't get with the program. The antis also said that they are very happy with the success they have been having in the states and didn't want a nationwide ban that would likely be used to water down state and local bans - so there ya go, we are being screwed by the divide and conquer strategy which, no doubt, will continue until all 50 states have bans and the more "progressive" communities ban it outdoors too. Maybe if we all move to rural parts of the South, the bans won't be enforced so much and if they are, at least we won't freeze our butts off smoking outside in the middle of January - or as Pat said, there's always Mexico...
As far as the "electable" candidates go, they all suck and I wouldn't trust any of them on any matter of personal or civil liberties.

I don't see any problem with Winston's critique. I don't care to go through each point brought up by Richlady, but there's nothing wrong with Winston's answer, "If it's private, who cares?"

Ron Paul answered, "Yes." I believe he's talking from a government stand point. Paul would support a company's right to do what they think is best for them. Winston, as I took it, was looking at it from the same view.

Does Ron Paul's website accept emails? Can't someone just email his campaign and ask him where he stands?

quote:

Does Ron Paul's website accept emails? Can't someone just email his campaign and ask him where he stands?

Richlady has done this, and she has posted it previously here, I believe.

I pointed out to her that it seemed to me that she was getting the answer of the staffer, rather than the actual answer Ron Paul would give. Perhaps RichLady will provide it again so you can judge for yourself.

I'll be honest, if Paul ever answers on the smoking question, I wouldn't be surprised if he expressed a personal dislike for smoking in the most emphatic of terms. Being a Libertarian, if Paul were in a debate with other Libertarians, yes, that would certainly color him negatively for me as opposed to other candidates who had less vehement personal reactions.

As for my problems with Paul, let me shed some light on them.

-A publication with Ron Paul's name on it was distributed with some rather disturbing and racist comments in it. Do I believe that Paul is a racist? No. However, it doesn't bode well for your candidacy as leader of the free world when you don't even know what's being put out in your rinky-dink newsletter.

-I think that there is probably more truth in Paul's foreign policy beliefs than the mainstream would like you to believe. In the final analysis, though, I think Paul's views are naive. Paul's condemnation of the use of force is admirable, but I think he naively underestimates the capacity for evil in these political ideologies, and doesn't seem to understand how powerful and manipulative ideological forces can be. I'm not going to go through the laundry list of wars we've been involved in, approving or disapproving of each of them. I will say, though, that you can't wait for evil to show up in your front yard before you fight against it.

-When Paul is asked what he would actually do, he rarely speaks in specifics. This irritates me and I belive it hurts him greatly. When he asked for an answer with specifics, he always starts with a "Well..." and then kind of waves his hand around to indicate that his solution is complicated to explain, then reverts, once again, to the ever-reliable well of criticism of past and current policies based on Libertarian philosophy. In short, Paul is always ready to tell you how he won't do something or how he'll undo something, and that's fantastic! Great! What he doesn't do though, is tell us, well, HOW he won't do things or undo them. He thinks he's going to sit in The White House and veto everything in site. Me? I think that's wonderful! The rest of the country? Are you kidding? He'll be impeached or shot within six months.

I've said this before, I don't think the problem is that Ron Paul is wrong. Rather, our country is so far down the path of its own destruction that it doesn't deserve a candidate like Ron Paul.

Sometimes I think we're being visited by a ghost with Ron Paul's candidacy. Maybe we don't need Ron Paul in 2008, but Barry Goldwater in 1964.

Still, he's getting the ideas out there, he's creating a presence. These things take time.

BTW, here's a Paul interview with another Libertarian, John Stossel.

Notice that the YouTube banner is from a Paul supporter (I'd suppose) demanding ABC air the interview.

They probably didn't air it because Paul doesn't come across very well in it. It was probably Stossel who didn't want it aired!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wz80H5Su8AA

Anyway, he sheds some further light on the issues we're discussing.

quote:

quote:
Does Ron Paul's website accept emails? Can't someone just email his campaign and ask him where he stands? ....
Richlady has done this, and she has posted it previously here, I believe....
I pointed out to her that it seemed to me that she was getting the answer of the staffer, rather than the actual answer Ron Paul would give. Perhaps RichLady will provide it again so you can judge for yourself.

I think you are confusing me with someone else, WS. I did mention that I had gotten an email from a Paul volunteer and quoted one statement of his, pointing either to it's innacuracy or the regrettable way in which Paul supporters often come across as if they think everybody else is stupid, or both.

I think DTB provided an email from a supporter she said she got from an online flyer. So maybe that's who you're thinking of. However, I don't recall that either she or I had any difficulty understanding who wrote these emails before you "pointed it out" to us, so it must be entirely someone else you're thinking of.

I like the John Stossel interview, and actually it puts Paul in a very good light personnally -- just not-so-good in that it narrows the percentage of voters who would buy all this quite significantly -- but the votes already in verify that.

Well good for you, WS, that's the second time you've backed up your advocacy for Ron Paul with real information.

The question still remains, as you do take such a position of advocacy for Ron Paul (and I must say you do seem like a typical Ron Paul supporter in many of the usual ways) why have you repeatedly stated that you yourself are not sure whether you are going to vote for him?

Richlady,

I'm sorry if I've mistakenly attributed this communication with the Paul campaign to you. I thought that you shared this over on F2C, but I'm not going to bother looking.

I hope you'll forgive me, but I think there's enough words here for others reading to draw their conclusions, so I'm bowing out. Also, I think my answer to your question is implicit from my posts above. Thanks.

quote:

I thought that you shared this over on F2C

Actually, WS, I now recall you did something like that. The discourse on F2C had turned to whether average Republicans in America versus average Democrats were more likely to permit smoking in their homes, and you jumped in the middle supplying a one sentence quote I had received via email from a Ron Paul supporter in my own state.

It seemed you mistakenly thought the discussion at hand on F2C concerned US presidential candidates, when in fact it had nothing to do with that. There had never been any lack of clarity as to whose words, or whose opinion (the volunteer's) it was in terms of the email I received, so I think on that score you still may be thinking of another email someone else received who needed you to explain it to them.

Sorry, this digression has tuckered you out so. "Talk to you later," as they say.

quote:

there's nothing wrong with Winston's answer, "If it's private, who cares?"

Ron Paul answered, "Yes." I believe he's talking from a government stand point.

Agreed, Squeezer, wrong implies an 'F'. Substandard is more like a 'C-'.

From a government stand point, BTW, insurance already is being regulated by the states. Thus, it would have been in keeping with Paul's politics for him to say either "that would be up to the states" or that it's a matter for private business to decide.

Paul's uncharacteristic leap to take a position of support [as president - executive branch, federal] when it comes to encouraging insurance "incentives" for people to behave "morally" [as far as smoking is concerned] is what I find quite troubling.

Whether the point is argued from the perpective of property rights or states rights, these are two things which, on every other issue, Ron Paul ardently speaks for, and the lapse in this case seems glaring.

quote:

there's always Mexico...

LOL. Truckloads of nasty, stinking, smoking gringos seeking asylum from all the free healthcare!

quote:

Woodstove? How about a factory? Or a bonfire? There's some kind of wood heating contraption that I've seen in the news lately that produces alot of outdoor smoke, too, but I can't recall what it's called at the moment.

With factories, it depends on what kind of smoke, in which case, in pollution terms, this is referred to as emissions.

As for woodstoves and bonfires, yes, that makes it more clear what Dr. Princess Nose has in mind. What this country really needs is to have the Hatfields and the McCoys running to court every five seconds suing each other over woodstoves and backyard bonfires. They will have their second amendment rights to fall back on too, just in case. Neat.