Another day, another government "protection"

     When will America get it? Every single day I see more government infringements than I could ever hope to comment or write about. The latest comes from Albany, New York. It seems that the powers that be have decided that cigarettes are bad, they are conspiring to expand the failed War on Drugs to add tobacco to the multiple fronts of the losing battle.     The state legislature of New York, a state that already has made a crime of all smoking indoors, now has no less than 5 bills to further expand the illegalization of cigarettes.     The most laughable one forbids drivers from smoking in cars if children are present. "But that's not such a bad idea" you say? "We shouldn't risk the children" you say? You then, like most Americans, are void of facts.     The World Health Organization conducted extensive studies in the matter of "second-hand" smoke. Haven't heard the findings? Of course not. You see, they were not quite what they expected. It turns out that after studying people who grew up around smokers, spouses of smokers, and various other people regularly in contact with smokers, they found that not only is there no ascertainable effect on recipients of this evil pollution, WHO actually (reluctantly) admitted that there may even be an protective side-effect against smoking related diseases.

Ridiculous? Too strange to be true .

But it is.     So what we really end up with here is your nanny government deciding what you should and shouldn't do. It has, once again, decided for itself what is moral and what is not and then they decided for you. This is not the government's job people. The government is there to protect the rights of the people, not take them away. This sort of mentality should scare smokers and nonsmokers alike. What "bad" thing will be the next under the guillotine of political correctness? How many more times will we blindly fall for this old "save the poor little children" gag? We've been duped again. They don't care about "the children", they just want your votes. Whether or not something done is in accordance with Constitutional law is secondary to whether or not it will be perceived as "humanitarian". You want humanitarian?     There is another country that has a government that provides for all of its people. It makes sure that no one does bad things and everyone gets equal benefit. The people don't have to worry about anything since the government takes care of every need. That country is Communist China. Or North Korea. Or the former (failed) Soviet Union. I don't know about you, but I don't think I want to be "taken care of" if that's what happens. And when the government assumes the job of nanny, that's what always happens.     So, "That's not such a bad idea" you say? "We shouldn't risk the children" you say?     It's none of government's business, I say.

I can take care of my own children, I say.

Check your application, that's not in your job description, I say.

Is this why we made you a millionaire? To nanny us? I want a refund.