For smoking nannies, burning freedom is 'a process'

We told you it was coming. It's now here.

While the health nannies claim that "local ordinances have set the stage for statewide smoking-ban legislation," what they really want to do is circumvent local ordinances that don't go far enough to suit their big-government sensibilities.

"I've said all along everyone deserves protection, everywhere," Ellen Hahn, a nursing professor at the University of Kentucky and director of the Kentucky Tobacco Policy Research Program, told the new Kentucky Health News blog. "I don't think we'll ever see local ordinances in every locale in the state. In some ways, it's got to start some time and we're on first base. It's a process."

Yes, it most certainly is. Chipping away at the constitutionally protected private-property rights of restaurant owners certainly is a process.

Putting the interests of getting big grants from leftist foundations ahead of our right to self-govern and take personal responsibilities for our own health and well-being certainly is a process.

Getting government into the bedrooms and living rooms, and even cars (House Speaker Greg Speaker, D-Prestonsburg, has floated the idea of Kentucky banning smoking in private vehicles) of private citizens is certainly a process.

A poll linked to earlier in this blog entry indicates "a clear majority" support surrendering their individual liberties to Frankfort, to which I am quoted in response:

"Just because a majority of people in some poll say they want more government nanny-ism doesn't make it the right, or constitutional, action to take. The last time I checked, restaurant and bar owners' constitutionally protected private property rights are not subject to polling. In fact, the constitution exists for the express purpose of protecting those rights from some popular movement such as that being pushed by Kentucky's health nannies who want to deny Kentuckians their individual liberty to make their own decisions regarding smoking, eating and other lifestyle choices."

Besides, while the issue being polled about today might indeed be politically incorrect -- as smoking has become -- how will the same constitutional illiterates expressing support for a ban in that poll respond when it's an attempt down the road by a Hahn clone to use government force to deny them some favorite food because it's too fattening, or some sport because it's too rough?

Click here for the top-10 reasons why government-imposed smoking bans are unhealthy public policy.