That’s not to justify his position, however. It’s simply how it read to me and puts the entire thing in a slightly different context. The point seems unaddressed in Doug’s commentary.

For whatever reason, when it comes to smoking, people are willing to break with their philosophical world view and go with whatever they find most convenient to there lifestyle….probably with the exception of the most principled libertarians.

I’m one of those principled libertarians. I used to smoke, years ago, and now every time I go to a state where smoking is still legal in bars, I don’t like it. I had one weekend in particular where I was hanging out with friends who smoked in their home and we were going to bars where everyone was smoking. By the time I left at the end of the weekend, I felt physically ill. It sucked, and I vowed not to put myself back in that position.

Yet I still oppose government smoking bans. They’re an assault on the rights of the property owner. I went into those bars knowing full well that there were people smoking in there, there was no force or fraud. I made a decision and it’s my responsibility, not the government’s, to make that decision.

That said, I’ve never been able to figure out why more bars didn’t try to go smoke free voluntarily. Back when I was in law school, I know that my entire group of friends largely avoided the bars specifically because there were no good smoke free options. A voluntarily smoke-free bar would have made a killing since I know my group of friends wasn’t alone.

It’s nearly the only issue out there where Self-Interested Voting Hypothesis holds up according to Bryan Kaplin in his book “The Myth of the Rational Voter.” For whatever reason, when it comes to smoking, people are willing to break with their philosophical world view and go with whatever they find most convenient to there lifestyle….probably with the exception of the most principled libertarians.

I get it. I hate going to a bar and smelling smoke. I actually enjoy going to bars more now that Ohio has a statewide ban and yet, the ban goes against my personal philosophy.

As far as Buckley’s commentary….it’s poor. He should just apologize for having a view that he can’t possibly rationalize given what he supposedly stands for and move on…or better yet, say nothing.

Here in the state of Victoria, Australia, we have been under a Labor state government for nearly 10 years, which has seen the following nanny-state measures:

* Some of the lowest speed limits on the planet
* Laws against driving whilst using a mobile phone
* The lowest alcohol blood limit for drivers – 0.05 %
* Smoking banned in restaurants
* Smoking banned in bars and clubs
* Smoking banned at all public places and sporting events

And now there are 2 more ideas floating around that are probably going to be made into legislation:

** Parents not allowed to smoke in their cars if with children

** “Anti-alcohol laws” that give police to close down nightclubs for 24 hours if there is any violence, and to ban offenders from certain popular nightspots if they are caught out being drunk and disorderly.

Agreed that he’s more likely to hit double digits first in NH or NV, but the Des Moines Register has him at 7% already, so his growth there is basically tracking the others.

The comment is more than a little off-topic but that’s okay.

Honestly, I wouldn’t bet against either of your numbers except to say that I doubt he will get close to 10% in Iowa.

Would you care to make a wager, Doug? I’ll bet even money he’s at a 8% nationally and hits at least one 10% in either NH or IA before the Tea Party (based on the date of the calls, not the release date).

Slow and steady growth, Doug. We’re not going to get the overnight easy-come-easy-go type support that Huckabee’s enjoying for the moment. We’re in a battle of ideas and we have the munitions to speak our piece. It takes awhile to convince a voter, but once convinced, he ain’t goin back. :-)

Here’s to the crazy ones.