or
Join Now!
|
|
Home/Government/Politics
|
| Forum |
Ask A Question |
Question Board |
FAQs |
Search |
Return to Question Board
| Question Details |
Asked By |
Asked On |
| Smoking ordinances |
Itsdb |
02/02/05 |
Yesterday, our little West Texas city commission decided, based on a petition, to put a smoking ban ordinance up for vote in May. The ordinance would ban smoking in virtually all public places...restaurants, bars, offices, you name it, and 25' from entrances. Violation would cost you a $2000...yes, a $2000 fine.
I know smoking ordinances are all the rage now, but I have issues with them. I see both sides, non-smokers don't want to be 'victims' of second-hand smoke, smokers think it is taking away one of their freedoms to engage in a legal activity.
My contention is first, many, if not most restaurants in our city have already gone smoke-free. Most offices are smoke-free, as are all government buildings, hospitals, shopping malls, etc.
One supporter of the ordinance complained after opponents spoke, that basically non-smokers apparently have no rights. I contend that no, probably 85% of public places are already smoke-free, and non-smokers have the right to choose whether or not to patronize a restaurant that has a smoking section (and restaurants are basically the primary issue here). However, this ordinance would take away both the smoker's right to have ANY public place to smoke AND the property owner's right to determine what legal activities to allow on his property.
Whether or not one is a smoker is irrelevent, I fear what happens next. What is the next public ban on private property because someone is offended? Background music? Perfume? Televisions in sports bars? Cell phones? Crosses? Prayers? Bibles?
Are these bans even constitutional? Is it a problem the market will take care of? Is there a compromise available? Will this lead to further erosion of property rights? Your unbiased thoughts?
Steve |
Clarification/Follow-up by Choux on 02/04/05 5:08 pm:
It,
There is no attack on your *private* property rights; you just wanted to get all-worked-up about *nothing*.
If you *don't want* to care about real problems like clean air and clean water for future generations, have the courage to state that.
Mary Sue Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 02/04/05 5:34 pm:
Choux,
First of all it's not a phoney issue. Telling others what completely legal acts they can or can't perform on their property is an issue worthy of consideration. Taking away freedoms is a serious issue, but you know that so have the courage to admit it.
I of course care about clean air and water, not only for the future, but now. But that wasn't the question. If you want to deal with the subject than by all means do so, but don't expect others to care about what's important to you if you mock what's important to them.
Steve
Clarification/Follow-up by Choux on 02/04/05 5:50 pm:
It, You create scenarios to appeal to emotions of the less intelligent and knee-jerk partisans; how to get surface thinkers to *understand* what is *really important*????
To point out the important stuff.
No one is after your rights in your home, except Radical Christian Religious, dude. They want to pass laws or continue laws proscribing what sexual activity you do with your wife.
GET REAL
|
| |
|
Your Options |
Additional Options are only visible when you login! !
|
|
|
|
