Jeff votes to uphold smoking ban
The council voted 4-3 to uphold the ban on smoking. There were 29 people giving 3 minute speeches. Some passionately opposed and others just as passionate in favor of the ban. It will need to pass one more time before it takes affect.
[Smoking ban in Jeff a step closer]
It is disappointing that the vote was along party lines. Republicans need to consider their stance on this issue and admit they do not have the best interest of the majority in mind!!
I am hopeful that when it comes to Floyd County, there will be more knowledgeable consideration by both parties.
[Smoking ban in Jeff a step closer]
It is disappointing that the vote was along party lines. Republicans need to consider their stance on this issue and admit they do not have the best interest of the majority in mind!!
I am hopeful that when it comes to Floyd County, there will be more knowledgeable consideration by both parties.
posted by Anonymous at 8:47 AM
13 Comments:
You really expect more out of these individuals. It is sad!
Brandon,
I think you're misreading the veteran's comments. The ordinance isn't about public places. It's about private property.
This ordinance and others like it set a precedent that says that local government can prohibit a citizen from performing a legal activity on his or her own private property. It also goes further by suggesting that government can single out some properties and their owners for prohibition while not applying the same rule elsewhere. That's huge and has nothing to do with smokers vs. non-smokers rights.
Claiming, as some do, that they have a right to go onto another person's property and not be subjected to smoke is no different than a smoker claiming that it's their right to smoke in your living room.
The government regulates all sorts of things on private property that is open to the public. There are fire codes and codes related to preparation of food etc. These are all done for the public safety.
I see this falling into a similar category.
Ceece,
It's an issue if you have no choice in whether to expose yourself to it or not. That's why I support smoking bans in real public places (license branch, courthouse, etc) where citizens are compelled to go.
Choosing to patronize a private business or not based on its smoking policy is a preference, not a right.
Ah, but Ceece, the roads are public, taxpayer supported, and, unfortunately, a necessity for most citizens.
There are certainly some similarities in the rules that you mention, HB, but there are important differences as well.
As a consumer, I can't reasonably tell if a building meets fire safety standards or not. Making that determination would take a serious examination of electrical wiring, building materials and design and specialized knowledge. None of that is necessary to see if a business allows smoking or not. A person of reasonable ability can do that immediately and easily and make an informed choice.
It's also interesting that building codes are extended to private residences as well. That's a precedent that scares me about the slippery slope of smoking and other bans.
The same expectations of reasonable determination apply to food preparation as well, with the added dimension of selling a specific product to customers so that product and consumer law comes into play. In some ways, it's more akin to putting warning labels on cigarettes and car safety standards than on banning a legal activity on private property.
Bluegill, you're the man! I agree wholeheartedly with your points. Another thing to consider when comparing smoking bans to such things as fire codes and food safety is that they definitely, without any debate or manipulation of statistics, can harm people. Everyone agrees. Not so with secondhand smoke. No one wants to be in a fire engulfed place of business and no one wants to eat bacteria laden food. But individuals vary on their choice as to whether or not to smoke. That said, it's not about smoker's rights, it's about private property rights.
I do not understand why those so opposed to smoking simply make the choice to not patronize those places that allow it.
No argument here. Smoking is not a right. Neither is not being exposed to second hand smoke on someone else's property if you choose to inhabit it.
I get frustrated with people on both sides when they try to make it an argument of smokers vs. non-smokers and their respective "smoking" rights. It's a complicated issue that carries with it some pretty big implications.
Of all the issues on which to expend what HB often refers to as our limited resources, the whole thing seems kind of silly at times. That's especially true if smokers would just be polite enough to ask those nearby if they mind before lighting up and non-smokers would be more respectful in their response to smokers.
Although we all have to eat, it's nearly impossible to go into an average grocery store or restaurant and buy whole, organic foods. We all consume large amounts of hormones, preservatives, pesticides, and a whole bunch of other chemicals whose names we can't pronounce whether we smoke, exercise, and try to eat right or not.
If we're going to spend energy and resources on banning something in the interest of health, how about we ban processed foods?
That seems to be an effective tool (or cultural trait) of other societies around the world with life expectancies longer than ours, even they do tend to smoke and drink more.
Of course, we'd have to address transportation issues as well.
Damn, it's 10.30 pm, I've had my nightly beer(s) -- and now I wanna steak!
ceece wrote:
Because it when you get (physically) sick because of someone else's actions, and you are told. "just stay home" "it's your choice to patronize that business", it sucks and is insulting.
Debbie:
ceece, no one is telling you to stay home. There are places you can go that don't allow smoking. To think you have the right to tell a business owner, the person who is putting up her own money and taking the risks involved, how to run her business, that is what is insulting.
ceece:
It also sucks that your "right to smoke" is more important or more profit bringing (which really, isn't that what the hubub is about?
Debbie:
No. This is not what it's all about. It's about the business owner's right to run her business as she sees fit.
ceece:
The business owners don't really give a $h!t if they are "trampeling" on rights, they just don't want to lose money) then my "right" to breathe clean air?
Debbie:
Businesses exist to fill a need. People open those businesses in an attempt to make a profit. If they think they can make said profits by allowing smoking, fine. If they look around and decide they'd rather look to the non-smoking market, fine. Let them, the ones taking the risk, make those decisions.
ceece:
Second hand smoke not harmful?
Debbie:
I'll not get into a website-throwing battle with you. Anyone who has studied this issue knows controversy exists.
ceece:
Yeah, right. I must be fighting this fight because I have nothing else to do.
Debbie
You know, I would totally support your fight if you decide to work privately (outside of using government force) by using persuasion, boycotting, whatever private means you deem appropriate for the situation. That's the way to try and change things you don't like and still prevent other's private property rights.
Ooops! The last sentence should say:
That's the way to try and change things you don't like and still PROTECT other's private property rights.
Actually, Ceece, it wasn't an argument at all. Just an observation that if a lot of people on both sides of the issue would stop acting like jerks and be just a little more considerate, the process of exploring and hopefully resolving the conflict may be more reasonable and ultimately successful.
And, yes, I do believe there are much larger public health risks to be tackled than occasional exposure to second hand smoke by choice.
Can you please the explain the sentiment behind hahahaha...?
No worries. Just wasn't sure what you meant. Thanks.
The name calling and such doesn't bother me too much. It's the outright lies that irk me, particularly when they're proven untrue beyond any reasonable understanding and yet still repeated as mantras.
I've certainly been incorrect in some of my assessments of situations but I've never purposely mislead anyone. I'm also quite willing to speak as rationally as I'm able with anyone about a topic, even when they disagree. This blog is a good example of that and why that process is healthy in itself.
Unlike some, I like tough questions and don't refuse to try to answer them. They challenge everybody to find or create better answers.
Post a Comment
<< Home