Posted on 01/27/2006 5:28:47 AM PST by freepatriot32
A proposed smoking ban in St. Joe County has hit a roadblock. Thursday night, county commissioners vetoed the ban passed by the county council last week.
After more than two hours of public testimony, commissioners voted two to one to veto the measure, sending it back to the council.
Commissioner Mark Dobson says he turned down the ban because the restaurant community wasn't involved enough in the process.
“I could support a well-crafted ordinance but I am very upset that the mom and pop restaurant community tavern community in this area was not engaged on this ordinance,” said Dobson.
Commissioner Cindy Bodle also voted against the ban. Commissioner Steve Ross voted in favor of the ban.
This all now goes back to the County Council, which can vote to override the Commissioners veto and lets the ban go into effect in April. The Council could also uphold the veto, which would kill the ordinance and send the process back to square one.
The Council will decide February 14th.
if you look at the video near the end of it there is an overweight woman talking about how they will keep at it until they pass a ban. I wonder if she realises that if she wins and passes a smoking ban fattie foods and alcohol will be next?
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
I can hear the argument coming that second hand smoke is harmful, carcinogenic or whatever. Save yourselves some verbiage because I happen to doubt that very much. Perhaps if you were in an unventilated room with many people smoking, it might do some harm. That is seldom the case though.
What I consider really harmful to the nation is the ever growing number of control freaks out there.
You andm e both what really galls me is about 50 percent of the control freaks out there are republican freepers check back later and im sure you will see them on this very thread it disgusts me to no end
"I don't smoke, so I really don't have a dog in this fight."
Everyone has a dog in this fight. This is not about smoker's rights to smoke, nor non-smokers "right" to breath clean air. This is solely about the property owner's right to use his/her property as he/she sees fit. For a good explanation about this issue, check out this article by Walter Williams:
"Harm's a two way street"
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/walterwilliams/2003/11/19/160293.html
Yes, you're right. Just didn't think of it that way.
Where I live there is a major gambling operation that now offers a smoke-free floor.
As far as the private property angle - there is nothing strange about governments enacting safety regulations to "promote the general welfare" of the citizens. I wouldn't be comfortable in buildings without fire alarms, adequate exits or with poor sanitation (all mandated as required by law). Tobacco smoke has been well proven to be a harm to health and I avoid it like the plague.
Your comments bear repeating! I applaud your common sense statements.
Good thing there are gazillions of places where you can go to avoid cigarette smoke. You have a choice.
The liberal facists are infiltrating and trying to control everything, the news media, colleges, the bureaucracy, etc. What makes you think free republic and the republican party are immune. That's how the nazis took over germany. Read the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.