Posted on 01/19/2008 7:10:50 PM PST by Eric Blair 2084
Of course it's not money that they're after - rather, they get their jollies from the sheer enjoyment of the tyranny, the head rush that comes from wielding unmitigated power over the peons, and the ecstasy of moral righteousness felt by every ninny and nanny and Taliban goon...
79 and change. Close enough.
It is scary how our forefathers defeated Nazism, Communism abroad and shed a lot of blood, only to have communism and socialism infect American from within.
You’re right. It’s all about pushing the envelope for liberals and seeing how much tyranny and government control the sheeple are willing to put up with there is a backlash of revolt.
I’m not a sheep. I’m a free man. Give me liberty or give me death. (I heard somebody stole that quote 200 years before I was born)
Yep, sneaking up on us from within. One law at a time.
It’s enough to make me wonder where the legally fine line is between private club and party at one’s home.
I am shocked that with as many actors that smoke this would pass. If I was their I would go and buy numerous packs of cigarettes and just as I was walking break the cigarette apart and litter everywhere.
Excellent point.
Another California town, Calabasas (sp?) has already extended the ban to private residences that are not single family detatched homes.
When I hear progressive public serpents talking about bars and restaurants as "public places" I just cringe. They are NOT public places. They are private business establishments that invite the public in as long as the abide by their rules.
A lot of this stuff we have been pre-conditioned to and didn't even give it a second thought at the time. Incrementalism.
The ban on smoking within businesses in Burbank is illegitimate and unreasonable. Those businesses are private property that no one is forced to enter, so the owners shouldn't have to have a "permit" to exercise their property rights.
But the ban on smoking in the public areas- the roads, alleys, and sidewalks - is a different matter. These really *are* public places, in that they are tax-funded and are not owned by any private individual or group. And smoking *is* a nuisance to many people. In my opinion, local government should be able to restrict or prohibit nuisances in truly public places, so long as the restrictions are reasonable and do not infringe on fundamental rights.
I think a ban on smoking on the sidewalks could be reasonable. In a downtown area you can expect a lot of pedestrian traffic, and people have a right to use the sidewalks without anyone's permission. A person should be free to use the sidewalks without being subjected to a nuisance, and tobacco smoke is particularly bothersome to a lot of people. There's is a competing set of "rights" in this issue, and the ballot box really can be an appropriate method of determining whose "rights" should prevail.
I would be interested to hear arguments to the contrary.
Yes, a person should be able to walk on the sidewalks without being subjected to a nuisance like tobacco smoke. But smokers make up a declining minority of the population, so how often is a pedestrian really going to be inconvenienced? To me, it would make more sense just to take the long way around a smoker every once in a while than to subject innocent and unsuspecting visitors in my city to a draconian fine.... simply for engaging in an otherwise-legal activity.
OK. How about a ban on people listening to their ipod at high volume and singing off key to the Bee Gees? How about a ban on annoying fat women on buses yapping about some nonsense like Bob breaking up with Jen? How about people who don’t shower and smell like ass?
If you want to legislate againt stuff that is annoying in public go for it. I’m all for it. Who cares if the constitution doesn’t allow it. It’s for the greater good.
We have “disturbing the peace” violations already. I can’t play Metallica right now at 400 decibels in my backyard.
Orwell was prescient. We'll all be doing morning calesthenics for Big Brother if this keeps up.
You don't get it do you my man? If the people voted that conservatives on forums like us advocating for limited government should be rounded up and shot point blank would you line up next to me and go along? It's democracy after all. The people have spoken.
Want to see how California leftists felt about smoking back in the 60’s? Check out this short video of Donovan — it’s a scream, and a nice song too.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=35VIFm1wRTM
Nope, bogus law.
How old were your grandfathers and what was their actual cause of death?
One was 63, dropped dead on the street. he would have survived if someone had known CPR, but he'd been down around eight minutes by the time the ambulance arrived. My Dad told me smoking was a contributing factor, and since he's not a smoking Nazi and told me that after I'd grown up, I believe it. Can't recall the exact connection, though.
The other was 86...but what got him was emphysema. One grandmother smoked like a chimney, but lived into her 80s, the other never smoked and also lived into her 80s. I also have thee good fortune of having a great aunt and three great-grandparents who lived past 80...two lived to be 93!
Thanks for the ping!
How about a ban on people listening to their ipod at high volume and singing off key to the Bee Gees?
Depends on the volume. If the volume is reasonable, then restrictions may run afoul of the 1st amendment.
How about a ban on annoying fat women on buses yapping about some nonsense like Bob breaking up with Jen?
While annoying, this is still the exercise of free speech, a fundamental right. I don't think local governments should be able to restrict fundamental rights like speech or religion.
How about people who don’t shower and smell like ass?
Theoretically I think this could be permissible, but it's probably impossible to draft the restrictions in a reasonable way. The problem is defining standards and verifying that they are being enforced fairly.
If you want to legislate againt stuff that is annoying in public go for it. I’m all for it. Who cares if the constitution doesn’t allow it. It’s for the greater good.
I don't WANT to legislate against annoying stuff, I just think one CAN legislate against annoying stuff...well, at least some annoying stuff.
I'm also not sure how the Constitution fits into this. I've limited my statements to local government, and specifically exempted fundamental rights from the equation.
We have “disturbing the peace” violations already. I can’t play Metallica right now at 400 decibels in my backyard.
Right, because some restrictions can be reasonably imposed. For example, your backyard rock concert is forbidden because it will bother your neighbors. A public smoking ban- meaning one that actually covers public areas- is designed to prevent pedestrians from being bothered. What is the difference between the two? Or, to sound like some of the hardened Anti's I've debated on similar threads, "where do we draw the line?"
I struggled with this issue because it is not as clear-cut as legislation affecting private property. My sympathies are with the smokers on this one, but I'm not sure I can frame an effective argument for them other than the type I gave in post #31.
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.