Posted on 01/19/2008 7:10:50 PM PST by Eric Blair 2084
Yeah, tobacco is a legal product taxed to the hilt however making use of the purchase of a legal product and enjoying it is against the law.
How many hairs are there left to split via the promotion of freedom?
I would say protecting people from a bad smell that is proven not to harm anyone and is present only in tiny areas for a short time is far, far beyond the scope of local government.
Local government is there to maintain safe and orderly streets, not act as the smell police.
Okay, seems fair to me.
Local government is there to maintain safe and orderly streets, not act as the smell police.
So basically, as long as you keep your hands to yourself and don't start any riots, you should be free to do as you wish?
I really like that idea and would be willing to embrace it, as long as we apply it consistently.
Pretty much. I don't see why that's so radical a view.
Neither do I...but I had the idea that most Freepers are not comfortable with that idea of freedom. There are a lot of people who want local governments to control the clothes we wear (or don't wear) outside, the kind of movies we can watch, what words we can say or print, and what plant matter we ingest. They seem to think that as long as the Feds aren't doing the rule making, then it's all okay.
THAT'S what was really bothering me...the idea that local governments can impose all kinds of restrictions on non-harmful behavior, EXCEPT for smoking. But to be fair, that probably only describes a minority of Freepers.
I apologize for incorrectly assuming that you, or anyone else on this thread, was in that minority. I guess it's true what they say about "assuming". If the idea is to strictly limit local governments and maximize individual freedom, then I am on board.
My bad.
take me off the nanny state ping, thanks!
Take me off the nanny state ping, thanks!
Peachy. and the cops are on top of it. Sweet.
Inshallah.
What would you consider an inconsistency?
Most restrictions on minimally offensive, minimally harmful behaviors would count. Some easy examples would include:
-ordinances against panhandling (the non-agressive type)
-laws prohibiting exposed underpants (popular in the "hip-hop" culture)
-restrictions on public profanity
-prohibitions on nude dancing in enclosed, adults-only businesses
-prohibitions on the public consumption of alcohol (as opposed to PI which can be a danger to others)
From time to time a thread will pop up about these things. Usually, a number of Freepers will defend these local laws as an exercise of the "community's right to determine standards of behavior" or the "right to decide what kind of society in which we will live." To some people, Nanny-like regulations are fine as long as they are imposed by local governments instead of the Feds.
That's where an inconsistency would appear...if someone thinks it's acceptable for a city to ban Playboy magazine but not to ban smoking.
I agree.
If I didn’t live in this commie city, I would ignore this ticket. Treat it like a parking ticket and ignore it.
Right. LOL.
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.