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.
Nope, bogus law.
Sure thing! Just as destructive as the ill-bred kids who detoured off the sidewalk to smash the "gazing ball" I treated myself to at $20. The sidewalk came in handy when a "confused" teenager stole one of the cushions from our back-porch furniture.
Paper cups from local stores ended up on our front lawn...from the sidewalk.
Sidewalks only belong to homeowners when the "powers that be" decide they must be repaved, at the homeowner's expense.
What the h_ell do I care if someone walks in front of my house with a cigarette, a cigar or a pipe? How are they hurting me? Let's have some level of sanity here!
I pay taxes too. As a matter of fact, as a smoker I pay way more than my "fair share" of taxes and I have been denied the right to use public facilites in a way I see fit. Walking down the street in the open air smoking a cigarette is suddenly a crime and I'm supposed to roll over like a damn trained surrender monkey because a second year law school squirt like you comes up with some double talking BS?
And while I'm on it, why do you feel the need to write a damn treatise every time you show on these threads? Showing off your expensive education? Just feeling superior to the great unwashed?
These issues are nothing to be resonable about! Jaw jaw and being resonable is what gives these turds the idea that they can push people around and some one has to stand at the crossroads yelling stop.
I can see that ain't you, younster.