Posted on 06/16/2008 7:05:20 AM PDT by Behind Liberal Lines
ITHACA — Legislation further restricting smoking in the City of Ithaca should reduce exposure to secondhand smoke while not creating unintended consequences, according to members of the Smoke-free Zone Legislation Subcommittee.
The smoking ban legislation Common Council is exploring includes ... a huge variety of outdoor, public spaces, including parks, natural areas, outdoor concerts and festivals, trails and walkways, parking garages and lots, transit shelters, Newman Golf Course, and city cemeteries.
This would include outdoor dining areas at all times, and entire parks or the entire Commons during festivals like Ithaca Festival or the Chili Cook-Off....
It could also include any area where people are standing in line....
The subcommittee will likely submit its report by July or August, he said.
Second hand smoke hoax was the precursor to global warming. The “science” underlying second hand smoke is a fraud as well. Both are just an excuse to exercise power.
Can’t we gin up some research showing second-hand brain damage from large concentrations of old hippie burn-outs?
I wonder what will happen the first time some hippie lights up a joint at a music festival? Will he or she get charged too?
When is the ban on patchuli oil coming for Ithica’s hippies?
Why should I have to breathe it?
I have no sympathy. I don't smoke anymore but I still want personal property to be just that - personal property with the right to allow, or disallow, using a legal product as it was intended to be used.
If it's public property, as in property owned by the city, then let the city decide.
Otherwise, keep your nose out of my property if you don't like the way it smells.
Will they ban farting outdoors next?
Wish we could, but who do you think comes up with all these other “studies”??? If it was so bad, why not make tobacco an illegal substance?
Oh, yeah...... too much tax revenue to ban it completely....
Banning smoking indoors is crazy! It should be up to the property owner whether or not to allow smoking.
Next the vegan community will demand that the public cooking of meat be brought to a halt.
You have a problem with billionaires?
Eegad! It’s worse than I thought!
Ah, for the good old days of Virginia when Tobacco was actually used as a currency.
Nanny State PING!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks for the ping!
Of course smoking grass will be exempt from the smoking ban.
I went to Cornell for a year in the seventies. It wasn’t so bad then. It was infested with weirdos and hippies, of course, but the key difference is that they weren’t running the place yet.
I got to take astronomy with the great Frank Drake, founder of SETI and originator of the famous Drake equation. His much better known colleague, Carl Sagan, was regarded as a lightweight in those days in spite of his budding media career (or perhaps because of it). Like me, and unlike Sagan, Dr. Drake is a veteran.
I’m not a smoker either, and we don’t allow smoking in our home due to allergies. But I am equally allergic to these busybodies who tell everyone how to live.
I don’t know which is worse: Ithaca or Cambridge.
No points for guessing which one.
I’m split on my feelings about this... on one hand, this is getting ridiculous. On the other hand, it would be nice to be able to run somewhere and not suddenly inhale a cloud of cigarette smoke, or even end up walking to the bus stop behind someone who’s smoking, and get an asthma attack as a result. I guess cause it’s really city property they’re banning it on (parks, public transit stations, etc) they have a right to do so.
The same scientists claim that 2nd Hang Apple Bong smoke is OK.
Death of the Hospitality Industry Bump.
Man up, fer Christ’s sake!
I’ll second that.
“I’m not a smoker, and I actually appreciate the ban on smoking indoors. But banning smoking outdoors is getting a little crazy.”
Your appreciation of the trampling of private property rights has led to the luniness of the latter action.
Thanks for the ping. Somehow I knew you wouldn’t go to the dark side, thanks for not proving us wrong.
I do when a billionaire like Gates continues to push for government solutions to liberal concerns rather than using all of the wealth at his disposal to offer his OWN solution.
His money goes to lobbying rather than BEING a solution.
“On the other hand, it would be nice to be able to run somewhere and not suddenly inhale a cloud of cigarette smoke,..”
Yep, the infringement on private property rights by banning the consumption of a legal product, within private property, has actually caused you more inconvience. So further trampling of individual liberty is OK.
I wonder if they'll just issue a decree prohibiting unintended consequences, or take the usual route and assert that there were no unintended consequences in the face of all the contrary evidence.
The assault on property rights vis a vis indoor smoking bans led to this nonsense.
National infantilization continues. I boycotted all bars and taverns in Flagstaff since an indoor smoking ban was implemented two years ago. Last night, to please old friends, I went back to a crab feed at one. The first number the band played was “That’s the day the teddy bears have their picnic.” Big Nanny’s grip continues to tighten.
I didn’t say that it was OK to infringe on private property like that, just that inhaling cigarette smoke is not something that anyone except people who smoke enjoy. Also, the property in question here is public property (owned by the city), so it’s within the city’s rights to make laws about what you can and can’t do on it. It’s not like they’re telling people they can’t smoke on their own porches or whatever.
The point is that the nannies banned smoking in private places, therefore smoking outside is the new requirement. Now you are complaining because the smoke is out in public. The nannies propose banning smoking in public to appease your complaints.
Without the original trampling on private property rights, the complaints regarding smokers on public, outdoor properties, wouldn’t even be a discussion topic.
BTW, the article also discussed a complete ban on smoking at all outdoor dining venues. How many outdoor dining venues are owned by “the public?”
GOOD. We need more of this.
Not only with this protect humans, but squirrels and birds will be saved the dangers of exhaled and burning tobacco smoke.
STOP using Logic, dammit.
This is SMOKE we’re talking about.
I mean, how else can we stop the epidemic of discarded butts despoiling our environment. You want them to smoke inside with ashtrays where the waste can be properly disposed of. That would lead to an epidemic of ashtma and other respiratory diseases, particularly among the childrens, that the recent smoking bans have alleviated ;>>
>>It’s not like they’re telling people they can’t smoke on their own porches or whatever.
I believe that certain communities in Colorado and in Maryland have banned smokers from lighting up on their own property.
The fact that’s it’s their property does NOT give them AIR rights to indiscrimately pollute a neighborhood where children may be present.
In private places... seriously? I mean, what’s the point, and how are they supposed to tell if you’re smoking in your own home or something like that? I don’t have a problem with people smoking in private property, cause the point is, it’s private property, so people don’t have to go on/into it if they don’t want to. Public property, however, is unavoidable, so it would make sense to let people smoke on private property but not public property (but, it’s Ithaca, so I’m guessing they aren’t huge on the whole ‘common sense’ thing).
And, when they said ‘outdoor dining venues’ I thought they meant picnic tables in parks or beaches or places like that - I don’t think I’ve ever seen a restaurant or somewhere with outdoor dining ever, except when I went to Florida a few years ago, and I think the local Starbucks has a picnic table outside the door.
I have to wonder when people are going to say “enough” and just do as they please when it comes to these STUPID type of laws.
They cant throw everyone in jail.. lol and its way past time to start in with civil disobedience when it comes to these zero common sense laws.
Yes, in private places. Including cars, apartments, condos and even detached homes. It sounds like you are new to this age old battle, so I will allow you some leeway and I hope that you will educate yourself on this issue.
The ban on outdoor dining venues is more likely a ban that is in response to the market response to the previous indoor bans. Many owners of dining venues, decided to make an investment in outdoor dining areas to allow them to service the smoking segment of the market. Now, the nannies are proving that it is not about health, instead it is about controlling others.
>>controlling others.
For their own good, for their own good.
Control for the common good.
Coercive control in the service of the prevailing will.
Just because it’s tyrannical doesn’t mean it’s necessarily “bad”.
After all, if you saw someone attempting to commit suicide, wouldn’t you attempt to stop them.
This is society’s way of stopping slomo suicide.
**The Messiah won ONE county in the New York State primary.
No points for guessing which one.**
Now that NADER is “in the race”, he’ll make his token appearance at the State Theatre, and ALL WILL AGAIN BE RIGHT ... errr ... LEFT with the WORLD!
** ... some hippie lights up a joint at a music festival? Will he or she get charged too?**
NO
Reminds me of a certain Stallone/Bullock film.
You know not what you speak of.
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.
