News:
Belmont is set to make history by becoming the first city in the nation to ban smoking on its streets and almost everywhere else.
The Belmont City Council voted unanimously last night to pursue a strict law that will prohibit smoking anywhere in the city except for single-family detached residences. Smoking on the street, in a park and even in one?s car will become illegal and police would have the option of handing out tickets if they catch someone.
Source: http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=66988
Views:
I agree that smoking is a disgusting habit and that secondhand smoke is a terrible nuisance. I tend to support laws which prohibit smoking in restaurants and businesses, as they provide for the health and safety of a great number of non-smoking employees. At the same time, I am against excessive and seemingly authoritarian laws that invade the lives of innocent people. Yes, smokers are disgusting, but they are still people.
What I really don’t like about the proposed law is that it limits the rights of people on their own property. From the article I gather that almost all smoking outside is to be banned - even on the private property that is not a single family detached home.
It is my guess that this law will be challenged within 30 seconds of the first ticket being handed out. I have no idea what the courts will say, being that this will be taking place in California, but it should be interesting.
In the end, it’s not the particular law that I disagree with, but the potential for a slippery slope that could form if it is upheld. How about we ban public consumption of sugar, it’s bad for you too.
Common Sense:
If you do smoke, please don’t do so around others who do not approve and try to quit as soon as possible
If you don’t smoke, never take it up. Smoking is a disgusting and dangerous habit.
November 18th, 2006 at 5:46 pm
Agreed, pretty much 100%
November 18th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Glad that I’m agreeable
December 1st, 2006 at 6:03 pm
Why exactly do you approve of smoking bans in resturants? They aren’t exactly ‘public’ places, they are owned by people that SHOULD have the right to decide whether to allow smoking or not. People that are offended (or just don’t like smoke) are not required to enter into any resturant (not counting food courts in malls, or other such scenarios).
I don’t smoke (ex-smoker) and I still believe that the owner of a business should be the decider and not the government.
Nice site though
December 2nd, 2006 at 8:54 pm
I tend not to support excessive regulation of businesses, but when it comes to smoking, the savings seem to justify the loss of choice.
Think about it. Secondhand smoke causes tens of thousands of cases of disease a year, and I’m willing to bet a fair number of those are uninsured (especially restaurants workers). Imagine how much all those unpaid emergency room bills (likely paid for by government) and Medicaid/Medicare bills much add up.
In my mind, extra regulation is well worth the monetary savings of not allowing smoking in restaurants. Kind of like how they have to follow food safety laws.
December 2nd, 2006 at 8:54 pm
And thanks for the compliment on the site.