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.
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.
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.