Yes ladies and gents, the smoking ban is going before the City Council on April 12th at 7:30pm. The place is the Civic Center in downtown Midland. They are expecting enough people to show up that City Hall will be too small and soon over-run.
They're right.
Listen, like the ban or not, the end result is that it would be big brother put in charge of telling us... ALL of us, how to live our lives. I think that in and of itself is just wrong.
But get this! Dr. Vogel is quoted as saying that if the City Council does not vote themselves to pass the ban, that they will not push for a vote. However, they will continue to pursue the ban itself in the future and believe it is inevitable.
IN OTHER WORDS: Vote for it Now... or Vote for it Later... but you will Vote FOR it.
How's that for democracy in action?
Forget about teenagers running around with shot guns in town...
Forget about teens and alcohol and D.W.I.'s and all that...
Forget about child predators driving around the schools asking little girls if they "need a ride"...
NO! LET'S STOP SECOND HAND SMOKE!! Yeah... that's the real danger out there, hmm?
Okay, hoping down off my soap box. Have a nice day!
5 comments:
Ladies and Gents: Meet Dr. John Riggs, aka Riggs Sensei - my aikido instructor.
Well Sensei, I think this is one of those times that we will have to agree to disagree. I understand your points and in truth, I agree with them more.
And no, loosing loved ones to cancer is never easy. I've losed friends and family to cancer. I HAVE friends and family with cancer right now. BUT...
If this were a health issue only, I'd have no problem. But this is a Rights issue primarily and that is the problem.
I truly believe that passing this regulation is the first of many steps down the "Path of Limitation." Put big government in charge of telling us what is right and wrong has to have a limit. Odessa allows their businesses to be Yes... or No. No confusion and no problems. Midland can do the same thing. But to just grandly make everyone do the same thing? It's simply wrong.
I don't like smoking, I don't like smoke, cigarette butts, the smell, the mess... any of it. But I'm not going to let Mr. Mayor be the one to dictate what my wife can or can't do and where. THAT is the American way.
I respectfully and regretably dis-agree.
Ok Boz-I understand the rights issue-but do the smokers have the right to violate the right of the non-smoker when doing so poses a health risk for the non-smoker. I fall back on the earlier statement. Figure out how to control smoke and keep it from the non-smoker and then you can chose your own execution method. Are you a former smoker? I've noticed that the most sensitive people to this issue are the ones who either smoke or have previously. They want their rights preserved but are not willing to understand or recognize that the rights of others are being violated. It's a rights issue for sure but a serious health issue as well.
Hi Ed.
It's both: Health and Rights.
If health issues are the concern and nothing changes, then we have the status quo.
If rights issues are the concern and the ban goes in place, it becomes a precedent for future "rights" that will become "not your right's" and where will that end?
Thankfully, or not, the city council has decreed everyone go one way or the other but neither the two shall meet. I hope that it is a good compromise for all, but only time will tell.
I appreciate your feedback and am thankful we can keep it professional. Thanks for that. ;)
"If health issues are the concern and nothing changes, then we have the status quo."
Health issues are definitely the concern. However, rights are currently being violated-those of the non-smoker (a growing segment of society).
"If rights issues are the concern and the ban goes in place, it becomes a precedent for future "rights" that will become "not your right's" and where will that end?"
A precedent-rights are being violated for non-smokers. Is it okay to set the precedent for that as well? We are worrying about the rights of the very people who do not show concern for the rights of others-non-smokers. I don't see how this can move to larger issues. Each issue is separate and has its own merits or demerits. To assume controlling the rights of those who refuse to respect the rights of non-smokers to not be exposed to cigarette smoke and to be able to travel and go anywhere in a free society, will lead to other rights violations does not hold much water. You can choose your own poison as long as it does not violate the rights of others to move about and be free from violation every time they go to eat or participate in a public function. When you violate the rights of others, then you expose yourself to have your offending rights removed. If smokers wish to not have their rights violated, then it is incumbent on them to figure out how to not violate the rights of others. This is an issue of choice as well-if you choose to smoke then certain obligations come with that behavior: consideration for the rights of others, respect for the environment (don't get me started on that one) by not throwing cigarette butts on the ground, recognition of the health effects of your behavior, recognition of the burden you place on the heathcare system when your habits become pathological, etc.
Thankfully, or not, the city council has decreed everyone go one way or the other but neither the two shall meet. I hope that it is a good compromise for all, but only time will tell.
P.S. It is good to know you have been smoke free for 3 weeks now. I can tell it in your endurance on the mat.
So what about the rights of smokers? Do we have the right to regulate their behavior? When it affects them personally and only personally, I'd say no. However, until they can control the smoke from their cigarettes and keep them only in their own lungs-I'd say absolutely.
Post a Comment