Now They're Banning What You Do INSIDE Your Home!

now does this affect just cigarette smokers or all the potheads out of luck now too?

 

thanks, good catch! i should've verified the proper spelling...

 

FTFY

 

The "mob", in this case, were the majority of voters. The voters in this city unanimously voted for this.

Spin it any way you like, but this is a perfect example of democracy at work in our country. It would appear that smoking voters are in the minority in San Rafael.

Looked at a different way -- what if the minority of people in our country made the decisions, while the majority had those rules/laws forced down their throats? That is something else entirely and definitely not democracy.

 

since i'm being accused of distorting things, i'll take the liberty to point out that the "voters" as you say it, did not vote unanimously - i.e. there was no "referendum" vote... it was the city council, a handful of people, who voted unanimously...

"democracy" is two wolves and a lamb deciding on what to eat for dinner - in a republic w/ checks-n-balances, the "minority" are protected to a large extent by enumerated rights and a judicial system that should back that up...

what you are in fact espousing is the "mob mentality"... just be glad you aren't in the minority on this issue, ...but you could be on the next one...

 

I am not sure about my thermosat but maybe if they regulated my thermostat then I could save some money each month. Most likely they will keep it at 80 degrees in the winter and my wife will tell me, "told you so."

As inefficient as government is I have a feeling it would flow over to my thermostat control as well.

 

Great post

 

Alright and how about the servers? Are you going to get up and grab your own food or are they going to have to get cancer to serve you? No business owner is going to hire 2 people to do 1 person's job, he'll just hire the one that "doesn't mind" getting cancer for a less than minimum wage job. How about another one, are you going to cover the increased health care costs they'll have to pay due to the hazardous work conditions you are causing?

Now here is one for you wiley. Let say we're neighbor's. I have a large collection of used tires, and I decide to get rid of them by burning them, even though the wind is pushing the smoke right on to your property and into your house. I decide I like the smoke and am going to keep a tire burning there for as long as I live. You ask me to stop, and i say fuck off this is my property. You call the cops and they tell you pretty much the same thing. Your point of view is I should be left alone right? I mean its my house, my property, I'm the only one i'm affecting right?

The needs of the many out weight the desires of a few. People are tired of DYING because you're too weak to give up a pretty much pointless habit, and you're too inconsiderate to go somewhere where it wont affect them.

 

80 degrees? you'd save money??????

.........................

 

burning tires in your backyard and smoking INSIDE your home are NOT equivalent... of course in some locales you can burn stuff in your backyard - mainly a zoning regulation... what i am pointing out has to do w/ a legal activity inside the privacy of one's home... the home is our only real place of refuge from the outside..

 

Now look who is calling on the laws to stop people from doing something...

Um ok, let say me and you LIVE in a multifamily home (like the law says) and I decide to start burning tires INSIDE the multi family home. Now I fit the criteria exactly like you want, and I'm good now that i'm inside right? wrong!

 

Agree with the OP that this is a Republic not a total Democracy or the few would have no voice against the many when it comes to choosing governing regulations and also look down on any form of infringement on personal choice or personal rights, If i want to eat red meat, use tobacco, own firearms then it is a personal choice. Personally I find tobacco disgusting and hate walking through a cloud of smoke, but would never take that right to choose from anyone.

 

Poor choice of words on my part, I suppose. Let me rephrase -- a small number of residents of San Raphael came out in opposition of this ordinance, while a majority were in favor. Seems like the system is working as it should. Had the majority of people found their way to council meetings in opposition, we would most likely not be having this discussion and people could continue puffing away in their duplex.

 

+1 thankyou - i only wish more could see this for what it is...

 

how in the world do you extrapolate that from what i've said???? bizarre!

 

No one is taking away their right to choose to smoke, they're taking away their ability to force that decision on everyone else. It's like drinking and driving. It isn't illegal because it's dangerous for you, it's illegal because it is dangerous for everyone else. It's not illegal to own guns, it's illegal to shoot other people with them. And if/when you do harm someone else with your gun, drinking and driving, your vicious dogs, etc you are expected to pay the price for YOU PERSONAL CHOICE. Until recently smokers were exempt from this, that is changing.

 

the system works, so long as the council is found not to overstep their authority in doing so... public support, alone, doesn't justify infringements on civil rights, property rights, etc... ever heard of the "dredd scott decision" - case in point

 

Happy. Banning smoking in bars everyone thought was going to kill the entertainment industry, business for them has since exploded.