First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.
In my small, adopted, hometown of Strasburg, Virginia, a new ordinance is being considered:
No Smoking at the Park--anywhere
Now, I want to preface this with the fact that I absolutely HATE breathing in cigarette smoke...heck I hate breathing in any smoke. With that said, I am 100% opposed to the banning of smoking in a taxpayer funded park.
First, second hand smoke (especially outdoors) has been shown, scientifically, to not be a serious threat, if a threat at all, to a non smoker's health. Sure it may make you cough or wrinkle your nose, but it is not going to give you cancer...especially outdoors.
Second, second hand smoke exposure is not one of the reasons given for banning smoking. The reasons given were littering of cigarette butts and possible fire hazard. I'd like to know how they expect smokers to not litter when the town does not provide anywhere to put butts...and if litter is the issue then we must ban water bottles, take away drink cups, snack foods, and candy, because I see those things all over the place (and there are trash bins available). Also, if fire was such a worry (which there are plenty of places to smoke at the park with no danger of starting a mulch fire) why did we have a fire works display this year?...it's been very dry here this year.
Third, there has not even been an attempt to find a common ground with smokers. Ban the smoker is the first thing that they come up with.
Fourth, our police are already "hated" for their enforcement of ordinances and laws, do we really need to add another level of "piss off a portion of the public" for them? Also, enforcement will come on a complaint basis, so basically it's "tattle on your neighbor"...slippery slope people, slippery slope.
No, after attending the public work-session it is clear to this citizen that the majority of the council do not like the smell of cigarettes and think they should tell people how to live. Once again a legal activity is being attacked because people don't like it. ...they are not planning to ban it on public sidewalks or outside of buildings (yet), but as one council member said, "the park is a place of recreation...people go there to recreate and relax...there's no reason people have to smoke there." Well, we're trying to revitalize our down town to make it more pedestrian friendly, a place of recreation if you will. It's not a far off thought to realize soon smoking will be banned in town too. ...what's next? giant sodas? perfume? snacks?
Banning legal activities and mandates from government should be about public safety not personal preference... Do we really believe in freedom for all or just freedom for us?
Second, second hand smoke exposure is not one of the reasons given for banning smoking. The reasons given were littering of cigarette butts and possible fire hazard. I'd like to know how they expect smokers to not litter when the town does not provide anywhere to put butts...and if litter is the issue then we must ban water bottles, take away drink cups, snack foods, and candy, because I see those things all over the place (and there are trash bins available). Also, if fire was such a worry (which there are plenty of places to smoke at the park with no danger of starting a mulch fire) why did we have a fire works display this year?...it's been very dry here this year.
Third, there has not even been an attempt to find a common ground with smokers. Ban the smoker is the first thing that they come up with.
Fourth, our police are already "hated" for their enforcement of ordinances and laws, do we really need to add another level of "piss off a portion of the public" for them? Also, enforcement will come on a complaint basis, so basically it's "tattle on your neighbor"...slippery slope people, slippery slope.
No, after attending the public work-session it is clear to this citizen that the majority of the council do not like the smell of cigarettes and think they should tell people how to live. Once again a legal activity is being attacked because people don't like it. ...they are not planning to ban it on public sidewalks or outside of buildings (yet), but as one council member said, "the park is a place of recreation...people go there to recreate and relax...there's no reason people have to smoke there." Well, we're trying to revitalize our down town to make it more pedestrian friendly, a place of recreation if you will. It's not a far off thought to realize soon smoking will be banned in town too. ...what's next? giant sodas? perfume? snacks?
Banning legal activities and mandates from government should be about public safety not personal preference... Do we really believe in freedom for all or just freedom for us?
To read a great story about the possible outcome of over regulated government control and it's results in the world you might enjoy my first novel:
