Let me get this straight: I don't care if you smoke yourself to death. I really don't care. I may be sad if you do, but I don't care.
Sorry.
Therefore, I'm not trying to protect yourself from yourself.
I'm trying to protect ME from you. You and your nasty habit and your carcinogenic secondhand smoke. I'm trying to protect the people I Iove (which may or may not include you) from dying from your nasty habit.
If you want to smoke, OK, fine. Go ahead. Smoke all you want to. In your home. In your car. Standing outside buildings. In alleys. In designated smoking sections. Sitting isolated on a park bench somewhere. Segregated from people with more brains and self-control than you seem to possess. Just not around me.
'Smoke, smoke, smoke that cigarette/ Puff puff puff it 'til you puff yourself to death.' I really don't care.
Is that so hard to understand?
I want to be able to enjoy my life without smelling like an ashtray; like you.
Therefore, I want the Champaign City Council to IMMEDIATELY take up the smoking ban. Don't wait for the students to come back;; that's just a phony delaying tactic and we all know it. The only students who ever show up for council meetings are student journalists anyway.
In case you missed it, last night the Champaign Council managed to reverse Mayor Smokey's little end run and reinstate (sort of) a study session on the proposed smoke-free ordinance. Or at least on some kind of a limited smoke-free ordinance.
Poor Mayor Smokey was beside himself. He had NO idea someone would circulate a petition. He was angry. (Or course, last week, HE was the one circulating the surprise petition... What goes around comes around, Jer).
The new proposal wouldn't ban smoking in ALL restaurants and bars, just some. But it might mean there'll be a couple more restaurants and bars that I might feel welcome in.
It's a start.
It works elsewhere. It can work here. Put out your cigarette, Mayor Smokey, and start serving your city. And ALL its residents. Remember, the majority of us DON'T smoke. But all of us breathe. We'd like to keep it that way.
And so it goes.
10 comments:
Therefore, I'm not trying to protect yourself from yourself.
No, you're trying to protect people from smokers. But these people are already capable of protecting themselves - stay away from smoking-allowed businesses. If enough people do so, and tell those businesses why they're staying away, then more businesses will go smoke-free voluntarily.
As it is, you're trying to restrict the property rights of the business owner in order to protect people who aren't willing to protect themselves.
Exactly! I'm asking that society do the same thing it does in any situation that threatens the health and safety of the public. Society restricts driving drunk because drunk drivers threaten safety.It's the same thing.
As far as business owners rights, businesses are always subject to the laws of the society in which they operate.
I don't get how you anti smokers say that he tried to sneak somthing bye the coucil they all signd mayor smokys pettion and it was voted down. Bruno on the other hand didnt ask all council people he didnt even let mayor smokey now it had passed untill he announced it. that seems a little more of a supries than what ol jers was.
Hey I liked the Biology major that stated people wernt going to the bars to smok they were going there to get drunk. If we ban smoking thathe and his friends would go to the bars to get drunk too. now thats logic.
You know, I think drunk driving is legal in your own driveway.
Exactly! I'm asking that society do the same thing it does in any situation that threatens the health and safety of the public. Society restricts driving drunk because drunk drivers threaten safety.It's the same thing.
As far as business owners rights, businesses are always subject to the laws of the society in which they operate.
Usually laws are needed when the public cannot protect themselves, i.e, in the case of drunk driving. In this case, the average citizen is more than capable of protecting themselves from the biohazard you call secondhand smoke. People can choose which business establishments to patronize. Business owners can choose whether they'd like to go smoke-free to attract nanny-staters. The system's not broke, no law is needed. Organize a boycott and/or publicity campaign. If that fails miserably, then obviously this movement doesn't have the passionate support that the CPPFT claims it does. Asking for a law without even trying to get businesses to do this voluntarily just smacks of laziness, frankly.
You can chose whether or not to drive drunk, too. The fact is, even in an area where smoking is legitimately banned, smokers are welcomed, too. They just can't smoke there.
The system IS broken when you can impose your hazardous actions upon me while I am in a place that is opened to the public. Yes, I can chose not to go to that establishment (and I do). However, by your decision to chose to smoke there, you are denying me MY right to chose.
Asking for protection from secondhand smoke isn"t nannystate action, it's legitimate protection for its citizens.
We are protected from CFCs, we are protected from toxic chemicals, dangerous emissions and other hazardous waste. Why shouldn't we also be protected from hazardous secondhand smoke?
Interesting perspective Ol' Jax.
I think you're pretty much dead on about students not attending the City Council meetings, except for the intrepid reporters (and my co-workers) at the DI. However, this rumbling for a smoking ban has peaked my interest and I've given thought to attending CCC meetings in the future, it's just that work tends to interfere.
I do believe there is small portion of the student body dedicated to the smoking ban, and I wouldn't be surprised if they engaged themselves in the debate when they were on campus. After all, I can't remember the last time students turned DOWN a chance to protest.
You can chose whether or not to drive drunk, too.
Well, of course. But I thought we were talking about behaviors that endanger others. How is a non-drinker supposed to avoid drunken drivers? They can't. Hence, a law is needed.
Non-smokers can very easily avoid smokers simply by patronizing non-smoking establishments, of which there are approximately 150 in CU. Choice works, and it can work in this case, if only the nanny-staters weren't so lazy.
Spot on, IlliniPundit.
It's almost as if people have forgotten what a boycott is.
Post a Comment