As a firm believer in free market capitalism, I have no problem with business owners choosing — on their own accord — to either allow or prohibit smoking within their establishments. As consumers, we can likewise choose where to spend our money based on those decisions.
When politicians pass sweeping bans affecting the very ability to use a legal product, though, the free market has been replaced by a nanny state government.
A New Jersey city council recently approved an ordinance that prohibits smoking on all public property, including outdoor areas such as parks.
While the mayor contended the ruling “is about protecting our children, giving our residents the right to enjoy our outdoor facilities and public spaces without putting their health at risk, and keeping our landscape clean,” smokers inevitably feel it also serves as yet another bureaucratic slap in the face.
Of course ,this incident is far from the only widespread municipal ban on smoking. When one resident of a Missouri city that passed a similar ordinance in 2011 expressed his displeasure, the case made it to the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
His argument centered around an unfair persecution of smokers while various other pollutants receive virtually no scrutiny or prohibition.
Though his case revealed the fallacy of thought displayed by the anti-smoking left, he was ultimately unsuccessful in convincing the judge that such bans are unconstitutional.
In his ruling, the chief judge explained it really doesn’t matter “whether outdoor secondhand smoke exposure actually causes harm,” noting that since “the city reasonably could believe this to be true, the ordinance survives.”
An attorney representing the disgruntled smoker, though, wondered how the city could believe the claim at all, considering there is precious little empirical proof.
“There is a class warfare element to this thing that is unattractive,” the lawyer said, “and we’re pushing for liberty.” He went on to say that smokers are treated as “pariahs in polite, sophisticated society” while working-class citizens “smoke all the time.”
The upper echelon of the nation’s citizenry has always been the focus of leftist policy, which makes it far more nauseating to see them characterize conservatives as caring only for the rich.
B. Christopher Agee founded The Informed Conservative in 2011. Like his Facebook page for engaging, relevant conservative content daily.
Photo credit: hegarty_david (Creative Commons)
Please share this post with your friends and comment below. If you haven’t already, take a moment to sign up for our free newsletter above and friend us on Twitter and Facebook to get real time updates.
Follow @WestJournalism
Loading ...
They should start by targeting BO, I bet he is still a pack a day guy!
is it only ironic to me that the government is taking people off cigarette smoking and putting them on pot smoking? Confused here??&&@@#$
First I write th city and tell them that I won’t be visiting their city and spending my moey while vacationing, look carefully at online business addresses to make sure it is not based there and support the city in no way shape or form. With no proof cigarettes cause anything, it is just another way for people to determine how people live. When they stop the blue haired lady with enough hair spray on her head to self combust, perfume to choke a rock, and enough bath products to distill and run a buick…I won’t have anything to do with this city or others with the same dumb mindset.
Do not come to San Antonio Tx. We have bans on indoor, out door, bars, restaurants and in our cars and they want to ban smoking in our private homes. I quit years ago but have no problem with someone lighting up.
Sounds like paradise! I’m on my way!
dont spend your moey? spelling 101
I don’t like the smell of cigs and I don’t want to have the smell on me. Wish there was a way that the smoke doesn’t affect the air of others but it does. If cigs didn’t go into the air and affect others I would have no problem but it doesn’t. The smoker is literally blowing smoke at people around them. Sure they can blow up toward the sky but it still comes down and around. My Mom died of Lung cancer at 53. A friend just died last Monday at 54 from Lung Cancer. Another friend smoked and died of 51 from tongue cancer. Her tongue was taken out a couple yrs ago but it spread already. I am 60 and have NEVER even tried to smoke a cig. Both of my parents smoked. I guess I just didn’t have the desire and plus I hate the smell and didn’t want to smell like that. There are people who are suing the Cig companies and I think that is bogus because everyone knows that if you smoke there is a big chance you can get lung cancer or throat cancer or mouth cancer etc. Its just sad because I see how it is so addicting and people cannot stop. My youngest sister smokes and she saw how our mother suffered but she still smokes. It’s just so sad how something can pretty much take over your life. What I mean is she has tried to stop several times, different ways such as Gum and other things but she just can’t stop! I do think they may be getting carried away with the banning. Like I think its a good idea in restaurants. But like in San Diego you cannot smoke on the beaches. I guess in a way its good because people leave their cig butts all over the beaches but maybe enforce NOT leaving cig butts on the sand or whatever. I don’t know!! I do agree that Gov is getting way to much into our private lives!!! I say they start with OBummer! I wonder if he is able to smoke on Air Force One or IN the WH. He should have to abide by the rules just like everyone else. Better yet put him in a Closet when he smokes!! I think that the smoke he blows out is full of Evil and we don’t need any more of that getting around. There are enough of those EvilDoer’s in the WH as it is.
If people want to smoke and there’s no way it has an impact on others, that’s fine; like in your own home, with all the windows and doors closed. But anywhere else, even in your car, forget it, because that smoke smell and all the crap that goes with it gets everywhere. Now IF the tobacco companies would stop putting all the chemicals in the tobacco, that they use, maybe they wouldn’t be as addictive or damaging, but the fact is, they make too many people seriously ill, and many of those people have no insurance so the taxpayers end up paying for their diseases, and that is wrong! We all know smoking is bad for us, yet too many young people take up the habit. I don’t understand why more isn’t done to really educate our youth about the detrimental effects these habits have on everyone’s health and well being. Furthermore, California imposed a tax quite a while ago, that was intended to provide anti-tobacco education to school kids. Where has all that money gone for all those years, because the young are still lighting up?
Well, for one thing, if someone is smoking in their car with the window open, even though I keep my windows closed and use the air conditioner, I still get it sometimes. And if I order a meal in a restaurant that allows smoking, the cost of cleanup of smoke on walls, ceiling, etc., and the cost of health care for employees who smoke, all get included in the price of my food. It HAS to be that way.
I really only know of one way to educate kids. Don’t smoke yourself, ever, and tell them smoking is bad. And it doesn’t always work. One of our kids became a smoker in spite of our best efforts, and refuses even to speak to me because I don’t think it’s OK. Things like that also have a negative impact on family relationships. My mother, a lifelong non-smoking, and sensitive, has to put up with second-hand smoke from her son-in-law because he refuses to stop (he even went through detox, and the moment he was out the door, he lit up), because she no longer can live alone, and they have noplace else to go, so they all live together. He goes outside, but obviously, he brings it in on his clothes.
The thing that makes smoking unique (and not analogous to all the other examples raised) is that it DOES affect other people and causes harm, because of the smoke in the air. It’s that simple. Nobody has a right to force anyone else to breathe tobacco smoke. As for other types of pollution, everyone knows it’s bad, and we all try to clean it up, but at least when it comes from manufacturing, there is something good that comes out of it. The only thing that comes out of smoking is disease, heartache, a dirty environment, and money down the drain.
This article makes me feel a sense of outrage. Subjecting unconsenting people to second-hand smoke is a form of aggression. It is entirely proper for the government to prohibit such types of aggression. We have the right to own guns, but we do not have the right to point them at other people and gratuitously shoot them. You are suggesting that just because a person chooses to aggress with second-hand smoke within a building owned by a private individual, he is free to aggress. The owner of the building doesn’t have the right to allow one guest to aggress against another guest, either with a gun or second-hand smoke. These ordinances were passed because smokers refused to stop aggressing against other people without them. Victims DEMANDED these ordinances.
I have heard all the arguments in favor of allowing smoking aggression. I don’t buy one of them. I think it is SICK that CONSERVATIVES would not recognize this as aggression. We ought to know better. It is also not comparable to other forms of pollution simply because other forms of pollution may be inevitable or difficult to control, but are produced in pursuit of a legitimate goal. We should minimize all pollution. But smoking is a voluntary act. Sure, tobacco is highly addictive. But people choose to smoke in the first place, and they can choose the time and place of smoking once they are addicted. There isn’t a reason in the world why a smoker cannot wait five minutes and go to his car to smoke. But the inconvenience or even health risks to people can be significant. What if you enter a small town after 9, and the only restaurant open is in a casino? What if smoking makes a person go into a coughing fit that could kill him if he has a heart problem? There is simply no excuse whatsoever for NOT recognizing that smoking around others IS a form of aggression. The PURPOSE of government is to protect the people from aggression. It is in no way, shape, or form, an example of a nanny state. And if you happen to live in a state where marijuana is legal, it is equally proper to prohibit smoking marijuana around an unconsenting person as well. Marijuana is extremely harmful. And second-hand tobacco smoke can kill a person, even if it is a slow and painful death that takes months or years.
And yes, we should ban fluoride in the drinking water for the very same reason.
Shame on you!
I do see it as aggression – indoors.
Similarly, I have never smoked indoors unless everyone else lit up – and the inside of my home is a no-smoking zone (my wife is asthmatic.)
However, I take exception to disallowing smoking OUTDOORS IN OPEN AIR. If it’s done because people are littering with their butts, then dock them for littering and send them before the beak for that. (JFTR, I’ve never dropped a butt, either. I smoked filterless – so I’d twist out about a half-inch of loose tobacco leaf and eat the paper. Part of the reason I quit was because I was tired of being lumped in with the lazy buggers who just left a trail of bread crumbs/cigarette butts…
If you’re outside, and a smoker is outside, how much secondhand smoke can you get if you’re not six inches away from him and/or he’s not exhaling directly in your face?
Disallowing smoking indoors makes sense. Disallowing smoking outdoors is stupid. (NB: There are some people who smoke in moderation on medical advice, in fact. There are some conditions that are known to be helped by having one or two smokes a day. I’m one of the odder cases – I’ve had a headache for the last five and a half years, and it’s only helped by a suitable application of caffeine and/or nicotine. Ergo, I have a cigar or two a month, usually at home, and usually right next to an ashtray. At least cigars aren’t contaminated with the stuff that gets used on cigarettes…)
Actually, you’d be surprised at how much smoke a person can get from second-hand smoke 6 inches OR MORE away from a smoker outdoors. It can be enough to send me into coughing fits. A coughing fit generally lasts for at least 15 minutes, and can cause me to come close to losing my supper. Furthermore, marijuana smoke is even worse. I can get a splitting headache (the likes of which I never before experienced) just from one tiny whiff of marijuana smoke from a smoker in the next apartment, not sharing any ducting with the apartment I am in, and both closed up tight because of winter weather. I’ve had it happen. So if I go near the door to a building, and there are smokers standing upwind of the entrance, I have to hold my breath and scurry by. If you are a smoker (and apparently you are), you don’t understand how much effect second-hand smoke has on someone. A close relative of mine died from lung cancer caused by second-hand smoke. She never smoked herself. Granted, she was exposed to more than just smoke outside. But there are hundreds of toxic chemicals in tobacco smoke, so it is definitely a hazard for anyone. I’m not advocating banning smoking outdoors provided you are not close to a person who objects, and people can go where they need to go without breathing your smoke. And to make matters worse, some tobacco blends contain monosodium glutimate (to enhance flavor), and this is a deadly neurotoxin, to which some people are sufficiently sensitive that one dose can kill them. I am sensitive enough that I get violently ill if I get one bite of good with MSG in it. Dr. Russell Blaylock (MD) has written a book about how harmful MSG is. My suspicion is that the tobacco blends I react to are the ones that contain MSG.
A friend of mine, who smokes, puts her butts down the pipes that make up her horse corrals because they kill black widows. Tobacco is basically a pesticide.
That should read “one bite of FOOD”.
I don’t smoke regularly anymore – as I said, I tried to be considerate and clean (not littering, moving away from people when asked, not smoking indoors even when allowed,) but it seems as though smoking is being just as reviled as firearms – more people are killed by drunk drivers every year than are shot unlawfully, but no-one is trying to ban booze or cars – just guns.
No-one is banning candy machines or small snacks, but they’ll go after smokes in a hot minute.
Yes, by and large, I will freely admit that most smokers are inconsiderate jackasses who probably shouldn’t be allowed in public in the first place, until they learn some manners. But, I think it’s using bolt cutters to remove a pimple to ban smoking outright everywhere – some of us ARE considerate when we smoke, I know I was. And, I would often end up setting the example for people who were smoking with me….
Let me remind you that the law doesn’t affect those who are considerate! So I’m not exactly sure why you are upset about the law. The law is for those who do harm.
Candy machines and small snacks don’t make other people in the room sick. That’s the difference. Be careful not to use false analogies. Anything that doesn’t affect another person is not in the same category as smoking, and candy and snacks fall into the category that they don’t harm anyone but the person who indulges. On the other hand, it is illegal to drive drunk, so effectively, “booze AND cars together” are banned.
If something is a threat to my life, it’s not using bolt cutters if it is made illegal in places I am likely to need to visit. I have seen many a case where the mere fact that smoking in certain places was illegal, that saved a lot of grief.
Prior to the smoking ban, I was using a laundromat one night. The place was empty until after I put my clothes in the wash. Then a man came in and put in his clothes and then sat down right next to me and lit up. I asked him politely to go outside, since it was a nice night, and he almost hauled off and hit me. The laundromat was owned by a couple of guys who were smokers, but the next day I told them what had happened, and said they would be legally liable if anyone got hurt on the premises because they allow smoking. They had No Smoking signs up within 24 hours. Smoking ordinances make it much easier for people like me who are experiencing aggression. Not everyone can represent themselves in court like I do, and not everyone can afford a lawyer.
When it comes to accommodations open to the public, it is well settled law that the premises of such a place must abide by the law of hospitality. They must be fit for the person who was invited to enter. So it is not really a new departure from the law to ban smoking in such places, because smoking make such places uninhabitable for some people. And by the way, the ramifications of smoking can go further than most people imagine. One night I was staying in a no smoking room in a motel, but the office always had extra pillows to lend out, and the pillows got mixed together indiscriminately. That night, I got a pillow that had been exposed to tobacco smoke, and it made it almost impossible for me to sleep. I almost left the motel and drove home dead tired, but I felt that was more unsafe than staying. So I suffered all night. Another time, workers who were installing cable TV and internet smoked in a no smoking room, and then I rented the room, not being aware of it. Third hand smoke (smoke left on surfaces, clothing, hair, etc. is also a problem. Another time, I agreed to let a friend bring one of her friends with her on a trip we took together. I didn’t know the woman was a smoker. She laid her smoke-filled clothing next to where I had to sit, and when we rented a no-smoking room, she hung them next to my bed. She was probably breaking the rules even to bring them inside. She never smoked around me, but that didn’t prevent problems.
I suppose it’s just the fact that there are people out there – “some” of a certain group – that screws it up for the whole group;
This results in legislative bodies “swatting a fly with a sledgehammer” – which usually ends up going entirely too far and taking rights away from everyone (I’m not saying that there’s a “right” to smoke – but my earlier Second Amendment parallel becomes more valid when we’re talking about rights.)
As I said, I didn’t quit smoking cigarettes for my health. I quit because I got tired of getting the stinkeye for it even AFTER someone saw me leave no butt, and I decided I was spending too much money a month on the habit anyhow.
No, there’s no “right” to smoke. But, the fight is similar to what gun enthusiasts go through – being further and further marginalised, and more and more demonised in the press, until it’s become impossible to shoot or collect firearms LEGALLY.
The “smoking movement” can also be likened to the Civil Rights movement in the 1960′s – except where Blacks were pushed to the back of the bus, smokers were pushed right OFF the bus entirely!
And, honestly, I think that rudeness among smokers has increased of late as a backlash against all of the laws and regulations that smokers are saddled with.
I still maintain that the West Covina reg is stupid – if I can’t have a smoke in my back yard, in open air, over a barbecue; isn’t that going too far?
It’s also irritating that they have to use specious justifications to pass the regs – instead of saying that they just don’t want you to smoke. I dislike being lied to, especially when it’s to cover something up that really doesn’t need to be covered. Smoking being considered an ‘environmental pollutant,’ passing a smoking ban to ‘reduce litter’ (there are already litter ordinances in pretty much every single jurisdiction in the United States,) and the like – if you don’t want me to smoke, JUST SAY SO. Don’t use a specious justification to mask your intention, I can usually see through those anyhow, and I’m good at figuring out when I’m being lied to.
All I ask is, if you don’t want me to smoke at all (I’ll be outside,) catch me BEFORE I rev up my cigar. Once it’s lit, I’m doing to smoke it – I’m not wasting it, and they’re horrible if they go out and need to be relit (the oils that travel up the leaves crystallize when the flame goes out, and that gives a VERY bitter taste through the rest of the smoke.) I’ll move away, but I’m not going to put it out once it gets started. Fair enough? (Chances are I asked before I lit up anyhow.)
“people out there… that screws it up for the whole group.”
No. If you don’t do something that harms others, the law shouldn’t affect you. If you smoke in your back yard, it depends on how close the neighbors are, really. If you live next to me in a condominium, I won’t be able to go outside if you smoke a cigar. It is definitely NOT swatting a fly with a sledgehammer. Smoking HARMS OTHERS. ALWAYS. The law is what it is to act as a deterrent. Whatever is needed to deter is entirely proper. (Nobody is advocating a prison term or the death penalty, which WOULD be a sledgehammer. And people who smoke are using the death penalty on innocent people; the mere fact it takes awhile for it to kill doesn’t change what they’re doing.) The harm done is not comparable to the harm caused by a fly. In any case, I’d use a sledgehammer on a tsetse fly.
The Second Amendment argument doesn’t apply. There is a right to bear arms. There isn’t a right to smoke. Totally different situation. It’s not comparable to the Civil Rights movement, either. There is no right to smoke. Civil Rights apply to those with different physical characteristics (such as having dark skin), which are beyond a person’s control. Smoking isn’t beyond a person’s control. He may be addicted, but he can still choose time and place. Anti-smoking laws are about BEHAVIOR, not state of being.
I have seen NO evidence that the rudeness of smokers has increased. On the contrary. One time, someone who appeared to be a Mexican national lit up in the mall. He didn’t seem to understand my English, so I said, “Es contra la ley fumar en el mall.” He promptly put out his cigarette and threw it away. This was another example of how the existence of the law provided a peaceful solution.
Speaking of spending too much on the habit, my husband and I decide to spend our “tobacco money” on books. We’ve been married 45 years, and we have 30,000 books.
Don’t think that the reasons behind a law are specious. They’re not. The reasons are simple: smoking harms others, so you are forbidden to do it around others. And even though you THINK smoking outside doesn’t add to pollution, it really does. If you add up the amount of smoking that goes on, it releases a TREMENDOUS amount of harmful chemicals into the air worldwide, all totally unnecessary. The tobacco farmland could be used to grow food.
As for catching you before you light up, how am I supposed to do that, WITHOUT having a nanny state spying on everyone? And if you DO light up, if you insist on finishing, you put MORE harmful material into the air than you would if you put it out. If it tastes bad re-lit, throw it away. You chose to light up under illegal circumstances. You don’t get to finish disobeying the law just because you disobeyed it to begin with. “Fair enough?” Absolutely NOT! And how do you ask your neighbor if it’s OK for you to light up in your back yard anyway? You’re not making sense!
Maybe the ordinance you are complaining of is going too far. But in a housing development of apartments or condominiums, no, it’s not going too far. If everyone has three acres around his house, it is probably going too far. But remember equal protection. A law has to apply to everyone. If smoking is harmful to others in a housing development, you can’t just arbitrarily decide it’s not harmful to people who have three acres. And maybe a cigar has fewer harmful chemicals. But I find the smell of them positively nauseating, unlike the smell of cigarettes or pipes. So I can’t go outside at all, even if the neighbor is just smoking a cigar. And I’m not by myself. Lots of people find cigars objectionable.
I’ve talked about how harmful other people’s smoke is to me. And I don’t even have asthma or emphysema. Think how much I would suffer if I did. Think how much people who DO have these problems suffer. Nobody has a right to inflict suffering on anyone else.
How much isn’t the question! It’s why should we have to be exposed at all? We know even small amounts of second hand smoke can become problematic, so why should we be expected to tolerate it?
Got you beat – the city of West Covina (southern California) has banned smoking OUTDOORS WITHIN CITY LIMITS.
Yes, even on private property.. If you rev up your grill and decide to rev up a cigar while you’re at it, you can get cited for it.
How’s that for stupid?
I used to be a smoker. At the time, I tried to be considerate of people around me who did not want smoke blown all over them. I am the same way, was then, also. I don’t want people blowing their nasty second-hand smoke all over me while I eat at restaurants and such. Most smokers are rude, inconsiderate people who don’t care who is offended by their “habit” of blowing smoke on people. The bans wouldn’t have to be as all inclusive as they are if there was a little common consideration of others. Smokers bring these things on themselves by the rude way they treat others – smokers and non-smokers alike.
Yeah. Went through the same thing at De Anza college – they decided to ban smoking outright on campus – outdoors or in your own vehicle.
Why? Because people were just dropping butts everywhere, not using the ashtrays provided.
So, yeah. Even sitting in my own vehicle, I had a Kampus Kop come up and tell me that I wasn’t allowed to smoke there, doing homework in between classes. My ENCLOSED vehicle. With my ashtray, obviously used.
I tracked it back to the source, and was told that smoking was banned due to littering. I had a few problems with this:
1) It struck me as being like using a shotgun to remove a wart.
2) Butts weren’t the only litter.
3) Nothing was done to address the other litter left on the grounds – the snack machines were left unmolested, and people could still eat walking between classes.
I pointed this out and told them to just stop lying to me and come out and SAY is was about smoking.
Oddly, De Anza has a large Asian student population – and the incidence of smoking among Asians tends to be HUGE.
And banning smoking on campus didn’t stop them at all…
All this BS about smoking and smokers is an exercise in gullibility and stupidity no matter the side you are on. We stand back and let governments control behavior and then, what do we do, make smoking pot legal. Its amazing!
You’ve got a point! I won’t be traveling to Washington or Colorado until the law changes back. Marijuana smoke gives me a splitting headache, even if I am in a closed building, and so is the smoker, in a different building. And then there are the unisex bathrooms in Colorado. Don’t get me started! They’re becoming as bad as California!
@PatG -
Most of the ordinances against smoking are City-level, so let me haul out a couple of other City ordinances (I keep wanting to type that as “ordnance,” because thinking about it makes me want to blow things up…)
- There is a hedgerow down the North property line, front yard. It continues the fenceline and runs to the sidewalk. When we moved in, it was a solid 7-1/2″ high – and, per our neighbour, had been so for well over thirty years.
Suddenly, we get a letter from the City – we have ten days to take the hedgerow town to THIRTY-FOUR inches or less, or be fined $2,500 PER DAY. The hedgerow literally harmed no-one, and I liked it better when it was seven feet plus. The Code was stupid, and the fine for violation is all out of proportion.
- I’m a hobby mechanic. I have a vehicle awaiting restoration – once I get the garage cleared out. The vehicle in the driveway is covered, the wheels are blocked, and it is NOT leaking any fluids.
Same damned fool from the City came around and acted like he was trying to trim a hangnail with an ax. Little tin dictator-type. Being physically disabled, I can’t work very fast, so these things take time. Similar situation – ten days, or $2,500/day!
I ended up getting a Special Dispensation from the City, on account of my disability. Essentially, as long as it doesn’t become a mess, I get a pass.
Note that in BOTH of those cases, the fine is FAR more than a smoking offense – for something that literally harms NO ONE (except, possibly, through their own actions – playing with a wheel chock [which won't work very well, since I had three sets of chocks to put in place,] or not looking around the hedgerow before passing it [in which case, you deserve to get hit by whatever, I think.])
So your argument that the law “doesn’t do anything if you’re not harming anyone” doesn’t hold water, nor does your argument about being considerate as protection (since I was very careful when blocking the wheels on my vehicle awaiting restoration, covered it, &c &c. It’s not an eyesore, it’s not an environmental hazzard, and it’s not at all “unsafe.” Forcing me to pay a ridiculous rate to have it stored off-property and away from tools if I want to work on it is little more than extortion, to me.)
I have no intention of making anyone else suffer – unless they pose a threat (I’ve had people try to “mug” me – but to no avail. I may be disabled, but I’m not “unabled.”) What I take exception to is first being FORCED by action of law to do something i would do normally – then the “reasonable restrictions” being constantly expanded until you can’t do whatever anymore (in which case the Second Amendment argument remains valid – since that’s running parallel to the smoking issue. Yes, one is a right and the other a “privilege,” but the fights and laws are parallel and similar, just that the anti 2dA has no “moral high ground” to fall back on, and the entire argument is flawed given the basic premise they’re working against. I didn’t say it was a PERFECT comparison, just that the two are rather similar.)
OK, to begin with, Arizona has a state law prohibiting smoking in all places open to the public except Indian gaming buildings, and in all places with employees. It’s not just an ordinance, though there were some ordinances before the state ban was passed. And by the way, it was passed with a referendum, rather overwhelmingly.
I fail to see what difference it makes, though.
Your other two ordinances that you cited didn’t make any sense. In my opinion, both are bad laws. The one concerning the hedgerow was completely unnecessary and uncalled-for. A hedgerow truly doesn’t harm anyone. If they have some kind of value in the view, the neighbor might have a complaint, but in most cases, that is not the situation. A law that prohibits you from storing a vehicle to be restored, with adequate chocks and covered, on your driveway, is a bad law. After all, a covered vehicle might be a Ferrari in excellent shape. If it’s covered, you can’t tell. A law that simply says your yard has to look clean would be a better law, but still indefensible. Both laws OUGHT to have been deed restrictions instead. But be glad you weren’t faced with deed restrictions. They’re a LOT harder to defeat. I have defeated zoning, but not deed restrictions. Personally, I think complex zoning laws are evil and unconstitutional. If they want to say people can’t build a factory in my neighborhood, I’m all for that. But that’s about as far as it ought to go. Chances are, the fines could be found unconstitutional because they are unduly burdensome.
On the other hand, a well written anti-smoking law is a good law because smoking harms innocent people. So there is really no comparison between that and the two ordinances you mentioned. Just because a different ordinance is a bad law doesn’t make a smoking law a bad law. And no, if you are not actually smoking, they will have a hard time penalizing you for smoking. In both cases you described, you WERE doing something, it’s just that it shouldn’t have been regarded as harmful, because it’s not.
And no, there is no comparison between a law prohibiting smoking, and a law that infringes rights under the Second Amendment.
I don’t have a lot of patience with people who don’t argue logically, and one of my pet peeves is false analogies. Please stop making false analogies.
I would never choose to kill someone who wasn’t threatening my life or the life of another person, or have an abortion (killing someone very small). That doesn’t make a law against murder or abortion a bad law because it simply doesn’t affect me. I am not being guided by the law. I am guided by my conscience and God. Some people require the law. I am not one of them. As a non-smoker, currently, you are not a person who requires a law either. Laws are passed to curb the behavior of people who refuse to control themselves. They simply do NOT affect people who do control themselves. I still fail to see why you think a law that cannot possibly affect you is some kind of affront.
I know how to spell idiot and typo’s happen. You can’t tell what I meant to type? How about the gist of what I said – did you miss that too? As you can tell, 99% of what I wrote was spelled correctly so that typo means I need a new keyboard, not that I am to be dismissed because an “n” is missing. As I said – common sense is missing in our world.
Smoking is a touchy subject because it’s not only about the smoker. It’s about everyone who has to breathe the smoke from the smoker. My daughter has asthma, and her attacks are triggered by cigarette smoke. The last asthma attack she had landed her in the hospital for days. Should I have to worry about that everytime I want to take her to the park, or anywhere else in public for that matter? She’s so afraid of another attack, she covers her face with her shirt or even holds her breath whenever we come across a smoker. That’s how afraid she is of having another attack that could possible get as bad as the last one. So, I say, please keep the smoke away from the sick. Why can’t they smoke in their own homes? Or make smoking areas enclosed. That way they can recycle their own smoke, if they think second hand smoke is not harmful, they can keep breathing it themselves.