Washington State bans smoking... with a twist

[daryn]

[ QUOTE ]
"good law, second hand smoke is a bitch. Ban it in public I say."

sounds good, as long as we can ban the smells of fast food and frying bacon in public, too- it's offensive to vegans. Oh yeah... car exaust... loud music... they gotta go: you could get asthma and lose your hearing!

...and don't even get me started on skateboards. [/sarcasam, but you knew that...]

[/ QUOTE ]

come on, even you must know how crazy this is. loud music or fast food smells don't cause cancer.

[ripdog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I talked to my wife about it and commented that it would basically make downtown Seattle a No Smoking Zone. As a former smoker I can understand your frustration, but as a non-smoker I have way more empathy for those who choose not to smoke and are exposed to it anyway. I don't dislike smokers, I dislike smoke.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a never-smoker, probably-never-will-smoker, and someone who doesn't care for cigarettes, I think this is completely ridiculous. A sensible restaurant will have a non-smoking section if they don't want to alienate customers, and that's perfectly fine. Anyone bothered by someone passing by them on the streets with a cigarette needs to grow up. It's just one more freedom to take away from us.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm semi-torn on the issue. I don't think the gov't should have the right to tell private businesses whether they can allow smoking in their establishment. But then there's in public. Now, the non-smoker is being forced to inhale the smoke, which has been proven to be dangerous. On the other hand, there could be people who want to ban cars because the exhaust annoys them. Where's the line? I don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was an initiative to the people--I-912. The voters of the great State of Washington voted overwhelmingly to tell smokers everywhere "[censored] You!!"

[/ QUOTE ]
We (the voters) are the government. Enforcement is still going to be done by the government. While I feel the smokers have the right to smoke in private places that allow it (and their homes), I don't think they have the right to force me to breathe harmful chemicals for simply walking down the street. If the inititave only banned it on the street, I'd be fine with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

there was another initiative on the ballot that attempted to repeal a 9.5 cent gas tax hike that the legislature had recently approved (and will implement in 4 steps, 3 cents a gallon is being collected now, three more next year...). That tax hike was enacted by "the government" without going to the citizens for a vote (which is fine by me). So while I agree with you that "we are the government", I think that the smoking ban is different than the gas tax thing. One was pushed by legislature, the other voted in overwhelmingly by the people. Had it been the legislature pushing the smoking ban I would have had to at least pause before voting yes (or maybe no). The repeal of the gas tax failed and the people voted to severley curb smokers rights. While I understand their frustration, I have ZERO empathy for them.

[mmcd]

Hopefully, they'll ban cars from the state next. All that exhaust in the air can't be good for you.

[mmcd]

[ QUOTE ]
We (the voters) are the government.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. I hope you don't really believe this. Just because you get to choose to vote for politician A or politician B on election day doesn't mean you are the government.

In this case, the law was passed by referendum, but who do you think decided to place this item on the agenda and steered the course of the debate? John Q. Public? I don't think so. In situations like this, there are a VERY few people who fell VERY strongly about a particular issue, and they induce those that don't really care either way (the majority) to go along through political grandstanding and rhetoric.

Why do you think the number of laws on the books keeps growing and growing? Do you think the average voter is sitting there thinking, "I don't think society is being regulated heavily enough, I wish there were a lot more laws on the books"?