Ahh, my hometown, Pasadena. I am sooooo glad that they are looking out for poor, little ol' me. I mean, the big, bad cigarette smokers need to be stopped. By any means nessecary.
And that, my friends, is what the Pasadena city council is doing by authorizing the city attorney to write up an ordanince to ban smoking in apartments, condos and townhomes. Yeah, can you believe that? A legal product is now being further put into black market territory. Because you know, it is that darned second-hand smoke that just offends people. And, according to some in the scientific community it causes cancer. You know. The second hand smoke.
Some disclosure.
My father died from lung cancer. Smoked non-filtered Chesterfield ciggies for 40 years. Two-packs a day sometimes. I may, or may not have the effects of second hand smoke. However, my father, God rest his soul, has been off to the Glory for 25 years. Hmm. Amazing that long. Anyhow, yes it is safe to say that ciggies probably killed my father.
I myself on occasion like to smoke a cigar. Maybe three to four times a year. I do not consider myself a smoker in the least.
Having that out of the way, there is so much of this proposed ordinance that just rankles me.
First it is the clear class distinction that this ordinance will have. It will affect mostly lower class people. After all, apartment dwellers are not usually the eeeeeviiiiillllll rich people that are in apartments. And those that rent a condo and or a townhome. But that is the point methinks. It is to bring to poor slobs along.
Second, if you are a stoner, your cool. You can keep lighting up. Sure, just go to that doc who will say you need the ganga for "medicinal" purposes and spark it up, dude. Because the cops can't do anything to you. Just make sure it is the whacky tabacky, not a Marlboro. Hey, dudes. Last I checked, unless you have a prescription for it, marijuana is I L L E G A L. You know, really against the law.
Thridly, it is just the we-know-better approach than you.
Read this from the Pasadena Public Health Department director, Eric Walsh:
"We have a responsibility to protect people. The council has a decision to make, do you lead in the safety of your residents or do you follow?"
Well, Mr. Walsh, there are other things that could help protect the safety of us yokels from ourselves. Hey, how about banning alcohol sales within city limits? Close down the bars? No more wine for the elites? Martinis for the snobs? Come on Mr. Walsh. Alcohol causes more death and or long-term effects than smoking ciggies. There are a lot of things that people can and should do for themselves and fellow citizens. But is that not what we can do ourselves? I guess not.
Here is a real dim bulb, the former mayor of Calabasas, Barry Groveman. Under his watch, Calabasas became the first Cali city to enact such an encroachment on rights. Oops! My bad! According to Mr. Groveman, there is no right to light up:
"There isn't a right to smoke. There is a right to be safe."
Hmm. I missed both items in the United States constitution. And the California constitution. In a way, Mr. Groveman is correct. There is nothing specific that gives people the "right" to smoke. Except that it is a legal to smoke ciggies. And cigars. And a pipe. And while we are on the right to be safe, is this something that law enforcement should be doing to make people safe? How would it be if a copper is called to an apartment to harrass a smoker. While right down the street a burgler gets caught by homeowners robbing their home. And they are tied up and killed. While the copper up the road is keeping non-smokers safe from smokers. And if there is no right to smoke, just ban tobacco products?
Julie Selders, a Pasadena resident that spoke against the ordinance said this:
"I think it's an invasion of individual liberty. I live in a condo. I own that property."
Hello?! Miss Selders owns a condo. And yet if she is a smoker (and there is no indication one way or the other), she can not light up in the condo that she owns.
And Coldwell Banker real estate agent Marge Mellody said this:
"If it's so traumatic than shouldn't we take children away from every parent that smokes. I think (the ordinance) is too intrusive."
Spot on Marge, spot on! It is too intrusive. It is an assault on the freedom of people, adults, to make decisions affecting their lives.
But let me bring back Mr. Groveman to kind of sort of point out the idiocy of the ordinance:
"We didn't talk about enforcement," Groveman said about the ordinance in Calabassas. "People want to comply."
Then why in the hell do we need this legislation if people WANT to do it?! If the people that live in an apartment, condo or townhome want to have a ban on smoking, including marijuana, let them work it out among themselves. There is no need for the city govenment to force this issue.
But you see, at the end it is all about control. The city of Pasadena wants to control an icky habit that some people have. There is an assumption that only lower-class people are smokers. And smoke those icky cigarettes. Notice that this ordinance does not affect home owners and or home rentals. This is but another example of do-gooders run amok. Well meaning people that believe they are doing the right thing. But there is something greater at stake. It is the ability of people in a free country to make free decisions. When that collides, we must as a society, err on the side of freedom. If we do not, at some point the government will simply take away more freedom in the name of public safety.
No comments:
Post a Comment