NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, this is not a post about Bush vs Kerry, but more a post about how I should vote in the upcoming election on local issues/ordinances.

There are a number of local referendums being voted on in the upcoming election. There are two main ones that I am having trouble deciding whether to vote for or against them.

1) Sales tax increase to fund public library expansion
2) Smoking ban in public buildings - this includes bars, restaurants, etc.

The question now posed is: do I vote for what I think is in my personal interests, or do I vote for what I think the Constitution and personal rights suggest?

I'll take the smoking ban as an example. I don't smoke, don't like smoking, and think it is costing the US billions of dollars a year. I don't like going to the bar because afterwards my clothes reek. I would welcome a smoking ban.

On the opposite side of the issue, smoking is not illegal. It is a personal choice whether you smoke or not, and it should be determined by the bar owner or the patron whether they want to smoke or not. Constitutionally there is no reason to allow a smoking ban(except possibly the 10th Amendment). Why should I, or the voters, limit the rights of others - even with the basis of secondhand smoke research.


I'd appreciate commentary on this issue.

books are good
butts are bad

I would never put my preferences ahead of someone elses rights. Non-smokers can ask to have a smoke-free bar and support it with their patronage. If the demand is there the market will fill it. Telling a bar-owner how to run their business is simply wrong.

I agree with personal sentiment

I would go for what you think is right … not personal gain


As for the specific topic I am against a smoking ban. I can see having smoke free areas (I used to have a GF that was allergic to smoke and if we didn’t have a non smoking section in a restaurant we wouldn’t have been able to eat at all in sit down places in the area) but specially in cases like a bar situation … it is EXPECTED that is just part of the ambiance. They do make smoke free bars in the area … or have smoke free areas. Or just don’t go … find another style of entertainment … a bar is not like a restaurant a bar you go for the ambiance … the restaurant for the food

Ahhh I lost my thought in there somewhere

Lol
Basically there are expected areas and there are areas that have uses where others may want to enjoy them. Non smoking areas in restaurants is a good idea but completely banning it … no …

I normally go with principle. But...sometimes it's a touch choice!

id go with personal gain
within reason

if you cant find a non smoking bar and you often go to bars and you feel particularily sensitive to the subject, vote to ban. if you have lots of smoking friends who you feel would be unfairly hurt by the ban, vote no.

if you frequent the library or feel that a good library is important to your community, vote for the increase. if you hate books and wish that the library would sell them all off and turn the space into a smoke free bar, then vote against.

its seldom wrong to vote your "enlightened" best interest

Ok, this is not a post about Bush vs Kerry, but more a post about how I should vote in the upcoming election on local issues/ordinances.

There are a number of local referendums being voted on in the upcoming election. There are two main ones that I am having trouble deciding whether to vote for or against them.

1) Sales tax increase to fund public library expansion
2) Smoking ban in public buildings - this includes bars, restaurants, etc.

The question now posed is: do I vote for what I think is in my personal interests, or do I vote for what I think the Constitution and personal rights suggest?

I'll take the smoking ban as an example. I don't smoke, don't like smoking, and think it is costing the US billions of dollars a year. I don't like going to the bar because afterwards my clothes reek. I would welcome a smoking ban.

On the opposite side of the issue, smoking is not illegal. It is a personal choice whether you smoke or not, and it should be determined by the bar owner or the patron whether they want to smoke or not. Constitutionally there is no reason to allow a smoking ban(except possibly the 10th Amendment). Why should I, or the voters, limit the rights of others - even with the basis of secondhand smoke research.


I'd appreciate commentary on this issue.

On the smoking ban:

The basis of secondhand smoke research seems to be enough for me. If you outweigh the 'right to smoke' (not exactly a constitutional right considering weed is illegal in the US) against the harm done to others by secondhand smoke (lungcancer, being only one of many options caused by smoke, is certainly one of the worst ways to go). The 'right to smoke' just loses from the many deaths caused by (secondhand) smoke.

You cannot forget that people also have the right to a safe workplace and therefore you cannot allow the people that work in public buildings to be exposed to highly toxic fumes all day long. Working in bars, ... is one of the greatest risks for getting killed by secondhand smoke.

On the smoking ban:

The basis of secondhand smoke research seems to be enough for me. If you outweigh the 'right to smoke' (not exactly a constitutional right considering weed is illegal in the US) against the harm done to others by secondhand smoke (lungcancer, being only one of many options caused by smoke, is certainly one of the worst ways to go). The 'right to smoke' just loses from the many deaths caused by (secondhand) smoke.

You cannot forget that people also have the right to a safe workplace and therefore you cannot allow the people that work in public buildings to be exposed to highly toxic fumes all day long. Working in bars, ... is one of the greatest risks for getting killed by secondhand smoke.


Yeah but there still has to be something called acceptable known risk.

They choose to work there … that is the culture and atmosphere there. (thinking bars specifically) they do have a choice of their place of employment

Yeah but there still has to be something called acceptable known risk.

They choose to work there … that is the culture and atmosphere there. (thinking bars specifically) they do have a choice of their place of employment

'Acceptable known risk': I don't think it is an acceptable risk to get your life shortened by more than 10 years just because of the smoking in those places. And eventually someone has to work in those places.

'Acceptable known risk': I don't think it is an acceptable risk to get your life shortened by more than 10 years just because of the smoking in those places. And eventually someone has to work in those places.


Yeah but there still has to be something called acceptable known risk.

They choose to work there … that is the culture and atmosphere there. (thinking bars specifically) they do have a choice of their place of employment

I guess it depends on if you think the government should do something for you regardless of other people rights or if you should handle things yourself and be considerate of other people.

Smoking bans are a toughie. On one hand you have personal freedom (both the bar owner's and the patron's to smoke), and on the other hand you have harm being done against other people. However, non-smoking and smoking areas should be enough to satisfy both sides.

Books are good! When we were poor, the library was a frequent friend.

Smoking is a tough one.

I am not keen on the second hand smoke claims. My mom was a big time smoker as in a couple cartons a week. By the second hand smoke claims, my sister and I should be doing chemo by now.

There are some valid claims but the smoking in public argument tends to go a bit far. There is an on going fight to ban it from bars. Sorry but a run down, smoke filled bar is just atmosphere to me.

Just my .02

I've seen such intolerance in this thread. It makes me SICK to my stomache.

It's obvious to me: compromise. It's the basic of democracy. Compromise your conscience for personal gain.

Ban the smokes. And increase the sales tax. But, and this is really important, SMOKE IN THE LIBRARY.

Everybody wins!