 |
| Yea, this is what I want to see around park benches |
Boston Globe - Many cities now prohibit smoking in outdoor parks, beaches, or public squares, so there is nothing surprising or original about a proposal to impose a similar ban in Boston.“We want these public places to be smoke-free so that everyone can enjoy...
It’s an asinine proposal. Anyone who is sensitive to secondhand smoke can easily avoid it outdoors. Moving to another park bench or stretch of beach to get away from a cigarette may be annoying, but it isn’t the purpose of law — or the City Council’s job — to protect us from every conceivable annoyance. If the councilors were proposing to ban noisy children or trashy dress from public parks, who would take them seriously? But come up with another way to crack down on smoking, and virtually no restriction is beyond the pale. Why?...
What explains this? No other personal habit is demonized as incessantly or banned as avidly as smoking. Americans who like to drink aren’t stigmatized in this way; why are those who like to smoke? Many of the same people who support every proposal to restrict tobacco would roll their eyes at anyone who called for reinstating the prohibition of alcohol. Why the difference? Alcohol has wrecked more marriages, caused more accidents, and fueled more crime than smoking ever has. Cigarettes may make you ill, but they won’t ruin your character or debauch your lifestyle.
Wow, Jeff Jacoby comes off as quite the asshole huh? I'm shocked and appalled that the Boston Globe would run such an ill-thought out piece. What an absolute piece of garbage, published by one of the premier print newspapers in the country.
Really Jeff? You're ok with hanging out at a public park with your kids while some asshole doesn't have the common courtesy to not light up while on the same bench as you? Seems like common sense that the person causing pollution and ilness should be the one that makes concessions. Why the hell should I have to uproot or avoid certain public areas all together so that a disgusting group of individuals can have a place to inhale burnt paper, tar, and leaves?
And by the way, the city does have noise ordinances and other behavioral rules for conducting one's self in public, even public indecency laws that deal with how we dress. There are also laws on the books that prevent drinking in public. So yes, laws preventing smoking in certain public arenas seems perfrectly reasonable, and I would assume anyone capable of rational thought would think so as well.
And all of this is without even touching upon the litter cigarette smokers leave behind.
Oh, and by the way Jeff, I'm not sure if you can produce statistics backing up the "alcohol wrecking marriages etc...," but there are plenty of statistics readily available showing just how deadly first and second hand smoke can be.
If you were just attempting to stir the pot, then mission accomplished, but its a sad statement that the Boston Globe would allow such a juvenile piece to be published. I mean if this is their example of a newsworthy Op-Ed piece, I don't see what's stopping half the opinions I toss out from being published.
