E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Google Plus
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017
May 2017
June 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Tuesday, April 25, 2017

City council tramples on property rights again

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 5:30 PM (#)

Printed in the Bloomington Herald-Times April 25, 2017

To the Editor:

We have reached the point in nanny-state laws that we are legislating manners instead of public safety. This was a theme when the city council voted to ban the use of electronic cigarettes in "public places." These "public places" are actually private property. The city is deciding for property owners whether they will allow customers to use a legal product on their property.

One councilor suggested businesses are not currently prohibiting e-cigarettes. That is simply not true. Some places in Bloomington do that already. They did not need permission or a mandate from city government to do that. There is no real confusion about what is allowed.

E-cigarettes are not tobacco products and are far less harmful than smoked tobacco. The "harmful chemicals" are detected in trace amounts. Some on the council do not care about that, saying this law is about "common courtesy." So now we're legislating manners?

Does the sparse crowd, especially compared to 2003, indicate people do not trust the council to listen to them?

Will the council vote to ban someone with a bad cold from public places?

The county commissioners defeated a similar ban earlier this year. The city council should have followed that example.

Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name may not be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you must subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. You must put a name or pseudonym on your comments. All comments by "Anonymous" will be deleted.

  5. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

Thank you for your cooperation.


At April 26, 2017 at 5:22 AM , Blogger Josh Washman said...  

What defines a "public space" is whether someone from the public can enter it uninvited. Thus, stores, restaurants, and the like are public spaces because generally anyone can come and go as they please. Even though the property might be owned by a private individual, that distinguishes it from private property, where if a stranger were to enter they'd be trespassing.

Because of the nature of a public space, the rules are by necessity different from private property. In a public space, you can't control whether someone with asthma, lung cancer, or some other condition that makes them sensitive to smoke might be on the premises. For that reason, more stringent rules against smoking are warranted.

You could argue about someone with a bad cold, but the difference is that person didn't choose to have a cold, whereas the smoker can control when they smoke. Likewise, there is no public place where someone needs to smoke, but there are public places where a sick person needs to go (e.g., a doctor's office). In our society, we have to endeavor to balance the rights of individuals when they clash. We don't always get it right, but that's why we have the First Amendment - to assure our ability to debate about it!