Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Belmont Extends Nanny State

Liberals like to claim that the Bush Administration has restricted civil rights, though they are hard-pressed to actually provide any examples of said restrictions. However, when a California city really does infringe upon the civil rights of its citizens, the same liberals are mostly silent.

Belmont, California, a city located slightly south of San Francisco, has just made smoking inside apartments illegal. The local news channel, NBC 11, headlined the article as Belmont Bans Smoking In Some Homes'. And in an entirely approving style, the article reported that,
Thought to be the first of its kind in California, the ordinance declares secondhand smoke a public nuisance and extends the city's current smoking ban to include multi-unit, multi-story residences.

Though Belmont and some other California cities already restrict smoking in multi-unit common areas, Belmont is the first city to extend secondhand smoke regulation to the inside of individual apartment units.

The article was not approviong of the efforts to stop the ban, hinting at a well-organized conspiracy. As the article said,
NBC11 reporter Noelle Walker said three City Council members have received more e-mails about the proposed ban than any other issue ever. Belmont Mayor Coralin Feierbach told NBC11 her mailbox was filled with the hate-filled e-mails.

Upset citizens are comparing the proposed ban to Nazi rules.

"Following in the footsteps of Adolf Hitler with your no public smoking ordinance …," writes one opponent of the ban.

Many of the letters are littered with expletives.

"If America is lucky, someone will cut all of your *** throats," one letter said.

Another letter threatens, "Your friends will get a 747 loaded with fuel…"

The same letter ends with "Have a nice day."

Feierbach believes the strong opposition is part of an organized effort from the pro-smoking site

Part of the group's mission, according to their Web site, is to provide a forum for smokers to express concerns about, "… discrimination against smokers in all of the many forms that it takes these days."

Isn't it funny how liberals are so approving of young children viewing pornography withn or without their parents' knowledge, and don't seem to have a problem with girls receiving abortions without parental permission, but when it comes to telling others where and when they may smoke, they see no problem with extending their jurisdiction into people's homes.

And the media is at least partly to blame. If they truly were interested in protecting citizens from government over-reaching, then this kind of law ought to be high on their list of things to oppose, for it is just as much a violation of privacy as an illegal wiretap. And in this case, there is no pretence that the citizen in question is doing something illegal,, for smoking, while unhealthy, is not illegal.

No comments: