Join us as we journey through the city of Calabasas, a southern California enclave nestled in the Santa Monica moutains. It's not just the location that makes this place special, it's the people. From the famous to the infamous, from the fabulous to the ordinary and everyone in between. We go beyond the gated enclaves and the luxury sports cars of our city and look at state, national and global items of interest. Join us and enjoy. Make the Calabasas Chronicle your internet home.
Thursday, April 06, 2006
One More Reason the Smoking Ban is Wrong
Lori Young of Calabasas makes a great point regarding the smoking ban in this week's letters to the editor in the Acorn. Where was the logic of Ms. Youngs' caliber during city council meetings?
3 comments:
Anonymous
said...
"And a smoker can't light up outside in a park or dog run with no people around? ...if you are outdoors and not near anyone, you are a criminal if you smoke a cigarette"
Ms. Young is correct in her understanding that smoking is against the law. She fails to realize however, that she is tautologically missing the point. As your famous smoker (Orwell) would point out; she created a Catch-22.
You are only a criminal if you get caught. Ms. Young understands that smoking bothers other people, and thinks that smoking with no one else around should be permitted - it is! By all means, smoke your lungs out by yourself. You are only going to get caught if there are people around, and if that happens; you have defeated your own objective to smoke unobtrusively, and getting caught will justify itself.
*A side note to the blog staff: Summarily regarding enacted legislation as right or wrong, black or white, is foolish. This is true from the ground up. There are merits and short-comings to the smoking debate, and rarely can they be found in editorials from the Acron.
The logic that legislation is neither right or wrong is a rather odd statement. Why have legislation if not to deem what is right or wrong? Can we not agree that slavery for example which was legislated by the state 150 years ago was summarily wrong? Prosecuting pedophiles is legislated by the state. Is this wrong? We happen to find the editorial comments from the people of Calabasas valid and a lot more perspicuous than some of our elected officials. PS we have access to dictionary.com too hence we now know that "tautologically" means redundant.
Yes exactly, in some moments I can bruit about that I agree with you, but you may be in the light of other options. to the article there is still a question as you did in the fall delivery of this request www.google.com/ie?as_q=efficience3 ? I noticed the utter you suffer with not used. Or you functioning the dark methods of development of the resource. I have a week and do necheg
3 comments:
"And a smoker can't light up outside in a park or dog run with no people around? ...if you are outdoors and not near anyone, you are a criminal if you smoke a cigarette"
Ms. Young is correct in her understanding that smoking is against the law. She fails to realize however, that she is tautologically missing the point. As your famous smoker (Orwell) would point out; she created a Catch-22.
You are only a criminal if you get caught. Ms. Young understands that smoking bothers other people, and thinks that smoking with no one else around should be permitted - it is! By all means, smoke your lungs out by yourself. You are only going to get caught if there are people around, and if that happens; you have defeated your own objective to smoke unobtrusively, and getting caught will justify itself.
*A side note to the blog staff: Summarily regarding enacted legislation as right or wrong, black or white, is foolish. This is true from the ground up. There are merits and short-comings to the smoking debate, and rarely can they be found in editorials from the Acron.
The logic that legislation is neither right or wrong is a rather odd statement.
Why have legislation if not to deem what is right or wrong? Can we not agree that slavery for example which was legislated by the state 150 years ago was summarily wrong? Prosecuting pedophiles is legislated by the state. Is this wrong?
We happen to find the editorial comments from the people of Calabasas valid and a lot more perspicuous than some of our elected officials.
PS we have access to dictionary.com too hence we now know that "tautologically" means redundant.
Yes exactly, in some moments I can bruit about that I agree with you, but you may be in the light of other options.
to the article there is still a question as you did in the fall delivery of this request www.google.com/ie?as_q=efficience3 ?
I noticed the utter you suffer with not used. Or you functioning the dark methods of development of the resource. I have a week and do necheg
Post a Comment