US city bans smoking - everywhere

I actually approve of that one. The beauty of the federal system is that different cities can have different laws, reflecting the different desires of their populations. I object to national bans handed down from a central office.

From a purely political perspective yes, it’s lovely that different states can have different laws. It’s a shame that the system is then used to pass dumb laws.

>>different desires of their population

Where does it say that it has anything to do with the desires of the population - other than the old bloke suing his neighbours and the 15 people mass celebration?

I’m sure that the majority of Glaswegians don’t desire less happy hours and curfews in nightclubs, for example.

Come to think of it - that is a ban specifically targetting the poor. If you can afford a detached house then you can smoke, if you can only afford a bedsit, flat or shared accomodation then you can’t.

From http://www.orovillemr.com/news/bayarea/ci_4663870

“Staff is now drafting an ordinance that will be reviewed in December. Vice Mayor Coralin Feierbach said police won’t be stopping people from smoking on the streets. It’s really aimed at those who live in multi-family dwellings where smoke can waft through ventilation vents. A neighbor can then file a complaint with the police.

“Cities after cities are looking at his,” Feierbach said. “They’re tired of smokers I guess. My father died of lung cancer so I know what it’s like. We (the council) did the best we could.”

Belmont’s current policy allows smoking outside of bars and hotels, but also prohibits smoking in places of employment, lobbies, hallways, stairwells and in common areas of apartment buildings, condos, senior citizen retirement or residential care houses, and nursing homes. But the policy to stop people from smoking in prohibited areas have never been enforced, Feierbach said.

“No one has complained, so it wasn’t enforceable,” she said.”

What’s the point of passing a law if you’ve no intention of enforcing it?