BEWARE: BANS OF THIS ALL INCLUSIVE NATURE WILL SOMEDAY REMOVE YOUR BILL OF RIGHTS...unless you are wary of such ridiculous legislation to create bans.
THERE ARE THOSE WHO ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE RIGHTS OF CERTAIN SEGMENTS OF THE POPULATION--SMOKERS. While the government collects taxes on tobacco, some of the taxes used for supporting parks, those who originate such bans are not considerate of the rights of the smokers. To summarize without excess verbosity, let me simply state that a "designated smoking area" should have been provided for taxpayers who enjoy smoking legal tobacco. This is yet another example of regimentation by a few who believe it is only their privileges that matter. This type of sign should serve as a warning to all, smokers and non-smokers, that there are those who sit in cubicles who are enjoying removing your freedoms and liberties, little by little. When the government can become this personally involved in one's life that they will not permit one to smoke on a visit to a park, then something is wrong. I will readily admit that smoking should not be permitted in many area, but there should be designated areas for smokers. To cite an example of how one individual's personal preference can ruin an entire industry, visit New York City and you will realize that the days of the Peppermint Lounge are long gone. No longer can one light up in a Greenwich village pub and blow smoke. I would suppose that there are "No Smoking" signs in the old McSorley's Ale House in the Battery Park area too. What a shame. Ask the bar owners their opinions of this ridiculous ban. But most of the tavern owners aren't multi-millionaires, so it does make a difference to their incomes. Believe it or not, this smoking ban has cost New York millions of dollars in tourist money. Not too many people want to stand outside to have a smoke, not in New York, not in any city where such a ban exists.
BEWARE: BANS OF THIS ALL INCLUSIVE NATURE WILL SOMEDAY REMOVE YOUR BILL OF RIGHTS...unless you are wary of such ridiculous legislation to create bans.
THERE ARE THOSE WHO ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE RIGHTS OF CERTAIN SEGMENTS OF THE POPULATION--SMOKERS. While the government collects taxes on tobacco, some of the taxes used for supporting parks, those who originate such bans are not considerate of the rights of the smokers. To summarize without excess verbosity, let me simply state that a "designated smoking area" should have been provided for taxpayers who enjoy smoking legal tobacco. This is yet another example of regimentation by a few who believe it is only their privileges that matter. This type of sign should serve as a warning to all, smokers and non-smokers, that there are those who sit in cubicles who are enjoying removing your freedoms and liberties, little by little. When the government can become this personally involved in one's life that they will not permit one to smoke on a visit to a park, then something is wrong. I will readily admit that smoking should not be permitted in many area, but there should be designated areas for smokers. To cite an example of how one individual's personal preference can ruin an entire industry, visit New York City and you will realize that the days of the Peppermint Lounge are long gone. No longer can one light up in a Greenwich village pub and blow smoke. I would suppose that there are "No Smoking" signs in the old McSorley's Ale House in the Battery Park area too. What a shame. Ask the bar owners their opinions of this ridiculous ban. But most of the tavern owners aren't multi-millionaires, so it does make a difference to their incomes. Believe it or not, this smoking ban has cost New York millions of dollars in tourist money. Not too many people want to stand outside to have a smoke, not in New York, not in any city where such a ban exists.