The smoking ban, a year later
|
Print
E-mail
A year after enforcement of the Iowa Smoke Free Air Act went into effect, Jerry Stewart, director of the department of public safety, said officers have issued 40 state citations on campus.
Stewart said the department has been "gradually increasing" enforcement throughout the last year, starting with simply educating violators about the ban to now issuing more citations.
"It's a prett emotionaly issue really," Stewart said. "We've drawn praise from some but not from others."
He said 190 people have been contacted regarding violations since the ban went into effect last summer and, of those, 131 were given verbal warnings, 14 were given written warnings, 40 were issued citations and five reports were unfounded because the person was not smoking.
Stewart said most people have been polite when approached by officers and some even thanked them for the citation because they thought it would help them quit smoking.
Officers still use discretion when encountering people on campus, Stewart said, but people who know are informed about the law or have been warned before will most likely be cited. The people who sometimes aren't cited are people who were uninformed about the ban, such as visitors to campus, new students, contractors and vendors.
"The camus environment is open and complex," he said. "This law is difficult to communicate and enforce."
Stewart said the department has been "gradually increasing" enforcement throughout the last year, starting with simply educating violators about the ban to now issuing more citations.
"It's a prett emotionaly issue really," Stewart said. "We've drawn praise from some but not from others."
He said 190 people have been contacted regarding violations since the ban went into effect last summer and, of those, 131 were given verbal warnings, 14 were given written warnings, 40 were issued citations and five reports were unfounded because the person was not smoking.
Stewart said most people have been polite when approached by officers and some even thanked them for the citation because they thought it would help them quit smoking.
Officers still use discretion when encountering people on campus, Stewart said, but people who know are informed about the law or have been warned before will most likely be cited. The people who sometimes aren't cited are people who were uninformed about the ban, such as visitors to campus, new students, contractors and vendors.
"The camus environment is open and complex," he said. "This law is difficult to communicate and enforce."
Comments
at $50 bucks a pop, and 40 enforcements, thats $2000. So where does this money go? I'm just wondering cause if smoking is such a bad thing, those funds could be put to use by providing assistance to addicted smokers. I mean, if we all have a problem with people smoking OUTDOORS, shouldn't we do something get those horrible people help?!?! after all, everyone who supports this law obviously doesn't go to the ISU lots for tailgating as they all well know of the health risks imposed by GRILLING out alone.
Yes, this is a "prett emotionally" issue indeed. I received a fine while smoking on campus. However, I was not in a crowded area or bothering anyone for that matter. In fact, it was 8:30 p.m. and I was in a parking ramp - alone. The officer quickly whipped out his citation book, not even considering the more friendly option of telling me to put it out. He said they have stopped giving verbal warnings. What the hell does that mean? I though the police had the discretion to offer warnings if they wanted too. Is this the "liberalism" that you college kids seek? Blanket enforcement of ridiculous laws? When will you learn that conservative libertarianism is the freedom you seek, not fascist socialism under the guise of change and progressive ideas? Please Iowa, stop voting for democrats. Hell, and republicans while you’re at it.
It means that they have stopped issuing warnings utilizing words.
Was it a police officer or an ISU security officer?
Since when is enforcing a law (or rule) a liberal thing? Or is it "liberal" only when it is a rule or law you don't like?
"Since when is enforcing a law (or rule) a liberal thing?"
When it is mindlessly enforcing a law considered "progressive" and was fought for by mostly liberals. Much of nanny state legislation falls into this category.
Enforcing a law isn't a matter of ideology. You may call the law a liberal or progressive one, but the enforcement is not.
ISU police ARE real police. They are not rent-a-cops. And yes it is a liberal thing because, as MDR pointed out, this was an overwhelmingly liberal issue.
I'll write it again, Chris, and try to be as clear as I can be:
Enforcing the law is not a matter of political ideology. ISU Police are instructed to enforce the law whether they agree with the law or not.
I thought conservatives supported law enforcement.
For as much as I would love to agree with Christ or MDR, I have to side with Harry. The law is the law; the officers were probably instructed by their superiors to stop giving verbal warnings, so there is no discretion any more on the issue of smoking. Just accept the fact that you violated the law, and move on with your life.
"Enforcing the law is not a matter of political ideology. ISU Police are instructed to enforce the law whether they agree with the law or not."
- Harry
"The law is the law; the officers were probably instructed by their superiors to stop giving verbal warnings, so there is no discretion any more on the issue of smoking."
- Bill Lock
The law is the law and it's enforcement shouldn't be a matter of any ideology. However you cannot ignore the fact that in general police have the ability to issue warnings for illegal activities, or even outright ignore them if they deem them less than a major concern. i.e. when the enforcement of which takes away from more important patrol time, doesn't yield in the prevention of serious crime, ect. Take jaywalking for example. This illegal act takes place both on campus and in Ames literally thousands of times a day, yet how many times do you see this written up in the police blotter?
I have little doubt this officer was following orders put out by his command demanding that regardless of time and place, if you can issue a citation, issue it. This has been the modus operandi of the ISU DPS/Police concerning minor misdemeanor citations for quite some time.
This law was pushed forward largely by liberals, and universities are historically largely liberal organizations. Also, cops are human beings with judgment calls and priorities, not machines functioning solely from directive. The point being that the enforcement methods being used are a direct reflection of the ideological attitudes of ISU officials and their police command. This brings us back to Potratz's original question; is this the "liberalism" college kids seek?
As if smoking bans are strictly liberal doings. There are various smoking bans all over the country and all over the world, many in very conservative places.
I hate to use Wikipedia as a reference, but here are some interesting lists:
list of global smoking bans
[list of smoking bans in U.S.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_the_United_States#.C2.A0Iowa]
Utah, Colorado, Arizona, Montana, etc. are hardly bastions of liberalism.
Try this: list of smoking bans in U.S.
"As if smoking bans are strictly liberal doings."
- Harry
Not all of them no, nor did I say they were. But this one was in large part supported by people describing themselves as politically liberal, and advertised as "progressive" legislation. In fact it was many college liberals who supported it. That fact, in combination with the incident taking place on ISU property, involving ISU officers, and was an instance where the act of smoking/infraction was not causing any harm to anyone, makes Potratz's question a relevant one.
So what? It's the law. It's the law in hundreds of places. All sorts of people want to ban smoking in certain public places. And cops enforce laws. That's their job. What difference does it make who proposed and advocated this particular law? Do you just want to blame the "liberals" for something?
So if someone is driving 120 mph on a road where no other cars are, is that okay? That does harm to no one. If someone is trespasses but causes no damage to a property, is that okay? That does harm to no one.
"Do you just want to blame the "liberals" for something?"
- Harry
Not inparticularly, I'm more so arguing that Potratz's question is a relevant one, given the climate it was created and the background of many of it's supporters. In fact I believe I stated that. Perhaps it's a question you could answer?
For any liberals out there. Did you support the smoking ban legislation and if so why? Do you support the enforcement tactics currently employed by the ISU Police? If not, why did you support a law which gave law enforcement such power? Conversely if you did, how does this fall in line with your political philosophy and ideals of the freedom of individual Americans?
As far as your other questions go: Is it private or public property being trespassed upon? Big difference between what an individual allows on their own land and what the government dictates can be done on public ground. Does the driver of the car have any guarantee there is no one else on the road, or will be up ahead? See that's what makes a law stupid and un-American versus logical. If it's designed to stop someone from harming others. There is a huge difference between driving 120mph on a public road and smoking in open air. If you cant see the differences between the two...
Yes, for the most part. Because smoke is a public health hazard. And I'm a former smoker.
Yes.
Individuals should be free to breathe clean air in public instead of someone else's pollution.
I favor designated public smoking areas. Just as cars are relegated to parking lots and streets, outdoor smokers should have areas where they can enjoy smoking and others can avoid if necessary.
Smoking bans wouldn't be necessary if smokers considered non-smokers. When I smoked in public I always did so in places where others were not. No one should have to breathe my smoke to enter or exit a building. No one sitting near me at a football game should have to breathe my smoke. But too many smokers are inconsiderate of others and that's why smoking bans become necessary.
I know many conservatives who hate breathing smoke in public areas and are happy about the law. I know many liberals who smoke and don't care much at all for the public ban. Perhaps if more conservatives were involved, the law could have been written to be less restrictive.
Please explain how this "big difference" justifies not enforcing the law.
Does the smoker in a parking garage have any guarantee that no one else will come by?
I realize that, but you were trying to make a point about whether or not to enforce a law. By what criteria do you deem it proper not to enforce a law and when is it necessary to enforce a law?
Should I get a parking ticket if I let the meter expire? I'm not harming anyone. Should I be arrested or cited for smoking pot in my own house? I'm not harming anyone.
Harry, I think I will finally agree with you. NO, you should not be arrested for smoking pot - not at all. As a conservative libertarian, I strongly feel that choosing to smoke pot is a personal choice, and the government needs to step off and finally legalize it. This, among many other issues, is one of the most important civil rights issues of our times. Pot smokers are not bad people, the government makes them criminals. However, the liberal agenda of creating more policy and law to regulate marijuana is not the answer, the answer is that there should be no reason for the government to even regulate at all - let people make their own decisions - true conservatism, not the hijacked conservatism of the republican party, who seek to regulate my life as much as liberals do, only with republicans it is under the guise of moral authority, instead of the democratic tactic of social well-being. Both are annoying the hell out of me.
“Individuals should be free to breathe clean air in public instead of someone else's pollution.”
- Harry
Yes they are free to do so, and they can't do this in open outdoor air? You're kidding right? This law outlaws smoking on ALL outdoor state property. This legislation is absurd. I don't smoke, hate being around people when they are smoking, and find it reprehensible that educated adults place power into the hands of government to regulate the activities of others simply because they don't like them. If someone's smoking outside effects you, you need to get out of their face. Were not talking about someone hanging around outside a building intake or the main entrance/exit of a building here. We are talking about ALL outdoor areas.
If someone smoking an a parking garage poses a threat to your health, you need to spend the rest of your life in a hermetically sealed dome, safe from the dangers of any outdoor air.
“But too many smokers are inconsiderate of others and that's why smoking bans become necessary.”
- Harry
Since when is it, at any level, government's responsibility to play parent to the citizenry? You cant write laws just because some in society are inconsiderate. You keep that up and there won't be a damn thing you can do in public.
“Please explain how this "big difference" justifies not enforcing the law.”
-Harry
The idea is that an individual can make up whatever regulations they want on their own property, they can tell you they don't want you smoking on their lawn or in their home if the choose because it is their own. The government however, is not supposed to tell you what to do to yourself on public property. As far as enforcing the law goes, I pointed out the obvious instances of Police discretion concerning certain non-felony crime. I think the Administration of this university micromanages the police force concerning things like smoking ban enforcement based on it's own agenda, instead of letting the police operate on their own judgment.
“Does the smoker in a parking garage have any guarantee that no one else will come by?”
“I realize that, but you were trying to make a point about whether or not to enforce a law. By what criteria do you deem it proper not to enforce a law and when is it necessary to enforce a law?”
-Harry
First of all the optimum situation was not having stupid laws on the books to enforce. Secondly, I can only speak for myself, but if I saw a smoker lighting up right next to the main entrance of the MU I would probably ticket them and say “stupid law or not, are you kidding? Here?” then again if I saw a guy smoking in a parking garage, or at a football tailgate, or while walking on campus nowhere near a building, I would feel compelled as a semi-intelligent human being to pretend I didn't see it, as there is a difference between enforcing the law and being an overbearing bully protected by legislation. My guess is that regardless of some officers who may share some of these feelings, there are probably consequences for disobeying orders to ticket vigorously. Which again, is something being pushed by higher university officials.
“Should I get a parking ticket if I let the meter expire? I'm not harming anyone.”
-Harry
In most cases probably. Then again it depends on whether or not the meters are there to regulate parking/responsibly pay for civic projects or if they are specifically designed to screw people out of money. An example of my hometown comes to mind, where they have meters downtown in the area with no stores or entertainment venues, but businesses and public buildings. They have a 2 hour limit on these meters, by their own admission, because they know the primary users are people at work who wont always be able to make it out every two hours just to plug the meter and they will make more money off the ticket revenue then off the meter tolls. In this case, no. This is another example of bullshit legislation which people shouldn't have to put up with, even though it's easy to say “oh well you just shouldn't of parked illegally”
“Should I be arrested or cited for smoking pot in my own house? I'm not harming anyone.”
-Harry
No you shouldn't. Only if you get behind the wheel of a car impaired, or something akin to that.
Chris, I think more liberals than not are in favor of legalizing marijuana. I know I am.
If someone is next to me at a football game and smoke is blowing in my face then I have a problem. If I must walk through smoke to get in or out of a public building then I have a problem.
I have no problem with designated smoking areas.
1. The big bad government would need to regulate if we all regulated ourselves. Unfortunately, too many people refuse to respect and consider their fellow citizens.
2. We are the big bad government. If it bothers you so much, run for office.
Wrong. They need to get out of my face.
Since the majority allow it to happen. Again, if you don't like it then run for office.
The big bad government is responsible for what happens on public property. Just as I make the rules for my property, our representatives make the rules for public property. If you don't like it, run for office.
Then you must hold that laws should not be applied equally but by individual whim. Would I be just in "pretending" not to see an assault if I thought the person being assaulted deserved it? Would I be just in "pretending" not to see a theft if I thought the thief deserved what he was taking?
Who gets to decide who draws the lines and where they are drawn?
So you are in favor of regulating parking as long as you approve of the way the money is spent? Well, I might favor the regulating of outdoor smoking in public areas for the same reason.
Dediding whether or not to enforce a law should never rely on how the revenues of fines are spent or on subjective judgements about the motivations for a law. That is pure relativism.
You still haven't answered the main question: By what criteria do you deem it proper not to enforce a law and when is it necessary to enforce a law? Moreover, who gets to make those decisions for everybody else?
I'm afraid cops don't decide whether or not to enforce the law depending on how MDR feels about the law in question.
"By what criteria do you deem it proper not to enforce a law and when is it necessary to enforce a law? Moreover, who gets to make those decisions for everybody else?"
- Harry
I would say it's necessary to enforce the law when the failure to do so will result in a direct unwanted/negative effect to another by no fault of their own. The big bad government is no solution to inconsiderate people. It's a wildly dangerous overreaction.
That's a good question though. Maybe you could take a stab at it as well? After all, deciding whether or not to enforce a law should never rely on subjective judgments about the motivations for a law as it is pure relativism. Is it then perfectly acceptable in the United States to enforce a law saying black people must use a different school or drinking fountain because a few lobbied the public until they got the majority of our representatives to agree with them? Enforcement of that law is justified?
And you never directly answered the original question either. "Is this the liberalism college students seek?" I don't know if you're a student or not but you are a liberal. Is your answer that as long as legislators can get it passed who cares what it says or does it's fair game as the people allowed it?
And regardless of the people democratically electing our officials, we the people do not equal the government. Our legislators are not sufficiently apprised of the rightful limits of their powers. Their true office is to write and enforce only our natural rights and responsibilities, and in the process take none of them from us. No individual has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is the all from which any law should to restrain someone.
Harry, I know that a large portion of liberals seek to legalize marijuana - and I wish more conservatives would get on board with that. Take Ron Paul for example, and many libertarians. I believe that Libertarians such as myself and most liberals have a great deal in common. I am pro gay marriage, pro marijuana legalization and a pro a variety of issues that many consider liberal, and truthfully, they are liberal. What seems to get too many people hung up is the semantics of what exactly "liberal" and "conservative" mean. I am for all the previously listed things, but I think they should be allowed due to less government, not more. I think we have common goals, just different ways of attaining those goals. The reason I dislike what is currently considered "liberal", is that it is quickly becoming a fascist mind frame. If you disagree with liberal policies, you must be close-minded or unenlightened and therefore, it furthers an elitism that disgusts me. Hopefully, this makes some sense to you. Likewise, I must add, modern day republicans, neo-conservatives, are following the same path, not because they are ultra-conservative, but because they have become more like socialists, such as G.W Bush who increased the federal government by leaps and bounds. What we need is TRUE conservatism that allows personal freedom of choice, no mater what any social engineers or religious leaders think about it. We need very small government, that would allow for local governments to better form their own policies. This is my ideal system – local governments having as much control as possible, to the point where is, say, California wanted to become a socialist state, by all means. If Montana wanted to become anarchistic, go ahead. This way, people can move where they feel comfortable, and get what they want from their governments. If someone wants to pay more taxes, go where they can do so. This system, I believe, is the only solution to makes multiple groups happy. Big government on the other hand, forces everyone under one system, whether they like it or not. An old friend of mine always said, “Capitalism and conservatism is the unequal distribution of success and happiness, socialism and liberalism is the equal distribution of misery.” I completely agree. Thank you for letting me ramble.
Forgive all of my grammatical errors. After posting that I see there are many.
MDR
So you would agree that failing to pay income tax should not be enforced.
And failing to ticket a person whose meter has expired should also not be enforced as long as failing to enforce the law wouldn't have a negative effect.
Such a law is a violation of federal law and would be unenforcable.
I don't speak for all liberal college students. I speak only for myself. I like the law and I want it enforced.
I strongly disagree. You might not like how your representatives act, but they are acting on your behalf and because we all implicitly sanction this system by participating in it.
Chris,
While I enjoy discussing differences and agreements, using words like "fascist" to compare to "liberal" is not only inappropriate and hyperbolic but offensive. I'm sure you don't mean it that way, but fascism is in no way akin to current American liberal political ideology. I don't know of any American liberals who advocate strong autocratic or dictatorial control by the federal government.
Let's refrain from the labeling please.
Of course that isn't the case. I certainly don't think that way. I just wish we would get away from this "liberal law" vs. "conservative law." The smoking ban is a law put into place by the Iowa legislature and signed by the governor. Similar laws are in effect across the globe, some by "liberal" governments and some by "conservative" governments.
Granted, the ban is supported more by those on the left than by those on the right in Iowa. But it isn't because any of us want the government to be our nanny or to control our lives. It is because the supporters want to address behavior that is unhealthy to the general public. Smoking is legal, just not on public property where the general public should have the leisure to use without breathing in toxins.
If more people were more considerate and respectful of the rest of the public such laws wouldn't be necessary. Would you agree that banning littering on public property is a good ban? Would you agree that it is okay to enforce disturbing of the peace measures in general? What about pissing in a public lake or pool? What about any number of disgusting, dangerous, and offensive things people will or would do IN PUBLIC if there weren't laws against them. People should be allowed to piss in their own pools or smoke on their own property.
I agree that there are some conservative ideas that are fine ideas. I am totally for personal freedom of choice. But too many people make choices that either endanger or disrupt the general public from also enjoying freedom of choice. I don't care if the people next door have a party. But when the party is so loud at 1:00 a.m. that I cannot exercise my choice to sleep, then my freedom is being harmed.
Isn't that kind of the way it is now? If you want to smoke in public places, head down to Missouri or to Louisiana.
I guess that depends on how one defines success, happiness, and misery. Bernie Madoff is/was a capitalist. I'm sure he distributed some happiness but also a lot of misery.
Thanks for letting me do the same.
MDR, you commented that “isn’t that the way it is now.” No, it is not. Within Denver, Colorado, you can have up to 2 ounces of personal marijuana. However, the feds are still there arresting people. That’s crazy, if Colorado wants it legalized, let them do so and the feds should step off. And despite your feelings that fascist is too strong...it is not. We need to call it like it is, and I will not be afraid of hurting feelings by using strong analogies - especially if they are true. And you don’t think Dems want a strong federal govt? What world are you living in – that is EXACTLY what people on the left want – that is the essence of the party – that is their basic philosophy, big govt!
That was me, not MDR. When was the last time the feds arrested anyone in Denver for less than 2 ounces of pot?
I agree that any state should be able to legalize drugs without the federal government overruling them. Same with a host of other laws. However, you should note that the former "conservative" administration was responsible for lots of overrulings: legalized marijuana, physician-assisted suicide, clean-air regulations, etc.
It isn't about "feelings," it is about being accurate. Fascism seeks authoritarian, dictatorial rule and not democracy.
There's a difference between "strong" and authoritarian.
I think we all want effective government.
Harry, sorry I thought it was MDR. And yes,I am very aware of how crazy the Bush administration was - I think everyone is - even if they will not admit it.
“So you would agree that failing to pay income tax should not be enforced.”
- Harry
That is entirely another discussion but the short answer would be yes, for several reasons.
“And failing to ticket a person whose meter has expired should also not be enforced as long as failing to enforce the law wouldn't have a negative effect.”
-Harry
YES! More importantly the question you should be asking is if there is no negative effect why the hell does that law exist in the first place! We cant just legislate to legislate. Laws must be written only when necessary and not violate anyones rights in the process. If the design of a law is to collect funds from those who utilize something or to stop people from hurting others that's fine. If it's designed to screw over people just because it allows a particular authority to pull it off, or provides no real benefit to society at the cost of those who are prosecuted by it, that is a law which never should have been on the books and I would hope it's level of enforcement would reflect a general recognition of this.
Look Harry, what about all those obscure laws still on the books from God knows when about cursing, or witchcraft, or not having sex on Sunday, or whatever other stupid BS is still on the books that our “representatives” and courts would argue endlessly about said laws constitutionality. The fact that such laws exist in the first place is the real problem, but do you think such legislation should be unquestionably enforced? What about my first example of jaywalking? Should we see a massive crackdown on this?
“Such a law is a violation of federal law and would be unenforcable.”
- Harry
Segregation laws were unconstitutional from their inception yet were passed and enforced in several states for years now weren't they. It was up to the “representatives” to write these laws and ignore or conveniently interpret our constitution and federal laws in order to fit their interests. Just because something is passed as a law doesn't make it right nor does it even make it legal, one court will say one thing and another will say something else. Why certain laws are proposed in the first place should be closely examined.
“You might not like how your representatives act, but they are acting on your behalf and because we all implicitly sanction this system by participating in it.”
-Harry
Acting on our behalf, in many instances that's questionable at best. Was Bush acting on our behalf while giving broad sweeping power to several agencies to spy on citizens without a warrant? Acting on behalf of certain interests is more often the case. The people of this country deserve the blame for letting politicians exceed their authority and abuse their power unchecked. However that does not in any way excuse such actions, nor is it accurate to claim that whatever the government does is a direct reflection of the people's will just because they “implicitly sanction” our current system of government.
“I don't know of any American liberals who advocate strong autocratic or dictatorial control by the federal government.”
-Harry
No real American does, regardless of their particular political bias. But that doesn't mean that some wont support the irresponsible and potentially dangerous actions of politicians out of partisan loyalty instead of logic. Many these days treat politics like it's a sport. They will support their team against their number one rival with little to no real question of their own actions, as 'well at least its better than what those damn (insert opposite party name here)crats are doing.'
“But it isn't because any of us want the government to be our nanny or to control our lives.”
- Harry
This is where I do not understand your point of view. You stated yourself, multiple times, that “If more people were more considerate and respectful of the rest of the public such laws wouldn't be necessary” and “But too many smokers are inconsiderate of others and that's why smoking bans become necessary.”
You want the government to legislate politeness. How much control do they get before they are considered our nanny or in control of our lives? If someone's smoking outdoors, OUTDOORS!, manages to bother you in some way shape of form, why can't you ask them to please move, or put that out, or some other personal solution? Why do you need the government to use law enforcement to give out tickets for what you deem inconsiderate? There is a difference between when an activity effects you without your consent and when you allow it to and just don't want to have to deal with it. Just because you don't like it, doesn't meant the government should have the power to ban it.
MDR, we will then just agree to disagree. If a law is not enforced then the law becomes useless. I agree that some laws are useless and unnecessary, but it shouldn't be up to non-elected people to decide whether or not to enforce them.
Parking meters? I can see why they might be necessary in some places. Not only for revenue for upkeep of the area, but to impose time limits so others can park.
I agree for the most part. But once a law is a law, regardless of whether or not YOU think it is necessary, a different situation exists.
And when elected officials decide not to enforce these blue laws, I have little problem. There are plenty of other blue laws that are enforced and I wish elected officials would repeal them. But I don't condemn the police for enforcing them.
Whether it is right or not it is certainly legal unless and until a court of law rules otherwise. Neither you nor I can officially deem a law unconstitutional.
Yes. He was acting in our names. And his actions were deemed to be illegal. Classic example of abuse of power. He should have been impeached. But the Congress did nothing.
Agreed.
Agreed.
I never made such a claim. Representatives routinely do not reflect our will.
Of course not. But that's a long way from fascism.
I want our representatives to represent our will. I firmly believe that it is the will of the people of Iowa to ban smoking in public spaces. At least that's what the polls reveal. When the "government" is not reflecting the will of the people they can be guilty of nannying.
Generation Iowa - Articles: Article View Most Iowans Say Smo...
WCFcourier.com - Waterloo and Cedar Falls Iowa News Homepage...
The Hawk Eye
You need to move on from the outdoor thing. Ever had a smoker walk up next to you OUTDOORS? Ever had to walk through a cloud of smoke OUTDOORS? Again, I'm in favor of designated smoking areas OUTDOORS.
Because it isn't what I deem inconsiderate, it is what the people deem inconsiderate and rather than devolve into a population of vigilanties, we institute police forces.
Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean the representatives of the people should not have the power to ban it.
Smoking bans do not infringe on anyone's civil rights or human rights or constitutional protections.
I don't think opinion polls necessarily constitute an accurate reflection of the will of the people. Was there a popular vote to institute this law I was not aware of? Even if the majority of Iowans wanted this ban, that does not make it a good idea. I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of tyranny of the majority. Laws cannot be written simply because the are popularly supported.
I use the outdoors argument to illustrate the ridiculousnesses of this law. People who have a problem with smoking outdoors should shy away from ever crossing a street due to the car exhaust. I don't think asking your fellow citizen to be considerate equates to vigilantism. In fact I think it pretty far from it. People do not need the government to legislate politeness or consideration. People are not small children or animals, and they only act as such when treated as such.
Smoking bans do not infringe on anyone's civil rights or human rights or constitutional protections, directly. But when an otherwise legal activity is banned in public places with no logical line drawn between when others are effected by said activity against vs of their own free will, it goes beyond the proper limits of our law.
"But I don't condemn the police for enforcing them."
- Harry
Neither do I, explicitly anyway. However I condemn the ISU administration who requires the police to pay special attention to policies it deems extra important.
So you are confronted with evidence you don't like and your response is to dismiss it as being inaccurate. With no evidence of your own. I expect better from you.
There are regular elections in which we choose representatives to act on our behalf.
Yep. I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of tyranny and prohibiting smoking in public spaces is hardly tyrannical. NO ONE's rights are being harmed.
Cars are restricted to streets just like smokers can be restricted to designated smoking areas. Others can choose to avoid.
Our elected representatives have the duty to act on our behalf. And they did. The citizens of Iowa want to prohibit public smoking. Our reps did their jobs.
Where is your evidence that there is an order "to pay special attention" to the smoking ban or that it finds the ban "extra important"?
I would call having regular "stake-outs" paying special attention. Yes, actually. they do stake out smokers. They hide in a concealed area (a loading dock that slopes down to below ground level) and wait in their 4x4 INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE bobcat cart. they then wait for a smoker to light up and proceed to pounce. Now, as far as making the issue "extra important" - how about the fact that the officer who ticketed me stated that "he has to do it because the department doesn't want state fines". what a cop out. not to mention the hypocrisy of driving a polluting vehicle ON campus all day to give fines to people "because he has to" for polluting the air. hmmmmmmmmmm
Since cops "stake out" public highways and patrol neighborhoods all the time, I'd hardly agree that this is special attention. And if you were threatened with a fine wouldn't you think it was important?
Oh, wait . . . you broke the law because you thought you were better than everyone else and didn't have to follow it. That's why you got a ticket.
It's one thing to disagree with the law but it's another to whine because you got busted breaking it.
Yes harry, it is one thing to disagree and another to whine about it. But I'm not whining because i got a ticket. I promptly paid it. I am disputing the basis of it. This boils down to two arguments for the ban. A) it is in the name of public health, or B) it is an inconvenience that people have the right to not be exposed to. I feel quite strongly that any law made in the name of B is absolutely ridiculous. Since when do free-thinking individuals need Uncle Sam and Auntie Susan making sure we are pampered? For case A, as well as B, if we are making a law in the name of public benefit, I feel that the effort should be unilateral. Namely, the fact that there are many other quite dangerous health risks abound in "public" areas, while they are not completely restricted. You rebutted cars earlier by saying they are restricted to roads. Well, why can I not smoke in parking lots and on campus roadways? Jaywalking aside, this seems reasonable if the roadways are the place to contain dangerous and inconvenient things.
"Where is your evidence that there is an order "to pay special attention" to the smoking ban or that it finds the ban "extra important"?"
- Harry
"Officers still use discretion when encountering people on campus, Stewart said, but people who know are informed about the law or have been warned before will most likely be cited."
- DPS Director, Jerry Stewart
"He said they have stopped giving verbal warnings."
- Potratz, quoting an ISU officer's explanation of current enforcement SOP.
If officers are told to ticket, and that they are no longer able to issue warnings, that's special enforcement. Otherwise this laws enforcement would be subject to the same discretion Jerry Stewart talked about they are supposedly still using in the article.
I agree. But I disagree that the smoking ban is entirely B. I think it is also A.
Then there are a lot of laws that get special enforcement . . . making the smoking ban nothing special.