harleyrider1978

harleyrider1978 1 year, 11 months ago on Norcross bans smoking in city parks

A little on the “slippery slope” that apparently – according to the antismoking fanatics - doesn’t exist.

The first demand for a smoking ban was in the late-1980s concerning short-haul flights in the USA of less than 2 hours. At the time, the antismokers were asked if this was a “slippery slope” – where would it end? They ridiculed anyone suggesting such because this ban was ALL that they were after.

Then they ONLY wanted smoking bans on all flights. Then the antismokers ONLY wanted nonsmoking sections in restaurants, bars, etc., and ensuring that this was ALL they wanted. Then the antismokers ONLY wanted complete bans indoors. That was all they wanted. At the time, no-one was complaining about having to “endure” wisps of smoke outdoors.

While they pursued indoor bans, the antismokers were happy for smokers to be exiled to the outdoors.

Having bulldozed their way into indoor bans, the antismokers then went to work on the outdoors, now declaring that momentary exposure to remnants of dilute smoke in doorways or a whiff outdoors was a “hazard”, more than poor, “innocent” nonsmokers should have to “endure”. Then they ONLY wanted bans within 10 feet of entranceways. Then they ONLY wanted bans within 20 feet of entranceways. Then they ONLY wanted bans in entire outdoor dining areas. Then they ONLY wanted bans for entire university and hospital campuses, and parks and beaches. Then they ONLY wanted bans for apartment balconies. Then they ONLY wanted bans for entire apartment (including individual apartments) complexes. Then they ONLY wanted bans in backyards.

0