From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Related Categories: Santa Cruz Indymedia | Government & Elections
A Civil Libertarian and Non Smoker Speaks Up
by Steve Pleich
Monday Sep 9th, 2013 1:37 PM
Expanding the City's Smoking Ban is Not Justifiable
Let me preface my remarks by stating that I am not a smoker and feel that that the presence of smoke in public spaces is both a nuisance and an arguable health hazard to non-smokers. However, as a civil libertarian, I feel I must speak up on the issue of the proposed expansion of our city’s smoking ban. In my considered opinion, smoking bans generally infringe on our civil rights and possibly our constitutional rights. Whether smoking falls under the freedom of expression in the First Amendment is something that has been debated for many years, but I believe that the issue is much broader and revolves more practically around our historic notions of the Great Social Contract.

The idea of the social contract is one of the foundational principles of American society. It is the belief that the state only exists to serve the will of the people, and they are the source of all political power enjoyed by the state. The people can choose to give or withhold this power. Philosophers like Thomas Hobbes initially argued that when people mutually agreed to create a state, they “ contracted” only to give the state enough power to provide for the protection and well-being of the society as a whole and no more. However, Hobbes came to believe that once the power was given to the state, the people then relinquished any right to that power. In effect, that would be the price of the protection they sought. For me as a civil libertarian, this is where the wheels come off the wagon.

Governments, and certainly not out local city government, do not have the right to tell me what I can and can’t do in public spaces so long as that activity is not unlawful; and smoking is not against the law. Whether or not smokers chose, as a matter of their own ideas of social contract, to indulge their habit in less occupied spaces is something they must wrestle with in good conscience. But we cannot legislate away the right to make that decision nor can we, in my view, abridge the “right to quiet enjoyment” of public spaces afforded equally to smoker and nonsmoker alike.

The question of whether the proposed expansion is another not so subtle effort to force the homeless out of our downtown I will leave for others. But my concept of the Great Social Contract does not include the abridgment of civil liberties, not mine nor anyone else’s.
by What City? What Ban?
Monday Sep 9th, 2013 4:23 PM
Please do not assume that we all just read or watched the same thing you did. I have no idea what you are talking about. First of all, what city are you talking about? What ban are you referring to?

You have interesting things to say, but we're lost without the context.

Please provide readers with the basic information.
by Steve Pleich
Tuesday Sep 10th, 2013 1:07 PM
Sorry about the lack of context. There are several local ordinances being offered by the Santa Cruz City Council at its regular meeting Tuesday, September 10th. Each one is a not so subtle attack on, by turns, smokers, street artists and, of course, our homeless community. Their sessions can be live streamed for those with long attention spans and strong stomachs.
by choking on lack of access
Sunday Sep 15th, 2013 5:07 AM
I appreciate your defense of our brothers and sisters who are homeless against the continued attacks by the City of Santa Cruz.

But there is another civil right that is also worth defending: the right of access to public spaces by people with disabilities. Many asthmatics and people with multiple chemical sensitivities are barred from public spaces because others smoke anywhere they want.

A smoking ban is only realistic if it includes clearly marked areas where smoking is allowed, so that people with respiratory illnesses can avoid those areas, and people who smoke have areas where they can do so without being hassled.