![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Final Revision: Speech to the City Council
I took speech class in high school, and again as part of the Air Force's Technical Training Instructor Course at the Officer Training School on the Medina Annex in San Antonio. I tell people I'm good at public speaking, but I must admit, I haven't spoken publicly in over a year. I know *how* to speak - at what volume and what speed when giving an oral presentation, and I know how to stand, and what to do with my hands. I know how to make eye-contact and where to place the emphasis in my paragraphs. I also expect the butterfly's and wavering voice to calm down once I get started, but during last night's presentation, that didn't happen.
I know all the people on the City Council, and the Mayor. I speak at length with them easily and confidently, and am friends with several of them. But put these same seven people behind a raised desk staring down at you as if in judgment while you're basically cautioning them against tyranny in the presence of the Chief of Police, and the City Lawyer, and I was sure I was going to be arrested for my inflammatory words.
Freedom can sound a lot like treason.
But sometimes the training really does just kick in. I approached the podium, and did what I had to do. Several individuals told me I was magnificent. For that, I am thankful, for I was unsure I could mask my nervousness. Simply put, I'm out of practice. One of my old managers from work (who also happens to live in our town) showed up to support me; I had requested his assistance on the speech. And while I initially fought against his advice (if you compare this speech to my first draft you'll notice its far less accusatory) the night before the meeting I incorporated some of his changes for the better...despite the fact that meant I no longer had it memorized. I'd like to thank him, and all of you for your support when I first posted it, as well as the Mayor and City Council for allowing me their time.
It will be printed in Friday's newspaper:
Being a lover of liberty means sometimes supporting activities I vehemently disagree with - thankfully, I'm never divided, because my agenda in these matters are without question: If it infringes upon personal freedom I am against it. Thankfully, we have you - a governing body, that being, a group of representatives chosen by the people to carry out the will of the people, insofar as it complies with county, state, and federal law.
While I agree the government has the right to impose such sanctions in City operated areas, and government facilities, that right ends at private enterprise. You may be familiar with the terms "free market society" and "capitalism." Our nation is built on these inherently self-regulating concepts. Loosely defined, it is not the government’s job, or place, to tell a private business how to operate. Freedom of choice is what makes this country work, it is this nation's founding ideals. In this day and age many incorrectly argue that they also have the right to go to a restaurant without being assaulted by smokers. That's not a right, its a choice - the same choice you are considering limiting with this proposal.
My personal opinion on smoking is irrelevant, as should be yours. Personal feelings of council members on this topic should never enter into the decision making process. If it is the people's will to make our community smoke-free, I refuse to argue against their choice to do so. But if the people are divided, I implore you to err on the side of freedom, for while you wield the power to deny us choice, I have placed my trust in you to exercise that power with discretion and responsibility. If this decision is not going to be put to the people, then it is imperative your own beliefs in sovereignty are discharged, for your actions will be heard by all.
It amused me that I wore the Union Jack upon my chest as I spoke about liberty.
no subject
I can't stress the ACTIVE HARM part enough.
no subject
In short. I believe our country was founded on correct principals, and we must fight to preserve our freedoms, which sometimes means letting others do things I don't agree with.
no subject
Yes, second hand smoke has an impact, but that impact varies greatly based on density and other factors. In Indiana, there's a Red Lobster that allows smoking, but has separate sections; being in the non-smoking section is still unpleasant due to the residual smell, however there's no visible smoke or haze. While annoying, to say that the second hand smoke in that location is more dangerous than the diseases of the sniffling children at the neighboring table is completely fraudulent. In my experience, this is typical of most restaurants that allow smoking.
My point is that we live in an actively harmful world simply by existing. This is a classic slippery slope, where the extreme of preventing all active harm results in an unusable world on the one hand, while the other extreme results in an unacceptably risky world on the other.
Where do you draw the line? Libertarian policies generally draw it farther toward active harm than socially protective policies, but both of them pick places to draw the line.
Personally, I think a lot of this 'active harm' crap will be going away in the future, and be replaced by 'compensated harm'. A big problem with harm right now is that a lot of it, health in particular, is irreversible. People fear smoking not because it does damage, but because it does -damage they cannot fix-.
In not very many years, cancer and a lot of other currently deadly medical problems will be manageable. Not very many years after that, they will be irritating yet trivial medical concerns, like cavities. When the damage from second hand smoke and low level nuclear radiation are be trivially dealt with at your yearly doctor visit, how relevant will this level of 'active harm' really be?
no subject
As for the answer to your question, I'm not pushing for the freedom to harm others, rather, the freedom to harm yourself. If you are a private business owner, and you decide to open a 'smoking tent' as a place for smokers to congregate, you do not have the right to go in there and demand they stop. What you do have as a tool at your disposal is the right to not enter. And if you do, you've done so with informed consent.
no subject
no subject
- If it's a place where you can go to shoot up heroin, but where you get kicked out immediately afterward? What if it's some other as-yet-legal-but-still-horribly-addictive designer drug?
- If it's a hangout joint set up for people with strong pedophile tendencies to meet up with each other? What if those people have no illegal material, do not exchange any illegal material, and have no arrests/convictions?
- If it's an extremist terrorist training camp?
- If it's a place where TB-resistant people can go to get a good solid dose of TB with intent to become a carrier?
- If it's a conference on how to build the most deadly disease possible that can be weaponized and is resistant to all currently known treatments?
At what point do you personally draw the line? Even the TB one is questionable - TB is rarely fatal, but it is incurable and irritating. At what point does the mere irritation of others override your "freedom to operate" limits?
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
But what about the more simple case of a place to get drunk? This does spill out into society.
no subject
no subject
In short: Nobody is forcing anyone to be exposed to smoke. None of the establishments within the scope of this argument are places where citizens are forced to go to conduct business.
This issue is not about the harms of smoking, it is about choice; the choice of businesses to set their own policy and the choice of the consumer to expose themselves to that 'harm'.
Everyone who walks into the smoky truck stop diner does so with informed consent to expose themselves to second-hand smoke.
With a vast majority of restaurants choosing to be smoke-free anyway, I think it's safe to say that they go to that diner because it's one of the last holdouts that allow them to dine as they like.
This is not a situation the government needs to involve itself in. The system is inherently self-regulating.
no subject
no subject
Drink Monster!
Irony
no subject
Let me explain. There are many many people where I live (the beautiful state of CA) that smoke when they drink. Its a hassle to go outside, 20 feet away from the entrance to any building in order to smoke, AND you can't bring your drink with you, which means one of two things is going to happen. The first is you will consume less alcohol, which cuts into the bottom line of the establishment. The second more severe option (at least for the bar) is you will throw a party in the privacy of your own home where smoking is still legal and the bar will see NO profit from you or your friends, which can add up into the hundreds or even thousands of dollars each night. That is a lot of money lost, all because business owners are not given the freedom to run their own business.
Now don't get me wrong, I get the idea that second hand smoke is harmful, but it all goes back to YOUR choice to not patronize an establishment because of their policies. We live in a supply and demand world. If a bar, restaurant, etc sees a drop in sales due to a relaxed smoking policy, they will react accordingly. But the problem I have is it shouldn't be the government's decision, it should be the decision of the people who made the financial investment to start with.