Quote:
Originally Posted by SecretMethod70
Why is the state allowed to dictate whether or not your community allows smoking in public? What gives the state of Ohio the right, but not the federal government, to institute that smoking ban in your community? Shouldn't it be on a community by community basis, based on your logic? I'm trying to understand what's so magical about the state that is not magical about the federal government or the county, or the township, or the city, or the ward.
|
Personally, I think smoking should be up to the private business owner. But, it's up to the state. I understand what you are saying and a selfish part of me wants to say let the communities decide and up until then in Ohio they had to a degree. Akron was pretty much smoke free within the city, Canton a restaurant had to have a room or area with separate ventilation (the law cost a lot of places money because they had installed the separate ventilation).
My view is that when enough communities within a state and enough people petition for a law, like that, it is the state's responsibility to put it to vote. To me a vote on an issue such as this is far, far different than the state just saying "you cannot smoke in public places."
---------- Post added at 12:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:43 AM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood
I agree with you. I also want to say that I'm 100% AGAINST issues like abortion and gay marriage being decided on a state-by-state basis, especially if they are being decided by popular vote. The idea that the majority of people voting about gay rights would not be gay, or that half (or more) of the people voting on abortion rights would be men just doesn't sit well with me.
|
Just because the majority is not gay or men.... does not mean that they would vote against the proposals.
I just think that it is not the Fed's purpose to dictate what laws such as those a state can have. I also don't believe that every state would deny legalized abortion or gay marriage. And if it doesn't pass the first time, find out what would help it pass and keep putting it on the ballot.
---------- Post added at 01:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:48 AM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcol
I never understand this. Why would someone in a liberal state want to force their beliefs on a state with more conservative values or vice versa?
|
Plain and simple it's called wanting to have power over others.If you are pro-abortion and you get abortion clinics everywhere including the heart of the Bible Belt where the vast majority do not want it but can do nothing about it because the Fed government states you can't..... then you have a sense of power over these people because your view and will proved more powerful than theirs.
That's why extremists do not want the states allowing the people to decide their laws. If they give that power to the Fed and can vote the party in they can impose their will regardless of what the true (not some poll) majority of a state wants.
Like gay marriage, I really don't believe in the vast majority that this is an issue. It only becomes an issue when you take it out of the people's hands and give that right to decide to the Fed. or state. Then, it becomes just a dictation and not a consensus of the people's will. Dictations people resent, letting the people vote and decide allows them the feeling of being heard.