Belmont First City To Forcefully Inflict Ideals On Entire Populace

Mark

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Bomb Iraqs and Palestinians back to stone age: Check.

Take away freedom in the name of 'better security' : Check.

Light up a cigarette next to a stinky city diesal-powered mass-transit bust: No check.

Pretty soon it'll go from no-smoking to no-this, no-that, only-this, only-that, on to Sig Heil, lick boots, and all the trimmings.

http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=66988

Belmont to be first U.S. city to ban all smoking
By Dana Yates, Daily Journal Staff

Belmont is set to make history by becoming the first city in the nation to ban smoking on its streets and almost everywhere else.

The Belmont City Council voted unanimously last night to pursue a strict law that will prohibit smoking anywhere in the city except for single-family detached residences. Smoking on the street, in a park and even in one's car will become illegal and police would have the option of handing out tickets if they catch someone.

The actual language of the law still needs to be drafted and will likely come back to the council either in December or early next year.

"We have a tremendous opportunity here. We need to pass as stringent a law as we can, I would like to make it illegal," said Councilman Dave Warden. "What if every city did this, image how many lives would be saved? If we can do one little thing here at this level it will matter."

Armed with growing evidence that second-hand smoke causes negative health effects, the council chose to pursue the strictest law possible and deal with any legal challenges later. Last month, the council said it wanted to pursue a law similar to ones passed in Dublin and the Southern California city of Calabasas. It took up the cause after a citizen at a senior living facility requested smoke be declared a public nuisance, allowing him to sue neighbors who smoke.

The council was concerned about people smoking in multi-unit residences.

"I would just like to say 'no smoking' and see what happens and if they do smoke, [someone] has the right to have the police come and give them a ticket," said Councilwoman Coralin Feierbach.

The council's decision garnered applause from about 15 people who showed up in support of the ordinance. One woman stood up and blew kisses to the council, another pumped his fist with satisfaction.

"I'm astounded. I admire their courage and unanimous support," said Serena Chen, policy director of the American Lung Association of California.

Chen has worked in this area since 1991 and helped many cities and counties pass no smoking policies, but not one has been willing to draft a complete ban.

"I feel like the revolution is taking place and I am trying to catch up," Chen told the council.

The decision puts Belmont on the forefront of smoking policy and it is already attracting attention from other states.

"You have the ability to do something a little more extraordinary than Dublin or Calabasas. I see what they've done as five or six on the Richter Scale. What the citizens of Belmont, and of America, need is five brave people to do something that's a seven or eight on the Richter Scale," said Philip Henry Jarosz of the Condominium Council of Maui.

"The whole state of Hawaii is watching" he said.

Councilman Warren Lieberman said he was concerned the city will pass a law it cannot enforce because residents will still smoke unless police are specifically called to a situation. Police cannot go out and enforce smoking rules, he said.

"It makes us hypocrites by saying you know you can break the law if no one is watching," Lieberman said.

However, both Feierbach and Warden argued it is the same as jaywalking, having a barking dog or going 10 miles over the speed limit. All are illegal, but seldom enforced.

"You can't walk down the street with a beer, but you can have a cigarette," Warden said. "You shouldn't be allowed to do that. I just think it shouldn't be allowed anywhere except in someone's house. If you want to do that, that's fine."
This reminds me of Zionism. It's like the same mask with many faces and most, if not all, of those who wear a version of it don't know they're all wearing the same basic mask...
 
and if they do smoke, [someone] has the right to have the police come and give them a ticket
Don't you just love that? The right to have the police do so. "Gosh huney, I'm so glad we're free" as Bill Hicks used to mock
 
starsailor said:
and if they do smoke, [someone] has the right to have the police come and give them a ticket
Don't you just love that? The right to have the police do so. "Gosh huney, I'm so glad we're free" as Bill Hicks used to mock
Sounds cowardly to me. People can't stand the THOUGHT that someone is making a free will choice so they have to have THEIR ideals inflicted upon the masses by force. Oh ya, it makes perfect sense -- in the context of ponerization.

Land of the free? Home of the brave? And they pledge allegiance to a FLAG ! A FLAG !
 
Ya'll ought to download and print all the SOTT pieces on anti-anti-smoking and mail it to those idiots. Drown 'em in paper.
 
There is a follow up article in San Mateo Daily: Unprecedented smoking ban a hot topic (http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=67005)
 
Apparently the city of Belmont is forging ahead with the smoking ban: http://cbs5.com/local/local_story_319175227.html

Belmont Considers Nation's Toughest Smoking Ban

(BCN) BELMONT The city of Belmont will set a new standard for anti-smoking legislation in the United States if it approves an ordinance that will be drawn up in the coming weeks, according to the American Lung Association.

After an evening of discussion and testimony from local citizens and anti-smoking advocates, the Belmont City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to proceed with the drafting of an ordinance that revises the city's current smoking ban in workplaces and most public areas, to now include any residence except single-family detached homes.

According to Belmont Mayor Philip Mathewson, who said today he fully supports the new proposal, the major thrust of the revision was to include multi-unit apartment buildings in the ban.

Those who live in single-family homes would still be able to smoke on their decks and patios and in their yards, he said.

City Council members were responding to residents, especially senior citizens, Mathewson said, who complained of complications arising from secondhand smoke in their buildings.

Spurred on by their testimony, along with evidence from American Lung Association officials that secondhand smokers often end up with worse medical problems than smokers themselves, the City Council decided to act, Mathewson said, and will seek to declare secondhand smoke "a public nuisance" in the language of the new ordinance.

Mathewson said he grew up in a household of smokers and now suffers from allergies that may be related to secondhand smoke. In addition, he said, his aunt passed away from emphysema and lung cancer.

"I would not have voted for it if I did not fully support the ordinance," he declared.

According to Mathewson, "the vast majority" of Belmont residents that have come to meetings to discuss the ban and that have emailed him have also been in favor of it.

Serena Chen, policy director of the American Lung Association of California, said today that she was very excited about the events at last night's City Council meeting, at which she testified.

Chen said she has been working on secondhand smoking ordinances since 1991.

"Last night was a first for me," she said, remarking at the length to which the Belmont councilmembers decided to go in order to extend the smoking ban.

"I was able to watch them over two consecutive hearings," she said. "Some said their minds had changed. They saw what the (American Lung) Association had been saying for a while, about the really damaging effects of secondhand smoke, and they were not willing to compromise (when it came to protecting) their citizens."

Secondhand smoke has been declared a toxic contaminant by the California Environmental Protection Agency, and according to the American Lung Association, 53,000 Americans die each year from secondhand smoke exposure.

Enforcement of the ordinance will still be an issue, Chen admitted, saying that most anti-smoking enforcements are complaint-driven by citizens.

According to Belmont City Attorney Marc Zafferano, no final decision has yet been made regarding how to enforce the proposed ban.

A combination of enforcement approaches could be considered by the City Council, including civil lawsuits by private citizens, civil lawsuits by the city and citations resulting in fines, Zafferano said.

According to Zafferano, the ordinance is likely to include all three as options.

As to whether the proposed ordinance in Belmont would be the toughest yet enacted in the country, Chen responded, "I think it would be the strictest in the world."

"I admire the City Council's courage," Chen added, "If nothing else, they've opened up the debate to the real solutions."

Mayor Mathewson said that the proposed ordinance would probably be introduced to the City Council in January and if approved, could go into effect as early as February or March.
 
oh gosh!

Pleasantville or 1984 revisited? Welcome to facism 101, because "it is
the right thing to do" because "we, the elite" says so?

It's time to fight or simply get the hell out out Belmont?

This is also in line with the other actions of small town thinking such as
the mayor's actions to get rid of the illegal aliens. May G-d help 'em
poor hapless souls... sigh.

Perhaps it is time to get out of cities and towns and start living in the
desert? Maybe setup another survivalist communes?
 
Can't smoke in the desert due to the potential for fallout of second-hand smoke over semi-nearby urban areas :rolleyes:
 
mark said:
Can't smoke in the desert due to the potential for fallout of second-hand smoke over semi-nearby urban areas :rolleyes:
Oh yeah... haha. The commune just might all light up at the same
time and what results looks like a mushroom cloud of smoke that
might rain down on the nearby cities and towns?

gah.
 
Complete and Utter Hypocrasy. All this in the name of health?

They put Poisons in our Food.

The put Poisons in our Water.

They pollute our environment and mess with the weather...

it's obvious to anyone who pays attention that there is no public concern for our health...

so why ban smoking?
 
Updating this topic.

The smoking ban has received the necessary votes from the city council and is moving ahead being implemented: _http://cbs5.com/health/local_story_269134509.html

I read in another article that there are plans to expand a similar resolution across the San Francisco bay area.

The public hearing notice that details the smoking ban is here: _http://www.belmont.gov/SubContent.asp?CatId=240001678&C_ID=240002630
 
Ripped em an Email, perhaps i should snail mail them Laura's full-length article, "Let's all light up!"

Cyre said:
Recently I heard your fine city was attempting to pass a ban on smoking. While i understand the supposed dangers of second hand smoke, i feel they are being overplayed in an attempt to deliberately sidetrack real health concerns.

What surprises me is that we hear about how smoking is dangerous, but not one mention of food additives, hormones or antibiotics used in our food! (see this story: http://tinyurl.com/26g93t) That we legislate where and when individuals who choose to smoke can do so "legally" while there is no legislation outlawing the use of carcinogens as preservatives.

There's also been shown a correlation between heart disease and diesel exhaust (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070912190002.htm). As you may know, most public busses run on diesel, so banning smoking in major cities while continuing to pollute our air with diesel is also hypocritical.

Further, it's been shown that nicoteine actually has health benefits (Study shows Nicoteine lessens depression in non-smokers: http://tinyurl.com/yrbp2v) and it also can help improve concentration (see here: http://tinyurl.com/ywwpep).

As a concerned citizen, a student of science and history (Nazi Germany also had a thing about making smoking illegal) I urge you to look at the other side of the argument. Logic would tell us that without understanding both sides of an issue we cannot make intelligent or rational decisions, we lack data. I would hope that as elected public officials you would do your duty to scrutinize every piece of legislation for flaws, here's a few:

Smoking and Caffeine May Protect Against Parkinson's Disease
Nicotine helps Alzheimer's and Parkinson's Patients
Nicotine Found To Protect Against Parkinson's-like Brain Damage
More Dangerous Than Smoking? Death by Soda
The link between monosodium glutamate (MSG) and obesity
Aspartame Causes Cancer in Rats at Levels Currently Approved for Humans

Discussion of the above articles and links to each are available in this piece on smoking:
"Let's all Light Up!"
http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/articles/show/139304-Let%27s+All+Light+Up%21

thank you

BK
Philadelphia PA
Edit: For anyone else who would like to do the same their contact info is here:
_http://www.belmont.gov/subContent.asp?CatId=240000200
 
Ya'll go for it! Even if we suspect that it will accomplish nothing, let's do it anyway!
 
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html

An excerpt from
They Thought They Were Free
The Germans, 1933-45
Milton Mayer

But Then It Was Too Late

"What no one seemed to notice," said a colleague of mine, a philologist, "was the ever widening gap, after 1933, between the government and the people. Just think how very wide this gap was to begin with, here in Germany. And it became always wider. You know, it doesn’t make people close to their government to be told that this is a people’s government, a true democracy, or to be enrolled in civilian defense, or even to vote. All this has little, really nothing, to do with knowing one is governing.

"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could not understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.

"This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.

"You will understand me when I say that my Middle High German was my life. It was all I cared about. I was a scholar, a specialist. Then, suddenly, I was plunged into all the new activity, as the university was drawn into the new situation; meetings, conferences, interviews, ceremonies, and, above all, papers to be filled out, reports, bibliographies, lists, questionnaires. And on top of that were the demands in the community, the things in which one had to, was ‘expected to’ participate that had not been there or had not been important before. It was all rigmarole, of course, but it consumed all one’s energies, coming on top of the work one really wanted to do. You can see how easy it was, then, not to think about fundamental things. One had no time."

"Those," I said, "are the words of my friend the baker. ‘One had no time to think. There was so much going on.’"

"Your friend the baker was right," said my colleague. "The dictatorship, and the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting. It provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway. I do not speak of your ‘little men,’ your baker and so on; I speak of my colleagues and myself, learned men, mind you. Most of us did not want to think about fundamental things and never had. There was no need to. Nazism gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about—we were decent people—and kept us so busy with continuous changes and ‘crises’ and so fascinated, yes, fascinated, by the machinations of the ‘national enemies,’ without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us. Unconsciously, I suppose, we were grateful. Who wants to think?

"To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it—please try to believe me—unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, ‘regretted,’ that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these ‘little measures’ that no ‘patriotic German’ could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.

"How is this to be avoided, among ordinary men, even highly educated ordinary men? Frankly, I do not know. I do not see, even now. Many, many times since it all happened I have pondered that pair of great maxims, Principiis obsta and Finem respice—‘Resist the beginnings’ and ‘Consider the end.’ But one must foresee the end in order to resist, or even see, the beginnings. One must foresee the end clearly and certainly and how is this to be done, by ordinary men or even by extraordinary men? Things might have. And everyone counts on that might.

"Your ‘little men,’ your Nazi friends, were not against National Socialism in principle. Men like me, who were, are the greater offenders, not because we knew better (that would be too much to say) but because we sensed better. Pastor Niemöller spoke for the thousands and thousands of men like me when he spoke (too modestly of himself) and said that, when the Nazis attacked the Communists, he was a little uneasy, but, after all, he was not a Communist, and so he did nothing; and then they attacked the Socialists, and he was a little uneasier, but, still, he was not a Socialist, and he did nothing; and then the schools, the press, the Jews, and so on, and he was always uneasier, but still he did nothing. And then they attacked the Church, and he was a Churchman, and he did something—but then it was too late."

"Yes," I said.

"You see," my colleague went on, "one doesn’t see exactly where or how to move. Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don’t want to act, or even talk, alone; you don’t want to ‘go out of your way to make trouble.’ Why not?—Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.

"Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing as time goes on, it grows. Outside, in the streets, in the general community, ‘everyone’ is happy. One hears no protest, and certainly sees none. You know, in France or Italy there would be slogans against the government painted on walls and fences; in Germany, outside the great cities, perhaps, there is not even this. In the university community, in your own community, you speak privately to your colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, ‘It’s not so bad’ or ‘You’re seeing things’ or ‘You’re an alarmist.’

"And you are an alarmist. You are saying that this must lead to this, and you can’t prove it. These are the beginnings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don’t know the end, and how do you know, or even surmise, the end? On the one hand, your enemies, the law, the regime, the Party, intimidate you. On the other, your colleagues pooh-pooh you as pessimistic or even neurotic. You are left with your close friends, who are, naturally, people who have always thought as you have.

"But your friends are fewer now. Some have drifted off somewhere or submerged themselves in their work. You no longer see as many as you did at meetings or gatherings. Informal groups become smaller; attendance drops off in little organizations, and the organizations themselves wither. Now, in small gatherings of your oldest friends, you feel that you are talking to yourselves, that you are isolated from the reality of things. This weakens your confidence still further and serves as a further deterrent to—to what? It is clearer all the time that, if you are going to do anything, you must make an occasion to do it, and then you are obviously a troublemaker. So you wait, and you wait.

"But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That’s the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked—if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in ’43 had come immediately after the ‘German Firm’ stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in ’33. But of course this isn’t the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D.

"And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you. The burden of self-deception has grown too heavy, and some minor incident, in my case my little boy, hardly more than a baby, saying ‘Jewish swine,’ collapses it all at once, and you see that everything, everything, has changed and changed completely under your nose. The world you live in—your nation, your people—is not the world you were born in at all. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. Now you live in a system which rules without responsibility even to God. The system itself could not have intended this in the beginning, but in order to sustain itself it was compelled to go all the way.

"You have gone almost all the way yourself. Life is a continuing process, a flow, not a succession of acts and events at all. It has flowed to a new level, carrying you with it, without any effort on your part. On this new level you live, you have been living more comfortably every day, with new morals, new principles. You have accepted things you would not have accepted five years ago, a year ago, things that your father, even in Germany, could not have imagined.

"Suddenly it all comes down, all at once. You see what you are, what you have done, or, more accurately, what you haven’t done (for that was all that was required of most of us: that we do nothing). You remember those early meetings of your department in the university when, if one had stood, others would have stood, perhaps, but no one stood. A small matter, a matter of hiring this man or that, and you hired this one rather than that. You remember everything now, and your heart breaks. Too late. You are compromised beyond repair.

"What then? You must then shoot yourself. A few did. Or ‘adjust’ your principles. Many tried, and some, I suppose, succeeded; not I, however. Or learn to live the rest of your life with your shame. This last is the nearest there is, under the circumstances, to heroism: shame. Many Germans became this poor kind of hero, many more, I think, than the world knows or cares to know."

I said nothing. I thought of nothing to say.

"I can tell you," my colleague went on, "of a man in Leipzig, a judge. He was not a Nazi, except nominally, but he certainly wasn’t an anti-Nazi. He was just—a judge. In ’42 or ’43, early ’43, I think it was, a Jew was tried before him in a case involving, but only incidentally, relations with an ‘Aryan’ woman. This was ‘race injury,’ something the Party was especially anxious to punish. In the case at bar, however, the judge had the power to convict the man of a ‘nonracial’ offense and send him to an ordinary prison for a very long term, thus saving him from Party ‘processing’ which would have meant concentration camp or, more probably, deportation and death. But the man was innocent of the ‘nonracial’ charge, in the judge’s opinion, and so, as an honorable judge, he acquitted him. Of course, the Party seized the Jew as soon as he left the courtroom."

"And the judge?"

"Yes, the judge. He could not get the case off his conscience—a case, mind you, in which he had acquitted an innocent man. He thought that he should have convicted him and saved him from the Party, but how could he have convicted an innocent man? The thing preyed on him more and more, and he had to talk about it, first to his family, then to his friends, and then to acquaintances. (That’s how I heard about it.) After the ’44 Putsch they arrested him. After that, I don’t know."

I said nothing.

"Once the war began," my colleague continued, "resistance, protest, criticism, complaint, all carried with them a multiplied likelihood of the greatest punishment. Mere lack of enthusiasm, or failure to show it in public, was ‘defeatism.’ You assumed that there were lists of those who would be ‘dealt with’ later, after the victory. Goebbels was very clever here, too. He continually promised a ‘victory orgy’ to ‘take care of’ those who thought that their ‘treasonable attitude’ had escaped notice. And he meant it; that was not just propaganda. And that was enough to put an end to all uncertainty.

"Once the war began, the government could do anything ‘necessary’ to win it; so it was with the ‘final solution of the Jewish problem,’ which the Nazis always talked about but never dared undertake, not even the Nazis, until war and its ‘necessities’ gave them the knowledge that they could get away with it. The people abroad who thought that war against Hitler would help the Jews were wrong. And the people in Germany who, once the war had begun, still thought of complaining, protesting, resisting, were betting on Germany’s losing the war. It was a long bet. Not many made it."


Copyright notice: Excerpt from pages 166-73 of They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45 by Milton Mayer, published by the University of Chicago Press. ©1955, 1966 by the University of Chicago. All rights reserved. This text may be used and shared in accordance with the fair-use provisions of U.S. copyright law, and it may be archived and redistributed in electronic form, provided that this entire notice, including copyright information, is carried and provided that the University of Chicago Press is notified and no fee is charged for access. Archiving, redistribution, or republication of this text on other terms, in any medium, requires the consent of the University of Chicago Press. (Footnotes and other references included in the book may have been removed from this online version of the text.)
 
Back
Top Bottom