New York's Central Park gives musicians the boot

[BJJ-Blue]

"NEW YORK (AFP) – Few instruments can be gentler than the harp, but authorities in New York's Central Park have branded street musicians like harpist Meta Epstein a public disturbance and want them driven out.

A new campaign to enforce eight "quiet zones," including in some of the city's most hallowed spots for street performers, is turning virtuosos like Epstein into outlaws.

After years of being left in peace to perform her baroque repertoire on the beautiful, golden instrument, Epstein, 59, says she's suddenly being treated as a menace.

Park police, she said, accused her of destroying the grass where she sat and ordered her to move on.

"They say we're responsible for the bare patch but then you see people everywhere playing soccer with boots and cleats," she said in bewilderment. "They were actually pretty nasty and I'm not used to police intimidation. It's basically putting us out of work."

Nearby in the mosaic-lined colonnades next to Bethesda Fountain, a few brave souls performed Mozart and Gospel songs in defiance of the ban.

The columned arcade is not just a prime tourist spot, but enjoys some of the best acoustics in New York outside of a concert hall, leaving the last note of each song hanging in the air. But the musicians, including a Japanese singer, a Ukrainian double bass player and singer John Boyd, said playing timeless music hadn't saved them from the crackdown.

Boyd, a 48-year-old with a powerful, deep voice, pulled eight pink sheets from his pocket -- park police summonses handed out over the last two weeks for fines ranging from $50 to $350.

"I've been ticketed and arrested because I wouldn't stop singing," he said. "My life has been devastated by this."

Central Park representatives say they have nothing against musicians. They just want don't want them in "quiet zones," which have been marked with new, shiny green and white signs.

Park spokeswoman Vickie Karp said the zones include the Bethesda Fountain area, Shakespeare Garden, Sheep Meadow and Strawberry Fields, the living memorial to the Beatles' John Lennon, who was murdered nearby.

"For every protester supporting music or loud noise without limits, there are thousands of park visitors who come to parks looking for peace and quiet," Karp said in an email.

"Parks are one of the few places you can come and hear the soothing sounds of nature: bird songs, falling water, the wind in the leaves, human conversation."

Karp pointed out that musical performances at Bethesda Fountain can attract crowds of as many as hundreds of people. Some weekends, the sound reverberates across the boating pond and into the carefully preserved, dense woodland of The Ramble.

"It is not that we are against music. It is that we are for quiet," Karp said.

Musicians say that logic doesn't justify the expulsion of classical singers and string instrument players, whose melodies, if anything, are more soothing than the noise of tourist crowds.

Arlen Oleson, 56, who plays the hammer dulcimer, noted that huge concerts for rock bands are organized in Central Park, bringing tens of thousands of people to trample the grass and mammoth speakers to pump out mega-decibel music.

"It's a galling hypocrisy," he said.

The street musicians have gotten some high-profile help in the last week.

Norman Siegel, a prominent civil rights lawyer, has taken up their cause and Boyd said the attorney was helping him try to escape punishment.

Geoffrey Croft, the founder of NYC Park Advocates, which supports city parks, has also jumped in, calling the issue "absurd."

"As long as there's been a park system people have been playing music in parks," he told AFP. "They're claiming people are complaining, but who's complaining?"

The clampdown appeared to mystify tourists, some of whom come specifically to Bethesda Fountain to hear the free, impromptu concerts.

Tourist Zita Misley, a mother of three, said she'd noticed the "quiet zone" sign nearby, but hadn't quite got the point.

"Oh, I thought they put 'quiet zone' so that we could listen to the music!" she said when told of the park's campaign."

Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110612/lf_afp/lifestyleusmusicsocietynewyork_20110612051411

What ever happened to the 1st Amendment? This is public property, and now the government says you can't sing on it? Of course not too many complained when they banned smoking in Central Park. Now they've banned music. What will they ban next?

[MasterKiller]

What ever happened to the 1st Amendment? This is public property, and now the government says you can't sing on it? Of course not too many complained when they banned smoking in Central Park. Now they've banned music. What will they ban next?

Free speech zones were commonly used by President George W Bush after the September 11, 2001 attacks and through the 2004 election. Free speech zones were set up by the Secret Service, who scouted locations where the U.S. president was scheduled to speak, or pass through. Officials targeted those who carried anti-Bush signs and escorted them to the free speech zones prior to and during the event. Reporters were often barred by local officials from displaying these protesters on camera or speaking to them within the zone.[3][4] Protesters who refused to go to the free speech zone were often arrested and charged with trespassing, disorderly conduct and/or resisting arrest.[16][17] A seldom-used federal law making it unlawful to "willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in ... any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting" has also been invoked.[18][19]

[Sardinkahnikov]

I wonder what actually motivated the ban. Did people start to complain or something?

[BJJ-Blue]

I wonder what actually motivated the ban. Did people start to complain or something?

No they did not. The article goes over that too.

That's whats especially galling about these nanny state liberals, they are fixing 'problems' no one is even saying we have. And of course fixing them by taking away our rights.

[MasterKiller]

No they did not. The article goes over that too.

That's whats especially galling about these nanny state liberals, they are fixing 'problems' no one is even saying we have. And of course fixing them by taking away our rights.

LOL at it NOT being OK for the government to tell you where to play music, but it being PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE for the government to tell you who you can marry.

What a maroon.

[BJJ-Blue]

LOL at it NOT being OK for the government to tell you where to play music, but it being PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE for the government to tell you who you can marry.

What a maroon.

I never said they should be telling people who they can and cant marry. You put words in my mouth. Which liberals usually have to do to debate. Here is my stance on the issue, not what you say my stance is:


My stance on all marriage is simple and has been stated more than once. It's none of the Governments business. They should not do things like set different tax policies for married vs unmarried households. Nowhere did I call for banning gay marriage.

So please, debate on what I say. Thanks.

One more thing. Why can't you just call a wrong a wrong? Why do you always have to play the 'But the other side does it too' card? And if you even read your own source, it said "barred by local officials". And also, who put said laws into effect? Again, from your source, "Free speech zones were set up by the Secret Service". You can't even blame the right guy.

[MasterKiller]

I never said they should be telling people who they can and cant marry. You put words in my mouth. Which liberals usually have to do to debate. Here is my stance on the issue, not what you say my stance is:



So please, debate on what I say. Thanks.


Whatever people want to do in their bedrooms with other adults (no matter how disgusting it may be), is their business. But legal marriage should be between a man and a woman.


hmmmmmmmm


One more thing. Why can't you just call a wrong a wrong? Why do you always have to play the 'But the other side does it too' card? And if you even read your own source, it said "barred by local officials". And also, who put said laws into effect? Again, from your source, "Free speech zones were set up by the Secret Service". You can't even blame the right guy.

LOL. Coming from the king of the "But Liberals do it, too!" card.

Did you even read it, or are you just scanning for argument points? Local Officials barred reporters from the Free Speech Zones. And the CIA was setting up the zones on Bush's orders.

[BJJ-Blue]

LOL. Coming from the king of the "But Liberals do it, too!" card.

Whatever. Let's stay on topic; what's your take/opinion on the banning of music in Central Park? Do you support the ban?


Did you even read it, or are you just scanning for argument points? Local Officials barred reporters from the Free Speech Zones. And the CIA was setting up the zones on Bush's orders. Presumably, to avoid getting hit with the eggs like the last time he conned his way into office.

Of course I read it, you saw me quote it. And unless I missed it, it didn't say a word about the CIA.

And again, please show who ENACTED those 'free speech zones', not just who used them. You've brought Bush into the discussion, so please show where he enacted these laws you've brought up.

[MasterKiller]

Whatever. Let's stay on topic; what's your take/opinion on the banning of music in Central Park? Do you support the ban?

Freedom of expression also means freedom from expression. The government has an obligation to protect everyone's rights.


Of course I read it, you saw me quote it. And unless I missed it, it didn't say a word about the CIA.

And again, please show who ENACTED those 'free speech zones', not just who used them. You've brought Bush into the discussion, so please show where he enacted these laws you've brought up.

Yeah, I was confusing my CIA thread with this one. Secret service.

[BJJ-Blue]

Freedom of expression also means freedom from expression. The government has an obligation to protect everyone's rights.

So do you support the music ban in Central Park?


Yeah, I was confusing my CIA thread with this one. Secret service.

But Bush doesn't make Secret Service policy. So you can't blame him on this one.

[MasterKiller]

So do you support the music ban in Central Park?

I see nothing wrong with having designated areas for music and areas for no music, which is what they did. They didn't ban it outright.


But Bush doesn't make Secret Service policy. So you can't blame him on this one.

:rolleyes: at the president not commanding the secret service. Ay any rate....

The Supreme Court upholds the Free Speech Zones. I was just pointing out that it's not just a "liberal"issue.

[BJJ-Blue]

:rolleyes: at the president not commanding the secret service. Ay any rate....

The Supreme Court upholds the Free Speech Zones. I was just pointing out that it's not just a "liberal"issue.

He doesn't. Roll your eyes all you want, but facts are facts. The President does not command the Secret Service. If you believe he does, please provide links showing he does.

Banning things people like is more often done by liberals. Which group banned Happy Meals and is now going after circumcision?

[David Jamieson]

He doesn't. Roll your eyes all you want, but facts are facts. The President does not command the Secret Service. If you believe he does, please provide links showing he does.

Banning things people like is more often done by liberals. Which group banned Happy Meals and is now going after circumcision?

You are wrong. The president is boss of all executives including the Director of the USSS Mark J. Sullivan, who is a federal executive and therefore, Obama is his boss along with all other executives appointed in federal service. ALL of them.

To be fair, the president cannot disband the USSS. that would be up to Congress.

I'm a canadian, and it didn't take long for me to read this information as available on the web from various .gov sites, wikis and articles regarding the question.

[BJJ-Blue]

The President does not set Secret Service policies. MK cited 'free speech zones' used by President Bush. But it wasn't Bush who created the zones.

Of course why Bush was brought into a discussion on music banning in Central Park is beyond me. But since he was, we at least need to get the facts straight.

[David Jamieson]

The President does not set Secret Service policies. MK cited 'free speech zones' used by President Bush. But it wasn't Bush who created the zones.

Of course why Bush was brought into a discussion on music banning in Central Park is beyond me. But since he was, we at least need to get the facts straight.

nobody said anything about policy. Not even me.
USSS mandate is overseen by Congress.
The executive branch of all federal offices answer to the potus.

Mark J. Sullivan is the executive director of the USSS and his direct line of reporting is to the POTUS.

[MasterKiller]

The President does not set Secret Service policies. MK cited 'free speech zones' used by President Bush. But it wasn't Bush who created the zones.

Of course why Bush was brought into a discussion on music banning in Central Park is beyond me. But since he was, we at least need to get the facts straight.

Your whole argument is a nonissue., anyway. The musicians weren't banned. They are free to play in designated areas, just like every American is free to exercise their freedom of speech in designated areas, which is upheld by the Supreme Court.

[BJJ-Blue]

Your whole argument is a nonissue., anyway. The musicians weren't banned. They are free to play in designated areas, just like every American is free to exercise their freedom of speech in designated areas, which is upheld by the Supreme Court.

I believe the Supreme Court case(s) involve Presidential visits and things like protests, conventions, and miltary funeral protests (ie special events), not everyday public property usage.

[MasterKiller]

I believe the Supreme Court case(s) involve Presidential visits and things like protests, conventions, and miltary funeral protests (ie special events), not everyday public property usage.

Is it your contention, then, that the rights of the musicians supercede those of non-musicians who would like to be in the park without being bothered by music?

[BJJ-Blue]

Is it your contention, then, that the rights of the musicians supercede those of non-musicians who would like to be in the park without being bothered by music?

What?

If you read the article, you would see no one was calling for any bans at all. The person who was defending it said there were complaints, but didn't back that assertion up. And if it was wanted, why didn't they gather signatures and put it on the ballot for the whole city to decide, instead of just letting a few elected officials implement the ban?

[Syn7]

One more thing. Why can't you just call a wrong a wrong? Why do you always have to play the 'But the other side does it too' card?


hey man, you do that all the time... like ALL THE TIME...

[Syn7]

Whatever. Let's stay on topic; what's your take/opinion on the banning of music in Central Park? Do you support the ban?


lol... he just proved that you lied... here you say that you dont have legal issue with gay marriage yet he quoted you saying otherwise... and instead of conceding like you insist everyone else do when arguing with you, you did what you accuse others of doing... dodging the part that shows you wrong and changing the subject(even if it is the main topic)... i dont have issue with you saying "lets stay on topic" but it should have been after you explained the lie you were just caught in...

[Syn7]

i love that show arrested developement... they had the one episode where the sister was protesting and the free speech zone was a lil chain link cage far away from the action... they did a good job at mocking the practice...

while i do believe that allowing anyone to play any instrument anywhere they want can be intrusive to too many people who dont wanna hear it 24/7, i dont agree with outright banning it from places like central park... but would it be more fair to set up designated areas where they can not go as opposed to having a few areas where they can go??? how do you balance my right to hear music or play music with my right to not be intruded on by musicians wherever i go???

is there a fair balance for everyone??? no of course not... democracy doesnt work that way...


one thing i know for sure tho is that your first amendment has been under attack for some time from both sides of the aisle... the direction youre headed doesnt seem to be a good one for those who believe in the first amendment in its purest...

[BJJ-Blue]

lol... he just proved that you lied... here you say that you dont have legal issue with gay marriage yet he quoted you saying otherwise... and instead of conceding like you insist everyone else do when arguing with you, you did what you accuse others of doing... dodging the part that shows you wrong and changing the subject(even if it is the main topic)... i dont have issue with you saying "lets stay on topic" but it should have been after you explained the lie you were just caught in...

How so?

I've stated my views on it and they seem pretty consistant. When I say the Government has no business in the issue, that about says it all. Sure, you can dig up posts of me saying I'm against it, but it's moot if the Government just stays the heck out of the issue as I've said I'm for. If you watched the debate, Ron Paul actually said exactly what I believe on the issue. He said it's a State issue. Let each State decide and keep the Federal Government out of it. Of course when a State's citizens vote against it we shouldn't have judges throwing the will of the people out, but that's another topic.

So I'll restate it AGAIN. The Federal Government needs to stay out of it. If the States individually want to legalize or ban it, it should be their citizen's dicision. Did I state it well enough this time?

And fyi, the first one to change the subject was not me. First someone brought Bush into it, then gay marriage was brought into it. Considering the topic was a music ban in Central Park, those who brought the above topics into the mix were trying to change the subject first.

[MasterKiller]

What?

If you read the article, you would see no one was calling for any bans at all. The person who was defending it said there were complaints, but didn't back that assertion up. And if it was wanted, why didn't they gather signatures and put it on the ballot for the whole city to decide, instead of just letting a few elected officials implement the ban?
Umm.... Because we live in a REPUBLIC, not a Democracy.
That's how sh1t gets done in a Republic. I don't remember voting to invade Iraq, afterall. Do you?

[MasterKiller]

So I'll restate it AGAIN. The Federal Government needs to stay out of it. If the States individually want to legalize or ban it, it should be their citizen's dicision. Did I state it well enough this time? .

Marriage is legal contract with implications that cross state boundaries, and for that reason, it CANNOT be a state's rights issue. People get married in one state and move for work, etc.... and you cannot have their rights waffle back and forth on the sole whim of the political climate.

Same reason 16 year olds can get married in Arkansas and move to Oklahoma and have that marriage recognized, even though marriage at 16 is illegal in Oklahoma.

[BJJ-Blue]

Umm.... Because we live in a REPUBLIC, not a Democracy.
That's how sh1t gets done in a Republic. I don't remember voting to invade Iraq, afterall. Do you?

And in that Republic, we have laws that say certain things can be put on a ballot for the citizens to directly decide. The other thread about circumcision is an example. The people of California voted to put the issue on a statewide ballot, it was voted on, and one judge who didn't like it threw out the results.

The decision to invade Iraq was a FEDERAL issue, not a STATE issue.

[BJJ-Blue]

Marriage is legal contract with implications that cross state boundaries, and for that reason, it CANNOT be a state's rights issue. People get married in one state and move for work, etc.... and you cannot have their rights waffle back and forth on the sole whim of the political climate.

Same reason 16 year olds can get married in Arkansas and move to Oklahoma and have that marriage recognized, even though marriage at 16 is illegal in Oklahoma.

Of course it can be a State's right. If one State doesn't recognize it, it should be that State's right not to.

As to marrying kids, I'm not sure if that transfers over. You may be right. But it should only matter what the State you are living in says is legal/recognized.

[MasterKiller]

And in that Republic, we have laws that say certain things can be put on a ballot for the citizens to directly decide. The other thread about circumcision is an example. The people of California voted to put the issue on a statewide ballot, it was voted on, and one judge who didn't like it threw out the results.
Judges strike down laws all the time that people want but that are unconstitutional. A majority of people in one area cannot tell others how to live without considering that minority's constitutional rights.


The decision to invade Iraq was a FEDERAL issue, not a STATE issue. So federal issues are allowed to be decided by elected representatives, but not state or local issues?

Our system is a Republic all the way down to the local level. You elect officials and expect them to enact policy in your best interest. Otherwise, we could just have votes on every issue and wouldn't need any politicians at all.

[MasterKiller]

Of course it can be a State's right. If one State doesn't recognize it, it should be that State's right not to.

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.

Do you think Virginia should be allowed to prevent whites and nonwhites from marrying?

Did a group of judges who didn't like the law overstep their authority?

[BJJ-Blue]

Judges strike down laws all the time that people want but that are unconstitutional. A majority of people in one area cannot tell others how to live without considering that minority's constitutional rights.

The Constitution says nothing about the Government defining or protecting marriage. The STATE law was voted on, and it should be in effect. IMO, that's waht the founders wanted, States rights. So if California said no to gays getting married, and say New York said yes to it, those gays who wanted to live under New Yorks laws are free to move there. The Founders had a brilliant blueprint that would make just about everyone happy if we had just followed it, mainly by allowing State's rights. That way we would have less of a Federal Government 'one size fits all' set of laws, and instead have 50 different sets of State's laws and citizens could choose to live in the State they felt most fit their beliefs. Anything wrong with that?


So federal issues are allowed to be decided by elected representatives, but not state or local issues?

Not necessarily. But you used the Iraq War as an example. The Constitution is specific on how wars and foreign policy is to be made. And it's not a nationwide ballot referendum. It doesn't say anything about gay marriage, so according th the 10th Amendment, that's up to each State to handle it as they see fit, be it a law/policy that goes through the legislature and the Governor or a statewide ballot.


Our system is a Republic all the way down to the local level. You elect officials and expect them to enact policy in your best interest. Otherwise, we could just have votes on every issue and wouldn't need any politicians at all.

Incorrect. The Constitution does not call for that. Nowhere does it ban direct votes on local issues. Down here many bond issues are put on the ballot. Of course they usually pass because the liberals here love spending money we don't have. But imo it's better to let the people directly decide those issues.

Take this local issue as an example; sports stadiums. Those are usually (if not always) decided by the city in question's voters. Which is fair. Would you prefer a City Council made up of politicians choosing whether or not to build a billionaire a free sports stadium, or would you want the entire city to get to vote on that?

[MasterKiller]

The Constitution says nothing about the Government defining or protecting marriage. The STATE law was voted on, and it should be in effect. IMO, that's waht the founders wanted, States rights. So if California said no to gays getting married, and say New York said yes to it, those gays who wanted to live under New Yorks laws are free to move there. The Founders had a brilliant blueprint that would make just about everyone happy if we had just followed it, mainly by allowing State's rights. That way we would have less of a Federal Government 'one size fits all' set of laws, and instead have 50 different sets of State's laws and citizens could choose to live in the State they felt most fit their beliefs. Anything wrong with that?

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.

Do you think Virginia should be allowed to prevent whites and nonwhites from marrying?

Did a group of judges who didn't like the law overstep their authority?



Incorrect. The Constitution does not call for that. Nowhere does it ban direct votes on local issues And neither does it guarantee that direct votes MUST be held on anything other than appointment elections, right?


Take this local issue as an example; sports stadiums. Those are usually (if not always) decided by the city in question's voters. Which is fair. Would you prefer a City Council made up of politicians choosing whether or not to build a billionaire a free sports stadium, or would you want the entire city to get to vote on that? Those types of issues are usually voted on because they involve some type of tax increase to pay for the bonds (city sales tax or hotel/motel taxes, in most cases). But some cities DO build stadiums or other event buildings without voting on it.

For example, Pittsburgh voted NO on a new stadium referrendum, but the city built it anyway.

I imagine there is something in the state constitutions that controls this, but I'm not sure how it gets decided as to which issues require votes or not.

[BJJ-Blue]

And neither does it guarantee that direct votes MUST be held on anything other than appointment elections, right?

Correct. So why can't a direct vote be called for the Central Park music ban instead of just a handful of politicians deciding it? We both agree it's an option, right? So why wasn't that option used in this case?


For example, Pittsburgh voted NO on a new stadium referrendum, but the city built it anyway.

I imagine there is something in the state constitutions that controls this, but I'm not sure how it gets decided as to which issues require votes or not.

I'm not discussing what's done in every instance, as I'm sure they vary. I just wanted to know if you think a city funding a sports stadium should be decided by an at-large citywide election, or only by politicians.

[MasterKiller]

Correct. So why can't a direct vote be called for the Central Park music ban instead of just a handful of politicians deciding it? We both agree it's an option, right? So why wasn't that option used in this case?. I dunno, and frankly don't care. It's a non-issue, which you basically admitted in the other thread, because it's not a BAN. They just have designated areas in which they can play.

So what about this?

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.

Do you think Virginia should be allowed to prevent whites and nonwhites from marrying?

Did a group of judges who didn't like the law overstep their authority?

[BJJ-Blue]

I dunno, and frankly don't care. It's a non-issue, which you basically admitted in the other thread, because it's not a BAN. They just have designated areas in which they can play.

It is a ban. It may be a partial ban, but there is a ban in place. And I want to know if you believe the ban should have been voted on by the citizens or decided by a few politicians.


So what about this?

I'm not going to discuss racial marriage laws that were in place over 100 years ago in a thread about banning music in Central Park in 2010. Start a new thread for that discussion.

[MasterKiller]

It is a ban. It may be a partial ban, but there is a ban in place. And I want to know if you believe the ban should have been voted on by the citizens or decided by a few politicians. Whatever. It's not a ban. There is no issue. Plenty of activities are zoned, and this is no different than 1,000 other iterations of those laws.

I think the politicians were voted in office to make decisions, and they made one. If people don't like it, they should vote in new politicians. That's how a republic works.


I'm not going to discuss racial marriage laws that were in place over 100 years ago in a thread about banning music in Central Park in 2010. Start a new thread for that discussion.

1967 was 100 years ago? You've been discussing gay marriage on this thread, so why not this?

[BJJ-Blue]

Whatever. It's not a ban. There is no issue. Plenty of activities are zoned, and this is no different than 1,000 other iterations of those laws.

So seeing as you are ok with the law as it allows for certain areas where music is allowed, why are you for laws that completely ban smoking on private propery?

Prior to those laws restaurants had smoking and non-smoking areas. Why are you ok with a complete ban?

[MasterKiller]

Prior to those laws restaurants had smoking and non-smoking areas. Why are you ok with a complete ban?I think businesses should be able to decide if they are smoking friendly or not. But if one wants to be both, I think there should be separate rooms or custom ventilation because smoke doesn't just stay in one place.

My work building has an enclosed smoking room with a custom vent filtration unit so people can smoke inside without forcing others to be exposed to it.

[BJJ-Blue]

I think businesses should be able to decide if they are smoking friendly or not. But if one wants to be both, I think there should be separate rooms or custom ventilation because smoke doesn't just stay in one place.

My work building has an enclosed smoking room with a custom vent filtration unit so people can smoke inside without forcing others to be exposed to it.

You're fair on that issue. I give you credit there. Defending someone's right to do something you don't do is an admirable trait. I also do not smoke cigarettes, but I believe those who do have every right to 'pursue happiness' in that way without the Government depriving them of that right on private property.

[Syn7]

our smoking rules in vancity are getting nazi-esque... we cant even smoke on a beach... of course i understand the littering argument and i would suggest anyone who doesnt use some sort of portable ashtray should be fined for littering, but its a pi$$ poor excuse to just hate on something... i have to suffer idiots every day, can we ban idiots please???

i dont really even care about the smokers, i just think its unfair and overly biased... the only part i dislike is that when you are at the beach smoking a ginourmous stogue of kushy greens and the cops roll upo, having somebody light a smoke is great cover... most cops dont bother with weed anymore, but every once in a while some officer hardass d1ckhead comes along and just runs you thru the ringer for it... very annoying... especially since my moral base is far more just than the laws of the land... i am so tired of being told what to do and what not to do... im starting to relate to the 5 man electrical band... fukcin signs everywhere maaaaan!!!

[BJJ-Blue]

im starting to relate to the 5 man electrical band... fukcin signs everywhere maaaaan!!!

I'm with you there. But I do suggest you look at the political leanings of those people who put the signs up.