Petitioning for the Repeal of the Smoking Ban (city)

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by Drover

Oh for crying out loud. Maybe it's just the lawyer-in-training in me, but I can't believe any self-respecting human being actually expects to find credible, objective information in the legislative record of any bill or law. Anyone with even a basic understanding of how politics works knows that legislative records are usually packed with incredibly one-sided, if not outright fabricated information. Even if that weren't the case, it's still incredibly silly to afford a legislative record the same degree of respect and deference as primary sources.

If you are, in fact, studying law, you need to do some in-depth study of the legislative process for, you have some serious misunderstandings apparently.

For instance - when I do a brief, I may use "legislative intent" as part of my argument - not interpertation - but intent. Where do I find that? Legislative archieves

[Drover]

Originally Posted by Greatday

If you are, in fact, studying law, you need to do some in-depth study of the legislative process for, you have some serious misunderstandings apparently.

For instance - when I do a brief, I may use "legislative intent" as part of my argument - not interpertation - but intent. Where do I find that? Legislative archieves

There is a difference between legislative intent and whether or not the information provided in the record is objective, balanced or even factual. Legislative intent is rarely objective or balanced; in fact most legislation is motivated by an agenda. When courts defer to legislative intent, they have little interest in how balanced or objective that intent is (though they may be interested in its efficacy). That's a political fight that courts are rightly interested in staying out of.

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by Drover

There is a difference between legislative intent and whether or not the information provided in the record is objective, balanced or even factual. Legislative intent is rarely objective or balanced; in fact most legislation is motivated by an agenda. When courts defer to legislative intent, they have little interest in how balanced or accurate that intent is. That's a political fight that courts are rightly interested in staying out of.

Then, you are merely cynical of our legislative processes? As a former legislator, I can tell you that we would ask for and get information - pro and con on various arguments - and it is up to the elected officials, with input from our constituents to make the best decisions possible.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by Greatday

Then, you are merely cynical of our legislative processes? As a former legislator, I can tell you that we would ask for and get information - pro and con on various arguments - and it is up to the elected officials, with input from our constituents to make the best decisions possible.

It's incredibly over-reaching bills like this poorly-written piece of crap and the flimsy pretexts used to pass them that make me cynical about the legislative process.

[aragx6]

Couldn't agree more.

[illini84]

Well, who cares? The government gets to do what it wants and that's not going to change. The smoking ban is in full effect and arguing about the credibility of legislation in this forum is not going to get the ban lifted. I'll point and laugh when I see you standing outside smoking in below-zero weather cause you'll look like a damn fool.

[boris63]

I remember a study reported on the news several years ago that concluded that 2nd hand smoke was actually more unhealthy than first hand smoke!!

They actually expected people to believe that breathing the relatively small amount of smoke that was present in the air, was actually worse than sucking on the end of the actual cigarette creating the smoke!

How could that be true when the smoker is also breathing his own second hand smoke by being in the same room with himself!

If that study is true, maybe when we walk into a smoke filled room we'd be better off just lighting one up ouselves, so we could inhale the less dangerous first hand smoke!!

Its amazing the way people can twist facts when they have an agenda to prove.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by illini84

Well, who cares? The government gets to do what it wants and that's not going to change. The smoking ban is in full effect and arguing about the credibility of legislation in this forum is not going to get the ban lifted. I'll point and laugh when I see you standing outside smoking in below-zero weather cause you'll look like a damn fool.

For the fourth time, I'm a non-smoker. Your failure to grasp that extraordinarily simple concept even when pointed out multiple times (once to you specifically) in the most straight-forward manner possible goes a long way toward explaining your inability to reason past the first step of a complex issue.

Debate is the building block of the democratic process. It is crucial in determining how representative government should (or should not) address any given issue. It scares me that I have to share a democracy with people who basically say "shut up and let the government do what it wants." People with so little understanding of or interest in the importance of the democratic process should stay home on election day.

I'm done with this worthless thread.

[illini84]

Originally Posted by Drover

For the fourth time, I'm a non-smoker. Your failure to grasp that extraordinarily simple concept even when pointed out multiple times (once to you specifically) in the most straight-forward manner possible goes a long way toward explaining your inability to reason past the first step of a complex issue.

Excuse me? Did I ever say "Drover is a smoker" or "smokers like Drover..."? I don't think so. I'm generally referring to the smokers in this thread. I must say your ability to twist my posts around is extraordinary. If you're really an attorney in Chicago, you seem to have an awful lot of time to waste posting in online forums...

[Drover]

Originally Posted by illini84

Excuse me? Did I ever say "Drover is a smoker" or "smokers like Drover..."? I don't think so. I'm generally referring to the smokers in this thread. I must say your ability to twist my posts around is extraordinary. If you're really an attorney in Chicago, you seem to have an awful lot of time to waste posting in online forums...

You have implied it twice now by responding to my posts and then carrying on as if I'm a smoker.

I never said I was an attorney. So I reiterate, work on grasping simple concepts before trying to tackle the complex ones. How I spend my leisure time is none of your business.