Tobacco Documents Online

C The proponents of these:laws are silent about these incursions on our perrsonal' freedom, and ignore the effect enforcing these laws will have on our local police. Our law enforcement people are a:lready heavilly burdened and understaaffed'.in their battle against serious.crimes like burg,lary,;:Ato theft, rape, arson and~murder. Ilf such l,egisdation is passed it coulidlmean that law enforcement agencies will probabJy have to demand'.tax increases to pay for more personnel to comply with,the law; divert much. needed~manpower away from serious crime prevention and pursuit, or simply Ignore what will be an unenforceable and expensive law.: The:proponents of these restrictions are also silent about the real economic costs of thenr proposal. Besides the obvious increase6costs of law enforcement and the. added burden of our aP.ready overloaded court system, there wiff be the cost of printiing and posting tens of thousands of "smoking" and "non~smoking" signs''for our parks, athletic fields and sidewalks. There willl allso be the expense of "feasability studies" and consulting fees to determine where people can and' can't smoke. In Califormia, for exampl''e, where,such smok:ing restrictFons have.been considered, cost estimates to taxpayers and businesses are estimated to run into hundreds of miI'Iions of dollars. We have al'l come to realize that government can?t do everything. What it does, shouid'be done well'.. Our local and state governments face some very real and serious problems --- school' financing, improving our ehi!Idren''s education!, fighting crime, and cutting government waste,. ineffi'ciency and ineffectiveness. If you believe, as we:do that government should concentrate on more important problems, and not on inefficient, costly and oppresive programs, I hope you wi',II joinius in voting NO on the pubdio.po:licy question on the Publ'.ic Smoking,Issue in,your community.,

srEPHEN, ELr+oNT.a AIaMAN Needham INDEPENDENT CITIZENS FOR EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENT , C DENNISDYERI38CRETARYi!il:u55URER 120 Boyiston~heet50ifed1l yosYort,MA02?16Teie.^•ho'1e:W 714'2':r407i' •i BaNeM' SID'~AUGUSiERN VJatlhan PAUL GARBER~. ' .. Ranfblph ~ JACK NERNER~~ ~ . . ~ . ~~ . ~ ~ S¢merville jW!~ V ~ CT 'S ! V LARRY qEVINEI WoGimi. . . . MORT BOLEP' . ~ ~ . .. . . Dear~~Friend', Ini 1850, Boston passed allaw establishing segregated smoking and non-smoking areas iin the Boston Common. Quickly the smokers' area became known as "smokers' circle" and became the. most popular part of the park. Soon thereafter this ordinance was repealed. The lawmakers realized, as they diid with the Prohibition era in this century, that in a truly democratiic society government can"t try and regulate all'' are at it again. They've placed a public poticy question on our Nbvember ballot which, if'passed, would.i'nstruct our ilegiislators to vote for areas of personad'. conduct without se.riousl'y infri'ngi.ng orn.the ctviil ri',ghts of its populace_ But, with i!I''I regard for precedent, the modern day prohi'bitionists legisiation re-establlishing segregated smoking and non-smoking areas in . . all public areas - and'to f'ine people who violate those laws. Thi's newest proposal simply goes too far. It would require "separate and clearly posted areas" for smoking and non-smoki'ng in aIl' "'areas used' by the public"; includi'ng, once again, the Boston Common,, C our parks, bailfi'elds, sports arenas, shopping malls, even the sidewalks c!~ C7t in front of our homes. Vi'olators could be fined as they would be on W U1 crimifinal misdemeanors. 01t A r.rc~.i of <xi mran.r ~ron fitiewnntne AACssoCnisetn ~~e ot:..qmcc;ortoM PdMal Ginonc~e: