California Town: Ban Smoking Everywhere

[FSTargetDrone]

Well, almost everywhere:

California Town May Snub Out Smoking at Home

The Proposed Ban -- Perhaps the World's Strickest (sic) Smoking Restriction -- Raises Hackles For Some

March 14, 2007 - Dozens packed the Belmont city council chambers tonight for the first public airing of a new smoking ban proposal.

The law would give Belmont the toughest smoking ban in the nation -- possibly in the world.

The crackdown aims to curb the harmful effects of second-hand smoke by preventing puffs not just in parks and around public buildings -- but in private apartments and city streets as well. If the law passes, the only places left in Belmont to smoke would be single family homes and private cars.

Mayor Coralin Feierbach says the proposal was made to protect residents who suffer from health problems aggravated by smoke.The council didn't take action tonight. It's just the first of several meetings to discuss the proposal.

As someone who's railed against smoking before, on this board, I certainly have no problem banning smoking outdoors in public spaces, parks, whatnot. Apartments, well I can see that because of the possibility that the smoke drifts into a non-smoking neighbor's unit. I can smell my neighbor's smoke from the apartment next door during warm weather when the windows are open. It's disgusting.

I also have no problem banning smoking in cars where minor children are present (what kind of brainless fuck smokes in a car with a child inside, anyway?). Frankly, I would ban all smoking, everywhere, in the presence of children, but I don't know how you can enforce that in private homes. Then again, anyone who smokes in front of kids is pretty low.

[salm]

Sounds good. I wish our dumbfuck politicians wouldn´t be so half assed about this whole matter.

[Aaron]

There's only one word to describe this: awesome. I hope it goes through as planned. I have a smoker friend that complains that smokers are being harrassed for their addiction but I say fuck that. We need more of it, I shouldn't have to suffer because you want to pollute my childrens air.

[FSTargetDrone]

I have a smoker friend that complains that smokers are being harrassed for their addiction but I say fuck that.

Hehe. I heard about this on Fox News while flipping through the TV while making dinner and the host of whatever program was on was breathlessly going on about "how far is too far?" when it comes to banning smoking.

The thing is, smokers have no leg to stand on. What about the majority's "right" to not have to smell it? Or more importantly, what about the costs we collectively pay for the treatment of health problems that are largely preventable? My uncle was diagnosed with a small cancerous spot on his lung after 40+ years of smoking. After 3 hospital stays, numerous doctor visits, several surgeries, including the removal of 2/3rds of one lung (fortunately no chemotherapy was necessary, however) and a long recovery, the costs his insurance company is covering is in excess of $600,000 USD. And that was as of over a month ago. I will not be surprised if the total bill nears $1,000,000 USD. Who pays for that? He's 60 years old, out of work and can barely make it up to the second floor of his home. And relatively speaking, he got off easily.

[CaptHawkeye]

The Tobacco companies simply must be shitting bricks at the thought of this. They'll probably try to do something to make it appear unconstitutional or unjustified.

[Agent Fisher]

I applaud the motives behind this, to keep smokers away from children and others who don't want to smell it. I also agree that smoking should be banned in apartments and hotels since the smell does drift through.

However, from what I hear, private homes as places to smoke are at risk as well. I know that I don't smoke indoors, I smoke in my backyard, but from what I heard about this ban, even if you are in your backyard, and someone complains, you can be fined or punished in some way.

[LordShaithis]

You know, I like my one or two cigs per day. I don't feel the need to smoke in public, I don't really go to bars anymore, and I can just forego smoking all day if my job doesn't give me a place to do it. I can't remember the last time I lit up where anyone short of Wolverine could have smelled it. I smoke these clove cigs, the smell of which can annoy even other smokers, and thus I'm quite used to smoking well out of the way for the sake of being considerate.

With that in mind, stay the god damned hell out of my apartment. Somehow I greatly doubt that the infinitesimal amount of smell that might filter out from... I don't know... the seam underneath someone's front door... was a severe enough problem to merit passing a law.

It's clearly a case of "We want to work our way up to banning smoking altogether, so we'll just do it a piece at a time."

To which I say "Go for it."

Really, ban it. Ban it entirely. I can do without my one pack per week or two. You can ban it, and I'll freely comply with that ban.

And a few years later when prohibition has turned out to be a complete disaster that accomplishes nothing save to fatten the wallets of organized crime, and you finally repeal said ban?

I'll go right back to smoking my one or two cigs per day.

[jegs2]

I support smoking bans. Would also like to see jerks who toss cigarette butts out their windows of their vehicles pulled over and fined for littering.

[Spin Echo]

With that in mind, stay the god damned hell out of my apartment. Somehow I greatly doubt that the infinitesimal amount of smell that might filter out from... I don't know... the seam underneath someone's front door... was a severe enough problem to merit passing a law.

The problem is the ventilation systems. I've lived in an apartment where I could easily tell when the person next door was smoking. This problem could be engineered away in new apartment buildings, but could be quite difficult to solve in exisiting buildings.

There's also the fact that around a third of all fires in the US are caused by cigarettes. With apartment complexes, if a smoker accidently starts a fire in their unit, there's a good chance it will spread to other units.

[FSTargetDrone]

The problem is the ventilation systems. I've lived in an apartment where I could easily tell when the person next door was smoking. This problem could be engineered away in new apartment buildings, but could be quite difficult to solve in exisiting buildings.

There's also the fact that around a third of all fires in the US are caused by cigarettes. With apartment complexes, if a smoker accidently starts a fire in their unit, there's a good chance it will spread to other units.

Like I said before, in the warm weather I can smell my smoking neighbors when they are on their deck or if the windows are opened. And this is a no-smoking apartment complex...

[LordShaithis]

Well, if such is the case in some buildings then I can see the point. The thrust of my opinion is that I don't smoke much, I don't love it enough to go through the trouble of circumventing a ban, I'm quite happy to go out of my way to keep my smoke away from other people, and I don't feel my dirty little habit is state business.

[Knife]

Well,

As someone who's railed against smoking before, on this board, I certainly have no problem banning smoking outdoors in public spaces, parks, whatnot. Apartments, well I can see that because of the possibility that the smoke drifts into a non-smoking neighbor's unit. I can smell my neighbor's smoke from the apartment next door during warm weather when the windows are open. It's disgusting.

I also have no problem banning smoking in cars where minor children are present (what kind of brainless fuck smokes in a car with a child inside, anyway?). Frankly, I would ban all smoking, everywhere, in the presence of children, but I don't know how you can enforce that in private homes. Then again, anyone who smokes in front of kids is pretty low.

Meh, I'd prefer if they just outlawed tabacco. It'd be more honest than willy nilly shit, but I understand how tough that would be and why they take the 'piece by piece' tact.

That said, I think going into private homes/apartments is boardering on...eek.

[Fire Fly]

I support smoking bans. Would also like to see jerks who toss cigarette butts out their windows of their vehicles pulled over and fined for littering.

One reason why I dislike smokers is for this reason and if there was ever a reason to impose strict laws, this should be one of them. Many are too lazy to properly dispose of their cigarette butts. It seems that just around every door, there is a scatter of cigarette butts, around every street and sidewalk, there is a cigarette butt. Every city, from small to big, is littered with them. Even the greenest city and the most liberal city still is littered with cigarette butts. When I traveled outside of the US a few years ago (my first time going abroad) I knew that most other countries were cleaner than the US was but I was absolutely astonished at how clean the big cities were. It was absolutely amazing. There was little litter laying on the streets, no cigarette butts, people disposed of their waste properly.

The only way the US will ever get cleaner streets is to hit people where it hurts (their wallet) to change this sloth-privileged mentality culture we have. I would not be so anti-smoking if people could just dispose of their disgusting cigarette butts in the proper waste receptacle (i.e. stop being so lazy) and if their toxic fumes were not in my vicinity.

[Uraniun235]

This is a pretty limp-wristed law. Just go balls-out and make tobacco illegal within city limits. Bam, done. Fine people who violate the law and you've even got a new source of revenue.

[Darth Wong]

I love the way people think some kind of invisible line is being crossed when the government legislates activity in your house. No one would say that the government has no right to outlaw things like spousal abuse just because they happen in your private house, so let's dispense with the bullshit, OK? The government's jurisdiction has never ended at the door of your apartment. That's just a line people are trying to draw because it sounds good. The real question is whether such a ban is justified and enforceable. I'd say it's justified (really, a total smoking ban is justified), but enforceability is another issue.

PS. To address LordShaithis' point, if your smell can't be detected by anyone short of Wolverine, then no one is going to report you. They can't report what they don't know. But if your next-door neighbour says "hey, that asshole next door is smoking, I'm gonna report him", chances are that he knows this because your smell is not as undetectable as you think.

[LordShaithis]

It's annoying though, because honestly the best place to smoke without it coming near anyone is outside. If I'm in a public park or whatever, but I'm leaned against a tree a couple dozen feet away from bystanders, then nobody is smelling it. Or if I'm at a buddy's house and I step out onto the front porch for one. Open air dissipates that shit fast if you're any decent distance away from people.

But you can't really legislate that smokers keep distance X from people while smoking. Or else you know someone is going to chase them around going "Stop smoking near me! Haha! Stop smoking near me!"

[Zor]

No matter how the Libertarians spin it, its a thilthy stupid habbit thats harmful to the smokers and those who are around them. Good for these Californians.

Zor

[Agent Fisher]

No matter how the Libertarians spin it, its a thilthy stupid habbit thats harmful to the smokers and those who are around them. Good for these Californians.

Zor

I know this is going to get rip to shreds, but here goes.

Drinking is harmful to you, car exhaust is harmful to you, hell, the fucking air/smog in California is harmful to you.

[Zor]

Drinking is harmful to you,

Its not nearly as addictive nor does the inevitable waste product of drinking produce toxic gasses.

car exhaust is harmful to you,

Good Sweet Emperor, why do i keep hearing this bullshit argument?! Listen, Vehicle traffic and smoking are not comprable with smoking, one is the unfortunate byproduct of something that is critical to modern civilization and one is the byproduct of physical addiction. As well, it is more toxic.

the fucking air/smog in California is harmful to you.

See above and the smog density in california is largely because of wind patterns and the mountains.

Zor

[Drewcifer]

...nor does the inevitable waste product of drinking produce toxic gasses.

You've obviously never drank large quantities of cheap beer

But kidding aside, I've never understood how people can equate drinking and smoking. A single drink does little to no harm, and some studies have shown potential benefits in consuming a single daily drink. As well, it affects only the person consuming it.

Smoking a single cigarette introduces numerous toxins (cyanide, ammonia, CO etc.), not to mention all the carcinogens, into the body of the consumer and potentially those around them. Also, I don't remember ever hearing about any benefit that comes from tobacco use.

The two just aren't equal.

And as far as car exhaust goes, the US has the most stringent emission laws in the world and will likely get tougher over the years. Cigarettes, on the other hand, have become more and more addictive with nicotine levels rising over the years.

And like Zor pointed out, we need cars. We don't need cigarettes.

[Darth Wong]

No matter how the Libertarians spin it, its a thilthy stupid habbit thats harmful to the smokers and those who are around them. Good for these Californians.

Zor

I know this is going to get rip to shreds, but here goes.

Drinking is harmful to you, car exhaust is harmful to you, hell, the fucking air/smog in California is harmful to you.

Don't you love how everywhere on the Internet that smoking comes up as a subject, some stupid asshole uses this exact same logic, and it always gets shot down in exactly the same way? Yet the next time this thread comes up anywhere, including here, you can guarantee some idiot will post pretty much EXACTLY what Fisher just posted here. Again.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Yes, lots of things are harmful, so let's just keep piling on the harm. In fact, the drinking water contains trace amounts of arsenic, so you might as well just blow your brains out.

[Temjin]

If the law passes, the only places left in Belmont to smoke would be single family homes and private cars.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this law punish those parents who are willing to go outside to smoke so that their kids will not have to inhale it? Isn't that something you want to encourage?

What this law does instead is force those parents back inside the homes so that the kids will be forced to breath that shit.

[LordShaithis]

Yeah. Outdoors is the best possible place to smoke without bothering anyone, provided you're not an asshole and make some effort not to do it near people.

I haven't smoked indoors in ages. It leaves this funky lingering "aftersmell" which is rather unpleasant compared to the smell of smoke itself, and smoke residue in the air can fuck up your hard drive from what I understand. So I do it outside in a spot where nobody is going to walk near me. Nobody short of Wolverine would be able to smell it, but any idiot can see me standing there smoking.

I mean jeez, can I have my front porch to puff a cig on once or twice per day?

[Adrian Laguna]

I don't see why smoking has to be outlawed while outdoors in the open air. So long as you stay a a few metres away from everyone else there's no danger of second hand smoke, people won't even notice the smell.