California city imposes second-hand smoke law

[poly_nightmare]

It's already banned in California offices, restaurants and on miles of beaches, but on Friday the rural city of Calabasas goes a step further. The town has enacted the first law in the United States banning smoking on streets, at bus stops and in all other public places where people can be exposed to second-hand smoke.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060316/us_nm/life_smoking_dc

Is this the next step to making smoking illegal?

[Ed Sane]

No sympathy from me....You cant drink in public why should one have a different expectation for smoking?

[Atticus]

No sympathy from me....You cant drink in public why should one have a different expectation for smoking?I don't think the analogy works. First, we keep people from drinking on the street because we don't want them to be sloppy drunk on the street, and keeping drinks inside tends to cut down on public drunkenness (it's also easier to cite or arrest someone for something overt than something subjective). Smoking doesn't ruin your behavior like alcohol can.

Plus, the smoking ban is to prevent people from exposure to second-hand smoke. Two problems: 1) second-hand smoke doesn't have nearly the research proving its harms like primary smoke does, 2) in the open air, second-hand smoke really isn't a problem.

Finally, people CAN drink in bars, but they can't smoke there (in CA). Personally, I like the no smoking rules for INSIDE public spaces, but the outside thing seems a little overboard to me.

[RageKage]

This is moral panic. There is zero evidence that outside exposure to second hand smoke poses any harm at all. This is pure insanity.

[Ed Sane]

Plus, the smoking ban is to prevent people from exposure to second-hand smoke. Two problems: 1) second-hand smoke doesn't have nearly the research proving its harms like primary smoke does, 2) in the open air, second-hand smoke really isn't a problem.

Finally, people CAN drink in bars, but they can't smoke there (in CA). Personally, I like the no smoking rules for INSIDE public spaces, but the outside thing seems a little overboard to me.


Research is still Research....In the open air the wind carries it into my none smoking face.

People can drink in bars, but if they were to smoke they would be harming employees who can't object to serving them.
http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422

[Atticus]

Research is still Research...And distortion is distortion. The evidence in this matter is truly underwhelming, but that doesn't matter because the real argument is.....In the open air the wind carries it into my none smoking face.and the occasional wisp of smoke that might pass your sensitive nose is so much more important than someone else's right to use a legal product. It's annoying, but that's hardly worth passing a law. I find lots of things annoying--I don't care to ban all of them.

[Ed Sane]

And distortion is distortion. The evidence in this matter is truly underwhelming, but that doesn't matter because the real argument is....and the occasional wisp of smoke that might pass your sensitive nose is so much more important than someone else's right to use a legal product. It's annoying, but that's hardly worth passing a law. I find lots of things annoying--I don't care to ban all of them.

Provide a link proclaiming distortion please...From what I have read more then my senstive nose is at stake with second hand smoke. Where does ones right end in using a product? As state and city ordinances are now starting to show (9 states and counting) there is no "right" to smoke. Especially when it can affect more then just the smoker.

[Atticus]

Provide a link proclaiming distortion please...Here's the proclaimation. All the studies linking passive smoke to disease are epidemiological studies--that is, they show statistical links between living with smokers and increased incidence of disease. Epidemiology has it's own problems--it ain't the same as a real study with a control group, etc., as other smoking-related research has been. There may be other factors leading to the problem of disease (i.e., people who smoke may have other bad habits that they share with their families--habits that are coincidental with but not related to smoking).

Beyond that, living with someone usually involves being indoors with them for extended periods of time, which throws the whole "no smoking outdoors" thing into question. Bottom line--there's lots of evidence to show smoking is bad for you. There's very limited direct evidence of much else related to smoking.

Show me a study that proves someone who stands near a smoker five minutes a day outside in the wind has a higher incidence of cancer than someone who breathes only the fresh air of, say, a typical American city, and I'll consider your argument. Otherwise, I'd rather outlaw car exhaust, because I walk to work and find that far more annoying than anyone who smokes.As state and city ordinances are now starting to show (9 states and counting) there is no "right" to smoke.As we are reminded by the alarmists in this forum nearly every day, there is no "right" to just about anything anymore. Pity.

[Lumpen Prole]

I am against banning smoking in public places. It defeats the entire purpose of a public place. We're allowed to drive in public places, should we ban automobiles in public places because fuel emissions are harmful to our health? Public places are for public use. You can ban me from smoking (if I smoked) on your private property because, shockingly, it's your property. The same is not true for public property, though, for reasons that are obvious enough.

[Confucius]

No sympathy from me....You cant drink in public why should one have a different expectation for smoking?

Smoking does not have the ability to cause violent and Lewd behaviour.

But on topic here, This is a stupid law if yah ask me. Smokers should be able to smoke, in such an open space as a bus stop or in a street, you're really not exposed to second hand smoke because theres so much air around it diffuses really quickly.