California City Passes 'No Smoking' OUTSIDE...

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Stella, Feb 16, 2006.

  1. Stella macrumors 604

    Stella

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Location:
    Canada
    #1
    http://www.theacorn.com/news/2006/0209/Front_page/001.html

    Calabasas no smoking law begins next month
    Some exceptions are allowed
    By Michael Picarella pic@theacorn.com

    The new Calabasas secondhand smoke ordinance, which would prohibit smoking in all public areas of the city including parks, sidewalks and outdoor businesses, will take effect by the middle of March, city officials said.

    Final passage of the ordinance is expected at the city council’s Feb. 15 meeting.

    At its Feb. 1 meeting the council outlined certain exceptions to the law.

    Officials from the Los Angeles County Department of Health, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, Healthier Solutions, Inc., Smoke-Free Air for Everyone and the Coalition for a Tobacco-Free Los Angeles expressed strong support for the new law. Of the 17 public speakers at the meeting, all but one supported the ordinance.

    Last month, California became the first state to declare second-hand tobacco smoke a toxic air pollutant.

    “. . .The California Air Resources Board, which is the agency which regulates air quality in California, has adopted a regulation to treat secondhand smoke as a toxic pollutant of the air, like the kinds of things that come out of petroleum smoke stacks and out of the tailpipes of cars,” said Michael Colantuono, Calabasas city attorney. “That decision is the first time a state regulatory agency of any state in the nation has reached that conclusion.

    The city council agreed to allow smoking in the following areas:

    •Private residential property, other than housing used as a childcare or health care facility when employees, children or patients are present

    •Up to 20 percent of guest rooms in any hotel or motel

    •Designated smoking “outposts” in shopping mall common areas that are at least five feet away from any doorway or opening that leads to an enclosed area.

    “I think the reason that (city) staff recommended a relatively small number (of outposts) in this instance is because (the city is) going to be dealing with a variety of commercial property: some large, some small, some that are big rectangles, some that have odder shapes,” Colantuono said. “We wanted to have the ability to have at least one designated space on each commercial property that meets the requirements. The feeling was that if you don’t provide an outlet, then people would simply defy the ordinance.”

    The city said it would relax the ban at times when non-smokers aren’t present in a public area.

    Business owners will be responsible for ensuring that all employees and patrons comply with the new law.

    Individual citizens can report offenders to the city and officials will determine how to handle fines on a case-by-case basis, said Tony Coroalles, Calabasas city manager.

    To view the second-hand smoke ordinance, visit www.cityofcalabasas.com.
     
  2. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #2
    We have some local ordinances like that around here, but they are seldom enforced or abided by.

    Politicians have just got to get it in their heads that there are more pressing issues in this country than homos marrying and people smoking.

    Christ.
     
  3. faintember macrumors 65816

    faintember

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    the ruins of the Cherokee nation
    #3
    Amen. Smoking bans as far as indoors i can understand (although i disagree) but smoking bans outdoors.....come on.
     
  4. TheMonarch macrumors 65816

    TheMonarch

    Joined:
    May 6, 2005
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #4
    Is that iGary quoting the first post? :eek: ;)

    Politicians do have strange priorities though...
     
  5. frankblundt macrumors 65816

    frankblundt

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2005
    Location:
    South of the border
    #5
    "The city said it would relax the ban at times when non-smokers aren’t present in a public area."
    I can see that leading to trouble.
     
  6. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #6
    As noted in the sister thread regarding England's smoking ban - I am a reasonable man, and a reasonable smoker.

    The arguments for indoor smoking bans are quite rational and compelling.

    This, however, is complete bull****. The only (semi) valid rationale for prohibition of outdoor smoking is in relation to littering (of cig butts), which could be addressed by alternate, specific legislation.

    This also reminds me of bans on smoking within one's own automobile - which just seems ridiculous.

    I have enjoyed the posts in the sister thread I alluded to above - I am curious what people's arguments (if any) would be in support of this measure.
     
  7. Josh macrumors 68000

    Josh

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Location:
    State College, PA
    #7
    Well, when people aren't able to make good decisions on there own, and need to be protected from themselves...what'aya gonna do?
     
  8. faintember macrumors 65816

    faintember

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    the ruins of the Cherokee nation
    #8
    ^^^^ So we should ban alcohol, poor drivers and the person that buys the jeans that make their butt look big?

    If i dont have the right to smoke outside, then people shouldnt have the right to drive their vehicles outside.
     
  9. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #9
    Josh, I take it you are on the forefront of the massive all-encompassing Spandex ban then?

    God knows we all need protection from spandex...
     
  10. iBlue macrumors Core

    iBlue

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, England
    #10
    no one would want to smoke outside in calabasas. have you ever seen calabasas? if looks could kill and you lit up a smoke amongst those snotty anal retentive hunds .. you'd drop dead right on the spot. that is one pristine little area. it's sickening. :p
     
  11. aquajet macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Location:
    VA
    #11
    There's really no room for sarcasm when we're talking about Californians, you know. Afterall, they're Californians, and we all know how crazed they can be. It's the least the government can do.
     
  12. Josh macrumors 68000

    Josh

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Location:
    State College, PA
    #12
    well, let's consider some facts:

    - 100% of smokers are affected negatively because of it.
    - Smoking does not have a single positive effect...not one.
    - Alcohol, when not abused, has been proven to actually be good for your heart.
    - Only a small fraction of daily drivers are negatively impacting (no pun intended) those around them.

    Is drinking a good decision? Very well could be.

    Is driving/owning a car a good decision? Most people will say yes. (Sure, their are environmental issues, but unlike smoking, driving a car does have a positive aspect)

    Is smoking a good decision? If you enjoy wasting money on something that gives nothing positive in return, effectively buying yourself cancer and causing discomfort to those around you, then perhaps - but that's unlikely. Smoking is not a good decision, there is not a single good thing about doing it.

    Obviously people aren't understanding that on their own, and it's a gov'ts duty to protect its people (and the rights of others, as it infringes on my right to breathe fresh air when others smoke, and I should not have to relocate due to others' habits - also a right of mine,yours, and theirs) so the city is doing the right thing.

    *Edit*

    ...as a heart attack ;)

    What's wrong with being against smoking? For wanting to go out and not have to limit myself to moving to alternate areas because of what others around me are doing?
     
  13. aquajet macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Location:
    VA
  14. faintember macrumors 65816

    faintember

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    the ruins of the Cherokee nation
    #14
    Josh, should something that is a bad decision give the government the right to not allow me to do it?

    Although i agree partially with what you are saying, and i think i understand where you are coming from, this whole judgement of "good" and "bad" has nothing to do with individual rights.

    You driving you car, although it can be a "good" thing, still infringes on my right to breath clean air. It also destroys the ozone layer, causing global warming, etc. So a "good" negates a "bad"? Dropping the H-bomb on Hiroshima was ok because it stopped the war (good) but killed many innocent citizens (bad)?

    If someone is blowing smoke in your face, they are clearly in the wrong, but if i am minding my own, sitting on the grass and smoking, and you are 20 yards away, then i dont see the problem.
     
  15. frankblundt macrumors 65816

    frankblundt

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2005
    Location:
    South of the border
    #15
    Alcohol is only good for you over the age of 40 (when you're at an increased heart attack risk), an effect more reliably achieved with aspirin. Antioxidants? eat a tomato. On the other hand - domestic violence, road death, liver malfunction... so ban it too (cos that worked soooo well last time)

    And tatoos are also bad for you (increased hepatitis risk, possibly also skin cancer) and don't do anything "good".

    Smoking as a risk to other people? Sure, control it, like driving and drinking and everything else "bad". Saving me from myself? That's either God's job (for those that way inclined) or no one's but my own.
     
  16. aquajet macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Location:
    VA
    #16
    Well, if we want to talk about things that are "bad" for us, then maybe we should outlaw masturbation, too. Afterall, there's nothing more repulsive than blind degenerates with hairy palms running around.
     
  17. frankblundt macrumors 65816

    frankblundt

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2005
    Location:
    South of the border
    #17
    No - that's good for you. Significantly reduces the risk of prostate cancer. Should be a law making it compulsory.
     
  18. aquajet macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Location:
    VA
    #18
    As long as the government can provide us with free towels, I'm all for it.
     
  19. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #19
    Smoking isn't banned because it's bad for you, it's banned because it's bad for me. I choose not to smoke, yet your choice to smoke is affecting me while I breathe in your toxic fumes. I am against smoking as much as anyone, probably more so for ... many reasons, personal ... but this is just stupid. I mean, banning it if someone is smoking right in front of a building's entrance or around schools or hospitals or whatever I can understand. But you can't regulate the outdoors, and there's a pretty good chance I'm not going to get hit with your smoke if you're a couple of feet away and we're outside.
     
  20. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #20
    Los Gatos is a bit worse I'd say. ;)
     
  21. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #21
    Good Lord. Can I please move to another planet? Is Mars habitable yet? This planet has lost it.
     
  22. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #22
    Not sure I follow these remarks. Calbasas, for those who care to know, is a western suburb of Los Angeles, on the edge of the San Fernando Valley. It's drive-through country for most of us (I have my car serviced at a dealership in Calbasas, which is about all I know about the city).

    Anyway, smoking is already banned in many outdoor locations in these parts, including on beaches and in Dodger Stadium, so this is a long-standing trend. Maybe people ought to save their outrage for something of actual importance.
     
  23. Lyle macrumors 68000

    Lyle

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Location:
    Madison, Alabama
    #23
    I think it would be cool if the law also required smokers at those outposts to shout "Unclean! Unclean!" when non-smokers get too close.
     
  24. XNine macrumors 68040

    XNine

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Location:
    Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
    #24
    Sounds just like Boulder, CO.

    Ah well. These health-freaks are so enthralled in their own little world they don't realize that there are more pressing issues. OH MY GOD IT'S A CIGARETTE! (never mind that our children are growing more and more violent and stupid by the day, or the fact that Drunk Drivers get small penalties when they kill others on the road, or WORLD WAR III is just across the ocean from us, or any other number of things our time and effort and money could be spent on).
     
  25. mpw Guest

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    #25
    If there is a place inside or out that the public can go then it should be non-smoking so all can enjoy it. Like others have said it shouldn't be for someone who doesn't smoke to change their activities to avoid the effects of someone who chooses to smoke.

    I'd love not to need this sort of thing to be legislated over, but unfortunately I know that some smokers won't not light-up just because non-smokers are present.

    It reminds me of an old Denis Leary or Bill Hicks joke about crossing the road. "Only CA has a law that gives the pedestrian the right of way.....everywhere else just has common courtesy" (or something to that affect)
     

Share This Page