I live in the small, Southern California town of Calabasas, on the southwestern edge of the San Fernando Valley. There are a dozen gated McMansion communities here, horse trails, and an upscale shopping center with a clock-tower that is home to the world’s largest Rolex. This is a town where the only car wash is called an auto salon and serves customers Espressos. But this week our little town made news worldwide for having the most restrictive anti-smoking law in the United States. This week, it became illegal for smokers to smoke indoors or outdoors in any public areas of the city, including parks, sidewalks and out-door businesses. There are people screaming about how restrictive, unfair, and anti-American this is but I have to say I don’t care. I’m thrilled.
The ordinance appears to provide an application process for designated smoking areas.
Eh.
Though I don’t smoke myself and don’t enjoy walking behind a smoker puffing away, I feel this law is too restrictive. Just wait until they make it illegal for fat people to buy donuts or old people to buy motor scooters.
Hello fascism!
That’s it, I’m friggin’ moving there.
Being extremely allergic to cigarette smoke, I’d be thrilled, too. Just a little whiff even from walking through somebody on a sidewalk can make me spend the rest of the day coughing myself half to death.
I hate smoking. Even outdoors it makes me ill in the ways described above. May this spread far and wide.
As a smoker I can’t decide if this is a good thing or not. Freedom of choice is important but I admit that if these sorts of laws were passed here in the UK it would make me quit smoking which can only be a good thing fo me!
Oh, well if you hate it then it’s a good law.
I think we should also have them wear armbands with a yellow ‘S’ on it. That way we know who they are and won’t accidently smell their clothes.
It’s not the same as fat folks buying donuts, not at all – the law doesn’t tell people they cannot smoke – it simply tells them they don’t have the right to expose non-smokers to their smoke.
Same with drinking and driving. You have the right to drink as much as you want, endanger your health as much as you wish – but what you don’t have the right to do is endanger the health of other people, you don’t have that right. Which is why drinking and driving is against the law.
Smoking in public is against the law for the same reason. It’s not fascism, laws are made to regulate behavior for the good of all people. Not the few, but all.
Would you think it appropriate if, when your kids went to school, the teacher openly drank booze and smoked right there in the classroom in front of them?
They can’t and shouldn’t, right? Why not? Because it endangers the lives of the children. It’s not fascism to regulate the behavior of smokers, it’s only common fricking sense.
Joshua you’re going on the shaky assumption that second hand smoke can give you health problems and the faulty assumption that any amount of exposure poses a risk.
You get more carcinagins from the cars driving past than you will from a smoker walking past. But I’m sure once rich people find some purly electric form of transport nice little gated communities like this will outlaw them on their streets as well.
Realisticaly people smoking outdoors poses no health risk, it just stinks. If you wanna say it’s an inconvience to you, sure I’ll by that. If you wanna say fuck them, you don’t care about smokers I’ll by that too. But don’t tell me you’re doing this for your own health when it’s obviously not going to have an affect. You won’t live one more day in your cushy gated community because of this, your days may smell better though.
To state that second hand smoke a health risk is a risky assumption? No offense, but are you high?
There is a load of empirical evidence to support the fact that second hand smoke is a health risk – so much so that when I read that you believe otherwise, I almost fell down laughing. Just google second hand smoke and go from there, I’m not even going to link it for you – if you really believe it’s not a health risk, it’s because you’re willfully ignoring the obvious. Many non-smokers die each year from smoking related illnesses and they got it from being exposed to smoke from smokers.
Your argument is illogical just on the face of it, because if the smoke going into the smoker is bad, why wouldn’t it be bad for the non-smoker who smells and breathes it in?
The fact that auto exhaust is also bad for us, what the hell does that have to do with second hand smoke? Is your argument really that since we’re killing each other with auto exhaust, why not let people kill each other with cigarette smoke as well? That’s a dishonest piece of misdirection.
So what if it’s outdoors? The fact that it’s outside doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have any effect – if you can smell on your clothes after you walk by a pack of smokers, then it’s in your lungs and in your body.
The fact that because it’s outside it means that the poisonous exposure doesn’t make it right for a non-smoker to be exposed to smoke against their will. A little bit or a lot, doesn’t make a difference. It’s still wrong.
So are you.
Where I work (USAF base) it’s illegal to smoke indoors or in a gov’t vehicle. People can smoke outside, and they do. When they come back inside where I am they reek of that unique and awful cigarette stench that makes me want to hold a scented hankie to my nose. Smokers literally stink, simple as that.
I left out a word or two in the last paragraph of my post – it should read:
The fact that because it’s outside it means that the poisonous exposure IS LESS doesn’t make it right for a non-smoker to be exposed to smoke against their will.
“…the shaky assumption that second hand smoke can give you health problems…”
Um, yeah, tell that to my grandmother. Oh, that’s right, you can’t. She never, ever smoked, but she died of emphysema last year, from living with my grandfather, who smoked.
I don’t know what level of exposure constitutes a risk, but there definitely is a risk.
Your argument is illogical just on the face of it, because if the smoke going into the smoker is bad, why wouldn’t it be bad for the non-smoker who smells and breathes it in?
Quantity and concentration.
Look at the fact that a beer or a glass of wine a day is good for your health. A fifth of vodka is not (my doctor keeps saying). The fact is that chemicals have differing reactions with our bodies based on their quantity and concentration.
**I know a guy who drank probably a coffee cup worth of bleach over the course of his life. Had he simply drank that at once he would have been in the hospitol but he drank it over time in small amounts mixed with a great deal of water.
The fact that auto exhaust is also bad for us, what the hell does that have to do with second hand smoke? Is your argument really that since we’re killing each other with auto exhaust, why not let people kill each other with cigarette smoke as well? That’s a dishonest piece of misdirection.
My argument is that laws are made that inconvience people other than the lawmakers. I’m assuming the town council is a group of well of individuals and I’m assuming that none of them smoke. They’ve outlawed behavior they don’t practice.
But driving is worse (carcinogen wise) than exposure to second hand smoke. Yet there is no proposal to outlaw driving. Because that would actually affect the people making the law.
Do you honestly think that these chemicals are killing you? I can’t even remember the last time I walked past people smoking outside except for those who smoke in the entryway of a building (that always bugged me). How often is this really a problem for you?
**If you’re curious, he drank it to evade detection on drug tests.
I was a smoker on and off for twenty-five years and I used the same argument that Mr. Whelan used. “If you don’t like my smoke, don’t breathe.” What made me give them up was the day I burned my three-year-old granddaugther’s hand. In the past, I didn’t seem to mind that she was sucking up my poison whenever she came to visit, you see, what I couldn’t see had no effect on me. After all, I had smoked while raising my three sons, and they were still alive. They all suffer from allergies, yet I was sure that had nothing to do with the secondhand smoke. But the cigarette burn on her little hand was blatantly obvious. I quit the next day.
Smokeless in Nevada, which BTW, is California’s designated smoking area.
The fact that one glass of wine is good for you does not compare to smoking – one cigarette is not good for you. One or twenty, doesn’t matter, it’s bad.
The laws are made not to inconvenience people, but to protect people. That’s why they are there. Drunk driving is against the law to protect people.
Your statement that lawmakers pass laws to inconvenience people is just ridiculous. I’m sure that the silly law against theft and murder is inconvenient for some, but that certainly doesn’t make it a viable argument FOR there to be no law banning either.
I’m not going to argue with you that something should be done about auto emissions because I agree that something should be done. But what does that have to do with the rightness or wrongness of a smoking regulation? If you really care about the pollution, look at this smoking law as a valuable first step.
But I don’t think that’s why you bring it up. I think you are simply clouding the issue with that. Back up your claim that second hand smoke isn’t a health risk before you do anything else.
It’s like drunk driving. You can get drunk as you want, just as long is you don’t drive, as long as you don’t endanger the health of others. No one has the right to endanger the health of others. Anyone who argues otherwise is being foolish. End of story.
Garrett Whelan is wrong. Joshua is right.
Second hand smoking = nasty beyond description. My dad smokes, and when I was a kid, I used to have minor chest pain and wheezing breath when I ran. Thank God, my mom banned his smoking inside the house. I don’t let him smoke inside my car, either.
Joshua,
Please link the article that says that every person exposed to trace amounts of second-hand smoke will automatically suffer health defects. Smoking is already illegal inside. No one has ever contracted lung cancer because he or she occasionally walked past a person who was smoking on a sidewalk. And I doubt anyone has died from Arnold’s smoking tent inside the Capital Building.
Rachel,
I did not know the government’s role was to make sure you’re responsible about your health. That’s a nanny’s role. Spoonful of sugar and whatnot.
I agree, smokers smell bad, are annoying, loud, killed Jesus, etc., but I do not agree with the assertion that they should be ticketed or jailed (as at least one lawmaker suggested) for lighting up outdoors on a public sidewalk.
I would prefer if people didn’t smoke. I would also prefer if government officials would dedicate at least three hours a week to doing something important that would actually help people. Since neither of those is going to happen any time soon, I’d like for adults to be treated as adults and for the government to mind its damn business.
Is that too much to ask?
And by the way, I agree with Joshua that harrassing smokers isn’t necessarily fascism. It more closely resembles all those dictatorships that are commonly misidentified as communism
Come on, Elliot, what is that bullshit about harassing smokers? Are you serious? Regulating behavior that is harmful to innocen citizens is what laws are about. It’swhy they are the.
Listen, it works like this.
We agree smoking is bad. We agree that it causes disease.
What we cannot agree is the length of exposure. You posit that since it’s outside, exposure is minimal at best and causes little harm.
Here’s the thing – you have no way of knowing or proving that. We cannot measure it like the blood alchohol level in a person. You walk through a cloud of smoke put forth by smokers in front of the hospital, there is no way to measure the damage it can do. But we do know it does cause damage. We KNOW it hurts non-smokers because there is medical evidence to support it. Smoke causes damage.
And while the smoker has the right to damage his or herself, the smoker does not have the right to damage anyone else. In any way or any level.
That’s it, end of story, and it’s not communism and it’s not fascism, it’s common sense, logic and law.
It’s like this hypthetical situation. Bear in mind, this is strictly hypethetical, there is no threat. I see a guy, like you, on the street. I punch you in the face. It’s assault and it’s against the law (for good reason). Let’s say I don’t punch you hard, but just slap you a little. It’s still assault. I still broke the law, even though you’re not bruised or broken. It’s assault. The level matters not where the law is concerned.
Same with smoking. You’re arguing about degrees of exposure when what the law is saying this: THE SMOKER hasn’t the right to expose the non-smoker AT ALL. You don’t have that right, anymore than I have the right to assault anyone I please.
Please, stop this ridiculous defense of an imagined right that you do not have. You do not have the right, as a smoker, to hurt anyone. Levels matter not.
And as I mentioned, google second hand smoke and you’ll find enough articles without my help.
Garrett, Elliott, no matter whether it *should* be illegal or not, smoking around people who don’t smoke is incredibly *rude*
i don’t pee in your pool. Please don’t smoke in my air.
Know what else ticks me off? It’s not even legal for me to shoot poison darts at people any more! Sheesh! Talk about a nanny state!
Any moron knows cigarette smoke is toxic. It doesn’t have to kill or permanently maim you to be a health hazard or a public nuisance.
No one has ever contracted lung cancer because he or she occasionally walked past a person who was smoking on a sidewalk.
What brilliant point are you under the impression you just made?
Joshua,
Do you really want to punch me in the face because I don’t blindly accept your assertions masquerading as facts regarding levels of harm, which you, by the way admitted were impossible or at least difficult to ascertain? Just for the record if you or anyone else punched me in the face on the sidewalk, getting charged with assault would be the least of your worries.
Furthermore, the false syllogism that because I support the last remaining inkling of civil rights afforded a universally demonized group I must be a member of said group is intellectually lazy, ignorant and presumptuous. I am not a smoker. I dislike smoke in my face as much as or more than you do. I also dislike people who think everything that bothers them should be illegal.
On the other hand, I love ad hominem attacks and false slippery slopes in the place of actual discourse. I also love being punched in the face by internet bullies. You’ve proved your point. You’re tough. I’m very afraid of you, Joshua.
“Know what else ticks me off? It’s not even legal for me to shoot poison darts at people any more! Sheesh! Talk about a nanny state!”
You’re absolutely right. It’s the exact same thing. Thank you for putting me in my place. I’m a loser.
Toodles.
Eliot, um, I believe I said clearly that I was not threatened to punch you or anyone, it was metaphor, which you evidently have much difficulty with.
And maintaining that you have the civil right to expose other people to your smoke in ridiculous – as I said, no one has the right to harm anyone else (hence the face-punch / slap metaphor) – and medically it’s been proven second hand smoke is harmful – ergo, you don’t have the right to do that to people.
In civil rights terms, it’s the non-smokers who have a case that their basic right to life (health) liberty (freedom not to smoke) and happiness (not to be exposed to poison) is being threatened by smokers.
So there it is. I’ve stated my argument again and again and you keep spinning without addressing the basic argument against public smoking. I could call you names, threaten you, this that and those, but I am not doing that. I explained very clearly that smoking in front of non-smokers violates the rights of the non-smoker and I’ve explained why.
You have not countered any of the arguments with proof or logic.
Good for your town…I’m massively badly affected by smoke, cigarette or any other kind. They’re only just getting around to banning smoking in bars and restaurants over here – so far it’s only taken effect in Scotland and I can’t wait for summer 2007 when England and Wales are added to the list.
I grew up there. I just like to watch my smoker sister squirm when we’re there visiting our parents and she can’t even light up in our backyard.
It is not the governments job to be our mommies and daddies. It is not the governments job to tell us we can’t smoke because it has health risks. By the way most cases of lung cancer are not associated with smoking and smoking does not increase health costs and people who smoke die only a few years earlier on average than those who don’t. It is their business. Choices have consequences and some people find the consequences of smoking worth the benefit and enjoyment. Just like some people find the benefits of heart medicine worth the risks and consequences, etc., not everyone ends up with the good results. It is also wrong to place excessive taxes on one product over others. Excess in anything has detrimental effects. We all need to grow up, take responsibility for ourselves and work to remove nanny laws from the books, so that we have an accountable society instead of a dependent one.
A non smoker in one of the worst nanny states in the country, CA.