Smoking Ban Moves Outdoors

[kurth]

Los Angeles Times / March 18, 2006
Smoking Ban Moves Outdoors
Calabasas makes it illegal to light up in public spaces, with fines up to $500. Some residents breathe easier, but others just fume.
By Bob Pool, Times Staff Writer

As a pioneering public smoking ban went into effect Friday in Calabasas, enforcement came from a higher authority: Mother Nature. A pouring rainstorm snuffed out renegade smokers' cigarettes and sent them scurrying for cover as security guards began issuing warnings at the town's main shopping center. "You could get a $500 citation," one of them advised Danielle Wakely of Westwood as she sat at an outside table at the Calabasas Commons mall and puffed on a Marlboro...

Calabasas, an upscale suburb perched on the western edge of the San Fernando Valley, was generating international attention for what appears to be the nation's first ban on smoking in all outdoor public spaces. Violators can be fined up to $500. As the day wore on, smokers were playing a cat-and-mouse game with mall security. Cupping their cigarettes in their hands and hiding them under patio tables, they flipped them to the outdoor mall's damp sidewalks when guards approached. While many anti-smoking forces have cheered Calabasas on as it adopted its new municipal ordinance, the effort has met a decidedly mixed reaction within the 13.2-square-mile city.

Rain was pouring outside City Hall as Councilman Barry Groveman offered assurances that enforcement of what he diplomatically called the "secondhand smoke control ordinance" would be phased in gently. He had just finished fielding inquiries about the new law from reporters in Australia and Spain. "We're making it acceptable to ask what has been an uncomfortable question until now: 'Would you please put that cigarette out?' " Groveman said. "We're putting the force of law behind it." ...

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-nosmoke18mar18,1,6811213.story?coll=la-headlines-california

[TransitJohn]

1. Good lord

just ship 'em out fer chrissakes....I mean, really....second hand smoke OUTDOORS in L.A.? With their air quality? You have got to be kidding me.

[br7598]

2. Well there goes 2006...

This is the kind of issue that will lead to another democratic loss in 2006 and 2008.

Generally speaking, americans like being free. They see the democrats as trying to eliminate those freedoms. And they are right in this case. It started with federal buildings, then spread to other buildings, then restauraunts and bars, now they are eliminating smoking outside. Next will be in homes, and then finally an all out ban. They are not being reasonable, in the same way the NRA is unreasonable. They will not stop until smoking is illegal and the freedom to smoke is eliminated completely. Just like the NRA will not stop until all gun control is eliminated. There is no "acceptable" or "reasonable" level of gun control.

Colorado is also passing a statewide smoking ban right now. The article is in the Denver post this morning.

I think the hatred for smokers has clouded the democrats judgment on what is fair and reasonably free.

[freeplessinseattle]

5. CO House Minority leader is R and sponsored the bill n/t

[Richard D]

6. In Calabasas . . .

. . . I almost got a picture, slightly post 9/11 (which changed everything) of a long long line of almost all over-sized SUV's, all decked out with American flags, waiting to turn into a very exclusive private school to pick up their kids.

It's in Los Angeles County, but it's a very repuke. Lilly white. Very wealthy. Very republican.

[Toots]

7. You wouldn't mind if I was free to piss in your drinking water supply then

The Human being needs three thngs to sustain life. Food Water and Air. Food and Water are quite well protected and no one would think of allowing me to foul their public supply but they seem to think Air is not as important. I want the same freedom you are asking for. You want the freedom to polute my public air so let me piss in your public water supply. :shrug: Okay?

[nonconformist]

12. I take it you don't drive? nt

[Beelzebud]

14. Then why not go after those that own Smoke Stacks that spew toxins?

Why go after the citizens of the "land of the free"?

Oh and BTW. If piss was all that was in our public water, I'd be happy.

[mondo joe]

17. Since 1 city or county can't much effect stacks or cars, should they

do nothing to improve their own locale?

Besides - aren't auto emissions and toxic dumping traditional liberal issues anyway?

[Beelzebud]

18. It's L.A. If they want to improve their air quality, perhaps more tough

regulation for the big-industry polluters.

You know why they won't do that? Because smokers don't have multi-million dollar lawyers that represent them in the trials, and in the hearings. The Big Polluters do.

But continue eroding personal freedom. I dind't realize limiting personal freedoms were a traditional liberal issue...

You people are the opposing side of the Nanny-State coin. One wants to control our bedrooms, the other wants to control how we live.

[mondo joe]

19. Actually, it's one suburb. They couldn't control the big industry or

auto polluters if they wanted to. And if they could, they'd have to weigh the economic impact of such choices.

You are mistaken in suggesting I am part of a "nanny-state" anything. I don't care what you do with your body. You can smoke arsenic for all I care, you can shoot heroin and you can drink from morning to night.

[Toots]

36. Why do you insist it is your right to pollute my air?

You do not have that right. It is not a matter of Freedom no more than anyone should be Free to rob a bank or wiretap Americans without warrant. If you tried to dump the same carcinigens in the Public water supply you would be arrested and no one would blink about it. Why do you insist you have the "Right" to dump those carcinigens into the Public Air supply? It isn't about Freedom it is about Respect and honor. If you don't respect your fellow human being how can you claim to be honorable?

[Toots]

33. I guess it makes no difference whether Bush* broke any laws because others

break laws also. That's your logic? There's bigger polluters than cigartette smokers so why pick on the little guy. Pollution is pollution same as Laws are Laws. If we don't enforce the Laws we get Bush* doing whatever he wishes. If you have no respect for others just say so.

[johnnie]

20. "Food and Water are quite well protected"

Really?

Then again, maybe urine would neutralize all the mercury in the water supply.

[question everything]

24. Urinetown, the Muscial

As the result of a terrible water shortage, private toilets have become unthinkable. All restroom activities are handled through a private corporation, the Urine Good Company (UGC for short). To control water consumption, people have pay to public amenities (that is, public toilets) for their "private business". As Lockstock says, "That's the central conceit of the show."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urinetown#Synopsis

[Oeditpus Rex]

39. Go right ahead

But be prepared to suffer the consequences.

Me, I just want the freedom to submit to my addiction — considerately and politely, without impinging on others' wishes — without being charged with a crime. (I long ago gave up on the idea of doing it without being a pariah.)

Or are you one of those people who believe drug addicts should be imprisoned?

[sweetheart]

3. i presume they've already banned cars

that produce more smoke and cancerous particles than any cigarette.
But that would pinch the profits of big oil and the constitutional
amendment that everyone has a right to a car and to drive around
leaving a stinking mess that is "ok" because second hand smoke
is dangerous, but car exhaust totally harmless.

I bet they've banned fires from the santa monica mountains as well,
we'll see if that stops anything.

[izzie]

4. My bet is cars,food, beer, and sex are killing off more than butts.

I smoke so I am hoping my Toy dog will get the G-man before they get to my door to drag me off.:smoke:

[Harald Ragnarsson]

8. The Brown Skies of LA

That sight has struck me every time I've been to that place.

Who'd have thought that was all tobacco smoke!

I think they better make them illegal, because frankly I'm getting tired of hearing how we are pissing al over people and costing them a fortune, when actually the opposite is true. I'd like to start getting something for my several dollars a pack tax I pay than abuse and laws that attempt to make me into a second class citizen.

Seriously, with all the taxes paid and hundreds of billions of dollars awarded to the "states" for "smokers damages" (which they promptly blew on everything BUT something for smokers)how can people think that WE are costing THEM money?

Smokers build sports stadiums. Smokers even pay for Head Start in CA, for some reason that escapes me.

I can't smoke on company property on my break, smoking is bad for you, but you can stand outside and see smoke rolling out of every open dooor of the building. I'm sure burning rubber smoke is good for you.

[brook]

9. I heard a pulmanary specialist...

say that anyone who lived in the LA area for 10 years would have emphysema - and he wasn't citing tobbaco as the culprit.

We all know smokers are the preferred target. God forbid we actually enforce existing environmental standards against the saintly corporate polluters. The * and Terminator administrations have actually lowered those standards, haven't they?

It'll be interesting to see how this 'experiment' in Calabasas goes.

[Jade Fox]

40. It's easier to harass individual people (smokers) than...

go after big time polluters.

The anti-smoking fanatics are out of control IMO. Smokers are any easy target for those who need one. And there is a huge streak of moral superiority visible in these anti-smokers agenda, which makes me want to light up.

[standup]

11. It's the new PC idiocy carried to extreme

[in_cog_ni_to]

10. This is in LA? Hahahahahaha!

Funny. The one and only time I was in LA we went to see the beach and the SMOG was so thick you couldn't see the water AT ALL.:eyes:

Oh yes...the little anti-smoking nazis are still at it. They'll get theirs and personally, I can't wait for the day they are discriminated against. No one will be left to defend them because no one will have ANY rights left. That's what fascism is all about. Enjoy it anti-smokers. Give away our rights...YOURS are next. :thumbsup: Good job guys.:thumbsup: One more LEGAL right given away because of you. :thumbsup:

[Beelzebud]

13. Yes anti-smokers. Go after the regualr ppl. forget the chemical factories

I am a non-smoker.

I almost want to start smoking so I don't get lumped in with the control freaks, that want to ban smoking everywhere.

It starts with private businesses, and now it's moving outdoors.

I don't need a fucking nanny-state to tell me how to be healthy.

What next? Outlaw fatty foods?

Oh BTW. While you're so worried about air quality, how about going after some of the chemical companies that spew toxic crap in our atmosphere every day, and don't get ANY form of punishment for it.

[nonconformist]

15. Smokers are the new pariahs of society

Ignore all the REAL problems, just blame the smokers.

[Beelzebud]

16. Exactly. It's pathetic.

[SeattleGirl]

28. Well of course! I mean, if no one smoked, there would be no

more war, poverty, illness of any kind, everyone would be rich beyond their wildest dreams, in fact, no more problems of any kind! :sarcasm:

Jeez! I agree that smoking is not good for a person. I agree that non-smokers should be able to breathe clean air inside. I agree that some people have really adverse physical reactions to being around smoke. I agree that some people, even if not allergic to cigarette smoke, just cannot stand the smell and would prefer not to be around it. But banning it OUTSIDE? In LA? Or anywhere for that matter. Sheesh!

Yep, smokers are the new pariahs of society. Much easier to pick one group of people and dump all one's anger, frustration, etc., on them, than to address some of the other, very real, problems we face.

I have a better idea: how about banning stupid, incompetent, selfish-bastard, asshat politicians and CEO's who don't give a flying f**k about anything or anyone but their money and themselves?

Smoking bans for indoors are fine. But they are not the solution to all that ails us.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

30. I betcha Laura Bush smokes in the White House.

and nobody is rushing to throw her in jail.

[SeattleGirl]

31. 'cause they're above the law, you know.

"Laws? We don't need so stinking laws!"

:grr:

[billyskank]

32. Smokers *are* the new pariahs

all of our collective guilts, we dump on them. I am speaking as an ex-smoker. I hate to smell cigarette smoke now, but there is no real difficulty in getting away from it. Somebody smoking outside is not a problem. Somebody driving a big-ass car or (worse) a truck has much more to answer for. Smoking is already banned in all workplaces and, now, most places of entertainment too.

Some people won't be happy until smoking is banned outright, I think.

[zanne]

35. I agree, billyskank

I'm an ex-smoker too and smelling cigarette smoke re-ignites my cravings, even after three years. But I think this law banning public smoking is insane and only goes to prove that any group of people can be power-mad, including liberals.

[Harald Ragnarsson]

21. Some of their stuff is so crazy you can't help but laugh

I was reading a smoking thread on a web forum, might have been this one, and an anti-smoker was saying that people smoking in their cars should have to keep their windows rolled up. The person was tired of driving down the freeway and their air being polluted by the smoker in the car in front of them.

Is that not the most ridiculous thing you've ever heard in your life? And I'm supposed to let people like that tell me how I should live? Heck, I might as well let Bush do it, that sounds like something he would say!

[in_cog_ni_to]

23. That was here on DU! I remember that thread!

:rofl: They really are TOO MUCH. My sister is "one of them" :eyes: Absolutely ridiculous.

[tammywammy]

25. You know the only time I've ever been able to smell

cigarette smoke from a car in front of me, is if I'm stopped at a drive-thru or red light, I'll maybe get a whiff of it.

This is just getting ridiculous when they start saying you can't smoke outside anywhere, even on your own property.

[question everything]

22. Next, they should ban flatulence in public (nt)

[TahitiNut]

26. Some people think "Motherland" is better than "Fatherland"

I regard governmental parentalism of all kinds as noxious. :puke:

[Nikia]

27. I don't know why they would ban smoking outdoors

In buildings, there is not usually adequate enough ventilation to disapate smoked quickly, especially if several people are smoking at the same time. Outside, smoke disipates rather rapidly. It's effect on the environment is neglible compared to cars and industry.
I do know that the environment there is a little different though from where I have lived. I did visit the Los Angelos area once on a spring break trip and everyone told us how lucky we were that it rained the day we came in. It seems that a cloud of pollution is hanging there almost constantly. It isn't really an area where you can expect to be breathing clean air.

[U4ikLefty]

29. Better not fart in Calabasas...they may outlaw methane next!!! n/t

[Generic Brad]

34. What a Drag

[Minnesota Libra]

37. Brilliant-ban outdoor smoking but keep polluting cars!! nt

[dogday]

38. Every time one of these Smoking threads is posted

I always say the same thing. The rights of the minority are protected by the constitution for just this reason...If this is allowed to continue, smoking will be only the first of many things that could be banned in public... The slope is slippery.....