Smoking
Burbank may pass a new smoking ban which would be one of the toughest bans in the country. No public smoking anywhere. I like it, however some argue that it is too strict and will make people take their business to other cities. I hope they do pass it. I hate walking outside a building or waiting to cross a street and having someone blow smelly smoke in everyone's faces. They've already passed smoking ban laws in Santa Monica and Calabasas. Maybe it wouldn't be such a big deal if smokers were a little more considerate about where they smoke and who's around them.
posted by Melinda @ 6:24 AM
13 comments
13 Comments:
Sounds kind of extreme. I saw this description of the ban:
"the ban would extend to all city properties, all pedestrian areas of downtown Burbank, all restaurant outdoor dining areas, outdoor concert areas, sporting events, outdoor shopping areas and within 20 feet of any door or window"
Wow. I'm no fan of smoking, but the health reasons for smoking bans seem to have less effect when you ban outside smoking. At stadiums and other places where you're in forced proximity to someone it makes sense, but "all pedestrian areas"? Sheesh.
It says that you can smoke outside in an open area just as long as there isn't any other person in your general area. Yup. Pretty strict
I'm all for it. It looks pretty bad driving down a city street seeing business people huddled outside inhaling poison into their lungs. Often you see cigarette butts all over the ground where people gather to smoke, even when there's a receptacle for them.
Melinda --
You live in a police state, and you have been assimilated. Your brainwashing is complete. And here you thought you were thinking for yourself, as a free individual. Hah!
Welcome to the world of the smoke-easys, where actual citizens huddle against the battering ram of morality. Don't laugh. It's coming.
Jeff
Chalfont, PA
I hope they pass it. I am sick of people poluting my lungs. Plus, my mother in law died of lung cancer at 48. We have our reasons of why we want no smoking. When you lose a mom, that hits home.
I just want to say props to CALI for being the trend setter. I am really impressed with the going green strategies.
I also agree with the fact that I hate seeing people polluting their cancer sticks everywhere. VA is a smoking state. They still ask you in restaurants "Smoking" or "Non-Smoking!"
I never understood smoking. Why would anyone want to hold this stupid little white stick and breath in and out and know that its killing them. It makes no sense at all. Not to mention, after people take a "smoke break" at work, they come back smelling bad.
(hello jeff, I have absolutely no idea who you are)
Hi Melinda --
I'm just a guy who has two kids and is married, lives outside Philadelphia. I do smoke occasionally. I dislike smoke when I'm eating. So, one takes the good with the bad.
My point is simply that we are on our way to something a lot like prohibition. I'm serious! Except, they're sold legally.
If cigarettes are really that bad for you, then they should be made illegal. I could actually live with that. Let's stop pussy-footing around and really attack the problem, or leave people alone.
By the way, what happened to saying "Excuse me, could you put that out? It's bothering me."
It's like we all are back in elementary school, and go running to the teacher to solve problems for us.
Nice meeting you.
Jeff
Jeff states valid points.
Thanks Michele --
Here's another curious issue that I found out. Hold on tight, everyone.
The 1993 EPA study that started this whole thing was not really a study at all. It was an analysis of other studies, and, you guessed it, the EPA picked and chose which studies to cite in order to support its agenda to curb smoking, by identifying ETS as a Class A Carcinogen. I guess I understand their motivation.
Trouble is, a couple years later, a federal judge, Judge Osteen, tossed out -- that's right -- tossed out the EPA study as being junk science, basically. The only reason the EPA's study is still in effect is that Osteen's ruling got overturned by a court of appeals on a technicality, not on lack of merit. Hm.
So, we've gotten all upset about....nothing. Really.
Former Surgeon General Carmona (now running the Canyon Ranch and Spa in AZ) abhors cigarettes -- to be expected. However, he crossed the line when he said they should be made illegal. I don't know it for a fact, but he was quietly not appointed for a second term. Was it because he was a "whack job?" Ya' think?
I know I went a little nutty with that last one, but why not? Everyone has gone crazy on this anti-reefer madness and it is way, way past the time when common sense and courtesy should take over.
Joe McCarthy, are you around?
Jeff L'Amoreaux
Chalfont, PA
Jeff - I agree with your prior posts, but that last one just sounds like a lot of conjecture. The EPA study wasn't the only work done on secondhand smoke, and the fact that the surgeon general was "quietly not appointed to a second term" is irrelevant. That method of argument is akin to pointing out that since Osteen was a tobacco lobbyist before becoming a federal judge (which he was), his opinion on the EPA study must be a sham.
And comparing smoking bans to McCarthyism is going a tad overboard.
I don't know much about cigarettes or secondhand smoke (except for what you can see here), but arguments based on implication and association just don't sit well.
Hehe, you're gonna make a good lawyer Drew. :)
Drew --
Hey, I value your response. Absolutely. Because it forces me to think about the issues at face value.
The reason that I cite the EPA study is because it is apparently the one that got people's attention. Yes, there are other studies. One can find studies to support and to deny. I just don't know of any other study that has been judged in the manner that the EPA's has. If you do, please let me know. The Congressional Research Service issued a report in 1995 that calls into question the toxicity of SHS. And the American Lung Association, as you cite, has a long list of studies which back a claim supporting the toxicity of second-hand smoke.
Judge Osteen has ruled against the tobacco industry too. I can't cite chapter and verse, but the track record is out there. I don't think his ruling is a sham. I found decisions on this site. Maybe Osteen is qualified because few know the issues like he does. Maybe not.
http://www.usdoj.gov/civil/cases/decision.htm
Drew -- I'll give you one. The McCarthyism analogy was poor!
It's been suggested that Carmona was also tired of the politics in Washington, DC and that's why he decided to pack it in and head back to Tucson.
As Melinda states, you'd make a good judge. Along those lines, I'd argue that the burden of proof is on those who want to institute smoking bans. I firmly believe that those people would be met with a reasonable doubt that SHS is the evil killer some suggest it is.
Frankly, I think our country has bigger fish to fry. Restaurants and bars are going smoke free on their own. Good for them! That's their call!
I just want it to stay their call, that's all.
Jeff
Post a Comment
<< Home