CatBanter

CatBanter (http://www.catbanter.com/index.php)
-   Cat anecdotes (http://www.catbanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   OT Calif. City Bans Smoking in Public Places (http://www.catbanter.com/showthread.php?t=67977)

Matthew AKA NMR \( NO MORE RETAIL \) March 19th 06 06:59 PM

OT Calif. City Bans Smoking in Public Places
 
They are starting to get a lot males me glad We quit years and years ago
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060319/...us/smoking_ban



EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) March 19th 06 08:12 PM

OT Calif. City Bans Smoking in Public Places
 
I don't understand - the whole STATE of California banned it
YEARS ago! (And enforces it pretty well, too.)

Matthew AKA NMR ( NO MORE RETAIL ) wrote:

They are starting to get a lot males me glad We quit years and years ago
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060319/...us/smoking_ban




[email protected] March 19th 06 11:20 PM

OT Calif. City Bans Smoking in Public Places
 
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote:

I don't understand - the whole STATE of California banned it
YEARS ago! (And enforces it pretty well, too.)


Smoking inside any buildings where people congregate (whether work
places, public buildings, or businesses, including restaurants and
bars) was made illegal in 1998 (1/1/98, to be exact). But it's never
been illegal to smoke outdoors in, say, a public park or on the street.
(I think the city of Palo Alto tried to ban smoking on the street, but
I'm not sure it stuck.)

I'm not sure how I feel about this. I am extremely happy that people
can't smoke in restaurants and bars (although some bars don't enforce
it), and I'm certainly glad they can't smoke in workplaces where I would
be stuck breathing it. But not to allow people to smoke outdoors seems
kind of extreme to me. Is second-hand smoke in an outdoor location that
much of a threat? Doesn't the wind blow it around and disperse it?

I could understand banning smoking in, say, an outdoor amphitheater.
People are packed in together and can't move away from smoke easily if
they happen to get stuck next to a smoker. But if someone's walking
along a path in the park with a cigarette lit, I find it hard to believe
that is dangerous to other people's health. It's unpleasant, sure. But
just because something's unpleasant to some people doesn't mean it
should be illegal.

It bothers me that we demonize smokers as much as we do. We always seem
to need a scapegoat. It's one thing to protect people from real dangers
of second-hand smoke, which I completely agree with, and another to act
as though smoking itself is evil and should only be done behind closed
doors. Unless there's a real danger to people's health from casually
breathing smoke by a passerby out on the street (and I don't know all
the facts, so I'm reserving judgement about that), I think this is a bit
extreme. And I say this as someone who (1) generally supports laws that
protect the public, and (2) can't stand cigarette smoke. A good thing
can sometimes go too far IMO.

Joyce

Chakolate March 20th 06 01:23 AM

OT Calif. City Bans Smoking in Public Places
 
wrote in
:

I'm not sure how I feel about this. I am extremely happy that people
can't smoke in restaurants and bars (although some bars don't enforce
it), and I'm certainly glad they can't smoke in workplaces where I
would be stuck breathing it. But not to allow people to smoke outdoors
seems kind of extreme to me. Is second-hand smoke in an outdoor
location that much of a threat? Doesn't the wind blow it around and
disperse it?


It doesn't quite seem fair, does it? While I wouldn't mind seeing fewer
butts littering the ground, this really goes too far. Those who smoke
out of doors are hurting only themselves, and so far, that's still their
right.

Chak

--
I would like at least one political party in this country to be willing
to say that sex is fun and an important part of being human.
--PZ Myers,
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

[email protected] March 20th 06 07:45 AM

OT Calif. City Bans Smoking in Public Places
 
wrote:

Another aspect that I find peculiar are the employers who forbid
employees to smoke, period. Even away from work. I mean, what's next?
Forbidding employees to eat Krispy Kremes? That's not healthy either,
no?


Exactly! Who are we to dictate health codes to other people? And worse,
to make it an issue of moral character?

If there really are employers who forbid an employee to smoke even when
off work, I'm surprised nobody has brought a lawsuit against them. That
can't be constitutional (in the US - can't speak for other places).

Joyce

-L. March 20th 06 08:03 AM

OT Calif. City Bans Smoking in Public Places
 

wrote:
Smoking inside any buildings where people congregate (whether work
places, public buildings, or businesses, including restaurants and
bars) was made illegal in 1998 (1/1/98, to be exact). But it's never
been illegal to smoke outdoors in, say, a public park or on the street.
(I think the city of Palo Alto tried to ban smoking on the street, but
I'm not sure it stuck.)

I'm not sure how I feel about this. I am extremely happy that people
can't smoke in restaurants and bars (although some bars don't enforce
it), and I'm certainly glad they can't smoke in workplaces where I would
be stuck breathing it. But not to allow people to smoke outdoors seems
kind of extreme to me. Is second-hand smoke in an outdoor location that
much of a threat?


Yes.

Doesn't the wind blow it around and disperse it?


Right into your face.


I could understand banning smoking in, say, an outdoor amphitheater.
People are packed in together and can't move away from smoke easily if
they happen to get stuck next to a smoker. But if someone's walking
along a path in the park with a cigarette lit, I find it hard to believe
that is dangerous to other people's health. It's unpleasant, sure. But
just because something's unpleasant to some people doesn't mean it
should be illegal.


If you can smell it, you are breathing it. If you are breathing it, it
is doing harm. Concentration doesn't matter. And I have had a HUGE
face full of second-hand smoke on a a hiking trail. (Why someone needs
to smoke while hiking is beyond me...)



It bothers me that we demonize smokers as much as we do. We always seem
to need a scapegoat.


No, we need clean air to breathe.

It's one thing to protect people from real dangers
of second-hand smoke, which I completely agree with, and another to act
as though smoking itself is evil and should only be done behind closed
doors. Unless there's a real danger to people's health from casually
breathing smoke by a passerby out on the street (and I don't know all
the facts, so I'm reserving judgement about that), I think this is a bit
extreme. And I say this as someone who (1) generally supports laws that
protect the public, and (2) can't stand cigarette smoke. A good thing
can sometimes go too far IMO.


I am glad one city did the right thing and I wish the rest of the
nation would follow suit.

-L.


[email protected] March 20th 06 03:01 PM

OT Calif. City Bans Smoking in Public Places
 

wrote:
wrote:

Another aspect that I find peculiar are the employers who forbid
employees to smoke, period. Even away from work. I mean, what's next?
Forbidding employees to eat Krispy Kremes? That's not healthy either,
no?


Exactly! Who are we to dictate health codes to other people? And worse,
to make it an issue of moral character?

If there really are employers who forbid an employee to smoke even when
off work, I'm surprised nobody has brought a lawsuit against them. That
can't be constitutional (in the US - can't speak for other places).

Joyce


I wish I could remember the name of the corporation--it was on the news
a couple years ago and I remember the story distinctly because I was
pretty horrified. Employees had to have their blood tested for
nicotine, and were given a three-strikes-and-you're-out ultimatum.
Of course there was all the propoganda about wanting employees to be
healthier and it was "for their own good." They were given all kinds of
help to stop. But still, it creeped me out.
My FIL, who was at Pearl Harbor, talks about how the Red Cross would
ship cigarettes to the GI's. That's mind-boggling, too. :-)

Sherry

Sherry


[email protected] March 20th 06 03:23 PM

OT Calif. City Bans Smoking in Public Places
 

wrote:
wrote:

Another aspect that I find peculiar are the employers who forbid
employees to smoke, period. Even away from work. I mean, what's next?
Forbidding employees to eat Krispy Kremes? That's not healthy either,
no?


Exactly! Who are we to dictate health codes to other people? And worse,
to make it an issue of moral character?

If there really are employers who forbid an employee to smoke even when
off work, I'm surprised nobody has brought a lawsuit against them. That
can't be constitutional (in the US - can't speak for other places).

Joyce


For our friends in all the other countries -- what is the attitude
toward smoking there? Do many people still smoke? Is it banned in
restaurants, public buildings, hotels and such?
Thanks for the info.--I was just curious.

Sherry


---MIKE--- March 20th 06 03:53 PM

OT Calif. City Bans Smoking in Public Places
 
Chak wrote-

Those who smoke out of doors are
hurting only themselves, and so far,
that's still their right.


Not exactly. Smoking raises health care costs. This raises insurance
rates and impacts medicare. Everybody is affected.


---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44° 15' N - Elevation 1580')



CatNipped March 20th 06 04:07 PM

OT Calif. City Bans Smoking in Public Places
 

"-L." wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
Smoking inside any buildings where people congregate (whether work
places, public buildings, or businesses, including restaurants and
bars) was made illegal in 1998 (1/1/98, to be exact). But it's never
been illegal to smoke outdoors in, say, a public park or on the street.
(I think the city of Palo Alto tried to ban smoking on the street, but
I'm not sure it stuck.)

I'm not sure how I feel about this. I am extremely happy that people
can't smoke in restaurants and bars (although some bars don't enforce
it), and I'm certainly glad they can't smoke in workplaces where I would
be stuck breathing it. But not to allow people to smoke outdoors seems
kind of extreme to me. Is second-hand smoke in an outdoor location that
much of a threat?


Yes.


Researchers have found that it doesn't matter how much you smoke (except
that it increases your chances), it only takes one time for the chemicals in
smoke or second-hand smoke to mutate a gene that causes lung cancer.

http://www.med.nyu.edu/communications/news/pr_09.html

That being the case, even a whiff of smoke could be deadly.


Doesn't the wind blow it around and disperse it?


Right into your face.


I could understand banning smoking in, say, an outdoor amphitheater.
People are packed in together and can't move away from smoke easily if
they happen to get stuck next to a smoker. But if someone's walking
along a path in the park with a cigarette lit, I find it hard to believe
that is dangerous to other people's health. It's unpleasant, sure. But
just because something's unpleasant to some people doesn't mean it
should be illegal.


If you can smell it, you are breathing it. If you are breathing it, it
is doing harm. Concentration doesn't matter. And I have had a HUGE
face full of second-hand smoke on a a hiking trail. (Why someone needs
to smoke while hiking is beyond me...)



It bothers me that we demonize smokers as much as we do. We always seem
to need a scapegoat.


No, we need clean air to breathe.

It's one thing to protect people from real dangers
of second-hand smoke, which I completely agree with, and another to act
as though smoking itself is evil and should only be done behind closed
doors. Unless there's a real danger to people's health from casually
breathing smoke by a passerby out on the street (and I don't know all
the facts, so I'm reserving judgement about that), I think this is a bit
extreme. And I say this as someone who (1) generally supports laws that
protect the public, and (2) can't stand cigarette smoke. A good thing
can sometimes go too far IMO.


I am glad one city did the right thing and I wish the rest of the
nation would follow suit.

-L.


I only fear that we'll have a reaction to a smoke ban like we had during
prohibition and the law would not be enforceable. However, unlike
prohibition, we've done a lot of public education over the years on the
dangers of smoking, so even smokers are seeing reason and are agreeing with
current bans without too much rebellion.

I wish we would enact that law here solely to get Ben to quit smoking again.
He's still going outside to puff away, even though all our "Katrina company"
have moved out - now he can add breaking a promise to the original lying to
me! :

Hugs,

CatNipped




All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CatBanter.com