If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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') |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
OT Calif. City Bans Smoking in Public Places
On 2006-03-20, ---MIKE--- penned:
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. Yeah, but so does exposure to the sun, participating in contact sports, riding a motorcycle ... eating greasy food ... not exercising enough ... I agree that smoking is a risk factor, but I worry about where that line of thinking would lead. -- monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
OT Calif. City Bans Smoking in Public Places
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
OT Calif. City Bans Smoking in Public Places
On 2006-03-20, CatNipped penned:
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. If that's true, we've all already rolled the dice. We just won't know what numbers we got until later in life. I can't imagine a ban on all smoking being even remotely enforcable. I mean, *no one* smokes pot anymore, right? -- monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
OT Calif. City Bans Smoking in Public Places
"Those who smoke out of doors are hurting only themselves, and so far,
that's still their right." Then why do not heroin, cocaine, or meth addicts have that same right? Tobacco users should be subject to the same regulations and controls as users of other deadly addictive drugs. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|