California. At it again.

[DeathBeforeDenial]

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jql ... wVe-QvsG1A

BELMONT, United States (AFP) — The air will be cleaner when a broad smoking ban takes effect next month in this suburban enclave nestled between San Francisco and Silicon Valley.

But while some residents have breathed a sigh of relief over the decision, others are fuming.

The anti-smoking ordinance, one of the strictest in the nation, makes it illegal to smoke in parks, outdoor eateries, doorways, construction sites and even in private apartments.

A tobacco habit in Belmont will soon get more expensive with fines of up to one thousand dollars for violating the law, which takes effect on November 8.


Freedom and tolerance are all well and good, until God forbid, it annoys someone.

I wish my state would just fall into the ocean sometimes.

[Alunissage]

Can't say I agree with you there, DBD. I am so sick of walking from cloud to cloud of smoke as I head to work from BART because people are on their coffee break puffing up a storm out on the sidewalks. Sure makes me not want to ever visit any of the establishments they represent. It's a lot more than annoyance, too; it's not like we can selectively breathe other air, and the coughing and eye-watering the cigarette smoke produces is more than mildly unpleasant. Nor are we talking about a habit that's anything but voluntary, difficult though quitting is.

Although I dunno about making it illegal to smoke in private apartments. Still, it made my husband and I pretty mad when we had to shut the windows and turn on AC on evenings when the breeze would have been more than adequate and far more enjoyable because someone in the apartment below was smoking a cigar and the smell was making us ill.

[DeathBeforeDenial]

Can't say I agree with you there, DBD. I am so sick of walking from cloud to cloud of smoke as I head to work from BART because people are on their coffee break puffing up a storm out on the sidewalks. Sure makes me not want to ever visit any of the establishments they represent.

Cross the street, hold your breath, damp rag over your mouth, step off the sidewalk etc. If it is that much of an incoveneience then you can find a way to avoid it.

I go to a lot of music venues around OC and LA, so I am no stranger to sidewalk smokers. And I must say that the smoke seldom lingers, and never forms a cloud. It is typically carried off by the breeze, or rises into the evening sky. While this is obviously not the rule, I do believe only a small amount of smoke really lingers after is is exhaled. (Per my observations of ehaled smoke that is)

It's a lot more than annoyance, too; it's not like we can selectively breathe other air, and the coughing and eye-watering the cigarette smoke produces is more than mildly unpleasant.

To ilicit that sort of reaction you are either one of two things:

1) Extremely sensitive to unpleasant and strong odors, I have a couple friends like this and a person wearing too much Perfume can generate similar reactions, including sneezing and headache. So this person is just dealt an unfortunate hand in life, humanity cannot make every concession possible for a person who has an excessive aversion to things.

2) Taking a large whif of cigarette smoke, which while outdoors is very hard to do unless you are standing extremely close to a person smoking (Which if you don't like the smoke you shouldn't be that close anyway). Just be aware of what is going on around you and you can avoid any inconveneince cigarette smoke can cause. And the best part is, you don't need to rob others of their tiny joy.

Even before I started smoking my pipe I was very mindful of the smokers around me and was able to never get a lungfull of smoke and therein never be inconvenienced because I always looked out for myself, rather than expecting others to leglislate convenience for me.

Nor are we talking about a habit that's anything but voluntary, difficult though quitting is.

The freedom to chose our habits is part of what makes this country great. Far superior to having religious zealots or Fascist thugs telling us what we can or cannot put into our bodies.

[Werefrog]

People have often described excessive drinking as "slowly killing yourself."

With smoking it's slowly killing yourself and everyone around you. Ohio has recently enacted a smoking ban, and I love it. I think it's excessive to forbid it in cars like Ohio has, but it's nice to be able to go into the comedy club in Cincinnati and not feel like I'm going to get cancer someday because I liked to go to open-mikes from time to time.

It's also very nice to go to a restaurant that's totally smoke free.

I'm not saying that smoking should be totally banned. I think that maybe bars be allowed to let their patrons smoke since that's one of the main attractions of certain bars. Maybe have a few designated smoking area.

Our campus is on it's way to becoming smoke-free, and I couldn't be happier.

Smokers may have the right to smoke... but shouldn't I have the right not to second-hand smoke?

[GhaleonOne]

I didn't read the article, but I hate cigarette smoke with a passion. It probably has to do with how sensitive my eyes get around it. Not to mention the customer service -Albino Baboon- at work that love to stand right at the only exit to our office and smoke like crazy so that you have no way to avoid walking through their damn cigarette smoke. Maybe I'm bitter because most smokers I know have been extremely rude and pissy about it.

[phyco126]

In all honesty, I wish smoking outside of your private home was illegal all together. Period.

Fires are started by fools who throw their butts out the windows during dry season (I see it all the time here.) Second hand smoke kills, for sure. It's also annoying and a horrible smell to put up with for non-smokers.

Still, as much as I hate it, there will always be someone to say "Then ban alchohol too!" Correction, it is banned fools. =P Public intoxication, drinking and driving, etc are all very much illegal.

[SilverOcean]

Although I'm not a fan of smoking, isn't outlawing smoking in private apartments unconstitutional? I know apartment owners can ban smoking in their apartment complex, but can a city? This seems to be a violation of first, forth, ninth, and fourteenth amendment rights. Does anyone remember the eighteenth amendment banning drinking? It didn't work.

[CatsWithMatches]

rather than expecting others to leglislate convenience for me.

Breathable air is a convenience? WTF?

The freedom to chose our habits is part of what makes this country great. Far superior to having religious zealots or Fascist thugs telling us what we can or cannot put into our bodies.

This has nothing to do with what I put into my body. This has to do with what other people are putting into my body. Nobody suffers from second-hand drinking. (other than people hit by drunk drivers, but that's not as direct)

[Sonic#]

Air has no boundary delineations. Sound doesn't either. If someone's causing too much noise in the next-door apartment, one complains. If someone keep getting whiffs of someone else's smoke, one complains.

... or so it should work.

Smokers don't always recognize such courtesies, and nonsmokers have not adapted a consistent way to either enforce them or otherwise adapt.

On a busy city street, smoking. Outside doorways, smoking. In certain parts of restaurants (outside of Tennessee now), smoking. People smoke in these places. It is custom. How does a nonsmoker keep the air they breathe clean with so many people? Smokers don't congregate in places where the smoke won't go anywhere. Nonsmokers cannot tell that many people to kindly stop.

When dealing with smoking, a private space is not absolute. The edges bleed over, because air, clean or dirty, doesn't respect property rights. And because we cannot adjust, it has to be legislated for us. And the laws must dance, setting designated places where smoking can't happen, even when it's as silly sounding as a private apartment. Is the law enforceable? Probably about as much so as littering.

My parents are smokers. I love my parents. But I have little sympathy for smoking. And even less for the butts that are left around afterward by so many of them. So I am ... unsurprised.

(Incidentally, the language is skewed. Smoker. Nonsmoker. Normal people defined by what they do not do.)

[DeathBeforeDenial]

People have often described excessive drinking as "slowly killing yourself."

With smoking it's slowly killing yourself and everyone around you. Ohio has recently enacted a smoking ban, and I love it. I think it's excessive to forbid it in cars like Ohio has, but it's nice to be able to go into the comedy club in Cincinnati and not feel like I'm going to get cancer someday because I liked to go to open-mikes from time to time.

It's also very nice to go to a restaurant that's totally smoke free.

Thank God alcohol, or parents who let their children eat unhealthy never harm anyone. WAIT A SECOND!!!! Don't legislate one behavior in the name of SAFETY then ignore every other unsafe one.

Also, to get Cancer from secondhand smoke requires being around it a ridiculously large amount. If you don't like that a bar or comedy club choses to allow it don't go there. It should be the right of the PRIVATE business to decide.

Smokers may have the right to smoke... but shouldn't I have the right not to second-hand smoke?

Take the time to remove yourself from circumstances and locations that have smoking.

And seriously, do you really believe that walking past a group of smokers, or sitting in a comedy club once a month with some smokers is going to give you cancer? You had better cast more worry upon dieing in a car accident, or developing any of the dozens of non-smoke related cancers that are going to get you.

I didn't read the article, but I hate cigarette smoke with a passion. It probably has to do with how sensitive my eyes get around it. Not to mention the customer service -Albino Baboon- at work that love to stand right at the only exit to our office and smoke like crazy so that you have no way to avoid walking through their damn cigarette smoke. Maybe I'm bitter because most smokers I know have been extremely rude and pissy about it..

At a non-smoking business, the smokers should be courterous enough to move away from the doors, but if you don't like it politely ask them move futher from the door, if they wont talk to your boss. Fixing the problem is in your hands.
Also the smoker attitude has been the exact opposite for me, the rude -Albino Baboon- have been the people who go out of their way to cough at you, or make snide remarks about how they want to live a healthy life. Most of the smokers I meet understand that people don't like it, and are mindful of it so they do what they can (Within reason) to provide accomodation to those who may have a problem.

Fires are started by fools who throw their butts out the windows during dry season (I see it all the time here.) Second hand smoke kills, for sure. It's also annoying and a horrible smell to put up with for non-smokers.

Fires are also started by arsonists. We had better not sell any tools or items an arsonist may use to start a brushfire. You're not talking about smokers, you're talking about fools. And fools will always do stupid things that spell disaster for others. And as I said to Werefrog, secondhand smoke is onyl dangerous if you are spending hours and hours, daily in smoke-filled rooms. Before they banned smoking on beaches, show me one lifeguard that got lung cancer. Also, who cares if it's annoying. It someone is wearing disgusting perfume or lotion, who the hell am I to tell them they can't wear it. If some terribly fat person is wearing clothes that accent their obesity, and I am disgusted by this, am I allowed to legislate what clothing they wear?

Breathable air is a convenience? WTF?

You have the choice to not got to businesses that chose to allow smokers, and smoke outdoors is so dissipated, really only the oder is left, the "Breathability" of the air is not compromised.

This has nothing to do with what I put into my body. This has to do with what other people are putting into my body. Nobody suffers from second-hand drinking. (other than people hit by drunk drivers, but that's not as direct)

Please explain to me how you will ever "suffer" because you walk past a group of smokers, or find yourself in a room where there is a person smoking maybe a couple dozen times in your life. The way you alarmists make it sound, it seems like a single whif is guaranteed cancer, newsflash, you need to be getting at least the same amount of carcinogens that a smoker gets to develop any of the problems associated with smoking.

Sonic#, thank you for the most logical, well thought out and relevent reply in this topic.

And I agree that these property lines may be bled across by many different media. From music, to a babies crying, to an amorous couple, to that disgusting Hawaiin food they made last night, to that god-awful color they painted their house. However, I know numerous people who live, or have lived in apartments. When asked, only one ever had an issue with cigarette smoke, and he quickly remedied it by setting a fan near the window. I highly doubt this problem is big enought to demand this sort of legislation. And as far as an annoyance, well, there are many more things that I (And others that share my opinions) would rather ban before cigarette smoke, that doesn't mean we can or should be able to.

Anti-Smokers are just so damned frustrating, this tiny pleasure, that typically doesn't inconvenience most people, and in all likelihood will not lead to your death or ailment is worth allowing the government to legislate "healthy behavior". God help you all when they want to start banning fatty foods. One good Socialist President, the foundations of Universal Health Care, that's all they need to start teling people what they can and cannot take into their bodies.

Meh, to have fun outside the law is better than living stagnant within it.

[phyco126]

(1)Thank God alcohol, or parents who let their children eat unhealthy never harm anyone. WAIT A SECOND!!!! Don't legislate one behavior in the name of SAFETY then ignore every other unsafe one.

(2)Also, to get Cancer from secondhand smoke requires being around it a ridiculously large amount. If you don't like that a bar or comedy club choses to allow it don't go there.

(3)It should be the right of the PRIVATE business to decide.

(4)

Smokers may have the right to smoke... but shouldn't I have the right not to second-hand smoke?

(4)Take the time to remove yourself from circumstances and locations that have smoking.

(5)At a non-smoking business, the smokers should be courterous enough to move away from the doors, but if you don't like it politely ask them move futher from the door, if they wont talk to your boss. Fixing the problem is in your hands.

(6)Also the smoker attitude has been the exact opposite for me, the rude -Albino Baboon- have been the people who go out of their way to cough at you, or make snide remarks about how they want to live a healthy life.

(7)You're not talking about smokers, you're talking about fools. And fools will always do stupid things that spell disaster for others.

(8)You have the choice to not got to businesses that chose to allow smokers, and smoke outdoors is so dissipated, really only the oder is left, the "Breathability" of the air is not compromised.

(9)The way you alarmists make it sound, it seems like a single whif is guaranteed cancer, newsflash, you need to be getting at least the same amount of carcinogens that a smoker gets to develop any of the problems associated with smoking.

(10)However, I know numerous people who live, or have lived in apartments. When asked, only one ever had an issue with cigarette smoke, and he quickly remedied it by setting a fan near the window. I highly doubt this problem is big enought to demand this sort of legislation.

(11)...that typically doesn't inconvenience most people, and in all likelihood will not lead to your death or ailment is worth allowing the government to legislate "healthy behavior".

1. Again, me eating a 50 pounder hamburger made from 100% fat isn't going to kill anyone, nor does it cause an inconvience (aside from taking up two airplane seats.) Remember, drinking = illegal if you get drunk and are bothering people, at your house and bothering people, driving, or just walking around town doing stupid things. It's called public intoxication, banned. No different than banning public smoking.

2. Smoking is everywhere, you cannot go anywhere without being introduced to second hand smoke.

3. I think that public places that have children should be required by law to have designated smoking areas outside (Colorado law is 15 feet from entrances.) Other places, such as strip clubs, adult clubs, bars, etc, should have a right to decide for themselves, and in that respect, I agree.

4. See #2. And what about children? I'm not going to stay in my house 24/7 and keep my kids in a plastic bubble because I wanted to take them to see a movie, or take them out to eat, or take them to school.

5. Fixing the problem is in my hands? Cool, I'll just shoot them if they give me lip. Seriously though, you are right and on that point, I agree.

6. You arn't doing yourself any favors right now, you are looking no better attacking us because we don't want to deal with something out of our control. No worries though, I'm sure I'm just reading into this wrong, and I still like you.

7. Thus, I said fools. I know a great deal of smokers that don't litter. Oh, by the way, people have to often pick up butts at stores and restaurants. I had to do it, it was my job, and it was a pain in the ass to do. There is a trash-can with an ashtray 3 inches away. In that respect, there should be a $1,000,000,000,000,000 just for stupidity on that subject. Smoke all you want, just don't leave it on the ground for someone else to pick it up, when there is a trash can RIGHT -Fatal Hopper- THERE! (Same thoughts go for all trash actually.)

8. Breathability of the air? One smoker doesn't seem like much, but neither does one car. Add several thousand in a city, and you end up with bad air qualities. Smoking wouldn't make a huge impact, but in large cities, it would make a large enough one to still affect the air.

9. No, it isn't gonna give you cancer with one passing by of smoke. But people react differently than others. What if someone had severe asthma? Or an allergy? Some people get cancer from things they did once, others go their whole lives smoking 50 trillion cigs a second and they will never get cancer or die from lung disease.

10. Making it illegal to smoke in an apartment is stupid, it should be up to the owner of the apartments, just like a hotel has smoking rooms. To me, this falls into the category of invasion of privacy.

11. Not a inconvience to most people? From what I see, it inconviences most non-smokers, as evident in this thread.

Final thoughts. I have always been against banning smoking completely from the public, although I would love to see it happen. Smoking outside, I can live with, I can generally go around them by a few feet and not even smell it. Bars, clubs, come on, don't make it illegal. Now more public places that mix the old, young, and handicap, then sure, make it illegal.

Still DBD, if my right to not deal with smoke infringes on your right to smoke, it is my job to stay clear? Why is it your right takes presidence over my right? Why not YOU stay clear of me? I have rights too you know. --- I just wanted to throw that out as food for thought.

[Werefrog]

Thank God alcohol, or parents who let their children eat unhealthy never harm anyone. WAIT A SECOND!!!! Don't legislate one behavior in the name of SAFETY then ignore every other unsafe one.

That was actually just dark humor. If you didn't understand what I was doing, that's okay. Humor is subjective. I will say however, that smokers do hurt those that choose to be close to them. I couldn't live with the knowledge that I was hurting my friends and family. Just something to think about if you're a smoker. If that's something others can live with, fine.

I read this before heading out to class this morning, and I thought on the way how I would respond. My first instinct was to be as condescending to you as you were to us. That urge has subsided. I'll just say that I disagree with you. It's not your right or any smoker's right to decide how much carcinogenic air is okay for me to ingest (not to mention how hard it is on my allergies). It's also not okay for me to tell you that you have no right to smoke anywhere.

The sketchy area is when it comes to businesses. I don't think everything should be left to the market. Frankly, sometimes the market is wrong. I know that is suddenly a controversial idea, but it's true. If we want to turn this into a critique of libertarian ideals, I can. But I don't really feel like it. I have a feeling that we will not see eye to eye on this due to political ideology. Oh well, doesn't mean we can't have a civil conversation.

I'm all for some businesses having a "smoking license," but I don't think places of general entertainment should be amongst them. Besides, what do we lose by having smoke free comedy clubs? All I can think of is that stupid joke where some hack says, "I've been cancer free for 2 years" and then takes a smoke. Personally, I think

[Sonic#]

1. Again, me eating a 50 pounder hamburger made from 100% fat isn't going to kill anyone, nor does it cause an inconvience (aside from taking up two airplane seats.) Remember, drinking = illegal if you get drunk and are bothering people, at your house and bothering people, driving, or just walking around town doing stupid things. It's called public intoxication, banned. No different than banning public smoking.

A fatburger? Ewwwwwwww.

More seriously...

Let us say that you eat grotesquely.

Let us also suppose you're on a health insurance policy, either private or public.

When you turn obese and you get a health issue related to your obesity, who pays for it? Most directly, the insurance. But who has put money into that insurance? Other workers or other taxpayers. The same issue comes up with many unhealthy practices, including smoking.

Now, should a doctor be able to turn away a patient because they don't follow advice on how to lead a reasonably healthy lifestyle? Who determines exactly how healthy someone should act? If someone smokes and develops pneumonia, is it treatable? If you develop arthritis and are obese? Gastrointestinal problems? Heart problems? What if you have a history of it anyway? Is a doctor obligated to take care of you no matter what, even when your rash actions are draining medical resources that can be better used with cancer, heritable defects, valid injuries, and contagious diseases?

Of course, I want you to take care of your body. I don't want you to smoke or do anything else. If you do either of those things, it's not just affecting one person. It affects a whole bunch. But what, other than a fuzzy sense of ethics and an equally fuzzy threat of poor health in the future, makes a person take care of their body?

Honestly, issues like this just flummox me. I'm stuck between a car and a brick wall. The costs will happen anyway, either to the giving hospitals or the insurance companies. They could not give, or selectively choose, but that too easily slips into arbitrary practices. I don't want government regulation of behavior, but people won't regulate themselves.

And as far as an annoyance, well, there are many more things that I (And others that share my opinions) would rather ban before cigarette smoke, that doesn't mean we can or should be able to.

True. I do think, in some cases, bans work. But normally this works either in cases of harmful substance use that by a small group or a profession, or when bans are imposed by organizations like schools and such that are personally invested in enforcing them. There are too many smokers to effectively enforce a ban on smoking, at the very least in private apartments.

[phyco126]

Sonic, do you have health insurance? That crap is NOT cheap. Screw insurance companies, they can pay out they ass any day, they certainly deserve it.

Besides, insurance companies say they raise their rates due to those evil monkies who commit fraud insurance, not because a fat man couldn't stop eating or that somebody decided to not quite smoking.

[Werefrog]

Sonic, do you have health insurance? That crap is NOT cheap. Screw insurance companies, they can pay out they ass any day, they certainly deserve it.

Yeah, the insurance companies aren't hurting.

[Ozone]

While I have an aversion to breathing in someone else's smoke, I think there's a certain right that people should have to smoke if they choose to, but banning it from public areas is perfectly acceptable in my eyes. If you want to kill yourself, go right ahead, it's your right to do so. As long as you don't harm anyone else along the way, it's not really an issue. Personally, I think that if you have a family that's depending on you, and you're a responsible person, you'll stop smoking so that you won't die early on them, and cost them a bunch of money from being in the hospital so damn much, but, then again, a lot of people aren't responsible.

Smoking is not something that you can compare to eating -Dragon Diamond- food and not exercising, being fat (and I am disgusted by shape that America is in, so this is a lot coming from me) doesn't contaminate other peoples air or inconvenience people like smoking does. Although, you could say that the emotional distress your kids would go through if you came out look like Borgan would be painful, as would them going to your funeral when you die of a heart attack.

Last I checked, breathing was necessary for living, smoking is not, so, why should people who would prefer to not breathe in your second hand smoke move when you're essentially making the choice to slowly kill yourself? I say people need to stop being such pansies, take a hit, deal with the withdrawal for a few weeks, do yourself a favor and take up something else to pass the time with... like Sudoku or something.

I find it ridiculous that there actually has to be legislation made in for people to actually take care of themselves. If people are just that dumb, well, it's the same argument I have for legalizing crack (minus the fact that people high on crack are a serious threat to people around them): If they're dumb enough to do it, tax the living hell out of them.

And I actually don't mind people who smoke. I just tend to avoid them when they are doing so. A lot of my friends who used to smoke either got the message or realized what they were doing to themselves and stopped.

In Europe, everyone and their sister's brother's aunt smokes, and finding any kind of fresh air (well, as fresh as club air gets) in a club is hard. I have to say that, despite how much I love spending time over there, it was nice coming back to college where a smaller percent of the population smoked.

[Kizyr]

Sonic, do you have health insurance? That crap is NOT cheap. Screw insurance companies, they can pay out they ass any day, they certainly deserve it.

Yeah, the insurance companies aren't hurting.

Insurance companies charge higher rates for smokers.

In Europe, everyone and their sister's brother's aunt smokes, and finding any kind of fresh air (well, as fresh as club air gets) in a club is hard. I have to say that, despite how much I love spending time over there, it was nice coming back to college where a smaller percent of the population smoked.

Which is why in both France and the UK, there are now (very recent) laws passed banning smoking in buildings. It may also address public places, too; I'm not sure of it. KF

[Sonic#]

Sonic, do you have health insurance? That crap is NOT cheap. Screw insurance companies, they can pay out they ass any day, they certainly deserve it.

Besides, insurance companies say they raise their rates due to those evil monkies who commit fraud insurance, not because a fat man couldn't stop eating or that somebody decided to not quite smoking.

I don't see how the question is relevant. My point was that certain behaviors will cause others to pay more to support a health care system, and when that system is as public as it is or could be, behaviors like smoking hurt a lot more people.

My point wasn't that the insurance company was getting hurt or not. My point is that you are, monetarily. Though as Kizyr noted, with private healthcare they give a little more accountability.