Calabasas, CA "Comprehensive Secondhand Smoke Control Ordinance" bans smoking in public

[NFS4]

HAHA

Smokers in Calabasas, a city of 23,000 northwest of Los Angeles, can be charged with a misdemeanor and fined $250 if they light up in places where nonsmokers congregate, including on sidewalks and around apartment-complex swimming pools. The new ordinance is stricter than California state law, which bans smoking in restaurants and most other indoor businesses.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000082&sid=adnLQ0vbDnOs&refer=canada
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=local&id=4001365

 

[jpeyton]

Cool with me, I hate secondhand smoke.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Cool with me, I hate secondhand smoke.

QFT

 

[BigJ]

So continues the trend of taking away other's freedoms as long as it's not their bull getting gored.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: BigJ
So continues the trend of taking away other's freedoms as long as it's not their bull getting gored.

HAHA indeed.

 

[loup garou]

Originally posted by: BigJ
So continues the trend of taking away other's freedoms as long as it's not their bull getting gored.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: BigJ
So continues the trend of taking away other's freedoms as long as it's not their bull getting gored.

Would you like to convince us that secondhand smoke does not affect our health?

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: BigJ
So continues the trend of taking away other's freedoms as long as it's not their bull getting gored.

Would you like to convince us that secondhand smoke does not affect our health?

::Sigh::

I'm not going to get into this discussion again. Look at the older, lengthy threads in the recent few months on this topic.

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: loup garou

Originally posted by: BigJ
So continues the trend of taking away other's freedoms as long as it's not their bull getting gored.

"You are all obviously goddam smokers who think that your filthy habit is more important than our health blah blah blah."

I figured I'd beat all the folks who can't see the big picture to the punch.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: BigJ
So continues the trend of taking away other's freedoms as long as it's not their bull getting gored.

In a perfect world, yes, everyone could do whatever they want. This is not a perfect world.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: loup garou

Originally posted by: BigJ
So continues the trend of taking away other's freedoms as long as it's not their bull getting gored.

"You are all obviously goddam smokers who think that your filthy habit is more important than our health blah blah blah."

I figured I'd beat all the folks who can't see the big picture to the punch.

Funny thing is, I dip, not smoke.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: BigJ
So continues the trend of taking away other's freedoms as long as it's not their bull getting gored.

Would you like to convince us that secondhand smoke does not affect our health?

Would you like to convince me that second hand smoke, in an outdoor environment IS affecting your health?

Now also, compare that to any existing, non-banned substances like say, vehicle exhaust.

Burden of proof for the win.

 

[chambersc]

your freedom (to smoke) ends at my nose (lungs). I don't see a valid libertarian argument against this. even if the smoke isn't harmful (which some people claim), it still enters my lungs. for better or worse, it's something that others don't want there and thus violated my rights.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: chambersc
your freedom (to smoke) ends at my nose (lungs). I don't see a valid libertarian argument against this. even if the smoke isn't harmful (which some people claim), it still enters my lungs. for better or worse, it's something that others don't want there and thus violated my rights.

If myself and my neighbors don't want these people in my neighborhood, should that be ok? Does these people's presence violate my rights?

Whites
Blacks
Gays
Christians
Jews
Muslims

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: chambersc
your freedom (to smoke) ends at my nose (lungs). I don't see a valid libertarian argument against this. even if the smoke isn't harmful (which some people claim), it still enters my lungs. for better or worse, it's something that others don't want there and thus violated my rights.

Your freedom (to drive) ends at my nose (lungs).

Ban driving.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: BigJ
So continues the trend of taking away other's freedoms as long as it's not their bull getting gored.

Would you like to convince us that secondhand smoke does not affect our health?

Would you like to convince me that second hand smoke, in an outdoor environment IS affecting your health?

Now also, compare that to any existing, non-banned substances like say, vehicle exhaust.

Burden of proof for the win.

The great thing is that smoking has finally pigeon-holed itself into a small enough minority that it can get banned in public, unlike driving.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: chambersc
your freedom (to smoke) ends at my nose (lungs). I don't see a valid libertarian argument against this. even if the smoke isn't harmful (which some people claim), it still enters my lungs. for better or worse, it's something that others don't want there and thus violated my rights.

If myself and my neighbors don't want these people in my neighborhood, should that be ok?

Whites
Blacks
Gays
Christians
Jews
Muslims

That's not a valid comparison (for lots of reasons, the health issue being first), run with mine. Exhaust is both a known health hazzard, and a airborn pollutant that you would encounter on a sidewalk.

 

[Udel]

I love people who think they know whats right for everybody. Really, a guy having a smoke outside is not going to come up and blow it in your face. Just walk to the side of him and he will walk to the side of you. Stop legislating behavior damnit.

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: chambersc
your freedom (to smoke) ends at my nose (lungs). I don't see a valid libertarian argument against this.

The valid libertarian argument is that if that nose/lungs are voluntarily standing in or on private property, and the owner of the private property allows smoking there, the offended nose and lungs should leave instead of trying to legislate a ban on legal activity taking place on private property.

 

[giantpinkbunnyhead]

Originally posted by: NFS4
HAHA

Smokers in Calabasas, a city of 23,000 northwest of Los Angeles, can be charged with a misdemeanor and fined $250 if they light up in places where nonsmokers congregate, including on sidewalks and around apartment-complex swimming pools. The new ordinance is stricter than California state law, which bans smoking in restaurants and most other indoor businesses.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000082&sid=adnLQ0vbDnOs&refer=canada
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=local&id=4001365

AWESOME!! I can't wait until this spreads to more places, hopefully one day it'll happen in Anchorage.

 

[ironcrotch]

I'm sure somewhere in the world we can complain that the methane that comes out your ass is bad for my health. We should come up with a farting ban. Same thing with your filthy tailpipe, no driving while I'm walking around either. Like ipod headphones, listening to you speak is detrimental to my hearing, so stop speaking while you're at it also. 😛

For everyone that think's this is great, thats fine, but you're missing the bigger picture. Something like this goes beyond the meeting of cigarette smoke and your nose, think about it.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: BigJ
So continues the trend of taking away other's freedoms as long as it's not their bull getting gored.

Would you like to convince us that secondhand smoke does not affect our health?

Would you like to convince me that second hand smoke, in an outdoor environment IS affecting your health?

Now also, compare that to any existing, non-banned substances like say, vehicle exhaust.

Burden of proof for the win.

The great thing is that smoking has finally pigeon-holed itself into a small enough minority that it can get banned in public, unlike driving.

So you are back to taking away freedoms of the minority because the majority says so. I really don't think I need to comment any more on this.

Care to actually answer the question, or can we safely assume no doctor is going to say that a wiff of smoke in an outdoor environment like a sidewalk is a cause for public health concern?

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: chambersc
your freedom (to smoke) ends at my nose (lungs). I don't see a valid libertarian argument against this. even if the smoke isn't harmful (which some people claim), it still enters my lungs. for better or worse, it's something that others don't want there and thus violated my rights.

If myself and my neighbors don't want these people in my neighborhood, should that be ok?

Whites
Blacks
Gays
Christians
Jews
Muslims

That's not a valid comparison (for lots of reasons, the health issue being first), run with mine. Exhaust is both a known health hazzard, and a airborn pollutant that you would encounter on a sidewalk.

I like to answer ridiculous posts with equally ridiculous posts. It spurs reactions to my post, which usually leads to them exposing their reasoning further and allowing us to actually get to the source of their argument.

 

[ironcrotch]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: BigJ
So continues the trend of taking away other's freedoms as long as it's not their bull getting gored.

Would you like to convince us that secondhand smoke does not affect our health?

Would you like to convince me that second hand smoke, in an outdoor environment IS affecting your health?

Now also, compare that to any existing, non-banned substances like say, vehicle exhaust.

Burden of proof for the win.

The great thing is that smoking has finally pigeon-holed itself into a small enough minority that it can get banned in public, unlike driving.

So you are back to taking away freedoms of the minority because the majority says so. I really don't think I need to comment any more on this.

Care to actually answer the question, or can we safely assume no doctor is going to say that a wiff of smoke in an outdoor environment like a sidewalk is a cause for public health concern?

EVERYTHING is a public health concern. Doesn't mean the government can control what the public does simply because it's bad for someones health. I agree that second hand smoke is bad, but it isn't up to the government to tell you so and force you to agree. I don't know if you see this, but isn't this close to fascism?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BigJ
So continues the trend of taking away other's freedoms as long as it's not their bull getting gored.

Pretty much. Fsck-your-neighbor politics, I call it. Yeah for fascism! :roll: