Smoking Now Being Banned on California Beaches

[0roo0roo]

Your 2nd paragraph here proved once and for all that (in addition to your terrible writing skills) you know nothing of government. Democracy does not and never has protected the rights of the individual. That is Libertarianism, or the Rule of Law. Democracy, when it devolves to Mob Rule, protects the interests and whims of the majority only. When depicting Mob Rule, the classic scene is that of an unruly majority hanging an unfortunate (and usually innocent) individual.

apparently you were so busy insulting my web grammar, you failed to notice your own complete lack of reading comprehension skills. i never said democracy protects individual rights. i called it mob rule you twit.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: Orsorum
It's so easy to ban smoking, because smokers are the pariahs of the 21st century nanny state. Just wait until they ban a more mainstream, but still "dangerous" practice.

How about barbequed foods? They cause cancer. Let's ban that.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Mill, breathing secondhand cigarette smoke is a known health hazard first, and an offensive odor second.

You see we have things like scientific studies that we never had in the 1930s, when people were allowed to smoke almost anywhere. These studies showed that not only was smoking incredibly bad for the health of the smoker, but also bad for anyone who breathed their secondhand smoke.

The fact that a smoker is ruining my personal health by smoking in any public place, indoors or outdoors, means that they are infringing upon others freedoms by exercising theirs. We could argue for hours about ventilation, etc., in an outdoor arena like a beach, but the fact is that if I can smell it AT ALL, I consider it secondhand smoke.

IMHO, smoking is a disgusting, offensive habit, and I personally can't respect someone 100% who doesn't respect their own health with such blatant disregard. Yes, I feel the same with other "abusers", like people on drugs and alcoholics (but not social drinkers).

There is no proof that ETS is a known health hazard when speaking of casual exposure.

Who defines what "casual exposure" is? I'm sure exposure is different between a person sitting 5 feet away downwind (or no wind) on a crowded beach vs. 50 feet upwind on an empty beach. So do we need to regulate how close smokers can get to other people in public? Maybe they should regulate entrance of smokers into public areas to keep the density of smokers to less than 1 smoker per 2 meters square (depending on weather conditions, of course).

I'm glad the people have decided on this issue (and they were pro-banning smoking). Smokers suck.

Seriously, prove it. Prove that ETS is a health hazard. I can cite a well-conducted study that proves it isn't. Now you do one.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Mill, breathing secondhand cigarette smoke is a known health hazard first, and an offensive odor second.

You see we have things like scientific studies that we never had in the 1930s, when people were allowed to smoke almost anywhere. These studies showed that not only was smoking incredibly bad for the health of the smoker, but also bad for anyone who breathed their secondhand smoke.

The fact that a smoker is ruining my personal health by smoking in any public place, indoors or outdoors, means that they are infringing upon others freedoms by exercising theirs. We could argue for hours about ventilation, etc., in an outdoor arena like a beach, but the fact is that if I can smell it AT ALL, I consider it secondhand smoke.

IMHO, smoking is a disgusting, offensive habit, and I personally can't respect someone 100% who doesn't respect their own health with such blatant disregard. Yes, I feel the same with other "abusers", like people on drugs and alcoholics (but not social drinkers).

There is no proof that ETS is a known health hazard when speaking of casual exposure.

Who defines what "casual exposure" is? I'm sure exposure is different between a person sitting 5 feet away downwind (or no wind) on a crowded beach vs. 50 feet upwind on an empty beach. So do we need to regulate how close smokers can get to other people in public? Maybe they should regulate entrance of smokers into public areas to keep the density of smokers to less than 1 smoker per 2 meters square (depending on weather conditions, of course).

I'm glad the people have decided on this issue (and they were pro-banning smoking). Smokers suck.

Seriously, prove it. Prove that ETS is a health hazard. I can cite a well-conducted study that proves it isn't. Now you do one.

I'm waiting.

 

[erikistired]

good. no more cigarette butts all over the place. nasty.

 

[thomsbrain]

two thoughts:

1. someone smoking on a beach doesn't pose a 2nd hand smoke risk to others because you're never that close to other people and it's outside for christ sake. but NO ONE properly disposes of their butts. so you end walking through sand that's filled with people's butts, and it's disgusting.

2. this is an easy way for rangers/police to bust people smoking dope on the beach.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: mensa
smoker = weak mind. Enough said.

"There oughta be a law" mentality = slave mind. 'nuff said