Smoking Now Being Banned on California Beaches

[MAME]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: iloveme2
Works for me. It's not that I mind people smoke, what bothers me is the people who throw their butts everywhere. Disgusting.

You see... this here is a classic example of how democracy becomes the "tyranny of the majority".

Classic citizen response: "What? Infringe upon my neighbors' rights but not mine? Works for me, as I never liked what they do anyway." Or... "Raise my neighbors' taxes but not mine? Sounds great."

Now if a way can be found to pit each special interest group against the other (and a way has been found), with each other working to infringe the others' rights, then the combined effect is that ALL rights can be removed from the populace at large.
This is why our country was created with the Rule of Law, and not the Rule of the Mob. Unfortunately, everyone seems to forget that these days in their greed and hatred of their neighbor, and government is only too happy to accept the extra powers, priviledges, and revenue that we are giving it.

holy crap dude, stop reading 1984 already

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: MAME

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: iloveme2
Works for me. It's not that I mind people smoke, what bothers me is the people who throw their butts everywhere. Disgusting.

You see... this here is a classic example of how democracy becomes the "tyranny of the majority".

Classic citizen response: "What? Infringe upon my neighbors' rights but not mine? Works for me, as I never liked what they do anyway." Or... "Raise my neighbors' taxes but not mine? Sounds great."

Now if a way can be found to pit each special interest group against the other (and a way has been found), with each other working to infringe the others' rights, then the combined effect is that ALL rights can be removed from the populace at large.
This is why our country was created with the Rule of Law, and not the Rule of the Mob. Unfortunately, everyone seems to forget that these days in their greed and hatred of their neighbor, and government is only too happy to accept the extra powers, priviledges, and revenue that we are giving it.

holy crap dude, stop reading 1984 already

Dude, take the blinders off. What I posted wasn't even 1984-esque anyway.

 

[flxnimprtmscl]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: MAME

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: iloveme2
Works for me. It's not that I mind people smoke, what bothers me is the people who throw their butts everywhere. Disgusting.

You see... this here is a classic example of how democracy becomes the "tyranny of the majority".

Classic citizen response: "What? Infringe upon my neighbors' rights but not mine? Works for me, as I never liked what they do anyway." Or... "Raise my neighbors' taxes but not mine? Sounds great."

Now if a way can be found to pit each special interest group against the other (and a way has been found), with each other working to infringe the others' rights, then the combined effect is that ALL rights can be removed from the populace at large.
This is why our country was created with the Rule of Law, and not the Rule of the Mob. Unfortunately, everyone seems to forget that these days in their greed and hatred of their neighbor, and government is only too happy to accept the extra powers, priviledges, and revenue that we are giving it.

holy crap dude, stop reading 1984 already

Dude, take the blinders off. What I posted wasn't even 1984-esque anyway.

Agreed.

Even assuming that this isn't intended it's still what's happening.

 

[Cuda1447]

Ya know what, if I ever smell bad enough that it disturbs other people to the point of where they want it to be mandatory for me to bathe, then so be it. Thats the public right to push for new laws.


Despite popular belief (MILLENIUM) laws do not supercede the constitution. Where in the constitution does it say you dumb-A$s smokers have the right to not only blow smoke in my face everytime I try to walk into a restaurant, into a class at school, into a grocery store, or any other public place (including ballgames)? It doesn't, but its happening, and the public doesn't like it. Guess what Mill, you can b!tch and moan all you want about your 'nanny' government, but all their really doing is keeping as$buckets like you from negatively impacting considerate peoples lives. You want to go do something stupid fine, but keep it the hell away from me.

And as for the littering argument... Ok so most of the buds get washed from storm drains? Well someone had to drop them onto the ground instead of properly disposing them in trashcans. Sounds like another case of a moron smoker trying to justify their sick habit.


Irregardless of whether or not smoking is a health issue, its still something the majority of the public wants banned in public places, and that is there right. Just like the public wanted littering banned, even though it wasn't in the constitution, Mill. If you don't like it tough sh!t, move to Afghanistan.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Ya know what, if I ever smell bad enough that it disturbs other people to the point of where they want it to be mandatory for me to bathe, then so be it. Thats the public right to push for new laws.


Despite popular belief (MILLENIUM) laws do not supercede the constitution. Where in the constitution does it say you dumb-A$s smokers have the right to not only blow smoke in my face everytime I try to walk into a restaurant, into a class at school, into a grocery store, or any other public place (including ballgames)? It doesn't, but its happening, and the public doesn't like it. Guess what Mill, you can b!tch and moan all you want about your 'nanny' government, but all their really doing is keeping as$buckets like you from negatively impacting considerate peoples lives. You want to go do something stupid fine, but keep it the hell away from me.

And as for the littering argument... Ok so most of the buds get washed from storm drains? Well someone had to drop them onto the ground instead of properly disposing them in trashcans. Sounds like another case of a moron smoker trying to justify their sick habit.


Irregardless of whether or not smoking is a health issue, its still something the majority of the public wants banned in public places, and that is there right. Just like the public wanted littering banned, even though it wasn't in the constitution, Mill. If you don't like it tough sh!t, move to Afghanistan.

Littering obviously infringes on everyone's rights and is a health hazard. Not the same for smoking. 9/10 you can walk away from a smoker or an area that allows smoking. The rest of your arguments aren't even worth the hassle of replying to. You seem to think that the current scope of the federal government doesn't allow it to regulate almost anything. So far it has been just cities and states, but just wait and you will see the federal government start passing laws if you can smoke in your own home. The slippery slope analogy is very valid. The constitution doesn't have to enumerate something specifically. I understand you don't understand that, but maybe one day you can. Simply put there is little reason for there to have to be an amendment to ban alcohol, and then think one wouldn't be necessary for banning all of smoking. I think discriminating against smokers violates the equal protection clause. Do you see fat people banned from beaches, or people with BO banned from public places? Eventually that WILL happen if you all continue to allow the constitution to be violated in the name of YOUR convenience. It isn't an issue of me liking or sympathizing with smokers. I don't like smoke in my face, and whenever I smoked I tried to be as considerate as possible. The issue is whether we can simply tell a group that they can't do something because we DON'T LIKE IT. That is NOT how this country was founded. On the contrary in fact. It was founded so that groups could do things however the heck that wanted to as long as it didn't infringe on the rights of others.

Since you seemed preoccupied with something specifically enumerated, how about showing me where private business men are stripped of the rights to decide who can frequent their business? How about showing me where it says you are PROMISED a fruity fresh table at a private business. How about showing me where it says you don't have to put up with smells? It doesn't.

"Despite popular belief (MILLENIUM) laws do not supercede the constitution. "

Now when exactly did I say that? The Constitution has become elasticized and bastardized. We are allowing the tyranny of the majority to infringe of the rights of private business owners, smokers, and those who disagree with them. Admit it. You want a nanny state.

 

[flxnimprtmscl]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Ya know what, if I ever smell bad enough that it disturbs other people to the point of where they want it to be mandatory for me to bathe, then so be it. Thats the public right to push for new laws.


Despite popular belief (MILLENIUM) laws do not supercede the constitution. Where in the constitution does it say you dumb-A$s smokers have the right to not only blow smoke in my face everytime I try to walk into a restaurant, into a class at school, into a grocery store, or any other public place (including ballgames)? It doesn't, but its happening, and the public doesn't like it. Guess what Mill, you can b!tch and moan all you want about your 'nanny' government, but all their really doing is keeping as$buckets like you from negatively impacting considerate peoples lives. You want to go do something stupid fine, but keep it the hell away from me.

And as for the littering argument... Ok so most of the buds get washed from storm drains? Well someone had to drop them onto the ground instead of properly disposing them in trashcans. Sounds like another case of a moron smoker trying to justify their sick habit.


Irregardless of whether or not smoking is a health issue, its still something the majority of the public wants banned in public places, and that is there right. Just like the public wanted littering banned, even though it wasn't in the constitution, Mill. If you don't like it tough sh!t, move to Afghanistan.

Littering obviously infringes on everyone's rights and is a health hazard. Not the same for smoking. 9/10 you can walk away from a smoker or an area that allows smoking. The rest of your arguments aren't even worth the hassle of replying to. You seem to think that the current scope of the federal government doesn't allow it to regulate almost anything. So far it has been just cities and states, but just wait and you will see the federal government start passing laws if you can smoke in your own home. The slippery slope analogy is very valid. The constitution doesn't have to enumerate something specifically. I understand you don't understand that, but maybe one day you can. Simply put there is little reason for there to have to be an amendment to ban alcohol, and then think one wouldn't be necessary for banning all of smoking. I think discriminating against smokers violates the equal protection clause. Do you see fat people banned from beaches, or people with BO banned from public places? Eventually that WILL happen if you all continue to allow the constitution to be violated in the name of YOUR convenience. It isn't an issue of me liking or sympathizing with smokers. I don't like smoke in my face, and whenever I smoked I tried to be as considerate as possible. The issue is whether we can simply tell a group that they can't do something because we DON'T LIKE IT. That is NOT how this country was founded. On the contrary in fact. It was founded so that groups could do things however the heck that wanted to as long as it didn't infringe on the rights of others.

Since you seemed preoccupied with something specifically enumerated, how about showing me where private business men are stripped of the rights to decide who can frequent their business? How about showing me where it says you are PROMISED a fruity fresh table at a private business. How about showing me where it says you don't have to put up with smells? It doesn't.

"Despite popular belief (MILLENIUM) laws do not supercede the constitution. "

Now when exactly did I say that? The Constitution has become elasticized and bastardized. We are allowing the tyranny of the majority to infringe of the rights of private business owners, smokers, and those who disagree with them. Admit it. You want a nanny state.

Amen. Finally, someone with an I.Q. bigger than their shoe size who can look at this objectively and in the context of the bigger picture. As opposed to someone who only looks at it from the standpoint of their personal views. :beer: for you.

 

[Conky]

This is a needed law. I always hated smelling smoke on the beach but the main reason is those nasty cigarette butts. Every smoker I have ever met feels like it is their right to throw their cig butts wherever they please.

Nothing like sitting on the waters edge and watching the cigarette butts roll in the tide.

 

[RossGr]

I am looking forward to the day when it is more socially acceptable to take a dump in the middle of the street, then walk down the same street smoking a cigerette.

 

[AUMM]

Originally posted by: notfred
If smokers weren't, for a large part, inconsiderate jackasses who throw thier trash all over the ground where other people walk barefoot, then this wouldn't be an issue.

Don't want smoking banned at your local beach? Simple, don't treat the beach as a giant ashtray.

completely agree

 

[MAME]

why should anyone have to move away from people who start smoking near them? That's messed up. They're the ones who need to stay away.

 

[So]

Look, lets just get it over with. Ban smoking outright and declare that people don't have the right to say/think/do anyhing that bothers any other person. At least then we'd be honest.

Jesus, this is going too far.

And to think I used to be against smoking and for bans on it.

 

[MAME]

The right to not have smoke in your face > blowing smoke at everyone and littering

I'm in California and our campus is trying hard to ban smoking all together. Right now you can't do it near dorms and at least 20 feet away from any building.

 

[Siddhartha]

Can you drink alcohol on California's beaches?

 

[ThisIsMatt]

Originally posted by: Azraele

After a routine beach cleanup produced 6,300 butts in one hour at the 1.5-mile-long Solana Beach, the group took a tub of cigarette refuse to city hall.

I don't know about anyone else, but who wants to go to a beach where the sand is littered with butts?

There really is no excuse for such behavior, and that goes for people who throw any kind of trash on a beach.

This is exactly the issue. It seems that people who smoke apparently have a disregard for other people's well being. A person should not be subjected to someone elses smoke in public, period, and they just go to show their self righteous assholishness by throwing their cigarette butts on the ground, out their car windows, and on our beaches. If you can't control your own disgusting habits so that they don't intrude into other people's lives, then I support a law that will make it worth your while to shape up. Smoke away in your house or in your car - you're a dumbass, congrats, now stay away from me and my fresh air and clean beaches.

 

[ThisIsMatt]

n/m

 

[Eli]

:Q

That seems like a little much...

Although, I can understand the want to get rid of cigarette butts on the beach.

 

[Cuda1447]

Mill, the argument about a slippery sloped is overused man. You want to talk about individual rights, where are my rights to enjoy the beach and not have butts lying all over, and disguisting smoke blown in my face? Why should I have to be the one to move away, when its you that is causing the problem.


I'm not talking about only beaches though. Think about all the smokers you see outside of buildings. To give you an example: I used to work at Publix (yea it sucked) and their would be carts on the lot I would have to bring in. Somedays it was ok, others there were people ALWAYS standing RIGHT outside the doorways, so I'd have to walk past them and their sick smoke over and over again. It was to much of a problem for them to walk a few feet away from the doors. Or to go in their car. The reason the ban is needed in public places is because smokers are inconsiderate selfish as$hats who don't care about anyone but themselves, and they will use any defense (including conspiracy theories of a '1984' government) to justify what they do.

Smoking is not the same as being unattractive. One you can control, the other you can't. Smoking and loud music are much more akin. Loud music was banned, why shouldn't smoking be?


Just because we need to put a limit on our government, doesn't mean we can't allow them any power whatsoever. This government is hardly a nanny government, and will likely never turn into one.

Smokers are not being discriminated against, but their nasty habit is, and there is nothing in the constitution that gives equal rights to nasty habits.

 

[fumbduck]

Originally posted by: MAME

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: MAME

Originally posted by: Amused(Amused commentary: 50,000. Not 49,999... Not 50,001 but 50,000. I want a detailed list of names with conculsive proof of causation on each death. In case you didn't know, there exists no such proof. No such list. The EPA pulls this number directly out of it's collective ass.)

So what? Why should anyone have to suck down the smoke from other people's cigarettes? That's just fvcked up.

I bet you'd say that while sitting in traffic behind a big-rig joyfully sucking down the fumes... which are many, many times more carcinogenic than tobacco smoke. The irony is astounding.

There is no proof whatsoever that ETS in an outdoor environemnt is hazardous to your health. None. There is, however, proof that diesel fumes ARE hazardous (although the chances are quite small) when exposed in an outdoor area.

wtf are you talking about. driving is necessary based on our society. we don't really have much of a choice.

Smoking on the other hand is offensive and very inconsiderate to others. IT IS NOT PRODUCTIVE IN THE SLIGHTEST. Why should I have to suffer while you kill yourself? That's messed up.

MAME, you have no clue what you are talking about. How is smoking offensive? I think wearing pink is offensive, and therefore they should ban the wearing of pink on all beaches... this is the same thing, no?

How is smoking not productive? That is like saying drinking a beer is not productive. Driving around in your car just to drive is not productive. Should those two things be banned?

"Why should I have to suffer while you kill yourself?" - You have got to be kidding. The secondhand smoke from someone smoking on a beach will have NO effect on your health. You are just making sh!t up from statistics that you assume will back you up, but don't.

Shut up, troll.

 

[fumbduck]

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Smokers are not being discriminated against, but their nasty habit is, and there is nothing in the constitution that gives equal rights to nasty habits.

This is a highly opinionated and biased statement. Smoker's aren't being discriminated against... but smoking is.. those are hand in hand. And saying that is just stupid. That is like saying black people aren't being discriminated against, but their skin color is.

So the constitution defines nasty habits now? Please point this out to me. What about good habits? Does the constitution list habits, good or bad, anywhere? And who defines that makes a habit good or not, do you?

 

[phantom309]

It'll be a much better country when we get all those "Carrie Nation" types back out of the government.

 

[Tom]

"9/10 you can walk away from a smoker or an area that allows smoking."


Serious question- what is the reasoning behind this position that non-smoker' rights should be deferential to smoker's rights ? In other words why should it not be the smoker who is required to seek out a place where he isn't bothering someone, instead of the other way around ?

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: fumbduck

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Smokers are not being discriminated against, but their nasty habit is, and there is nothing in the constitution that gives equal rights to nasty habits.

This is a highly opinionated and biased statement. Smoker's aren't being discriminated against... but smoking is.. those are hand in hand. And saying that is just stupid. That is like saying black people aren't being discriminated against, but their skin color is.

It absolutely is not. I love how folks on ATOT like to believe that the world is black and white and that if A=B and C=D that A=D.

Smoking is a voluntary activity.

On the particular stretch of beach that I frequent in NJ, it is illegal to enter the water unless you are on a surfboard or a kayak.

Where is the moral outrage? This is discrimination against bodyboarders and leisurely bathers!

It's not. The activities of bodyboarding and bathing are restricted. It is NOT a discrimination against the people who do it. People who like to bodyboard and sit in the water are quite welcome to enjoy this beach, but if they want to partake of these "habits," they have to walk down to another beach.

It is the same exact principle.

I disagree with the smoking ban for other practical reasons (hard to enforce, minimal benefit to anyone, etc).

But this is the government setting up rules over government property which they are perfectly within their right to do, and if you disagree with it, write a letter!

 

[jpeyton]

Smokers are a dying breed, literally. The world is a better place without them, their smoke, their smell, their health issues, etc.

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I'm glad. Smokers need to all die quicker so the rest of the world doesn't have to suffer through the smell.

Isn't there a limit to the number of times you can mindlessly crap in a single thread?

 

[tranceport]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
In California the beaches are public property, right? Nobody can own the beach...

Anyway...

If the general public doesn't want people to smoke on their beaches, they should be able to make it a law.

We have laws against lots of other things for identical reasons (noise ordinances, public indecency, public drunkenness, etc.), why should smoking be exempt?

Viper GTS

Exactly. It's about democracy folks... Don't like it? VOTE.