Calif. City Bans Smoking in Public Places

Posts: 186

Calif. City Bans Smoking in Public Places

CALABASAS, Calif. (AP) -- No more smoking in the park. Lighting up on the sidewalk could bring a fine. Dining on the restaurant patio? Don't bother asking for matches.

One of the strictest tobacco bans in the nation went into effect in the Los Angeles suburb of Calabasas last week, making smoking off limits in public places where someone else might be exposed to secondhand smoke: indoor businesses, outdoor businesses, parks, outdoor cafes, even apartment building common areas.

"We just don't want anyone blowing smoke in someone's face. Unfortunately, what smokers do is harmful to everybody else. People should have the right to breathe clean air," said Mayor Pro Tem Dennis Washburn.

California air-quality regulators declared secondhand smoke a toxic air pollutant earlier this year.

The city took it a step farther, declaring secondhand smoke to be a public nuisance and approving an ordinance banning smoking in all public places - indoors and out - where people might congregate.

Hotels can still allow smoking in up to 20 percent of their rooms, and smoking can be allowed in approved designated areas at shopping malls and work places in the upscale city of 23,000 residents.

But if a nonsmoker asks a smoker to stop, the smoker must snuff it or face a possible fine in the hundreds of dollars or even a lawsuit.

"We salute Calabasas for raising the bar," said Jim Knox, a legislative advocate for the American Cancer Society in Sacramento. "Smoke regulations can play a very important role in reducing public exposure to harmful secondhand smoke."

Nationally, hundreds of U.S. cities and several states restrict smoking. In California, where communities have been at the forefront of smoking bans, San Francisco last year banned smoking in parks and stadiums, and oceanfront communities' smoking bans have inspired others in Florida and Delaware to designate smoke-free beaches.

Among the states, Colorado lawmakers last week approved a statewide ban on smoking in most public building, and New Jersey's Smoke-Free Air Act, under fire from bar owners because it exempts casino gambling floors, goes into effect April 15.

---

On the Net:

http://www.cityofcalabasas.com/secondhandsmoke-faq.html

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SMOKING_BAN?SITE=DCUSN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Posts: 8245

Being highly sensitive to cigarette smoke could change people's opinions of the laws about it.

Posts: 5

They did some research a couple of years back in the city I live in which claims that traffic of one day caused the same amount of damage to your health than smoking almost three sigarettes a day...
I'm talking about a city with 750.000 inhabitants , which is a small city from american perspective.
I agree with the indoor non smoking policy but open air???
Why don't they focus on some relevant issues (like the use of cars) instead?

Posts: 108

Considering the smog in LA its somewhat redundant.
This is not about health, or peoples health from secondary smoke.
Some people may be allergic to it, but some people are allergic to perfume as well, they won't ban that.

Its about control. Its about freedom. They incrementalize the issue, and make each little step appear good, but its complete bullcrap.
Any laws like that made "for your health" are really about getting you to give up your freedom.
I can see seperate glassed in areas for bars/resturants and so on, but banning smoking outside is retarded with all the DU blowing around the world. Rolling Eyes

This is exactly what is wrong with having a government in the first place. They make laws that they have no business making. "Lets ban smoking while we let industry pump poison into the atomosphere by the tonne every day" Evil or Very Mad

Posts: 688

no shit...

i still think its bullshit that they are allowed to IMPOSE/ENFORCE seatbelts..

they take away choice and make u have to submit to them... im ready to pick up a sword and have at it with the asshole cops who enforce bullshit laws...

Posts: 186

amen. amen. amen. i've always thought that if a person wants to drive without a seat belt, let them!

Posts: 108

That whole seatbelt issue is just another ticket cash cow, and a reason to violate your rights under the pretext of "law enforcement".

Posts: 57

OK so apperently I am going to play the devils advocate... so here it goes...

Re Smoking: I am allergic to it an when I am around it ppl can see the difference. So I agree that ppl should not be allowed to smoke inside at a public function. Eventhough you are making the choice to polute your lungs by smoking, do you really have to affect the ones around you? They didn't choose to smoke so why make that choice for them and pollute their air?

Re Perfume:Some ppl may be allergic to it but those ppl still wear it. That is their own choice and most of the time it will smell nice. Not all ppl like the way all perfumes smell but there are not many that "stink". They are not going to ban it since it adds a sensory to your body. Especially when int he heat of the moment, your body will give off its own scent that only adds and heightens your senses making the moment better.

Re Seatbelts: Seatbelts we designed to "save lives". Yes maybe having a law that requires you to wear it restricts you from making your own decisions, but it is there to help you. Wanting to NOT WEAR IT is just an inner power coming through yourself as an attempt to defy what is being enforced.

Sometimes you just need to "do as you are told" and not always complain about everything. Its healthy to sometimes just "live and let live" and go on with your life. Do you need to complain about everything? Don't you have anything better to do than complain and argue? Maybe its just a "typical mans behaivior" since I don't know too many other women who are always trying to figure out a way to get around the law or think of ways to prove someone wrong? But maybe that goes back to the olden day thought of women belonging in the kitchen and home... bearing children, cooking, cleaning and tending to the man? Maybe that is why it naturally women don't dwell upon ways to defy the laws.

Posts: 688

re smoking, i hate cigarrettes, and dont really care if they ban them...

re perfume/cologne, i hate perfume/cologne just as much as i hate cigarrettes... the shit burns my nose and my eyes....

re seat belts... ive been in a few accidents (other ppl driving) and never got seriously injured, didnt wear a seat belt either... the sexual intercourse things irritate my neck...

saying they are safer is bullshit... if ur gonna die ur gonna die and thats that...

heres a story they told me when i was in skool to convince us not to drink and drive (i dont drink alcohal)

apparently this kid who always drove safely and wore his seatbelt was in a head on collision with a drunk driver who wasnt wearing his seatbelt...

the drunk survived unscaved...

the kid who followed the rules, and did as he was told... he died... his organs were dislodged from the accident....

moral of the story... bad story to tell ppl u dont want to drink in drive...

regardless its foolish to agree with something cuz they say its (for ur health) ... u honestly believe they care about our when they constantly put poison in our food and in our wate and in our air... funny how diet soda is worse then regular and food that says "healthy" can kill u....

i dont have a problem bein there for ppl to use if they want but i dont buy this bullshit that they will save my life when ive had a seat belt BREAK when i was in an accident... and it was the one time i did wear it....

i say cut the bullshit and make cigarretes illegal or make weed and other drugs legal... ive yet to hear of anyone dieing from pot but hundreds of thousands of ppl have died from cigarretes.. yet weed is illegal and and cigarrettes arent... yet they care about our health...

dont take it the wrong way but u may need to take a step back and rethink what exactly they want for us....

Posts: 707

Seat belts are safer but they don't guarantee you won't die.

I don't give a **** whether it's really safer or not. Wearing a seat belt is better than not wearing one at all. It's not like it bothers me or anything like that.

Posts: 688

safer my ass... im not saying u shouldnt wear one im just saying they have no sexual intercourse right to force me to wear one... if i was really that worried about dieing i wouldnt ride in a fvcking car in the first place...

Posts: 57

alexclaton wrote:

heres a story they told me when i was in skool to convince us not to drink and drive (i dont drink alcohal)

apparently this kid who always drove safely and wore his seatbelt was in a head on collision with a drunk driver who wasnt wearing his seatbelt...

the drunk survived unscaved...

the kid who followed the rules, and did as he was told... he died... his organs were dislodged from the accident....

moral of the story... bad story to tell ppl u dont want to drink in drive...

Well the reason the drunk driver survived was because of all the alcohol in his body and because it relaxed him. Its also a preservative. Eventhough the alcohol makes your blood thinner, it still slows down everything else... like your reaction time, judgement calls, choices etc. Some people react differently to certain types of alcohol.. trust me, I had to deal with it on Friday night.... But I still think that the seatbelts are there for a reason... not just for looks! Unless you want to say that wearing one is a fashion statement as long as you put one of those pink fuzzy leapord spotted covers on it over the plain black original belt? Maybe dealerships will come out with the option to have a custom seat belt installed once you purchase the car?? Is that next?

Posts: 688

this happens a lot... i think u missed the point... im not saying they should remove seatbelts... im simply saying like all things it should be A FVCKING CHOICE!

Posts: 8245

Motorcyclists don't have to wear them. Wink

I think part of the reason for the law is that the people that have to clean up the body parts had influence in creating it.

I think the world would be better without perfume, second hand smoke, and car exhaust. I find car exhaust the least offensive though.

Posts: 688

	madthumbs wrote:
	Motorcyclists don't have to wear them. I think part of the reason for the law is that the people that have to clean up the body parts had influence in creating it. I think the world would be better without perfume, second hand smoke, and car exhaust. I find car exhaust the least offensive though.

i agree

well as long as ppl smoke and wear perfume/cologne i have no problem sendin some gas their way Wink