The LA Times reports:
"Last week, Calabasas began enforcing what appears to be
the nation's first ban on smoking in all outdoor public spaces."


Is it time the rest of America take the same precautions by banning
smoking in all outdoor public spaces?


Would you support the ban on smoking while driving?

I voted for #4, but I will add a caveat: I would support vigorous enforcement of a no smoking policy for OPERATORS of automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles. However, this is because smokers compromise their ability to operate their vehicles safely.

Let me first of all say that I absolutely loathe the stench of cigarette smoke, and that even a hint of it makes me feel very sick. Even the wisp of it that clings to a smoker's clothing is enough to give me a terrible headache for a long time.

I give as much of my business as I can to restaurants and other private facilities that forbid smoking. I support a ban on smoking in public government buildings.

With all of that in mind, I cannot support a complete ban on smoking in all outdoor public places. (There may be very specific outdoor public places where a ban on smoking could be justified, on the basis of fire hazards, littering, the presence of large numbers of children, lack of ventilation, and so on. However, such cases would need to be determined one by one, and not by a general ban on ourdoor smoking.)

A ban on smoking in automobiles would seem not only unjustified, but impossible to enforce. When I am driving, it is very common for me to be stuck behind someone flicking ashes out the window of the car in front of me. As much as this disgusts me, I would not ban smoking in private vehicles. (I'd be delighted if a cop would give the smoker an expensive ticket for littering, in order to point out what the purpose of an ashtray is.)

Is it time the rest of America take the same precautions by banning smoking in all outdoor public spaces?

No, not until they also ban loud, obnoxious music, annoying cell phone users, exposed thong underwear, unruly children, etc. in the same areas. So far we live in a free country...though sometimes I wonder.

The LAT reporter interviewed several non-smokers who also thought this was going too far.

Would you support the ban on smoking while driving?

Good lord, how big government do we need to get? An automobile is private property; no one has the right to legislate how to behave in one's private property. What's next - laws against offensive bumper stickers? Those girly mud flaps? Insanely loud sound systems? Playing that Mexican polka stuff loudly in stop and go traffic*? Ridiculous fiberglass or metal wings on the backs of imports? Flatulent mufflers? I find all of those more offensive than someone lighting up in his/her own vehicle. (Note - I can't stand it when drivers flick their butts out the window, tho. Those inconsiderate bozos should be fined.)

The answer to that would be a big resounding NO.

*This happened to me yesterday on the 91 fwy. I couldn't escape that accordian ya-cha-cha played at ear-bleed level...that's the definition of torture!!

I completely AGREE... unfortunately, in the south cigarette smoking is extremely common. I personally can't stand the fact that going to a happy hour will inevitably mean being stuck beside a smoker. This is coupled with the notion that some restaurants here also still have smoking sections in close proximity to the non-smoking sections.

However, if we're moving to ban disgusting personal habits... we'd have to outlaw body odor, cooking of offensive smelling foods, bad cologne, etc. This is really just a bit too much.

You go girl! I too hate people who make a mess while smoking. Those little cigarette butts add up to a huge, mountainous, stinky, ugly mess at the end of the day.

I would have a lot more compassion for smokers if some of them weren't so filthy about their habit. Don't blow smoke in my face, ask before you light up, and clean up after yourself. Otherwise, go jump in a lake!

Would I support a ban on smoking while driving? No. People should be free to smoke in their own car; just don't make it illegal for me to ask them not to light up when they're in mine.

Would I support a ban on smoking in public? Outdoors -- no. They shouldn't smoke around people who ask them not to, but that's a manners issue -- not a legislative one. At least outdoors the smoke can drift away.

I would go so far as to say that smoking should be permitted ONLY in vehicles
with the windows and doors completely closed.

All of the things you just mentioned have no bearing on someone's ability to
BREATHE! Stop comparing annoying behavior with unhealthy behavior. They
are not in the same category.

The other MILLIONS thought it was quite fair.

Actually, there are plenty of things you cannot do in your private property.
You cannot legally shoot up heroin or do crack or meth.

It is time that we stop catering to ADDICTS. We do not allow people to sit
on a park bench and smoke marijuana or any other drug. Cigarettes are
DRUGS. Over the past decades we have learned just how damaging cigarettes
and second-hand smoke are. Enough is enough. People who still smoke
outdoors, where others are forced to breathe it, are downright selfish and ignorant.
That's the truth of the matter.

doomed_planet, I understand your feelings about this. I definitely wish that tobacco would vanish from the planet. However, I don't think that such strict prohibition is the way to go. Over the last several years, the undeniable dangers of smoking have greatly reduced the percentage of people who choose to expose themselves to this nasty stuff. Here's a random statistic from way back in 2002.

Link



Progress is slow but steady. Education works.

An extreme ban on smoking almost everywhere will make non-smokers like you and I happier, to be sure, but I suspect it would only make smoking seem "rebellious" and "cool" to our young people. They should simply be shown the truth; that it is very dangerous and makes you unpopular.

Prohibition has a poor history of changing behavior.

I agree with you, however, there is no reason to make non-smokers suffer
when they are in public places. I'm not saying make smoking illegal. I'm
saying let's treat it like the harmful drug that it is and stop applying old rules
(that were adhered to when smoking wasn't seen as a danger) to present-day
reality. It would be less harmful to stand next to a heroin addict who is
shooting up than it would to be near a person smoking a cigarette.

Banning smoking altogether makes me squeamish when there are clearly so many people who are dependent on smoking. Yes, it is unhealthy and hurts people who are around the smokers as well, but I hate to see having to enforce a law to protect people from their own choices.

My hatred of smoking, cigarette smoking in particular, is compounded by the fact that I was sickly and had to have my tonsils removed at age 4 because both of my parents were smokers. The tonsils were so badly infected I nearly died. In addition, my dad quit smoking in 1968 but developed severe atherosclerosis which ended up killing him when a piece of plaque in his blood vessels traveled to his brainstem during surgery--he was in a coma until pneumonia took him seven days later. He was 64.

My mother developed emphysema/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease which eventually killed her. Eating was too much of a chore for her with her labored breathing, so she stopped eating toward the end. She had been forced to retire early from her job because of her poor health, but she didn't die until she was 71.

Both my parents came from families where their parents lived much longer.

The bottom line is that I lost two people I loved very much because they smoked cigarettes.

To what degree should we enforce laws to protect people from hurting themselves, especially when others around them are hurt by the secondhand smoke, and the injury often involves suffering for years? That's a really good question, isn't it? I don't know the answer. Perhaps banning the habit altogether is the answer, but I don't like messing with someone else's free will.

Well, last time I checked, cigarettes were legal and marijuana, heroin and crack were not. As for things that are unhealthy, how about we ban junk food, and all the establishments that sell it, or alcohol, which is far more addictive and dangerous. You're entitled to your opinion, but the truth of the matter is, that as long as tobacco is a legal product, people have a right to partake if they wish.

Is it time the rest of America take the same precautions by banning
smoking in all outdoor public spaces?

I can see the point, and fully support, bans on smoking in indoor public spaces, meaning those that are open to the public and not just publicly-owned (i.e. shops, bars, restaurants, etc.)

Secondary smoke does cause disease and it does kill. It leaves clothes and hair smelling pretty disgusting - something few smokers notice because their sense of smell is the first thing to go. (It does come back though - I gave up smoking 9 years ago and my sense of smell is the best it's ever been.)

But then, vehicle exhaust fumes are pretty toxic too. More toxic - nobody ever managed to commit suicide by sitting in a smoky bar, but suck in a few lungfuls of exhaust and you won't be around to sue anyone.

Yet nobody's proposing any kind of limitations on vehicle exhausts as national US policy - despite the protestations of the rest of the world that you really ought to (greenhouse effect etc, which I don't want to go into here - I'm just contrasting the attitudes to different forms of pollution).

A ban on smoking outdoors (that doesn't also ban all vehicular or industrial air pollution in 'public places') is just health fascism, and it's no surprise to me it should come from California. I went to a fireworks display at Disneyland in Anaheim and my friend (who smokes - I'd already quit) had the presence of mind to ask where the smoking area was. A man with two young children standing 20 yards away still insisted she stub it out or move away to "protect my children from your smoke", despite us being downwind of him, and despite him being downwind of the fireworks. It's all right for his kids to suck in god-knows-what (the phosphorous, numberless metal salts, powerful oxidising agents etc that go into making fireworks), as long as it isn't tobacco smoke, presumably.

Would you support the ban on smoking while driving?

To my mind this is a slightly different question. From the health perspective, the littering and health problems that go with smoking are one thing, but the distractions caused by fishing around for the ciggie, fumbling with lighters, etc. are quite another.

Pretty much ANYTHING you do when you're driving, other than doing it carefully, is a health hazard to others, becuase you might crash into them while your attention is on your cigarette, cell phone, finding that radio station you like, trying to keep the kids/dog in the back quiet, singing along to your favourite track, spilling coffee in your lap, fishing around at your feet for the bottle of Coke/bar of chocolate you just dropped, arguing with your passenger about the woman you made eyes at in the party you both went to, etc.

I'm not saying any of these things should be illegal, but if you do have a crash because you were doing any of them, or anything similar, the penalties (civil or criminal) should be harsher than they otherwise would be. Almost all of us are far too slppy when driving, me included.

There's absolutely no way that second-hand smoke causes any sort of disease in outdoor areas. You have to either have someone directly upwind of you, or blowing it directly in your face for you to even smell it outdoors.

I agree with Julian's health facism comments. As a former smoker who smoked for 8, and has now quit for 2, I absolutely loahte the smell of smoke. It makes me nauseous to inhale it. But it's a nuisance, not a public health menace.

Non-smoking laws benefit me, because I'll never smoke again, and I don't ever want to smell smoke again, but removing the personal decision of not smoking from Amercian Citizens is not an ethical way to reduce smoking. Nor is overtaxing cigarettes, as this ends up effectively being a tax on the poor.

In fact, in Southern California, smoking is once again considered "bad" in a cool way, because you truly feel like an outlaw smoking cigarettes just about anywhere. In Santa Monica, you can't smoke on the Beach, the *Beach* perhaps the windiest area in the entire town!

If there is serious science that shows smoking outdoors is harming those outside, than maybe we can revisit this. But we need to do the science first before we start taking away liberties of those around us.

Daffy, why do you keep bringing up examples that are dissimilar? We are
talking about cigarettes. Yes, they're legal, and that's fine with me. If you,
or anyone else, wants to smoke that's legally your right, if you're above the age
of eighteen. But why on earth must a smoker's right to smoke supersede a
non-smoker's right to not have to breathe someone else's smoke.
If the smoke is so great, why do smoker's exhale?

Like Victoria mentioned, some of us are very sensitive to it. It's no fun
developing a terrible headache because some person wasn't considerate
enough to keep his smoke away from others.

I'm sorry, but this is absolutely ridiculous. If I remember correctly, you live in CA, and it's not the Smog that bothers you, it's the second-hand smoke outdoors? This is just unfathomable to me that the minor nuisance of outdoor second-hand smoke is enough for you to want broad legislation against cigarette smoking outdoors. Honestly, when was the last time you got a headache from outdoor second-hand smoke? I'd imagine having been a smoker I'm much more sensitive to it than you, and I do get headaches, but only when I'm directly sitting next to someone indoors who is smoking, or when surrounded by smokers.

If this were the law in LA County, it would be illegal for a group of my friends and I to have a smoke break at my workplace behind a building, away from others. It's illegal for my friends and I to roll down the windows of our car on a 105 degree Valley day if one of us is smoking (oh wait, we can't smoke with others in the car in the first place!)

Doesn't this all seem a little 1984 to you? No wait, I wouldn't lower 1984 to those standards, it's much more Demolition Man.

I have friends who smoke, probably more than most people in CA, as most of my friends are young, artists, who are not parents, and aren't in the middle class and above, and as such it enrages me to see them treated like second-class citizens because of a habit signficantly more common percentage-wise amongst the poor, lower, and working classes.

If littering is the problem, which is really the only justification that holds weight to this outdoor smoking law, lump a huge fine on throwing a butt on the ground, use the fines to hire people to clean up litter on the streets, problem solved.

Yes I do live in CA and the smog is aweful. What is worse than smog?
Second-hand smoke. Are you saying that since there is so so much smog
here anyway, I might as well breathe in someone's cigarette smoke as well?

Thursday.



I have no sympathy for your argument. The same way I have no sympathy
for someone who would compain that he cannot smoke a joint on a bus, or
drink a beer while driving. Cigarettes are a dangerous drug. The fact that
we haven't, as a society, come to terms with the magnitude of it doesn't
change that fact.



You should be angry with cigarette companies who TARGET your poor friends.
It is the poor and uneducated in society who will heed the warnings the least.
Cigarette companies bank on that fact. So tell your buddies to wise up.

No, it is time for the rest CA (and NY for that matter) to continue to expose their agenda by continuing to pass inane laws that infringe on personal liberties. This one is based on research that is "disputed" at best.

<snip> - Congressional Research Service

Does it create a risk? An old adage in medicine is "the poison is in the dose". In a confined area smokers should use at least the same courtesy that one would use for flatulence. Outside there are more real threats, NOX, PM10, etc. Why waste all this effort on a de minimis cause when there are so many much bigger problems? It's simply the cause du jour for the elitists. My smoke is far less a contribution to pollution that the exhaust from <plug in your favorite Hollywood type's name here>private jet.

In the interest of disclosure, yes I smoke. Do I think I'm hurting myself? It's less risky than running into burning buildings, my other vice. Victoria would be pleased to know I don't chuck the butts on the street, to my wife's dismay they go in my left rear pocket which I sometimes forget to empty. I don't smoke in any car where there are others unless they specifically tell me it's OK. In someone elses car if the driver is smoking I still ask other passengers if they'd mind. When I do smoke in the car, even by myself in winter, I have the window down. In the house during winter I confine my smoking to a half-bath that no one else uses, otherwise I smoke on the deck.



Only if accompanied by bans on eating, drinking , cell phones, and audio devices.
Then it might have some real impact.

“Monkeys can be trained to inject themselves with nicotine for its own sake,
just as they will inject other dependence-producing drugs, e.g., opiates, caffeine,
amphetamine, cocaine. ... The absorption of nicotine through the lungs is as
quick as the junkie’s ‘fix’.”(Brown & Williamson, 1973)



That is such a COP-OUT. Because there's other health hazards in the world
we should turn the other cheek on the one that is most unnecessary and quite
easy to eradicate, if it weren't for the HIGHLY ADDICTIVE ingredients that make
people like you run to the nearest half-bath to satiate the addiction. Pardon me,
but it's disgusting.

Furthermore, the tobacco industry is huge and if there weren't so much money
at stake more would be done to make people truly aware. You and others who
smoke are keeping the executives of cigarette companies in their private jets.

The truth of the matter is, I couldn't care less if you or anybody else wants to
pay money to be their victims. I just don't want it in my SPACE, period! It's an
addiction that kills people. If you think you'll escape that fate, good luck to you.
As for me, I'm not willing to put my own health in jeopardy so you can get your
nicotine fix.


Yogurt, if everyone was respectful of others, like you claim to be, we
would have no need for bans on smoking in outdoor places. But the truth is,
most smokers are so addicted they don't care about anything but their next DRAG.

Although the tobacco industry has fought government efforts to regulate
cigarettes as drug-delivery devices, in private that is exactly how they see
their product:

“The cigarette should be conceived not as a product but as a package. The
product is nicotine.…Think of the cigarette pack as a storage container for a
day’s supply of nicotine.…Think of a cigarette as a dispenser for a dose unit
of nicotine. Think of a puff of smoke as the vehicle of nicotine.…Smoke is
beyond question the most optimised vehicle of nicotine and the cigarette the
most optimised dispenser of smoke.” (Philip Morris, 1972)

Rather than being involved in the selling of cigarettes, the tobacco industry
has very much seen itself, privately at least, as being in the business of selling
nicotine in the most appealing way possible:

“Nicotine is addictive. We are, then, in the business of selling nicotine—an
addictive drug effective in the release of stress mechanisms.” (Brown &
Williamson, 1963)

Cigarette companiesare so happy you are fighting for their right to kill us all.

I don't think it's a cop out. I think it's a good argument against your stance that you simply do not agree with or enjoy.

As a non-smoker, I can't fathom an argument for allowing smoking in confined spaces even though evidence suggests there is no increased risk of health issues around second hand smoke.

But outside? I think it is clearly a double-standard and an outlet for personal smoking revenge at an easy target.

I think the automobile is far more dangerous, but I don't see the argument asking for a ban on those. You don't even have to drive. Automobiles run people over everyday - you don't even need to be on the road driving with them.

Alcohol causes more damage then second hand smoke in non-confined places. Do we ban that?

Manufacturing emissions causes more damage than second hand smoke in non-confined spaces.

Cell phones cause more deaths than second hand smoke in non-confined spaced.

And as exemplified before me, the list is endless. But do you attack those other "threats"? No....of course not because it's not an easy target.

When someone asks to ban everything dangerous to us plus smoking, I'll listen. Otherwise I see nothing but bitter people with an axe to grind attacking the targets they can get away with.

And I don't even smoke.

I don't dispute that it's a hazard to me, given the doses I wish to ingest.
The point was there is no clear scientific evidence that it actually does any long term harm to you. Even the studies where the numbers had to be bent to imply a correlation used spouses of smokers, where one could argue that the incidence and severity of exposure is many times greater than a casual contact.

If we want to legislate it out because you find it repugnant, then that's a valid argument. But I'd argue how about targeting obesity or cheap perfume? In the case of obesity one could argue the health costs also As for cheap perfume, if I'm seated close to someone in a restaurant who wears loads of the stuff I don't make a scene feigning coughs, I just politely ask the server for a different table.

There is one thing I forgot to address in your post, smorpheus.
The reference to 1984. In that book, Big Brother allows the masses
(the 85% of the population who could rise up and take control if they realized
their powers and came together) carte blanche with drugs and pornography.
Why? Because there is no better way to distract and control people than with
drugs and pornography. It is happening today, and cigarettes are a part of the
drug industry. If you want to spend time fighting for rights, perhaps you should
address those that might actually empower you, as opposed to enslaving you.

This is one of those laws which should be disregarded royally. Like jaywalking or recording a movie. Unfortunately, laws as silly as that create so-called criminals out of ordinary harmless people. Anyways, smoking isn't as bad for people as we are led to believe.

Well thank you for letting me know that Big Tobacco is enslaving me, even though I quit smoking almost 2 years ago. I'm not clear how ensuring my friends are allowed to use a legal drug where they like (within reason) is somehow enslaving me. I also think you're ignorning the large variety of drugs, and what they can do to your mental states. Drugs like Hallucingens and Stimulants(oops Tobacco!) actually excite, invigorate, and inspire, so I seriously doubt they would be legalized in a perfectly Orwellian or for that matter, Demolition Man universe.

My point(which seems to have been missed) was that saying what I can and can't do in my own car with my friends, is crossing the line of governmental facistic authoritarianism.

With this law, it is no longer my choice whether or not my friend can light up a cigarette in my car, it's now your choice, and excuse me if I think that you should have no say in what I do in my car.

I'm certainly not out on the streets fighting to prevent smoking bans. As I said, they're in my interest, as I don't smoke, and I get sick off of second-hand smoke (as most ex-smokers do.) I'm arguing for my friend's rights to do what they want to do when they're not inflicting harm on others. As I stated earlier, there needs to be science behind a law like this, otherwise you can ban anything annoying. Which it is becoming more and more clear, is the primary reason you want these outdoor bans: because outdoor smoking annoys you. And my personal philosiphy does not support banning things solely for the reason that I am annoyed by them.

If you dislike smoking, that's fine, just be honest about it, and don't try to get behind the idea that you're fighting big tobacco or that the smoke in some way does physical damage to you. I'm annoyed with your desire to legislate with governmental enforcement my freind's habits, so we're even.

My friends are all in their 20s and choose to smoke, it's part of our culture. Artists smoke. Some of the most rebellious artistic heroes, Vonnegut, Lynch, Murrow, Thompson, etc are all chain smokers(contrast this against your 1984 analogy, please.) This mentaility is probably changing slowly, especially in SoCal, but it's unethical to try to force this change by passing laws like this.

More to the point, would you be in favor of Tobacco Prohibition? Because if so, I see we're not going to make any headway on this issue, as we're not arguing the source of the disagreement.

Is it time the rest of America take the same precautions by banning
smoking in all outdoor public spaces?

I have an awareness of how effective prohibition was. I am aware that marijuana is illegal, but that police have a very good idea of the market value of a plant.

However...

One of our local grocery stores has an ashtray by the entrance. (Smoking in grocery stores is illegal in Michigan.) However, the stores ventilating system sucks all the smoke from that ashtray over the checkout counters.

I was sitting on a friend's porch the other day, and he had a coffee can half filled with water and fermenting cigarette butts...

I once saw a co-worker step outside into an electrically classified area (Class I Division II = a possibility of an explosive mixture of fumes in the air.) to light up a cigar because smoking was banned in the factory.

Would you support the ban on smoking while driving?

Definitely!

I once saw a driver, on a hot day, flick a lit cigarette out the driver's window. It went in the back window of his car and set the rear seat on fire as he was traveling in excess of 70 MPH. I didn't see a story on the evening news or in the newspaper, so I think he made it to the side of the road and escaped before the car exploded; but it looked like a Hollywood movie stunt.

PE can smell if someone in an adjacent car is smoking when we are stopped for a traffic light.

And the cigarette butts that litter the roads and beaches can make for a very unpleasant walk...and in the dry parts of summer and fall, they can start forest fires!

You cannot drink in your car while you are driving. Are you going to rally for
your right to do that? My problem is not with someone choosing to be a smoker.
My problem is with the effect the smoke has on my body when I come into contact
with it; negative physiological reactions. You are claiming that I am simply
annoyed with smokers and that's why I have a problem. That's not the case.



Again, Smorpheus, it's not the smoker I hate. There are people that I
love who smoke, it's not about the addiction. It's about the effect the SMOKE
has on my body. I cannot tolerate being around it. Nor should I have to.



Maybe the idea of smoking is romantic to you, and that's fine. From a practical
point-of-view, it is not healthy to come into contact with second-hand smoke.



I'm not trying to go down that road, actually. I don't care what others do in their
personal lives if the negative effects are solely on them.



That's called instant karma.



I'm the same. It is a real bummer.

After re-reading this entire thread again, something dawned on me. Put yourself in the place of a interstellar visitor who happens to be monitoring our communications.
"Hey Fred, get this, they are arguing about making it illegal for some bloke smoking some kind of a weed in an enclosed vehicle, while they are sitting at a intersection surrounded by cars, each spewing over 100 cfm of NOxious oxides." We seem to have lost perspective entirely.

It really is patently absurd. I'd argue that it is proof that there is a God, and He has one heck of a sense of humor!

Most of the arguments against smoking are transparently because people find it repugnant and don't like the smell. I'm sorry, but when someone says they get a migraine at the mere hint of cigarette smoke from 30 feet away, that's psychological, not physiological.

The whole anti-smoking argument is basically a rehash of prohibition, but from the left side of the aisle.

The right is standing one one corner holding up a Bible over their heads trying to legislate their morality while the left stands on an adjacent corner holding up their autographed copy of "Earth in the Balance" trying to legislate their moralities. The only way it is decided who is "right" is at the ballot box...

Admittedly I absolutely and entirely loathe smoking (spending my childhood with two smoking parents and all of the associated health problems) and I enjoy not having to smell smoke when I'm trying to enjoy a meal, I feel that smokers do not have the right to smoke. The way a representative republic works is the majority can vote for something that is considered totally insane by a minority as long as it doesn't violate the federal constitution. I'm pretty sure that I cannot walk into a crowded building and fill the room with tear gas or chlorine gas. Inhaling smoke has health risks that I don't want to be exposed to and if I can convince enough of my peers to vote the same way, smoking could be banned. Some places require that one wear a helmet when riding a bicycle. I think that is a stupid law because I could argue that its my head and if I want to smash it unprotected into the side of a truck, I can do that. My not wearing a helmet is not impinging on the rights or comfort of someone else. The majority made it a law and I have to live by it. Smoking has an affect on someone other than the smoker and also, there is no reasonable, thoughtful or intelligent reason for someone to smoke. With all of that said, a private business owner should have the ability to decide what can and cannot happen in their establishment. The government should have no say in that except for those things that are illegal and unless smoking is made illegal across the board it should remain the owner's decision. If I as a non-smoker want to go to Joe's bar-b-q hut because I love the food but they allow smoking, I'm not going to support a law that forces Joe to ban smoking just because I really really want to eat there. If enough people don't go there, Joe will feel the pinch and ban smoking or setup a non-smoking section. My impression is that folks want to go out for a drink with their friends and they like the atmosphere of a bar and because most bars allow smoking they don't want to be there. But they really really want to hang out in a bar because it just wouldn't be the same somewhere else.

All of these are annoying (or dangerous!) situations, but unfortunately, like the comedian said, you can't fix stupid. I don't think you can legislate to prevent stupid, either. There are stupid people everywhere, and not all of them are smokers. Cigarette butt litter is just as annoying as used diapers, hypodermic needles, fast food trash, used condoms, motor oil and all the other nasty stuff people toss into the environment. I just wish people would quit demonizing smokers like they were the only people on the planet to do annoying-stupid-dangerous things!

Tobacco use has a long history, ritual and spiritual as well as basic addiction. Its much akin to use of alcohol, marijuana and other adictive substances.
http://www.wramc.army.mil/education/tobaccohistory.htm

It is a plant substance, which doesnt make it necessarily 'dirty' by use alone. Unless you feel all smoking substances are dirty. How many here consider smoking marijuana ok but not tobacco use? Its exactly the same.
I smoke tobacco in Native American sweat lodges, in prayer meetings as part of ritual and I cannot condone this nazi-istic view of smoking tobacco as inherently evil. Humans smoke things, often in order to bring the body in alignement / try to balance oneself out of alignment, for ritual or simply for pleasure and relaxation. Because YOU do not understand it doesnt make it criminal nor stupid. Tobacco has its place among drugs that humans use, all detrimental to some extent. Smoking is also an addiction difficult to quit. Its criminalization in society is relatively recent.

I do not believe in smokers rights. I cannot stand smoke around food, and I dont like that smokers can smoke in front of buildings or entryways. I think it is unfair to those of us who desire clean air on our daily passages and smokers should have to be certain yards from any entrance to a building.
I agree that cigarette butts are despicable, and smokers tend to be insensitive to this, education is needed in that realm.

However, those that claim someone smoking in their car, or passing you on a street bothers you, well , perhaps you need to just get yourself a big inflatable bubble and live in it.
The amount of toxic substances that you and your immune system absorbs everyday, some of them you use as cleaning products, some of them exuded from your home and carpets, some in your workplaces and many from daily pollution in major cities are immensely more detrimental. If a whiff a cigarette from a passing car gives you a headache, I recommend you go to the hospital IMMEDIATELY, because you must have a serious problem that needs attention, or you are just being neorotic.

Americans have way too many 'sensitivities', that are not found anywhere else in the world. Its a decadence induced mania. For a country SO UTTERLY against socialism we think of plenty of contraints akin to it.
You know , the smell of heart clogging, cancer producing fast food restaurants bothers me too on the roads, from sea to shining american sea, but its a free country. I shop health foods. The sight of absurdly bloated, slobby obese americans eating cheeseburgers in their cars bothers me, but Im not asking for legislation against it.

This idea of legislating everyone into being perfect robots in this country is becoming a disgusting trend. Will the smell of coffee houses just 'bother' you next, because thats bad for your health too, how about bars? Lets close them down because people drink there then drive oh and criminally smoke there too. Should we just outlaw everything we find disgusting? Based of course on a designated few, that get headaches. Much crap in life gives me headaches but I realize Im not the only person on the planet and you just have to tolerate others to some extent.

I had to show this topic to my co-workers, because we were just discussing this ourselves for the last couple of days. As usual, there are apologists and extremists on both sides- my take is this- I am an adult. I can hold my breath or go into a place or NOT go into a place if I choose- my feelers just aren't so sensitive to someone attempting to kill themselves in a legal fashion, or even, illegal fashion, as long as they are not directly harming someone else. That is why I am for making smoking in bars illegal- you can't choose to get away from it short of losing your job- so the onus is transfered back the lessor right to me- the right to smoke in public places.

Now- where smokers really torque me off and make me agree with such bans is when I am in my single dad mode.

I have to carry my children through a phalanx of addicts trying to stay warm and maintain thier habits- happens all the time. I end up carrying two not so light children, even to a 230 pound guy in absolutely perfect shape- with thier little faces buried in my jacket so they don't get a face full of smoke. - now this gets me into moving from righteous indigination to urge to kill very quickly- kids make you emotional like this LOL

I think the rule of law should be this: You can smoke in areas (like your car) that the public person walking by is not inflicted with it, and can smoke in public areas, though designated, as long as a person by with a child doesn't have to adjust thier load to cover thier children's faces to avoid the smoke.

Just a little thinking through the problem, good old problem solving instead of knee jerk reactiosn by either side.

You are comparing the peace pipe to some schmuck sucking up a marlboro.
The additives that are found in cigarettes are more harmful than the tobacco.
The indigenous people who smoked for spiritual reasons cannot be compared
to the masses who are smoking for a completely different set of reasons.



Is it not evil what the cigarette companies have been doing for decades?
Their past campaigns aimed at children is a good example
of how far they are willing to go to get some new addicts on board - and starting
them young is obviously more profitable.



That is a big fat LIE that addicted personalities cling to. Smoking doesn't bring your body into alignment. It distributes a drug that gives you pleasure.



It's almost as absurd as those who claim they are smoking cigarettes to
become one with the universe and to re-align their spines.



What's the problem here? You want to be able to smoke whenever and wherever
because it is your spiritual right that should override everything? That's the
epitome of selfish behavior - how very American of you.



Maybe you should consider relocating if you aren't happy with Americans and
their sensitivities. You will not have as easy of a time getting across any
other border, though.



That's a bad analogy, unless of course remnants of the obese American's
cheeseburger float into your colon.



I don't know what you are talking about. Give some examples of how we
are being legislated into robots. And how restrictions on cigarette smoking
are somehow related to that????

Really? People obviously liked smoking stuff, which led them to ritualize it. The commercialization of smoking has led to what we see today, addiction. Addiction is hard to beat but many are trying. Are you perfect?



I completely agree. MacDonalds does the same to your kids in schools. I am against this, in fact I complain to the schools all the time about MacDonalds in the schools, do you?



Yeah, so what? You are on a big high horse here. What do you really know about addicted personalities? Are you one, or not? Have you been abscent or just ignorant of education to smokers? What exactly do you know of it? Come down to earth and cut the soapbox, life is not perfect, well, for anyone but YOU.



The problem is people who dont READ what has been said because they are so dogmatic they are blind. Reread. Its about freedom. We in ak are fighting for personal rights and medical rights to possess marijuana, which I believe in, so I believe in personal freedom. What you have suggested goes beyond my belief in legislating freedoms.

You picked the wrong person to attack. If the US outlawed smoking it would not affect me in the least, but I am also not a fascist.



Oh, the " if you dont like it , leave , rhetoric". How cliche'. Maybe I am a terrorist as well.
The fact is if you lived in any other country your headaches about tobacco would be completely ignored, as well would be boob jobs, need for Prozac and other drugs, children on Ritalin, womens fat and mens erectile dysfunction and any myriad of 'sensitivities' americans seem to think important as a consequence of their harship in life, as the worlds richest and most powerful country. It IS just becoming too much.
What a bunch of WHINERS.

And for those who aren't trying to beat their addictions, we should give them
carte blanche on where they choose to light up? I don't understand why you
think it is so unreasonable to ban smoking in public outdoor places?
How is that unfair? Nobody is saying smokers shouldn't be able to smoke.
Smoke, smokers!!! Just do it where you will not affect other people.



My children don't eat at McDonald's for the same reason I don't expose them
to cigarette smoke. I care about their health. Which schools do you
complain to ALL THE TIME? Are you a parent?





So now you are comparing someone with a grave illness, who may benefit from
medical marijuana to someone wanting to smoke a cigarette in an outdoor
public place? Those are apples and oranges. You want freedom for cigarette
smokers at the expense of non-smokers? That's not freedom.



So people who are against second-hand-smoke in outdoor public places are fascist?



Freedom to smoke everywhere should include freedom to do a boob job, no?
You are interested in personal freedom. I would prefer women do boob jobs
then smoke standing next to me. The boob jobs won't harm me, the smoke will.

You know what? We get it. We get it that you hate smokers, smoking and everything and anything remotely related to smoking. Is there a reason you keep flogging this dead horse? Is it oneupsmanship? If so, it's tiresome.

Who's "we?" Is that you and every other smoker? There are a lot of smokers
who do not care if their cigarette smoke enters other people's breathing space.
If they were more considerate to begin with, my neighboring city of Calabasas,
CA wouldn't have to impose bans.

Quite frankly, I hope you do "get it," and I hope next time you (meaning anyone
who smokes) light up, you'll do so away from non-smokers who do not desire
to be negatively affected by your bad habit. I don't see anything unfair or cruel
about such a request. And if the horse hasn't been beaten to death yet, buy
him a pack of Lucky's. That ought to finish him off.

"We" meaning posters on this thread. I don't think there is anyone here who has any doubts where you stand. Interesting that you zero in on "we" as in "smokers". That's so predictable.

Y'know, personal attacks are frowned upon here, but you are doing your level best through sarcasm and smarmy remarks to p me off. If you want to live in a society that regulates your every movement, that's your preference. Some of us (FYI - that would be the "royal us" ), whether smokers or non see this as just another step toward totalitarianism.

Actually those personal attacks were initiated against Doomed_Planet not the other way around.

To me this is about decency. My father was a smoker and I grew up being pretty used to it. But why is it ok for somebody to practice their bad habit around people who do not. Second hand smoke is dangerous. I can't believe there are some posters in here claiming it is not.

Canada Cancer Society



And here are some side effects:



And before you go comparing this to driving because of how many people it kills per year, just stop. Inaccurate comparisons are being thrown around in this thread far too often. We are talking about 'smoking'. McDonalds was brought up in this debate but it doesn't belong any where around this debate because if I am eating a McDonald's hamburger next to somebody I am not affecting their health.

An interesting topic!

From the health point of view, it is clearly being argued that I (a smoker) do not have the right to negatively affect the health of those around me. It's been argued that this health risk is synonymous with the lethal fumes coming out of exhaust pipes.

Therefore, we have to consider whether I should be allowed to endanger your health, or that you should be allowed to endanger mine. I assume you use electricity to power your home, as well as gasoline to power your car. These both produce toxins which endanger my health.

Is there a difference? Maybe something to do with the fact that I don't necessarily have to smoke but you necessarily need air conditioning and a less than environmentally friendly vehicle? I don't think so. You need what you need, and want is what you want.

And I want to smoke.

From the economic point of view, us smokers require more medical care than non-smokers. So do fat people.

We also have to deal with the fact that America should be a free country. Freedom has precious little to do with equality, but rather freedom. If you feel willing to give up on the freedom of smokers to foul the air you breath, then that's fine. But don't get all angry when I complain about you fouling the air I breathe with your lifestyle. After all, you don't NEED air conditioning or a luxury or sport car. You can get by quite well with less. Just as I don't need to smoke...

You know Doomed Planet, this discussion might have been reasonable, had you not been arms loaded to attack anyone who simply did not agree with you.
For example:



I am a step-parent to two children of 7 and 10. Their mother is a full time smoker, and their father quit about a year ago. I have never been a smoker but I have smoked a lot of MJ and some tobacco in ceremony. Today I dont smoke MJ but the father does, since he quit drinking and smoking cigarettes, which was killing him.
And I DO complain to schools about Macdonalds in the schools, but what business is that of yours to question? Did you think I was a liar? Because I thought legislating smoking in outdoor places was extreme policy?

Do you see how much of an attack dog you are being, and not really interested in debate but attacking the debator? You are not even listening!

And, you have said ANYONE who questions your premise about outdoor smoking is basically saying people can light up anywhere they please, which is disingenuous and outright incorrect, people cannot light up wherever they please. I myself have said that smoking in entryways should be banned, or limits put upon, that if smoking was outlawed tomarrow it would be ok by me, but that FREEDOM is at the core issue, living in the US, but that is ignored, due to dogma.

The freedom issue is the one to take a stance on, not demonizing everyone who just doesnt see your take on this 100%. Screaming at people is not getting you a voice.

What is it that bothers you precisely? Where do people smoke that bothers you SO much? Their cars? Well, with objectivity I think you will have a hard time banning that right now. In entryways? I think you have a better chance.
Be specific, what is making you so angry, do you live in 'smokers paradise' or something? Because I was recently in Reno and I was astounded at the amount of smokers everywhere, like I have not seen in a decade, neither here in AK nor in Texas.
And to tell the truth, I would not move there for this reason.

There are people on your side, but you have a way of making this debate a non debate but one sided extremist.

Need I remind you that it was you who attacked me, and you were warned by
one of the moderators, so please do not try to turn the tables.



I questioned it because you were throwing generalities around. You said yourself
that you are always complaining to schools about McDonald's, which, by the way,
is a complete Red Herring. Always complaining to schools sounds like you
are on the phone for hours on end telling schools how bad McDonald's is. I agree
with that assertion, but it's quite different from the issue of this thread. Second-
hand smoke is harmful to anyone who comes into contact with it. Food from
McDonalds is only harmful to the person who consumes it. That's the key
difference.


I'm not interested in attacking YOU Artemise because as much as you might think
it to be, this thread isn't about you and your personal experiences, perse.
It's about whether or not smokers should have the "freedom" to impose
harmful carcinogens on others by smoking in outdoor public places.

I would agree that it is not personal, but I think you have made it so despite evidence to the contrary- however, since 'cigarette smoking in outdoor places' was the purpose of the debate, it should actually Be a Debate. As you have seen here, it didnt quite turn out that way. While many people agreed with your viewpoint on particular aspects, including myself, you chose to ignore those aspects due to extreme dogma and alientate even those 'with you' on certain points. You have basically pounded, agree with me 100% or there is no debate.

If you are posing debate questions in order to gain purpose for a cause, that is cohersion, and if you expect to see something other than a positive answer to your personal cause, then be prepared to listen.

I feel this topic is simply an excersize in futility because you went into it with a 'no excuses barred' attitude. Why bother? You know how it should be, why did you even ask?
Did you expect to just get agreement?

Smoking in outdoor places is not an easy thing to put into legislation. While our 'air out there' is common, we havent put a price on it yet, it belongs to everyone. The thing you propose is a valuable question, and like I said, (ignored) I value clean air passages in our daily goings on. The problem is, you havent been specific and you have stifled debate by being closed minded and dogmatic. Your questions were not really questions, they were designed to propose a one sided viewpoint and attack anyone that didnt hold that view, to the letter.

Its just too broad. So move to Calabasas. I really dont know what you are getting at... Federal legislation against smoking? Restrictions on entryways across the US? No smoking in cars always across the US, including cross country travelers? Making smoking a felony? All of the above? or just a campaign against smokers in general? How about smoking in your backyard, which smoke could travel to your neighbors? Where is the line to be set, or do we criminalize smoking as a whole? Does that include companies that sell tobacco? How about chewing? Are cigar and pipe smokers to be criminalized as well?

Its great to take a stance on issues, but be clear what is the next step and be clear about what you are asking for, not just saying, this is bad, I hate this thing, dont you hate this thing..lets outlaw this thing.
How? is a big question. Those of us who ask, how do you come to these conclusions? are not particularily the enemy. We are debating the question, which you posed, which you are simply attacking people about, hey, propose some solution!

Youve been great at attacking anyone against you in this thread, but not been clear about what you want, other than smokers just disappear. Please explain WHAT exactly you are asking for, and more so, how you expect this to come about.

Please explain what the legislation will be, in your perfect society.