Smoking ban? Only one MAJOR problem...

[nukechaser]

The glaring problem that the council seemed to forget is... tobacco (or more correctly, nicotine) is a drug; albeit legal. Smokers are addicted to it and unless the city is prepared to provide free smoking cessation programs, they are making a legal, addictive drug, into an illegal substance to which they are addicted. Outlawing it will only make people who are addicted to a legal drug criminal in their behavior unless they are at home. The excuse that "you can't walk down the street with a beer, so why not prohibit tobacco?" is lame. Those addicted to tobacco have been able to smoke in public, with high frequency, and now they have to go home to light up? This is a nice idea but with terrible forethought and implementation.:confused:

[Nulubez]

I wish the article posted what businesses and/or industries were in Belmont so I could avoid supporting them. Also, this is good info for when I visit family in California to steer clear of this town.

The prohibition movement did little and only pushed alcohol consumption into speakeasies. The same will be true for smoking.

I live in a state (MN) that's slowly trying to ban smoking. Our two major cities, Minneapolis and St. Paul have smoking bans now in the city. Many small bars have since closed. Waitresses in those areas, who the law was to protect, are loosing their jobs at the worse and major income at the least - as non smokers are far worse tippers than smokers (its a fact).

in any case, good luck with that San Mateo, you won't see me complaining because you probably won't see me.

[hmb]

If you really wnt to save lives, make the speed limit 5 mph.

[Habanero]

with this ridiculous proposition.

It's discriminatory in that people who live in apartments have no rights. Taxpayers who pay for the place have no rights.

It strips nearly all personal private property rights.

But most of all it is based on BOGUS information. Secondhand smoke is not harmful to healthy people, and it is even less harmful to those with compromised health that being on a street used by internal combustion engine vehicles, or has Belmont banned those also? along with gas, coal, wood, or oil cooking..............

Some people truly need to go back to 4th grade American history and relearn the Constitution and other things such as Prohibition.

[Desert Rat]

The "Smoking" issue never ceases to amaze me.

Twenty years ago when Smoking was allowed anywhere was just not right. You would go into a resturant and people would be smoking one table over and it was terrible.

But now Smoking is relagated to bars and open spaces almost everywhere. The vast majority of smokers are aware of those that don't and act accordingly with respect.

But a group of folks that don't smoke have to make a big deal of something that is no concern to them. The second hand myth has allowed these folks to dictate to others whom they don't agree with. Yet the majority of these very people would qoute "Freedom of choice" as one of the reasons smoking should be banned everywhere.

Throw in an political wanna be and there you have it. Votes and national publicity for the wanna be and the desired repression of choice of others for the happy but vocal minority.

Hey, this politician may be in diapers (he's a simple councilman) but he's on the national news. Any politician that's on the news automatically gets bumped up a notch or two. All this and he had 15 supporters at the meeting. LOL

Such a trival matter with such attention and far reaching implications.

Hey, I think I'm gonna find a politician to ban cell phones in cars. The penalty should be no less than a DUI since the effects are the same. If I hook up with the right politician that is publicity starved....he could get his bump and I could get on Larry King!

[Tommy]

As much as I detest smoking, I feel for the people who are hooked and live in an apartment. Does that mean they have to leave the city limits to smoke?
And if you're driving, you have to put out your smoke while you're driving through the city?

Also, what about those smokers who take thier breaks--they can't smoke?

This law is very draconian and will not hold up. I guarantee that the police won't actively enforce it. And what about the cops who smoke?

The council "blew" it this time...

Tom

[2Pak]

>>> “I would just like to say ‘no smoking’ and see what happens and if they do smoke, [someone] has the right to have the police come and give them a ticket,” said Councilwoman Coralin Feierbach
<<<

Fine - That's exactly what I'll do. I'll call the police. I'll call the police 600 times a day, every day and I'll call via 911 emergency and follow that up with a call to the fire-department too. I'll tell them I smell smoke, and since you're not allowed to smoke cigarettes, it must be a fire. I'll also call the county sheriff and any other emergency dispatchers I can call in addition to the police, the fire department and 911 emergency.

I'll call every time I see a smoker and I'll have the emergency responders so busy responding to 911 calls about smokers that no-one is available to respond when people are getting robbed, raped or during real house-fires or other emergencies.

I urge EVERY RESIDENT to contact 911 and request an officer be sent to the site immediately whenever and wherever they see someone smoking - and remember, so does councilwoman Feierbach, who agrees with me too:

>>>"...has the right to have the police come and give them a ticket,” said Councilwoman Coralin Feierbach<<<

[TaxMeSomeMoreILikeIt]

Greetings from Upstate New York. First off, I smoke and I have to agree with Nukechaser that tobacco is an addictive substance that is not as easy to beat without a cessation. I am going to quit smoking for the third and final time so I know it is addicting. That is my personal choice. With that said I don't feel that a city should impose laws that make it completely illegal to smoke with the exception of one's "single-family residence." Come on, cars? That is absolutely ridiculous. Smokers are people too, even though some health do-gooders may make them out to be evil entities, and they have just as much of a right to make their own choices as non-smokers. I feel that it is enough that people are banned from smoking in restaurants, bars, and other enclosed public places but to make it illegal out on the street, in your car or even in your own backyard is overstepping the limits of what is right and what is insanity. The Belmont City Council sounds like they voted on personal preference and did not have the city residents vote on the matter. The article said there were 15 supporters there. Was that a majority? Come on residents of Belmont City because the next thing to be taken away could be something personal to you. People of this country need to wake up before all of our rights are diminished by these small interest groups and elected officials. They do not always not what is good for the people. Thank you. <Stepping of soapbox because there is so much I could go on about>

[Helen2828]

I WANT TO MOVE THERE!!! Every city should adopt this new law. For all you whiny smokers, second-hand smoke DOES kill. According to this law, you can still smoke in your single family detached homes. But should smokers put out cigs while driving? ABSOLUTELY. Cannot tell you how many times I see drivers so busy protecting that stick of death between their fingers that they are weaving all over the road. Almost as bad as cell phone talkers.

[astolpho]

I don't like to see victimless crimes, (i.e. crimes where noone with the possible exception of the purpetrator is injured) pursued. You are going to take a large segment of your law abiding population and make criminals of them with this law. If you break the law smoking a cigarette in your vehicle in rush hour why not speed a little too? If you are going to speed a little and smoke a cigarette why not have a beer on the down low too. Make enough stupid rules and it makes rules with actual importance less meaningful. We don't need the government to tell us how to live. We should have gotten that from our parents.

[ladyteal]

I WANT TO MOVE THERE!!! Every city should adopt this new law. For all you whiny smokers, second-hand smoke DOES kill. According to this law, you can still smoke in your single family detached homes. But should smokers put out cigs while driving? ABSOLUTELY. Cannot tell you how many times I see drivers so busy protecting that stick of death between their fingers that they are weaving all over the road. Almost as bad as cell phone talkers.

Second Hand Smoke does not hurt anyone. Even the American Cancer Society did a huge study, and it reported no significant findings for SHS. Of course, the ACS doesn't want you to know this. You can find this lots of places on the internet. Just do a Google.

The German Nazi's in the 1930's did this same kind of thing with smoking. The USA is becoming more Nazied every day. And if you are FAT, watch out, they are coming for you next.

[jlturner2]

Unbelievable, if we start here where will it end? What about the overweight people that contract diseases and/or die from other conditions brought on by obiesity? Are we going to make it so they don't eat in public or try to control their eating habits? Don't we have other things that government should be concentrating on i.e. homeless, crime, etc?:mad:

[Nicola]

I've been smoking pot for 35 years. I don't smoke in public. I don't smoke in my house except in my bathroom with the fan running. I have no problem with these restrictions not even with the legal ramifications.
No one should have to smell or inhale my smoke. I respect the right of people to breath unspoiled air. It is a drug addiction. It costs the population billions in avoidable health care costs. It cost companies time lost on the job. It causes children to emulate their parents who smoke.
Yes you have the right to smoke but don't include me in your habit. You should be able to smoke in your car, or your house if you legally own them. Landlords should have the right to restrict smoking in and on their property.
There are hundreds of reasons to be pro/con. But common sense and respect for other people outweigh smoker's rights. Smokers have no rights in public. Remember, it's drug addiction. I support legalizing all drugs but not the indiscriminate use of them.

[ladyteal]

I've been smoking pot for 35 years. I don't smoke in public. I don't smoke in my house except in my bathroom with the fan running. I have no problem with these restrictions not even with the legal ramifications.
No one should have to smell or inhale my smoke. I respect the right of people to breath unspoiled air. It is a drug addiction. It costs the population billions in avoidable health care costs. It cost companies time lost on the job. It causes children to emulate their parents who smoke.
Yes you have the right to smoke but don't include me in your habit. You should be able to smoke in your car, or your house if you legally own them. Landlords should have the right to restrict smoking in and on their property.
There are hundreds of reasons to be pro/con. But common sense and respect for other people outweigh smoker's rights. Smokers have no rights in public. Remember, it's drug addiction. I support legalizing all drugs but not the indiscriminate use of them.

SHS is called the "BIG LIE" perputrated by the NAZI ANTI SMOKERS, who are highly paid by the big Drug Companies. WHY? Because the drug companies are peddling their nicotine replacement systems, and stand to make billions.

Every American has the right to "the pursuit of happiness."


http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/11/is-secondhand-smoke-health-hazard.html

http://www.forces.org/

http://www.smokersclub.com/

[Nicola]

SHS is called the "BIG LIE" perputrated by the NAZI ANTI SMOKERS, who are highly paid by the big Drug Companies. WHY? Because the drug companies are peddling their nicotine replacement systems, and stand to make billions.

Every American has the right to "the pursuit of happiness."


http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/11/is-secondhand-smoke-health-hazard.html

http://www.forces.org/

http://www.smokersclub.com/

Not my problem if you can't get off nicotine. Just goes to show you the addictive quality of fags.
I will fight to the death for your right to happiness, but not for your right to blow smoke in my face.

[ladyteal]

Not my problem if you can't get off nicotine. Just goes to show you the addictive quality of fags.
I will fight to the death for your right to happiness, but not for your right to blow smoke in my face.

I won't blow smoke in your face, unless you get into my face.:p

[Nicola]

I won't blow smoke in your face, unless you get into my face.:p

But what if we are standing close or waiting at a bus stop? Do you ask people if they mind if you smoke? This really has nothing to do with health or laws just common courtesy. Think of yourself as a fish. Note how they all touch eachother via the medium, water. You can see water, you can see that if you introduce a slight amount of food coloring all the fish will be exposed to it. We share the air, same thing.

[StanLee]

Nicola wrote: It costs the population billions in avoidable health care costs. It cost companies time lost on the job..

There are many other bad habits: drinking, driving, walking in public, eating too much, rollerskating, mountain-climbing, sex, etc. etc.
All of the above can be dangerous to your health, and may result in heathcare costs.
Smoking on the other hand (as the Mayor of New York put it) actually saves
money for the public. Smokers die young, and will not need many years of care like those inconsiderate elderly folks who refuse to smoke and want to live forever.

If the purpose of the smoking ban is protecting the public from second hand smoke, why is it not legal for smokers to have their own clubs, bars, pubs and so on. Can anyone explain that?

[bookandpen]

What about killer alcohol? It has killed millions. If San Mateo really wants to do something right, ban killer booze. How many reading this article has had someone in his or her family, or friends that have had an incident related to alcohol? But you go right ahead and get that deadly smoker, and ignore the biggest killer of all, Booze.

[Daspanka]

It’s interesting that even though the pole question was ridiculously slanted (the yes answer is tied to “are cigarettes bad?”, a no-brainer. The no question is “do smokers have rights” the question to begin with) the responders have answered no 85% to 15% yes. I find it puzzling when people applaud the removal or restrictions of other people’s rights and freedoms. As far as second hand smoke being a health risk to others outdoors, your automobile puts out much more per minute as far as particulate matter and carcinogens, even if it passes CA’s emissions standards. This car is allowed to travel down the same streets that people are now banned from smoking. Why is that OK? If it’s not second hand smoke, is the issue to force the smokers to quit for their own good? Is this the role of the City Government? To dictate healthy practices to it’s citizens and visitors at the point of a gun? Yes, it is the point of a gun. If it’s an ordinance that can be ticketed, and If you refuse to pay the ticket, you can eventually be arrested, and necessary force can be used to arrest you.
Obesity kills many more people in the US every year than smoking (this is from the CDC, look it up). Would it be OK for the City of Belmont to outlaw certain foods? Restaurants could be spot checked for high fat foods. Then fined or closed down if they failed to comply. How about a law against being obese? This would save many more people from early death, if that’s the goal. Maybe the Police could carry a scale around and make people weigh in at random. Anyone found obese could be ticketed. It’s for their own good, right?
Sound ridiculous? So does banning people from smoking in the street with cars passing by, or smoking in their own cars. What if they ban something YOU do next..I.e. chocolate fudge, Big Mac, Rib eye steak, French Fires, Cell phone use (brain cancer), for your own good, of course. Would that be OK?

[Roscoe_Beedle]

All these comments point out the futility of legislating common sense. I like ciigars but I also am extremely courteous to those around me. One of my favorite places on Earth is Vegas. And there you can smoke nearly anywhere. I have never seen anyone complain. I just love people who complain about cigarette smoke yet drive a gas burning car.

But this "law" could start a new sport. Drive through Belmont with a cigarette in your lips. Don't light it. That ought to drive the zealots nuts. A car full of people with unlit cigarettes sticking out of their lips. No law broken. Drive them all nuts.

[StanLee]

What about killer alcohol? It has killed millions. If San Mateo really wants to do something right, ban killer booze. How many reading this article has had someone in his or her family, or friends that have had an incident related to alcohol? But you go right ahead and get that deadly smoker, and ignore the biggest killer of all, Booze.

The ban on booze has been tried and failed miserably. The Prohibition didn't stop
drinking, it only made criminals like Al Capone, Joe Kennedy and others rich.
It was an invitation for corruption and violence.
The same is happening right now with drugs. The "War on Drugs" created a lot more problems than it solved (it solved nothing).
Next in line seems to be the war on tobacco. Let's repeat our mistakes.

[Daspanka]

But what if we are standing close or waiting at a bus stop? Do you ask people if they mind if you smoke? This really has nothing to do with health or laws just common courtesy. Think of yourself as a fish. Note how they all touch eachother via the medium, water. You can see water, you can see that if you introduce a slight amount of food coloring all the fish will be exposed to it. We share the air, same thing.


If it's health your worried about, consider that the cars going by the bus stop are putting out much more garbage for you to breath than the smoker next to you. Or the bus itself. Ever take a whiff of the diesel exhaust coming out of it? You think that's healthy? If it's your RIGHT not to be offended by the smoker's stinky cigarette's you're worried about, what about MY right not to be offended by the perfume made from alchohol mixed with dog squeese that you're wearing? Or the garlic you had for lunch? Or the ugly yellow blouse your wearing? Did you ask everyone at the bus stop if they minded? After all you CHOSE to wear the perfume, eat the garlic, and wear the blouse. Shouldn't you choose things that don't offend others? Shouldn't the city force you to by law? So I won't be offended by you either? Why are your rights not to be offended more important than mine? What about people with bad breath or BO that you have to deal with INDOORS. Should you be able to call the cops because their odor offends you?
The bottom line is, when you go out in public, especially on a city street, you will be exposed to all kinds of sights and smells you don't like. As will I. Deal with it. I do.

[Daspanka]

But what if we are standing close or waiting at a bus stop? Do you ask people if they mind if you smoke? This really has nothing to do with health or laws just common courtesy. Think of yourself as a fish. Note how they all touch eachother via the medium, water. You can see water, you can see that if you introduce a slight amount of food coloring all the fish will be exposed to it. We share the air, same thing.


If it's health your worried about, consider that the cars going by the bus stop are putting out much more garbage for you to breath than the smoker next to you. Or the bus itself. Ever take a whiff of the diesel exhaust coming out of it? You think that's healthy? If it's your RIGHT not to be offended by the smoker's stinky cigarette's you're worried about, what about MY right not to be offended by the perfume made from alchohol mixed with dog squeese that you're wearing? Or the garlic you had for lunch? Or the ugly yellow blouse your wearing? Did you ask everyone at the bus stop if they minded? After all you CHOSE to wear the perfume, eat the garlic, and wear the blouse. Shouldn't you choose things that don't offend others? Shouldn't the city force you to by law? So I won't be offended by you either? Why are your rights not to be offended more important than mine? What about people with bad breath or BO that you have to deal with INDOORS. Should you be able to call the cops because their odor offends you?
The bottom line is, when you go out in public, especially on a city street, you will be exposed to all kinds of sights and smells you don't like. As will I. Deal with it. I do.

[Nicola]

We are talking about a use of a very potent, dangerous and addictive drug, not a yellow blouse. But I agree, the law Belmont is trying to pass will be shot down because they've gone too far. I also want freedom from too much goverment.

For example: I want all drugs legalized. I want all drug problems to be handled by health services rather than police. No one should be in jail for smoking pot, cigarettes or any other drugs. When the drug laws are changed, addicts will not need to steal to support a habit. The profit motive will be removed from the drug dealers. Would you support this?

Cars and trucks and buses screw up the air because our government is in the sack with oil companies to promote the use of oil.

B.O. doesn't kill. Bad breath doesn't kill. Silly examples.

[2smart4u]

If you really wnt to save lives, make the speed limit 5 mph.

And how would that save lives? It would have the opposite effect, probably.

[2smart4u]

All these comments point out the futility of legislating common sense. I like ciigars but I also am extremely courteous to those around me. One of my favorite places on Earth is Vegas. And there you can smoke nearly anywhere. I have never seen anyone complain. I just love people who complain about cigarette smoke yet drive a gas burning car.

But this "law" could start a new sport. Drive through Belmont with a cigarette in your lips. Don't light it. That ought to drive the zealots nuts. A car full of people with unlit cigarettes sticking out of their lips. No law broken. Drive them all nuts.


How would that bother anyone? And why do you want to be a nuisance? Explain yourself.

[2smart4u]

with this ridiculous proposition.

It's discriminatory in that people who live in apartments have no rights. Taxpayers who pay for the place have no rights.

It strips nearly all personal private property rights.

But most of all it is based on BOGUS information. Secondhand smoke is not harmful to healthy people, and it is even less harmful to those with compromised health that being on a street used by internal combustion engine vehicles, or has Belmont banned those also? along with gas, coal, wood, or oil cooking..............

Some people truly need to go back to 4th grade American history and relearn the Constitution and other things such as Prohibition.

Nothing about smoking in the constitution. Try again. Less whining next time.

[2smart4u]

I WANT TO MOVE THERE!!! Every city should adopt this new law. For all you whiny smokers, second-hand smoke DOES kill. According to this law, you can still smoke in your single family detached homes. But should smokers put out cigs while driving? ABSOLUTELY. Cannot tell you how many times I see drivers so busy protecting that stick of death between their fingers that they are weaving all over the road. Almost as bad as cell phone talkers.

YES!!! I agree with you completely.

[Colonist]

2smart4u
Originally Posted by Helen2828
I WANT TO MOVE THERE!!! Every city should adopt this new law. For all you whiny smokers, second-hand smoke DOES kill. According to this law, you can still smoke in your single family detached homes. But should smokers put out cigs while driving? ABSOLUTELY. Cannot tell you how many times I see drivers so busy protecting that stick of death between their fingers that they are weaving all over the road. Almost as bad as cell phone talkers.

YES!!! I agree with you completely.

Hope you two will be happy together
Make sure you buy a house WITHOUT a fireplace

Got to watch those Tax Bills - They are sure to attack fireplace users next.
Smoke is OK coming out of a chimney - Right?

It's just those icky cigarettes - right?

[Roscoe_Beedle]

2smart4u raises an interesting point, The Constitution not referring to "smoking". Yes, he's correct, it dosen't. Nor does it refer to a speed limit on our highways, a drinking age, airport security, use of power tools or many such things. Given something is not in the Constitution does not necessarily make something legal or illegal. So raising the Constitutional argument on either side of this discussion is kind of 2dumb4u.

What may occur here is a challenge of this law. Either on legal grounds or a recall of those making the law, the Council. I suspect if sufficent pressure is exerted on the politicians this law may fold. That is best place to spend your resources.

My own take on this ruling is we don't need these type of Nanny Laws. Therefore I would be against this law.

[2smart4u]

2smart4u
Originally Posted by Helen2828
I WANT TO MOVE THERE!!! Every city should adopt this new law. For all you whiny smokers, second-hand smoke DOES kill. According to this law, you can still smoke in your single family detached homes. But should smokers put out cigs while driving? ABSOLUTELY. Cannot tell you how many times I see drivers so busy protecting that stick of death between their fingers that they are weaving all over the road. Almost as bad as cell phone talkers.

YES!!! I agree with you completely.

Hope you two will be happy together
Make sure you buy a house WITHOUT a fireplace

Got to watch those Tax Bills - They are sure to attack fireplace users next.
Smoke is OK coming out of a chimney - Right?

It's just those icky cigarettes - right?


Chimneys don't smell like cigarettes, and they don't blow in my face. What was your point again?

[2smart4u]

2smart4u raises an interesting point, The Constitution not referring to "smoking". Yes, he's correct, it dosen't. Nor does it refer to a speed limit on our highways, a drinking age, airport security, use of power tools or many such things. Given something is not in the Constitution does not necessarily make something legal or illegal. So raising the Constitutional argument on either side of this discussion is kind of 2dumb4u.

What may occur here is a challenge of this law. Either on legal grounds or a recall of those making the law, the Council. I suspect if sufficent pressure is exerted on the politicians this law may fold. That is best place to spend your resources.

My own take on this ruling is we don't need these type of Nanny Laws. Therefore I would be against this law.

I certainly didn't bring up the constitution first. Tis is a very good law, and I would defend it, and vote for anyone willing to pass it in my city.
We DO need these laws, to save us from the selfish, ignorant, rude people.

[2smart4u]

Wow, today's letters from out-of-town yokels are even dumber than yesterday's! Especially the numbskull in Texas (first letter).


I get the feeling these aren't from real people, but rather from Tobacco companies. Real people just aren't that ignorant, even in Texas. Or are they?

[StanLee]

Wow, today's letters from out-of-town yokels are even dumber than yesterday's! Especially the numbskull in Texas (first letter).


I get the feeling these aren't from real people, but rather from Tobacco companies. Real people just aren't that ignorant, even in Texas. Or are they?

What do you know about "real people"? Or the real world? Apparently not much.

Stop polluting this board with your nonsense. It's worse than secons hand smoke. Get a life.

[2smart4u]

What do you know about "real people"? Or the real world? Apparently not much.

Stop polluting this board with your nonsense. It's worse than secons hand smoke. Get a life.

Sorry you and your fellow smokers/Big Tobacco company employees don't like my posts. Deal with it. Someone has to be the voice of reason. You probably think "real people" and the "real world" are TV shows.

[Roscoe_Beedle]

Well then, 2smart4u, we can agree that the law you support and I don't may have to stand a challenge. I tend to think the Constitutional issue is not the way this will go. I still believe that the law intrudes a bit far. So we will see, if the citizens of San Carlos feel as I do then there will be a challenge. If not, then it will stand.

That sums it up nicely.

[2smart4u]

Well then, 2smart4u, we can agree that the law you support and I don't may have to stand a challenge. I tend to think the Constitutional issue is not the way this will go. I still believe that the law intrudes a bit far. So we will see, if the citizens of San Carlos feel as I do then there will be a challenge. If not, then it will stand.

That sums it up nicely.

Agreed. If the pro-smoking side tries to go with the constitutional issue, they'll lose for sure.

[GHafez7]

Agreed. If the pro-smoking side tries to go with the constitutional issue, they'll lose for sure.

Its their right to smoke...its not illegal yet...and the lefties in Belmont showed that THEY are the REAL FASCISTS. That's who people like you support....FASCISTS!

[snowbird]

A small amount of smoke from a handful of crushed leaves and some paper that is mixed with the air of a decently ventilated venue is harmful to your health??
If anybody believes that, then I have a bridge I would like to sell them.
It is not about health and it never was about health.
It is all about denormalizing smoking.

http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com
http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com

[snowbird]

What does our future hold if we continue to allow public policy to be guided by those who decieve??

[2smart4u]

Its their right to smoke...its not illegal yet...and the lefties in Belmont showed that THEY are the REAL FASCISTS. That's who people like you support....FASCISTS!

Thank you for helping me live up to my screen name.
They have a right to smoke? Fine, as long as it doesn't impede MY right to clean air and healthy lungs. So they can smoke away IN THEIR OWN HOMES, WITH THE WINDOWS SHUT!

[2smart4u]

[QUOTE=snowbird]A small amount of smoke from a handful of crushed leaves and some paper that is mixed with the air of a decently ventilated venue is harmful to your health??"

It sure the hell is!

If you believe otherwise, I've got some swampland in Florida you'd be interested in.

You smokers are a gullible lot.

[2smart4u]

What does our future hold if we continue to allow public policy to be guided by those who decieve??

Such as...?

[2smart4u]

That's who people like you support....FASCISTS!

No, I don't support George Bush at all.

[jamison]

The busybodies are at it again
Nov 30, 2005
by John Stossel
Smoking can kill you. That's why I don't smoke, and it's why you shouldn't, either.
There. I've just done the only things that should be done in a free society to stop people from smoking: I've told you that it's dangerous, I've urged you not to do it, and I've even set a good example. If you'd like other people to be healthy, you should also discourage smoking, too.

But if you'd like to be free, and you'd like your neighbor to be free, that's all you should do. It isn't my business to come into your home or business and stop you or your guests from smoking. If you like smoking so much you're willing to give up years off your life -- 6.6 years for the average man -- that should be your choice. I have no right to force you to stop.
The busybodies, however, want to force you to stop. When they get themselves elected, they can. Sadly, it's the busybodies who most often run for public office. Most of us want to run our own lives, and help people by selling them things, or offering them charity or advice -- any of which they can take or leave. People who want to run other people's lives are ... different. They are the people we should be most worried about.
I once interviewed the mayor of the tiny community of Friendship Heights, Md. He got his town to pass the most stringent anti-smoking law in America. It banned cigarette smoke outdoors.
"We're elected to promote the general welfare, and this is part of the general welfare," he told me. After I interviewed him, he was arrested for touching a 14-year-old boy's genitals in a bathroom at Washington National Cathedral. The village council finally repealed his law. Finally, we know what it takes to get an anti-smoking law repealed. Unfortunately, the busybodies keep running for office and, once elected, keep imposing new restrictions on our freedom.
So far, they haven't prohibited smoking entirely. So far. But Tom Constantine, who ran the Drug Enforcement Administration under President Clinton, once told me: "When we look down the road, I would say 10, 15, 20 years from now, in a gradual fashion, smoking will probably be outlawed in the United States."
That is the road we're moving down. New York and California already ban smoking in restaurants and bars. All but two counties of West Virginia have some sort of anti-smoking law. Two cities in Georgia have, like Friendship Heights, banned smoking in public parks. This week, Chicago's city council may ban smoking in most public places.
The excuse is secondhand smoke. But there's only flimsy evidence that secondhand smoke is harmful. Studies were done on people who lived with smokers and were exposed to huge amounts of secondhand smoke at home and in cars. The idea that restaurant patrons are threatened is silly, and it's even sillier to fear exposure outdoors. But the politicians have become zealots.
Granted, secondhand smoke is a nuisance. But so are many other things.
If I don't like secondhand smoke -- and I don't -- I can choose to go to restaurants that don't have smoking, just as I can choose restaurants that don't have bad music. If I don't want to work in a smoky place, I don't have to.
But when the politicians ban smoking in bars, people who actually like old-fashioned smoky bars are stopped, by force, from enjoying the kinds of establishments they like. Smoky bars cease to exist. Workers who don't mind smoke are deprived of jobs. Can't the smokers have some bars?
Most Americans don't smoke. If we make it clear we want smoke-free restaurants, many existing businesses will choose to go smoke-free and new ones will open. That's a much better idea than politicians imposing force on everyone.
Some people think the government must decide everything. But when government decides, minorities, even large minorities, lose rights.
When we get to make our own decisions, we don't all have to make the same decisions. Some of the time, at least, we can all get what we want -- even when we don't all want the same thing.

Award-winning news correspondent John Stossel is co-anchor of ABC News "20/20" and author of "Give Me a Break."

Jamison

[2smart4u]

Newsflash: NO ONE takes John Stossel seriously. The guy pollutes the air mnore than cigarette smokers and wood burners combined. He is either very ignorant, or he says things just to be controversial. I go with the the latter, but he sometimes makes me wonder. Anyone who believes or agrees with anything he says can't be too bright.
Wow, great journalism there. What the heck does touching a kid's genitals have to do with the topic???
The idea that others are not at risk from second hand smoke is not just silly, it is stupid.

[jamison]

http://www.smdailyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=164&page=4

Jamison

[2smart4u]

I have yet to figure out why you post links to other pages of this forum? That link took me to my own post. So you agree with it? Is that what you are saying?

[jamison]

http://www.smdailyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=164&page=4

Jamison

[2smart4u]

I have yet to figure out why you post links to other pages of this forum? That link took me to my own post. So you agree with it? Is that what you are saying?

[jamison]

By JENNY BARD

Is there any sight more comforting on a cold winter evening than a roaring fireplace?

According to thousands of recent scientific studies, we should be anything but comforted: wood smoke, we now know, is hazardous to our health.

Burning wood creates significant amounts of fine particle pollution. And the more scientists have learned about particle pollution, the more alarmed they have become.

Studies have now linked particle pollution with a host of health problems that include asthma attacks, diminished lung function, respiratory ailments, heart attacks and stroke. While particle pollution affects everyone, it is particularly dangerous for children - whose lungs are still developing - and can cause bronchitis, increases in respiratory infections and impaired lung development.

These are just a few of the reasons the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency now considers fine particle pollution its "most pressing air quality problem."

If you're skeptical that smoke from fireplaces and wood stoves could actually be a significant source of air pollution, consider this: according to the California Air Resources Board, residential wood burning is the single biggest contributor to winter particle pollution in the Bay Area, contributing more particle pollution to our air than automobiles, diesel vehicles, or industry. Last December, the air quality in the Bay Area exceeded the recently enacted EPA particle pollution standard on one out of every three days, largely due to wood burning.
It would be bad enough if the story ended here, but it doesn't. Wood smoke also contains toxic and carcinogenic substances that include benzene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and dioxin - one of the most toxic substances on earth. According to the Bay Area Air Quality Management Agency, one third of the total amount of dioxin in the Bay Area comes from wood burning.
It may seem hard to believe that something so familiar could actually be harmful to our health. But just watch a movie from the 1940s, and you'll realize that cigarette smoking was also once considered harmless, and just as ubiquitous as wood burning is today.The EPA estimates that the cancer risk from wood smoke may be 12 times greater than from an equal amount of tobacco smoke.
The hazardous particles from wood smoke are so tiny that they can easily infiltrate homes.

Every winter, local offices of the American Lung Association receive phone calls from distraught families suffering from health problems caused by wood burning. Often, they have young children with asthma who are literally unable to breathe in their own homes. Some of these families have had to resort to selling their houses and moving to areas with less wood smoke pollution.

Fortunately, there are easily available solutions. Gas fireplaces now so convincingly imitate their log burning brethren that it is difficult to tell them apart - and gas is far more convenient and cleaner burning. Gas burning woodstoves can be inserted into fireplaces and put out a small fraction of the particle pollution of those that burn wood. Electric models offer amazing realism. If gas is not an option, pellet stoves deliver high overall efficiency, and burn relatively cleanly. And with improved woodstove combustion technologies, some newer stoves have certified emissions as low as pellet stoves.

The American Lung Association of California is currently working with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to promote the cleanest burning options and to enact effective measures to protect the public from wood smoke pollution. The health of our community depends on it.

But the most important change we can make is in our collective attitude towards wood burning. This will be difficult, since it has been engrained in human behavior ever since our ancestors first gathered around a fire in a dark cave.

The first step is for us to stop associating that roaring fire with romance and ambience. And start linking it with an asthmatic child reaching desperately for his or her inhaler.

Jenny Bard is the director of Clean Air Programs for the American Lung Association of California in Santa Rosa.
http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/apps/p...73266325041622

First they came for the smokers,
and I didn't speak for I didn't smoke.
They came for the Obese,
I didn't speak for I was thin.
Then they came for those that burn wood,
I didn't speak.
Then they came for me,
and NO ONE was left to speak.

Jamison

[2smart4u]

Jamison = Troll.

[jamison]

IN THE END
IT'S UP TO US
By: Phil Brennan

It's midday Tuesday and I have no idea how the election will turn out so I'll avoid writing about what the end result might be.
Instead let's talk about the real issue in this and any other election which I'll compress into two words: "personal responsibility."
During my long lifetime I have seen the development of a mass psychosis that causes many Americans to believe that the advancement of their lives and fortunes is legitimately the business of government and not their own. How many times have you heard someone say "there ought to be a law," one way of expressing the corrupt notion that whatever the problem might be, government at some level has the responsibility for handling it to whatever extent it deems necessary and appropriate. Hitler and Stalin showed us just how far government can go in doing what it deems to be necessary and appropriate to achieve its aims.
Taken to its logical conclusion the idea leads not to utopia, but instead to a Dachau, an Auschwitz and a Soviet gulag. When the people empower government to solve all of their problems government inevitably responds with force to the public demand, and as George Washington is said to have explained "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."
Whether or not Washington actually said it, it's simply an exercise in liberal sophistry to deny its truth; all recorded history has proven it to be an accurate description - government cannot exist without the power to enforce it's fiats and edicts and that power cannot be described as anything less than force - and sometimes brute force.
Of course much of what government in a republic such as ours seeks to do is both desirable and fully justified by the circumstances, but the possibility for overreaching is always present. This is especially true when we surrender to the government the power to do for us what we should be doing for ourselves.
If we refuse to curb our most basic instincts government is only too happy to step in and use its force to curb them for us. The problem begins when government decides which of our basic instincts require curbing. Such basic instincts as what the government sees as a delusion - that the money we earn belongs to us, and not to our greedy masters in Washington. That delusion must me suppressed and if force is needed so be it. Bring in the IRS.
In Mayor Bloomberg's New York City supernanny administration, for example, having an ashtray in your place of business is a violation of the law that prohibits smoking just about anywhere within the city's borders. There are actually special goon squads empowered to come into one's private place of business and carry out the government's diligent search for such lethal weapons as ash trays. And if the nannies have their way, restaurants will soon be forbidden to serve foods made with certain kinds of fats and shortenings.
This is all for the alleged good of the people of New York City, of course, but it usurps the right of New Yorkers to decide such very basic human rights as what kind of cooking fats they want used to prepare their food, or to smoke in private establishments.

If we want to endanger our health we have every right to do it. And all the propaganda used to justify such regulations from the self-appointed nannies in the liberal establishment which insists that your smoking or your eating fat-laden fried chicken endangers the people around us is just that: propaganda thought up to justify the use of government force to enforce their delusions.
Now that's small stuff compared to the use of force to suppress free speech as has been done in the campaign finance laws now on the books, or the absolute terror tactics employed by the government in the enforcement of it's tax laws. Get in the government's way in these and other governmental activities and you'll find out what it feels like to be run over by an Abrams tank.
How you donate your money to political causes , short of outright bribery, is your absolute right yet we have allowed government to dictate the terms of campaign contributions that seriously diminishes our right to free speech. Should we not be sufficiently alert to detect improper political contributions and the effect they have on government actions? Isn't that a job for the media, that is when they are not busy promoting Democrats and leftist political causes?

None of these dangers to individual liberty would exist if we would exercise our own responsibilities to take care of ourselves. Instead of making every effort to provide for our retirement years by putting aside some of our income we rely on Uncle Sam to guarantee our welfare in our senior years through Social Security and other welfare programs.
And when it becomes crystal clear that the financial stability of the Social Security and Medicare systems is seriously threatened we turn our backs on seeking solutions that would involve allowing those still working to control and invest a small part of their FICA taxes, thereby building an estate for themselves in addition to their Social Security benefits. Obviously we accept the idea that people must not be allowed to think and act for themselves when it comes to planning for their retirement years. We turn that responsibility over to government and go on happy go-lucky as we approach the precipice over which the whole structure is about to plunge.
For all intents and purposes we have allowed the government to spend our money recklessly, much of it shamefully wasted on programs designed to do for us what we should do for ourselves and done in ways as government does most often: incompetently and horribly expensive. Competence and thrift being alien concepts to bureaucracies that exist solely to perpetuate their existence at our expense.
Maybe it's too late. Perhaps we have allowed ourselves to be the permanent wards of nanny government, sonomulently acceptant of the whims and caprices of our bureaucratic masters on the shores of the Potomac River.
If so it won't matter a good doodly damn how this or any other election turns out. Alea iacta est!*
Jamison

[2smart4u]

The troll has almost got this "copy and paste" thing down!

[jamison]

Judge Smokes Out Tobacco Lie
By Sidney Zion
Copyright 1998 New York Daily News
July 23, 1998

There is nothing more powerful than a lie whose time has come. Throughout history, [INLINE] tyrants understood this, and so worked up the populace. In this bloodiest of centuries, we've seen it all from Hitler to McCarthyism.
And now we have the truth about the anti-smoke fascists. Last week, a federal judge wiped out the entire basis of all this business about the danger of secondhand smoke, a lie that has transformed our culture, from saloons to our homes.
In a devastating 94-page opinion, Judge William Osteen put the cat to the Environmental Protection Agency. These ideological hustlers are responsible for all the madness we've experienced since 1993, when, without a scintilla of evidence, they declared that secondhand smoke causes cancer.
This "finding" created civil war in America. Suddenly, it wasn't just the smoker who was endangered it was the person at the next table, even the tenant in the next apartment and the guy sitting next to you at Yankee Stadium.
Common sense should have put this into the garbage pail. If secondhand smoke killed, we'd all be dead, especially everybody who worked in newspapers a veritable smoke screen in the old days.
But the media mavens, who knew better, bought the lie and sold it to the public. The audience was there, and the hit men in the Environmental Protection Agency knew it.
They had no proof, but what they had was a new America, a people that made health the be-all. Gyms instead of saloons, diets against burgers.
And, of course, the tobacco industry becomes the pariah, a criminal element, against which everything is possible.
But it was not enough to get the smokers. To change the world, the culture, you had to hit their "innocent" victims the receivers of secondhand smoke.
The EPA was at the ready, helped by Hillary Clinton, whose first edict as First Lady was a no-smoking rule in the White House.
The EPA announced that 3,000 people died every year from secondhand smoke. More people by far die from milk, not to mention bird droppings in national forests.
But the yuppie audience was ready to buy, and the market went through the roof.
In New York, Peter Vallone and Rudy Giuliani banned smoking everywhere but in bars. Yankee Stadium and Shea were out although even the EPA never went beyond indoor smoking.
"Secondary smoke is one of the leading causes of death," Giuliani announced, as he lit up his cigar. At the moment that the Congressional Research Service, an independent arm of Congress, said that there was no scientific basis for the EPA's report.
In March, the World Health Organization was caught with the lie. It is the SS of the Nicotine Nazis. The WHO ran a multi-million-dollar study dedicated to proving that passive smoke causes cancer. It came up empty.
The media censored that story. If you didn't read it in my column, you don't know it. And now the media do virtually the same with Judge Osteen's opinion.
Osteen found as follows: "EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before the research had begun; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate its conclusion, and aggressively utilized its authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme to influence public opinion."
In other words, the government lied. And in response, the government says: "People should understand that secondhand smoke is a real health risk."
It's as if Ted Turner announced about the discredited CNN report on nerve gas, "We stand by our story." The difference here is, the media stand with the lie, whose time, alas, remains.

Jamison

[2smart4u]

If only the troll could think for himself. Someone should go to the Wizard and get him a brain.

[jamison]

2S4U ROFLMAO @U
Ladyteal was right 2S4U is 2DUMB4US

LMAO TSDMF :D

Jamison

[2smart4u]

2S4U ROFLMAO @U
Ladyteal was right 2S4U is 2DUMB4US

LMAO TSDMF :D

Jamison

Wow, that says all we need to know about your glaring lack of intelligence.
Go away troll. No one likes you.

HTHYS

[jamison]

WTF DUTIWTA??????? :eek:

Jamison

[2smart4u]

Wow, you are truly without a brain, troll.

[jamison]

2DUMB4US = IDJIT

IDJIT = 2DUMB4US :p

Jamison

[2smart4u]

GDMFSOB = Jamison
SBTROLL = Jamison.

[Colonist]

You guys need to get a room:)

[2smart4u]

You guys need to get a room:)

She needs a padded one.

[2smart4u]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TRAVEL/12/20/smokeless.hawaii.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest

[jamison]

Daley blasts Burke's calorie-count plan

December 19, 2006
BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter

Mayor Daley had a field day ridiculing aldermen for banning foie gras and suggesting that Chicago restaurants sharply restrict artery-clogging trans fats.

Now, the mayor has a new target: mandatory calorie counts.

One week after Ald. Edward M. Burke (14th) proposed the idea, Daley shot it down with a sarcastic vengeance.

He argued that restaurant patrons can count their own calories and make their own food choices. He insisted that restaurants already forced to endure back-to-back bans on smoking and foie gras should be left alone by a City Council with better things to do.

“I’m getting ready for Christmas. You’d better believe I’m going to eat and drink. You think my family is going to prepare my calorie count at home?…How far should government go? Do we have to have a calorie count? Do we put it on you as an employee? Will you be walking around 24 hours a day in restaurants? How much can we demand from the restaurant industry?” Daley said.

“Let’s take our own responsibility…When I go out, I want to enjoy my meal….You know what you’re going to eat — whether it’s a salad, a main meal or a dessert. You know what you’re going to have. There’s no guilt in that. I don’t want people to feel guilty…Last night, I had turkey. I had mashed potatoes — everything. I enjoyed it. Moderation…Let individuals figure that out. I don’t think it’s up to….everybody else to figure that out for us.”

Last week, Burke opened a new front in the war on childhood obesity.

He proposed that restaurants with $10 million in annual sales come clean on their menus and menu boards — by posting calorie counts, sodium and saturated fat content “at least as large as the name of the menu item or price.”

“I don’t necessarily believe adults have to be controlled. They ought to make their own lifestyle choices — whether smoking, drinking or eating. But, when we come to kids, every medical expert would agree that something needs to be done. Parents need to be more aware of what the calories are,” he said.

Burke said he established a $10 million cutoff because “you have to start someplace” and the target is childhood obesity.

“The kids are going to McDonald’s, Burger King and KFC. They’re going to the chains. That’s where the kids are consuming all of this food. There’s not too many kids going to Gibson’s, Rosebud and the other places,” he said.

On Tuesday, Daley branded calorie counts yet another subject unworthy of the City Council’s time.

“We’re on tangents….How `bout being concerned about whether or not a child is getting a good quality education in the public school [or] whether young kids graduating from high school are going to get a job, go on to technical, vocational training or go on to college. That’s what I’m concerned about. We’re on tangents. When you get on tangents and you’re worried about the goose all the time — how about worrying about people?” he said.

Two aldermen introduced a repeal of the foie gras ban after Daley the City Council to come to its senses. But, it’s still languishing in committee.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/178477,daley121906.article

Jamison

[2smart4u]

Jamison just can't seem to post anything related to the subject.

[jamison]

“Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways in a cloud of smoke, chocolate in one hand, glass of wine in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming WOO HOO what a ride!” Hunter Thompson

And May All Your Christmas Dreams Come True!

JAMISON

[2smart4u]

Someone tell the troll to try for once to post something related to the topic.

[cynthialstern]

I don't care if they're addicts. (I learned, the hard way, that addicts can be disgusting people who are willing to do anything to anyone to get a fix.) The tobacco companies have, for decades, been organizing politically-active smokers in an effort to keep governments and other health advocates from continually chipping away at what they call "Smokers' Rights." One has to wonder why it's still so commonplace to see MINORS addicted to tobacco--this despite decades of the tobacco companies having supposedly actively campaigned to keep kids from using their products; I've concluded that this can only be because the tobacco companies continue to be invested in keeping smoking "kewl" with the kiddies.

I have no sympathy, because I got smoked-on in utero, back in the 1950s, when it was considered to be better for the mother to give birth to a smaller baby, and women actually took up smoking for just that purpose (as incredible as that may sound--I am NOT KIDDING about this). Then I got smoked-on in the family's car during my entire childhood--with the windows rolled up, no less. And then I had to breathe in the stuff in every restaurant we went to. I had a great-aunt who'd talk non-stop while she smoked non-stop, and she continually blew her smoke right in our young faces. There was no escaping the foul stench, everywhere that I went. My own mother had asthma from early childhood, but that didn't stop her from taking up the habit at age 15--peer pressure, don'tcha know! When I got older, I got involved with a man who claimed to have given up a youthful addiction to heroin--but he could not give up cigarettes to save his life; he claimed that cigarettes are harder to quit than heroin. (I won't comment on that, other than to say that I am no longer so tolerant or politically-liberal about people who have problems with any sort of addictive behavior, particularly if it involves chemicals.)

Frankly, I am glad that California has become ever-less-tolerant of public smoking. It's one of the things that makes this state nicer to live in. And I appreciate it all the more, because I know how it used to be, back when cigarettes only cost a quarter a pack, and "everyone" smoked (and drank)--and if they didn't, then they often faced some uncomfortable questioning as to why they didn't!

Now, considering every "shrill," intolerant, judgmental thing that I've written above, am I for the ban in Belmont?
No--I'm going to surprise you and say that I'm not.
But it's not because I have the teensiest bit of sympathy for tobacco addicts.
It's because I have lots of sympathy for a police force that will only be stretched past its ability to be effective if they're required to enforce such a widespread and stringent smoking ban.

Sorry, but this ban just isn't practical!