Smoking v Autos

[Katherine]

I find it ironic that autos (especially the big ones) get so less attention from those city counsels than do "smokers." Perhaps it is a little tougher to take on the real problems...

...in the 60s most of our parents smoked, yet only one in 6,000 children developed asthma... now only one-third the smokers... yet 1 in 4 is the national rate of asthma in children.

DID YOU KNOW: that for every 5 minutes you run the average car,this equals the same toxins (plus further!!!) of 20 cartons of cigarettes? And that is the average car -- the larger ones (SUVs etc. even more). Now figure, mommy and daddy each take their own car to work... even if only a half hour commute - 6 x 5 mins = 30 mins. -- (most more)... 6 x 20 cartons (10 packs per carton @ 20 cig's) = 24,000 cigarettes for each way's commute -- x 2 trips per day = Mommy and Daddy contribute the equivalent of 48,000 cigarettes per day commuting... How about that Mr./Ms. City Counsel members? Perhaps, your own commute habits are contributory as well...! Think of all those fine particles coming out of your SUV while you sit in your car at the driveup window waiting for your lunch; worse: your kids' dinners!



So, please: why doesn't the city counsel start educating the public on the most wide-spread contributor to cancer, etc. -- it seems a little feeble their obsession with smoking -- and I guarantee you: Until you have the guts and the resolute to face the real problem (urban sprawl and too many cars), you're not fixing anything -- you're just trying to make it look like you're doing "something." Global warming and unhealthy air are not caused by cig's -- it's fossil fuel, coal, etc.

By the way SAN MATEO -- that BART thing that you never wanted to pay for would be a help.

Silly City Counsel...

[Carol Jones]

I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of the driving pollution vs cigarettes pollution. However, I smoked for many years and just had part of my lung removed which in turn affected my heart, so now this slender jogger of 20 years can no longer jog and I have gained weight since I stopped smoking. (I have to ride the electric carts in the stores now!) This is a real bum rap and if only I had never started smoking I would still be jogging. I don't know your age, but the cigarettes get to most people in middle age and it maims them or kills them. I think we all suffer from a false feeling that we will rarely get sick from anything in middle age, but we do. We all learn the hard way and I wish it was not so. I warn you all out there: Do not smoke and quit if you do while you still have the chance.

[cynthialstern]

Like it or not, our entire economy is based on automobile transportation. Everything has been set up to accommodate vehicles.

Hopefully, in the future, there will be "clean" vehicles available for all--or at least most--purposes.

Cigarette smoking is a personal choice. Unfortunately, that choice often turns into a horrid addiction, and in short order. No addict wants ready access to his/her drug of choice restricted. The tobacco companies know this, and they actively organize smoking citizens to lobby against any further incursions into what they call "Smokers' Rights."

I might be more-sympathetic to tobacco addicts' plights if I didn't continue to commonly see teens and 20-somethings smoking. When a constant stream of young people continue to become new addicts, it's a sign that more-stringent anti-tobacco measures are needed.

As I said--at great length--in another thread, I grew up during the era when about 40% of adults smoked, and there was no escaping the noxious fumes. I can attest to the fact that the quality of life--for a non-smoker--is SO MUCH BETTER now that 1-smoking has been severely restricted and 2-there are far-fewer tobacco addicts around. (BTW, I clearly remember cars as being way-stinkier back then, as well.)

I occasionally see arguments against something that go: "Why are we bothering with 'A' when 'B' presents a MUCH-larger problem?" A recent example--aside from the car pollution example--was, "Why do we bother to prosecute a couple of drunken miscreants who killed someone's pet ostrich when millions of 'pre-born babies' are dying in abortion mills every day?" Obviously, if that sort of argument were valid, then no wrongs in the world would ever get corrected, because someone would be able to validly argue that there was a far-greater evil that needed to be addressed first. That's why I don't buy the "cars are much worse polluters" argument, even though it's factually correct.

I'm also very cynical about such arguments coming out of the mouths of smokers; I tend to say, "That's your addiction talking!"

But--as I said in the other thread--I don't feel that the proposed Belmont ban is workable, SOLELY due to the practical matter of straining the police's resources. Do we REALLY want the cops to drop what they're doing, go into people's homes, and arrest them for smoking cigarettes? (For that matter, would we want them doing that for pot? --Even though pot is illegal and tobacco is not?) On a practical level, I can't see the cops getting called in unless people's private smoking becomes a public nuisance--and in those (hopefully) rare cases, it might be worth the police officer's time to pursue such incidents--and they'd need a law to give them the power to enforce the peace in those cases. Maybe such a law would also give landlords more power to do something about tenants who claimed to be non-smokers but were lying in order to get housing.

I just had another thought (this one inspired by my smoked-upon childhood): There is outrage around the country over proposed spanking bans. How about labeling smoking as "fetal abuse" and "child abuse," and forcing parents into rehab? THAT'D probably stop all new teen and 20-something smoking in its tracks. At least one would HOPE so!

[Spare the Air]

Smokers have the right to smoke, as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others.

I would prefer no one smoked, but it's their personal decision. As long as they smoke in a location where the smoke does not offend others, such as inside their own home, I don't see any issue.

However, non-smokers have an equal right to NOT be subjected to another person's second-hand smoke. Also, as pointed out in this thread, children have this right as well, though they rarely have a choice in the matter...

I think that ANYTIME someone's smoke can be reasonably considered a nuisance or health hazard, they should be "required" to stop creating the smoke. This includes cigarettes, cigars, pipes, pot, crack, wood smoke, barbeques, etc.

This applies to ALL public places. Even if one smokes at home, say in their back yard, if it bothers their immediate neighbors, it's the same as a public place...

[Colonist]

And Here is "The Slippery Slope"

Wake up citizens - Before all rights are taken away

Fetus to Grave

I think that ANYTIME someone's smoke can be reasonably considered a nuisance or health hazard, they should be "required" to stop creating the smoke. This includes cigarettes, cigars, pipes, pot, crack, wood smoke, barbeques, etc.

This applies to ALL public places. Even if one smokes at home, say in their back yard, if it bothers their immediate neighbors, it's the same as a public place...

[Katherine]

...almost every response was about smoking (that's easy); almost every response ignored the real issue... which is a big one and quite hard to deal with -- yet not dealing with it only makes things more dangerous.

First -- I am not a smoker. But, I don't care if others do -- that is there choice -- "in the big picture" smoking is not doing all that much to others who don't smoke... it is the pollution/global warming that is killing you and your kids! I made the point of ...in the 60s and the stats then/now -- the math doesn't add up to the propaganda that is being spewed -- though direct smoking is very bad for your health, if our world was not so polluted with everyone's exhaust which is the real problem/danger, then the asthma and other respiratory diseases would not have risen so high with or without secondhand smoke; and my initial post was to make the point that too many people spend there lives attempting to pretend to be doing something worthy for this world, when in fact they are only hiding from their own inability to control themselves; i.e. -- it's easier to speak up about a putrid habit and how "smokers" are the "ones" who are affecting each of us so adversely than to admit that itis our other "putrid" habits that are the out of control actions that are killing our kids... I would much rather see all the people addicted to their cars (which has gone up way more than in the 60s -- thus, the stats are correct in correlation with the damage to our environment and lungs!) find another way to live their lives and have smokers around me than have every single person quit smoking and still have everyone so addicted to a lifestyle dependent on autos!

On Comcast News just now, my son just came in to ask me -- had I seen the "new report" ...all of the scientist from the 113 countries that are the experts on global warming have apologized: they screwed up: the fact is that global warming is way more progressed than they had previously reported and it is so bad that it pretty much is irreversible! At least if all of the idiots quit driving so far to commute to work and started walking to the store, etc., it may not get better, but it could be kept from getting worse.
Do you realize that everything from disease, to famine, to uncontrollable bugs, to overgrowths of molds and poison oak/ivy, etc, are contributable to global warming and unhealthy air from our auto obsessed lifestyles. I want to scream: WAKE UP -- it is not because of second hand smoke you idiots! It is because of [your] own auto obsessions! (and selfishness).

So all of you that rambled on about smokers (AGAIN -- that is exactly my point!) you make me very sad: get some guts, and start using all that energy to speak up about an issue that is important: and quit driving your cars like they are indespensible -- YOU/THAT is doing way more damage than any smoker -- and quit hiding behind second hand smoke to cover up the real issue.

(By the way -- I do own a car -- but it is an economy/gas efficient vehicle; I take public transporation and/or walk to work -- yes, I quit my old job and I picked my (new) job so I wouldn't have to drive... and I only drive my car maybe maximum 100 miles per month -- most months way less!; i.e. -- only when I must!)

It's your own lifestyles... not your neighbors cigarette smoke... unfortunately, you're going to take the rest of us down with you.

[cynthialstern]

Those news reports were very discouraging. Not only did they state that global warming is REAL, and not just some partisan political issue to be dismissed out-of-hand (because it's "bad for business"), but that there is nothing that we can do to stop it.

The last bit flies in the face of the message of "An Inconvenient Truth," (a terrific movie, BTW, in case anyone here hasn't seen it yet) which clearly stated that there IS something that we can do to stop the process.

[Spare the Air]

There's not much local government can do about changing our current auto/airplane based commericial system. But we can change individual behavior.

Like you, I live close to work, don't drive a big SUV and try to minimize doing things that contribute to global warming.

Things like second-hand cigarette smoke, wood smoke, etc are generated by individual action, which can be controlled. Sadly, many people are in denial or selfishly don't care about how their actions affect the health of others.

That's where local government can, if willing, take action to improve our air quality.

I also have a response to Colonist's post.
[QUOTE=Colonist]And Here is "The Slippery Slope"
Wake up citizens - Before all rights are taken away

One of the cornerstones of our society is "The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

Let's try an anology.
You have the right to own a gun. You don't not have the right to shoot me with it. (unless you life is threatened).

Similarly you don't have the right to subject others to your harmful second-hand smoke, (or other type of smoke). If I die from lung cancer, you've still killed me. Just much more slowly and painfully...

Second-hand smoke, wood smoke, etc have all been directly linked to lung cancer, asthma, etc. That's hard, undisputed scientific fact.

So I ask you: What RIGHT do you have to injure or kill anyone around unwillingly forced to breathe your pollution?

[2smart4u]

Comparing cigarettes to cars is extremely ignorant.

[mrs.frankb]

There's not much local government can do about changing our current auto/airplane based commericial system. But we can change individual behavior.

Like you, I live close to work, don't drive a big SUV and try to minimize doing things that contribute to global warming.

Things like second-hand cigarette smoke, wood smoke, etc are generated by individual action, which can be controlled. Sadly, many people are in denial or selfishly don't care about how their actions affect the health of others.

That's where local government can, if willing, take action to improve our air quality.

I also have a response to Colonist's post.
[QUOTE=Colonist]And Here is "The Slippery Slope"
Wake up citizens - Before all rights are taken away

One of the cornerstones of our society is "The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

Let's try an anology.
You have the right to own a gun. You don't not have the right to shoot me with it. (unless you life is threatened).

Similarly you don't have the right to subject others to your harmful second-hand smoke, (or other type of smoke). If I die from lung cancer, you've still killed me. Just much more slowly and painfully...

Second-hand smoke, wood smoke, etc have all been directly linked to lung cancer, asthma, etc. That's hard, undisputed scientific fact.

So I ask you: What RIGHT do you have to injure or kill anyone around unwillingly forced to breathe your pollution?


No more RIGHT than you have polluting the air with your vehicle.

[Roscoe_Beedle]

I have never experienced an unpleasant encounter with a smoker. Where someone smokes heavily, and I don't like it, I simply step away or move away. Really, it is this simple.

The one restriction I have always enjoyed is no smoking in restaurants. Other than that I have never mind smokers.

We can see that the real problem rests not with smokers, who are dwindling in numbers, but in the over zealous anti-smoker who feels a need to regulate their behavior. These restrictive laws will not add days to our lives, nor will it cure the smoker of their habit. This is "feel-good" legislation.

We know smoking can lead to cancer. Of the smoker. We also know lots of things can also lead to illness and disease. Do we really want such a restrictive society where we allow Government and their agents to tell us how to behave and live? I don't. But I routinely get out voted on this type of issue....

[Nicola]

I don't mind restrictions on where one may smoke, so as not to compomise the air we share. I'm more interested in the restrictions of what I smoke.

[John]

Comparing cigarettes to cars is extremely ignorant.

Wow! I wish I was that brilliant!

[Aion]

Comparing cigarettes to cars is extremely ignorant.

Than again, ever been stuck in traffic behind a SamTrans bus ?

[2smart4u]

Do you realize how ridiculous it is to compare cigarettes to cars?
What a totally ludicrous argument!

[2smart4u]

Wow! I wish I was that brilliant!

Yes, I'm sure you do. Unfortunately, you are not.

[2smart4u]

Wow! I wish I was that brilliant!

If you were brilliant, you wouldn't have anything to do with the NRA.

[2smart4u]

Than again, ever been stuck in traffic behind a SamTrans bus ?

Not that I can remember, no. And what of it? Not even close to having to smell someone else's cigarette smoke.

Whatever exhaust is coming from the bus is not getting in my face.