"There's no right to smoke, there's a right to clean, fresh air..."

[linazelle]

Calabasas City Councilman Barry Groveman talking about the toughest ban on smoking nationwide--smokers can't smoke outside, or even with their car windows down.


What B/S.

What about factory emissions? What about the failure to make automakers reduce emissions?

Average Joe keeps taking it up the ass while the corporatocracy runs amuck.

[NMDemDist2]

1. they'll come for the fat people next n/t

[Warpy]

2. That's a bit much, that's true

even though I hate running the gauntlet of wheezing smokers at the entrance to nearly every building now, it's still an improvement over choking on their grey clouds of smoke indoors.

Asking them to do more than smoke outdoors is too much.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

3. Agreed! They should worry a lot more about factory and auto emissions!

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

But this is going to be good.

[linazelle]

4. You think? I really didn't intend it as flamebait--corporate America

is my problem with this. If they ban air pollution by individual smokers, then ban all other forms of air pollution as well.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

7. I agree with you. It's just that the smoking topics usually get "heated".

:popcorn: :popcorn:

[mondo joe]

17. This is a ban in one suburb. How do you suggest that suburb ban all

forms of air pollution?

[linazelle]

21. I suggest that this suburb ban all forms of air pollution of companies

residing within its bounds--that's a start.

[mondo joe]

22. That would be a suggestion for the voters of that suburb to consider,

don't you think?

I wonder how many factories are in this suburb. It would be quite surprising to me if there were even one.

[linazelle]

23. Did the voters consider the smoking ban? n/t

[mondo joe]

25. They must certainly consider their city council members, who act on

their behalf in representative democracy.

If those voters are dissatisfied they may cast their votes otherwise next time.

[linazelle]

29. I don't know how the vote took place, and neither, it seems do you.

IF the voters pushed the ban and no other bans--fine, they should be happy--although not any healthier. If they did not, then I have a problem with this.

[mondo joe]

30. It doesn't matter how - either direct vote or by representation.

Either way it's in the hands of the voters of this locality.

Factory emissions, however, are not.

[LibDemAlways]

57. There are no factories in Calabasas. It's a

small suburban city on the fringes of the smoggy San Fernando Valley - so much for "clean, fresh air." It's populated by SUV driving housewives and their movie-industry employed husbands who drive Beamers and Benzes. There are few homes under a million dollars in Calabasas and many of the neighborhoods are gated. There's really only one public area where people congregate called "The Commons" which is an outdoor mall of restaurants and shops. The people you'd be most likely to see smoking around there are teenagers hanging out. The adults are mostly into fitness, and not many light up. People who want to smoke outdoors can go to Woodland Hills which is two minutes away. I live in the next town over and there isn't much of an outcry about this. Very few people around here smoke in public anyway.

[kestrel91316]

24. Lol, Calabasas doesn't HAVE many companies, and those few

that are there are not exactly polluters. Calabasas consists of mostly VERY VERY VERY expensive homes, an office park, and a very tony shopping center with my favorite seafood restaurant.

This is no big deal for business. And besides, it is already illegal in all of California for anybody to smoke inside any place of business.

We get awfully tired of clusters of smokers glued to the entrances of businesses. They need stay inside and pollute their own air, and quit polluting mine.

[porphyrian]

5. There's no right to drive an internal combustion vehicle, either.

Cigarette smoke counts for less than 1% of all air pollution. This pisses me off, too.

[Warpy]

15. The billion or so pounds burned each year

still qualify it as a major pollutant. Indoors, it can be a deadly one.

So set fire to that thing outside and I won't complain.

[porphyrian]

36. Tobacco smoke still constitutes less than 1% of all air pollution.

Lots of things are "major pollutants" or are highly toxic, yet we live with them every day. Potatoes contain arsenic. Should we ban potatoes? No, and we will continue to eat them because the amount of arsenic in each potato is relatively small. Coal-burning electrical plants do far more damage to our environment than cigarette smoke, yet almost no one complains about them until one is built next door. This issue isn't really about quantity or priority, it's about proximity and selfishness.

Perhaps smokers were the first to be inconsiderate, and certainly tobacco companies were criminal in their actions, but there is no realistic justification for laws banning smoking outdoors save in a flammable environment. Unless you have fatal allergies to tobacco smoke, you are a hypocrite in pursuing outdoor smoking bans over clean power plants, corporate pollution regulation and the replacement of the internal combustion engine.

[rpgamerd00d]

6. Its about time they banned those things. They stink.

They need to ban a lot more though.
Wearing too much cologne/perfume in an elevator for one.
And yes, the emissions are important also.
All in due time.

[Raine]

16. Yes, it's just the first

step in banning lots of dirty smelly things, can't do everything at once it takes time.

[MrSlayer]

8. Fuck these Nazi assholes.

Great idea! Let's create even more criminals out of law abiding citizens.

[unblock]

13. methinks "nazi" overstates the case just a tad.

there's a sliiiiiight difference between a law that's on a par with littering laws and genocide.

[MrSlayer]

35. The Nazis weren't just about genocide.

They were also real big on eliminating personal freedoms.

[unblock]

38. there have been many regimes big on that, but you chose the nazis

who are MORE known for genocide.

[MrSlayer]

58. They are the most common example.

The fascists and commies don't pack the same punch. I'm sure you know what I meant.

[THUNDER HANDS]

62. actually, the first cancer-smoking relationship came from nazi scientists

and Hitler hated smoking.

[kestrel91316]

26. If the people of Calabasas want to pass this law, fine. If the locals

don't like the ordinance I am sure they will vote the city council out. Smoking is out of vogue among the upper classes in this neighborhood.

[crispini]

9. That is BULLSHIT.

What about the fecking cement plants that choke us every summer with their emissions? What about the zillions of CARS and SMALL ENGINES?

Right to clean, fresh air, my hiney. It's time to start working on the REAL SOURCES OF POLLUTION. What bullshit.

[mondo joe]

11. How many of those sources do you think one suburb could outlaw? n/t

[crispini]

It's just the quote "Right to clean, fresh air."

Jeez Louise, get some perspective, guy! If your town is anything like my town, the "clean fresh air" is more like "nasty polluted soup" and 0.00001% of the problem is due to smokers. I bet he could work with state and area lawmakers to clean up other sources as we are trying to do.

Of course maybe the suburb he is from doesn't have any other air pollution problems. :shrug:

[linazelle]

20. AND...he's in California--smog/smut capitol of the world--and not as

a result of cigarettes either.

[kestrel91316]

27. Smoking is about the ONLY source of pollution in Calabasas.

Everybody drives brand new (expensive) cars that pollute very little, and there are NO polluting industries (or any other INDUSTRIES, lol) there that I know of.

You have to know Calabasas to "get it".

[mondo joe]

34. Why bother with those facts when it feels so much more satisfying to

demand the city council outlaw factory emissions throughout the United States?

[kestrel91316]

51. Yeah, especially when there is NOT ONE FACTORY

anywhere NEAR Calabasas.

[Djinn]

47. you really think

newer and more expensive means less polluting? How environmentally efficient do you think civilian hummers are?

[kestrel91316]

50. All the newer cars are a lot less polluting than the old clunkers

you see in some areas. My POINT is, you aren't going to see ANY old clunkers smoking up the streets in Calabasas, lol. "Those" kind of people don't go there.

[Djinn]

52. don't believe the marketing

well/regularly serviced old cars often out perform newer cars in terms of pollution - not to mention the pollution inherent in making new cars so people can upgrade every years rather than use the one already made until it dies.

new car = cleaner car is a total myth, besides, cleaner doesn't equal clean and anyone living in an area with high car usage is getting far more carcinogens than they ever will from passive smoking

[kestrel91316]

54. How did this get so far off the topic???? WTF?

I know full well that cars still pollute! I didn't just fall off some turnip truck.

The particulate matter (visible pollutants) produced by vehicles is WAAAAAYYYYYYY down from 20 years ago in this area. We all have to pass annual smog checks here in CA and believe me, they have really tightened the standards.

CO2 is not the consideration here.

[Djinn]

60. it's not off topic

you seem to support the anti-smoking laws - I'm saying they're IRRELEVENT in any area with a sizable number of cars - there will be NO reduction in lung cancer etc for non smokers - atmospheric pollution makes the piffling amount of toxin released by ALL outdoor smokers irrelevant

[acmejack]

10. Ban Cows! They are terrible polluters!!

"The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District estimates that at present each cow emits 19.3 pounds of pollutants a year in the form of gases from manure, from regurgitation and from flatulence."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/07/opinion/07sun4.html?ex=1142917200&en=d5affdc556b9175a&ei=5070

[Buns_of_Fire]

61. Especially when they're smoking. In elevators.

RAMEN, brother! Meeting a belching, farting, smoking cow in an elevator is NOT a happy experience!

(I guess.) :shrug:

[KT2000]

12. PESTICIDES!

these are sprayed in schools, hospitals, nursing homes - sometimes rules will require it. These products can cause damage to a developing fetus but try even getting a warning they are being used.

[Cats Against Frist]

32. Anhydrous

I demand that everyone eat organic vegetables and grains. Sometimes it burns my eyes so bad, I can't even walk out of my house.

[Blue Diadem]

46. I've worked in a kitchen at a grocery store/deli and watched them

come in and spray around the food! I was livid but was promptly told I didn't need to worry about it.

[Pushed To The Left]

14. Very good points!

I feel the same way about stringent "smog check" laws. I think the more progressive thing to do would be to regulate corporations for environmental concerns, not people.

[linazelle]

19. Especially when smog checks are done on vehicles not

required to emit cleanly. I paid over $1,000 to pass a vehicle emmissions test about a year ago.

[niyad]

18. Ban TREES--they are, after all, a major source of pollution (at least

according to ronnie ray-gun back when we thought HE was about as stupid as they come)

[Katherine Brengle]

28. That's taking it too far--

until cars with internal-combustion engines, emissions from manufactories, and the use of gas/oil for home heating are outlawed, this is not a fair law.

Might be a smart one--we should be discouraging smoking (this from someone who just quit last week)--but until we are willing to make an across-the-board effort to stop air pollution, there is no reasonable excuse for this particular ban.

[Erika]

31. 60 Minutes scientist - We have 10 years to reduce pollution

or the planet is doomed.

Enough with the second hand smoke stuff. Eliminating smoking will not reduce our chances of a doomed planet.

Why can't people see the big picture?

[mondo joe]

33. How is the city council of one suburb to address worldwide pollution?

What might they have done instead?

Thank you.

[Erika]

37. Some municipalities have formally requested W's impeachment

Maybe they can start looking at the bigger picture. Impeach W for censoring the scientists reports.

Respectfully, if we are only 10 years away from the planet's point of no return in pollution, there are more important areas to address than second-hand smoke.

[mondo joe]

40. I apologize. I should have been more clear: What do you think the city

council should have done instead that would have had real impact?

[Erika]

45. Headlines have a very real impact

A municipality can go on record as being against second hand smoke, or being against a doomed planet.

If the Council got this much attention for being against second hand smoke, just think the headlines they could have gotten about impeachment of W for willingly ignoring scientific facts.

[mondo joe]

49. Just one or the other? So let's say the council calls for impeachment

on Monday.

On Tuesday can they pass this smoking ban?

At what point should they be responsive to their constituents?

[SPKrazy]

39. Can't Smoke Outside?

Like that is gonna ever get enforced!

Maybe ban smoking from the front of establishments so you don't have a mob of smokers outside the front door, but banning it outside is a bit much. Okay, it's a lot much. It's fucking stupid!

[SeattleGirl]

41. Well, here in Seattle you cannot smoke within 25 feet of

the entrance of a business. So, if you are downtown, you basically have to stand in the middle of the street to not break that law. :eyes:

I am with you though, on people not standing right next to the entrance of a building while smoking. But 25 feet, where there are often business entryways closer together than that? Big Brother is at it again.

[SPKrazy]

42. Yeah, Big Brother Wants Us All To OBEY!

do not question

do not think

obey

buy stuff

obey

consume

obey

sleep

[SeattleGirl]

44. You will be assimilated!

Resistance if futile.

[Telly Savalas]

53. So we should defy Big Brother by not buying and consuming...

cigarettes?

[ScreamingMeemie]

43. "That's different..."

:eyes:

[Djinn]

48. once all the evil smokers

and they're cigarettes have been banished, and there is NO reduction in lung cancer/emphysema amongst non smokers, who are the "passive smoking kills" harpies going to look to? outdoor smoking bans in ANY place in which a substantial number of people drive cars is utterly pointless

regardless of how shiny and new one's car is it will release FAR more carcinogens into the atmosphere each and every time you turn the ignition than I will with an entire pack of coffin nails

I think of myself as a considerate smoker, I don't smoke in other peoples houses even if they don't mind, I didn't smoke in restaurants (until it was banned here) and I don't smoke near kids as a general rule, but if you make a big dramatic show of coughing when I light up outside, in a city of a few million cars then I'm going to continue smoking and I'll probably blow in your direction

[Erika]

59. Yeah, Smokers were a target

But they were hardly a significant problem in the global pollution. But they were an easy target.

Now maybe they will move on to global pollution problems.

[lynne]

55. Lock your liquor cabinets because they'll be coming for that next.

They're already compiling the stats to do just that. By the look of it, maybe it's way past time . . .

ALCOHOL STATS

Alcohol is involved in 50% of all driving fatalities.

In the United States, every 30 minutes, someone is killed in an alcohol related traffic accident.

Over 15 million Americans are dependent on alcohol. 500,000 are between the age of 9 and 12.

Pregnant women who drink are feeding alcohol to their babies. Unfortunately the underdeveloped liver of the baby can only burn alcohol at half the rate of its mother, so the alcohol stays in the baby's system twice as long.

Each year, students spend $5.5 billion on alcohol. That is more than they spend on soft drinks, tea, milk, juice, coffee, or books combined.

6.6% of employees in full time jobs report heavy drinking, defined as drinking five or more drinks per occasion on five or more days in the past 30 days.

The highest percentage of heavy drinkers (12.2%) is found among unemployed adults between the age of 26 to 34.

Up to 40% of all industrial fatalities and 47% of industrial injuries can be linked to alcohol consumption and alcoholism.

The 2001 survey shows 25 million (one in ten) Americans surveyed reported driving under the influence of alcohol. This report is nearly three million more than the previous year. Among young adults age 18 to 25 years, almost 23% drove under the influence of alcohol.

Drunk driving is proving to be even deadlier than what we previously knew. The latest death statistics released by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), using a new method of calculation, shows that 17,488 people where killed in alcohol related traffic accidents last year. This report represents nearly 800 more people were killed than the previous year.

Alcohol is the number 1 drug problem in America.

43% of Americans have been exposed to alcoholism in their families.

Alcohol and alcohol related problems are costing the American economy at least $100 million in health care and loss of productivity every year.

Four in ten criminal offenders report alcohol as a factor in violence.

Among spouse violence victims, three out of four incidents were reported to have involved alcohol use by the offender.

In 1996, local law enforcement agencies made an estimated 1,467,300 arrests nationwide for driving under the influence of alcohol.

http://www.usnodrugs.com/alcohol-statistics.htm

[SeattleGirl]

56. They already tried that one. Remember Prohibition?

I'm not sure they would try that again.

[Minnesota Libra]

63. My thoughts exactly- get clean air cars then tackle smoking....nt