PDA

View Full Version : Belmont, CA first city to ban smoking




Expatriate
01-31-2009, 04:40 AM
Didn't You-Know-Who do this exact thing? To "protect the health" of the German people? I wonder if unhealthy food bans are next? Better stock up on those pepperoni pizzas while you still can!

http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=66988

Belmont to be first U.S. city to ban all smoking
By Dana Yates, Daily Journal Staff
Belmont is set to make history by becoming the first city in the nation to ban smoking on its streets and almost everywhere else.

The Belmont City Council voted unanimously last night to pursue a strict law that will prohibit smoking anywhere in the city except for single-family detached residences. Smoking on the street, in a park and even in one’s car will become illegal and police would have the option of handing out tickets if they catch someone.

The actual language of the law still needs to be drafted and will likely come back to the council either in December or early next year.

“We have a tremendous opportunity here. We need to pass as stringent a law as we can, I would like to make it illegal,” said Councilman Dave Warden. “What if every city did this, image how many lives would be saved? If we can do one little thing here at this level it will matter.”

Armed with growing evidence that second-hand smoke causes negative health effects, the council chose to pursue the strictest law possible and deal with any legal challenges later. Last month, the council said it wanted to pursue a law similar to ones passed in Dublin and the Southern California city of Calabasas. It took up the cause after a citizen at a senior living facility requested smoke be declared a public nuisance, allowing him to sue neighbors who smoke.

The council was concerned about people smoking in multi-unit residences.

“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.

The council’s decision garnered applause from about 15 people who showed up in support of the ordinance. One woman stood up and blew kisses to the council, another pumped his fist with satisfaction.

“I’m astounded. I admire their courage and unanimous support,” said Serena Chen, policy director of the American Lung Association of California.

Chen has worked in this area since 1991 and helped many cities and counties pass no smoking policies, but not one has been willing to draft a complete ban.

“I feel like the revolution is taking place and I am trying to catch up,” Chen told the council.

The decision puts Belmont on the forefront of smoking policy and it is already attracting attention from other states.

“You have the ability to do something a little more extraordinary than Dublin or Calabasas. I see what they’ve done as five or six on the Richter Scale. What the citizens of Belmont, and of America, need is five brave people to do something that’s a seven or eight on the Richter Scale,” said Philip Henry Jarosz of the Condominium Council of Maui.

“The whole state of Hawaii is watching” he said.

Councilman Warren Lieberman said he was concerned the city will pass a law it cannot enforce because residents will still smoke unless police are specifically called to a situation. Police cannot go out and enforce smoking rules, he said.

“It makes us hypocrites by saying you know you can break the law if no one is watching,” Lieberman said.

However, both Feierbach and Warden argued it is the same as jaywalking, having a barking dog or going 10 miles over the speed limit. All are illegal, but seldom enforced.

“You can’t walk down the street with a beer, but you can have a cigarette,” Warden said. “You shouldn’t be allowed to do that. I just think it shouldn’t be allowed anywhere except in someone’s house. If you want to do that, that’s fine.”

Dana Yates can be reached by e-mail: dana@smdailyjournal.com or by phone: (650) 344-5200 ext. 106. What do you think of this story? Send a letter to the editor: letters@smdailyjournal.com.

nobody's_hero
01-31-2009, 06:49 AM
I hope the city goes broke trying to enforce this.

Truth Warrior
01-31-2009, 07:03 AM
Send a message. Turn Belmont into a ghost town.

Kludge
01-31-2009, 07:07 AM
I hope the city goes broke trying to enforce this.

"police would have the option of handing out tickets if they catch someone."

= Increased revenue for the city

werdd
01-31-2009, 07:44 AM
http://southdakotapolitics.blogs.com/south_dakota_politics/images/reinersouthpart.jpg

Sounds like the fat fascist at work.

Paulitician
01-31-2009, 03:59 PM
I'm moving there! I hate smokers!

jkr
01-31-2009, 04:23 PM
Space cake!

Scofield
01-31-2009, 04:35 PM
This is what I don't understand.

Does the individual have the right to legally act in ways the public disagrees with, if he is in his home? As long as he isn't violating other's rights?

Or do we live in a Democracy (mobocracy), and that if the majority don't want something in their town, they can outlaw it...regardless of other's rights? What if the majority vote to outlaw black people. Can the State/county/city do that?

What is to stop them? If the majority don't want black people, they are out. So, really, do we have rights or is this a Mobocracy?

Expatriate
01-31-2009, 04:47 PM
What pisses me off the most is the fact that it is a largely un-enforceable law. People say "Oh well, it's not like they are going to arrest me for having a smoke on my lunch break, no big deal" and don't voice opposition.


However, both Feierbach and Warden argued it is the same as jaywalking, having a barking dog or going 10 miles over the speed limit. All are illegal, but seldom enforced.

But all these un-enforceable laws will become enforceable eventually, as the police state naturally grows, and then folks will say, "Well, it's the law, don't break it if you don't want to get in trouble" :rolleyes:

Scofield
01-31-2009, 04:55 PM
What's also hilarious is the fact that anyone who breaks those laws is now considered a criminal. So, while you are paying fines and have the potential for jail time for smoking in Belmont, people in Oakland will go about their everyday lives, smoking with zero thought of being punished.

How the hell can we, as a species whom are capable of rationale and reason, say one person is a criminal for committing an act, yet someone else, who commits the same act, is not a criminal. It's truly insane logic.

akihabro
01-31-2009, 05:00 PM
I posted a previous reply on another thread where Pasadena, CA banned a lot of public smoking. Some cities are close to belmont. how about smoking weed? That's not as unhealthy as cigarettes.

devil21
01-31-2009, 05:26 PM
It took up the cause after a citizen at a senior living facility requested smoke be declared a public nuisance, allowing him to sue neighbors who smoke.

This is what this country has become. A litigation nation where you can sue anybody simply for doing something you don't like and have the full force of the government to back you up. I hate to say it but when food is short, guess who I would "forget" to offer assistance to?

Expatriate
01-31-2009, 05:27 PM
This is what I don't understand.

Does the individual have the right to legally act in ways the public disagrees with, if he is in his home? As long as he isn't violating other's rights?

Or do we live in a Democracy (mobocracy), and that if the majority don't want something in their town, they can outlaw it...regardless of other's rights? What if the majority vote to outlaw black people. Can the State/county/city do that?

What is to stop them? If the majority don't want black people, they are out. So, really, do we have rights or is this a Mobocracy?

Well, in my perfect world, the only thing that would be enforced at all levels of government would be the principle of Thomas Jefferson's old maxim: "No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."

But some people think they have a duty to "protect" other people from their own bad choices in life, although they themselves consist of the same fallible dough. By doing so, they violate the aforementioned maxim.

The "Pursuit of Happiness" which springs from the same pen, certainly can not exclude the right to imbibe in whatever chemicals one sees fit, no matter the detriment to one's health.

Couldn't you do without busybodies telling you not to slam your head into your wall? Your own welfare is your own business, regardless of how they claim it affects others. The majority has no right to ban people, places, things or acts, so long as it does not violate another person's natural rights.

Drug and gambling legislation is the biggest blight I see in today's society aside from the obvious violations of our Constitution.

Mobocracies bring ruin. We are not a mobocracy but a Republic of law. It saddens me greatly that we have abandoned the wisdom of our founders.

Kludge
01-31-2009, 05:30 PM
Does the individual have the right to legally act in ways the public disagrees with, if he is in his home? As long as he isn't violating other's rights?

The argument in favor of legislation on ethical grounds rests on the belief that smoking around others is, in fact, committing aggression, and so in the same way you cannot poison (whether via air, drink, or food) another person on your property, it would be argued that you also may not smoke around another person as you would be harming them.


How dangerous is second-hand smoke? I don't know, and scientists never agree on anything (at least, they're paid by different special interest groups).

devil21
01-31-2009, 05:45 PM
The argument in favor of legislation on ethical grounds rests on the belief that smoking around others is, in fact, committing aggression, and so in the same way you cannot poison (whether via air, drink, or food) another person on your property, it would be argued that you also may not smoke around another person as you would be harming them.


How dangerous is second-hand smoke? I don't know, and scientists never agree on anything (at least, they're paid by different special interest groups).

The problem in this instance is that it is not confined to just "smoking around others". There's already bans in place against smoking in restaurants and office buildings etc, where others can be affected. You can be sitting in your car, hotboxing the hell out of a Newport and still get a ticket even though there are no others around (except the cop that decides to visit). Same with smoking a cigarette on an apartment balcony. This law throws the "no harm, no foul" rule out the window.

Expatriate
01-31-2009, 05:46 PM
The argument in favor of legislation on ethical grounds rests on the belief that smoking around others is, in fact, committing aggression, and so in the same way you cannot poison (whether via air, drink, or food) another person on your property, it would be argued that you also may not smoke around another person as you would be harming them.


How dangerous is second-hand smoke? I don't know, and scientists never agree on anything (at least, they're paid by different special interest groups).

Of course to legislate based on the opinion that low-level air pollution constitutes aggression would require a forceful remodeling of the manufacturing methods we use that are shared by nearly all nations.

Doesn't the pollution spewed out by Chinese factories commit aggression on us? Should we declare war on China in the name of protecting our air?

kathy88
01-31-2009, 07:37 PM
I can't quite get my head around this. I think I need a nap.

Kludge
01-31-2009, 07:40 PM
Of course to legislate based on the opinion that low-level air pollution constitutes aggression would require a forceful remodeling of the manufacturing methods we use that are shared by nearly all nations.

Doesn't the pollution spewed out by Chinese factories commit aggression on us? Should we declare war on China in the name of protecting our air?

This is fixed with Globalism. :D :p



:(

parke
02-03-2009, 10:45 PM
Id really like to break this persons face. Thats against the law too.

Brian4Liberty
02-03-2009, 11:30 PM
I live in a condo. Neighbor downstairs is a chain smoker. I can constantly "smell" cigarette smoke. Irritating, but certainly not concentrated enough to have any effect. But sometimes when the bedroom window is open at night, the smoke comes directly in the room as if he were standing at the foot of the bed smoking. That gets bad. Especially at 3am.

Another neighbor walked out on the balcony at sun-up and sundown every day and blew a concshell "horn". He explained it was a religious rite.

When living in crowded quarters, a little courtesy is called for. Not necessarily new laws.

Expatriate
02-04-2009, 01:48 AM
I live in a condo. Neighbor downstairs is a chain smoker. I can constantly "smell" cigarette smoke. Irritating, but certainly not concentrated enough to have any effect. But sometimes when the bedroom window is open at night, the smoke comes directly in the room as if he were standing at the foot of the bed smoking. That gets bad. Especially at 3am.

Another neighbor walked out on the balcony at sun-up and sundown every day and blew a concshell "horn". He explained it was a religious rite.

When living in crowded quarters, a little courtesy is called for. Not necessarily new laws.

I know EXACTLY what you mean. I lived above some chain smokers for a year. Couldn't stand the stink, it actually kept me up at night, even after they went to bed the damn smell would linger. Made me sick.

I had a talk with the couple, they agreed to put a fan in the window during the day that pretty much sucked out all the smoke, and that was the end of that. Of course, I am in Canada where we rarely have our windows open since it's FRIGGING COLD most of the time.

I wish more folks would actually try to resolve issues with their neighbors instead of putting up a hue and cry for more laws: it's certainly more expedient.