Public Smoking Bans

[ForLibertyFight]

City of Burbank has just passed a law that says.

All City parks and facilities and all areas within 20 feet

Within 20 feet of all entrances, exits, and open windows of buildings open to the public

All sidewalks and pedestrian areas in Downtown Burbank and all areas within 5 feet

Chandler Bikeway and all public areas within 20 feet

Outdoor dining areas and all areas within 5 feet

Outdoor waiting lines and service areas and all areas within 20 feet

Outdoor gathering places and event areas and all areas within 20 feet

City transit vehicles and station platforms and all areas within 20 feet of station platforms

Pedestrian areas at outdoor shopping areas and centers and all areas within 20 feet

All elevators

Any area designated as non-smoking by the property owner or business

Indoor common areas of multifamily residential projects and outdoor common areas within 5 feet of entrances, exits, walkways


What is your opinion?

[ForLibertyFight]

City of Burbank has just passed a law that says.

http://www.burbankca.org/planning/pdf/smoking/smokingbrochure.pdf

All City parks and facilities and all areas within 20 feet

Within 20 feet of all entrances, exits, and open windows of buildings open to the public

All sidewalks and pedestrian areas in Downtown Burbank and all areas within 5 feet

Chandler Bikeway and all public areas within 20 feet

Outdoor dining areas and all areas within 5 feet

Outdoor waiting lines and service areas and all areas within 20 feet

Outdoor gathering places and event areas and all areas within 20 feet

City transit vehicles and station platforms and all areas within 20 feet of station platforms

Pedestrian areas at outdoor shopping areas and centers and all areas within 20 feet

All elevators

Any area designated as non-smoking by the property owner or business

Indoor common areas of multifamily residential projects and outdoor common areas within 5 feet of entrances, exits, walkways


What is your opinion?

[USPatriot36]

The people of Burbank have a right thru their elected officials to make such laws. If the people don't like it, they should convince their officials to change the laws or elect new officials. If they can't do that, they should put up with it or move somewhere else.

The people have a right to make stupid laws. As long as they don't do it in my city/state I don't care what they do.

[ForLibertyFight]

I am writing an opinion article for my school newspaper on this law. Here's what I wrote but it's still a work in progress.

City of Burbank passed Secondhand Smoke Control Law which supplements The California workplace smoking laws which prohibits smoking in a place of employment. Burbank’s Secondhand Smoke Control Law further takes away the rights of an individual to smoke in stores, restaurants, downtown Burbank, public places, Chandler walk way and public areas in apartment complex.
Burbank City Council’s goal was to minimize negative health effects from second hand smoke. It is understandable that Burbank wants to keep its citizens safe. However there is no need for laws that interferes with personal lifestyles. Owner of a property are given the chance of making their own rules regarding smoking on their property. Thus they can enforce their own rules. Restaurant owners should decide whether to allow smoking, not the government. If you own a private property, you should create your own rules not the government.
If the city wants to keep us healthy and safe, then why not restrict other damaging things like fast food? The government’s duty is not to harbor us from unsafe things. The more dependent on government we become, the more freedoms we lose. It should be up to the individual’s responsibility to take care of its health, but not the government’s.

What else should I add on it?

[LibertyOfOne]

The people have a right to make stupid laws. As long as they don't do it in my city/state I don't care what they do. They don''t have the right to make laws that infringe on the rights of others.

[noxagol]

Retarded. I hate smoking, but I also hate these anti-smoking laws. It is telling private property owners how they may use their property. The state I live in, Illinois, has passed a smoking ban in all buildings except private homes, smoking clubs, and tobacco stores. You can't smoke in a freaking bar or pool hall or anything like that. Totally usurps the owners property rights.

[noxagol]

Why don't they just go one step further and ban smoking all together already? It's for your own good! I don't smoke, but I hate these anti-smoking laws. I also wear my seat belt and hate seat belt laws.

[Spirit of '76]

I hate them.

Here's an article I wrote on a statewide ban in PA:
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=32307

[angelatc]

I swear, I think it's just another measure of getting us all used to respecting authority.

I hate anti-smoking laws.

My friend lives in Uraguay, and she's not even allowed to smoke inside her own house.

[angelatc]

They don''t have the right to make laws that infringe on the rights of others.

Exactly. I can more easily support laws that ban smoking outside in public parks than laws that ban smoking in privately owned restaurants and bars.

[alicegardener]

Just as your right to swing a club ends at my skin, your right to smoke ends at my nose. Social pressure only goes so far with something as addictive as nicotine. Drinking, in and of itself is OK, but public drunkeness that potentially endangers others is not OK. Smoking in public endangers others when it is as inescapable as it used to be. I used to cough and cough not just in restaurants but in libraries, in college lecture rooms, in hospital waiting rooms, everywhere but church. When I was pregnant I had to fear for two. What, was I supposed to not go to college, not use libaries, not see a doctor, not ever eat out? Thanks for the liberty!

[JenHarris]

I agree with Alicegardener. By smoking around other people you are putting them at risk. Personally, I quit smoking when I saw how bad it messed with my husband's allergies, but years later I realize how wrong it is to force people to breath your carcinogens in the name of your freedom...what about theirs?

[fletcher]

Outdoor smoking is not a health concern for anyone but the smoker. Cars are more dangerous to be around than smokers. The city made the law because they think it is unpleasant. It is scary that the government can ban anything that they think is unpleasant. And smoking in private businesses should be left up to the owner. If you don't want to be around smoke, don't go to a smoking business. You do not have a right to smoke free air in a private business. And I'm a non smoker.

Not to mention that many second hand smoke studies have found that second hand smoke isn't dangerous. The EPA had to decrease the confidence level in their study to find any link between cancer and second hand smoke. And even then the risk level was so low that is was essentially meaningless.

[RP08]

My city recently passed similar smoking laws.

We're most definitely a "big brother" city. Speed/red-light cameras everywhere including freeways (huge revenue), no smoking including bars, parks and sidewalks, and so-on.

It's tough to feel free when most of the time your mind is thinking about what you might be doing wrong in order to avoid repercussions.

Thank you, big government agenda. Lovin' this. Please give my family more rules and steal more of my income to implement enforcement of them.

[LibertyOfOne]

I agree with Alicegardener. By smoking around other people you are putting them at risk. Personally, I quit smoking when I saw how bad it messed with my husband's allergies, but years later I realize how wrong it is to force people to breath your carcinogens in the name of your freedom...what about theirs?

That does not give you the right to step on the rights of the property owner. No one is forced to walk into a smoking bar or establishment. When someone does consent to being around people who smoke there is no violation of rights. Walking into such of an establishment is giving consent. New Hampshire has no laws banning owners from having a smoking section, yet there are plenty of smoke free establishments to go to. There is a market demand for smoke free establishments and the market provides. No need to have the government step in on a issue that the market can take care of.

[NPursuit357]

That does not give you the right to step on the rights of the property owner. No one is forced to walk into a smoking bar or establishment. When someone does consent to being around people who smoke there is no violation of rights. Walking into such of an establishment is giving consent. New Hampshire has no laws banning owners from having a smoking section, yet there are plenty of smoke free establishments to go to. There is a market demand for smoke free establishments and the market provides. No need to have the government step in on a issue that the market can take care of.


You may want to check out NH's new smoking ban in restaurants and bars that took effect recently.

[fletcher]

You may want to check out NH's new smoking ban in restaurants and bars that took effect recently.

The democrats are destroying that state. So much for 'live free or die'.

[NPursuit357]

The democrats are destroying that state. So much for 'live free or die'.

Speaking of live free or die, I believe they are still trying to change that motto as well.

[dsentell]

I find it amazing that the government continually tries to squelch smoking, while continually raising taxes on cigarettes and cigars to fund everything under the sun.

How are all their projects going to be funded when people quit smoking?

[noxagol]

Noooooooooo! Not Democrats in power in New Hampshire. I want to move their because that place is awesome.

[angelatc]

Just as your right to swing a club ends at my skin, your right to smoke ends at my nose. Social pressure only goes so far with something as addictive as nicotine. Drinking, in and of itself is OK, but public drunkeness that potentially endangers others is not OK. Smoking in public endangers others when it is as inescapable as it used to be. I used to cough and cough not just in restaurants but in libraries, in college lecture rooms, in hospital waiting rooms, everywhere but church. When I was pregnant I had to fear for two. What, was I supposed to not go to college, not use libaries, not see a doctor, not ever eat out? Thanks for the liberty!

Libraries and hospitals receive public funding so therefore I have no problem with letting government pass laws regarding behavior in those places.

As for restaurants, I'm sorry, but no, you don't have the "right" to eat out. Restaurant owners have the right to ban smokers from their premises, but the government shouldn't have control of what people do when it's on private property.

Liberty isn't forcing other people to make changes to suit your agenda in the name of a greater good. That's socialism.

[angelatc]

I agree with Alicegardener. By smoking around other people you are putting them at risk. Personally, I quit smoking when I saw how bad it messed with my husband's allergies, but years later I realize how wrong it is to force people to breath your carcinogens in the name of your freedom...what about theirs?

That's propoganda. There's never been a credible study that proves a link between second hand smoke and any health problems.

Oddly enough, our air is cleaner and more filtered now than it has been in my lifetime, and yet asthma and allergies are at all time highs. I could make a case the second hand smoke possibly even benefits people by boosting their immune systems into action.

Even if smoking around other people is rude, it shouldn't be illegal.

I can understand prohibiting smoking in public, and on public grounds. But private property isn't public.

[dsentell]

That's propoganda. There's never been a credible study that proves a link between second hand smoke and any health problems.



So true .......

I am trying to locate the article now.....

A few years ago, the World Health Organization did a study on second hand smoke, concluding that there was no evidence of harm from second hand smoke. Unfortunately, this conclusion was not as the US government hoped and as a result, the study never saw the light of day.

[angelatc]

http://www.junkscience.com/news/euwsjets.htm talks about the WHO study.

If you search "smoke" on the site, there's tons of them.

I've heard, but never actually verified, that there's never been a credible study, meaning published in a peer-reviewed journal, that proved any health risks from second hand smoke.

[paulpwns]

I would still smoke.

[Marshall]

www.joox.net has an episode of "Bullshit", the Penn & Teller series, where, in the first season they rip apart the whole second hand smoke argument. Being around second hand smoke increase the likelihood of you contracting cancer somewhere around .0002%, which is statistically irrelevant. Told by P&T who are both non-smokers. Walking on the sidewalk next to a road populated by cars causes you to inhale far more vastly more dangerous hydrocarbons then you'd inhale walking past some guy smoking.


I'm rather irate about this because I do smoke tobacco and I live in Maryland, which just banned smoking basically anywhere but in the deepest darkest corner of your basement.

[literatim]

That's propoganda. There's never been a credible study that proves a link between second hand smoke and any health problems.

Oddly enough, our air is cleaner and more filtered now than it has been in my lifetime, and yet asthma and allergies are at all time highs. I could make a case the second hand smoke possibly even benefits people by boosting their immune systems into action.

Sorry, but as being a lifetime sufferer of asthma who has had to repeatedly deal with smokers, I have to say that no way in hell second hand smoking is beneficial. I don't give a rats ass about a study because I've learned from experience that it is hard on my lungs.


Even if smoking around other people is rude, it shouldn't be illegal.

Rude? It is a poison you are making people inhale!


www.joox.net has an episode of "Bullshit", the Penn & Teller series, where, in the first season they rip apart the whole second hand smoke argument. Being around second hand smoke increase the likelihood of you contracting cancer somewhere around .0002%, which is statistically irrelevant. Told by P&T who are both non-smokers. Walking on the sidewalk next to a road populated by cars causes you to inhale far more vastly more dangerous hydrocarbons then you'd inhale walking past some guy smoking.


I'm rather irate about this because I do smoke tobacco and I live in Maryland, which just banned smoking basically anywhere but in the deepest darkest corner of your basement.

Sitting in a building with smokers /= walking by someone smoking. It is like hooking up an exhaust of a car to a building's ventilation system.

[Ozwest]

Suck on a exhaust pipe! Put your safety belt on and break out your box of moist towlettes. It's going to be a bumpy ride!

[Corydoras]

to read about peer-reviewed studies about second-hand smoking, go to this search engine and put in
second-hand smoke
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed

[JosephTheLibertarian]

City of Burbank has just passed a law that says.

All City parks and facilities and all areas within 20 feet

Within 20 feet of all entrances, exits, and open windows of buildings open to the public

All sidewalks and pedestrian areas in Downtown Burbank and all areas within 5 feet

Chandler Bikeway and all public areas within 20 feet

Outdoor dining areas and all areas within 5 feet

Outdoor waiting lines and service areas and all areas within 20 feet

Outdoor gathering places and event areas and all areas within 20 feet

City transit vehicles and station platforms and all areas within 20 feet of station platforms

Pedestrian areas at outdoor shopping areas and centers and all areas within 20 feet

All elevators

Any area designated as non-smoking by the property owner or business

Indoor common areas of multifamily residential projects and outdoor common areas within 5 feet of entrances, exits, walkways


What is your opinion?

That's retarded. People should be able to smoke wherever they feel like smoking. Second hand smoke is another matter. If you see a smoking allowed restaurant, and you're not a smoker, you're making the choice to expose yourself to it, so I don't see any case there.

I have quit

[angelatc]

God, I detest the way the schools have brainwashed the children.


Sorry, but as being a lifetime sufferer of asthma who has had to repeatedly deal with smokers, I have to say that no way in hell second hand smoking is beneficial. I don't give a rats ass about a study because I've learned from experience that it is hard on my lungs.

Again, the incidence of asthma is rising as our air gets cleaner. Go figure. And I don't think I said it was beneficial. Although people who own pubs insist it is beneficial to their bottom line.



Rude? It is a poison you are making people inhale!

No, as an adult (and I do not smoke but I am grown up enough to not give a rat's butt if other people do) I choose to inhale secondhand smoke when I visit a priovate establishment that allows patrons to smoke. Nobody is making you do anything. You're making a choice when you choose to enter a place where people are allowed to smoke.




Sitting in a building with smokers /= walking by someone smoking. It is like hooking up an exhaust of a car to a building's ventilation system.

So stay the hell home, and don't let people smoke in your house. Your rights to breathe the air in a private establishment shouldn't exist. The quality of that air is secondary.

[angelatc]

I sometimes really wish I hadn't brought children into this world. We've turned into a country of people who whine and wheeze "Me! Me! Me!" all the time.

Freedom is only applicable if it doesn't cause them any discomfort.

[ZippyDSMlee]

didn't the goverment learn anythign from probistion?
They can't evens top the flow of weed everywhere and they want to ban a legal substance.... oy vay...

[Santana28]

Welcome to Chicago, where you will also get a ticket for talking on your cellphone while driving (or should i say, sitting in traffic for an hour or two).

[Man from La Mancha]

Sorry, but as being a lifetime sufferer of asthma who has had to repeatedly deal with smokers, I have to say that no way in hell second hand smoking is beneficial. I don't give a rats ass about a study because I've learned from experience that it is hard on my lungs.



Rude? It is a poison you are making people inhale!



Sitting in a building with smokers /= walking by someone smoking. It is like hooking up an exhaust of a car to a building's ventilation system.

What have you done to take personal responsibility for your health? Have you spent 100's of hours searching the net for alternate cures for asthma? Have you experimented with other modalities? Do you use pasteurized milk products instead of raw organic milk? Have you tried going 100% raw vegan with wheat grass juice? Unless you are willing to research and try you will suffer listening to those god doctors. Then the smoke won't bother you.:)

.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I know that not all of us are libertarians here, there are probably some that hold more regulatory views.

my solution: mixture of private ownership; personal responsibility

no legislation

[ChrisM]

On private property, it is the property owner's decision to decide how to use his own property.

On public property, or property that is publicly funded, a smoking ban should exist where there is an enclosed atmosphere if the people or elected representatives so decide. If secondhand smoke is not a danger to a person's health, then it is extremely rude and the government, as the owner of that building, and therefore the people, as indirect owners of that building, have the right to decide, through their elected representatives, how that property is used, just as if we all collectively owned that property. Is anybody complaining about alcohol bans in public libraries?

[john_anderson_ii]

Is anybody complaining about alcohol bans in public libraries?

I am. I'm pissed as hell I can't get drunk and play with the microfiche machines. :D

Seriously, I share your views though. A private property owner can allow smoking or disallow smoking in their establishment, public places, like schools, parks, courthouses, etc can be decided with legislation.

Arizona just passed a statewide smoking ban, no one can smoke inside any building the general public has access to. I'm amazed that property owners, especially bar owners, aren't even fighting it! Wake up people. First it's no-smoking, then its no-import beers, then its no alcohols over 40 proof.

I guess they just don't see how these sorts of irresponsible regulatory measures escalate.

[Dustancostine]

Have you tried going 100% raw vegan with wheat grass juice?

.

YUMMMM...... Wheat Grass Juice.... Where can I get one, my taste buds can't wait. :D