Sean M’s always interesting Brea Canyon takes on the draconian Calabasas, California ordinance restricting smoking. From the LAT story:
The new law will work like this: If someone is smoking in a public area in violation of the ordinance and is asked by another person to extinguish his cigarette, cigar or pipe and the smoker refuses, then the offended person can file a written complaint with the city attorney’s office.
Writes Sean:
Isn’t that nice? You’ve got a law that not only segregates one class of people from the rest of their fellow citizens, but also relies on the latter group to become informants, butting into people’s use of a perfectly legal product which is sold in stores and heavily taxed by the government.
But hey, this is just something that’s going to deal with smoking in the community’s public spaces, right? Right?
The LAT, again:
The City Council has also been debating proposals that would ban smoking in cars that children are riding in, as well as on apartment patios, though no action has been taken on those ideas.
To which Sean replies, pointedly, wistfully:
[…]
That was some nice respect we used to have for personal freedom here in California.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going outside to enjoy a smoke while it’s still legal in my neighborhood.
If I may, Sean, let me try to put this into perspective for you. Because the fact is, though these smoking bans may seem extreme, they are, in fact, part of a necessary TRADEOFF OF FREEDOMS!
Which is to say, if you stand outside on your patio and speak to an al Qaeda operative overseas on your disposable cell phone, say, interested civil liberties groups and the vast majority of freedom-loving progressives are likely to DEMAND the government hold hearings at your behest.
So, y’know, win some, lose some. Now BUCK UP, HARD CHARGER!
*****
Oh. And you may as well… And while you’re there, be sure to check out some of the other sites, too.
Gosh, to think the left might be engaging in a bit of overt political posturing on this NSA stuff. I am so disillusioned.
Sean M’s always interesting Brea Canyon…
That’s a FILTHY LIE and you know it!
You say “lie,” I say “diplomacy.”
The case against second hand smoke is trumped up, if you ask me.
Cough. Cough.
Remember when personal property ie:cars, boats, homes, and such used to be the sole property of people/individuals. Me neither, says some SOB who clearly has rank over your rights. Seat belts for example are a fine idea for the most part, but never needed to be a law. It seems due to the overabundance of idiots, we continue to generate laws (as though idiots cared). Kids sit in the back (key word is sit), you don’t need a law… just a parent. If they’re in the front, buckle up, no need for some clown makin’ it into a National issue.
I don’t smoke and can’t stand the smell on my clothes and (back when I had some) hair, but in my wildest nightmares, I never once thought my rights trumped yours. I don’t like it but I have no problem moving upwind. What do these ‘kin’idiots do if it rains and they’re without umbrella or a cold wind blows and are coatless or…….Can we please just HIPPITY HOP MOB ‘KIN’STOP !!! Stop jammin’ up the system with BS and harping about trivial crap for ..ck sake!
MY RIGHTS! MY RIGHTS! Y’all’er sounding way too much like a clueless ACLU bumper sticker.
Secondhand smoke is a fiction developed by the socialist anti-tobacco lobby. There is not a single shred of conclusive evidence that passive inhalation of smoke by healthy adults causes any medical harm whatsoever.
The average relative risk (RR) factor versus a nonsmoker from the NIH’s own secondhand smoke monograph was 1.03. This means there is a <i>5 percent greater chance of contracting disease as a passive smoker than the risk an unexposed nonsmoker runs</i>. Because of the way the statistical validity is calculated, however, this tiny increase is not meaningful for public policy. In fact, an RR must exceed 2.0 for it to have even minimal prescriptive value, and <i>respectable medical journals will not publish studies with concluded RRs of less than 3.0–that’s a 300% greater risk versus 5%.</i>
The EPA under Clinton was even caught fudging the numbers in 1992 by a federal judge. The corruption of science by these putative health experts is appalling.
Unfortunately, the health nazis have taken over the public debate by framing it in such a way that no right-thinking person can oppose it. It’s simply another backdoor way of imposing their wills on the public, just like the liberals have been doing for years with the courts.
The right to smoke in public ends where I have to breath your poisonous burny fumes. Move? I was here first….smelling of lilacs and mint-flavored dentrifices. Where is your right to stick benzene on my hair?
Quit smoking, all you smoking dopes. Just stop. Say no. I don’t get you. I can’t understand why anyone just doesn’t stop smoking. Except maybe your dad wasn’t a 1960’s Philip Morris research scientist who could warn you off properly. Gad! You have no idea.
Joe “Breaking Us In Two” Jackson is the world’s foremost authority on the anti-smoking wing of the Global Conspiracy To Make Everyone An Insane Cop-Loving Bitch-Baby.
Seriously: http://www.joejackson.com/smokingissue.htm
SarahW–
You forgot “self-righteous, obnoxious and poorly informed.”
P.S. I don’t smoke.
We’ll set aside the secondhand smoke argument for a moment. The problem with your argument is: how obnoxious does an odor have to be to be banned? I hate the smell of tobacco. I also hate the smell of coffee (I nearly lost my Computer Geek credentials over this). Do I, on the grounds of hating to breathe the obnoxiously strong brews my friends drink, have the right to demand they stop drinking coffee? Do they have the right to demand I stop drinking things that reek of Oil of Bergamot?
To factor back in the public health argument, there is a small group of people that claim that just about any sort of fragrance causes them an adverse physical reaction. Laying aside the validity of their claim, don’t they have as much right to demand restrictions / bans on scented soap as you have on tobacco?
It’s a gray area. But just the fact that you dislike something doesn’t mean you have the right to stop others from doing it, even if it has some effect on you.
Damn! Joe Jackson writes really well. He has done his homework, too.
See, humorless prigs like SarahW think they have a right to not be bothered. Where does this end? I’m bothered by people who don’t cover themselves in the summertime, or who don’t wipe the snot off their noses, or who do wipe the snot off their noses, or who breathe salami on me after lunch, etc, etc.
There’s no end to it once we get on that slope. This is the very reason science must never be abused. It becomes an unwitting party to politicized crusades in its name. Besides, as H.L. Mencken said, “Women are not so delicate as some would have you believe. A woman who can spend an hour at Lexington Street fishmarket is well able to stand a few blasts of tobacco smoke.”
Calabasas, feh. The Sagebrush Cantina used to be a favorite watering hole, but it turned into a tourist trap years ago. Smoking or no smoking, I’m done with it.
SarahW
My point wasn’t about you smelling like leaves and flowers. I like standing next to that. If my eyes were closed and your particular odor made it’s way to my olfactory senses and I opened my eyes, hopefully you’d be standin’ there and not some fruitcake port invader from the west coast.
The point was about big brother creating more inane laws.
The point was about people being personally responsible.
The point is to use your head for something other than advertisement space for Hoover and yes sometimes you need to come in out of the rain. I was here first? Uh, which means…
It’s a rough ole’ place the real world and after grade school, you will discover ways to stay warm/stay dry/stay upwind…..
SarahW, you humorless prig. There is no such right to hair free from benzene, my dear. There is no right to highways free from crashes and water completely free from murky urban runoff. Or from getting shot or bit or otherwise inconvenienced when there are, by design, only basic laws with which to prosecute substantial offenders.
About ciggies, what there is and should only be are public pressure and a social voice and boycotts and other messy but essential means to right wrongs. Including suing somebody if you think you can prove his/her nasty carcinogens made you sick with lung cancer.
But about rights, you have merely the “right” to exist in a land where real rights are intentionally condensed so as to keep folks free and such.
tw: The Constitution does not also include the right to irrational levels of safety.
I was thrown out of the Sagebrush Cantina in Calabasas once …
You skin this one! I’ll go get another one!
Remember that joke, “anyone,anyone,anyone”, he asked in his best Ben Stein impersonation.
God bless you 6Gun!
I live in Sacramento where all this nonsense originates. Davis, CA has had a similar ordinance in place for quite some time, although I think it is restricted to a certain amount of space from public buildings
Davis, best known for their transportation projects for frogs and the the city with the most “candle light vigils” in the nation Pop. 63,000, 65% white– one week long vigil and mass protest at city hall was held for the “hate speech and threatening environment” two 13 year old boys created when the spray painted stupid things on a school, and oh yeah a University.
These people seriously, would have me banned, arrested, spit on if I wore anything remotely pro war or Bush, all the while calling me a Fascist. – then schedule a candle vigil to comfort each other.
BTW- Leave it to a liberal to dream up the driving car smoking with children brilliance.
UM yes, our overworked labor-strapped police force that have a smidgen bigger problems to look out for, must now be burdened in hunting down smokers who most predominantly will be the lower socio-eco class of citizens they seek to champion.
forest, what does Jeremiah Johnson have to do with this thread?
Also, these people who say “Where is your right to stick benzene on my hair?”
are the same people who throw tantrums and call police ‘pigs” for citing them for jaywalking or parking directly next to a “no parking” sign, remember that.
You don’t have a right to sue someone who manufactures and sells a legal product that everyone knows is a carcinogen just because it made you sick with lung cancer. You’d have to prove alot more than that.
Actually I meant to say “uses” instead of “manufactures and sells”. Doh!
Robin
Jeremiah Johnson?
It’s a line from the movie. Paraphrased I think but close enough. An excellent reference. An excellent movie.
Exactly. Even the benefit of the doubt isn’t good enough for these nannyists, is it?
Why is it that the clowns with the most tenuous grasp on rights are the ones always whining about them?
IT’S BECAUSE I HAVE A RIGHT TO PERFECTION!
tw: Law and order.
Commenter FA gets it right when he notes that second-hand smoke is harmless and there has never been a scientific study to show otherwise.
You know, if comic-magicians Penn&Teller can do a Bullshit episode exposing the hypocrisy of the anti-second-hand-smokers’ arguments, then you’d think the world would wise up and realize that we’re talking about private property rights and some bar owner in LA/NYC should file a lawsuit alleging his property rights are being infringed. Why this hasn’t happened is beyond me.
You don’t want to visit a smoky bar? Fine. Find one, don’t legislate them.
Robin
I assume the “You skin this one…” quote is what this is about. I didn’t realize it was in a JJ movie. I heard it told in a joke many moons ago. Sorry if my reference was too vague, I do that sometimes.
Me
I’m glad you made the connection.
Gotta go earn some ¥en, running a bit late today.
Oh, I thought it was an RR/Candidate reference.
I really hesitate to comment here, because I know the scathing abuse that’s about to be poured on me, but can anyone really dispute that cigarette smoke is toxic and harmful? Seriously?
If I were to decide that I love the smell of mustard gas with my dinner, and had a nice little container sitting on the table, would anyone else in the restaurant object? Or even something more tame… like dog poop? Dog poop certainly isn’t harmful to smell, but it can certainly ruin someone else’s dinner.
I’m about as conservative as you can get, but I’m sorry, your “right” to force me to inhale your smoke simply does not exist.
I hate the smell of taragon. And certain perfumes. And shampoos. And patchouli.
If there is no harm to second-hand smoke (and the recent Brit study notwithstanding I’m a huge skeptic), than either fight to make the product illegal, or deal.
The precedent, though, will lead to bans on perfume (some people are hypersensitive or allergic) and other odiferous agents that emanate beyond a legally defined radius; already, we have shit like entire planes and school districts where peanuts are disallowed.
This is nannystatism, plain and simple. And you aren’t “forced” to inhale. Go someplace where the owner has decided not to allow smoking. But why should I, as a restaurant owner, not get to decide to allow a legal activity in my establishment—giving YOU, the consumer, a choice as to whether or not you wish to frequent my establishment?
John S.,
Is it something that can be legislated though? Your bad cologne or you pocket full of dog shit certainly couldn’t be outlawed, even though years and years of exposure to it might cause cancer.
Tobacco is legal. It kills too. But like alcohol (which arguably kills too, if abused), it’s gonna be hard to make it illegal to produce and consume. Perhaps limits on tobacco use similar to limits already in place on alcohol (you can use it in private 24/7, bars close at 2:00 am, no public drunkeness, blue laws, etc) would be acceptable to society. But the effects of second hand smoke are debatable, where as the effects of say giving a minor a couple of beers is very predictable.
Continuing on my rant, as far as no smoking in bars, the only debatable argument for outlawing it is the exposure workers are subject to, an OSHA concern. But again, it’s second hand smoke – not conclusively proven to be more harmful than breathing smog in L.A.
can anyone really dispute that cigarette smoke is toxic and harmful? Seriously?
Nope, no one can. Now on to second-hand smoke. Near as I can figure it, a bartender working 8 hour shifts, 6 days a week for a year in a room full of smokers for a year, will have inhaled the equivalent of 1 pack of cigarettes over that full year.
Look it up yourself John S., if you can delve beyond the propaganda. Then ask yourself if you’re going to die on the sidewalk 20’ away from a building because someone exhales near you, or for that matter figure you would’ve died from the exhaled smoke of a worker in the next cubicle back before cubicles were smoke-free.
If you still believe it after you actually research it for yourself—then I’m coming for your Big Mac tomorrow you fat guzzling fast-food afficiondo you
John S.,
It’s already illegal to smoke in restaurants, bars, and public buildings throughout the state of California.
At issue here is a city that has decided, bascially, to herd smokers into segregated areas and furthermore state that if you’re minding your own business anywhere outdoors within the city limits and having a smoke, anybody who’s the slightest bit annoyed can report you to the authorities if you refuse to put out your butt.
Not to mention the fact that they’re considering placing limits on whether or not you can smoke on your own property.
I’m perfectly happy to go outside and smoke when I’m in a public place, but this is fucking ridiculous.
Not to mention the fact that they’re considering placing limits on whether or not you can smoke on your own property.
I hear you Sean and I live in CA…do something, I’ll support it. While the left live in manufactured “outraged” world, they conversely ignore things like “Eminent domain” . ONE Dimensional idiots. I’d help with the graphic design for the direct mail…
BTW being a proud women I am profoundly embarrassed by the likes of sarah, lauren and the courtney love of the blog-shere JANE ummm, I’d LOVE to hear about the last time they were abused, but really I’d love to hear from the poor souls they used and tromped on, on the way.
We would get an EAR load without question.
Shouldn’t we thank SarahW for chiming in? Surely she must’ve been playing a role… Well, I’ll do it: Thanks, SarahW, for representing the flip side of the issue in such true form; I don’t believe you believed a word of what you said.
I hate cigarette smoke. But I would never have supported a smoking ban. I briefly thought I might have a cigarette smoke allergy, but even then, I considered it my responsibility to get out of the smoke.
Now I teach in a little (like, 40-student) preschool where two kids have peanut allergies. We’re considering going no-peanuts because of them (and potential future students). Hmm. I’m of two minds. On one side, we do everything in our power, short of a ban, to keep those kids safe, segregating them at lunch from any kids with peanut products in their lunches, having everyone wash hands and faces after lunch in case spontaneous kissing occurs (I wish! instead of fights), a designated adult helps with only the non-peanut lunches so there’s no cross-contam potential, etc. So it oughtn’t to be necessary. But on the other side, if it were my child with a potentially life-threatening allergy to something very likely to exist in her day-to-day environment, and a relatively small change in school policy (typically less than a third of the kids bring anything containing peanuts for lunch – only one PBJ last week) would protect her, wouldn’t I want the school to do it?
I guess I’ve answered my own limited question: at my little school, we could make that decision, and advertise that decision as part of the benefit of going to our school. It’d be harder at a public school or a larger private school, but presumably they too could offer peanut-free <i>zones</i> in the cafeteria or something that could provide a margin of safety without undue burden to the rest of the school. In the peanut case, there is an authentic and immediate risk to these kids, relatively rare as they are, so public policy could, I think, make prescriptions in their favor – but I think policy ought to be kept proportionate to the at-risk population, not just the <i>risk</i> to that population.
Mark–
Your data is COMPLETELY wrong. A passive smoker in an ENCLOSED room with another smoker inhales on the order of 1/100 the amount of smoke of an actual smoker. This does not even take into account ventilation, etc. Nor is this smoke the same as what the smoker inhales because of the dispersion of tar droplets, which are the cancer-causing particles in cigarette smoke.
Secondhand smoke, as I pointed out earlier, is a fiction. It might smell bad and in exteme cases make your eyes burn, but it has NO MEASURABLE HEALTH EFFECT on normal adults. You have bought the health nazis claims. You need to read Joe Jackson’s essay, read the NIH Monograph on secondhand smoke, and then go study what an RR of 1.02 means. Hint: Nothing.
I used to work for a company that let people smoke at their desks. Granted, it was a room like an aircraft hanger, but it was pretty cool. Then they did the non-smoking thing, I think to reduce their share of the health insurance costs, and sent everyone outside. At any given time, 3/4 of the company would be outside. Even that didn’t bother me, what bothered me was that the office microwave was on a cart next to my office door and every fifteen minutes some chair-assed old biddy would fire up some super-butter flavor microwave popcorn. That smell would make a dog puke.
TW: but. Got one?
FA,
Good! I was going from memory last night, but here’s a reference to a piece I read some time back. Using their .004 per hour rate (and I’m with you, I’d bet even that is high and of less to no harm anyway) that scenario I laid out actually adds up to 1/2 a pack a year.
Not really, my intent was to refute them, but you did a better job.
Don’t you know I’m allergic to those things!? How dare you inflict those fumes of death one me!!!???
Worst. Smell. Ever. It’s like dumpster diving at a DuPont research campus.
Did I get a humor false-positive on SarahW’s post? I-don’t-think-so. She-was-making-a-funny-folks.
Mark–
Glad to be of service. The more you look at the data, the harder it is to understand how the public debate has gotten as far as it has.
Tongueboy–
If so, that SarahW has to be the driest, most arid, barren, Basra-like wit on the planet. One needs to drop a hint sometimes, like, er, actually being funny.
FA,
The Dems/libs/left’s current expedition to the nether regions of irrationality has brought us to the confluence of the rivers Outrage and Satire which, like the confluence of the Missouri and the Mississippi, is pretty damn muddy. Perhaps my assessment was incorrect and I should restrict myself to the shallower tributary called Strained Metaphor.
Also, nice summary of relative risk re: that dishonest EPA second-hand smoke study. If the general public ever understood the concept of relative risk and how they already use it in every aspect of their daily live, the unemployment rate would temporarily spike while all the Ralph Nader’s and Rachel Carson’s looked for new employment.
A founding member and former mayor of Calabasas who was still heavily involved in the politics there recently passed away after battling lung cancer. I think she would have been against this law and wonder if it would have had a chance in passing if she had not. (She was a very big influence in stopping a huge housing developement there.)
Rob Reiner lives nearby and he is notoriously anti-smoker, so there could have been a meathead influence too.
And Robin,
Getting tossed from the Sagebrush probably saved you hours of potty time the next day. The food is horrible there. Been to Kings seafood yet?
Let’s assume SarahW meant what she said:
I can go with that. IF Big Tobacco secretly dopes product to cause addiction, there’s a potentially actionable case, no? And if SarahW’s pop was a research scientist, all the better for exposing this alleged travesty.
But what the hell does that have to do with personal freedom, rights, choice, and the bogus second-hand argument?
I’m no genius but even I can keep these issues separate with one hand tied behind my back.
Those sons-a-bitches better just not ban indoor flatulence, that’s all I have to say.
I’m with tongueboy; I think SarahW was joking (or at least mostly). She should’ve said “patchouli” instead of “lilac” and there would’ve been no question.
Ugh. Microwave popcorn. Burnt microwave popcorn – was there ever a more toxic-chemical-smelling substance found in private homes? Since it smells so bad, it must cause cancer, right? Who volunteers to spearhead the movement to ban it?
Chicago just enacted its own indoor smoking ban, including the restricting of smoking within a 15 foot radius of any public or office building.
Great. I have rats in my alley, the schools suck, public transportation is unreliable and unsafe, the entire goddamn government is on the take, but gee willikers, you won’t have to smell cigarette smoke anymore.
Too bad – it helped cover up the stench of urine from the multitude of panhandlers who roam downtown. God, this city sucks.
TW: Why, yes, I do have a strong opinion on the matter.
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: Can you skin Griz?
Jeremiah Johnson: I can skin’em as fast as you can catch’em. [then Bear Claw runs through the cabin with a huge Grizzly Bear close behind and jumps out the back window.]
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: Skin that one pilgrim and I’ll get you another!
A conundrum for the civil libertarian:
Overseas party: “We smoked a few last night!”
U.S. person: “Yeah, we really lit em up!”
She’s been here before, or someone using that name.
Besides, who would append “humorless prig” to their own signature if they weren’t joking?
While it shouldn’t be illegal (there’s no doubt in my mind that it shouldn’t be), it is pretty classless to light up while in the company of people one knows dislike the smell. Or in any particularly public place, if there’s a more secluded one available to you. Smokers don’t need to adopt the millitant breast-feeder tactic of shock and awe. Find a corner and stand in it. Not because what you’re doing is shameful, just as a courtesy to your hyper-sensative, hysterical neighbors. Can’t we all just get along?
Percy–
Yep. The rats in my neighborhood can carry off pizza boxes…of Gino’s East!
The only thing worse than Daley would be Ald. Ed Burke. He makes Mike Bloomberg look like a hedonist and William Kuntsler look like a strict constructionist.
Andrew–
Most smokers behave quite well and are happy to put out their butts if asked, especially in a reasonably contained environment. It’s when unreasonable requests are made that the sparks fly.
I still don’t understand why liberals love smoking bans. I thought they were the do-your-own-thing crowd?
If it helps, Sarah is one of the funniest commenters I’ve ever encountered. When she’s joking.
Is she joking here? Dunno. But that’s why God invented seances and Andy Kaufman.
She was either joking or doing a pitch-perfect impression of a liberal antismoking freak. Either way, I think at this point it’s fair to say some of us didn’t get the humor.
You think second-hand tobacco smoke is bad, try second-hand opium smoke. Some Cockney whore and her Asian beau run an opium den in the flat beneath mine and the aroma wafting through the register around 2 am is quite, well, intoxicating. But even worse is the crowd: a motley crew of Fabian Society wannabes who’ve trucked in from Manchester and who knows where else in their frayed tweed jackets for a night of Wells readings and performances of Shaw’s cuh-lassics. They insist the opium expands their “consciousness”—which seems to be a term popularized by a fellow named Sigmund Freud to describe a state of awareness—but after a few minutes of their nattering about “social welfare” and “corn laws” echoing up the register, I generally welcome the sweet release of delirium provided by the second-hand smoke.
Second-hand tobacco smoke? Get over yourselves.