CALABASAS, CA-Bans ALL public smoking

[kitkat953]

Taken from cbs5.com:

(AP) CALABASAS, Calif. No more smoking in the park. Lighting up on the sidewalk could bring a fine. Dining on the restaurant patio? Don't bother asking for matches.

One of the strictest tobacco bans in the nation went into effect in the Los Angeles suburb of Calabasas last week, making smoking off limits in public places where someone else might be exposed to secondhand smoke: indoor businesses, outdoor businesses, parks, outdoor cafes, even apartment building common areas.

"We just don't want anyone blowing smoke in someone's face. Unfortunately, what smokers do is harmful to everybody else. People should have the right to breathe clean air," said Mayor Pro Tem Dennis Washburn.

California air-quality regulators declared secondhand smoke a toxic air pollutant earlier this year.

The city took it a step farther, declaring secondhand smoke to be a public nuisance and approving an ordinance banning smoking in all public places — indoors and out — where people might congregate.

Hotels can still allow smoking in up to 20 percent of their rooms, and smoking can be allowed in approved designated areas at shopping malls and work places in the upscale city of 23,000 residents.

But if a nonsmoker asks a smoker to stop, the smoker must snuff it or face a possible fine in the hundreds of dollars or even a lawsuit.

"We salute Calabasas for raising the bar," said Jim Knox, a legislative advocate for the American Cancer Society in Sacramento. "Smoke regulations can play a very important role in reducing public exposure to harmful secondhand smoke."

Nationally, hundreds of U.S. cities and several states restrict smoking. In California, where communities have been at the forefront of smoking bans, San Francisco last year banned smoking in parks and stadiums, and oceanfront communities' smoking bans have inspired others in Florida and Delaware to designate smoke-free beaches.

Among the states, Colorado lawmakers last week approved a statewide ban on smoking in most public building, and New Jersey's Smoke-Free Air Act, under fire from bar owners because it exempts casino gambling floors, goes into effect April 15.

[nickel]

i knew it would happen and California would lead the way. smokers aren't going to be too happy with this, but non-smokers will be.

[MikeD]

Nice. Do it in your own house if you like, but not in public. This is definitely a positive step.

[kgsilvas]

I think it's great! This ban has been trashed inside and out in the LA Times over the past few months. Glad to see that the city stepped up!

[Itsme]

This is not the first city to do this....Del Mar, just north of San Diego, has had a ban on smoking on the beach for years. I think we will see a ripple effect with many other towns doing similar things.

[ufcrusher]

Personally, I think this goes WAY too far and will finally be enough of an annoyance that some of the smokers will sue to protect their rights and the city will probably lose.

If it did go to court and was upheld, I can see people making motions that people must wear deodarant...because not wearing deodarant offends other people's sense of smell and is more invasive than smoking. In fact, some people have such bad BO that it makes you physically ill. If you think I am kidding, wait.

[MrGreg]

But there isn't a strong belief that smelling BO is harmful.

[Prisoner 24601]

But there isn't a strong belief that smelling BO is harmful.

Exactly! As rancid and disgusting as BO is, until they proof it can cause lung cancer, I don't see that even though I do believe that should be a law! Especially in gyms!! :heh:

Glad now I can go eat at the Commons and sit outside freely! (when it goes above 50 degrees!)

[sixpac shakur]

After giving this matter some thought I've decided that I don't agree with this new law. I am not a smoker and I don't like the smell of smoke but I think this decision infringes our personal rights. Our government is getting increasingly scary about encroaching on people's rights. Although I don't agree with smoking personally, at what point will the government ban the right to swear in public or censor the word "slut" on the radio?

Oh wait...

[zenbooty]

Are they going to outlaw barbecues? chimneys?

[nickel]

Are they going to outlaw barbecues? chimneys?
and if you are so hot the smoke rises after you have sex, well... yeh... that might be next :eek:

[ufcrusher]

Hopefully you realize I was using BO as an example of how crazy it could become.

However, if a person's odor caused others to vomit as a result...which can cause errosion of the esophagus and a host of other problems including dental issues...it is causing harm. There is definite proof that vomitting causes problems....so if the smell can be shown to cause the vomitting...then it is the cause in fact of the problem. Yes, its outlandish, but it can be scientifically proven. (The harm from repeated vomitting....and possibly that the smell triggers the reaction, but that would be more difficult.)

[guiseppewv]

I think this is a great law. If it is toxic to others than why are people allowed to do it around people who don't want to inhale it. This is a good thing.

[InfiniteNothing]

Are they going to outlaw barbecues? chimneys?
It all falls under air pollution law. If one was to emit >20% opacity I imagine they could be fined.


Hopefully you realize I was using BO as an example of how crazy it could become.

However, if a person's odor caused others to vomit as a result...which can cause errosion of the esophagus and a host of other problems including dental issues...it is causing harm. There is definite proof that vomitting causes problems....so if the smell can be shown to cause the vomitting...then it is the cause in fact of the problem. Yes, its outlandish, but it can be scientifically proven. (The harm from repeated vomitting....and possibly that the smell triggers the reaction, but that would be more difficult.)
Hey, if it got that bad... I can see someone stepping in and making the guy do something. But it's a pretty unlikely hypothetical.

[Prisoner 24601]

Are they going to outlaw barbecues? chimneys?

Yep. And cars, buses, planes and the worst toxic fumes... FARTS! :fro:

[InfiniteNothing]

Hey, you want to hook up a catalytic converter and and EGR valve to a cigaret and I think we can work something out.

[Memo]

smokers aren't going to be too happy with this, but non-smokers will be.

AMAZING ANALYSIS! :laugh:

I'm semi-torn about smoking laws. On the one hand I think it's a violation of rights but on the other hand I really really really really really really really hate smokers. Since they banned smoking in public places here in Austin, I go out a hell of a lot more. To me, and many people, cigarette smoke is a filthy, foul smell that is downright offensive.

[Sirrich3]

fine with me...

[nickel]

AMAZING ANALYSIS! :laugh:

I'm semi-torn about smoking laws. On the one hand I think it's a violation of rights but on the other hand I really really really really really really really hate smokers. Since they banned smoking in public places here in Austin, I go out a hell of a lot more. To me, and many people, cigarette smoke is a filthy, foul smell that is downright offensive.
read this: http://forums.gotapex.com/showthread.php?t=97826


now...back to the smoking. i just came back from a meeting about this very topic. in New York there is a grassroots organization called Reality Check. they are seeking, as are similar organizations, to get legislation passed that forces movie studios into an R rating if their movie has anyone smoking in it. mark my words, i think this is going to become a reality.

[sixpac shakur]

now...back to the smoking. i just came back from a meeting about this very topic. in New York there is a grassroots organization called Reality Check. they are seeking, as are similar organizations, to get legislation passed that forces movie studios into an R rating if their movie has anyone smoking in it. mark my words, i think this is going to become a reality.

That is frightening.

[ShawnLee]

I can't stand smoking. I hate cigarettes. I think it's a disgusting, money-wasting, pointless habit.

That said, I hate this stupid law even more.

[Memo]

read this: http://forums.gotapex.com/showthread.php?t=97826


now...back to the smoking. i just came back from a meeting about this very topic. in New York there is a grassroots organization called Reality Check. they are seeking, as are similar organizations, to get legislation passed that forces movie studios into an R rating if their movie has anyone smoking in it. mark my words, i think this is going to become a reality.

Doubt it. You can say "****" in PG-13 these days.

[InfiniteNothing]

Yes but it can only be said once.

[nickel]

Doubt it.
doubt it all you want. i think it will happen.


R-rating sought in some smoking films
LOS ANGELES (AP) — If Nicolas Cage lights a cigarette in a movie, Hollywood's ratings board should respond as if he used a profanity, according to authors of a new study that criticizes glamorous images of smoking in movies rated for children under 17.
Nearly 80% of movies rated PG-13 feature some form of tobacco use, while 50% of G and PG rated films depict smoking, said Stanton Glantz, co-author of the study, which examined 775 U.S. movies over the past five years.

"No one is saying there should never be any smoking in the movies," Glantz, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said Tuesday at a press conference at Hollywood High School. "What we're simply asking for is that smoking be treated by Hollywood as seriously as it treats offensive language."

He'd like to see more PG-13 movies that feature smoking — like Matchstick Men,Seabiscuit and the Oscar-winning Chicago— get slapped with an R rating.

Since R-rated films typically earn less money because they are not open to most teenagers, Glantz said he hoped such a policy would discourage filmmakers from depicting unnecessary smoking, such as the nicotine-addicted worm aliens in Men in Black.

The proposal includes an exception for historical figures who actually smoked as part of their public life, Glantz added. "For example, if they wanted to make a movie about Winston Churchill, they could show him with a cigar without triggering an R-rating, but the number of movies where that actually happens is very small."

The study was funded by the charitable foundation The Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund and the National Cancer Institute.

Glantz singled out The Walt Disney Co. for smoking in the PG-rated Holes and G-rated 102 Dalmatians, Time Warner for its PG Secondhand Lions and What a Girl Wants and Sony Pictures Entertainment for its PG Master of Disguise.

The Motion Picture Association of America, which rates films, did not immediately return calls for comment on the study or the ratings proposal.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2004-03-09-smoking-ratings_x.htm




You can say "****" in PG-13 these days.

I'm curious, what PG-13 movie did you hear the f-bomb dropped in?

[InfiniteNothing]

Be Cool