Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
We Could Put Smokers in Jail, But We Have No Plans to Do So
Yesterday I got an e-mail message from Michael Hafken, a public information specialist for the City of Calabasas, offering a "correction" of my column about the town's new outdoor smoking ban:
Please note that there is NO possible jail time for a violation of the Comprehensive Secondhand Smoke Control Ordinance in the City of Calabasas. Penalties range from warnings (most cases) to a potential $500 fine for extreme, repeated and willful violations. Violations are coded as infractions and NOT misdemeanors.
I wrote back, pointing out that the ordinance says, "A violation of this ordinance shall constitute a misdemeanor punishable pursuant to chapter 1.16 of this code [which specifies a penalty of up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine] unless the prosecutor determines to prosecute it as an infraction as authorized by section 1.16.010(a)." Ten hours later, I received this reply:
You are correct regarding the ordinance text. I should have said that the City has publicly maintained that there are no plans to treat violations as misdemeanors. As is true of any violation of the City Code, we have a broad range of remedies, ranging from administrative fines (like parking tickets, which top out at $500), infractions (which also top out at $500), and full-blown misdemeanor prosecution. For the initial period of enforcement, the City only plans on educating people about the ordinance and issuing warnings. In extreme situations, such as repeated and willful violations, a fine may be levied as an infraction.
I guess my point, poorly made in my previous email, was that there are no foreseeable instances where the City would arrest people and put them in jail for smoking under this ordinance. I apologize for any confusion.
So the city's position is that although it has the authority the put smokers in jail, it will never use that authority. If so, why put it in the ordinance to begin with?
|3.9.06 @ 6:26PM|#
Wow. Michael Hafken must think we're all exceedingly stupid if
he believes that telling us that "the law allows for it, but it'll
never be used."
Of course, I don't think they ought to be fining $500 for smoking.
But I guess that just makes me an "extremist."
|3.9.06 @ 6:31PM|#
"For the initial period of enforcement, the City only plans
on educating people about the ordinance and issuing
warnings."
How fucking benevolent of them. Me Lawd, may awye have just a
wee bit of slop!? Yes? Oh, me'lawd, awye thanks you, very much.
Awye bow down in yaw presence!
|3.9.06 @ 6:36PM|#
If so, why put it in the ordinance to begin with?
To scare people! That's what government is for--to scare people
into not doing whatever. ...whatever the city decides.
That's why it's so important to have good people in government
...'cause this is good scary, not bad scary. ...and the
distinction's important. ...for some reason.
|3.9.06 @ 6:43PM|#
I find it rather telling that he emailed Jacob directly instead
of actually posting here in the forum.
After all, if his position was really on the side of the angels, he
should have no problem defending this.
|3.9.06 @ 6:56PM|#
I find it rather telling that he emailed Jacob directly
instead of actually posting here in the forum.
Well, see, there's probably an ordinance preventing him from
posting.
Not that they enforce it. But they could.
|3.9.06 @ 7:18PM|#
mediageek, I can think of other reasons, other than bein' yella,
why someone might choose not to post here, in the forum.
Perhaps he's read the forum. ;-)
|3.9.06 @ 7:30PM|#
It hardly needs repeating...
"What is ominous is the ease with which some people go from saying
that they don't like something to saying that the government should
forbid it. When you go down that road, don't expect freedom to
survive very long."
- Thomas Sowell
|3.9.06 @ 7:37PM|#
This is the same approach they did here in Washington. Before
the I-901 vote King County Tobacco Prevention Officer Roger Valdez
was minimizing the intent, that the 25-foot rule was something they
didn't intend enforcing, and that they were only concerned with
blatant cases where smoke was entering the business building. After
it passed he now talks about how "you" have no right to smoke at
all, even in your own home. They've extended the same 25 foot rule
to open air bus stops and have started a 'bring it outside'
advertising campaign; the ads show a livingroom-like RESIDENTIAL
setting with a couch and so forth. The implication is pretty
clear.
Incidently, they never publicized another key aspect concerning
non-compliant businesses: the regulation just mentions $100 fines.
However, the way they're really going about it is by threatening to
pull the establishment's liquor license, effectively shutting a bar
or club down.
But as some folks would say, hey dude, chill out. It's not like
we're trying to remove your freedoms or control your behavior or
anything. We're, like, good people and all. It's all for the kids,
or the patrons, or the employees, or the musicians, or whatever.
Calm down....
|3.9.06 @ 7:42PM|#
Joe is the ONLY city official allowed to post at Hit&Run.
All others must e-mail the bloggers directly under penalty of a dog
pile-on.
(Not that we would actually enforce this punishment.)
|3.9.06 @ 8:25PM|#
lurker,
Calm down :| (he said with a straight face).
Seattle has several smoker's clubs currently operating under the
tobacco police state. I don't think I have heard of a bar closing
as a result of the new law (please cite a specific example where a
booze license has been pulled). All the shows I've been to have
been sold out, even on weeknights (don't think stats have been run
yet on overall attendance, but it ain't down for sure). I've only
seen one news story regarding an angry business owner who claimed
economic harm. Bet there would be more coverage if it was more
common.
WA has voter initiatives. Calm down and propose a revision of the
law to fit your vision of it (hint a repeal will lose, but
exceptions might make it through).
Breathe deep if you can...
|3.9.06 @ 8:31PM|#
Hafken's statement, "there is NO possible jail time," seems vaguely familiar. It's like Clinton's lawyer's claim "there is no sex." I'm surprised Hafken didn't try Clinton's defense: It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is.
|3.9.06 @ 8:32PM|#
The Little Woman here cooks such a healthy fare that my farts
smell like Evening in Paris with just a hint of musk and note of
meadowlark.
Still I'm thinkin'...
First they came for the smokers...
The farters did nothing but (Bronx)cheer?
|3.9.06 @ 8:33PM|#
When does this silly ordinance go into effect? Calabasas is just over the hill from here. I'd love to drop by on day one just to light up.
|3.9.06 @ 8:54PM|#
I wonder what criteria Calabasa's finest are going to use to separate the infractions from the misdemeanors. "Smoking while black", anyone?
|3.9.06 @ 9:52PM|#
I did try to post here, but my browser hung, and after I hit the stop button, my post didn't show up. Does that happen often here?
|3.9.06 @ 10:23PM|#
As a waitress in CA, I like the government telling other people
not to do things that hurt my health. Now that my 2nd hand smoke
lung cancer has gone into remission, I've noticed I don't hear so
well. Turns out all that loud rock music I've been exposed to has
degraded my hearing, Petey from the Who told me so.
I'm working now with a few local politicians on an ordinance to ban
amplified music indoors. Sure, some people enjoy it, but what about
the rest of us? What about our health? I've got to make a living,
so I can't quit. A few people I've tried to get to sign on have
called me crazy, saying there's no way they'll get rid of
everything but acoustic music in clubs, and I agree it'll be a long
haul.
But there are precedents now, it should be easier.
|3.9.06 @ 10:35PM|#
I think we should all be grateful to our loving nanny
godernment! We should express our thanks by telling what we are
grateful for. In that spirit, I'll start.
I'm grateful for smokeless gun powder.
Rich Ard|3.9.06 @ 10:38PM|#
I did try to post here, but my browser hung, and after I hit
the stop button, my post didn't show up. Does that happen often
here?
You have to post it two or three times, so we know you mean it.
Mike|3.9.06 @ 10:43PM|#
How broad is this ordinance and how does it define "smoking." Can I smoke "medical" marijuana outdoors?
|3.9.06 @ 10:54PM|#
I'm working now with a few local politicians on an ordinance
to ban amplified music indoors. Sure, some people enjoy it, but
what about the rest of us?
DAWaitress,
Hey, that post just gave me brain cancer. Shame on you.
|3.9.06 @ 10:56PM|#
What happens when you don't pay the fine for your infraction? Isn't the threat of jailtime always there?
|3.9.06 @ 11:39PM|#
this is another in a growing number of municipalities that, if I knew where the hell they were, would definitely not be on my vacation list...
Michael Price|3.9.06 @ 11:39PM|#
Ironically when you do go to jail your ass will be traded for, guess what?
|3.9.06 @ 11:41PM|#
"I did try to post here, but my browser hung, and after I
hit the stop button, my post didn't show up. Does that happen often
here?"
Like you wouldn't believe. Our theory is that around the late
afternoon the hamster in the wheel that runs the Reason Server gets
tired.
|3.10.06 @ 12:23AM|#
Since airheads have an even stronger aversion to mercury than
tobacco smoke , surely the ordinance encompasses that shockingly
toxic vapor. and the fist to go directly to jail should be that
fair city'd feng shui practioners, who use only the finest cinnabar
in the red paint used to harmonize the vibes of blast burners in
better tofu restaurants.
Next there are the reprobate clergymen who burn incernse indoors in
the presence of infants and the aged and infirm, and lastly, since
small furry animal loving Calabahemites doubtless invest in amalgam
filling pet dentistry , there is the belching inferno at: The Los
Angeles Pet Memorial Park i, pet cemetery situated on ten
landscaped acres in Calabasas. incorporated as S.O.P.H.I.E., Inc.
("Save Our Pets' History in Eternity"). S.O.P.H.I.E., Inc. is a
non-profit public benefit corporation . Pre-need plans are
available for burials and cremations.
Where does the city spokesman stand on second hand pets?
|3.10.06 @ 12:30AM|#
Here's a test:
Sit in a garage with all doors and windows closed and ten chain
smokers. Note how long it takes to pass out.
Repeat this with one running automobile instead of the
smokers.
Banning of outdoor smoking for health reasons simply doesn't make
any sense unless cars have already been banned. Even the indoor
smoking bans don't really make sense for health reasons with the
presence of indoor garages a vastly greater threat o public
health.
But of course, as noted above, this really isn't about health, is
it?
|3.10.06 @ 12:46AM|#
I did try to post here, but my browser hung, and after I hit
the stop button, my post didn't show up. Does that happen often
here?
Does a bear sh*t in the woods?
|3.10.06 @ 12:52AM|#
"Banning of outdoor smoking for health reasons simply
doesn't make any sense unless cars have already been banned. Even
the indoor smoking bans don't really make sense for health reasons
with the presence of indoor garages a vastly greater threat o
public health."
Yeah, but without my SUV, how else am I supposed to be able to
drive down to StarShmucks and buy a Fair Trade Grande Half-Caf
Mocha Macchiato?
Don't you understand?! It's important that we all have our cars!
There are benefits to driving cars! Meanwhile, those dirty, filthy
smokers sit around inhaling tobacco for fun!
But, teste, I guess you just hate the children.
|3.10.06 @ 1:59AM|#
It's not that I don't like children, it's just that I can't
decide how they are best enjoyed.
On the one hand, grinding them up, freeze drying them and running
hot water through gives a delicious, aromatic pink beverage.
On the other hand, dessicating and finely shredding them, followed
by rolling them in paper and setting alight gives a rich,
satisfying smoke.
I suppose if I lived in Calabassas, the decision would be made for
me.
|3.10.06 @ 7:20AM|#
"I did try to post here, but my browser hung, and after I
hit the stop button, my post didn't show up. Does that happen often
here?"
The server squirrels were on their daily smoke break
|3.10.06 @ 9:06AM|#
Anyone here remember that character Martin Short played who
nervously puffed a cigarette and kept being evasive "I KNOW THAT!
Don't you think I know that?!"
This city guy reminds me of him.
|3.10.06 @ 9:33AM|#
Aw, give the poor schmuck a break. He didn't write the idiotic law. It's his job to toe the line. Of course, he could get an honest job...
|3.10.06 @ 9:43AM|#
You are correct regarding the ordinance text.
I never cease to be amazed how many gov't employees are so
consistently dishonest; if they were working in the private sector
most would be fired or in jail.
VM|3.10.06 @ 9:45AM|#
Rick:
excellent observations, as usual.
Can't you imagine the scene:
Friday: come with us. you are under arrest
suspect: why? what are you going to do? arrest me for smoking
(delivered either as Sharon Stone or Michael Douglas, your
choice)
Friday: just the facts. don't make me use my taser.
it's great.
Teste: well, if you'd like a, um, modest proposal for children. may
i recommend a cream sauce with shallots, champigons.....
cheerio.
|3.10.06 @ 9:48AM|#
Sit in a garage with all doors and windows closed and ten
chain smokers. Note how long it takes to pass out.
I think I've done that, but it would be hard to tell what was the
direct cause of passing out. The more I think about it, it was
probably the moons^H^H^H^H^H gin, yup that's it, the gin.
Repeat this with one running automobile instead of the
smokers.
If it's a newer 'emissions compliant' automobile, it may shut down
with a "take me in, I've been bad" error code by itself before you
pass out. Your stomach lining might try to escape tho. Sure it
would depend on how sensitive the car is as to whether you pass out
or not but... Now pipe in clean air for the engine, or alternately
just pipe in the exhaust and it's a different story.
|3.10.06 @ 10:25AM|#
Chewing, eating, drinking, injecting, snorting are all protected
exercises of a right and should be allowed.
Smoking is not a protected exercise of a right since it infringes
upon the rights of third parties an there is nothing you can do to
ameliorate this.
|3.10.06 @ 10:31AM|#
Do we believe everything we hear? There is no scientific proof linking second hand smoke to lung cancer in non-smokers. However, out of respect for people with conditions such as asthma, I would happily go outside. Oh wait...we can't even do that anymore. What's next...are they gonna take away junk food?
|3.10.06 @ 10:47AM|#
"The people should not fear their government. The government
should fear the people."
From what I've seen of the new V is for Vendetta preview, Calabasas
better be on their toes.
|3.10.06 @ 10:56AM|#
Chewing, eating, drinking, injecting, snorting are all
protected exercises of a right and should be allowed.
But those infringe upon my right to eat, drink, etc. those items
that are being consumed and therefore should not be allowed. Damn
those externalities, why can't we legislate them away.
|3.10.06 @ 10:59AM|#
Hitler to the Austrian President: Do you think i'd build up these armies not to use them?
Rich Ard|3.10.06 @ 11:25AM|#
Holy shit, this got linked on Fark - the server squirrels are about to get fucked.
|3.10.06 @ 12:23PM|#
"All your Server Squirrels belong to us."
That's so funny it made me laugh ginger ale through my nose.
Fark|3.10.06 @ 12:27PM|#
Don't worry, nobody actually reads me anymore except for a few guys who have a laughing pirate fetish.
|3.10.06 @ 1:47PM|#
Hey, Not That-- why did you assume I was referring to you?
;)
Seattle has several smoker's clubs currently operating under
the tobacco police state.
Kind of like speakeasys during Prohibition? There are some that are
trying to get around the letter of I-901. The rule prohibits
smoking in any 'public' place, and any 'place of employment'. I
know of one place that claims it's a private club and that they
don't have any 'employees', just 'volunteers'. I applaud them but
personally I think they'll be shut down. The Health Dept will have
the Labor Department go after them for their definition of
'employees' or something. It's only been three months, after
all.
I don't think I have heard of a bar closing as a result of the
new law (please cite a specific example where a booze license has
been pulled).
Don't know of any actually 'pulled' yet-- after all, shutting you
down is a big incentive to toe the line, right?-- but how about the
Monkey Pub, a punk club on Roosevelt? They got threatened real
fast. From the UW Daily, 1/6:
Following the start of Washington's state-wide restaurant and bar
smoking ban on Dec. 9, the Monkey Pub's staff chose to defy the
law. For 20 days they were the only North Seattle bar where
customers were allowed to smoke indoors, but in late
December the owner received letters from the health department
threatening a revocation of the pub's business and liquor
licenses.
All the shows I've been to have been sold out
The business at the smokeeasies seems brisk, too. And the exempt
Indian casinos. But the local cardrooms are hurting; I've talked
with employees who claim about 20% loss. And the hookah bars are
SOL. I'll bet the little Mom and Pop taverns are feeling the
impact. Other clubs are still going well because people like me are
hanging around outside on the sidewalk a lot (until we get cracked
down on). Of course we're not inside DRINKING quite as much, so how
the receipts pan out is another matter....
I've only seen one news story regarding an angry business owner
who claimed economic harm. Bet there would be more coverage if it
was more common.
Do you REALLY believe that? **smile**
|3.10.06 @ 2:04PM|#
Jeebus, it even makes ashtrays illegal:
(c) No person shall dispose of Smoking waste or place
or maintain a receptacle for Smoking waste in an area in which
Smoking is prohibited by this chapter or other law, including
within any Reasonable Distance required by this
chapter.
|3.10.06 @ 3:53PM|#
Yes R C Dean you are correct. I shall now fall on my illegal
machete.
When they banned smoking in restaurants and bars here it bothered
me. I kept thinking if the people so wanted a smoke free bar why
didn't the smoke free bars we had ever seem to work out? Now we got
things like enclosed smoking areas in truck stops but only for
truckers who show their license to smoke in there. Others have to
step outside into the sub zero winter.
Oh well. Pretty soon they will finish with the smokers and we can
go after the fatties and drinkers.
|3.10.06 @ 6:37PM|#
Its REALY disheartening that as an international traveler, I
visit countries that are touted as "oppressed". Yet I seem to have
MUCH more personal freedom than I do here in the US...
Yeah, those "oppressive" regimes seem to have more rules on the
books, but they never seem quite as enthusiastic about enforcing
them as our own boys in blue, do they?
When my brother lived in Italy, he moved to a new apartment and
failed to register his new address with the local police within 6
days as required by law. When the local cop came to make a routine
check a couple of weeks later he was simply able to fill in a later
date on the form and everything was hunky-dory. No bribe or
anything; the cop just couldn't be bothered to make a stink over
such a petty thing. Now if bro had been black or an arab it
probably would have been a different story.
|3.10.06 @ 10:25PM|#
"Its REALY disheartening that as an international traveler, I
visit countries that are touted as "oppressed". Yet I seem to have
MUCH more personal freedom than I do here in the US..."
Whoever said this--I'm borrowing from Isaac Bartram, above--I just
want to say my excellent buddy, Waki Paki, has the same
thoughts.
He's especially wrought by US highway patrolmen and traffic
signals.
Some of you know how near and dear to my heart are such
concerns.
Evidently in Pakistan driving waki is the only way to.
Has anybody else here had a taxi ride from the military HQ to BC
Street in Naha, Okinawa?
|3.11.06 @ 1:35PM|#
Slightly off topic, but Jacob is getting some love over at
ESPN.com.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=hruby/060310
Robert|3.11.06 @ 10:27PM|#
Re http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=hruby/060310
, how d'ya get concussions in tennis? Doubles partners hit you with
their rackets? Dive into the poles that hold up the net?
Anyway, I was surprised to learn that the statutes for ordinary
traffic violations in NY routinely include the possibility of a
little jail time, so there is precedent for statutes that allow for
jail and yet no violator being jailed. Maybe this is really routine
in the field, so that any serious ordinance has to include
incarceration as a theoretic possibility just because...well, just
because that's how those things are supposed to be written.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245