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
To the Smokemobile!
It looks like Belmont, California, will continue to allow smoking in cars and in detached, single-family homes. But the strictest version of a proposed ordinance the city council began considering this week would prohibit smoking just about everywhere else, including outdoor bar and restaurant seating, sidewalks, streets, parking lots, apartments, and condominiums. The innovation of telling people they may not light up in their own homes, while simultaneously telling them they may not go outside to smoke, has attracted nationwide attention since it was first suggested last year.
Michael Siegel notes another interesting wrinkle in the draft ordinance: While smoking in a prohibited location would be an "infraction" punishable by a $100 fine, "causing, permitting, aiding, abetting, or concealing" such smoking would be a misdemeanor, raising the possibility of larger fines, jail, and a criminal record. Failing to report illicit smoking could be treated as a misdemeanor, Siegel warns, so if you must visit Belmont but want to avoid jail, "make sure to wear a bag over your head so that you cannot possibly see anyone smoking."
Yet another fun fact about the proposed law: Confirming conservatives' worst nightmares about California, it explicitly allows pot smoking (for medical purposes) while banning cigarette smoking.
Timothy|3.16.07 @ 4:16PM|#
All smoke smells quite bad
But lefties like the tasty pot
Hippies smell like poo.
Antarctic Penguin|3.16.07 @ 4:21PM|#
While I certainly do oppose this law on principle, I must admit I have less of a problem with it than I do most nanny-state types of laws. For one thing, smoking actually CAN impact another person not participating in the activity. Again, I want to stress I STILL do oppose the law; just not to the degree I do most nanny-state laws.
|3.16.07 @ 4:24PM|#
I wonder if someone could be held liable in tort for, I dunno, some kind of battery for smoking where the good citizens of Crazyfornia only inhale the most pristine smog-saturated air.
Christopher Monnier|3.16.07 @ 4:28PM|#
> it explicitly allows pot smoking (for medical purposes)
while banning cigarette smoking.
What about candles or incense? Do these not generate toxic
smoke?
The Wine Commonsewer|3.16.07 @ 4:36PM|#
Went to lunch with the Old Lady today and almost suffocated
on the smell of stale perfume. I'da much rather shared some
second hand cigarette smoke. Or even cigar smoke.
My old buddy Caffrey (a libertarian) has this to say about banning
smoke:
Chowing down on a thick porterhouse with a fine red and playing
"21" are two different things. You can blow smoke all over me when
I double down on on a hard 11 into a dealer's 6. I don't give a
sh** about that. Just keep your cig smoke away from my sauteed
onions and mushrooms.
That illustrates the problem well. People like smoke free dining
and they don't care. That's why every state will ban public
smoking. It's as simple as mind over matter. They don't mind and
smoker's don't matter (nor do property rights).
In other nukes, rumor has it that Arizona is going smoke free.
|3.16.07 @ 5:10PM|#
"I have less of a problem with it than I do most nanny-state
types of laws. For one thing, smoking actually CAN impact another
person not participating in the activity."
Not liking something and creating your own science to justify your
tyrany are too different things.
The nicotine Nazi's have been trying to get the facts to justify
there assualt on freedom and liberty for years but the facts
wouldn't cooperate. But don't worry they just tell everyone the
conclusion they want and fuck the facts.
Next up:
Banning second hand BBQ smoke.
lunchstealer|3.16.07 @ 5:27PM|#
violent k missed
the south park "smug" episode
about the hybrid cars
|3.16.07 @ 6:01PM|#
Belmont is a city without any open space between its neighbors. Wouldn't it be fun to stand just past the border on a sidewalk, smoking a cig, just to see if a cop would hassle you? Mmmmmm.... false arrest or police harassment lawsuit would be nice.
|3.16.07 @ 6:06PM|#
Styx concerts are cool
but "smells nice like Styx concert"
has six syllables
Stevo Darkly has
great taste in rock music but
has no haiku sense
dhex|3.16.07 @ 6:23PM|#
"Stevo Darkly | March 16, 2007, 5:47pm | #
When pigeon smokes pot
It turns Japanese poet:
Utters a "high coo"!"
cannot stop laughing
but i still have to wonder
how he smokes with claws
|3.16.07 @ 6:30PM|#
cannot stop laughing
but i still have to wonder
how he smokes with claws
"Have they large talons?"
Napolean Dynamite
Said that in movie
Stevo Darkly has
great taste in rock music but
has no haiku sense
Oh noes and dammit
I bring shame to this blog, now
I commit sepukku
|3.16.07 @ 6:33PM|#
crimethink laughs so hard,
His belly won't stop jiggling.
Must lose twenty pounds.
|3.16.07 @ 6:47PM|#
Please Stevo do not
commit haiku sepukku
Things will get better
Hit and Run without
Stevo is like a barren
socialist wasteland
edna|3.16.07 @ 7:16PM|#
i cannot do shift
but at least i can count well
i think this makes five.
my rolling papers;
tight spliffs stuffed with the kind bud
get me quite hungry.
Ray G|3.16.07 @ 10:19PM|#
Dennis Prager has long made the excellent point that in the 50s,
everyone smoked, and no one cursed. Now everyone curses, and
smoking is socially reprehensible, or so "they" would have us
believe.
I don't curse or smoke, but the whole anti-tobacco thing is so
overblown that I'm tempted at times to go buy a pack and start
smoking in all of the wrong places.
Guy Montag|3.17.07 @ 6:56AM|#
Yet another fun fact about the proposed law: Confirming
conservatives' worst nightmares about California, it explicitly
allows pot smoking (for medical purposes) while banning cigarette
smoking.
Actually, that was just an easy to make prediction.
Autoversicherung|3.17.07 @ 11:14AM|#
All smoke smells quite bad
But lefties like the tasty pot
Hippies smell like poo.
|3.17.07 @ 11:25AM|#
I remember an old Johnny Carson joke:
Q: What's the definition of a Californian?
A: Someone who complains about your second-hand smoke while
snorting your cocaine.
|3.18.07 @ 4:12PM|#
Here in Santa Cruz County, the Supervisors have voted
unanimously to ban the use of tobacco in county parks. I'm not just
talking about smoking, but the possession or use of any tobacco
product. The ordinance will probably be made permanent after its
second reading, later this month. I wrote the following letter of
protest to the Supervisor in my district (whose name has been
excised to protect the guilty):
Dear Mr. XXXXX,
I read with great disappointment the news that the Board of
Supervisors voted unanimously to ban the use of tobacco products in
county parks. In advance of the final reading later this month, I
ask you and the other Supervisors to reconsider and rescind this
action.
Based on the health concerns swirling around second-hand tobacco
smoke, campaigns to ban indoor smoking have met with great success
in this and other regions of the country. As smokers have been
forced outside, those who would ban their habit altogether have
followed them, pushing to ban smoking in various outdoor venues, as
well. The ban that is currently under consideration goes further
yet, by targeting not just tobacco smoking in our county parks, but
the use of tobacco in any way, regardless of how considerate and
responsible the tobacco user might be, or how much any real
person's actual health or well-being may be threatened by the
tobacco user's activities. In my opinion, the ordinance that the
Supervisors are on the verge of making permanent goes way too
far.
I do not smoke. I think it is a filthy habit. My own mother died of
complications from a lifetime of smoking. I am no fan of tobacco or
the tobacco industry. But I am likewise no fan of making an
addict's situation even worse. And I am definitely a fan of the
individual's freedom to live his life as he chooses, so long as he
does so without harming or endangering others. I know from personal
experience that diesel and other exhaust fumes from motor vehicles
and industrial equipment are more dangerous, and that other
people's body odor, perfumes, and bad breath are often much more
objectionable, than any tobacco smoke I have encountered. Smoke
quickly dissipates in the air, and the smoker's contribution to air
pollution is negligible, which is why the anti-smoking crowd was so
successful in getting others to support them as they forced smokers
outside in the first place. Are you aware of any studies that
identify tobacco smoke outdoors as a menace that is even equal to
those other pollutants I mentioned, much less worse? In my opinion,
making smokers "take it outside" is as far as we can legitimately
go with what is shaping up to be the outright persecution of
smokers. I am baffled as to why our own Board of Supervisors thinks
it is appropriate to ban even the use of smokeless tobacco in the
parks, which need not endanger the health of well-being of anyone
other than the user!
It is legitimate for the County to look out for the health and
safety of those who visit the parks, as well as to promote the
proper maintenance of the properties by, for example, prohibiting
and punishing litter, whether caused by the use of tobacco or any
other reason. But any tobacco user who is considerate of others,
and who does not litter in the park, should not have to pay a fine
or suffer any other punishment, for engaging in what is otherwise a
legal activity involving a legal substance. Tobacco users own
property and pay taxes in support of county parks, too. They also
pay hefty excise and sales taxes when they purchase tobacco
products. Doesn't their contribution to government coffers entitle
them to some consideration and protection, as well? What are we to
say about a society that makes some of its members into pariahs,
and then takes money from them to finance their own punishment and
continued persecution?
The ban on tobacco use in county parks appears to be an
ill-conceived, much too broad restriction on people's personal
liberty. In Santa Cruz, we are often exhorted to "share" with
others - to practice understanding and tolerance toward those whose
appearance, views, or practices might at first alarm or offend us.
This is a fine principle, but we need to be consistent in applying
it toward users of tobacco. Share the parks with them. Tolerate
their considerate and responsible use of this drug. Think about the
Golden Rule before you cast your final vote to ban tobacco use in
county parks. Your stand for or against personal liberty will
figure prominently in my future voting decisions, and my
recommendations to others about theirs. I'd like to say that Mr.
XXXXXX helped convince the Supervisors to uphold everyone's
freedom, when the easy thing to do would have been to bow to
politically correct orthodoxy.
Thank you for your time and your consideration of my
concerns.
=========================================
Here is the reply I received:
Dear Mr. Merritt-
Thank you for your thoughtful letter regarding the ban on the use
of tobacco product in county parks. I'm afraid this is an issue
where we will continue to disagree. I understand your view but I
believe the health considerations, effect on children using the
parks, and the costs the county must bear for tobacco-related
illness cause me to come to a different conclusion. Thank you for
taking the time to write concerning this issue.
Sincerely,
XXXXXXX, Supervisor
=========================================
If I lived in Calevaras County, I'd at least be able to count on
multiply re-elected Libertarian Supervisor Tom Tryon to be on the
side of freedom. I think I know why the electoral frog jumped to
put him and keep him in office: the water was beginning to boil.
Here in Santa Cruz County, the roiling boil has been going on for a
while...
|3.18.07 @ 10:23PM|#
"wonder if someone could be held liable in tort for, I dunno,
some kind of battery for smoking where the good citizens of
Crazyfornia only inhale the most pristine smog-saturated
air."
Belmont is a little rich enclave nestled in the hills down the
peninsula from San Francisco. There is no smog there or really much
of anywhere around the Bay (not all of California is LA).
An ordinance in a silly little NorCal suburb isn't exactly the same
thing as state law. Although it is certainly in keeping with recent
trends.
|3.19.07 @ 3:34AM|#
I would legalize smoking pot and tobacco, prostitution, gambling
and driving without seatbelt.
What we need is a ban on forum spam and haiku...
The Pod Guy|3.19.07 @ 1:55PM|#
You're not supposed to put a bag over your head to avoid seeing
smokers. On seeing them, you should stand stock still point at them
with one stiffly outstreched arm and emmit a loud, trilling scream
until they can be caught and appropriately processed.
It's in the training film.
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