Clean Air Calabasas Goes Soft on Smoking
Jacob Sullum | January 25, 2008, 12:38pm
It looks like Calabasas, California, has wimped out in the competition to enact the nation's most ridiculously intrusive smoking ordinance. The Los Angeles suburb showed real promise in 2006, when it banned smoking in almost all outdoor locations. But then Belmont, a town halfway between San Jose and San Francisco, stole Calabasas' thunder by imposing similar restrictions on outdoor smoking and, in a bold, unprecedented act of can-you-top-this petty tyranny, banning smoking in apartments and condominiums. It was a challenge Clean Air Calabasas, a Smoke-Free City, could not very well ignore; to salvage its puritanical pride, Calabasas also would have to do something about people smoking in the privacy of their homes.
The result, however, is disappointing: Last week the Calabasas City Council unanimously approved an ordinance that requires landlords to reserve 80 percent of their units for nonsmokers as of January 1, 2012. The law (PDF), which was supported by the L.A. chapter of the California Apartment Association (clearly a bad sign), not only allows smokers to rent up to one-fifth of apartments; it grandfathers current tenants who smoke. According to the city's website, "smoking unit tenants will be permitted to continue smoking inside their units even if they are residing in a building designated smoke-free. Relocating to smoke-free or smoking buildings is completely voluntary." Weak. Very weak. Almost reasonable. The ordinance's one saving grace is that it "prohibits smoking on all multi-unit apartment residence balconies, porches and patios." Now there's the Calabasas I love to hate.
[via The Rest of the Story]
Kevin | January 26, 2008, 11:23am | #
Smoking bans although the public are not well informed and poorly served by the media in that respect; bans and fat pandemics exist as prescribed HIA Health Intervention Campaigns. What is delivered to the news wires directly from advertising agencies, are the product of focus groups and extreme evaluation to maximize the intended effect.
Anti smoker advocacy is the result of a deliberate intervention on behalf of the UN sponsored, World Health Organization, and in compliance with an international anti smoking treaty which has inadvertently come off the rails and mutated into what can only be described as a personal slander bandwagon, which certainly was never it's initial "well meaning" intent. The general public is not widely aware of the existence of an anti smoking treaty either. Or of who these people in the HIA coalition named Tobacco Control [TC]truly represent.
Public health Campaigns although well intended are not well considered in the level of targeted abuse and bigotry they may be utilized to provoke. Banishing human beings to a level disrespectful of security of the person in denying shelter from the elements and as targets of promoted scorn, are below the considerations we, by law, defend in the rights of a dog. In fact in this respect abuse of a human is commended while abuse of a dog is understood to be a criminal act.
The fundamental flaw of Public health consensus described in HIA strategies [Partnering with the conflicted funds of industry] is they have imposed a limitation upon themselves and on science which restricts what is believed by their association to be "legitimate science" in contrast to science which by definition is an unbiased discovery process.
The influences of industry will always defend """at all costs""" its right to the generation of profit first and foremost. This is not a unique tendency, restricted to the Tobacco Industry alone. Allowing Industry to dominate the discovery process and influence what biology could demonstrate consistently and reproducibly is the fly in the ointment. TC speak as Hypocrites attacking Tobacco industry money as "dirty" while gleefully accepting funds from much larger corporations who actually do much more harm.
Discovery is replaced now with consensus and theology as the dominant guide. This pretty well assures; what public health will abdicate as a political group or cult following, will never meet the needs of the public or mankind, and will only promote increased mortality and morbidity whenever legitimate discoveries interfere with the production of wealth.
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/297097/
"In his first Rock Carling Fellowship Lecture in June 1967, Richard Doll stated clearly that prevention of cancer was a better strategy than cure."
Medical opinion regarding smoking has always been heavily influenced by Sir Richard however, if we examine his less credible motivations and Industry obligations perhaps Knighthood and such a wide support for "prevention" eliminating "finding a Cure" as a legitimate strategy was a little premature.
Every day we see promotions by medical charities asking for donations "to find cures" when the money collected is not actually invested in "finding cures" and they know it never will be.
The Public is being deliberately defrauded and should, by all ethical standards, be educated in the reality of the situation so their intentions can be respected and choices of where that money should flow can be made. The truth should be based in confidence and not false and misleading claims Supported largely by Public health partnerships and coalitions who are strictly dismissive of all other opinions.
If Public Health is convince Healthism [WIKI]is a legitimate and ethical endeavor, it begs the questions; why is it shrouded in secrecy, afraid of discussion and distributed in “increased risk” language, they know well the general public does not fully understand.
Why are the exaggerations and deceptions of anti smoker groups necessary at all? If a real danger exists in second hand smoke, it should be evident without the use of focus groups and testing for public response. The public should be able to see the real evidence and judge for themselves, without the deceptive language and high drama.
The reality is; none of them actually believes a hazard exists. It is only that lack of confidence in the theory which allows them to finance the ad agency spin and promote deceit.
If you really believe in the hazard of Second Hand Smoke, confidence could bring unified public support with legitimate evidence, beyond statistical theory and ad agency fear campaigns which only created divisions.
You certainly would never require denormalization strategies to be imposed on those who don't share your concerns.
Kevin | January 26, 2008, 11:37am | #
When we hear of other places which implemented smoking bans as a reasoning to follow, it could be pointed out; Hitler had smoking bans as well. Would you care to abdicate for some of his other peculiarities and "protections" as well? This is all starting to sound as though many actually would.
Medical charity groups sell themselves as “searching for cures”, yet remain within the confines of prevention and treatment. Cures would of course eliminate the need for either. Cures would result in the end of charity groups and of course all those goodwill donations, based essentially in fraud. Cures would also end the need for multi billion dollar fear mongering campaigns promoting smoking bans.
Are the bans an admission we have given up the search for cures, or simply a need to moralize state imposition and enforce a personal obligation to the state.
http://www.toolan.com/hitler/sur...er/ surplus.html
"Eugenics, Social Darwinism and Racial Hygiene now join hands, although Eugenics is the only one of these that one could manage to call a science. It is a movement which has attracted many medical men, and these have given the scientific means of assisting Social Darwinism in its endeavours to favour the fittest, and Racial Hygienists in their efforts to improve the race."
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/297097/
"In his first Rock Carling Fellowship Lecture in June 1967, Richard Doll stated clearly that prevention of cancer was a better strategy than cure."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthism
"According to Skrabanek, "healthism" begins when the government begins to use propaganda and coercion to establish norms of health and begins to attempt to impose norms of a "healthy lifestyle." All human activities are weighed in the balance of their real or imagined effects on health: all human activities are divided into "healthy" and "unhealthy", prescribed and proscribed, approved and disapproved, responsible and irresponsible, based on this measure."
http://findarticles.com/p/articl...i_76285452/ pg_1
"The abdication of independent science in the area of public health has led to epidemiological anarchy, with corporations, their apparatchiks and agencies, as well as government, constantly broadcasting inaccurate or partial information about health threats. One simple fact shows very clearly the extent to which a genuine cover-up of the truth exists. When, in 1991 and 1992, the American Environmental Protection Agency offered an amnesty on large-scale fines to any manufacturer turning in health studies previously kept from the Agency, more than 10,000 studies which showed that chemicals already on the market could pose a `substantial risk of injury to health or the environment' were turned in."
BarneyBear | January 29, 2008, 3:57pm | #
Before tobacco was brought to Europe by Sir Walter Raleigh, the preferred "weed" to put in your pipe was Hemp, a relative of the Cannabis plant.
So smoking has been around for a very long time indeed. I agree with a previous posting that people tend to smoke more because of frustration about the Smoking Ban Experiment = Social Engineering. (Remember Stalin and Hitler?)
To repeat again, the reason for Smoking Ban Experiment is based on the lies about the so called dangers of SHS. No one can produce any names or corpses whose deaths were caused directly by SHS. Don't mention Roy Castle, as he smoked cigars (Not a well known fact). Furthermore there are many other triggers to develop cancer, namely genetic factors, preservatives and colourants in food, even in organic natural foodstuffs, milk, chemicals in aerosol sprays, perfumes, vehicle exhaust fumes, being overweight, etc., the list is endless.
Afflictions like asthma are often triggered by psychosomatic factors, referring in this discussion to tobacco smoke, by putting the fear of death into people regarding the falsely alleged mortal dangers of SHS.
Strangely though, asthma rates have gone up over the last 50 years, although smoking has declined, therefore other factors must have an effect, namely those factors mentioned in the previous paragraph, regarding cancer triggers.
Other recent Health Scares - Microwave ovens, High Voltage Pylons, Mobile Phones and Masts, we are all being scared to death – none of us are immortal anyway. For whose health benefit, certainly not yours or mine, it is about "people control" by our governments, who in turn are being manipulated, lobbied by large multinational corporations, to increase their profits, push their wares and drugs. Prohibitionist and dictatorial diktats have no place in a democratic liberal society. I echo the words by Abraham Lincoln:
"Prohibition...goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." -Abraham Lincoln, December, 1840.
Too many policies and laws are based on the "divide and conquer" principle, turn family against family, friend against friend, neighbour against neighbour. And what a divisive and spiteful law the Smoking Ban Experiment = Social Engineering, is.
I think I'll light up another fag for some more inspiration!!!
Latest news: “Sports Café” pubco has been put into liquidation – a victim of the “puritan and anti-smoking zealot” Smoking Ban Experiment!”
When will this blinkered government, cocooned in spin, wake up to reality? Will they for once listen to the people who elected them? I don’t think so, they have lost the plot, they are in the quagmire, and tied to sickly “Political Correctness”. The other parties have not publicly stated their political stance on this vexed and decisive Smoking Ban neither. No doubt they are trying to be Political Correct – yechhh!
I have no gripe with non smokers, since I have been on that side of the fence too, as many of them have never minded being in the company of a smoker, but it is those fanatical zealous anti-smokers and their cohorts, who are the most vitriolic, with highly sarcastic and cynic remarks to those who smoke. Mostly selfish remarks like, “It makes my clothes and hair smell”, or attempt to stop everyone else’s personal pleasure or indulgence, in this case smoking. Ask them if they have ever sat around a Barbecue!
Lastly, I will finish this epistle off by saying, I had been contemplating to stop smoking a few months before the Smoking ban Experiment, but because nu-Labour did not stick with its original manifesto regarding smoking in pubs, etc, I thought no way, this is now a matter of civil liberty – a symbol of resistance and freedom to choose, against Totalitarianism and Health Fascism.
