A Smoke-Filled Room for the 21st Century

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (I love typing that) wants to convert the state Capitol's indoor courtyard into a "smoking plaza" by removing part of the building's roof. The Washington Times reports that the Cigar Aficionado cover boy "wants to create an informal meeting and schmoozing area where he can smoke cigars with lawmakers and other power brokers."

The outraged response from the anti-smoking crowd is further evidence that the main point of smoking bans is not to protect bystanders from secondhand smoke but to discourage the habit by making it less convenient and less socially acceptable. "That's very frightening that he would even think about smoking inside the heart of our state Capitol," said one activist, clearly more concerned about the symbolism than the smoke. "He could do more good by championing our cause rather than trivializing it."

The American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, and the American Lung Association likewise scolded Schwarzenegger for setting a bad example: "We are deeply disappointed at several recent public depictions of your use and promotion of cigars and urge you to refrain from modeling this dangerous habit."

A member of L.A.'s City Council offered a similar rationale for banning smoking in city parks.

[Thanks to Christine Hall-Reis for the link.]

Comments

[xray]

story ain't true.

[James Merritt]

Shultz says, "Another example of California smoking laws run amok, although I rarely see it quoted anymore, is in Davis, CA. Unless this has changed very recently, it illegal in Davis, California to smoke in public while standing."

James says, "Here in Santa Cruz CA, it is illegal to smoke standing outside, when queued up for things like restaurants, movie theatres, etc."

[Douglas Fletcher]

I think liberals who oppose public smoking should dress up like Carrie Nation and destroy tobacco stands with axes. And blowing smoke in someone's face should be punishable by an immediate, summary punch in the mouth.

[Jean Bart]

This is America's fault!!!! Look what you have done!!! 🙂

Ireland to outlaw smoking in pubs: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4302163/

[Lonewacko]

This is an important story. However, you might want to take a look at my post Top Contributors To Arnold [Schwarzenegger] By Industry. It has a nice chart of which industries Arnold is getting his money from.

It also includes the following:

Bustamante's ties with MEChA lead to his defeat. Now we've got someone who's working with former MEChA member Gil Cedillo to get illegal aliens to the DMV where they can pick up their driver's licenses and perhaps register to vote under MotorVoter...

[radek]

shultz,

Yes, it is still illegal to smoke here while
standing still, although most people including
the authorities are sensible to ignore the law.
On the other hand I have had some women actually
cross the freakin' street just to tell me to
"keep moving" while smoking. When I refused she
threatened to "tell somebody about it".

Davis has several other stupid laws. Like turning
lights out by 10pm so that people can star gaze
while being undisturbed by "light pollution".
I'm not kidding. Also not enforced of course.

[Brian]

Well, I'm not so sure about major renovations to the capital to accomodate the socializing preferences of a governor, but Arnie sure is pissing off the right people as far as I'm concerned.

[dj of raleigh]

> The outraged response from the anti-smoking crowd is further evidence that the main point of smoking bans is not to protect bystanders from secondhand smoke but to....

[Bogus Alert]

Actually, the governor's office has no plans to put a hole in the dome, and is insisting the Washington Times print a retraction. Link: http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/insider/archives/001076.html

[dj of raleigh]

> the governor's office has no plans to put a hole in the dome, and is insisting the Washington Times print a retraction.

[joe]

You do realize that you're arguing that California has an affirmative duty to provide smoking areas at taxpayer expense, right?

[JimInNoVA]

Well, not really. It has a duty to let people do as they please, so long as they don't harm others. They could repeal the smoking ban in government buildings instead, obviating the need for the hole in the roof to make the courtyard "outdoors."

[dhex]

no, i don't think he said he actually supports removing the roof - an act which would once again prove that politics is really satire with guns - but instead on the motives of the anti-smoking crowd.

[xray]

http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/insider/archives/001076.html

[joe]

Jim, smokers can smoke on the sidewalks or in the parking lot right now. The proposal is to create a nice place for them to smoke. Sounds like an expensive one, as well.

[James Merritt]

"The outraged response from the anti-smoking crowd is further evidence that the main point of smoking bans is not to protect bystanders from secondhand smoke but to discourage the habit by making it less convenient and less socially acceptable."

You wouldn't need any more proof, if you spent any time watching TV in California -- long enough to catch some of the Rob Reiner memorial anti-smoking ads that run routinely here. The one that dropped my jaw the other day included captions that exhorted viewers to "imagine a world without tobacco," and "undo smoking everywhere." The agenda of the PC powers that be is obvious, pervasive, and being pursued openly, with no small amount of arrogance.

This is political speech paid for by tax dollars. Many of those, whose taxes are appropriated for this purpose vehemently disagree with the content of the political speech. Count me among them. Isn't that sort of thing illegal?

[Brady]

I agree. If you are against the NEA for being a symbol of waste, how could you support tax money being spent on a smoking/schoozing room? Whoever is outraged and whoever wants to stop this gets a hat tip from me.

[Andy D.]

Maybe Governor Schwarzenegger could pay for the renovations himself. Would anyone here have a problem with that?

[Russ D]

Bad policy begets bad policy. Unfortunately, the law states he can't designate any areas in the building as smoking areas. So rather than be able to do the rational and inexpensive thing, the law handcuffs him to do the silly expensive thing.

[Dan]

Something not mentioned in any of these articles is that cigar smoking in moderation actually does not have that much of a health risk. There are two reasons for that: The first is that the typical cigar smoking smokes fewer cigars than cigarette smokers do cigarettes. While a cigarette smoker might smoke 150 cigarettes a week, a cigar smoker typically smokes one a day or less.

Second, most North American cigar smokers do not inhale. So while cigar smokers have a roughly equivalent chance of contracting various oral cancers as do cigarette smokers, these cancers are relatively rare in both. Lung cancer, emphysema and heart trouble are not really associated with non-inhaling cigar smokers.

The upshot of all this is that studies have shown that people who smoke five or fewer cigars a week, and who don't inhale, have an increased health risk that is not really even statistically measurable - one study I read had the risk of cigarette smoking normalized at 100, and on that scale, the type of cigar smoking I mentioned above had a relative risk of 3-5. That's on par with the cancer risks from things like milk and apples.

So way to go, Arnie. Don't cave in to the safety tyrants.

[Mark Fox]

In another light, we're discussing removing an ill-founded state intrusion on personal behaviour. Some argue that, since removing that intrusion has a price (stealing from taxpayers to modify a building), the state should not act. In other words, once the state takes your rights, you can never get them back because it will cost money.

Perhaps, when enacting any legislation, would she include the cost of reversal in the budget.

[Mark Fox]

...ahem...

"we should" not "would she"

[Shultz]

The point is that the government should pass and enforce laws solely to protect the rights of citizens, and the anti-smoking laws in California were passed merely to harrass citizens who engage in an activity that the government doesn't like.

Another example of California smoking laws run amok, although I rarely see it quoted anymore, is in Davis, CA. Unless this has changed very recently, it illegal in Davis, California to smoke in public while standing.

That's right, one must walk while smoking.

Can you believe it?

[thoreau]

I'm glad to see my governator is prioritizing...

Now, what about those spending cuts?

[nobody]

Nothing surprises me. At a large Motorola plant nearby, the smoking policy for employees explicitly stated that smokers had to not only smoke outside, but off company property as well. Many retreated to their cars to smoke. They were then forbidden to smoke in their own cars unless they drove off company property first. How's that for intelligent use of "human resources"?

[Michael J. McFadden]

The mind set and condition of the more outspoken activists of the Antismoking Crusade are shown by the news story quote above from an activist who thought it was "frightening that he would even think about smoking in the heart of our state Capitol." Does this activist think Swarzzy is smoking exploding cigars or something? I strongly believe that the neurotic/psychotic element of the population is strongly over-represented among the Antismoking Crusaders: the fears and support systems involved make it a natural for attracting such an element.

In response to another post about cigars where the poster pointed out that "Lung cancer, emphysema and heart trouble are not really associated with non-inhaling cigar smokers." , this fact has to make one seriously question the whole idea of "secondhand smoke" as a cause of problems. Who the heck inhales more secondhand smoke than a cigar smoker???

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.Antibrains.com

[Douglas Fletcher]

I wonder if they put up a sign outside the tent that said "Pole Smokers Also Welcome," would that smooth things over?

[ewilliam]

You know, I find this whole issue a bit whirlwindish. I can't figure out if people care about the principles of personal freedom, or are simply against any and all smoking curtailment. Another poster, above, mentioned their disgust at Motorola refusing to let people smoke on their property. However, principles of individual liberty (including property rights) dictate that Motorola should be able to prohibit things like smoking on their property if they see fit.

Conversely, people seem to be up in arms over the fact that smoking is prohibited in the CA State Capitol Building. This is where it really puzzles me; I strongly oppose governmental bans on smoking in businesses, etc. It is not their place to come onto people's property and force them, at gunpoint, if necessary, to prohibit smoking.

However, at the same time, if the government has the right to prohibit smoking anywhere, it's in their own HQ! Just as a restaurant owner should be allowed to determine the smoking rules for his property, the government should be allowed to determine the smoking rules for theirs.

If you guys are going to fight city hall re: anti-smoking legislation, at least stick by some semblance of principals. Give em hell for banning smoking down at Charley's Bar & Grill, but let them do as they please on their own doorstep. It's only consistent...

[lockjaw02]

You know, smokers pay taxes too. The conclusion in the Congressional Research Service Report to Congress, (CRS 97-1053), "The Proposed Tobacco Settlement: Who Pays for the Health Costs of Smoking?", was that governments enjoyed a net gain from tobacco taxes at prevailing tax rates prior to the Master Settlement Agreement and subsequent tax hike frenzy.

http://countingcalifornia.cdlib.org/crs/ascii/97-1053

Not only that, but more governments are refusing to hire smokers. The Florida State Attorney's offices in at least two counties refuse to hire smokers, acknowledge that it's discrimination, and crow publicly that there's nothing we can do about it.

http://orlando.bizjournals.com/orlando/stories/2000/01/31/story3.html

The US Supreme Court earlier affirmed the city of Miami refusal to hire smokers did not infringe on their right to privacy.

http://www.fairmeasures.com/whatsnew/archive/winter96/new04.html

You don't hear much about this today. But if the courts rule that smokers can be discriminated against because of the perception that it effects productivity and thus profits, then why must bans be implemented to "protect workers". Cannot bars and restaurants simply discriminate against non-smokers because to hire them would affect their ability to maintain profitability to satisfy their smoking clientel?

Hell, if the government itself can refuse to hire us, then why can't we refuse to pay our taxes which they use to hire people who wish to persecute us some more?