Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Supertelevangelistic Sex-and-D... | The Morning News »

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Anti-Smoking Idiocy

posted by on November 15 at 17:11 PM

Let me be the first to say that this is nuts.

Belmont [CA] is set to make history by becoming the first city in the nation to ban smoking on its streets and almost everywhere….

The Belmont City Council voted unanimously last night to pursue a strict law that will prohibit smoking anywhere in the city except for single-family detached residences. Smoking on the street, in a park and even in one’s car will become illegal and police would have the option of handing out tickets if they catch someone.

Stupid, stupid, stupid. Unenforceable, over-reaching, invitation-to-police-harrassment, tyrannical, and haven’t-we-learned-anything-from-the-dumbass-war-on-drugs stupid. I’ve never smoked—never a single puff—but if I lived in Belmont this law would prompt me to take it up.

Via Drudge.

RSS icon Comments

1

See? This is why I have a problem with smoking bans, generally, because they are the first step to making smoking completely illegal (thus, you can't do it at once, because people would flip out; if you do it one step at a time, they aquiese).

Hawaii's smoking ban goes into effect tomorrow. I could get on board with the banning of smoking in work places; I find it much harder to agree with/comply with/enforce the 20-foot restriction from doorways. Downtown, that makes the middle of the street the only legal place to smoke. And traffic is already bad enough.

Posted by Dianna | November 15, 2006 5:41 PM
2

Wow, what a Seattle Weekly-esque post.

Two quick comments:

- Smoking literally stinks
- And it causes cancer

Further, most smokers are the kind of trashy, chinless, ass-ugly folks that I wouldn't want uglying up my town, anyway. Want proof? Just look around any tribal casino.

Enough reason for me to support this kind of ban.

Posted by h0rati0sanzserif | November 15, 2006 5:50 PM
3

the 20 foot ban is so that people don't have to walk through a cloud of smoke getting in and out of buildings where half the population of the building is sitting outside smoking. when you smoke in front of the only place to get into a building, you force the tenants to inhale your nastiness when the enter/exit. get over it.

i do agree that smoking should be allowed in open-air, public places. in that case, the smoke is generally avoidable. the belmont ban is a little cuckoo. but don't compare that to the war on drugs, which is not just cuckoo but downright destructive and destroys peoples' lives. i'm sorry, but nobody's life is being destroyed by a fricking smoking ban. sissies.

Posted by smokey the banned-it | November 15, 2006 5:51 PM
4

I hate smoking with a passion but I would not support this ban either.

Posted by Sachi | November 15, 2006 6:03 PM
5

The types of people who write a ban like this are exactly the people who support, write and push through smoking bans across the country. And they're everywhere. Yes, even in Seattle, and many of them helped write and promote 901. If not for the possibility of opposition, they likely would have worded it just as Belmont's is worded.

This was their goal all along, Dan. Don't play like you had no idea.

Belmont's a guinea pig. If it works here, it's going nationwide.

Posted by Gomez | November 15, 2006 6:11 PM
6

what about all the kids whose parents are forced to smoke inside with them now, #2? or are you in favor of killing off all the trashy, chinless, ass-ugly kids, too?

Posted by unpaid intern | November 15, 2006 6:11 PM
7

I am a reformed smoker, and I militantly get on my soap box about it and harang my friends to stop smoking. I'll be the first to admit that I'm probably overly sensitive to the smell of cigarette smoke (probably comes from being an ex-smoker). I think it's a terrible habit, and the thought of kissing a smoker makes me want to retch. I enthusiastically supported our smoking ban in bars/restaurants.

However, the Belmont ban goes way too far. A smoking ban in bars makes sense: the second hand smoke is a health hazard to workers and non-smoking patrons. Smokers don't have a right to kill the people around them who don't share their habit. However, someone smoking outdoors or in a park poses no health hazard to me, and only a minimal nuisance (certainly not enough of a nuisance to require its ban). As much of a militant anti-smoker as I am, I would actively oppose this kind of ban.

Dianna & Gomez, I don't buy the slippery slope analogy. Obviously lots of people voted for the bar/restaurant smoking ban here in Seattle. That does not necessarily mean there would be that kind of support for a much broader ban.

Posted by SDA in SEA | November 15, 2006 6:32 PM
8

Hah - 50.0000000001 per cent

Enter the non smoking cultists. There are several in my office, they live to constantly rave on the topic, over and over.

I have never smoked before, and love kissing smokers on the mouth, the cheeks, the chest and the ...... ......

What does good sex have to do with anything except the sex? Boy, some people are detached from their own skins.

Posted by Jack | November 15, 2006 6:55 PM
9

What did you think the logical extension of the the first smoking ban would be? Did you think it would stop there?

Posted by hacky mchackerson | November 15, 2006 7:07 PM
10

I say we cut off the hands of any smoker caught throwing their butts on the ground.

Posted by xx | November 15, 2006 7:20 PM
11

Yes, it would and could stop there. There's no reason that putting reasonable restrictions on certain activities to prevent them from harming others should lead to outlawing those activities altogether. The smoking ban in Seattle and other cities is reasonable, this one is not. One doesn't follow from the other.

It's like saying we shouldn't have speed limits because eventually they'll just outlaw driving completely.

Posted by Anthony | November 15, 2006 7:25 PM
12

"Ill just put it in a little way, OK?" That is not the way it has ever worked. Once you go down the road you can bet we'll go a mile farther.

Posted by yeah sure | November 15, 2006 7:42 PM
13

Up next, outlawing bacon.

Posted by Chris B | November 15, 2006 8:22 PM
14

Think of the boon to entrepreneurship! I'm going to make a shitload of money selling tobacco home-grow kits when the full-on ban hits.

Posted by Anome | November 15, 2006 8:32 PM
15

Slippery slope dumbshits in da house!

Posted by Milo | November 15, 2006 8:37 PM
16

Only legal in detached single family residences? That's ridiculous beyond belief as it means that anyone living in an apartment, townhouse, or duplex wouldn't be able to smoke in their own homes. I mean, it's kinda stupid just in general, but that's got to be the worst part.

Posted by Gitai | November 15, 2006 8:41 PM
17

as a horribly addicted smoker, i completely support this ban. i'm pretty confident i'm going to die of smoking unless it's made illegal or i get hit by a car.

Posted by jamie | November 15, 2006 8:52 PM
18

Ah, yes. The evangelical anti-smokers, ladies and gents. Step right up. Do I have some news for you. Do as I say! It's for your own good. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. And stop that drinking too! Do you want to die of renal failure? And that crap you watch on TV! Don't you know it will rot your mind and turn your children against you?

Posted by reverend you | November 15, 2006 9:04 PM
19

I, for one, blame the patriarchy.

Posted by Charles | November 15, 2006 9:15 PM
20

"I’ve never smoked...never a single puff..."

We're talking about tobacco, right?

Posted by kb | November 15, 2006 9:16 PM
21

I've smoked a few cigarettes in my day but I never inhaled... Seems to me like a class issue. Folks with single family residents get their freedoms. Can't afford your own house? Well, too bad cuz you can't smoke in your affordable apartment. I live about 20 mins from Belmont.

Posted by Papayas | November 15, 2006 10:26 PM
22

Replace "smoking" with "abortions"--you've framed this discussion in the exact same manner for years, and the erosion of choices, even when they're stupid choices, is always inevitably where that kind of shrill talk leads.

You can't possibly harangue people about what you declare as "evil" for years on end, as you have, and then suddenly say, "Whoa, too far" when, indeed, it goes too far.

Posted by Smokee | November 15, 2006 10:42 PM
23

If people want to get cancer, "be ugly", and be unhealthy and whatever else smoking does, you have to let it--it's called free will. You can't prevent people from doing everything that makes them ugly and is unhealthy (i.e. tanorexic guys/gals).

Posted by sofia | November 15, 2006 10:53 PM
24

Actually I don't think they're the first city to do that. Calabasas, CA (in the valley near LA) did a law like that awhile ago.

I don't smoke and I love that smoking isn't allowed indoors in restaurants and bars in California. I even like that they prohibit smoking near doorways and open windows in a lot of places, like universities. But no smoking anywhere EVER? As gross as smoking is, that is sort of ridiculous.

Posted by Jessica | November 15, 2006 11:40 PM
25

It's not like abortion, or like bacon, or drinking, or watching too much TV, or most of the other comparisons here. Smoking is different because it AFFECTS OTHER PEOPLE'S HEALTH. Why is it so hard to grasp this basic distinction?

This ban is ridiculous because it reaches into places where this isn't the case. Smoking in a way that doesn't harm others is perfectly fine, if stupid.

Posted by Anthony | November 15, 2006 11:50 PM
26

Thank you #25. That says it all.

Posted by case closed | November 16, 2006 12:48 AM
27

there is a similar bylaw where i live, with the exception that its okay to smoke in your car. it is truly unenforcable and people still smoke where they want.

Posted by adrian | November 16, 2006 6:17 AM
28

what Anthony said. our current smoking restrictions are great except for the fact they now require people out for a "healthy" walk in many restaurant-dense business areas (over here, that includes Alki and the WS Junction) to dodge smoke clouds. we know how tough it is to quit but it's do-able. it costs too much, it's inconvenient, it's not really that much fun, what's the point?

Posted by WSB | November 16, 2006 6:26 AM
29

7. It's not a slippery slope analogy for slope's sake, SDA. People like me saw the extremism of 901's supporters, and of supporters for other bans, way before this happened. We saw their hate-driven reasoning for what it was. We knew where it would logically progress to.

You didn't.

Posted by Gomez | November 16, 2006 8:16 AM
30

"I don't smoke" + "I oppose smoking criminalization" + "I support universal health care" = "I want to pay the bills for other people's entirely voluntary vice."


I'm not saying the last is an indefensible position (hardly), but I am saying it's a mathematically derived consequence of Dan's outlook.

Posted by robotslave | November 16, 2006 8:40 AM
31

Gomez has spoken! Do not question the mighty Gomez!

Smokers are the new underclass! It's a hate crime to pass anti-smoking legislation! Tyranny of the majority!

Posted by I heart Gomez | November 16, 2006 9:12 AM
32

Gomez, you really don't know what you're talking about. Don't act like you've got some sort of inside connection to the OMGZ SECRET UNDERGROUND 901 NAZI PARTEE because you don't. It doesn't exist. PS, don't drink the Koolaid k?

Posted by Investigatory Journalist | November 16, 2006 9:15 AM
33

As far as banning smoking in multi-unit housing, it is the most reasonable thing in the world. It should have been done BEFORE smoking in bars was banned. Before, at least you knew what you were in for when you went to a bar.

In an apartment you could be living there for years and then have a smoker move in next door and face the choice of moving or breathing in toxins for the forseeable future. There is nothing more frustrating than having to deal with a health hazard sporatically throughout the day while being completely at the mercy of an addict that believes he has a "right" to put your health at risk so he can "smoke in his own home."

Hor. Sesh. It!

Posted by Johnny | November 16, 2006 9:20 AM
34

32. Excellent troll, IJ.

Wait, no that wasn't.

Posted by Gomez | November 16, 2006 9:34 AM
35

Why blow shit on Gomez?

He's not claiming insider info, you fucktards--he's pointing out that a complete ban on smoking is the obvious end result to the public policies that have been enacted so far.

Anything that gets folks to stop smoking is aces by me--as a reformed smoker, I'm in total support--but the issue here isn't cigarettes. It's absolutely right and proper to criticize people whose mindless tirades against choices like smoking result in the erosion of rights.

Posted by NoSmo | November 16, 2006 10:13 AM
36

#25: those things DO affect other people.
Abortions: human fetus affected drastically
Bacon: Three seats on the bus occupied by two fat-ass people mean I can't sit down. It affects me.
Booze: drunk people downtown, not to mention all the DUI's.

Posted by him | November 16, 2006 10:31 AM
37

Gomez has the most endearing quality of, upon having his errors in reasoning pointed out to him, repeating those same mistakes even more emphatically. At least he has the courtesy to disabuse his more charitable readers of the notion that perhaps he is only sloppy in expressing himself instead of fundamentally stupid.

Posted by President of Gomez's Fan Club | November 16, 2006 10:55 AM
38

I'm impeaching you.

Posted by Gomez | November 16, 2006 11:07 AM
39

#36 - obviously its a matter of degree. a person can easily consume bacon and booze in a way that doesn't harm others. it takes years of eating too much bacon to get fat enough to take your damn bus seat and it's not that common. you can easily have a few drinks, not drive and not bother anyone else. (Also, driving under the influence IS against the law, isn't it?)

BUT. Every single cigarette from the very first one you light has a high probability of bothering non-smokers near you.

There's a HUGE difference. And you know it.

Posted by smokey the banned-it | November 16, 2006 11:10 AM
40

I agree with Dan 100% (faints)

Posted by Mr. X | November 16, 2006 11:16 AM
41

But...c'mon...I said it was endearing...

Posted by Lame Duck President | November 16, 2006 11:24 AM
42

We'll see what the Gomez Senate thinks about that....

Posted by Gomez Majority Leader | November 16, 2006 12:21 PM
43

Some enterprising smoker really needs to invent a smoking containment helmet, to keep all the smoke within your own little sphere. That way, the butt-heads can indulge their filthy habit wherever they like, and the rest of us can breathe. It might also have the beneficial side-effect of killing them off quicker. Darwinian principles in action!

But seriously, folks, the tobacco companies at one point were working on a smokeless cigarette. I could give a fuck if smokers want to smoke, I just don't ever want to have to smell or inhale it. Bug the mega-corps to get back to work on the unstinky butt!

Posted by Stinky butts | November 16, 2006 1:47 PM
44

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

Posted by nokia ringtone | November 27, 2006 7:28 PM
45

Hi guys its me again. Can you look

Posted by generic celexa | November 28, 2006 2:01 AM
46

Please do not hesitate to choose. This

Posted by generic ultram | November 28, 2006 3:10 AM
47

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

Posted by celexa | November 28, 2006 5:27 PM
48

Och beautifull site below too

Posted by cheap vicodin | November 30, 2006 12:36 AM
49

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

Posted by generic ultram | November 30, 2006 8:44 AM
50

Och beautifull site below too

Posted by cheap clonazepam | November 30, 2006 5:37 PM
51

Do not be angry please

Posted by generic ultram | November 30, 2006 10:56 PM
52

Be so kind and click

Posted by cheap propecia | December 1, 2006 12:08 AM
53

I agree please revange

Posted by ativan | December 1, 2006 4:24 AM
54

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

Posted by cheap nexium | December 1, 2006 6:06 AM
55

Nice but this too

Posted by financial betting | December 1, 2006 10:13 PM
56

If you have a minute check this.

Posted by flexeril | December 2, 2006 1:11 AM
57

Be so kind and click

Posted by zyrtec | December 2, 2006 6:00 AM
58

Be so kind and click

Posted by cheap valtrex | December 2, 2006 6:02 AM
59

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

Posted by online betting | December 2, 2006 6:06 AM
60

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

Posted by buy paxil | December 2, 2006 5:14 PM
61

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

Posted by cheap lexapro | December 2, 2006 6:21 PM
62

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

Posted by generic lexapro | December 2, 2006 10:59 PM
63

I am looking for better life

Posted by buy lexapro | December 3, 2006 10:32 AM
64

Nice but this too

Posted by best roulette system | December 3, 2006 11:06 AM
65

Nice but this too

Posted by ladbrokes roulette | December 3, 2006 11:36 AM
66

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

Posted by generic lexapro | December 3, 2006 11:44 AM
67

Please do not hesitate to choose. This

Posted by buy ultram | December 4, 2006 2:10 AM
68

Dont be angry please

Posted by buy ultram | December 5, 2006 7:14 AM
69

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

Posted by bonus casino | December 5, 2006 7:23 AM
70

Sorry for that.

Posted by cheap tamiflu | December 5, 2006 7:46 AM
71

Dont be angry please

Posted by online lipitor | December 5, 2006 3:47 PM
72

Nice but this too

Posted by spread betting | December 5, 2006 3:54 PM
73

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

Posted by buy ultram | December 6, 2006 1:20 AM
74

Check this places please.

Posted by online betting | December 6, 2006 7:23 AM
75

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

Posted by buy diazepam | December 6, 2006 10:02 PM
76

Sorry for that.

Posted by cheap propecia | December 7, 2006 12:53 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).