Laguna Beach bans all smoking, Dana Point likely to follow (restaurant, legal)

[TimTheEnchanter]

Originally Posted by taimaishu

Smoking causes cancer. Not just to the users, but to anyone surrounding it.

Feel free to quote and link that scientific study that proves a positive correlation between secondhand smoke and cancer.

[mrwumpus]

Don't cars smoke with constant toxic gasoline emissions? Ban them too.

I will feel sorry for the salty dogs at Dana Point Harbor who won't be able to light up a fat one after working on their boat all day.

I have always said the healthier you are when you die, the longer you will suffer.

[bowneline]

Originally Posted by mrwumpus

Don't cars smoke with constant toxic gasoline emissions? Ban them too.

I will feel sorry for the salty dogs at Dana Point Harbor who won't be able to light up a fat one after working on their boat all day.

I have always said the healthier you are when you die, the longer you will suffer.

When politicians make policy decisions about whether to prohibit something, they often have to balance the benefit of that activity on both individuals and society generally, and weigh that against the cost or burden that activity has to society and individuals.

With the above analysis in mind, it is very easy to answer the question of why Laguna Beach would ban cigarette smoking in public, while at the same time not ban cars.

Cigarette smoking in public provides no benefits to society and only "benefits" a small percentage of residents in the city. And, even to the extent that it "benefits" that small subset of residents, the "benefit" is marginal -- at best. They need only hold off smoking until such time that they are in a car or residence. In other words, they are just being asked to wait until they are in a place where the activity won't bother other people.

This is a pretty standard type of rule. The City can stop me from urinating on a public sidewalk. The City can stop me from blaring loud music on a public sidewalk. The City can stop me from selling homemade cupcakes on a public sidewalk. I can even be stopped from yelling at people on the sidewalk (in some situations) -- even despite the fact that I have First Amendment rights to speech.

Why would we think that people shouldn't be stopped from spewing out annoying and harmful smoke on a public sidewalk?

Look, cigarette smoke is gross. Smokers may not agree, but for the rest of us, its really annoying and gross. I don't want to be walking behind someone on a sidewalk (especially with my kids), when the person walking in front of me is letting out a gross and unhealthy cloud of smoke. The City has recognized that most of its residents feel this way, and has probably also determined that the benefit to society of letting smokers continue doing this is negligible -- and thus has made the policy decision to prohibit this activity. It's smart law-making, honestly.

[Adamson865]

Originally Posted by bowneline

Cigarette smoking in public provides no benefits to society .

From the liberal point of view, the government taxes the bejeesus out of cigarettes to provide funding for a myriad of programs which "benefit" society.

I don't agree with that line of thinking - but just playing Devil's Advocate to your statement.

[taimaishu]

Originally Posted by TimTheEnchanter

Feel free to quote and link that scientific study that proves a positive correlation between secondhand smoke and cancer.

Retardicans never heard of google?

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_sta...general_facts/
Health Effects in Children

In children, secondhand smoke causes the following:1,2,3

• Ear infections
• More frequent and severe asthma attacks
• Respiratory symptoms (for example, coughing, sneezing, and shortness of breath)
• Respiratory infections (bronchitis and pneumonia)
• A greater risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)

Health Effects in Adults

In adults who have never smoked, secondhand smoke can cause:

• Heart disease
  • For nonsmokers, breathing secondhand smoke has immediate harmful effects on the heart and blood vessels.1,3
  • It is estimated that secondhand smoke caused nearly 34,000 heart disease deaths each year during 2005–2009 among adult nonsmokers in the United States.1
• Lung cancer1,7
  • Secondhand smoke exposure caused more than 7,300 lung cancer deaths each year during 2005–2009 among adult nonsmokers in the United States.1
• Stroke1

[Adamson865]

I'd like to see some private-sector non-government-funded studies. I worked for researchers who took government "grants", and their studies were always laid out in advance that it would end up agreeing with the government "line", because if they (gawd forbid) came up with results that refuted government propaganda, they would never get a government grant again.

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by rah62

I'd like to see some private-sector non-government-funded studies. I worked for researchers who took government "grants", and their studies were always laid out in advance that it would end up agreeing with the government "line", because if they (gawd forbid) came up with results that refuted government propaganda, they would never get a government grant again.

That could never happen because there is no corruption in these things.

[taimaishu]

Originally Posted by rah62

I'd like to see some private-sector non-government-funded studies. I worked for researchers who took government "grants", and their studies were always laid out in advance that it would end up agreeing with the government "line", because if they (gawd forbid) came up with results that refuted government propaganda, they would never get a government grant again.

So a non-private sector doing investigation on how 9/11 was an inside job is a conspiracy theory, and that the official government provided script is a True fact on what happened.

But, a Government provided statistics on Secondhand smoke backed by data collected by the CDC has to be lies. hahahahahha

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

I detest smoking and strongly dislike seeing cigarette butts all over. I know it would be so nice to be free of cigarette smoke in public areas; however, I am very uncomfortable with banning a legal activity, a legal product. (This also applies to vaping etc.) It seems like such a nanny state act. Moreover, I wonder if the city ordinance is not over broad as it seems to allow medical marijuana. THC can be ingested and it doesn't need to be smoked for crying out loud. And BBQing is still ok?

Thoughts?

Laguna Beach becomes first city in Orange County to ban smoking in town – Orange County Register

I completely agree. I gave up smoking many years ago, wish I had never started, hate the smell even in an open area, but I do not want anyone telling me or anyone else what they can do in public when something is basically legal. Let's worry more about other issues and please all you nannies out there, stop telling everyone what you can do and can not do. And for heavens sake for those who want to lecture us on second hand smoke, how many people do you know who have never smoked but lived near smokers developed lung cancer?

[TimTheEnchanter]

Originally Posted by taimaishu

Retardicans never heard of google?

Gee I guess Dumbocrats don't know what STUDIES are.

The numbers from the Surgeon General's report are all extrapolations (sorry to use a big word) from assumptions. They are NOT based on peer reviewed studies of actual human subjects.

So again, feel free to post that peer reviewed study of actual human subjects on a positive correlation.