Smoke at the beach get a ticket

[udidwht]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

Fair enough, and yes, I do detest the usage of cameras, but you can be sure more and more and more are comng.

As for bombings, mowing over people, and knife/acid attacks, well, yes, cameras are needed. Aside from a few revenge-type attacks, cameras are needed to prevent adherents to the Religion of Peace from being other than peaceful.

And yet cameras have yet to prevent even 1 of those incidents. They are only good at catching the aftermath

[TimTheEnchanter]

Originally Posted by saibot

I just dropped my teenage daughter and two friends off at Laguna Beach. Going down the canyon road, there was a sign stating that Laguna is now smoke free. "Breathe easy," it said. I'm glad to see it! I grew up in the bad old days when there were smoking and non-smoking sections on planes and in restaurants, as if drawing an invisible line down the middle of the room ever made smoke stop drifting. It was awful.

Currently, something like 10% of Californians smoke, or maybe less. Why should 90% of the people suffer because 10% think it is a God-given right to light up in public?

How about freedom based solutions? If you own a bar, restaurant, airline, or any other business, you decide if you want your business to be smoking or non-smoking.


Very few people "suffer" when another smokes, especially out of doors. If you are very close to the person the smoke might be unpleasant, but "suffering" is extreme. I am allergic to smoke, cigarette or other, but someone smoking at the beach isn't enough to effect me.

Originally Posted by amokk

Next they're going to say laws to wear seat belts are tyrannical.

Yes, seatbelt laws are tyrannical. What happened to my right to privacy? My right to control my body?


When the first seatbelt laws got passed we were assured by those pushing them that the citations would only be secondary, meaning you could not be pulled over for not wearing one, there had to be another reason for the stop. Some legislators voted for the bill on that basis.


But that just let the camels nose under the tent.

Originally Posted by udidwht

Hint: This isn't London. And they have issues with bombings, knife attacks etc. So much for those cameras eh? They are marginally ok for after a crime has been committed but do squat for prevention.

London is a city of 8 million people with aprx 100 murders a year. Los Angeles is a city of 3 million with about 300 murders a year, so London isn't less safe than here, which seems to be the implication.


You have no way of knowing how effective the cameras have been for preventing crime because there are no current, definitive studies on them. The last time a study was attempted was about 10 years ago by an activist anti-camera organization.


Personally I am against cameras and all forms of "automatic enforcement" (speed and red light cams, etc), but it seems to be where we are being dragged anyway.

[udidwht]

Originally Posted by TimTheEnchanter

How about freedom based solutions? If you own a bar, restaurant, airline, or any other business, you decide if you want your business to be smoking or non-smoking.


Very few people "suffer" when another smokes, especially out of doors. If you are very close to the person the smoke might be unpleasant, but "suffering" is extreme. I am allergic to smoke, cigarette or other, but someone smoking at the beach isn't enough to effect me.




Yes, seatbelt laws are tyrannical. What happened to my right to privacy? My right to control my body?


When the first seatbelt laws got passed we were assured by those pushing them that the citations would only be secondary, meaning you could not be pulled over for not wearing one, there had to be another reason for the stop. Some legislators voted for the bill on that basis.


But that just let the camels nose under the tent.




London is a city of 8 million people with aprx 100 murders a year. Los Angeles is a city of 3 million with about 300 murders a year, so London isn't less safe than here, which seems to be the implication.


You have no way of knowing how effective the cameras have been for preventing crime because there are no current, definitive studies on them. The last time a study was attempted was about 10 years ago by an activist anti-camera organization.


Personally I am against cameras and all forms of "automatic enforcement" (speed and red light cams, etc), but it seems to be where we are being dragged anyway.

During the push for seat belt laws states were adding that it would lower healthcare/vehicle insurance costs related to injuries. That turned out to be a big fallacy.


Cameras have been very ineffective at preventing crime. One only has to turn on the evening news or watch the countless videos on YouTube to see that. One will be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't think or believe a camera may already be watching them yet it never stops the criminal intent on committing the crime. Never. You don't need a study to prove this.

[Finper]

Originally Posted by TimTheEnchanter

How about freedom based solutions? If you own a bar, restaurant, airline, or any other business, you decide if you want your business to be smoking or non-smoking.


Very few people "suffer" when another smokes, especially out of doors. If you are very close to the person the smoke might be unpleasant, but "suffering" is extreme. I am allergic to smoke, cigarette or other, but someone smoking at the beach isn't enough to effect me.




Yes, seatbelt laws are tyrannical. What happened to my right to privacy? My right to control my body?


When the first seatbelt laws got passed we were assured by those pushing them that the citations would only be secondary, meaning you could not be pulled over for not wearing one, there had to be another reason for the stop. Some legislators voted for the bill on that basis.


But that just let the camels nose under the tent.




London is a city of 8 million people with aprx 100 murders a year. Los Angeles is a city of 3 million with about 300 murders a year, so London isn't less safe than here, which seems to be the implication.


You have no way of knowing how effective the cameras have been for preventing crime because there are no current, definitive studies on them. The last time a study was attempted was about 10 years ago by an activist anti-camera organization.


Personally I am against cameras and all forms of "automatic enforcement" (speed and red light cams, etc), but it seems to be where we are being dragged anyway.

You get it Tim.

[TurcoLoco]

Originally Posted by amokk

I find it hilarious there are people in this thread arguing against 1) alcohol in public, 2) helmet laws and 3) smoking in public. Next they're going to say laws to wear seat belts are tyrannical and everyone should be able to text and drive. But clearly not everyone has common sense or courtesy.

I found the above hilarious, especially the irony of your last line.
Do explain, with common sense, why authorities need to pass a law that controls the actions of individuals that may possibly only harm themselves? Let each adult make their own decision. It is their life.
So, if an adult driver chooses not to wear a seat belt, it is on him/her. Why does government need to get involved.
If anyone chooses to ride without an helmet, again it is on that individual. Not like they are going to sue someone else or hurt anyone else? A helmet can save a rider from a serious injury to the head, even from certain death.
Still, there is the possibility of dodging death only to end up in a veggie state for the rest of your life. No thank you, pull the bloody plug!

What obvious reason do the authorities have to enforce bylaws like these other than being able to write tickets/increase and revenue for things like that?

I do agree with you on the phone/texting. That is a way more pressing and real threat these days than probably drunk driving. It is an epidemic, not just on the road but on the streets too. I suspect they will pass a law in CA similar to the one in Hawa'ii where pedestrians can be fined for texting while crossing the street. I see dumb kids on their bikes or skateboards crossing the street while texting.

It's fair to say majority of the phone using drivers get away with it. Heck the other day, I saw this girl chatting on her phone as I pulled next to her. A CHP patrol car passed from her right side while I looked and shook my head.

It is really easy to spot one on a motorcycle. Heck, one out of every 3 or maybe 4 driver I see on a daily basis is distracted in some way or shape. That is a red flag as it dangers not only themselves but anyone and everyone around them.

That needs to be heavily enforced. Citing people for seat belt or their missing helmet or their mc helmet not being DOT or DAT (pun) approved? Please!

That said, I would never ride without a helmet or drive without a seat belt but hard to sing the national anthem and not wonder what the words "...and the land of the free" really mean.
It cracks me up when people think CA is a liberal state. I really had to look up all the meanings of it and couldn't help shaking my head in disagreement after each possible meaning.
Liberal my arse!