Santa Monica - Non-smoking paradise (Pasadena: apartment complex, condo, hotel)

[UB50]

I smoke, and I'm really getting tired of all these bans on outdoor smoking. It's not only Santa Monica, it's Glendale, Pasadena, Burbank, etc. Every city has a different scheme (ie. how far away you need to be from windows and doors, parking lots, etc.). It's just crazy. If they are going to do this, they should also make smelly cars and trucks illegal too. All the air pollution in Southern California isn't coming from smokers!

[californio sur]

Originally Posted by UB50

I smoke, and I'm really getting tired of all these bans on outdoor smoking. It's not only Santa Monica, it's Glendale, Pasadena, Burbank, etc. Every city has a different scheme (ie. how far away you need to be from windows and doors, parking lots, etc.). It's just crazy. If they are going to do this, they should also make smelly cars and trucks illegal too. All the air pollution in Southern California isn't coming from smokers!

It is never going to get easier for tobacco smokers in California since every year more restrictive measures are passed and implemented. Already smokers are viewed as pariahs who are dumb enough to ruin their own health and selfish enough to contaminate the air for others. Sorry to be so blunt but it is how the majority feel. Smoking is not cool!

[majoun]

Originally Posted by californio sur

It is never going to get easier for tobacco smokers in California since every year more restrictive measures are passed and implemented. Already smokers are viewed as pariahs who are dumb enough to ruin their own health and selfish enough to contaminate the air for others. Sorry to be so blunt but it is how the majority feel. Smoking is not cool!

More like a way for the city of SM to make more money by writing out tickets and giving fines. And a way to keep "undesireables" out of SM.

There could very well be, and probably will be, a backlash at some point in time. I'm a nonsmoker but I think the anti-smoking movement HAS gone too far, much too far. Outdoor smoking bans are absolutely ridiculous.

Besides, demographic trends in California do not favor the one group who supports anti-smoking laws ; the numbers of California-born, upper-middle class, non-Latino whites are not rising statewide. No other group - no other ethnic, racial, nor economic group - really cares that much about the smoking issue to further the war on smoking.

[californio sur]

Originally Posted by majoun

More like a way for the city of SM to make more money by writing out tickets and giving fines. And a way to keep "undesireables" out of SM.

There could very well be, and probably will be, a backlash at some point in time. I'm a nonsmoker but I think the anti-smoking movement HAS gone too far, much too far. Outdoor smoking bans are absolutely ridiculous.

Besides, demographic trends in California do not favor the one group who supports anti-smoking laws ; the numbers of California-born, upper-middle class, non-Latino whites are not rising statewide. No other group - no other ethnic, racial, nor economic group - really cares that much about the smoking issue to further the war on smoking.

I think your conspiracy theory is silly and almost racist. To suggest that only a certain racial\ ethnic\ economic group is promoting anti-smoking measures in order to punish others is ridiculous. I am Latino from a working-class family and strongly support efforts to restrict if not ban tobacco products. We don't allow people to drive their cars on the wrong side of the street or speed down residential streets at 60mph because these behaviors are dangerous to both the driver and innocent bystanders. More and more we realize that tobacco is deadly to both the individual smoking and those who must breath the smoke. If a person doesn't care about endangering himself then fine. But if a person also doesn't care about endangering others then that is not OK and why we continue to see stricter anti-smoking laws all over California. Keep in mind that the entire state restricts cigarette smoking no matter what little town or large city. When was the last time you start someone smoking in a restaurant anywhere in California? It just isn't done regardless of the ethnic or socioeconomic status the the community. But go to most Southern states and you see people smoking inside public buildings. Is that because people in Southern states are more concerned about the freedom to smoke for all people of every race and class? Or do they essentially resist any change and scientific data on the dangers of tobacco? Dumb people have the right to stay dumb. But dumb people do not have the right to endanger other people. The voters of California, state legislators and local municipality leaders have decided to make tobacco very expensive and restrict its use. Personally, I'm happy that caring and intelligent people are calling the shots in California.

[Chatteress]

Originally Posted by UB50

I smoke, and I'm really getting tired of all these bans on outdoor smoking. It's not only Santa Monica, it's Glendale, Pasadena, Burbank, etc. Every city has a different scheme (ie. how far away you need to be from windows and doors, parking lots, etc.). It's just crazy. If they are going to do this, they should also make smelly cars and trucks illegal too. All the air pollution in Southern California isn't coming from smokers!

Then you'd feel at home in places such as Nevada and the south. My lungs cannot take any of your cigarette smoke.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by californio sur

I think your conspiracy theory is silly and almost racist. To suggest that only a certain racial\ ethnic\ economic group is promoting anti-smoking measures in order to punish others is ridiculous. I am Latino from a working-class family and strongly support efforts to restrict if not ban tobacco products.

As a whole the antismoking movement is white, upper-middle class, non-Latino, and native-born (and may I add heterosexual). Obviously there are exceptions. Bush's Surgeon General was Latino and he advocated banning tobacco outright. There are other Latinos who are anti-smoking, and a few other people who don't fall into each and every one of these categories who are anti-smoking. There are also people who fall into all these categories who oppose smoking bans or are indifferent to the issue. I'm white, non-Latino, middle-class, California-born, and heterosexual, and oppose smoking bans even though I don't smoke tobacco.

But I've found in the most general terms that people who don't fall into ALL of these categories either oppose anti-smoking laws or are indifferent. You're obviously an exception.

But if a person also doesn't care about endangering others then that is not OK and why we continue to see stricter anti-smoking laws all over California.

So why are the most extreme anti-smoking laws in places like Santa Monica, Calabasas, Belmont, and Sebastopol and not in places like Richmond, Fremont, El Monte, Hawthorne, or Santa Ana?

Don't think there's a racist "message" being sent?

Keep in mind that the entire state restricts cigarette smoking no matter what little town or large city. When was the last time you start someone smoking in a restaurant anywhere in California?

Saw it in the Castro a few months ago. It is rare nowadays, admittedly.
I did see it in SoCal in Koreatown last year.
To find it you'd have to go to places in heavily Asian or Middle Eastern areas that see very few people not of that ethnicity. But I don't have a problem with smoking bans in restaurants. My major problem is outdoor smoking bans and smoking bans in the home.

But go to most Southern states and you see people smoking inside public buildings. Is that because people in Southern states are more concerned about the freedom to smoke for all people of every race and class? Or do they essentially resist any change and scientific data on the dangers of tobacco?

Growing tobacco is a big part of the economy of those states. If tobacco was as big a part of California's economy as it is of those states then California's policies towards smoking would probably be different.

Dumb people have the right to stay dumb. But dumb people do not have the right to endanger other people. The voters of California, state legislators and local municipality leaders have decided to make tobacco very expensive and restrict its use. Personally, I'm happy that caring and intelligent people are calling the shots in California.

Notice that all this is happening right when the state and municipalities are in severe financial trouble. If the fiscal situation of government was better I highly doubt that there'd be any antismoking regulations covering outdoor smoking or smoking in the home. It's another way for governments to make money.

The definitive rule of politics is to follow the money.

[Another Lost Angel]

Originally Posted by Chatteress

Then you'd feel at home in places such as Nevada and the south. My lungs cannot take any of your cigarette smoke.

Then the smog isn't helpful for your lungs, either, and the great majority of that is from vehicles, not cigarette smoke.

[Chatteress]

Originally Posted by Another Lost Angel

Then the smog isn't helpful for your lungs, either, and the great majority of that is from vehicles, not cigarette smoke.

Smog is everywhere that has vehicles ... At least vehicles have a purpose but what's the purpose or benefit of cigarettes to society?

Also, smog isn't inside restaurants or hotel rooms ...

[californio sur]

California has the strictest pollution laws in the nation. It's not like we don't care because most states allow tremendous amounts of pollutants into the air. California hurts because of the mountains and valleys as well as a westerly wind off the ocean that tends to blow smog into regions that are surrounded by mountains. We have to live with the reality that our topography traps pollution. Now 2 power companies in Texas and another one in Wyoming are sinking huge amounts of $ into a ballot proposition to relax our strict smog laws. The reason?: they want to make money and don't want laws to restrict smog. That's the kind of people that live in Texas and Wyoming; two states that also allow tobacco smoking in public places. There's a huge difference in attitude and responsibility. If you want to live in Texas or Wyoming where you can smoke all you want and foul the air for others, be our guest. Just travel east on Interstate 40 for Wyoming & interstate 80 for Texas. You can probably drive to both states in less than 2 days.

[Another Lost Angel]

Originally Posted by Chatteress

Smog is everywhere that has vehicles ... At least vehicles have a purpose but what's the purpose or benefit of cigarettes to society?

Also, smog isn't inside restaurants or hotel rooms ...

You can't smoke in most restaurants in many states and many hotels have no smoking rooms (and there are more of them than smoking rooms).

You don't need a car to live, just like you don't need cigarettes to live. There are negative impacts to your health (and the environment) from the emissions of vehicles. Just because they serve a purpose doesn't mean the harmful affects from their emissions.

If you're going to talk about how your lungs can't handle cigarette smoke, then smog is on that list, too, and it's probably a bigger concern to your health than cigarette smoke in passing.