California's Anti-Tobacco Obsession [Archive]

achtungbaby

10-03-2003, 10:42 AM

I shouldn't be saying this, since I work for an organization that is principally opposed to its use, but the anti-tobacco froth that's everywhere in California is absurd. There are more and more local and municipal community advocacy organizations clamoring their city councils to institute smoking bans in multi-unit family housing -- they're basically calling for a ban to smoking in your own goddamn home. Why? Because environmental tobacco smoke, they say, is like the plague. It's a Class A carcinogen, known to cause lung cancer -- and because smoke sort of inevitably drifts about when a heathen smoker exhales, that smoke has the potential of leaving a trace in your nostrils. And if you can smell it, then you could get cancer, potentially.

Bah! This is just emboldening me to shove my ETS deep into their throat and nostrils.

AngryABCGirl

10-03-2003, 10:51 AM

I personally didn't think the govt had much right to force restaurants to have people stop smoking, it's people's own fucking business. Honesty if you wanted to go to a 'classy' place you could go to some places who don't allow smoking cause that's good business too. They dont' have any business if I wanna smoke in my apt or not.

kboy75

10-03-2003, 11:52 AM

When I moved from Cali to NYC over a year ago, I was in smoker's heaven. But since then, they've put a ban on smoking in bars and clubs here too... BLAH! *RAISE FIST*

SunWuKong

10-03-2003, 12:06 PM

this is one thing that i wouldn't like about Cali if i moved there.

kboy75

10-03-2003, 12:13 PM

^you can always go to korean joints and smoke... :P

achtungbaby

10-03-2003, 12:14 PM

The worst part about it is that -- similar to our "war on drugs" -- local, state and federal government benefit a great deal from all of this. It's all a bunch of hypocritical crap. It's funny because I'd always thought the anti-tobacco hysteria that Californians seemed to have was silly, but after working for a state organization funded directly from tobacco dollars, I think it's just plain ignorant. During tough economic times, tobacco has literally bailed out the state of California, and now our idiot Governor (though I don't think he's deserving of a friggen recall) and state legislature are banking on tobacco dollars for the future. Is it by coincidence that the tobacco industries poured more money into California advertising dollars than anywhere else, sometimes by a 10 - 1 margin?

achtungbaby

10-03-2003, 12:16 PM

By the way, I should add the disclaimer that these are my views and not representative of YW's or...say...hmmm...my work:P

Chester

10-03-2003, 12:20 PM

this is one thing that i wouldn't like about Cali if i moved there.
Eh. While I'm a smoker (but have been trying to quit recently), I actually prefer having restaurants and bars smoke-free. Now that a couple years have passed since the ban, the idea of inflicting cigarette clouds on people in confined spaces smacks me as...kind of barbaric.

Of course, when I travel out of state, the right to smoke indoors (particularly in a restaurant before the dessert course) seems rather civilized.

But, in the end, it's not a big deal to go outside for a smoke and it keeps me from getting out of hand. I remember, in college, always having two packs with me when going out. The thought of that seems ridiculous now.

kboy75

10-03-2003, 01:13 PM

Eh. While I'm a smoker (but have been trying to quit recently), I actually prefer having restaurants and bars smoke-free. Now that a couple years have passed since the ban, the idea of inflicting cigarette clouds on people in confined spaces smacks me as...kind of barbaric.

Of course, when I travel out of state, the right to smoke indoors (particularly in a restaurant before the dessert course) seems rather civilized.

But, in the end, it's not a big deal to go outside for a smoke and it keeps me from getting out of hand. I remember, in college, always having two packs with me when going out. The thought of that seems ridiculous now.

well, that's part of the whole debate. but where do you draw the line. some people say at restaurants. some people say at bars and clubs. in a place like NYC, it's kinda been crazy banning from bars and clubs. i can understand restaurants. but bars and clubs? com'on...

California is a very health conscious state, and though there are a lot of smokers, it's still a lot less than elsewhere.

I grew up in Cali and it honestly was not THAT big a deal to go out and smoke. Know why? The weather is always freakin GREAT. In NYC, it's sometimes 90% humidity in the summer, and in the winter, you have to put on hats and scarves and gloves to go out... BLAH!

Chester

10-03-2003, 01:19 PM

well, that's part of the whole debate. but where do you draw the line. some people say at restaurants. some people say at bars and clubs. in a place like NYC, it's kinda been crazy banning from bars and clubs. i can understand restaurants. but bars and clubs? com'on...
I felt the same way. But...in the end, I just think it makes the overall environment and experience of being out a good deal more pleasant...and I say this as an hopefully-erstwhile smoker.

As for drawing the line...I would draw it at any enclosed/close-quarter public space. For example, I think Davis's X-feet from the doorway rule is absurd. If you bitch and moan about cigarette smoke while walking on the street, you need a hobby.
I grew up in Cali and it honestly was not THAT big a deal to go out and smoke. Know why? The weather is always freakin GREAT. In NYC, it's sometimes 90% humidity in the summer, and in the winter, you have to put on hats and scarves and gloves to go out... BLAH!
Yeah, that's true. Ugh. That just brought up bad memories of winter smoking in D.C.

Ogumo

10-03-2003, 02:41 PM

Damn. That is terrible that you cannot even smoke in YOUR own home over there... smoking ban today breathing ban tommorow. Just like model minority.

ChinaLama

10-03-2003, 04:41 PM

I don't think it's that big a deal. Maybe I'm biased because I'm a non-smoker. If you don't like it, vote the guys out of office. If you can't, too bad. Chew some gum.

YuheiCarreau

10-03-2003, 04:49 PM

The California political system is moronic. They hold referendums on everything, so Joe Average is too confused to care, clearing the way for nutcases from the left or the right to swing the vote.

kimpossible

10-03-2003, 05:47 PM

How exactly would they enforce no smoking at home?

achtungbaby

10-03-2003, 06:06 PM

How exactly would they enforce no smoking at home?I'm glad you asked. The answer? No one fucking knows! The funny part is, a group is trying to get this ban put in place for residents of low-income, subsidized housing. The irony is that while one branch of local government and human services is trying to get these people off the streets, another is considering evicting them because they light up indoors. Apartment manager associations hate it. They certainly don't want to be the ones having to police their tenants even further, while worrying to make sure that their policing is equal, so as to not open themselves up to liability.

achtungbaby

10-03-2003, 06:13 PM

I don't think it's that big a deal. Maybe I'm biased because I'm a non-smoker. If you don't like it, vote the guys out of office. If you can't, too bad. Chew some gum.Well now there's a tolerant, well-thought out approach. If you can't vote out the morons in office, well that's just too bad, just take it! I bet a lot of white conservatives use that approach when they talk about Dubyah:)

ChinaLama

10-03-2003, 07:37 PM

Well now there's a tolerant, well-thought out approach. If you can't vote out the morons in office, well that's just too bad, just take it! I bet a lot of white conservatives use that approach when they talk about Dubyah:)

what i'm trying to say is bitching doesn't get anyone anywhere, but an organized vote does. and it's true. poor people can bitch about Bush or any other politician as much as they want, and so can young people, but if they don't vote, who's gonna listen hard enough to do anything substantive for them? :-)

a bit off topic,i don't understand why it's perfectly acceptable to light up a cancer product in front of other people but it's "rude" to emit gas naturally in front of others. it can't be the smell thing cuz especially cigar smoke (which also happens to be considered "classy" rather than trashy) smell way worse than the hint of sulfur in my flatulence. someday i should make a social statement by farting really loudly and frequently in a room full of high-class cigar smokers. and loud farts are the least smelly so i'm not really hurting anyone. ;-) but i don't think i'll ever have enough power to get away w/ doing that. :-(

achtungbaby

10-03-2003, 09:10 PM

poor people can bitch about Bush or any other politician as much as they want, and so can young people, but if they don't vote, who's gonna listen hard enough to do anything substantive for them? :-)

There are some issues that most people just won't understand though, precisely for the reason(s) you mentioned: the issue doesn't directly involve a person and that is that. It's easier to just walk around and think that everything's in two-dimensions.

a bit off topic,i don't understand why it's perfectly acceptable to light up a cancer product in front of other people but it's "rude" to emit gas naturally in front of others.

Depends! If I'm in a closed area I'll be more hesitant to smoke in front of non-smokers. Outside? I don't think twice:) With farting though...it depends on my mood.

someday i should make a social statement by farting really loudly and frequently in a room full of high-class cigar smokers.

Your fart would fall on deaf noses:P People who smoke frequently rarely bitch about odd odors, I think.

ChinaLama

10-03-2003, 09:20 PM

i confess. i'm as addicted to farting as some people are addicted to smoking. farting is probably my favorite pastime.

golden_buns

10-04-2003, 12:22 AM

man, those health freak-yuppies-treehughers-wannabe are really outdoing it this time. Don't they have anything better to do? I don't get it, there's so much anti-smoking campaign but the anti-drug campaign is nothing compared to it, and drugs are an even worse evil than cigarrettes

Ironic thing is that some of those anti-smoking advocates are hard core pot heads, claiming that pot is natural and not bad for the health.

achtungbaby

10-04-2003, 01:30 AM

i confess. i'm as addicted to farting as some people are addicted to smoking. farting is probably my favorite pastime.At least you don't have to pay taxes for it.

achtungbaby

11-10-2003, 01:02 AM

Sorry guys, I have to delete this thread...don't wanna get in trouble with my work!

SunWuKong

11-10-2003, 03:01 AM

Sorry guys, I have to delete this thread...don't wanna get in trouble with my work!

what if i agent smith you on that top post (and maybe all your posts in this thread, for that matter)? would this thread be ok to stay around, then?

achtungbaby

11-10-2003, 01:20 PM

what if i agent smith you on that top post (and maybe all your posts in this thread, for that matter)? would this thread be ok to stay around, then?I was about to say yes but then I reread my first post of the thread and it's too incriminating. The reason why I got spooked in the first place was cuz I was doing research last night on Google and then YW friggen popped up as like the second or third hit...!

Danny

11-10-2003, 07:03 PM

it is not only smoking... look at the seat belt law, the helmet law in certain states... it is all about we cannot seem to police ourselves, so lets let the government do it for us. You should be able to smoke, drive with a seatbelt, ride a motorcycle without a helmet, eat all the greasy ass food in the world, why? Because WE FUCKING CAN!

This is not like using illegal drugs, or alcohol, which can impair your judgement, thus harm others, this is does nothing but harm yourself.

What's next, they are going to put warning labels on fast food? Are they going to put taxes on foods that are deemed unhealthy for you?

It sickens me that we are voting in restrictions to our own judgement in this country. If you are stupid, then you're stupid, deal with it. But don't let the stupid people that can't tell their ass from a fucking hole in the ground that I can't smoke, or I have to wear a helmet on my bike. bunch of fucking tools.

ChinaLama

11-10-2003, 08:13 PM

This is not like using illegal drugs, or alcohol, which can impair your judgement, thus harm others, this is does nothing but harm yourself.

ummm so the harms of second-hand smoke are just a myth? how about the millions or billions lost due to lost productivity (you know, workers dying of LUNG CANCER), increased healthcare costs, family income wasted on a product that does only harm and no good, and not to mention a godawful smell.

You're right. We don't need anti-smoking laws. We need anti-smokER laws, where we can shoot smokers on sight.

(last part's a joke. don't kill me, AB! :))

As for the seat belt laws and helmet laws, those have to do w/ keeping car insurance costs down, maybe. So they do have some "protecting others" aspects, not just the gov't arbitrarily sticking it to people.

Danny

11-10-2003, 08:58 PM

ummm so the harms of second-hand smoke are just a myth? how about the millions or billions lost due to lost productivity (you know, workers dying of LUNG CANCER), increased healthcare costs, family income wasted on a product that does only harm and no good, and not to mention a godawful smell.

You're right. We don't need anti-smoking laws. We need anti-smokER laws, where we can shoot smokers on sight.

(last part's a joke. don't kill me, AB! :))

As for the seat belt laws and helmet laws, those have to do w/ keeping car insurance costs down, maybe. So they do have some "protecting others" aspects, not just the gov't arbitrarily sticking it to people.

Dude, how many people light up and then run over kids because they are jacked up from nicotine?

The information is out there. If you are dense enough to smoke, if you are de3nse enough not to wear a seat belt, and are dense enough not to wear a helmet, then that is your own god damn fault... but does the government really have to interject in this? Totally ridiculous.

ChinaLama

11-10-2003, 09:02 PM

Danny

11-11-2003, 08:11 AM

If you wanted to say, second hand smoke doesn't really hurt anyone, the evidence is inconclusive, at least that's saying something reasonable. Car accidents? Come on, Dan. I give you more credit than that. Give me some credit, too.

Dude, I said nothing about second hand smoke...

if a smoker wants to kill themselves let them do it... they have the right to smoke if they want to... just like you have the right to avoid them if you want to...

but you cannot sit there and tell me that second hand smoke is worse than some drugged out fool who is out driving around recklessly andangering people around?

ChinaLama

11-11-2003, 08:39 AM

it's not worse than a drugged out fool, but it's still bad! and that's the whole point, since second-hand smoke is harmful, smoking does NOT just harm the smoker. Therefore, the basis for outlawing smoking in public places, for instance, is the same as say, outlawing drunken driving, the protect non-smokers/ non-drunk drivers. Why would anyone care about "protecting the smoker?" I certainly don't.

cmar

11-11-2003, 11:50 AM

Every year 40,000 California residents die from use of tobacco products. Does anyone else not care that the tobacco companies have genetically engineered their products to double the addictive nicotine, that the tobacco companies target minorities and the poor, that they exploit workers and use child labor in Africa, Asia and South America, that thousands of animals (dogs, cats, monkeys) die every year in tobacco company "experiments"? And the list of offenses goes on. They don't care about you. They want to get you addicted and when you die from their product, they want to find another sucker to replace you, so the profits keep rolling in. When an RJ Reynolds executive was asked why none of them smoke cigarettes, he laughed it off and quipped, "We don't smoke the shit, we just sell it. We reserve that for the young, the black, the poor and the stupid."

kasia

11-29-2003, 02:46 AM

question: how is this different from the government forcing us to wear seatbelts?

achtungbaby

11-29-2003, 03:13 AM

question: how is this different from the government forcing us to wear seatbelts?Seat belt laws are more paternalistic. Anti-tobacco advocates would argue that smoking laws protect the welfare of other citizens.

applehead

11-29-2003, 03:15 AM

kasia

11-29-2003, 03:17 AM

Seat belt laws are more paternalistic. Anti-tobacco advocates would argue that smoking laws protect the welfare of other citizens.

so...wouldn't that support the anti-tobacco legislation even more? i mean, since we have seat belt laws, why not no smoking laws?

achtungbaby

11-29-2003, 03:48 AM

so...wouldn't that support the anti-tobacco legislation even more? i mean, since we have seat belt laws, why not no smoking laws?Well for the most part, we do have laws that protect non-smokers in California. Basically, you can't smoke indoors in any public facility anywhere in this state.

It's not the same as a seat belt law, because it encroaches on the issue of privacy: is what you do in the privacy of your own home detrimental to other people?

kasia

11-29-2003, 12:09 PM

Well for the most part, we do have laws that protect non-smokers in California. Basically, you can't smoke indoors in any public facility anywhere in this state.

It's not the same as a seat belt law, because it encroaches on the issue of privacy: is what you do in the privacy of your own home detrimental to other people?

privacy of your own car.

the seat belt law is not in place for any reason other than paternalistic ones. i don't see how this would differ with the no-smoking-in-your-section-8-home-law. aside from the fact that the latter is targeted towards poor people.

kimpossible

11-29-2003, 12:18 PM

I would say because a safety belt is one of many safety features in operating an auto, the autos have historically been regulated for safety for most of their existence. Smoking is much older, is regarded more as a leisure activity, past time or social activity.

Wearing a safety belt doesn't regulate the occurrence of the activity.