SFGate: Senate votes to ban smoking in cars carrying young kids

[twa]

"Or do you think the government went overboard when they banned lead paint too? "

Certainly not... we all were exposed to it, Though as someone who has painted for 30 yrs(w/lead based and others) the new formulas are simply different hazards....Isocyanate poisoning from the improved formulas is a ***** too, along with nerve,kidney,nuerological problems ect,ect.

Moral of the story ?

Lifes full of risks,but the goverment still allows it.

[Larry]

Give them a little while

http://santa-monica.org/cityclerk/council/agendas/2006/20060725/s2006072508-A.htm

6. Multi-unit residential common areas.

To date there has been no legislation at the state or local level governing smoking inside residences. However, at least eight cities have prohibited smoking at indoor common areas of multi-unit residential buildings. (Staff’s position is that these areas already are covered by state law.) In addition, two cities (Davis and Calabasas) have banned smoking at outdoor common areas as well. The City of Arcata prohibits smoking within 20 feet of windows of residential units. Moreover, Thousand Oaks recently adopted a resolution that one third of future publicly funded housing units in the city be maintained as non-smoking.

....

8. The Calabasas law

Effective March 17, 2006, the city of Calabasas adopted the strongest outdoor smoking restrictions in the nation. Calabasas prohibits smoking in all public places, indoor and outdoor, with two exceptions: certain designated locations in shopping areas; and in cases where no non-smokers are present and there is no reason to believe that anyone will arrive (e.g., due to time of day). Calabasas provides both criminal and civil remedies for the City Attorney’s Office; and a private civil right of action for the general public.

...

Just to toss an analogy in the water and watch the ripples:

So, if those same two cities had passed laws prohibiting dumping garbage in the same two locations, would you be complaining about the government infringing on people's right to litter, and claiming that they'll soon be prohibiting littering in your own home?

Granted, (if you'll pardon the use of chemical warfare terminology), cigarette smoke doesn't have the "persistance" that a Big Mac wrapper does. OTOH, if the person in the hall in front of me tosses his wrapper in the hallway, the wrapper doesn't jump off of the floor and insert itself into my lungs, either.

[PokerPacker]

DAMN. Better keep my kids in the closet. They will be safer.

you wouldn't want them to come out of the closet, would you?

[Larry]

Damn, damn, DAMN! I am taking my kids out camping this weekend. Should I light a campfire? Or not?

Man that oak and hickory campfire burning with marshmallows and hot dogs right on top. I can even envision the kids clothing smelling like campfire smoke.

Do I listen to a hypocrite and keep my children safe from campfire?

One word.......tool. Blunt one at that. (Pun intended)

How many parents you know of who expose their children to campfire smoke four times a day, every day, for their entire childhood?

[JohnLockesGhost]

Just to toss an analogy in the water and watch the ripples:

So, if those same two cities had passed laws prohibiting dumping garbage in the same two locations, would you be complaining about the government infringing on people's right to litter, and claiming that they'll soon be prohibiting littering in your own home?

Granted, (if you'll pardon the use of chemical warfare terminology), cigarette smoke doesn't have the "persistance" that a Big Mac wrapper does. OTOH, if the person in the hall in front of me tosses his wrapper in the hallway, the wrapper doesn't jump off of the floor and insert itself into my lungs, either.

I don't understand the analogy. Your assumed "right to litter" would require one to violate another's property rights. I certainly wouldn't argue against anyone's right to regulate their own property, be they a private company OR the government. However, I do draw a line when the government tries to regulate MY property. This bill is a further regulation of property that is not the government's, yet they still assume the rights of the property's owner.

[twa]

I'll play

The city passes a ordinance against me dumping garbage,however there is confetti and leaflets scattered by the city and others on my property.

Simply garbage by another name.

quote

"How many parents you know of who expose their children to campfire smoke four times a day, every day, for their entire childhood?"

If someone did would it be correct to fine them?

[Larry]

I'll play

The city passes a ordinance against me dumping garbage,however there is confetti and leaflets scattered by the city and others on my property.

Simply garbage by another name.

So you're saying that, since the city's limitations against littering aren't 100% effective, then littering must be legalised?

Or that, since, on very rare occasions, the city itself "litters", therefore they must allow people to throw garbage in the street all the time. (Or, to go to another analogy, you're saying that any city that has fireworks on the Fourth cannot regulate air polution?)

[twa]

I'm saying the city and others on the roads are putting out toxins comparable to smoking...yet they wish to fine the smoker.

[Larry]

I don't understand the analogy. Your assumed "right to litter" would require one to violate another's property rights. I certainly wouldn't argue against anyone's right to regulate their own property, be they a private company OR the government. However, I do draw a line when the government tries to regulate MY property. This bill is a further regulation of property that is not the government's, yet they still assume the rights of the property's owner.

Valid point. AFAIK, cities don't prohibit littering in apartment building hallways, apartment owners do (with the city simply imposing on the owner a requirement that the owner is responsable for cleaning up litter).

Would the city have the right to demand that apartment owners either ban smoking in public areas, or install smoke removers in all hallways? (In effect, littering's OK, as long as the owner cleans it up quickly?)

-----

(And on that subject, I want a law prohibiting people from putting advertising materials on my car while I'm shopping.)

[Larry]

I'm saying the city and others on the roads are putting out toxins comparable to smoking...yet they wish to fine the smoker.

Oh, I get it. You're saying that any city that doesn't ban all cars can't regulate air polution.

[twa]

Larry, cities already ban smoking in public areas of private apartments.

So they obviously feel they have that right.

[twa]

Oh, I get it. You're saying that any city that doesn't ban all cars can't regulate air polution.

:laugh: No, I'm saying the city can't burn trash on my lawn and then fine me for having a BBQ.

[JohnLockesGhost]

Valid point. AFAIK, cities don't prohibit littering in apartment building hallways, apartment owners do (with the city simply imposing on the owner a requirement that the owner is responsable for cleaning up litter).

Would the city have the right to demand that apartment owners either ban smoking in public areas, or install smoke removers in all hallways? (In effect, littering's OK, as long as the owner cleans it up quickly?)

-----

(And on that subject, I want a law prohibiting people from putting advertising materials on my car while I'm shopping.)

Well, I would fine such a law unnecessary. I'd just leave it to the market. If the tenants want to smoke in public and the landlord doesn't mind, then they can smoke. If a few tenants complain and say they'll leave if it doesn't stop, the landowner could decide to put a stop to it. Or maybe he won't, it'd be up to him. Same argument could (and has) been made against the recent movement to ban smoking in bars. If people don't like it, don't go out. The market will solve it.

And another thing: why do we insist on the government fighting our battles for us? If I'm so bothered by someone smoking near me, I'd ask him if he could go somewhere else.

[portisizzle]

Look, I know you guys are having fun with this and all, but you have to admit that there is some role for for the government in protecting the health of children. We are all just trying to figure out where the line is.

Or do you think the government went overboard when they banned lead paint too?

This from the man living in the state that would pump a mouse full of water until it is dead and say Aquafina can kill a human.

[portisizzle]

How many parents you know of who expose their children to campfire smoke four times a day, every day, for their entire childhood?

Most people who lived before the days of heating by means other than fireplace....... Smells GOOD

[Larry]

Well, I would fine such a law unnecessary. I'd just leave it to the market. If the tenants want to smoke in public and the landlord doesn't mind, then they can smoke. If a few tenants complain and say they'll leave if it doesn't stop, the landowner could decide to put a stop to it. Or maybe he won't, it'd be up to him. Same argument could (and has) been made against the recent movement to ban smoking in bars. If people don't like it, don't go out. The market will solve it.

And another thing: why do we insist on the government fighting our battles for us? If I'm so bothered by someone smoking near me, I'd ask him if he could go somewhere else.

Uh, how about because if people are smoking in the apartment hallway, I can't leave. I've got a lease. Am I forced to tolerate something that's not only offensive (to some. And yes, offensive doesn't mean "ought to be illegal".), but it's also a health hazard, for a year, so that then I can go in search of a (non-existant) apartment that isn't a health hazard?

(BTW, I think I'd actually oppose a law covering apartment hallways. I'm not saying that such a law is needed. I'm just trying to come up with some evidence that it's not a commnuist takeover, either.)

[Larry]

Most people who lived before the days of heating by means other than fireplace....... Smells GOOD

And roughly what percentage of people in the 19th century developed lung cancer in their 60s?

[portisizzle]

And roughly what percentage of people in the 19th century developed lung cancer in their 60s?

My point. Thank you.

[Larry]

This from the man living in the state that would pump a mouse full of water until it is dead and say Aquafina can kill a human.

Hey. Granted some of the experiments that've been used to declare something as hazardous do at least appear to be rather goofball.

But don't you have a response to the man's post that somewhat more relevant than making fun of his address?

I mean, it's not like he's in France or Dallas or something.

[portisizzle]

Hey. Granted some of the experiments that've been used to declare something as hazardous do at least appear to be rather goofball.

But don't you have a response to the man's post that somewhat more relevant than making fun of his address?

I mean, it's not like he's in France or Dallas or something.

If we are going to start legislating against stupidity...... well.....wow

[Larry]

My point. Thank you.

Your point is that once upon a time, people were exposed to a completely different kind of smoke, under different conditions, and 99% of them died before the smoke could damage them (if it did), and even if it did, then nobody knew about it, and therefore people should expose themselves to a different kind of smoke, even after it's known to be poisionous? Have I got it?

[portisizzle]

Your point is that once upon a time, people were exposed to a completely different kind of smoke, under different conditions, and 99% of them died before the smoke could damage them (if it did), and even if it did, then nobody knew about it, and therefore people should expose themselves to a different kind of smoke, even after it's known to be poisionous? Have I got it?

If government really cared about the kids they would ban cigarettes.

If the government really cared about the kids they would go after the same law but make it illegal to smoke in the house where the kids live.

This legislation has been put together by activist politcal hacks that sit behind a desk and dream stupid **** up just to dream it up. Why go after the mom in the car when you could go after the entire industry? Oh wait they already have. And it wasn't for the kids.....

[JohnLockesGhost]

Uh, how about because if people are smoking in the apartment hallway, I can't leave. I've got a lease. Am I forced to tolerate something that's not only offensive (to some. And yes, offensive doesn't mean "ought to be illegal".), but it's also a health hazard, for a year, so that then I can go in search of a (non-existant) apartment that isn't a health hazard?

(BTW, I think I'd actually oppose a law covering apartment hallways. I'm not saying that such a law is needed. I'm just trying to come up with some evidence that it's not a commnuist takeover, either.)

Well, I'd say if you have people hanging out in the hallway smoking, walk past them. I guess it could be a nuisance, but, as the old saying goes, you don't have to make a federal case out of it.

I'll concede a little bit: I certainly don't mind reasonable building codes, labor laws and zoning. But, I guess, I get a bit annoyed at the constant erosion of what used to be sacred. For example, the Kelo v. New London decision, where the City of New London was allowed by the Supreme Court to expropriate private homes for private development. I guess, I'm touchy on property rights. Probably obvious from my handle.

[Larry]

1) Oh, I wouldn't be surprised if the things don't get banned in 10-20 years. The political strength to do it is building. (Although, political movements sometimes trigger backlashes. For an example, gay rights were making a lot of progress untill people started talking about getting married.)

(And when they get banned, organised crime will be standing right there to make money off of it.)

2) If your point is "politicians are lieing crooked scum", then I think you'll get a lot of support.

[Larry]

I'll concede a little bit: I certainly don't mind reasonable building codes, labor laws and zoning. But, I guess, I get a bit annoyed at the constant erosion of what used to be sacred. For example, the Kelo v. New London decision, where the City of New London was allowed by the Supreme Court to expropriate private homes for private development. I guess, I'm touchy on property rights. Probably obvious from my handle.

And every time that subject gets brought up, I feel obligated to point out: The reason the court gave for their decision is that it's been going on for over 100 years. It's how the railroads got built. A city would force the sale of land specifically for the purpose of giving that land to a railroad.