Friday, May 23, 2008

Yet Another Smoking Ban?

When I first saw the headline in the Times- Standard about the proposed smoking ban on Eureka's boardwalk, I was hoping the idea came from some recent transplant from the Bay Area. Nope, looks like it's some local merchants with the help of city council critter, Larry Glass.

Unbelievable. A smoking ban in one of the windiest parts of town. This just goes to show there can be no satisfying the nanny- staters.

Everyone should be concerned about this smoking ban if only because it's yet another restriction laid on everyone. I guess smoking bans [in bars] can even cause more harm as one study suggests.

That said, there are some good things that come from smoking bans, at least they're good from my point of view. For one thing, it creates black markets, which are nearly always a good thing in my view. Some places are even starting to see unlicensed businesses pop up as a result of smoking bans- another good thing in my view.

Sadly though, the American people are pretty docile and often won't rise up to protect the rights of anyone but themselves. If we don't fight for everyone's freedom, there won't be any freedoms left to fight for.

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist; Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist; Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist; Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew; Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me. - Martin Niemoller


At 8:18 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yep, me the poor nanny-stater who as an asthma attack because someone wants to spread cancer in my direction. Thanks a lot. These bans couldn't be because of health reasons, could it? Nahhhh. Wind doesn't matter. It's a serious health risk. I guess you just want a significant portion of the population to stay inside, perhaps form a leper colony to support other peoples' addictions.

At 8:31 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excellent idea ! It'll help keep the bums out . They should ban smoking from alcohol and drug rehabbs scattered throughout , Eureka . That's all these people living there do is stand outside and smoke all day . Hey ! I thought nicotine was a drug , too . Let's wake up people !!!

At 10:02 AM, Blogger Tapperass said...

Funny. I am left with the impression that almost everybody who is walking on the Boardwalk are burning heaters. Smokers have been a target group for years now. Taxes, and banishment to the corner of a parking lot.

So what good as it done? You would think that with the high tax, and the fact you can't smoke outside anymore that there would no more smokers left in California.

I think just ass many people smoke today as they did when the first major tax increase occurred all those years ago. Would not surprise me if there are more smokers today than ten years ago.

Put that in your asthma inhaler and smoke it!!!

- boy (non-smoker, but pro-right to die from lung cancer)

At 10:46 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

the litter from discarded butts is even worse as far as visual effects go, or they end up in the bay hey baykeepers phillip morris has deep pockets???

At 11:27 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

At 11:42 AM, Blogger mresquan said...

The anti-smoking brigade should be encouraging people who smoke TO smoke on the boardwalk.It's out of the way of the merchant thoroughfare,which is where smokers will be forced to smoke if this proposal goes through.Good luck enforcing a smoking ban in the middle of old town when that time comes,all because of a ban on the boardwalk.I don't see this going anywhere,if it does don't expect it to stick around for very long,and certainly don't expect it to be enforced rigorously.

At 1:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I support the smoking ban. It's a public place and people have the right to enjoy it without sucking up fumes from someone else's cancer sticks.

The city just has to to make sure it defines "smoking" in broad terms, not just tobacco products.

At 9:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

First they came for the cigarette smokers on the boardwalk, but I said nothing because my lungs were full of someone else's smoke and, being an asthma sufferer, I could hardly breathe, much less speak.

The cigarette smokers did not care what their carelessness had done to me. I could not bring myself to care what the new law was doing to them.

And as I said, it was all I could do to draw my next breath. Speaking on their behalf was a medical and physical impossibility, even if I had wanted to defend their "right to smoke in public."

At 9:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's no joke. I've lived it. I've breathed it. You should thank God if you haven't had to bear the cross of asthma, in adulthood or in childhood. In my childhood, breathing second-hand cigarette smoke was like drawing sandpaper into my lungs.

At 9:27 AM, Blogger Carol said...

Larry Glass is my favorite Eureka City Council "critter". Fred, you crack me up!

At 5:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Little kids whose parents smoke around them don't know they have a right not to inhale smoke.

At 10:17 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In a house with kids and pets? Sure bad idea-
But these people who seem to think the smoke from a burning cig is somehow more harmful than what you are breathing just by walking next to a busy street full of Dodge Rams? Or what comes from the pulp mill?

The air you breath on a jet is worse for you than a passing whiff of burning vegetable matter!

Holy cow people-THINK just a little, huh?

At 10:50 AM, Blogger Jeff Kelley said...

Fred, did you read to the bottom of the article you linked?

"It still appears that the positive health effects of smoking bans outweigh the negative, [emphasis mine] he says, but the real conclusion is that a universal smoking ban would eliminate the danger of people trying to avoid the individual bans."


Post a Comment

<< Home