Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Calabasas bans smoking OUTSIDE

  1. Feb 24, 2006 #1
    http://www.theacorn.com/news/2006/0209/Front_page/001.html


    Sure, breathing in smoke isn't pleasant, but I think this is going too far. Thoughts?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 24, 2006 #2

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Well, I'm allergic to cigarette smoke and can have bad asthmatic responses at times, and always at least experience throat irritation whenever I walk by someone smoking, so I'm all for it. I don't see any reason why some person who is stupid enough to inhale tar fumes as a recreational habit should be allowed to put my health at risk as well.

    As an analogy, how would any of you like it if I flashed a bright flashlight into your eyes or blew an airhorn into your ear as you walked past me? The irritation to my senses of taste and smell is just as bad with cigarette smoke as the irritation to sight and hearing from doing those two things.
     
  4. Feb 24, 2006 #3

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Perfume is pretty irritating to my senses. Let's ban that too???
     
  5. Feb 24, 2006 #4
    Yeah, perfume can be irritating too, but I am not sure if it will have the same affect as smoking on your lungs. Also, when I am walking around campus I have not noticed a person with strong perfume, so strong that I was annoyed, as opposed to smokers whom are walking around campus all the time, and are irritating.
     
  6. Feb 24, 2006 #5

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Well, there are things that are reasonable and things that are not. Pollen does me in the worst, and we obviously can't just ban grass. I honestly don't see much harm in making smokers use a designated smoking area, though.

    Then again, after having a girlfriend a while back that couldn't hold off smoking her precious cigarettes until after we were out of the car, even though she knew the smoke irritated me greatly, has given me a very low opinion of chemical addicts in general. I'm not at all sympathetic to them. Anything that makes it harder for them I'm pretty much always going to be in favor of. Don't consider me unbiased.
     
  7. Feb 24, 2006 #6

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Also, if some fool is going to spray perfume at you as you walk past, that should be banned.
     
  8. Feb 24, 2006 #7
    As a heavy smoker, myself, I feel better hearing you extend it to all forms of addiction.

    The blanket strategy of making it harder for smokers is extremely psychologically counter productive, and I've found my way around it many, many times, simply because it makes me feel singled out and picked on: people will say amazingly hostile things to someone smoking in public that they won't say to someone who'se buzzed on wine at a party. It's become generally accepted that it's OK to beat up cigarette smokers, but you'd be considered weird if you did the same to someone who went home every night and had three beers.

    Prohibition didn't work and ended up getting repealed. The public consciousness has shifted away from that as a result and slowly focused on smokers, who, are much easier targets. There's a more or less sane faction of ani-smokers who are level-headed and nice about any objections they raise if you light up, but there is a much more vocal , noisy batch who are really out to beat smokers up: vent the general frustration of their lives on them, because they've become an acceptable target.
     
  9. Feb 24, 2006 #8

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    I should also mention that when I say cigarette smoke irritates me, I don't mean I'm annoyed by it. I mean that it makes me phlegm up, makes me cough and sneeze, makes my eyes water, and causes my throat to swell a bit and close up, making it harder to swallow and sometimes harder to breathe.
     
  10. Feb 24, 2006 #9
    You could get grass banned. You'd have to get a bunch of studies that come to the conclusion that grass pollen is really affecting all of us to some extent lowering the general level of health, overworking the immune system, making us all more susceptible to various infections. Work on that vigorously for a few years and I have no doubt you'll spread the meme that it's mean to allergic people to grow a lawn.

    Next you can go after cat owners.
     
  11. Feb 24, 2006 #10

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Sorry, people do NOT need to smoke. I see no reason that they should be allowed to smoke in the presence of others. If people that smoke can't go without smoking for more than a couple of hours, they need to seek help or stay home.

    Sorry zoob, but NO ONE should impose habits that are unhealthy to others in a public space. What a person does in his own house is up to him, but in a public space, nothing should be done that can inflict physical discomfort or harm to another.

    Someone that is drunk at a wine party isn't preventing me from breathing. That's the difference. I think I have the right to breathe.
     
  12. Feb 24, 2006 #11

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I agree Zooby. This is just more of the same; heavy handed mob rule promoted and condoned by people who don't understand the concept of liberty.

    Wait until the inescapable logic of banning alcohol catches up again.

    We certainly need to ban all cars; and esp SUVs.
     
  13. Feb 24, 2006 #12

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    When the smog related health statistics came out one day some years ago, I investigated the idea of suing the city of LA for poor air quality.

    Wish I was rich enough to do something like this...
     
  14. Feb 24, 2006 #13
    You're missing the point about this being the fad crime. If you examine the situation with any logic you'll see that the wine drinker is potentially as dangerous, if not more, than the smoker, when they drive home, or do something careless the next day at work cause they're fuzzy from drinking. Depending on how I define "physical discomfort or harm" I could have you banned from any public place where someone with an allergy to deodorant or your air freshener might be or someone allergic to any pet dander you might have on you. Smokers are the easy target nowadays and most people have jumped on the bandwagon. 80 years ago you could smoke cigar after cigar at home, but take a nip of whisky and your wife would club you with a frying pan.
     
  15. Feb 24, 2006 #14

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Grass grows naturally. You can't ban it because you can't get rid of it everywhere that it is. Plus, it's pretty damn useful in keeping topsoil around and feeding the cattle and all that.

    I would love to rid the world of cats for many different reasons. However, you have to know that isn't analagous. Cat owners don't spray dander into the air in public places outside of their own homes. Just as I avoid the homes of smokers, I could easily avoid the homes of cat owners if I wished to. I'm not allergic to cat dander, though, and even though cats annoy me, they usually leave me alone.
     
  16. Feb 24, 2006 #15
    I don't actually object to not being allowed to smoke inside in public places in principle. These outdoor bans are going too far. Most people have some kind of habit or thing they like to do that isn't good for them and others around. If we spin it right, and it wouldn't be hard, we can make anyone who eats at fast food restaurants look quite irresponsible and reckless, and we could get fries outlawed. Then we could go after coffee drinkers. Caffein is essentially a toxin, isn't it?

    Non-smokers have already won huge victories and I think they should be satisfied and lay off.
     
  17. Feb 24, 2006 #16
    Wait, maybe I am missing the logic here. How is someone eating fries harming me?
     
  18. Feb 24, 2006 #17

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Banning smoking in an entire city is probably going too far, but the outdoor bans make sense in the two places I've actually seen them already instituted - at theme parks and within 20 feet of entrances and exits that are used by the general public. In those cases, if smoking is allowed in those places, it is inevitable that people who do not want to breathe in smoke, and might be adversely affected by doing so, will be forced to do so at some point.

    The only place I've seen smoking banned everywhere, meaning there weren't even designated smoking areas, was in Camp Snoopy, the part of Knott's Berry Farm that is frequented mostly by children. Again, I think this is reasonable, and it would be pretty rotten of anybody to smoke around children in general. Actually, now that I think about it, smoking is banned at schools as well, another place populated by minors.

    The only reason I don't have a problem with drinking alcohol is that it isn't dangerous in moderation. In fact, it can be a healthy thing to do in moderation. Getting absolutely wasted, on the other hand, is banned in public. Public drunkeness has been a crime for as long as I've been alive, and I would imagine much longer. The thing about cigarettes is that even just one, or even just part of one, can have very bad effects. Hell, I'll never forget the anti-smoking group that came into my school when I was in third grade, and used a little robot that inhaled smoke into a plastic lung. The lung turned completely black with tar after a single puff. That image will forever be ingrained into my mind and it impressed into me how completely disgusting and pointless a habit this is. There are plenty of ways to deprive one's brain of oxygen. Why cigarettes?
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2006
  19. Feb 24, 2006 #18

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    It's not. What he is doing is using the slippery-slope argument, which abstractly says that A might be a rational, even good thing to do, but the next step might be B, which is not so rational and might be a bad thing.

    It's recognized as an informal logical fallacy, but an addict will not always be logical in defending his addiction (sorry, zoob, I like you but I warned you that I feel pretty strongly about this and am probably not entirely reasonable myself).
     
  20. Feb 24, 2006 #19
    I would disagree that drinking does no harm to others. There are many cases where alcohol leads to beligerant behavior, and worse, drunk driving. However, drinking is much more social and therefore evades what zooby called the 'fad' criminalization.

    Of course, the issue here isn't what smoking does to your own body. After all, many things, like standing near a speaker at a rock concert or eating at McDonalds, are unhealthful things that we generally have the freedom to do because we are free to make decisions that affect our health. The issue here is how smoking affects others.

    Although I'm definitely not a fan of inhaling smoke, I feel like this law is legislating courtesy. If I were a smoker and smoked alone in a public park and then a non-smoker decided to walk by, I would not think it fair if I had to put out the cigarette for fear that the person would inhale some of my smoke. Isn't it just as reasonable to expect a person to not walk into a smoke filled area? On the other hand, I would consider it common courtesey to not light up next to a bunch of people who were comfortable being in a smoke-free environment. Isn't that enough?
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2006
  21. Feb 24, 2006 #20
    My point is, you could get the notion started that having a lawn is a bad thing. If you worked at it till you succeeded, you'd have people getting angry when they walked by homes with lawns the same way some people get angry at smokers today when they didn't 40 years ago.

    For whatever reason you would like to get rid of cats, though, you don't press the issue cause it's not the fad crime to own a cat: you would be all alone. If you go after smokers, there'll be lots of support. Go after drinkers: eh, some pro, some con: much more ambiguous. Pot smokers? That one usually starts a big fight with strong opinions on both sides. Cigarette smokers are pretty much evil, though, nowadays. That's the fad opinion.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Calabasas bans smoking OUTSIDE
  1. Global smoking ban? (Replies: 39)

  2. About smoking (Replies: 21)

  3. Smoke alarm (Replies: 30)

Loading...