Second hand smoke a toxic risk says Calif.

The California Air Resource Board, the major air pollution agency in Calif., has classified second hand smoke as a toxic air contaminant. This move could lead to tougher bans on smoking in public.

A California agency voted on Thursday to classify second-hand tobacco smoke as a "toxic air contaminant," a first-in-the-nation move that could ultimately toughen state regulations against smoking.

The designation by California's Air Resources Board starts a process that could lead to further smoking bans in the nation's largest state, which has often pioneered in health and environmental regulation.

Scientific studies in recent years have warned about the health impact from second-hand smoke and linked it to a wide array of ailments including heart disease, lung cancer and other respiratory ailments, and breast cancer.

Source< br />

As an ex-smoker (I smoked for 23 yrs)I feel this move will help protect non-smokers from the risks associated with cigarette smoking. I'm just concerned we're eventually going to ban smoking in private homes to keep kids from being exposed. I'm not sure the government should have the power to stop individuals from smoking in their own homes.

Well, whatever. California can do as it pleases, it's one of the biggest economies in the world. I think it's foolish, but what can ya' do?

I've lived in LA, and second hand smoke is the least of their worries. One brush fire kicks up more toxic smoke than a thousand generations worth of Hollywood chainsmokers, so what sort of impact are they hoping to make, exactly?

This is just another classic example of saying one thing and meaning something entirely different. Second hand smoke isn't the reason they want to ban smoking in public areas. That's just a scare tactic that seems to work. It's all about trying to ban smoking all together.

Think about why they would want to ban smoking... What group of people costs the government more per year in health care than any other?

Glad I still have the freedom to decide when, where, and if I want to smoke where I live. I even have trouble now when I go visit friends and family in other states or cities where they have that smoking ban. It's just second nature for me to have a smoke with my drink... Then I notice the stares and my friends/family laughing at me.

This is of course after quite a few drinks... i usually know when I'm not supposed to smoke. But when the juice starts flowin' I start forgetting.

BTW... Top three economies in the world are...

1) U.S.A.
2) California
3) Wal-Mart

*edit*

redhat,

I just noticed something... Is that a smaller brain in your crotch area? If so that is the funniest avatar I've seen on ATS.

[edit on 26-1-2006 by LostSailor]

Lost Sailor, i disagree with the idea that the government wants to ban smoking completely. IMO the tobacco and pharmaceutical companies have too much money invested in the politicians to allow a complete ban to happen. I could be wrong, maybe it's the Federal government getting all of the lobbyist money and the State gov't really does have it's constituents health as a priority.

No, that's not another brain in my crotch, at least in the picture. The gif is a pet scan I had recently and the dark spot is actually my bladder. The chemical they injected me with is a radioactive tracer that eventually winds up in the bladder. But I like your guess too.

[edit on 26-1-2006 by redhat]

It all starts with self-righteous jerks. Most people need something about which to feel superior, for some it's their theism, for some it's their atheism, for some it's their right-wing beliefs, for some it's their left-wing beliefs, for some it's the price of their car or the features on their cell phone or the label on their clothes... for many, in recent years, it's the fact that they don't smoke. Anti-smokers have a special status though-- they have the force of law increasingly on their side. Their belief in their innate superiority is confirmed by legislation.

How many times have you seen an anti-smoker stop and deliberately sniff the air-- casting about for that faint whiff of tobacco smoke that they thought they smelled? They'll actually go out of their way to pin down the slightest trace of tobacco smoke just so that they can then have something about which to be indignant. Anybody who has to, and does, try that hard to be offended shouldn't be allowed to define public policy, but they are. Their view is being heard and legislation is being passed in agreement with it, and that empowers them.

However, the legislation is not being passed because politicians necessarily believe that they're right. Legislation banning smoking is being passed for the quite simple reason that EVERY law that the government passes that in any way limits our activities furthers their power. The only thing that the government is really interested in, in the long run, is expanding their power and their control and their dominance, and they'll take every opportunity they get to do just that. So when self-righteous anti-smokers shout, "Somebody needs to do something about that!" the government is more than willing to step in and be that somebody and do that something.

The truly ironic thing about it all, to me, is that it's certain that many of those who are calling for government intervention and cheering it on when it comes, turn around and, with no sense at all of their own hypocrisy, complain bitterly about how the government so horribly violates their rights to do whatever it is that they wish to do.

Too many people are all to willing to gore somebody else's ox...

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
The truly ironic thing about it all, to me, is that it's certain that many of those who are calling for government intervention and cheering it on when it comes, turn around and, with no sense at all of their own hypocrisy, complain bitterly about how the government so horribly violates their rights to do whatever it is that they wish to do.

Wish I could have said this myself... I totally agree.