Belmont to be first U.S. city to ban all smoking

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Griff
To me, this is unequallity at it's best. If cities/states want there to be no smoking, they need to offer the smokers a place to go to smoke.

Why? We don't let people smoke crack, anywhere, so not being able to smoke

The answer to your question, is because tobacco IS legal. If something is fully legal, such as alcohol, it should not have consumption restraints (aside from portions). How will you like it when people decide that drinking should not be aloud in bars. Sounds ridiculous, huh? The problem is that these anti-smoking laws set a precedent for future laws and ordinances. How about a sin tax on fast food? We'll just have to wait and see right?

I think that all freedom loving Americans should be angered by these anti-smoking laws. Its not just about the fact that they want to end tobacco use. The problem is with the roads that it can lead to. People, I don't know how much simpler I can make this.

ANTI-SMOKING LAWS TODAY = FURTHER LOSS OF FREEDOMS IN THE FUTURE

They just passed a law in Sarasota Florida that bans a person from even throwing a cigarette butt on the ground and if you do you are fined so they hand out disposible ashtrays to put the butts in!

I think this is getting way out of hand when people blow their horn at you when you throw out a cigarette butt.

I refuse to let people control my life and you wiith the American flag with Bush behind it.............You are a self appointed one man/women crusade but what you are saying is going in one ear out of the other because it is more about MY rights than it is smoking and I won't stop defending my rights as a smoker........EVER!

[edit on 16-11-2006 by MagicaRose]

Smoking sucks. I don't care if people want to breathe in poison gases for themselves, but i'd rather I didn't have to, thanks. Makes everyone around the smoker smell stale as well.

to those who smoke here, what exactly do you enjoy about the cigarettes you smoke? Seriously, because as far as i know, the only reason you believe it "relaxes you" is because your body goes into nicotine withdrawal in thirty minutes after a cig and your body desires more.

EVERYONE HERE WHO SMOKES CIGS, tell the community, if you can remember it, how you felt the very first time you ever had a cigarette. Did you end up coughing, become light-headed? Was it a pleasant experience? I mean the very very very first cigarette you ever smoked in your life. Even if you did not like it (which was no doubt the case in almost every single instance), your body suffered withdrawl after thirty minutes. You do not smoke because you actually want to, you all smoke because the Tobacco companies figured out how to force your body to keep money in their pockets

if you honestly believe you are content and just fine smoking, at least please consider the consequences of your choices and how they affect the planet as a whole.

Litter
Cigarette butts and cigarette packets cause litter. Smokers in the U.K. throw away about 20 million cigarette packets and about 300 million butts every day (which is a huge amount!). Many of these end up adding litter to the streets, dirtying floors and damaging furniture.
Fire
Smoking is linked to accidental damage and loss of life through fire. Tobacco contains additives to keep the cigarette alight - this increases the risk of fire.

Some fires are started by small children playing with matches or lighters which have been left around by smokers.

Throwing away a lighted cigarette or match near a forest can be very dangerous. A forest fire destroys everything in its path. Because young trees are destroyed along with older trees the damage is long-lasting and expensive.

Farming Tobacco
Cigarettes are made from dried leaves of tobacco plants. Tobacco is grown in many parts of the world, especially in the poorer, developing countries - e.g. Brazil and India. Growing tobacco is a way for these countries to make much needed money.

Many poorer countries use wood to dry tobacco and have to cut down many trees to do this. In countries where wood is used for cooking and heating then if it is also used to dry tobacco, there is less for the people to use to cook their food and heat their homes.

Tobacco companies encourage many local farmers in the poorer countries to grow tobacco instead of food even when there are food shortages. This can mean less food available for the local community.

Tobacco plants take more nutrients from the soil than many other crops and because of this the land is made less fit for growing food.

Cutting down Forests
Cigarettes are wrapped in paper and are sold in packets. They use large amounts of paper and therefore a lot of trees.

Cutting down trees is one of the biggest threats to our environment. Tree roots bind the soil together. The leaves draw moisture into the air. When the trees are cut down, rainfall is reduced and erosion of the soil is increased. This can leave a bare landscape where nothing useful can be grown. Land which might have been used for food crops may be useless.

Originally posted by DYepes
to those who smoke here, what exactly do you enjoy about the cigarettes you smoke?

Personally I smoke pipes. I enjoy it as a hobby done in moderation. We are talking 1-2 pipes a day. This is not inhaled(much like a cigar). I enjoy collecting beautiful, functional, pieces of art, that happen to be smoking devices. I also enjoy collecting wonderfully varied tobacco blends with incredible flavors. I like to smoke my pipe to relax, and contemplate my day. Sure you could do this without smoking, but tell that to a person who enjoys relaxing with a glass of wine, scotch, or whiskey.

Life is all about moderation. I believe that all smokers should limit their smoking. Just as you should limit your drinking, and fast food consumption. But, just as the government allows people to die by eating tons of unhealthy food, they should let smokers decide their fate.


I think that for all of you statistical junkies, you need to consider the facts. First of all, yes cigarettes are reported as the #1 cause of heart disease, and lung cancer. My problem with this, is that unlike true scientific studies, diets and exercise habits of the subjects were not considered. This is a huge flaw, because lifestyles can have a huge impact on this, just as smoking can.

Secondly, radon gas is the #2 cause of lung cancer behind cigarettes. Radon gas can only be made known if your house is tested. Therefore we have no way of knowing whether the cancer was caused by smoking alone, the radon gas, or a combination. See where I am going? Unless these variables are considered, we have to render the results of the studies as inaccurate.

Would you allow someone to tell you that something you like is bad for you, but not back it up with the reliable statistics such a statement would require? Lets be honest folks, thats what you are doing with smoking. You are hearing reports from a byass medium, and just taking it straight up the you know what.

This is a very difficult issue; logic and rights, above personal morals, should be considered here.

Right now, you have two persons protected by rights: the smoker, and the non-smoker, say, walking down a city sidewalk. The person has every right to smoke and do whatever he wants to his own body, but there's a problem: the non-smoker. The non-smoker is protected, like the smoker, by law, and cannot be harmed against his will. The issue is that the non-smoker is being harmed and does not wish to be, he has every right not to be hurt or even annoyed by the cigarette smoke.

See the dilema? Smoking means smoke is released from your cigarette, but the same thing goes for cars or wood-burning stoves. If you ban public smoking, you make it very difficult for people who want to smoke to do so, and if you don't, you risk showing ignorance for the rights of people who don't want smoke in their face (it even bothers some smokers I know).

Taking a position is very difficult here, and its why there is so much inaction. In a rural area, public smoking wouldn't be a problem, but in a city, one person smoking can influence a dozen people. I personally don't (and won't claim to) have a solution.


This all said, people who say, "don't you wish it was illegal back then when you started smoking?" are dangerous. As long as you wish to take cigarette smoke, or any other substance into your body, the government can't simply ban it because it's bad for the user (which is why I find drug restrictions ludicrous). Authoritarianism is a very dangerous thing, and the government isn't responsible for your decisions, only your rights.

My mother smoked for 60 years and was never sick. Finally she decioded to quit and was sick for the next year and gained allmost 80 lbs. one day I got tired of her being miserable and picked up a pack and took them over. She wasn't happy. A week or so later I stopped by and could see her out by the woods walking probably 1/4 mile away and out came a puff of smoke. It's a 1/2 mile to the woods and she keeps her cigs there and walks there 4-5 times a day and feels great. Smokes one on the walk back. Been doing it for 4 years and still feels 100% better than when she quit. After 60 years of doing anything your body is hooked and is used to whatever it is. She'll be 80 next August and if smoking makes her feel better it's none of your business. Forgot to add she sees better and has started deer hunting again.

mikell

[edit on 16-11-2006 by mikellmikell]

I applaud the city of Belmont. My only problem is they didn’t take this serious issue far enough.

All U.S. cities should ban:

1. The burning of wood. Wood combustion contains more than 100 pollutants, several of which are carcinogenic. I want to enjoy my walk outside, in my neighborhood, instead of inhaling that disgusting chimney smoke. I CHOSE to go to a bonfire rally in college, that was horrible. My clothes stunk of smoke, my eyes were burning and I had to inhale that carcinogenic smoke in a public place.

2. Vegetables and fruit. Exposure to pesticide on fruits and vegetables has been linked to an increased risk of cancer. Hey you, put down that cancer carrot stick!!! Even worse, pesticides can attach to dust particles and travel into MY HOME.

3. Fast food. Those fatty, greasy foods lead to high blood pressure and heart attacks. I’m tired of paying high health care costs because of these fast food restaurants. Oh wait, I can’t remember today which group was responsible for high health care costs. Was it fast food eaters or the illegal immigrants or the cost of medical technology or those damn smokers, etc. Ahh, forget it, I’ll start a lobbying organization and we’ll eventually get rid of them all.

4. You want to put on deodorant after working out at the gym? You better use a roll-on, because aerosol has been linked to cancer and you don’t have the right to risk my health because you want to smell good. Hair spray, not today. Hair spray, not today. Ban it all!!!

Oh well, I suppose this could go on all day long. I guess freedom wasn’t such a great idea after all…

Originally posted by jakeolsen2219

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

Making a consumable ADDICTIVE, that knowingly kills people.. should not be legal in any way shape or form.

hostile because people fly of the 'sane' argument are relate buses , fatty foods to cigerettes.

alchohol may ruin lives, but its not ADDICTIVE.. it

For one, Alcohol IS addictive. How can you say that its not?? It also kills countless people with alcohol poisoning, and drunk driving related deaths.That pretty much discounts you as uninformed about everything you speak about.

Caffiene is also addictive. Would you like us to ban coffee?? Soda??

Of course not, because YOU like to enjoy these ADDICTIVE consumables.

How would you like to know that the american cancer society has put forth a study indicating caffeine as a carcinogen? I guess you'd also be glad to know that doctors are recommending pregnant women to seriously decrease their caffeine intake, because they are seeing birth defects similar to that of smokers from caffeine consumers.

The problem with addictive consumables, is that they are only alright to consume, although they are harmful, if the majority of the population enjoys them. Smokers are an easy pick, because they make up a minority group now.

Alcohol kills more innocent people than second hand smoke does, for sure.

Before you suggest that they destroy my rights, you better make me a list of things you like to do, so I can take it to the government, and have them ban your lifestyle. Don't worry though, because if you smoking nazi's allow them to create laws that set precedents like government infringement on the rights of business owners, than I'm sure pretty soon it will come back to bite you in the arss.

Correct,
But you drinking alcohol next to me wont affect me.
I couldnt care less what your addicted to, as long as your addiction doesnt impact me whiel your using it.
Coffee and caffiene do not have the same addicting ability of cigerettes.
Comparing coffee to cigerettes doesnt work...
If I drink coffee every day for 50yrs.. I wont die a horrible death.
but If I smoke cigerettes every day for 50yrs.. what do you believe the outcome?

Keep your cigerettes, but smoke them in your own houise.. so its only your fmaily that suffers from your addiction.

Originally posted by Broncbuster
I applaud the city of Belmont. My only problem is they didn’t take this serious issue far enough.

All U.S. cities should ban:

1. The burning of wood. Wood combustion contains more than 100 pollutants, several of which are carcinogenic. I want to enjoy my walk outside, in my neighborhood, instead of inhaling that disgusting chimney smoke. I CHOSE to go to a bonfire rally in college, that was horrible. My clothes stunk of smoke, my eyes were burning and I had to inhale that carcinogenic smoke in a public place.

2. Vegetables and fruit. Exposure to pesticide on fruits and vegetables has been linked to an increased risk of cancer. Hey you, put down that cancer carrot stick!!! Even worse, pesticides can attach to dust particles and travel into MY HOME.

3. Fast food. Those fatty, greasy foods lead to high blood pressure and heart attacks. I’m tired of paying high health care costs because of these fast food restaurants. Oh wait, I can’t remember today which group was responsible for high health care costs. Was it fast food eaters or the illegal immigrants or the cost of medical technology or those damn smokers, etc. Ahh, forget it, I’ll start a lobbying organization and we’ll eventually get rid of them all.

4. You want to put on deodorant after working out at the gym? You better use a roll-on, because aerosol has been linked to cancer and you don’t have the right to risk my health because you want to smell good. Hair spray, not today. Hair spray, not today. Ban it all!!!

Oh well, I suppose this could go on all day long. I guess freedom wasn’t such a great idea after all…

Yeah, they should set curfews, too, why would anyone need to be out at night? Who needs to be represented, it delays things. Why should you be allowed to regulate your own diet, when the government can make you so much healthier? Freedom of speech only incites rebellion and ownership of guns makes people murder. Court trials are only a way to delay punishment and allow people to go free.

Isn't that right, Hitler?

(I hope that was sarcasm, Bronc)

[edit on 16-11-2006 by Johnmike]

some people just go so overboard... its makes a valid debate stupid.

Smoking is an ugly, nasty, dangerous addiction.

Even after I quit smoking cigarettes about ten years ago, I still never minded sitting in the smoking section of restaurants. When they banned smoking from restaurants in Albuquerque, I felt sorry for the smokers, but I have to admit that smoke-free environments are better, more pleasurable environments.

I remember when smoking was rampant and was allowed everywhere. It's much better now.

As far as cities' outlawing cigarettes in public to any degree, I'd just have to guess that the jury is still out, because there will surely be challenges to the law.


[edit on 2006/11/16 by GradyPhilpott]

Yes indeed...

Well anyways, noone has yet to answer my question on their very first cigarette, or the fact that i posted your body experiences withdrawal 30 minutes after smoking tobacoo (whether rolled in paper or in a pipe). That means you body was already becoming addicted after the very first tobacco you may have smoked, which was probably when you were in middle school, or younger in many cases. I don't know if it is easier for a youth to cope with or understand addiction in the making, but apparantley it works. Most smokers started when they were young, at a point where their minds had not matured enough to understand or even care about the consequences of their actions.

eventually their mind just accepts that this was a choice they made and agreed with, and makes you feel better. Of course pretty much all of you smokers would deny it until your death, which is probably around the corner anyways.

If you want to smoke, smoke on your private property. If you just cannot do that, then dont smoke at all.

I seriously doub tthe validity of your story mikellmikell unless your mother had the great healing superpower as portrayed in some fictional comic books. It should not even be scientifically correct.

some people just go so overboard... its makes a valid debate stupid.


No, what's overboard here isn't my comment. It's the fact that a city passed legislation banning a LEGAL activity in your attached residence or car.

So, by law, you could be given a ticket for:

- smoking a cigarette in your driveway, while sitting in your car or not

- smoking inside your attached condo, which you own

- smoking on your deck, at your home, that you own

Get the idea. That sir, is overboard...

im sure if there's no one around.. your going to be fine
jee's your like a school girl screaming for a boy she cant have..
calm down mate, cigerettes arent going to vanish.

Obviolsy they had enough peopel who thought this was a postivie step for society.

I, and many others back them up.

Smoking in the public should not be allowed, if other people can smell it, it is entering their lungs.. and affecting their health.

deal with it.

This is ridiculous, yes I am a smoker, and by the way, im tired of non smokers thinking their superiour for whatever reason, guess what your not. I smoke beacuse its my right, i understand its a bad habit, but thats none of your buisness. I don't believe smoking outside is hurting anybody except the smoker. I can understand the non smoking rules in public places because it may be harmful and unpleasureable for other people, whatever I will waste my time to comply to total strangers demands, fine. But in my car? outside? can you repeat that again... I think your off your nut telling me I can't smoke somewhere where it will not affect other people. its my Right, yes my Right to stick a cancer stick in my mouth, its my damn mouth, so don't be concearned about it. (period)

im sure if there's no one around.. your going to be fine
jee's your like a school girl screaming for a boy she cant have..
calm down mate, cigerettes arent going to vanish


I'm sure if nobody is around, I'm going to be fine running a red light. I'm sure if nobody is around, I'm going to be fine with stealing your mail.

Geez, a law is a law.

I wasn't aware that I was screaming, I apologize. I just thought I was bringing up some points that could be discussed.

By the way, I'm not a smoker. I just believe this sets a precedent that could easily be abused.

Yea whatever buddy. If I see you smoking in your car I am going to chase you down, throw spikes in your path, and then hose you down with water

Pfft, your right to smoke in private, give me a break.

Well, unless you happen to live in Belmont, CA, I don't see this as much of a problem. However, for those who disagree with this type of legislation, it is certainly the proverbial "wake-up call."

Posting protests here won't get you very far, but organizing smokers' rights groups in your hometown now might save you some grief later.

It should be understood that I don't think I'm better than smokers, but having been a smoker, I know for a fact that I am better off than smokers.

I think drinking's way more bad than smoking,drinking should be priority since it has various efects on one's behaviour and conciousness (people get aggressive somtimes)plus the effect of poisining. On the other hand you have smokers that are addicted to it and are killing them selves and poisining who are around them but do not have any secondary effects on one's behaviour,driving or when at work.

There's more drinkers that cause death to others (i.e. drink driving) than smokers to others,as i stated before drinking should be priority, then deal with the smokers.