First U.s. City To Ban All Smoking

[Anonymouse]

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

 

By Dana Yates, Daily Journal Staff

 

Belmont is set to make history by becoming the first city in the nation to ban smoking on its streets and almost everywhere else.

 

The Belmont City Council voted unanimously last night to pursue a strict law that will prohibit smoking anywhere in the city except for single-family detached residences. Smoking on the street, in a park and even in one’s car will become illegal and police would have the option of handing out tickets if they catch someone.

 

The actual language of the law still needs to be drafted and will likely come back to the council either in December or early next year.

 

“We have a tremendous opportunity here. We need to pass as stringent a law as we can, I would like to make it illegal,” said Councilman Dave Warden. “What if every city did this, image how many lives would be saved? If we can do one little thing here at this level it will matter.”

 

Armed with growing evidence that second-hand smoke causes negative health effects, the council chose to pursue the strictest law possible and deal with any legal challenges later. Last month, the council said it wanted to pursue a law similar to ones passed in Dublin and the Southern California city of Calabasas. It took up the cause after a citizen at a senior living facility requested smoke be declared a public nuisance, allowing him to sue neighbors who smoke.

 

The council was concerned about people smoking in multi-unit residences.

 

“I would just like to say ‘no smoking’ and see what happens and if they do smoke, [someone] has the right to have the police come and give them a ticket,” said Councilwoman Coralin Feierbach.

 

The council’s decision garnered applause from about 15 people who showed up in support of the ordinance. One woman stood up and blew kisses to the council, another pumped his fist with satisfaction.

 

“I’m astounded. I admire their courage and unanimous support,” said Serena Chen, policy director of the American Lung Association of California.

 

Chen has worked in this area since 1991 and helped many cities and counties pass no smoking policies, but not one has been willing to draft a complete ban.

 

“I feel like the revolution is taking place and I am trying to catch up,” Chen told the council.

 

The decision puts Belmont on the forefront of smoking policy and it is already attracting attention from other states.

 

“You have the ability to do something a little more extraordinary than Dublin or Calabasas. I see what they’ve done as five or six on the Richter Scale. What the citizens of Belmont, and of America, need is five brave people to do something that’s a seven or eight on the Richter Scale,” said Philip Henry Jarosz of the Condominium Council of Maui.

 

“The whole state of Hawaii is watching” he said.

 

Councilman Warren Lieberman said he was concerned the city will pass a law it cannot enforce because residents will still smoke unless police are specifically called to a situation. Police cannot go out and enforce smoking rules, he said.

 

“It makes us hypocrites by saying you know you can break the law if no one is watching,” Lieberman said.

 

However, both Feierbach and Warden argued it is the same as jaywalking, having a barking dog or going 10 miles over the speed limit. All are illegal, but seldom enforced.

 

“You can’t walk down the street with a beer, but you can have a cigarette,” Warden said. “You shouldn’t be allowed to do that. I just think it shouldn’t be allowed anywhere except in someone’s house. If you want to do that, that’s fine.”

 

http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=66988

 

And this is why the lefty liberal hippie crowd of "Do what I say" need to be killed off. And to add comedic value, as they are killed, right before they are killed, they should have cigarette smoke blown into their faces for five minutes straight and then take a live burning cigarette and burn their skin. Every one of them. How much more ***ing annoying can these people get? How much more illogical, insane and stupid can these insecure hippies become, trying to get everyone to emulate their god damned lifestyle? Here you have it!

[Azat]

agree with you on this one Mouse man.

 

Didnt Calabases already implement this few months back? I seem to remember they passed a law that would ban smoking everywhere but private residences

[Stormig]

Good riddance. Who says I have to inhale someone's smoke when waiting for the bus? This is where "Get a room" really makes sense.

[DominO123]

Good riddance. Who says I have to inhale someone's smoke when waiting for the bus? This is where "Get a room" really makes sense.

 

I think it is one thing to restrict people to smoke in public places and it is another to restrict smoking everywhere.

 

Montreal is an example I believe, it is restrictions on smoking, but still those who want to smoke can still find a way to smoke without having to change a city or having to do it in his/her home.

 

It will be logical to restrict smoking in the streets the day we restrict cars in streets, I don't drive because of environmental issues and I don't want to inhale what goes out from cars so I don't see the logic of restricting smoking in streets while cars can 'smoke.' When I am downtown, what makes me sick are not peoples smoking in the sreets but cars.

[Yervant1]

I have been a nonsmoker all my life, don't like the smell of it nor want the smoke, but this is a legal product either ban it or leave it alone with some common sense rules.

Governments want the taxes that it generates and play the moral do the right thing game at the same time.

Edited November 18, 2006 by Yervant1

[MosJan]

Belmont ??? mer achqn el sarrel er arten Belmont gnaluts..

cheq uzzum chenq ga !!!

[SanVal]

Restricting smoking to designated areas is a very good idea, because I don't want smokers spoiling everything for me whenever I go to a public place. But it's an entirely different thing to ban smoking altogether. What Santa Monica did--banning it only in the most touristy area where people come to enjoy themselves--makes more sense.

 

I think that people who want to kill themselves--be it with cigarettes, MSG, or partially hydrogenated oil--should be able to do so as long as they don't hurt others in the process.

[Azat]

why the hell is Government getting involved in things it should not be involved in.

1. Government should be happy and should thank every single smoker. They die early and do not get to use social security(retirement funds) and hospital services until they are 100 years old

2. they pay an additional 3 dollar more tax per day every day until they die

3. a private entity like a restaurant should make the decision if they want to serve to only non smokers. Government should mind its own business

 

By the way I am a non smoker who hates the smell of ciggarets and no one has ever smoked in my house.

[Harut]

nevada, the most libertarian state of all, made some kind of amendment to state constitution about restricting smoking in restaurants and such... all the small businesses are in fury...

[nairi]

Why are hippies involved in this discussion, considering that this is a very right-winged decision? Aren't hippies the drug-taking, cannabis-smoking, tree-hugging people? I'd be the last to ban smoking, though I agree that it may be restricted in some areas, and I have enough respect not to light up in a crowded bus-stop with five pregnant ladies. But damn it, I want to be able to buy my weed whenever I feel like it, and smoke it in designated areas, including my balcony. It's bad enough that coffeeshops close at 10 p.m. where I live. Thank god this ain't retarded America, where practically everything is forbidden, except guns and petrol. I'd say, light up and chill out, a.k.a. make love not war. Peace out.

[Takoush]

Same as Azat I am not a smoking person either and people don't smoke in our house; but frankly this rule that the gov't has implemented is ridiculous. I understand having sections in restaurants, trains, motorcars, etc. to do it; but giving tickets practically in most places in a city is ridiculous.

 

I still think that the best thing against cigarettes and tobacco smoking is advertising against it at best.

[SanVal]

why the hell is Government getting involved in things it should not be involved in.

1. Government should be happy and should thank every single smoker. They die early and do not get to use social security(retirement funds) and hospital services until they are 100 years old

2. they pay an additional 3 dollar more tax per day every day until they die

3. a private entity like a restaurant should make the decision if they want to serve to only non smokers. Government should mind its own business

 

By the way I am a non smoker who hates the smell of ciggarets and no one has ever smoked in my house.

 

 

They drive up the cost of healthcare.

[Azat]

so you are telling me that the person who dies of lung cancer at the age of 70 costs the government more than the guy who dies of old age at 85?

 

BTW: simple Google search will give you the answer who costs more...

[Azat]

oh one more thing the myth about second hand smoke causing thousands of deaths in US and such is a complete myth as well... No scientific proof of even thousand deaths in US per year from second hand smoke. Now compare that to the car accident death rate. I think we all should ban car driving as it is more that 4000% higher

[Azat]

this is just a study comparing health care cost

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/337/15/1052

 

now lets also add to that the cost of the aging population and social security and lets see if cigarettes increase or decrease costs...

 

Once again I am telling you that I am a non smoker and in fact the last time I had a ciggarett I was less than 10 years old. 2-3 in my life all together. I tell everyone not to smoke, but we nonsmokers cant tell others what to do...

[Yervant1]

I tell everyone not to smoke, but we nonsmokers cant tell others what to do...

Tell or not to tell, that is the question. I'm confused.

[Azat]

I was confused by that as well Yervantig... What I mean is that I tell people dont smoke, its not good for your health and all that stuff, but by no means would try to ban them from doing it

[Yervant1]

I was confused by that as well Yervantig... What I mean is that I tell people dont smoke, its not good for your health and all that stuff, but by no means would try to ban them from doing it

I understood what you are saying the first time, I'm just pulling your leg.

I feel the same way.

Edited November 20, 2006 by Yervant1

[Takoush]

I think we all should ban car driving as it is more that 4000% higher

 

That's a good one Azat

[Stormig]

It's not as much about whether I will die because of second-hand smoke but rather the fact that people don't even consider that I may not like their particular choice of brand or someone else might even hate smoke altogether. It's about respect. Think of it this way - it is my nature-given right to flatulate, yet you don't find me blowing man-farts and stinking up the place in restaurants, bus stops, or other public places where there are people, do you? There is a time and place for everything. And if you ban scenes of smoking in movies and what-not, what good is it if the young can still observe the habit on the street?

NB - I enjoy my occasional water-pipe now and then. But, like I said, there is a place and time for everything.

[Takoush]

If young people smoke on the streets the open air will take care of it. You don't like it walk away to another corner.

[DominO123]

It's not as much about whether I will die because of second-hand smoke but rather the fact that people don't even consider that I may not like their particular choice of brand or someone else might even hate smoke altogether. It's about respect. Think of it this way - it is my nature-given right to flatulate, yet you don't find me blowing man-farts and stinking up the place in restaurants, bus stops, or other public places where there are people, do you? There is a time and place for everything. And if you ban scenes of smoking in movies and what-not, what good is it if the young can still observe the habit on the street?

NB - I enjoy my occasional water-pipe now and then. But, like I said, there is a place and time for everything.

 

Stormig, you're right here, but this law does much more than what you say. In Montreal, under law, you can not smoke in public places, and outside of public places you have to keep a distance, it includes bus stops. This way non-smokers are not bothered. But you can for sure not restrict smokers to smoke anywhere outside, this is way too extrem and hypocritical of those who try to justify such a law while they drive a car. You should not fart in public places, but you should have the right to fart in the street in places which usually people are in movement and it is not too close to a public place. Imagine now that they restrict you to fart anywhere outside, that is somehow what this law proposes, unless I didn't understand it well.

[SanVal]

I don't know why people always compare everything to driving. That's a very bad analogy. In today's American society, due to the geographic mismatch between work and home (and just about everything else), it's virtually impossible to live without driving. That's particulary true for southern California.

 

Driving is practically a necessity. You can't say the same about smoking. When it is a necessity, it's because the smoker is addicted to it, and they're in that predicament because of their own fault.

[Azat]

so what you are saying is that if it is a necessity, its okay if more people die?

 

What about drinking? People die from that, people abuse their wives and girlfriends and children. Should we ban alcohol?

 

I know I am being a jack ass, I am just trying to push peoples buttons.

[Stormig]

If young people smoke on the streets the open air will take care of it. You don't like it walk away to another corner.

What in tarnation are you yapping about? So if old people smoke the open air will not take care of it? What I'm talking about is one of the reasons behind bans in movies and advertorials - it's about impressionable young persons, not about whether I like it or not or whether I can walk to another corner or whether I will force my point of view on someone else.