This is an amazing step in the right direction.

As a victim of my Father's second hand smoke for my entire childhood until I was eighteen, I have had multiple breathing related disease since my late 30's.

My doctors attribute my COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary disease) and Asthma to my exposure to my Dad's second hand smoke.

I have never smoked, and yet, here I am with severe breathing problems that make my life hell at times.

I have always felt it was a crime of abuse when I saw parents smoking around their children.

I will be glad when laws like the new ordinances in Calabasas are wide spead and prevent people, who selfishly feel that they have a right to make others victims of their own unhealthy habit. This should keep smokers from inflicting their second hand smoke on me and others, who up to now have had no way to escape exposure.

As I've often said, "that's my opinion. I could be wrong."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2006 03:13AM by GeneL.

details? Within city limits? Only allowed inside private homes?

I'm not sure. It was just on the news and seems to be a work in progress.

It was reported that the ordance was passed on the heels of the following anouncement by the California Air Resources Board.

"SACRAMENTO: Today the California Air Resources Board (ARB) identified environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), or second-hand smoke, as a Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC). ETS is now formally identified as an airborne toxic substance that may cause and/or contribute to death or serious illness."

[www.arb.ca.gov]

How funny! ARB in parentheses came up as one of our emoticons.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2006 01:45AM by GeneL.

GeneL I've been in the same boat as you with health from exposure to smokers.

Recently lost a relative to smoking. He was 60 years old

Smoking is the most idiotic thing I know.

---

---------
3GHz - The clock is STILL ticking Steve.

B)

While we are at it lets ban Alcohol too.

---

---“What you permit, you promote. What you allow, you encourage. What you condone, you own.”

Based on the proven fact that drinking a small amount of red wine daily has a number of health benefits, I wouldn't lump alcohol in the same boat with smoking.

Unfortunately, because of my other health problem, GERD, my GI doctor has told me not to drink any alcohol

But the small amount of people that use alcohol as a health benefit are far out weighed by the amount of people that use it irresponsibly. Maybe they should ban all alcohol except red wine and ration that to small bottles.

---

---“What you permit, you promote. What you allow, you encourage. What you condone, you own.”

The previous ban on alcohol in this country was terribly unsuccessful and in my mind not worth repeating.

On the other hand the ban on smoking, that I feel will become universal in the US, would not prevent anyone from smoking, but rather it would restrict them from exposing others to their second hand smoke.

So there is no comparison to Prohibition's total ban on drinking. Smokers would be able to continue to smoke, just not in public or in a way that their smoke affects others.

I don't know a whole lot about the last ban on drinking other than it happened and it didn't work. Did we know the same things about alcohol then as we do now? Also I'm not really comparing the two. Just saying "Might as well ban everything that is bad for people while we are banning things."

I also feel the same way as you about second hand smoke. I just think that a total ban on being able to smoke in public is extreme and smokers should have smoking areas where they can puff their cancer sticks.

---

---“What you permit, you promote. What you allow, you encourage. What you condone, you own.”

pinion, I think you are missing the point.

"Smoking in public" means smoking where others are present. This is exactly what needs to be restricted.

Those of us who do not smoke including kids, will no longer be forced to tolerate "smokers' rights" which cause us to be exposed to their "proven toxic" second hand smoke.

It has always amazed me how pervasive the smoke from even a single person smoking outdoors can be.

Fortunately, in this country, more and more people are conscious of the health risks of smoking.

I do think there is a clear majority of non-smokers who will eventually put their selfish needs for health over the selfish needs of smokers to enjoy a cigarette in public.

GeneL, when are you forced to being exposed to second hand smoke?

What is wrong with having a designated smoking area for smokers completely seperate from non-smoking areas? How about letting the establishment owner decide if smoking is allowed and then non-smokers can choose to stay away?

Should we ban all forms of toxic smoke that someone has the potential to be around?


Anyway, this isn't the place for an argument of this nature. If you care to then respond in the other forums and I'll meet you there ;)

---

---“What you permit, you promote. What you allow, you encourage. What you condone, you own.”

pinion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> GeneL, when are you forced to being exposed to
> second hand smoke?

Are you kidding? How about the entrance ot almost every store where the employees hang out on their breaks or at the OC Fair where I work every Summer, I could go on and on.
>
> Should we ban all forms of toxic smoke that
> someone has the potential to be around?

YES!

> Anyway, this isn't the place for an argument of
> this nature. If you care to then respond in the
> other forums and I'll meet you there


You are making my informational post into an argument, not I.


> ---"Yer all idiots." elmo3
>

>It has always amazed me how pervasive the smoke from even a single person smoking outdoors can be.

I'd really like to get rid of the crowd that torches up at the entry way of a store or restaurant. I can't stand having to walk through the cloud of smoke before entering a restaurant (or leaving one), it turns my stomach.

I stopped supporting my sisters Mac because of her 3 pack a day habit. I would go into her small 6 X 8 "computer room" and amid all the yellowed beige plastic there'd be The Shrine, an ashtray overflowing with butts! Bleecchhh!!! Even after removing this totem my eyes would start to burn within 15 minutes and it would get so bad I would have to leave without fixing the problem. As soon as I hit outside fresh air I could smell the reek coming from my clothes. This is the environment she raises her 2 children in - MY neice and nephew - yet yells at me about *her* right to smoke when I stick up for the kids! This is all with the knowledge that our father died from lung cancer and her mother from emphysema!

I don't understand how people can claim they would do anything to protect their children but think nothing of slowly poisoning them with cigarettes. Morans.

---

- Jack D.




New tasteless sig coming soon!

pinion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> and then non-smokers can choose to stay away?

Pinion, BREATHING is the natural state of being. Smoking is not. Your rational is another example of forcing the majority to bend to the needs of the minority. Banning smoking in public places is putting the burden back on the smoker. Let *them* decide if they want to go somewhere that they can breath toxins instead of clean air.

I don't care if people smoke, I just don't want to have to alter my life so they can pollute.

---

- Jack D.




New tasteless sig coming soon!

GeneL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pinion Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----

> >
> > Should we ban all forms of toxic smoke that
> > someone has the potential to be around?
>
> YES!
>



You'd better stop driving then, assuming you do.

---

---“What you permit, you promote. What you allow, you encourage. What you condone, you own.”

You could have breathing problems unrelated to your dad's smoking. It's impossible to tell cause and effect. I grew up around smokers and have no problems. Just one more anecdotal datum.

Ahhhh... Childhood memories of being trapped in the back of the Country Squire with two chain-smoking 'rents. Headaches, naseau... how lovely! They always used the "We didn't know it was bad when we started!" Well, now ya know, so quit already!

My dad finally did. It's an addiction, and the addicts will use any means to defend their need for a fix.

Smokers. Fsck 'em.

Columbus, OH has been smoke-free for over a year now. Many fought hard on both sides - but I think the city is better for it overall. All public buildings, restaurants, bars etc. fall under this law. It's been nice to go pretty much anywhere for dinner and not have to worry if you'll get seated close to the smoking section. (I have always thought "smoking sections" in restaurants were a laughable idea at best.)

I do feel for the bars, as I would guess 1/2 of bar patrons are smokers and it most surely has had an impact on their business. I do think we have something in the works to allow smoking in buildings that make greater than 50% of their revenue in alcohol or something like that. Honestly, I expect smoke in bars - just don't want it around while I'm eating.

---

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
MacBook Pro 2.0GHz quad-core Intel i7
IMac 27" 3.4GHz quad-core Intel i7

You'd still have COPD, wether your parents smoked or not.
Their smoking during that time period didn't help you during that time period.
Your COPD was not CAUSED by their smoking.
If your doctor is telling you that, you need a new doctor.
Ypur current 'degree' of COPD 'MAY' be influenced by your formative years. Maybe.

How about all the other environmental influences that exacerbate COPD?

Having a set of twin ucles in their mid 40s, who have been chain smokers since they were both 17 years of age. Their doctors have warned them of the cancer risks and health issues they are exposing themselves, the wives and children. They ignore them. Their dentists told them the reasons why their teeth and gums are severely damaged. Uncles ignore them. They have attempted to quit. Go right back with even higher 'doses'! They will be the first to ones in the family of non-smokers to die due to smoking related illnesses. I miss my most kind-hearted uncles already

Kap

---

SoCal for now.

I would like to propose a ban on heavy perfume use. I hate it when i'm walking behind a woman (or a man) who has sprayed so much perfume on their body it reaks. It gets all into my nostrils and it's choking me. I can almost taste it in my mouth it's so bad. Even my clothing smells like perfume afterwards. And then there are times when i'm trapped in an elevator with these inconsiderate people. Or in the office. Or in a bar.

Powerful smelling perfume should be banned in public. They can spray whatever they want in the privacy of their own home. Just not around people in public when people have to inhale their chemical spray.

For your reading pleasure:
[www.ecomall.com]

I second that.

I also propose the same thing for people who smell bad for many of the same reasons.

---

---“What you permit, you promote. What you allow, you encourage. What you condone, you own.”

There are signs in my allergist's office asking that patients not wear perfume as it can cause breathing problems for the other patients.

>>What is wrong with having a designated smoking area for smokers completely seperate from non-smoking areas?<<

Smokers, like smoke itself, tend to ignore designated boundaries. We have no smoking signs posted directly outside the entrances to my work, with a designated smokers area about 50 feet away. The smokers, invariably, smoke right by the door, in front of the signs. It would almost be comical if I didn't have to hold my breath.

---

Le poète doit vivre beaucoup, vivre dans tous les sens. - Verlaine

Marc Anthony Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >>What is wrong with having a designated
> smoking area for smokers completely seperate from
> non-smoking areas?<<
>
> Smokers, like smoke itself, tend to ignore
> designated boundaries. We have no smoking signs
> posted directly outside the entrances to my work,
> with a designated smokers area about 50 feet away.
> The smokers, invariably, smoke right by the door,
> in front of the signs. It would almost be comical
> if I didn't have to hold my breath.

Seattle just passed a smoking ban. 25 feet from doorways too. We have designated areas painted on the ground at work. Now that it is posted and a law, I hear that HR will start to discipline people up to and including firing, to shield the company from any potential lawsuits.

Hey, you can smoke, just don't exhale. Keep it to yourself.

They were paranoid that the bar I go to would lose a lot of money. Business is actually up roughly 25%. Lots of new faces willing to go out now you don't need to walk through the self-serve car wash on the way home, and ditch the clothes in the garage before hitting the shower to decontaminate yourself.

When the smoking ban inside bars finally were enforced, S/O and I have started to accept more invitations from friends to hang out.

Kap

---

SoCal for now.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2006 08:12PM by kap.

Marc Anthony Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >>What is wrong with having a designated
> smoking area for smokers completely seperate from
> non-smoking areas?<<
>
> Smokers, like smoke itself, tend to ignore
> designated boundaries. We have no smoking signs
> posted directly outside the entrances to my work,
> with a designated smokers area about 50 feet away.
> The smokers, invariably, smoke right by the door,
> in front of the signs. It would almost be comical
> if I didn't have to hold my breath.


The problem there lies with not enforcing the policy. It also lies with the smokers for not obeying the rules but the rules have to be enforced if you want people to follow them. I suggest bringing in a gun and pistol whipping anyone who will not obey. After pistol whipping them make sure to say "Bow down on both knees!"

---

---“What you permit, you promote. What you allow, you encourage. What you condone, you own.”