Here's something you might be interested in.
Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
[email protected] — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
El Cajon no-smoking law flouted
"You can’t tell a grown man he can’t smoke"
Sitting on a park bench at Prescott Promenade on a hot July afternoon, John stares at a brawny tattooed man in his 50s smoking a cigarette under a “No Smoking” sign.
“Who knows what this guy would do if I went up to him and told him to put that cigarette out,” says John, as he waves a copy of El Cajon’s no-smoking ordinance in the air. “People don’t respect the law anymore. They’ve never respected this one.”
For some residents, the law that prohibits smoking in public — in parks, restaurants, bars, places of employment, and common areas of hotels and apartment buildings — is ineffective and unenforceable, and it serves no purpose other than as bragging rights for local politicians.
“I’ve seen people light up right in front of cops, and the cops don’t even ask them to put it out. Look at this guy,” says John, a 15-year resident of El Cajon who doesn’t want to give his real name. “He doesn’t care because no one is going to enforce it.”
Since March 2008, when the law’s grace period ended, not one citation has been issued for smoking in public.
The reason isn’t that the law has stopped everyone from lighting up — far from it — but that the law is “self-enforcing,” meaning it is up to employers, property owners, and other citizens to ask smokers to extinguish cigarettes if they pose a “positive danger to health and a cause of material annoyance, inconvenience, discomfort, and a health hazard.”
If the smoker refuses to put out the cigarette, the complainant can either find a police officer or file a civil action against the smoker.
For John, asking people to put out their cigarettes is as good as telling them to slow down and drive the speed limit. And filing a civil action is even more outlandish.
“Usually when I approach someone smoking, they tell me that they have a right to smoke where they want and there is nothing I can do about it. Their response is always some type of ‘I don’t give a damn’ attitude. If it’s a law, it needs to be enforced by the police and the City, not the people it’s supposed to protect.”
Second-term councilmember Gary Kendrick, the man behind the ordinance, is sitting in a shaded area outside a sandwich shop at the corner of Main Street and Magnolia. He says the law isn’t about enforcement or the number of citations issued; it’s about public health, social trends, and turning El Cajon into a “family-friendly” city.
“I believe everyone has the right to bear arms, but I don’t think they have the right to fire into a crowd,” Kendrick says. “The right to breathe clean air trumps the right to smoke.”
Kendrick started thinking about a public ban on smoking back in 2003, when his council office received complaints about secondhand smoke at car shows and outside retail centers.
Around the same time, Kendrick had an altercation with a smoker at a playground where he took his son to play. “This guy lit up a cigarette, and his smoke was blowing over to my kid. So I asked him to put it out, and he said no. I started thinking more about the dangers of secondhand smoke and the need to protect our citizens, most important, our children.”
Within four years, the City had enacted the toughest antismoking regulations in the county. The first, a 2004 law, aims to end underage smoking. Tobacco merchants pay a fee, currently $675 per year, to fund compliance checks and administrative hearings, held when alleged violators challenge fines. The second law, the smoking ban, went into effect in September 2007.
“Society’s norms are changing,” says Kendrick. “We’re going from a smoking society to a nonsmoking society. So we’re just legislating the direction that society is already headed. I think this will be a legacy for this city council for years and years. We’re saving lives.”
Regarding complaints about the lack of enforcement, he says, “There’s never 100 percent compliance with any law. But it puts an added pressure on the other smokers because they don’t want to break the law.”
As if on cue, a man carrying a large duffel bag walks past the table holding an unlit cigarette. He stops five feet away and lights up.
“Most people are responsible smokers, and they won’t smoke around other people,” says Kendrick in a slightly louder voice, trying to get the man’s attention. Seconds later, a thin plume of smoke reaches the table.
“Most people obey the law, but as you can see, there are always some that don’t.”
To encourage more residents to obey the law, the City asks businesses to set aside designated areas for their clientele and employees to smoke. According to the ordinance, “smoking outposts” should be at least 20 feet from a doorway or access point to a parking structure or retail area. The City has set up two outposts on public property.
One of them — a shadeless, five-by-ten-foot patch of dirt with a cement receptacle for cigarette butts — is located behind the Downtown Cafe, near the corner of East Main Street and Sulzfeld.
Less than 20 feet away, 30-year-old El Cajon resident Kevin Robinson stands in the shade, taking a drag from his cigarette.
Robinson says he heard about the City’s ban on the news but hasn’t given it much attention. “It’s a joke,” he says. “I can see if it was at a playground or at a parade, but out in the open? You can’t tell a grown man he can’t smoke. If the City’s going to start banning stuff, is alcohol next? I would say that’s a bigger issue.”
Asked why he isn’t smoking at the outpost, Robinson says he has no idea what that is. He walks over to see what one looks like and laughs.
“Look at this,” he says, pointing to the patch of dirt. “Is this a joke? This is all done to appease the councilmembers so they can feel good about themselves.”
But for Dr. John Pierce, head of the Cancer Prevention and Control research program at the UCSD Moores Cancer Center and chair of the World Health Organization’s research arm on tobacco-related cancer, the policies are a breath of fresh air. Pierce has coauthored a review for WHO on the effectiveness of nonsmoking policies, to be published this month. Writing on the subject in a July 2008 Lancet article, he and coauthors concluded that “smoke-free policies substantially decrease second-hand smoke exposure.” The article recommends “that governments enact and implement smoke-free policies.”
“Implementation of such policies can have a broader population effect of increasing smoke-free environments,” reads the article. “Not only do these policies achieve their aim of protecting the health of non-smokers by decreasing exposure to second-hand smoke, they also have many effects on smoking behavior, which compound the expected health benefits.”
Adds Pierce in a July 29 email: “The issue is protection of non-smokers in particular. [Some people] are particularly vulnerable [to secondhand smoke] and small exposures can create significant problems.”
As for ordinances such as the one in El Cajon infringing on the rights of smokers, Pierce writes, “There is no ‘right’ to expose others to harmful substances, and scientists have been unable to identify a safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke.”
But expanding or strengthening antismoking regulations would require a lot more work and public support, says Councilmember Kendrick. He’s thought about pursuing an initiative to prohibit smoking inside apartment buildings, but he won’t be doing that anytime soon. “I’m going to stay away from that for now. I don’t think El Cajon is ready for that. Those are issues for another day.”
Here's something you might be interested in.
El Cajon no-smoking law flouted
"You can’t tell a grown man he can’t smoke"
El Cajon no-smoking law flouted
"You can’t tell a grown man he can’t smoke"
Sitting on a park bench at Prescott Promenade on a hot July afternoon, John stares at a brawny tattooed man in his 50s smoking a cigarette under a “No Smoking” sign.
“Who knows what this guy would do if I went up to him and told him to put that cigarette out,” says John, as he waves a copy of El Cajon’s no-smoking ordinance in the air. “People don’t respect the law anymore. They’ve never respected this one.”
For some residents, the law that prohibits smoking in public — in parks, restaurants, bars, places of employment, and common areas of hotels and apartment buildings — is ineffective and unenforceable, and it serves no purpose other than as bragging rights for local politicians.
“I’ve seen people light up right in front of cops, and the cops don’t even ask them to put it out. Look at this guy,” says John, a 15-year resident of El Cajon who doesn’t want to give his real name. “He doesn’t care because no one is going to enforce it.”
Since March 2008, when the law’s grace period ended, not one citation has been issued for smoking in public.
The reason isn’t that the law has stopped everyone from lighting up — far from it — but that the law is “self-enforcing,” meaning it is up to employers, property owners, and other citizens to ask smokers to extinguish cigarettes if they pose a “positive danger to health and a cause of material annoyance, inconvenience, discomfort, and a health hazard.”
If the smoker refuses to put out the cigarette, the complainant can either find a police officer or file a civil action against the smoker.
For John, asking people to put out their cigarettes is as good as telling them to slow down and drive the speed limit. And filing a civil action is even more outlandish.
“Usually when I approach someone smoking, they tell me that they have a right to smoke where they want and there is nothing I can do about it. Their response is always some type of ‘I don’t give a damn’ attitude. If it’s a law, it needs to be enforced by the police and the City, not the people it’s supposed to protect.”
Second-term councilmember Gary Kendrick, the man behind the ordinance, is sitting in a shaded area outside a sandwich shop at the corner of Main Street and Magnolia. He says the law isn’t about enforcement or the number of citations issued; it’s about public health, social trends, and turning El Cajon into a “family-friendly” city.
“I believe everyone has the right to bear arms, but I don’t think they have the right to fire into a crowd,” Kendrick says. “The right to breathe clean air trumps the right to smoke.”
Kendrick started thinking about a public ban on smoking back in 2003, when his council office received complaints about secondhand smoke at car shows and outside retail centers.
Around the same time, Kendrick had an altercation with a smoker at a playground where he took his son to play. “This guy lit up a cigarette, and his smoke was blowing over to my kid. So I asked him to put it out, and he said no. I started thinking more about the dangers of secondhand smoke and the need to protect our citizens, most important, our children.”
Within four years, the City had enacted the toughest antismoking regulations in the county. The first, a 2004 law, aims to end underage smoking. Tobacco merchants pay a fee, currently $675 per year, to fund compliance checks and administrative hearings, held when alleged violators challenge fines. The second law, the smoking ban, went into effect in September 2007.
“Society’s norms are changing,” says Kendrick. “We’re going from a smoking society to a nonsmoking society. So we’re just legislating the direction that society is already headed. I think this will be a legacy for this city council for years and years. We’re saving lives.”
Regarding complaints about the lack of enforcement, he says, “There’s never 100 percent compliance with any law. But it puts an added pressure on the other smokers because they don’t want to break the law.”
As if on cue, a man carrying a large duffel bag walks past the table holding an unlit cigarette. He stops five feet away and lights up.
“Most people are responsible smokers, and they won’t smoke around other people,” says Kendrick in a slightly louder voice, trying to get the man’s attention. Seconds later, a thin plume of smoke reaches the table.
“Most people obey the law, but as you can see, there are always some that don’t.”
To encourage more residents to obey the law, the City asks businesses to set aside designated areas for their clientele and employees to smoke. According to the ordinance, “smoking outposts” should be at least 20 feet from a doorway or access point to a parking structure or retail area. The City has set up two outposts on public property.
One of them — a shadeless, five-by-ten-foot patch of dirt with a cement receptacle for cigarette butts — is located behind the Downtown Cafe, near the corner of East Main Street and Sulzfeld.
Less than 20 feet away, 30-year-old El Cajon resident Kevin Robinson stands in the shade, taking a drag from his cigarette.
Robinson says he heard about the City’s ban on the news but hasn’t given it much attention. “It’s a joke,” he says. “I can see if it was at a playground or at a parade, but out in the open? You can’t tell a grown man he can’t smoke. If the City’s going to start banning stuff, is alcohol next? I would say that’s a bigger issue.”
Asked why he isn’t smoking at the outpost, Robinson says he has no idea what that is. He walks over to see what one looks like and laughs.
“Look at this,” he says, pointing to the patch of dirt. “Is this a joke? This is all done to appease the councilmembers so they can feel good about themselves.”
But for Dr. John Pierce, head of the Cancer Prevention and Control research program at the UCSD Moores Cancer Center and chair of the World Health Organization’s research arm on tobacco-related cancer, the policies are a breath of fresh air. Pierce has coauthored a review for WHO on the effectiveness of nonsmoking policies, to be published this month. Writing on the subject in a July 2008 Lancet article, he and coauthors concluded that “smoke-free policies substantially decrease second-hand smoke exposure.” The article recommends “that governments enact and implement smoke-free policies.”
“Implementation of such policies can have a broader population effect of increasing smoke-free environments,” reads the article. “Not only do these policies achieve their aim of protecting the health of non-smokers by decreasing exposure to second-hand smoke, they also have many effects on smoking behavior, which compound the expected health benefits.”
Adds Pierce in a July 29 email: “The issue is protection of non-smokers in particular. [Some people] are particularly vulnerable [to secondhand smoke] and small exposures can create significant problems.”
As for ordinances such as the one in El Cajon infringing on the rights of smokers, Pierce writes, “There is no ‘right’ to expose others to harmful substances, and scientists have been unable to identify a safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke.”
But expanding or strengthening antismoking regulations would require a lot more work and public support, says Councilmember Kendrick. He’s thought about pursuing an initiative to prohibit smoking inside apartment buildings, but he won’t be doing that anytime soon. “I’m going to stay away from that for now. I don’t think El Cajon is ready for that. Those are issues for another day.”
Comments
I don't smoke and I don't like being around smokers. I don't agree with the law, but I respect the city's right to legislate whatever they want.
All that said, any unenforceable law is a stupid idea.
This is the only issue on the planet about which PP and I are in accord. The resolution is simple:
Smokers need to be polite. Don't smoke in crowds, just outside the doors of any establishment, or on playgrounds or near children. Use your common sense, and don't irritate others. It may be largely junk science when it comes to second-hand smoke outdoors, but the average nonsmoking citizen either doesn't know this, and/or is just looking for an excuse to vent suppressed rage over childhood issues or everyday disappointment with life. If someone starts doing that fake little "cough" or glares, or makes a comment, extinguish your smoke or walk away.
Smokers need to stop littering--especially on beaches and in parks! All smokers need to purchase a portable ashtray. My new one is a small, square, stainless steel thing with a cool flip- out cig holder. When closed, butts are stored in an odor-free, airtight receptacle until a trashcan can be located.
Nonsmokers need to respond in kind, reasonably and politely. Do not expect that smokers are not going to smoke outdoors anywhere. If you are near a smoker and don't like it, move away. The breeze carrying the smoke is NOT going to follow you wherever you go. If a smoker is violating the rules above, be polite and give him or her an option to put it out in the nonsmoking zone, or to take it elsewhere. Be understanding, and do not confront. You'd be amazed how far a non-confrontational attitude will take you, and hey, you might even make a new acquaintance of your neighbor.
4.Politicians: Enough with the red herring and smokescreens, and get to work on the real issues taxpayers are paying you to resolve!
“There is no ‘right’ to expose others to harmful substances"
I wonder if Pierce drives a car? Cars emit toxins into the air and environment. Hmmm I guess he wouldn't like it if we took away his car.
I am sick of all these stupid laws banning activities/behaviors because it bothers someone else. Why can't people just mind their own business. If you don't like smokey bars, don't go to smokey bars. I thinks its time that smokers fight back and stop getting kicked in the gut. Tell me to put out my smoke and I say a big F--You!!
In case you didn't know, Idiot, There are 0 emission cars out there.
You wonder if he even drives a car, but you want to take a car away that he doesn't even have??! O.o
Obviously, if it were up to you, everybody would be driving high-pollutant vehicles. Thank GOD you don't rule the world!!!! lmfao
We DO mind our own business. The problem is ass holes like you, who come to OUR business and blow smoke in our faces, and our kids faces. We don't go to smokey bars, retard! Fight back??! They started the war with their offensive, deplorable rude behavior!!! Just like you are displaying right now... What a sad, lonely, pathetic individual you must be :(
Maybe next time you could say ThankYou instead!! (And then move away from where the people who want to LIVE are.)
I agree with ya Pete. Although, aside from the second-hand smoke statistics I've heard (which I can tell are bogus, just because the numbers they claim of people that die each year from it, can't be proved and sound bogus). Although, something else to keep in mind, is that even if it doesn't give you lung cancer, if you're around a smoker for a while, you go home and your entire wardrobe smells like a cigarette.
But if everyone was polite, I think it would all work out.
I was at Pat & Oscars in Mission Valley the other night. This young girl working there came over to us. She asked if we minded if she smoked at the far table of the patio. We said we didn't mind.
The table she sat at was so far away from us, or anyone else, that you couldn't smell the smoke. And even if once in a while I would've gotten a wiff of it...no biggie (to me). But if someone is eating outside, they might not want their entire meal ruined by someone chain smoking right next to them.
It sucks that laws and rules keep making it harder for smokers, but you have to keep in mind, you're participating in a habit that can bother other folks. Whether they "think" it's because they'll get lung cancer from your smoke, or they just don't like the smell...well, it seems to be getting to a point where you can smoke in your car and your house (with all the windows closed, of course).
Smokers don't be polite. Let me remind you how this started the anti's, who are funded by Big Pharma, started with the airlines. No smoking under flights of two hours, then four hours and now none, not even in the airports.
Then they moved to the restaurants asking could we have a nonsmoking section, please? So we then had smoking and nonsmoking sections. Once they got that it still wasn't enough, next it was banned in public buildings, then workplaces, then restaurants "for the workers." Implying, of course, that people are too stupid to be able to choose to enter or work in a smoking establishment.
In many places you can't smoke inside or outside. Does that satisfy the bullies - no! Now there is a movement to ban smoking in your own private car and single family house! When will it stop - when tobacco is taken off the shelves and is no longer legal to purchase or produced!
The goal by the World Health Organization is just that and they expect to accomplish it by 2020.
The formula for banning tobacco is now in place for obesity and alcohol.
As long as Big Pharma (who has deep pockets) produce drugs to make you stop smoking, lose weight and stop drinking it will continue, unless you find your backbone and start saying enough is enough!
Do we want a government that is free from tyranny or a nanny state that will control your behavior because it is profitable for Big Pharma, the state, and the federal coffers?
If you keep putting your head in the sand and believe everything that is printed or said by the media and do not follow the money trail this country will no longer be free!
If it is legal there should not be any prohibition. And if someone tells you to stop smoking, or stuffing your face because you are fat, or put down that beer because it isn't healthy tell them to mind their own business and get a life that doesn't impinge on yours.
Hi, I am gonna smoke anywhere I want- But-Children should NOT be involved with my smoke or even see me or my smoke- I don't want to get them started to do whats is wrong -- BUT this smoking LAW is wrong IF I am outside smoking -ya okay I'm outside- but if my smoke goes near someone - that does not like it I will try to move or _? these non smokers are making this law worse- it should be if I'm down at the beach smoking in the sand - no kids are around -good to smoke - but If I drop my butt IN the sand or anywhere GIVE me a big ticket fine this law has gone bad for us smokers -- UNFAIR ! ...
Go ahead and smoke yourself to death rude people! Yet you fail to 'think' about the facts: some of us are very allergic to tobacco smoke and breathing it could put someone in a hospital ER. Particularly a child with asthma. The anti-smoking wave would probably not have happened if smokers would be willing to show courtesy instead of ignorance! The more smokers stand up for their 'right' to blow their smoke in the face of non-smokers then get ugly about it when someone asks them to smoke elsewhere, the more negative reaction they will receive in return. Try being polite from the start and you will be shown respect in return. I have politely asked smokers to not puff their tobacco inside buildings and near me outside and by my home because of the stinky smell and usually they get defensive and want to argue about it which leads to hostility towards one another. Please be considerate of others. I'm sure everyone who reads this has a gripe about something which affects their life or personal space and is quite adamant about enforcing that which annoys them. And don't forget how tobacco smoke affects the lungs of children! Think about it...
Hi.. I am not a smoker, but have been around them for, well all my life. Outside bans are so stupid, I have to agree with everyone else, be polite and considerate to others, say clear of children. It is legal if they don't want people to smoke in areas then, make tobacco illegal. Airplanes, I can understand the ban, as it is close quarters, dining inside yes, but outside make it a designated area. Stay out of the casinos if you don't like it, but don't expect a smoker to not smoke or move because you don't like it. Tough S**T! live with it. Next to Pot and prostitution smoking has been around for centuries and it is not going anywhere.
tokapanative - What makes you superior and your "rights" trump others. Okay, some people may have self induced alergy to cigarette smoke but oh well deal with it. I'm alergic to bees, should I wear a bee keeper suit when I go outside? No, I stay away from bees.
So, the stinky smell is what bothers you. Do you ask bums to walk on the other side of the street because their BO is strong? What about sweaty stinky obese person, would you ask them to move from the table they are seated at?
Everybody needs to just mind their own F-----G business.
Bees are from nature, idiot.
Why should something that's unnatural, and is DEADLY have a higher importance to be free to practice rather than someone who is just minding their own business trying to LIVE life?!?
Yes, if there was a law that said people have to take a shower, and they reeked, then sat down next to me at a restaurant where I was trying to enjoy my dinner, I would ask them to comply with the law! But have you ever heard of that law? (And would that affect MY health??) What stupid people smokers are... Sheesh...
Tell everyone you are just exercising your 'right' to smoke when you or a loved one is dying a slow painful death due to emphysema or a heart attack! Then, imagine if a smoker who has chosen to inhale carcinogens (and innocent victims) for years has no insurance? Well then the taxpayer must pay the hospital bills to prolong said persons suffering. I have personally witnessed the abuse of our medical system and then watched people get out of the hospital only to continue smoking themselves to death! This is so much more than an ignorant person exercising their 'right' to smoke. My grandmother and aunt were lifelong smokers and died fairly young. One may choose to disregard the 'facts' garnered by the Lung Assoc. and others, yet the 'fact' remains: a smoker WILL DIE an early death and experience many sick days before the ugly end arrives. Go have a chat with a coroner if you dare. In closing; the thing all of us must remember is: BE POLITE to one another and show the same respect toward others you wish to have returned to you.
tokapanative - You didn't answer my questions. Smoking isn't the only thing running up medical bills insurance costs and taxpayer funds. Check out obesity. The are far more obese americans than there are smokers. What about the people who have a quad bypass surgery and a few months later they're back at in-n-out with a double double, shake, and fries. Like I said, every one mind there own business. Your tragic yet PERSONAL experience should and shall not dictate the way I live my life.
There's no talking to people like tokapanative,jmtrudeau. I'm not sure which are the worse hypocrites....Non-smokers or ex-smokers? And tokapanative? Not everyone that smokes dies a horrible death. I know a few people who died past age 100 who smoked,swore and drank till the day they died. They died of old age,not smoking or drinking. It's all about your genes. Good genes=a long life. That's why I advocate not having children. Too many people are breeding that shouldn't be. Knowing what I know about my family genes,I'll include myself in that list. I love my son and he was an accident but knowing what I know now,I wouldn't have had sex that night OR at least wouldn't have gotten so drunk that I would've wrapped my rascal.
The bee analogy is a perfect one. What if the person does their best to stay away from bees, and a neighbor buys a bunch of flowers and hedges that have flowers in them, and now bees are all over the place. The person might get mad, but what can ya do? You don't start passing a bunch of laws.
I also like the attitude of the other non-smoker, realizing how insane it is for smokers to not have ANYWHERE to go.
I have this theory. People are such jerks and selfish, that it amazes me. They think THEIR things are important, but not other peoples. Or that THEY are right, but if the roles were reversed, they wouldn't.
I go to a park where me and other dog owners let our dogs off the leash. But legally, we aren't supposed to. So, when kids ride by on skateboards and my dog runs after them (even though he's tiny), he goes back on his leash and I hold him. Other dog owners don't do this, and they start complaing about the kids. Yes, they actually have the nerve to do that, saying 'Where are their parents?" I always say "Uh...you know that we are wrong, by having our dogs off the leash, not the kids for playing and skating around in a park." These same people would complain if the kids were skating around their house and NOT at the park.
My friend just sat next to someone on an airplane that was so fat, he took up two seats. He had to be uncomfortable sitting next to this guy....yet, this guy probably complains about smokers "bother him."
It's amazing that people can't see this.
I only respect the feeling of non-smokers when I'm somewhere that my smoking might bother them. Outdoor seating at restaurants,casinos,bars,etc,etc don't count. If I'm at the bus stop,I'll smoke. If I'm at the bus stop and there is a non-smoker there,I'll walk away. If the wind carries my cigarette smoke 50 feet away to her,I'll move 50 feet in the other direction. I don't like smoking bans but I do respect the need for them. Non-smokers have gotten too catered to. Smokers will ALWAYS be around. A few times I've encountered pot smokers who tell me I'm killing myself. My brain always farts during those moments. I don't know how to respond to that.
How about "And what you're smokin' there is health food?"
PistolPete, as you posted in #16, that is mainly how I smoke as well. Its the rude non smokers (prime example) On my lunch I get in my car drive a shaded section of the parking lot, and have a couple of smokes before heading back into the office. People can walk around my car, they can see my hand out the window with the cigarette, but they have to walk right next to me and make the cute little cough sounds and give dirty looks. When did it become okay in our society to treat people as second class citizens simply because they smoke. I've even heard radio commericals telling people to go over to smokers and tell them to put their cigarette out. Maybe we should say put that cheese burger down, but I don't because like I've said a hundred times, I mind my own damn business.
Last night I was at the soft opening of the new Station Tavern in South Park and its mainly an outside venue and they had a single ash tray way in the back corner so myself and a few others walked over to the ash tray and lit up a smoke. You should have seen the "oh my gosh" look on several parents' faces when they saw us, yes I said parents because these parents brought their kids to a bar (I don't agree with kids in a bar, but again I mind my own busiess)
Someone's cheeseburger doesn't get in my eyes or make my nose wrinkle up. At least not from 30 feet away!
Please, go to school, and learn. There's something to be said about a High School education...
I've thought about that russl :-D I'm a very infrequent toker myself so you never know when the guy you insult will be your dealer.
Well, then I guess you just need to shut up.
That's another thing that pi$$es me off. If you're bringing kids to a bar,then their in for a rude awakening. I refuse to not say f**k or put out my cigarettes at the bar. A bar is the one place left that's a safe haven to let your hair down. I'll be damned if the families are going to take that away. I should start confronting people when they look at me like I'm diseased.
I usually ignore them. I blame it on too many damaged brain cells :-D
jm...as a non-smoker, I will say this. I think non-smokers are so much ruder than smokers are. That being said, you are wrong on two counts in your last post.
First, the cheeseburger thing doesn't work, because they may be doing damage to their health by consuming it, but it hardly bothers people around them (unless they eat it all messy, the way they do in the Carl's Jr. commercials). With smoking, they aren't telling you to stop out of concern for your health. It's because the smoke bothers them.
Second, when you're in your car smoking, obviously the window is open because it's hot out. But, when you drive...my pet peeve is you smokers that have your windows open, because you want to knock the ashes out onto the street. And that's almost always followed by, flicking the cigarette butt out the window. USE YOUR DAMN ASH TRAYS!!!! This is a fire hazard (especially with this weather). That's how a fire started near one of the casinos a few years back. Not to mention, it's littering.
No s***, Josh. They do nothing for the landscape, plus that's just about the easiest way to start a fire there is. It amazes me how much brain power it takes to figure that out and put the butt in the ashtray. Unbelievable.
It offends me to see fatf**ks eating cheeseburgers(even though I am one). I LOVE non-smokers who bring up the fact that they're paying higher insurance premiums because of us smokers. Those are the people I just want to go up to and kick their infant down the block.
Instead of kicking their infant down the block, why not tell them you pay taxes for their kid to go to school, among other things. Also tell them they're going to be bringing their kid into restaurants, annoying the crap out of you as you try to eat and they can't keep their kid quiet. You can't have a cigarette in the diner to ease the stress, either!
re:#7: kstwk, I do not agree that we smokers should be impolite--if all parties are polite and accommodating, the issue gets resolved and we live in peace. I have found that non-smokers are surprised and very appreciative when they see that I do not litter cigarette butts, and if smoking near them, I ask if my smoke bothers them, so I can put it out or move away. You'd be amazed at how many people wave me away, thanking me for my consideration. The "cough," the glare, and the rude comments melt away, and I generally enjoy a big smile from such nonsmokers.
re: #9: tokapanative, let's stick to the facts we can substantiate. As our environment erodes, there are more children than ever with asthmatic conditions from birth. If we were smoking indoors with these children, or right next to them, yes, that would be a problem. We are not discussing this kind of situation; even the few irate smokers writing in here, such as the "free hugs" guy, are admitting that they will certainly move away from children outdoors. Thank you for your concern over our health issues, too, but you have no right to regulate them at this time.
As a smoker, butts on the ground do bother me. I found a simple solution. Pinch the cigarette filter between your index finger and thumb (like the OK sign) and use your middle finger to flick the cherry on to the ground. You can now throw the cigarette into any trashcan without the risk of a fire.
If your car does not have an ashtray (my girls Volvo doesn't have an ash tray, which I found odd for a eurpean car) I bring an empty soda can with me. Which reminds me of cars from the 50's-60's that had ashtrays for every seat in the car and now your lucky to even have an ashtray in your car.
What America is rapidly forgetting is that this country was built by tobacco. No tobacco,no country. The amount of history this country"forgets"is amazing to me. We've made it affordable to have all volumes of an encyclopedia at our fingertips but all people want to do all day is send Twits and make gay videos on YouTube. And for those offended by my use of the word gay,F*** OFF AND GET A LIFE!
1-Research on second-hand smoke is junk science at best.
2-Maybe if non-smokers wouldn't bch about smoke being outdoors so much,us smokers would take their feelings into consideration. Outdoor seating in a common area is an example. If I'm in a public outdoor area and having lunch,I'm lighting up my cigarette. I don't give two s*s who is around me. Non-smokers Nazi tacticts took smoking outside of restaurants. I'm fine with that. If I'm forced to eat outside because I can't smoke after my meal,I'll be damned if a non-smoker is going to ask me to put it out. Want clean air? EAT INSIDE!
3-Other than the previous example,I'm VERY conscientious to non-smokers when walking around outside. I'm REALLY pi$$ed about the new smoking ban in bars in Wisconsin. If I owned a bar,I would put up a sign saying that non-smokers WILL be ignored. It's time for America to start acting like a FREE goddamn country again.
As a nation, we have seemed to adopt a "It's All About ME!" attitude towards our neighbors. In doing so, civility and respect have been chucked off the Coronado Bridge, in favor of tactics that utilize the cheesed-off Chimpanzee part of our intellect.
Having read the commentary following the story, I'm surprised that both sides haven't gone full-tilt boogie to Fist City over this issue. Having said this, may I make a few suggestions to both sides?
Leave the red herrings about obesity out of your replies. If you are talking about tobacco use...stay with the subjects-at-hand. Tangental screeds weaken your point.
When I used to smoke cigars, I always asked before I lit up. Most of the time, it was either "yea" or "nay" that I got for an answer...and I acted accordingly.
If you ask somebody to put out their smoke, do it politely. And spare them the "health ed" lecture on "The Evils Of Demon Smoke," will ya?
As for you smokers...you need to remember that being polite and showing respect is a two-way street, not a one-way alley. This means you have no call to rip the guts out of anybody who politely asks you to not smoke around them. The more you "assert" your "rights" by anti-social behavior? The more ammo you give the radical non-smokers to have your pleasure restricted even more. Definitely bogus!
My final point: Smoke 'em if you have 'em--it's later than you think!
--Robbiebear
Kudos to the 70% or so of well educated smokers that do not littler and that respect others' right to breathe clean air, especially, children and old folks! Come on guys a little of common sense here!
I just can't believe the huge ignorance of smokers that complain about their right s to screwed everyone around them; since when is ok. to have 230,000 + cig butts in our beautiful West Coastal Beaches? (Coastal clean up 2005) There are more groups all around the County proving that there is real need for these kind of rules since there are hundred of thousands of cigarette butts tossed everywhere.
Why don’t we recognized that and start telling our fellas smokers not to litter?
LaPlacaRifa48619 (lol! Chilo el nombre) for reminding everyone that respect is a two way street. Thank You! No one wins by getting upset and confrontational, what are we chimps?
The good news is that as long as you keep disrespecting yourselves, the environment and the community, smoke free laws will be coming our way and there is nothing we can do about since non-smokers up numbered smokers by far, plus about 30% + of smokers will vote yes if they see that there is a need to protect the environment and what comes with it (see our council member Fry in SD)
Start by buying your butt holder and by smoking away from people. Who cares if you are in a good area away from others to enjoy your smoke and someone gives you the dirty looks.
Bottom line… the solution is on someone’s hands, and that my fried is on smokers hands so please hold on to your butt and enjoyed yourself away from kids, people and dirty looks.
It will be all right! I promise.
fz10bee
And might I recommend...if you see a smoker with a cancer stick danglin' out the window...honk at them when they chuck the thing into the street (they always will). It lets them know you saw their littering (and potential fire hazard).
What's with all the repetition? These points have been made in abundance--by smokers and non- above. Take some time to read back over the thread, #29 and #30, and save your 'breath' :)
Oops, meant #29.
Geez, it's a long day. Meant #30 was the repeater. It would be great if someone would summarize the arguments but also come to some useful conclusions. I would do it but am wayyyy too busy today.
I wonder if all threads would be easier to follow the Don Bauder way.
Example:
Response to 11: Yes, smokers are annoying.
Response to 12: Yes, non-smokers talking about fast food are annoying.
Respone to 13. I agree.
Respone to 16: I haven't heard of that, but I'll look into it.
Respone to 17: No.
Response to 22: Litter and fire...we both agree on that. Best, Josh.
It would be great if someone would summarize the arguments but also come to some useful conclusions.
By SDaniels
Smoking = bad.
Smoking and annoying others with smoke = real bad.
Smoking and starting fire from being careless = real, real bad.
OK, that's it in a nutshell. Hope that helped. We can now move on.
"Thank you for ___." Let's hear it for the Don Bauderettes! :)
Hey Daniels, where is your annoying little side kick at today?
You mean my incredibly witty knockout of a counterpart? I do not know; perhaps she is as busy studying as I am grading :)
Busy, busy, busy. :)
My ears were burning, but it might be because I had TWO cigarettes today! One for each ear! YAY for cigarettes!!!
Suck on my butts, California!
I have no idea how many cigarettes I've smoked today, I never count. But, thankfully, I live in a country where it is both legal to smoke and where smoking is legal. :)
Damn, now I want some brown moo-juice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6N0sNMKFO4
:)
Oh Rufus, why do you have to be gay?
Daniels lamented:
"Oh Rufus, why do you have to be gay?"
I knoooooooooooowww!!! Cutest boy in the world. (So of COURSE he's gay, like nearly every other really cute guy on the planet.)
Just one more of God's little jokes on women. Totally unfair.
:(
More fun with "logic:"
my students make a lot of errors with apostrophes. I have to smoke a cigarette for every corrected apostrophe. Therefore, it is my students' fault if I get cancer.
"I have to smoke a cigarette for every corrected apostrophe. Therefore, it is my students' fault if I get cancer."
I think your probly write, but your still going to get cancer if u do'nt stop smoking cigarette's.
;)
(Just WAITING for some a$$hat to pull this out of context now and call me an "idiot.")
Damn it, it's two cigs for that spelling error, and one more for the texting shortcut.
If they paid me in Percocet, now, I wouldn't mind.
If they paid me in cigarettes, then I'd be a Kafka protagonist.
I must be tired. Two spelling errors :)
If they paid me in Ambien, I'd be a Longfellow character.
Maybe you'd better hit the NoDoz instead. There are 7 errors in that sentence.
Wakey, wakey. :)
If they paid me in Ambien, I'd be a Longfellow character.
By SDaniels
What character would you be if they paid you in vicodine or oxy?
I said two SPELLING errors, AG. Wake up yo'self! :)
You too, SurfP: I already said I "wouldn't mind" if they paid me in Percocet. How about: I'd be a Proustian character.
Vicodine is kind of nauseating, so I would not accept that as a form of payment. Girl's gotta take some kind of pride :)
Vicodine and oxy are opiates, so they should not be nausiating at all.
I don't use them, so I unfortunately cannot give first hand knowledge.
Uh, you are pretty much dead wrong on that one SP619. I took too Vicodin after a hernia repair earlier this year. Nothing has ever hurt me like throwing up after abdominal surgery.
Every time I take that stuff I turn green.
er... Too much Vicoden..
Yikes, Joe--that sucks. Hernias are bad enough without that kind of reaction. You probably needed some food in your stomach first. I've had a lot of experience with opiates and opioids, unfortunately due to a lifelong illness. Opiates and synthetic opiates can indeed cause quite a bit of nausea for many folk; it just depends on the mode of delivery (intravenous or oral) and the individual--weight, past history of drug use, current drug use, and the mysterious question of allergy and tolerance. I do well with one, and Joe another--who can say why. Doctors don't always remember how unique people are when it comes to reactions and levels of tolerance to any drug.
I was doing the "stay ahead of the pain" thing... don't recommend it.
Ah, I think I know what you're saying. You took too much. The "stay ahead of the pain" thing really means taking your med before it gets bad, and staying exactly on schedule--with the dose prescribed :)
SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A JOKE...........98% WATER VAPOR....STEAM...........
Wednesday, March 12, 2008 British Medical Journal & WHO conclude secondhand smoke "health hazard" claims are greatly exaggerated
The BMJ published report can be found here: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057
And concludes:
The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.
What makes this study more significant than any other is that it took place over a 39 year period, and studied the results of non-smokers who lived with smokers..... meaning these non-smokers were exposed to secondhand smoke up to 24 hours per day; 365 days per year for 39 years. And there was still no relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality.
This report was of course silenced in the media; however in light of the damage to business, jobs, and the economy from smoking bans the BMJ report should be revisited by lawmakers as a reference tool and justification to repeal the now unnecessary and very damaging smoking ban laws.
Also significant is the World Health Organization (WHO) study which concluded "..secondhand smoking doesn't cause cancer..." found online here.
Excerpt:
Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer-official By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent
The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood."
And if lawmakers need additional real world data to further highlight the need to eliminate these onerous and arbitrary laws, air quality testing by Johns Hopkins University, the American Cancer Society, a Minnesota Environmental Health Department, and various researchers whose testing and report was also peer reviewed and published in the esteemed British Medical Journal......prove that secondhand smoke is 2.6 - 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations.
As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright that:
"Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997
Yep, no one pays any attention to the no smoking signs in the park that's on my block (here in L.A.). Pluuuueeeeease!! The cops have had a hard enough time putting a stop to all of the gang shootings that (up until recently) were a regular occurrence on my block. Nobody gives a hoot about stupid laws like this, well, with the exception of a few busy body hypochondriacs that everyone else (ironically) finds annoying. Maybe in this particular town, they have nothing better to do?
Oh, and BTW....
Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer - official By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent
THE world's leading health organization has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect.
The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks. The World Health Organization, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report.
Despite repeated approaches, nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings last week. At its International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon , France , which coordinated the study, a spokesman would say only that the full report had been submitted to a science journal and no publication date had been set.
The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking - or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups.
Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer. The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers.
The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood."
A spokesman for Action on Smoking and Health said the findings "seem rather surprising given the evidence from other major reviews on the subject which have shown a clear association between passive smoking and a number of diseases." Roy Castle, the jazz musician and television presenter who died from lung cancer in 1994, claimed that he contracted the disease from years of inhaling smoke while performing in pubs and clubs.
Oh dear! Oh dear!
9 tokapanative: some of us are very allergic to tobacco smoke and breathing it could put someone in a hospital ER. Particularly a child with asthma.
Seems to me a child with Asthma needs to avoid all airborne contaminants, even those which are persistently present, like your car exhausts, your perfumes, blowing dusts and sands, fumes, etc. Let's look at Wikipedia and get some facts, I hope. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asthma#Environmental Environmental
Environmental tobacco smoke, especially maternal cigarette smoking, is associated with high risk of asthma prevalence and asthma morbidity, wheeze, and respiratory infections.[13] Low air quality, from traffic pollution or high ozone levels, has been repeatedly associated with increased asthma morbidity and has a suggested association with asthma development that needs further research.[13][14] Recent studies show a relationship between exposure to air pollutants (e.g. from traffic) and childhood asthma.[15] This research finds that both the occurrence of the disease and exacerbation of childhood asthma are affected by outdoor air pollutants.
Exercise in cool clear air outdoors can also trigger asthma, or is that uremia on renal insufficiency? In 1985 I suffered a heart attack caused by an ulcerative collapse with renal failure. I had to quit smoking, and coffee, and tea, and colas containing phosphoric acid for 4 years. I had no insurance and no doctor. I could not breath in and I could not breath out, and it was a living Hell until in desperation I tried gagging myself to throw up. The vomit was maroon-colored, then bloody red like port wine, but this technique of lavage with warm water (to remove crystals of phosphorus and uric compounds which otherwise remain solid and unremovable in cool/cold water) pulled me out of my heart attacks. What worked: Warm Water Lavage. Detox the stomach/liver/kidneys and loose the excess accumulation of Histamines and possible Uric Acid which recycle through the liver back to the stomach. Distilled Water-avoid tap water containing chlorine/chloro-nitrates. Electrolyte replacement Calcium Pantothenate and Biotin, and look at Co-Enzyme A (an essential respiratory enzyme) Magnesium Oxide (Phillips as a low-cost supplement), Not Magnesium Sulfate Avoid products containing phosphoric acid and phosphates. Avoid products like Gatorade. Magnesium Phosphates (and Magnesium Sulfate) will not work. Even though Magnesium Sulfate does recycle CO2 as O2, the sulfur is objectionable.
9 tokapanative says: it's because of "the stinky smell"
It often smells like toasted coconut to me. Do you hate the smell of toasted coconut?
9 tokopanative says: And don't forget how tobacco smoke affects the lungs of children!
I should know. My old man smoked and I was a child myself at the time.
12 tokopanative says: Tell everyone you are just exercising your 'right' to smoke when you or a loved one is dying a slow painful death due to emphysema or a heart attack!...
Well I hope not, but I don't believe you anymore. You rattle off your most compelling arguments lastly and in all of your arguments as a careless handful of talking points. Look, if the asthma has a greater impact on the right-side lung and right-side chambers of the heart, then that is stomach and liver related, not lung-specific. Why don't you heal these people by treating the cause of their illness instead? Histamines, phosphorus compounds, and uric acid all recycle through the liver and concentrate in the stomach where they rob the diet and may be inducing starvation with shock. I can't say. I'm not the doctor attacking the innocent for a buck.
"I can't say."
Yet you've been saying SO much!!! lmfao
I would like to add that I drew my conclusions based on the entire Wikipedia article and that there is some improvement in the asthmatic patient undergoing Vitamin C and Magnesium therapy. This indicates the Vitamin C is used to replace lost citrate electrolytes while magnesium is used to correct for a magnesium deficiency due to biochemical stress which depletes necessary magnesium and other electrolyte levels.
Also, magnesium is required by the body to metabolize smoke. It does so in warm fluids by converting smoke back to starch carbohydrates. I know this by personal experience.
Me thinks that all you naysayers need to get a life - what this issue boils down to is: RESPECT THOSE AROUND YOU - courtesy goes a very long way people!!! One's 'rights' should not infringe upon innocent citizens. Furthermore; I don't need to back up what I know and have seen with 'facts'. Common sense dictates that inhaling smoke into one's lungs cannot be healthy. Enough said. BYE BYE
Great point!!! :)