To think there was even the slightest chance of my working for the Santa Mo(ron)ica City Attorney's Office still completely boggles my mind and scares the shit out of me, although I must admit that defending the indefensible on a daily basis might have been perversely interesting.

When my sister and I saw this story on tv she said that next they'll make it illegal to be on the beach without sunscreen....

My issue with banning smoking in the outdoors is that its awfully hypocritical.

Has anyone seen the haze that lingers over the city of Los Angeles these days?

That isn't from second hand smoke.

So. Before any of them go around telling me how MY cigarette is killing them, they better take a good long look at that haze and think about how they contribute to it with their cars.

As for the argument to keep beaches clean of cigarette butts...I'm all for that. Put more receptacles out there for smokers to use AND, find them hefty fat fines if you catch them littering their butts.

But to tell me that I cannot smoke at the beach, (I don't anyway...who wants to ruin the beautiful salty air that the ocean gives off) or at a BUS STOP for crying out loud, is taking my rights away.

I understand why they said no in restaurants and office buildings but that is the extent of my understanding.

BARS? BUS STOPS? Outdoor at the beach? Give me a break California!

I was gonna blog about this but I'm glad you did it first.

My last thought on that kinda goes with Susie's train of thought.

Next thing you know, they'll ban people from smoking in their own cars because they don't want people flicking their butts out the window.

Maybe it sounds funny but I never thought I'd see the day that CA would tell me I can't smoke at the beach.

I guess I'll just suck the poisonous smog instead. Thanks CA!

Written like a buncha nicotine addicts who've never stepped on a lit butt with their bare feet. It hurts like a motherfucker for a long, long time.

Casca,
same can be said of sharp objects. You wanna ban seashells then?

Bans like this tick me off cause A: the are intrusions of the government where the government has no legitimate business intruding & B: the practical effects of such bans are dubious at least.

You don't wanna smoke? fine. don't smoke. You don't want to see someone smoking in a bar? fine. stay home or go to a bar whoseowner decide to prohibit smoking. Don't want the kids to see smokers on the beach? then keep your kids at your smoke free home. don't take 'em to movies either as pople smoke in them too.

as for second hand smoke being harmful...it would seem like it is, but the fact of the matter is that there's been no definitive link between adverse health & second hand smoke. Now if you have asthma then yes it'll get to ya. Same is true of car exhaust though.

But in the outdoors? nope. that BS is just too weak to even be brought up. Outdoor bans are not for a bystanders' health, but simply to discourage behavior the state disapproves of. They discourage smoking & at the same time get people used to having that level of government intrusion. Once the principle is established & accepted they can move onto anything else they like: fast food, sex, shopping, etc...

Now granted it'll be a while 'for ya have to get a license to shop or have sex, but restrictions on fast food content aren't that far off. & partly the reason is that people just don't get worked up over the state telling y'all something is bad for ya. whether smoking is bad or not is a sperate issue. The main thing y'all should be discussing is whose decision is it: the states or the individuals?

after all, wasn't it Chief Joseph who said....

Actually, I walk down the beach in my barefeet regularly. I've walked on many shells in my barefeet, and never cut myself. I stepped on one lit butt in the sand 20 years ago, and will never forget it. It took over a month to heal since it was in my instep. The irony is that the beach was almost deserted.

If you need a cause, try the injustice of Social Security.

Casca,

If Annika wished to post abotu SS & I feel like I can add something in agreement or disagreement then I will. This one however is abotu a smoking ban.

So because you're not bothered by seashells you don't think there should be a ban on them. Interesting.

I can sympathize with arguments about litter or getting burned by a still lit but, it's just that I think prior restraint based laws such as this one do more harm than good; both in terms of the issue they claim to address & the bigger picture of whether we want more government control of our lives.

Smoking bans are a creeping hazard - much like seat belt laws. Here in Co they proposed a law that would make not buckling up a ticketable offense a few years back. The thing was you couldn't just be pulled over for not wearing a seat belt: you had to be doing something else & get a seat belt ticket in addition to another infraction. Now they're setting up road blocks under the premise of looking for seat belt violations. Same thing with smoking bans: once you let government get it's nose in that tent, then the rest will soon follow.

I smoke & have contacts. The smoke in bars gets to me b/c of my contacts sometimes. (& I spent a lot of time in bars). But the solution isn't to go whinign to the state or city & tell them my eyes get red every now & then - it's to either deal with it or stop going to bars. But in the People's Republik of Boulder they have eliminated such hazards for the citizen. Funny thing is they can't figure out why the only blues bands that will play up there suck (well I exaggarate - the comrades in Boulder wouldn't know good blues if Muddy Waters went around bitch-slappin' them all one by one).

First it was bars & resteraunts (which I'll be more than happy to argue with anyone about why that was some wrong shit in & of itself) now it's beaches, next it'll be anyplace in public, then anyplace except property you own (i.e. renters are out of luck) then it'll be an outright prohibition. When that happens (& it will if it's not stopped) people like me will be making a killin' running cartons across the border & y'all won't be able to figure out why the Cryps & Bloods let crack go & are fighting turf wars over Marlboro's.

Prior restraint based laws & prohibitions simply don't work. They create much more harm than good. Non-smokers should be just as concerned about these laws as smokers. The one thing y'all forget is that by saying a government can tell you you can't smoke in a place you're also giving it the authority to tell you you must smoke in a place. granted it's not likely that Hollywood is going to require mandatory smoking by everyone, but the fact remains you're giving them the authority to do just that (as unlikely as it may be).

Publicola makes a good point. As i recall, in Cali the cops originally weren't allowed to ticket seatbelt violations without some other offense, but now i think they can pull over for seatbelt violations alone. The slippery slope in action. But still, shouldn't we all be wearing seatbelts anyway?

I agree. At least someone is being critical here. It is indeed a bad habit so why complain???

well like I said (or thought I did) it's not an issue of a behavior being bad or good, it's about who gets to make that determination.

Some people don't wanna wear seat belts cause they have friends who were thrown from cars & survived while others got killed cause they were strapped in. But the law takes away that choice, even if statistically they're probably safer with a seat belt on.
If I smoke that's my business. i know the pros & cons & I'm capable of making the decision I wanna make. But the state is getting ever closer to making that decision for me.

I carry a gun. In California that's verboten cause guns are considered bad. Cali would take away my choice in that as well.

The whole point is that when you take the decision away from the individual & place it with the government what you will discover is that all manner of things are deemed "bad" for you.
Even if you start out with things that are arguably bad it will progress into things that are merely convenient for the state in some way.

But as I'm an adult (no matter what the g/f says) who are you or anyone else to tell me that I can't smoke or must wear a seat belt or can't carry a gun? Even if you think those things are "bad" for me you simply lack the authority unless I agree to it. Governments are no different - they only have authority when the ones the govern think they do. & equally if it is wrong for you as a person to limit my behavior because you think something I do is "bad" then what makes it okay for a group of people to do in essence the same thing under the guise of government?

so even though you view smoking as bad, or not wearing a seatbelt as unsafe you cannot compel me to abide by your wishes with disregard for my own. Even if that behavior is bad for me it's simply none of your business. & I see no compelling reason why a city or state should be able to intrude into a person's private affairs when their neighbor couldn't.

trying another approach, drinking is bad for you right? but prohibition wasn't a good thing was it? same w/ the war on some drugs.

The correct solution to bad behavior that doesn't directly affect someone else isn't legislation - it's reasoning. Try to teach the people (or person) why their behavior is bad. That's how you achieve a meaningful change. Prohibitions & prior restraint mainly help the government establish more control over the people while giving the black market (where applicable) a boost.

Now didn't Chief Joseph say "educate - don't legislate" or was that Rev. Ike?

i think that was Tina Turner!

; )

Publicola has a new fan.

I will refrain from the temptation of offering to sell you some genuine, original, new in the cloth Rev. Ike good luck coins & just mention that the Ike I referenced has no relation to Tina. Although I'm not sure if there's a Chief Joseph connection...

I JUST FLEW IN FROM 2 WEEKS IN THE CARIBBEAN TO FIND I CAN'T SMOKE ON THE BEACH???!!!! I'M DISGUSTED THAT THIS RIGHT OF SMOKING OUTDOORS IN OPEN AIR IS BEING TAKEN AWAY FROM ME. I KNOW SMOKING IS BAD FOR ME BLAH,BLAH,BLAH, BUT WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO SAY I CAN'T SMOKE OUTDOORS? SURE, FINE ME IF I LITTER THE BUTTS IN THE SAND (WHICH I NEVER DO). FOR ALL YOU OTHER SMOKERS AND NONSMOKERS OUT THERE, I MAKE A PORTABLE ASHTRAY OUT OF FOLDED ALUMINUM FOIL THAT I KEEP IN MY BEACH BAG. WHEN I GET HOME, I THROW IT AWAY. IT IS SO VERY EASY TO MAKE THESE ASHTRAYS/BUTT CONTAINER POUCHES OUT OF TIN FOIL. I AM SO MAD THAT I HAVE DONE THIS LITTER FREE SMOKING FOR YEARS, AND NOW THEY ARE TAKING AWAY MY FREE RIGHTS TO SMOKE OUTDOORS. IT MAKES ME WANT TO DUMP MY TRASHCAN FULL OF BUTTS ONTO SANTA MONICA BEACH. IF THEY CAN'T RESPECT ME, WHY SHOULD I HAVE ANY RESPECT FOR ANYONE ELSE?

Have any of you particpated in beach cleanups? All you need to do is one to realize how big a problem cigarette butts are on our beaches. For some reason, smokers don't think of their butts as litter (as evidenced by how recklessly they flick them from their cars and onto the beach). Well folks, these toxic babies add up...hundreds of thousands here in California and millions world wide. They are ingested by birds and marine animals that can be killed by them. Kids pick them up and put them in their mouths, and step on lit cigarettes. Secondhand smoke coming from your neighbor on the beach is obnoxious. Why should I have to move to accommodate smokers? Why should I have to pick up after them? What about the rights of nonsmokers to a clean beach and clean air?

CALI, I HAVE CLEANED UP A BEACH BEFORE, AND YOU KNOW WHAT I SAW? THE MOST TRASH WAS FROM FOOD WRAPPERS, CUPS, CANS, AND PLASTIC BOTTLES. SHOULD THEY MAKE IT ILLEGAL TO EAT OR DRINK ON THE BEACH? ALMOST EVERY TIME I GO TO THE BEACH, SOMEONE IS BLASTING THEIR MUSIC OR SITS THEIR CRAP DOWN RIGHT IN FRONT OF MY VIEW CAUSING ME TO MOVE... SO WHY SHOULD I CARE IF YOU HAVE TO MOVE BECAUSE OF SOMETHING THAT ANNOYS YOU? WHEN YOU GO TO A PUBLIC PLACE, REMEMBER YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO CONTROL EVERYTHING, AFTER ALL, IT IS A PUBLIC PLACE. YOU THINK IT'S OK TO TAKE A RIGHT AWAY FROM PEOPLE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T AFFECT YOU. WAIT UNTIL THEY TAKE AWAY A RIGHT THAT DOES AFFECT YOU. OH, AND BY THE WAY, WHY ARE PARENTS LETTING THEIR CHILDREN PUT BUTTS IN THEIR MOUTHS? DON'T YOU PEOPLE WATCH YOUR CHILDREN????? ALSO, LUMPING ALL SMOKERS INTO A CATEGORY OF BUTT LITTERERS WHO DON'T CARE IS A REAL SNOTTY THING TO DO. SOME SMOKERS DON'T LITTER THEIR BUTTS, AND WHO ARE YOU TO SAY SMOKERS DON'T CARE ABOUT LITTER? GOD SAYS JUDGE NOT LEST YE BE JUDGED. I GUESS YOU HAVEN'T MET HIM?

Cigarette butt data from The Ocean Conservancy's International Coastal Cleanup

The International Coastal Cleanup, organized annually by The Ocean Conservancy involves more than 500,000 volunteers picking up debris from beaches, rivers and streams around the world. Volunteers complete Marine Debris Data Cards indicating the quantity and type of litter they pick up. Every year during the International Coastal Cleanup, cigarette butts top the list as the most abundant item collected worldwide:

1998 - 1,616,841
1999 - 1,052,373
2000 - 1,369,726
2001 - 1,527,837
2002 - 1,640,614 (cigarettes and other smoking-related products accounted for 30 percent of the debris)
2003 - Still being tabulated

Cigarette butts have topped the list in all the Ocean Conservancy's International Coastal Cleanups since they were added to the Data Cards as a separate item in 1990.

No Smoking at the Beach?
by Robert A. Levy

Robert A. Levy is senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute.

Here we go again. First it was the health police in Santa Monica, Los Angeles and Malibu. Then the butt-heads in Los Angeles County. Now it's the legislature, about to consider a bill to shield every sun worshipper statewide from the tribulations of beach smoking, and defend every grain of sand along the 1,100-mile coastline against cigarette litter.

One argument for the beach ban goes like this: Cigarette butts are a major source of litter. On cleanup days, volunteers say they pick up an average of more than 300,000 butts along the beach. If so, that's a powerful argument—but against littering, not against smoking. A ban on smoking is both over-inclusive and under-inclusive. It's over-inclusive because responsible smokers who properly discard their cigarette butts do not contribute to litter. It's under-inclusive because irresponsible non-smokers who improperly discard food wrappers and soda cans are major contributors to litter. By all means, let's keep the beaches clean. Anyone who flips a cigarette butt onto the sand may deserve to be fined. But let's reserve our ire, and our legal remedies, for those who actually do something wrong.

The second argument against beach smoking is that secondhand smoke, even a wisp on breezy days, is a health hazard. The short answer is that no evidence exists to support that bald assertion. Indeed, a substantial body of evidence cuts the other way. In 1996, the American Heart Association journal, Circulation, reported no increase in coronary heart disease associated with secondhand smoke "at work or in other settings." Two years later, the World Health Organization reported "no association between childhood exposure to environmental tobacco smoke [ETS] and lung cancer." A 1999 editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded, "We still do not know, with accuracy, how much or even whether [ETS] increases the risk of coronary heart disease."

Then there's the granddaddy of all secondhand smoke studies: the landmark 1993 report by the Environmental Protection Agency declaring that ETS is a dangerous carcinogen that causes 3,000 deaths annually. Five years later, a federal judge lambasted EPA for "cherry picking" the data, excluding studies that "demonstrated no association between ETS and cancer," and withholding "significant portions of its findings and reasoning in striving to confirm its a priori hypothesis."

More recently, in the May 2003 British Medical Journal, researchers found that passive smoke had no significant connection with heart disease or lung cancer death at any level of exposure at any time. Those results, stated the American Council on Science and Health, are "consistent" with studies by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. So what, you might argue. Maybe secondhand smoke doesn't kill people, but how about the harm to people with pre-existing asthma, respiratory infections, or eye allergies? After all, public beaches belong collectively to the citizens of a community. Why shouldn't those citizens decide, through their elected representatives, what conduct is permissible and what is not? Why should a minority of smokers be able to dictate public policy to a majority of non-smokers?

Ordinarily, in a democracy, we let the political process set restrictions on the use of public property. But there are limits on the exercise of political power. Under our constitutional system, a nonsmoking majority cannot arbitrarily stamp out the rights of a smoking minority. For a regulation to be legitimate, there must be a good fit between the regulation and the goal it seeks to accomplish.

That means smoking should not be banned—even on public property—without showing, first, that the ban will be effective and, second, that it will not proscribe more activities than necessary to reach its objective. Those two showings have not been made. The scientific link between secondhand smoke and various diseases is far from proven—especially on beaches. And regulations often prohibit smoking in locations that are not particularly confining, where patrons can easily avoid harm by taking a step or two away. If the scientific evidence were more compelling and the ban were limited to, say, reading rooms in public libraries, elevators in government office buildings, and restrooms at a state university, then a ban might be warranted. Not otherwise.

Government, not secondhand smoke, is polluting the beaches. Surely we can protect the legitimate rights of non-smokers without prohibiting smokers from relishing an occasional cigarette by the sea.

air force 1 shoes

nike shox
shox shoes
nike shoes shox
nike shox running shoes
nike shoes
shox nz shoes
shox nz
shox torch
torch shoes
nike dream shoes
dream shoes
shox monster shoes
nike shox monster shoes
nike shox nz
nz shoes
shox oz
oz shoes
shox r3
nike shox r3
shox r4
nike shox r4
r4 torch
shox r4 torch
nike shox r5
shox r5
shox tl1
tl1 shox
tl3 nike shox
tl3 shox
nike shox turb
shox turb