Michael, Do you mean must NOT open car windows? The article says that you can smoke in your car as long as it doesn't affect other people outside the car. I assume this is referring mostly to parked cars, since the smoke is rapidly dissipated in a moving car.
Steve, read it again, let it sink in, swallow, digest:
"Smoking in one's car is allowed, unless the windows are open and someone nearby might be affected."
An then comes ASH:
"a formal finding by California that tobacco smoke outdoors is a 'toxic air contaminant' because it can cause cancers and heart attacks in nonsmokers, and a court ruling that urinating in a deserted parking lot is a nuisance because it creates a situation which endangers public health and can be offensive to the sense of smell, smoking outdoors might one day be declared to be a public nuisance."
Now tell me, where do you park your car if not in a (not deserted) parking lot. By the way, should you have an urgent need to urinate, once on the road or in a place with no public restrooms, you better relieve yourself inside the car, windows rolled up.
No escape. I have heard that they are training special SWAT teams (the men all clad in black) to find the offending smoker and handcuff them in situ. SWAT teams are sometimes called Death Squads, because they happen to shoot innocent people http://www.sploid.com/news/2006/
...e_of_the_us.php
America, land of the free ... just my perception.
Michael Siegel, I concur with Steve that your title is wrong: "Smoking in one's car is allowed, unless the windows are open and someone nearby might be affected."
In my translation, that means: "mokers Must Now Close Windows in Car if They Smoke
i think what's missing is a 't' instead of 'w' in 'now'
Sorry - my bad!
This ordinance is so ridiculous that I couldn't even type the facts straight when I knew what I was trying to type because it goes against all common sense. My fingers didn't even want to believe that this was true.
Mike:
Your criticism of ASH and the Calabasas ordinance vividly reminds me of the criticism leveled at me and at Pittsburgh officials by cigarette industry front groups and a few angry smokers when the city enacted our Smoking Pollution Control Ordinance in 1987, which banned smoking in tens of thousands of indoor workplaces.
It could only happen in the USA !
Bill,
The same criticisims that were valid in 1987 are still valid in 2006: namely that you're sanctomonious, and that you're wrong.
The main difference is that there are more angry smokers now, and nobody can find these "front groups" that you keep talking about. Oh, and we'll add the gripe that living with a lawyer with 18 years does not make you a lawyer too.
Shoot, I wish Big Tobacco DID have a front group so I could join them. When you find one that has some big time big tobacco funding, would you please let me know?
Mike:
Your criticism of ASH and the Calabasas ordinance vividly reminds me of the criticism leveled at me and at Pittsburgh officials by cigarette industry front groups and a few angry smokers when the city enacted our Smoking Pollution Control Ordinance in 1987, which banned smoking in tens of thousands of indoor workplaces.
Bill Godshall
LOL, I wonder why they would do such a thing as "criticize" you or the Pittsburgh officials? hmm...
Maybe because they thought you were WRONG, maybe because they had a different VIEW, maybe because they knew there were more important issues to contend with, maybe because they enjoyed their freedom. There are so many different things it could have been, Bill.
I am curious though; are you comparing the criticisms Dr. Siegel posted to the ones you received; or are you comparing Dr. Siegel to the "cigarette industry front groups and the few angry smokers" that criticized you?
ed psycho wrote:
"The same criticisims that were valid in 1987 are still valid in 2006: namely that you're sanctomonious, and that you're wrong."
Public opinion polls find that an overwhelming and increasing majority of Americans support smokefree workplace laws.
And since Mike Siegel also advocates
smokefree indoor workplace laws, does ed psycho similarly consider him sanctamonious?
I was merely pointing out that Mike's rhetoric criticizing the Calabasas law and ASH is very similar to the criticisms of smokefree workplace laws and their pioneering advocates two decades ago.
"And since Mike Siegel also advocates smokefree indoor workplace laws, does ed psycho similarly consider him sanctamonious?"
I find it kind of humiliating for you that I have to explain the difference to you, but you asked for it:
The difference is how a person is perceived by others: integrity, consideration, respect, common sense, conviction, courage, ability to listen, to engage in a debate with well funded arguments, openness, absence of hate or ressentment. In summary: PERSONALITY.
Need I say more? Next time you go to the bathroom to commit a public health hazard, have a look into the mirror and try to find some of those traits in your own face
benpal! SCORE!
well done!
It seems to me that if you smoke around your kids, regardless of whether the windows are open, you're a negligent parent and child protective services should get involved.
anon,
did you mean to post this to another thread?
"It seems to me that if you smoke around your kids, regardless of whether the windows are open, you're a negligent parent and child protective services should get involved."
And then? Take them away from their parents? Nanny state knows better how to love and educate children? Children love nanny state more than their parents?
When you take your kids for a drive, arent't you exposing them to a risk? Bad parent!
i can't believe how overfocused people are on whether or not someone smokes around her/his children.
it's the behaviours you don't get to see that cause the most damage, you know?
ah, but i guess that the kid is still well cared for because the parent isn't smoking, eh?
You're actually backing up your assertion by stating that it's justified because its POPULAR?
That's downright pathetic, Bill, even for you. Both the efforts of Big Tobacco as well as those of the smoke haters show how easy it is to engineer public opinion. All you need is money!
Besides, public opinion from time to time favours a lot of stupid stuff: creationism, phrenology, holocaust revisionism, astrology, angels and demons, Steve's favourite of female genital mutilation in the Sudan, and yes, the supposed health effects of tobacco smoke.
Do you really want your life, let alone what you believe to be your civil liberties, to be dictated and micromanaged by the weather vane of public opinion?
I'm merely pointing out that the rhetoric you use to defend these ridiculous laws is as demented now as it was back then.
You ask: do I find Dr. Siegel sanctimonious? Not at all!
I just disagree with him.
He at least has the courage and courtesy to engage in rational debate, and point out that some of what you're supporting is just flatly wrong, no matter how popular it may be at the time.
You however, continually amaze me with your hateful bluster and your nearly inhuman arrogance.
"It seems to me that if you smoke around your kids, regardless of whether the windows are open, you're a negligent parent and child protective services should get involved."
Go ahead. Call them. Have them take my kids away from me, because I smoke in the car with my kids.
But before you do that, I want you to volunteer as a foster parent for a child who has been sexually molested and beaten, so you can truly appreciate what child abuse is.
Your attempt at equating tobacco smoke exposure with child abuse is offensive beyond words.
"let alone what you believe to be your civil liberties, to be dictated and micromanaged"
ah, now here's a question.
bill, erik, steve j., jill, and any anti i may have missed...
1) what are your indivdual investments into the anti-smoking movement?
2) what is it that motivates you to stay on this blog site and post your comments when there are more welcoming places for you?
3) what is it you seek to accomplish?
4) where do you believe YOUR civil liberties as non-smokers end, and the concerns of public health begin?
Annette, thanks for asking these questions.
I really would like to know as well, just so that I may understand and maybe appreciate their opinions.
To expand on question 4): What civil liberties would you be willing/not willing to give up for the sake of public health?
Bill, since 1987? Almost 20 years. You must either make a lot of money with your activity or you must have nothing better to do. How about living a life? Time is short ...
Let me use my amazing psycho-powers to predict Bill's answers:
1) My ego and personal identity, along with much of my professional careet, is wrapped up in the hatred of tobacco. It provides my religion, my livelyhood, and my recreational activities.
2) It's a load of harmless fun, not unlike when the smart/cute/pouplar kids throw rocks at the retarded/ugly/unpopular kids in grade school. They just need to avoid our rocks that's all. I have a right to thow them. It's OK, since, you know, being popular makes it OK.
3) I will do my best to convince you to stop smoking because it's unhealthy, or because of any other reason I can think of, whether it's true or not. And if that doesn't work, I will just find some other way to make you stop smoking whether you want to or not.
4) Civil liberties are for the birds. What matters is what's popular; perceptions are more important than old fashioned concepts of "rights" and "morality."
"Public opinion polls find that an overwhelming and increasing majority of Americans support smokefree workplace laws."
Since this is no longer a matter of just public health and into "acceptable behavior" control I'll put forth this example directed towards another hated group. This isn't meant to encourage such thinking, but rather serve as a repulsive example of intolerance.
I'd venture to say, there are more smokers, than homosexuals. And an overwhelming large majority of Americans support laws against gay marriage. Since most people aren't gay, and find homosexual acts repulsive this is a fair and just law. Most Americans don't want their children to grow up gay.
But according to Bill, this isn't an anti-gay law because we (the straight community) are just anti-homosexual act and hold nothing against the individual. As a matter of fact we all probably have a gay friend or two. Since most people aren't homosexual, we shouldn't encourage such immoral and unhealthy behavior and we shouldn't tolerate such either.
If we use the anti-tobacco model, we would charter the NIH to develop a program like ASSIST. This could promote the denormalization of homosexuality (in the name of health mind you). Perhaps a few billboards portraying homosexual acts as smelly (homosexuals stink), done by uneducated, lower class of people, and could stress how many convicts perform homosexual acts (since most prisoners commit homosexual acts, therefore homosexuals are criminals (Bill and Leroy's argument), and how it contributes to the spread of disease, and it's costs to society. They could reward people like Dr. Glantz research money to determine the effects of gay lifestyles in the media and their influence on children, and to promote such things as R ratings on any movie which promotes any positive aspects of a Gay Lifestyle. We could commission the CDC to do epidemiological studies on how much shorter lives gays live. The CDC could publicize how gay lifestyles were responsible for the AIDS epidemic. The WHO could issue a press release anouncing their decision not to hire practicing homosexuals, as this is inconsistent with their stated mission.
We could have intolerant people like Banzhaf promote employment and housing discrimination of practicing gays, and praise and defend him for his efforts. And according to Bill, none of this should be considered anti-gay, because we haven't suggested making laws against the commission of homosexual acts, as this is a voluntary behavior. We don't hate gays, we just dislike homosexual acts, besides it's for their own good anyways. What's a we bit of liberty if it leads to a better society. We should save all these poor individuals from such fate by reforming them, and discourage homosexual acts.
After all this goes past just the health aspects, but also into the realm of public nuisance as we might offend someone viewing two gay people holding hands. We could enact ordenances prohibiting such display in publc, and will provide gay outposts far and way from public view to where gays can hang out, but only if there are not any straight people around. Above all it shouldn't be covered as this would not discourage such behavior. We will allow straights to file lawsuits against gays seen holding hands. These outposts are not to exceed 40sq ft or more than 50% covered. We shouldn't allow children to view such activity as they are young and impressionable, and might get sucked into such a unhealthy and reprehensible and immoral lifestyle. We shouldn't allow practicing gays to adopt children as this isn't in the childs best interest. Right Joe C? It's not anti-gay, it's the act/behavior remember!
According to some here we should all be so intolerant of behaviors we do not agree with like smoking, especially if this behavior isn't practiced by the majority.
This is the type of social engineering (and rationalizations) being pioneered by some in public health.
Benpal, you certainly knocked that pitch outta orbit. Well stated.
Walt-
As a freedom lovin gal of ALL freedoms, thank you!
I have posted to Tammy Baldwin of WI, the same argument-I supported NOW, Conciousness Raising, GLBT rights in many parts of the US, AIDS support...and I have asked for a little support in my agenda- Hear the crickets chirping .....????
But I still semper fi ( or however you spell that).
Put it all in some context for all to understand-even if we have to keep on repeating the statements over and over.
It is enough, I say, enough!
Capri
walt, well done.
frightening scenario, but well done.
Geez, I guess I was an abused child and didn't even know it. Not only did my dad smoke when I was growing up, but he URINATED!!! Right in our own home no less!
And, I have to admit, now that I'm an adult I am caught in the vicious cycle. I grew up in a home surrounded by urination, and now I'm a habitual urinater myself. I'm hooked. I urinate daily, sometimes several times. I urinate at home, and even at work. Sometimes, I need to urinate so badly that I actually wake up in the middle of the night to do it. I can try to fight the urge, but it's just too strong, it has a real hold on me. And when I can't take it anymore and I do break down urinate, it feels SOOO good, like a release. I guess it's hard to explain to those of you who've never urinated before but all I can say is DON'T START. Take it from me; you'll just be flushing your life down the toilet.
Texas Dave:
Oh MY You have totally cracked me up!!Thank you for that!
I come from WI, but my babysister lives in Plano...have visited and totally enjoyed the area.
So, thanks for being from TX??? or from being from anywhereUSA, needed the chuckle/chortle/guffaw/
outrightbellylaugh/and sardonic aside-yes, we really do know what/who the last laugh is going to be on!
and it aint gonna be me.............
You trust someone from Plano as your babysitter? I'd be afraid to come home and find they've given the kids really really big hair.
Texas Dave!
I said baby*sister*! and she gets big hair now and again...
But that's Her Choice...bless her lil heart.
Capri
I wouldn't worry about Plano half as much as I would Mineral Wells LOL
Texas Dave, that's absolutely hilarious. I too have this horrible addiction to urination. I thought I was alone, maybe we could put together a support group???
And I'll get rich selling all-yall urination patches and gum. You know, my pharmacological urination replacement therapy can make me be a better corpoate citizen than the EvIL Big Urination industry.
Feel that need to urinate in public? Slap one of these puppies on, new long lasting Uroderm patches! Enjoy the new and improved cool mint flavour of Urinette gum!
Yeah. That's the ticket.
Umm...I'll stick to the patches..urination gum just doesn't sound too....palatable...lol
Oh... baby SISTER. Ooooooops.
Sorry Capri... I should probably read things more carefully, espcially at 8 in the morning before I've had any coffee...
Texas Dave...
...are you taking the piss?
Walt wrote:
"But according to Bill, this isn't an anti-gay law because we (the straight community) are just anti-homosexual act and hold nothing against the individual."
Walt and his cheerleaders may think it humorous to blatantly lie and make slanderous comments about others,
but that's one of the reasons why he/they have no credibility.
For the record, I've never posted any comments about homosexuality on this blog.
Mike should delete Walt's post, as well as comments praising Walt's lies.
Godshall, instead of Dr. Siegel deleting Walt's post, I suggest he try to teach you how to READ a post.
What is this -- kindergarten?
bill,
he BEGINS by saying this is the PATTERN, not the details.
to quote,
"Since this is no longer a matter of just public health and into "acceptable behavior" control I'll put forth this example directed towards another hated group. This isn't meant to encourage such thinking, but rather serve as a repulsive example of intolerance"
do you understand? he's illustrating the effect of the policies you pursue.
I think the point here (the analogy) is a relevant one, because the issue is whether banning a behavior in public is motivated simply by a desire to protect people from that specific behavior, or whether such an act is motivated as a measure against the individual engaging in that behavior.
I think the analogy to a law prohibiting gay couples from displaying affection in public is actually a fair one - because this is a case where a legislative body could claim to be simply regulating a certain behavior, but it is very clear that such a measure would be an anti-gay policy, intended to punish, censure, and express disapproval for certain individuals.
So the question arises: what would motivate a law that REQUIRES smokers to keep their windows closed if they smoke in their cars? It seems clear to me that from a public health perspective, such a law would do more harm then good, since it is going to result in a fair number of children facing increasing amounts of exposure to secondhand smoke, and because it is unlikely to protect anyone (I am aware of no evidence that damage to nonsmokers from secondhand smoke drifting from people smoking in cars is a major public health problem).
This law also harms smokers directly, because they too will be exposed to higher levels of secondhand smoke.
So I think it is entirely fair to question whether, instead of really being a bona fide public health proposal, this is simply an attempt to punish, censure, and express societal disapproval of smokers.
I think the answer to the above is YES. Obviously, others may disagree. But I think it is a much-needed question that needs to be asked. It's time for us (the tobacco control movement) to decide whether this is an anti-smoking movement, or an anti-smoker movement. Unfortunately, the answer right now appears to be the latter.
I would think even with the window up, eventually the smoke is going to leak out somewhere, and the air outside will eventually end up containing the same amount of smoke than if the window was down. cars are designed for very frequent airchanges with the outside air.
obviouly since the aldermen who passed this ordinance know cars change air with the outside very frequently, that this aspect of the ordinance does no public health good,and is clearly constructed to harass smokers.
is it still legal to drive your 1962 Chevy which need a ring job, through Calabassas?
And what about diesel powered vehicles? All diesels combine nitrogen and oxygen from the atmosphere with unburned polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons and exhaust what are knowen as Nitro-PAHs into the air in calabassas and everywhere else. These are very potent lung carcinogens and do not require enzymatic activation to cause lung cancer. " Nitro-PAHs include some of the most potent mutagens yet identified" Analytica Chem acta (1989) 53-63
and didn't the EPA just again name CA one of the most air polluted states in the US? dave K.
unfortunately, as long as we as citizens stay focused on individuals, and commanding the individual's behaviour, then other things, which are more difficult but more important thing to address, get forgotten.
why do you think the government gets away with prohibitive legislation that adversly affects small and private businesses so easily, and yet winds up subsidizing corporate interests, including building them into monopolies?
easy to do when the citizenry is fighting each other. talk about divide and conquer.
HOW MANY SMOKERS OWN OPEN TOPPED CARS IN CALABASAS DER.....WHAT DO DEY DO DER....OK NEW LAW PLEASE !!!!!
To second Dave Kuneman: It might indeed be advisable to roll the windows up while smoking in a car, otherwise ambient air pollution might get you ...
"Fine particulate air pollution is a risk factor for cause-specific cardiovascular disease mortality via mechanisms that likely include pulmonary and systemic inflammation, accelerated atherosclerosis ..."
http://www.circ.ahajournals.org/...&hits=10&
hitsRF
"n the present study, chromosomal aberrations were used to assess genotoxic effects in bus drivers exposed to a high level of urban air pollution. Besides bus drivers, we also studied postal workers who are expected to be exposed to lower air pollution levels than bus drivers. All subjects were nonsmokers to exclude the effects of this common confounder that is known to affect chromosome aberration rates. [...] The present study demonstrates a genotoxic effect of ambient air pollution, mostly attributable to traffic, in bus drivers driving in the center of a major city. An increased risk of cancer has been reported in Danish bus drivers (10) , and our results further support the view that genotoxic exposure is partly responsible for this finding."
Dr Siegel,
Thank you for attempting to clarify my post, as you did so quite eloquently. Unfortunately, I don't believe he will ever understand why smokers consider him an anti-smoker. As you so duly noted, this was meant figuratively as an analogy, and not literally. Bill made several analogies yesterday claiming it is the act, not the actor.
Bill has long claimed he holds no grudges against smokers, only smoking. Yet he has praised and defended nearly every effort to discourage people from smoking (except maybe the Mao solution, but when he realizes people will continue to smoke, and stronger and stronger coercive techniques have failed, he may one day begin advocating that too. Ultimately coercion leads to either compliance or the death penalty, or capitulation on trying to completely control.).
Some of the more notable techniques with no real benefits outside of punishing smokers.
The N.J smoking while driving ban. (ignoring any other form of distraction while focusing only on smoking)
Job discrimination (he has repeatedly justified this on the basis of encouraging people to quit). Most recently today in his alternatives to prohibition.
The Calabasas ban. (You will notice in the preamble of the legislation, they went to great lengths to justify why smoking was bad; first and foremost).
The Beach ban when what was needed was a stronger litter ordinance.
One can begin to see a pattern, as these laws are directed solely at smokers, when they should apply to other acts. eg litter. This is why "we" consider them to be anti-smoker motivated.
Arguably you can rationalize some sort of minute benefits, but the ulterior purpose is to deny/harass smokers an opportunity/place to smoke.
I tried to list means and methods to control homo-sexual acts in much of the same spirit that has been applied to controlling smoking, And apply Bill's "I'm not an anti-smoker, I'm just anti-smoking" analogy to them, hoping this would hit home with him. Judging by his response I think it did. I believe he saw the hypocrisy in the anti-homosexual act analogy, but I believe he is so focused/obsessed/loss of objectify/prejudiced/(not the right words but...)/addicted with controlling smokers behavior he can't see this in himself with regards to smokers. This is what can happen when you begin to believe the "Ends Justify the Means"
This is a question for Bill
If someone to tries to prevent and discourage people from engaging in homosexual acts (including acts of affection) and promotes the denormalization of homosexual acts are they (a) anti-gay or (b) anti-homosexual act? You may want to look back at your previous posts to where you used a masturbation analogy, which is what inspired the idea of that message in the first place..
Now substitute smoking for homosexual act, and smoker for gay.
Bill, this isn't meant to be a slam, but you should really try walking in someone else's shoes, before you try and tell them how they should run their lives, and attempting to legislate their behavior.
Now this is a slam, but meant so constructively: For someone who flings innuendoes with ease, you really are thin skinned. If you'd like me to elaborate more I'll be happy too. Further, I'm not going to apologize because you are so thinned skinned, and took it so literally.
Here's an interesting amplification of (the Other) Walt's point.
In the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v Texas -- the subject of the case was the constitutionality of a state law that criminalized homosexual acts-- the majority, which voted that it wasn't constitutional, wrote this in its
opinion:
"When homosexual conduct is made criminal by the law of the state, that declaration in and of itself is an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and the private spheres. The central holding of Bowers [the case law being overturned with this decision] has been brought into question by this case and it should be addressed. Its continuance demeans the lives of homosexuals."
But, hey. I forgot. Bill believes smokers OUGHT to be discriminated against and demeaned, and sees no analogy here whatsoever. Or hilariously pretends he doesn't. This confuses his high horse, which is now trying to run in two directions at once. (Giddyap)
From http://www.theagitator.com/
archi...6410.php#026410
"Brookline, the first municipality in the state to ban smoking in bars and restaurants, also banned smoking in private clubs in the mid-1990s. Alan Balsam, the town's public health commissioner, said he's now fielding complaints about smoking in multifamily buildings. ''I would say the issue is now more about condominiums and apartments," he said. ''There should be some way that people can avoid second-hand smoke in their own home if it's coming from the apartment below. What if the kid upstairs has asthma? It's a tough decision.""
slanderman wrote:
"Bill has long claimed he holds no grudges against smokers, only smoking. Yet he has praised and defended nearly every effort to discourage people from smoking"
Wrong again. I've consistently opposed efforts to criminalize the purchase, possession and use of tobacco products, as turning drug addicts into criminals is not a humanitarian or cost effective way to reduce drug addictions.
Its truly ironic that I'm probably the only commenter on this blog that has actually urged elected officials (in many municipalities and states) to vote against proposed legislation that would have criminalized, fined and/or otherwise penalized (e.g. loss of drivers license) people for merely purchasing, possessing or using tobacco products.
I was even featured on CBS News 60 Minutes in 1999 (and was interviewed by Leslie Stahl) exposing the absurdity of criminalizing and punishing people just because they purchased, possessed or used tobacco products.
The real irony is that legislation was sponsored by the cigarette industry (to criminalize youth tobacco users), and many state and local governments have enacted them into law.
But I don't recall anyone from FORCES ever opposing those laws.
Godshall has NOT "consistently opposed efforts to criminalize the purchase, possession and use of tobacco products", in many of his posts to this forum, he has supported, cheered, and defended in every concievable way the criminalization of smokers, go back and read all the Calabasas posts he made defending the criminalizing of smoking thus smokers. Tell me again how it's the act not the actor mr twoface Godshalldoasisay.
I state: "Bill has long claimed he holds no grudges against smokers, only smoking. Yet he has praised and defended nearly every effort to discourage people from smoking"
But Bill, calling me slanderman retorts "Wrong again."
Huh? He doesn't support/defend most or nearly all efforts to discourage smoking which have been discussed here?
I feel like I'm watching a rerun of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and the Mr. Hyde persona has just decided it's slanderous to say he has showed support for most efforts discussed here to discourage smoking. Are you now considering joining FORCES Mr. Godshall?
All kidding aside, learn to read Mr. Godshall before you exhibit your malice and attempt to impugn my character, by addressing me as slanderman. It reflects poorly on your character, and is very childish.
It would also appear you would rather trade insults then engage in a serious discussion or explain your position, as you have ignored my questions to you to clarify your position
It appears you have been caught in an inconsistent position, and rather than admit to such, would rather engage in obtuse, evasionary tactics to divert further discussion as a distraction.
Furthermore I listed a series of examples for which you have praised or defended, and one for which you condemned. I note, you did not taken exception to this list of examples. And I will leave it to the readers to judge if this is a reasonable characterization of what I consider your extreme positions.
"I've consistently opposed efforts to criminalize the purchase, possession and use of tobacco products ."
As Jerry has pointed out, and in other examples you have praised, supported, or otherwise defended efforts to criminalize tobacco use, as with the case of NJ smoking while driving and Calabasas. Another example is smoking "the use of a tobacco product" on the beach, instead of enforcing or strengthening existing laws against littering. I have to admit you have been consistent with regards to most issues discussed used to discourage tobacco use, but I would hardly characterize your position as opposing them, rather the converse.
But then again, saying you had a fairly consistent opinion in what most smokers consider punishment is what you took exception to in the first place.
If this confuses other readers don't feel unique, as I believe this was the purpose of Bill's retort.
I stand by my original assertion that Bill has "praised and defended nearly every effort to discourage people from smoking."
As for your ability to recall, shall I remind you of your comments concerning your lack of skill/ability/competency/honesty to locate a list of the FORCES Board of Directors and contact information when there is a CONTACT US link prominently displayed on their home page?
The MSA contained additional penalties which apply if youth tobacco use isn't reduced. It comes as no surprise that some anti-smokers would lobby against legislation designed to reduce youth use of tobacco, nor is it a surprise that tobacco companies would sponsor legislation similar to those imposed against alcohol which holds minors responsible for their attempted use of the product.
I have to wonder, if Mr. Godshall supports the repeal of laws criminalizing minor purchase, possession, or use of alcohol products, or if he has lobbied local and state governments to repeal such laws with regards to alcohol, since he has stated "turning drug addicts (in this case alcoholics) into criminals is not a humanitarian or cost effective way to reduce drug addictions (in this case alcoholism)."
Jerry Thomas wrote:
"Godshall has NOT "consistently opposed efforts to criminalize the purchase, possession and use of tobacco products", in many of his posts to this forum, he has supported, cheered, and defended in every concievable way the criminalization of smokers, go back and read all the Calabasas posts he made defending the criminalizing of smoking thus smokers. Tell me again how it's the act not the actor mr twoface Godshalldoasisay."
Wrong. The Calabasas ordinance doesn't prohibit the purchase, possession or the use of tobacco products. Rather, it regulates the burning of cigarettes at certain locations and under certain conditions.
" Rather, it regulates the burning of cigarettes at certain locations and under certain conditions."
Wrong Mr. Godshall, as usual. It
It [Calabasas law] criminalizes smoking except in certain locations, and certain circumstances.
Sec. 8.12.040 Prohibition of Smoking
(a) Public and Other Places Where Smoking Prohibited. Except as otherwise
provided by this chapter or by state or federal law, smoking is prohibited
everywhere in the city, including but not limited to: ...
Sec. 8.12.070 Penalties and Enforcement
(a) A violation of this ordinance shall constitute a misdemeanor punishable
pursuant to chapter 1.16 of this code unless the prosecutor determines to
prosecute it as an infraction as authorized by section 1.16.010(a).
Just another example of blatant misrepresentations and deceptions.
Since Walt emboldened the word "except", one would think that he understood the meaning of the word.
Since the Calabasas ordinance doesn't ban smoking in all locations, it isn't a prohibition on smoking, but rather a restriction (under certain conditions) on locations where people can smoke.
If Walt wants to claim that the current Calabasas law is a prohibition on smoking, I don't know what he'll call the next ordinance that restricts smoking to even fewer locations.
"Since the Calabasas ordinance doesn't ban smoking in all locations, it isn't a prohibition on smoking, but rather a restriction (under certain conditions) on locations where people can smoke."
Mr. Godshall could just as easily argue the Volstead Act wasn't prohibition of alcohol, but rather a restriction (under certain conditions) since it didn't ban alcohol under all circumstances. For the readers benefit, alcohol was permitted for religious and medicinal purposes.
If we read the construction of the Calabasas Ordinance, we will observe the construction is to prohibit then iterate the places where it is permissible, very similar to the construction of the Volstead Act.
TITLE II.
PROHIBITION OF INTOXICATING BEVERAGES.
SEC. 3. No person shall on or after the date when the eighteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States goes into effect, manufacture, sell, barter, transport import, export, deliver, furnish or possess any intoxicating liquor except as authorized in this Act,
Mr. Godshall argues the law permits smoking with certain restrictions. I contend the law prohibits with certain exception.
Sec. 8.12.040 Prohibition of Smoking
(a) Public and Other Places Where Smoking Prohibited. Except as otherwise
provided by this chapter or by state or federal law, smoking is prohibited
everywhere in the city
The reader is left to form their own conclusion.
"I don't know what he'll call the next ordinance that restricts smoking to even fewer locations" - billy g.
gee, bill, personally, I would call it fascism.
or marshall law
or invasion of my home
I think one important point here is that the Calabasas ordinance makes smoking in public a criminal offense. You can call it whatever you want but it's quite clear to me that there was a reason for this decision - and I think that reason is that the intent was to punish smokers and impose the city's sense of superiority upon them.
Bill Godshall wrote - "Wrong. The Calabasas ordinance doesn't prohibit the purchase, possession or the use of tobacco products. Rather, it regulates the burning of cigarettes at certain locations and under certain conditions."
Wrong again Bill, it CRIMINALIZES the use of tobaaco in all except exempt locations, HUDE difference there, HUGE.
Personally, I think we should round up several hundred to a couple thousand smokers and descend en masse on Calabasas.
I would imagine we could find lots of smokers among classic car clubs - you know, OLD cars without California Emission Standards equipment. Probably a lot of ruff n' tuff bikers too.
We could parade through the streets of Calabasas, smoking - with all of our windows down! - then maybe gather at the largest city park we could find and smoke up a storm while we wait for the California National Guard and the news vans to roll up.
oooooo, kathleen! how wickedly fun!
and convertibles!!! don't forget convertibles!
Convertibles AND pick-up trucks. Do you suppose we can find Joe Camel? He could lead the parade. (No telling what he and his friends might "doo" on the streets of Calabasas though)
But will Bonzo Banzof be there wearing his condom and preaching safe sex ????
ALMOST FORGOT will Erik be there burning his tyres too ????
Kathleen wrote:
"Personally, I think we should round up several hundred to a couple thousand smokers and descend en masse on Calabasas."
That would be hilarious. Then we could watch John Stewart, Steven Colbert, Keith Olberman, Jay Leno, David Letterman and others poke fun at the them just as occurred when the New Jersey strippers protested that State's smokefree law.
And perhaps McFadden could convince some PA strippers to similarly protest smokefree legislation at the State Capitol in Harrisburg, as that would finally convince our Legislature to enact the measure.
hey billy g!
if you and banzahf show up with the blow up doll, i'll bet jon stewart et al will show up to poke,um, MAKE fun of you guys!
Bill,
You're right. A prostest in Calabasas or Pennsylvania probably won't happen.
After all, we don't have the tax money to bankroll paid "volulteers" and professional activists like your groups to engineer the same level of media notoriety that you smoke haters get.
Besides, the media is in the pockets of the smoke hating groups (remember - most newspapers voluntarily do not accept tobacco advertising, and tobacco advertising on tv and radio is prohibited by law), so they won't get any coverage anyhow. Were they to upset the smoke haters, there goes their revenue stream!
Sometimes I wish FORCES really was a "Big Tobacco" front group. They could really get their message out there if they had some of that "Big Tobacco" money to advertise like "Big Smoke Haters" does.
Then we could watch John Stewart, Steven Colbert, Keith Olberman, Jay Leno, David Letterman and others poke fun at the them just as occurred when the New Jersey strippers protested that State's smokefree law.
Hey - that would be great! Be sure to alert 'em all, Bill. Anything to spread the word, even if they're being "hilarious". You know what they say...negative attention is better than no attention at all.
ed wrote:
"After all, we don't have the tax money to bankroll paid "volulteers" and professional activists like your groups to engineer the same level of media notoriety that you smoke haters get."
Fact is that Smokefree Pennsylvania isn't funded by government agencies, tobacco companies or drug companies.
And if we hated smokers, as you claim, we certainly wouldn't be providing our services (that have helped many smokers quit their addiction) free of charge.
But thanks for recognizing our expertise and experience in generating media coverage and support.
Y'know Bill, you keep stating that "Smokefree Pennsylvania isn't funded by government agencies, tobacco companies or drug companies.".
Care to elaborate with actual financials? Just where do you get the money that does not come from John Q Public? The private donations say that account for more than 1% of your total income? You have been asked, repeatedly to prove your funding isn't from any of the sources you mentioned, although, I seem to remember several posts which sure seemed to state differently.
You have repeatedly accused FORCES of being a tobacco front, and claim that their funding does indeed come from Big Tobacco, yet they clearly post the data as to where their funding does come from, so how about yours?
I second that, Jerry. Bill, please let us know how one can finance an organization like yours. You have nothing to hide, have you?
And if we hated smokers, as you claim, we certainly wouldn't be providing our services (that have helped many smokers quit their addiction) free of charge.
Sure you would. "Ve must MAKE them CONFORM!"
The free services to "help" the people Bill claims not to hate reminds me of pedophiles who offer free candy to kids and then tell them later in the room that this is how adults show children love. NAMBLA folk believe they're doing good for the kids while they're at it.
And no, I'm not calling you a pedophile, Bill. But you have the same M.O. and rationalization.
Good thing I didn't know it was illegal to smoke with windows open in The People's Republic of Calabasas! I was out there last year several times with the Liberty Van. There's a pic at that (homepage) url. I cruised Calabasas every chance I got. My usual cruising manner is with both front windows almost all the way open, and chain smoking, blowing as much smoke out the windows as I can. I also usually carry a flag. I keep hoping folks will notice that since it's an American flag, there is NO swastika on it, and NO hammer and sickle. Most of the people seemed very friendly. Lots waved, and gave thumbs up. One day, at a stop light, folks were hanging out every window of another car, all blowing kisses at the van. I keep giving Calabasas as my example of the home of the stoopidist people in the entire USA. The 10 lane 101 FREEWAY, that's coming right out of the heart of Lost Angeles runs RIGHT THROUGH THE MIDDLE of Calabasas! Gee, I can enjoy the exhaust of who knows how many hundreds of thousands of cars/day, but it's illegal to light a cigarette??? OUTSIDE??? ROFLOLLOLLOL!!!! I am STILL LAUGHING! I don't think it gets stoopider than that.
Lynda Farley
40 year/3pk/day SMOKER
I'd RATER FIGHT THAN QUIT
www.aalf.ws/smokingmad/
This is not funny. It's arbitrary and capricious fascism that sets a precedent for other violations of personal freedom. It would behoove Calabasas smokers to band together and sue the bastards.
Commenting by HaloScan
