Claremont bans smoking in plaza, can ...

Claremont bans smoking in plaza, can issue citations

There are 17 comments on the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin story from Nov 26, 2010, titled Claremont bans smoking in plaza, can issue citations. In it, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin reports that:

People who want to smoke in Claremont Village will soon find it harder to do so.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Inland Valley Daily Bulletin.

Mariann

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

#1 Nov 26, 2010
You're going to smell it that way," she said.
???, so what.
It is the smell and exaust from the cars we should worry about.
Dare

United States

#2 Nov 26, 2010
Ok, I can agree with what Claremont has done, somewhat, after all do think we non-smokers have a right to have an area free of smoke. But what some of the people seem to want, banning smoking in the outdoor dining areas goes too far. Funny thing about those outdoor dining areas. Back in the 70ís non-smoking areas were created in restaurants, though they stood mostly empty for a long time. Then as more people began to use them, they were expanded. The anti-smokers go indoor smoking banned, so restaurants created patio areas for smokers. Those areas began to get very nice, umbrellas or awnings over the tables to protect from direct sunlight. Misters in the summer to keep the area cooler. Heaters in the winter to keep it warm. Now it seems the anti-smoking Naziís want the patio areas too. Like the old saying goes, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. Funny thing about he politicians that vote for the bans. They donít take it all the way. They donít ban smoking in the city anywhere, anytime. They donít ban the sales of tobacco products within the city, county, state etc. I wonder why? Maybe revenue? They donít want to loose the money that smokers pay in taxes.
Piece of Crap

Ontario, CA

#3 Nov 26, 2010
That's OK, I've decided to banned myself from spending money in downtown Claremont. BTW, I'm not a smoker.
PJsaid

Victorville, CA

#4 Nov 26, 2010
Another piece of "feel good" legislation passed by a bunch of old hippie liberals. Surely there is more pressing business regarding job creation and deficit reduction that they can work on.
Rufus T Firefly

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

#5 Nov 26, 2010
Another fine example of how oppressive and backwards progressives are with smoking. They want to keep taxing everyone's smoking habit in order to gain revenue for a variety of projects including the supplement of healthcare but yet they also want to ban a person's right to smoke in public?

They also don't seem to care that smokers make up a large part of those who are in the lower economic segments of society and in essence are taxing and regulating the poor of the community. This is also the same crowd that will gladly ban smoking in public while voting in favor of legalizing marijuana. Its all backwards!

"THE BIGGER THE GOVERNMENT....THE SMALLER THE CITIZEN!
willy

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

#6 Nov 26, 2010
When I first saw the dept of healths claim about a person dying every 6.5 seconds from smoking related issues, I contacted them to see how they came up with those stats. After some time, the only response is that they obtained that stat from the WHO. I made several attempts to contact WHO and ask them the same question, and as of yet they have failed to respond. I can't help wondering if these claims are a sham just like we learned about the global warming fiasco when they got caught cooking the books. I have doubts about the levels that these stats claim, and no, I don't smoke cigarettes. Smoking no doubt is responsible to some medical issues, but when these reporting agencies pass the buck or fail to show how they came up with their stats, it seems that they have something to hide. All it would take for me is to list the causes of death for patients, the names of the hospitals where they died, and when they died for say about a year period. This information does not violate Patient Privacy, because no names would be listed. So until then, these adds will be treated by me as just another bad infomercial unsupported by facts.
Guest

Sherman Oaks, CA

#7 Nov 26, 2010
PJsaid wrote:
Another piece of "feel good" legislation passed by a bunch of old hippie liberals. Surely there is more pressing business regarding job creation and deficit reduction that they can work on.
Believe me, the punk losers running claremont are anything but hippies. They don't have 1 cool bone in their bodies. Especially the severely rotund Elderkin. What a pork butt she is. Big, old and fat. I would include moronic, but that's pretty evident.
Wait until sam becomes mayor. He'll finish running claremonty into the ground.
I hate smokers but

Los Angeles, CA

#8 Nov 26, 2010
I think smoking is a disgusting habit and most smokers are very inconsiderate but I would think the city council would spend their time on more pressing matters. Like where the hell is that Fresh and Easy and Walgreens South Claremont was promissed? I'll tell you they dragged their feet on the whole matter and Walgreens backed out which caused Fresh and Easy to have second thoughts. Please City Council get your priorities straight!!!
COWABUNGA

Whittier, CA

#9 Nov 26, 2010
Our family has been going to Claremont for 41 years.
We will never go there again, along with all of our other freinds.
I hope the city council took all of this into consideration when adopting this new policy.

WHAT A BUNCTH OF JERKS !!!!!!!!!!
COWABUNGA

Whittier, CA

#10 Nov 26, 2010
I mean BUNCH, sorry
WanttoleaveCL

Cambridge, MA

#11 Nov 26, 2010
with all the problems facing the city they spend their time on this nonsense. Other than Sprouts I make it a point to shop outside of Claremont because of this type of C#!# from our leaders. Thankfully La Verne and other surrounding cities are stepping up and giving us Claremont residents local options.
Tired Taxpayer

Ojai, CA

#12 Nov 26, 2010
With the economy the way it is, is this the highest priority item for city hall to be working on?
montclair

Whittier, CA

#13 Nov 27, 2010
I havent smoked for about 2 years and I dont plan to any time soon. But just because I choose this Im not going to prohibit the freedom of choice to somebody who wants to smoke.
Im just saying

Claremont, CA

#14 Nov 27, 2010
Claremont City Council, dealing with yet another of David Allen's "made up problems" on the council agenda! What's next, a grease, fats,and oil disposal ordinance?
cargirl

Upland, CA

#15 Nov 27, 2010
It's really too bad that this was a priority on their agenda. WHY not worry about creating jobs, but then again I guess as always they are just looking for a way to make more money off the people who smoke!! JACKS!!!!
Guest

Sherman Oaks, CA

#16 Nov 27, 2010
They already have a way to get rid of fat. Linda Elderkin is not running for re-election. Yao is out. Dump the other 2 and a half losers, and they might stand a chance. Sammy boy and Corey being the 2 full losers. The new guy is only half a waste of time.

So far...
Dare

Los Angeles, CA

#17 Nov 27, 2010
willy wrote:
When I first saw the dept of healths claim about a person dying every 6.5 seconds from smoking related issues, I contacted them to see how they came up with those stats. After some time, the only response is that they obtained that stat from the WHO. I made several attempts to contact WHO and ask them the same question, and as of yet they have failed to respond. I can't help wondering if these claims are a sham just like we learned about the global warming fiasco when they got caught cooking the books. I have doubts about the levels that these stats claim, and no, I don't smoke cigarettes. Smoking no doubt is responsible to some medical issues, but when these reporting agencies pass the buck or fail to show how they came up with their stats, it seems that they have something to hide. All it would take for me is to list the causes of death for patients, the names of the hospitals where they died, and when they died for say about a year period. This information does not violate Patient Privacy, because no names would be listed. So until then, these adds will be treated by me as just another bad infomercial unsupported by facts.
It's probably one of those smoke and mirrors stats. The probably consider every death of a smoker, that is not murder or accidental, and even some of those if a connection can be associated. I would not doubt if a 95 year old mand, died in his sleep, and as a smoker for 80 yaes. That would be counted as part of the every 6.5 seconds.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Claremont Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 1 hr Chosen Traveler 35,804
News State to close Chino youth authority facility (Aug '09) 23 hr Lontae Sims 39
Glendora planning commision destroys trailer park (Apr '14) Mon Glenora going Gh... 22
News Beltran gets life sentence (Apr '09) Mon Kat 444
tragedy el monte high (Apr '06) Mon Brent F 106
Most racists city in California (Sep '12) Mon Brent F 122
News : Woman high on drugs breaks into home in Runni... (Aug '08) Sun No Surprise 29

Claremont Jobs

Personal Finance

Claremont Mortgages