South Pasadena takes another step against public smoking

Full story: Pasadena Star-News

Randy, who didn't wish to give his last name, talks to a friend as they smoke cigarettes at Kaldi coffee shop on El Centro Street in South Pasadena Wednesday September 1, 2010.

Comments (Page 2)

Showing posts 21 - 38 of38
|
next page >
Go to last page| Jump to page:
----abc

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Sep 2, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Sean wrote:
I've lived in So. Pas for almost 7 years now, in a 4-plex, and I'm a smoker. Some of my neighbors over the years have been smokers. Some of them not. We have this thing 'communication' and 'courtesy' for our neighborly lifestyles, and I've always been more than willing to smoke as far away from non-smokers as possible, just out of common respect and courtesy. Never has it been a problem.
Unfortunately, whoever is passing these laws, has no respect for individual freedom, or courtesy towards people who are unfortunate enough to be addicted to tobacco.
What about the equestrians who walk along the streets and plop horse dung? What about all these shady residential asian brothels running under your noses? Seriously... wake up.
That is all it takes ! Plain COMMON SENSE ! Thank you. I have never smoked because that was MY FREEDOM OF choice just as the smokers should have.
LDT

Baldwin Park, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Sep 2, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mufon wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no idea what you just wrote, but so far, it's the funniest post of the day.
I was describing the Nanny Law maker state of mind and Justdave was taking a huge risk by insinuating " Tar and Feathering " the Nanny Gestapo doesn't allow or make room for opposition ... Basically a Nanny Mama is quaking in her Uggs ... She smells the roofers applying tar two blocks away and notices a single feather floating through air ... In the Nanny Law loving self important mind set it will be assumed infiltrators have entered the zone and a hate crime is in the planning .
LDT

Baldwin Park, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Sep 2, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

annonymus wrote:
I can see several lawsuits already in the making, I am not a smoker but everyone has the right to smoke in the convience of there own place even if it is an apartment complex, the funny thing is that they aren't putting these rules in effect for legal pot smokers. What is next banning kids from buying ice cream because it can cause obesity and diabetes?
You have a BINGO !!!!
Den A Citizen

Woodland Hills, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Sep 2, 2010
 
Randy took up half my paper - really? he was more important than the economy or the war?????
Nick Naylor

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Sep 3, 2010
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Russman626 wrote:
I condemn these attempts to take away our freedoms. Smoking is a freedom that Americans should have every right to indulge in.
News Flash: The anti smoking campaigns work!...more people quit every day. But do we really want to legislate smoking and risk abusing the U.S. Constitution?
Peer pressure on smoking? Fine...but irritating to smokers!
Laws? It reduces us to a totalitarian society.
These arguments are hilarious. The city is not trying to legislate morality or behavior -- it's certainly not trying to prohibit smoking by individuals in their own homes. This ban only applies to common areas of multi-family dwellings; its purpose is protecting others from the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. Maybe you know better, and maybe you can find some outlier contrary opinions promoted by doctrinaire libertarians or the tobacco industry, but the causal connection between passive ("second-hand") smoking and health risks is accepted by nearly every major medical and scientific organization, including:

* The World Health Organization
* The U.S. National Institutes of Health
* The Centers for Disease Control
* The United States Surgeon General
* The U.S. National Cancer Institute
* The United States Environmental Protection Agency
* The California Environmental Protection Agency
* The American Heart Association, American Lung Association, and American Cancer Society
* The American Medical Association
* The American Academy of Pediatrics

You may have the freedom to smoke, but why should anyone have the "freedom" to force others to inhale toxins? If you can find a cigarette that does not produce any harmful smoke, I would completely agree with you.

You have the freedom to get drunk at home. Therefore, why not insist on the right to drive drunk?
Ridiculous Ordinance

Encino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
Sep 5, 2010
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Stop making these unbelievable rules and regulations.

South Pasadena needs some freedom.
I don't smoke.
I don't like smoke.

But you council members don't have the right to infringe on my freedom to smoke.
Winston

South Pasadena, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
Sep 5, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

Ridiculous Ordinance wrote:
Stop making these unbelievable rules and regulations.
South Pasadena needs some freedom.
I don't smoke.
I don't like smoke.
But you council members don't have the right to infringe on my freedom to smoke.
Residents should have the freedom to blast polka music at high volumes at 3:00 a.m. every single night, even if it keeps their neighbors from sleeping.

Residents should have the freedom to operate pig farms in their backyards, even if the odors nauseate their neighbors and the effluent poisons their property.

And residents should have the freedom to smoke, whenever and wherever they want, even if the toxic smoke particles they generate must be inhaled by others.

Right?
LOL

Encino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
Sep 5, 2010
 

Judged:

1

Right.

That is what I said in my post.

Your ability to comprehend is just fantastic.
You must be a road scholar.

If someone is blasting music it is clearly obnoxious.
But we don't need laws.
It is common courtesy.

We don't need a rule, law, & regulation for everything.
Winston wrote:
<quoted text>
Residents should have the freedom to blast polka music at high volumes at 3:00 a.m. every single night, even if it keeps their neighbors from sleeping.
Residents should have the freedom to operate pig farms in their backyards, even if the odors nauseate their neighbors and the effluent poisons their property.
And residents should have the freedom to smoke, whenever and wherever they want, even if the toxic smoke particles they generate must be inhaled by others.
Right?
Herman Silvers

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
Sep 5, 2010
 

Judged:

1

Russman626 wrote:
I condemn these attempts to take away our freedoms. Smoking is a freedom that Americans should have every right to indulge in.
News Flash: The anti smoking campaigns work!...more people quit every day. But do we really want to legislate smoking and risk abusing the U.S. Constitution?
Peer pressure on smoking? Fine...but irritating to smokers!
Laws? It reduces us to a totalitarian society.
Okay smarty pants. The laws outlawing indoor smoking in public have been responsible for marginalizing smokers and now less people smoke.
Herman Silvers

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30
Sep 5, 2010
 
LOL wrote:
Right.
That is what I said in my post.
Your ability to comprehend is just fantastic.
You must be a road scholar.
If someone is blasting music it is clearly obnoxious.
But we don't need laws.
It is common courtesy.
We don't need a rule, law, & regulation for everything.
<quoted text>
The road scholar is you??? HUH??? HaHaHaHaHa! Educated person, it is "RHODES Scholar," named for the scholarship fund that sends the brightest students to Oxford University. NOT ROAD scholar!!! HaHaHa
Herman Silvers

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31
Sep 5, 2010
 

Judged:

1

Ridiculous Ordinance wrote:
Stop making these unbelievable rules and regulations.
South Pasadena needs some freedom.
I don't smoke.
I don't like smoke.
But you council members don't have the right to infringe on my freedom to smoke.
Go back to Encino and light up a smoke.
LDT

Baldwin Park, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32
Sep 7, 2010
 
Nick Naylor wrote:
<quoted text>
These arguments are hilarious. The city is not trying to legislate morality or behavior -- it's certainly not trying to prohibit smoking by individuals in their own homes. This ban only applies to common areas of multi-family dwellings; its purpose is protecting others from the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. Maybe you know better, and maybe you can find some outlier contrary opinions promoted by doctrinaire libertarians or the tobacco industry, but the causal connection between passive ("second-hand") smoking and health risks is accepted by nearly every major medical and scientific organization, including:
* The World Health Organization
* The U.S. National Institutes of Health
* The Centers for Disease Control
* The United States Surgeon General
* The U.S. National Cancer Institute
* The United States Environmental Protection Agency
* The California Environmental Protection Agency
* The American Heart Association, American Lung Association, and American Cancer Society
* The American Medical Association
* The American Academy of Pediatrics
You may have the freedom to smoke, but why should anyone have the "freedom" to force others to inhale toxins? If you can find a cigarette that does not produce any harmful smoke, I would completely agree with you.
You have the freedom to get drunk at home. Therefore, why not insist on the right to drive drunk?
I think there should be a law in regards to what clean air loving bike riders wear ... Fanny packs,and those just cause they come in your size does NOT make you look like Lance Armstrong shorts ... that's offensive .
LDT

Baldwin Park, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33
Sep 7, 2010
 

Judged:

1

Winston wrote:
<quoted text>
Residents should have the freedom to blast polka music at high volumes at 3:00 a.m. every single night, even if it keeps their neighbors from sleeping.
Residents should have the freedom to operate pig farms in their backyards, even if the odors nauseate their neighbors and the effluent poisons their property.
And residents should have the freedom to smoke, whenever and wherever they want, even if the toxic smoke particles they generate must be inhaled by others.
Right?
Winston like many in South Pasadena AKA Mayberry you don't get out often do you ?
In areas outside your little Utopia there are lot's of people that have farm animals horses,goats,pigs and chickens and it happens in DOWNTOWN L.A. all along areas that are off the main streets and hidden away in back lots ... When you try to find out about issues regarding this matter you receive a tolerant answer of "It's there culture what do you want me to do ? " In my mind it means it's very common .
As for the Polka music switch it to Mariachi ... Get out of the Nanny bubble and become enlightened .
UR Flawed Claude

Nashville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34
Sep 9, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

Russman626 wrote:
I condemn these attempts to take away our freedoms. Smoking is a freedom that Americans should have every right to indulge in.
News Flash: The anti smoking campaigns work!...more people quit every day. But do we really want to legislate smoking and risk abusing the U.S. Constitution?
Peer pressure on smoking? Fine...but irritating to smokers!
Laws? It reduces us to a totalitarian society.
Just wait a minute. Removing smoking from an area results in a net gain in freedoms. When smoking is permitted in the apartments et al, residents are free to choose whether to be active or passive smokers. When smoking is no longer permitted, residents will be free to choose whether to be active smokers, passive smokers, or NONsmokers. Net gain of one for freedom.
Amused

Nashville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35
Sep 9, 2010
 

Judged:

1

Just Dave wrote:
What sort of a nanny world are we creating? Are we children, living under the ever-watchful eye and powerful hands of Daddy?
Oh, so you are of the opinion that three-year-olds should be left alone to beat on their six-month-old siblings?
Amused

Nashville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36
Sep 9, 2010
 
RhythmMAN wrote:
<quoted text>
PMSL
Philip Morris Sucks Loudly?
UR Flawed Claude

Nashville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37
Sep 9, 2010
 

Judged:

1

LOL wrote:
Right.
That is what I said in my post.
Your ability to comprehend is just fantastic.
You must be a road scholar.
If someone is blasting music it is clearly obnoxious.
But we don't need laws.
It is common courtesy.
We don't need a rule, law, & regulation for everything.
<quoted text>
When it comes to regulating the behavior of addicts regarding the substance of their abuse, we need something far stronger.
True Freedom

Valencia, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39
Sep 9, 2010
 
An even increased amount of litter is one of the unintended consequences of an ordinance like this.

In Pasadena, ashtrays were removed, yet smokers still smoked and continue the trend of being too lazy to search out a trash can...

so the butts just land on the ground... all over the ground... everywhere.

I won't make a judgment about the NO SMOKING law in this post, but I want our city's to STRICTLY ENFORCE no littering laws.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 21 - 38 of38
|
next page >
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••

South Pasadena News Video

•••
•••

South Pasadena Jobs

•••
•••
•••

South Pasadena People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••