Carlsbad bans smoking at all its beac...

Carlsbad bans smoking at all its beaches, parks

There are 32 comments on the www.signonsandiego.com story from Jul 16, 2008, titled Carlsbad bans smoking at all its beaches, parks. In it, www.signonsandiego.com reports that:

Editor's Challenge: Can somebody please explain to me how outdoor smoking is a health hazard?

The Carlsbad City Council voted last night to ban smoking on its beaches and in its parks, becoming the last of the county's oceanfront cities to adopt such a prohibition.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.signonsandiego.com.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
anti addiction

AOL

#1 Jul 16, 2008
No smoking ANYWHERE on this county's beaches. The rest of the country needs to follow suit.
harleyrider1978

Scottsville, KY

#2 Jul 16, 2008
anti addiction wrote:
No smoking ANYWHERE on this county's beaches. The rest of the country needs to follow suit.
You are promoting socialism with these draconian anti-freedom laws. you will indeed be sorry.
anti addiction

AOL

#3 Jul 16, 2008
harleyrider1978 wrote:
<quoted text> You are promoting socialism with these draconian anti-freedom laws. you will indeed be sorry.
No. Just promoting

"Harleyrider1978, we don't want you and your kind here. Keep on rolling."

“Hello”

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#4 Jul 16, 2008
Yeah!!!Smokefree rocks!!And smokefree parents like me rock too :)
harleyrider1978

Scottsville, KY

#5 Jul 16, 2008
anti addiction wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Just promoting
"Harleyrider1978, we don't want you and your kind here. Keep on rolling."
Air quality test results by Johns Hopkins
Town can't ban smoking, attorney says
By Prentiss Findlay (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Thursday, June 26, 2008

The attorney's claim actually has more validity than you know:

Air quality test results by Johns Hopkins University, the American Cancer Society, a Minnesota Environmental Health Department, and various researchers whose testing and report was 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:

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com

All nullify the argument that secondhand smoke is a workplace health hazard.
Especially since federal OSHA regulations trump, or pre-empt, state smoking ban laws which are not based on scientific air quality test results.
Mark Wernimont
Watertown, MN.
US Supreme court decision 1992 NEVER OVERTURNED...

A U.S. Supreme court decision during the early 1970's ((Lloyd Corp v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551 (1992)) said a place of business does not become public property because the public is invited in.

So, by that same reasoning. A restaurant or bar is not public property. We need to support small business and stop regulating them out of business.
harleyrider1978

Scottsville, KY

#6 Jul 16, 2008
We have a national mail out going on to let all the legislators around the country know the facts about second hand smoke..........the lies of the antis are being unravelled.
just candid

AOL

#7 Jul 16, 2008
Their parks and beaches should have fewer scumbags and other social undesirables hanging around. Smokers with class will understand the need for keeping the area smoke free and have no problem with the new restrictions.
anti addiction

AOL

#8 Jul 16, 2008
harleyrider1978 wrote:
We have a national mail out going on to let all the legislators around the country know the facts about second hand smoke..........the lies of the antis are being unravelled.
Uh, yeah. I can see that.

I guess that is why there are new smoking bans EVERY day now.

“12oz libertarian”

Since: Dec 07

chi-town 'Inner City'

#9 Jul 16, 2008
“However, outdoor smoking bans, such as I've heard about on many California beaches and a recent law passed by the Beverly Hills City Council to ban smoking in all outdoor eating areas, are just plain stupid and wrong-headed, at least if the rationale is to prevent SHS-caused health problems in the population. This is particularly true since such bans apply to sidewalk cafes, where, in my experience, the exhaust fumes from passing traffic tend to overwhelm any smoke that comes from cigarettes.”

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/07/blo...

Smoker?
Tobacco lackey?
Clueless idiot?

“I'd point out that the tobacco industry managed to try to deny and obfuscate for decades over the very real and now indisputable risk of health problems from smoking.”

Nah just a reasonable DOCTOR….

“Why hide the truth?”

Since: Jun 08

St. Croix Falls, WI

#10 Jul 16, 2008
None of you hard-liners have answered the question at hand.

Prove that somebody smoking outdoors has an adverse affect on somebody else's health and warrants legislative action to control it.

Simple. Prove it.
fluteman greg

Palo Alto, CA

#11 Jul 16, 2008
arclightzero wrote:
None of you hard-liners have answered the question at hand.
Prove that somebody smoking outdoors has an adverse affect on somebody else's health and warrants legislative action to control it.
Simple. Prove it.
Come on... they can't even prove that when the smoking is on the inside, let alone the outside.
anti addiction

AOL

#12 Jul 16, 2008
arclightzero wrote:
None of you hard-liners have answered the question at hand.
Prove that somebody smoking outdoors has an adverse affect on somebody else's health and warrants legislative action to control it.
Simple. Prove it.
We have an outdoor smoking ban. Nothing else is needed. Find a different beach.

“12oz libertarian”

Since: Dec 07

chi-town 'Inner City'

#13 Jul 16, 2008
anti addiction wrote:
We have an outdoor smoking ban. Nothing else is needed. Find a different beach.
We?
Oh, so you're from Carlsbad CA, huh...
We'll keep that in mind.

“Why hide the truth?”

Since: Jun 08

St. Croix Falls, WI

#14 Jul 16, 2008
anti addiction wrote:
<quoted text>
We have an outdoor smoking ban. Nothing else is needed. Find a different beach.
So, let me see if I get this straight... You got your way so nothing else matters?

Neat. You sure are a shining beacon of what it means to be an American these days... Screw the rest of ya'll, I get my way so nya nya!
anti addiction

AOL

#15 Jul 16, 2008
arclightzero wrote:
<quoted text>
So, let me see if I get this straight... You got your way so nothing else matters?
Neat. You sure are a shining beacon of what it means to be an American these days... Screw the rest of ya'll, I get my way so nya nya!
It does not matter WHAT research I show you, you will not believe it. So, continue believing what you want because everybody else believes that SHS is bad for you.
fluteman greg

Palo Alto, CA

#16 Jul 16, 2008
anti addiction wrote:
<quoted text>
It does not matter WHAT research I show you, you will not believe it. So, continue believing what you want because everybody else believes that SHS is bad for you.
Then avoid places where smoking is permitted. Duh! That's what non-smokers have been doing. Why do antis struggle so much with this concept? If you want to go out for a drink but don't want to be around SHS, then find a watering hole that is non-smoking INSTEAD of entering a bar that permits smoking and then start whining.

“12oz libertarian”

Since: Dec 07

chi-town 'Inner City'

#17 Jul 16, 2008
anti addiction wrote:
<quoted text>
It does not matter WHAT research I show you, you will not believe it. So, continue believing what you want because everybody else believes that SHS is bad for you.
So far you haven't posted ANY research, simply commented on articles that you didn't read or didn't understand.
If that's a sign of SHS effects on the brain, we'll consider it a single anectdotal example.
If your lack of reading skills are caused by another environmental exposure, please share.

Or are you misrepresenting the articles on purpose?
harleyrider1978

Scottsville, KY

#18 Jul 16, 2008
arclightzero wrote:
None of you hard-liners have answered the question at hand.
Prove that somebody smoking outdoors has an adverse affect on somebody else's health and warrants legislative action to control it.
Simple. Prove it.
Prove that somebody smoking indoors has an adverse affect on somebody else's health and warrants legislative action to control it.
Simple. Prove it. they cant,thats why they have taken the last 40 years to create hatred towards smokers..........then when they think they have suceeded push for total prohiition.its not healt it never was its social control......

“Why hide the truth?”

Since: Jun 08

St. Croix Falls, WI

#19 Jul 16, 2008
anti addiction wrote:
<quoted text>
It does not matter WHAT research I show you, you will not believe it. So, continue believing what you want because everybody else believes that SHS is bad for you.
You can show me research. I read everything that comes across my desk. I actually have a hard copy of the surgeon general's report sitting on one of my shelfs at home. It's par for the course considering I run a smokers rights nonprofit. However, I have never seen evidence that supports either argument, so with that in mind I err on the side of rights, not restrictions.

I'm not going to say that SHS is healthy. I'm not going to say it's toxic either. I have studied tox reports of all sorts of different substances, many of which are in SHS, and on average the toxins in SHS are almost non existent compared to the background chemical composition in outdoor air. So to claim that SHS is harming you outdoors is a complete fallacy. Every time a car drives past you're exposed to doses of the same chemicals in much higher doses than even if you were to sit in a smoke-filled bar and inhale deeply. I mean, do you know what it is that you're saying? Do you know what the chemicals are that you're fighting against? Most, if not all, are naturally occurring natural chemicals that can be found in all sorts of common places. Burning ANYTHING that gives off smoke in some form releases certain chemicals that are nearly standard - especially where burning natural materials (i.e. plants, trees etc) are concerned.

So for you to stand there and preach about data and research and how you're not going to change my mind blah blah blah. Who's kidding who here?

“Why hide the truth?”

Since: Jun 08

St. Croix Falls, WI

#20 Jul 16, 2008
And for those who are willing to read a report that wasn't sponsored by "big tobacco" or "big pharma" or "big cancer" or "big lung" ... Here's a report that I wrote regarding toxicity and health where SHS is concerned:

http://banthebanwisconsin.com/Documents/healt...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

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.

Union University Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Volunteers turn bags to beds for the homeless Nov 18 Guest 6
News How Trump is highlighting divisions among South... Jun '17 Mothra 167
News How Trump is highlighting divisions among South... Jun '17 Voltaire 40
News Union students donate T-shirts to Denmarka (Jan '17) Jan '17 nattie66 1
News Gigi's Cupcakes sets opening date (Mar '15) Oct '16 Guest 31
News Sorority applauds literacy, equality, education (Mar '16) Mar '16 Born in Blood 4
News Longevity definitely has a place in Baltimore (May '15) May '15 Carla 1
More from around the web