Comments on: Senate votes to close smoking loopholes

By: California stomps on personal freedom, says study | Political Blotter

California stomps on personal freedom, says study | Political Blotter — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 17:16:10 +0000

[...] Senate votes to close smoking loopholes [...]

By: Elwood

Elwood — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 05:44:19 +0000

@ Rosa

Don’t give him any ideas.

He can spawn enough idiotic schemes all by himself.

By: rosa

rosa — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 04:12:45 +0000

While they’re at it, can they also ban talking on cellphones except in the privacy of a single family home? Noise pollution sucks. Hey! Now that the WHO has said cellphones might cause brain cancer, there’s actually a medical reason to ban cellphone use! Howzabout it, Mr. DeSaulnier?

By: Dr. Steve

Dr. Steve — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 01:09:32 +0000

These laws are self-enforcing for the most part, and over time help folks to quit and avoid disease,disability, and early death. There are fewer widows and orphans and health-related bankruptcies–what’s not to like unless you are a tobacco dealer.

By: Wendy Lack

Wendy Lack — Sun, 05 Jun 2011 09:00:33 +0000

@ John W., Lisa, et. al.

Don’t get me wrong. I, too, grew up with smoking parents and, today, detest smoke.

Where we differ is that I value personal freedom more than I hate smoking; and am perfectly OK voting with my feet and not frequenting smoky businesses (or permitting smoking in my home).

More laws means more lawsuits and enforcement costs — both of which we can do without in CA.

By: John W

John W — Sun, 05 Jun 2011 07:39:48 +0000

Like Lisa the nanny, I grew up in a house where one parent smoked three packs a day. It was great that Mom saved all those Raleigh cigarette coupons that were occasionally redeemed for stuff for the family. We probably actually encouraged her to smoke more, so that we could get more stuff. Growing up with it, I didn’t think much about it. And I spent a number of years doing business travel on planes with those smoking and non-smoking sections (what a joke). But, now, second-hand smoke literally gives me a headache (and I detect it before I actually see the person(s) smoking); so it’s not imaginary. I can also smell it in my clothes when I get home. So, while I can’t forgive DeSaulnier for his role in sending Contra Costa on it’s way to bankruptcy while a supervisor and for other deeds as a legislator, I support him on this.

By: Greg D.

Greg D. — Sat, 04 Jun 2011 21:26:21 +0000

Edi, You describe my position exactly – I disagree with banning smoking ANYWHERE. People should be free to decide which businesses they want to patronize, and part of that decision is whether they allow smoking or not. The statists who have been trying to ban smoking for decades were relatively unsuccessful until the dubious claims of second-hand smoke or so called “passive smoking” were made. I say dubious because despite the primary claim that second hand smoke is the 3rd leading cause of preventable death is based on a study that even the World Health Organization, no friend of conservatives there, has condemned as faulty science. If it weren’t for the sway the promoters of the second hand smoke folks have over the progressives, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

By: Elwood

Elwood — Sat, 04 Jun 2011 19:29:05 +0000

@ Wendy

One of my doctors told me:

“Life is a sexually transmitted terminal disease.”

By: EdiBirsan

EdiBirsan — Sat, 04 Jun 2011 15:06:43 +0000

It astounds me that we have not come up with a smokeless cigarette.
Banning smoking would cause a drop in revenue and a massive increase in crime.
Considering that we have not been able to stop smoking in prisons when it is banned -the ultimate police state- the prospects of a full ban working is nil.

Continued education, finding the right tax penalty price vs black market activities vs deterrence as a matrix is the best weapon against it. While public restrictions can be a pain and rile the civil rights bone in some’s bodies, it does have a function in the over all goal of reducing smoking. Now if you disagree with the goal that is displayed acted on, that is a whole different issue.

By: EC Citizen

EC Citizen — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 17:54:33 +0000

These types of Bills only serve to glorify the author. The result is a mirage of laws that only consume paper and clog the system down further. For every law passed there should be a law repealed. Maybe even two laws repealed with the amount of nonsense laws that exist.

Why does this guy keep getting elected ?