RSS
December 15, 2007
When a Smoke Break Breaks the Law
An article from the Daily News takes a look at the toll the 6-month old smoking ban in Burbank is taking on its local workers, most of whom are flummoxed by the fact that a smoke break means breaking the law. According to the article, one local businessman "Barry Kessler, 48, owner of a downtown jewelry store bearing his family name, has led the charge against the anti-smoking ordinance. In the coming weeks he plans to bring together business owners and petition the council to ease up on smokers."
The harsh anti-smoking laws mean that a fine of $200 is imposed for the first offense, and up to $380 for a second, typically. The Daily News explains:
The ordinance was adopted by a 3-2 vote of the council in March, and it went into effect in May. Except for a few designated areas, it bans smoking anywhere downtown, from Burbank Boulevard to Angeleno Avenue, and from First to Third streets.But it's not just the employees who are inconvenienced, it's the patrons, too. Many Downtown Burbank workers fear that the ban is driving away customers who are turned off by the ban or who receive a citation and then decide not to return to the area again because of the hassle.In the rest of the city, the ordinance bans smoking in city parks and on sidewalks, and 20-feet from businesses. The special restrictions apply to downtown because the 20-foot rule covers most of the area.
Other neighboring cities and regions, like Santa Monica, Calabasas, and Beverly Hills, have also put tough anti-smoking laws into action in recent months. Furthermore, as this About.com article states, "the Los Angeles City Council unanimously passed a law that will ban smoking in all City parks in addition to the ban already in effect at all City beaches. As of September 8, 2007, there will be a $250 fine for smoking or littering cigarette butts at any LA park or beach. There will still be a few areas at Griffith Park where smoking is still allowed, including designated areas at the Zoo, the Autry National Center and the golf course." This came about following the devastating fires in Griffith Park this summer.
So the question remains, what are smokers to do when the law says they can't smoke? Are their rights being violated, or are the rules encouraging people to quit their harmful habits? What do you think about anti-smoking laws?
Photo by S!zα via Flickr
| 
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
[ report this ]
I think it's BS, but then again I'm a smoker. I'm all for not letting people smoke near doorways of business (gag!), but this is getting ridiculous. And this is the first I'm even hearing of the ban in Burbank. No wonder I couldn't figure out what happened to all the ashtrays on trashcans. Talk about annoying.
But I just looked up the area on a map...geez...that's every place in Burbank I go to. From the Ikea to the bookstore...I don't know that I'd be willing to go back knowing this law and with a $200 first time ticket...I don't know. I spend probably about $5 - $7K a year just in that area alone between books, food and furniture. I can get the furniture else where. I'll definitely miss my Armenian restuarant on San Fernando and walking down to the bookstore after a meal. But instead of dawdling and taking my time (spending money), I'll be more likely to go get what I want/need and leave.
[ report this ]
Just to be clear, the ordinances are designed to protect the rights of other people who shouldn't have to be subjected to the smell (that can fill up a surprisingly large area), the stink that clings to their clothing, or the chemicals. You totally have the right to ingest whatever you want, but you can't force that on others --and of course you have no right to ruin a public area for anyone who happens to be in it. In private businesses, the employees have the right to work in an environment that doesn't poison them. Obviously it wouldn't be right if some chemical factory boss said "well, yeah, we don't take any precautions against the poisonous fumes, but you don't have to work here, so you can quit if you want?"
As far as the inconvenience goes, well, everyone has the right to a safe, clean, non-poisoned environment. I mean, it's inconvenient to me that I can't go around shitting wherever I want, but hey, I guess other people have the right to go about their day without putting up with my stinky, hazardous fecal matter. I do miss the good old days when it was cool to take a big, fat dump all over a bar, though I sure don't miss those uptight servers who were always whining about the smell and the bacteria, blah, blah. Shitting feels good, yo! Don't take away my rights!
(Hey, I got an idea ... someone should sell the city of Santa Monica some special stalls where smokers can go when they can't stand the urge anymore.)
I was going to say that it would be unfair to close off a whole park to smokers, because who cares if someone lights up by themselves in an open space with nobody around? But then I realized that it would be next to impossible to enforce a distance-based ban in a park or on a beach -- plus, those places can be pretty windy, so you'd be surprised how far the stink travels. I don't see why there couldn't be a special area set off for smokers, though, as long as it had a large buffer zone around it so everything would dissipate before it reached anyone else.
[ report this ]
Gosh, I hope you feel the same way about the cars sitting in front of you on the highway, Bro. Or those big rigs who drive through town spraying noxious fumes (i.e. exhaust) out of their tailpipes. The chemicals used to make the roads have been proven to be cancerous; care to take those industries to task?
Naturally, it would be nice to get some real factual evidence that second hand smoke actually causes cancer, as opposed to, say, smog and airborne chemicals not cigarette related. I can believe you don't like the smell of smoke; neither do I. But I don't think that the outside world is at fault for my mere mortality. We all start dying when we're born, you know. Some folks are more susceptible to the effects of an outside world than others. You get over it by realizing there is a bigger picture than what we all go through on this planet.
The hysteria over secondhand smoke is historically traced back to the Nazis. It was Hitler who commissioned his scientists to make a case out of smoking, and they in turn coined the term "passive smoking". Here is a pretty good link:
http://www.davehitt.com/nov02/nicotine.html
Additionally, it is interesting that Albert Einstein, during his stint at Princeton, would often (if not always) smoke a pipe in class, thereby exposing the best and brightest to second hand smoke while he lectured.
Hmmm, Hitler vs. Einstein. As always, I'm gonna have to side with the Allies on this one.
[ report this ]
Ok, I've never had the urge to publicly poo.
But I am enjoying a nice smoke and a cup of coffee right now, and no one seems to mind.
[ report this ]
AsherBaruch makes the good point that there is little actual scientific studies of second-hand smoke. Most of these are statistical studies with numbers that run all over the place. My personal favorite: The World Health Organization report which showed that second-hand smoke is actually good for kids.
It's important to point out that the important part of any "poison" is the dosage. Fluoride is a poison and we put that in water. We all know that too much alcohol will kill you. And, personally, I have no problem believing that if you spend 30 years caring for a loved one who smokes 3 packs a day, you'll probably develop a "smoking related illness" as my former landlady did.
The question is, of course, if you walk through my second-hand smoke on the way out of a building, what is your risk of developing a smoking related illness? The statistical studies are mum on those points.
So misterseven's "safe, clean, non-poisoned environment" argument is dubious at best. There is no such thing in any modern city--smoking or no.
Another issue is the litter. We have anti-littering ordinances already. Should we ban food and drink on the beach as well, since people leave their bottles and cans around?
Finally, the smell. Perhaps we should ban perfumes and colognes, too. What about people who don't bathe regularly? Should we ban the homeless from the park because they smell? I rode the LACBC ride back in June and there were a few people who were pretty ripe afterwards. I suppose we should ban any physical exercise because people walking past might be offended by the smell of sweat.
[ report this ]
As a former smoker I do feel there should be areas of exceptions in this case. Like within 10 feet of a "Burbank-authorized" ashtray or similar. I do generally support what these cities are doing, not because of 2nd-hand smoke risks, but because I am sick and tired of watching almost every smoker I see throw their butt on the ground. That is called littering whether you do it while walking or driving down the freeway.
[ report this ]
the 2nd hand smoke hype of the early 90s was proven to be a falsified report, and was overturned by an supreme court judge for being unconstitutional
need we say more?
[ report this ]
I don't like smoke. Keep it away from me.