LAist: LAist Inbox: $200 Ticket for Smoking on a Burbank Sidewalk?

jupiter1969

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 12:30:20 -0800

I'm sure this list is now too long for anyone to see my message, but I felt compelled to post, as I didn't see anyone explain why such a ban is good, other than "let's get the smokers" or "let's make money on tickets"! Smoking in an outdoor area is a good theory, unless you're the poor soul who's stuck downwind of some smoker and there's nowhere for you to go to get away from it (say if you're in the middle of a meal or waiting for your bus). Smoking near a door or window means smoke can, and often does, flow indoors (where it shouldn't be) through that opening. Even if that opening isn't open at the moment, if someone does decide to open a door or window just when there's a smoker outside (to leave a store or whatever), that smoke is all sucked in by the rush of air. 20 feet away is a reasonable amount of space to negate that vortex action. So it really is reasonable, and there are signs posted all over the place, usually on the actual doors of businesses. "No smoking within 20 feet" is a pretty clear message.

Zach Behrens

Sat, 26 Apr 2008 11:15:26 -0800

Hey guys, check this out about an actor getting away with smoking in Burbank: http://laist.com/2008/04/26/smoking_in_burb.php

WAMadden4

Sat, 26 Apr 2008 06:57:16 -0800

USA should just do without cigarettes and ban the stupid things... who needs em? all they do is harm to the American people and help line politicians pocketbooks through medical bills. I know its a dream but its ridiculous that they still exist... all you smokers stop bitching and stop smoking because all youre doing is killing yourself... Might as well just take a gun to your head now and save yourself thousands of dollars.... between smoking and that option there is no difference...

paulk

Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:13:52 -0800

My point stands just fine if you believe in representative government, i.e., that we elect candidates in part for their judgment.

cgabriel

Thu, 24 Apr 2008 02:20:50 -0800

actually i do wear a USA flag pin on my lapel... and yes I smoke on the street to show gratitude to our troops, if i was smoking a cigarette on the street in baghdad, they would openly stone me.

Hindinwood

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:31:42 -0800

Ummm....that was a "rhetorical question" paulk. It's a literary device sometimes used when making an argument. Unless the council members were elected with a full knowledge of their stance on smoking, your point doesn't really stand.

paulk

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:44:06 -0800

"So who gets to say what is and isn't appropriate based on those criteria?" Ummm....the Burbank City Council.

Hindinwood

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:03:21 -0800

Cars are bad for the environment, why aren't they illegal? They also smell bad, make a lot of noise, and kill people. What about meat? Raising livestock creates insane amounts of pollution, which is a little harder to escape than a tiny cloud of cigarette smoke. And, I think it's disgusting when people eat it, and when I have to smell it cooking (that's actually not true, I loooove the smell of bbq, but for the sake of arguement). Hmmmm. So who gets to say what is and isn't appropriate based on those criteria? Doesn't really seem fair to me.

paulk

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:39:02 -0800

We definitely can't call our country "free" if you can't smoke on the sidewalk in Burbank, CA. Our forefathers went to war so we could smoke wherever the hell we wanted! If I can't blow my smoke in people's children's faces, we dishonor our troops! If I can't smoke the feminazi islamofascist pinko libtard gay agenda illegals will have won! Don't you wear a flag on your lapel?? USA! USA! USA!!

paulk

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:35:21 -0800

cgabriel, I knew you were a Republican. Thanks for the last 7 years. Really.

Burbankdragon

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 08:51:49 -0800

Burbank should make cell phones and blackberries illegal there is evidence that the microwaves they transmit with cause brain tumors. Imagine walking around in Burbank and getting a brain tumor. They won't do that because the council members probably all have a cell phone lol shame on them for giving people brain tumors.

Burbankdragon

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 08:47:35 -0800

Paulk writes "defintely all about getting their hands on some money. after all, how else will they pay the city counsel their exorbitant salaries of $13,000 each? wait a minute..." Paulk you never heard about the unseen money politicians squeeze out of the public funds ? How many of the Burbank employees make more than 100,000 a year ? Isn't it sweet that the city counsel only gets 13,000 a year and with that they are rolling in money ? They should share their secret to wealth maybe they just use coupons all the time. Burbank is 'pussified' and not a place to shop or visit end of the story.

cgabriel

Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:33:26 -0800

Its not about things going his way. Its about being a citizen of a country that calls itself "free". And not to mention the further "pussification" (my word, dont use without permission) of California and the USA in general. Thats why I vote republican, balls not ovaries.

bbkong

Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:45:00 -0800

Welcome to the Nanny State. If it's bad for you, it should be illegal, right? Let's have fines for wearing too much perfume, being overweight, DWU (driving while ugly) and not being in a nice cheerful mood. Those things are all bad for you too. I won't have any more trouble avoiding spending my money in Burbank than I did with Santa Monica. None. Zip. Seeya.

andytseng

Mon, 21 Apr 2008 02:02:57 -0800

The thing I got from reading this rant was that this guy is going to completely avoid going to a nearby section of town with a lot of frequented spots just because he can't smoke for an hour or two while he's there. Okay, he paid the chickens*** fine, and now he knows the law. What is this... some kind of protest? I'm pretty sure the city of Burbank doesn't give a flying f*** if he doesn't visit them anymore, because most reasonable smokers will just stop smoking by entrances. He's just inconveniencing himself with this little fit, and even though it's under the guise of principality, it's really just a baby whining because things didn't go his way.

iseulb

Sun, 20 Apr 2008 12:36:57 -0800

johnnye: I'm always considerate of people around me. In public, I only light up in a smoking area or an isolated area if there are no designated smoking areas and I don't treat the world as my ashtray. I know there are inconsiderate smokers out there but not all are.

worriedman

Sun, 20 Apr 2008 11:58:06 -0800

Porkchop sandwhiches

johnnye

Sun, 20 Apr 2008 11:29:38 -0800

Something tells me the ranter left some information out. Like the sign informing him not to smoke so close to the building which he ignored when he lit up and the cussing he did about 'stupid laws' etc. Btw, Smokers are ignorant and inconsiderate http://www.stopsmokingmoron.com/why-smokers-are-stupid-inconsiderate-dirtbags

BurbankLawyer

Sat, 19 Apr 2008 13:21:53 -0800

The city of Burbank has always prided itself on hard-lined law enforcement, including on "quality of life" issues such as the smoking ordinance. The upsides to the proactive city council and police enforcement include higher property values, lower serious crime rate, and responsive city services to its residents. There are always tradeoffs in life, right? Most persons charged with the Burbank Smoking Ordinance accept the offer by the prosecutor and judge to an infraction violation of the same charge and a fine of about $400. A misdemeanor violation of a local municipal code charge carries up to six months in jail and $1000 fine. If you are charged with violating this smoking ordinance, you are entitled to proceed with this charge as a misdemeanor, hire an attorney or obtain a public defender, and proceed to a jury trial. The Burbank Leader has provided good coverage on this subject, FYI.

paulk

Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:09:51 -0800

defintely all about getting their hands on some money. after all, how else will they pay the city counsel their exorbitant salaries of $13,000 each? wait a minute... http://www.ci.burbank.ca.us/finance/2005-06%20Adopted%20Budget/CityCouncil.pdf

Burbankdragon

Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:51:14 -0800

The stores in Burbank Downtown pretty much suck anyway but what do you expect of a place that has a theater, bars and a smoke shop as the number one places people go into. I wonder if the politicians even shop there oh I think I see them at the smoke shop all the time.

Burbankdragon

Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:42:53 -0800

This is all about one thing and one thing only and that's making money. Do you really tyhink the Burbank politicians care about your health? Get real they care about your money and that's the end of their story. If they cared about health maybe they would clean up the rats in downtown and maybe even get rid of all the alcohol in downtown. Oh wait they make lots of money on selling people they know will drive home drinks don't they. Those politicians don't care about you, me or anybody it's just about money for them so if people stop smoking they will just find another way to take your money.

cgabriel

Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:30:22 -0800

If you people are looking for a sheltered, perfect world, there is a great town called Celebration, Florida. Look it up, there is absolutly no smoking, swearing, fighting, or fellatio of any sort allowed. However, it is acceptable to blow your own head off.

cgabriel

Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:25:45 -0800

Im not the one bitching. I dont bother anyone around me, whether they are smoking cigarettes or sucking each others c0cks in the back lot of a del taco, if they are outside in the free air, they are entitled to do whatever the hell they want. I will live by that rule until they lock me up, and theyd be hardpressed to even do that. p.s. paulk, I dont even smoke.

paulk

Fri, 18 Apr 2008 11:10:18 -0800

cgabriel, your insults to christina will sound even funnier when you say them out of a hole in your throat.

christina

Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:06:52 -0800

cgabrial, you're just ignorant. really. my love for certain things does NOT mean i will, or do, overindulge. quit your bitching and deal with the fact that not everyone enjoys breathing in secondhand smoke. and to redmercury who said "With NBC leaving, Burbank will need all the help it can get." i wonder how much time you've actually spent in burbank. nbc is not the only studio in town.

cgabriel

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 19:25:05 -0800

also, does anyone actually believe this law is to "protect public health"? thats just stupid talk.

cgabriel

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 19:23:45 -0800

christina- your love for twizzlers and rocky road would affect everyone around you because you will gain weight and the rest of us will have to watch you lug your fat ass about town and that may cause me to lose my lunch. Diet Coke may not affect others but if you drink newcastle and go for a drive (which im sure you insist youd never do) but have enough of those wonderful newcastles and you may be overweight AND drunk driving.

kristinester

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:50:42 -0800

As a smoker, this argument just gets under my skin and pisses me off to no end. The thing that bothers me about it is the reasoning and logic behind this law. *gets into her serious politician voice* "We have to protect the people!" "yeah!" "We have to protect the children!" "yeah!" "These filthy smokers are polluting our lungs with their foul cigarette smoke! It must be eliminated!" "BURN THEM ALL! YEAH!!!!" Ok, I went a little overboard at the end, I'll admit that much. But really, imagine this: You're walking down the street, casually strolling through downtown Burbank on a busy night (ha). As you walk, you pass by someone smoking a cigarette. Perhaps as you walk, you maybe inhale a tiny bit of the smoke through your nose. You continue walking, no break in your stride, and within seconds, the smell is gone and you're breathing, mostly, fresh air again. No one will get Lung Cancer from the occasional inhalation of second hand smoke that occurs from walking near someone that's smoking. What will you most likely get Lung Cancer from? Living right next to a freeway. Or hell, even just living in Los Angeles. The air sucks here. Especially in the summer, or when there's a wildfire. No breeze, plus weekday traffic, plus heat = a day to stay inside wearing a gas mask. I know this has been a long rambling comment with a few tangents but my point is this: -It's ridiculous, unnecessary and really not doing anything to protect public health. @iseulb - I agree completely.

iseulb

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:27:48 -0800

Who wants to hang out in Burbank anyway?

paulk

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 14:59:16 -0800

Aberrant, I think it's important to distinguish between banning smoking and banning smoking in a particular place. If Burbank didn't allow smoking in private homes, I would have a problem with that (although I am not without sympathy for neighbors of smokers in apartment buildings, like that couple that sued in New York, because my old apartment always smelled of my neighbor's smoke.) BTW, takemebacktola, there really is no correlation between allowing sales of cigarettes and banning smoking on public sidewalks. They allow alcohol sales and prohibit drunk driving and public intoxication. They allow sales of guns, but don't let you walk around shooting them. They sell sex toys, but you'll get arrested for using them on public sidewalks. I won't belabor the point further.

Hypersquared

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:28:14 -0800

Uuuuhhh... personal behavior in public is regulated pretty much everywhere in the world, depending on the values of the community. This is as old as law itself. They're called nuisance laws. Someone already mentioned noise laws. Also, public nudity is illegal because we don't want to be looking at your naughty bits. Public drunkenness is illegal not just because a drunkard is a hazard but also because he's obnoxious. Stinking up the joint can reasonably be put into this general category. Now, I've already indicated that I think smoking laws have gone a bit far. I'm not really an advocate for them. I just mean to say that my benevolence wanes a bit when I hear smokers deny the effect they have on their environment. You want to spew some fumes after lunch? Okay, I can deal if it's only once in a while, but please don't pretend that you're unaware of the effect.

aberrant

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:47:27 -0800

Well, thanks for being honest, paulk and hypersquared. But you might want to revist the idea of banning personal behavior just because you don't like it. Can you think of other things that are outlawed, or things that certain people want outlawed just because they find them icky? I sure can. More personal freedom is better than less personal freedom.

Hypersquared

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:09:35 -0800

PaulK, that would have been my precise response. I don't expect to get cancer by occasionally being in the presence of smokers, whether indoors or outdoors, but that doesn't mean it isn't extremely unpleasant. In general, if I've been eating outside, for instance, I've been willing to change tables or just deal. It's just when I hear (some) smokers insist, "I'm not bothering anybody!!" that's when my rankles go up. Then why is everyone around you fanning the air and giving you a 30 foot berth? For the exercise?

paulk

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:59:51 -0800

Aberrant, isn't it enough just that the smell bothers people? We have noise codes that say you can't play music at a particular volume, not because it damages people's ears, but because it simply bothers people. Smoke stinks. I would venture that most smokers know this. I won't extrapolate to smokers at large, but most smokers I know don't smoke in their own homes, for this very reason. And they crack their car windows for the same reason. When I walk past a smoker, the smell bothers me. Not enough for me to go campaign for an ordinance, but if the people of Burbank feel that strongly about it, there's no reason for them not to ban it.

aberrant

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:52:10 -0800

hypersquared - I am not willfully unconscious. I am only being logical. I do not believe, and you cannot show me any real evidence (not propaganda), that catching a whiff of diluted smoke while you are outside will affect you anymore than anything else that is already in the air. I'm not talking about enclosed spaces with little ventilation. Being outside, by definition, is as ventilated as you can get.

paulk

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:40:49 -0800

I hope the smokers who get this riled up about having their "rights" trampled on find another outlet for that passion. I'm a bleeding heart, but on my list of oppressed minorities, smokers come in somewhere around 4,000th.

takemebacktola

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:39:00 -0800

This law has irked me since I learned of it. If Burbank (and Calabasas too), are going to sell cigarettes within the city limits, and are collecting TAXES off the cigarette sales it seems hypocritical to ban smoking. By banning smoking in certain areas, the city should be prohibited from selling and profiting off taxes in those areas. Take away ALL the taxes they reap from cig sales, and see city funding drop. leading to... Less funding for cops to write tickets! It makes no sense for a city to profit off of a sale, then ban you from indulging in it.

Miss Havisham

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:35:46 -0800

I think they should round up all of the secondhand smokers and put them in the clean air jail for their own protection. They are irrational.

christina

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:23:51 -0800

"We all have vices that affect one another, so chill out, jeez." actually, no. i don't see how my love of twizzlers, rocky road ice cream, diet coke or newcastle (i'll stop 'cause i can go on for days) affects anyone else around me. there is no secondhand sugar rush or secondhand buzz that can give others cancer.

southpaw

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:16:11 -0800

I consider myself a fairly informed smoker, and I had no idea about the law in downtown Burbank. Every different part of LA has different laws about public smoking, and many times there are no clear signs tell tell you what the specific laws are. I'm happy to abide by them, but I need to know what they are when I'm not in my own neighborhood. And besides that, I have never encountered so much hate for being a smoker before I lived in LA. We all have vices that affect one another, so chill out, jeez.

Hypersquared

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:05:57 -0800

Forgive the poor editing on my comment above.

Hypersquared

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:05:23 -0800

I live in Burbank and I don't smoke. Never have. When I noticed the posting near the entrance to my building, prohibiting smoking within 20 feet, my first thought (believe it or not) was for smokers. On a certain level, I feel as though the trend of putting smokers into a smaller and smaller box to the point where a box is a rather chicken shit way of dealing with a public health issue. However, when I read comments such as abberrant's that seem willfully unconscious of public smoking's negative effect on the people around them, my impulse goes the other way: round 'em all up and dump 'em in the pokey.

caliking01

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:54:40 -0800

The law is fine. Its the idiot cops who wrote the ticket instead of just a warning who are the evil-doers here.

Lindsay William-Ross

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:00:23 -0800

This policy has been on the books for almost a year now... We wrote about it in December when some of the businesses were beginning to feel an impact in terms of loss of business, as well as local workers feeling put out, due to the law. It's frustrating to not be aware of a law, but it's not an excuse. It's an interesting time we're in with local governments implementing laws about smoking in public spaces...and even in rental units.

xSACREDx

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 07:39:54 -0800

I think the part that's missing, in the article is that the smoking ban isn't about policing the "adult" that is smoking. But about making sure innocent bystanders aren't subjected to second hand smoke. While a 30 year old man, who obeys laws and doesn't speed may think he knows what's be for him, he completely oblivious or just doesn't care about the people around him. Personally I'm glad you smoke.

cgabriel

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 01:37:38 -0800

The only thing this article has done for me is turned me on, I almost cant wait to go to Burbank and smoke on the sidewalk and then throw my butt in the street. I must be a sick f`ck because I cant wait to do it.

RedMercury

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:06:03 -0800

The cars driving by on the street have more of an effect than someone smoking on the sidewalk. That said, the law was pretty well publicized. And ignorance of the law is no excuse. Still, the best solution is a boycott. Personally, I won't be purchasing anything in Burbank. With NBC leaving, Burbank will need all the help it can get.

paulk

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:49:30 -0800

If blazingshark happens to be walking on that sidewalk, it just might.

aberrant

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:08:11 -0800

Gee whiz blazingshark, it's as if you think that someone standing on the sidewalk having a smoke somehow affects you in any way.

anthonyt

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:17:28 -0800

I am nearly 30 years old, I pay my taxes, I obey speed limits and I can't remember the last time I intentionally vandalized private property. these things would be relevant if you were fined for being too young, not paying your taxes, speeding, or vandalism.

blazingshark

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:15:48 -0800

poor, poor baby. if you quit smoking i'm sure all that money you'll save on packs of cigarettes will pay your ticket.

aajaybird

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:13:46 -0800

Uniformed fundraisers. I don't smoke but this seems way unfair to smokers. That's robbery.

mishaco

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:03:34 -0800

this has been the law in burbank for several months now . no smoking within 20 or 25 feet of an entrance or open window . its hard to enforce and is no doubt being handled poorly with near draconian enforcement policies . but as they say , ignorance of the law is not an excuse .

polaroidgirl

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:14:36 -0800

Um, who said they left their butts on the sidewalk?? I mean, besides Wilberfan??

wilberfan

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:02:27 -0800

They should count themselves lucky that they weren't cited for littering after leaving their extinguished cigarette butts on the sidewalk (something almost every outdoor smoker does without a second thought).

Eliza17

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:48:21 -0800

At least the cops were biking and not riding around in SUVs like many proponents of such laws.