The cigarette butt argument is such weak sauce. Don't like it? FINE THEM FOR LITTERING, YOU RETARDS.

"Everything is a compromise finally, some kind of a balance, and we'll come up with something that maybe nobody is happy with, but at least it's in the middle. The middle ground, somewhere," said Romero.

So banning smoking nearly everywhere indoors, then trying to ban it anywhere outside is a compromise? I don't smoke, but I'm glad I live in a state where they'll let you decide what kind of business to run.

Solid State Vittles: The cigarette butt argument is such weak sauce. Don't like it? FINE THEM FOR LITTERING, YOU RETARDS.

Considering that half the reason the sidewalks are littered with butts is because YOU ASSHOLES TOOK ALL THE PUBLIC ASHTRAYS AWAY because you didn't want your kids to see it or something. People don't care to be arrested for arson because they flicked their butt into the garbage can, or for vandalism by putting burn marks on everything.

Bending down to put out a cig usually results in some asshole pushing you because you "stopped" walking, and if you step on it, you risk tracking it in to buildings and making a mess that way.

It's easy: leave a public ashtray. MOST smokers will use them, and that will cure quite a large part of the butt problem.

/and if one smug fark says "Well, heh, stop smoking then!" I swear to god I will come to your house and pistol whip you into a coma

This About That: They aren't the first smug, uptight California city to do this.

That was those smug assholes in Belmont here in the Bay Area. They didn't want it legal to even smoke outside your own house IIRC. Funny thing there is that I'm guessing there was much pissing and moaning about the driving while on the cell phone ban even though that's something that can actually endanger other people. Smoking outside isn't a danger to anyone except the smoker.

Well considerering San Luis also outlawed drive-in's because of accidents and deaths caused by cars driving away too fast, doesn't really suprise me.

/live nearby, enjoying comments, etc.

Winktologist: It's easy: leave a public ashtray. MOST smokers will use them, and that will cure quite a large part of the butt problem.

/and if one smug fark says "Well, heh, stop smoking then!" I swear to god I will come to your house and pistol whip you into a coma

Hey uh, you may wish to consider decaf.

Ah California, where the solution to all of life's problems is "Ban it!"

Don't like drunk people on the beach, ban it! Don't like cell phone drivers, ban it! Don't like the color blue, ban it!

Radioactive Ass: Now they're short on cash.

I used to think the same way. Ontario taxes the bejesus out of cig's, but I'm sure the government would be quite happy to forego the cig tax instead of paying out millions if not hundreds of millions on sick smoking bastards clogging up the hospital cronic care wards.

/not a smoker, but not a not smoker.
//understand, but do not condone
///too much Vodak

hey

i don't shoot up heroin in front of YOU

don't light up a cigarette around ME


howzaat?

/Grew up in Santa Maria, so I'm getting a kick out of these...
//Locals only a55Hat

I think everyone before me has everything covered.

UNC_Samurai:So banning smoking nearly everywhere indoors, then trying to ban it anywhere outside is a compromise? I don't smoke, but I'm glad I live in a state where they'll let you decide what kind of business to run.

It seems like leaders in California are are starting to treat law abiding smokers the same as law abiding gun owners. Both groups pay a significant amount in taxes, but have been successfully and unfairly demonized to a significant portion of the population that they can use them as convenient scapegoats to divert attention away from more pressing issues. If both groups went away, the politicians would be left with no group to persecute. (Perhaps Jews, Asians, and Gays would make good backup plans. Can't go after the fat people, too many of those.)

That would make smoking laws basically what I think the laws for smoking pot are.

Mr.Giblets: I used to think the same way. Ontario taxes the bejesus out of cig's, but I'm sure the government would be quite happy to forego the cig tax instead of paying out millions if not hundreds of millions on sick smoking bastards clogging up the hospital cronic care wards.

Smokers tend to die of relatively quick/cheap illnesses as well as die earlier and not sitting around collecting retirement. Lung cancer, for example, is often not discovered until it is too late to do anything in terms of treatment. It's the healthy people that hang around for a long time in failing health that clog things up.

I have to travel to SLO a lot for work and its a college town. WTF with banning smoking outside? That is idiotic. Lots of stuff is much worse for someone. So next we are going to go slapping burgers out of fat peoples hands.

cchris_39: This is why pretty much all social engineering from the left needs to be stopped in its tracks. Even the reasonable stuff.

Diversity means different color skin but you must have the same idea. Do not fall out of line.

Radioactive Ass: What's really funny is that California collects 87 cents per pack of smokes sold. When they moved smokers out to the sidewalk a lot of people quit or smoked less than before. If a million people quit (and I'm sure that the number is probably higher based on the fact that they were looking for a 300% increase in the tax to replace lost revenue from less smokers) and were former pack a day smokers the state lost at least $317 million per year in direct revenue, it was probably closer to a billion dollars per year. Now they're short on cash.


Except the tax on smokes doesn't come anywhere near covering the cost the government pays annually to care for the ailing health of smokers and non-smokers, which some estimate at over $5 billion. So, yeah. Actually, they are saving $4 billion.

They (we) are short on cash because of deregulation and a poor economy. But hey, blame the non-smokers who just want to have a higher quality of life. We can take it.

/Smoked for 10 years, quit 9 years ago
//Breathes easier now

Winktologist: Solid State Vittles: The cigarette butt argument is such weak sauce. Don't like it? FINE THEM FOR LITTERING, YOU RETARDS.

Considering that half the reason the sidewalks are littered with butts is because YOU ASSHOLES TOOK ALL THE PUBLIC ASHTRAYS AWAY because you didn't want your kids to see it or something. People don't care to be arrested for arson because they flicked their butt into the garbage can, or for vandalism by putting burn marks on everything.

Bending down to put out a cig usually results in some asshole pushing you because you "stopped" walking, and if you step on it, you risk tracking it in to buildings and making a mess that way.

It's easy: leave a public ashtray. MOST smokers will use them, and that will cure quite a large part of the butt problem.

/and if one smug fark says "Well, heh, stop smoking then!" I swear to god I will come to your house and pistol whip you into a coma

I'll contradict that by pointing to all the assholes that flick their butts out of their damned car windows instead of using their ashtrays in the car. I'm not saying you do it, but there are a bunch of people that do. That said, banning it is farking stupid. Unless it is a real danger to someone's health (which it typically isn't), why ban it? Some guy smoking on a bench 20 feet away isn't going to bother you any more than the exhaust from the car that just drove past.

/I'll deny saying any of this when I have lung cancer from all the people smoking right outside the door at my job

Courtesy is legal , politeness is legal, being a gentleman is legal so is being considerate.. Why do smokers miss the boat on those points?

Can we also ban classic cars, motorcycles, and leaf blowers and other engines without catalytic converters in them? They emit by far much more harmful and smelly smoke than cigarettes.

/ wishes people would stop whining and passing laws for every little thing

Where I live I can't walk into my own apartment building without breathing in the smoke from those hanging outside the bar. Just walking on the sidewalk it is often difficult to avoid the cigarette smoke as well. I would support legislation to ban smoking outdoors. You have every right to ruin your own health but
not the right to ruin mine. Smoking is not a necessary activity.

Cheesus: Winktologist: Solid State Vittles: Unless it is a real danger to someone's health (which it typically isn't), why ban it? Some guy smoking on a bench 20 feet away isn't going to bother you any more than the exhaust from the car that just drove past.


The guy downstairs smokes. The smoke travels up the pipes and through other necessarily non-hermetically sealed openings in his ceiling/cabinets/etc and into my condo - where my wife and I are trying to raise our one year old daughter. Smoke at such a young age is proven to cause all sorts of lifetime respiratory problems for the child.

Also, all the people in our condo (who moved in after we were already here) sit outside and smoke. The wind comes off the lake, picks up the smoke, and shoves it in our condo - so we can't leave our one window open to get fresh air, and we can't use our balcony.

When out walking, if someone has been smoking out in front of a store or building, the smoke lingers in the air.

If you want to kill yourself, more power to ya. Just try to do it somewhere you aren't killing me and mine as well.

WoW!
... and I used to live there.

First time that I'm happy that I 'used' to live there . ..

John Buck 41: No ashtrays outside isn't a huge deal. I knock the cherry off, spin-twirl off whatever tobacco is left, and put the filter in my pocket until I get to a garbage can somewhere.

Banning smoking outside, though? Fark that.

They've already banned outdoor smoking in New Delhi. It's a 200 Rupee fine if they catch you smoking outdoors. Indian cops have more to do than chase down evil smokers, though, so the ban is largely ignored. Truly, these politicians are stupid, self-righteous asshats.

Isn't San Luis Obispo more-or-less bankrupt?

cchris_39: Not to threadjack, but do you really wonder why we're having no part of gay marriage? Tomorrow it will be forced down as required reading (equal representation) and regular lectures (recruiting) for kids.

Please go post in a different thread. Those of us who oppose smoking bans don't want ignorant bigots like you making us look bad by opposing them, too. You stand for everything that smoking banners stand for.

Quick, get the pitch forks, and let's run the smokers out of town.

Clearly you haven't tried The Easy Way. I am 3 weeks without a cigarette, about to turn 24 years old, and have been trying to quit smoking via other methods for at least 4 years unsuccessfully.

After reading this book for free online one day at work (instead of actually working or reading Fark) I was done. And I am happy and feel great. No withdrawals. No urges. Just happy to be freed from slavery like the Africans before me.

wattssw: Clearly you haven't tried The Easy Way. I am 3 weeks without a cigarette, about to turn 24 years old, and have been trying to quit smoking via other methods for at least 4 years unsuccessfully.

After reading this book for free online one day at work (instead of actually working or reading Fark) I was done. And I am happy and feel great. No withdrawals. No urges. Just happy to be freed from slavery like the Africans before me.

STFU orand GTFO

rhiannon: I swear, non-smokers on Fark are the whiniest biatches I've ever seen on this board.

You obviously have not been reading the political threads.

skaetur:
STFU orand GTFO

Slave.

Hey! I live in SLO!

And this is stupid. Romero, because the people you play bridge with at the senior center whine about smokers and minorities doesn't mean you should ban them. The only reason you're still in office is because the only guy to run against you this election was a nutbar.

Get all these goddamn homeless people out of here, how about that?

TheRedMonkey: I have to travel to SLO a lot for work and its a college town.

SLO is a college town that doesn't want to be. It has pretensions of grandeur with all the retirees that moved into their million dollar houses from the big cities.
I went to college there. Nothing was open past 10pm except the 7-11 and Food-4-Less and the few real bars downtown. Good luck finding any store open before 10am, too.

onebadgungan: Except the tax on smokes doesn't come anywhere near covering the cost the government pays annually to care for the ailing health of smokers and non-smokers, which some estimate at over $5 billion. So, yeah. Actually, they are saving $4 billion.

False.

SMOKERS' BURDEN ON SOCIETY:
MYTH AND REALITY IN CANADA (new window)

Abstract
Several authors maintain that smokers impose a considerable burden on society through hospitalization and medical cost and lost output due to premature death. In this paper, supplementary cost related to smoking are estimated at 669 million dollars for the year 1986 in Canada. However, since future health cost reduction reach 463 million, the net external cost generated do not exceed 207 million. These costs give raise to transfer, but these in turn are more than compensated by other transfers such as taxes paid by smokers and reduction in pension benefits which leads to a net flow overall of 4.3 billion dollars in favour of non-smokers. The direction of this conclusion remains unchanged even considering a wide range of medical hypotheses.

The "Social Cost" of Smoking (new window)

......And the French have discovered the same thing:

PARIS (AP) -- Smoking, long considered a costly health care burden, actually reaps the government an annual profit, according to a study released Friday by Paris' Institute of Political Science. High tobacco taxes and social security savings gained by premature deaths made the French government a net profit of 18.5 billion francs (dlrs 3.5 billion) in 1990, the study revealed.

The study, by Professor Jean-Jacques Rosa, attacks the idea that smoking creates "a considerable social cost." "Premature deaths of retired smokers benefit society because the government no longer has to pay their social security benefits or their health-related expenses," the professor said.

According to the study, French smokers have a life expectancy of about 67 years, which is six years less than the average French citizen. The study estimated smoking-related medical expenses to cost the government about 26.5 billion francs ($5 billion).

However, the combined profits from tobacco taxes and the annual savings brought about by premature deaths total about 44.9 billion francs ($8.5 billion). "Consuming alcohol and tobacco, just like reading or going to the movies, must be left to individual choice, and not be considered a social cost," Rosa said. ....

This is why i love living in Kentucky. They would never ban smoking.

Also... "I don't smoke, there's going to be second hand bullets flying your way" - Bill Hicks.

mrEdude: hey

i don't shoot up heroin in front of YOU

don't light up a cigarette around ME


howzaat?

GO right ahead. I'm not the one with a needle in my arm. The heroin will kill you faster than cigarette smoke so why should I care about your own poor decisions?

Crosshair: onebadgungan: Except the tax on smokes doesn't come anywhere near covering the cost the government pays annually to care for the ailing health of smokers and non-smokers, which some estimate at over $5 billion. So, yeah. Actually, they are saving $4 billion.

False.

SMOKERS' BURDEN ON SOCIETY:
MYTH AND REALITY IN CANADA (new window)

Abstract
Several authors maintain that smokers impose a considerable burden on society through hospitalization and medical cost and lost output due to premature death. In this paper, supplementary cost related to smoking are estimated at 669 million dollars for the year 1986 in Canada. However, since future health cost reduction reach 463 million, the net external cost generated do not exceed 207 million. These costs give raise to transfer, but these in turn are more than compensated by other transfers such as taxes paid by smokers and reduction in pension benefits which leads to a net flow overall of 4.3 billion dollars in favour of non-smokers. The direction of this conclusion remains unchanged even considering a wide range of medical hypotheses.

The "Social Cost" of Smoking (new window)

......And the French have discovered the same thing:

PARIS (AP) -- Smoking, long considered a costly health care burden, actually reaps the government an annual profit, according to a study released Friday by Paris' Institute of Political Science. High tobacco taxes and social security savings gained by premature deaths made the French government a net profit of 18.5 billion francs (dlrs 3.5 billion) in 1990, the study revealed.

The study, by Professor Jean-Jacques Rosa, attacks the idea that smoking creates "a considerable social cost." "Premature deaths of retired smokers benefit society because the government no longer has to pay their social security benefits or their health-related expenses," the professor said.

According to the study, French smokers have a life expectancy of about 67 years, which is six years less than the average French citizen. The study estimated smoking-related medical expenses to cost the government about 26.5 billion francs ($5 billion).

However, the combined profits from tobacco taxes and the annual savings brought about by premature deaths total about 44.9 billion francs ($8.5 billion). "Consuming alcohol and tobacco, just like reading or going to the movies, must be left to individual choice, and not be considered a social cost," Rosa said. ....

That's Canada and France.
I guess pro-smoking research could not possibly be biased towards smokers. You win.

onebadgungan: I guess pro-smoking research could not possibly be biased towards smokers. You win.

Please cite the examples of bias. I only see the raw numbers.