Reason Online- March 8, 2006:

Because it’s getting hard to keep track of all the places where you’re not allowed to smoke, the city council of Calabasas, California, decided to start over from scratch and make things simple. “Smoking is prohibited everywhere in the city,” says a Calabasas ordinance that takes effect on March 17, “except as otherwise provided.”

Tellingly, a provision that would have permitted outdoor smoking in the presence of nonsmokers with their consent was removed from the final version of the Calabasas ban. So if you’re in some deserted part of the city in the middle of the night with a friend who smokes, he is allowed to light up only if you do too.

I love this following exchange. Michael Hafken, a public information specialist for the City of Calabasas replied to the article by saying…

Please note that there is NO possible jail time for a violation of the Comprehensive Secondhand Smoke Control Ordinance in the City of Calabasas. Penalties range from warnings (most cases) to a potential $500 fine for extreme, repeated and willful violations. Violations are coded as infractions and NOT misdemeanors.

So the author wrote back…

pointing out that the ordinance says, “A violation of this ordinance shall constitute a misdemeanor punishable pursuant to chapter 1.16 of this code [which specifies a penalty of up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine] unless the prosecutor determines to prosecute it as an infraction as authorized by section 1.16.010(a).”

So the public information minister, er, I mean specialist, admitted…

I should have said that the City has publicly maintained that there are no plans to treat violations as misdemeanors.

  1. forrest says:

    Wow…this country really is getting out of control with the smoking bans…

  2. alexdagrate says:

    Smoking Now Permitted Only In Special Room In Iowa

    March 17, 1998 | Issue 33•10

    WASHINGTON, DC—The nation’s anti-tobacco lobby scored another major victory Monday, when Congress passed legislation restricting smoking in the U.S. to a specially designated “smoking lounge” in Oskaloosa, IA.

  3. Awake says:

    Sounds good to me.
    This is one of those cases where your freedom to smoke intrudes on my freedom to not be exposed to your smoke.Since cigarette smoke is proven to be bad for you, then my right trumps yours.

    Of course, there will be bloggers here that will claim that second hand smoke is not proven bad…. the same nitwits that claim that global warming is still not proven.

  4. Dan Collins says:

    Another blow against freedom.Isn’t medical marijauana legal in CA.? I guess the city council has been eating pot not smoking it.Prohibitionest jerks!

  5. jasontheodd says:

    But what about my hash brownies??? I don’t have to smoke them, so they’re still OK right??? (or cat head bisquits and ‘ludes?)

  6. Kevin says:

    I’m all for smoking bans. Just because some people want cancer, doesn’t mean I want it to.

  7. Matt says:

    Well, by the second-hand harm rationale, drinking should also be prohibited. Alcohol is proven to cause drunk-driving. Alcohol also plays a major role in birth defects, domestic violence, as well as violent crimes such as rape and murder. Many “visible intoxication” laws are poorly enforced and Dram Shop Acts are aimed at loss-alocation, not behavior modification.

    Therefore, Awake, because alcohol is proven to have all of those deleterious effects, then the private right to drink is “trumped.”

    Awake, do you now advocate a return to Prohibition?

  8. forrest says:

    Secondhand smoke is worst.

    But hey…if you see me smoking on the street outside away from people, feel free to walk by at a distance instead of telling me that I cannot smoke outside. It’s sort of lame to prohibit smoking outside…unless people smoking contributes significantly to global warming…

  9. fezzik says:

    Your SUV is infringing on my rights to clean air.
    Ban them.

  10. name says:

    Can’t we all just get along?

  11. Mister Mustard says:

    >>Your SUV is infringing on my rights to clean air. Ban them.

    Now THERE is a ban I would support wholeheartedly.

    Other than as a palliative remedy for TPS (Tiny Penis Syndrome), there’s just no reason for those 10-ton hunks of Global Death to be on the road.

  12. forrest says:

    What the heck are you people talking about…?

    SUVs rock…sort of…ahhh…maybe not…

    How about this…we’ll let people smoke inside SUVs and keep the smoke in there, as long as they don’t drive those fuel inefficient models of American engineering?

  13. Awake says:

    7 – Matt –
    That is a really dumb argument.

    a) If you sit there quietly and don’t behave in your drunken ways, you being drunk doesn’t affect me… but cigarette smoke does. So there is no comparison at all.

    b) Alcohol consumption is regulated by law. You can not impose your drunkenness on me just because you feel like being drunk… if I complain about you being drunk at a baseball game, who will be removed, you for being inhebriated or me for being bothered by you?

    So Matt, my right to be free from an annoying or dangerous drunk around me trumps your right to be drunk around me.

    Prohibition outlawed alcohol consumption outright; smoking laws do not remove the right to smoke, they just return the rights to the people that should have them first, those that do not want to be affected by your unhealthy behavior.

    If I told you that I like to flick boogers at people, should that be a protected right?

  14. rob says:

    here we go more libs with bigger gov’t……….telling me where I can smoke and what I should drive…………next it will be what I can eat and on what day of the week………isn’t freedom what this country was founded on. I don’t want the gov’t telling me what is best for me what a joke they don’t have a clue. If I want to spend my money on an SUV then that is my right. if you don’t like it tough. deal with it. I don’t like the fact that most libs in this country can do nothing but sling mud, and never talk about any solutions to the problems that they piss and moan about all day long and I have to deal with that.

  15. John Browning says:

    If it wasn’t for the taxes on cigarettes we wouldn’t even be able to buy them.

    Think about it, You can’t buy a pack of marijuana can you ?

  16. rus62 says:

    Just make the sale of cigarettes illegal.

    And while you are at it go after the people who drink alcohol and the drinking establishments. They can not drink outside of their home, can not drink in a bar, etc. That way when someone drives they have less to worry about someone coming out of a restaurant/bar having had a drink or more that will cause an accident and kill someone (that includes the prissy wine drinkers too). “Second-Hand Alchohol” kills more people, it doesn’t discriminate in age, it doesn’t have wait 60 years to kill you, you don’t even have to be near it when it is consumed, and there are factual statistics on the number of people who get killed by it, not some unscientific ones for second hand smoke.

    It seems that second-hand smoke only affects the non-smokers in smoke filled room but not the smokers — from peoples comments over the years. The majority of smokers (not all) die of lung cancer in their 60s and 70s. Shouldn’t they be falling like flies in their 40s.

    In the 90s the cigar craze came in while the anti-cigarette campaign gained full steam. I never did figure that one out especially when some of them were anti-cigarettes/smoking.

    If smoking is that bad for you in the open air then what about automobiles, factories, outdoor grilling, lawnmowers, farting, etc. We should ban these things too. I know CA is going after the lawnmowers or has already. I like to see them try to make driving illegal.

    It is true that smoking is bad for those who smoke. Then ban the SALE of tobacco.

  17. forrest says:

    I think this is not one of those cases where you can simply categorize people into the Liberal and Conservative camps. It is really more like smokers and non-smokers. Even some smokers understand the need to protect the non-smokers from the smokers habits.

    These laws are getting passed because it is in the best interest of people overall. It is not right for a non-smoker to have to deal with the smoke from the smokers, both have made choices on their particular lifestyles. Banning smoking in particular areas is not forcing smokers not to smoke, just that they cannot smoke in particular closed areas where non-smokers would be forced to be “smoking” as well due to either little or no ventilation.

    However, it’s crazy for the government to ban smoking in public, wide-open spaces (except places like national parks). As long as a person who is smoking is not obnoxious about their smoking and not blowing the smoke in people’s space, there should be no problem. Either way anyone looks at it, they feel like their own rights are being violated in some way, shape, or form.

    By the way…it’s not like there are no Liberal smokers out there…

  18. Mike says:

    hoooray for freedom!

  19. Mr. Fusion says:

    If you want to smoke, go for it. Just don’t pollute the air that I breathe. Don’t force your kids to breathe your smoke. And don’t be throwing your butts onto public or my property. Your own back yard should be just fine.

    A good point about second hand alcohol consumption. Except that most uses of alcohol already involve imposing the responsibility upon the drinker. That is not true with smoking.

    If both tobacco and alcohol were banned tomorrow, it would not bother me. It might hurt a lot of others, but not me.

  20. Me says:

    Smoking makes smoke that goes into that atmospere and contributes to global warming.

    Actually, now that I think of it, human breath has carbon dioxide in it and that’s a greenhouse gas too. I think we need to make humans illegal.

  21. rus62 says:

    Mr. Fusion: The fact is they are saying smoking is causing health risks to non smokers. I do not totally disagree with that per say but to the extreme they opionate this is too much. What I am saying so is drinking alchohol at a bar or restaurant and then going out and driving which is worse. I drink and my wife is the designated driver when I do. You know, non-smokers have a responsibility too. If they go into a bar/restaurant that is smoked filled they have the freedom and choice to LEAVE!

    Drinking alcohol impairs your ability to think. I believe everyone in this forum can agree to this but there is always a few. How can you be resposible when you are impaired? Haven’t you been to a party where people were drunk or feeeling good? Are they responsible at that point? I don’t think so

    Also, does a Orthodonist let you drive after you have your wisdom teeth removed? No, he doesn’t. You have to have someone drive from the office because you are impaired!

    Trust me, a lot of smokers wish cigarettes were banned. It is very addictive, affects your health in the long run, and so many other things. Personally, I wish they would but they won’t because of tax $$$, not the lobbyists. They should have banned it back in the 60s but that is another subject which does include lobbyists.

    Most smokers don’t mind going outside to smoke. Alot of them don’t smoke in their own house. But to legally sell it and say they can’t smoke outside…that’s insane.

    You are more than welcome to smoke at my house but you must go outside.

  22. SB says:

    Draconian laws such as this should be overturned… Banning farting makes more sense imo!

    Besides, health problems associated with second hand smoke were NEVER scientifically proven, EVER… I challenge anyone on this forum to prove me wrong.

  23. Don't Bother Me says:

    Hmmm… Where to start, where to start…

    Le’see, approx. 1989, Gov. taken to court over FRADULENT report on the effect of second-hand smoke….
    Government LOSES!, yet, oddly enough, people still “quote” that report (if you can call it a quote when the numbers change to whatever “looks good”) not realizing that the Gov TOLD the Medical Profession “This is the result we want. Make it happen.”

    All other quoted reports are STILL based on that fake..
    2003 Penn and Teller Bullshit, by the way, went to the CURRENT HEAD OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, who stated, FLAT OUT,
    “We (the medical community) find NO appreciable deaths in conjunction with second-hand smoke. What that means, by the way, is you have a greater chance of dying by stepping off the curb.
    P & T did the show, by the way, ’cause, AS NON-SMOKERS, they were appaled by the way other people’s rights were being stolen… all in the name of “greater good’ and “health”, etc.

    If ya wanna put it in whinny-brat terms, your perfume/after shave is killing me! It STINKS as bad, and stays as long as cig. smoke.
    And, yes, it kills! Ask the asthma sufferers…

    Or, look at the particulate comming outta that exaust-pipe!
    Causes me to choke every time I’m within 1/2 block of those polluters!
    And thats including both old and new vehicles (take a look when some a**hole romps on it at a stop-light. Just so’s they can show-off that over-modified monstrosity they call a “truck”).

    Then there’s the Audio damage you do to me, just ’cause you want your “homies” to hear the shit you play from 3 blocks away. Even in my car, with the windows closed, with the radio going up in volume, I STILL hear that crap! And feel my car vibrate! AND I CAN’T GET AWAY!

    Then, there’s the SWEETNER CONNECTION!
    Less said ’bout that, the less I’ll have trouble from the sugar-mafia.

    Cell phone?… No, shit-for-brains, you’re NOT important enough (or smart enough), to NEED to drive and talk at the same time!
    Hell, you’re not even important enough to even HAVE a cell phone.

    What?!… what’s that you say?… Most of this I’m complaining about happens OUTSIDE?!?

    Hmmm… Imagine that. Outside, anything goes… WOW, what a concept!

    Here’s an idea you might wanna check up on, sometime.
    As a Democratic Republic (NOT a democracy, NOT a Republican wet-dream) the Constitution was written to keep the majority from running rough-shod over the minority!
    Check it out, it’s true!

    To finish my RANT (however coherent it may or may not be), think of all the stupid/dangerous/other-people-problem YOU are a minority in, before you get all holier-than-thou about smokers.
    Don’t you get it?.. the Constitutional violations against drugs was just to test the waters. The outright fraud involved is to see HOW to manipulate people to get what they want. Next comes anything that is the pet-peeve of the day, all to keep the voters from paying attention in washington.

    Workin’ pretty good, aint it? If we were paying attention, we’d have georgy hung for treason (along with his keepers) and have DC cut down to a manageable size……

  24. rus62 says:

    “Besides, health problems associated with second hand smoke were NEVER scientifically proven, EVER… I challenge anyone on this forum to prove me wrong. ”

    Thanks SB

    I agree with 100%.

  25. Parallax Abstraction says:

    “smoking laws do not remove the right to smoke,”

    Actually, this one does in effect. And in my opinion, government has no right imposing legislation on something they get rich off of through taxation. That’s hypocrisy of the worst kind. You want to regulate smokers? Then drop all taxes on smokes. I’m not a smoker, but I am sick and tired of seeing government tell smokers they’re bad people and that they’re hurting others (based on faulty information as Don’t Bother Me said) while laughing all the way to the bank. And then turning around and suing the tobacco companies for health care costs related to smoking illnesses (as if you can’t get lung cancer form any other way?!) You already got your money from the companies when the cigarettes were purchased! As I said, hypocrisy of the worst kind.

  26. James Birk says:

    Unfortunately, apart from having the Terminator as your governor, this is yet another in the long list of reasons why we over here on the Right coast are never lacking a punchline about the left.

  27. Mr. Fusion says:


    No hypocrasy.

    Automobiles are taxed AND regulated. And the Government has sued and been sued by the automotive industry.

    Air travel is taxed AND regulated.

    Movies are taxed AND regulated.

    Land is taxed AND regulated.

    Telephones are taxed AND regulated.

    Broadcasting is taxed AND regulated.

    Alcohol is taxed AND regulated.

    Tobacco is taxed AND regulated.

    So what is your problem?

    We don’t want unqualified drivers on the road. We don’t want un-airworthy planes in the air. We don’t want young children watching violent pornography. We don’t want the telephone operators running a monopoly. We don’t want every Tom, Dick, and Harry setting up a TV station regardless of the interference. We don’t want drunks behind the wheel of a car. AND MOST OF US DON’T WANT TO BREATHE SECOND HAND SMOKE !!!

  28. Mike Novick says:

    Why don’t they just legalize drugs, and then pass laws like these, and file lawsuits against the cartels?

  29. Roger Jenkins says:

    Global warming versus 2nd hand smoke?
    Well since it’s a FACT that the only contributing factor to Global Warming is that the Sun is getting hotter…and we are suppose to believe that 2nd hand smoke causes Cancer?
    The fact that the liberal government have to feel better by making us think they are running this government, wake up…you lost…we won and 2nd hand smoke is as much of a hoax as Global warming.

  30. ria pascale says:

    how can you citizens of Calabasas stand for such a law! The outdoors belongs to EVERYONE, not just people who don”t smoke. You Non-smokers are really getting out of hand. People who smoke pay BIG taxes on cigarettes so we ought to be able to smoke in peace.


Bad Behavior has blocked 12327 access attempts in the last 7 days.