SLO County Bans Outdoor Smoking
UPDATE July 20, 2012: I just read in today's Tribune (page B4) that another exception to the smoking ordinance will be at the county's golf courses. Okay, so the Supervisors will let the affluent golfers smoke at their golf "parks", so where do the poor people get to smoke? Again, surprised that nobody brings up the disparate impact of this ordinance on low income folks and folks of color. I guess I'll have to raise this issue myself, and see if some "progressives" can stand up for the "downtrodden" in society. Okay, time to dig into some hard facts: Disparate Smoking Among those with Low Income. Basically this article comes to this conclusion: "The findings in this report indicate that although progress has been achieved in reducing disparities in cigarette use among certain racial/ethnic groups, less progress has been made in reducing disparities in cigarette use among persons of low socioeconomic status."
UPDATE July 18, 2012: SLO County Board of Supervisors Bans Outdoor Smoking at Parks, Campgrounds and other Outdoor County Sites (State Parks in SLO County were not included in the ban). The ban includes structures owned or leased or concessioned by the county and all land near those structures, including walkways, landscapes, and patios. I wonder if it includes the county roadways, as smoking INSIDE a car is far more dangerous to the health of secondhand smokers than smoking done outside in a park?
Exemptions were made (aren't they always?) for county airports and psychiatric health facilities: Apparently, the health of those just passing through (airports) and the mentally ill (psychiatric facilities) need not be protected from the toxic secondhand smoke? What ever happened to protecting the health of the innocent, weak, and infirm? Oh yeah, airports and health facilities are next (you would think that health facilities would have been FIRST, but that's another topic for another time).
Statements were made (some paraphrased):
1) The wolf's freedom doesn't extend to the sheep's life (quote from Abraham Lincoln).
2) There is no level of safe exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke [when your are outside] (not in a structure).
3) They considered banning snuff, but decided against it, because that would increase public opposition to their cause.
4) Public Health is the primary consideration (I wonder what the other considerations were? Smoky smelling clothe, bad breath or yellow teeth?).
5) The ordinance intrudes on personal freedom (duh - that's the purpose of the ordinance).
6) The ordinance makes second hand citizens out of smokers (too late - that's already been done, or haven't they been getting out enough?).
7) What's next? Red meat, french fries, video games, bad political commercials?
8) Bans such as these reduce the number of people smoking.
TIM'S COMMENTARY: I don't smoke cigarettes, but do smoke an occasional cigar, but not in the places banned above, so this doesn't affect me directly (yet - eventually, the ban will get to my backyard or out backpacking, where I do smoke tobacco products). Once again, we are on the slippery slope of controlling our lives in new and different ways. I am shocked that nobody has had the courage to BAN smoking in this country, as it is a drug that should require a prescription, and there are no known medicinal reasons for tobacco of which I am aware. I doubt that there are any studies on OUTDOOR smoking and the health affect of secondhand smoke. If there were, it would show no effect, at least in SLO county where the wind always blows the smoke away. I am amazed that nobody brought up the disparate impact issue, as it is always brought up when dealing with conservative causes. As a smoking ban could safely be considered a liberal cause, does anybody have any issue with the disparate impact this ordinance will have on the poor, the homeless, veterans, and minorities, all of whom smoke in far greater numbers than the public at large? In my experience, the homeless and veterans smoke in far greater numbers, and statistics have born out that most or all non-white races (blacks, hispanics, indians, etc.) smoke at a far greater rate than caucasians.
CAMPFIRE SMOKE has been proven to be the most toxic smoke of all to breath, yet I hear no quotes from campfire smoke studies or moves to ban camp fires, or hearth fires (i.e., burning wood in your fireplace in a living structure) in general from the county. Wonder when that will be voted on by the SLO County Board of Supervisors?
HOW WILL THE BAN BE ENFORCED? How much will it cost to enforce the bad? My prediction is that this ban will accomplish nothing because it will NOT be enforced. Smokers will continue to smoke in the parks. All of this is for nothing, but at what cost?
UPDATE July 18, 2012: SLO County Board of Supervisors Bans Outdoor Smoking at Parks, Campgrounds and other Outdoor County Sites (State Parks in SLO County were not included in the ban). The ban includes structures owned or leased or concessioned by the county and all land near those structures, including walkways, landscapes, and patios. I wonder if it includes the county roadways, as smoking INSIDE a car is far more dangerous to the health of secondhand smokers than smoking done outside in a park?
Exemptions were made (aren't they always?) for county airports and psychiatric health facilities: Apparently, the health of those just passing through (airports) and the mentally ill (psychiatric facilities) need not be protected from the toxic secondhand smoke? What ever happened to protecting the health of the innocent, weak, and infirm? Oh yeah, airports and health facilities are next (you would think that health facilities would have been FIRST, but that's another topic for another time).
Statements were made (some paraphrased):
1) The wolf's freedom doesn't extend to the sheep's life (quote from Abraham Lincoln).
2) There is no level of safe exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke [when your are outside] (not in a structure).
3) They considered banning snuff, but decided against it, because that would increase public opposition to their cause.
4) Public Health is the primary consideration (I wonder what the other considerations were? Smoky smelling clothe, bad breath or yellow teeth?).
5) The ordinance intrudes on personal freedom (duh - that's the purpose of the ordinance).
6) The ordinance makes second hand citizens out of smokers (too late - that's already been done, or haven't they been getting out enough?).
7) What's next? Red meat, french fries, video games, bad political commercials?
8) Bans such as these reduce the number of people smoking.
TIM'S COMMENTARY: I don't smoke cigarettes, but do smoke an occasional cigar, but not in the places banned above, so this doesn't affect me directly (yet - eventually, the ban will get to my backyard or out backpacking, where I do smoke tobacco products). Once again, we are on the slippery slope of controlling our lives in new and different ways. I am shocked that nobody has had the courage to BAN smoking in this country, as it is a drug that should require a prescription, and there are no known medicinal reasons for tobacco of which I am aware. I doubt that there are any studies on OUTDOOR smoking and the health affect of secondhand smoke. If there were, it would show no effect, at least in SLO county where the wind always blows the smoke away. I am amazed that nobody brought up the disparate impact issue, as it is always brought up when dealing with conservative causes. As a smoking ban could safely be considered a liberal cause, does anybody have any issue with the disparate impact this ordinance will have on the poor, the homeless, veterans, and minorities, all of whom smoke in far greater numbers than the public at large? In my experience, the homeless and veterans smoke in far greater numbers, and statistics have born out that most or all non-white races (blacks, hispanics, indians, etc.) smoke at a far greater rate than caucasians.
CAMPFIRE SMOKE has been proven to be the most toxic smoke of all to breath, yet I hear no quotes from campfire smoke studies or moves to ban camp fires, or hearth fires (i.e., burning wood in your fireplace in a living structure) in general from the county. Wonder when that will be voted on by the SLO County Board of Supervisors?
HOW WILL THE BAN BE ENFORCED? How much will it cost to enforce the bad? My prediction is that this ban will accomplish nothing because it will NOT be enforced. Smokers will continue to smoke in the parks. All of this is for nothing, but at what cost?
City of Atascadero Bans Mural
July 8, 2012, Atascadero, Calif.: ARTery mural painted on the side of their business is created without a permit. City requires a payment of $460.00 from the business to appeal the city's decision to have it removed. When did we decide that what colors are painted on a wall of a business are subject to permit and destruction, if the permit is not granted. I've seen a lot of murals around our state of Calif., and few offended me, but the creative juices of the creators of those murals is representative of the human spirit that the powers that be want to crush. Yes, I know, offensive murals leading to the destruction of civilization would be created if we didn't have local bureaucrats to quash them. Also check out Free SLO, Free SLO2, Art Tyranny.
Offending Image (Click to Enlarge):
No comments:
Post a Comment