Clean Air Calabasas

Reason ^ | March 8, 2006 | Jacob Sullum

[neverdem]

A smoke-free, family-friendly atmosphere of moralistic intolerance

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."

The exceptions are private residences, up to 20 percent of hotel rooms, "smokers' outposts" in shopping center parking lots, and "any outdoor area in which no non-smoker is present and...it is not reasonable to expect another person to arrive." The smoke-free areas, a.k.a. "everywhere else," include sidewalks, streets, bus stops, parks, the outdoor seating of bars and restaurants, and apartment balconies near common areas such as pools or laundry rooms.

The city council, which unanimously approved the ordinance last month and has started calling the Los Angeles suburb "Clean Air Calabasas, a Smoke-Free City," predicts the state government (which already prohibits smoking in indoor workplaces) will follow its example. If so, judging from the history of smoking bans, Calabasas-style restrictions eventually will move from California to the rest of the country. Before that happens, Americans should consider whether they really want to embrace the Calabasas spirit of moralistic intolerance masquerading as "public health."

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.

If he lights up and you don't like it, you can file a complaint with the city, which can charge your friend with a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and a jail sentence of up to six months. You also can sue him, seeking compensation for injuries inflicted by his tobacco smoke or statutory damages of $250 for each violation, plus attorneys' fees and court costs.

If you can show your friend was guilty of "oppression, fraud, malice, or conscious disregard for the public health and safety," you can recover punitive damages too. By that point, of course, he might not be your friend anymore.

"We are not trying to pit neighbor against neighbor," Calabasas Mayor Barry Groveman told the Los Angeles Times in January. "We're trying to do this in the least punitive and least disruptive way."

Which is why they decided to resolve the minor annoyance of drifting outdoor tobacco smoke through criminal charges and lawsuits—instead of, say, public stoning. Presumably the city council members also had the minimization of punitiveness and disruption in mind when they chose to criminalize not only unauthorized smoking but "allowing, aiding or abetting" it by looking the other way or putting out ashtrays.

All this may seem a little extreme when you consider there's no evidence that outdoor smoking jeopardizes the health of bystanders. But that is not really what the ban's supporters have in mind when they talk about protecting "public health."

Their aim is not just to eliminate secondhand smoke but to eliminate smoking. That's why the ordinance cites the health effects of smoking on smokers as a justification for the ban. And that's why the ban's official goals include "reducing the potential for children to associate smoking and tobacco with a healthy lifestyle" and "affirming and promoting the family-friendly atmosphere of the City's public places."

The ban's backers see smoking as a shameful vice that must be kept out of sight, an indecent activity from which adults must shield children's eyes as well as their noses. The logic of forcing people to set a good example for the kids—which also would justify banning fat people and motorcyclists from public places—reduces adults to the level of children whenever they venture out of their homes.

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason.

[neverdem]

health-nazi, nanny-state ping

[Gabz]

Good Grief...........

I'm on my way out the door - will be back to pick this up later..........

[fanfan]

"We are not trying to pit neighbor against neighbor,"

but if we were, this would be the best way to do it.

[kingu]

I was debating getting a bus load of fellow smokers and going for a jaunt through Calabasas, puffing away, and seeing just how many folks their police department was willing to process, and then stopped.

Couching the law in puffy health language doesn't much change the fact that it is really a moral choice on the part of the city. They don't want people to smoke in public, and I think that such a choice should be within their power.

After all, if I want to go chug a six pack while walking down the street (of course, in a less than straight line as I exceed my personal tolerance for alcohol), I'd be arrested. It is, in most places, illegal to drink in public. Why shouldn't it be possible to make smoking illegal in public?

So instead, I've decided to not go to Calabasas anymore. Sure, it's easier for me now, since my grandparents have passed away, to make such a decision. And much easier to decide to shop in neighboring cities who will no doubt enjoy the additional sales tax revenue.

[markman46]

i am not that far from Calabasas, I should drive there and light one up after this law takes effect!!!!

[Just A Nobody]

I'm on my way out the door - will be back to pick this up later..........

Ditto.

Welcome to the nazi state/city.

[doorgunner69]

"Smoking is prohibited everywhere in the city," says a Calabasas ordinance

This is a hoot. During much of the year Calabasas (western San Fernando Valley) has intense smog, the kind that closes your breathing passages and drops visibility to under a mile. Outlawing outdoor smoking is so irrelvant to respiratory health in that environment has this ordinance bordering on the surreal.......

[nothingnew]

PUFF

FMCDH(BITS)

[SheLion]

I'm on my way out the door - will be back to pick this up later..........

Thanks for the ping!

[SheLion]

[Republicus2001]

since you can't smoke in the patio at the Sagebrush Cantina anymore and I don't have a relative in the Old Actors Home across the street I have no reason to visit Calabasas anymore.

[DumpsterDiver]

The city council, which unanimously approved the ordinance last month and has started calling the Los Angeles suburb "Clean Air Calabasas, a Smoke-Free City,"

They must be referring to the Clean Air Calabasas Agenda, or as it's informally known, CACA.

[the city council] predicts the state government (which already prohibits smoking in indoor workplaces) will follow its example.

As if I needed another reason to go berserk on some of the people in this God-forsaken state.

[383rr]

"any outdoor area in which no non-smoker is present and...it is not reasonable to expect another person to arrive."

Stay away, eeeeeevvviillllllll smoker! I give you the forked sign of the evil lung!

I never would have thought I would see such Orwellian style government bullying in America in my time. Boy, was I wrong. Today, the peoples republik of kalifornia, tommorrow the world.

Liberty and justice for all. Yeah, right. {but we'll still take your tax money, evil, unhospitable smoker}

[William Tell]

Thanks for the ping.

It seems that the majority of Kalifornians won't be happy until they have driven every freedom-loving person from the state. The mischief that will then ensue will be a marvel to behold.

[bfree]

One less city to consider to retire to. This will bite them in the "butt" eventually. There is a low wave beginning to build against the nazism being created in this country. It may take a while, but you will see a new wave of common sense like Reagan had , build. There will eventually be a revolt against the fascism or the country will become a 2nd or 3rd rate nation.

[elkfersupper]

Where on earth do these people get the money to promote this agenda in every backwater community on earth?

Edgewood, NM , which has one (1) recently-added stoplight has an indoor smoking ban.

Near as I can tell, it was targeted at the Dairy Queen, which was one of two indoor eating joints (if you can call it that) anyway.

Sheesh!

[DakotaRed]

Your sign is has more truth than you may realize.

NYC goes after smokers who bought cigarettes on Internet

By SARA KUGLER
ASSOCIATED PRESS

NEW YORK, March 7 — Thousands of New Yorkers who bought cigarettes on the Internet without paying sales taxes will be reordered to pay a collective $33 million that went unpaid, officials said.
City lawyers say New York loses millions of dollars a year from unpaid taxes on Internet cigarette purchases. They have gone after the online dealers with a series of lawsuits in recent years.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced Tuesday that the city reached a settlement with Virginia-based eSmokes. The company will provide the names and addresses of New York customers from 2000 to 2003, when a state ban on Internet sales took effect.

http://famulus.msnbc.com/famulusgen/ap03-07-220737.asp?t=apnew&vts=3720062246

[Diana in Wisconsin]

I've read a few issues of "Reason" magazine. Great editorial by the Editor. :)

[SheLion]

I never would have thought I would see such Orwellian style government bullying in America in my time. Boy, was I wrong. Today, the peoples republik of kalifornia, tommorrow the world.

Liberty and justice for all. Yeah, right. {but we'll still take your tax money, evil, unhospitable smoker}

Thank God for Free Republic where the truth can be told and millions will be able to read about it!  I'm sick to death of all the lies being spewed by the highly  paid anti-smokers around the United States and the world and everyone is just expected to believe them.

NO MORE!!!