To the Smokemobile!
Jacob Sullum | March 16, 2007, 4:08pm
It looks like Belmont, California, will continue to allow smoking in cars and in detached, single-family homes. But the strictest version of a proposed ordinance the city council began considering this week would prohibit smoking just about everywhere else, including outdoor bar and restaurant seating, sidewalks, streets, parking lots, apartments, and condominiums. The innovation of telling people they may not light up in their own homes, while simultaneously telling them they may not go outside to smoke, has attracted nationwide attention since it was first suggested last year.
Michael Siegel notes another interesting wrinkle in the draft ordinance: While smoking in a prohibited location would be an "infraction" punishable by a $100 fine, "causing, permitting, aiding, abetting, or concealing" such smoking would be a misdemeanor, raising the possibility of larger fines, jail, and a criminal record. Failing to report illicit smoking could be treated as a misdemeanor, Siegel warns, so if you must visit Belmont but want to avoid jail, "make sure to wear a bag over your head so that you cannot possibly see anyone smoking."
Yet another fun fact about the proposed law: Confirming conservatives' worst nightmares about California, it explicitly allows pot smoking (for medical purposes) while banning cigarette smoking.
James Anderson Merritt | March 18, 2007, 4:12pm | #
Here in Santa Cruz County, the Supervisors have voted unanimously to ban the use of tobacco in county parks. I'm not just talking about smoking, but the possession or use of any tobacco product. The ordinance will probably be made permanent after its second reading, later this month. I wrote the following letter of protest to the Supervisor in my district (whose name has been excised to protect the guilty):
Dear Mr. XXXXX,
I read with great disappointment the news that the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to ban the use of tobacco products in county parks. In advance of the final reading later this month, I ask you and the other Supervisors to reconsider and rescind this action.
Based on the health concerns swirling around second-hand tobacco smoke, campaigns to ban indoor smoking have met with great success in this and other regions of the country. As smokers have been forced outside, those who would ban their habit altogether have followed them, pushing to ban smoking in various outdoor venues, as well. The ban that is currently under consideration goes further yet, by targeting not just tobacco smoking in our county parks, but the use of tobacco in any way, regardless of how considerate and responsible the tobacco user might be, or how much any real person’s actual health or well-being may be threatened by the tobacco user’s activities. In my opinion, the ordinance that the Supervisors are on the verge of making permanent goes way too far.
I do not smoke. I think it is a filthy habit. My own mother died of complications from a lifetime of smoking. I am no fan of tobacco or the tobacco industry. But I am likewise no fan of making an addict’s situation even worse. And I am definitely a fan of the individual’s freedom to live his life as he chooses, so long as he does so without harming or endangering others. I know from personal experience that diesel and other exhaust fumes from motor vehicles and industrial equipment are more dangerous, and that other people’s body odor, perfumes, and bad breath are often much more objectionable, than any tobacco smoke I have encountered. Smoke quickly dissipates in the air, and the smoker’s contribution to air pollution is negligible, which is why the anti-smoking crowd was so successful in getting others to support them as they forced smokers outside in the first place. Are you aware of any studies that identify tobacco smoke outdoors as a menace that is even equal to those other pollutants I mentioned, much less worse? In my opinion, making smokers “take it outside” is as far as we can legitimately go with what is shaping up to be the outright persecution of smokers. I am baffled as to why our own Board of Supervisors thinks it is appropriate to ban even the use of smokeless tobacco in the parks, which need not endanger the health of well-being of anyone other than the user!
It is legitimate for the County to look out for the health and safety of those who visit the parks, as well as to promote the proper maintenance of the properties by, for example, prohibiting and punishing litter, whether caused by the use of tobacco or any other reason. But any tobacco user who is considerate of others, and who does not litter in the park, should not have to pay a fine or suffer any other punishment, for engaging in what is otherwise a legal activity involving a legal substance. Tobacco users own property and pay taxes in support of county parks, too. They also pay hefty excise and sales taxes when they purchase tobacco products. Doesn’t their contribution to government coffers entitle them to some consideration and protection, as well? What are we to say about a society that makes some of its members into pariahs, and then takes money from them to finance their own punishment and continued persecution?
The ban on tobacco use in county parks appears to be an ill-conceived, much too broad restriction on people’s personal liberty. In Santa Cruz, we are often exhorted to “share” with others – to practice understanding and tolerance toward those whose appearance, views, or practices might at first alarm or offend us. This is a fine principle, but we need to be consistent in applying it toward users of tobacco. Share the parks with them. Tolerate their considerate and responsible use of this drug. Think about the Golden Rule before you cast your final vote to ban tobacco use in county parks. Your stand for or against personal liberty will figure prominently in my future voting decisions, and my recommendations to others about theirs. I’d like to say that Mr. XXXXXX helped convince the Supervisors to uphold everyone’s freedom, when the easy thing to do would have been to bow to politically correct orthodoxy.
Thank you for your time and your consideration of my concerns.
=========================================
Here is the reply I received:
Dear Mr. Merritt-
Thank you for your thoughtful letter regarding the ban on the use of tobacco product in county parks. I'm afraid this is an issue where we will continue to disagree. I understand your view but I believe the health considerations, effect on children using the parks, and the costs the county must bear for tobacco-related illness cause me to come to a different conclusion. Thank you for taking the time to write concerning this issue.
Sincerely,
XXXXXXX, Supervisor
=========================================
If I lived in Calevaras County, I'd at least be able to count on multiply re-elected Libertarian Supervisor Tom Tryon to be on the side of freedom. I think I know why the electoral frog jumped to put him and keep him in office: the water was beginning to boil. Here in Santa Cruz County, the roiling boil has been going on for a while...
