http://paloaltoonline.com/square/print/2012/03/23/smokers-win-big-victory-in-sunnyvale


Town Square

Smokers win big victory in Sunnyvale!

Original post made by Jim Neal, Mountain View, on Mar 23, 2012

Less than a month after the Mountain View City Council passed its controversial draconian anti-smoking ordinance which takes effect in May, the Sunnyvale City Council considered a very similar ordinance this past Tuesday (March 20th).

This story contains 479 words.

If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have logged in. Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.

If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account, click here to get your online account activated.

Comments

Like this comment
Posted by huge defeat for kids
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Mar 23, 2012 at 2:37 pm

Smokers beat up on families and kids. What kind of a "victory" is that?


Like this comment
Posted by curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 23, 2012 at 3:35 pm

"no one has a right to tell me how to live my life"

Live your life as you wish, and keep it out of my lungs.


Like this comment
Posted by Chris Zaharias
a resident of Crescent Park
on Mar 24, 2012 at 2:54 pm

I quit 7 months ago and always knew I didn't want to be a smoker forever. Once I realized I wasn't actually giving anything up by quitting, it was easy to stop.

Society should focus on helping smokers realize that there's no such thing as withdrawal, and that you start feeling noticeably better within 30 minutes of stopping. Thinking that laws to ban smoking in public places will have any effect - either in protecting non-smokers or helping smokers smoke less - are misguided in my opinion.

Last, those inclined to overbearing regulations such as the one put forth here should listen very closely to the voice of business, which is *very* clearly against this.


Like this comment
Posted by Jon
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 24, 2012 at 3:56 pm

The nexis of tobacco and booze is very clear. Put together, they are very enjoyable for those who, at that moment, want to enjoy their moments. This is very obvious.

The problem is that second-hand smoke forces others to suffer the enjoyment of the others. Booze is OK, to a certian level, but not at higher levels. Self evident, I think.

Smokers can enjoy the nicotine buzz by switching to smokeless tobacco ('dip' aka chewing tobacco). Definitely not a healthy habit, but neither is smoking. Pick your poison. At least with 'dip' it does not force the others next to you to breathe in your smoke.

Those who like their booze, in the public realm, have a way to protect the public safety (mostly), by having an identified booze-free driver, or to hire a cab to take them home.

If we go back to de-facto prohibition, we will be left with the problems of enforcement, as well as the undergoround economies that generate organized crime. Speak-Easy, anyone? Raids? Tommy guns?

There is a strong moralist component to the current politics, both the left and right. This is a common strain in American politics, and it is nothing new. The overriding issue is that free people want to be free to enjoy themselves, even if it is self-destructive. We need to compromise, to allow this freedom, while attempting to mitigate the effects on those who prefer not to be exposed.


Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Mar 26, 2012 at 9:31 am

Jon, by the same logic, since half of all auto accidents involve alcohol, we should ban booze since it forces others to "suffer" the enjoyment of others.

At least I can choose to move away if there is a smoker.


Like this comment
Posted by GC
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 18, 2012 at 2:04 pm

If you start banning things because it is bad for someone, then all fires sb banned, including BBQ, fire places, cars and candles, now move on to alcohol, hair spray, peanuts, cats, dogs where do we stop?