2006/01/26

In California, Second-hand Smoke Now A Toxic Air Contaminant

Asthma sufferers rejoice. Smoker's howl, and local comptrollers cringe as they imagine new and inventive ways that the state will bust their budgets.

This designation places second-hand smoke in the same category as benzene and arsenic. In other words, the state will now be compelled to assess the impact and take action.

Now, as an asthma sufferer myself, no one was more pleased than I when California imposed bans on smoking in restaurant and bars, but even I can see that attempting to address this will be an unending, unenforceable, budget-busting mess. If we tolerate smoking in our society at all, it must have it's place--in the home, in one's backyard, away from non-smokers...wherever. But, as the Chronicle's article points out, we have no good solution for the children of smokers or anyone else that cannot avoid contact with smokers. So now we have to solve the unsolvable.

Maybe we should have just banned smoking outright.

12 Comments:

I think we could probably start by stopping the subsidies to tobacco farmers, but what do I know....

Mike
Let's be clear about one thing; public investment in agriculture hardly qualifies as "subsidies." Were it not for this initiative, America would be flooded with cheap inferior tobacco imported from Iran, or worse, France!
If smokers were smoking Tobacco, this wouldn't be a problem because it wouldn't be a category 4 addiction. It's the additives and poisons that make it so addictive, so dangerous, and I suspect so profitable.

I'm tremendously allergic to cigarette smoke, but when I've attended American Indian ceremonies, the burning tobacco offerings don't bother me at all.

Things that make you go "hmmm?"
It's the additives and poisons that make it so addictive, so dangerous, and I suspect so profitable.

Damn. So could it be that all of those classic adds touting the benefits of smoking were right? :-)
They put all kinds of poisons in there- scary. I think what gets me are the pregnant women smoking- I know its my morality against another blah blah blah but can't you just suffer a few months, suck it up?
Its disturbing the way people are dismissive about negative health risks.
My mother was a smoker, and as a result I have always been repelled by the idea of putting a burning weed in my mouth...of any kind. Now that I suffer from asthma (never experienced till I moved to the Left Coast), the idea that I would actually inhale particulate matter, by choice, repels me even more.

But still, this whole toxic contaminant thing is going to be a huge mess.
Why exactly is tobacco use still legal? Since it is, why exactly is cannibus use illegal?

I used to smoke when I lived out west. I was one of these pissed off smokers that always felt like I was being picked on, especially after the state instituted the ban in restaurants and bars.

I've quit though, and so has my views on the matter. It really is an addictive, life threatening habit that effects everyone in the smokers environment. But, seriously, how are they going to enforce this law?
Isn't there a better solution than a complete smoking ban?
CV is correct. I did a little experiment on myself. I quit 4 years ago, but relapsed a *tad* after the bushco re-stolen election last year. I used to smoke marlboro lights or somesuch, but this time I would only smoke American Spirits which do NOT have all the additives. Guess what? I could have only 1 and be fine. marlboros lent themselves to chain-smoking - sort of like eating chocolate or sweets. Weird! Also, when I did stop, I didn't have much in the way of withdrawal.

I am now walking proof of the fact that what they put in regular cigarettes is beyond scary. I totally believe that it's the chemicals that do the most damage and keep folks so damn hooked.

I'm done with it completely now, but if I do relapse ever, I won't touch anything but the pure stuff.

And, yes, WHY THE HELL isn't cannibus legal? Only the pharmaceutical industry knows :)
Isn't there a better solution than a complete smoking ban?

Well, I think that California authorities believed that this approach was better than an outright ban, but as I said, I think that it will create more problems than it solves.
An outright ban is not possible and really would be wrong to dictate to others what they can and cannot do with their own body. But I am with above up there, kills me when I see a pregnant woman smoking, or a parent smoking around their small children.

But not my place to tell them how to raise their children either.

Now as one who has weak lungs due to parents being smokers (yes I blame them), I'm glad for this label. It should be looked more into. Will anything come of it? (shrugs)
Angie, don't believe I've seen you around here.

Welcome!

Add a comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link