Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Constitutional Issues Smoking in Public and Whose Rights are they?

Not at all. I challenge whether there is any such right to begin with.

It escapes me how people downstream of me have more of a "right" to tell me what to do with and on my property than people downwind of me have. But, then, I get easily lost in the arguments of liberals and relativists.

Phil, years ago when I still lived in the Santa Monica Mountains I presented a paper to the L.A. County Zoning board asking why the people who bought property uphill from anyone's property were not responsible for the damage the bulldozing did below them.

I did not ask for government control over their developments but that the developers be responsible for the damage. We had water levels lowered in our community when 75 homes were built between the lower part of the hills and the water pressure was so low we felt a fire hazard. I lived on the upper Calabasas creek surrounded by some oaks that were over 400 years old. "The Good Earth" was filmed on that creek and I saw the film and noticed that our oaks were enormous then. The trees added to our property values and the creek was part of our livestyle and we all rode our rubber rafts down the hills. A developer from New York bought up the property along Old Topanga Canyon Road and somehow knew a new High school would be built.

The creek was diverted to another area and 75 homes were built. The flooding when the creek was not aware of a change of direction cut all access off to our property. Half the homes built were carried away on the old creek route. The builder simply declared bancruptcy and we all the homeowners were in physical and financial trouble due to his changes on our hill.

I got to present my paper in person and the Zoning board laughed that anyone should be forced to control an act of God. There is no responsibility for this kind of damage and the builders have continued to destroy the area. I did not want to stop the building (remember, I am a Capitalist) but to ask for responsibility for the damage they inflicted on those of us who suffered from the flooding they caused. My home was above the disaster but my exit road was not. My kids rode their horses through the flood and shopped for my neighbors who were frightened of the water.

I found it better to move. I realize that building million dollar homes would add to the property taxes and our smaller homes built in the 1920s carried no value to Los Angeles. Some of the people on that hill were the original owners and were forced to move in their 80s and 90s for their own protection. I was the last to sell out and there was little left of my hill when I moved.

It was a contamination that was impossible to describe to anyone who had ever seen the glory of the Santa Monica mountains. But that's progress and I'm certain you will make sure those people do not smoke. Excuse me if I burp!

I have fought like a tiger all my life for individual freedoms for women, gays, people of color and the pale ones. But when smoking is labeled a health hazard, you lose me. Can you spell NITPICKING?

Sandy: Pardon me, but can you spell chemotherapy?

Oh yes, I have had many cancer patients in my work with hospice and the greater majority of them never had a cigarette in their lives. This is just another movement of terrorism to scare the hell out of Americans. A lot of us don't buy it Julia!

I had a woman tell me yesterday as she was looking at the color of my skin and that her sister died of cancer from the rays of the sun. The problem was she had stomach cancer and this woman believed it was caused by the sun.

How long will it be before you strike out that the sun is a health hazard? We can only take so much of this nonsense. The color of my skin is a family trait. We have enough Cherokee on my mother's side that none of us for many generations have ever feared the sun. But it's a new world now that the fears are coming from the left as well as the right. The fear is growing that either someone else's smoke will kill us or the sun will finish us off. Then if we survive that, the devil will take us to hell. Living in America is a challenge all on its own.

I wish to be left alone and out of this terrorism growing even on the internet. By the time my kids were weaned we were on the beach. The fresh air and salty water kept us healthy humans. Everybody smoked in those days and we even were able to bring a 6-pack of brew to keep us cool. My kids drank water with a touch of lemon and honey. They never had a sick day. They never saw a pimple due to the sand and salt water. Mother nature was our medical professional.

Good one, iss! Yes, it's a mighty mob, isn't it? Attacking those smokers with cancer, denying them the right to infest other people with their emphysema, preventing them from engaging in the "legal" activity of sucking up their toxic, addictive, smoldering Substance and blowing it back out for everyone else to "enjoy".

Legal? What makes it legal? Could it be legal because legislatures, bowing to the "might" of the tobacco lobbyist "mob", succumb to their assertion of the natural "right" of smokers to pollute those who happen to be downstream downwind?

Yep. And the proverbial tide is turning. As copper mining becomes less and less profitable, the power of the ignorant "mob" becomes greater, and politicians succumb to the demands for more stringent regulations. Just as with tobacco. As the cost increasingly outweighs the benefits, politicians increasingly sing the tune of a different "mob".

Mob.

Oh, Dear God, the list of prohibitions have apparently just started. Keep it is east coast please!

I thought I had been perfectly clear in my position. I've had absolutely no problem understanding where Issodhos stands on this, nor of the other posters here, including you. I believe that I indicated, quite a number of posts above, that there were legitimate reasons for limiting smoking on publicly owned property, or even on some privately-owned property, with public access but where the access is not voluntary.

What I fail to see is any reasonable justification for arbitrarily ordering, for example, a bar or restaurant owner not to allow the use of tobacco - a legal commodity - on his own property as s/he sees fit simply as an accomodation to a bunch of meddling do-gooders who do not have to be there in the first place.

At the risk of being blunt to the point of rudeness, I hope that establishes my position on the matter in such a way that you cannot possibly avoid grasping it.

I have in all cases responded in the assumption that my fellow posters - including you - were replying in good faith - i. e., that their words represented their thoughtful consideration of the matter regardless of whether or not I agreed with their stated position(s).

So - again at the risk of being considered rude - what would it take, other than simply agreeing with your position, to convince you that we who are not enamored of the bludgeon of state fiat are indeed engaging in a thoughtful consideration of the matter?

Bravo Ron

Ron, we just disagree. I think that if a business is livcensed by the city or state, for example to serve alcohol, a controlled substance, the state has the right to protect both patrons and employees from second hand smoke. You do not.

Fortunately I have more power than you.