No butts at the beach!

[Tigermike 3,029]

The state that thinks a normal functional family is three men, a large house plant and an armadillo will now be limiting smoking at the beach.

I am not a smoker, but no smoking outside?

EDITORIAL: No butts

Not content with statewide prohibitions against lighting up in bars and restaurants and most other indoor spaces open to the public, last year tony Santa Monica -- the ultra-liberal oceanfront town Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda once called home -- banned smoking in its public parks. Yes, the ones situated outdoors.

But it's never enough. Santa Monica is on the verge of becoming the third and largest city in California to ban smoking ... on the beach.

The Santa Monica Council voted Tuesday to outlaw smoking on its famous pier -- save a few designated areas -- and on the entirety of the city's four-mile strand of public beaches. The ban will take effect if the council again approves the measure on April 13.

In justifying their decision, council members cited concerns about pollution from discarded cigarette butts as frequently as they worried about the dangers of secondhand smoke (no, seriously).

Isn't littering already illegal? Indeed it is, with fines reaching as high as $1,000. But doggone it, people still toss their butts on the beach.

If you're in Los Angeles, exposure to secondhand smoke on a beach should be the least of your air-quality-related health worries. But the anti-smoking zealots will not be satisfied until all tobacco use is criminalized, even in private homes.

Meantime, we've noticed some candy bar and even some condom wrappers littering those beaches. Why doesn't the Santa Monica Council go ahead and ban ... no, no, we were just kidding!

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/200...n/23529927.html

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2470014

[TitanTiger 20,482]

I hate having to breathe smoke too...but didn't the WHO prove that secondhand smoke was not harmful?

[channonc 466]

I think its becoming more and more apparent that soon tabacco will be an illegal drug.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

If you're in Los Angeles, exposure to secondhand smoke on a beach should be the least of your air-quality-related health worries

I spent a week in LA during the summer a few years back and I can vouch for this. I'm not a smoker, but I can't see how anyone out there can gripe about the smell of a cigarette when they are constantly inhaling all that carbon monoxide. To me, the smell of a cigarette would be a welcomed change.

[tiger88 934]

I think its becoming more and more apparent that soon tabacco will be an illegal drug.

Then we can build even more prisons for tobacco offenders :roll: . Bible thumpers and control freaks everwhere will be overjoyed when that happens.

[rexbo 104]

They need to outlaw smoking in pick-ups, at least those driven by rednecks. If I could somehow collect the $500 littering fine for everytime I saw someone throw a butt out of a pick-up truck, I would be retired about now...

[Tigermike 3,029]

I think its becoming more and more apparent that soon tabacco will be an illegal drug.

Then we can build even more prisons for tobacco offenders :roll: . Bible thumpers and control freaks everwhere will be overjoyed when that happens.

To be accurate, it was not the Bible thumpers that started the BS with tobacco. It is not the Bible thumpers that are driving the anti smoking PC police across the nation. In fact it is my opinion that if it were the churches that had instigated the anti tobacco lobby, the very people that are so vocal would be screaming, "WHO ARE THEY TO BE TELLING US WHAT TO DO!"

[MDM4AU 332]

Bible thumpers? Where did that come from? I didn't know that it was a Christian thing to be against smoking. I know several who smoke. I am a former smoker.

What is with these thoughts? I think it is quite presumptuous to accuse Christians, either directly or indirectly, of being behind this or supporting this. That's like saying everyone that makes remarks against Christians are Satanists.

I don't care for cigarette smoke, personally. But, I don't have a problem with establishments having designated areas for it and I certainly don't feel it should be illegal.

JMHO :mellow:

[CarolinaTiger 0]

I think its becoming more and more apparent that soon tabacco will be an illegal drug.

Then we can build even more prisons for tobacco offenders :roll: . Bible thumpers and control freaks everwhere will be overjoyed when that happens.

let me voice my diagreement w/ the 'bible thumper' comment as well.

i'm a bible thumper that believes smokers are one of the most unfairly picked on groups in america.

i'd come closer to thinking that the persecutors of smokers would be those who speak out when they have no idea what they're talking about.

ct

[tiger88 934]

My idea and yours of what a bible thumper is may vary greatly, it is a very relatively true term. The "bible thumpers" I know and am referring to would be exhilirated if smoking were outlawed, trust me.

My statement was not a blanket statement against christians at all.

It is pretty funny how much was read into my very short statement. I mean out of one line there are about tree or four paragraphs of people assuming what I was thinking. Come on guys, don't be so uptight.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

My idea and yours of what a bible thumper is may vary greatly, it is a very relatively true term. The "bible thumpers" I know and am referring to would be exhilirated if smoking were outlawed, trust me.

My statement was not a blanket statement against christians at all.

It is pretty funny how much was read into my very short statement. I mean out of one line there are about tree or four paragraphs of people assuming what I was thinking. Come on guys, don't be so uptight.

i'm uptight!!! i admit it!

i think we're saying that, in general, it'd be the PC/liberal crowd much moreso than a Christian crowd that would take the actions described. as proof, it seems to be the much more liberal areas of our country that are going the route of banning smoking in public places...not the more conservative places.

if you loosely relate liberal to PC/sinners and conservatives to Christians, then there you go!!!

ct

[tiger88 934]

i'm uptight!!! i admit it!

ME TOO!!!!!!

I am working on it however.

[Tigermike 3,029]

if you loosely relate liberal to PC/sinners and conservatives to Christians, then there you go!!!

ct

That's not a fact?

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Point of fact: the people who populate the groups of "anti-smoking zealots" are disproportionately from the PC/left-wing crowd, and generally devoid of "Bible-thumpers".

[tiger88 934]

Point of fact:  the people who populate the groups of "anti-smoking zealots" are disproportionately from the PC/left-wing crowd, and generally devoid of "Bible-thumpers".

What exactly someone determines an "anti smoking zealot" or "bible thumper" to be is open to individual interpretation. It makes no sense to label your interpretations of these as fact. The statement would not be a fact at all to someone who had a different interpretation of the two terms. Are you interpreting that I am using the word interpretation too much?

[Tigermike 3,029]

What exactly someone determines an "anti smoking zealot" or "bible thumper" to be is open to individual interpretation. It makes no sense to label your interpretations of these as fact. The statement would not be a fact at all to someone who had a different interpretation of the two terms. Are you interpreting that I am using the word interpretation too much?

Are you really James Carville? That sounds much like what we heard from him and the rest of the Clinton régime.

[tiger88 934]

What exactly someone determines an "anti smoking zealot" or "bible thumper" to be is open to individual interpretation. It makes no sense to label your interpretations of these as fact. The statement would not be a fact at all to someone who had a different interpretation of the two terms. Are you interpreting that I am using the word interpretation too much?

Are you really James Carville? That sounds much like what we heard from him and the rest of the Clinton régime.

That is quite possibly and most likely the biggest insult I have ever received in my life . The mere sight of that guy makes me cringe.

So are you saying that when every human on the planet conjures up an idea of what a bible thumper is they see the exact same thing? Are you denying that 100 people could read the definition of what a zealot is and many of them would walk away with a different interpretation of that definition?

You can call someone a man and that can be an undeniable fact. You can call someone a bible thumper and another person might say " no way, they are nowhere near a bible thumper". Who would be right? You or the other guy? You would both be right because it is a relative truth not a factual one. It is open to individual interpretation.

[Tigermike 3,029]

What exactly someone determines an "anti smoking zealot" or "bible thumper" to be is open to individual interpretation. It makes no sense to label your interpretations of these as fact. The statement would not be a fact at all to someone who had a different interpretation of the two terms. Are you interpreting that I am using the word interpretation too much?

Are you really James Carville? That sounds much like what we heard from him and the rest of the Clinton régime.

That is quite possibly and most likely the biggest insult I have ever received in my life . The mere sight of that guy makes me cringe.

So are you saying that when every human on the planet conjures up an idea of what a bible thumper is they see the exact same thing? Are you denying that 100 people could read the definition of what a zealot is and many of them would walk away with a different interpretation of that definition?

You can call someone a man and that can be an undeniable fact. You can call someone a bible thumper and another person might say " no way, they are nowhere near a bible thumper". Who would be right? You or the other guy? You would both be right because it is a relative truth not a factual one. It is open to individual interpretation.

Chill out Dude, see the little smiley face?

So are you saying that when every human on the planet conjures up an idea of what a bible thumper is they see the exact same thing? Are you denying that 100 people could read the definition of what a zealot is and many of them would walk away with a different interpretation of that definition?

You can call someone a man and that can be an undeniable fact. You can call someone a bible thumper and another person might say " no way, they are nowhere near a bible thumper". Who would be right? You or the other guy? You would both be right because it is a relative truth not a factual one. It is open to individual interpretation.

I didn't say any of that. Merely asked if you were James Carville. You are both from Lousania and fans or grads.

[tiger88 934]

I'm not even a little upset so I'd rather not chill out. I might go to sleep or

something!

BTW did you notice my smilies in my response?

I didn't say you said any of that. that is why my paragraph started out by asking you "So are you saying.........?". I wasn't assuming what any of your thoughts were. I was just asking if thats what you were saying.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

All I'm saying is that the people who are driving the lawsuits, the smoking bans in restaurants, workplaces, bars, and now the beach are primarily coming from the ranks of the left. Whether you all them zealots or not, it's not so-called "Bible thumpers" that generally expend their energy on this particular battle.

Argue semantics if you like. I think, in general, most people have a pretty good idea of what is being referred to by the term "Bible thumper" or "anti-smoking zealot", even if they might argue over this or that particular instance.

[tiger88 934]

I see what you're saying titan. I'm just saying that your statement was far from a fact. There are many people who might read it and disagree with it and it would be a difference of opinion not a difference based on fact or one person being right or wrong. It is far too general a statement to be labeled as fact, thats all I was saying.

The differences between peoples opinions of what the terms are can be wider than you indicated, imo. To one person a b-t may be someone who ever repeats a scripture in public. To another it may only apply to people who spend each day doing their impersonation of a hell fire and brimstone preacher.

I agree that the people that most consider to be bible thumpers are not any kind of driving force being the anti-smoking movement. That type of person is not who I was thinking of when I made my original post on this thread.

[DKW 86 7,424]

No Butts at the Beach?

Heck I thought this was going to be about people in THONG BIKINIS being outlawed or something.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

No Butts at the Beach?

Heck I thought this was going to be about people in THONG BIKINIS being outlawed or something.

Lol I did also.

I am all for banning cig's everywhere outside of a persons home.

You wanna smoke then that is your right, go for it in your house. Or make some club or restuarant that is smokers only. But I dont wanna inhale or smell like it especially when out exercising or eating dinner or something.

Smokers are totally oblivious to nonsmokers when out in the public, they don't care who or what they blow their smoke onto.

Oh, and Im a republican exercise science major not a left winged bible thumper .

[TitanTiger 20,482]

I hate smoking too. I would ban it simply because your enjoyment of a cigarette is unfortunately something that adversely affects other people...from smelling up their clothes and hair, to irritating their eyes, nose, and throat, to causing coughing, etc. What I object to is the junk science that's being used to ban it...the non-issue of secondhand smoke being cancerous. It isn't. The World Health Organization's own research proved it. What I also object to is the zealotry that some of the non-smoking crowd has devolved into...wanting movies to be rated 'R' is they have smoking, etc.

If they could develop a way for people to smoke, but all the exhaled smoke would be captured and prevented from bothering others, then I don't really care if idiots want to kill themselves slowly...unless it's someone I know and care about and then I'll deal with them directly.

[tiger88 934]

If they could develop a way for people to smoke, but all the exhaled smoke would be captured and prevented from bothering others, then I don't really care if idiots want to kill themselves slowly...unless it's someone I know and care about and then I'll deal with them directly.

Titan,

Are you saying all people that smoke are idiots?