Go Back   Cigar Weekly Community Forums and Discussion Groups > Smoking Post > Cigar Talk

Cigar Talk A place for cigar enthusiasts to discuss our hobby, legal cigars and related stuff.

Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 08-17-2006, 05:41 PM   #1
Brian Magnus
Starting Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Villa Regis, The Empreyan Heights
Posts: 45
Finally Some Sense Concerning A Proposed Anti-Smoking Legisl

Kudos to the Contra Costa County Times. Finally somebody has realized that this anti-smoking shit has gone to far. http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/...n/15293729.htm

Dublin Goes Too Far

Dublin council OKs cigarette ordinance
IF THINGS PROCEED along their current course, Dublin will become the first city in the Bay Area --the second in the state -- to pass an ordinance that places secondhand smoke in the category of a "public nuisance."

The latest ordinance, introduced by the City Council Tuesday, would, for the first time, regulate smoking in outdoor areas around private residences.

It goes into effect 30 days after passing a second reading by the council at its Sept. 5 meeting.

Under the new law, a nonsmoker who claims to have suffered because his neighbor's cigarette smoke wafted over a common fence, would be able to sue for damages in small claims court.

In this day of litigiousness, we hardly need to encourage a new flood of petty lawsuits.

It also is difficult to imagine how such an ordinance would be enforced. It would declare secondhand smoke a public nuisance -- like abandoned cars, weeds and vicious dogs. However, the ordinance would not make secondhand smoke a crime.

Inconvenienced nonsmokers would not be able to call the police to report a smoking neighbor, as they can to complain about someone who plays their music too loud.

Then, assuming an aggrieved nonsmoker decides to take the matter to court, how does he or she prove the case? The evidence -- the offending cigarette or cigar -- has long since gone up in smoke, leaving one neighbor's word against the other.

Don't get us wrong. The city's effort to crack down on secondhand smoke is certainly well-intentioned.

It comes on the heels of a report by the state Air Resources Board that labeled secondhand smoke a toxic hazard.

And, more recently, a U.S. Surgeon General's study declared, in no uncertain terms, that there is no such thing as safe exposure to cigarette smoke.

Unfortunately, however, good intentions don't always lead to good laws.

Councilwoman Kasie Hildenbrand says she pushed the ordinance because, with the growing number of multi-unit homes and residences being built closer together, relations between smokers and nonsmokers are likely to grow increasingly sour.

In particular, one resident had complained to Hildenbrand about a neighbor who kept smoking near her property line, aggravating her medical condition.

We sympathize with the woman. A considerate neighbor certainly would have stamped out his or her butt, moved farther away or gone indoors.

But the fact is, smoking, although bad for one's health, is not against the law if one indulges on one's own property.

Consequently, the city's efforts to restrict a person's right to smoke in their own backyard lead down a slippery slope.

Dublin has already banned smoking in most public places, which is a powerful step. But it's too great of a reach to attempt to enforce private behavior on private property when it does not violate the law.
Brian Magnus is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:00 PM.