|
Relay for Life -- Bakersfield a leader Lay off the old people, you NFL bruisers Scratching and rubbing, good feelings Female-only buses in Mexico City, but not Bakersfield A $200,000 ride to space, how nice How healthy are your dogs? Mother gives up newborn to Bakersfield fire station A $2,000 puppy stolen in Oildale How much of a hassle are fog delays? Fog, the thing I like least about Bakersfield July 06 August 06 September 06 October 06 November 06 December 06 January 07 February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 June 06 May 06 April 06 March 06 February 06 January 06 December 05 November 05 October 05 September 05 Blog RollAsk The Californian Editorials Entertainment Eye of Bakersfield Faith Forum Fired Up! Inside Sports Neighbors Right Thinking Sound Off Talk of the Town 
RSS 2.0    Share!
|
|
|
Ban smoking in Bakersfield parks?
The devil is tempting me here, and I'm about to hold his hand.
A Bakersfield couple wants the City Council to ban smoking in public parks. That's got to be a blatant assault on people's freedom to slowly kill themselves on a park bench. Isn't it enough that they can't smoke in restaurants, bars and public buildings? The devil tells me no. I'm nodding in agreement. But smokers pay taxes too. A lot. Especially on those cigarettes they buy. Don't they have rights too? Rights to stink up the air and trash the grounds? No, I don't think they should have those rights. Posted by Steve E. Swenson 27 comments from 16 users
1
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Dec 27, 2006 at 08:20 AM
Good luck with that.Did Jacquie Sullivan really need to play the "victim card" here? posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Dec 27, 2006 at 08:24 AM
Funny, I'm a non-smoker -- never smoked a single one in my life -- and I feel that smokers are the ones being picked on.
posted by
tonyh
on Dec 27, 2006 at 08:34 AM
I think they should ban Golf in ALL public places. I think that there should be no such thing as a Public Golf Course. Those pesky balls flying around are dangerous. You never know when one will come flying over the fence and hit your car, while your driving by. I've had it happen twice. One landed in the middle of the top and left a big dent. The other broke my windshield.
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Dec 27, 2006 at 08:38 AM
Twice? Dang, I've been trying to hit your car for a long time tony. I didn't know I even got it the first time. ; )
posted by
steveeswenson
on Dec 27, 2006 at 08:38 AM
Tony,Now you're just talking blasphemy and heresy. Besides, golf is banned in public parks because it is dangerous to health of others. posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Dec 27, 2006 at 08:41 AM
Maybe you should start driving one of those cars that pick up the balls on the driving range. I can't hit those for the life of me.
posted by
tonyh
on Dec 27, 2006 at 09:04 AM
Pete, maybe you're right. If I painted a big target on top of my car, even the birds wouldn't be able to hit it........ Steve, I figured that would get your attention. It was just as silly as banning outside smoking. Where do we go next, no Farting outside either? Maybe people shouldn't be allowed to sneeze in public............. posted by
anonymous
on Dec 27, 2006 at 09:11 AM
Shoot, there's counties in California that are trying to ban smoking everywhere but inside a single-family dwelling. This means no smoking in an apartment that you're paying rent for and that a person can't even go out and have a beer and a smoke in their own back yards, for crying out loud!
posted by
johnburnssucks
on Dec 27, 2006 at 10:12 AM
When tempted by something like lighting up in a public park, always consider this: http://tinyurl.com/fos3t posted by
antiextremism
on Dec 27, 2006 at 10:18 AM
That might be taking it a bit far. Perhaps if smokers just stayed 40 feet away from the playground???? I'm all for banning smoking in an indoor public environment, but it seems to me that now they are REALLY nitpicking. I'm also against the heavy taxes put on smokers. If it's legal, it should be taxed at the same rate as everything else. What's next, the "Quarter lber with Cheese will harden your arteries" tax???? Pete, have you paid your 'slicer's tax' for influencing your golfball into being a neocon by way of making it go from the far left to the far right? posted by
AudreyB
on Dec 27, 2006 at 10:37 AM
If the government is going to ban smoking in all public places, why does it give huge tax breaks and subsidies to tobacco farmers. Our government is schizophrenic. posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Dec 27, 2006 at 10:37 AM
Many times over antiex. I did lower my slicer's tax by regripping my driver though. Just a thought. If we ban smoking in public parks, where are all the teens going to learn how to smoke? posted by
tonyh
on Dec 27, 2006 at 10:44 AM
................in the can, at school...........
posted by
nooneisabovethelaw
on Dec 27, 2006 at 10:52 AM
Agriculture department reforms ended subsidies to tobacco farmers several years ago. No tax money is being paid to any farmer in the U.S. to produce tobacco nowadays. I'm for the ban, personally. The drawback to banning smoking in restaurants was all the outdoor seating areas (at restaurants that have them, obviously) are now taken up by smokers. The drawback to banning smoking at work is now the doorways are nasty, smelly, filthy areas you're forced to come through. Why anybody EVER takes up that stupid habit is beyond me. If you want to kill yourself, do it quickly...and don't kill the rest of it with it, okay? posted by
johnburnssucks
on Dec 27, 2006 at 12:37 PM
Many men take up smoking because they're married to turbo-nags with dyed orange hair and snaggly teeth. The nicotine calms them down and quells the urge to commit homicide.
posted by
AudreyB
on Dec 27, 2006 at 01:44 PM
The House (under the leadership of Bill Thomas) passed a 10 billion dollar buyout for tobacco farmers in 2004. The buyout was expected to take place over the space of 5 years. It was heartily endorsed by President Bush (naturally) who (surprise-surprise) carried all of the tobacco states in the 04 election.
posted by
nooneisabovethelaw
on Dec 27, 2006 at 04:20 PM
'Tis true the buyout was funded at $10.1 billion, with funding of $9.6 billion to be paid to "growers and quota owners" over 10 years. "Growers" and "quota owners" are different entities, altogether. Quota owners may or may not (and most likely, not) be actively involved in producing tobacco. (The remaining $500 million is for use in disposition of stocks held by the grower associations and the Commodity Credit Corporation.) More importantly, the legislation calls for cigarette manufacturers and importers to fund the buyout based on their share of the U.S. cigarette market. Also, equally importantly, the legislation of the joint houses required, after the 2004 crop year, there will be no federal program regulating tobacco production. So, while I misspoke about the start of the program...I was thinking it was more years ago...it's also not being funded by taxpayers. posted by
anonymous
on Dec 27, 2006 at 07:25 PM
While they're at it, why don't they plant grass where the parking lot is?
These people who want to stop everyone from smoking surely would have no qualms about WALKING to the park instead of driving vehicles that emit all of those noxious gasses. posted by
woofwoof
on Dec 27, 2006 at 08:13 PM
No smoking at the park? Then they'll have to enforce it right, where's that money coming from? I want to be the "no smoking police" then....just hand the dough over to me, ok! Because it would be a waste.
posted by
tonyh
on Dec 27, 2006 at 08:49 PM
Nice job, if you can get it........... Sit in the park all day, drinking Iced Tea or Coffee and handing out Smoking tickets. I love it. posted by
anonymous
on Dec 28, 2006 at 08:33 AM
I suggest that everyone call Dianne Hoover, Parks and Rec. Director and let her know how you feel on this proposed smoking ban. Can we also propose no more dogs allowed to poop in the parks as well? That smells as worse as the smoke. OR maybe we can make those who smoke clean up the dog poop as punishment.
posted by
mattcub
on Dec 28, 2006 at 09:30 AM
Associate a smell with fun in the park? How about dog poop, the diapers people leave behind, empty beer cans and bottles? Or the smell of gas guzzling SUVs. Smoking is way down on my list of associated smells of fun at the park. At two and a half years old, I say the parents have a great many years ahead of them to teach their child about "fun associations." But then that would require them to do their job instead of putting prohibitions on others. With all the restrictions already in place for our public parks, why build them anyway? We could save the money for more roads, police and street cleaning...especially in my ward...are you listening Ms. Sullivan?
posted by
TomW
on Dec 28, 2006 at 09:46 AM
BTW, just to throw this in, I believe that smoking has not been banned in bars and restaurants. The law says you can't require that employees enter an area where smoking is permitted. If you have an owner-operated establishment, you can choose whether or not to allow smoking. As for the parks, why not create a smoking area?
posted by
mattloch
on Dec 28, 2006 at 11:09 AM
You're correct Tom, which is why you can still find a few bars in town that you won't be ticketed at for smoking. The great irony is that many bar and restaurant owners whined and complained that they needed the no-smoking regulations because people were avoiding going out because of smoke. Once it was passed, they complained that the places that still permitted smoking had an unfair business advantage and that they were taking all of the customers away from the non-smoking places. I'll say that removing smoking from restaurants was a good idea, but smoking and bars go together like..... cigarettes and booze.
posted by
take
on Dec 29, 2006 at 07:25 PM
it's too bad that smokers are too lazy to lobby for Protective Rights. only 18% of people smoke, so Why can't they be a protected minority. Oh It's because everyone knows the danger they pose on everyone not just the smoker. That is too bad that THERE IS NO LEGAL RIGHT TO SMOKE. Imagine if they where protected! NO more asking someone to stop blowing smoke in your face at the ATM or Stop light. posted by
anonymous
on Dec 29, 2006 at 07:31 PM
If they enforced the money would come from the fines. Simply put a not in the ordinace stating that all revenue from the citations have to go to enforcement like it was done for the Parents of Truant Kids. Imagine a $250 fine for getting caught smoking. That Stinks. But the agency doing the ticketing really makes a killing. Just one ticket a day pays for staff and expenses. But, have you been to the park lately?, I'm sure they can make $3 or $4 thousand!!! Great JOB posted by
tonyh
on Jan 7, 2007 at 04:25 PM
1
Our readers recommend: |
