« Dalati Re-Registering As A Democrat | Main | The MSM Ignores Jerry Brown Ignoring Sexual Harassment In His Own Office »

October 31, 2006


Mike Lawson

Anti-kudos? Haha.



So we can look forward to continued ashtray-like conditions at county beaches!

It's nice to know that campbell and Norby are looking out for my rights...
Except that they don't care about my right to breathe clean air, and my right not to develop lung cancer and/or emphysema by way of inhaling second-hand smoke.


I just finished looking through my Declaration of Indpendence and the Constitution, and I just couldn't find the right-not-to-get-emphysema-from-second-hand-smoke, Andrew. Maybe you can point out where they are?

Why do liberals have to turn every thing that is desirable into some kind of civil right? It renders the idea of human rights frivolous when every preference becomes a right.


Why do conservatives always forget about the Declaration of Independence and Constitution until they want to attempt to make a point about something insignificant?

Steve Burt

San Clemente passed a "no smoking on the beach" law. Thank goodness we can still have fire pits and barbecues on our eroding beaches. I don't smoke and I don't appreciate being in the presence of tobacco smoke. However, I find great folly in our city and county leaders peddling laws for which they have little resources to enforce. Local police don't even arrest illegal immigrants. Thank goodness Pat Bates will be taking over in the fifth district.

I'm not a doctor but...

Wouldn't "not-getting emphysema from second-hand somke" fall under "life" and/or "the pursuit of happiness?" How about "promoting the general welfare?"

People certainly have the right to destroy themselves with cigarettes. The right to kill yourself with cigarettes ends, however, where my lungs begin.

All of that aside, I think that labelling this proposal as an attempt at social engineering is folly. The driving force behind the idea was to keep cigarette butts out of the ocean and out of our tidepools.

Or is that also statist? I mean... I don't see anything about a right to recreate in a clean ocean in the Constitution.

R. Chris

Of Course we wouldn't want the government to infringe on our right to smoke on the beach - that would be an invasion of my personal privacy and individual rights...how dare they!

Thank Goodness the Government isn't trying to invade my privacy by wiretapping my phones, suspending habeas corpus, monitoring my internet activity, snooping my phone records and...

Wait, I have an idea, let's tell the OC Supes that terrorists smoke on beaches and I saw a story on Al Jarzeera about fighting the infidels with cigarettes.

Oh and by banning smoking on our beaches, we're supporting the troops.

Patrick Henry

Wouldn't "not-getting emphysema from second-hand somke" fall under "life" and/or "the pursuit of happiness?" How about "promoting the general welfare?"

Not when you can easily move out of the way. And if you're going to use the "general welfare" to justify this level of governmment miciromanagement, you can justify any government intrusion into our lives.

And Spanky, we conservatives don't forget about the Constitution and the Declaration. We keep it before us. It's the liberals who see them as documents either to get around or pretzel into justifications for their enbdless expansion of government.

Bruce Matthias

I commend Jubal for taking a stand for liberty and personal responsibility on this issue. All the complaints about the annoyance that smokers represent are true of a few of them. But it is their INDIVIDUAL responsibility to improve their behavior, and it is our INDIVIDUAL responsibility to correct them in a firm but polite fashion when they behave like boors. Keep up the great work, Jubal.


"...we conservatives don't forget about the Constitution and the Declaration. We keep it before us."

Are you a Bush conservative?

"It's the liberals who..."

If I had a nickel for every time I've heard this, Bill Gates would be washing my Bentley with Donald Trump's toupee right now.

Mike DeFreitas

Does anyone have any links to the science used to justify a smoking ban on the beach, or was it just a ton of people giving their emotional responses?

It seems to me that you'd breathe in much worse by sitting in gridlock on the way to the beach.

the serrach says..

Wow. I've been gone a long time, i suppose it's fair to say nobody missed me.

Mike D. is totally right on this. Since the air folks breathe in traffic gridlock is much worse than at the beach, we ought to be working on bringing the beach air down to the freeway's level and not the other way around. where do these people get off expecting to breathe fresh air at the ocean? it's ludicrous.


the serrach says.. Wow. I've been gone a long time, i suppose it's fair to say nobody missed me.

receptive young man ain't ya?

Mike DeFreitas

Wow, so much sarcasm when you didn't even get the point. I suppose that's my fault, as I didn't really go into it too far.

Instead of using public health concerns to punish those who aren't doing anything wrong (read: smokers who *don't* consider the beach as an ashtray, such as myself), maybe we should focus attention on real concerns. Real concerns like people sitting in gridlock traffic breathing the crap their cars output because of too many cars on too few crappy roads.

Not everyone at the beach smokes. Not even a majority. I'm not convinced that the air quality is affected all that much. And I'm against politicians using incorrectly prioritized issues that play on emotional response to score political points, which is exactly what the result is with a beach smoking ban. On a side note, can you really call the air at the ocean "fresh?" Maybe, but it's a stretch to say that it smells much better than tobacco smoke.

Even without the second-hand smoke issue, some still bring up the issue of litter, which is valid, but only if combined with the whole of litter. The only fair thing to do in that case is ban everything from the beach that could become litter - food, drink, tobacco products, fishing equipment - you name it!

Lastly, and this is related to my first sentence here - don't be a dick. I'm interested in learning more about the topic, not answering the mental diarrhea of some internet stud hiding behind an anonymous handle. I'm a fierce liberal, but part of that is intellectual honesty and being able to call out bad policy based on emotion rather than good science - regardless of whether or not it supports "liberal" values.

the serrach says..

apparently you ARE interested in answering the mental diarrhea of an internet stud.

i mean.. since you did and all.

if you don't wish for people to make sarcastic remarks, don't make foolish ones.

Mike DeFreitas

Once more, I should have gone into it further. I've seen your posts around and often agree with your points, so I figured you were worth a response.

Care to take this discussion up a notch and discuss the points I brought up? As I said, I'm interested in real discussion here. What exactly about what I've said is foolish, especially with the clarifications I made?

the serrach says..

sure thing. for me the beach smoking is, largely related to litter. i have personally participated in a "beach clean up day" and was astonished at the filth smokers leave behind. it is far and away the # item that i saw (you can do a few google searches and find that this is not just my experience but a worldwide fact). i dont agree with your approach of , if i may paraphrase, "we can't fix it all so let's not fix the little things.(if i'm wrong, i apologize but seems to be the gist of your posts)" w/r/t smog vs. second hand smoke, i fully support aggressive caps on pollution created by cars, factories, and what have you. that doesn't mean we should not fix other problems.

regarding the beach smoke.. a libertarian that i respect once told me that his political philosophy was that folks can do whatever they want provided they don't harm others. second hand smoke harms others. every day. please leave me out of it.


On the other hand, how much of that filth is merely cigarette butts from the rest of the world, washing up on the ocean? Butts that wash on shore don't have identifiers that say where they were dropped.


Banning smoking is discriminatory. If a state were to pass an ordinance that didn't let people on welfare vote until they were off the welfare system, liberals would be in uproar...but only because the poor are the very people they exploit for votes. The opposite holds true here: smokers dislike liberal policy which would raise the prices on their recreational products higher via taxation, so to punish them the liberals try to just ban the practice altogether. I thought we were supposed to be equal, but apparently that's only if you're willing to vote and/or bankroll the DNC.

Are we going to ban driving cars next? You know they emit noxious and poisonous fumes that contain chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer and birth defects...

And don't even get me started on the continuous lawsuits against the tobacco companies over the fact that people choose to use their products and then die...I seem to remember this thing called personal responsibility in this country, but I've no idea where it's gone/.

R. Chris

Oh Josef
and you accuse Dems of taking things to the extreme?

Banning smoking isn't discriminatory its a public health issue. If it was such a despicable discriminatory act why would California's ban on smoking in bars and restaurants be in effect for so long with no challenges? New York has just done the same.

How silly can you be?

Someone smoking can give me cancer, plain and simple. Its called protecting our health.

And as a Republican I can see why you support the tobacco companies against the lawsuits they've already lost - you thrive on deception on lies.

So let's see...Clinton lies to Congress and he gets impeached, tobacco moguls lie to Congress and its the liberal establishment that's running wild.

Bush lies to us about going to war and he's a hero.

It's protecting public health, stupid. Something the Government is supposed to do, Its the same reason why someone cannot locate a coal plant or an oil refinery next to your house or school.

Your logic is not akin to banning cars (they're regulated that's how we minimize pollution) oh wait you weren't even BORN when California enacted the most forward thinking regulations on cars to clean the air.

If someone in your family dies because of a defective product, mercury poisoning, pollution or otherwise, just accept it and go on...too damn bad for them its probably their fault for anyway.

Let's lock you in a room for a year with a smoker and see how your health deteriorates. Oh wait, that's not the smokers fault, its the DNC...


The comments to this entry are closed.