Front Page  »  

Tougher smoking ban passed for San Luis Obispo

April 7, 2010

San Luis Obispo, the first city in the nation to crack down on smoking in public, adopted even more stringent regulations Tuesday night. [KSBY]

The city council voted four to one to make it even more difficult to smoke in public, with new restrictions to ban smoking in city parking garages and parking lots, and on city streets and sidewalks.

Last night’s action puts San Luis Obispo on track with 100 other cities in California who have recently passed tougher laws about smoking in public places.

The smoking ban includes Mission Plaza and all city dog parks.

One exemption was given to “The Sanctuary,” a popular fixture in the downtown since 1973. Store owner Doug Shaw is being given six months to install a separate ventilation system. Council members appeared reluctant to put a long-time store out of business.


Loading...
Subjects:
Related:


17 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Good law, about time.


0

Is this the best you bunch of stupid idiot council people can do? When we are in this recession, the focus should be on jobs and any other means of getting us out of it. You all deserve to get run over by a driver trying to light his cig in a car. Complete waste of time. I am so glad i don’t have to put up with the likes of you in my city.


0

I don’t care if people smoke on their own or ride noisy motorcycles without helmets. Just have them opt out of future hospital care so I don’t have to pay for their stupidity! They have a right to do whatever they want, but not at my expense… I also have a right to breath clean air!


0

What the F*** grayotter, does it matter unless you are caught up in dealing with people that are on the dole? I don’t agree to a system that taxes everyone for health care (at least not the way Obama wrote it). If we all think that Gov intrusion in our lives is a problem now just wait.


0

Cindy, I believe Congress wrote and passed the limp wristed health care legislation, Barack simply signed it into law.


0

You know, you’re right. I have to pay for the consequences of others mistakes with this new concept of health care. So in addition to banning public smoking, I want a ban on fast food, a ban on alcohol (you excessive consumption leads to a host of diseases, car wrecks, manslaughter, etc.), a ban on caffeinated products (proven to elevate blood pressure and that’s too dangerous), a ban on cars with the ability to exceed speeds of 55 mph (too fast, too dangerous)….. and let’s add a limit (per household) on consumption of products high in saturated fat, refined sugars, low nutritional content….


Because the masses apparently cannot think for themselves. And now the consequences of their poor decision making are going to run down MY finances, so I now have a legitimate claim on dictating their rights. Let’s start with smokers, they’re an unpopular minority; and what is America about besides eradicating personal liberties and oppressing minorities.


0

Oh, I can see our city council is tackling the big issues of our time… I feel so protected.


However, I see a lot of shops boarded up around town … I wonder what they are doing about that?


Roger Freberg


0

We need a couple more ordinances here. First, a total ban on all pesticides and insecticide products. You may not like insects, and prefer a sterile environment, but there are side effects to my health. So you may not spray anything against ants, termites, or any other such critters, nor may you hire anyone to do it, because ultimately this ends up in the air and ground water in my environment causing me health problems, so you’re just going to have to live with them. By the way, this includes anti-bacterial products, because their use may cause genetic mutations, increasing the resistance of the bacteria which may make me more susceptible to get sick. And no herbicides, you can just deal with those weeds or pick them by hand.


Second, we need an ordinance against cheap people, or at least against all petroleum-based synthetic products. See, the problem which cheap people is that they don’t appreciate the beauty and longevity of natural fibers. This means that they buy lots of things made of plastic and vinyl. These petroleum based products have a problem called “off-gassing,” in which they release noxious chemical fumes into the air, especially on hot days. Any time I walk into an establishment filled with these cheap materials, I am exposed to these fumes. If I walk into a building with brand new carpet, I am exposed to high doses of these carcinogens. They may like this cheap stuff, but it’s not fair to those of us who choose not to be cheap.


We also really need an ordinance protecting us against second-hand stupidity. I love going out in public, but every time I have to endure overhearing conversations which are painfully ignorant, misinformed, or just downright juvenile. Not only is it painful to my ears, but it causes me a lot of stress and frustration. This additional stress is dangerous to my heart and mental well-being, which causes me to eat and drink more, especially fatty foods and alcohol. This, in turn, causes my cholestorol and blood pressure to increase.


I’d also like an ordinance against people planting flowers in their gardens, because I have horrible allergies and asthma. Every time I walk by one of these pollen-infested gardens I experience respiratory problems. Sometimes this even causes lost work days. When it gets bad, I have to take medicines which may ultimately cause cancer, and heart and livery problems.


So, let’s be clear. Inside all businesses, outside all homes, in any central public ares, there shall be no petroleum based synthetic products, no insecticides, herbicides, anti-bacterial products, pollen-producing plants, and just to be safe, no talking. I know these things are not as *directly* offensive as me lighting up a cigarette within 20 feet of you, and are therefore not as easy to villianize, but nonetheless they effect me just as significantly, so what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. It’s only fair, right? RIGHT?!


0

I love it, Great Post.

mkaney can you add pungent cheap perfumes to this, there are a lot of very smelly people, mostly woman that me sneeze many consecutive times and then my nose itches for the next 10 minutes. Also Von’s grocery store pipes scented air fresheners into their common areas. Sometimes they make me sneeze and sometimes they don’t. Last month they released one that made me sneeze so hard that I banged my face on my shopping cart and I got a bloody nose. These air freshers are not healthy for me and I shouldn’t have to breath them just like I should have to breath other woman’s cheap cologne. One more thing, all stores that carry a large amount of soaps and cleansing powders, these need to be kept behind glass doors because I’m allergic to many of those items to.


0

Actually cheap perfume was the original thing that came to my mind when I started writing that, but then I forgot about it! HUGE oversight on my part.


I wonder if we can find some kind of negative impact from bicyclists who wear spandex, I mean other than having to see their genital bulges, because that’s another thing that drives me nuts. Why does every person who rides a bicycle in San Luis have to wear all that spandex? Are there THAT many bike racers around here or do we have some unique local fetish that I just have not caught on to yet. (Note that I’m a bicyclist, but sans-spandex.)


0

Men in spandex with their genital bulges, that’s a funny one because I immediate interpret their appearance as effeminate and not necessarily offensive but foolish looking and I have found myself feeling embarrassed for them on occasion. Woman in spandex (outside the gym) look foolish to me is they are splitting their seams. Clearly there are all sorts of bulges that are better covered up. Don’t know what to say about spandex except I think it might be an odd kind of “squeeze”. I think we are all stuck with looking at it until the style succumbs to something new which just might be g-strings so thank your lucky stars for now. ;)


0

Willie is correct, however it would be nice if this was left up to individual politeness rather than heavy handed government. Do the same penalties apply for pot smoking? There is a reason why the town is called “The people’s republic of San Luis Obispo”. Why do we not deny medical care to people who want to destroy themselves through smoking, drug addiction, and alcohol addiction?


0

A little pain in the short term.

A lot of good in the long term.

Change is a strain at times.

No strain no gain.

Good ordinace to encourage weening the addiction.

Shame we need an ordiance like this but we are dealing with a long ingrained problem.


0

Government gone wild


The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling from sea to sea

has nothing to do with protecting people from the “threat of second-hand

smoke” but are themselves symptoms of a far more grievous threat: a

cancer that has been spreading for decades throughout the body politic,

reaching even the tiniest organs of local government. This cancer is the

only real hazard involved – the cancer of unlimited government power.


The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or a phantom

menace but rather, if it were harmful, what would be the proper reaction?

Should anti-smoking activists satisfy themselves with educating people

about the potential danger and allow them to make their own decisions,

or should they seize the power of government and force people to make

the “right” decision?


It seems they’ve made their choice. Loudly billed as measures that only

affect “public places,” they have actually targeted private places: restaurants,

bars, nightclubs, shops, and offices – places whose owners are free to set

anti-smoking rules or whose customers are free to go elsewhere if they don’t

like the smoke. Some local bans even harass smokers outdoors.


The decision to smoke or to avoid “second-hand” smoke, should be made by

each individual according to his own values and assessment of the risks.

This is the same kind of decision free people make regarding every aspect of

their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to befriend or love, whether

to go to college or get a job, whether to get married or divorced, and so on.


All these decisions involve risks; some may have harmful consequences or

invite disapproval from others. But the individual must be free to make these

decisions because his life belongs to him, not to others, and only his own

judgment can guide him through it.


Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Smokers are

a minority, practicing a habit often considered annoying and unpleasant to

the majority. So the majority has simply commandeered the power of

government and used it to dictate their behaviour.


That is why these bans are far more threatening than few stray whiffs of

tobacco smoke while waiting for a table at your favourite restaurant. The

anti-smoking crusaders point in exaggerated alarm at those tiny wisps while

they unleash the systematic and unlimited intrusion of government into our lives.


0

This city council and others like it are like rapists!

The mind of a rapist.


His goal: Domination and absolute power, through any means necessary.

His motivation: punishing another, degrading her, feeling superior and God-like.

What else propels him? Taking what he wants just because he wants it. Feeling the surge of

power, the adrenaline rush, the thrill of stealing a piece of her, the savage

excitement of subjugating and controlling another.


The mind of an anti-smoker:


His goal: Domination and absolute power, through any means necessary.

His motivation: punishing another, degrading them, feeling superior and God-like.

What else propels him? Taking what he wants just because he wants it. Feeling the surge of

power, the adrenaline rush, the thrill of stealing a piece of them, the savage

excitement of subjugating and controlling another.


From the Cato Institute:

The Second-Hand Smoke Charade

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5811

Quote: It now turns out that the influential 1993 EPA report “Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders” was as phony as a three-dollar bill. State officials and private businesses that believed that ETS was a public health danger (and not just a nuisance) were completely misled by the EPA. And, of course, so was main street American public opinion.


0

marbee, Yup, I’ve known about that report being bogus for several years now. The problem is that we’ve been misinformed for so many years that I suspect the messenger who declares the true facts might as well be talking to their dog. It will be interesting to see if this news makes it into the main stream media now that a judge has over turned the validity of the EPA reported findings. I suspect the insurance industry was behind the EPA report. They figured maybe if they harassed smokers enough that a certain % would quit. It’s the insurance industry that got gov to pass seat belt laws, motor cycle helmets, and they lobbied the DMV to keep driving infractions on a persons record for 5 years and DUI’s for 10 so they could charge more fees. We all know that it’s always been about what’s best for their own pockets. I don’t believe a person should be forced to wear a motor cycle helmet if they want to. There is too much “gub’mt” in our lives. Yes, many with the minds of rapists have taken control.


0
1 2