Cite, please?
And if a person at the table next to me orders a hamburger, I will not feel any ill effects, nor will anyone else.
There is also a difference between people getting health problems from light and from cigarettes, as in there are few who experience the former but many who experience the latter.
If I could be so bold as to ask (as I think our current debate is going nowhere), do you support legislating anything? Is that where our disagreement lies?
A quick point - a few people have claimed that the “majority” of people want indoor places to be smoke-free. If this is the case, why do bars, cafes, etc need laws to force them to become non-smoking areas?
It seems to me that if anti-smokers (as opposed to non-smokers) were in such a massive majority, then indoor businesses would be rushing to become smoke-free. Why pander to a minority if it annoys so many people?
But this is all beside the point, of course. The OP was about banning outdoor smoking. Since I do not know of any proof that smoke outdoors contributes in any significant way to any health issues of other people (assuming a bit of common courtesy is exercised), I guess the aim here is “if some people don’t like it, then let’s ban it”.
In that case, can we ban people from farting outdoors, 'coz I don’t like standing in a bus queue next to someone who has just let rip. Also, strong after-shave and perfume makes me feel ill, so we’d best ban that. Oh yeah, and don’t get me started on smelly babies. Ban 'em all, I say.
I’m sorry, I did not mean that hamburgers, on their own, are deadlier than cigarettes. The case I was trying to make was that unhealthy eating is probably a greater killer in the United States than cigarettes.
Yes, I am in favor of legislating some things. Is there anything you are unwilling to legislate or should the majority rule on any issue?
What is the magic number for when we protect a group of people from themselves? If my light sensitive friend can find four others, would that be enough? 100? 2.5 million? When does that plight become so important as yours?
What about peanuts in food? Peanut allergies are reasonably common (probably not as common as asthma, but common). Sitting next to someone who orders a large plate of pad thai could send them into anaphylactic shock. What is the proper response?
Don’t go to places where you are likely to sit next to a big plate of steaming peanuts (and noodles and other stuff); or
Get the government to outlaw the use of peanuts in restaurants and other public settings.
If it helps, consider that air-borne peanut exposure has a stronger connection to negative health consequences than second-hand smoke.
My sister has a strong flower allergy, again not too uncommon. Are you aware that there are businesses that put flowers right out front? She can’t wander too far into the left side of a K-Mart because of the taint of the gardening section.
I think my point is valid and remains: there are many things we allow publicly that could cause problems for the people in the area. Why are cigarettes so special?
I realize that this is IMHO, but in the effort to get some facts straight, how does Frank Lloyd Wright have anything to do with California? Sure he designed a few buildings there, but he was Mid-Western to the core.
Also, cowboy culture? I know that there are/were cowboys in some areas of California, but cowboy culture is hardly Californian in origin.
Sad to say, I think the quality of California everyday-type wines, say $10-$15 per bottle in price, has declined a bit in quality, at least if we’re discussing what is widely available in grocery stores. Many’s the time I’ve enjoyed a bottle of French wine that blew the corks off any comparatively priced California wines. It can be hit-or-miss, and you have to pay more attention to vintages, but French wines are definitely worth exploring.
I think you may have misunderstood what was being said about the Arts & Crafts Movement. Do you find Craftsman homes and Stickley chairs to be institutionalized kitsch?
Sorry, that was me, not Bryan.
RickJay
So does perfume. Many people get quite sick from the smell of it; I wouldn’t suggest banning its use.
That’s just what they’ve done in most public buildings in Halifax.
I’m gonna agree with some of these comments, and make Devil’s Advocate-ish statements on others, or just plain disagree.
**
Don’t have too much of a problem with any of the above. You also have a point concerning tyranny of a majority; a majority can unfairly discriminate against a minority, smokers in this case. One thing you missed however is that people with an existing respiratory problem do not need to inhale the same amount of smoke to become ill as a healthy person would. My argument however is that the likelihood of anyone inhaling that much second-hand smoke in an outdoor setting is negligible.
**
Actually I have to disagree with you on that. In my home state of Maryland for many years you couldn’t go into most public places without encountering clouds of tobacco smoke. The problem with your argument is that if every establishment in a given area allows smoking, people are left without any choice but to patronize establishments that allow smoking. Sure you can complain, but the problem is you don’t have any other real alternatives.
Your points about abuse of power by a majority are, I think, again valid. However your argument concerning your light sensitive friend is less so. This is for several reasons that I see; your friend has a vision disorder that is relatively rare and we cannot rationally be expected to compensate for every disorder (although people try), only the ones that have a certain prevalence in our society (people in wheelchairs for example). Also I imagine that your friend can cope by wearing prescription glasses (and for those who say smokers can get the patch or nic-gum, you’re missing the point of smoking).
To restate my OP, my problem with LA lies with legislation that is directed at unreasonably limiting smoking. I’m sorry but banning smoking in outdoor areas strikes me as solely being done to please people who are either being overly PC, or just don’t like even a whiff of cigarette smoke. In retrospect I have a slight problem with the current law in LA regarding indoor smoking: instead of outright banning it why not give establishments the option of setting up a separate area, with a separate ventilation system for smokers? That is the way it works in MD and I can assure that those places that do this actually see an increase in business. I’d post more on other people’s comments, but I gotta go to work.
I just did a search on Frank Lloyd Wright, and you’re absolutly right, he was a midwesterner. I live near Chatsworth, and I know he has some famous homes around here. Those contributions are why I mentioned him, perhaps in haste.
True, cowboys popped up in many places. What popped up here were the glamourized westerns that featured the romantized notion of cowboy life. With regards to whether the first cowboys sprung up here, I found this tidbit on the web. It’s poorly written, I must admit, and as soon as I get home I will bust out my California history book to find a proper cite. Its is something to chew on in the meanwhile.
I personally like french wines a little more, truth be told. It just seems like the french wines I’ve tasted have more complex flavors than the California wines.
I agree with FallenAngel. I don’t want to hijack this thread anymore. My apologies to Asylum, and everyone else involved. Back to your regularly scheduled thread.
Oops! That tidbit is right here.
Asylum, I’ll try to answer you directly without sending this to the Pit. Neither of us has much chance of altering the other person’s views about public smoking.
I, however, live in California. I vote here. You live in Maryland.
Baltimore’s a pretty nice town. It’s been a while since I’ve seen the inner harbor. Suppose I went back for a visit, saw the aquarium and did a little shopping, thought I might like to live there, and then tried to lecture the locals about your smoking laws.
That would be pretty impertinent, wouldn’t it?
OK, them’s fightin’ words… :mad:
And obfusciatrist, you do know there are places in California that are all-smoking, right?
Given the choice between Philadelphia, where smoking is allowed indoors only in certain areas, and California, where smoking is not allowed indoors at all, I would most wholeheartedly live in California (and I’m glad I do).
One other thing to note - unlike many other parts of the country, southern California is (essentially) beautiful weather year-round - rains off and on during “winter,” maybe 3 months out of the year, but it’s just about 75 degrees 12 months a year, so going outside for a smoke isn’t all that traumatic, frankly (from what I hear from smokers, at least). Now, having to go outside in New York or D.C. in the middle of January in three feet of snow? Well, some people truly do suffer for their addictions… 
Esprix
I agree. I live in LA, and believe or not, there is a reason why these smoking ordinances were passed to begin with. If you don’t agree with the smoking laws, you have two options. Grudgingly accept, or find another city to move to.
I agree with Asylum, however, that banning smoking outside is over the top. I personally wouldn’t vote for any such measure.
Yes, I’m sure that is the proper response everytime government oversteps it boundaries: leave or accept.
Good to know.
The reason these laws were passed are because most people are pansy asses who feel that they deserve a life of total comfort and if they can’t find it on their own, the government should help.
Asylum, I accept that asthma and light sensitivity are different in their prevelance but maybe you could answer my question to LaurAnge, what is the magic number that makes it acceptable to limit the behavior of others to protect a minority?
I do think my peanut allergy analogy is fairly valid. Any comment on why we shouldn’t outlaw peanuts in public or publically accessed spaces?
obfusciatrist, if you eat a peanut, it bothers you - it doesn’t bother anyone else. Smoking not only bothers other people, but it may very well cause them physical harm. Similar ordinances have been made about, for one example, limits on loud music, such as in cars, because it affects other people. What part of this aren’t you getting? And why is smoking outside a problem?
Esprix
Can you think of a better response? Maybe armed rebellion perhaps? Sure, that’s the solution, trample over the opinion of the majority so you can have your right to smoke wherever you please.
What you fail to realize is that this isn’t some arbitrary decree by a distant government, this is a decision made by the individual city, voted upon by the people of that city, and for that individual city only.
I take great offense at this, and of course find this to be completly untrue. I’ll hold back what I want to write out of respect for the thread.
Why don’t you come live in LA and put a proposition on the ballot that would ban peanuts in public places? Lets see how many people would vote for this, and then we’ll discuss the outcome on straightdope. 
And why did they stop giving out peanuts on airplanes? Because for those highly allergic, being near peanuts is a health risk.
Noise ordinances are a good comparison; I’ll give that some thought. But I will point out that a bar can pretty much play its music as loudly as it wants, so long as it doesn’t bother those outside of the bar. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to do the same with smoking? Loud music in the bar certainly poses a health hazard to customers and employees and it probably prevents people who don’t like loud music from enjoying the company of friends at that bar (and we all know that you have the right to go to any bar you want).
I don’t know why smoking outdoors is a problem Esprix, can you explain it to me? I seem to be quite capable of going very long periods without being annoyed by a smoker while frequently enjoying my cities public parks.
JustPlainBryan, you would apparently vote for something to protect yourself, are you saying that you wouldn’t not vote for a ban on peanuts in public spaces to protect those who are allergic?
And you create a very false trichotomy:
Isn’t there a possible
But you seem to feel that the majority is fine as long as it is decided at a sufficiently small level. Is it acceptable for a community to ban tattoo parlors? Is it acceptable for a small community to ban tattoos? How about purple spandex on fat people? Or is it only the things that annoy you or cause you health problems that you are ok with?
I don’t have much of a problem with no smoking indoors, but I feel it should be up to each business to decide if they will allow it or not. If you are bothered by smoke don’t go to a place that allows smoking. Smoking should not be banned outdoors. Just avoid smoke when you are outside.
I am deathly allergic to peanuts. Because I am deathly allergic to peanuts I DO NOT EAT at Chinese or Thai restaurants. I know that many Chinese and Thai dishes have peanuts in them. Peanut allergy is the most common food allergy in the world. The effects of PA are not smelly clothes, or weasing, or an annoyance, but death. I do not think peanuts should be banned from restaurants because I know some people like them. Instead, I avoid the restaurants that serve peanuts. I do not eat Chinese or Thai food. I do not eat Blizzards at Dairy Queen because of possible cross contamination. I can not eat most candy bars (even plain M&M’s, 3 musketeers, and most other "no nut” bars have small amounts of nuts or are produced near nuts). It is actually annoying to hear people complaining about something that is nothing more than a pain in the ass, when I have been forced to live with an allergy that could end my life at any time. All in all, suck it up. If you don’t like smoke avoid it the best you can. Otherwise be happy it won’t kill you.
Sorry. I started typing my last post before any mention of peanut allergy, but by the time I posted it the topic was already being discussed, so some of it might not relate to the current discussion…