Mike wrote on Nov 20, 2007 10:43 PM:Nobody has the right to put another persons health in danger. Second hand smoke kills. People should not be allowed to smoke in public places and they should be provided with a smoking area. Apartments should not allow smoking because they are attached. If you do not like it don't rent there or buy your own house.

intrepidtraveler wrote on Nov 20, 2007 10:59 PM:I've traveled the world and it seems to me the more undeveloped a country is the more personal freedom one has. As long as you aren't hurting someone else, you can do what you like. People in developed countries aren't struggling to survive so they spend their time making mountains out of mole hills. What we perceive to be problems are laughable to people in poorer countries. In southeast Asia, people are more relaxed and polite when dealing with strangers. Even though traffic can be horrendous you'll never see road-rage. People just take things in stride. We are way to uptight.

Randy wrote on Nov 21, 2007 2:48 AM:The writer fails to consider that smokers have brought this upon themselves through generations of obnoxious behavior. Today's smokers are paying for the tyranny of the minority.

Myke wrote on Nov 21, 2007 5:00 AM:Good for you Sunana. Let these hypocrites have it!

Alf wrote on Nov 21, 2007 6:58 AM:Isn't it ironic that the PC/Tolerance crowd is at the heart of this example of intolerance? Ironic, yes. Unexpected, no. The PC/tolerance crowd is interested in one thing, control. They want to control what you say, how you say it, if and when you say it, what, where, when and if you can do anything. While they demand not to be offended, they don't give a rat's behind if they offend you. Regards, Alf.

Thank You! wrote on Nov 21, 2007 7:16 AM:Thank you for your tolerance. I am a reformed smoker (one day at a time) but was always appalled on how non-smokers feel entitled to stomp all over smokers just because they are the majority.

To Mike wrote on Nov 21, 2007 7:18 AM:poor drivers are more of a danger to me than second hand smoke in an outdoor area!

To Randy wrote on Nov 21, 2007 8:33 AM:replace "smokers" with any other minority and see how your comment reads!

Voice of reason wrote on Nov 21, 2007 8:35 AM:Sunana, you've created a strawman with your argument equating smoking with irritable behavior. I haven't heard anyone suggest smoking be outlawed in the way the Taliban would have it forbidden. Freedom is the ability to swing your arm until it comes in contact with someone else. Smokers should be free to smoke unless it affects those around them. That's when the law should step in. Calling smokers a modern minority facing discrimination, doesn't hold up either. Other minority groups can't change their physical and cultural characteristics. Smokers can stop smoking or smoke where they don't affect others. Do you really think smoking represents the pursuit of happiness?

What is Next? wrote on Nov 21, 2007 8:48 AM:Besides the fact that the air quality in some cities on a red flag smog day are more dangerous than second hand smoke, the question is what is the next intolerable habit or action that will be targeted? If you are an obese parent, be prepared to have your children taken from you when the city, state or federal governement takes the stance that your obesity makes you nutritionally unfit to feed your children healthy foods. They are already mitigating their liability by banning junk foods in school cafeterias. Banning alcohol at beaches and parks could be the first step toward instituting police state laws making it a crime to consume more than 2 alcoholic beverages in any public place to prevent drunk driving. Dress codes are a means by which schools protect children from feeling the effects of being from low income families or from potential gangmembers. The Chinese had a dress code nationally during the Mao regime, too, lest no citizen offend the government. And then, of course there is the issue of eminent domaine wherein the governement can confiscate your home, pay what it deems as just compensation and not use it for the public good, but build a profit making shopping center that nets the city more money than you can possibly pay in property tax. The point is where does governemental interference begin and end? If what you are doing can cause harm to someone else, makes someone else feel bad or doesn't fit our monetary goals, should we legislate it into crime? Although smoking is a dangerous habit to those who do it and those who receive second-hand smoke, why doesn't the government clean up the air we all breathe first? The second hand smoke we are all breathing that belches out of factories, refineries and industry are far more dangerous. We should be looking at the big picture, what other aspect of our lives will be the next to be controlled by government? Watch out, it could be something you do every day!

Cassandra wrote on Nov 21, 2007 9:10 AM:Pursuit of pleasure and happiness does not equate with addiction of smoking. It may once have been pleasurable, but talk to any lung cancer "victim" and see how pleasurable the pursuit of chemotherapy is. Ms. Batra, however can you stretch the noise of children or washing dishes to smoking and the dangers of second-hand smoke? The cost of medical treatment for smokers is borne by all of us, not just those of us bothered by smoking beach goers. Set aside a place for them, like a closed room, and let them pay the costs of excessive health insurance, cleaning the air, asthma in children (well, that would certainly silence the rowdy ones, Ms. Batra). This isn't a question of freedom or political correctness -- if you believe that, then set aside part of the Hall property as "needle park" for all the druggies in town.

Alf wrote on Nov 21, 2007 9:15 AM:Well, "Voice of reason" at 8:35AM, your "ability to swing your arm until it comes in contact with someone else" argument is very good, up to the point that, more often than not, the "arm" does not actually contact the rabid anti-smokers. There are a few who are adversely effected by cigarette smoke, but the most vocal are the ones who declare something like "If I can smell it, it must be hurting me and must be banned", when they are simply being hysterical. Hyperbole is not a sound method of debate or any rational argument. These same hysterical clowns think nothing of, and say nothing about, their carcinogen-spewing SUVs sucking excess fuel. I forgot, they can offend anyone that they want, but heaven help anyone who offends them. I am angry that the PC/Tolerance crowd is comprised of such control-obsessed hypocrites. I am also angry that the actions of inconsiderate smokers prompt the consideration of such obscene laws. I lived with someone who was acutely sensitive to smoke and never caused her problems. I stayed down-wind of her. Problem solved. I put my butts in ashtrays. Problem solved. Would that we could find a way to convince everyone to be courteous, especially those that litter ANYTHING. Regards, Alf.

Ban the Politicos wrote on Nov 21, 2007 10:06 AM:I confess, I smoked Camel unfiltereds at the beach, and I inhaled. Was it pleasurable? Hard to tell, I was coughing from the bronchitis (yearly). I am not politically correct, and now that I don't smoke, I am not happy being downwind of smokers. Ban them? Why bother, they are oblivious to anyone but themselves (for the most part), and eventually they'll die.

God save the city, or at least the queen wrote on Nov 21, 2007 12:08 PM:Give me a good Cuban cigar anytime. Works for Arnold, our esteemed governor, so it ought to be enough for Encinitas. So what if you exhale. So what if the baby's having an asthma attack, it's not your baby, right? It's not about anyone but ME in Encinitas, most of the time.

Nick wrote on Nov 21, 2007 1:09 PM:As I have said before, if your anti-smoking and drive your car in traffic, YOUR A HYPOCRITE! The crap coming out of your tailpipe is far worse for you than a whiff of second hand smoke. If you think it's not, your just a complete idiot. Save your breath with the old "my health supercedes your right to smoke" nonsense. If you really cared about the air you breathe, you wouldn't be putting gas in your vehicle. You would actually know that the VOC's in the paint, glue and carpets in your house and it's formeldahyde based fiberglass insulation are killing far quicker than any whiff of second hand smoke. Ignorant ... hypocrites, that's all I see.

Crazy Pills wrote on Nov 21, 2007 3:13 PM:I feel like I am taking crazy pills when it is suggested that intolerance to smoking is on the same plane as your neighbor washing dishes too loudly. Your neighbor washing dishes too loudly does not endanger your health. Second hand smoke does. You can turn up your tv and drown out the noise of your neighbors noise. You cannot stop breathing. Not a comparison. Your smoking and your choice to endanger your health is indeed your right. However it is my right to be in public and have the laws of our society protect me and my children from your self-destructive choices. Additionally smokers are, as a general group (I know there are a few exceptions) the most inconsiderate people in our society. The evidence is in the cigarette buts strewn about our community, the disgusting smoke I have to smell at a stop light, and the cloud of toxin that me and my children have to breath to just get inside Chili's on a Saturday night. Yes, you do have the liberty to destroy yourselves, but your liberties end when they infringe on my liberty and the liberty of my children to not breath your cloud of disease. Keep your smoke out of my lungs, out of my face, and pick up your litter, then you will have my support.

What? wrote on Nov 21, 2007 3:56 PM:I drive an automobile, and I think that smoking is dangerous. I am not a hypocrite, I am just not simple. Every year a new law is passed to stem the dangerous fumes your auto emits. And the auto industry responds with technology. Sooner than later the only emmissions will be water. Once your beloved cigarette industry begins voluntarily inventing apparattus that restricts or improves the harmful effects of your smoke flowing free into the air, I will buy your arguement. I will in the meantime support legislation to protect myself and my family from the harmful emissions...just like I have supported legislation requiring the auto industry to do the same. Until then, think only about yourself, and not the comfort and health of others. Throw your cigarette butts on the ground and stomp them; better yet,leave them burning for all to breath and view as they pass by. Continue your $8 a day habit, and complain about the piece of crap car you drive because that is all you can afford. This is the segment of the oppressed that you represent, and you do it well.

Jay wrote on Nov 21, 2007 4:00 PM:Smoking is a sign of a PERMISSIVE society, not a tolerant one, there is a difference. It seems that we "tolerate" too many things: street crime, juvenile deliquency, alcoholism, drug abuse, poverty, homelessness, disease, ad nauseum. Does this make us "great" or does this make us weak?

Nick wrote on Nov 21, 2007 5:54 PM:See the hypocrites I'm talking about. People like "Crazy Pills" complain about smelling smoke at a traffic light but make no mention of the exhaust fumes pouring out of their tailpipe and the 1000's of other cars on the road. I don't care to smell your cars fumes at a stop light "Crazy Pills", so how about you keep in in the garage or change to a battery powered vehicle. Not only are you a part of the problem, your an even bigger part of what's wrong with our Government. Instead of using common sense (which they never seem to do anyways) they listen to people like you. I could care less about your support, but keep your face and your kids out of my smoke and you won't have a problem!

Nick wrote on Nov 21, 2007 5:58 PM:"Jay", apples and oranges. Smoking doesn't fit into your little categories, but people in this Country ILLEGALLY sure do. Why is it that our local and federal governments can't listen to we the people about that issue? Instead of enforcing the laws we have, they just make new ones that won't ever be enforced either. Sounds like pure stupidity to me.

To Nick wrote on Nov 21, 2007 7:33 PM:Not only do I not drive (work at home & have groceries, etc delivered) I don't smoke. While I have to admit there is paint on the walls, I have no carpet and I'm not sure there is a container of glue in my house. I also go out of my way to avoid smokers and the places they assemble because the smoke and the mess is just that offensive to me. All I ask is that those same people have enough courtesy to stay down wind and clean up after themselves. With as little as I go out, the number of times in which I have had smoke blown in my face or witnesses cigarette butts fly out of car windows it beyond absurd. I've done all I can ... now it's your turn to step up to the plate.

To Nick wrote on Nov 23, 2007 9:13 AM:You do indeed represent the smoker well. Ignorant, inconsiderate and self centered, yep, that about describes the majority of smokers. Thanks for proving my point.

To Nick wrote on Nov 23, 2007 9:24 AM:Yep, and since they do listen to me, I guess you do need my support. You yourself only support my arguments. Next time I have my tailpipe spewing smoke directly in your face as you walk through the door of a public place, I will listen to your complaints about my automobile. Once your cigarettes come with an O2 sensor, and catalytic converter and are tested to verify that they are compliant with minimization standards, then you have a solid comparison. I think that our cars need to pollute less, and I support legislation to that end, just like I support legislation to the end of keeping the waste that you spew our of our community... I am talking about your cigarette smoke, not your points of view, your opinions are always welcome in a free society. -Crazy Pills

Nick wrote on Nov 24, 2007 9:07 PM:All you anti-smokers prove my point to the tee. When it dawns on you that your lame argument of "second hand smoke is bad for you" just won't fly, you all show your true colors. You just don't like people who smoke, PERIOD! There are lot's of things I don't like. For instance, people who weren't born and raised in San Diego, can't stand them. Really fat people in bikinis at the beach. The same bums panhandling on the offramps, parking lots and beaches, year after year after year. The ever growing groups of ILLEGALS on our street corners.....To bad you folks don't actually waste your energy on something useful for everyone and not just your greedy little selves!

To Nick wrote on Nov 25, 2007 7:11 AM:Non-smoker here ... I don't drive either so I'm not the hypocrit you consider all us non-smokers to be. I also happen to know many people who smoke that I like just fine. Why? because they're nice people. They also act courteously with regards to their habit when they are around me. It sounds like that's something I wouldn't likely get from you. Of course you already hate me because I'm from Escondido and not San Diego. Boy is that a lot of hate to harbor ... especially given the billions of other people in the world. Maybe you really do need a cigarette.

Nick wrote on Nov 25, 2007 6:33 PM:to To Nick: Your right, I'm done being a courteous smoker. I was a courteous smoker long before it was even a term. I am completely fed up with the vehemently rude and arrogant anti-smokers that think they are special and better than everyone else. Over It! Could care less if you or anyone else likes it or not...San Diego County includes Escondido, check a map. I was born and raised in Escondido and The Res in Valley Center, so I'm ACTUALLY from Escondido. You? Doubt it. Nowhere did I say the word hate, I said I can't stand them, which I can't. San Diego is going down the tubes because of all the people moving here with their self pretentious attitudes about what is best for San Diego and their not even from here, THAT's my problem....and thanks, I will have a cigarette. As a matter of fact, I'll smoke wherever I please in public!

To Nick wrote on Nov 26, 2007 6:34 AM:You said San Diego ... not San Diego County. Not important though. Maybe I'm too literal. However, your attitude makes me embarrassed to admit we're from the same place. You may not have said the word 'hate', but you don't have to. Your overly angry diatribes say it all. Life is way to short to be that hostile.

Alf wrote on Nov 26, 2007 8:44 AM:Well, "Nick" at 6:33PM on the 25th, HUZZAH! I have not yet reached the point of total disgust and/or disregard for others' feelings. In the end, almost every rabid anti-smoker is only trying to control others and deserve whatever they get when they make demands. I will move if someone asks and not move if they demand or act like a jerk. With the exception of emergency personnel, no one orders me or demands action on my part and has not since late 1973. Merry Christmas! Alf.

Nick wrote on Nov 26, 2007 9:15 AM:to To Nick: Like I said, I'm fed up. Push me far enough and this is what happens. You can thank all of your vehemntly rude anti-smokers friends for that. Being nice gets you nowhere, so screw nice!

To Nick wrote on Nov 26, 2007 4:10 PM:Non-Smoker again ... I don't have any vehemently rude anti-smoker friends. In fact, I don't have any vehemently rude friends. If they were rude then they wouldn't be my friends. I guess that just leaves you to thank for the rap the discourteous smokers get. Congratulations ... You reap what you sow!

Nick wrote on Nov 26, 2007 6:18 PM:I know "Alf", it sucks, but that's where I'm at these days. Sick and tired of all the whiners and their BS. I used to be Mr. Courteous, but I'm over it. Your a tad bit older and mature than I, and probably a bit better at getting along with the rest. I'm still young enough to say "screw 'em", mean it, and still sleep OK at night. Cheers Alf. Merry Christmas to you and yours.

Musician wrote on Dec 2, 2007 8:11 AM:This writer understands the proverbial slippery slope. God bless you and Merry Christmas!

The Bat wrote on Dec 13, 2007 3:05 PM:We're only as free as we are willing to tolerate the things others do that annoy us. Having said that, if we dispel the second hand smoke health effect claims as spurious science, which they mostly are, what this is really about is a bunch of noxious, self-righteous, obsessive control freaks who believe that because they are (for now) a majority, that they can imperiously dictate to everybody what they will or will not do in public. This is why so many of us out here in so-called "fly over country" despise this kind of hypocrisy that's coming to be so identified with certain parts of what was once a great country. Especially California, but the cancer spreads all up and down "the Left Coast." Thanks, but no thanks. I'll take my cigars and my American Express card and go vacation on the beach in North Carolina. They're way nicer out there than you people anyway.

Dwight wrote on Dec 25, 2007 9:35 PM:It's time smokers and tolerant people realize the power they have right in their own hands. 20 to 25% of the population is a lot of voting power! Wake up and start voting. Smoke the Nazis out and vote them out of office.

Charles wrote on Feb 2, 2008 5:01 PM:I'm, a smoker and have no desire to quit. My question is why do non-smokers feel they have the right to impose their way of life on others? If there is such a non-smoking lobby why don't we just have non smoking venues, and smoking venues and let people patronize the ones they want?