“We have a tremendous opportunity here. We need to pass as stringent a law as we can, I would like to make it illegal,” said Councilman Dave Warden. “What if every city did this, image how many lives would be saved?"

Isn't that what they said about narcotics too? Just ask Baltimore, DC, LA and Mexico City how many lives have been saved due to narcotics being illegal.
 

"The really sad thing is (for those of you who are also parents), our kids won't know that this is unusual. Just like they will think there were always soldiers with M-16s patrolling the airport."

YES. In my life, it is if there has always been a state income tax. Yet, in Ohio, the tax is only 37 years old. When discussing the proposition to remove the state income tax, folks are incredulous, "How can the state survive?"

Yet the state functioned until 1972 just fine. Even better since is was less intrusive, less expansive.

But the majority of Ohioans do not know a life without the tax. Sad.
 

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." - H.L. Mencken

The same point was made by Ayn Rand in both her fiction and non-fiction, but I found it hard to accept. I wanted to know, where is the evidence?

Well, here it is. A "tremendous opportunity".... to save humanity, or to rule ever more intrusively?
 

This is a riot!

I have a friend who lives in Belmont (it's between San Francisco and San Jose). I'm going to go after the practicality here, just for fun.

First, I would be extremely surprised if there was any smoking "problem" in Belmont that this was actually addressing. The residents are economically comfortable and of the usual Bay Area liberal persuasion (fancy grocery store and restaurants are in town). Restaurants are already smoke-free, and I'd guess that the (nice) apartment buildings are already smoke-free (I've never smelled smoke in my friend's apartment building). The residents probably support this lunacy, although I would imagine at least some of the business-owners are nervous about how this will affect their revenues (especially during a depression).

Second, Belmont is a smallish town, but it's not like it's in the middle of nowhere. There are major highways nearby, and major arteries going right through the town. So imagine someone driving from San Carlos (next town south) to San Mateo (small city to the north) - is Belmont going to pull these people over because they are smoking a cigarette on their commute?

As an aside, Berkeley pretty much did this a few years ago with a policy where you can't smoke within 15 (or is it 20?) feet of a "public" building (the definition of public includes privately-owned stores and apartment buildings as well as - get this! - bus stops). Try getting 15 feet from all such prohibited places and you're basically left with 1) your backyard, if you're lucky enough to have one or 2) the middle of a 4-lane street.
 

How old is that article? It seems to be written in July 2007.


See also Fox News, October 10, 2007:

"People will still be able to smoke on Belmont's streets and sidewalks as long as they are not loitering near the entrance to homes or businesses and in parking lots and designated smoking areas."
 

I think the ban has changed from the original proposals so that it only applies to (private) apartment buildings and condos, but it just went into effect last month.

I wonder if smoking things besides tobacco results in neighbor complaints and evictions, too?
 

Yes - finally the drug war expands to tobacco! Alcohol is next (who cares about the Constitution, anyway?).
 

Matej, the NYT also says that the Belmont city law has just taken effect:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/us/27belmont.html?ref=us