City of Angeles Bans Smoking in Parks

[cuppajack]

http://www.dailynews.com/ci_6517383?source=rss

Assuming our Mayor signs the amended law, smoking will be panned in City Parks, with a $250 fine to back it up...

Reasons stated for the amendment are increased concerns over wild-fire and 2nd-hand smoke.

Ok, I get the wildfire thing... I think we've had the driest year in 20 in SoCal and we almost had Griffith Park burn to the ground already this year. But soon there really WON'T BE ANYPLACE to smoke in my fair city.

I'm going to call the Mayor's office as soon as I'm done posting this

 

[humboldtflyer]

Definitely sounds like a tragedy... Look out because the way this is all going, sooner or later you won't even be allowed to smoke in your own home!

 

[Rodrigo de Jerez]

I understand a good bit of smoking restrictions. Concern over secondhand smoke outside is a little much. I think you are pretty courteous if you decide to smoke outside. As far as I understand, parks are usually decent sized. I am sure there can be a smoking section...haha...

...but fires do suck. Well, burn.

-Mark

 

[Shooter]

I'd take a kick in the nuts than live out there.

 

[badhangover]

I'd take a kick in the nuts than live out there.

Um, but people do. A great many of them come from everywhere but here. That congestion causes many LA natives to seek residence elsewhere.

For all the knocks on "silly" California laws, they seem to all eventually become emulated nationwide, and even worldwide. Is it so "silly" to be the consistent forerunner? Clean air standards, for instance. Those regulations are "bad" for business and at times they are onerous on personal lives. However, that being said, I'm glad that my child did not have to grow up knowing what "smog alerts" were like my generation did.

 

[Shooter]

Ummmm like I said


Just because laws are emulated, am I supposed to do a cart-wheel? If I was the consistent forerunner with those laws, I would double check which direction I was headed.

 

[badhangover]

Ummmm like I said


Just because laws are emulated, am I supposed to do a cart-wheel? If I was the consistent forerunner with those laws, I would double check which direction I was headed.

I never said you should do a cart-wheel. My point is that it seems that most other municpalities do eventually find favor with California laws that originally seemed unfavorable to outsiders.

I think you're being a bit rude, or at least on the fringes of it. Maybe I'm being thin skinned today, I dunno. All I do know is that I didn't implicitly bust on your home area and its residents or tell you that you should do cart-wheels. Seems like flippant responses to me.

I'll refrain from further.

 

[Shooter]

Hey man I just said I wouldn't move out there. Too each his own bro.

 

[badhangover]

Yes, to each their own. And in the spirit of civility, I will chime in once again for the purpose of shaking your hand (so to speak).

I think I took offense at your first post, "I'd take a kick in the nuts than live out there.", 'cause I inferred the implication as those of us who do live here may not possess the good sense to avoid something even less desirable than a kick in the nuts. Perhaps I was incorrect in that inferrence.

In any regard, I will handshake.

 

[Shooter]

I'll get back to ya after a night of heavy drinking. It'll be good entertainment!

 

[seadub]

http://www.dailynews.com/ci_6517383?source=rss

Assuming our Mayor signs the amended law, smoking will be panned in City Parks, with a $250 fine to back it up...

Reasons stated for the amendment are increased concerns over wild-fire and 2nd-hand smoke.

Ok, I get the wildfire thing... I think we've had the driest year in 20 in SoCal and we almost had Griffith Park burn to the ground already this year. But soon there really WON'T BE ANYPLACE to smoke in my fair city.

I'm going to call the Mayor's office as soon as I'm done posting this

hey cuppa'

does this mean we don't have a place to burn at lunchtime? oh, snap! what are we gonna do ???