San Diego City Council approves onerous, FUD-based restrictions on vaping

[Nate760]

SD City Council approves e-cig regulations - 10News.com KGTV ABC10 San Diego

This is kind-of-but-not-really hometown news for me, as I live in the northern hinterlands of San Diego County. The only thing that remains is the signature of new mayor Kevin Faulconer (who recently replaced old mayor Bob Filner, who you may remember for his well-documented habit of groping any woman within arm's reach), who likes to portray himself as a small-government, pro-liberty conservative, but I doubt that will make any difference.

The really hilarious part is that it bans vaping at the beach. It was hilarious in the first place when the coastal cities banned smoking at the beach (though in that case, I can see some justification based on the litter issue), since you can be standing right next to someone smoking at the beach and not even know it. Hell, even lighting a cigarette at the beach can sometimes be an insurmountable task. In the 15 or so years since the beach-smoking bans were first enacted, I've never witnessed any attempt to enforce them. People smoke at the beach just as openly as they always did. The beach-vaping ban won't be any different.

 

[dragonpuff]

SD City Council approves e-cig regulations - 10News.com KGTV ABC10 San Diego

The really hilarious part is that it bans vaping at the beach. It was hilarious in the first place when the coastal cities banned smoking at the beach (though in that case, I can see some justification based on the litter issue), since you can be standing right next to someone smoking at the beach and not even know it. Hell, even lighting a cigarette at the beach can sometimes be an insurmountable task. In the 15 or so years since the beach-smoking bans were first enacted, I've never witnessed any attempt to enforce them. People smoke at the beach just as openly as they always did. The beach-vaping ban won't be any different.

This reminds me of how they "banned" smoking at the university I used to attend. It's a huge campus - up to a 20 min walk from one end to the other - and they wouldn't even allow smoking in the parking lot! They said you had to go across the street. All it led to was all the ashtrays being removed and "smoke-free" signs plastered everywhere - which of course led to more cigarette butts on the ground. The university police never even tried to enforce it. Nobody was actually trying to stop smoking on campus at all.

I believe most of the time when ordinances like this are passed, like banning smoking on the beach or in the park, it is just a PR move and nothing more. They have no intention of actually enforcing it - it is just to make them look good, so now they can claim they are fighting the smoking/vaping "epidemic" and make themselves look good. In most cases these laws aren't enforced at all.

 

[Nate760]

I believe most of the time when ordinances like this are passed, like banning smoking on the beach or in the park, it is just a PR move and nothing more. They have no intention of actually enforcing it - it is just to make them look good, so now they can claim they are fighting the smoking/vaping "epidemic" and make themselves look good. In most cases these laws aren't enforced at all.

Yeah, anti-smoking ordinances are usually just low-hanging fruit that local politicians use to score points with their constituents (Vote for Councilman So-and-So! He made our beaches and parks smoke-free!"). Which is evidenced by the fact that they're hardly ever accompanied by budget appropriations for any actual enforcement.

 

[DC2]

This reminds me of how they "banned" smoking at the university I used to attend. It's a huge campus - up to a 20 min walk from one end to the other - and they wouldn't even allow smoking in the parking lot! They said you had to go across the street. All it led to was all the ashtrays being removed and "smoke-free" signs plastered everywhere - which of course led to more cigarette butts on the ground. The university police never even tried to enforce it. Nobody was actually trying to stop smoking on campus at all.

I believe most of the time when ordinances like this are passed, like banning smoking on the beach or in the park, it is just a PR move and nothing more. They have no intention of actually enforcing it - it is just to make them look good, so now they can claim they are fighting the smoking/vaping "epidemic" and make themselves look good. In most cases these laws aren't enforced at all.

I'm sure this is mostly true, but it does give anti-smoking nuts the right to hassle you if they so desire.

 

[Nate760]

I'm sure this is mostly true, but it does give anti-smoking nuts the right to hassle you if they so desire.

I used to make a point of smoking in parks just for the entertainment value of some hypochondriac housewife seeing me from 100 feet away and pretending to have a violent coughing fit. It might be the one thing I miss about being a smoker.

 

[DrMA]

I'm sure this is mostly true, but it does give anti-smoking nuts the right to hassle you if they so desire.

I'm inclined to believe these anti-smoking ordinances are what creates the anti-smoking nuts in the first place.

 

[DC2]

I'm inclined to believe these anti-smoking ordinances are what creates the anti-smoking nuts in the first place.

There is definitely a synergistic effect, at the very least.

 

[Nate760]

There is definitely a synergistic effect, at the very least.

Yes, when people see their social prejudices enshrined in law, it creates all kinds of negative feedback loops, as well as the occasional world war.

 

[Kent C]

I'm inclined to believe these anti-smoking ordinances are what creates the anti-smoking nuts in the first place.

DC2's 'synergistic' is closer since it is truly those nuts who get the ordinance passed in the first place. Same with the environmental nuts - there's at least one outspoken on in every community no matter how small and the true intent is to stop business from happening rather than any junk science pollution. CO² is no more 'toxic' than O², and both are essential for life. It's the dose not the substance.

 

[Nate760]

DC2's 'synergistic' is closer since it is truly those nuts who get the ordinance passed in the first place. Same with the environmental nuts - there's at least one outspoken on in every community no matter how small and the true intent is to stop business from happening rather than any junk science pollution. CO² is no more 'toxic' than O², and both are essential for life. It's the dose not the substance.

I think you've drawn a pretty good corollary here. Anti-smoking and environmental activism both originate from intentions that are good and noble (for the latter, it's the idea that we should be conscientious stewards of our planet, and that clean air/water benefits everyone; for the former, it's the idea that some measures should be taken to mitigate the #1 cause of unnecessary sickness and death). But both movements have been hijacked to a large degree by people who seek to transform them into vehicles for the wielding of personal vendettas, and by which to demonize or marginalize groups of people with which they have some totally unrelated disagreement.

 

[Kent C]

I think you've drawn a pretty good corollary here. Anti-smoking and environmental activism both originate from intentions that are good and noble (for the latter, it's the idea that we should be conscientious stewards of our planet, and that clean air/water benefits everyone; for the former, it's the idea that some measures should be taken to mitigate the #1 cause of unnecessary sickness and death). But both movements have been hijacked to a large degree by people who seek to transform them into vehicles for the wielding of personal vendettas, and by which to demonize or marginalize groups of people with which they have some totally unrelated disagreement.

Re: bold... you may have missed this:

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ales-ban-update-9-11-14-a-5.html#post14173675

post#42

While I don't totally discount that their are some 'noble' in regards to ecigs and the environment - but I'd modify that with "naïve but noble" and 'naïve' is being very kind. Many are merely the result of educational brainwashing and have never actually looked into the politics of it, and some actually know the politics of it, and those are not so 'noble'. The actual concept is not part of their mind set - only part of their propaganda. Their goal is to destroy business to where only gov't owns and/or controls, and epitomize the idea that 'the ends justify the means'.

A rational person can't see the results of their programs and say 'continue', or justify it by saying the 'wrong people were in charge and we didn't have enough money to accomplish the 'noble goals'.'

 

[Nate760]

Re: bold... you may have missed this:

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ales-ban-update-9-11-14-a-5.html#post14173675

post#42

While I don't totally discount that their are some 'noble' in regards to ecigs and the environment - but I'd modify that with "naïve but noble" and 'naïve' is being very kind. Many are merely the result of educational brainwashing and have never actually looked into the politics of it, and some actually know the politics of it, and those are not so 'noble'. The actual concept is not part of their mind set - only part of their propaganda. Their goal is to destroy business to where only gov't owns and/or controls, and epitomize the idea that 'the ends justify the means'.

A rational person can't see the results of their programs and say 'continue', or justify it by saying the 'wrong people were in charge and we didn't have enough money to accomplish the 'noble goals'.'

There's naive, pointless, pie-in-the-sky demagoguery on both extremes of every issue. Idealogues don't want to make compromises, and reasonable compromise is the only way progress happens. I don't think our current state of political stagnation is due solely to the persistent dominance of the same two parties that have held power for over 150 years (though it certainly doesn't help matters). It's because centrism and pragmatism have largely ceased to exist in our political culture. The conversation is now dominated by diametrically opposed camps of fringe lunatics whose sole purpose is to embarrass and discredit one another. When members of the two parties work together (formerly a common occurrence, now exceedingly rare), it's tantamount to political suicide, as compromise is now perceived as ideological betrayal, and they just get voted off the island in the next primary by some hard-right or hard-left lunatic who lambasts them for sleeping with the enemy.

 

[DC2]

There's naive, pointless, pie-in-the-sky demagoguery on both extremes of every issue. Idealogues don't want to make compromises, and reasonable compromise is the only way progress happens. I don't think our current state of political stagnation is due solely to the persistent dominance of the same two parties that have held power for over 150 years (though it certainly doesn't help matters). It's because centrism and pragmatism have largely ceased to exist in our political culture. The conversation is now dominated by diametrically opposed camps of fringe lunatics whose sole purpose is to embarrass and discredit one another. When members of the two parties work together (formerly a common occurrence, now exceedingly rare), it's tantamount to political suicide, as compromise is now perceived as ideological betrayal, and they just get voted off the island in the next primary by some hard-right or hard-left lunatic who lambasts them for sleeping with the enemy.

Now there is a topic that is sure to land us in the Outside.

 

[Kent C]

Idealogues don't want to make compromises, and reasonable compromise is the only way progress happens.

An area where we don't agree. 'reasonable' has a few definitions Not all are 'good'. Not for further discussion here but:

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/fda-regulations/558390-compromise-fda-2.html#post13019915
post#20

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...9-state-attorneys-general-3.html#post13869556
post#25

 

[Kent C]

Now there is a topic that is sure to land us in the Outside.

I saw this after I composed but bolded that part after seeing yours

 

[DC2]

I saw this after I composed but bolded that part after seeing yours

I was specifically thinking of things you have posted in the past when I made that comment.

 

[Kent C]

I was specifically thinking of things you have posted in the past when I made that comment.

That 'reach across the aisle' sounds good but the only ones on their side doing it, is whomever is sitting next to John McCain or Lindsey Graham and then only to grasp their held out hand.

Say no more.....

 

[Nate760]

I'm content to let our only politically unaffiliated president do the talking for me on this one:

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissention, which in different ages & countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders & miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security & repose in the absolute power of an Individual: and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty."

— George Washington, September 19, 1796

 

[Kent C]

I'm content to let our only politically unaffiliated president do the talking for me on this one:

Just two years before his 'dominant faction' at the time - the Federalists - passed the Alien and Sedition Acts. And the main reason his successor - John Adams - was a one term president.

But, I'll admit that someone could have said to Adams: "You're no George Washington"

 

[Nate760]

And the main reason his successor - John Adams - was a one term president.

His well-documented taste for the trappings of monarchy may have had a little something to do with it as well.