Ban on backyard smoking by homeowners?

by Walter Olson on February 29, 2012

A family in Rocklin, Calif. is bothered by neighbors who light up on their patio and wants the town to pass a law. [Placer Herald]


1 Ian 02.29.12 at 10:19 am

Alwayd lovely to see the hometown in the news…

2 L.C. Burgundy 02.29.12 at 10:21 am

Given that the quaint concept of private property is basically meaningless anyway, I don’t see why this can’t be made illegal too.

3 Richard Nieporent 02.29.12 at 12:26 pm

Between 38,000 and 62,000 nonsmoking Americans die every year from exposure to secondhand smoke, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control.

Too bad we can’t file a class action suit against the government for providing these phony numbers.

4 CTrees 02.29.12 at 1:20 pm

Oh come on, guys. Just freaking outlaw the sale of tobacco products already. You know that’s what you want

5 Greg 02.29.12 at 1:27 pm

@CTrees – no it isn’t. If they outlawed tobacco, they’d lose some $35 billion in just state and federal taxes.

6 gitarcarver 02.29.12 at 1:29 pm

From the article:

“In a town of our size, are we protecting the rights of the minority?”

Good grief.

7 mojo 02.29.12 at 1:34 pm

“Your smoke is bothering me, do you mind?”
“No, not at all. Feel free to be bothered.”
“You know, second-hand smoke is twice as deadly as first-hand.”
“Gee, I guess I made the right choice then, huh?”

8 John Burgess 02.29.12 at 3:18 pm

I live in a county in FL which has a) banned smoking from the beaches and b) has a court-affirmed policy of not hiring smokers as county workers or retaining them after their having been given opportunities and assistance to quit. The deadline for quitting is now years past, so it’s a non-smoking government.

But the county does love those taxes!

9 mjs 02.29.12 at 3:48 pm

Richard: Would love to see what passes for science in the analyzation of up to 62,000 deaths each year from exposure to second hand smoke.

10 Bob Neal 02.29.12 at 3:59 pm

and seriously, I’m a non-smoker who hates the smell, but second hand smoke in the outdoors? It’s so dispersed, there is simply NO way it’s dangerous. None.

11 boblipton 02.29.12 at 4:01 pm

As a businessman and investor I have the opportunity to make many investments, A decade or two ago, I was offered the opportunity to invest in a topless bar. I went over the numbers, the personnel and the rules under which it operated. Fiscally, it was a sweet deal and all of the people involved seemed to be on the up-and-up. Then I considered whether I wished to profit from this legitimate business. Nothing wrong in people wanting to drink, nothing wrong in people wanting to look at pretty girls’ breasts. Yet there was something about the entire operation that struck me as wrong: by providing capital, I would be enabling people to behave like yahoos who would not otherwise have the chance. It would disturb me to think of my nieces serving in such a joint, with loathsome individuals gawping at them. So I decided to leave the investment to someone who didn’t have these issues. The people found other investors, the business prospered and when we see each other, the friend who offered me the chance always twits me for my decision. I would have made a lot of money.

Yet there would always have stuck with me the impression that I was doing something sleazy. I am pleased with myself for being a bit more than a profit-seeking machine. Mind you, I own shares in companies that produce booze and candy and other products and services that other people consider questionable. That’s their standards. I have mine.

I do not profit from activities which are pure vice. If I think it’s wrong for someone to do something in my apartment, I won’t make money from it. I wish the government were half as moral.


12 gitarcarver 02.29.12 at 4:06 pm


What county is that?


13 smurfy 02.29.12 at 7:08 pm

By forcing the smokers to move inside our government is now choosing to expose the innocent future occupants of the home to third hand smoke in the walls and carpets. I don’t have a dart board handy so I cannot say how many innocent children are affected by third hand smoke annually.

14 adam zur 03.01.12 at 4:44 am

i notice the person is breathing. That means he is using precious oxygen and adding to the global warming problem by breathing out carbon dioxide which is a known greenhouse gas.

15 Legalist 03.01.12 at 5:42 am

The government should ban all smoking–it is harmful to health and must be prohibited, ASAP!

16 Mannie 03.01.12 at 10:23 am

Legalist 03.01.12 at 5:42 am

The government should ban all smoking–it is harmful to health and must be prohibited, ASAP!

Good. Then I can sell my cigarettes for more!

17 Laura 03.01.12 at 2:12 pm

Well, using Legalist’s logic, obesity is harmful to health so fattening foods should be banned ASAP. (uh oh, this person probably already thinks this…). And estrogen is a known human carcinogen, so women should be banned! And men too, they also produce estrogen at lower amounts.

Driving is the most dangerous thing that most of us will ever do, so should we ban driving?

18 Bill H 03.03.12 at 1:21 am

Laura, you can only take my Citroen CX from my cold, dead fingers.

Comments on this entry are closed.