Up in smoke

Following a generation of Americans who smoked nonstop at the dinner table, in the car, at the doctor’s office— everywhere, for that matter—it’s hard to recognize secondhand smoke today as anything but bad. Therefore it came as no surprise when the majority of residents who spoke recently in Calabasas said they favored the city’s new secondhand smoke ordinance. The law that starts next month bans smoking in all places where the public is likely to gather.

But many civil libertarians remain concerned that new law is an intrusion on personal freedoms, and in principal, it is. Every opinion sent to The Acorn from readers around the nation railed against the controversial ordinance. In true American tradition, each letter writer placed personal freedoms above all else. (The letters came as a result of a story about the ordinance from The Acorn being linked to the popular political website, Drudge Report.)

Like all laws, the secondhand smoke ordinance must be enforced to be effective. We doubt that it can. In fact, certain exceptions to the ordinance already have been put into place. Should you fine somebody for smoking in a park when nobody’s there? Or what if they’re on a deserted sidewalk? Clearly, there are parts of law that are impractical.

Like trying to swat a fly with a baseball bat, the new anti-smoking law has overshot the mark. In general, outdoor secondhand smoke isn’t any more dangerous than the dissipated fumes from an automobile, not that either is good.

In the case of Calabasas, the only place where we think secondhand smoke could pose a problem is in the sidewalk seating at The Commons, where crowds tend to gather. The outdoor areas need to be policed by the restaurant owners and shopping center management. In general, it’s not something on which the city should be spending taxpayer dollars.