Bush NEEDS to veto this time....

From the Sacramento Bee:

Marcos Bretón: Smoking nannies are at it again
By Marcos Bretón - mbreton@sacbee.com
Published 12:00 am PST Sunday, November 11, 2007
Story appeared in METRO section, Page B1

Do you ever just want to taste a cigarette? We're not talking about developing a habit or puffing in anyone's face. Just a quick drag outdoors when no one is looking.

After all, cigarettes and tobacco are not illegal, though they are dangerous. The smell of them in close quarters can be offensive. But outdoors? And when sensed only momentarily and from long distance?

It's true that science has identified the dangers of secondhand smoke to those exposed to cigarettes over time.

We certainly don't want our children to smoke, and we don't want to smoke in front of our children. Last month, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed legislation banning smoking in vehicles carrying children.

Look. There is no way to defend anyone who smokes in a car with minors. But it's a total nanny law, with government as our nanny. Beginning Jan. 1, it will only carry a $100 fine and law enforcement can't even stop you for smoking in a car with minors – can only nail you while stopping you for an infraction such as speeding.

Why not just outlaw stupidity in all forms?

Because you can't do that, right? You can't have cities bulging with laws when common sense is a better option.

Yet in crafting increasingly invasive anti-smoking laws, common sense is wafting away in cities like ours.

Roseville just banned smoking in public parks and more than 4,000 acres of open space, including streambeds and bicycle trails.

Fine. The stream beds and bike trails ban can be defended on the grounds that it could prevent fires. But what if you are smoking in an urban park and you're nowhere near anyone? Our leaders are going to make that illegal because someone downwind might catch a momentary hint of a cigarette?

Where is the science to prove that a fleeting scent of cigarette smoke outdoors will kill you? We're not talking repeated exposure. This is about an instant in time.

Regulating such things is offensive to one's inner Republican, the whole idea of more government intervention and restricting the use of products that are not illegal.

Yet Roseville – which can't be much more Republican – now has anti-smoking laws that rival the liberal bastion of Davis. "There has to be an ordinance," said Roseville Mayor Jim Gray. "If there is a sign posted, people feel they can ask someone to stop smoking."

There was a dissenting voice in Roseville – City Councilman John Allard. But he declined to be interviewed because he didn't want to "stir things up," said a Roseville spokeswoman.

It's the power of the anti-smoking crusade – it creates intrusive laws in Republican cities and fosters a fear of free speech.

And look out, because anti-smoking laws may soon invade your home. Temecula now bans smoking in apartment complexes of 10 or more units. Belmont bans it in multi-story, multi-unit residences, including balconies and patios. What's next? "It's absurd," said Jacob Sullum, senior editor at Reason Magazine. "There is no scientific justification for banning brief exposure to secondhand smoke. ... It's inherently irrational. It says, 'we make you free by taking away your freedoms'."

Wrap...