Robert Best of Ventura is the state coordinator of a smokers’ rights group called The Smoker’s Club.
CA cars and outdoors update
.
Read Newest Articles:?CA Smoking Bans for Cars and Outdoors Page 3
Assembly panel to discuss ban on smoking
Lighting up in cars with kids at issue
July 23, 2007
By Robert Balicki, Correspondent
By Robert Balicki, Correspondent
SACRAMENTO — Democratic lawmakers are trying again to push the anti-smoking frontier into cars with a bill that would prohibit lighting up in vehicles where minors are present.
This is the fifth time since 2004 that the Legislature has considered a bill to regulate smoking in cars.
If it passes, it would mark the first time the state banned smoking in private, nonbusiness areas, a development Republican critics say would bring too much government into the home or in this case, the car.
“I object to any legislation which attempts to replace a parent with the government,” said Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, who voted against the bill.
“The few mistakes we make as parents are the price we pay for all the good decisions we make.”
The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Jenny Oropeza, D-Long Beach, said “nanny government” arguments don’t apply because the bill is primarily about protecting children, who don’t make the decision to be exposed to secondhand smoke.
“This is not a bill targeting parents,” she said. “What we are doing is protecting children who do not have the ability to get out of the car on their own.”
This bill would make California the third state to regulate tobacco smoking in vehicles.
In 2006, Arkansas and Louisiana passed laws prohibiting motorists from smoking in cars with children up to age 6 and 13 respectively.
In California, which banned smoking in workplaces 12 years ago, and in restaurants and bars nine years ago, this is the latest in a series of restrictions on smoking.
In recent years, smoking has been banned by the state near government
buildings and playgrounds. In addition, many counties and cities have prohibited smoking on beaches, parks and other public places.
In March, Calabasas enacted one of the strictest anti-smoking ordinances in the country and banned smoking in most public areas. Camarillo and Westlake Village are considering restricting smoking in certain outdoor areas.
Like proponents of previous anti-smoking measures, supporters rely on studies that show the toxic effects of secondhand smoke.
The California Environmental Protection Agency says that each year, secondhand smoke causes 31,000 asthma attacks in children. Secondhand smoke also increases the risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, bronchitis and pneumonia, and has been linked to lung, heart, larynx and other cancers.
The effects of smoking are further magnified in cars: One study from 2002, by a San Francisco air quality consulting firm, found that burning a single cigarette, even with the driver’s windows open and ventilation on, led to 13 times as many airborne smoke particles, including tar, inside the car than outside.
That number jumped to nearly 300 if the windows were closed and ventilation was off, according to the study.
The bill, SB 7, passed the state Senate on June 7 with the support of majority Democrats and one Republican and is scheduled to be debated Wednesday by the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
It would make smoking in cars with minors an infraction, punishable by a $100 fine. The infraction, however, would be a secondary offense, meaning that a police officer could not stop a motorist only for smoking in a car with a minor. A citation could be issued only if a driver was stopped for some other violation.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has not taken a position on the bill; he typically waits until they reach his desk.
—————-
Show me one death certificate that list second hand smoke…..
Show me one death certificate that list second hand smoke…..
oh wait you can’t
That being said what gives people to dictate what I do in my home or car. A issue that doesn’t exist but for some reason Sen. Jenny Oropeza has made it her private crusade. She keeps reintroducing this legislation every time it fails. Evidently she is the little engine that could, she hopes regardless of what people want she will get her “nanny state” way. Drive around and try to count how many time this happens; you won’t get many, if any people smoking in cars with kids or even in homes. This makes little difference to Sen. Jenny Oropeza she wants to be able to come into your homes and cars and dictate what you do.
There have been numerous studies about the toxic chemicals that come from bbq cooking but people continue to have back yard bbqs when children are present. This is another in a long line of attacks on smokers and nothing more. The mass hysteria based on 0 proof coming from organizations like the Cancer Society and Lung Associations has reared the head of Political Correctness yet again. If you have such a problem with it move to a city like Calabasas who believe you don’t have any rights.
Sen. Jenny Oropeza doesn’t believe in allowing parents to decide whats best for their kids she believes she is the only one who is smart enough to do this.
The “Car Smoking Ban” is still alive in the California legislature. The Bill is SB 7 (Oropeza)
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_7_bill_20061204_introduced.html
has been double referred to the Transportation and the Government Organization Committees in the Assembly.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_7&sess;=CUR
Documents associated with SB 7 in the Session
Documents associated with SB 7 in the Session
Please fax the offices of the Transportation Committee: To voice your opposition to this intrusive and non-enforceable bill!
TRANSPORTATION (14)-Nava (Chair), Duvall (Vice Chair), Carter, DeSaulnier, Galgiani, Garrick, Horton, Houston, Huff, Karnette, Portantino, Ruskin, Solorio, and Soto. Chief Consultant: Janet Dawson. Principal Consultant: Ed Imai. Senior Consultant: Alejandro Esparza. Consultant: Howard Posner. Secretary: Denise Plants. 1020 N Street, Room 112. Phone: 916-319-2093 or fax 916-319-2193.
And the Government Organizations Committee:
GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION (15)-Torrico (Chair), Plescia (Vice Chair), Calderon, De Le?n, Evans, Garcia, Jeffries, Levine, Mendoza, Portantino, Price, Richardson, Silva, Soto, and Tran. Chief Consultant: Chris Lindstrom. Principal Consultant: Eric Johnson. Secre- tary: Lorreen Pryor. 1020 N Street, Room 156. Phone: 916-319-2531 or fax 916-319-3979
– A Newsletter Reader
Car Smoking Ban Clears State Senate
Written by C. Johnson, Internet News Producer??
A ban on smoking in vehicles when children are inside took a step closer to becoming law today. The state Senate passed Senate Bill 7 this afternoon 22-16.
The measure would apply when children under the age of 18 are in a car. Adults would be fined $100 for each smoking violation.
“This is another way we can protect kids’ health,” said the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Jenny Oropeza, D-Long Beach.
SB 7 now goes to the Asembly for debate.
There is no word whether Gov. Schwarzenegger will sign the bill, although he has said he’s thinks “terrible” when adults smoke in cars when there are children inside.
?Robert Best of Ventura is the state coordinator of a smokers’ rights group called The Smoker’s Club.
Proposed smoking bans light up debate
State tries to snuff secondhand smoke
By Tom Kisken, tkisken@VenturaCountyStar.com
March 31, 2007
March 31, 2007
Robert Best sits, smokes and complains.
The activities fit the Ventura man’s outspoken, sometimes adversarial personality and his role as state spokesman for an international smokers’ rights organization created to defend an activity that may soon be banned in your own car.
The California Senate Health Committee endorsed a bill Wednesday that would prohibit adults from smoking in any vehicle carrying children, even if it is parked on private property. If the bill passes the Appropriations Committee, it will hit the Senate floor. If it becomes law, offenders could be fined $100 as of next January.
To Best, the vote represents one more stubbed butt in a society where he and others already can’t smoke in restaurants, bars, workplaces and, in some communities, any place considered public. That trend was underlined Tuesday night by the Burbank City Council, which endorsed a smoking ban for some outdoor areas, including pedestrian walkways and a farmers market. The council will take a final vote on changes in the ordinance, including designating some areas where people can smoke, on Tuesday.
Best also worries about intrusions into homes, like a Thousand Oaks City Council vote to keep two-thirds of its subsidized housing smoke-free or a proposal in Northern California’s Belmont that prohibits smoking in apartments, duplexes and any residences except stand-alone homes. “It’s moving into my private space. I don’t think the government has that right,” said Best, California coordinator for a rights and advocacy organization called The Smoker’s Club.
The right to not smoke
State Sen. Jenny Oropeza, D-Carson, author of the proposal to ban smoking in cars, doesn’t question Best’s right to smoke his way through a pack of Marlboros each day. But she says no one should be able to expose kids to cigarette smoke in the confines of a car where the particulate matter may be 10 times thicker than in a living room. Her bill, which includes public education about secondhand smoke, is aimed at clearing the air.
“This is targeting the behavior of smokers toward children because those children are at the mercy of the driver,” she said in a phone interview the night her bill passed through the health committee. “They don’t have the choice to walk away.”
Similar bans have been passed in Arkansas, Louisiana and Puerto Rico, and the same type of legislation may be spreading across the United States. Best said lawmakers should be focused on crime and the homeless, not on what he believes is the small handful of parents who still smoke in the car with their kids.
“The government doesn’t have the right to legislate morality, and that’s definitely what this is,” he said.
Oropeza is a liver cancer survivor and says she wants to minimize the chance that kids or anyone else will have to battle the kind of the things she did. She wrote a successful bill that, starting in January, banned smoking in elevators, restrooms and lobbies. Another proposal would mean a $250 fine for people who smoke at state parks and beaches.
But, she said, she thinks government can go too far; there are some places people should have the right to smoke.
“I draw the line at the threshold of the house,” she said. “I would never intrude into the privacy of one’s home. ? Government doesn’t belong in a person’s home.”
Cutting off secondhand smoke
Some anti-smoking proponents have no such qualms. David Rodriguez of the American Lung Association of California in Ventura calls for continued bans on smoking anywhere other people could be exposed to secondhand smoke, including any housing subsidized by the government. He said he thinks the only place people should be allowed to smoke is outdoors when no one else is exposed.
Oropeza argues homes are private, but cars are not. A driver’s behavior can be seen by people in other cars and pedestrians. There’s no expectation of privacy, she said, which means they are fair game.
There may be legal precedent. David Cruz, a constitutional law professor at USC, said the Supreme Court has ruled people do have a greater right to privacy in their home than in their car.
Cruz said personal freedoms are restricted at the point they harm other people.
“My freedom to swing my fist ends where your nose starts,” he said.
Best has smoked since he was 18. He acknowledges at least some of the dangers of the tar and nicotine he’s inhaling but stops the discussion when secondhand smoke is mentioned. He contends those risks have not been scientifically proven, arguing smokers only hurt themselves.
“I know how to live my life,” he said. “If I want to drink or smoke myself into an early grave, I have that right.”
Mounting evidence
Rodriguez refers him to the California Air Resources Board, which has declared secondhand smoke a toxic air contaminant.
He also points at an American Lung Association Web site that cites studies on the dangers of secondhand smoke from the California Environmental Protection Agency and the surgeon general among others.
“We can provide volumes of data,” added Oropeza. “I don’t know how he (Best) can say that with a straight face.”
Best’s passionate defense of smokers’ rights includes several surprising contentions, including comparing the car smoking ban to an obsolete law that prohibits shooting whales from a moving car. But many of his arguments revolve around personal freedom. That, he said he believes, should be sacred.
He’s a 31-year-old graphic artist who wears vintage suits, organizes “The Rocky Horror Picture Show” screenings and volunteers his time to The Smoker’s Club. The rights organization lobbies against smoking legislation and provides strategies to its members on how to argue against bans. Operating mostly from http://www.smokersclub.com, the group has chapters in Australia, Africa, Europe and every state in the nation.
Best joined when organizing a boycott of Calabasas businesses after the city banned smoking in all public places indoors and outdoors. He says The Smoker’s Club has no ties to tobacco companies but is driven by the belief that bans on smoking increasingly encroach on a person’s civil liberties.
Ask about the current battlegrounds, and Best talks about parks, beaches and city streets. He said he thinks momentum will turn back toward smokers — and, in his mind, personal freedom — when larger cities try to ban smoking not just in restaurants but anywhere people gather. That’s when smokers and businesses that sell tobacco products will band together.
“I think on the parks and the beaches, the antis will probably win,” he said. “When it comes to the streets and private property, that’s where I pray it will fall short and the backlash will begin.”
California Tries to Ban Smoking in Cars with Kids
March 29, 2007
By Gregory Mottola??
By Gregory Mottola??
If you have ever sat in traffic on a Los Angeles expressway and smoked cigars to keep you sane, you may have to search for another option, should there be minors in the car. Yesterday, the California Senate Health Committee approved a proposed ban that would prohibit smoking in cars in which children under the age of 18 are present. The bill, titled SB 7, was put forth by Democratic Sen. Jenny Oropeza, who is hoping that California will join Louisiana, Arkansas and Maine in making it illegal to smoke in a vehicle carrying children.
The fine would be $100. The measure will now be reviewed by the Senate Appropriations Committee.
“This bill applies to any individual who is smoking in a car wherever the car is located,” said Oropeza. “If it is in public view, an officer may cite them. It’s just the next step in a logical progression of laws that we as a public have already seen as necessary for protecting the health of young children.”
But this “logical progression” has some cigar smokers worried about how zealous the laws will become should the new smoking ban succeed.
“I smoke in my car a few times a month,” said Michael Mehringer, regional business manager at Roche Diagnostics and resident of Huntington Beach in Orange County, California. “I’d hate to imagine what this law might lead to. Where does the line get drawn? What’s next? Am I going to be fined because the smoke in my car wafts out the window into a nearby park? This idea may sound ludicrous, but is it really that far away?”
Perhaps not. Another bill introduced simultaneously by Oropeza, titled SB 4, would establish a fine of $250 for smoking at a state beach or within a state park.
New Yorker Frank Levatino, a parent who smokes in his car every day, shudders to think what would happen if a law prohibiting in-car smoking made it to the Empire State.
“I have never, nor would I ever, choose to smoke in any vehicle with my children or any other minor,” said Levatino. “Not because the law says so, but because I believe my family’s rights take priority.” He travels about 900 miles per week driving to Connecticut and back and uses the road time to enjoy cigars. Alone.
It seems that Senator Oropeza does not trust that all parents will exercise the same sound judgment as Levatino without the threat of a fine.
“In the case of children who cannot protect themselves,” maintains Oropeza, “it’s critical that we step in and take a guiding hand, a protective hand on their behalf.”
Oropeza’s proposal to protect the children, however, raises questions about a nanny government overstepping its bounds in regards to parenting.
One person with such concerns is Keith Park, founder and CEO of Prometheus International, a California-based company, who also formed the California Association of Liberty and Choice, an organization that fought and defeated Proposition 86, which proposed a 135 percent tobacco tax in California.
“Being the father of two children, I would not put my daughters in a smoke-filled car,” said Park. “We have to be responsible smokers, but regulations like this set the stage for a comprehensive ban on smoking in cars.”
Park believes that one of the biggest problems facing the industry is the rapid proliferation of smoking bans across the country. He insists that smoking ban propositions are not properly publicized, so by the time smokers hear about them, it’s too late to fight them. Park did not comment on whether or not he is going to form a coalition to lobby against Oropeza’s proposed measure. If he does, it will be the first major outcry against the bill.
“We have not received any formal opposition to the ban,” said Ray Sotero, communications director for Senator Oropeza. “Nothing from tobacco companies, cigar companies or individuals. There was significant opposition in 2004 when this bill was first introduced, but nothing now. We believe that it’s just a sign of the times.”
Senator Oropeza has successfully banned smoking in common-use areas such as covered parking lots, adjacent stairwells, lobbies, lounges, waiting areas, elevators and restrooms throughout California. The car is one of the few places left a Californian can smoke, but even that right is eroding under the premise of protecting children. The next measure could conceivably propose, like the cell phone laws, that one cannot safely drive and smoke at the same time.
Proposed car-smoking ban angers foes of ‘nanny’ laws
They don’t want state dictating how kids are brought up
They don’t want state dictating how kids are brought up
March 26, 2007
Janine DeFao, Chronicle Staff Writer
Janine DeFao, Chronicle Staff Writer
When Anthony Johnson smokes in the car with his 2-year-old son in the backseat, he tries to limit himself to a few quick puffs and blows the smoke out the window.
“I feel guilty when I’m doing it,” said Johnson, 33, of Oakland, adding that he tries not to. “I know it’s wrong.”
Soon, it could be illegal.
A proposal to ban smoking in cars with children inside, to be heard Wednesday in the state Senate’s health committee, is the third bill in three months that has taken California’s Legislature into arenas some say are better left to parents. The first would have outlawed spanking, and debate continues over whether to mandate vaccinating seventh-grade girls against a sexually transmitted disease that causes cervical cancer. California is one of at least 16 states considering bans on smoking in cars with children present.
Critics call it the ultimate in “nanny government.”
“Who is the state to tell you how you can and cannot raise your children?” asked Robert Best of Ventura, state coordinator of the Smoker’s Club Inc., a smokers’ rights group.
“There’s a fine line between protecting my child and moving in to raise my child,” added Best, who is not a parent. “A car is private property. … What will they do next, say you can’t smoke in your home if you have kids in it?”
Even if smoking around children is a bad idea, it isn’t the government’s job to stop people from doing it, said Walter Williams, a conservative commentator who has written about the nanny state.
“If we justify things on the basis of what’s good for people, there’s no end in sight,” said Williams, an economics professor at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.
Williams, a smoker himself, asked if government should require an 8 p.m. bedtime for children, or educational television over video games.
Smoking ban author Sen. Jenny Oropeza, D-Long Beach, said prohibiting smoking in a car in public view is not an invasion of privacy, and she scoffed at the “nanny government” tag.
“When we’re talking about children’s health — life and death — I do think there’s a role for government,” said Oropeza, a liver cancer survivor who resurrected the ban after two previous failed attempts. “It’s foolish and irresponsible to do anything less than we can to prevent exposing children to this carcinogen.”
A ban proposed in Connecticut was suggested by a fifth-grader.
“If you can’t eat or drink or talk on a cell phone while driving a vehicle, how can you still smoke?” asked Justin Kvadas, 10, of East Hartford, who testified before his state’s legislature.
“I think the government should have a say because of all the dangers,” Justin said in an interview. “Kids breathe faster and are inhaling more of the toxic chemicals.”
Citing studies by the U.S. surgeon general and the California Environmental Protection Agency, the American Lung Association says babies’ and children’s exposure to secondhand smoke contributes to asthma, lower respiratory tract and ear infections and sudden infant death syndrome.
Arkansas, Louisiana and Puerto Rico passed such laws last year, and the city of Bangor, Maine, followed suit earlier this year. Other states now considering bans include Arizona, Illinois, Massachusetts, Montana and Utah, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Oropeza’s bill, SB7, would make it an infraction punishable by a fine of $100 to smoke a cigarette, cigar or pipe in a car containing anyone under 18. The driver would not have to commit another traffic offense to be pulled over. Last year’s bill would have prohibited smoking in a car where there’s a child in a car seat.
Oropeza said she believes a growing public awareness of the dangers of secondhand smoke will make the difference in passing the ban this year despite its previous failures.
While the proportion of adults who smoke in California has fallen to an all-time low of 14 percent, there still are nearly 4 million smokers, according to state figures.
David Sutton, a spokesman for Philip Morris USA, the country’s leading cigarette manufacturer, declined to comment on whether the company plans to lobby against the proposed bans in California and elsewhere. But he said the company believes the public “should be guided by the conclusions of public health officials regarding the health effects of secondhand smoke” and “particular care should be exercised where children are concerned.”
Bill Henby, a lobbyist for the California Organization of Police and Sheriffs, which represents 10,000 law enforcement officers, said the group won’t oppose the bill but doesn’t think the state’s chronically understaffed police departments will become cigarette cops.
“While we support the concept because we’re concerned about things that are cancer-producing, it’s almost impossible to enforce,” said Henby, who said the bill’s requirement of a state public education campaign would have a greater effect than enforcement.
Williams, the George Mason economist, said legislators should not be telling parents they can’t spank their kids — a proposal dropped by California Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, D-Mountain View, after a public outcry — or mandating that seventh-grade girls be vaccinated against human papillomavirus, two strains of which cause more than two-thirds of cervical cancer cases, though infection by those strains is rare. Mandatory vaccination against the sexually transmitted disease, with the possibility for parents to opt out, is being considered in 20 states including California, where Assemblyman Ed Hernandez, D-Baldwin Park (Los Angeles County), withdrew a bill this month but is expected to re-introduce it in April.
“It’s a slippery slope,” said Williams, who occasionally guest hosts Rush Limbaugh’s conservative talk radio show. “Government should get involved if a parent is grossly abusing kids, something that’s clearly abuse — black eyes, broken bones, starving kids to death.”
But Stephen Sugarman, a professor at UC Berkeley’s Boalt Hall School of Law who writes about parents’ and children’s rights, said government interventions — such as fluoridating water, requiring movie ratings or mandating car seats — can be “parent-power enhancing.”
“Is what’s going on running roughshod over parenting or providing what most people want?” he asked.
Jacqueline Wilson, 18, of Oakland said it used to bother her when her mother smoked in the car — until she started smoking herself.
But she still thinks government should butt out.
“I think that’s government stepping in on family matters,” she said.
But Paula Daryanani, an Alameda mother of two who smokes, said she has no problem with the car-smoking ban.
“I don’t smoke in the car with the kids” because of the health dangers and distraction, said Daryanani, who is trying to quit smoking.
Johnson, the Oakland dad, also supports the ban.
“If it’s a proven fact (that secondhand smoke) could harm kids, that’s child endangerment,” he said.
E-mail Janine DeFao at jdefao@sfchronicle.com.
San Mateo Co. Smoking Ban For County Owned Parks
March 14,? 2007
CATHERINE STORTZ RIPLEY?
SAN MATEO — Residents and visitors to San Mateo County park areas who enjoy smoking in the great outdoors will have to take their last puff before next Thursday unless they want to be fined.
CATHERINE STORTZ RIPLEY?
SAN MATEO — Residents and visitors to San Mateo County park areas who enjoy smoking in the great outdoors will have to take their last puff before next Thursday unless they want to be fined.
San Mateo County Supervisors approved an ordinance that bans smoking in any county owned or maintained parks, beaches or trails starting on March 15th, reported David Holland, director of the parks and recreation department.
Citizens who violate this ban are subject to a fine of $100 for the first infraction, $200 for the second and $500 for each additional violation within the year.
The ordinance from the supervisors defines smoking as inhaling, exhaling, burning or carrying any lighted cigar, pipe, cigarette, tobacco product or plant, reported Holland. The ban was enacted not only to reduce exposure to second-hand smoke and to cut litter associated with smoking, but also to decrease the threat of wildfires. Smoking is the third leading cause of wildfires in the U.S. and causes eight percent of all outdoor fires, according to the U.S. Fire Administration.
San Mateo County currently owns 17 parks, three regional trails and many other county and local trails, which altogether encompass 15,680 acres. However, the ban will not be enforced at the various federal and state parks that are located throughout the county of San Mateo, according to Holland.
Signs will be erected at various entrance gates, kiosks and in other visible location to alert visitors of the new ban, reported Holland.
The parks department will offer full refunds with no cancellation charges for visitors who had reservations for after March 17th and do not want to have to follow the ban, according to Holland. For information regarding cancellations visitors can call the reservation desk at (650) 363-4021.
Supervisors ban smoking in parks
Secondhand smoke, litter, fire hazards cited
Secondhand smoke, litter, fire hazards cited
02/07/2007
By Rebekah Gordon, STAFF WRITER
By Rebekah Gordon, STAFF WRITER
To the list of prohibitions in county parks, which includes pets, hard liquor and amplified music, add one more item: smoking.
Further extending its crusade to keep smoking away from anything with the county’s stamp on it, the Board of Supervisors unanimously banned smoking Tuesday from all county-operated parks, trails and beaches.
“It seems so obvious that you wouldn’t be allowed, or shouldn’t be allowed, to smoke in our county parks,” said Supervisor Jerry Hill, who sponsored the ordinance with Supervisor Rich Gordon. “I remember a number of times sitting in a picnic area, having a nice picnic and there just happens to be — because it’s so nice and open — people who feel that they can sit at another table nearby and smoke a nice, big cigar,” Hill said. “That just kind of spoiled it all for me.”
From Coyote Point to Heritage Grove, smoking will be banned from the county’s 17 parks and 12 trails and their parking areas, possibly as soon as March 15.
The county cited secondhand smoke exposure, litter and fire hazards as its reasons for the ban. In June, the U.S. Surgeon General declared that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.
Gordon came up with the idea after having enough of picking up cigarette butts at the Fitzgerald Marine Reserve and discovering that no regulation banning smoking in the county’s 16,000 acres of parks was on the books.
“I’ve been consistently shocked to find that the No.1 item of litter that is collected during those beach clean-ups are cigarette butts,” said Gordon. “Folks apparently have determined that the sand at our beaches is one huge ash tray.”
According to the California Coastal Commission, during the 2005 statewide Coastal Cleanup Day, 40 percent of the 971,000 pounds of debris picked up was cigarette butts. Littering beaches, they can be harmful to toddlers with a propensity to put things in their mouths, as well as to pets and marine life.
According to the California Coastal Commission, during the 2005 statewide Coastal Cleanup Day, 40 percent of the 971,000 pounds of debris picked up was cigarette butts. Littering beaches, they can be harmful to toddlers with a propensity to put things in their mouths, as well as to pets and marine life.
Gordon said he also worried aboutfire hazards in the county’s more wooded park areas; according to the U.S. Fire Administration, smoking is the third leading cause of wildfires.
“Some of our parks, they’re in forests,” Gordon said. “The last thing we need is a fire.”
The county has already taken aggressive steps to ward off secondhand smoke.
State law only requires a smoke-free buffer of 20 feet from entrances of city, county and state buildings, but in April, the county upped the ban to 30 feet from the perimeter of all county buildings.
The county also banned smoking from indoor and outdoor common areas in multiunit housing structures in its unincorporated jurisdictions.
The ordinance does not apply to city-operated parks, beaches or trails. Pacifica is the only city in the county with a similar ordinance, as they banned smoking from their beaches in September. Belmont made national news in November with an attempt to ban smoking citywide, except in detached, single-family homes. Its City Council is expected to vote on the issue in March.
San Francisco bans smoking from all parks, public squares and outdoor spaces that the city owns. Widespread smoking bans go into effect in Emeryville beginning March 1, which include parks, walking paths and movie lines.
Serena Chen, policy advocacy director for the American Lung Association’s greater Bay Area office in Emeryville, said she was pleased with the decision. Local government, she said, has an obligation to protect its citizens.
“People use the San Mateo County beaches a great deal and we rely on them to get fresh air,” Chen said. “It’s kind of the opposite if you have to be submitted to someone’s secondhand smoke.
The ordinance will be posted on signs and will be enforced as the county’s other park rules are enforced: through park rangers and a diligent public. An outright violation can result in a $100 fine for the first offense.
The County and Statewide Archive of Tobacco Statistics estimates that only
12 percent of San Mateo County residents are smokers.
But those 12 percent still deserve consideration, said Robert Best, the California state coordinator for The Smoker’s Club, Inc., a nationwide grass-roots organization that advocates for smokers’ rights. Best said having to leave the park to smoke will keep people who smoke away altogether.
“It’s another attempt at legislation and discrimination against smokers. We are now being told in San Mateo County we can not enjoy parks and trails,” said Best, who is based in Ventura. “Now we’re telling smokers they have to leave the park to have a cigarette. That makes it inconvenient for smokers to go to the park at all.”
Staff writer Rebekah Gordon can be reached at (650) 306-2428 or rgordon@sanmateocountytimes.com.
Staff writer Rebekah Gordon can be reached at (650) 306-2428 or rgordon@sanmateocountytimes.com.
Where will it end?
January 22, 2007
One problem political debaters often encounter when using a slippery-slope argument is that it’s easy to overstate one’s fears. So why do so many still use them? Simple; the argument is usually prescient.
One problem political debaters often encounter when using a slippery-slope argument is that it’s easy to overstate one’s fears. So why do so many still use them? Simple; the argument is usually prescient.
The slippery slope is employed when it’s easy to see that if A happens, B will follow and the next thing you know, we’re somewhere in the middle of the alphabet, with one side trying to hold the line and the other pushing hard to get to Z.
In the case of anti-tobacco zealots, Z is the total prohibition of smoking. In the lifetimes of many readers, the United States has seen smokers pushed into diminishing spaces, to the point where many states have some type of indoor smoking ban, even on private property. We’ve railed against such bans as intrusions on property rights and free association rights, and will continue to do so. We’ve warned that if government can ban smoking on private property such as bars, restaurants and stores, it’s just a matter of time until the neo-prohibitionists set their sights on automobiles and homes. Sadly, once again, we have to say we told you so.
Under the umbrella of protecting public health, anti-tobacco activists in several communities are working to limit smokers’ ability to light up in their own homes, if they live in multi-family dwellings such as apartment buildings and condominiums. Indoor smoking bans usually include public areas such as hallways and lobbies.
Now the prohibitionists want to go into smokers’ living rooms and remove the ashtrays.
As usual in such efforts, activists are launching the battle in an arena where they have a lot of support and some genuine leverage — public housing. In Seattle, where an indoor smoking ban went into effect a year ago, some are asking why nonsmoking tenants of public housing apartments have to suffer with their neighbors’ second-hand smoke. They point out that those who rely on public housing have fewer housing options than renters in other situations and can’t move to other digs. It makes for a good argument, but it’s another slippery slope. If it makes sense for public housing apartments, why not extend it to privately owned apartment buildings?
Once it’s accepted practice to ban smoking in rental homes because of smoke drifting under the door, across the hallway and under the door into a neighboring unit, what’s to stop the prohibitionists from applying the same logic to single-family dwellings?
It’s not that we’re unsympathetic to those with smoke allergies or pulmonary conditions that make exposure to smoke a concern. But the reality is that there is only so much that can be done to limit environmental exposure to things that aggravate those conditions. In the case of public housing, it’s perfectly fine for government to set smoking rules in the units; government is the landlord. In Seattle, the King County Housing Authority is dealing with health and sensitivity concerns by making some buildings smoke-free while leaving others available to smokers. That’s a plan that could be applied by private landlords as well. But it should be the decision of property owners, not government.
Too many times, anti-smoking activists aren’t satisfied with a reasonable accommodation and push for an all-or-nothing plan that leaves smokers and property owners out in the cold. Doing so infringes on the owners’ right to use his property as he sees fit. And if we allow government to limit property rights in the all-powerful name of protecting health, where will it end? New York City has already banned trans fats from restaurants; will other cities and states hop aboard that train? Or will some ban trans fats from pre-packaged foods on store shelves? Enacting bans in the interest of protecting health removes individuals’ freedom of choice and responsibility for their own well being. It’s a slippery slope, indeed, and it starts at our own front doors.
Smoking bans crossing line of common sense
01/18/2007
THERE was once a time when cigarette smoke was everywhere. You could smoke in the restaurants, bars, offices, stadiums, arenas and, above a certain altitude, people could even puff on airplanes.
01/18/2007
THERE was once a time when cigarette smoke was everywhere. You could smoke in the restaurants, bars, offices, stadiums, arenas and, above a certain altitude, people could even puff on airplanes.
Over the years, a successful movement evolved to severely curtail smoking and prevent people from breathing harmful secondhand smoke. Even in the face of the big bucks of tobacco corporations, the anti-smoking campaign persevered over the years with medical professionals at its side to show the dangers of smoking is not limited to smokers themselves, but also those close by.
Today, there is no smoking in any of those public places in California — people have to take it outside if they want to smoke — at least, for now. But that’s not enough for some in the anti-smoking campaign — the question is, has this campaign gone too far?
Advocates are pushing smoking bans outdoors — period. City councils throughout California have restricted outdoor smoking. Calabasas went as far in 2006 as to ban smoking in all public areas, including sidewalks.
Emeryville (widespread ban, including parks and footpaths) and San Francisco (no smoking in city parks, golf courses, public squares) have strong restrictions, but that might be outdone by Belmont, which has a pending proposal to ban smoking citywide, including in homes.
We agree there are legitimate reasons to curb outdoor smoking, particularly if it may be harmful to others, in stadiums or near the entrance of a public building. But now the anti-smoking campaign, without any scientific evidence as support, is infringing on people’s rights.
Even Stanton Glantz, a University of California, San Francisco, professor who has battled the tobacco industry — and prevailed many times — admits, “Nobody has ever done a study on people who are only exposed outdoors.” An air pollution expert at Brigham Young University said tobacco smoke is such a minuscule fraction of air pollutants, it’s disregarded in air contaminant inventories. Many medical experts who support anti-smoking bans are backing off.
So what’s the basis of this alleged danger of outdoor secondhand smoke? Is it primarily an issue of annoyance? Some people consider smoking a filthy, nasty habit — and it’s OK to think that way. Noise also can be annoying, and laws have been created to limit noise levels in communities. But, there’s still some noise and we accept a certain amount of it.
Smokers, in general, are now aware of the rights of others, and non-smokers or those with chronic health risks can ask a person to stop smoking or simply move a few feet away. Just use some common sense. It’s as simple as that.
If you want to talk of outdoor public health risks: What are our automobiles doing to the atmosphere? Exhaust fumes from buses? How much carbon dioxide comes from industries? How does it measure up to people smoking?
And if we’re concerned about public health, isn’t it possible that strong outdoor bans may drive smokers inside their homes, putting children at greater risk? Knowing the power of nicotine addiction, can we honestly expect smokers to toss their cigarettes away tomorrow?
The anti-smoking campaign has crossed the line toward infringing on individual rights. Smoking products are still legal. Anti-smoking advocates are apparently desperate to find new battlefields. At this stage, it doesn’t always make sense. And, the funny thing is, when it comes to public smoking, they’ve already won the war.
Conspiracy of Silence Theory
By M. A. Padlipsky
The Madness of the Meanwells?
I’ve got no use for the Ranting Right, but there does seem to be a bit of fire under all the smoke they blow about the Loony Left.
Consider: last week in the Assembly, Firebaugh was pushing a ban on smoking in cars where children are present; this week in the Senate, Murray wants to make smoking while driving, even alone, a fineable “distraction”. Loony, indeed.
Don’t they care that the primary nicotine withdrawal symptoms are difficulty concentrating and heightened anxiety? Do they really want to promote accidents, and “Road Rage”? Nutty, for sure.
But wait…. Maybe that’s too simplistic. What if the correct diagnosis isn’t psychosis but merely a twist on an old classic: They might NOT be crazy, but they ARE stupid?
Legislation aims to ban smoking in state parks, cars carrying kids
Dec. 5, 2006
James P. Sweeney
James P. Sweeney
SACRAMENTO – Calling out Big Tobacco for what could be a long, difficult political fight, a state senator plans to introduce legislation today that would outlaw smoking at all of California’s state parks and beaches as well as in cars carrying children.
Lawmakers have debated and rejected similar proposals in recent years, but the votes have been close. Moreover, of the 40 senators and 80 Assembly members who will be sworn in today for a new, two-year session, 48 are new.
“We’re going to work hard to address the concerns that have been present in the past,” said Sen. Jenny Oropeza, a Democrat from Carson who will carry the proposals in two bills. “The evidence is so strong about (the dangers of) secondhand smoke.”
Scientists and public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke contains toxins that cause lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema and a number of childhood maladies, including asthma.
Public support for beach and park smoking bans appears to be building, with cities such as Los Angeles, Santa Monica and Malibu taking up the cause. Local restrictions, however, do not apply to state parks, said Roy Stearns, a state parks spokesman.
Oropeza’s legislation is more ambitious than a previous measure that would have covered only about 64 state beaches. California has 278 state beaches and parks, with a combined 1.7 million acres.
Supporters of beach smoking bans have argued that such laws are needed to control litter – hundreds of thousands of discarded cigarette butts – as much as the potentially harmful or unpleasant effects of wafting smoke. Public health advocates say the same argument applies to inland parks.
“You can’t go on a hiking trail without seeing cigarette butts,” said Paul Knepprath of the American Lung Association. “They are pervasive and cause fires.”
Smokers, however, already are subject to litter laws that carry steeper fines – up to $1,000 – than the $250 that violators could face under Oropeza’s legislation, critics have countered.
The car-smoking measure would apply to vehicles carrying children younger than 18, although Oropeza said the age threshold probably will be adjusted to reflect the most vulnerable years of lung development.
“There is just undeniable evidence that secondhand smoke is affecting children really in an exponential way relative to adults,” she said. Violators would be subject to fines of up to $100.
The Senate approved a car-smoking ban this year that would have been invoked when children ages 6 or younger were passengers. That bill fell four votes short of passage in the Assembly.
Spokesmen for the nation’s two largest cigarette makers, Philip Morris USA and R.J. Reynolds, reserved judgment on the legislation, which was not yet in print. Philip Morris has a standing position that “bans on outdoor smoking go too far.”
“We do believe that particular care should be exercised where children are concerned, and adults should avoid smoking around them,” said Bill Phelps, a Philip Morris spokesman.
John Singleton, director of communications for R.J. Reynolds, said it’s doubtful that the nation’s second-largest tobacco company would actively oppose either bill.
“We frankly have more critical issues that we are dealing with,” Singleton said, alluding to excise-tax increases and efforts to protect smoking rights in popular adult venues, such as bars and taverns.
Read More: CA Smoking Bans for Cars and Outdoors Page 1
