Smoking In Cars: CA Smoking Bans for Cars and Outdoors Page 3

By Jonathan On Jul 5, 2017

Robert Best of Ventura is the state coordinator of a smokers’ rights group called The Smoker’s Club.

CA cars and outdoors update

Grossmont, Cuyamaca colleges to ban smoking on campus
By Leonel Sanchez
January 24, 2008
Grossmont and Cuyamaca colleges will ban smoking on campus beginning next year, joining other local jurisdictions that have adopted similar policies in recent years.
“It’s in the best interest of everybody from a health perspective to remove smoking from the campuses,” said Bill Garrett, president of the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District governing board.?
The board voted 5-0 Tuesday to continue allowing smoking in designated areas for the rest of the year, then prohibit smoking altogether as of next January.
The board also directed the district to move smoking areas farther from classroom buildings until the ban takes effect.
Grossmont College student Eric Schneider, 20, spoke in favor of the ban at the board meeting, saying he is allergic to cigarette smoke.
“It’s a real smart direction to go in,” Schneider said.
Mesa College in San Diego and a few other California community colleges also have banned smoking.
Grossmont-Cuyamaca is the state’s only multiple-college district to institute a ban, according to Communities Against Substance Abuse, an El Cajon-based nonprofit.
The county and several cities, including San Diego and El Cajon, have varying restrictions on smoking. El Cajon, where Grossmont College is based, passed a smoking ban last year in virtually all public places.
The Grossmont-Cuyamaca district set up designated smoking areas last year at the recommendation of a task force that included students. The goal was to review that policy after one year.
Campus surveys showed students were split on whether to continue the partial ban or cut smoking altogether, district officials said.
“When there is no consensus, it’s the responsibility of the board to take a leadership position and make a decision,” said Garrett, the board president.
Cuyamaca College’s student trustee, Audrey Causton, voted for the ban, while Grossmont College’s student trustee, Crystal Bernier-Sudano, did not. Their votes are advisory.
Bernier-Sudano argued to keep designated smoking areas, but to move them to the perimeter of the campus.
“I was shocked the board did that,” Bernier-Sudano said of the ban. “That’s not what students want. Students are the largest constituency.”
The smoking ban will be mostly self-enforced, officials said, though public safety officers will have authority to issue warnings or citations. Specific penalties have not yet been determined, a district spokeswoman said.

Smoking policy flawed

12/6/07
Mark Aspillera

“Not another smoking policy piece,” some may say. The work of a few reporters, though, suggests that smoking on campus has become as much of an issue of design and psychology as it is one of policy.

“Smoke-free” campuses – you may have heard of them. San Francisco State became one in 2004, and De Anza College followed suit in 2005. The resolution to ban smoking at San Francisco State was passed by the school’s Academic Senate. Both campuses limit smoking to demarcated areas.

Incidentally, a policy recommendation made by the SJSU Academic Senate in 2003 suggested university and police officials work “to devise a mechanism for meaningful enforcement” of the 25-feet policy. It was rescinded by the president’s office, which said that such a policy goes beyond the senate’s responsibilities.

Perhaps the downside of California’s penchant for progressive attitudes is a tendency to err into a sort of legal paternalism, an impulse that reduces the individual to a child who must be “guided” in the right direction.

De Anza has not even been subtle about the infantilism, doling out so-called “compli-mints” and “enforce-mints” to students violating the new policy in its first year.

The mean age of students at SJSU is 26. Last I checked, the legal smoking age for California is 18.

In an announcement on July 30, 2004, San Francisco State President Robert Corrigan said the new ban would allow the campus to “actively promote health.”

To be frank, this country is plagued with teenage pregnancies, mass diabetes, a broken drug development system, poor parenting and an underfunded Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. And California universities seek to promote health by banning smoking?

No one will debate the health hazards of smoking. Second-hand smoke is a legitimate concern and one addressed well enough by the current SJSU policy, which bans smoking in any building and within 25 feet of any doorway or window.

Promoting health is a noble endeavor and one appropriate for a university to take up, but cold-turkey prohibition is one of the lousiest ways to try to do it. The U.S. government’s forays into drug and alcohol temperance are proof enough of that.

Perhaps places of higher education should promote health and wean smokers away from the habit by, well, educating, rather than playing nanny.

“Education, not legislation” is perhaps how the rule should sound.

Now we come to the design issue. A simple map of the 25-foot perimeters around each building on campus reveals several areas where they overlap, creating a pattern of smoking-to-non-smoking areas that resembles a veined slice of bleu cheese more than a symmetrical grid ensuring a minimum of second-hand smoke.

Most of the ashtrays on campus are found within these zones of isolation, possibly doing more to mislead the average smoker than the haphazard placement of signage for the 25-feet rule.

Are smokers expected to walk back and forth to what could be the only nearby tray after every inhalation and get to class on time? Or is the ashtrays’ paradoxical placement scheme simply the result of inefficiency in design implementation?

A straight answer is not likely: In its research, the Daily found no official diagram of the smoking areas on the SJSU campus. The map accompanying the “Smoke and Mirrors” article was created by an editor using computer software.

Can campus smokers really be blamed then for using the ashtrays in question? Campus police officials have said that “most students” are not even aware of the existing rule and that it is a question of “educating” most violators.

UPD has had too many pressing issues to deal with this semester, such as the rise in larceny in campus housing and the vandalism of school property, to waste its time correcting behavior that could be remedied by a more informed and educated student body.

The issue of inefficiency in policy can be seen in a new campus non-motorized vehicle policy that lacks proper signage and an existing nondiscrimination policy that does not mention gender identity.

While the president’s office has said that the campus smoking policy is not expected to change any time soon, parties pushing for a smoke-free campus should instead push to see the proper enforcement of and education on the existing rule first.

I am not a smoker. I have never smoked in the past and do not intend to start anytime soon. I do, though, believe in good, smart design and a well-educated populace. Healing the hand by lopping off the arm is no remedy to inefficient design and poor communication.

From: Thomas Laprade
To: letters@herald.ca
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 11:28 AM
Subject: Smoking in cars with children

Dear Editor,?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
While I appreciate the desire to protect children from secondhand smoke exposure in cars, I’’m afraid that the proposal to ban smoking in cars occupied by children represents an unwarranted intrusion into the privacy and autonomy of parenthood. The autonomy to make one’’s own decisions about what risks to subject a child to is not to be interfered with lightly. It should only be done in cases where there is a substantial threat of severe harm to the child. Interfering with parental autonomy in a case where there is only minor risk involved is unwarranted.
Let me explain what I mean by substantial threat of severe harm and minor risk.
If an infant is riding in a car without a car seat, there is a substantial threat of severe harm should the car be involved in an accident. In fact, if the car is in any major accident, severe harm to the child is almost certain. Death is likely if the accident is severe. The connection between not being in the child restraint and suffering severe injury or death in an accident is direct, immediate, and definitive.
On the other hand, exposure to secondhand smoke in a car in most cases merely poses an increased risk of upper respiratory or middle ear infection. The likelihood, more often than not, is that the child will not suffer any harm. What is involved is only an elevation of risk for an ailment. There is no certainty of harm, nor is there any substantial threat of severe harm. The harm, if any occurs, is removed in time from the exposure and in most cases it is impossible to directly connect the exposure with the ailment. Thus, the connection is neither direct, immediate, nor definitive.
This difference is not subtle. In fact, it is so stark that it serves as the basis for deciding when society should interfere with parental autonomy regarding exposure of their own children to health risks. Generally, causing harm to children or putting them at substantial risk of severe, direct, immediate, and definitive harm is viewed as something for which there is a legitimate government interest in interfering with parental autonomy. Simply placing children at an increased risk of more minor health effects is not something for which there is a legitimate government interest in interfering with parental autonomy.
If we extended the argument of the supporters of this proposed legislation, then we would also have to support laws that regulate a wide range of parental activity that takes place in the private home which places children at increased risk of adverse health effects.
We would have to ban parents from smoking in the home. We would have to ban parents from drinking more than a drink or two at a time in the home. We would have to ban parents from using insecticides and pesticides. We would have to ban parents from allowing their children out in the sun without sunscreen. We would have to ban parents from allowing their children to ride giant roller coasters. We would have to ban parents from serving their children foods that contain trans-fats. We would have to ban parents from serving their children peanuts before age 3. We would have to ban parents from allowing their children to drink soda that contains sodium benzoate and citric acid.
And more:
•?Allowing their infants to play with walkers;
•?Allowing their children to watch more than four hours of television every day;
•?Failing to ensure that their children get adequate physical activity;
•?Owning a wood-burning stove;
•?Failing to filter water that contains trihalomethanes;
•?Not boiling their babies’’ bottles before serving them milk;
•?Not breastfeeding their infants;
•?Allowing their children to watch violent television programs;
•?Allowing their children to watch R-rated movies;
•?Serving alcohol at a party;
•?Allowing their children to drink alcohol; and
•?Failing to keep vitamins out of the reach of children.
One could easily argue that ‘If you love your children, [these are all things] you should learn not to do.’ That may or may not be true, but what is clear is that we should not interfere with parental autonomy by banning all of these things.

The question I find interesting is why a child advocate would single out smoking around one’s children as the sole example of a situation in which the government interferes with the autonomy of a parent to make decisions regarding the exposure of her children to a health risk. What is it about smoking that, among all of the myriad above health risks to which parents often expose their children, it is the one and only one that is chosen to be regulated?

I fear that the answer is that there is a moral stigma attached to smoking as opposed to these other risky parenting behaviors. And I also fear that it is the anti-smoking movement that has contributed to this moral stigma. What it ultimately comes down to, I’m afraid, is that the anti-smoking movement is starting to moralize. We are starting to try to dictate societal morals, rather than to stick to legitimate public health protection.

It’s a dangerous line that we’re crossing. Because once that line is crossed, there’s little assurance that the autonomy of parents to make decisions regarding raising their children can or will be adequately protected.

Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.

Pay up if you puff
Drivers face fines for smoking with minors in car

10/12/07
By Redmond Carolipio, Staff Writer

If you light up with a kid in the car, you risk burning $100.

That’s the crux of the bill Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law Wednesday. The bill, which takes effect next year, essentially bans drivers and passengers from smoking in a car with anyone younger than 18. Doing so could trigger a $100 fine.

However, the smoking citation would have to be part of a traffic violation value meal. You can’t get busted just for smoking in the car with a minor, but if you do it while flying through a stop sign or performing some other kind of duncery on the road, then comes the trouble.

The bill’s author was state Sen. Jenny Oropeza, D-Long Beach, a longtime trumpeter of the ills of secondhand smoke.

“Protecting the health of our children is among government’s biggest responsibilities,” she said in a released statement. “It is clear that increasing public awareness about the dangers of secondhand smoke is the right thing to do.”

However, that’s not how Robert Best, state coordinator for nationwide smokers’ rights group The Smokers Club, Inc., sees it. He calls the ban another example of discrimination against smokers.

“I have a problem with the state telling me how to raise my children,” he said. “And in the car, 95 to 99 percent of people aren’t going to smoke in front of the kids. So it’s a waste of time … it’s something that didn’t need to be addressed in the first place.”

Area smokers aren’t too happy about the bill either, saying it indicates legislators might be turning a blind eye to more important issues.

“It’s becoming martial law. You can’t smoke on a beach, you can’t smoke within 25 feet of buildings,” said 45-year-old Jim Gorski, a 33-year smoker who was taking a break outside the north entrance of Ontario Mills, near the Market Broiler eatery. “You know what? Stop going after the smokers. Go after the drug dealers. Go after the street racers.”

redmond.carolipio@dailybulletin.com, (909) 483-9328

California Bans Smoking in Cars with Children

October 12, 2007
By Michael Siegel

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger this week signed into law a bill that bans smoking in cars with children present. The law provides for fines of up to $100 for anyone smoking in a car with a child under the age of 18. The legislation makes smoking in a car a secondary offense, meaning that the police cannot stop a motorist merely for violating this law. A motorist could only be charged if he or she were to be stopped for some other moving vehicle violation.

According to an article in the San Diego Union-Tribune: “The bill’s author, state Sen. Jenny Oropeza, D-Long Beach, … said the new law will protect children against secondhand smoke. A Harvard School of Public Health report issued last year said secondhand smoke in cars can be up to 10 times more of a health risk than secondhand smoke in a home. ‘Protecting the health of our children is among government’s highest responsibilities,’ Oropeza said in a statement. ‘It is clear that increasing public awareness about the dangers of secondhand smoke is the right thing to do.’”

The Rest of the Story

This is nothing other than a feel-good law which allows legislators to feel good about having done something that they can claim will protect children from secondhand smoke, but without having to muster the courage to actually do something that will make a difference.

To me, this is an example of policy makers at their worst. It is an example of pure political rhetoric without any substance, of cowing down to political correctness without any semblance of principle or courage.

Let me make it clear from the outset that I oppose bans on smoking in cars with children, whether they would reduce secondhand smoke exposure among children in cars or not. I believe that such policies represent an undue intrusion into parental privacy and autonomy. I do not believe that government should interfere with parental decisions regarding health risks to which they expose their children unless these risks cause immediate and direct harm or represent risks so severe that they could be life-threatening.

But even if I were to agree that banning smoking in cars were a sound idea, there is absolutely no point in passing a law that makes this violation merely a secondary offense. What this does is make the law completely unenforceable. It basically sends a message to smokers that they need not pay attention to the law.

What California policy makers are saying is: “Secondhand smoke is such a severe health hazard to children that we must interfere with parental autonomy in order to protect children from even brief exposure; however, it is not such a severe health hazard that we actually want to be able to enforce the law and actually protect children from this exposure.”

To rephrase that, what California policy makers are saying is: “We want to appear to really care about kids, so we’ve passed this law that will allow us to say that we care. However, we don’t have the courage to do something that will actually protect kids. Making this a primary offense might lead to some political vulnerability, and we’re not willing to face that in order to protect the health of our state’s children. But we do want to be able to feel good about ourselves and be to be able to pretend that we have done something to help our kids.”

Read more from Michael Siegel

Guv signs ban on smoking in cars with kids, SB 7
October 10, 2007
California Political Desk
SACRAMENTO – In a move that makes California the third state in the nation to ban smoking in cars with minors, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today signed into law Senate Bill 7 by Sen. Jenny Oropeza.
“Protecting the health of our children is among government’s highest responsibilities,” Oropeza, D-Long Beach, said. “It is clear that increasing public awareness about the dangers of secondhand smoke is the right thing to do,”
Health experts have testified that recent scientific studies, including a 2006 report by the Harvard School of Public Health, found that second-hand smoke in a car can be up to 10 times more dangerous than in a home.
Effective Jan. 1, 2008, SB 7 imposes a $100 fine on drivers and passengers cited for smoking in a car with another person aged 17 or younger.
Protecting non-smokers and cleaning up the environment have long been priorities for Oropeza, a cancer survivor. Enacted Jan. 1, 2007, was AB 2067, Oropeza’s measure banning smoking in common-use areas of covered parking lots and adjacent stairwells, lobbies, lounges, waiting areas, elevators and restrooms.
Schwarzenegger, despite being a well-known cigar smoker, last year signed AB 2067. Both measures were supported by numerous health groups.
“I am so proud that my fellow legislators and the governor agree that our children must be protected from the toxins in secondhand smoke,” Oropeza said. “I will continue to helping lead California in eliminating pollutants that hurt our kids’ health.”

They aren’t blowing smoke
Proponents of no-smoking policy at Gauche Park speak at hearing

By John Dickey/Appeal-Democrat
September 20, 2007

Supporters of a proposal to clear the air at Gauche Park from tobacco smoke gave plenty of reasons why the city should designate its first nonsmoking park.

But no one spoke up for smoking Wednesday at the public hearing in the Yuba City City Council chambers.
The Parks and Recreation Commission heard from several people who want the park to become entirely nonsmoking and tobacco-free, extending a state law that bans lighting up near playgrounds.

The city will unveil more than $16 million in improvements at the park and its new aquatics facility on Oct. 4, including a competition pool, amphitheater and two smaller pools at C Street and Wilbur Avenue.

People who say the park could be further improved by banning smoking include Sutter County Supervisor Stan Cleveland, who said his two boys had asthma problems. He encouraged the commission to declare Gauche Park a smoke- and tobacco-free zone.

“Why would we want to allow a toxic and unhealthy activity to occur so close to children?” said Cleveland.
One parent of children with asthma said even outdoor smoking could bring on an attack if their kids walk near it.

“People think when you’re outdoors it’s not as big a deal,” said Lara Plaia, of Yuba City. “It is a big deal.”

The commission will hold two more public hearings at 5:30 p.m. on Oct. 17 and Nov. 21 before it makes any recommendations to the City Council, which would have to approve any ban. A commission recommendation would likely be made either at the Nov. 21 meeting or at the Dec. 19 meeting, depending on what issues come up and how much additional research is needed.

One potential issue was noted by a commissioner at Wednesday’s hearing.

Smoking within 25 feet of playground areas is already illegal under the state’s “Tot Lot Law” with a $250 fine. Making Gauche Park nonsmoking might in effect extend that law and fine, suggested Commissioner Vaughn Minnix, requiring the police to investigate “he said, she said” situations with the accused smoker denying any allegations to avoid a costly penalty.

Nonsmoking proponents countered that enforcement has not been a problem in other areas.
The Park’s Website.

California ban on smoking in cars go to governor

September 12, 2007

SACRAMENTO ? In a move that makes California the third state in the nation to ban smoking in cars with minors, the California Senate on a bipartisan vote early today sent Sen. Jenny Oropeza?s Senate Bill 7 to Gov. Schwarzenegger.

?Protecting the health of our children is among government?s highest responsibilities,? Oropeza, D-Long Beach, said on the final day of the 2007 session. ?It is clear that increasing public awareness about the dangers of secondhand smoke is the right thing to do,?

Health experts have testified that recent scientific studies, including a 2006 report by the Harvard School of Public Health, found that second-hand smoke in a car can be up to 10 times more dangerous than in a home.

If signed into law, SB 7 would impose a $100 fine on drivers and passengers cited for smoking in a car with another person aged 17 or younger.

Protecting non-smokers and cleaning up the environment have long been priorities for Oropeza, a cancer survivor. Going into effect Jan. 1, 2007, was AB 2067, Oropeza?s measure banning smoking in common-use areas of covered parking lots and adjacent stairwells, lobbies, lounges, waiting areas, elevators and restrooms.

The fate of SB 7 now rests with California?s Governor, who despite being a well-known smoker, last year signed AB 2067. Schwarzenegger has until mid-October to sign SB 7, veto it or allow it to become law without his signature.