(California) Governor rejects smoking ban at beaches, parks

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

(05-03) 17:43 PDT Sacramento -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill Monday that would have prohibited smoking at nearly all state beaches and parks, saying the law would have been too intrusive and would not have done much to curb litter on California's shoreline.

The groundbreaking legislation would have created the nation's most far-reaching smoking ban in a state that already restricts people from lighting up in cars with children, restaurants and bars. State Sen. Jenny Oropeza, D-Long Beach, who authored the bill, said Schwarzenegger's veto stands in "stark contrast to what is already being done at more than 100 local cities and counties statewide," including smoking bans at beaches and parks controlled by local jurisdictions. Oropeza and other supporters said the bill was necessary to cut down on litter, secondhand smoke and forest fires at the 278 parks and 64 beaches owned by the state.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/05/03/BA1Q1D8VVL.DTL&feed=rss.bayarea

And, by the way, stop with the false meme's. This was about looking down on people who do things you don't like. Frankly, I'm glad Arnold vetoed this one.

...hand out, & enforce, stiff fines for littering at these beaches & parks. Smokers will use ashtrays if provided, & everyone should clean up after themselves, whether they smoke or not!

It's a win-win: the state will get more revenue from slobs, & smokers can indulge in the open air if they so choose.

throw a butt out his cruiser window. When I am on a motorcycle I notice this shit because those butts are not harmless to a mc rider. Most of the time they are still lit.

solution to butt litter rather than banning smoking. Just noting that the availability of an ash tray does not stop many smokers from throwing butts on the ground.

caught tossing their butts on the ground or in the sand, and the second hand smoke at the beach is total BS! Put litter cans in frequent locations so it would be easy to comply with the law. That would also reduce the # of soda cans/bottles and all other litter as well.

Smoking is a legal, albeit physically harmful, choice. Smokers have been taxed, fined, and prohibited enough already!

hundreds of thousands of creatures. Fish and baby birds eat them. They destroy reefs. This is all documented.

More info on butts is easy to find. http://www.cigarettelitter.org/index.asp?PageName=Facts

Butts are not typical trash... they are a thousand times more toxic.

If there were laws against butts at the beach, it would modify people's behavior and they would be less trash at the beach altogether.

I hate smokers and I don't care who knows it. They're filthy and they pollute constantly.

I wish financially strapped stateside municipalities would stop giving cigarette litter a free pass. Perhaps they will if it means money. There is no reason to treat it differently from regular litter. England and Japan have strict laws. So should we.

In England, smokers are subject to an 80 pound fine for cigarette litter....http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8390001.stm

And I'm a smoker.

That puts out a lot more smoke than a cigarette.

Besides, I'm really tired of the nanny state and smokers always being targeted.

Cigarette butts are NOT the only things littering parks and beaches. Cans, bottles, wrappers, etc. also litter them.

As I said above, I think it's just a way this woman came up with to look down on people who do something she doesn't approve of.

Screw her.

I will reiterate: put out more ashtrays AND trashcans. I think there will be less litter of all types that way.

For starters, wood smoke doesn't contain chemicals such as you might find in embalming fluid.

Want to give yourself cancer? Fine. Do it in your own home, and don't take us with you.

So stick THAT ONE in your own pipe and smoke it, m'kay?

That's impossible. And BTW, you have toxic shit all over your body, including your skin and clothes, that CAN affect other people. They're called radon daughters.

Look it up and think before you open your trap.

:eyes:

Modern life gives us cancer. Cigarettes are gross, but I'd rather be around a pleasant smoker than an arrogant prick, no matter how clean you are.

Radon is found in cigarettes because of the fertilizer these awful giant tobacco companies use, which I agree should stop. Still, the idea that catching a whiff of smoke every so often is going to contribute measurably to your risk of lung cancer is ridiculous, considering all the other carcinogens that make up modern life.

It's fine if you insist someone you are around irl wait until you are gone before they light up, but it's just annoying when you go on the internet and bitch people out because their vice isn't yours.

If you're so concerned with people 'taking you with them', then I recommend avoiding campfires, barbeques, bonfires, roadways, water skiing, or anywhere else you might find smoke.

I rarely ever smoke, and I'm quite glad that most restaurants and theatres are smoke-free, but some places aren't going to be more 'dangerous' or unpleasant just because a few people light up. If catching a whiff of cigarette smoke on the breeze worries you, then avoid the above scenes.

I can smoke a whole pack of cigarettes and not need to go to the hospital for smoke inhalation. Try that with wood.

until then, hold your breath.

why you need to draw the question of documented smokers or undocumented smokers into this .

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS
What is secondhand smoke?
Secondhand smoke (also called environmental tobacco smoke) is the combination of sidestream smoke (the smoke given off by the burning end of a tobacco product) and mainstream smoke (the smoke exhaled by the smoker) (1, 2, 3, 4). Exposure to secondhand smoke is also called involuntary smoking or passive smoking. People are exposed to secondhand smoke in homes, cars, the workplace, and public places such as bars, restaurants, and other recreation settings. In the United States, the source of most secondhand smoke is from cigarettes, followed by pipes, cigars, and other tobacco products (4).

How is secondhand smoke exposure measured?
Secondhand smoke is measured by testing indoor air for nicotine or other smoke constituents. Exposure to secondhand smoke can be tested by measuring the levels of cotinine (a nicotine by-product in the body) in the nonsmoker’s blood, saliva, or urine (1). Nicotine, cotinine, carbon monoxide, and other evidence of secondhand smoke exposure have been found in the body fluids of nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke.

Does secondhand smoke contain harmful chemicals?
Yes. Of the more than 4,000 chemicals that have been identified in secondhand tobacco smoke, at least 250 are known to be harmful, and 50 of these are known to cause cancer. These chemicals include (1):

arsenic (a heavy metal toxin)
benzene (a chemical found in gasoline)
beryllium (a toxic metal)
cadmium (a metal used in batteries)
chromium (a metallic element)
ethylene oxide (a chemical used to sterilize medical devices)
nickel (a metallic element)
polonium–210 (a chemical element that gives off radiation)
vinyl chloride (a toxic substance used in plastics manufacture)
Many factors affect which chemicals are found in secondhand smoke, including the type of tobacco, the chemicals added to the tobacco, the way the product is smoked, and the paper in which the tobacco is wrapped (1, 3, 4).

Does exposure to secondhand smoke cause cancer?
Yes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), the U.S. Surgeon General, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have classified secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent) (1, 3, 5).

Inhaling secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmoking adults (4). Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke (2). The Surgeon General estimates that living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker’s chances of developing lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent (4).

Some research suggests that secondhand smoke may increase the risk of breast cancer, nasal sinus cavity cancer, and nasopharyngeal cancer in adults, and leukemia, lymphoma, and brain tumors in children (4). Additional research is needed to learn whether a link exists between secondhand smoke exposure and these cancers.

What are the other health effects of exposure to secondhand smoke?
Secondhand smoke causes disease and premature death in nonsmoking adults and children (4). Exposure to secondhand smoke irritates the airways and has immediate harmful effects on a person’s heart and blood vessels. It may increase the risk of heart disease by an estimated 25 to 30 percent (4). In the United States, secondhand smoke is thought to cause about 46,000 heart disease deaths each year (6). There may also be a link between exposure to secondhand smoke and the risk of stroke and hardening of the arteries; however, additional research is needed to confirm this link.

Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), ear infections, colds, pneumonia, bronchitis, and more severe asthma. Being exposed to secondhand smoke slows the growth of children’s lungs and can cause them to cough, wheeze, and feel breathless (4).

What is a safe level of secondhand smoke?
There is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Studies have shown that even low levels of secondhand smoke exposure can be harmful. The only way to fully protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke exposure is to completely eliminate smoking in indoor spaces. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot completely eliminate secondhand smoke exposure (4).

What is being done to reduce nonsmokers’ exposure to secondhand smoke?
Many state and local governments have passed laws prohibiting smoking in public facilities such as schools, hospitals, airports, and bus terminals. Increasingly, state and local governments are also requiring private workplaces, including restaurants and bars, to be smoke free. To highlight the significant risk from secondhand smoke exposure, the National Cancer Institute, a component of the National Institutes of Health, holds meetings and conferences in states, counties, cities, or towns that are smoke free, unless certain circumstances justify an exception to this policy.

More information about state-level tobacco regulations is available through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) State Tobacco Activities Tracking and Evaluation (STATE) System Web site. The STATE System is a database containing up-to-date and historical state-level data on tobacco use prevention and control. This resource is available at http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/statesystem/ on the Internet.

On the national level, several laws restricting smoking in public places have been passed. Federal law bans smoking on domestic airline flights, nearly all flights between the United States and foreign destinations, interstate buses, and most trains. Smoking is also banned in most Federally owned buildings. The Pro-Children Act of 1994 prohibits smoking in facilities that routinely provide Federally funded services to children.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Healthy People 2010, a comprehensive, nationwide health promotion and disease prevention agenda, includes the goal of reducing the proportion of nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke from 65 percent to 45 percent by 2010 (7). More information about this program is available on the Healthy People 2010 Web site at http://www.healthypeople.gov/ on the Internet.

Internationally, several nations, including France, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, and Uruguay, require all workplaces, including bars and restaurants, to be smoke free.

Selected References

National Toxicology Program. Report on Carcinogens. Eleventh Edition. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program, 2005.
National Cancer Institute. Cancer Progress Report 2003. Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2004.
International Agency for Research on Cancer. Tobacco Smoke and Involuntary Smoking. Lyon, France: 2002.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coordinating Center for Health Promotion, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2006.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking (Also Known as Exposure to Secondhand Smoke or Environmental Tobacco Smoke--ETS). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992.
California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Proposed Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant: Part B Health Effects, 2005.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2010: Understanding and Improving Health. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2000.

Smoke THAT, or better yet, hold the smoke in your own filthy lungs until you burst into flame.

Please revisit high school science classes.

I feel like my intelligence has been insulted.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Stop spouting nonsense and claiming that it's fact.

The byproducts of cellulose combustion are identical. I repeat: The byproducts of cellulose combustion are identical. Get it?

Oops, I take that back. There is one difference: fireplaces and barbeques emit carcinogens in much larger quantities.

So that people will quit due to social pressure. It's pretty effective over the long run.

And I'm a non-smoker

particularly fairly crowded ones, but some parks are quite large, there's no way to quickly get to the edge of a park where you could light one up. Even then, banning them near park buildings and parking lots might make some sense.

We've been heading towards having a society where the only places you can smoke are the places you can have sex, and this is just another step along the way. I don't find that trend bothersome.

But they have no problem banning smoking on private property.

restaurants I think this proposed ban was silly.

The action of smoking is restricted but no matter how you spell it, smokers are not banned at all. Seems nonsmokers have been banned from spelling class, however. Enjoy.

:smoke:

Brown is not big on excessive rule making and control. The majority of Californians don't support this, or they'd simply put it on the ballot. Pretty easy to get stuff on the ballot in CA. So why not go that route with it?
But by all means please link to Brown's intention to sign this law. Feel free as a bird, as a smoking bird, if you can. But you can not. Just like they could not pass it among the voters.

to legalize pot smoking just in time to BAN smoking.

That would solve the problem very nicely.

I hope smoking on hiking trails is banned, as our fire seasons have become worse over the last decade or so.

It's pretty rare to come across a smoker more than a 20 minute walk from a parking lot or trailhead. I've hiked the Yosemite/Emigrant backcountry every summer since I was 15, and I can't even remember the last time I saw someone light up out there. I always assumed that it had something to do with that whole reduced lung capacity/oxygen absorption thing.

can quickly spread from the road to more remote areas.

i have hiked and camped in Yosemite, Yellowstone, Lake Tahoe, etc... and i was a pretty avid skier in Tahoe as well.

when i was a lifeguard instructor, i got a joke award (all the supervisors got them) for 'most likely to invent a way to smoke underwater', and i could tread water while teaching my classes for hours.

not saying it was good to smoke, but i was still active. I didn't smoke in my house, and always asked before smoking around non-smokers. i did my share of littering until i realized the impact- after that i used a water bottle with a cap in my car to keep butts and then put them in the trash. (i hated the smell of old butts- ha ha)

i quit when i got pregnant, yet i dream about it, longingly. Non smokers will NEVER understand how hard it is to quit.

Those fibers in cigarettes are a form of plastic, and they persist in the environment for decades. In the last few years there have been several breakthroughs in developing new filter materials using natural materials that are friendlier to the environment. So, instead of banning smokes, how about banning non-green filters? That will eliminate a LOT of the problem without infringing on anybody's "rights".

need to identify and fine anyone who exhales in public.

If you are going to sell an highly addictive substance, do kindly people to smoke it. Is that ok?