San Diego Bans Smoking At All Beaches, Parks

[Bonnie]

What next, people's homes??

By THOMAS WATKINS
ASSOCIATED PRESS

SAN DIEGO (AP) -

Worried about the health effects of secondhand smoke and sick of cleaning up discarded cigarettes, San Diego has banned smoking at its beaches and parks. The city joins nearly 2,300 other municipalities across the nation that have barred smoking in a variety of public places.

In California, smoking bans have caught fire in beach communities. At least 35 cities, including Malibu, Santa Monica and Long Beach, now have ordinances to keep smokers from lighting up on the sand.

Several smokers at San Diego's Ocean Beach welcomed the ban, which was passed late Tuesday.

"I think it's a good idea, as long as they don't make us stop drinking," said beach resident Libby Brignon, a smoker who is fed up with finding butts in the sand.

Solana Beach, about 20 miles north of San Diego, became the first beach town in California to enact a smoking ban two years ago. Officials have been pleased with the results.

"You have to look really hard to find a cigarette butt," City Manager David Ott said.

According to the American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation, 17 states now have laws in effect to regulate smoking in public places. That means 44.5 percent of the U.S. population is restricted from puffing at bars, restaurants and other locations.

Many employers have voluntarily barred smoking in enclosed spaces. Even countries long seen as bastions for smoking, such as Japan and Spain, are seeing local bans.

"Nonsmokers are fed up and fighting for their rights to clean air," said Robert Berger, president of Healthier Solutions Inc., a nonsmokers rights group.

Berger believes a statewide ban on smoking at beaches and parks is inevitable in California, despite the narrow defeat of an attempt by the Legislature to do it in 2004.

Phone calls to two smokers rights advocacy groups - The Smokers Club Inc., and Forces International - were not immediately returned.

San Diego City Council President Scott Peters said parks were included in the council vote to reduce fire risks. The measure will take effect by mid-August.

Volunteers for beach cleanups often find thousands of cigarette butts, especially after big holidays like July 4, Peters said.

Some environmentalists said they fear that smokers will now congregate on streets near the beach and that butts flicked on sidewalks could get washed into the ocean.

Stefanie Sekich, of the local chapter of the Surfrider Foundation, said the organization is spending thousands of dollars to install theft-proof ashtrays in those locations.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2006/jul/13/071307748.html

 

[GotZoom]

 

[dmp]

One step closer to ThoughtPolice.

 

[Bonnie]

One step closer to ThoughtPolice.

Why don't they just make cigarettes illegal? Oh yeah the gov wants the taxes they bring in..

 

[007]

And my service manager who's a big smoker, and the owner of Reno H-D just took off on their bikes for San Deago yesterday for the big 2007 Harley Davidson line up show. Doubt they'll hit a beach but.....

I don't know. I smoke once in awhile when I'm having a cold one, but I'm very conscious about who's around me, where the smoke is going, and ultimately, where I put the damn butt. The "I don't give a fuck" attitude is all to prevalent amongst people today, and if you can't trust them to do the right thing, what else is there left to do when they abuse a priviledge?

 

[Bonnie]

And my service manager who's a big smoker, and the owner of Reno H-D just took off on their bikes for San Deago yesterday for the big 2007 Harley Davidson line up show. Doubt they'll hit a beach but.....

I don't know. I smoke once in awhile when I'm having a cold one, but I'm very conscious about who's around me, where the smoke is going, and ultimately, where I put the damn butt. The "I don't give a fuck" attitude is all to prevalent amongst people today, and if you can't trust them to do the right thing, what else is there left to do when they abuse a priviledge?

True some do not have any regard for others. I worry though when rules go so far to dictate our every action. Seems excessive to ban smoking outdoors and in people's cars. Too much govt intervention.
I remember when restuarants installed air systems to pull out smoke and keep it away from non smokers. I will bet that mandatory filter systems would be better for business than to ban smoking all together. And Im not a smoker, never was, but if smoking is legal then it seems very hypocritical to ban it but collect taxes from it at the same time.

 

[Nuc]

The world is a gigantic place. If people don't want to be near you when you are smoking they can go somewhere else. This is disgusting. Truly smokers should be considerate, but if they want to have a private smoke somewhere and relax let them.

 

[theHawk]

I hate smoking, but this is getting rediculous. Reminds me of Demolition Man..."salt is bad for you, hence it is illegal".

 

[Mr. P]

What next, people's homes??

Don’t be surprised. Here if you smoke in your car with a child occupant you can be ticketed. Not that that is a bad thing at all, but it is an infringement on your private property and privacy.IMO
So, if they can nail you in your private car it won’t be long before they’re in you home too.

 

[dmp]

I'm thinking the dangers of 2nd-hand smoke have been as or more distorted than the "dangers" of speeding.

:-/

 

[GotZoom]

I have no problem with it.

-----

WASHINGTON (AP) - Steer clear of smokers and any of their drifting fumes. That's the advice of the surgeon general, who on Tuesday declared the debate about the dangers of secondhand smoke over.

"The science is clear: Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance but a serious health hazard," said Richard Carmona.

There is no safe level of secondhand smoke - even a few minutes inhaling someone else's smoke harms nonsmokers, he found. And separate smoking sections, even the best ventilated ones, don't protect enough. Carmona called for completely smoke-free buildings and public places to lessen what he termed "involuntary smoking."

More than 126 million nonsmoking Americans are regularly exposed to someone else's tobacco smoke, and tens of thousands die each year as a result, concludes the 670-page study. It cites "overwhelming scientific evidence" that secondhand smoke causes heart disease, lung cancer and a list of other illnesses.

The report is sure to fuel efforts by states and cities to ban smoking in workplaces and other public spaces. Seventeen states and more than 400 towns, cities and counties have passed strong no-smoking laws.

But public smoking bans don't reach inside private homes, where just over one in five children breathes their parents' smoke - and youngsters' still developing bodies are especially vulnerable. Secondhand smoke puts children at risk of sudden infant death syndrome, or SIDS, as well as bronchitis, pneumonia, worsening asthma attacks, poor lung growth and ear infections, the report found.

Carmona implored parents who can't kick the habit to smoke outdoors, never in a house or a car with a child. Opening a window to let the smoke out won't protect them.

"Stay away from smokers," he urged everyone else.


The report won't surprise doctors. It isn't a new study but a compilation of the best research on secondhand smoke done since the last surgeon general's report on the topic in 1986, which declared secondhand smoke a cause of lung cancer that kills 3,000 nonsmokers a year.

Since then, scientists have proved that even more illnesses are triggered or worsened by secondhand smoke. Topping that list: More than 35,000 nonsmokers a year die from heart disease caused by secondhand smoke.

Regular exposure to someone else's smoke increases by up to 30 percent the risk of a nonsmoker getting heart disease or lung cancer, Carmona found.

Some tobacco companies acknowledge the risks. But R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., which has fought some of the smoking bans, challenges the new report's call for complete smoke-free zones and insists the danger is overblown.

"Bottom line, we believe adults should be able to patronize establishments that permit smoking if they choose to do so," said RJR spokesman David Howard.

And a key argument of some business owners' legal challenges to smoking bans is that smoking customers will go elsewhere, cutting their profits.

But the surgeon general's report concludes that's not the case. It cites a list of studies that found no negative economic impact from city and state smoking bans - including evidence that New York City restaurants and bars increased business by almost 9 percent after going smoke-free.

Rest of story:

http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S17231.html?cat=6

 

[acludem]

My personal favorite are people who complain about smoking in bars and cocktail lounges. If you are in a bar drinking alcohol, you have no business bitching about smoking.

I oppose these bans, especially on businesses. Restuarants and Bars should be able to decide for themselves whether to allow smoking. Government should not be regulating legal activity on private property. It should be up to the property owner. There is already a move afoot to consider smoking in a home with children as child abuse and prosecute people for it. The anti-smoking zealots are getting widly out of control.

acludem

P.S. I am a non-smoker

 

[Mr. P]

I'm thinking the dangers of 2nd-hand smoke have been as or more distorted than the "dangers" of speeding.

:-/

Way more IMO. You can prove speed caused death/ accident etc.
You can't prove second hand smoke did, IMO. I could be wrong but I think it's just another level of the stop smoking campaign.

If it was REALLY that bad they would make it illegal. I can deal with that.
But, to Dictate to a PRIVATE business what they can allow their customers to do? Come on. Way over the bounds of government function IMO.

 

[Mr. P]

My personal favorite are people who complain about smoking in bars and cocktail lounges. If you are in a bar drinking alcohol, you have no business bitching about smoking.

I oppose these bans, especially on businesses. Restuarants and Bars should be able to decide for themselves whether to allow smoking. Government should not be regulating legal activity on private property. It should be up to the property owner. There is already a move afoot to consider smoking in a home with children as child abuse and prosecute people for it. The anti-smoking zealots are getting widly out of control.

acludem

P.S. I am a non-smoker

DON'T PEE YER PANTS! I AGREE! You left wing liberal hippy tree huggin NUT.:rotflmao:

 

[GotZoom]

Way more IMO. You can prove speed caused death/ accident etc.
You can't prove second hand smoke did, IMO. I could be wrong but I think it's just another level of the stop smoking campaign.

If it was REALLY that bad they would make it illegal. I can deal with that.
But, to Dictate to a PRIVATE business what they can allow their customers to do? Come on. Way over the bounds of government function IMO.

More than 126 million nonsmoking Americans are regularly exposed to someone else's tobacco smoke, and tens of thousands die each year as a result, concludes the 670-page study. It cites "overwhelming scientific evidence" that secondhand smoke causes heart disease, lung cancer and a list of other illnesses.

The report won't surprise doctors. It isn't a new study but a compilation of the best research on secondhand smoke done since the last surgeon general's report on the topic in 1986, which declared secondhand smoke a cause of lung cancer that kills 3,000 nonsmokers a year.

Since then, scientists have proved that even more illnesses are triggered or worsened by secondhand smoke. Topping that list: More than 35,000 nonsmokers a year die from heart disease caused by secondhand smoke.

Regular exposure to someone else's smoke increases by up to 30 percent the risk of a nonsmoker getting heart disease or lung cancer, Carmona found.

 

[Mr. P]

More than 126 million nonsmoking Americans are regularly exposed to someone else's tobacco smoke, and tens of thousands die each year as a result, concludes the 670-page study. It cites "overwhelming scientific evidence" that secondhand smoke causes heart disease, lung cancer and a list of other illnesses.

The report won't surprise doctors. It isn't a new study but a compilation of the best research on secondhand smoke done since the last surgeon general's report on the topic in 1986, which declared secondhand smoke a cause of lung cancer that kills 3,000 nonsmokers a year.

Since then, scientists have proved that even more illnesses are triggered or worsened by secondhand smoke. Topping that list: More than 35,000 nonsmokers a year die from heart disease caused by secondhand smoke.

Regular exposure to someone else's smoke increases by up to 30 percent the risk of a nonsmoker getting heart disease or lung cancer, Carmona found.

Definitive proof..I don't believe the speculations.. I want real study evidence.
I don’t believe most of what the Gov. puts out without solid proof. They’re incompetent boobs.

 

[5stringJeff]

I oppose these bans, especially on businesses. Restuarants and Bars should be able to decide for themselves whether to allow smoking. Government should not be regulating legal activity on private property. It should be up to the property owner. There is already a move afoot to consider smoking in a home with children as child abuse and prosecute people for it. The anti-smoking zealots are getting widly out of control.

acludem

 

[Hobbit]

I am not a smoker. I find it a disgusting habit. However, most of the smokers I know are quite courteous. I, personally, think smoking should be legal in any non-enclosed public property and businesses should decide for themselves what they want to do. Technically, San Diego has the power to do this under the Constitution, but I think it's stupid.

 

[GotZoom]

Definitive proof..I don't believe the speculations.. I want real study evidence.
I don’t believe most of what the Gov. puts out without solid proof. They’re incompetent boobs.

CDC, EPA, AMA, NCI, ACS, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, American Academy of Otolarlyngology, California Air Resources Board, Children's National Medical Center,

Phillip Morris USA is "generally willing to accept public-health advocates' conclusions."

That was just from a quick search on Google.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

What next, people's homes??

Good question. What's to stop things after banning smoking in open air parks? I can see it now. You're a reasonable person so you don't want to smoke up the house around your kids. So you step outside onto the front porch/back deck to have a smoke. However, your neighbor complains and gets you arrested for second hand smoke that he can smell drifting over to his property.