Solana Beach to enact further smoking bans

[BOP]

For those of you unfamiliar, Solana Beach, CA is a fairly upscale (read: pretentious) community in North County San Diego, just up the I-5 from San Diego, and south of Oceanside.

When I read about this, I immediately thought about our Chief Executive's wife, and her efforts to control what we Americans eat. How far is too far? Where do we draw the line, and how do we even know where the line is supposed to be?

Let's face it, we all want government intervention in causes and issues we care about, but we all want government to butt out when it relates to something we do care about.

Right now, I'm more interested in how far is too far, and how do we reach concensous, rather than the merits of smoking. Some smokers, as well as some nonsmokers, warned us that what is currently happening WOULD happen; that as soon as the ubiquitous "they" got smoking under control, they would turn their attention to other things - like sugar and salt intake, for example.

Solana Beach weighs further smoking bans

SOLANA BEACH — Having already enacted some of the county’s most stringent smoking laws, Solana Beach council members recently discussed the possibility of making tobacco use in the city even more restrictive.

At the April 28 meeting, at the request of Councilmen Joe Kellejian and Dave Roberts, staff presented additional measures to regulate smoking and its secondhand effects on the community.

They included banning smoking at all public events and on all sidewalks and pedestrian walkways in commercial areas, prohibiting the distribution of free or discounted tobacco products and requiring vendors to obtain a conditional use permit.

The city could also consider enacting ordinances that promote smoke-free housing in multiunit buildings. Although council members supported such a move, most agreed it could potentially cause controversy and be difficult to enforce.

Councilwoman Lesa Heebner said it would be “horrible” to live adjacent to a smoker. “(But) is it our job to be legislating people’s personal behavior?” she asked. “I’m just not sure.”

Michelle Slingerland, public affairs manager for the San Diego County Apartment Association, commended the city for the steps it has taken to reduce smoke exposure.

“I’m sure you can appreciate that people are a little bit less receptive to the idea of being told that they can’t do something in the privacy of their own homes that is otherwise a legal activity,” she said. “There are a number of complicated factors when you want to implement a no-smoking policy (with housing).”

A smoke-free housing ordinance could include two provisions that council members generally supported. One would require landlords to disclose to potential new tenants the number of units that permit smoking. Another would allow residents to pursue legal action if a person chooses not to adhere to the restrictions.

“I think we should give private citizens tools if they have smoke coming through an apartment wall and they want to sue their neighbor because it’s a nuisance and it’s polluting their children’s lungs,” Roberts said. “They ought to have that right. It doesn’t have to involve the city at all.”

Solana Beach banned smoking in its indoor restaurants years ago and was the first city in the continental United States to prohibit smoking on its beaches. Last summer new laws were enacted that prohibit smoking in all indoor and outdoor dining areas and bars, elevators, public transportation, theaters, museums, galleries, farmers markets, public arenas, child care and sports facilities, and within 20 feet of all entryways.

“Basically anywhere that the general public could be for their daily lives ... we have enacted a ban to help their health,” City Attorney Johanna Canlas said.

Each year the American Lung Association grades California cities on their smoking ordinances. Solana Beach went from an F in 2008 to a B in 2009, primarily because of the recent new laws. It was one of only 15 jurisdictions to receive a B. Only four cities in the state earned an A.

Kathleen Sullivan of the American Lung Association said a main goal of the report card is to push for change. She also said limiting the effects of secondhand smoke should not be the responsibility of nonsmokers.

“The onus should not be on the people who breathe the air but on the people who pollute it,” she said.

With limited funds and staff time, it will likely be a while before any changes are made to the current ordinance, but council members agreed to address the measures during their work-plan discussion. Most had issues with many details of the proposed new laws.

“I think it’s worthy of discussion but I think we need to move very carefully and cautiously ... and get a lot of input,” Mayor Tom Campbell said.

Fascism: is a religion of the State, it assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. it is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. it takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, wither by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. any rival identity is part of the "problem" and therefore defined as the enemy.

[BOP]

Originally Posted by EmptyTimCup

Fascism: is a religion of the State, it assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. it is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. it takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, wither by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. any rival identity is part of the "problem" and therefore defined as the enemy.

You just described the current administration to a "t".

Originally Posted by BOP

You just described the current administration to a "t".

ah huh .... find Liberal Fascism .... great read ... I got the mp3's for playing in the car driving to work


a real eye opener

[preselector]

I'll preface this by noting that I'm a smoker and have a possible conflict of interest.

I think it goes too far when it exceeds a reasonable protection of the health of non-smokers. If I chose to smoke in situations where others are not at risk, it's my business.

I believe smoking does increase the risk of emphysema, causes an allergic reaction for some folks, and causes cancer in the genetically susceptible. If primary smoking has these risks, then secondary smoke must have some risk. Unfortunately I have yet to see an unbiased study on either side of the argument which quantifies exposure levels versus risk. Laws based on objective science which cite maximum permissible exposure levels would be nice.

It seems to me that some open air environments are appropriate for smoking and some are not. A high people density environment with potentially low air flow such as a sports stadium is not appropriate. A low density beach which always has good air flow is appropriate. However, some smokers have a nasty habit of throwing butts on the ground and I would support high fines for that. Cigarette butts biodegrade very slowly.

I don't support a smoking ban in multiunit housing but do support building codes which prevent migration of smoke or any other noxious gas. For example, bathroom ventilation should be independent of other units.

Some folks with sensitive noses are offended by a few molecules of burnt tobacco. This needs to be handled on an individual basis or by the employer since there's no health risk. Otherwise we're headed down the slippery slope of perfume and hygiene regulation.

Some folks think the mere sight of a smoker in public can unduly influence children. If parents influence ever becomes that weak, then this country has become too weak to survive and the law won't matter.

[ImnoMensa]

Why dont these people grow some balls and just ban smoking all together. Ban the stores from sale and distribution . Beating around the bush with all these restrictive laws is BS.

Originally Posted by ImnoMensa

Why dont these people grow some balls and just ban smoking all together. Ban the stores from sale and distribution . Beating around the bush with all these restrictive laws is BS.

because the feds are addicted to the tax dollars

[ImnoMensa]

Originally Posted by EmptyTimCup

because the feds are addicted to the tax dollars

If they lose Tobacco taxes they will just tax something else. Right now they want to tax the atmosphere with Kerry-Lieberman cap and trade.

Dont worry about the Feds they will always find a tax.

[tomcatter]

So, should we just ban the use of anything, anywhere that could be harmfull to others? If so, breathing is hereby outlawed due to the emission of carbon dioxide. Sorry folks...

[kom526]

How does a city get an A grade? Shooting a smoker on sight?

“(But) is it our job to be legislating people’s personal behavior?” she asked. “I’m just not sure.”

This is a scary quote.