| |
Calabasas Snuffs Out Public Smoking
Read the newest articles on page 2
ORDINANCE NO. 2006-217
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CALABASAS REGULATING SECOND-HAND SMOKE AND AMENDING THE CALABASAS MUNICIPAL CODE
Calabasas Adopts Broad Outdoor Smoking Ban; Encourages Nonsmokers to Report People Seen Smoking on Streets and Sidewalks
2/17/06
By Michael Siegel
The Calabasas (California) City Council gave final approval Wednesday to an ordinance that would ban smoking virtually everywhere outside in the city, including streets, sidewalks, and parking lots. Smoking is banned in all of these areas any time there is someone within 20 feet who is not themselves smoking or who has not specifically consented to the individual smoking. However, the broad smoking ban, designed not only to protect people from secondhand smoke exposure but to reduce "the potential for children to associate smoking and tobacco with a healthy lifestyle" and to affirm and promote "the family-friendly atmosphere of the City's public places," allows smoking in designated outdoors areas at all the city''s shopping malls, including the "open-air" Calabasas Commons shopping mall. The City is encouraging nonsmokers to confront smokers who they see smoking on the street or to report them to the City for prosecution. In response to the question "What should I do if I witness someone violating the ordinance?" the City states: "If you are walking down the street or in other public place, you can ask the smoker to extinguish their cigarette, cigar or pipe. If you are uncomfortable doing so or the person refuses your request, please feel free to contact City code enforcement at (818) 878-4225." Starting on March 17, smoking on the street in Calabasas is a criminal offense - a misdemeanor - and can be prosecuted through lawsuits brought against individual smokers. And, in a little-noticed provision in the bill, any nonsmokers in the city can file a lawsuit against any smoker they see smoking on the sidewalk or street near them (within 20 feet), in any situation where the City decides to prosecute the criminal offense with a fine rather than a lawsuit: "Any person acting for the interests of him-, her-, or itself, or of its members, or of the general public (hereinafter ''a Private Enforcer'') may bring a civil action to enforce this chapter... ." The Rest of the Story There are several aspects of this story that I think deserve comment: 1. The Hypocrisy Who does the Calabasas City Council think it is kidding? Are we really expected to believe that they are so concerned about small amounts of exposure to secondhand smoke affecting nonsmokers that they need to ban smoking in every outdoor place, including every street, sidewalk and parking lot when people are present, when they have failed to provide protection in the one outdoor spot where the entire city of Calabasas congregates - the Calabasas Commons shopping mall? It seems clear that secondhand smoke is a vital concern to the Calabasas City Council, but not quite as important as the revenue that comes in to the city from shoppers. On an isolated street somewhere, secondhand smoke is apparently a devastating health hazard and smoking needs to be banned, but in the crowded, open-air shopping mall, no way the Council wants to touch it. God forbid they should lose some retail business due to a concern over people''s health! This hypocrisy is sickening and it leads me to question the integrity and sincerity of this effort as a public health measure. Something else, other than a sincere, evidence-based concern for the public''s health, appears to be driving this, and I can safely suggest that it is not compassion for the residents in the city who are addicted to nicotine. 2. The Faulty and Dangerous Justification This is not an evidence-based public health policy. I''m aware of no evidence that transient exposure to secondhand smoke, in the form of exposure to a smoker on a street, sidewalk or parking lot, is a significant health hazard. And it certainly is not a serious public health problem. In contrast, I think one could make the argument that in a crowded open-air shopping mall packed with children, smoking could be a concern. So I think it''s quite clear that this policy is not justified based on any sound scientific or public health grounds. More troubling, however, is the fact that the City Council is justifying this measure, in part, based on its desire to protect children from seeing smokers. What''s next? Banning fat people from the public square so that children don''t associate obesity with public acceptance? How about banning gay couples from public so that children don''t associate homosexuality with being an acceptable lifestyle? Moreover, the City has now declared, essentially, that smokers are not part of a family-friendly atmosphere. We can''t let children see smokers in public because they apparently make the city family unfriendly. Are fat people family unfriendly too? And we already know a number of cities that consider homosexuality to be family unfriendly. Yet the precise reasoning being used in Calabasas would now justify actions to ban gay couples from public view. 3. The Draconian Nature of the Law Even if one were to accept that transient exposure to secondhand smoke while walking down the street was a severe public health problem that required government intervention, it would still seem ridiculous to charge violators with a criminal offense. And to allow, and in fact encourage lawsuits to be brought against smokers who light up in a parking lot is absolutely insane. What a tremendous waste of our judicial system. Don''t city prosecutors, judges, and city courts have more important and pressing matters than conducting hearings and trials to determine whether someone was 19 or 21 feet away from a nonsmoker when they lit up a cigarette on a street corner? 4. The Encouragement of Confrontation and Tormenting of Smokers It is quite clear that the city of Calabasas is encouraging and promoting confrontation between smokers and nonsmokers. They are creating a situation in which nonsmokers are encouraged to confront anyone they see smoking. And any individual in the city can now file a lawsuit against any other individual, simply for lighting up in public. Is this really the kind of "family friendly" atmosphere that the city of Calabasas wants to promote? Honestly, it appears that this is exactly what Calabasas has in mind. Why else would they make this a criminal offense, allow lawsuits against individual smokers for lighting up in public, and specifically allow any individual to bring a lawsuit against any smoker who lights up? I want to emphasize that there is nothing the city can do, under the law, to prevent a citizen from bringing a lawsuit against a smoker. If the city decides not to bring a lawsuit itself, then any citizen can bring a lawsuit against that smoker himself. And the city can''t stop it. The rest of the story is that anti-smoking efforts in Calabasas have long since left the realm of public health, scientific evidence-based policy, and simple reason. They have now entered the realm of complete insanity.
Calabasas Poised to Ban Smoking Just About Everywhere
February 6, 2006
By Michael Siegel
The Calabasas (California) City Council voted to give initial approval to an ordinance that bans smoking in all outdoors areas of the city, including streets and sidewalks. The ordinance, which is being supported by at least one prominent anti-smoking group -- Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) -- would not allow a person to smoke on any street or sidewalk unless there was no other person within 20 feet who was not smoking at the same time or who consented to that individual smoking. The expressed purpose of the ordinance is to protect nonsmokers from exposure to secondhand smoke and to "assure a cleaner and more hygienic environment for the City, its residents, and its natural resources, including its creeks and streams." In addition, it is intended to reduce "the potential for children to associate smoking and tobacco with a healthy lifestyle," to protect "the public from smoking and tobacco-related litter and pollution," and to promote "the family-friendly atmosphere of the City''s public places." The prohibition of smoking in public places is quite broad and includes "any public or private place open to the general public ... including, for example, streets, sidewalks, plazas, bars, restaurants, clubs, stores, stadiums, parks, playgrounds, taxis and buses." Residential property is not included, nor are 20% of the guest rooms in hotels and motels. But unless specifically exempted, "smoking is prohibited everywhere in the city." The Rest of the Story Before discussing the merit of this broad ban on smoking almost everywhere in Calabasas, let''s get right to the rest of the story: The Calabasas City Council is so hypocritical that it is banning smoking on streets and sidewalks in the name of addressing the terrible problem of smoke drifting along outdoors and exposing a nonsmoker transiently, yet it is specifically allowing smoking at a place where hundreds of its residents congregate: The Calabasas Commons shopping mall!!! This is not a joke! I''m quite serious. The City Council apparently thinks secondhand smoke is so bad that it cannot allow smokers to walk down the street with a cigarette and it is apparently so concerned about kids seeing people setting a bad example by smoking in public that it will not even allow a smoker to light up in a parking lot. However, secondhand smoke is not so bad that people cannot light up at a crowded mall, nor is it such a bad example that the City would want to disallow smoking at its premiere retail establishment. There''s only one way I can think of to explain this hypocrisy. The policy makers in Calabasas are putting on a great show with all their talk about the hazards of secondhand smoke and they''re willing to infringe upon smokers in places where exposure to this hazard is low and quite transient. But when it really comes down to it, they don''t want to take any risk that the city could lose money if fewer people shop at the Mall. After all, health is really important, but not when it threatens to compete with the city''s financial health. The ordinance, which passed first reading and need only be approved on a second and final reading, allows outdoor smoking areas in common areas of shopping malls, albeit small ones, as long as they are at least 5 feet away from any doorway or opening to an enclosed area and from the parking areas. Don''t get me wrong. I''m not arguing that a smoking area should not be allowed outdoors at a shopping mall. But I certainly think that if the City Council wants to be taken seriously, then it should walk the walk and not just talk the talk. How could secondhand smoke be so hazardous outdoors that it cannot be allowed anywhere, except for shopping malls? Does the presence of a shopping mall somehow detoxify the smoke? Perhaps it''s some special ingredient in Johnny Rockets'' cherry milk shakes (which are about the most delicious thing I can think of) that detoxify the secondhand smoke when they waft out of the diner and over to the smoking area. And what about all those kids going to Johnny Rockets, Gymboree, Barnes & Noble, and M. Fredric kids? Are they somehow immune to the "family unfriendliness" of smokers and to the terrible example set by seeing an adult smoking? And if you were serious about preventing kids from seeing smokers, wouldn''t you rather ban smoking at a place where kids congregate due to all these stores that cater to kids (by the way, Gymboree is a kids'' store) then in every street and sidewalk, including those where there isn''t a kid in sight?
The hypocrisy of this proposed policy is almost too much for me to comprehend.
And to add injury to insult, the Calabasas Commons is described as an "open-air" shopping complex. So it''s not like the kids and all the other shoppers are safely tucked away indoors where they won''t be exposed to the smoke and won''t see the smokers. And presumably, smoking would also be allowed at the Courtyard at the Commons, Creekside Village, Gelson''s Village, Calabasas Canyon Center, Calabasas Plaza, Malibu Canyon Plaza, and Plaza Calibasas.
Now to the ridiculousness of the policy itself. If a smoker is walking down the street, she can smoke as long as there is no one within 20 feet. But if someone suddenly enters that 20 foot zone, she must immediately extinguish the cigarette. Unless that person is also smoking. Or unless she quickly asks that person if they consent to her smoking and they say it''s OK. But then if another person enters the 20 foot zone, she must extinguish it again.
If a group of 3 smokers are walking down the street but only one is smoking, he must ask the other two for permission to smoke. I suppose that if the companions did not consent, the smoker could simply follow his friends at a distance of 20 feet and be in compliance with the law.
As if this is not bad enough, a smoker who lights up in a parking lot if someone is 19 feet away has committed ... a crime! Not a civil violation, but a criminal offense! A misdemeanor.
And if you run the Cold Stone Creamery and someone lights up a cigarette outside your store and you don''t stop them ... congratulations! You''ve committed a misdemeanor. You have violated section 8.12.060 of the ordinance: "Allowing, Aiding, or Abetting Illegal Smoking."
The ordinance could even be construed as meaning that if you see someone smoking in a parking lot and you don''t report it, that you have aided and abetted a criminal action, and therefore, have committed a misdemeanor yourself.
Again, I''m quite serious. Section 8.12.070 of the ordinance states: "No person shall cause, permit, aid, abet, or conceal a violation of any provision of this chapter." So if you conceal the fact that someone has violated the ordinance, you have yourself violated the ordinance. And since "A violation of this ordinance shall constitute a misdemeanor" (see section 8.12.070[a]), you have actually committed a misdemeanor.
I can just see the criminal hearing now: "You mean to tell the Court that you saw someone smoking in a parking lot and you did not report it to the City Prosecutor?"
This ordinance, however, is more than just a joke. It''s actually a quite serious abuse of the state''s police powers. As Jacob Sullum astutely pointed out, the same reasoning behind not allowing kids to see smokers could lead to policies that bar fat people from public places.
But the saddest part of the story is not the fact that Calabasas is on the verge of taking this action. To me, the saddest part of the story is that anti-smoking groups are supporting this absurd, hypocritical, intrusive, and unjustified policy. One anti-smoking organization - ASH - issued a press release to boast about its support for the policy. And according to that press release, the ordinance is also being supported by 5 other anti-smoking or public health groups: the Los Angeles Department of Health, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, SAFE (Smoke Free Air for Everyone), and the Coalition for a Tobacco-Free Los Angeles. If that''s true, it''s shameful.
The rest of the story is that the anti-smoking movement is on the verge of running amuck. Things are quickly spiraling out of control, and I think there''s only one thing that can stop this: and that''s if other anti-smoking groups start to speak out against this fanaticism.
California City Approves Outdoor Smoking Ban
By Melanie Hunter
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
February 02, 2006
(CNSNews.com) - The city of Calabasas, Calif., voted unanimously Wednesday night to ban smoking in all outdoor places, including sidewalks and streets, except for small outdoor "smoker outposts."
The "smoker outposts" would be established by businesses in areas like parking lots. Smokers can also smoke when no one else is around or expected. The ban is considered the most sweeping ban of any U.S. jurisdiction.
The city council approved the smoking ban to protect children from second-hand smoke, reduce "the potential for children to associate smoking and tobacco with a healthy lifestyle," protect "the public from smoking and tobacco-related litter and pollution," and affirm and promote "the family-friendly atmosphere" of Calabasas'' "public places."
Action of Smoking and Health (ASH), an anti-smoking group, which supports the "Second-Hand Smoke Control Ordinance," first started the "nonsmokers'' rights movement and then helped it move outdoors."
"Every court which has ever addressed the issue has held that there is no legal right to smoke, regardless of the location," said public interest law professor John Banzhaf, executive director of ASH. He cited such cases to the city council to convince them that an outdoor smoking ban was legal.
The city council agreed and voted to amend the proposed ordinance to establish a legal right of nonsmokers to be protected from secondhand smoke.
Banzhaf also noted that in at least 18 states, courts did not hesitate to ban smoking within a private car or residence where it was considered necessary to protect the health of kids, usually those involved in a divorce and custody dispute. At least four states have prohibited smoking in a private vehicle or home when foster kids are present, he said.
"If it is constitutional in all of these states for the government to prohibit smoking even within a private home, it is certainly constitutional for it to prohibit smoking outdoors on public sidewalks and streets, and on outdoor business property used at patios, lounges, parking lots, etc.," Banzhaf added.
Even though the law bans smoking in restaurants'' outdoor smoking lounges and patios, the ordinance was supported by the California Restaurant Association and the local restaurant association. Twenty citizens testified in favor of the ordinance at the legislative hearing, and not one business owner appeared at the hearing to object, ASH said.
The outdoor smoking ban goes into effect within 30 days of the second reading.
Read
Citing health concerns, the small West Valley city takes a stand that even some of its nonsmoking residents say may go too far.
By Amanda Covarrubias
Times Staff Writer
January 21, 2006
Nestled amid rolling hills on the western edge of the San Fernando Valley, Calabasas has become an unlikely trailblazer in the debate over secondhand smoke - and even some nonsmokers wonder whether their upscale suburb has gone too far.
The city of 30,000 this week adopted an ordinance - considered by experts to be one of the toughest in the nation - strictly regulating smoking in public places. The rule bans smoking in outdoor spaces when other people are in the area.
Backers argue that the campaign is just another step in improving their town''s quality of life. But others say the rules go too far.
"Everything is forbidden here," said Tal Genin, a smoker and mother of two who moved to Calabasas from Israel four months ago. "No skateboarding, no rollerblading; you can''t swim in the lake. It''s like ''The Truman Show'': Everything looks really nice, but you can''t live life."
The push has been the brainchild of Mayor Barry Groveman, a former prosecutor of environmental crimes who co-wrote California''s landmark Proposition 65, a 1986 law requiring businesses to provide warnings if they expose people to potentially dangerous substances.
"We put an awful lot of time into preserving open space, into building trails and into making clean water," he said. "But it always struck me as odd to go through all the effort, but then you walk through a restaurant and walk into a cloud of foul, dangerous air. We were encouraged by several residents who felt enough is enough."
Calabasas'' law, approved Wednesday, is intended to protect residents from the health hazards associated with secondhand smoke by restricting where people can smoke outdoors.
Officials are still working out the details of the ordinance, but the intent is to prohibit smoking in public areas where both smokers and nonsmokers congregate. Groveman said he hoped that the law would prompt operators of spaces such as malls and restaurants to establish convenient, segregated "outposts" where customers could smoke, much like airport smoking areas.
The new law will work like this: If someone is smoking in a public area in violation of the ordinance and is asked by another person to extinguish his cigarette, cigar or pipe and the smoker refuses, then the offended person can file a written complaint with the city attorney''s office.
The city attorney can then decide whether to pursue the matter, which would mean contacting the smoker about having violated the law.
The City Council has also been debating proposals that would ban smoking in cars that children are riding in, as well as on apartment patios, though no action has been taken on those ideas.
"We are not trying to pit neighbor against neighbor," Groveman said. "We''re trying to do this in the least punitive and least disruptive way. But we mean it. We hope that people who believe in their right to smoke equally believe in a person''s right to breathe clean and healthy air."
Groveman said the city had received thanks from residents who are glad it was trying to protect their health. But at the Calabasas Commons mall, some residents were left shaking their heads.
Larry Klevit, who was smoking a cigar outside a coffee shop, said the city was out of line.
"Are they going to tell me how to parent my child too?" asked Klevit, an entrepreneur who lives in Calabasas. "What are they going to tell me next? I respect people''s freedoms and rights, but at some point, you''re taking away our freedom to smoke. I understand the idea behind the ordinance, but we''re outside, not in a food court or a restaurant."
His colleague and fellow smoker Christine Childers agreed.
"People can choose not to sit next to us," she said. "They''re free to move. We''re not bothering anyone."
Even nonsmoker Linda Jones, who was bothered by Klevit''s smoke wafting to her side of the outdoor seating area, said she thought the ordinance was over the top.
"I think it''s fabulous, but I don''t think it''s right," Jones said. "People have the right to kill themselves. His smoke bothers me, but I don''t have to sit here."
The Calabasas effort is the latest push to make it harder to smoke in public spaces in the Southland. Two years ago, some cities along the Southern California coast approved bans on beach smoking.
Other communities have banned smoking in parks, at sports venues and even in waiting lines. Palo Alto bans smoking at bus and train shelters, at public phones and within 20 feet of entrances to public spaces, according to a staff report prepared by the city of Calabasas.
It''s too early to tell whether Calabasas'' new ordinance will bring a legal challenge or whether it will result in the "smoking outposts" that supporters hope for. But Jones said the council should drop the matter and focus on more important safety issues - at least important in her bedroom community.
"They should be working to get people off their cellphones when they drive," she said.
Read
Ventilation not Legislation
California lawmaker reinforces the stereotype we all have of that dimwitted state......
Smoking ban defeats.....hopefully a new trend in upholding property rights for all.
Government Environmental Health Department and OSHA prove secondhand smoke not a hazard
Though they try...and try....and try.....they just can''t justify.....
Mayor Davlin of Springfield IL under attack for a common sense approach
A new hat in the MN. Governor''s race.....
Apparently the St. Louis Park, MN. secondhand smoke air quality testing program.........
The history of OSHA and secondhand smoke.....
Smoking enlightenment
February 12, 2006
SMOKERS AND THEIR HABIT are especially reviled in California. That makes the job of public officials both easier and harder as they consider how to translate the latest science on the harms of secondhand smoke into ordinances and regulations that protect the public without encouraging a witch hunt.
There is strong evidence that secondhand smoke can cause breast and lung cancer, premature birth and cardiovascular problems. So the California Air Resources Board was right to declare tobacco smoke a "toxic air contaminant." More cities can now be expected to impose limits on some kinds of outdoor smoking, which was once thought to have little or no effect on bystanders. The devil, as always, is in the details - or in the smoke, as the case may be.
The air board found that levels of secondhand smoke could rise to significant levels in some outdoor settings. But the situations it monitored - designated smoking areas where large numbers of smokers congregate - might represent a higher risk than, say, a single smoker strolling along the street. Another factor to consider is whether bystanders can easily walk away from the smoke, and for how long they are exposed. People at a bus stop, for example, cannot wait 200 feet upwind to avoid smoke. But people leaving a building where smokers congregate outside can simply walk away.
Regulations call for common sense and fair play - qualities that blow out the window when it comes to cigarettes. Does it make sense to ban smoking at a park but allow picnickers to light up a campfire?
Calabasas has tried to address the uncertainties by leaving it in the hands of nonsmokers, who can demand that smokers put out their cigarettes - and can file a complaint with the city if they refuse. This could encourage cigarette vigilantes. And it isn''t pretty to contemplate what could happen when a smoker refuses to give up the personal information needed to file a complaint.
We know secondhand smoke can be dangerous outdoors. But we know relatively little about precisely how hazardous it is in specific circumstances - how much smoke, for how long and under what circumstances. The state should move swiftly on new public education campaigns and to restrict smoking in the most obviously noxious situations. Beyond that, the task calls for nothing more than good science and good sense.
Read
|
|
