3/15/07
By Michael Siegel
Under the terms of a proposed smoking ban presented to the Belmont City Council on Tuesday evening, smoking would not only be banned on all city streets and sidewalks but citizens who fail to report smokers who they see smoking on those streets and sidewalks would be guilty of a crime - a misdemeanor.
Under section 3(a)(1) of the draft ordinance, smoking is prohibited in all public places, which by definition includes all streets and sidewalks.
Under section 10(e), "Causing, permitting, aiding, abetting, or concealing a violation of any provision of this article shall also constitute a violation of this article."
Under section 10(b), smoking in an area where it is prohibited represents a civil infraction, punishable by a fine. However, all other violations of the ordinance represent criminal offenses: "Other violations of this article constitute misdemeanors... ."
Thus, if a person permits or conceals a violation of the ordinance (i.e., someone smoking on a street or sidewalk), he or she has committed a criminal offense - a misdemeanor.
The Rest of the Story
I guess I don't want to visit Belmont any time soon. If I'm walking down the street and I see someone smoking and I fail to report it to the Belmont police, then I could be construed as permitting and/or concealing a violation of the smoking ordinance, and therefore I would be guilty of my first crime - a misdemeanor.
Imagine that - becoming a criminal simply by virtue of failing to report a person who is smoking on a sidewalk or in a street. Even if no one else is being exposed to that smoke and it is not causing any potential health problems.
Is this really what Belmont wants? To create a city where nonsmokers are guilty of a crime if they don't tattle on any smokers they see smoking in streets, on sidewalks, in parks, or any other outdoor public places?
I imagine that the law-abiding citizens of Belmont will be quite busy after this ordinance passes. Imagine the time it would take to report every person you see smoking. You might as well walk around with a clipboard all day and report to the police station before heading home for the night.
Now since aiding and abetting a violation of the ordinance is also a crime, does that not mean that if you give someone a cigarette to smoke on a street corner, you are guilty of a crime, since you have abetted and aided your fellow smoker in violating the ordinance?
Actually, if you witness someone smoking on a sidewalk and you fail to accost them and forcibly remove the cigarette from their mouth, are you not permitting a violation of the ordinance? Are you not then also guilty of committing a crime?
And say it's your own wife who is smoking on the street corner. If you don't immediately report her to the authorities, are you not concealing a violation of the ordinance, making you a criminal alongside her? Actually, correct that. She is not a criminal. Her offense is merely a civil one. She only need pay a small fine. You, however, are guilty of a misdemeanor, which could potentially carry far more severe penalties.
I can see the conversation between prison inmates now:
What are you in for?
Attempted murder. How about you?
Failing to rag on my wife for smoking in a deserted parking lot.
What if you are actually a smoker who is violating the ordinance, smoking on a street corner alongside another smoker? While you are only guilty of a minor civil violation for the smoking, you are guilty of a misdemeanor if you fail to report your friend's violation of the law.
This proposal goes way too far. Streets and sidewalks are where we want smokers to smoke: outside - and in areas where nonsmokers can quite easily avoid substantial smoke exposure. There is simply no health justification for such a sweeping ban on outdoor smoking.
Notwithstanding the claims of the Surgeon General and more than a hundred anti-smoking groups that even a brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause heart disease, heart attacks, and instant death, there is no scientific evidence that smoking on streets and sidewalks causes any significant public health problem.
I hate to have to say it, but what Belmont is doing is starting to look like an all-out crusade against smokers, rather than a sincere attempt to protect nonsmokers against a severe and devastating public health hazard. Why else would you want to banish smokers from every street corner, parking lot, and sidewalk?
I'm afraid that the extremist actions being considered by policy makers in Belmont, and apparently supported wholeheartedly by anti-smoking groups, are going to threaten even the more reasonable and justified efforts elsewhere in the country to protect the public from substantial exposure to secondhand smoke. This kind of fanaticism is going to give anti-smoking groups a bad name. It is going to make us look like we are crazy and unreasonable.
Is it really worth risking the protection of bar, restaurant, and casino workers throughout the nation, who truly are suffering every day from high levels of secondhand smoke exposure, in order for the people of Belmont not to have to worry about a few wisps of smoke when they walk down the street?
The rest of the story is that if you want to keep your criminal record clean, do not go to Belmont. Or if you do, make sure to wear a bag over your head so that you cannot possibly see anyone smoking.
Read
Smoldering debate
Council doesn't vote; smoking ban issue still in the air
By Michael Siegel
Under the terms of a proposed smoking ban presented to the Belmont City Council on Tuesday evening, smoking would not only be banned on all city streets and sidewalks but citizens who fail to report smokers who they see smoking on those streets and sidewalks would be guilty of a crime - a misdemeanor.
Under section 3(a)(1) of the draft ordinance, smoking is prohibited in all public places, which by definition includes all streets and sidewalks.
Under section 10(e), "Causing, permitting, aiding, abetting, or concealing a violation of any provision of this article shall also constitute a violation of this article."
Under section 10(b), smoking in an area where it is prohibited represents a civil infraction, punishable by a fine. However, all other violations of the ordinance represent criminal offenses: "Other violations of this article constitute misdemeanors... ."
Thus, if a person permits or conceals a violation of the ordinance (i.e., someone smoking on a street or sidewalk), he or she has committed a criminal offense - a misdemeanor.
The Rest of the Story
I guess I don't want to visit Belmont any time soon. If I'm walking down the street and I see someone smoking and I fail to report it to the Belmont police, then I could be construed as permitting and/or concealing a violation of the smoking ordinance, and therefore I would be guilty of my first crime - a misdemeanor.
Imagine that - becoming a criminal simply by virtue of failing to report a person who is smoking on a sidewalk or in a street. Even if no one else is being exposed to that smoke and it is not causing any potential health problems.
Is this really what Belmont wants? To create a city where nonsmokers are guilty of a crime if they don't tattle on any smokers they see smoking in streets, on sidewalks, in parks, or any other outdoor public places?
I imagine that the law-abiding citizens of Belmont will be quite busy after this ordinance passes. Imagine the time it would take to report every person you see smoking. You might as well walk around with a clipboard all day and report to the police station before heading home for the night.
Now since aiding and abetting a violation of the ordinance is also a crime, does that not mean that if you give someone a cigarette to smoke on a street corner, you are guilty of a crime, since you have abetted and aided your fellow smoker in violating the ordinance?
Actually, if you witness someone smoking on a sidewalk and you fail to accost them and forcibly remove the cigarette from their mouth, are you not permitting a violation of the ordinance? Are you not then also guilty of committing a crime?
And say it's your own wife who is smoking on the street corner. If you don't immediately report her to the authorities, are you not concealing a violation of the ordinance, making you a criminal alongside her? Actually, correct that. She is not a criminal. Her offense is merely a civil one. She only need pay a small fine. You, however, are guilty of a misdemeanor, which could potentially carry far more severe penalties.
I can see the conversation between prison inmates now:
What are you in for?
Attempted murder. How about you?
Failing to rag on my wife for smoking in a deserted parking lot.
What if you are actually a smoker who is violating the ordinance, smoking on a street corner alongside another smoker? While you are only guilty of a minor civil violation for the smoking, you are guilty of a misdemeanor if you fail to report your friend's violation of the law.
This proposal goes way too far. Streets and sidewalks are where we want smokers to smoke: outside - and in areas where nonsmokers can quite easily avoid substantial smoke exposure. There is simply no health justification for such a sweeping ban on outdoor smoking.
Notwithstanding the claims of the Surgeon General and more than a hundred anti-smoking groups that even a brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause heart disease, heart attacks, and instant death, there is no scientific evidence that smoking on streets and sidewalks causes any significant public health problem.
I hate to have to say it, but what Belmont is doing is starting to look like an all-out crusade against smokers, rather than a sincere attempt to protect nonsmokers against a severe and devastating public health hazard. Why else would you want to banish smokers from every street corner, parking lot, and sidewalk?
I'm afraid that the extremist actions being considered by policy makers in Belmont, and apparently supported wholeheartedly by anti-smoking groups, are going to threaten even the more reasonable and justified efforts elsewhere in the country to protect the public from substantial exposure to secondhand smoke. This kind of fanaticism is going to give anti-smoking groups a bad name. It is going to make us look like we are crazy and unreasonable.
Is it really worth risking the protection of bar, restaurant, and casino workers throughout the nation, who truly are suffering every day from high levels of secondhand smoke exposure, in order for the people of Belmont not to have to worry about a few wisps of smoke when they walk down the street?
The rest of the story is that if you want to keep your criminal record clean, do not go to Belmont. Or if you do, make sure to wear a bag over your head so that you cannot possibly see anyone smoking.
Read
Smoldering debate
Council doesn't vote; smoking ban issue still in the air
3/14/07
By Will Oremus / Daily News Staff Writer
By Will Oremus / Daily News Staff Writer
It would curb liberties; it would save lives.
It would ruin businesses; it would prevent fires. It would be monumental; it would be unenforceable.
For nearly two hours Tuesday night, smokers, nonsmokers, business leaders and nonprofit advocates debated a proposed anti-smoking ordinance that has divided not only the cozy town of Belmont but interested observers across the country.
The Belmont City Council hadn't taken any action as of press time and may not for several more weeks. When it does, it could pass the most comprehensive smoking ban in the United States or it could settle on any number of compromise measures.
In its most stringent form, the proposed ordinance would prohibit smoking on sidewalks, in parks, in apartment buildings and condominiums - virtually everywhere except inside cars and single-family homes.
It could be enforced by code inspectors who request compliance under the threat of fines, neighbors who file public nuisance complaints or civil lawsuits, or perhaps even by police who hand out citations, depending on what the five-member council eventually decides.
On Tuesday, the council heard a clear message from merchants and groups representing them, who warned that a highly publicized ban could drive away customers and tarnish the city's image in business circles. But they heard an equally resonant plea from elderly asthmatics and health organizations, who said secondhand smoke harms neighbors and bystanders.
As about 150 people looked on, both in the council chambers and in a nearby overflow room that showed the proceedings on a television, Belmont resident Judy King told the council that the proposal was "way too Big Brother" and could damage the local economy in unexpected ways. She imagined residents afraid to hold social gatherings in their city because "Uncle Harry can't go outside and smoke a cigar at his niece's wedding."
Doug Mottern said he owns an Irish pub called St. James' Gate on Old County Road whose major draw is an expansive patio out back where patrons go to relax and smoke. "This bar is my life," he said, and added that without the patio it would be crippled.
Several smokers said the ban would be hypocritical. They asked whether the city would also be willing to restrict alcohol, or ban barbecues, or give back the tax money it receives for cigarette sales within its borders.
A few asked for more moderate restrictions to specifically address the problem that brought the issue to the council's attention: a senior home where residents complained that smoke seeping through their air vents from neighbors' rooms was threatening their survival.
Speaking from a public health perspective, Bay Area American Lung Association director Serena Chen said the issue was not smokers' rights, but nonsmokers' rights. She said 88 percent of San Mateo County residents don't smoke.
"You have the opportunity to shape history," Chen said.
Sheila Strand of Belmont illustrated the potential problems with people smoking in the privacy of their own apartments.
Speaking through intermittent sobs, she said her husband has cancer and the couple has had to seal the vents in their apartment to keep out neighbors' wafting smoke. They braved the winter without heat, she said. She's afraid of the coming summer.
Laryngeal cancer survivor and American Cancer Society volunteer Jim Kelly of San Bruno said he doesn't think the proposed smoking ban goes far enough to achieve the most important aim. "It addresses the concerns of only one set of stakeholders - the nonsmokers. From personal experience, I'm here to say, if you want to succeed you need to deal with the suffering of smokers as well."
E-mail Will Oremus at woremus@dailynewsgroup.com
Read
Smoking ban details revealed
Belmont's Tuesday meeting could be a 'circus'
E-mail Will Oremus at woremus@dailynewsgroup.com
Read
Smoking ban details revealed
Belmont's Tuesday meeting could be a 'circus'
Mar 9, 2007
By Will Oremus / Daily News Staff Writer
By Will Oremus / Daily News Staff Writer
Belmont officials have drawn up a 20-page annotated draft ordinance that could ban smoking in all public places, workplaces, and perhaps even apartments and condominiums.
The eyes of anti-smoking advocates, smokers' rights groups and lawmakers across California and beyond will be on the Belmont City Council Tuesday night as it considers a range of options and picks a preferred approach. Several of the alternatives suggested in the report from city staff would put the town on track to implement the most stringent municipal smoking law in the nation. Council Member Bill Dickenson said security for the meeting will be heightened as advocates on both sides of the issue are expected to fill council chambers to have their say. "It's gonna be the whole circus," Dickenson said.
Although whatever legislation emerges will be local in scope, the issue clearly transcends the boundaries of this hillside town of 26,000.
"I've got people all over the world holding their breath and staring at Belmont," said Serena Chen, policy director for the Bay Area chapter of the American Lung Association. The Belmont City Council "is the first set of elected officials with the guts to take this on."
Chen was referring to the stipulations that would prohibit people from smoking in their own apartments or condominiums. The city is considering the ban in response to pleas from several elderly residents of Bonnie Brae Terrace who say secondhand smoke from neighbors' units is threatening their health.
Audrey Silk, the founder of a New York City group called C.L.A.S.H., or Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment, also has strong views on the proposal. "This is the most egregious violation of our country's principles. People should be scared to death of what this city council is trying to do."
Silk doubts that the amount of secondhand smoke that wafts from one apartment to another poses a real health risk. "We maintain that they have not yet provided any credible evidence that secondhand smoke harms people to the extent they say it does even under normal circumstances, let alone invisible wisps of smoke coming into other people's apartments."
Belmont's proposed ordinance cites a 2005 National Cancer Institute Report asserting that "secondhand smoke is responsible for an estimated 38,000 deaths among non-smokers each year in the United States, which includes 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 35,000 deaths due to heart disease."
The ordinance includes a "menu" of options for the council to consider. Two aspects of the legislation, in particular, are open to consideration: smoking on streets and sidewalks, and smoking in private apartments and condos. For instance, the ordinance might allow people to smoke on sidewalks as long as they keep a "reasonable distance" from entryways to buildings. Or it could allow smoking in some units of apartment complexes as long as non-smoking units are also provided.
As written so far, the ordinance would not restrict smoking in cars or in single-family dwellings.
On Tuesday, the council will hear public comment and debate the options, looking for consensus on what approach to take. But it likely won't make any final decisions until a later meeting.
At a glance
What: Belmont City Council meeting
When: Tuesday, March 13, 7:30 p.m.
Where: Council Chambers, One Twin Pines Lane, Belmont
Why: To debate several options for a proposed smoking ordinance
The smoking 'menu'
A draft of the proposed ordinance includes a variety of possible restrictions. Here are some of the alternatives up for consideration:
_ Eliminating exemptions in California's smoke-free workplace law
_ Declaring secondhand smoke a nuisance
_ Prohibiting smoking in outdoor public places
_ Restricting smoking on sidewalks and streets
_ Restricting smoking in multiunit housing
_ Punishing violations by fines
View the agenda and full staff report online at http://www.belmont.gov
Read
http://www.sanmateodailynews.com/article/2007-3-9-03-09-07-bm-smoking
Read
http://www.sanmateodailynews.com/article/2007-3-9-03-09-07-bm-smoking
********************************
This is Belmont's web site announcing the meeting info....
http://www.belmont.gov/SubContent.asp?CatId=240001676&C_ID=240002447
This is the pdf document that will be passed out at the meeting.....
http://www.belmont.gov/Upload/Document/D240003114/6A-CC-03132007.pdf
The meeting will be broadcast live on
Tuesday, March 13, 2007 7:30 PM
Live Streaming Video During City Council Broadcast
http://www.communitymediacenter.net/watch/belmont_webcast/index.html
This is Belmont's web site announcing the meeting info....
http://www.belmont.gov/SubContent.asp?CatId=240001676&C_ID=240002447
This is the pdf document that will be passed out at the meeting.....
http://www.belmont.gov/Upload/Document/D240003114/6A-CC-03132007.pdf
The meeting will be broadcast live on
Tuesday, March 13, 2007 7:30 PM
Live Streaming Video During City Council Broadcast
http://www.communitymediacenter.net/watch/belmont_webcast/index.html
Read More: CA Belmont Page 1
