Smoking leads to ire in North County parks

By: ANDREW PETERSON - For the North County Times | Thursday, August 17, 2006 11:26 PM PDT ∞

The list of places where smokers can legally light up just got a little shorter Thursday, as a San Diego ordinance banning smoking at beaches and parks officially took effect.

A small and admittedly unscientific survey of local parkgoers in North County showed generally strong support for the ban ---- but it was not unanimous, even among nonsmokers.

At Rancho Penasquitos Park, Linda Garro, a credit manager, and Lillian Thurston, a photographer, were grooming their horses in the Equestrian area. Garro said the law wouldn't personally affect her.

"To be honest, it doesn't matter one way or the other," Garro said. "I don't smoke. As long as I don't have to go into a restaurant where there's smoke ---- or a bar. But I don't mind (smoke) outside."

Thurston expressed both acceptance of the ban and a certain defiance.

"I'm a smoker, and I don't like the law," she said. "But I understand it because most smokers don't respect nonsmokers."

The law's supporters cite the problems of litter and public health as justification for the ordinance. Thurston said she scrupulously avoided making a mess with her cigarettes, but said many smokers were not so considerate.

"They throw their butts down on the ground and I don't," Thurston said. "So I don't like (the ban) but I don't blame (lawmakers) for doing it."

By the same token, she said the ban wouldn't force her to smoke less, much less kick her habit.

"I won't go to parks," she said. "I won't go to beaches."

"Now you can't smoke on the beach, right?" Garro asked rhetorically. "OK, I can't get a cop to come to my house, and you're going to have somebody patrolling down there looking for smokers? Hello?"

Joe Crilly, a construction foreman, offered his opinion from the roof of a seismic retrofit job nearby.

"Got no problem with it," he said. "Can't smoke on any of our jobs, and none of us are smokers."

His reaction to smokers who contested the validity of the science used by ban proponents was a shrug: "I don't know man. Go smoke in your car."

John Porowski, a postman at the Rancho Bernardo post office and a nonsmoker, was getting ready to take a hike by the baseball field.

"I don't understand the whole thing," Porowski said. "I don't particularly care for the smell or anything. But I don't lean toward the side that thinks second-hand smoke causes anything. I think that's rubbish."

At Rancho Bernardo Park, Jerry Massie, a retired engineer and an ex-smoker, voiced his support for the law.

"I'm all for it," he said. "I don't mind 'em smoking per se ---- that's their own personal preference. If they want to die from lung problems, that's up to them. But I do dislike the fact that they throw their butts down all over the place."

But Nelly Bulkin, a nonsmoker and homemaker who was supervising her two young boys as they roller-skated nearby, had a different opinion.

"I think that smoking outside should be a matter of personal choice," Bulkin said. "I understand the ban indoors, but I think that when you're in an outdoor setting (smoking) doesn't cause that much pollution to the air ---- you should be able to smoke outside."

Samantha Bowman is the executive director for Coronado SAFE (Substance Abuse Free Environment), a local group that worked with a broad anti-tobacco coalition, including the San Diego chapter of the American Lung Association, to draft and pass the ban.

"We're thrilled and we're looking forward to working with the community in an educational way, so that they could better understand how harmful tobacco is to themselves and to those around them," she said in a phone interview.

She dismissed the argument made by some that enforcement would be difficult and expensive.

"If a person who smokes lights up, they're often reminded by those around them that smoking is not allowed at that particular location, and most people are very cognizant about wanting to be good citizens and wanting to follow the law," Bowman said.

But Jacob Sullum, an award-winning journalist and author of the book "For Your Own Good ---- The Anti-Smoking Crusade and the Tyranny of Public Health", said there were serious questions about the ban's social impact, effectiveness and scientific grounding.

"I suspect that it will result in a lot of acrimony and confrontations if you're telling nonsmokers that they are now charged with enforcing this law ---- that sounds like a recipe for a lot of fights. And in the end I'm not sure it's going to save police resources because they still have to follow up and issue the fines or whatever it takes to enforce the ordinance."

Sullum, who was also reached by phone, said the risk of second-hand smoke to bystanders ---- even in an indoor setting ---- was vanishingly small.

"All the epidemiological studies that look at second-hand smoke deal with intense long-term exposure of the kind that you get from living with a smoker for decades," he said. "And even those studies generally find weak associations, often statistically insignificant."

But for now the question of statistical significance is moot; the ban was approved unanimously by the San Diego City Council. Bowman said the fine for violators was up to a $1,000.

"Whatever the cost, it's certainly less than the cost of smoking to their health," she said. "For some, this will provide just that little nudge to get them to quit."

Next

More Stories

Tags:

Bookmark and Share

Ads by Yahoo!

Advertisement

Pre-Registration Comments[-]Go to Top

Her Garro wrote on Aug 18, 2006 6:57 AM:You can't get a cop to your house because no one cares about YOUR petty problems!!!!! Please move.

Smok free wrote on Aug 18, 2006 7:03 AM:If i was a smoker i would be pissed, but i'm not so good riddens. Smoking sucks.

ARE WE SERIOUS wrote on Aug 18, 2006 7:04 AM:We can pass a law telling human beings that they cant smoke a cigarette outside in a park or on a beach, yet we cant pass a law telling people that they are not aloowed to hop our border and waltz into our country like they own the place. Just shows that San Diegos butt keeps getting tighter and our common sense is dissapearing. Get a life who ever drafted this law. I dont smoke but the next thing I will here is that we are not allowed to BBQ or run in parks and beaches because it is unsafe and people who are vegetarians and non runners should not feel alienated at parks at beaches that they want to use also!

fresh air wrote on Aug 18, 2006 7:15 AM:Personally i dont smoke and hate when i have to smell and breath somebodys smoke. But this sounds like a stupid law and hard to enforce. I can see it now, a bunch of idiots calling 911 to say someone smoking in the park and they want a cop there right away.

Why not wrote on Aug 18, 2006 7:46 AM:Can't drink in those kind of places, so why would people be allowed to smoke? Myabe you won't get sick from second hand smoke, but it sure is nasty when you're having a picnic or just sit around watching your kids, and someone lights up a stink-stick right next to you. might as well park my car next to them and have the exhaust blow them in their face.

Gary wrote on Aug 18, 2006 9:00 AM:I have not smoked for over 25 years. I don't want someone smoking close to me but let's get real, smoking out in the open is less of a health threat to me than inhaling California smog! The Health Nazis have gone to far. Give smokers a break its a horrible addiction and most would like to quit but this doesn't help. On the trash of "butts" issue isn't it already a crime to litter? So it really about stopping smoking. While they are at it, let's ban soft drinks, ice cream, candy bars and potato chips in public, my goodness we wouldn't have any wrappers, cans and trash on the ground and we would be saving their health! Sure laugh, but what's the difference. The Second hand smoke outside in the open air is a bogus phoney arguement.

Whats next? wrote on Aug 18, 2006 10:34 AM:Are these people all insane? Next thing you know it will be againsed the law to bring your kids to the park because not all people like kids. Give me a break, I agree you cant get the police to come to your house when their is vandalism, but they are going to patrol the parks and beaches and bust the big bad smoker. This is a complete waset of tax payers money and the brilliant person who came up with this one should just chill. There are alot of things "others" dont like, so are we going to make fast food joints againsed the law because they contrubute to obesity? If it is legal to purchase and the person doing it is of age, then what is the issue? Lets focus on oh I dont know/the huge pot holes in most of the north county road ways, or the gang grafitti in alot of areas of north county/ come focus on the real issues, not personal preference. Lets just go back to segragation, only this race allowed here and you there, etc. get a life.

Smoking stinks... wrote on Aug 18, 2006 11:33 AM:but, smoking outside doesnt bother me. The only thing that is annoying is when their butts are all over the beaches, on the streets etc. It is their lungs turning to black crap not mine.

Ed wrote on Aug 18, 2006 12:03 PM:Maybe the tobacco companies should come up with edible butts and ashes. That way, smokers could eat their trash instead of throwing it where ever they see fit. Come to think of it, they already put unhealthy toxins in their lungs, why not just eat the butts now?

Oscar wrote on Aug 18, 2006 12:12 PM:I'm a vegetarian; I think they should look at criminalizing barbeques at beaches and parks next. Why should we vegetarians be forced to inhale the smoke of dead, decaying burning flesh every time we want to enjoy a few hours of fresh air? It must be worse than second hand cigarette smoke, it’s first hand smoke!

Message to "Whats next" wrote on Aug 18, 2006 12:34 PM:Childern are part of human existance, smoking is not. It is a selfish endulgance that has major helth effects. I go to the park to relax, not enhale someones smoke. What about their famlies? Do smokers not care how they will stress and devistate their family as they lie in their hospital bed on a resperator dying of emphasima or lung cancer? If you can't stop smoking for you, stop for those who love you. Don't make them pay with your early, agonizing death. IT IS MY RIGHT TO BREATHE CLEAN AIR OUTSIDE!

Extreme policing... wrote on Aug 18, 2006 12:43 PM:What's next? We can't throw styrfoam awya in public parks because it's not recyclable?! We can't burn candles outside due to the pollution candle wax causes?! Seriously, this is ridiculous!

sheila wrote on Aug 18, 2006 1:46 PM:second-hand smoke is deadly to those exposed...that is the reason this is necessary...in addition has anyone looked at the litter caused by the selfish acts of those who would rather practice their filthy habit no matter what the cost to themselves, the environemnt, or those around them! it's about time!

All smokers are litterbugs wrote on Aug 18, 2006 1:47 PM:If cig smokers didn't leave a trail of butts everywhere this would have never become a problem. The place has grown too crowded and even small issues become big ones because of it. Smoke a pipe, no one will complain and you may even make some new friends in the process, if you share

Too much wrote on Aug 18, 2006 1:57 PM:I can understand to an extent, but this is getting out of hand. This does nothing but turn average Joe's into criminals. Banning smoking from public is definately extreme. If litter is what people are concerned about, then all of the food wrappers, soda cans, malt liquor bottles, and used condoms should be cleaned up first. But I guess since half the counties residents don't pay taxes (illegals), the county just needs to go to extremes to collect revenue. Pretty sad.

Mark wrote on Aug 18, 2006 2:17 PM:I like the ban because the smoke stinks, whether you're inside or not.

Not a Smoker wrote on Aug 18, 2006 2:28 PM:The real place to stop smoking is in the local Indian casinos - their "non-smoking" sections are a joke. For example, Harrah's Rincon has a small section on the main floor - surrounded by smokers and with people constantly smoking in that section. All other buildings in the State of California require no smoking inside. If you are a non-smoker and enjoy going to the casino, forget it.

Kenbone wrote on Aug 18, 2006 2:50 PM:I don't mind others lighting up outside, so long as they properly dispose of the butts. Seeing butts on the ground just makes me think of Oceanside.

Polite Smoker wrote on Aug 18, 2006 6:41 PM:Okay, I don't bring the habit to the park or beach. I can deal with the ban. BUT! neither do I bring bags of junk food with me either place, and yet I am forced to watch people eat greasy lousy food, oftentimes close enough to me that I'm grossed out by the smell, and then sometimes, they actually throw the trash away....sometimes. Otherwise in the interest of " a cleaner San Diego" I'll pick up what the lazy have left behind. So, I'm all for banning fast food in all the same places they've banned smoking, because I long ago decided not to smoke in those places anyhow.

don't step on a burning butt wrote on Aug 18, 2006 7:39 PM:This is good- cigarette butts litter our beaches. The smokers use the beach like a big dirty ash tray. Smokers...Go smoke in your house and quit stinking up the beaches.

Think Of This wrote on Aug 18, 2006 7:57 PM:We all live in America ... the land of the at least as free as it can be. To that end, every legal citizen can do pretty much anything they want as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process. For example, I can stand on the sidewalk and fling my arms about at random for as long as I want, if I want, until I hit someone. At that point, I have violated the rights of the person I hit. Translate that into smoking ... A smoker has absolutely every right in the world to smoke until their lungs are black as night (and more power to them), but the second that smoke enters the lungs of an unwilling participant that persons right to not breathe smoke filled air has been violated. Although my biggest personal problem is with the trash left behind (and I feel the same way about drink cups, chip bags, etc), the ultimate fact is that while you do have the right to poison yourself you do not have the right to poison anyone else. If smoking is what you want to do ... then you must do it in a way or place that will not impact anyone who does not wish to be impacted ... Period.

wtfever wrote on Aug 18, 2006 9:38 PM:this is rediculous. how are law enforcement officers supposed to crack down on real problems such as the escalating drug problems in our youth when they are too busy watching for smokers. whoever proposed a law like this was seriously on a bad trip or something. wake up and smell the coffee people. its near IMPOSSIBLE to even begin to enforce this. i for one am against this completely.

NO SMOKERS wrote on Aug 20, 2006 1:11 PM:Hey, the lifeguards on San Diego beaches already have the authority to write notices to appear for violations, they will probably be the ones enforcing the laws on the beaches. Bottom line there must have been a reason for this law, maybe it is the fact that smokers throw their trash on the ground and not in the trash recepticles, if you abuse it you lose it, that's the way it is. Blame yourself, not the city

Wake up non-smokers -- You Are Next!! wrote on Aug 21, 2006 10:28 AM:All of you "non-smokers" need to quit whining, wake up and smell the civil liberties fading away! "They" are coming after you next...There is already a ban on sugary foods at the San Marcos School District. No more birthday cakes and brownies for class celebrations. I guess the little tubbies in grade school can just blow out a birthday candle that's now stuck in a sack of dry granola!! Now that's a good time!! This society has spun out of control! Since when do we allow freedom to be de-railed by a politically correct few. These are but a handful of people who now beleive that they know better than you on how to live your life!! This smoking ban is only the start of the decline of western civilization. If you non-smokers don't think that your rights are next, just mark my words...bans on cell-phones, snacks, sodas, religous symbols, all sorts of our freedoms are coming down the pike. It's funny! Discrimination is supposed to be moraly repugnant and unacceptable. But to discriminate against a white male smoker who's driving an SUV with a bumper sticker saying "Got Jesus?" while talking on a cell phone, eating a bag of chips and a hamburger, drinking a Coke is OK!! This is a society of hypocrites and if we are not careful, we are going to end up like Cuba, China, North Korea, with the ACLU as the dictartorship telling us how to live and what to think and feel!! And you will only have yourselves to blame!!!!

Registered Comments[-]Go to Top

Advertisement

Videos

Advertisement