Though few people have been hanging out on the beach this cold, wet week, the issue of a potential smoking ban on county beaches and parks was the topic of discussion on Tuesday as the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors wrapped up its last agenda item for 2009. After a presentation by Dawn Dunn-a County Public Health Department official-who extolled the benefits of instituting a ban, and public comments overwhelmingly in favor of it, the supervisors voted 5-0 to send the issue to the County Parks Commission for study. “You don’t really want to impose things unless staff is behind it. Not only are they behind it, they’re really excited about it,” said 2nd District Supervisor Janet Wolf, who sponsored the bill with overwhelming public support. According to surveys taken by the County Health Department, 80 percent of those surveyed were in favor of a ban.
At a time when the county’s budget is less than robust, the signs and educational material required for enforcement already have funding available from grants. Furthermore, said Dunn, such bans have already been instituted widely across the state, including in the cities of Carpinteria and Santa Maria. “We’ve perceived this to be an area where controversy might arise, and information from all around the state shows that enforcement is not a problem,” she said, noting that in Carpinteria and other communities, the high number of people supporting smoking bans has led to a high level of self-enforcement. Based on legal language in ordinances used in other municipalities, the law would most likely carry a fine for violators, but the County Sheriff’s Department has already indicated that it will be a low-priority enforcement issue, though Dunn said that other municipalities issue very few citations. The Parks Commission and county staff should have a draft ordinance for the Board of Supervisors to review early next year.


Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace





Previous Month



Comments
Most San Diego area municipalities have banned smoking at beaches and public parks. It's the way to go!
jgzeger (anonymous profile)
December 10, 2009 at 7:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Just like off-leash dogs, gas fired leaf blowers, and drivers yabbering on cell phones this is just another feel-good law that will never be enforced.
ilovesb09 (anonymous profile)
December 10, 2009 at 8:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Do it and enforce it, along with the other feelgood laws mentioned by ilovesb09.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
December 10, 2009 at 10:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am not a smoker. Smoking is legal. To deprive a taxpayer who engages in a legal activity from accessing a public beach supported by taxpayer's money is discrimination prohibited by California law.
In America you have the right to be wrong. In America you have the right to be a jerk. The purpose of government is to protect the individual from sanctioned mob rule.
The solution is the same as the dog run. Have smoking and non-smoking sections, kind of like separate but equal.
That the majority of people want to impose their values and way of life on those who used to be the accepted majority and are now the shunned and shamed minority is unacceptable.
Ms. Wolf's comment that staff has to be for it before the supervisors are for it belies her purpose in being their, to make choices for the people who sent her there, not the staff we pay to come up with their "good" ideas.
Bird (anonymous profile)
December 10, 2009 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oops. Correction in the last paragraph "their" should be "there".
Bird (anonymous profile)
December 10, 2009 at 11:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
" ...Have smoking and non-smoking sections, kind of like separate but equal..."
--Bird
Mission Creek and the Marina are pretty stinky by the time summer rolls along. So let's put the smoking section at West Beach. Only tourists go there anyways.
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
December 10, 2009 at 12:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How about creating/enforcing loitering and panhandling laws?
picture this if you will...yesterday, three friends and myself had plans to go to lunch. We were choosing from, Left at Albuquerque, Chipotle, Chino's Roclk N Tacos and Chilangos. Now here comes the issue, every which one of those restaurants we went to (to dine outside) had pan handlers begging for money while smoking. We ended up inside on a beautiful day at Chipotle.
Why can't the county do more than just "consider" this issue since it's much larger than second hand smoke causing cancer?
What about the homeless issue? It seems they all have time to smoke and money for cigarettes.
Shouldn't Santa Barbara land and shop owners be up in arms about the cities proposed addition of homeless shelters? It's not fun, nor is it safe to enjoy downtown like it used to be.
At least if we take smoking away, we will be heading in the right direction.
Now if we could just create something for the legislature to enforce loitering and pan handling laws downtown.
How about work projects for repeat offenders??? That might just be the ticket which will deter them from coming to Santa Barbara for hand outs.
To quote two pan handlers just in passing yesterday, "Got any extra cardboard?"
Schizzleman (anonymous profile)
December 10, 2009 at 3:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't even see people smoking at the beach..ever...and I spend a lot of time there.
As far as the butts, we already have anti-littering laws.
This just seems like a waste of time. Why can't we focus on keeping our watersheds more pristine?
loonpt (anonymous profile)
December 10, 2009 at 3:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wolf wants "the staff to be for it before the supervisors are for it"? Well, gee, then I guess the staff could focus all its energy on improving their own life situations and she'd then be for whatever they said? The Board is the highest policymaking body in the county. SHE (and the other supes, of course) is supposed to DIRECT staff, not follow sheeplike where staff leads them; that's what POLICY SETTING means. Given this attitude and her Carbajalic tendency to take no position on anything except oil drilling, she should resign or be removed. Why do the people of SB keep electing these empty suits?
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
December 10, 2009 at 5:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm down at the the beach most weekends when the weather's OK. When the frequent onshore wind is blowing, it can be difficult to detect a smoker unless you're directly down-wind. On calm days, its easier.
Channelkeeper was at the supes meeting (shown on Cox ch20). They said they recently picked up over two thousand cigarette butts in 3 hours at one beach. That's surprising considering how easy sand can bury them.
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
December 10, 2009 at 10:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I fully support the ban on smoking INSIDE public buildings but banning cigarettes on the beach is just another example of government going too far. Just another example of Santa Barbara do-gooders minding everyone elses behavior. Blow it out your butt.
dontflytoolow (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2009 at 5:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Santa Barbara Nazi's....just make more laws and take away any free choice. I feel betrayed by both Nava and Wolf. Their the ones on crack, as someone above said it's all about votes. They don't care about the people of SB, they weren't even born here. Money, power and TV time, we are expendable. My great uncle lived in a tree house on 5 acres (he owned) in Toro Canyon, what do you think the county would do to him now? Outlaw tree houses? Ladders to tree houses? Trees? People how climb trees? Or just hang him from his tree?
lordleadbetter (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2009 at 8:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Cigarettes get thrown on the street, they get washed into the gutter, they end up going down into the ocean and they wash up on some far away beach. Sand moves around and they become uncovered. That is how 3,000 cigarettes butts end up on one beach, they could be from Ventura or Lompoc or even SLO. I doubt this stupid law would affect anything, to be honest. What we need are biodegradable cigarettes. There is no way to enforce littering laws against smokers without putting a cop on every corner, and nobody wants that. Some cigarettes ARE biodegradable (American Spirit), but the vast majority of Marlboro/Camel are not. American Spirits are also additive free. I don't smoke tobacco, but if you are going to smoke that is the brand I would recommend.
loonpt (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2009 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
loonpt, that's interesting info. It occurs to me the article doesn't say why the beach ban is being considered. I originally assumed it was related to second-hand smoke, but it appears its more of an environmental pollution issue.
American Spirit's website FAQ says:
"Are cigarette butts litter?
Yes. It could take thousands of years to biodegrade just one cigarette butt so they should be considered litter. We encourage all smokers to dispose of cigarette butts responsibly. For more facts on cigarette litter, visit www.cigarettelitter.org."
Based on the above link plus others like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigarett...
it looks like the issues of concern are:
1. Cigarette filters are not biodegradable (plastic).
2. Trillions of cigarettes end up as litter each year.
3. Large numbers of cigarette butts end up in the ocean (25% of all coastal litter in one study).
4. Cigarette butts leach harmful chemicals into the environment and food chain.
So I agree that making a biodegradable filter would be a huge benefit.
It would also be helpful if smokers disposed of their cancer sticks safely (whether through personal responsibility, fear of fines, or social pressure).
As a side note, I couldn't verify that American Spirit uses a biodegradable filter. They use organic tobacco, but that's as far as it went.
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2009 at 12:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)