WEATHER »

Goleta Considers Smoking Ordinances


Thursday, May 8, 2014
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Share Article

The Goleta City Council could soon institute its own smoking-related ordinances for tobacco retailing and secondhand smoke. The city’s retail ordinance would aim to prevent sales to minors, including vapor products like e-cigarettes; such stores couldn’t employ minors or open within 1,000 feet of schools. Enforcement would be handled by the county. The secondhand-smoke law would ban smoking in public places (restaurants and stores) and recreational areas (parks and hiking trails); signs would display the rules. The council will consider adoption later this month and iron out licensing details.

Comments

Independent Discussion Guidelines

Prohibitionists on the march.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
May 8, 2014 at 7:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

GOOD! This is AWESOME! Let these constant polluters do their polluting ELSEWHERE! Smokers should all just croak, it's what they strive for in the long run. All the research, all the data and they STILL do it! A-FREAKIN'-MAZING!
Smokers ARE the MOST inconsiderate sort of person. This ain't about "smoker's rights" in any way, it's about keeping places clean of that crap that the majority no longer supports.
By the way Ken, get your terminology straight, nobody is prohibiting smokers from killing themselves slowly, they're just prohibiting them from exposing those of us (THE MAJORITY) who DON'T smoke to their crap.
If they want to do it, let them do it IN THEIR OWN HOMES AND CARS where everything smells like crap.
Tobacco will never be prohibited, regulated yes, but NOT prohibited. After all, we need examples of Darwin's work to remind us that Darwin IS right. Good job Goleta, you're starting to grow BIG ones!

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
May 8, 2014 at 10:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

E-cigs are going to be banned in public places as well??

So lame. You can't even put off water vapor without the government stealing your stuff.

Mind your own business, if you don't like smokers then don't stand next to them.

I'm tired of this nanny state mentality encroaching on everybody's freedom, I don't even smoke cigs or e-cigs.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
May 8, 2014 at 10:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Let these constant polluters do their polluting ELSEWHERE!"

Good, then you won't mind if I steal your car. Thanks ahead of time.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
May 8, 2014 at 10:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) could not even produce evidence that passive smoke is significantly harmful inside, this is what they wrote prior to the smoking ban in article 9 OC255/15 9 "The evidential link between individual circumstances of exposure to risk in exempted premises will be hard to establish. In essence, HSE cannot produce epidemiological evidence to link levels of exposure to SHS to the raised risk of contracting specific diseases and it is therefore difficult to prove health-related breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act". The reason the ban was brought in under the Health Act 2006, and not by the HSE, because no proof of harm was needed with the Health Act 2006, and the HSE have to have proof, seems the DM has lost rational thought about anything smoke related.

harleyride1777 (anonymous profile)
May 8, 2014 at noon (Suggest removal)

This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke:

http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/...

Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.

By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.

Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.

What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.

“I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study...........................

Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!

The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:

Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.

146,000 CIGARETTES SMOKED IN 20 YEARS AT 1 PACK A DAY.

A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.

Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!

harleyride1777 (anonymous profile)
May 8, 2014 at 12:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Heres a time line starting in 1900,dont be surprised to see the same thing playing out today nearly 100 years later.

1901: REGULATION: Strong anti-cigarette activity in 43 of the 45 states. "Only Wyoming and Louisiana had paid no attention to the cigarette controversy, while the other forty-three states either already had anti-cigarette laws on the books or were considering new or tougher anti-cigarette laws, or were the scenes of heavy anti- cigarette activity" (Dillow, 1981:10).

1904: New York: A judge sends a woman is sent to jail for 30 days for smoking in front of her children.

1904: New York City. A woman is arrested for smoking a cigarette in an automobile. "You can't do that on Fifth Avenue," the arresting officer says.

1907: Business owners are refusing to hire smokers. On August 8, the New York Times writes: "Business ... is doing what all the anti-cigarette specialists could not do."

1917: SMOKEFREE: Tobacco control laws have fallen, including smoking bans in numerous cities, and the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho and Tennessee.

1937: hitler institutes laws against smoking.This one you can google.

harleyride1777 (anonymous profile)
May 8, 2014 at 12:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

IT'S ABOUT TIME!
Goleta has had no ordinances in place for the past 5 years after screwing up and leaving the tobacco retail licensing and second-hand smoke details out of ordinances it put in place after operating under county ordinances for several years.
These are about protecting others from second hand smoke and having penalties in place for merchants who sell tobacco products to minors.
County Health does an excellent job, with a tiny staff, of educating about and enforcing reasonable laws protecting the public.

mangomamma (anonymous profile)
May 8, 2014 at 12:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In your story, it says
"such stores couldn’t employ minors" which is NOT TRUE.

Minors are only prohibited from participating in the transaction of selling/buying the tobacco product.

mangomamma (anonymous profile)
May 8, 2014 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Face it LOSERS, your habit is a failed lifestyle choice. hey loony, go ahead and steal my car, I need the insurance money, just keep it on the DL you know!
HAHAHAHA! Awesome to see the bitterness, especially when the correct thing is being done.
Oh, and as for that e-cig crap, yeah, you ain't spewing out anything but water vapor, right? THEN HOW COME YOU CAN SMELL THE CRAP THAT E-CIGS PUT OUT?
Last time I checked, water, whether in vapor, liquid or solid form is colorless, tasteless and... wait for it... ODORLESS!
Good to see effective measures to put an end to crap culture. Face it, you lose, again, get used to it son.

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
May 8, 2014 at 12:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hmm so I guess perfume and cologne should be illegal to wear according to blahblah, afterall you can smell it and a lot of people are allergic to perfume. Maybe we should outlaw farting in public, too. I can't wait for the first person with a digestive disorder to get beaten within an inch of their life by police officers.

Here's the thing. Smoking Marlboro and Camel cigarettes are bad for three reasons. The first two reasons are significantly worse than the third.

1. There are hundreds of toxic chemical additives, some even mandated by the government.

2. Commercially grown tobacco uses chemical fertilizers which contain radioactive polonium and are absorbed into the tobacco plant.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/opi...

3. It contains smoke from organic plant matter

If people smoked additive free organic tobacco, it wouldn't really even be that unhealthy at all. That's why Native Americans never really saw much in the way of ill health effects, because they were actually smoking natural tobacco.

But the fact is we are talking about vaporizing...

I'm pretty sure if they invented tobacco vaporizing 80 years ago and they tried to outlaw vaporizing tobacco in Nazi Germany, Hitler would have been like, "Uh, guys, I think we may be going to far, I'm not sure if the people are going to go for this one?"

Obviously Hitler never met blahblah, but I am sure he was very grateful for those like him.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
May 8, 2014 at 1:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The U.S. national annual background dose for humans is approximately 360 mrem. A mrem, or millirem, is a standard measure of radiation dose. Examples of radiation doses from common medical procedures are:

Chest x-ray (14 x 17 inch area) - 15 mrem

Dental x-ray (3 inch diameter area) - 300 mrem

Spinal x-ray (14 x 17 inch area) - 300 mrem

Thyroid uptake study – 28,000 mrem to the thyroid

Thyroid oblation - 18,000,000 mrem to the thyroid

Average Annual Total
361 mrem/year

Tobacco (If You Smoke, Add ~ 280 mrem)

Not quite 1 dental xray for a whole years smoking ehh!

or

Thyroid oblation - 18,000,000 mrem to the thyroid /shrinking the thyroid

Tobacco (If You Smoke, Add ~ 280 mrem)

18,000,000 / 280 = roughly 64,000 years of equivalent years of smoking!

http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/rp/factshee...

http://www.doh.wa.gov/portals/1/Docum...

harleyride1777 (anonymous profile)
May 8, 2014 at 2:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

3. It contains smoke from organic plant matter

The entire worlds atmosphere is made up of smoke and chemcials from burned plant matter! You breathe it every day and in fact your own exhaled breathe contains 100s of the same chemicals in tobacco smoke.

About 90% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a minor amount of carbon dioxide. The volume of water vapor of second hand smoke becomes even larger as it quickly disperses into the air,depending upon the humidity factors within a set location indoors or outdoors. Exhaled smoke from a smoker will provide 20% more water vapor to the smoke as it exists the smokers mouth.

4 % is carbon monoxide.

6 % is those supposed 4,000 chemicals to be found in tobacco smoke. Unfortunatley for the smoke free advocates these supposed chemicals are more theorized than actually found.What is found is so small to even call them threats to humans is beyond belief.Nanograms,picograms and femptograms......
(1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80).

harleyride1777 (anonymous profile)
May 8, 2014 at 2:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Blahblahblah is right! What a bunch of angry spewing, it is a bunch of blah blah blah ! I am a smoker and I am way more considerate about my smoking than non-smokers are about their bad habits like talking on cell phones in public, loudly, not stopping at stop signs properly, riding bikes the wrong way down one way streets and on the sidewalks, the list goes on. I do my best to make sure no one is exposed to my smoke, I don't smoke on State Street or places where there are lots of people. And PS it happens to be an addiction, harder to break than heroin and I know that. Would anyone say these things to an alcoholic! Sad to see how many hate filled, non compassionate, judgemental people still exist in this world. Those are the people who should just croak. Blah, blah blah.

Stefana (anonymous profile)
May 8, 2014 at 3:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah, yeah, yeah and addiction is a disease and... Give me a break already. You smokers are an immediate source of crap in the air and butts on the ground. REGULATE! Oh, and yes, smoking still sucks.

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
May 8, 2014 at 3:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Excuse me but I have never thrown out a "butt" on the ground. HOwever, if I knew where you lived, I would dump out as many as I could on your lawn. You are a good example of why we need to bring back involuntary commitment to mental institutions. Get a life.

Stefana (anonymous profile)
May 8, 2014 at 3:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Another Anti-Smoking Hoax Debunked. Those cigarette filters are 100% biodegradable.

The cigarette butt menace was created to support outdoor smoking bans because many non-smokers will accept that secondhand smoke is not harmful in an outdoor setting.

The anti-smoking zealots admit that the tobacco and paper in cigarette butts are biodegradable, but claim that the cellulose acetate cigarette filters are a plastic, like styrofoam and polystyrene, and will contaminate the earth forever. This is not true. Cellulose acetate is a wood product. It is completely degradable through biological, chemical, and photo chemical degradation mechanisms.

Sorry, I don't have a nice, easy to read MSM news article to give you. I have research papers from cellulose acetate manufacturers. Ann W., a commentor to a Dick Puddlecote article, put me onto this. http://dickpuddlecote.blogspot.com/2011 ... found.html

http://www.acetateweb.com/pdf/Environme ... ilters.pdf
"STUDY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION OF CIGARETTE FILTERS: A simulation of the Roadside or Parking Lot Environment." Stephen K. Haynes, et al,\., Research Laboratories, Eastman Chemical Company, Kingsport Tenn.

"In recent years there has been increasing public awareness of items which may be discarded as litter with particular attention being given to cigarette filters. Some studies have concluded that when cigarette filters are introduced into the environment, they either do not degrade or degrade very slowly. Previous work in our laboratories has demonstrated that cigarette filters biodegrade readily in environments where mixed microbial populations can thrive. The purpose of this study was to examine the changes occurring in cigarette filters over time in an environment similar to that of a parking lot or roadside area. In this environment, exposure to sunlight, moisture and wind occur, but there is limited exposure to microbial attack ... "

"CONCLUSIONS: Previous work has demonstrated that cigarette filters biodegrade readily in environments where mixed microbial populations can thrive. This work demonstrates that current commercial cigarette filters also degrade when exposed to an environment which is not optimal for microbial biodegradation."

harleyride1777 (anonymous profile)
May 8, 2014 at 3:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah, yeah, yeah and addiction is a disease and... Give me a break already. You smokers are an immediate source of crap in the air and butts on the ground. REGULATE! Oh, and yes, smoking still sucks.

Study says smokers are not addicted to nicotine

By James Heather | Jul 19, 2010 08:03 AM EDT

Therefore, the craving effect is produced by psychological reasons rather than by the physiological effects of nicotine deprivation.

A similar study conducted in 2005 amongst religious Jews, forbidden by their religion to smoke on the Sabbath, also found nicotine to be not addictive as physiological addictions are usually defined.

It is not that nicotine plays no role. The chemical does have a physiological role in increasing cognitive abilities such as attention and memory, it's not an addictive substance like heroin, which creates true systemic and biologically-based withdrawal symptoms in the body of the user, Dr Dar says.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/study-say...

harleyride1777 (anonymous profile)
May 8, 2014 at 3:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Leave smokers alone

The real tragedy here is smokers that have been beaten down for the sole reason of being smokers, thanks to a top-down campaign to cast them aside for the crime of enjoying something some people object to

by Richard White on 8 January 2014 06:54

When George Godber spoke at the 3rd World Conference on Smoking and Health in 1975, he gave his vision of the future: “our target must be, in the long-term, the elimination of cigarette smoking…”, he said.

“We may not have eliminated cigarette smoking completely by the end of this century, but we ought to have reached a position where a relatively few addicts still use cigarettes, but only in private at most in the company of consenting adults... The practice ought to be an enclosed one, not to be endured by the non-smoker in ordinary social intercourse; and no one should be allowed to use advertisement or any indirect means to suggest otherwise.”

In 1975, the general public would have scoffed at such a notion, but it was the apparent threat of secondhand smoke to non-smokers that gave anti-smokers the golden key to legislation restricting smoking from any indoor area.

It didn’t matter that the 1992 EPA report first demonstrating harm only managed to do so by cherry-picking studies and lowering the confidence interval – and even then, finding that for every 40,000 worker-years of exposure to omnipresent smoke as in the 1960s, there would be approximately one extra instance of lung cancer – nor that only 15 percent of the studies done on secondhand smoke and lung cancer managed to find any scientifically significant result at all – and even then the results were less “deadly” than wearing a bra.

harleyride1777 (anonymous profile)
May 8, 2014 at 3:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

With the 2007 blanket smoking ban in the UK, anti-smokers have become ever bolder – pushing for smoking bans in cars, hospital grounds, care homes, even talking about private homes.

All of this is based on the harm posed from passive smoking, despite the statistically insignificant relative risk only existing for those living or working with smokers for hours on end, day after day, for decades.

The mantra that secondhand smoke kills thousands a year has continued even though the large prospective studies show otherwise – Enstrom and Kabat found no risk, the WHO found no risk, and now, a new study examined in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute has found no risk, despite the researchers expecting to find one.

Within the study article, though, comes the admission of its roots in Godber’s 1975 comments – Jyoti Patel, MD, explained that there is only a borderline risk of lung cancer from secondhand smoke, but that “[t]he strongest reason to avoid passive cigarette smoke is to change societal behavior: to not live in a society where smoking is a norm”.

And therein lies a chilling message: puritans, with the full backing of the medical establishment, will fabricate health risks to make sure we aren’t doing what they don’t think we should be doing – regardless of the consequences for families and businesses.

It was a given that smoking bans would not pass on that basis, though – health needed to be put at risk to get people to listen. The fabrication is based on distorting science and using weak study models that produce biased results.

Case-control studies depend on people’s recall of smoking exposure 30 or 40 years in the past and are so unreliable they were rejected in the original 1964 Surgeon General’s Report. To lift an excerpt from my own book: “remembering how many cigarettes someone smoked thirty years ago is not an easy task and there is no way the response can be accurate.

In fact, in the 1964 Surgeon General’s Report the authors rejected the retrospective studies and focused on the remaining studies; it speaks volumes that forty years on the medical establishment now accepts flawed methodologies that were rejected in the past for being unreliable.”

Knowing that the real purpose of showing harm from secondhand smoke was to push forward an agenda to marginalise smoking, it stands to reason that retrospective studies were so fervently conducted – while prospective studies take many years to do, retrospective studies can be conducted quickly, frequently and show anything the researchers want them to.

harleyride1777 (anonymous profile)
May 8, 2014 at 3:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In no time at all, then, a large body of so-called evidence can be amassed, before the first prospective study comes in – so by the time the first, second and third turn up to show the risk of harm has been blown up out of all proportion, anti-smokers are popping the corks in their (presumably non-alcoholic) champagne in celebration of the bans they’ve succeeded in passing.

Yet amidst all this, no one bothered to ask what secondhand smoke actually is. Sure, the smoke on one end is the same as the smoke on the other, but dilution was never considered.

We know that ‘the poison makes the dose’ and that’s why there are safe limits to anything (including water, as anyone who has observed the amusing Dihydrogen Monoxide satire can attest, as even something as necessary as water can be painted to be a societal burden and mass killer), but few cared about the effects of dilution on smoke.

It’s a crucial point though, not least because a non-smoker with long-term exposure to a smoker’s passive smoke will consume only in the region of five cigarettes per year.

Michael McFadden devoted his attention to the properties of secondhand smoke in his book Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains: “about 90 percent of secondary smoke is composed of water and ordinary air with a slight excess of carbon dioxide.

Another 4 perecent is carbon monoxide, a gas that can act as a poison when in sufficient quantity by reducing the amount of oxygen your red blood cells can carry. The last 6 percent contains the rest of the 4,000 or so chemicals supposedly to be found in smoke… but found, obviously, in very small quantities.

“Most of these chemicals can only be found in quantities measured in nanograms, picograms and femtograms. Many cannot even be detected in these amounts: their presence is simply theorized rather than measured. To bring those quantities into a real world perspective, take a saltshaker and shake out a few grains of salt. A single grain of that salt will weigh in the ballpark of 100 million picograms!”

harleyride1777 (anonymous profile)
May 8, 2014 at 3:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Had the public (or politicians, perhaps) known such information it is doubtful that smoking bans would have passed on the basis of risk to health – after all, if a spouse living with a smoker is consuming five cigarettes in an entire year, how many are (or in the British case, were) being consumed by a person sitting in a bar for a few hours?

It’s the families that have suffered huge rifts through fear, the businesses that have shut down, the elderly and terminally ill pushed outside in the depth of winter.

All of which happened while we were watching X-Factor and celebrating what a civilised country we live in.
Maybe – just maybe – this study, combined with those before it, and the justified attention on the issue, can mark the start of the tide turning to an inclusive society, where we don’t bully and ostracise people for not behaving exactly how we want them to.

The real tragedy here is smokers that have been beaten down for the sole reason of being smokers, thanks to a top-down campaign to cast them aside for the crime of enjoying something some people object to.

Richard White is the author of Smoke Screens: The Truth About Tobacco and owner of Word Edit: Professional Literary Services

Read more on: anti-smoking lobby, Action on Smoking and Health, and denormalisation of smokers and smoking

http://www.thecommentator.com/article...

harleyride1777 (anonymous profile)
May 8, 2014 at 3:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

INSIDE THE TOBACCO CONTROL INDUSTRY AND THEIR DECEITFUL TACTICS”
http://cagecanada.blogspot.com/2011/0...
…..write (or sign ghost written) letters to the editor, etc. (pages 31 & 33)

…..submit at least two letters to the editor each month during the campaign, under the names of different authors”. (page 33)

…….Nothing can ruin a campaign faster than public disclosure of financial wrongdoing (intentional or unintentional) ? something your opponents would love to expose if given the opportunity. (page 34)

harleyride1777 (anonymous profile)
May 8, 2014 at 4:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

harleyride1777, I actually agree with your sentiments completely and that is why I said that the first two on the list were most harmful with #3 being not very harmful.

For anybody who thinks we are crazy, remember when you were a kid and the light peered through a slit in the window and you could see millions of little particles of dust? Well I got news, dust is made out of all sorts of things and we breath that stuff in and out all day long. On a particle by particle basis it's really not necessarily any better or worse than smoke, depending on your environment, except that it is slightly less concentrated. People who pretend that they don't smoke and so their lungs are "clean" while anybody who inhales any smoke what-so-ever throughout the day is doing some kind of irreparable damage that they are depriving their own lungs of is really misleading themselves. Our lungs are a filter and our body has ways of cleaning these filters out. If not, imagine how much dust you breath in day in and day out, it's probably equivalent to a small vacuum or handvac dust collecting container.. yet we all get up every day and can breath relatively well. One cigarette probably only increases the load of debris your lungs must process by maybe .5% or less.

Now there have been health benefits found from smoking tobacco, smoking cannabis and no doubt there may be health benefits from smoking other types of plant material. I'm not going to say that smoking something like hay is going to benefit your lungs or that it doesn't increase the load of debris your lungs must process and could be a negative, although mostly negligible thing.

I think people who buy into the second hand smoke arguments when talking about being outside in public are literally insane. Not just because they are wrong, but because they are lying to everybody. There is no possible way they actually believe themselves, they are really just authoritarians who like to use government violence to force other people to behave a certain way so that their life may be slightly more comfortable. What really puts it over the top is being against vaporizing tobacco. It's selfish, it's violent and really almost sociopathic.

Leave other people alone.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
May 8, 2014 at 4:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

By the way most of those dust particles you see are actually dead skin cells floating about the air!

harleyride1777 (anonymous profile)
May 8, 2014 at 4:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ban flatulence in public places, you can guess what's in the air then.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
May 8, 2014 at 5:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I support the part about banning smoking in public parks because if my tax $$$ are paying for it then I should have the right not to breathe cigarette smoke. As for the other parts of the proposal, it's Nanny State finger-wagging at its finest, with (of course) politicians hiding behind "the children".

Lest we forget, while the self-righteous Crusaders of morality are chiding people for smoking, they are all too happy to encourage the never-ending growth of the alcohol industry in this area.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
May 8, 2014 at 5:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The parks belong to everyone!

harleyride1777 (anonymous profile)
May 8, 2014 at 6:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"The secondhand-smoke law would ban smoking in public places (restaurants and stores)" Isn't this already state law???

z28racergirl (anonymous profile)
May 9, 2014 at 10:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: