Calif. considers smoking ban at all state parks

Associated Press ^ | March 18, 2010 | SAMANTHA YOUNG

[Free ThinkerNY]

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – California lawmakers on Thursday will consider what is believed to be the nation's most far-reaching smoking ban in state parks as a way to get unsightly cigarette butts off the beach, eliminate second-hand smoke and reduce the threat of wildfires.

Maine banned smoking at its state beaches last year, but groups that track such legislation say no state prohibits lighting up throughout its entire park system, as the California bill proposes.

Under a legislative compromise, campsites and parking areas will be exempted from the ban.

[microgood]

It is one thing to ban smoking indoors, but outdoors? Those that support this have mental health issues.

[AuntB]

“SACRAMENTO, Calif. – California lawmakers on Thursday will consider what is believed to be the nation’s most far-reaching smoking ban in state parks as a way to get unsightly cigarette butts off the beach, eliminate second-hand smoke and reduce the threat of wildfires. “

OMG! Just shut down the Calif. legislature! The fools don’t care if illegal alien Mexican drug cartels squat there all year growing plantations of dope and burn down millions of acres doing it...one fire last year, the La BREA was proven caused by cartels...88,000 acres burned in just that one.

California fires caused by Mexican cartel: officials

http://towncriernews.blogspot.com/search?q=La+Brea+confirmed

[swarthyguy]

Nah, we’ve been taken over by Extraterrestial Pod people to whom tabak is toxic.

Hence the Jihad.

[stillonaroll]

Why don’t they just ban people from the State Parks...Let the parks go back to nature......That’s what they want isn’t it?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are exactly right. The eco-nazis don't want eeeeeevil people to interact with nature. That's why they designate wide swaths of land as "wilderness," rather than parkland. They don't want people to have any access.

Also, I've seen many instances where long-established hiking trails are "closed for restoration," forcing people to stay in narrowly defined areas. They also put up signs hyping the risk of Lyme disease or mountain lions, IMHO, to scare people away.

[dragnet2]

Who can possibly afford to buy cigarettes anyway?

When they went up to about 2 bucks a pack, I stopped buying them and quit that bull sh*t..The less I give this corrupt government in taxes, the better I feel.

[fruser1]

The “preventing forest fires” excuse is just that - an excuse.

I’ve never seen a fire started from smoking, but I have seen them start after some dummy threw a lit butt into the new mulch in my neighborhood.

So the problem is not smoking, it’s improper disposal.

When I go on hikes I tend to use an extra water bottle, only filled half way, to put my butts in.

But that will never be good enough apparently.

There are several beaches in Florida that ban smoking. No fire threat there! It’s always the 2nd hand smoke b.s..

The big “2nd hand smoke” study in the 90’s used folks who were spouses of smokers that smoked inside. Extrapolating that to the outside is b.s. period.

A good pass-time would be to go to these places and get busted. Requires pro-bono attorney and lots of free time I guess.

[dragnet2]

I have no idea what you’re talking about.

[swarthyguy]

>>2nd hand smoke” study in the 90’s

If it is bad in your living room, it’s certainly worse outdoors.

After all, the atmosphere is the living room for ALL of us.

-chuckle-