Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mission Viejo Could Widen Smoking Ban - would be strictest in nation
kcal9 ^

Posted on 09/16/2002 9:44:32 PM PDT by chance33_98


Mission Viejo Could Widen Smoking Ban 
Would Ban Smoking In Any City-Owned Building, Vehicle Or Public Park

CBS Email This Story Print This Story

Sep 16, 2002 1:35 pm US/Pacific (CBS)-(SANTA ANA)-The City Council was set Monday to consider one of the strictest anti-smoking proposals in the nation, which would ban smoking in all publicly owned outdoor areas, including parks and city buildings.

The ordinance would outlaw chewing tobacco and smoking cigarettes, cigars or pipes on any property -- grounds or structures -- owned or leased by the city. Smoking also would be prohibited on recreational trails, in parks and open space areas, and in motor vehicles owned or leased by the city.

If passed at Monday night's first reading and later at a final reading, the law would not be enforced on public streets, highways and the public right of way.

Violations could carry a fine of $100, and the law would make it illegal for smokers to retaliate against members of the public who try to enforce it.

"People are more and more looking at the effects of outdoor tobacco smoke exposure," said Paul Knepprath, vice president for government relations for the American Lung Association of California.

The ordinance was inspired by state legislation that banned smoking on playgrounds.

Although several cities, including Los Angeles, have expanded smoke-free areas in parks and other public areas, the Mission Viejo ordinance would be among the first to outright ban smoking on city owned property.

"It's our responsibility as a city to promote a healthy environment," said Mayor Susan Withrow. "It's important for us to be leaders ... and discourage unhealthy habits on city property."

Advocates for smokers' rights oppose the proposed ordinance.


TOPICS: Government; US: California
KEYWORDS: pufflist

1 posted on 09/16/2002 9:44:32 PM PDT by chance33_98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
>The wild extremism of this proposal is betrayed by the ban on CHEWING tobacco.
>They can't convince me that there is a threat from "second-hand" chewing tobacco.
(Besides, spitting on the sidewalk is probably already an offense.)
2 posted on 09/16/2002 9:50:26 PM PDT by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
This is a heavily GOP town. It voted for Bush over Gore by probably close to 2-1. It is also heavily into sports and health. Life is interesting.
3 posted on 09/16/2002 9:53:18 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
From Chosun Iibo - South Korea - September 15, 2002 -

Smoking Students to Be Penalized  (2002.09.15)

by Lee Dong-hyuk (dong@chosun.com)

Nine presidents and vice-presidents of universities in the Seoul metropolitan area had breakfast with Chairman Park Jae-gap of the National Cancer Center, Sunday, and discussed the bad effects cigarette smoking has on students. Participants of the meeting were Jeong Woon-chan, president of Seoul National University; Lee Kyong-sook, president of Sookmyung Women¡¯s University; Shim Yoon Jong, president of Sungkyunkwan University; Oh Myung, president of Aju University, as well as vice-presidents from Kyunghee, Korea, Yonsei, Ewha, and Hanyang Universities.

Chairman Park explained the purpose of the meeting, suggesting introducing a system that "gives disadvantages to smokers at college admissions so that youth don't start smoking." Park presented a few plans: to give disadvantages to students who received detention during middle or high school because of smoking and favoring non-smokers in the case of equal scores after taking a nicotine test from their hair. Park said, "Hair tests show up to 4 to 6 months whether or not the person was smoking, but has limits due to the possibilities of second-hand smoking. Therefore the National Cancer Center will research technical methods with its development funds ways to classify smokers," he said.

Participants related that most presidents and vice presidents at the meeting agreed with Park¡¯s opinion and responded that they will favorably look over the proposal. Oh Myung, president of Aju University said Park had proposed the system be applied in school from the year of 2009, but most people favored earlier execution. "Our university will discuss this as soon as possible in a faculty meeting," he said. Lee Kyong-sook, president of Sookmyung University also said, "I think it is a desirable plan and will go over school administrators in a positive direction."

According to a survey conducted last June and July by the Seoul Office of Education on 3,245 elementary, middle, and high school students of 30 schools, 22.7% of high school boys and 10.7% of high school girls smoked. The report, which was announced on September 13 also showed that habitual smoking started mostly during the 7th grade and 10th grade.


4 posted on 09/16/2002 10:11:37 PM PDT by HAL9000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
If smoking wasn't such a disgusting habit, I would take it up again to piss off the fascists.
5 posted on 09/16/2002 10:26:19 PM PDT by LoneRangerMassachusetts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
Having been a pipe smoker for going on ...ummm.let's see...40 years (I started when I was 12), here's what I do t hat really ticks people off.

I keep an >unlit< pipe - sometimes a cigar - in my mouth when I'm shopping, at work, in public buildings etcetera.

The smokingnazicops first give me dirty looks, then confront me and remind me that smoking isn't allowed.

It gets 'em REALLY JUMPIN' UGLY when I give them a confused kinda look, take my pipe outta my mouth, peer into it and then look them in the eye and say quizzically.."but...but.. it's not lit".

Afterwhich I hold the pipe close to their face and ask, "Here...wanna see for yourself?"

Whoo Baby, does it get 'em going! hehehehehehehe!

prisoner6

6 posted on 09/16/2002 10:35:33 PM PDT by prisoner6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
The city did not say it would ban automobiles near city parks and and schools or aircraft flying over them even though they are the cause of far more pollution.

This country has truely gone insane!

7 posted on 09/16/2002 10:38:56 PM PDT by BJungNan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: prisoner6
BTW, I suggest cigarette smokers do the same thing as a form of protest. Just walk around with one dangling from your mouth.

Of course the laws probably ban the "use" of tobacco, and I suppose eventually someone will have to go to court to define "use".

Soooo...work around it by carrying a cheap pipe for such occasions. Corncobs are still only a couple of bucks, well worth the investment if only for the entertainment value.

prisoner6

8 posted on 09/16/2002 10:40:33 PM PDT by prisoner6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
Violations could carry a fine of $100, and the law would make it illegal for smokers to retaliate against members of the public who try to enforce it.

Wonderful. California used to be a nice to live.

9 posted on 09/17/2002 12:41:09 AM PDT by altair
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
The lifestyle nazis want to tell other people what to do. WAKE UP!!!! Its not just tobacco folks - if they win with this nutty proposal in Mission Viejo, it won't be long before all our rights are GONE. Its ironic the city council in that California city is contemplating such a fascist proposal on the eve of Constitution Day. What ever happened to a government with strictly limited powers? What's going on in Mission Viejo is un-American!
10 posted on 09/17/2002 12:44:27 AM PDT by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *puff_list; SheLion
Index Bump
11 posted on 09/17/2002 9:20:51 AM PDT by Free the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Free the USA; *puff_list; Just another Joe; Gabz; Great Dane; Max McGarrity; ...
~WHOA!

HOT TOPIC TODAY, let me tell you!

12 posted on 09/17/2002 9:34:39 AM PDT by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
As a smoker and home-owner, I would withold the portion of my property taxes that goes for the purchase and maintainance of the parks and try to form a like minded group of taxpayers for a class-action law suit.
13 posted on 09/17/2002 9:56:02 AM PDT by metesky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: prisoner6
LOL......classic......I'm gonna start doing that.

This original article is disgusting too, by the way.....bump for all to read. First cigarettes then FAT people......I really don't think that's crazy to say anymore.
14 posted on 09/17/2002 10:50:52 AM PDT by FourtySeven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: FourtySeven
First cigarettes then FAT people......I really don't think that's crazy to say anymore.

Obesity. Yes! They have started on it too!

The War On Obesity

15 posted on 09/17/2002 10:59:33 AM PDT by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
I live in Mission Viejo. It is a nice place to live. This particular proposal is a bit stupid but I wouldn't get too worked up about it. It only effects property owned by the city, including city vehicles. I would think that a ban on smoking in city cars is a good idea- I would not want to be the person using the vehicle right after a chain smoker lit up one cigarette after another if I was an employee. Also, banning smoking in parks is also not a bad idea due to the extreme fire hazard, particularly in this time of drought. Many of the parks are adjacent to very dry scrub brush. There are already laws against fireworks so unless you think we have a constitutional right to smoke, this isn't much different.

On the other hand, this is going to be a bit tough to enforce. There is not usually a police presence in every park and green belt at all times. Most thinking smokers don't need a law to get them to behave responsibly anyway. I would think a better solution would be to simply make this rule cover all city employees. This law is just grandstanding (something the mayor is already known for), and a symptom of government at all level who clamor to be the next one to ban activities or raise taxes as the solution to all problems, real or imagined.

16 posted on 09/17/2002 11:07:04 AM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
When I lived in Orange County (1964-74), it not only had an overall reputation for being conservative, but Mission Viejo in the southern part of the county was a place of particularly fancy, very expensive homes. What has moved in there now - project housing? Did it become Berkeley South in my absence?
17 posted on 09/17/2002 11:27:17 AM PDT by BlazingArizona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
Said Mayor Susan Withrow. "It's important for us to be leaders ... and discourage unhealthy habits on city property."

This woman is guilty of:- fascism, fiction, inciting hatred, paternalism and attempting to breach the Constitution. As such, I would encourage the local authority to discourage her continued presence on city property, as her listed crimes and lies are a decidedly "unhealthy habit" in a free society.

18 posted on 09/17/2002 7:35:59 PM PDT by I'm_With_Orwell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson