At its next meeting ( http://goo.gl/skabQm ) the Monrovia City Council will consider ...
~ Instituting a smoking ban in city parks.
"Smoking is broadly defined to include 'inhaling, exhaling, burning, or carrying any lighted, heated, or ignited cigar, cigarette, cigarillo, pipe, hookah, Electronic Smoking Device, or any plant product intended for human inhalation, or the act of lighting or igniting a cigar, cigarette, cigarillo, pipe, hookah, Electronic Smoking Device, or any plant product intended for human inhalation.'" http://goo.gl/dF3Gvw
Comment: This is wildly excessive. "[A]ny plant product intended for human inhalation?" Seriously? Any? So no wearing plant-based cologne or perfume. Also, I work with a guy who vapes. He said he hasn't smoked a cigarette since he took it up years ago. It is benefiting his health! So we are limiting a treatment that helps people stay away from from tobacco's carcinogens? Why? This is like outlawing cups because a cup may contain poison; never mind that it may also hold water. I'm jumping into this argument late in the game, which is my fault, but I didn't imagine the proposed smoking ban would be so extremely silly and intrusive.
~ Consider taking a position on the proposed Metro sales tax measure, which would extend the current half-cent sales tax and add on an additional half-cent. http://goo.gl/9ubQoO
~ Consider extending the agreement with the Monrovia School District to have a police office on campus. http://goo.gl/wgsBUK
- Brad Haugaard
I quit smoking by switching to vaping 4 1/2 years ago. Whenever I vape in public, I always make sure to look around me to make sure no one is near me.
ReplyDeleteMore taxes still? Has anyone else checked their July Billing Statement which Athens Services included a line item for "CAL AB1826 ORGANIC CHARGE"?
ReplyDeleteSo you institute a ban on smoking in the public parks in Monrovia...what are consequences involved when one is caught smoking? Are they going to be ticketed, fined or arrested or send them to smoking cessation treatment? People are going to smoke on the street or in front of someones house. Placing a ban on something isn't going to prevent the act. Who controls the monitoring of this? I think the PD has more pressing matters other than monitoring the parks to see if someone is smoking. There are more unhealthful issues to address that goes on in the parks other than smoking. Even though using illegal drugs on public property (library park} is illegal has that stopped people from doing it?
ReplyDeleteI'm all for "going too far" on the smoking ban. After years of doing nothing about the condition of our parks, it's time for a little "too far", imo. The drug addicts in the park will not be so comfortable without being able to smoke all day.
ReplyDeleteVaping is not emission and chemical-free, and poses some danger to those who inhale second-hand smoke. Why should anyone be subject to inhaling even a small amount of toxins just because you want to smoke? Look at this scientific study:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1438463913001533
I’m sorry; I understand this to be a ban from City Parks only, not banning smoking all together. What people want to do with their own body is their business, but when it impacts the health of others in a public place, then we have an issue. No one can dispute the harm of smoking and second hand smoke, and now vaping. I wonder what percent of cigarette butts actually make it to the trash. The majority of the time when I’m driving behind a smoker, the cigarette ends up being tossed to the street. Research shows that cigarette butts comprise an estimated 25–50 percent of all collected litter items from roads and streets. Keeping the air clean as well as the park seems like a win-win. I guess because cigarette butts are small, they are not considered litter in the eyes of a smoker.
ReplyDelete