Smoking ban proves problematic Editor:
By James Whitemyer Santa Monica
Use of irrational fear for political gain isn’t the sole province of conservative politicians.
Case in point is the city of Santa Monica’s recent ban on public smoking in outdoor areas. Starting on Nov. 23, Santa Monica Municipal Code 4.44.020(a) went into effect which prohibits smoking at public parks; public beaches; the Santa Monica Pier (except designated areas); outdoor dining and bar areas; within 20 feet of any entrance, exit or open window to a public building; the Third Street Promenade; waiting areas (bus stops, ATMs, kiosks, movie lines, etc.); and Farmers’ Markets.
Particularly problematic is the prohibition on smoking within 20 feet of any entrance, exit or open window to a public building, with ‘public building’ being defined as “every indoor place except private residences.” This will effectively prevent smoking outdoors in non-residential areas.
The purpose of the new ban, according the city of Santa Monica (http://www.smgov.net/news/citybusiness/smoking_regulations.htm), is to protect the public from secondhand smoke. However, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that exposure to second-hand smoke, or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), in an outdoor environment poses any health risk to those not actually doing the smoking.
There is a legal right to smoke in the United States — as there is to do anything that is not illegal. Smoking is not a privilege granted by the government, like driving, nor is it illegal in and of itself. Therefore, until and unless smoking itself is made illegal, smoking is a right under every American’s general constitutional right to liberty and privacy. Granted, smoking in public places is another issue, but the city makes no distinction — which is likely why it seems to have given so little consideration to the notion of individual freedom.
Next, the so-called ‘second-hand smoke facts’ cited by the city are suspect, misleading and not germane to the issue of outdoor second-hand smoke. The U.S. Surgeon General has not determined an unsafe exposure level for second-hand smoke. Most importantly, no one, other than alarmists, laypersons and the City of Santa Monica, suggests that outdoor secondhand smoke poses any type of health risk. Even the National Cancer Institute states, “the only way to fully protect nonsmokers from second-hand smoke exposure is to eliminate smoking in indoor spaces.”
I don’t smoke. However, I am not unbiased because I have friends in the restaurant business that will be hurt by the city’s ban. Notwithstanding, my primary reason for opposing the ban is that I have a problem with a government that: 1) Feels it’s appropriate to infringe on the rights of others for anything other than the most dire and compelling reasons; and 2) believes its dubious ends are justified by its misleading and deceptive means. Misinformation, and mis-applied information, should not be the basis for any law.
I strongly urge anyone who finds the City of Santa Monica ban on outdoor smoking as ridiculous and offensive as I do to let your opinion be known: City Council, 1685 Main Street, Room 209, Santa Monica, CA, 90401; (310) 458-8201; Fax: (310) 458-1621; and e-mail:
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on December 5, 2006. Read the original PDF.