Councilwoman wants smoking banned in downtown Pleasanton, also in apartments

Is this a directive from an Elected oficial, or a self appointed dictator?

As a retired Registered Respiratory Therapist I heartily agree with Karla Browns suggestion that smoking be banned in downtown Pleasanton & multi-family dwellings. Why should less than 25% of the population that continues the unhealthy habit of smoking tobacco be allowed to pollute the air we nonsmokers breathe? When I walk the streets of Pleasanton & enter a cloud of stinky tobacco smoke it’s like being slapped in the face when I take a breath. We as a community should do all we can to discourage the smoking in the common areas we & our families share.

I would think that out of common sense and simple courtesy that smokers would not light up while walking down Main Street with other people including children following behind them on the crowded sidewalks. If all smokers practiced such common sense and courtesy then there would be no need to talk about a downtown smoking ban.

Ban them. If we could depend on courtesy fine, but we need rules for inconsiderates who think rules don’t apply to them…you know who they are..text or read cellphone in movies ; don’t pick up after dogs; burn wood in fireplaces; bikes without lights or bells; smoke and discard cigarette butts on ground . Rules will make us healthy and safer. Those who always opine about government and rules would get rid of stop signs!

We at J’aime Bridal absolutely support the banning of smoking in Downtown Pleasanton. We fully support and hope that the City of Pleasanton will enforce a no smoking ban like neighboring Livermore and thousands of other towns across the US.

Too many times I am subjected to second hand smoke from those sitting on a bench outside my store. We like to keep our front door open to enjoy the fresh air and invite customers into our store. The cigarette smoke harms the dresses in the store, especially those that are silk. It is offensive to our employees and customers. A beautiful bride trying on wedding gowns should not have to smell smoke because someone is standing near our door. We can smell the smoke prior to seeing the person smoking, and then it is too late to close our door and the smoke smell lingers in the store.

I’m sorry to report that smokers downtown are a daily annoyance. It’s unfortunate that I cannot enjoy the outdoor space at Tully’s with my children because of smokers. The City of Pleasanton has our full support on the ban of smoking downtown.

I am more disgusted by the level of fatness and in many cases obesity I see walking around. I see far more people who are obese than I see smoking downtown. As a matter of fact I can’t remember the last time I saw someone smoking down there.

” If all smokers practiced such common sense and courtesy then there would be no need to talk about a downtown smoking ban.”

Earth to Damon — this is Pleasanton you are talking about. When did common sense and courtesy ever come before personal wants and desires for anyone in this town?

I agree completely with the idea of banning smoking just not with the way that it would be enforced. That is to say, not enforced at all. Which PD officers should stop responding to real calls so that they can write a ticket to a smoker? A ticket that would get them — what — a “don’t do that again” lecture from the judge? Smoking needs to be legislated to a halt by virtually bankrupting smokers. No insurance, no place to live, add another $10 per pack to fees designed to pay for the cost to all of us for smokers. The reason smoking should be banned in all residential units is to save the cost of insurance. Landlords need to get smart about that, it really does make a difference.

A smoke free world would be nice but making laws to stop it require someone to figure out how to add people to enforce those laws. Just not gonna happen.

Maybe I am old, but does anyone remember when there was a “smoking side” and a “non-smoking” side to most restaurants? Everyone was complaining about too much government then too but we non-smokers spoke up and supported a ban, and now we can eat in a smoke free dining room.

How about a smoking section of an airplane? That did not work either because smoke travels like a magnate to non-smokers and we are tired of it.

About smoking in your apartment, it is not your home. Just like in hotels, they own the building and they can dictate if you are going to smoke there. I rent in a non-smoking apartment and I would not rent it if someone smoked there before I lived here. I have asthma and it could kill me. My only question is why did nit took so long?

This is a completely unnecessary measure; I’m not a smoker and don’t like inhaling second hand smoke, and I spend allot of time downtown and it’s not a problem at all. So this amateur politician should stop trying to create a problem where there isn’t one, and tender her resignation (although I know she cannot because her developer and realtor puppet masters won’t allow it). However, banning the plethora of obnoxious dogs downtown would be a great idea!

It’s about time we had a smoking ban!

If you want to smoke find a place where my family is not.

@”not a smoker” : “I could not agree more. Dogs are far more filthy, invasive and annoying than second hand smoke that is easily avoided.”

Tell, you what. When the American Medical Association declares that the presence of dogs dramatically increases the risk of lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary heart disease, stroke, as well as causes damage to your kidney, liver, colon, esophagus, etc., then we’ll entertain your proposals about dogs downtown. In the meantime, the topic of this thread is downtown smoking, not dogs.

Second hand smoke won’t hurt anyone. Outdoors? Get serious! http://www.nycclash.com/CaseAgainstBans/OSHA.html

You people are concerned about second hand smoke, really. What about all the cars driving up and down the street. Cars ideling spewing smoke. I’m sure one car slowly driving down Main St.is putting off more harmful smoke then a person walking down the street with a cigarette. Since driving is a revlige and not a right, I suggest ban cars form the down town area. Only delivery trucks and emergency vehicles aloud.

Wow “Akash” who the heck are you??? “Let them move elsewhere”…Where did you come from? How dare you. I am a smoker. I have lived here 30 plus years. I do not light up, very rarely near downtown, I am courteous of families and little ones, I pick up after myself and I do follow rules…Don’t we have bigger issues we should concern ourselves with?

Really? This is her big idea? I am not a smoker but am tired of the nanny state these busybody politicians are pushing. Enough already…..do something useful and stay out of people’s personal lives. I have never walked downtown or in any park and been overwhelmed by cigarette or cigar smoke. It is a non-issue in our town. Just another way for the perceived elite to try and control others…..again, this is coming from someone who does not smoke.

I raised my family in Pleasanton. While waiting for a house to be ready for us, we temporarily lived in a downtown apartment complex. It was an interesting experience living in such close proximity with so many people. The worst part was it was like living with many cigarette smokers. Anyone smoking was sharing the smoke with us. Smoke came in our windows and vents, it was like they were in the room.
I lived during the time of smoker rights. Giving rights to non-smokers has improved our quality of life.
This is a good proposal.

There is no unbiased, science-based study that says that occasional second hand smoke is devastating to your health. I run into smokers maybe 3 times a week for 30 seconds at a time….this will have zero impact on my health. If you live with a smoker, totally different story but that’s your choice. If someone is smoking outside near you and it bothers you, do what most people do….move 30 feet away.

The nanny staters want to control everything….they want to cut gas consumption in California by 50% which is completely unrealistic. They know this but they want to get to the point where they ration gas or push gas prices to $13 bucks a gallon all in an attempt to attack global warming which it would have zero affect on. California politicians have an exaggerated opinion on their global importance…..if Asia or Eastern Europe continue as is, anything we do won’t register a blip. Just like the water rationing nazis who want us to take shorter showers; as if that makes a difference while we waste millions of gallons of water growing crops we have no business growing in desert like conditions (almonds, rice, etc.) Meanwhile, we have a water retention infrastructure that has not been invested in for 20 years while our population grows..the state is beyond hope with this prevalent backward thinking and hand-wringing.

THE AIR, ACCORDING TO OSHA

Though repetition has little to do with “the truth,” we’re repeatedly told that there’s “no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke.”

OSHA begs to differ.

OSHA has established PELs (Permissible Exposure Levels) for all the measurable chemicals, including the 40 alleged carcinogens, in secondhand smoke. PELs are levels of exposure for an 8-hour workday from which, according to OSHA, no harm will result.

Of course the idea of “thousands of chemicals” can itself sound spooky. Perhaps it would help to note that coffee contains over 1000 chemicals, 19 of which are known to be rat carcinogens.
-“Rodent Carcinogens: Setting Priorities” Gold Et Al., Science, 258: 261-65 (1992)

There. Feel better?

As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright that:

“Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.”
-Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Ass’t Sec’y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997

Indeed it would.

Independent health researchers have done the chemistry and the math to prove how very very rare that would be.

As you’re about to see in a moment.

In 1999, comments were solicited by the government from an independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke.

Using EPA figures on the emissions per cigarette of everything measurable in secondhand smoke, they compared them to OSHA’s PELs.

The following excerpt and chart are directly from their report and their Washington testimony:

CALCULATING THE NON-EXISTENT RISKS OF ETS

“We have taken the substances for which measurements have actually been obtained–very few, of course, because it’s difficult to even find these chemicals in diffuse and diluted ETS.

“We posit a sealed, unventilated enclosure that is 20 feet square with a 9 foot ceiling clearance.

“Taking the figures for ETS yields per cigarette directly from the EPA, we calculated the number of cigarettes that would be required to reach the lowest published “danger” threshold for each of these substances. The results are actually quite amusing. In fact, it is difficult to imagine a situation where these threshold limits could be realized.

“Our chart (Table 1) illustrates each of these substances, but let me report some notable examples.

“For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes would be required to reach the lowest published “danger” threshold.

“For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes would be required.

“Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

“At the lower end of the scale– in the case of Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up simultaneously in our little room to reach the threshold at which they might begin to pose a danger.

“For Hydroquinone, “only” 1250 cigarettes are required. Perhaps we could post a notice limiting this 20-foot square room to 300 rather tightly-packed people smoking no more than 62 packs per hour?

“Of course the moment we introduce real world factors to the room — a door, an open window or two, or a healthy level of mechanical air exchange (remember, the room we’ve been talking about is sealed) achieving these levels becomes even more implausible.

“It becomes increasingly clear to us that ETS is a political, rather than scientific, scapegoat.”

Chart (Table 1)

-“Toxic Toxicology” Littlewood & Fennel

Coming at OSHA from quite a different angle is litigator (and how!) John Banzhaf, founder and president of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH).

Banzhaf is on record as wanting to remove healthy children from intact homes if one of their family smokes. He also favors national smoking bans both indoors and out throughout America, and has litigation kits for sale on how to get your landlord to evict your smoking neighbors.

Banzhaf originally wanted OSHA to ban smoking in all American workplaces.

It’s not even that OSHA wasn’t happy to play along; it’s just that–darn it — they couldn’t find the real-world science to make it credible.

So Banzhaf sued them. Suing federal agencies to get them to do what you want is, alas, a new trick in the political deck of cards. But OSHA, at least apparently, hung tough.

In response to Banzhaf’s law suit they said the best they could do would be to set some official standards for permissible levels of smoking in the workplace.

Scaring Banzhaf, and Glantz and the rest of them to death.

Permissible levels? No, no. That would mean that OSHA, officially, said that smoking was permitted. That in fact, there were levels (hard to exceed, as we hope we’ve already shown) that were generally safe.

This so frightened Banzhaf that he dropped the case. Here are excerpts from his press release:

“ASH has agreed to dismiss its lawsuit against OSHA…to avoid serious harm to the non-smokers rights movement from adverse action OSHA had threatened to take if forced by the suit to do it….developing some hypothetical [ASH’s characterization] measurement of smoke pollution that might be a better remedy than prohibiting smoking….[T]his could seriously hurt efforts to pass non-smokers’ rights legislation at the state and local level…

Another major threat was that, if the agency were forced by ASH’s suit to promulgate a rule regulating workplace smoking, [it] would be likely to pass a weak one…. This weak rule in turn could preempt future and possibly even existing non-smokers rights laws– a risk no one was willing to take.

As a result of ASH’s dismissal of the suit, OSHA will now withdraw its rule-making proceedings but will do so without using any of the damaging [to Anti activists] language they had threatened to include.”
-ASH Nixes OSHA Suit To Prevent Harm To Movement

Looking on the bright side, Banzhaf concludes:

“We might now be even more successful in persuading states and localities to ban smoking on their own, once they no longer have OSHA rule-making to hide behind.”

Once again, the Anti-Smoking Movement reveals that it’s true motive is basically Prohibition (stopping smokers from smoking; making them “social outcasts”) –not “safe air.”

Thanks for that post ed of Birdland. Facts are stubborn things…

I smoked for 20 years until a bout of bronchitis, directly related to my habit, kept me from breathing, let alone smoking. Haven’t smoked since! I will say though, second hand smoke is so disgusting and foul, I will go out of my way to avoid anyone smoking.

There are business in Pleasanton that allow employees to smoke outside in front of their storefronts. I wont go in their stores. The entrances smell as bad as the latrines at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri in the summer. Can you imagine?

Smoking steals your health; smoking killed my both of my parents. Smoke along the downtown promenade if you want, you just won’t find me by your side or in your stores and restaurants.

Even though I personally don’t like being around cigarette smoke, it seems to me that the people who rent are an easy target – not being home owners, etc. Even though it’s not good for their health, maybe this is one of life’s simple pleasures to someone after a hard days work- having a glass of chardonnay/tea/coffee on the patio with a smoke. And, I understand there are those who also rent who don’t want to smell smoke (been there; done that). I get it. Like the asthma person, I too am sensitive to smoke. But, maybe it’s better for each apartment complex and the affected parties to work these things out themselves. Maybe have a smoking area or the City can offer a seminar for citizens in how to organize in their own apartment communities and offer up affordable courses in how to stop smoking or create a smoking awareness program. Increase awareness of this as a problem, while being sensitive to the cultural differences from apartment community to apartment community.
To me, though, this wringing one’s hands over cigarettes is almost laughable in comparison to what really is gunking up our air. Many times I’ve found myself feeling ill because people are burning wood in those darned fire pits or in the winter having fires in their fireplaces and burning those infernal waxy logs that have such an acrid odor. I can feel my throat and eyes burning & my lungs tightening up. I go take a Mucinex so I can breathe when people burn in their fireplaces. I don’t want to medicate myself! Yet, people go insane if you take away their right to burn in their fireplaces. They claim it brings them joy, etc. But, we don’t live in the olden days when houses were a few miles away from each other. And, what’s worse is that we are only allowed to breathe clean air when the air is so bad that they call it a “Spare the Air day”. How stupid is that? That means we never have truly clean air. Ever! We can burn to our heart’s content, as long as the air is not so putrid as to be called a “Spare the Air” day. I hate winter because of this. Otherwise, I use to love winter. Also, studies have shown that having a fire in a fireplace doesn’t really warm up your house anyway (it warms up the immediate area near the fireplace and the rest of the warmth that was in the house is sucked up and out of the chimney). It has the opposite affect. Using a heater makes more sense, if you are cold. Besides, it’s not like we live in Alaska here. So.. to me, the cigarettes are like a little ant next to an elephant (which is the fireplaces & pits). I’m glad to see smoke recognized as burdensome to our collective health; but, I really think we’re using a baseball bat to kill a fly this time around. I’d like to see us focus on what is really gunking up the air. BTW, I think it’s so hateful & rude to make negative comments about people who have weight issues. There are conditions and medications that can cause people to retain water or lymphatic fluids, etc. People on steroids, people with lymphodema, etc. And, some people simply & sadly just don’t know any better when it comes to eating properly. Carbs & fast food are more available in our culture than good food. If we lived like Parisians and had small stores with gloriously fresh & affordable produce, etc, all easily accessible on a daily basis, we probably wouldn’t have this problem. We are what we collectively create. Passing judgement on people without understanding their circumstances is just being a mean bully. Any uncouth weirdo can be a bully. I’ve asked the City and a grocer that i think has very nice produce if they would put a Lunardi’s store in Pleasanton. It’s never happened. I approve of their produce. It’s better than most. Let’s organize more city gardens and access to produce if you can’t stand seeing fat people. Do something and quit complaining about it. Whoever you are, I’m sure you’re not a dreamboat either to some of us.

Hallelujah! I voted for a a visionary when I voted for Karla Brown and I will proudly vote for her again. Thank you for being willing to bring these things out for discussion. Wouldn’t everyone support a limit on smoking in public places and other people’s shops and apartments? Everyone I know would.

I visit my mom every week at her senior housing apartment in Hayward. A few of the neighbors there smoke and everyone hates it. Keep leading us to a better town Karla and thank you for all you do.

Given smokers are addicts to nicotine and it’s very hard if not impossible to break that addiction. Smokers realize they pollute, they just need a fix.

Smoking in a multiunit facility can be controlled by the landlord by location of tenants.

I’m sure the next thing to be complained about is the smell of the foreign food being cooked in your neighbors apartment

Damon: So your saying the exhaust from a car is ALMOST clean and not bad for people or the environment? So you would rather stand next to the exhaust of a car as opposed to a person having a smoke? I see where your going with this. You want to make downtown a smoke free environment because it wont impact you. (I assume you do not smoke), but your not willing to give up your car in the downtown area because that might impact you. typical Liberal thinking.

First cite smokers for littering. that will cut down on smoking in public as the smokers will have to deal with their trash and will smoke less if they don’t have a place to throw it.
This is classic. government creates a problem then comes up with the solution to save all our innocent souls.
It used to be business owners decided whether they want to let customers smoke or not. Then the government said you cannot decide what’s right for your business. Now everyone must go outside to smoke. Now government does not want anyone smoking in public. And get this even in your paid for home(apartment) if the government did not get involved we would have smoking restaurants and apartments and non. And people get to choose what they want instead of some jerk named Karla brown dictating how everyone lives their lives. I personally think people should only be allowed to smoke if they are on fire ( let’s start with Karla brown). I don’t like the smell of smoke. I do not need osha or a scientific study to know breathing in smoke or car exhaust is not healthy for the human body. if smokers were considerate we would not have this problem. They are not. Check out the trash they throw in the street without nary a thought. Selfish. Selfish. Selfish.

Wow, I guess no one thinks stepping in dog poop is so bad. The dogs are the problem downtown, are all you dog owners in denial.? There are a lot of Pleasanton Residents that are sick of the ill mannered, inconsiderate lack of concern that these owners exhibit. I do not smoke but if someone wishes to so be it, in a designated area… The same should apply for dogs, there is no place for them around food establishments, grocery stores, department stores or health facilities. The only exception should be if the dog is a Registered Guide Dog! Smoking in non designated areas will get you a fine and rightfully so. A dog owner that does not pickup his dog’s poop should be fined for leaving a health hazard on the street. This is not some third world country, use the manners you where taught and be considerate of other and their property.

I am sure Karla Brown can find something to champion that is much more beneficial to the City of Pleasanton than worrying about smoking… Think Hard Karla, you can do it!

Karla is a good girl. My mutt 30 years ago was named ronnie, a real brown-noser. Unless you have positive constructive words, run for office yourself, pooch.

The police aren’t going to enforce this, so what is the point. The trend all you people support is against the police enforcing anything “petty” which is being heard loud and clear by police departments all over the country. If a cop goes to enforce this law on some unruly, defiant person with a cell phone camera who does everything they can to make a scene and make the cop look like the bad guy, this council woman who created this law will be among the first to turn her back on the officer if his actions are not supported by public opinion.

@Damon, try this test (at your own risk). Lock yourself in your garage with a few smokers, have them chain smoke for a few hours. After a few hours you will stink, will have watery eyes and so on, but you will live. Now, get rid of the smokers and put your car in the garage, seal the garage and turn the engine on and see what happens after a few hours. Get my point? The exhaust of cars is more harmful than second-hand smoking. While I agree that second-hand smoking is harmful in enclosed spaces over time, it makes no difference in the outdoors. Fine people for littering not smoking. By the way, I’m an ex-smoker.

Second hand smoke will not hurt you Damon. The “science” has been bought and paid for by pharma and anti smoking zealots!

Damon:

George got you on that one. He was serious. People who want to commit suicide are not going to smoke themself to death, but they will Sit in a their car in an enclosed garage and run the car. It works.

Also, are you saying that all the cars driving up and down Main Street will not casue any health issues, but the few people walking down the street smoking will casue seriou shealth issues. As you said to me what planet are you from Damon. The cars and the trucks driving on Main Street are by far more of a health issue then the smokers, but the smokers are an easy target.

Excuse me, in my post above it should read that “…the term ‘harmful’ is NOT a one-dimensional scale…”

@Damon, hopefully we won’t have a flooding problem in downtown this winter 🙂

@Damon, This is literally the most imbecilic misconception of the way the body works that I have ever read. Also, cars contribute at least 55% of pollution in the tri-valley. Please let me see you support a Manhattan project for EVs before I see you support a smoking ban in the name of Public Health. Jesus, what a shill. . . .

‘@Mike : “George got you on that one. He was serious. People who want to commit suicide are not going to smoke themself to death, but they will Sit in a their car in an enclosed garage and run the car. It works.”

Or they can completely fill their garage with water and drown themselves. But, seriously, I think that you and George are oversimplifying matters and don’t realize that the term “harmful” is a one-dimensional scale. George tried to argue that car exhaust (or more specifically, the carbon monoxide in car exhaust) is more “harmful” than secondhand smoke. I then turned his own argument against him by showing that using the same argument that it could be argued that water is even more “harmful” than either car exhaust or secondhand smoke.

I think what both George and you overlook is the difference between substances which can be harmful in a chronic, long-term exposure sense, and substances that can be harmful on a short time scale with excessive exposure but have no long-term harmful effects. Water, carbon monoxide, or even nitrogen (which makes up 70% of the air that you’re breathing right now) can be “harmful” if you breathe too much of any of them, but if you’re in a closed garage with a running car and start to feel dizzy and get headaches due to breathing too much carbon monoxide from the car exhaust, all you have to do is walk outside and breath some fresh air and you’ll fully recover after some time with no lingering or long-term negative effects to your health. Are you starting to see the difference now between car exhaust and secondhand smoke in terms of health effects?

In contrast to carbon monoxide poisoning, the harmful effects of cigarette smoking and secondhand smoke build up over time. The lungs get more and more damaged over time from exposure to smoke. Not like the case of carbon monoxide poisoning where you can simply stop and fully recover. In the case of smoking the lung damage is permanent and it accumulates with further exposure to smoke. That’s what makes cigarette smoking and secondhand smoke so dangerous and harmful.’

The biggest contributor to poor public health is in fact auto emissions, autos take the cake when it comes to air pollution.

This whole community is rubbish, why don’t YOU move to some rural area where we don’t have to deal with your legislative BS shenanigans — isn’t there more important work to do?? Why do we even pay you people??