Home › News › Conejo Valley
T.O. looking at wider smoking ban
STORY TOOLS 
More from Conejo ValleyOfficials in Thousand Oaks who cracked down on smoking in subsidized housing in the spring are now looking to clear the air outdoors.
The City Council voted 4-0 Tuesday night to have staff members research the pros and cons and options available for curbing smoking in public areas. Mayor Andy Fox was absent.
As more cities extinguish smoking in public places, "this issue becomes more of a broad community public health issue," said Councilman Dennis Gillette, who pitched the idea.
He asked that park district officials be asked for their opinions on the matter as part of the city's research.
Other council members were equally supportive. Gillette and Councilwoman Claudia Bill-de la Pena cited the council's unanimous vote in March to require two-thirds of publicly assisted housing to be smoke-free.
"I think the next step is to take on the outdoors," Bill-de la Pena said. "Other cities have."
Councilman Tom Glancy asked that the city attorney give the council a "fairly comprehensive definition of public areas."
Posted by horsespinner on July 26, 2007 at 5:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
bad laws from bad people. Ban cars if you want to improve the air.
Posted by socal2wheelsguy on July 27, 2007 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's about time our City Council does what other cities have already done; ban smoking in all public places. The rights of smokers to recklessly destroy their own health should not include the right to expose others to their poisonous fumes. I'm sick of having to avoid outdoor eating areas simply because I don't want to smell the stench of cigarettes while I eat, and I'm also tired of watching smokers litter our community with cigarette butts, many of which are burning and pose a wildfire threat. It's time for our City Council to do what's right; ban smoking in all outdoor places in the City.
Posted by AnnaWhaat on July 28, 2007 at 10:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And Im sick of people trying to tell me what my rights are. Whats next? remove all stereos out of cars?
There are considerate smokers you know! And if someone isn't then go up and tell them! I'm sick of having to for a darn hike before I can light up!
Posted by fentressm on July 29, 2007 at 2:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Smoking Bans are needed as most, Not all, are basiclly inconsiderate folks who fowl the air. I enjoy eating outside when it is available. The last two times I tried I needed a fireman's mask because of a group of smokers. Not only were they blowing smoke in the air, but they put their ashtray on the next unoccupied table to avoid the smell and excessive smoke. I for one am happy to see us taking a step towards making smoking a ban everywhere. What really gripes me is the smokers while in their cars that think the whole is an ash tray and flick ashes all over the roadway in violation of the CA Vehicle Code. I am in support of the Thousand Oaks City Councile for taking a steps towards banning smoking, finally I can say to them, WAY TO GO!
Posted by dpennock on July 30, 2007 at 3:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If you are living in publicly-subsidized housing, then you should not be spending any money on cancer sticks.
Posted by AnnaWhaat on July 30, 2007 at 10:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
what next fat people shouldn't buy candy if living in subsidized housing? Everyone telling the other how to live. We have to draw the line !!!!!!!
Posted by narc121 on July 30, 2007 at 9:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree dpennock! Cigarettes are expensive and if they are in subsidized housing, they can't afford to be killing themsevles with their cancer sticks! If my tax dollars have to pay for part of their rent, then they shouldn't be throwing money away on cigarettes!
Posted by AnnaWhaat on July 31, 2007 at 6:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
And so is beer, Steak, Fast food, electricity (oh maybe you think they shouldn't be allowed that either!) Give me a break!!!!!
Posted by socal2wheelsguy on July 31, 2007 at 7:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
AnnaWhaat,
None of the examples you cited in your effort to argue against a smoking ban are analogous; in each of those cases, engaging in the activity you referred to did not harm others. Second hand smoke is a proven killer, and while nicotine addicts who smoke cancer sticks choose to harm themselves, they should not be allowed to make a choice that harms others.
Posted by terricole2 on July 31, 2007 at 4:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Smokers can smoke anywhere they want -
As long as they close their windows and doors so they can inhale what they exhale -
and not force others to as well.
I wouldn't and couldn't force anyone to drink what I drink; to eat what I eat. Yet smokers for too long have been forcing non-smokers to unwillingly participate in the vice they partake...by breathing and also injury by stepping on a lit cigarette and burning a foot in the grass at a park during a young child's soccer game.
Posted by narc121 on July 31, 2007 at 6:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Good point socal2wheelsguy!
Posted by AnnaWhaat on August 1, 2007 at 7:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
socal2wheelsguy .I was relating to the above comment. When to draw the line on what people on assistance can buy.......
Posted by shaver_one on August 1, 2007 at 2:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
socal2wheelsguy:
You say that beer drinking doen't harm anyone? Have you ever heard of drunk driving? Second-hand smoke has NOT been proven a killer. No matter what you may think or quote, it is just an opinion. I can quote just as many doctors and health experts that say second-hand smoke, outside, has no harmful effects. You will breath in just as many air pollutants walking you dog down any "main-drag" street of any city, whether all smooking was banned,or not banned. I personally find the smell of coffee nausiating. I think we should ban all coffee products from restaurants, cafes, drive-thrus, parks, beaches, etc. It is well known that coffee is the first step to becoming a meth-head. To quote Sgt. Joe Friday: "All methadrine addicts started by drinking coffee for that 'caffein rush'. So, if you eliminate coffee, I won't have to smell it's disgusting odor, and we'll have less speed freaks breaking into your house.
Posted by socal2wheelsguy on August 2, 2007 at 7:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
shaver_one: The act of beer drinking, in and of itself, harms no one other than the drinker. The act of driving drunk harms others, but it is a crime. Smoking harms others, yet it is not a crime. So, by your logic, smoking should also be a crime.
Your claims that second hand smoke outside has no harmful effects are ludicrous and inconsistent with the facts. Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen). Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke. Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic, including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic ammonia and hydrogen cyanide. Second hand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 46,000 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year. Your lame effort to falsely analogize this carcinogen to coffee illustrates your state of denial; you're too weak to conquer your addiction to this known carcinogen so you attempt to rationalize and/or obfuscate the impact your conduct and the conduct of millions of others has on those who aren't addicted.
Posted by AnnaWhaat on August 5, 2007 at 6:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
shaver_one ,GOOD ONE !!!!!!!!
I am a considerate smoker! I do NOT smoke at childrens parks or ballgames.... But dont tell me what I can do in my house or yard. period
Go buy yourself an airfilter and shut your windows !
Posted by chase_013 on August 9, 2007 at 2:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's about time! As for anyone who is a smoker and thinks that it's no big deal to smoke outside, and that your second hand smoke is not a danger to those around you, you are DEAD wrong, no pun intended. My son is an asthmatic. We have very good control of his asthma, and normally he never has asthma attacks or trouble breathing. But if we go somewhere where someone is smoking nearby, despite how "open-aired" the facility may be, he starts to cough and wheeze. It's not fair. When it's nice out, and we go out to eat, we like to sit outside. But leave it to a smoker to turn our enjoyable evening into combatting deadly second hand smoke in an effort to preserve our little boys lungs. I'm not trying to tag people who smoke as being bad people. My father and my best friend are smokers, and I love both of them very much, and they are great people. They are also equally stupid in their decision to continue smoking despite MASSIVE amounts of medical research that shows smoking kills, and so does secong hand smoke! They both know it too. It's a deadly habit. Stop making excuses and get help quitting. Then we can stop the "right to smoke vs. right to have clean air" war. No smoking? No problem.
Posted by chase_013 on August 9, 2007 at 2:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
PS
Some of you writing in defense of smoking outdoors should re-read your own comments. You say you are a considerate smoker, i.e. you don't smoke at children's parks, ballgames, etc. Then you have nothing to complain about. If you are that considerate, then a ban on smoking outdoors in public places won't affect you. You can still smoke in your own back or front yard, in your own house, or car. A ban on public outdoor smoking would mean no more smoking at Starbucks, restaraunt patios, etc. From the comments above, it looks like all the smokers here are sooo considerate, that this ban, should it pass, will change nothing in their daily life. So stop complaining.
Posted by Melly on August 9, 2007 at 9:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
When did we become nazi germany? and hey, can we ban babies and children from the public places too? They affect my health and wellbeing when I have to listen to them scream...isn't there a noise ordinance or something?
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.