Skip to comments.Calif. considers smoking ban at all state parks
Posted on 03/18/2010 10:54:19 AM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
SACRAMENTO, Calif. California lawmakers on Thursday will consider what is believed to be the nation's most far-reaching smoking ban in state parks as a way to get unsightly cigarette butts off the beach, eliminate second-hand smoke and reduce the threat of wildfires.
Maine banned smoking at its state beaches last year, but groups that track such legislation say no state prohibits lighting up throughout its entire park system, as the California bill proposes.
Under a legislative compromise, campsites and parking areas will be exempted from the ban.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Why don’t they just ban people from the State Parks. Just think how much money they would save. Let the parks go back to nature......That’s what they want isn’t it? Maybe they could only let DeemOcrats in the Parks and charge them accordingly.
You mean this isn’t in the health care bill? It’s nice to see the California power brokers working hard to bring businesses back to Calif. to stimulate job growth. This outta help. (sarcasm)
Uh-oh.. What’s an ARSONIST to do? LOL
Brought to you by the same incompetent jerks who have refued to balance the state budget for years.
Yep, our legislators really have their priorities straight!
Who’s going to take the cigs away from the Bears? ;-)
“Brought to you by the same incompetent jerks who have refued to balance the state budget for years.”
They should just consider it done...they are DEEMocrats.
They should ban smoking on the Moon while they are at it.
It will be a tobacco ban only, not Meth.
Enough is enough, to hell with this crap, try to find a ranger to arrest me!
Just wait until they ban consuming non-diet soda on Park Land.
All these draconian laws were never about smoking.
Embrace the slick slope.....
No worries. I’ve got a prescription for Medical Tobacco.
The jihad against second-hand smoke makes the warmist distortions of scientific evidence look minimal by comparison.
No dogs allowed.
ban smoklng but easy pot. That’s the california way.
I smoke cigars.
Every time I blog with Cigar Aficionado, I get upset that they promote liberalism by way of putting liberals on it’s covers and articles calling for free trade with Cuba. In response, those fools get upset with me.
The magazine promotes the very idiots who try to limit smokers. Then they decry that here in California, it’s getting tough to find outdoor places to smoke. Does this make sense to anybody? This is why I no longer subscribe to them.
I support this. If they ban campfires and other types of open combustion in State Parks, they should also ban the combustion of cigars, cigarettes, etc.
What I don’t support is smoking bans on PRIVATE property.
That has always seemed backward to me.
It didn’t pass. Lost by 2 votes. Proponents vow to keep trying.
On another note, nobody cares what bs laws the commissars pass. Let them enforce it...
The town where I work passed a ban on all outdoor smoking in public places within the city limits. I have not noticed any decrease in that activity.
It is one thing to ban smoking indoors, but outdoors? Those that support this have mental health issues.
“SACRAMENTO, Calif. California lawmakers on Thursday will consider what is believed to be the nation’s most far-reaching smoking ban in state parks as a way to get unsightly cigarette butts off the beach, eliminate second-hand smoke and reduce the threat of wildfires. “
OMG! Just shut down the Calif. legislature! The fools don’t care if illegal alien Mexican drug cartels squat there all year growing plantations of dope and burn down millions of acres doing it...one fire last year, the La BREA was proven caused by cartels...88,000 acres burned in just that one.
California fires caused by Mexican cartel: officials
Nah, we’ve been taken over by Extraterrestial Pod people to whom tabak is toxic.
Hence the Jihad.
You are exactly right. The eco-nazis don't want eeeeeevil people to interact with nature. That's why they designate wide swaths of land as "wilderness," rather than parkland. They don't want people to have any access.
Also, I've seen many instances where long-established hiking trails are "closed for restoration," forcing people to stay in narrowly defined areas. They also put up signs hyping the risk of Lyme disease or mountain lions, IMHO, to scare people away.
When they went up to about 2 bucks a pack, I stopped buying them and quit that bull sh*t..The less I give this corrupt government in taxes, the better I feel.
The “preventing forest fires” excuse is just that - an excuse.
I’ve never seen a fire started from smoking, but I have seen them start after some dummy threw a lit butt into the new mulch in my neighborhood.
So the problem is not smoking, it’s improper disposal.
When I go on hikes I tend to use an extra water bottle, only filled half way, to put my butts in.
But that will never be good enough apparently.
There are several beaches in Florida that ban smoking. No fire threat there! It’s always the 2nd hand smoke b.s..
The big “2nd hand smoke” study in the 90’s used folks who were spouses of smokers that smoked inside. Extrapolating that to the outside is b.s. period.
A good pass-time would be to go to these places and get busted. Requires pro-bono attorney and lots of free time I guess.
I have no idea what you’re talking about.
>>2nd hand smoke study in the 90s
If it is bad in your living room, it’s certainly worse outdoors.
After all, the atmosphere is the living room for ALL of us.
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.