Proposed smoking ban back before public
by Nick Rappley | Patterson Irrigator
Feb 13, 2014 | 1870 views | 3 3 comments | 31 31 recommendations | email to a friend | print
A smoking ban that has been debated and discussed repeatedly by the Patterson City Council since July 2013 will be back for discussion in a town hall meeting regarding tobacco use in parks Wednesday, Feb. 26 at 6 p.m. in the Patterson City Council Chambers at City Hall, 1 Plaza.

Council members and staff will gather feedback from the public regarding the matter. A copy of the ordinance in its original form, complete with options for possible changes, will be available at the meeting for public review, City Manager Rod Butler said.

The City Council shelved an ordinance to ban tobacco use in parks at the regular Patterson City Council meeting Sept. 2, reversing course on a 3-1 vote two weeks prior, in favor of holding a workshop to work out the issue at a later date.

The measure died because it was not brought up for a vote on the second reading after citizens raised concerns regarding the possible infringement of smokers’ rights.

After holding a town hall meeting to discuss a smoking ordinance that would ban tobacco use in parks Dec. 9, the City Council decided to postpone a vote on the measure and schedule another town hall to gather more input from the public on Feb. 26.

The measure was scheduled for a vote at the Dec. 9 meeting, which came as a surprise to some council members who were present and thought there would only be input from the public at the meeting. Two council members were absent—Councilman Larry Buehner and Councilwoman Deborah Novelli.

Stating that the meeting was supposed to be a town hall meeting and not a special city council meeting, Councilman Dominic Farinha said he wanted to schedule a town hall, stating action would not be taken at a traditional town hall meeting.

City Manager Rod Butler said it was staff’s idea to put the measure on the agenda in case the council wanted to take a vote.

The ordinance that would ban smoking and chewing tobacco in public parks and recreation areas throughout the city passed its first test 3-1, Aug. 20, but not without a healthy debate on the subject. Councilwoman Sheree Lustgarten was the lone dissenter.

The tobacco ban would extend to all bike and hiking paths, as well as outdoor parks and recreational areas, according to a draft of the ordinance. Violators would face fines up to $1,000.

Though officials have said that there won’t be “smoking police,” first time offenders can expect to pay a $100 fine. Subsequent fines of $250 to $1,000 would apply for repeat offenders. Officials have agreed with the sentiment of critics; they would not be able to enforce the measure.

Nick Rappley can be reached at 209-568-9975 or

Comments-icon Post a Comment
February 13, 2014
Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition

This sorta says it all

These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one.

So OSHA standards are what is the guideline for what is acceptable ''SAFE LEVELS''


All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes.

"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes.

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

Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes.

For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time.

The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

So, OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

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 Sec'y, OSHA.

Why are their any smoking bans at all they have absolutely no validity to the courts or to science!
February 13, 2014
This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke:

Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.

By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.

Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.

What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.

“I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study...........................

Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!

The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:

Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.


A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.

Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!
February 13, 2014



Then: “In 1904, for example, a New York judge ordered a woman to jail for 30 days for smoking in front of her children.”

Now: Parents warned they could face court for lighting up at home in front of kids

Then: A few years later [early 1900s], a Seattle woman won a divorce on the grounds that her husband was “a cigarette fiend.”

Now: Saudi Women Add Divorce To List Of Smoking Dangers

40% of university graduates reject marriage

proposals from smokers

According to a report published on Monday in Saudi

Arabia, more than 100 women in the Western city of

Madinah have filed for divorce after their husbands

refused or were unable to quit smoking.

Then: “Many companies, large and small, refused to hire cigarette smokers. Workers who indulged even on their own time could lose their jobs. When a rural Washington school board found out that one of its teachers had been smoking in the schoolyard after class, it fired him; the teacher sued for reinstatement but lost. Likewise, a teacher in Secaucus, N.J., failed to get her job back after she was fired for cigarette smoking in 1923, despite an appeal that reached the state Supreme Court.”

Now: There are now many similar examples of employment discrimination against smokers, particularly in America.

Then: “….an anti-cigarette activist proposed that each package be stamped with the word “poison” in capital letters above a skull and crossbones.”

Now: Currently we have “plain packaging” draped with medical pornography, including skull and crossbones.

Then: “The effects of “secondhand smoke” on nonsmokers were being debated in the 1920s.”

Now: The concoction of secondhand smoke “danger” has been the basis for the current antismoking crusade (see Godber Blueprint). Contemporary zealots are now in the process of manufacturing thirdhand smoke “danger”.

Then: Her [Gaston] goal was “a smokeless America by 1925”.

Now: There are currently many “endgame” claims being made. A smokefree society by 2000?, 2020?, 2034? Etc.

We encourage your online comments in this public forum, but please keep them respectful and constructive. This is not a forum for personal attacks, libelous statements, profanity or racist slurs. Readers may report such inappropriate comments by e-mailing the editor at