Site icon ORANGE COUNTY TRIBUNE

Logic loses on smoking ban

Advertisements

SECOND HAND SMOKE is a serious health hazard. The Garden Grove City Council this week missed a chance to protect those – including kids – who use our parks (Shutterstock).

Smoke Gets in Your Eyes Dept. Tuesday’s meeting of the Garden Grove City Council made for good drama, but did it make for good government?

A proposal to ban smoking in city parks – which, frankly, in 2026, should be a slam-dunk – went from what looked like a quick, smooth approval into a detour onto bumpy roads leading to a dead end.

Back in September 2025 the council voted 5-0 to have the city attorney draw up an ordinance on outlawing public puffing and vaping in the interests of clean lungs and cleaner turf.

But if you don’t have a strong argument against something, you … you know … create a fantasy defense of “well, you never know.”

Opponents – or skeptics – of the ban suggested that this was a civil rights issue, as if there’s a clause in the Constitution guaranteeing your right to light carcinogenic fires and exhale their fumes freely in a place devoted to nature and health.

No, smokers, the ACLU is not riding to your rescue on this one.

Enforcement would be tough, it’s said. There might be attempts at vigilante justice. Yes, of course, that’s one of our big law enforcement problems in Garden Grove.

Existing law already protects children from smoke in parks. Sure, a small distance from playground equipment. But that covers about 1 percent of the park. Any child straying more than 25 feet from the slides can get a lungful of smoke, yes, that’s good enough.

And to heck with anyone else who has breathing problems or medical conditions. If it bothers them, they can just leave. I mean smokers pay taxes, too? Shouldn’t they have the right to sicken other people?

And what could be wrong about “tabling” the matter? In the real world of politics, tabling something is akin to putting a stake through its heart and burying it at midnight in a graveyard. Ain’t likely coming back soon.

Aside from the logic – or the lack of it displayed – what struck me the most was the performance of Councilmember Joe DoVinh. He absolutely dominated the council meeting. He spoke in a commanding voice and looked directly into the camera, that is, at the TV audience watching at home. He repeated his points to drive them home.

Mr. DoVinh – despite his vote – gets high marks for debating. The council majority, in terms of looking out for the public interest … not so much.

Exit mobile version