Town Square

Post a New Topic

City receives dismal grades from statewide smoking report

Original post made on Jan 25, 2011

According to a report issued by the American Lung Association, Danville is failing to curb tobacco use, but some think the grades are unfair advocacy.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, January 25, 2011, 1:06 PM

Comments (21)

Posted by Doug, a resident of another community
on Jan 25, 2011 at 9:52 pm

Be proud Danville that you are not caught up in the nannyism that is so prevalent elsewhere. The Lung Association's agenda is not a bad one - smoking is bad for us and we all know it - but we do not want the public cudgel of the state, county or township coming down on our private heads telling us what we can or cannot do in our personal lives.

Posted by Bill, a resident of Danville
on Jan 26, 2011 at 6:34 am

Highly suspicious study. Richmond rceives an A where they have no money or much of anything to bring to the table but give the communities where people work and make decent incomes an F to manipulate them into ponying up more $$ for their needs to intrude more into our lives. Hmmmm

Posted by LMP, a resident of Danville
on Jan 26, 2011 at 8:52 am

Both Bill and Doug are right on the money. I'm not a smoker and never have been. I'm tired of the government telling me how to live my life. Danville gets an "F" and Richmond gets an "A"?? Does anyone really think there is more smoking in Danville?? There is a hidden agenda here...

Posted by Duffy, a resident of Danville
on Jan 26, 2011 at 8:52 am

It is entirely possible that what Danville does or doesn't do is none of the Amerrican Lung Associations business. Enough nannyism! If you don't like second hand smoke don't go where it is present.....
A Danville non-smoker

Posted by spcwt, a resident of Danville
on Jan 26, 2011 at 9:08 am

People still smoke? I can't remember the last time I saw someone smoking in Danville.

I don't smoke either, but if someone wants to smoke, that's their business as far as I'm concerned. We don't need the government intruding into our personal habits.

I can't believe people aren't more upset about Obama using executive powers last year to ban clove cigarette sales. Talk about government overreach!

What's next? Laws about brushing your teeth?

Posted by john, a resident of Danville
on Jan 26, 2011 at 9:13 am

You all must be kidding. How about the scenario at a local park that has kids playing on the structures with all the parents watching, and a parent were to light up a cigarette. If I were to ask that parent to curtail their use for a whole myriad of reasons, the expected response would be "It is legal..." However if that were true, then why not just take my boom box out and play loud music to everyones dismay because selfishly it is what I want. I could retort that it is legal, I could retort that it is none of their nannyism business. Or you could call the police and have them address me with the fact that there is a noise ordinance on the books. How does my noise cause cancer?

No, the fact is it significantly reduces the park experience. In fact, people lighting up and boom boxes and alcohol and golf in the parks are all selfish pursuits that have negative impacts on shared use. Hence they typically all have ordinances that address such behaviour.

There is proof that 2nd AND 3rd hand smoke have consequences to ones health. So why does Danville NOT have a smoking in public place ordinance while it does a loud noise ordinance? I wager it is because we are fortunate to have a very low percentage of smokers and those that do now feel the pressure to not smoke flagrantly in public.

Posted by cardinal, a resident of Diablo
on Jan 26, 2011 at 9:19 am

Okay, this doesn't generate page views or rile the ornery, but here's some Good News about the prevalence of smoking in CA -- thanks, I might add, in large part to the efforts of folks like the Lung Association:

* California has the second lowest adult smoking rate in the nation; only Utah's is lower.
* Adult smoking rates tumbled from 22.7 percent in 1988 to 13.3 percent in 2006.
* Among men, smoking decreased from 25.6 percent in 1988 to 17.5 percent in 2006.
* Among women, smoking decreased from 19.9 percent in 1988 to 9.1 percent in 2006.
* Among people 12 and older, California has the lowest smoking rate in the United States, this according to data released by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) in February 2007. *

Source: Web Link

I, for one, appreciate their efforts. And Duffy, perhaps you forget the wisdom of the saying: "Your freedom to swing your arms ends at my nose."

Posted by Julia, a resident of Alamo
on Jan 26, 2011 at 9:54 am

Hey darn right there is a hidden agenda. I would bet, within 6 to 8 months we will see signs as we enter the town of Danville...
"Beware! You Are Entering The Town of Danville - A No Smoking Zone. Enjoy Shopping In Danville The Clean Air Community".

I'm almost sure the town leaders can't wait to right up the ordinance.

Thanks, Julia

Posted by Schultz, a resident of Blackhawk
on Jan 26, 2011 at 11:00 am

I personally find Bad Breath to be more offensive than smoke!

Posted by cardinal, a resident of Diablo
on Jan 26, 2011 at 11:05 am

Hey Schultzie -- here's the venn diagram of "smokers" (A) and "people with bad breath" (B)

Web Link

Posted by mom, a resident of Danville
on Jan 26, 2011 at 12:38 pm

Great idea Julia!
Maybe the young guys at the Danville Hardware will get the message. I stopped in there 2 weeks ago and will never go back. That was the first time I have smelled smoke in public in years. I forgot how bad that stuff smells! It even has a "No Smoking" sign on the door. Maybe that means outside the store? Too bad, because the service was good!

Posted by Jessica Lipsky, a resident of Danville
on Jan 26, 2011 at 4:09 pm


According to Joe Calabrigo, Danville does have a smoking ordinance. He told me:

"We do have certain prohibitions within our public parks. You can't smoke in or around children's play areas."

He also said that while Parks and Leisure Services have suggested strengthening the prohibitions, it's not coming before city council any time soon.

I agree with you that the lack of change in this area is do to the "very low percentage of smokers" you speak of. In the past year, I've maybe seen one person light up on a public street. I'd much rather the city let smokers be then spend much needed money on programs to lock them inside their homes.

Jessica Lipsky

Posted by Gary, a resident of Danville
on Jan 26, 2011 at 7:13 pm

The statement that the city has not received any smoking complaints over the past 5 years is not true. I personally complained on several occasions about the cigar smokers at Hot Summer Nights. It is a fanmily event and the smell of pungent cigar smoke detracts from the fine atmosphere of the show. In fact, the only reason people smoke cigars there is because their significant others won't let them do it at home. I'm against big government and more for common sense, but I do object to the cigar smoke at the car shows.

Posted by Bob, a resident of another community
on Jan 26, 2011 at 9:01 pm

The ALA gets millions from Johnson and Johnsons "Smokeless States Program" to hire lobbyists for smoking bans. They have become nothing more than a tax exempt political action committee.

----Web Link

Posted by Mike, a resident of Danville
on Jan 27, 2011 at 10:19 am

The ALA can go jump in a lake!

Richmond better than Danville? Sure...just go to Richmond and you can see smokers everywhere.

I agree that there is some hidden agenda here.


Posted by Mike, a resident of Danville
on Jan 27, 2011 at 10:27 am

Well folks, government intrudes in other areas for the common good. Is it someone's own business if they prefer to drink and drive? Is government intrusion by making laws that make it illegal to steal money from a bank or from you while you are walking down the street? Why is government wasting its time by writing and enforcing drug laws? If if someone decides to take heroin and peddle it around school yards, well it's personal freedom and government shouldn't be making that decision for us. Remember years ago when the government mandated seat belts in cars? People screamed that the government was intruding on personal freedoms and restricting drivers. The same thing happened when air bags were required. Smoking? Heck, it only causes lung cancer, emphysema and a dozen other fatal, cancerous diseases. So what if it also causes diseases in innocent bystanders and children? So what if smokers increase the burden on our already most-expensive-in-the-world health care system and contribute to higher health insurance rates for everyone. Hey, it's a personal choice and government should stay out of it.

Posted by Hambone, a resident of Danville
on Jan 27, 2011 at 2:58 pm

Wool Shirts are constantly shedding wool fibers. Wool fibers can be irritating to the nose, eyes and throat! I think it is time that we ban wool shirts and Danville should take the lead. Let us be known as the Wool Shirt Free Zone!

Posted by spcwt, a resident of Danville
on Jan 28, 2011 at 8:43 am

Think of all the teen suicides due to boyfriends. Let's ban boyfriends while we're at it.

Posted by Lynn, a resident of Danville
on Jan 28, 2011 at 9:42 am

I agree with Gary about the comment that the City has not had any complaints. We participated in the Summer Boccee Ball league. One of the teams smoked cigars from start to finish. It was a miserable time even if you weren't playing with them and they were on the next court.
When we complained (along with all the other teams) we were told "smoking is permitted in parks- just not around the kids play area". It got to the point where we almost wanted to quit. No one was smoking cigarettes- just cigars that create even more smoke residue! These guys knew it bothered everyone and just didn't care. It was their "right" to do so. I guess we don't have a "right" to breathe clean air in a pulic park.

Posted by Ann javits, a resident of Alamo
on Jan 28, 2011 at 10:49 am

There is a hidden agenda here. PAlo alto unified is in trouble because try don't have enough kids of color (non-albinos?) in special Ed classes. Follow the $ trail.

Posted by Mike, a resident of Danville
on Jan 28, 2011 at 9:46 pm

Folks, there is no hidden agenda here. It's the same agenda that freed the slaves, that was behind the voting rights act, and that was and is behind so many of the laws enacted at a great price in blood, sweat, and human lives that asserted the freedom and self determination of exploited groups. Not necessarily "minorities." In the US, the "minorities" were often the majorities, but denied human rights by the minorities.

If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Understanding Early Decision in College Admissions
By Elizabeth LaScala | 1 comment | 2,356 views

New heights for NIMBYs
By Tim Hunt | 32 comments | 1,526 views

Weekly, TV30 to host Pleasanton mayoral, city council candidates' forum
By Gina Channell-Allen | 2 comments | 1,123 views

Merger of Music and Painting
By John A. Barry | 0 comments | 143 views