The recent passage by the State Assembly of Senate Bill 4 was an effort led by Sen. Jenny Oropeza, D-Long Beach, to outlaw smoking at state parks and beaches. Proponents say the passage will reduce the threat of wildfires, and the environmental impact of cigarette butts strewn all over beaches.If passed, anyone caught smoking at state parks and beaches will be fined $100. California has a history of outlawing smoking in many public places; the first example that usually comes to people’s minds is the banning of smoking in restaurants. Other states since have followed our lead, including Arizona, Hawaii and New York.While eliminating litter at state parks is a good thing, SB 4 looks like another feel-good law that will probably not be as effective as hoped. Oropeza’s spokesman Ray Sotero said unlike other smoking bans in the past, the bill has faced little opposition from the tobacco industry. “We expect the park system to accommodate or raise awareness,” Sotero said. “The senator’s concern is the environmental impact of irresponsible smokers.” The impact Sotero refers to happens when discourteous smokers don’t pocket their cigarette butts and toss them into the water or on the ground. Sotero said the butts on filtered cigarettes, or those with plastic tips or holders, have non-biodegradable materials, which can be an environmental concern. I don’t smoke cigarettes, but targeting and blaming smokers as an entire population for littering is unfair. Anytime I go to Ocean Beach, there are usually some cigarette butts strewn about, but overwhelmingly it is things like plastic bags that have washed ashore.If lawmakers want to eliminate littering at state parks and beaches, then they should be consistent and not allow people to bring in water bottles and picnic baskets, either. People who don’t care about littering or smoking will keep doing so, even when there’s a sign posted right in their faces stating smoking is prohibited. It also seems redundant, because there are already laws against littering in state parks. This law punishes smokers just because they are smoking and not because they have actually littered. Who will be around to enforce the no-smoking law with the state making a $14.2 million cut to the Department of Parks and Recreation budget and laying off state workers? With fewer park rangers around, it’s more likely that the smokers who don’t care about following the law will break it and nothing will be different. Perhaps what is most ridiculous is how our priorities are so skewed that we might as well treat talking on a cell phone while driving with a slap on the wrist. Someone puffing a cigarette along the beach has to pay $100, but a driver caught texting only has to fork over $25 for the first offense. The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection has no official position on SB 4, but Daniel Berlant, information officer for the department, said cigarettes are a pretty small threat to state parks and forests. “Smoking in general only causes about 3 percent of wildfires,” Berlant said. “So it is a smaller portion of our fires, but we do work with state parks during times of high fire danger to help mitigate the risk.” Equipment use and vehicles are cited by the Department of Forestry as two top causes for wildfires in the state. The bill allows smoking at campsites and in parking lots; campfires are as likely as smoking to start wildfires, so why are there no laws banning campfires?Also, why are we banning smoking by the Pacific Ocean? Doesn’t it seem a bit paranoid to be afraid of a wildfire starting next to the world’s largest body of water? This bill has good intentions; wanting to protect the environment is a good thing. But we’re going overboard again with writing more laws that won’t serve to do much because they’ll be difficult to enforce.

Julia Baum can be reached at [email protected]