Redondo Beach May Ban Smoking on Pier: So Where Can You Still Smoke Along the L.A. County Coast?

By Simone Wilson Mon., Jun. 25 2012 at 1:00 PM

The huge, highly trafficked Redondo Pier.

Little by little, various government entities within L.A. County are forcing cigarette smokers off public property and quarantining them into their own nasty tobacco dens.

The Department of Beaches and Harbors banned smoking on any beach within the county years ago. But the piers, because they're owned by individual cities, have remained skinny little safe spots...

... for beachgoers craving a cig.

Not for long. Redondo Beach City Hall is just the latest to put into motion an ordinance that would ban all smoking on the city's pier, including at the many restaurants that reside there.

Beginning in about 2010, the white liberal coastal cities of Santa Monica, Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach have all banned smoking at their piers. (And that's a common domino effect for any environment- or health-related initiative: California Democrats always scramble over each other to be the first to ban sodas or plastic bags or fur, despite protests from local businesses.)

"Stop legislating away pleasure," writes commenter Kent McCaman on the Redondo Beach Patch story. "Don't get on the government bandwagon to control and diminish people."

planetc1 via Flickr

The janky Venice Pier is still safe -- for now.

Which led us to wonder: Is there anywhere left to watch the sun set over the ocean with a cancer stick in hand?

As far as we can tell, the only piers remaining that don't fall under a smoking ban are the Belmont Pier in Long Beach, the Venice Pier in Los Angeles and the Malibu Pier in Malibu. Although each of those cities have various types of public nonsmoking ordinances in place, we haven't been able to find specific mention of the piers.

Smokers may also find solace in the fact that, according to Beaches and Harbors spokeswoman Carol Baker, the county's no-smoking ordinance on the sand itself is often under-enforced.

"Lifeguards generally don't issue citations, because their primary role is safety," says Baker. She says that if a lifeguard does feel a lit cigarette is threatening the public, he or she would probably choose to summon a city police officer.

But in general, "you don't see a lot of local police enforcing these rules."

[@simone_electra / swilson@laweekly.com / @LAWeeklyNews]

Tags:

Redondo Beach, Redondo Beach Pier, smoking ban, smoking ordinance

We Recommend

Kent McCaman

Hello Jon Kruger. Liberals are inclined to believe that the pursuit of good health trumps personal liberty. It does not. American soldiers fought for liberty. They did not fight for a nanny state. Do not allow government, or anybody, to negate one's personal liberty.That's why I believe that the notion of second-hand smoke should not shape public policy even if it had merit. And there is no validity to it. There is no proof to the hysteria -- the myth—that second-hand smoke is a hazard. This medical report is quite concise:http://yourdoctorsorders.com/2009/01/the-myth-of-second-hand-smoke/Jon, don't jump on the bandwagon to limit personal liberty. Don't support antics to reduce the size of a soda cup. Don't reduce folks by taking away their freedom or their choices. The bigger government gets, the smaller the citizen becomes.

Kent McCaman

Councilman Pat Aust wants to ban smoking on the breezy Redondo Beach Pier. I suppose he wants his "Blue Zone Community" trophy. And when Aust gets his trophy, smokers will seek a more pleasant situation elsewhere. In a bad economy, while much unpleasant construction is underway to renovate the Pier, Aust wants to further cripple Pier businesses. Pat Aust should be living in Santa Monica, where government is encouraged to be intrusive. The notion of secondhand smoke should not shape public policy—even if it had merit. Many believe the hysteria—the myth—that secondhand smoke is a hazard. And Liberals, especially, are inclined to believe that the pursuit of good health trumps personal liberty. It does not. American soldiers fought for liberty. They did not fight for a nanny state.This medical report is quite concise:http://yourdoctorsorders.com/2009/01/the-myth-of-second-hand-smoke/I do not smoke. There is nothing about cigarette smoke that I like. But that's not the issue. I object to the erosion of personal liberty. I resent that a non-smoker's disdain for smoking can impede a smoker from enjoying a lawful activity. There's just too much government intrusion and people need to voice their outrage. I don't happen to like pink cars. But I will never try to keep Pat Aust or anybody else from having one.

Jon Krueger

Will Rogers: "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" These smokefree policies were put into place for the good and sufficient reason that secondhand smoke causes heart disease, lung disease, and cancer.

ROBERT

Too bad they can spot smokers, but cant comprehend what it means to have dozens of foreign flag ships moored less than three miles offshore, belching unsmogged diesel fumes onto your beaches with the onshore breeze, filling your lungs with particles of unburned fuel...the cause of 74% of lung cancer is particle damage...cig smoke doesn't have particles...particles come from diesel...wash the particles down with Kool Aid...you seem to love it so...