ACTION ALERT
On Tuesday, November 12 the Oakland City Council will vote on a nonsmoking ordinance. The proposed ordinance would ban smoking or vaping of tobacco or cannabis at outdoor bars in the city, and also ban smoking/vaping in multiunit apartment dwellings with (as written) an exemption for cannabis.
The Council will consider two options:
We must show support to make sure that cannabis consumers can be protected in their apartments in Oakland. YOU MUST SEND IN COMMENTS AND/OR REGISTER TO SPEAK VIA ZOOM BY 24 HOURS BEFORE THE START OF THE MEETING, SO BY 3:30 PM ON MONDAY 11/11.
Here are some ways you can register your support:
1. Send an email to all members of City Council using Cal NORML’s Action Alert
You can also find your city councilperson and write or call them directly.
You must do this by 24 hours before the meeting next Tuesday.
2. Attend the November 12 City Council meeting in person to comment
WHERE: City Council Chambers, 1 Frank Ogawa Plaza, 3rd Floor
WHEN: Tuesday, Nov. 12 at 3:30 pm
The Item Number is: 8 25-0184 SUBJECT: NO-SMOKING ORDINANCE (on p. 4 of the Agenda; the first nonconsent item.)
PLEASE NOTE, ELECTRONIC SPEAKER CARDS MUST BE SUBMITTED 24 HOURS BEFORE THE MEETING
Once you have submitted your Electronic Speaker Card(s) you may provide Public Comment whether participating in person or in Zoom.
3. Please share this notice with fellow Oakland residents and urge them to take action! Over 30 anti-tobacco activists showed up at last month’s committee meeting on the topic, many of them asking for the cannabis exemption to be removed.
POINTS TO MAKE:
• A ban on residential cannabis smoking would constitute a de facto ban on marijuana for many Oakland residents. Unlike tobacco or alcohol, cannabis is illegal to consume in ANY PUBLIC PLACE. Therefore it’s very difficult for Oaklanders to legally medicate or socialize with marijuana outside their homes.
• Unlike tobacco, marijuana smoke has been shown NOT to cause lung cancer [National Academy of Sciences, “Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids,” pp. 142-3]; nor has second-hand marijuana smoke been proven to cause other serious diseases in any human studies.
• Unlike tobacco, smoked cannabis also has proven medical value for patients with nausea, appetite loss, chronic pain, muscle spasticity, and other conditions.
• No one disagrees that non-smokers should be protected from smoke that invades their space. Otherwise, however, adults should have the right to use marijuana at their residences or in designated social spaces that don’t expose outsiders to unwanted smoke, as authorized under Oakland Measure Z (2004).
• Under the proposed ordinance, any property owner may still ban smoking of any substance (such as the smoking of cannabis) at their property. The decision would be better left to property owners or HOAs, not imposed by the city.
• Any residential smoking ban would inequitably impact low-income and minority residents who can’t afford their own homes. Oakland has long been a leader on human rights and cannabis issues. To reverse this legacy now would be a blot on the city’s record of social tolerance. Other cities, including West Hollywood, San Jose, and San Francisco have rightly rejected proposed bans on residential cannabis smoking. Oakland should follow their example.
THANK YOU FOR TAKING ACTION!
California NORML
Fighting for the Rights of Cannabis Consumers Since 1972
www.CaNORML.org
BACKGROUND
Cal NORML got late word that the City of Oakland’s Community and Economic Development committee would be holding a hearing on October 12 on a nonsmoking ordinance that would ban smoking or vaping of tobacco or cannabis at outdoor bars in the city, and also ban smoking/vaping in multiunit apartment dwellings, with (as written) an exemption for cannabis. About 35 people spoke at the hearing, only 3 in favor of leaving the cannabis exemption in, and many more asking for it to be removed. Watch the hearing, starting about 90 minutes in.
Opposition to the cannabis exemption seemed to be organized by the Alameda County Tobacco Control Coalition and represented various anti-tobacco groups, physicians, and the American Cancer Society. Speakers also came from San Francisco, including from the group LGBTQ Minus Tobacco, which was thanked by Councilmember and ordinance author Dan Kalb, including for adding vaping language to the ordinance.
As reported by Oaklandside, Nicole Redler, founder of the cannabis compassion company ReCompass spoke representing her business and California NORML, saying, “This is an issue of healthcare equity. For many, especially those in low-income and marginalized communities, banning cannabis smoke at home effectively bans their access to medicine.” She explained that the Bay Area was on the forefront of the medical cannabis movement at the height of the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s and 1990s. Redler mentioned that San Francisco, West Hollywood, and San Jose have rejected residential anti-smoking bans that included cannabis.
A few speakers argued that excluding cannabis would make the ordinance unenforceable (because enforcers would need to distinguish cigarette from cannabis smoke—two things that smell very different). Several speakers equated the harms of cannabis smoke with tobacco, and said there is no safe level of second-hand smoke of any kind.
Tony Bowles of Americans for Safe Access spoke, saying that unlike tobacco, marijuana smoke has been shown NOT to cause lung cancer, and that unlike tobacco, smoked cannabis also has proven medical value for patients with nausea, appetite loss, chronic pain, muscle spasticity, and other conditions. He pointed out that most patients no longer go to the expense of getting the state medical marijuana ID card or a recommendation from their doctor since recreational marijuana was made legal. Afterwards, Paul Cummings, who heads the Alameda County Health Department Tobacco Control program, heatedly countered with the often-heard statement that “all smoke is harmful.” He apologized to the committee for his outburst.
It was clarified that under current state and Oakland laws, landlords and HOAs can already ban smoking or vaping of any kind in rental units or condominiums, including cannabis. This ordinance would make such bans mandatory city-wide, and possibly involve the city in enforcing them. Unless someone is causing a nuisance with repeat offenses, the ordinance would not affect current tenants, Kalb said, only new ones as they lease apartments. A maximum fine of $50 could be imposed on smokers, after an initial warning.
Faced with such strong and lock-step opposition, Councilmember Kalb proposed passing the matter onto City Council with three options:
First: Passing the ordinance as is with cannabis exemption (but still allowing property owners to ban cannabis);
Second: Taking out the cannabis exemption to a citywide ban;
Third: Modifying the ordinance to exempt only medical cannabis.
This motion passed with yes votes from Councilmembers Fife and Gallo; Councilmember Jenkins was excused; he had brought up a medical exemption.
The next hearing is scheduled for November 12 beginning at 3:30 PM as a nonconsent item before Oakland City Council. Because proposed amendments will be in the agenda in packet for the meetings, amendments can be taken on the floor.
Oakland residents are encourage to attend the meeting, and also write to their city councilpersons.
IS SCIENCE SETTLED ON THE HARMS OF SECOND-HAND SMOKE?
In November 1988, Californians approved a 25-cent tax on cigarettes via The Tobacco Tax and Health Protection Act (Proposition 99), which dedicated 5 cents of the 25-cent tax to fund California’s tobacco control efforts. In November 2016, Californians overwhelmingly voted for Proposition 56, The California Healthcare, Research and Prevention Tobacco Tax Act, increasing the state’s tobacco tax by $2 per pack and an equivalent amount on e-cigarettes and other tobacco products, vastly increasing the amount of tax funding available for local health departments and community organizations, plus a media campaign, tobacco-related evaluation and surveillance, and school-based prevention programs.
The California Tobacco Control Program (CTCP), a program of the California Department of Public Health provides funding to more than 100 local health departments and nonprofit agencies in every county in California. Included among those funded groups are LGBTQ Minus Tobacco and the Alameda County Health Department Tobacco Control Program (TCP), which names among its objectives “at least one city in Alameda County (Oakland or Hayward) will adopt and implement a policy that eliminates smoking within multi-unit housing units.”
Using tax money earmarked for preventing tobacco use, the California Department of Public Health has been working outside their mandate to also fight against cannabis smoking and vaping, and so have local anti-tobacco groups.
At issue is the concentration of microscopic particulates, called PM2.5 (microns) that are present in second-hand tobacco and cannabis smoke at high levels. These data have been used by anti-smoking groups and the EPA to crack down on second-hand smoke and industrial pollution. However, some doubt the correlation between PM2.5 particles and lung cancer or mortality.
HEPA filters very efficiently remove PM2.5 particles (at a rate of over 99%), provided they have access to the air they need to filter; that’s where ratings like CFM (cubit feet for minute), CADR (Clean Air Delivery Rate) and ACH (Air Changes per Hour) come in.
A recent study from the American Cancer Society found that second-hand tobacco smoke presents a negligible health risk, about the same cancer risk as eating red meat or having low dietary fiber – 41 times less than the risk of first-hand tobacco smoking. Researcher Dr. James Enstrom of UCLA saw funding withdrawn in 1999 from the CA Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program, a University of California research organization funded by the Proposition 99 cigarette surtax, after publishing a study finding little correlation between second-hand tobacco smoke and mortality in Californians. The risk would presumably be even less for cannabis smoking, which has so far shown no evidence of causing lung cancer in epidemiological studies (National Academy of Sciences, “Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids,” pp. 142-3.)
These issues came up during hearings in Sacramento this year on the Cal NORML-sponsored bill AB 1775, the cannabis café bill, allowing licensed cannabis lounges to prepare and serve food and beverages. The law requires local governments to consider “whether to require adequate ventilation and filtration systems,” defined as adequate “if they prevent smoke and odors from migrating to any other part of the building hosting the consumption lounge or any neighboring building or grounds.” A 2022 study found that PM2.5 particles decreased when further away from the source; levels from indoor vaping decreased more rapidly with distance (e.g., 77% reduction for vaping versus 33% for smoking from 1 to 2 m).
The Governor’ signing statement on AB 1775 contained some cautionary words to local governments about making sure workers are protected. “If adequate protections are not established at the local level, it could necessitate reconsideration of this limited expansion [of the law],” the Governor warned. Jim Knox of the ACA, whose oped on AB 1775 was published by the Sacramento Bee (while Cal NORML’s was rejected), has pledged his organization would fight AB 1775’s implementation at the local level. No doubt the rest of California’s well-funded anti-tobacco coalition will try to do the same.
