Choose Your Location
|
![]() |
The City Administrator’s Office — in conjunction with other departments including the Police Department and Public Works —has worked to clean up the park and also to inform users about the smoking ban.
Last week, Officer Rod Lee issued The City’s first-ever smoking citation after a park user was given a “stark warning” about not smoking and was later seen relighting a cigarette, said Gloria Chan, spokeswoman for Department of Public Works.
Despite the recent citation and outreach — which included the posting of no-smoking signs, installation of ashtrays on litter cans near park entrances and fliers handed out explaining the ban — at least six people were observed by The Examiner smoking Monday around 2 p.m. in different locations in the park. Smokers included members of card games and a man sitting on a park bench. No one was around enforcing the ban.
“I’m smelling [cigarette smoke] now,” said Terri Bookbinder, an Orinda resident, whose 7-year-old son was using the park’s playground. “There’s smoking going on. Nobody seems to be concerned about being stopped.”
Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier, who wrote the law, said it was “outrageous” that the first citation was only just issued last week. “Clearly no one is enforcing it,” she said. The supervisor said she would look into “why this is not being implemented.”
When told about the smokers at the park, Chan said, “We are going to go out there and continue to do outreach and walk through the park and make sure people are abiding by the law. Behavior is not going to change overnight.”
In 2005, the Board of Supervisors, citing the health risks associated with secondhand smoke, adopted the smoking ban in city parks and it was signed by Newsom. The law authorizes a $100 fine for first offenders and up to $500 for repeat offenses.



Comments from Examiner Readers
5:38 PM MST on Sun., Nov. 25, 2007 re: "S.F. no longer blowing smoke about ban"
Report as inappropriate
8:50 PM MST on Sat., Nov. 24, 2007
re: "S.F. no longer blowing smoke about ban"
Report as inappropriate
11:24 AM MST on Sat., Nov. 24, 2007
re: "S.F. no longer blowing smoke about ban"
Report as inappropriate
7:44 AM MST on Sat., Nov. 24, 2007
re: "S.F. no longer blowing smoke about ban"
Report as inappropriate
6:48 AM MST on Sat., Nov. 24, 2007
re: "S.F. no longer blowing smoke about ban"
Report as inappropriate
6:47 AM MST on Sat., Nov. 24, 2007
re: "S.F. no longer blowing smoke about ban"
Report as inappropriate
9:41 PM MST on Fri., Nov. 23, 2007
re: "S.F. no longer blowing smoke about ban"
Report as inappropriate
8:44 PM MST on Fri., Nov. 23, 2007
re: "S.F. no longer blowing smoke about ban"
Report as inappropriate
7:32 PM MST on Fri., Nov. 23, 2007
re: "S.F. no longer blowing smoke about ban"
Report as inappropriate
10:43 AM MST on Fri., Nov. 23, 2007
re: "S.F. no longer blowing smoke about ban"
Report as inappropriate
4:15 PM MST on Thu., Nov. 15, 2007
re: "S.F. no longer blowing smoke about ban"
Report as inappropriate
11:49 AM MST on Wed., Nov. 14, 2007
re: "S.F. no longer blowing smoke about ban"
Report as inappropriate
11:05 AM MST on Wed., Nov. 14, 2007
re: "S.F. no longer blowing smoke about ban"
Report as inappropriate
9:54 AM MST on Wed., Nov. 14, 2007
re: "S.F. no longer blowing smoke about ban"
Report as inappropriate
11:05 PM MST on Tue., Nov. 13, 2007
re: "S.F. no longer blowing smoke about ban"
Report as inappropriate
9:40 PM MST on Tue., Nov. 13, 2007
re: "S.F. no longer blowing smoke about ban"
Report as inappropriate
3:56 PM MST on Tue., Nov. 13, 2007
re: "S.F. no longer blowing smoke about ban"
Report as inappropriate
3:22 PM MST on Tue., Nov. 13, 2007
re: "S.F. no longer blowing smoke about ban"
Report as inappropriate
3:22 PM MST on Tue., Nov. 13, 2007
re: "S.F. no longer blowing smoke about ban"
Report as inappropriate
2:41 PM MST on Tue., Nov. 13, 2007
re: "S.F. no longer blowing smoke about ban"
Report as inappropriate
2:40 PM MST on Tue., Nov. 13, 2007
re: "S.F. no longer blowing smoke about ban"
Report as inappropriate
2:17 PM MST on Tue., Nov. 13, 2007
re: "S.F. no longer blowing smoke about ban"
Report as inappropriate
2:11 PM MST on Tue., Nov. 13, 2007
re: "S.F. no longer blowing smoke about ban"
Report as inappropriate
12:41 PM MST on Tue., Nov. 13, 2007
re: "S.F. no longer blowing smoke about ban"
Report as inappropriate
11:44 AM MST on Tue., Nov. 13, 2007
re: "S.F. no longer blowing smoke about ban"
Report as inappropriate
10:37 AM MST on Tue., Nov. 13, 2007
re: "S.F. no longer blowing smoke about ban"
Report as inappropriate
10:09 AM MST on Tue., Nov. 13, 2007
re: "S.F. no longer blowing smoke about ban"
Report as inappropriate
9:05 AM MST on Tue., Nov. 13, 2007
re: "S.F. no longer blowing smoke about ban"
Report as inappropriate
8:56 AM MST on Tue., Nov. 13, 2007
re: "S.F. no longer blowing smoke about ban"
Report as inappropriate
7:06 AM MST on Tue., Nov. 13, 2007
re: "City no longer blowing smoke about ban"
Report as inappropriate
Examiner Reader said:
That poor Chinese woman is probably wondering why she bothered to leave the People's Republic of China for the People's Republic of San Francisco...
93 agree | 81 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
As high as 85% of illegal aliens smoke, do they get tickets, yeh sure. Want to cut out a lot of smokeing, send the illegal smokers back to Mexico instead of pandering to them, city hall gives them tax money to buy cigarettees.
82 agree | 77 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Second hand smoke is like spreading AIDS.
92 agree | 88 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Kevin said:
If we took a realistic view of the numbers we are left with a lot to explain. This would lead to questions regarding the competence of those we trust to provide accurate health relevant information. An international right outlined in the Helsinki and Nuremberg pacts. The institutions we trust who are currently focussed not in defining what caused 300,000 excess mortalities in America alone this year, but in deliberately promoting hatred of targeted individuals. The UN approved World health Organization anti smoking [Or smoker] treaty, and the associated HIA health intervention campaign in partnership with Industry profiting partnerships, advises denormalization campaigns which in effect result in blaming individuals for the deeds of others. The largest demographic groups targeted, are well known to be predominantly the poor and the elderly. The problem travels much deeper, in scrutinizing the poor the most affected proportion would of course be inclusive largely of racial minority grou
71 agree | 67 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Kevin said:
cont.. Now if we consider the same number of smokers in all three population groups we see the population risk has tripled over the past 47 years while smokers in the population view declined by a similar number explain the increase. Or the perspective which seems to indicate decrease in smoking rates equates a complimentary inverse increase in related mortalities. Now explain how smoking bans will improve the situation. By the evidence above we have to conclude as a population risk smoking poses zero risk. The alternative being of course the numbers touted by every medical, scientific institution and medical charity on the planet are deeply flawed. As would be the entirely dependent ETS theoretic numbers. If the second perspective is true; Peer reviewed research concerning the effects of smoking and ETS are equally and grossly flawed. Any explanations???
67 agree | 75 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Kevin said:
Population risk [PR] Smoking related disease 20% of all annual mortality [AM] or .2 if true in a population of 320 million 2.25 million deaths occur annually. This number due to population growth represents Less than 1% of total population. 2007 320 million population 2.25 million mortalities PR x AM = .45 million smoking related mortalities 1960 100 million population 1 million mortalities PR x AM = .2 million mortalities [Less than half of what occur today with less than 1/3 the population] If population growth were comparable we would of course expect to see .75 million mortalities and we can check again on that basis Revised for population growth 100 million population .75 million mortalities PR x AM = .15 million smoking related mortalities This number would fall in line with all population numbers assumed as being equal. Triple the population triple the mortalities which makes perfect sense; Now if we consider the same number of smokers in all three population groups we see
94 agree | 75 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Wait until the stench of fascism invades your precious lungs----see how easily you breathe then.
74 agree | 75 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Kevin said:
Considering the evidence a lifetime risk of the most chronically exposed to Tobacco smoke, only demonstrates a slightly elevated risk, there is any risk. It is unfortunate how poorly educated the mass media seems, in evaluating the fears being promoted. As Sir Richard Doll said many times. "I would feel quite comfortable in the company of smokers". Unfortunately with no other legal targets available the majority public who don't smoke feel relieved having a place to express the once suppressed Bigotry, which is now America. The medical charities who have collected Billions of dollars from piggy banks, "in search of cures" are now speechless when asked with all the investments of the past why with an ancient method of case control study, it took so long to look? Apparently the truth resides in the so called "new research" funded recently by those who wish to sell smoking patches, actually had a motivation to do so.
80 agree | 79 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Maybeyou don't know, the main users of Portsmouth Square Park are poor Chinese seniors. And I bet you the one who got cited was probably poor, Chinese and old. These people live in tiny rooms in apartments and hotels, this park is their living room. They play checkers, socialize and, horrors of horrors, they smoke. I don't care about what Ms. Bookbinder thinks about Portsmouth Square. She lives in Orinda, one of the richest cities in the US. And I sorry she was offended that junior could have caught of whiff of smoke. Ms. Bookbinder why don't you go back to Orinda, I bet your backyard is huge compared to the rooms these seniors live in. Growing up in The City, everybody knew this was Babylon By The Bay, it was a city were almost everything was ok. But in the last 40 years it seems as if we've been inundated which people moving from the suburbs who want to gentrify, suburbanize and "White Breadize" everything . It's a City if you're easy offended - don't live here.
120 agree | 64 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
What I would like to know is where the prosmokers were when alcohol consumption was banned in parks. After all: 1. According to smokers, alcohol and cigarettes go "hand in hand," and; 2. Alcohol, just like cigarettes, is a perfectly legal product. Why was there no outcry from prosmokers when alcohol was banned?
93 agree | 98 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
mary said:
here it comes....a communist decision...dont ban cigarettes but fine smokers...aint that a kick...whats up...san francisco politicians dont want to lose the tobacco companies contributions, so they find another way to make people pay..its all about greed...you can get fined now for farting...a bunch of losers and hypocrites at city hall...there is no way i would obey that law, and dont care would never pay a fine, until they ban the sale of cigarettes anf tax dollars like someone stated here. city hall is too chicken to gho after the tobacco companies and can only pick on the poor who live in the parks. seems to me they will do something about smoking, but city hall wont lift a finger to help the homeless....what a crock san francisco has become and this my hometown...very ashamed of san francisco and their poor judgement..seems willie brown never looked better and i hated him.
106 agree | 100 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
rick said:
very well put.....ban cigarette sales and not take any tobacco tax money.........lets see all non smokers pay up in other taxes to make up for not taking tobacco money..property taxes, sales tax etc....these city officials should fight the tobacco companies and not put all the blame on smokers....this is unfair and a double standard for these politicians.....easy to do...Ban Cigarette Sales and Do Not Accept any kind of tobacco tax dollars...see them change their minds..I say everyone sue These Cities for discrimination and their two faced policies.
110 agree | 110 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
whats next...fining people for coughing in public...hahahahahahahahahahahahaha...take tobacco tax money away from these cities and see all kinds of tax increases an i look forward to it...dont accept tax money from tobacco co. like someone stated here and ban the sale of cigarettes, I am all for that and not the hypocrisy that San Francisco is showing...next (actually they do it now) fine all homeless people, have to laugh at these politicians....a bunch of hypocites.
112 agree | 90 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I was reading on this site yesterday whare a person had the right idea and now it is gone....it was a suggestion that these cities that Ban Smoking need to Ban The Sale of Cigarettes and not accept any kind of tobacco tax monies, it was stated that "THE POLITICIANS" are going after the wrong people (the little people) with their fines and imposing a Ban on Smoking. Why do they do this? Should they not go after the tobacco companies? There is something wrong here when they go after a certain group of people and not the makers of cigarettes. Why was this persons Post Taken out? There was no profanity or degrading remarks, just a good answer "Ban The Sale Of Cigarettes & Not Accept ant Tobvacco Tax Dollars" it is as simple as that.
118 agree | 84 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
"But on the whole tobacco smoke contains hundreds of byproduct chemicals that are not meant to be in lung tissue" So does the air all around you. By definition anything that is not air is not meant to be in lung tissue. There are so many "bad" things for you in the air normally that so-called "second hand smoke" is a very low order probability of causing you harm, especially outside in the open air. Want to be really scared? Read all about a beautiful mineral called actinolite and how it can naturally float freely in the air as mother nature intended. It (or its cousins) are located in 50 out of 58 counties in California. Then realize that its also known as Asbestos.
109 agree | 98 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Imagine if a person in Alta Plaza Park got cited for smoking, I'm sure the person would call the station captain, file a citizen's complaint, call the city supervisor of the district, etc.... you know that would happen.
92 agree | 87 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
At least you are not in Belmont.
120 agree | 105 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Leave it to Alioto-Pier to whine that her little ban on smoking isn't being aggressively enforced while the crime rate has soared, countless working people are being driven out of the city by the astronomical cost of living here and our streets are riddled with potholes. The Board of Supervisors need to start grappling with the real problems confronting this city instead of treating their districts as their little fiefdoms. I'm sick of their capriciousness.
131 agree | 101 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Leave it to Alioto-Pier to whine that her little ban on smoking isn't being aggressively enforced while the crime rate has soared, countless working people are being driven out of the city by the astronomical cost of living here and our streets are riddled with potholes. The Board of Supervisors need to start grappling with the real problems confronting this city instead of treating their districts as their little fiefdoms. I'm sick of their capriciousness.
126 agree | 86 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
There are shootings all around San Francisco, including the Metreon Mall, and we've made citing people for smoking in public parks an enforcement priority - things which makes one's mind go hmmmmmm.
99 agree | 104 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
slowpoke said:
That's great, but how about giving citations or making arrests on people that smoke weed, shoot up or drink alcohol in the parks.
107 agree | 93 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Ooo-ree-bay said:
Oh, and Michaela... there's no need to get your knickers in a twist... "why isn't it being enforced"... since when has a SF supervisor cared about the law??? You don't get to pick and choose which laws you enforce and which ones you don't. If you do... as in SF's willfully violating federal law in dealing with illegal aliens and pot dealers to name a few... then it sort of throws the entire idea of law into contempt. They're not enforcing it simply because SF is now a town where, if you don't like the law, you just ignore it. And 9 times out of 10 the stupidvisors will back you up. Stop whining.
94 agree | 104 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
This is stupid. First of all, if you want to cite someone in Portsmouth Square, which really should be called Portsmouth Autopark Rooftop (which much more accurately gives a sense of its total lack of aesthetic appeal) site them for littering and spitting. Portsmouth Square is a despicable, ugly eyesore. Too bad Sam Brannan ain't still around. The guy who rode his horse through Portsmouth Square shouting "Gold! Gold from the American River!" would probably start up another vigilance committee if he could see the dump now. Ah... the good ol'days...
108 agree | 99 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
How about the city posting some (not tons) of no smoking signs in strategic locations at park entrance points? I was in GG Park near the band shell and lots of smokers...it sure cuts into the beauty of a "carless" park sunday. Oh and by the way to the prior commentator who said "I don't know why people worry about a few smokers in a park, when people are breathing in exhaust fumes from hundreds of thousands of cars each day. Ridiculous story." It is really the diesel smoke that is the killer, and yes also the cars that fail their smog check. But on the whole tobacco smoke contains hundreds of byproduct chemicals that are not meant to be in lung tissue...
101 agree | 77 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I would like to know how many citations have been issued in the city for cars emitting serious exhaust. I don't know why people worry about a few smokers in a park, when people are breathing in exhaust fumes from hundreds of thousands of cars each day. Ridiculous story.
110 agree | 100 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
JAG said:
It seems to me that the law on smoking is one of thoes stupid things that the lawmakers do. What about the serious crime? and who is going to inforce it? More taxes to spend on somthing so dumb
98 agree | 104 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
San Francisco Voter said:
In my nbd park, Kimbell, last week, I witnessed 1 defecation, 1 squatting urinator, 1 standing urinator, 2 passed out druggies, and numerous park residents passing bottles of varieties of alcohol. I don't know if any of these folks were smoking.
122 agree | 109 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
While crime is a problem in San Francisco it is lower than even supposedly more safe cities, such as Indianapolis. Furthermore, just because some crime occurs in certain parts of the city, it does not mean that a police officer should fail to do his or her job and not enforce a violation of a law which occurs in front of the officer. Laws are meant to be enforced. If a law is unpopular or ineffective, then it needs to be repealed. If it is unconstitutional, then an individual or group needs to bring a lawsuit to have a court make this determination. In the case of the public smoking ban, the law is popular with most of the public, it is certainly Constitutional for the state and city to regulate matters of health, and it is effective when enforced. I am tired of people misusing the system for political granstanding. If you pass a law, then put in place an enforcement mechanism and enforce it, or don't pass the law in the first place.
100 agree | 89 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
examiner critic said:
one citation is a major news story? does the examiner editors report directly to the pol heads?
133 agree | 105 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Murders, robberies, uncountable car break-ins happen daily in the City and the cops waste time on 'public smoking'? Gavin, set some priorities: Get rid of the real crime, THEN worry about the small stuff.
133 agree | 135 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree