BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 795
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 795 (Block)
As Amended April 28, 2011
Majority vote
GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 13-3 HIGHER
EDUCATION 6-2
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Hall, Nestande, Atkins, |Ayes:|Block, Achadjian, Fong, |
| |Block, Blumenfield, | |Galgiani, Lara, |
| |Chesbro, Galgiani, Gatto, | |Portantino |
| |Hill, Ma, Perea, | | |
| |V. Manuel P�rez, Torres | | |
| | | | |
|-----+----------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Garrick, Jeffries, Silva |Nays:|Donnelly, Miller |
| | | | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield, | | |
| |Bradford, Charles | | |
| |Calderon, Campos, Davis, | | |
| |Gatto, Hall, Hill, Lara, | | |
| |Mitchell, Solorio | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly, | | |
| |Nielsen, Smyth, Wagner | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Gives authority to any California Community College
(CCC) campus, California State University (CSU) campus, or
campus of the University of California (UC) to enforce local and
system-wide smoking and tobacco regulations and policies.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Provides that the governing bodies of CCC, CSU and UC have the
authority to:
a) Set enforcement standards for their local campuses; and,
AB 795
Page 2
b) Impose a fine for a first, second, and third offense and
for each subsequent offence.
The amount of fines is
to be determined by the local governing body. Funds shall
be allocated to include, but not be limited to, the
designated enforcement agency, education and promotion of
the policy, and tobacco cessation treatment options. The
civil penalty shall not exceed $100.
2)Provides that if a campus adopts the enforcement and fine
measures, as defined, it shall, and the campuses of the UC
may, post signs stating their tobacco use policy on campus, as
follows:
a) The locations at which smoking or tobacco use is
prohibited on campus; and,
b) The locations at which smoking or tobacco use is
permitted on campus.
3)Provides that if a campus adopts the enforcement and fine
measure, as defined, it shall, and the UC may, inform
employees and students of the tobacco use policy and
enforcement measures employed on their campus.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Prohibits smoking inside a public building, or in an outdoor
area within 20 feet of a main exit, entrance or window of a
public building, or in a state-owned passenger vehicle.
Authorizes a person to smoke in any other outdoor area of a
public building unless otherwise prohibited by state law or
local ordinance, and a sign describing the prohibition is
posted.
2)Allows cities, counties and colleges to adopt more restrictive
ordinances prohibiting smoking.
3)Makes it an infraction for a person to smoke within 25 feet of
a playground or sandbox area.
4)Requires the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) to
AB 795
Page 3
administer and protect state park properties for the use and
enjoyment of the public. Prohibits smoking in state parks
upon a finding of extreme fire hazard by DPR, except as
allowed in designated areas.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, no significant costs associated with this
legislation.
COMMENTS :
Purpose of this bill . According to the author, existing law
authorizes colleges and universities to adopt and enforce
smoking and tobacco control policies but it is not specific on
the type of enforcement. Many colleges have indicated they are
hesitant to adopt stronger policies because they have no way of
enforcing the current ones. By adding enforcement language to
current law, colleges will have the authority to "cite and
collect revenue" as a form of enforcement.
The author notes, every day students, faculty and guests at
California's public colleges and universities unwillingly
breathe secondhand smoke on campuses that endangers their
health. The Center for Disease Control named smoking as the
leading cause of preventable death, disease, and disability in
the United States.
The author states, in an effort to protect public health,
complete smoking bans already exist at several California
college campuses and in certain cities. This bill would follow
these examples and give California's colleges the tools they
need to reduce the exposure to secondhand smoke among students
thus lowering the risks of coronary heart disease and lung
cancer.
Background . According to the sponsor, the American Lung
Association in California, existing law prohibits the smoking of
tobacco products in an enclosed space of employment (Labor Code
Section 6404.5) and within 20 feet of a main exit, entrance, or
operable window of a public building (Government Code (GC)
Section 7596-7598) which includes public colleges and
universities. The law does not however include any enforcement
protocols. The only language regarding enforcement states that
cities, counties, and public colleges/universities can adopt and
AB 795
Page 4
enforce stronger policies.
The sponsor states that GC Section 7597(b) gives colleges the
authority to adopt and enforce policies stronger than state law;
however, the section is missing a code reference which would
grant the authority to do punitive enforcement. For example, in
the California Vehicle Code, colleges are given the authority to
write citations to individuals who violate a campus parking
regulation.
For that reason, San Francisco State University cites violators
by citing California Education Code Section 89031 which gives
the CSU Board of Trustees authority to regulate their local
campus grounds. That authority was granted in 2002, by the CSU
Board of Trustees who delegated this authority to each campus by
adopting a Title 5 Code of Regulations which gave local
presidents authority to "cite and collect revenue" for smoking
violations on campus. The resolution was adopted in response to
discussions and concerns about secondhand smoke. Currently,
within the CSU system, Fresno State, Humboldt, San Marcos, and
San Francisco limit smoking.
In support . Proponents state this bill will give authority to
any CCC campus, campus of the CSU, or campus of the UC to
enforce local and campus-wide smoking and tobacco regulations
and policies. By adding enforcement language to the existing
law, California's colleges will have the authority to "cite and
collect revenue" as a form of enforcement. It is a small fix
that will have tremendous impact.
Proponents of this bill emphasize that California has always
been a leader in tobacco control efforts in the United States
and throughout the world. Proponents believe that this bill
will positively affect public college students, faculty, and
staff from the dangers of secondhand smoke.
Proponents state that exposure to secondhand smoke also
increases the risk of lung cancer and low birth-weight babies.
Secondhand smoke has been declared a toxic air contaminant by
the California Air Resources Board since outdoor tobacco smoke
levels may be as high as indoor secondhand smoke levels. The
California Environmental Protection Agency attributes 4,000
deaths annually from secondhand smoke exposure, while the
California Department of Public Health estimates the adult
AB 795
Page 5
health-related cost of smoking in California at $9.14 billion in
2004 alone.
Prior legislation . SB 4 (Oropeza) of 2009, which was vetoed,
would have made it an infraction for an individual to smoke on a
state beach or a state park, as specified.
AB 2067 (Oropeza), Chapter 736, Statutes of 2006, prohibits
smoking in specified areas of covered parking lots and adds a
definition of enclosed spaces to current law that already
prohibits smoking in enclosed spaces of employment to include
areas such as lobbies, lounges, waiting areas, elevators,
stairwells and restrooms that are a structural part of the
building.
AB 1583 (Koretz) of 2003, which failed passage, would have
prohibited smoking at all state beaches, excluding parking lots
and non-sand campgrounds.
AB 454 (Yee) of 2003, which was held in the Senate Natural
Resources and Wildlife Committee, would have prohibited smoking
on state beaches except within 20 feet of a waste receptacle.
AB 846 (Vargas), Chapter 342, Statutes of 2003, prohibits
smoking inside public buildings and within 20 feet of a doorway,
entryway, window, or ventilation intake system duct of a public
building. Provides that this prohibition does not preempt the
authority of any county, city, or city and county from adopting
an ordinance regulating smoking around a doorway, entryway,
window, or ventilation intake system duct of a public building
in any manner. Provides that this prohibition does not preempt
the authority of any CCC, CSU, or UC campus to adopt and enforce
additional smoking and tobacco control ordinances, regulations,
or policies that are more restrictive than the applicable
standards required by this bill.
AB 188 (Vargas), Chapter 150, Statutes of 2001, prohibits
smoking and the disposal of smoking related waste within 25 feet
of any playground or tot lot sandbox area. A violation of this
law is an infraction and is punishable by a $250 fine for each
incident.
Analysis Prepared by : Eric Johnson / G. O. / (916) 319-2531
AB 795
Page 6
FN:
0000762