The California Assembly voted unanimously Monday to keep control of the fire rings with local cities. The vote countered restrictions on the fire rings imposed last year by the Southern California Air Quality Management District, as well as a potential total ban.

The Press-Telegram reported last July:

“DIAMOND BAR – Despite vocal opposition from some beachgoers, the South Coast Air Quality Management District board Friday approved restrictions on fire pits on Southland beaches.

“The restrictions require fire pits to either be kept at least 700 feet away from the nearest residence. The rings can be closer than 700 feet to residences if the rings are at least 100 feet apart from each other — or at least 50 feet apart if a city has 15 or fewer rings. The measure also includes restrictions on beach fires on high-pollution days.”

A bipartisan effort led to Assembly Bill 1102, co-authored by two Orange County assembly members, Travis Allen, R-Huntington Beach, and Sharon-Quirk-Silva, D-Fullerton. If the bill becomes law, before a city is forced by the AQMD to remove the fire rings from the beaches in Orange and Los Angeles counties, the AQMD would be required to work with local coastal cities and oversight agencies to:

• Prove there will be no loss of beach access;
• Prove there will be no harm to local economies under any AQMD regulations;
• Address  environmental concerns.

2013 resolution

Last year, Allen authored ACR 52, which read:

“This resolution supports the protection of California’s beaches, access to those beaches, and important traditions that are integral to our culture and beach lifestyle, such as fire rings….

“Beach bonfires are a safe and inexpensive recreational activity and are enjoyed by all the members of our community, regardless of socioeconomic class.… Beach attractions result in optimum economic and community activity, from gatherings of family and friends, beach barbeques, community events, and beach sports, and much more.”

After the non-binding resolution passed, it was evident the AQMD was not going to reverse the bonfire bans. So Allen and Quirk-Silva announced AB1102, legislation to officially reverse the AQMD’s actions.

“The fire rings have been an important part of our beach experience for over 60 years,”  the group Save the Southern California Beach Bonfire Rings explains on its website and Facebook page. “They provide an affordable means of gathering family and friends on Southern California shores to celebrate our outdoor beach lifestyle with s’mores and hotdog roasting under the stars, all while enjoying the glow of a warm fire.”

Allen pointed out that banning the fire rings would cut $1 million a year in fees for Huntington Beach and $19 million for all Orange County coastal cities.

Health concerns

The push to ban fire rings originated in Newport Beach from residents who live near the beach and don’t like the smoke wafting into their homes. According to the Daily Pilot:

“Under the rule, Newport Beach, whose application to the California Coastal Commission to remove its fire rings first spurred the AQMD to look into a possible ban, can get rid of its 60 fire pits near the Balboa Pier and at Corona del Mar State Beach.”

Allen also told CalWatchdog.com that those who live along the ocean in many coastal cities don’t like the beach crowds and have complained to local officials about the noise from nighttime bonfires.

Even though the homeowners bought the property knowing it was attached to publicly accessed beaches, residents demanded government regulators ban the fire pits to keep people off the beaches at night.

However, homeowners complaining about people using the beach near their homes would not elicit much sympathy.

Stronger reasons for removing the rings came after the American Lung Association claimed the fire pits are a health hazard.

“Fire rings are creating hazards in communities that are damaging to one’s health and to the health of residents who live nearby,” said Bonnie Holmes-Gen, senior director for policy and advocacy for the American Lung Association in California. “We’re very concerned about the impact of the smoke, … and it contributes to asthma attacks, strokes, a number of respiratory illnesses, and it can even cause premature death.”

Holmes-Gen said particulates in wood smoke are especially dangerous to young, developing lungs. Holmes-Gen said teenagers and young adults, the very people supposedly at the greatest risk from beach fires, are the most frequent attendees at the fire pits.

Yet the bill analysis says, “[T]he greatest health effect from wood smoke exposure originates from the fine particles that can cause health problems ranging from minor irritations such as burning eyes and runny noses to chronic illnesses such as bronchitis.”

Bill proponents also point out beach wind speed is usually high, cleaning the air.

Regulating wholesome, inexpensive fun

“Beach bonfires are an activity enjoyed by people from all across California, including those who cannot afford multi-million dollar beachfront homes,” Allen said in the Assembly Monday.  “This legislation will ensure that every Californian has access to our beautiful beaches through the affordable iconic activity of a beach bonfire.”

“This is just another family fun activity,” said Quirk-Silva. “We wanted it handled at the local level, but that is not to be.”

“This is a symbol of a free people,” Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, R-Hesperia, added. “It should’t be regulated to a privileged few.”

Assemblyman Eric Linder, R-Corona, talked of fond family memories of a sunset on the beach, a bonfire, and roasting marshmallows.

“It would be hard to imagine the Orange County Coast without fire rings on the beach,” Allen said. “Now let’s go burn some wood.”

Senate Bill 768 by Sen. Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, proposes to triple California’s cigarette excise tax from $0.87 to $2.87. The tax would also extend to cigars.

De León was unable get SB768 passed during the 2012-2013 legislative session. While it sits on the shelf in the Senate Appropriations Committee, there is already talk of bringing it back to life, as well as initiating another statewide cigarette and tobacco tax ballot initiative.

The bill's language contends its passage would benefit Californians because, among other things, “Tobacco use costs Californians more than $9.1 billion in tobacco-related medical expenses every year. The cost of lost productivity due to tobacco use adds an additional estimated $8.5 billion to the annual economic consequences of smoking in California…. The treatment of cancer, heart disease and stroke, lung disease, diabetes, and other diseases related to tobacco use continues to impose a significant burden upon California’s overstressed health care system, including publicly funded health care programs.”

New study on tobacco tax increase

But would this huge tax increase actually raise the revenues intended, while curbing smoking?

The California Foundation for Commerce and Education report on The State and Local Impact of Tobacco Prices on Smuggling and Black Market Sales found that, by failing to account for smuggling, proponents overestimate tax revenue from tobacco products by $500 million 
annually due to smuggling caused by the tax increase. “In addition, lost legitimate retail sales will eliminate approximately 11,000 direct retail jobs,” it concluded.

“The literature suggests that the $2 excise tax increase may create the unintended consequence of increasing 
organized crime in California,” the study found.

The tax promotes smuggling

California consumers would pay a total tax rate of 137.4 percent per cigar, and a $2-per-pack additional tax on cigarettes, lighting up incentives for smuggling.

De León's bill aims to raise an estimated $1.4 billion, with the money slated to fund research into tobacco-related diseases and the stronger enforcement of tobacco laws.

The tax increase would make California’s cigarette tax rate the fifth highest in the nation, with New York state's the highest at $4.30 a pack. New York City tacks on an additional $1.50 a pack, making smokers inhale a price of up to $12 a pack.

In addition to the state and local taxes, another tax of $1.01 is imposed by the federal government.

If SB768 becomes law, in California a pack of cigarettes would cost more than $9 at grocery stores, including sales tax; a bit less at tobacco stores.

Smuggling tobacco products doesn't pay

The Tax Foundation published a study in January which found nearly 60 percent of the cigarettes sold in New York state are smuggled from other states, or come from Indian reservations with lower tobacco taxes. The Tax Foundation reported that tobacco smuggling and the tax rate have risen in tandem since 2006, a strong indication that tax increases and smuggling go hand-in-hand.

The New York State tax on cigarettes has risen 190 percent since 2006, while the rate of smuggling increased 170 percent.

The National Taxpayers Union Foundation released an excellent study in August detailing the recent history of tobacco taxes in the states. They found:

* States with low cigarette taxes have lower overall tax burdens;

* Tobacco tax hikes are rarely used to cut other taxes;

* Tobacco taxes don’t forestall other tax increases;

* Tobacco tax hikes may encourage other tax hikes down the road;

* Cigarette taxes don’t spur economic growth.

Proposition 29's failure

De León’s bill was introduced less than a year after the June 5, 2012 defeat of Proposition 29, the 2012 tobacco tax ballot measure. Prop. 29 would have boosted cigarette taxes $1 a pack to fund cancer research, anti-smoking activities and more law enforcement for an expected expansion of black markets. And despite voters’ defeat of Prop. 29, its $1 proposed tax would be doubled by SB768.

SB768  is backed by the same coalition which supported Prop. 29: the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the American Cancer Society, the Service Employees International Union and Health Access California.

These longtime proponents of cigarette tax increases said Prop. 29′s narrow defeat justified bringing it back through the Legislature. The groups also stand to benefit from the estimated $1.4 billion raised by the tax (assuming the black market does not increase so much it substantially cuts that amount).

Smokers are resilient

“No sooner does the new tax go into effect, my street contacts tell me, than Indian tribes will open tobacco shops at their casinos, where buyers can escape state taxes and buy cigarettes on the cheap,” said Willie Brown,
 former Mayor of San Francisco and California State Assembly Speaker, in a June 2012 “Willie’s World” column in the San Francisco Chronicle.

“Just as quickly, smugglers will start rolling in truckloads of smokes from Nevada, Arizona and Oregon, as street dealers realize there is more money to be made selling hot cigarettes than there is selling dope,” Brown said.

Even the California Department of Public Health found “following a tax increase, many smokers will find a way to buy cheaper cigarettes.”

“Some smokers will try to find cheaper cigarettes on the internet; others will buy their cigarettes on Indian reservations and in casinos, or even travel across state lines,” the California Department of Public Health said. “This type of individual ‘casual’ evasion does not have a significant fiscal impact on the illicit cigarette market whereas, large-scale bulk tobacco smuggling can be a problem.”