On May 3, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a proposed measure to ban smoking in public beaches and parks. The controversial decision denied the levying of a $100 fine to those smoking in specific areas statewide. According to Schwarzenegger, the proposal would only lead to the state government’s intrusion on an issue primarily delegated to the jurisdiction of municipal governments. “There is something inherently uncomfortable,” remarked Schwartzenegger in his veto message, “about the idea of the state encroaching in such a broad manner on the people of California.”
“I believe that this decision made by Gov. Schwarzenegger disappointed the entirety of California,” remarked junior Enid Lee, “and it is saddening to think that his disapproval of this measure will come at the perceived cost of thousands of lives.” And Enid is not alone in her position—already, dissenting opinions have sprung up and many are speaking out against the governor’s decision. Sen. Jenny Oropeza was reported to have said that she was “sorry the governor did not agree with this widely supported effort to increase public awareness about the environmental threats carelessly tossed cigarettes are doing to our marine life and to the great outdoors.”
But others find that Schwarzenegger’s ban was appropriately justified. “It’s important to realize,” explained sophomore Greg Chang, “that his ban doesn’t necessarily mean we can’t ban smoking. It just means that it’s not the responsibility of the state government to levy this ban.” Greg may also have a point; while Schwarzenegger’s “smoking tent” outside of his office at the state Capitol may indicate his disposition towards smoking regulation as a whole, it is still true that many municipalities have already agreed to enact smoking bans.
Although the future created by Schwarzenegger’s ban is generally uncertain—and entirely up for speculation—it seems that both sides have a legitimate grasp on the issue. As his constituents, we can only hope that his decision was the right one.
“I believe that this decision made by Gov. Schwarzenegger disappointed the entirety of California,” remarked junior Enid Lee, “and it is saddening to think that his disapproval of this measure will come at the perceived cost of thousands of lives.” And Enid is not alone in her position—already, dissenting opinions have sprung up and many are speaking out against the governor’s decision. Sen. Jenny Oropeza was reported to have said that she was “sorry the governor did not agree with this widely supported effort to increase public awareness about the environmental threats carelessly tossed cigarettes are doing to our marine life and to the great outdoors.”
But others find that Schwarzenegger’s ban was appropriately justified. “It’s important to realize,” explained sophomore Greg Chang, “that his ban doesn’t necessarily mean we can’t ban smoking. It just means that it’s not the responsibility of the state government to levy this ban.” Greg may also have a point; while Schwarzenegger’s “smoking tent” outside of his office at the state Capitol may indicate his disposition towards smoking regulation as a whole, it is still true that many municipalities have already agreed to enact smoking bans.
Although the future created by Schwarzenegger’s ban is generally uncertain—and entirely up for speculation—it seems that both sides have a legitimate grasp on the issue. As his constituents, we can only hope that his decision was the right one.