Unfiltered California

The state may consider banning filter-tip cigarettes because of the litter problem. Is this a good idea?

Consider, also, that the scores of Indian smokeshops could subvert the law.

I foresee a big surge in the sales of those long cigarette holder thingies (with a filter in the tip).

It’ll never happen.

The better solution to the problem would be a $500 fine for not properly disposing of your cigarette butt with the money going towards litter clean up.

If they’re banned, then bump up the cost to help offset the increased burden on the medical system.

Those filter-holder devices are supposed to be good for about a pack. I think the overall mass of one of those vs. twenty filtered butts is about the same. But animals are probably less likely to mistake those things for food, and I think smokers would be a little less likely to just toss them anywhere, soon balance, I am guessing they would be a net improvement.

Banning any cigarette is always a good idea. Period.

Time to invest in zig zag paper!

I am an ex-smoker, and one of the habits I have never understood is the casual tossing of cigarette butts on the ground. Litteringis littering, and already has fines in place. We just need to enforce the laws already on the books, not create special laws to target a particular product.

Quote edited because:
It goes on to list examples, but states explicitly that the list is not exhaustive, so I snipped out the list before someone complains that cigarette butts aren’t in the list.

First of all, I’m going to want a cite for “…the immense damage to wildlife and public health caused by discarded cigarette filters…”. Immense? And to think I’ve never heard of a single example of human or animal getting sick from a discarded butt. Ill informed, I am.

While we’re at it, though, let’s outlaw bottle caps. They’re all over the place. Shoot, just outlaw all cans and bottles - that’ll solve the problem. No sense in, as hajario suggested, enforcing the littering laws already on the books.

FTR, I don’t smoke. I also despise it when people flick a cig butt on the ground. Making the butts illlegal when the act already is - just stupid. IMHO.

I agree. I smoked around 2 packs a day for about 10 years before I quit, but by God I picked up my damn butts. It’s not that hard and littering is littering. Fine the assholes who flick them out car windows and drop them on the ground.

Don’t kid yourselves. Any cigarette tax will always go directly to politician’s pockets or pork-barrel projects, often in the disguise of saving the children. At least, this time, they’re not pretending it’s a health issue, since smoking unfiltered cigarettes is much more dangerous than filtered ones (and much yuckier – I quit smoking Camels because I was sick of those tobacco flakes getting stuck between my teeth!)

This bill smells of tree-hugger propaganda. They already took away our plastic bags, and they won’t stop until we’re all drinking tofu shakes and wearing hemp loincloths.

The degree to which the media and the public will run in shrieking circles because some minor California legislator throws out an extreme idea for a new law will never cease to amaze me, even from way over here…

What started all this anyway, at this particular time?

Cigarettes, with or without filters, have been around for a long long time.
Cigarette butts, meaning the leftover stubs of smoked cigs, have been a scourge of the landscape for as long.
Cigarette butts, meaning the asses who use world as their asstray, have been around since before there were cigarettes.

So what brought up the issue just now?

Forgive the dumb question, I’m not very familiar with cigarettes, but if you take away the filter, won’t there still be a butt? Will it just be filled with “wasted” tobacco? If kids and pets eat those, is that somehow better? I agree that stricter enforcing of existing litter laws makes more sense.

Rolling paper and tobacco break down, filters do not.

This is the ridiculous idea. There are hundreds of thousands of smokers, 99% of whom throw multiple butts on the ground per day. Do you want to hire a giant herd of Butt Police (at public expense) to patrol all the streets and neighborhoods to enforce the anti-littering laws? Will you vote yourself a tax increase to fund the Butt Police? Why should non-smokers shoulder the expense caused by smokers?

What we need is a $1 per filter deposit. Smokers will return the butts to get their deposit back, or bums will pick up the butts for spending money.

I clearly recall the same thing said about smoking bans in bars, restaurants and other public places.

A minor California legislator looking for column inches. From Monterey this time instead of the usual culprit, Berkeley.

Cigarette holders might make a comeback, if it passes.


I’m sorry, but I have to go with crême brûlée due to the fact that it’s my coffee creamer faux flavor of choice. I drink a dollop or two of that stuff practically every single day. Oh…wait, what was the original question?