David Canepa
San Mateo County Board President David Canepa said he is interested in researching and considering a ban of filtered cigarettes, taking notes from Santa Cruz County that recently passed a similar ordinance just last month.
Canepa shared his desire to consider such a ban during board member remarks at the supervisor’s meeting Tuesday. The matter was not agendized or discussed at length, though supervisors Jackie Speier and Ray Mueller both shared their opinions.
Speier raised concern that banning the sale of filtered cigarettes will only push smokers to opt for more harmful methods of smoking, calling into question the safety of unfiltered cigarettes, which was also a matter of discussion in Santa Cruz County.
Mueller suggested that while staff and supervisors look into the topic, they should also consider an alternative route of implementing a tax placed upon retailers of filtered cigarettes that could generate revenue to help clean up pollution caused by filtered cigarette butts.
The environmental impact of cigarette butts was a driving factor in Santa Cruz County’s decision to implement a ban. Cigarette butts are “the single-most common form of litter on earth, with 4.5 trillion butts discarded annually,” a press release from Santa Cruz County reads.
In October 2024, the Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors banned the sale of filtered cigarettes and cigars, if two other cities approved similar bans. As of Sept. 11, the cities of Santa Cruz and Capitola both approved their own bans making the ordinance now law in both cities and in unincorporated areas effective Jan. 1, 2027.
Canepa said the item will be agendized at a future undisclosed date.
(65) 344-5200 ext. 106
Daily Journal staff
{{description}}
Email notifications are only sent once a day, and only if there are new matching items.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.
Already a subscriber? Login Here
Murder for Two Read moreMurder For Two
Kicks or Treats: Dance for Free Week at CY Danceworks! Read moreKicks or Treats Dance for Free Week at CY Danceworks
Success! An email has been sent to with a link to confirm list signup.
Error! There was an error processing your request.
Sorry, an error occurred.
Already Subscribed!
Cancel anytime
Thank you .
Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in.
Check your email for details.
Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.
An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account.
No promotional rates found.
Secure & Encrypted
Thank you.
Your gift purchase was successful! Your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in.
| Rate: | |
| Begins: | |
| Transaction ID: |
A receipt was sent to your email.
(2) comments
Look at that our Board of Supervisor DOES understand what an Excise Tax (also known as Sin Tax or Vice Tax) is all about. Consumers pay Vice Tax for things that are unhealthy and addictive like cigarettes, alcohol, gambling, .... and gasoline.
We can assume Canepa is not addicted to smoking, so this is an easy call for him to inconvenience smokers and look decisive.
We can also assume Canepa is addicted to driving and does like to pollute with his car. And his 4 colleagues on the Board and San Mateo Democrats as a bunch are just as addicted.
That is why our "green" Democrats look rather weak on that front.
(Ever heard of the "Grand Boulevard Initiative" to bring bike lanes to ECR since the 1970s?)
And that is why we don't see bike lane projects coming from the Board of Supervisors. How great would it be a long walking/biking path from San Francisco all the way down to Santa Cruz parallel to Hwy1?
Unfortunately only non-addicts come to ideas like that.
Liberals are always trying to "protect us from ourselves" instead of actually making anything better.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.