Orange’s proposal to ban smoking in public parks has sparked debate throughout the community. Some residents see the ordinance as a much-needed measure to protect families and improve public spaces, while others worry that it could become another tool used to target people experiencing homelessness. Regardless of where people stand on the proposal, one thing should be clear: If Orange chooses to ban smoking in its parks, the policy should be focused on public health, not punishment.
Parks exist to promote healthy communities. They are open to everyone, and serve as places for people to gather for events, go on walks, or simply spend time outside. They are among the few spaces designed specifically to improve both physical and mental well-being. Allowing smoking in these areas goes against that purpose.
Although outdoor exposure to secondhand smoke is generally lower than in small, enclosed spaces, it is not zero. Children at nearby playgrounds and families sitting at picnic areas can still be exposed when smoking occurs nearby. Smoke contains thousands of chemicals, many of which are known to cause cancer. Even brief exposure can be problematic for people with asthma or other respiratory conditions.
Beyond secondhand smoke, cigarette litter presents another public health issue. Cigarette butts are the most commonly littered item in the world, and they don’t just disappear after being discarded. They contain plastics and toxic chemicals that can contaminate soil and waterways. They may also pose hazards to pets and young children, who can accidentally pick up or ingest discarded cigarette butts. During California’s increasingly dry summers, improperly discarded cigarettes can contribute to wildfire risk, which is a concern that communities cannot afford to overlook.
These are all legitimate reasons to consider restricting smoking in public parks, and should remain the primary focus of the conversation.
The discussion becomes more complicated when the restrictions are viewed through the lens of homelessness. During a February City Council meeting, Mayor Dan Slater acknowledged that he had “an ulterior motive” for supporting the proposal, asking whether it would give police “another tool in the toolbox to deal with vagrants and transients.” Regardless of whether that ultimately becomes the ordinance’s effect, framing the proposal this way risks shifting the conversation away from public health.
Public health policies are most likely to earn trust when they are designed to improve health outcomes for everyone rather than target specific groups of people. If the public views a health ordinance as a method for policing homelessness, trust in the policy may weaken, even among residents who support smoke-free spaces. A policy intended to protect families should not become overshadowed by these concerns.
This matters because smoking is also a public health issue, not just a matter of personal choice. Nicotine is highly addictive, and quitting can be extremely difficult. Many smokers want to quit but struggle despite repeated attempts. Treating smoking primarily as a behavioral problem that deserves punishment overlooks decades of medical research on addiction.
If Orange ultimately adopts a smoking ban, it should also invest in helping smokers quit. Education campaigns would reinforce that the city’s goal is improving community health rather than issuing citations. California already offers free quitlines, counseling, and evidence-based treatments that can help people successfully quit smoking. Connecting smokers with these resources would be a low-cost way to make the ordinance more meaningful than enforcement alone.
Youth prevention is another important reason to support smoke-free parks. Children and teenagers can be easily influenced by the environments around them. Seeing smoking in parks and recreational areas may normalize the idea that tobacco use is an ordinary part of life. While smoking rates have decreased significantly over the past several decades, vaping and nicotine use among young people continue to be public health concerns. Creating smoke-free recreational spaces sends the message that parks are places dedicated to health, activity, and wellness. Asking smokers to refrain from using tobacco in parks is not an unreasonable limitation. It reflects our shared responsibility to make sure that public spaces are safe and welcoming for everyone, particularly children, older adults, and individuals with chronic health conditions.
Ultimately, Orange’s proposed smoking ban should not become a debate about politics or homelessness. It should remain focused on the purpose of parks themselves. These spaces exist to encourage exercise, social connection, and healthier communities, and policies should reflect those goals.
Whether the City Council ends up approving the ordinance or decides to revise it, public health policies should be guided by evidence, fairness, and a commitment to improving community well-being. Smoke-free parks paired with education and support can help reduce exposure to smoke, decrease litter, lower fire risk, and promote healthier public spaces. Orange has an opportunity to demonstrate that public health and compassion are not competing values. By keeping the focus on protecting residents, the city can create parks that are cleaner, healthier, and more welcoming for everyone.
Kylie Schneider is a student at Aliso Niguel High School with an interest in medicine and health policy. She serves as president of Scrub Sisters at ANHS, an organization supporting women in medicine through education, mentorship, and outreach.
