News
California Senate Urged to Vote NO on Dangerous 4 a.m. Bar Bill Experiment at Intuit Dome in Inglewood
AB 3206, Bar Bill proposed by Assemblymember Tina McKinnor, would extend alcohol sales to 4 a.m. in VIP areas, risking public health and safety.
AB 3206 Places Billionaire Steve Ballmer’s Profits Over Public Health & Safety
Bar Bill
SAN RAFAEL, Calif. /PRNewswire-HISPANIC PR WIRE/ — Alcohol Justice and the California Alcohol Policy Alliance (CAPA) are calling upon the California State Senate to stop a dangerous “district” bill that will punch a hole in the protections of uniform last call and expose the entire Los Angeles area to great risk.
If passed, California AB 3206, introduced by Assemblymember Tina McKinnor (D-Inglewood), would allow the VIP lounge at the new Intuit Dome Arena to keep selling alcohol long after a Clipper’s basketball game or other event has ended – and long after the legal closing time of any other bar.
“It’s just absurd to think that the success of billionaire Steve Ballmer’s $2 billion dollar investment in the L.A. Clippers and the Intuit Dome hinges on the ability to keep selling alcohol until 4 a.m.,” stated Cruz Avila, Executive Director of Alcohol Justice. “Years of peer-reviewed research has proven that maintaining existing last call times is a key policy for reducing the harms from reckless drinking and from alcohol-related motor crashes. Extending to 4 a.m. is a fatal step in the wrong direction.”
Even one more hour of alcohol sales in just this one venue will disrupt the protections of California’s uniform, statewide 2 a.m. last call. It will expose surrounding communities–in fact the entire L.A. basin–to increased harms and costs while only the alcohol sellers in the epicenter of Ballmer’s dome see the marginal economic benefits.
In 2018, the evidence for increased harms was presented to the legislature in an Alcohol Justice/CAPA report entitled The Late Night Threat, Science, Harms, and Costs of Extending Bar Service Hours. It highlighted the existing data supporting how the acute effects of extending alcohol sales would spread to “Splash Zones” surrounding various cities in California.
More recently, another analysis was released by the respected Oakland-based Alcohol Resource Group (ARG), a project of the Public Health Institute. “The High Cost of the 4 A.M. Bar Bill” was a first of its kind cost-benefit analysis detailing the effects of changing state alcohol policy to allow later last call at bars, restaurants, and clubs. The analysis disturbingly documented the worst concerns of Alcohol Justice and CAPA that public health and safety would be severely compromised if California’s 2 a.m. last call fell.
“Since 2013, there have been six attempts to pass statewide extension of alcohol sales in bars and restaurants to 4.a.m, but California said NO to all of them because it’s a recognized, dangerous policy change,” stated Raul Verdugo, Advocacy Director at Alcohol Justice. “And now it’s time to say NO again, this time to a district bill that will benefit just one entity at the expense of the entire L.A. area. If the bill becomes law, a flood of similar district bills will demand the same privilege and soon every corner of the state will be experiencing increased early morning consumption, and ensuing costs for public health and safety harms.”
There is considerable and widespread opposition to AB 3206 throughout the state and in the Legislature…
“Despite the narrow scope of the Bar Bill, it sets a dangerous precedent,” stated Senator Kelly Seyarto (R-Murrieta). “Making an exception for one venue to allow operation into the early morning hours will add drunk drivers on the roads of Inglewood and the surrounding communities, at the time that early morning commuters are getting on the road. As a retired firefighter who worked in those very communities, I cannot support AB 3206.”
“Driving under the influence kills. Enabling residents to drink into the early morning hours is dangerous, and public policy should never worsen an already deadly situation,” said Assemblyman Tom Lackey (R-Palmdale), a retired California Highway Patrol Sergeant who has witnessed tragic, unnecessary deaths.
Despite opposition within the Legislature, AB 3206 has advanced up to now, most recently by just one vote – in a key Senate Governmental Organization Committee hearing in June. It will soon be up for a full Senate floor vote. Advocates are asking Senators to place public health and safety above Steve Ballmer’s bottom line and Vote NO on the bill.
“Though the language of this Bar bill seeks to collect an impact assessment report one year after implementation — as advocates for “communities” and the reduction of harm associated with alcohol, we firmly hold to the belief that one life lost is one life too many,” added Verdugo on behalf of the California Alcohol Policy Alliance (CAPA). “Any effort to introduce alcohol legislation that exacerbates the life-threatening conditions impacting innocent lives — should never be considered advantageous to any city or county in our state, VIP status or not.”
“This would be another capitulation to deregulation by California, at a time when alcohol-related deaths have continued spiraling year after year,” said Carson Benowitz-Fredericks, Research Director at Alcohol Justice. “We think of our state as cutting edge, compassionate, intelligent. But we are losing our friends and neighbors to alcohol for the same reasons other localities saw horrific death tolls from COVID-19: a refusal to listen to the science, and a refusal to care about human lives.”
FACTS
- AB 3206 will allow extending alcohol sales to 4 a.m. in the VIP lounge at Steve Ballmor’s Intuit Dome Arena where his L.A. Clippers will play.
- The risks of extended service times apply to VIPs the same as they do to anyone else, POSSIBLY MORE—consumption tends to increase with wealth. Rich people running into working-class people.
- These “VIP” areas are notoriously devoid of accountability and incentivized to cover up violence, sexual assault, and injury, much more so than bars open to the public
- Keeping consumption confined in a “VIP” area creates a space even more devoid of accountability than most late-night bars and clubs
- AB 3206 trades the public health and safety of the greater Los Angeles area for enhancing an Inglewood corporation’s profits
- AB 3206 will subsidize and reward nightlife alcohol-sellers at tax-payer expense
- AB 3206 concentrates profit while spreading risk, disruption and harm
- Aside from the risk of assault, accidental injury, and motor vehicle crashes, drinking until 4 a.m. creates conditions where exhaustion + alcohol becomes more deadly than either would be alone
- AB 3206 would create a slippery slope to strip away statewide uniform protections of 2 a.m. last call
- A later last call does not fill any need expressed by any reasonable adult, and granting this will make every major venue with a “VIP” room demand the same
- AB 3206 disregards 40 years of peer-reviewed, public health research on the dangers of extending last call
- AB 3206 would cost cities and towns in the Inglewood/L.A. “Splash Zones” millions in harm, disruption, and additional police and ambulance service
- Alcohol-related deaths are out of control in California, climbing from 70% in only six years. (From 10,800 deaths annually in 2015 to 19,335 in 2021. Esser et al. 2020; Jiménez, Demeter & Pinsker 2023)
- Alcohol-related driving fatalities also continued to rise, from 966 in 2019 to 1370 in 2021. (California Office of Traffic Safety 2023)
- AB 3206 ignores $35 billion in annual alcohol-related harm in California
- A 4 a.m. last call anywhere in Los Angeles is a threat to all of Los Angeles
“We keep forgetting that, when someone gets wasted and crashes their car, they often crash into someone else,” added Benowitz-Fredericks. “AB 3206, like so many ill-conceived alcohol free-for-alls that are so popular in Sacramento, might make one extraordinarily wealthy person’s night a little more fun, earn one billionaire another couple thousand dollars. And the cost? The life of an innocent early-morning commuter who never asked for any of this, never benefitted from it, never voted for it, and leaves a family behind.”
CAPA Member Organizations
- Alcohol Justice
- Alcohol-Narcotics Education Foundation of California
- ADAPP, Inc.
- ADAPT San Ramon Valley
- Bay Area Community Resources
- Behavioral Health Services, Inc.
- CA Council on Alcohol Problems
- CASA for Safe & Healthy Neighborhoods
- Center for Human Development
- Center for Open Recovery
- Eden Youth & Family Center
- Institute for Public Strategies
- FASD Network of Southern CA
- FreeMUNI – SF
- Friday Night Live Partnership
- Koreatown Youth & Community Center
- Laytonville Healthy Start
- L.A. County Friday Night Live
- L.A. Drug & Alcohol Policy Alliance
- L.A. County Office of Education
- Lutheran Office of Public Policy – CA
- MFI Recovery Center
- Mountain Communities Family Resource Center
- National Asian Pacific American Families Against Substance Abuse
- Partnership for a Positive Pomona
- Paso por Paso, Inc.
- Project SAFER
- Pueblo y Salud
- Reach Out
- San Marcos Prevention Coalition
- San Rafael Alcohol & Drug Coalition
- SF DogPAC
- SAY San Diego
- Saving Lives Drug & Alcohol Coalition
- South Orange County Coalition
- Tarzana Treatment Centers, Inc.
- The Wall Las Memorias Project
- UCEPP Social Model Recovery Systems
- Women Against Gun Violence
- Youth For Justice
Jeanne Shimatsu, Prevention Director at the Asian American Drug Abuse Program (AADAP) stated, “Our organization has long partnered with the Inglewood community to provide treatment services, including educating, informing, and advocating a safer and healthier environment for youth and families. We want to emphasize that extended bar service hours are detrimental to Inglewood’s community wellness. A few drinks after 2 a.m. can cost more than material damage—it will cost lives.”
TAKE ACTION to STOP AB 3206 https://www.votervoice.net/AlcoholJustice/Campaigns/115851/Respond
Or Text PUBLICSAFETY to 50457
For More Information go to: https://alcoholjustice.org/projects/california-alcohol-policy-alliance/ or https://alcoholjustice.org/
SOURCE Alcohol Justice and the California Alcohol Policy Alliance (CAPA)
STM Daily News is a vibrant news blog dedicated to sharing the brighter side of human experiences. Emphasizing positive, uplifting stories, the site focuses on delivering inspiring, informative, and well-researched content. With a commitment to accurate, fair, and responsible journalism, STM Daily News aims to foster a community of readers passionate about positive change and engaged in meaningful conversations. Join the movement and explore stories that celebrate the positive impacts shaping our world.
https://stmdailynews.com/category/stories-this-moment
News
How healthy is Sodastream?
The SodaStream Sparkling Water Maker is a device that forces carbon dioxide (CO2) gas (stored under pressure in a cylinder) into water, making it sparkling (fizzy)
Sodastream machines have been gaining popularity in recent years as an alternative to store-bought soft drinks. Not only are they more environmentally friendly, but they also offer several health benefits compared to traditional sodas.
Reduced Sugar Intake
One of the most significant health benefits of using a Sodastream machine is reducing sugar intake. Traditional sodas are loaded with sugar, and excessive sugar intake can lead to weight gain, obesity, and other health problems such as Type 2 diabetes. With a Sodastream machine, you can control the amount of sugar you add to your drink, allowing you to enjoy a refreshing beverage without the harmful effects of excessive sugar consumption.
No Artificial Sweeteners
Many store-bought soft drinks contain artificial sweeteners, which can have negative health effects such as headaches and digestive problems. Sodastream machines, on the other hand, allow you to use natural sweeteners such as fruit extracts, honey or agave nectar, giving you a healthier and more natural alternative.
No Preservatives
Another advantage of using a Sodastream machine is that you can avoid preservatives commonly found in store-bought soft drinks. Preservatives such as sodium benzoate and potassium sorbate have been linked to health problems such as cancer and allergies. By making your own drinks, you can avoid these harmful additives and enjoy a healthier, preservative-free beverage.
Eco-Friendly
In addition to the health benefits, using a Sodastream machine is also environmentally friendly. Traditional soft drinks are packaged in plastic bottles or cans, which contribute to environmental pollution. With a Sodastream machine, you can reuse the same bottle multiple times, reducing waste and helping to reduce your carbon footprint.
Variety
Finally, Sodastream machines offer a wide variety of flavors and options, allowing you to customize your drink to your liking. You can mix and match different flavors or create your own unique blends, giving you a healthier and more enjoyable alternative to traditional sodas.
In conclusion, Sodastream machines offer several health benefits compared to traditional store-bought soft drinks. By reducing sugar intake, avoiding artificial sweeteners and preservatives, and being eco-friendly, they offer a healthier and more sustainable alternative to traditional soft drinks. Moreover, with a wide variety of flavors and options, you can customize your drink to your liking, making it a fun and enjoyable way to stay healthy.
Consumer Corner
Behind the Product: What Sustainability Looks Like in Beauty Development
Beauty Development: Shoppers want to know what ingredients are used, how items are packaged and whether the production process includes thoughtful choices. Beauty brands are taking note, and sustainability is increasingly shaping decisions across sourcing, packaging, production, shipping, storage and replenishment.
s
(Feature Impact) Shoppers are paying closer attention to the products they bring into their homes. They want to know what ingredients are used, how items are packaged and whether the production process includes thoughtful choices. Beauty brands are taking note, and sustainability is increasingly shaping decisions across sourcing, packaging, production, shipping, storage and replenishment.
Responsible product lines rarely come from sweeping change. They are built through smaller, connected choices made throughout development. Packaging, ingredient sourcing and production planning influence how a product performs, how much waste it creates and how sustainably products can be produced.
Consider this beauty sustainability information from Laura Badcock, Chief Operating Officer of NourishUs Naturals.
Why packaging matters beyond appearance
“Packaging is often the first thing shoppers notice,” Badcock said. “It can shape how someone feels about a product before they ever try what’s inside.”
A package should look appealing, though appearance is only part of the equation. It also needs to protect the product, travel safely, store well and hold up through regular use. Once the product is finished, the packaging should allow easy recycling, refilling or responsible disposal.
There is no single packaging option that works best for every beauty product. A lightweight container may reduce shipping weight. A refillable option may stay in use longer. A recyclable material may work well in one area but create challenges in another if local recycling systems cannot process it. Even packaging that appears sustainable can create problems in practice if it leaks, breaks or requires excess shipping materials.
Why ingredient sourcing matters
“Ingredient lists have become an important part of how people evaluate beauty products,” Badcock said. “Shoppers often look for familiar oils, butters, botanical extracts and information about how ingredients were sourced, which plays a major role in the environmental impact.”
A product’s environmental footprint is influenced by many factors, including shipping distance, processing methods, storage conditions and supplier practices.
These factors can also affect product consistency and ingredient availability over time. Beauty brands working with wholesale skin care suppliers or private label manufacturers often need to balance ingredient goals with sourcing reliability and production needs.
How better planning can lead to less waste
“Packaging and ingredients are usually the first things people associate with sustainability, but how much product gets made, stored and discarded matters, too,” Badcock said.
Overproduction is one of the biggest hidden sources of waste in beauty and personal care. Products that sit too long in storage may eventually expire or remain unsold. Excess inventory can also create additional packaging waste, warehousing needs and disposal costs.
Smaller batch sizes give producers more room to adjust as trends or demand shift, and producing closer to expected sales windows helps reduce long storage periods and unnecessary waste. Testing new products in smaller volumes and restocking based on actual demand makes overproduction less likely.
How sustainable beauty choices are connected
Packaging, ingredient sourcing and production planning are closely connected throughout development.
“A packaging choice can affect shipping weight, storage needs and whether a package can be refilled,” Badcock said. “Ingredient choices can influence sourcing timelines and how products need to be stored. Production planning affects how much material gets used and how much product could eventually go unsold.”
Beauty shoppers want more transparency around sustainability claims
Sustainability claims carry less weight when those claims aren’t explained in practice.
This shift is pushing many beauty brands to focus more heavily on traceability, supplier relationships and clearer product information. Transparency is becoming part of the customer experience itself.
More responsible product lines are built over time
Responsible beauty products come together through ongoing choices around packaging, sourcing, production and inventory planning. For shoppers, those choices influence the products they bring into their homes.
“The brands that build sustainability into early decisions tend to have the easiest time maintaining it later,” Badcock said. “Once supplier relationships, packaging formats and production routines are in place, small adjustments are far easier than major changes. Treating sustainability as part of product development from the beginning, rather than something to fix later, is what makes it work in practice.”
To find more information on the intersection of beauty and sustainability, visitNourishUsNaturals.com.
Photo courtesy of Shutterstock
SOURCE:
Protect yourself from the latest online scams with STM Daily News. From AI-powered fraud schemes to consumer safety tips, our Consumer Corner delivers practical information to help you make informed decisions. Visit STM Daily News for more news you can use this moment, and don’t forget to subscribe to our newsletter for updates delivered straight to your inbox.
Automotive
EPA removal of vehicle emissions limits won’t stop the shift to electric vehicles, but will make it harder, slower and more expensive
The EPA’s move to rescind the 2009 “endangerment finding” and roll back vehicle emissions limits won’t stop the shift to electric vehicles—but it will slow adoption, raise costs, and increase climate and public health harms.
Alan Jenn, University of California, Davis
The U.S. government is in full retreat from its efforts to make vehicles more fuel-efficient, which it had been prioritizing, along with state governments, since the 1970s.
The latest move came on Feb. 12, 2026, when President Donald Trump and the Environmental Protection Agency issued a new rule rescinding the landmark “endangerment finding,” and reversing various emissions limits on cars and trucks. The 2009 finding stated that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare. If the new rule stands up in court and is not overruled by Congress, it would undo a key part of the long-standing effort to limit greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.
As a scholar of how vehicle emissions contribute to climate change, I know that the science behind the endangerment finding hasn’t changed. If anything, the evidence has grown that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet and threatening people’s health and safety. Heat waves, flooding, sea-level rise and wildfires have only worsened in the decade and a half since the EPA’s ruling.
Regulations over the years have cut emissions from power generation, leaving transportation as the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.
The scientific community agrees that vehicle emissions are harmful and should be regulated. The public also agrees, and has indicated strong preferences for cars that pollute less, including both more efficient gas-burning vehicles and electric-powered ones. Consumers have also been drawn to electric vehicles thanks to other benefits such as performance, operation cost and innovative technologies.
That is why I believe the EPA’s move will not stop the public and commercial transition to electric vehicles, but it will make that shift harder, slower and more expensive for everyone.
Putting carmakers in a bind
The most recent EPA rule about vehicle emissions was finalized in 2024. It set emissions limits that can realistically only be met by a large-scale shift to electric vehicles.
Over the past decade and a half, automakers have been building up their capability to produce electric vehicles to meet these fleet requirements, and a combination of regulations such as California’s zero-emission-vehicle requirements have worked together to ensure customers can get their hands on EVs. The zero-emission-vehicle rules require automakers to produce EVs for the California market, which in turn make it easier for the companies to meet their efficiency and emissions targets from the federal government. These collectively pressure automakers to provide a steady supply of electric vehicles to consumers.
The new EPA move would undo the 2024 EPA vehicle-emissions rule and other federal regulations that also limit emissions from vehicles, such as the heavy-duty vehicle emissions rule.
The possibility of a regulatory reversal puts automakers into a state of uncertainty. Legal challenges to the EPA’s shift are all but guaranteed, and the court process could take years.
For companies making decade-long investment decisions, regulatory stability matters more than short-term politics. Disrupting that stability undermines business planning, erodes investor confidence and sends conflicting signals to consumers and suppliers alike.
A slower roll
The Trump administration has taken other steps to make electric vehicles less attractive to carmakers and consumers.
The White House has already suspended key provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act that provided tax credits for purchasing EVs and halted a US$5 billion investment in a nationwide network of charging stations. And Congress has retracted the federal waiver that allowed California to set its own, stricter emissions limits. In combination, these policies make it hard to buy and drive electric vehicles: Fewer, or no, financial incentives for consumers make the purchases more expensive, and fewer charging stations make travel planning more challenging.
Overturning the EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding would remove the legal basis for regulating climate pollution from vehicles altogether.
But U.S. consumer interest in electric vehicles has been growing, and automakers have already made massive investments to produce electric vehicles and their associated components in the U.S. – such as Hyundai’s EV factory in Georgia and Volkswagen’s Battery Engineering Lab in Tennessee.
Global markets, especially in Europe and China, are also moving decisively toward electrifying large proportions of the vehicles on the road. This move is helped in no small part due to aggressive regulation by their respective governments. The results speak for themselves: Sales of EVs in both the European Union and China have been growing rapidly.
But the pace of change matters. A slower rollout of clean vehicles means more cumulative emissions, more climate damage and more harm to public health.
The EPA’s move seeks to slow the shift to electric vehicles, removing incentives and raising costs – even though the market has shown that cleaner vehicles are viable, the public has shown interest, and the science has never been clearer. But even such a major policy change can’t stop the momentum of those trends.
This is an updated version of an article originally published Aug. 5, 2025.
Alan Jenn, Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Stay ahead of the curve with STM Daily News’ Tech section, featuring the latest on innovation, consumer technology, digital trends, startups, AI, and the stories shaping how we live and work.
