To request inclusion of your local peace and social justice action, please email BerkSpeak@gmail.com.
On Tuesday September 29 at 4pm (note the early time!), the Berkeley city council will make the final decision about whether chemical weapons belong in the hands of Berkeley police. These include CS, commonly known as “tear gas,” pepper spray, and smoke.
Please read the proposal and come to, or Zoom or call into the meeting at 4pm. The item is the only item on ths agenda, The meeting is not yet posted online, so please watch https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/city-council/city-council-agendas
The proposal can be found on the previous meeting agenda at https://berkeleyca.gov/city-council-regular-meeting-eagenda-september-15-2026. There is a regular meeting at 6pm, so it is likely that the weapons proponents will try to rush through the process at a time many working people cannot be there. Your voice must be heard.
This proposal has been pending for many months. Now, as often happens with this council, there are late-breaking developments. We will try to explain here:
The Police Accountability Board has submitted a supplemental proposal, focused specifically on the issue of CS/tear gas. The proposal can be found at https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2026-09-03%20PAB%20Letter%20to%20Council_Item18%20TearGas.pdf
The board maintains its concerns about the lifting restrictions on CS, saying diplomatically:”We continue to question whether the proposal reintroduces a tool associated with significant community concern for marginal operational benefit.”
However, noting that the council has stated it wants to go forward with the chemical weapons, the board negotiated a compromise with the police department to limit the approved uses of CS. The PAB states:
“If the Council decides to approve the use of tear gas, we recommend that the Council’s motion and recommendation incorporate the policy language approved and agreed upon by both the PAB and BPD. ” Here is that language:
* * *
PAB and BPD Approved Policy Language Regarding the Use of Tear Gas in Limited Circumstances
“Tear gas shall only be used upon approval by the Incident Commander by trained members of the Special Response Team during the following tactical operations, provided that the suspect refuses to comply, and the supervisor reasonably believes that the risks of deploying tear gas are outweighed by the risks of not deploying tear gas:
- Barricaded subject operations
- Service of a high-risk warrant during which a suspect is actively presenting a threat of death or serious injury to officers or others; or
- Hostage situations. If feasible, prior to the use of tear gas, the SRT should (1) issue verbal warnings and (2) take reasonable steps to ensure that the suspect is in a controlled, contained area and that non-suspects are provided the opportunity to leave the area. Following the use of tear gas, the SRT shall ensure that any impacted person is offered medical care as soon as feasible.
Tear gas shall not be used for crowd control or crowd management, or during homeless encampment abatements.”
* * *
We will add to the PAB’s concerns about the little benefit to public safety tear gas and the other chemical weapons might bring, that they come with a documented record of harms, particularly to people with disabilities. The record is also clear that once the police have possession of a technology, whether it is a weapon or surveillance, no policy will effectively prevent their use for prohibited purposes.
As a public service, Berkeley Speaks presents excerpts from the March 9 Peace and Justice Commission alternative proposal, urging a no vote on BPD use of chemical weapons.:
Recommendations to Council:
Adopt a Policy approving the following actions with regard to the appropriateness of certain chemical weapons and other tools
Request the City Manager to engage an academic institution such as UC Berkeley, UCSF, or Stanford to study the health impacts of tear gas and other chemical weapons and canine support, potential short-term and long-term impacts on vulnerable populations and possible alternatives to the use of chemical weapons that provide officer safety, suspect safety, and safety to the general public..
Summary:
The Peace and Justice Commission recommends applying a social justice lens to policing decisions that could have a significant impact on the lives of Berkeley’s residents and visitors, including disparate impact on marginalized, low-income, disabled, elder, and community members of color.
It is the Commission’s perspective that human rights must be prioritized above administrative convenience. The Commission further finds that in an era of great polarization, it is essential to build bridges among disparate constituencies, listen to people with diverse points of view, and create solutions that serve all the people in Berkeley. For that reason, we propose that the City Manager request academic support for an independent study of health effects of the proposed weapons and tools.
Retain the existing 2020 bans on chemical weapons (CS and OC),
Background:
On June 6, 2020, in the wake of the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police, the City Council established a permanent ban on the use of CS (tear gas) and a moratorium on the use of OC (pepper spray) and smoke. The moratorium was in part due to the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic which caused respiratory distress to large numbers of people. It was also a step toward addressing over-policing and the use of military-style weaponry on civilians.
Environmental Sustainability And Climate Impacts:
Physicians for Human Rights states that chemical irritants including both CS (“tear gas” and OC (pepper spray) can spread to affect people other than the intended target.7 CS often has a wide spray pattern. OC is considered more targeted than CS, but wind can affect the direction of the fumes to affect bystanders and even the user.
Rationale for Recommendation:
This is a complex proposal covering multiple chemical weapons.
The Peace and Justice Commission recommends Council retain the ban on CS (“tear gas”) and the moratorium on OC and Smoke for these four reasons:
- CS and OC are dangerous weapons that are properly considered “less-lethal,” not “non-lethal.”
- CS and OC are particularly dangerous to the health of people with disabilities, especially respiratory or environmental sensitivities, and also those suffering from mental or behavioral disorders.
- Approval of chemical weapons such as CS for any use opens the door to the possibility of use for other purposes and in other manners.
- Berkeley’s Precautionary Principle ordinance requires showing that actions do no harm to human health or the environment.
Dangers of CS (“tear gas”), particularly to people with disabilities
Over decades of research, scientists have shown a strong potential harm from CS use in policing. An Oakland Police Department policy warns,
“Chemical agents can produce serious injuries, or even death,” and officers are to “use the minimum amount of chemical agent needed to obtain compliance.” Further, “the use of hand-thrown chemical agents or pyrotechnic gas dispersal devices may present a risk of permanent loss of hearing or serious bodily injury from shrapnel.”
The common and incorrect term “tear gas” makes CS seem trivial. It is actually not even a gas but an aerosol, made up of ultra-fine particles, or UFPs. Aerosols are dangerous to lung health because, according to the U.S. National Library of Medicine,
“The small size of UFPs allows them to penetrate deep into the respiratory tract, causing effects from mild respiratory issues to cardiovascular and respiratory mortality, lung cancer, neurological diseases, and mutagenic or carcinogenic impacts…. Substantial evidence links [ultrafine particulate matter] exposure to increased hospital admissions and premature deaths among vulnerable populations, particularly the elderly and those with pre‐existing conditions.”[1]
Potential for non-compliant or unauthorized uses of CS
The Commission appreciates the exception to ban use of CS in crowd control.
However, good policy is necessary but not sufficient for good practice. Once a weapon is acquired and approved for limited use, it is almost inevitable that it will be used for out-of-policy use. As an example, we refer to the last large-scale use of CS, the police response to Black Lives Matter protests in December 2014.
On December 6, BPD drove a largely peaceful march almost a mile down Telegraph from the UC campus past the Oakland city line. The direction from BPD command to the officers was to “Get’Um Running!” To implement this direction, officers shot less-lethal projectiles into the crowd, hit marchers with batons, and launched some 50 cans of CS gas, such a large amount that they nearly exhausted their supply. The Police Review Commission’s (PRC) after-incident report stated:
“The crowd complied with officer demands to move south, but the police continued to pursue them, deploying CS gas at six intersections on Telegraph and using raised batons and baton jabs. No evidence of dangerous crowd activity has been provided to the commission to justify these repeated uses of force.
“The combination of repeated CS gas exposure along with the lengthy walk was extremely impactful, and there were reports of protestors suffering physical and emotional injuries as a result. The marchers were driven over the city line into Oakland around 1:30 AM.”[2]
For context, in 1991, after an earlier scandal regarding police action against protestors in People’s Park, the City enacted a policy that “no crowd could be forced to move faster than they were reasonably capable of moving.” But in 2014, the use of mass quantities of CS along with baton strikes were ordered explicitly to drive protestors on a forced run all the way to Oakland.
As Physicians for Human Rights has observed, “The physical symptoms of chemical irritants often result in disorientation and agitation, which can lead to a state of fear, anxiety, and panic.”[3] The 2014 use of CS was an escalation, not a move toward de-escalation, and made compliance with police orders extremely difficult.
Therefore, while CS use in crowd control was still legal in 2014, the manner of its use was contrary to City policy of that day. This recent history shows that stated policy is not enough to ensure that this department, when in possession of dangerous military armaments, will use them appropriately.
Issues with OC (pepper spray) and smoke; the deadly and racially biased history of OC
The risk of OC should not be cavalierly dismissed by claiming, as the council proposal does, that “the specific health concerns that necessitated the temporary moratorium on smoke and OC spray are no longer present.” The ACLU reported in 1998 that in the first five years since the approval of its use by police, at least 33 people had died in California after being sprayed and restrained. Nearby Antioch paid the family of 29-year-old Derek Wallace $362,000 after their officers subdued him with the spray.[4]
A Berkeley freelance journalist mapped the use of pepper spray in the mid 1990s and found that they largely affected Black men, in low-income, minority neighborhoods, and primarily an area in South Berkeley, centered on Alcatraz and Sacramento, dubbed the “Pepper Spray Triangle.”[5]
Berkeleyans have long memories. The author of the resolution speaks of a “large-scale riot” in 2014 in which BPD was compelled to use tear gas on residents. Demonstrators for Black Lives Matter remember a largely peaceful march which was provoked by a police gauntlet in which many were beaten with batons. For many in the community, time has not abated the blow. Today, with the federal government at war with the people, may be the worst time to suggest restarting use of CS/tear gas.
Smoke also cannot be called a safe police tool. Health impacts are dependent on the chemicals in the smoke, pre-existing health conditions, location of the smoke, and other police tactics applied. According to medical experts, hexachloroethane smoke is “demonstrably more dangerous” than tear gas. This chemical agent should be studied and proven safe before approved for police use.[6]
There appear to be no constraints on the use of either OC or smoke in the proposal before council.
The Commission reminds the Council of the Precautionary Principle that it adopted in 2006. The Principle is an approach to decision-making that prioritizes preventing harm to human health and the environment. The Principle shifts the burden of proof, requiring actions to be proven safe, rather than waiting for proof of damage to restrict them. We recommend that lacking proof of safety, the proposal to authorize CS, pepper spray, and smoke should not be approved.[7]
Given the prevalence of Long COVID, Berkeley’s rapidly aging population, the large number of environmentally sensitive residents, and the city’s legacy as the birthplace of disability rights, it is neither sensitive nor appropriate for the proposal to state that the emergency is over and the health conditions that necessitated the moratorium are no longer present.
[1] Damiati, “Aerosol Pollutants and Health: Role of Size and Chemical Composition,” Sept. 26 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12466196/#:~:text=In%20densely%20populated%20areas%2C%20aerosols,COPD%20%5B31%2C%2032%5D.
For more on the effect of CS on the lung, particularly on “people with preexisting respiratory conditions,see:
American Lung Association, Jan. 20 2026, https://www.lung.org/clean-air/outdoors/what-makes-air-unhealthy/toxic-air-pollutants/tear-gas
[2] “Report of Investigation Into the Response to Protest on December 6, 2014,” Berkeley Police Review Commission, Dec. 1 2015,
https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2026-01/2015-12-01-Item-32a-Report-of-Investigation.pdf
[3] “Health Impacts of Crowd-Control Weapons: Chemical Irritants (Tear Gas and Pepper Spray),” Physicians for Human Rights, Jan. 1 2017,https://phr.org/our-work/resources/health-impacts-of-crowd-control-weapons-chemical-irritants-tear-gas-and-pepper-spray/
[4] Heredia, “Antioch Settles Pepper Spray Case For $362,000 / 29-year-old man died after police subdued him,” SF Chronicle, Feb 11 1998, https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/antioch-settles-pepper-spray-case-for-362-000-3013916.php
[5] East Bay Express, Dec. 12, 1997
[6] Foster, “The US Government Keeps Using Dangerous Chemicals on Protesters,” Mother Jones, Feb. 19, 2026,https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2026/02/ice-facility-portland-what-chemicals-used-tear-gas-hc-smoke-protests/#:~:text=The%20smoke%20releases%20zinc%20chloride,and%20cancer%20with%20repeated%20exposure.
[7] BMC Chapter 12.29, Precautionary Principle, March 21, 2006,berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Precautionary%20Principle%20Ordinance%20-%206911.pdf
Berkeley Speaks Newspaper
https://berkeleyspeaks.org/