Smoking ban in park to affect the homeless?

[The Straight Story]

Focus park smoking ban on play areas


Metro Parks and the Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department think they have an offer Tacoma’s leaders can’t refuse.

....

The proposed smoke ban for Tacoma’s parks could accomplish all these things – in theory. Reality is another story.

There’s nothing wrong per se with using the law to encourage healthy behavior. The codes are full of attempts to establish or endorse societal norms. But laws should offer some reasonable hope of solving the problems they purport to address. An all-encompassing ban on smoking in parks falls short.

Smokers who have been kicked out of offices, restaurants and bars yet still puff away aren’t going to kick cigarettes just because the neighborhood park is now off limits.

Kids won’t take up smoking because they saw some shady character at the park smoking. They take up smoking because they see their friends, classmates and loved ones doing it.

Littering? That’s already against the law, yet parks are still strewn with bottles, cans and hamburger wrappers. Tacoma officials might as well tell people not to picnic in the park if they’re serious about cutting down on the amount of trash on the loose.

Trying to legislate smokers into a corner – quite literally – is an overreach. The people who would be disproportionately affected by a park smoking ban are the homeless, many of whom smoke and spend a good deal of their days in parks.


http://www.thenewstribune.com/opinion/editorials/story/806332.html

[imdjh]

1. They should pass a law against smoking crack and prostitution.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

2. shouldn't the government be finding them homes and a good job?

why are they spending their money on smoking? Perhaps some of the bonuses can be directed at finding these souls proper homes?

[The Straight Story]

3. Cause banning smoking feels good to people, like they are doing something to help others

Without leaving the comfort of their homes.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

12. smoking is the tip of the iceberg

there should not be homeless people period in our society

[valerief]

4. Banning smoking wherever, whenever possible helps to bring down health costs.

Too many illnesses are caused from smoking.

[The Straight Story]

5. When did our lives become about other peoples' money?

That seems to be the real problem.

If banning me from things makes other people richer, I dunno, it just seems like we are giving more power over our lives and decisions to others

Should abortion be banned in only the most extreme situations - because people don't have to have sex, they should use condoms, be on the pill, etc? And if we get single payer and those fundies out there can map the cost back to them, should they pay for it?

[valerief]

6. When was it ever different? nt

[The Straight Story]

7. When was it something progressives endorsed? (nt)

[valerief]

8. Progressives endorsed smoking? Well, if you say so!

:hi:

[The Straight Story]

9. Not smoking, banning things and linking the morals and lives of others to money

seems more of a way to control the lives of others - like fundies without religion. Same result, different reasons.

The puritans won out, and will continue to do so.

[anigbrowl]

10. when the government asked people to pay taxes

I'm not especially fired up either way about smoking bans, but on the other hand I think the tobacco companies have had a pretty good run in making their product popular so it's not surprising other people are pushing back at them.

[The Straight Story]

11. Well they already tax smokers and tobacco companies - but it reallys isn't about smoking

It is about how others map the choices you make in life back to them and then seek to ban or punish what you do because it affects them.

We have become so tied together that even turning on your TV in the morning can be shown to harm others because of the electric usage, and more and more we will see people wanting intrusive laws into private lives to keep folks from sinning...err costing someone else.

Everything has a place - but when you keep expanding and moving the line eventually we will elect someone to be dictator because we want the lives of all controlled and metered for the good of everyone else.

Regulation? Good and needed. Too much regulation? You lose freedom for safety.

[pipoman]

13. Legislating against things which smell bad to some...

what could this possibly lead to?

[LAGC]

14. I don't think it should be banned in public parks.

But you can't argue with the scientific studies about the effects of second-hand smoke. In enclosed areas, you simply can't get away from it, so I see nothing wrong with locales wanting to legislate whether indoors establishments should be able to allow such air pollution to take place or not.

Question for you: are you a smoker? And are you against all smoking bans, or just this one?

[The Straight Story]

15. I smoke, and am against some bans

Especially in bars and the like - places people have a choice to work in or go to. I say let the owners decide and if they want to ban it, fine with me. I tend to be pro-choice in that arena.

But for me as I said upthread, it is not the smoking stuff but the principle behind that and how we stretch out to cover more and more things people do/want to do.

Like I hear how much it costs you that I or someone else smokes. Somehow we are slowly mapping all your actions to others and that is going to lead to things like fundies showing how abortions cost us, birth control, what you eat, and the list can go on all night.

Smoking - no big deal, the ideals behind why people want to take away choice are.

I am not a woman, but I favor a woman's right to choose. I don't own a gun, but defend the rights of people to do so. I don't smoke pot, but if someone wanted to open a bar where others could that is fine with me - I am an adult and have a choice where I do my business. Hell I don't care if it is a nudie bar, no clothes allowed, and you can throw darts at one another. If that is your thing have fun, ain't mine though.

I feel the puritans have returned, except now they don't carry a bible of a cross, they carry a wallet and a desire to save sinners from themselves.

[LAGC]

17. I see nothing wrong with bars/clubs setting their own policies either.

But I do think society has every right to be concerned about the overall cost of say health care of those who choose to pollute their bodies over the long-term, esp. if some form of socialized health care becomes reality in this country. That's why I see nothing wrong with taxing the hell out of tobacco products. Pot? Same thing. Legalize it, but TAX it. Use the proceeds to pay for the associated health care costs of those who develop emphysema and other smoking-related ills.

I don't really see the comparison to guns and abortion though. If anything, NOT allowing abortion should be seen as a cost to society, with all the extra unwanted/uncared-for bodies consuming more and more of our planet's finite resources, as we continue to overpopulate the globe. Guns? I know of no unintended long-term side effects of legally exercising one's Second Amendment right either to the gun-user himself, or bystanders (second-hand gun-smoke?) unless you consider the occasional accidental discharge. But the few gun-related accidents that do occur from the legal use of firearms are nothing that's nothing compared to how many people really do suffer from ailments due to the legal practice of smoking.

But yes, in the end, as a non-smoker myself, even without any sort of indoor smoking ban, I will choose whether or not to patronize those establishments that do allow smoking, and take my consumer dollars elsewhere.

[pipoman]

16. Scientific studies about extereme prolonged exposure to 2nd hand

smoke in enclosed places? Should I not be allowed to say open a restaurant called Smoker's Oasis catering to people who wish to smoke after dining or while drinking socially? Non smokers certainly have the option of not coming.

This is my issue with these smoking bans.