New smoking ban for Seattle parks

d8tabrazil said on February 19, 2010 at 5:24 PM

woah! Woah! WOah! WOAh! WOAH! The Language of the Seattle "law"/ordinance is CLEAR. It blantantly says that CHEWING TOBACCO is an offense! Soooo....I chew. I don't spit. I put a dip in and "gut it" (meaning swallow). I don't give a crab's bottom side, but the day a city, county, state, or federal government MANDATES that I cannot enter a park because I have something in my mouth (that doesn't hurt anyone, isn't NOTICED by anyone) gets a court case. Thank you Seattle. This is my public notice to the City of Seattle to re-word it's law/ordinance whithin 30 days, or I take the City of Seattle to civil court for violating my civil rights.

mount1si1grad said on February 19, 2010 at 3:12 PM

Q13 just said that due to strong opposition, the ban will be in pinic areas and beaches.

crabber33 said on February 19, 2010 at 8:40 AM

I would like to propose a ban on farting in the city of Seattle.

thegame said on February 18, 2010 at 6:00 PM

No problem, just remove my tax dollars from the parks system, and I wont smoke there.

couggirl said on February 18, 2010 at 5:58 PM

This is just plain stupid. Are we becoming a Gustopo state? The people of the State of Washington pay lots of tax dollars to have these parks where they can go to relax and enjoy the scenery, now it seems, the parks are for non-smokers only. HELLO........ The non-smokers do not pay ALL the taxes here. Why should they have more say then the smokers! Honestly, do you really believe that the amount of smoke in the air of a park like Woodland Park or Salmon Bay Park is going to adversly affect anyone? Get real! Maybe a designated smoking area could be set up.If the Federal Government really wants everyone to quit smoking, I suggest two things. One, provide all smokers with an effective means to quit....at no charge and two, stop selling and manufacturing the offending products. In the meantime, state should stay out of it. I would just bet that some of those elected officials who voted to enforce this ban are smokers too. How bout we ban them from smoking if they want to keep their jobs?

rollingeye said on February 18, 2010 at 3:45 PM

Emily. More like the : NAZI States of America. Anti-smoking started with Hitler in 1936! Guess we have NOT learned from the Mistakes of the past!

dede1978 said on February 18, 2010 at 3:08 PM

Nice to see others who oppose this, not that it will make any difference. And since there is no fine involved, I don't really see police officers enforcing it. It's not really a law anyway, it's a ban put in place by the superindendent of Seattle Parks and Recreation. I don't see much enforcement happening. Plus, someone has to complain, then someone has to show up and tell the individual to leave, and by the way you can't come back to the park tomorrow.... But realistically, smoking outdoors is not really a problem, even for those who are allergic. Unless of course they are sitting right next to you and breathing it in as you blow it out. We've been pushed outdoors, now we're being pushed out of the parks. Next, they'll come into my back yard and tell me I can't do it there..... If they really want to make a difference, then they should just make it illegal. But they won't because the government makes too much money off it, taxes included.

srinbellevue said on February 18, 2010 at 2:51 PM

one major issue with this is that it gives the cops the power to selectively enforce the law on "undesirable" people. of course they're not going to go after every joe who's having a smoke in the park. but it gives them latitude to force out the homeless people. maybe you think that's a good thing, but a law that disproportionally affects poor people is not a law i support. (non-smoker, by the way).

applmagotqrntine said on February 18, 2010 at 1:51 PM

First they came for our guns...

ineedurface4soup said on February 18, 2010 at 1:42 PM

What a waste of city resources. Smelling cigarette smoke does not hurt anyone or anything. Being locked in a room without ventalation, yes, but simply catching the scent of a cigarette is nothing. Don't you R-tards have anything else to worry about? Catch me if you can. I will never abide by this county "law".

detour said on February 18, 2010 at 1:12 PM

The control freaks strike again!!! I don't smoke, never have, never will. I don't mind going to a bar and having people smoke. I don't like to control others unless they are adbersly affecting me. Second hand smoke isn't a big deal to me.

gritz said on February 18, 2010 at 1:00 PM

For a State that boost about being liberal, I find it amusing that they are the most conformist bunch of hypocrites anywhere. At the local level, they tell you where you can smoke, in a park, in your car. How far you need to set from a stripper, in a club? What you need to wear to sell coffee. On the state level they want to increase tax on Candy, Booze and cigarettes and gas. I guess once everyone turns into a long hair, granola eating, bike peddler, they'll tax our soap.

baldeagle said on February 18, 2010 at 12:51 PM

Another waste of tax payer dollars!

btvsrcks said on February 18, 2010 at 12:26 PM

I will never understand people. No smoking in bars! ok fine, the smokers move outside. No smoking outside! I don't want my little ones around it! Ok.. why not let them smoke in bars and not outside in parks then? At least it will be contained. People are stupid. They won't get mad until it effects them. Remember the latte tax they wanted at one point? These suburbanites and yuppies went into an UPROAR.

greatnw said on February 18, 2010 at 10:53 AM

chuckstr76: perhaps what we should do is outlaw cancer since that is also bad for you...or we could tax it...it makes about as much sense.

chevelle70ss said on February 18, 2010 at 10:26 AM

I am an ex smoker and yes it stinks especially more so now to me BUT this is just rediculous it was bad enough when they banned it in bars in which i stopped going because everytime i wanted a smoke i would loose my table or at the casino I would miss out on hands. But a park come on, the least they could do is make a "smoking area" then people could just go there.

chuckstr76 said on February 18, 2010 at 10:22 AM

Since smoking is bad for you, let just OUTLAW all tobacco products while we're at it. Ban smoking indoors, outdoors, all over, what the hell, why not, Cancer is bad for you, so lets outlaw anything that causes cancer... I think the ban is going too far, If people want to smoke, let them, but let them also pay their own medical bills related to smoking. I dont care where they smoke, I dont care that they smoke, because I dont smoke.

dede1978 said on February 18, 2010 at 9:24 AM

And smileawhile, the pollutants from vehicles are ten times worse than the cigarette I'm smoking at the park. Not to mention that when I do smoke at a park, I make it a point to be away from others, especially children. But I shouldn't have to leave that park to smoke. It's not like the smoke lingers like it does in a closed environment......

dede1978 said on February 18, 2010 at 9:11 AM

Thank cvn65, but smokers have no rights. I'm a smoker and go out of my way to be polite and not offend others. But I pay taxes too, in fact as a smoker I probably pay a whole lot more than non-smokers. Are they ready to make up the tax revenue when we all quit? I think not, but the government will find a way to make up for the lost revenue. Also, the police won't be out there arresting us for smoking in parks and they won't be issuing tickets either. And I wonder who will be watching and booting us out and then making sure we don't come back for the day or two of suspension from the park. This new law is unrealistic. But they'll never admit to infringing on our rights as tax payers...... They really could be focusing on more important things such as drugs and violence in the parks.

smileawhile said on February 18, 2010 at 8:19 AM

On this issue of RIGHTS vs RESPONSIBILITY. Yes, people have the RIGHT to clean air! Smokers have the RESPONSIBITY to NOT pollute others air. It is a miserable experience to take children (allergic to smoke) and be ASSAULTED by digusting air. Don't go off on how smokers will go bezurk -- you haven't seen anything until you endure a child suffocating from anyphylxsis. Additionally, the so-called 25' law outside a public building is a joke. Smokers just don't get it! They like/love are addicted to this behavior. Sorry. Rights are only right when they DON'T violate needs....like the need to breathe. Follow the link, read it thoughtfully and THEN make up your opinion. http://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/57033.html

darto55 said on February 18, 2010 at 8:19 AM

That's great...now the cops are going to bust people for smoking in the park. I hope somebody isn't raped or murdered while they arrest the real criminals, smokers.

cvn65 said on February 18, 2010 at 7:41 AM

Ok this is WAAAAAY to far. Although I like the idea and it pleases me but It violates the smokers rights.

tracker1 said on February 18, 2010 at 7:07 AM

Well, you've got to ask yourself what other rights they'll be taking away next? Taxation on your bathroom visits? Charged with assault because you looked at someone for more than a second. Come on people let's get real. Forced non-smoking won't work. Smoking is growing out of style and perhaps one day pople won't BUT, you can't force it on people. Remember, it's an addiction so, for the people who don't smoke and are behind forcing this; think about the smoking person who snaps because of your stupidiy and kicks your tail because you've taken away open space. He or she won't smoke in your home or work area but, you shouldn't assume you can take away open air. This is his or her space too. Don't you find it interesting that it's always the non-smoker who comes up with these laws. One who eventually finds out when a new law passes that directly affects them negatively, that they have no control over suddenly realizes.....Oh no I helped build this monster by being stupid

javajoe said on February 18, 2010 at 5:42 AM

Lowering our taxes is a pretty healthy thing to do too. What do you say we start there?

skippypotpiebaby said on February 18, 2010 at 5:13 AM

Well you can still drink your beer and buy your drugs at the park. But no more smoke! And yes 9-year-old Bianca Newell & Mommy crack and beer are good at the park. Now you can go with Dad to the park tell the homeless to go a way and live at the dump

jackwong said on February 18, 2010 at 1:05 AM

Truly a good step towards a healthier Seattle.

neelahn206 said on February 18, 2010 at 12:48 AM

I think that Tim Gallagher needs to take a closer look at his priorities. Guns are allowed, but smoking is not? What about the junkies that hang out and leave their paraphernalia lying around? Does that mean bbq's are out too? Because bbq smoke is quite toxic. What about the homeless that use the bushes as a restroom? There are a lot of things that happen in the parks that not everyone agrees upon, but I think that smoking is the least of our worries.

emily_litella said on February 17, 2010 at 10:50 PM

United Socialist States of America.

rsarris said on February 17, 2010 at 10:48 PM

You've got to be kidding, a person can't smoke outside in a park? One more reason to avoid Seattle at all cost...they are insane!