Hey, there! Log in / Register
City Council wants to ban smoking in parks
By adamg on Fri, 11/22/2013 - 9:03am
Measure would also ban e-cigs and pot, needs approval from the mayor and the parks department.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
I just wish people would pick
I just wish people would pick up their butts.
And
Their dogs shit!
I see more people cleaning up
I see more people cleaning up after their dog than disposing their butts properly.
maybe because...
It's way grosser to step in dog sh*t than to step on a cigarette butt.
At least improperly disposed
At least improperly disposed dog shit doesn't set buildings on fire.
E-cigarettes? Really?
Does the measure ban nicotine gum too?
At a glance, how do you tell the difference
between a person smoking an e-cig and a person smoking a real one. Answer - you can't. So from an enforcement perspective, it's logical to ban both e-cigs and real ones. This is tha same rationale that the airlines use for their e-cig bans.
No Smoke
E-Cigs do not actually produce smoke. It is water vapor. Banning them because it might look like a person is smoking a cigarette is like banning water from teenagers because it resembles vodka.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Well, if the teenagers are
drinking water from a bottle that says Vodka on it, you might have a point.
hmm
not a very good analogy. do cigarettes say cigarette on the side? Do e-cig's as well?
If a person is drinking a clear liquid
out of a container that has "Vodka" on the label, it's a reasonable bet that they're drinking Vodka. Likewise, when a person has a cigarette in their mouth, it's pretty clear that they're smoking. Even though the cigarette is not labeled as such, it's obviously a cigarette by its look and shape.
And do you really expect the police enforcing the law to be savvy enough to distinguish between a regular cig and an e-cig at a quick glance? Plus, do you really want to get into the problems that will eventually develop if we micro-manage things down to the level of "smokes are not allowed, unless they're e-cigs"? Despite what some people may believe, smoking (in whatever form is one chooses) is hardly a necessity.
Smoke Is Being Outlawed
The point is to keep smoke from public places. Water vapor is not smoke. Water vapor dissipates quickly and does not have second-hand effects.
Anyway, via your example, if someone is drinking vodka from a bottle marked "water"...?
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
same as fenway
Guy in front of me was smoking an e cig and security came and asked him to stop.
But no butts!
Let's face it, no one is
Let's face it, no one is going to enforce the ban if it passes. Lazy smokers are still going to huff and puff and toss their ciggies in the park as if their shit don't stink. I'd love to see pot smoking banned from the parks and enforced -- smells worse than a skunk and that crap reeks for blocks. The groups of guys who hang out at the top of the little hill with the war memorial in Boston Common are nasty. They're smoking weed morning, noon and night and always talking about their bitches and dropping the N word.
Ah - you must mean the LAND
Ah - you must mean the LAND PIRATES! http://www.wcvb.com/news/land-pirates-on-boston-common/-/9849222/2306375...
Interesting, thanks for the
Interesting, thanks for the link!
good.
good.
bad
bad
Ban all public smoking, please!
I'm hoping it'll be a step towards banning all smoking in public, or at least have designated smoking areas, away from building entrances, etc.
Fine with me, though I'd like
Fine with me, though I'd like to how see the cops enforce this on the camping addicts... https://mayors24.cityofboston.gov:4443/reports/52569ce70882cf06080043f1
Update! Nice job guys!https:/
Update! Nice job guys!
https://mayors24.cityofboston.gov:4443/reports/528f751d0882cf0b70000894
Probably the health effects of current "outdoor smoking"
on non-smokers are negligible, but this will give the cops another way to fuck with the poor, the mentally ill, and the homeless, a disproportionate number of whom still smoke. Yay.
Ban public expressions of gas!
Passing gas is not a First Amendment right. It should be banned. All the noxious gaseous molecules that are released into the environment. Enough to give a person the vapors.
Horay for Nazis.
And let's all ignore the fact that second hand smoke exposure has no correlation to increasing the risk of cancer.
Please read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism
Then, perhaps, choose another word to describe the perpetrators of the action.
In regards to the "fact", you might want to check out:
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/tobaccocancer/secondhand-smoke
Also, I think the proper word is "Hooray" not "Horay" but I may be incorrect.
Fact Check
Rather than to reply to the countless posts touting information from bad science, I will just reply once to state that the reports that supposedly showed a correlation between secondhand smoke and increased cancer rates was tossed by the federal courts. The very methodology of the report was flawed. They looked at people who lived for 20 years with a smoker and then counted the number of deaths. They did not check what the deaths were from. Whether they were from cancer or from being hit by a car or having a heart attack, all were attributed to second hand smoke exposure.
Further studies by the World Health Organization and the British Medical Journal have also shown no increase in cancer rates in those exposed to consistent second hand smoke, and that is consistent not occasional like in say a park.
This is such a known charade that Penn and Teller even did an episode on their show Bullshit! about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6WITuzkS_g
Now smoking itself is certainly dangerous to oneself, but that is one's right to endanger themselves in the same way one has the right to drink soda or eat french fries. Smoking is not dangerous to anyone other than the smoker themselves.
And before you mention fires - candles, incense, poor wiring etc. are also fire starters. You can't ban pointy objects just because someone MIGHT trip and impale themselves on them.
Cancer not the only outcome of concern
Actually, most smoking-related deaths are from HEART DISEASE.
But do blunder on in your naive way, citing entertainers as references.
Penn and Teller retracted
Penn and Teller retracted their claims about second hand smoking.
Old references
That episode was from 2003. And Penn and Teller themselves admitted they were wrong and were basing it off an older study:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s8yqj3EL7A
They admit that secondhand smoke causes harm, but still say they do not support government bans. Which I can actually understand if one is talking about space such as a park.
The WHO's own website contradicts what you said.
That's interesting
I work with, supervise, and sometimes conduct large scale studies of air pollution and public health.
I generally have to include some estimate of second-hand smoke exposure from the individual cohort member data when estimating lung cancer risk.
But, hey, I only have a PhD in epidemiology and get professionally paid for this. Not that I'd know anything about it.
P.S. Since my grandmother who never smoked but died of a smoking-related cancer after working for 25 years in a smoke-filled environment must therefore have never died, could you get her phone number for me?
and...
what about e-cigarettes?
Not enough data as yet
The e-cigarette companies themselves are underwriting the testing of their products. There isn't enough information as yet.
I suspect this whole regulatory push has more to do with the ciggy-flinging litter and fires and the costs of cleaning it up than it does with clean air anyway.
Your grandmother worked in a
Your grandmother worked in a park?
Perhaps
In Black kat's bizarro alternate universe, that is also possible.
*hrm*
(Swirly, you are responding to a guy who wrote "Horay for nazis." Academic credential pointless.)
Don't you know
I HAVE A PHD!!!!!
You should be careful smoking
You should be careful smoking in your house, BlackKat. You accidentally touch off one of those straw men you're hoarding in there, the whole block will go up before the fire department gets there.
Really?
Since I can't link all the articles I have on the topic:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS
I have had several doctors tell me that my respiratory problems are due to growing up in a smoking household and I need to avoid smoke so I don't worsen it. Yes, that's different than exposure in a park where I can move away, so you could argue that. But yes secondhand smoke does have an impact.
WTF
This makes me so frustrated and disappointed. Smoking has been singled out as a unique evil.
Smoking enables conversation, friendliness with strangers; things that are in increasingly short supply as we all hunker down into our smartphones when in public.
It also enables reflection or simple enjoyment.
It incenses me that smoking (and smokers) gets such a bad reputation.
I will take a cigarette smoker over a jogger (esp. baby stroller joggers!)/organic eating/yoga routine person any day. There is more to life than obsessive maintenance of health.
Yes, let's keep celebrating
Yes, let's keep celebrating our diversity, shall we?
"It incenses me that smoking (and smokers) gets such a bad reputation."
Was "incense" supposed to be a pun, there?
I can't imagine where that "bad reputation" comes from.
Among the absolutely worst things for a person's short and long term health is smoking.
Yes, I'm sure it be argued that it's a "personal choice". But most often it's a nicotine addiction
that can be very, very, hard to break for some people. It's also a very expensive
addiction as well. I don't think it's a "unique evil."
"There is more to life than obsessive maintenance of health."
I know there are obsessive exercisers. However, I know the quality of life to be
vastly improved without smoking.
smoking not needed to be friendly.
How does smoking "enable" any of those things? All of those things are just as possible without a butt in your hand. I have talked to people, been friendly to strangers, and been reflective all without smoking while doing so.
I am NO health freak but seriously?
Smoking cigarettes enables cancer, gum disease, heart disease, birth defects etc etc etc. I have never smoked, and I have been friendly and conversational with strangers, and reflected on my life, all without disgusting cigarettes.
How do we protest this?
I don't mean in a rebel/for-the-love-of-protest way, but because this self-righteous discrimination against smokers seems to develop and gain traction with barely a pipsqueak from the other side.
Smokers are not bad people. I dispose of my cigarettes responsibly and in acceptable containers. I do not go up to a populated area and light up (though I have had others come up to me and ask me to stop smoking, when I was alone and minding my own business).
How can those who are opposed to this have their voices heard? (and speak together)?
I appreciate that you are
I appreciate that you are responsible about your disposal, and that you try to avoid people when you are smoking. Unfortunately, there are many who do not share your behavior, and their smoking punishes all those around them. Beyond the cancer, the smoke that I have to walk through on my walks to and from work on both sides of the T ride make me cough and sense and just generally uncomfortable.
Back to your specific comments, though: on what grounds would your protests be based? I would seriously want to know.
Just ignore it?
This ban will just be on the list of actions that are "banned" but not enforced. Here is a list of things that are banned in the common/public garden:
Begging for alms
Littering
Drinking alcohol
Being in the park between 11:30 PM and 6 AM
Standing or lying on any seat
sit, stand or lie upon lawn areas in the Public Garden except such lawn areas designated as sitting areas
use a bicycle, scooter, roller skates, skateboard or the like
play ball or any other game or sport
have or allow any animal, including a cat or dog, with the exception of a seeing eye dog for a blind or handicapped person, on a leash, within the boundaries of the Public Garden
And the list goes on. Now think of how many times you've seen people do the above, and how many times you've seen the rules enforced.
It is not discrimination against smokers.
The law applies equally to smokers and non-smokers alike.
Heroin & crack sales in the Fenway Gardens
Councilors:
Could we have an amendment for the police to enforce existing drug laws in back of the Victory Gardens? How about some after dusk patrols - at the very least?
What about cigars?
What about cigars?
Why do people tolerate this never ending
'banning' of things by our local, state and federal governments? Tobacco is a perfectly legal substance. Nicotine is a perfectly legal substance. It's a phuking plant that humans have used for thousands of years! And what's up with banning e cigs!? How the F are the snow flakes obsessed with controlling other human beings endangered by e-cigs? Answer: THEY AREN'T. Are they also going to ban Swedish snus, chewing tobacco and nicotine gum/patches? Maybe one of the neurotic, narcissistic control freaks can enlighten me.
You want to ban something in public parks like the public gardens, how about all the unnecessary noise, carnival and disney-like atmosphere? A park is supposed to be a PEACEFUL place, not another obnoxious tourist suck-up attraction, complete with cheesy 'jazz' playing saxophonist. A human at rest on a park bench, drinking a coffee, God forbid smoking tobacco [or that other plant/weed], quietly contemplating life, needs to be banned! For the children! Think of the children!
Because they work for us
We the people "tolerate" the government banning stuff because the government works for us and because banning stuff is what we want them to do.
(Which is not to say that I agree with or disagree with any particular ban; I'm just answering your question.)