City Councilman considers proposing smoking ban in Seattle parks

 

Four years after Washington state voters passed a smoking ban, pushing smokers out of restaurants and bars outside, a Seattle City Councilman is considering taking the next step.

Councilman Tom Rasmussen said he’s considering proposing a ban on smoking in Seattle parks.

The measure would likely be controversial. 

“Am I going to have to leave the planet to smoke?” said an alarmed Robert Mott, as he sat on a bench at on Capitol Hill’s Cal Anderson Park on Wednesday, smoking a cigarette.

On Thursday, Rasmussen, who chairs the council’s Parks & Seattle Center committee, began testing the waters, posing a question on his Facebook page , “I chair the Seattle City Council’s Parks Committee. Several people have suggested banning smoking in our parks. Do you think this is a good idea or not, or what?”

Rasmussen said in an email to the PostGlobe, “I am considering introducing this to the City Council and I posted the questions on my Face book because I wanted to hear what people have to say.”

“Secondly, the ban would eliminate the exposure of tobacco smoke to others in our public parks,” he wrote. “Many cities now ban smoking in parks and at city beaches.  Over 100 cities and towns in California now ban smoking at parks and beaches.  Puyallup and Gig Harbor already have such a prohibition.

“If this is introduced it will be discussed at public meetings and we would have at least one public hearing before the Council took any action,” he wrote.

In another email, he wrote a smoking ban was included in the Strategic Action Plan completed by the parks department last year: “provide recreation opportunities for individuals and families that support physical fitness and health, including encouraging healthy lifestyles; increasing opportunities for pedestrian and bicycle safety; encouraging and creating opportunities for healthy eating choices; including in the Code of Conduct a ban on smoking in parks; increasing youth/teen/senior participation; and increasing opportunities for  people with disabilities to use our parks and participate in our programs.”

The plan was adopted by the parks department after community outreach, he said. ”While the Department apparently can ban smoking administratively it has not done so and for that reason I am raising this issue now to ensure that this does not fall by the wayside.”

Metro Parks Tacoma spokeswoman Nancy Johnson said a proposal to ban smoking in that city’s parks is also being considered by the Tacoma City Council.

At least among a handful responding on Facebook, the idea is getting support:

One wrote, “Tom! I was just thinking how unpleasant it was to be sitting next to a smoker yesterday when at the beach at Madison Park. “

Another wrote, “Just on the basis of maintenance, there would be a lot of butts left around that Seattle park crews would have to clean up.”

A third wrote, “How is that most smokers flunked the kindergarten lesson about cleaning up after yourself?”

At Cal Anderson Park, Farrell Carpenter lay on a blanket with her baby. “It would be nice to not have smoke blow in my face when I walk,” she said.

Murakami is a former City Hall and neighborhoods reporter for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer

62 Responses to City Councilman considers proposing smoking ban in Seattle parks

  • udubLS:

    You forgot to mention that Lake Stevens also bans smoking in parks– seems to be working great. Parks are healthier place for kids!

  • When does it end?:

    What a bunch of whiny soft people we have become! Oh no, I can’t move 10 feet away from the evil, satan worshipping smoker! Suck it up people! You can’t ban everything you don’t like. I don’t smoke, by the way. I’m just sick of how entitled Seattlites feel. They’re totally okay trampling on others civil rights to ensure their liberal values take the day.

  • riggter:

    How many other things will be banned in this city? Does anyone else think it is ridiculous that citites are banning the act of smoking outdoors? I understand it is not our god given right to smoke where we please but when you tell an individual that you cannot smoke outdoors, that takes it to far. I also agree with the previous poster that Seattlites have this sense of entitlement that they are “holier than thou” and “how dare you do that next to me”. Keep it up people and see how many other rights are taken away from you. You start a precedence like this, and good luck stopping it!

  • Patrick:

    I don’t think they should ban smoking in parks and I am no fan of smoking but this makes me wonder –
    “…just sick of how entitled Seattlites feel. They’re totally okay trampling on others civil rights to ensure their liberal values take the day”

    “trampling on others civil rights” Such as someone sitting/standing right next to you and lighting up a cigarrette? This is a two way street that is more about respecting each other.

    NOW, what I do want to see is some tickets handed out for the people who throw their cigarrette butts down on the ground. The world is not your ashtray…

  • Troy:

    And between the right to breathe clean air and the right to smoke, I think clean air is more important.

  • Vince:

    Okay, I’m not a smoker and I hate cigarette smoke. But this is going too far. This is just some “feel good” legislation. At most, we should go the route that Patrick proposed in his comment and ticket those who haphazardly discard their cigarette butts on the ground.

  • When does it end?:

    To “your rights end where mine begin” – I hope you don’t drive a car or other motorized vehicle, have a refrigerator with freon gas, consume any goods brought to market by anything other than a goat, and don’t ever pass gas. If you do anything of those things, we need to pass a law to prevent you from engaging any further in them, as you are also fouling the air.

  • Mr. Bob:

    aside from a few stray complaints, i doubt rassmussen can point to hordes of smokers bothering people in the parks. this is a solution in search of a problem.

  • nwcitizen:

    I am a former smoker and find cigarette smoke really distasteful but there are far more important things for our City Council to be spending their time on than this. I could suggest some but you all know what they are…

  • Matt K:

    this is so dumb. Cars in parks produce more hazardous smoke than cigarettes. What a freaking joke. No wonder nothing gets done in this state, we waste our time on lame issues like this.

  • Avery:

    and what about banning fast food and stop promoting places like MacDonalds through a constant barrage of television ads and corporate greed? Statistics show that bad diet is the number 1 killer in the USA and how many obese people do we have. It’s ok to promote eating the worst possible food on earth which is slowing destroying our genetic makeup and killing our next generations but when it comes to smoking or being near someone that smokes this is intolerable. The USA is full of hypocrites and ignorance. I am astounded by this place!!

  • Michael:

    I am a smoker and recently returned from a trip to Europe where smoking is pretty common Like Seattle smoking has recently been banned in restaurents and bars in many countries, France and Italy being the two I visited.

    I have no problem with the ban on indoor smoking. I also wouldn’t oppose a park and beach smoking ban if one condition was added, a place where it is okay to smoke.

    The 30 ft. from building entrances ban, combined with a no smoking in parks ban could effectively eliminate all public smoking in certain areas of the city. That, to me, is a problem.

    As long as we look at reasonable options to accommodate those of us who choose to smoke I think there needn’t be any problems with these bans. When those who draft the language of these laws fail to accommodate smokers it simply invites a flaunting of the law.

  • When does it end?:

    Avery, come on, really? Your unbalanced analysis of the causes of obesity omits a glaring cause. Fat folks have no self-discipline. Yeah, maybe a few have some genetic problems, but the fact is most of them just eat too darn much. So how about we create private incentives for them to slim up, like higher health insurance costs for leading an unhealthy lifestyle? And maybe we stop coddling them and tip-toeing around their problems – just tell them the harsh truth that they’re in bad shape. Yeah some might cry, but then maybe they’d dry their tears and get on a treadmill a few times a week? Let’s cause people to link their actions with their pocketbooks, and we’ll get a much quicker result. No civil rights will be trampled, no additional taxes will need to be levied.

  • R on Beacon Hill:

    I’ve never been a smoker, and I’ve always supported indoor smoking bans, but I’ve never had a problem with people smoking at bus stops or in city parks. It’s so easy to take a few steps to get upwind.

    At a time when so many people make fun of Seattle’s nannyism, why give them another box of ammunition like this? Can we think this one through, please, and maybe conclude that this is just excessive meddling with people’s lives?

  • Michael:

    How much of a nanny state are we to become? Sure, I understand, people don’t like smoke who aren’t smokers. Smokers have already been kicked out of bars, restaurants, and bowling alleys…now parks?

    Someone mentioned Madison Beach in the article – yeah, people there smoke, and most of the people I’m with clean up afterwards. I’m annoyed by the pot smokers, but I’m not going to throw a huge hissy fit over it. It’s like the people who bring their families to the North side of the park, and are aghast at the gay men wearing skimpy swimwear. The South side is the family side, with a sandy beach. Don’t come into my part and bitch about it.

    There. Random thought not too terribly tied into the point, but that being said – smokers are taxpayers, as well. For the people who complain about the mess – if the city invested in a few of those smoker’s poles, it would likely be helpful.

    Now I’m just ranting.

  • BlackJack:

    I’m a non-smoker, but people should really at least try to deal with facts and not myths.

    It would be nice if our spineless politicians just made cigarettes illegal. But they like to have it both ways, so that will never happen.

    Smoke on, brothers and sisters. Don’t let the idiots in the City Council be your nanny.

  • J:

    If smokers were all courteous, and stayed in their own places to smoke, being careful to keep the smoke away from others, we wouldn’t need these laws. Sadly, too many of them are discourteous. This is a problem–tobacco smoke sets me coughing and wheezing, and I don’t think smokers realize how it hangs in the air and spreads. I think they honestly believe it dissipates and vanishes entirely about 6 inches from their faces. But it doesn’t. When I take a walk in the park for fresh air, walking by or behind smokers makes me cough. I’ve had to leave Shakespeare in the Park performances, because of oblivious smokers. I shouldn’t have to hide in my house to breathe fresh air.

    I think it’s worth doing, even though I know it will have the same enforcement problems that off-leash dogs and sidewalk smoking have. Some people think laws they don’t like don’t apply to them. But just the statement that it’s against the law does help to indicate unacceptable public behavior.

  • espresso:

    “We won’t ban cigarettes, but you can’t smoke them in parks, in bars or restaurants, on the streets, or in your apartment. Or cigar bars, for that matter.”

    When my doctor urges me to quit smoking, I have nothing but respect for her and give this strong consideration. But legislation like this inclines me to continue smoking just out of rebellion.

  • bob:

    unfortunately J, many of us who smoke–legally i might point out–in our homes and apartments are being driven out of our homes and apartments by the same hysterical forces of nannydom as are behind the parks ban idea. the reality is the parks are one of our few remaining options for a place to light up.

    i spend a fair amount of time in parks in seattle and i see very little smoking going on to begin with. so i’m not sure what this problem is addressing aside from the council member’s need to be busy and seem important.

  • God:

    Theres nothing wrong with smoking.

  • J:

    bob, I do understand it’s legal. What you call “hysterical nannydom”, though, would be unnecessary if you and all your fellow smokers made sure nobody had to breathe your smoke–not in your house, not your neighbors, not your fellow citizens. Perhaps you do, and you’re being penalized for smokers who are less courteous. But if you’re careful to be sure nobody else has to breathe your smoke, why should a park ban affect you? I suspect our perceptions of the frequency of smoking in parks differ–I invariably end up breathing smoke at least once every time I visit any park. You see that as “very little”, but it’s a problem for me, especially at public performances. And just count the cigarette butts in any park you visit!

  • ksquared:

    I practice good manners – I stay well away from other people. I do my best to stay downwind of others. Yet still you nonsmokers make ugly faces at me. Some of you even feel entitled to make ugly comments to me. How about you practice what you preach!

  • Show some class:

    Yeah Mott leave the fucking planet to smoke. You foul smelling loser. You stink Mott!! You fucking stink! And you stink up the air around you. When I sit in a downtown park to read I can’t go fifteen minutes without having one of you pathetic low class addicts sit near me and start puffing on your drug. Fuck you Mott!! Fuck you!!!

  • Dan Savage:

    You have administrators? I can administrate. How much does the job pay?

  • 2xEagle:

    There may be some smokers that go out of their way to be courteous; but they seem precious few. I rarely go into Seattle anymore since just about anywhere you walk there seems to be someone smoking (downtown is exceptionally bad but the parks are just about as worse). It seems strange to me that it is quite alright for someone to smoke in public and feel it is their right to share the smoke with others; yet, if I decide I want to share pepper spray with others I would be brought up on charges of assault.

  • Kathi:

    I am a smoker, but I hate the smoke and smell. I am very courteous, try not to blow smoke in the direction of anyone, and ALWAYS put my butts in a trash bin or take them with me to throw away later.

    I believe smokers who throw cigarette butts should be fined for littering; all smokers don’t follow the rules and end up throwing butts anywhere.

    BUT…Has anyone thought about the jobs that are created because people don’t always respect their environment or the community? There are jobs such as maintenance, janitorial, and maid services because they are needed. Most people do not enjoy that kind of work or think of it as “beneath them”. Civic improvement and maintenance could provide an opportunity to create jobs while providing a service to the public. A win-win situation like this could be a solution for ALL of us.

    Encroaching on our rights as citizens of the world and free will are issues of concern…a slippery slope that I dare not tread upon, but too often find myself climbing in the rain.

  • Kathi:

    Damn! Get angry often? It sounds like you are the person we should worry about. Do you work for the USPS? lol I may be a smoker, but at least I am a happy person. Man, it sucks to be you, huh?

  • Shgow some class:

    Bad news Kathi: you stink! Your breath stinks. Your hair stinks. And your clothes stick. Next time you ride the bus or sit close to a non-smoker at work,. Ask them? Do I stink of cigarette smoke?

    And Kathi-do you worry about breast cancer. Don’t bother! Lung cancer kills almost twice as many women as breast cancer. Cigarette smoking is responsible for 94% of lung cancer.

    It’s your pathetic addiction. And if you want to spend money poisoning yourself I don’t care. But your right to smoke like the man swinging his fist stops at my nose.

    And Kathi-take a close look at women who have smoked for a couple decades. Their skin looks like shit doesn’t it?

  • J:

    Kathi, thank you for your courtesy. If all smokers were courteous, there’d by no calls for smoking bans.

    However, your explanation of your courtesy, that you “try not to blow smoke in the direction of anyone” reinforces my suspicion that even courteous smokers are unaware of the extent to which their smoke affects people in their vicinity. It’s not just a question of not blowing smoke at people. The smoke you exhale doesn’t just go in the direction you blow; it expands all around you, and hangs in the air long after you’ve moved on. On a day with light winds, if I walk along a path where you’ve been a few minutes before, I cough from the smoke that remains. If you’re at an outdoor performance, having chosen a downwind location, and the wind shifts, I must get up an move. Sometimes this happens over and over; wind does not always stay in one position!

    Because you are a courteous smoker, I trust you will take some time to learn just how much your smoke is out of your control, and accommodate accordingly. Sadly, many smokers, some willfully, will not believe this, and will continue to irritate others–and calls for bans will increase.

    A smoking ban in parks might help smokers understand the extent to which they must go to avoid irritating people around them. Just going outside is not enough.

  • Gordon:

    When in public please keep you mask firmly planeted on your head at all times. You will never die and live forever. Have fun.

  • History Buff:

    Beware … The maker of the no-smoke products has made a lot of money for state smoking bans they PAID for with grants. Next it may be blonds with blue eyes or people who wear shoes over size 4.

  • Goddess:

    First, learn how to spell (or at least use spell-checker), then you can tell me where I can LEGALLY smoke! Your use of language is completely uncalled for and particularly offensive. Where is the moderator for this forum?

  • smokedbacon:

    If this is a so called public health issue I suggest you do it right! You should also ban the use of any wood burning or charcoal cooking in the parks as well. The pollution by fire wood is more carcinogenic than cigarette smoke is and consider the carbon monoxide of charcoal!
    A known but not often publicized study states that food cooked by open flame imparts carcenogenic compound upon the food being cooked! Rather amazing the American Cancer Society does not jump their contributing restaurants for cooking like this, I wonder why?
    I guess a boy scout camp ouy in the park will require SOLAR LIGHT and Nuclear Power for heat?
    Even smokers own a part of the park as tax payers!

  • giggle:

    You’re begging the question AND diverting the issue by pointing to fast food chains, obesity, and overeating. Stick to the topic.

  • giggle:

    You’re kidding, right?

  • Jon Morgan:

    I’d support it (secondhand smoke literally makes me sick), but I’m not sure I see the urgency right now. Is the fight worth the political capital and intense controversy? Wouldn’t the parks committee have higher priorities–like funding the Pedestrian Master Plan so people can walk to and from the parks? Why can’t Rasmussen find his way to supporting the streetcar network instead?

  • Virgil L Kleinhelter:

    A little good advise from Kentucky. After Parks they will be in your homes. They will never stop. It pays too well.

    Smoking out socialist smack on cigarettes
    By Jim Waters
    Kentucky’s smoking nannies have made it clear: They want a state-government imposed and enforced smoking ban in every public place in the commonwealth – even in local communities that have decided otherwise.
    http://www.bipps.org/article.php/2192

  • Virgil L Kleinhelter:

    Ban water, it causes cancer
    Arsenic in Drinking Water

    1. What are the possible health effects?

    A 1999 study by the National Academy of Sciences, arsenic in drinking water causes bladder, lung and skin cancer, and may cause kidney and liver cancer. The study found that arsenic harms the central and peripheral nervous systems, heart and blood vessels, and causes serious skin problems. It also may cause birth defects and reproductive problems.
    http://www.nrdc.org/water/drinking/qarsenic.asp#health
    Of course it’s all blamed on Tobacco. The EPA refuses to regulate 11 chemicals in our water that may be causing the diseases.

  • Moreen:

    I’m never in favor of smoking. It’s bad and is dangerous to health. It’s even worst than alcohol. But what can we do? It’s their right. It’s their life that they are ruining. For me, the fact that they are not smoking in public is ok. If they want to ruin their life, don’t involve anyone. And also, throw your cigarette’s butts on the trash can. Now, if you want to stop smoking but it’s hard for you. I’ll give you a link where you can buy a medicine that will help you. That’s tested. http://noprescriptionpharmacy.net/zyban.php

  • Ryan:

    its my park too. i enjoy smoking, especially at beautiful places where sunset and a cigarette bring a sense of peace and serenity to my world. of course, i might be able to do without the cigarette if careless parents would stop bringing their loud children around polluting my eardrums. also, laughing and splashing at the waterfront. i like dipping my toes into the water but you careless splashers ruin my silk shirts with your careless joy.

  • Shgow Some Class:

    Very witty Ryan. That serenity you are feeling is your fix of nicotine soothing the craving of you pathetic low class addiction. I doubt that you actually wear silk shirts; but if you do they stink Ryan they STINK! Just like your hair and your jacket and hat. Loud children do not cause cancer. Your cigarette smoke does.

  • nimz:

    then move to another city. like, duh.

  • snowbird:

    There are too many ‘gutless’ wonders on council.
    What ever happen to the people in the era,”I would rather be ‘right’ than President.”

  • marbee:

    Anti-tobacco anti-smoking proponents spend obscene amounts of money demonizing smoking like the nazi’s did. This has created hatred against an entire segment of society. They deliberately make people think that private property that opens to the public and public property that is taxpayer funded are one and the same. They are NOT! The public loses nothing with smoking bans forced on private property owners. They do not pay the taxes or upkeep on these privately owned businesses. They are accountable for nothing, including the losses incurred by these people who have invested their own money and sweat to hold on to a little bit of the American dream. If you don’t like smoke, DON’T GO! There was never a law that said a bar owner had to allow smoking, there should not be one that says you have to ban smoking! Our citizens died fighting for these rights! Now we have veterans standing outside in the rain and cold knowing their own country has turned it’s back on what they fought for. Our lawmakers of today don’t even have a clue what our Constitution stands for, they should be booted out, and John Q. Public should be ashamed!

  • marbee:

    But smoking has been banned already in PRIVATE PROPERTY that is nevertheless open to the Public! PUBLIC places are taxpayer funded. PRIVATE PROPERTY is paid for by the owner, taxes paid by the owner, losses incurred by the owner. The public has been led to believe that privately owned bars are public places. They are NOT! The public has pushed their preferences on private owners, the Constitution has been trampled by politicians and the public that has absolutely no idea what the Constitution stands for! Smokers Welcome, Non-Smokers Welcome, Anti-Smokers: Buy your own bar, You Are Not Welcome!

  • marbee:

    So everyone that smokes is low class? I would rather be in the midst of these people than you! Lucille Ball, David Bowie, Drew Barrymore, George Harrison, Walt Disney, Bette Davis, Sammy Davis, Jr., Pat Nixon, Kate Moss, Albert Einstein, Edwin P. Hubble, James Dean, Audrey Hepburn, Alexander Graham Bell,
    Robert Oppenheimer, Winston Churchill, Franklin D Roosevelt, Bill Clinton, Helmut Schmidt, Queen Margrethe II, Princess Stephanie of Monaco, King Hussein of Jordan, Camilla Parker Bowles, John F Kennedy, Gerald Ford, George Orwell, Oscar Wilde, JRR Tolkien, J.K. Rowling, CS Lewis, Christopher Lee, Whoopi Goldberg, Demi Moore, Keith Richards, Elizabeth Taylor, Robert Palmer, Sophia Loren, Kate Winslet, Raquel Welch
    Luciano Pavarotti, Catherine Deneuve, John Wayne, Nicole Kidman, Mel Gibson, Britney Spears, Shakira, David Carradine, Russell Crowe, Avril Lavigne, Pierce Brosnan, Marilyn Monroe, Meg Ryan, John Lennon, Pat Benatar, Al Pacino, Robert De Niro, Eddie Van Halen, Vincent Van Gogh, Ivana Trump, Jeanne Calment, the world’s oldest ever person who died aged 122, only quit smoking aged 117, Claudia Schiffer, Alfred Hitchcock
    Maurice Ravel, the composer of Bolero, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Auguste Renoir, Pablo Picasso died aged 92, Che Guevara, Aaron Spelling, David Bowie, Johnny Depp, Joaquin Phoenix, Marlene Dietrich, lived to 90, Jennifer Aniston, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Ben Affleck, Kate Hudson, Goldie Hawn, Colin Farrell, Ashton Kutcher, James Woods, Lindsey Lohan, Leonard Nimoy, Jimmy Page, Sean Penn, Richard Pryor, Frank Zappa, Joan Collins, Bill Cosby, Bo Derek, Danny De Vito, Linda Evangelista, Sigmund Freud, George Gershwin, Ulysses S. Grant, Samuel L Jackson, David Letterman, Pope St. Pius X, Pope John XXIII, Charles Spurgeon, British Baptist preacher, Sylvester Stallone, Kevin Costner, Christina Aguilera

  • One who knows:

    Hilter would love the “ban smoking in parks” types.

  • German heritage:

    I know what you are saying.
    Germany is one of the only holdouts of this “greater good” nonsense in the EU.

    They should know.

  • marbee:

    The last time a cure was found for a disease was 1959. Jonas Salk developed the vaccine for polio. Since that time, hundreds of millions of dollars has been thrown around by the ACS and the other tax exempt cartels not to fight disease, but to demonize smokers, because cures would put big pharma out of business. It’s time to shut these anything but non-profits down and get back to finding cures!

  • Kevin:

    The fact that this item is even on the political agenda is abject proof the anti-smoker lobbies have outlived their use. By the billions in government investments, they are now only a liability with no upside. Taxes are as high as they can go without causing a riot. Smokers are well placed in a subservient and lesser place in society, so those taxes are secure. With the continuation of ratcheted sanctimony, the risk is very real that any reference to the FDA, CDC or ASH, could result in a smell attaching itself to any political personality, that simply never goes away.

    Politicians are now at odds to explain; why all toxins found in our food, cleaning products and deodorizers are deemed safe with a restriction of parts per million, below which, those toxins are deemed trace elements and safe. While in the desperate acts of finding risk in cigarette smoke the fanatics went one million times beyond that level, to measures in parts per trillion with the claim “there is no safe level of tobacco smoke”.

    It becomes obvious that the sight of someone smoking a cigarette is the more invasive harm to the ideological purist and the emotionally damaged individuals, who claim a right to micro-managing the affairs of others. Hitler made similar claims, and the doctors who supported his claims were hanged at Nuremberg, for the same reasons that smoking bans in parks is an act of defecating on our rights of autonomy. Law meant to permanently keep those doctors and medical institutions who were not formally convicted, in check.

    There is no upside in continuing with anti-smoker bigotry funding, unless the eventual backlash is hopped to be a useful factor in creating the next generation of smokers in protest.

    Of course even that promotion is much more of a political risk, that joining the growing ranks of society, demanding investigations and prosecutions of these sanctimonious hate mongers, utilizing tax free foundations and charities to instill their “new normal” religion.

  • Kevin:

    You don’t have to scroll far up this page to see the evidence of shills to big pharma and their attempts to control the discussion, with their calls to foster bigoted language and promoted hatred as an entitlement, to do to others, much more than they would expect as fair in return.

    The FDA recently announced an intent to ban the sale of e-cigarettes. A product alternative to smoking, which produces zero second hand smoke. Will the same political tools attempting to ban smoking on beaches, where there is obviously no scientific risk from second hand smoke, also seek to ban the use of Electronic cigarettes?

    The folly in this, and a huge political risk, is seen in the FDA testing of these devices and the announcement that “they contain tobacco specific carcinogens” without the full disclosure; that the FDA approved smoking patches, inhalers and gum also contain higher levels of these same carcinogens.

    These so called medical treatments are products with a 96% failure rate as a medical treatment, sold in candy flavors by cartoon figures, which are openly advertised to, and fully accessible to children.

    The ad agency spun terrors of “tobacco specific carcinogens” which are the only toxins found in cigarette smoke that are not found in much higher volumes you can never avoid, from a number of other sources. Are a product of impurities found exclusively in nicotine by the interaction of diesel exhaust during the curing process, which is entirely avoidable. Otherwise the burning of any organic material would also have to be banned in privately owned bars and restaurants. Fire logs and cooking odors carry much more toxic ingredients, in much higher volumes than any of the so called “4000 deadly toxins” found in tobacco smoke measured in Nano-grams[billionths of a gram] and pico-grams[trillionths of a gram] per cubic meter of air, as an exclusive norm of scrutiny for tobacco smoke, while other normal, yet identical, toxins found in your food are measured in micro-grams [Millionths of a gram].

    Now if we look at the “tobacco specific carcinogens” or more correctly “nicotine specific carcinogens” the FDA and the Cancer society are wailing about in cigarettes, they are reduced by 75% by burning, during the act of smoking, so any nicotine alternative exhibits four times the level of exposure one would experience by smoking, because the source of nicotine is the same and no reduction is evident, these products introduce levels at 4000 times the level a non smoker would experience from tobacco smoke. Yet these products are deemed safe for medical treatment?

    The embarrassing no win situation arises from FDA folly; if tobacco smoke is a class one carcinogen, due exclusively to the tobacco specific carcinogens it contains. Why are the drug companies as the largest funding partner in promoting smoking bans, not held to the same level of scrutiny when selling EPA approved “medical treatments.” Who is paying for what here?

    “Consider the source and always follow the money” is a progressive loss in the mainstream media, spelling the end of their credibility. As they sing the tune they are paid to sing, as propaganda replaces journalism and the truth is a product for sale to the highest bidder.

    Smoking bans were never about protecting the health of the public or any protection at all. They were always about advancing the old money industrial rendition, of moralist ideologies. The World Health Organization is controlled by its largest industrial stakeholders and until that is repaired, we will continue to see large scale ad agency promotions of indoctrinated population fear, by news release. With the all too familiar lead in “new research shows” backed by the ever popular entitlement “the World Health Organization predicts by the year…”

    Time to wake up and smell the coffee, before they ban that too.

  • Kevin:

    You don’t have to scroll far up this page to see the evidence of shills to big pharma and their attempts to control the discussion, with their calls to foster bigoted language and promoted hatred as an entitlement, to do to others, much more than they would expect as fair in return.

    The FDA recently announced an intent to ban the sale of e-cigarettes. A product alternative to smoking, which produces zero second hand smoke. Will the same political tools attempting to ban smoking on beaches, where there is obviously no scientific risk from second hand smoke, also seek to ban the use of Electronic cigarettes?

    The folly in this, and a huge political risk, is seen in the FDA testing of these devices and the announcement that “they contain tobacco specific carcinogens” without the full disclosure; that the FDA approved smoking patches, inhalers and gum also contain higher levels of these same carcinogens.

    These so called medical treatments are products with a 96% failure rate as a medical treatment, sold in candy flavors by cartoon figures, which are openly advertised to, and fully accessible to children.

    The ad agency spun terrors of “tobacco specific carcinogens” which are the only toxins found in cigarette smoke that are not found in much higher volumes you can never avoid, from a number of other sources. Are a product of impurities found exclusively in nicotine by the interaction of diesel exhaust during the curing process, which is entirely avoidable. Otherwise the burning of any organic material would also have to be banned in privately owned bars and restaurants. Fire logs and cooking odors carry much more toxic ingredients, in much higher volumes than any of the so called “4000 deadly toxins” found in tobacco smoke measured in Nano-grams[billionths of a gram] and pico-grams[trillionths of a gram] per cubic meter of air, as an exclusive norm of scrutiny for tobacco smoke, while other normal, yet identical, toxins found in your food are measured in micro-grams [Millionths of a gram].

    Now if we look at the “tobacco specific carcinogens” or more correctly “nicotine specific carcinogens” the FDA and the Cancer society are wailing about in cigarettes, they are reduced by 75% by burning, during the act of smoking, so any nicotine alternative exhibits four times the level of exposure one would experience by smoking, because the source of nicotine is the same and no reduction is evident, these products introduce levels at 4000 times the level a non smoker would experience from tobacco smoke. Yet these products are deemed safe for medical treatment?

    The embarrassing no win situation arises from FDA folly; if tobacco smoke is a class one carcinogen, due exclusively to the tobacco specific carcinogens it contains. Why are the drug companies as the largest funding partner in promoting smoking bans, not held to the same level of scrutiny when selling EPA approved “medical treatments.” Who is paying for what here?

    “Consider the source and always follow the money” is a progressive loss in the mainstream media, spelling the end of their credibility. As they sing the tune they are paid to sing, as propaganda replaces journalism and the truth is a product for sale to the highest bidder.

    Smoking bans were never about protecting the health of the public or any protection at all. They were always about advancing the old money industrial rendition, of moralist ideologies. The World Health Organization is controlled by its largest industrial stakeholders and until that is repaired, we will continue to see large scale ad agency promotions of indoctrinated population fear, by news release. With the all too familiar lead in “new research shows” backed by the ever popular entitlement “the World Health Organization predicts by the year…”

    Time to wake up and smell the coffee, before they ban that too.

  • James:

    Antismoking, as evidenced by past crusades (e.g., Nazi Germany) is demonstrably a mental dysfunction. Left to its own devices it can only promote irrational belief, fear and hatred. Tyranny and bigotry have a particular, dangerous stench. Societies around the world must be in a terrible state for this insanity to have even gotten this far. Many have now been brainwashed into antismoking bigotry. Antismokers (e.g.,’shgow some class’)are shallow thinkers – bigots. They need to be recognized and exposed as such. We can see the pollution that pours from their mouths.

  • Kevin:

    What would happen if the Cancer societies discovered a cure for cancer, as they have been promising for over half a century? Would they disclose to the world this great triumph, or would they try to hide it in protection of six figure salaries and public adoration they have enjoyed for all these years?

    The answer is so obviously found in the new flue curing process, which is known to reduce histamines and tobacco specific carcinogens by more than 95% a discovery which could eliminate all fears of second hand smoke and greatly reduce the risk of smoking.

    Are they calling for regulation in the curing process and protections of the millions of people who smoke?

    No, in fact what they are calling for is more discrimination against their favorite scapegoat target, a subset of communities that has sustained them for many years and masked their absolute failure to provide what was advertised. Continued mortality and morbidity was used to collect billions and perhaps trillions of dollars for all these years.

    It should not be lost on anyone their advertising has changed, along with their shift to a less humane attitude. Today the message is “conquer cancer” which is a narrowing of target focus, onto the individuals they use to promote fear while promoting and protecting the physical damage that sustains substantial profit, while their denials of failure are completely avoided.

  • Kevin:

    What would happen if the Cancer societies discovered a cure for cancer, as they have been promising for over half a century? Would they disclose to the world this great triumph, or would they try to hide it in protection of six figure salaries and public adoration they have enjoyed for all these years?

    The answer is so obviously found in the new flue curing process, which is known to reduce histamines and tobacco specific carcinogens by more than 95% a discovery which could eliminate all fears of second hand smoke and greatly reduce the risk of smoking.

    Are they calling for regulation in the curing process and protections of the millions of people who smoke?

    No, in fact what they are calling for is more discrimination against their favorite scapegoat target, a subset of communities that has sustained them for many years and masked their absolute failure to provide what was advertised. Continued mortality and morbidity was used to collect billions and perhaps trillions of dollars for all these years.

    It should not be lost on anyone their advertising has changed, along with their shift to a less humane attitude. Today the message is “conquer cancer” which is a narrowing of target focus, onto the individuals they use to promote fear while promoting and protecting the physical damage that sustains substantial profit, while their denials of failure are completely avoided.

  • SeaMark:

    Try waiting for pickup at SeaTac downstairs in front of Alaska Airlines. The Port of Seattle doesn’t enforce anything down there – they even have a huge planter for all the butts in the No Smoking area, and seats occupied by smokers below No Smoking signs. It’s a joke. There is a designated smoking area, but the entire area is a smokers paradise. No enforcement. Why doesn’t Alaska Airlines complain since they are stuck with the problem? No 25′ rule marked out or enforced. Where is King County Health? Why hasn’t the airport been cited? Other airports forbid it, or enclose the area. Second hand smoke all over the place, including upstairs. Get off the plane – long wait for your pickup ride – welcome to Seattle, but don’t breathe. :-(

  • snowbird:

    You’re ‘right’ to breathe clean air has always been there.
    Smoke from a cigarette is ‘lighter’ than air, therefore it rises way up to heaven

  • Baja K:

    The ever-popular tactic of having Votes where it is inevitable that the majority…”educated” almost entirely by corporate media…will vote against the rights of minorities is pretty atrocious.
    In some states or municipalities, a vote to send blacks “back to Africa” would win. Votes to deny gay human beings the same rights as “straight” human beings would win. And votes to ban smokers from places everyone else can go are no different.
    Generally, whatever the Corporate Media pushes in papers and on airwaves would “win”. Fair, fully-educated, votes are impossible….but to Vote makes it look like, you know, Democracy.
    Funny, no?…that there’s no Votes called for to Ban toxic, fire-causing, cancer-causing non-tobacco contaminants of typical cigarettes. There’s no votes to prohibit legislators with economic ties to Tobacco Pesticide Industries, or Insurers that Invest Heavily in cigarette manufacturing from making decisions on “smoking” matters.
    There’s no vote to require the Cig Industry to PAY compensation to smokers who had no clue they were also smoking dioxin-producing chlorine pesticide residues and more dioxins from the chlorine-bleached cig paper. No votes are called for to ban use of cancer-causing, radiation-producing phosphate tobacco fertilizers.
    And there’s no vote to ban used of Fake Tobacco sold as if it’s just tobacco…as has been used for assorted medicinal purposed (yes) for about ten thousand years.
    Google “Bill Drake Smoke Illusion” and “Fauxbacco” for more. THEN vote.

  • Steve:

    First of all “secondhand smoke kills” is based on the kind of “science” that led to the “fatal glass of beer” & Prohibition & to eugenics & all that followed on that. What Rasmussen & his fellow “purifiers” want, ultimately, is smoker skin lampshades. That’s been clear for a long time. Buy bootleg and DEFY.

  • Taxpayer:

    This proposed ban sounds like a bad party joke. Sending people outdoors to smoke and then telling them not to smoke outside? Can’t Seattle’s neo-nazi polictians find something better to work on? What a bunch of whiny weenies we have all become!

  • Mr. Le:

    In a situation like this one has to weigh the pros and cons. The things you mentioned have benefits that outweigh their consequences (yes, even farting).
    Smoking has consequences that far outweigh the benefits. It hurts the smoker as well as those around the smoker.

  • Mr. Le:

    Non-smokers are entitled to trample on other’s rights to smoke?
    How about smokers who feel entitled to smoke around people who have the right to enjoy the park for the purpose it was placed there to begin with?