Following the smashing success of the smoking ban on Eureka’s boardwalk, the City Council approved an additional ordinance to ban smoking in designated recreation areas.
The city will post No Smoking signs and anticipates the ordinance will be “self-regulating.”
The ban passed 4-1 with Councilman Frank Jager casting the lone “no” vote. “I guess it’s the libertarian in me that thinks government is over stepping its bounds” by banning smoking outside. Jager said he thinks smoking is a “disgusting habit,” and supports any ban of indoor smoking, but couldn’t support this ban.
Councilman Larry Glass acknowledged the success of the boardwalk ban and had a message for his detractors: “For all the people who call me a nazi for supporting this, I have a nice little chuckle every time I walk down the boardwalk and you’re not there blowing smoke in my face.”
Rock on, non-smokers.
I agree, Cigarette smoke and pulp mill is a bad combo.
Wow!
Private property is still ok to pollute though, right?
So, no medical pot either?
What about smoked fish?
Where can a person smoke medical pot? Does anyone know?
Glass is more Chuckles the clown than a Nazi.
Will I be arrested if I smoke my cigar in my car while driving through Old Town ??
Since your car is not a designated recreation area, no.
I don’t smoke, but i think that the Eureka city council is going too far here.
They are kidding themselves if they think a ban will do anything or has done something already.
As a side note, Hitler banned smoking as well.
Half truth. Hitler banned smoking in post offices, military hospitals, universities, and party offices.
He was also a father, so I suppose you’ll imply by comparison that fatherhood is evil too.
As a side note, Hitler banned smoking as well.
Hitler also banned jaywalking.
And abortion incidentally.
Perhaps the city council should watch the History Channel and take notes. Cutten could be our Poland.
Banning drums on the plaza, hanging out on the street, smoking outside in public places, eventually only you perfect people will be allowed to be seen in public, and those of us who are scurvy, or smoke this and that, or don’t have a house, will be under the bridge for good.
I don’t smoke tobacco, my dad died from tobacco, but I’m tired of nanny government, and I’m tired of dimwits who feel free to take a public whack at people who smoke, drink, or use substances. People just love to have someone to feel better than. Eat your prozac and paxil and leave the rest of us be.
Go, Jager! This is to be expected of the rest of the council. I had a feeling Jager would vote against such insanity and that’s why I supported him. I feel vindicated.
11:03 wrote, “…He was also a father,”.
Hitler was a father???
“As a side note, Hitler banned smoking as well.
Hitler also banned jaywalking.
And abortion incidentally.”
…and Jews.
… and gypsies, political opposition, Jehovah’s Witnesses and homosexuals, to name a few more. What did he know that we don’t?
There we have it. Eureka’s smoking ban is Holocaust II.
Are you proud of yourselves?
“What did he know that we don’t?”
That you’re a dumb schmuck.
No, Hitler wasn’t a father, according to this site:
http://tinyurl.com/b58yjg
I didn’t think so.
Is there a link to an already drafted ordinance? Curious decision made which warrants a bit of reading into the fine details.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
The ban on the boardwalk is often ignored, but it works when it needs to.
I often walk there in late afternoons with Ruby. If I sit down to think or read and someone’s smoking affects me, then I just politely point out the ban. So far the other people have moved away or stopped smoking.
If the smoke doesn’t drift my way, then I say nothing. I suspect things will work in much the same way for other public recreation areas.
It has recently been proven that even 3rd hand smoke affects the health of others. Smokers should be allowed to smoke only in their own houses or cars. Frank, get a clue.
It seems to me that the non smoking ban on the boardwalk has more to do with interfering with the homeless/methoid crowd’s partying down hard on the boardwalk at all hours than with protecting people from second hand smoke. It’s worked very well in that it’s not so intimidating the non-partying public to walk along there any more. I’m pretty sure that’s what Larry Glass had in mind and I say it’s worked and thank you Mr. Glass!
10:02 am,
Then, when you roll down the car window; or, open and close your exterior doors and windows to your home allowing for fresh air exchanges; or, you turn on that bathroom fan which takes interior air and distributes it outside, then intermixing of inside and outside air occurs. Hey, I detest the smell of cigars and cigarettes too, but I am not draconian to think that a person does not have a right to smoke outside. Smoking has been part of human cultures for years. Over in Italy, Lucca I believe, the city council voted in majority to BAN ALL OUTSIDE ETHNIC FOODS for fear of the culturally historic Italian food being forgotten. These types of issues are a result of OVERPOPULATION; less people, less problems.
It seems as though these smoking bans will cause a lawsuit based upon Civil Rights violations. It is like ADA and sidewalks, accessibility, etc…Creating, allowing and continuing a use while disallowing others to enjoy the same use. I expect recreation areas to be divided into at least two zones – non-smoking and smoking. Further, taxation issues come into play. If a person is disallowed from using public areas, then they should not be taxed on something they are being locked out from using. Is there a link to this new city ordinance?
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
Smoking and cancer are linked. Smoke and you can get a number of different cancers. Tobacco is legal, marijuana is not. What a wild ride. Enjoy whatever parts you like. But banning smoking is actually good for you whether you like it or not.
Government power real health hazard
The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed threat of “second-hand” smoke.
Indeed, the bans are symptoms of a far more grievous threat, a cancer that has been spreading for decades and has now metastasized throughout the body politic, spreading even to the tiniest organs of local government. This cancer is the only real hazard involved – the cancer of unlimited government power.
The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or is in fact just a phantom menace, as a study published recently in the British Medical Journal indicates. The issue is: If it were harmful, what would be the proper reaction? Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educating people about the potential danger and allowing them to make their own decisions, or should they seize the power of government and force people to make the “right” decision?
Supporters of local tobacco bans have made their choice. Rather than trying to protect people from an unwanted intrusion on their health, the bans are the unwanted intrusion.
Loudly billed as measures that only affect “public places,” they have actually targeted private places: restaurants, bars, nightclubs, shops and offices – places whose owners are free to set anti-smoking rules or whose customers are free to go elsewhere if they don’t like the smoke. Some local bans even harass smokers in places where their effect on others is negligible, such as outdoor public parks.
The decision to smoke, or to avoid “second-hand” smoke, is a question to be answered by each individual based on his own values and his own assessment of the risks. This is the same kind of decision free people make regarding every aspect of their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to befriend or sleep with, whether to go to college or get a job, whether to get married or divorced, and so on.
All of these decisions involve risks; some have demonstrably harmful consequences; most are controversial and invite disapproval from the neighbours. But the individual must be free to make these decisions. He must be free because his life belongs to him, not to his neighbours, and only his own judgment can guide him through it.
Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Smokers are a numerical minority, practising a habit considered annoying and unpleasant to the majority. So the majority has simply commandeered the power of government and used it to dictate their behaviour.
That is why these bans are far more threatening than the prospect of inhaling a few stray whiffs of tobacco while waiting for a table at your favourite restaurant. The anti-tobacco crusaders point in exaggerated alarm at those wisps of smoke while they unleash the unlimited intrusion of government into our lives. We do not elect officials to control and manipulate our behaviour.
Yes, smoking is an individual choice; just as non-smoking is a choice; just as eating organic foods is a choice; just as suicide is a choice. Go figure, the different fruits and vegetables being bared through discussion. In fact, why ban when government can roll back time and just disallow the manufacture of tobacco products, chewing tobacco included (punned sarcasm – “We must all hang together, or we shall all hang separately” – Benjamin Franklin).
Now that my clothing has dried off a bit, back to work in the rain I go, I ho, I ho, I ho, I ho, I ho.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
I think the goverment has overstepped its boundries, what gives them the right to choose if you can smoke outside or not?? if you don’t like the smoke them move away from the area!
The smokers need to move away from the area. This is for the common good, not the feel good. Or are you smokers all too selfish? Kinda like the poeple who don’t pick up their dog’s shit. Priorities for a better life for all.
And I smoke. Digars from time to time.
Cigars.
Silly arguments.
This new smoking ban is yet another policy targeting homeless people as are the smoking bans on the boardwalk and the Arcata plaza. The only people who are ever going to be harassed by the fuzz for smoking in an outdoor non-smoking area are the hapless transients who also happen to be the people who can’t afford the small fine.
Larry Glass has proven himself to be yet another ivory tower Democrat telling us that he wants to help people in unfortunate living situations while advocating for regulations which make life harder on these same people.
Jager was earned my respect with this vote.
I meant “has earned.” Note that I do not advocate inhaling acutely toxic fumes. I also do not advocate making it quasi-illegal to be a homeless person in a park just because of particular habits.
“Jager was earned my respect with this vote.”.
Agreed, as I wrote earlier, although he already had my respect.
As far as Larry Glass goes, I’ve appreciated his hard work in the council in the past, despite all the bad things he’s been involved with and helped push through.
I’ve come to the conclusion now that he must go. The cavalier attitude he exhibits when he restricts people’s freedoms shows he’s the last person we should have in any level of government in this state.
I think we should ban cars from the city, and wood stoves. These two sources of air pollution account for far more smoke in the air than the smokers. THIS WAS A BRAVE ACTION by our fearless city council! I cannot think of ANYTHING more important they could be doing! Our BRAND NEW boardwalk will attract AMAZING new development in old town! Fuck you smokers! You will not pollute the GEM OF OUR CITY, the BRAND NEW BOARDWALK WITH ITS AMAZING DEVELOPMENTS!
Oh good. I was worried I was going to have to drop my kids at an orphanage to avoid being evil. Thanks Fred.
The Arcata Plaza bans all sorts of things, as indicated on the signs at each corner of the Plaza. Funny thing is though, as much time as I spend on the Plaza, I don’t recall ever seeing anyone get busted for smoking a cig or pot, for that matter. These bans are silly and unenforceable. We, the people, just need to do the right thing.
They are enforced. People get ticketed every day.
They should ban smoking at the dump, it makes as much sense as banning at the boardwalk.
Oldphart- You don’t really foolishly believe that the city council cares about your health do you? That’s the furthest thing from their minds.
All sorts of things such as sitting on the sidewalk. The city should have posted signs stating its true intent: “No homeless, violators will be run out of town.”
Sadly the opposite is true. The city funds homeless tourism.
I’m not sure where some people get the notion it’s their Constitution-granted right to spread carcinogens to other people.
Like was said before, if this was the actual rationale then car exhaust would be banned.
However, homeless people don’t drive cars very much and there are already laws in place to harass the ones that do.
11:44 am,
respect goes a long, long way. With this ban apparently, smokers are not even given the choice to move away if someone who is not smoking is in the same general vicinity. If no non-smoker is present, the right to move to another area to use and enjoy is restricted when smokers will NOT EVEN BE ALLOWED to use a personless area. You are right that someone should move, but who? Is it the person showing up second in line; or, the person who was there first. BTW, smokers do ruin it for many when they disrespect others and throw their butts onto the ground or in the water. I have seen Humboldt County DHHS director Phillip Crandal throw cigarette butts onto the street/crosswalk in the past. This behavior is repugnant.
In soccer, when the ball goes out of bounds initiating a re-start of play with a “throw-in”, if the defender sets his or her position prior to the thrower taking position, then the defender has the right to the territory they supplant themself on – provided they allow without interference (2 meter set-back) of the throw-in being taken. Additionally, the defender can’t move about to impede the thrower. Also, the thrower can’t mandate that a properly placed defender should move to make the throw-in more convenient. Simply put, when done appropriately and respectfully, “first come, first serve”. This smoking issue should be “no different”. The respect should be taken by the person not already there first, imo. Again, I see a Civil Liberty / Constitutional lawsuit on the horizon by a competent attorney at law.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – -5th District
2:10 pm,
Ah, but more infilling is going to herd more smokers and non-smokers together in one big, unhappy family setting – and to think Ann Lindsay is trying to say that infilling is HEALTHY. Well, reality sets in and says, “infilling is healthier in some ways while being less healthy in other ways.” The philharmonic “Liberty Bell” being chimed is cracking more repetitiously out-of-tune.
Too bad the council could not have spent more quality time on a workable solution that takes into account multiple ideologies and uses of “public spaces” by ALL citizens.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
3:54 pm,
That is a good question for “corporate personhood” too.
As far as spreading smoke, who was on first, first? Was the carcinogenic smoke spread; or, was it individually brought into one’s internal and external environment by outward movements into an area already being used by another?
Question: Is government going to put a lid, cover or cap on VOLCANOES too because volcanoes emit and inject carcinogens into the multiple levels of the planet’s atmosphere?
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – -5th District
Last time I checked it was illegal to drive on the Boardwalk too.
Most of my acquaintances will avoid even a walk by when finding a sidewalk filled with the butt sucking addicts. I remember my surprise
upon entering a restaurant in Oregon after only 2 years of Ca’s public smoking ban, and thinking how long we had to endure that toxic poison. This new ban is progress folks, thank you Eureka City Council. Maybe Frank’s job as coroner has inured him of this menace to the living. As for the homeless, the last thing I’d spend money on would be nicotine.
4:39 pm,
At least be realistic. Cars will drive NEAR the Boardwalk. Boats will go NEAR the Boardwalk too! So, in essence, you get diesel and non-diesel fumes as well. Surely, there should be a better, workable solution which is less draconian and less fascist.
P.S. I am not going to be smoking on the boardwalk regardless; however, I will stand up for other people’s rights, even though I HATE cigarettes, cigars, chewing tobacco, etc… Yes, non-smokers have rights too, yet not any more or less than smokers.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
4;46 pm,
That is your acquaintances’ right to avoid or to not avoid being in an area that other people were at first. Could there not be a seperate area set to the side for smokers to enjoy the boardwalk too? Or, is it really about “out of sight, out of mind”?
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
The smoking ban was basically aimed at playgrounds. It was not just Glass who supported this; three other council people did too. Jager showed he does not have a clue. Not only on this item but on everything else that came up. His excuse… I was out of town. Not a good show Frank.
Smokers can enjoy the Boardwalk like everybody else. They just can’t light up while on the Boardwalk. Seems like a small thing to ask.
Let’s all light up the next time we are around Frank, see how long he stays clueless.
Our society doesn’t condone public snorting, shooting up, drinking, or chewing certain controlled substances, why should we allow smoking the most addictive insidious drug in public? The line is skewed.
5:20 pm,
so then; no eating, no drinking, no sitting, no farting, no belching, no kite flying, no picking one’s nose, no walking barefoot, no walking shirtless, no families with obnoxious children, no argueing, etc… Again, an area can be set aside to let smokers smoke and enjoy being on the boardwalk too without spewing smoke upon a non-smoker.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyvile – 5th District
Christ, as we circle the drain with mad max time coming to a mall near you, the fact that the city council is putting any of it’s energy into this is so depressing. They really should be thinking about FOOD. Everyday there are more and more hungry families out there and the truth is… hungry people don’t always play nice.
Ed,
smoking is legally sold in many forms still, yes? Is Eureka going to have to pay to have a special statement imprinted upon each package of cigarettes, cigars, chewing tobacco, etc.. as a disclaimer so people will know before driving, walking, etc… to the boardwalk that they are unwelcome? This ban is ill conceived if it denigrates diversity. Hmmm, how many folks favoring this ban also favor immigration? Afterall, the political gerrymanderers use this country as a diverse, eclectic bunch of peoples and that diversity is good. What about diverse religious beliefs, cultural and ethnic practices? Seems a bit hypocritical to say certain people are better or worse than others over something that is not criminally sold to the consumer (less under aged children).
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
What, those who smoke can’t abstain from lighting up for 10 minutes, half an hour, an hour while they enjoy the boardwalk? I mean are they walking along looking at the bay thinking, “you know this experience just isn’t the same without a lit cancer stick dangling from my mouth?” The argument that non-smokers can’t enjoy the Boardwalk because they can’t light up while they’re on the Boardwalk is so stupid it defies belief.
6:11 pm,
Hmm, 10 minute break; lunchtime break; etc… The same can be said about non-smokers who can’t deal with a little bit of dilluted smoke here and there for 10 minutes, half an hour, an hour while they enjoy the boardwalk. Enjoyment of the Boardwalk is not realisiticly relative nor predicated to unipolar or secular molding. Oh, and the lack of enjoyment works both ways. In fact, how can a person justify that their personality is better than another’s personality; that their personality trumps another through a higher class status level. This is very disturbing to play the class warfare game.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
6:11 pm,
forgot to ask, did you mean “smokers and not non-smokers” in your last sentence? Just a clarification.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
It’s poison. Don’t spread poison in a public area. Regulating it is one small step in line with regulating vehicle and industrial exhaust. The real test will be over wood smoke. the east bay area already regulates wood burning because of health hazards and stricter standards for wood stoves have been in existence in certain areas for some time now. I have wood heat and feel lucky to live where I can still enjoy it, but these regulations are as inevitable as population growth.
Please don’t use the “too much government” argument against the ban on smoking unless you don’t also think we need seat-belt laws, for instance. After all what’s it to you if I don’t like to wear my seat belt? Truth is we aren’t always doing the “right thing” unless a law forces us to.
At least we seem to agree on OVERPOPULATION. If you did not have a woodstove with a catalytic converter or other enviromental safety device, you would be paying a lot of money per month for natural gas, which is also extracted from the earth and causes environmental damage too. Hmmm, should mother nature refrain from it’s association with forrest fires too.
Realisticly, every argument against banning smoking is going to be countered with reasons why the argument is insufficient – this leads to the fact that a workable solution is feasible. Moreover, the picture becomes clearer that it is not necessarily about smoking; rather, it is seemingly about the visual representation that smokers exhude which is detested by others; and, how self-righteous elitists (poison too) will use different arguments to justify a hidden agenda to block away the reality that different people exist; and, that these different people should not be recognized as being part of society. Yep, this self-righteous attitude appears to be the “real poison”.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
I don’t want to breath second hand smoke. It has nothing to do with visuals.
Heraldo, I do not like to breathe 2nd hand smoke either but I can “deal with it”; however, to rescind another’s civil liberties on this issue is very wrong. This should not be about self-righteous hierarchies. First come, first serve is my motto over this outside smoking argument. I do believe this issue has something to do with imagery because being outside, smoke is diluteable because outside air is diluent.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
I don’t like it when you use your cellular around me on the boardwalk. Those are linked to cancer. So, those need to be banned too!
This is just a another stupid PR stunt. It won’t do anything. We could ban things all day long. When are you going to get it?!
Is this all the council has to do???
Congratulations that you can deal with it. Some people, like asthmatics, can’t. Smoker’s don’t somehow have more civil liberties than others. If you want a cigarette, step off the boardwalk (or the playground).
Spoken like someone who doesn’t suffer from asthma. You couldn’t be more wrong. Merely walking by a smoker outside can trigger an attack, and by “by” I mean at least 30 feet. If the smoke hits you, that’s it. Your first-come first-served policy would mean many people would be excluded from walking in public because, well, tough luck.
I better not see you with a cell phone. Come on, at least be consistent.
You won’t find me protesting cell phone bans.
I have never heard of an asthmatic being affected by diluted smoke outside in a windy public area. Next up, smog connections. Hmmm, it appears now that the striking point to defame by false claim is one that has to rely upon using asthma vicitms as bureaucratic tools in an induced, subatomic black hole effort to vacuum in support for justifying outside smokers being forced to go away. Time for the molecular, HEPA filter breathing apparatus industry to get their design and engineering divisions to market their SCOBA (Self Contained Onland Breathing Apparatus) resuscitation equipment A.S.A.P..
Recent history dictates that smoking prohibition crusaders first started with 2nd hand smoke inside with children present; then, a couple years later the anti-smoke campaign evolved into 2nd hand smoke inside public and private buildings and businesses; then it seems to be emigrating into “developed or devlopable” public outside areas being used as a manifestation for the needed collection of jurisdictional tax revenue generated monies, supposedly benefitting government by the actions of those citizens who apparently fit the “selective” mold of the self-righteous mindset much better. An obvious pattern to separate the community is before us.
Such creative reasoning to justify outdoor smoking bans still does not appropriately address the fact that a workable solution for all is feasible. Then again, Capitol Hill politicians who passed the so-called stimulus bill voted on something without reading or understanding it. Apparently, supporters for this issue are following the same procedural guises without rolling up their sleeves and doing the necessary work to come up with something fair. Again, is there not a way to create areas on and along a boardwalk or other recreation areas for smokers to take a time out to inhale? Or, is this issue a prelude to public camp grounds and fire pits being next on the “get rid of” list, along with school bonfires at rallies, the school pottery classes that use fire and smoke to cure the creative inventions, etc… The “Great American Flood of Smoke and Mirrors” is coming like a cataclysmic Tornado that spreads it’s destruction through lampoonery.
Folks, we can do better for both smokers and non-smokers without inventing monolithic uses based upon class warfare.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
Well, count yourself finally informed on an issue. Now you can reverse your take on public smoking, unless you value smoking rights more than human lives. That’s what it comes down to.
It’s really funny how incensed people get when their drug of choice is restricted and the lengths they will go to defend forcing others to partake (just a little) against their will. To paraphrase the old “your right to swing your fist ends at my nose,” your right to smoke ends at my lungs.
I’m a smoker and I support the ban. The ban was discussed in detail at a Parks and Rec Commission meeting several months ago. It was on the agenda and our board supported the resolution.
Interesting comment by K-man in the Times- Standard Topix forums. Anybody know more about this:
I was at the council meeting and the story that didn’t get reported was – why did Larry Glass blow his top? At the beginning of their break, he was very upset with the mayor and tore into her for “not calling on me when I had my hand up first”. Just after that, he stormed out in the hall, banged his hand on the door to the stairway, slammed it open, and stomped down the stairs.
Why did he lose his temper?
Gee… that’s important stuff.
Could never admit to that. It would make him and Arkley two peas in a pod.
For those that watched the council meeting the mayor did indeed ignore Glass repeatedly when he was first to raise his hand. She appeared to be in la la land all night so maybe it was not intentional.
Fred,
Glass was so mad he broke the door to the 2nd floor stairwell that he slammed. The repairs were being made on Weds.
Still unclear why he was mad. It appeared the bully didn’t get his way, so he was huffing and puffing and knocking doors down to make himself feel better.
7:52 am,
Informed on one thing for sure – something that someone used as a reason since other reasons seemed to be failing to prove any points. Also, with all those many, many years that asthma has been known, it apparantly takes a “Recreation / Boardwalk Ban” to bring asthmatic victims into the discussion. Next, it will be a smoking ban on all sidewalks, right? This is just more examples of the self-righteous using anything and everything to get there way. Further, I will not reverse my stance because again, smokers and non-smokers ARE EQUAL in my opinion when it comes to outdoor enjoyments.
Now, as I have stated before, I detest the smell of cigarette and cigar smoke, but I can deal with it because my rights are not higher than a smoker’s rights in the great outdoors, especially if I am the one walking up to the scene after a smoker is already there. Additionally, recreation areas AND the boardwalk are not soooooooo small in design that a workable solution could not be achieved to allow ALL makes and models of peoples to enjoy. A workable solution is very much realisitic. Also, “self-regulated” is a double edged sword – some will follow, others will not. In fact, those few who can’t read or write, will be exempt from prosecution. Oh, by the way, more blight will be added to the city because of the apparent need for more signage. Graffiti will occur.
In ending, 1 1/2 days have gone by that I have been reading and responding to these posts and yet, no one has provided a link for this ordinance so that we non-city council members and we non-city staff can actually look at the “fine print”. How long does it take for a smoking ban proponent to provide a link for ordinance reading purposes? Time will tell.
Heraldo @ 9:49 pm mentioned stepping off the boardwalk in an earlier post. Is there a distance which has been discussed; or, is the fine detail going to be “made-up” as city personnel read the public responses? I can’t imagine that merely taking a step off the boardwalk is going to satisfy the “self-righteous” control mongors.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
8:18 am,
Since I seem to be one of the few who are questioning this ban on this forum, I am not incensed due to how you worded your statement. I, for the umpteenth time, have openly stated that I too detest the smell of cigarette and cigar smoke; however, my rights to not smoke do not trump the rights of someone who enjoys to smoke. First come, first serve. From this, judge one’s respect toward another instead of pushing people away because a negatively charged magnet is newest on the scene trying to force a positively charged magnet away off the scene because of illusions of grandeur.
Imagery is the underlying tone for this ban. City officials must feel that non-smokers look more cutsie than smokers. This has everything to do with the attraction of mass people or not – which either generates cash flow or not, very identical to the Arcata Plaza ban. Oh, by the way, a person can walk across the street on the Arcata Plaza and smoke; and, the smoke is still pungent while being on the plaza itself. Therefore, realisticly not fully effective in the least. Now, let us see if the Arcata Plaza ban expands it’s square footage of control.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
Hello Mike B,
It is good that you can be respectful; however, if you wanted to smoke and I was near you, I would not complain because I would deal with it. You have as much right to smoke on the Boardwalk or Recreation Area as I would if I was not smoking. Since you have some “inside knowledge” regarding parks and recreation (are you a member of the commission?), do you have a link you can provide for finite reading purposes? Also, it would be interesting to understand how much taxpayer money will be used in enforcement, upkeep, infrastructure costs, etc… that get charged to everyone, yet a certain class of people will be disallowed from using in their normal, regular capacity of living life.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
Hmmm,
is it accurate to assume Larry has a temper like Arkley? I have not seen Larry mad enough to break doors. Maybe the doors were on it’s final days from all those previous slammings by many people in years past.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
Same ol’ BS, they can’t get anything of importance accomplished, so lets attack the poor and uneducated tobacco addicts. they have no lobby, and no one is going to defend their rights to endanger the health of community. so great! Lets go after them, and then we can strut around and take credit for doing something, while in reality they ignore every issue of weight.
Yes, because we all know if it was posted in the Times-Standard comment forum it must be true.
Larry is a big baby if he doesn’t get his way – seen that more than once at a council meeting.
The city doesn’t want us to walk by homeless people begging for money. The city wants to hassle the homeless with fines for petty activity such as smoking cigarettes in a non-smoking outdoor area and call it a public health issue. Next the city will ban sitting on the sidewalk and call it a foot traffic safety issue as Arcata does.
It amazes me how many anti-civil rights policies gain support if the intent is masked with fake rationale designed to please uptight ivory tower liberals.
Forcing others to breathe carcinogens is a civil right? Please.
The homeless are the ones loitering in plazas, boardwalks, and public parks all day while smoking. I don’t like walking behind some dummy smoking a cigarette either but I don’t get so holier than thou about it that I end up advocating government regulations.
Being targeted by police due to a questionable infraction such as smoking outdoors opens the door for potential violations of civil rights. This whole fiasco is designed to make the well-to-do liberals crinkle their nose at supposedly despicable poor person conduct while unwittingly granting the police a powerful tool to harass homeless citizens with.
Nose crinkling is caused by rude, selfish smokers no matter their economic situation.
Selfish meaning smoking while sitting on a bench in a public park? If you cannot distance yourself from personal distaste with cigarette smoke, you won’t be able to see the other side of this issue. I don’t like (tobacco) smoke or homeless guys asking me for change as they smoke their cigarette in the park. However, I know that they have rights as citizens and would be saddened if their personal liberty were trampled upon for such a petty reason as their Midnight Special addiction.
It’s not about homeless people. It doesn’t matter who is doing the smoking. It’s about the smoke, not the smoker.
There are plenty of places one can smoke outside.
You are kidding yourself with “this is not about homeless people,” “this is about the smoke.” There are already loitering laws used to ticket homeless people for hanging out in all of the plenty of other places where one can smoke outside. It is hard to write a loitering law which covers public places designed for loitering, hence the push for smoking, dog, and sitting rules.
It is about cancer. Not poor people. Get a grip.
Hmmmm,
I spoke with an asthmatic the other day and brought her attention to this issue. She scoffed at the City’s decision to ban smoking on the Boardwalk outdoors. She agreed that a ban on indoor smoking was justifiable. I asked her if she was allergic to smoke; and, if so, how close in proximity would a smoker affect her. She said she smokes too – puffing rather than inhaling -. I said, “well does that make your asthma worse?” She said no because she did not inhale. Yet, she can still smell it and it does not bother her. She agreed as well that government regulations like outdoor smoking bans was wrong and not common sensible in approach. I was reassured that my arguments are rational.
Kudos to Mr. Nice!
3:49 PM,
If it is about cancer, what does the numerous types of cancer smell like? Further, this is a ban in your words to restrict those with cancer; and/or, to ban cancer from mastitising within another person’s body?
The argument of cancer causing agents in outdoor areas is not an argument which trumps everyone’s constitutional rights. If it were, then take off your plastic/rubber shoes; your nylon clothing; the hairsprays and other beauty products; etc… If this ban is about baring all that which causes cancer, then time to bare everyone’s naked bodies – just like during birth!
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
Well there you have it. One asthmatic wants to “puff” (why? vanity?) therefore all asthmatics, allergics and everyone else should have to endure the carcinogenic effects of the addicts crutch. No thanks.
H,
In an imperfect world, where there is one, there are others, yes?
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
It doesn’t matter. I have no sympathy for smokers who are inconvenienced by having to step off the boardwalk or off the playground to pay homage to the Marlboro Man.
Many, and probably most, asthmatics are seriously bothered and endangered by smoke. Period.
Have you ever noticed that every time a no-smoking ban
is discussed the asmatics seems to come out of the woodwork??
I am an asmatic and I have a number of friends that are asmatics and we all smoke.
Doesn’t bother us at all
Everyone’s Constitutional rights matter. This is why areas on the boardwalk or any other “public” area could be cordoned off for competing users per se.
I imagine you would also have no sympathy for non-smokers who are disallowed inside buildings or outside in other public areas put aside for only smokers, yes?
If you want to achieve amicable answers for situations such as this, you have to ask and answer the tough questions, right?
Here is another question just for Heraldo – Should bicyclists be disallowed from smoking in bike paths too?
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
Just bicyclists or anyone?
That’s not the issue. No one is being banned from the boardwalk or playgrounds.
The American Cancer Society behind this new Eureka ordinance.
California now bans smoking on many beaches. In September, Orange County became the nation’s first county to ban smoking along its entire coast. San Francisco banned smoking in parks July 1, 2008.
“The number of cities and counties that bar smoking in outdoor areas — including parks, cafes, concert venues, stadiums and beaches — has soared from 30 in 1999 to at least 1,124 today, according to the American Non-smokers’ Rights Foundation, an advocacy group that tracks local ordinances.”
Smoking bans going from inside out -2007
So, banning smoking in public areas is an increasing practice by elected officials. Not surprising in the least.
Mark – do you have a link to the earlier ban in public recreation areas for Eureka; and, the exact language for this boardwalk ban? I asked before upthread; but, I know you are busy too.
Jeffrey lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
Sorry Mike on the mark. Quick typing.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
I think this ban is great, more fresh air, more healthy lives, start making better choices people. Cigarettes are unneeded and unnecessary. Chew some bubble gum…
Does anyone here believe in Liberty, anymore? If Bob doesn’t want smoking in his business, and you smoke, go to Bill’s place, where you can smoke. That’s liberty. That is government out of the “regulate your every action” business. You people need to travel to Asia and Europe… it will change you forever. The loss of freedoms.. You lose them and you never, ever are “granted” them back. The reason you don’t care is that you don’t smoke, so you don’t care about the other guy. HOWEVER, when the NEXT perverted, left-wing intrusion into your freedoms affects YOU… then it will all be tears and boo-hoos. And I’ll remember when you cavalierly pissed on my right, gave not a damn about me as a smoker. When they trounce on YOU, it will fall on deaf ears. Be warned.
How about this… you are a business owner. There is some new, whacked=out “green” ordinance passed by a pansy-brained local government that calls on you to make $50,000 changes to your little shop. Don’t have the cash? I’ll be smiling. Or, how about one they tried in Santa Monica… every HOME must have a “handicap accessible entrance” to your house. That means widening your front or back doorway and a cement or stable steel ramp built… just in case someone in a wheelchair visits your home. They shut that one down quickly and quietly. Got the cash (now) for that? I’ll be smiling. Or how about another liberal stroke of genius… EBONICS! Now, all business you do, in an “effort to avail the community at large in the inclusion of all peoples…”, must not only be conducted in English, but Ebonics, as well. All signs must change, all correspondence must use both languages…. or LET’S MAKE IT SPANISH! WOOHOO! You will be screaming… and I will be quietly smiling, remembering when you stole my basic rights.
I get what you’re saying dave m., but your examples start to get kinda out there. There is a “conservative” way of looking at issues like this that I don’t like, and it’s exaclty what you’re talking about…the same bogus mandatory wheelchair upgrades, etc…BUT, no matter how much I agree with the common sense of it, there’s a point where a company, development or property owner isn’t allowed to hang a sign on their front door, community gate or business awning that says “The Constitution and the Bill of Rights does not apply to you on my property.”
…which, I believe, this anti-smoking ordinace does…violate a major right for a minor cause.
I think the problem with the one that recently took effect is that it took away existing designated smoking areas from bars – which where not effecting non-smokers, like Dave’s and the Shanty.