ban outdoor smoking in davis county?

[stefan]

Time to ban outdoor smoking?
Friday, June 08, 2007


In Davis County, smokers may just have to stay home. Home may be the only place they can still light up.

The county is considering a ban on smoking in outdoor public places. The ban would cover golf courses, parks, playgrounds, sports fields, swimming pools, amusement parks and other public venues. It would also restrict smoking within 25 feet of automatic teller machines, train stations, bus stops and pay phones.

Violators would be fined $25 for the first offense and $100 for subsequent offenses within two years.

The rule faces no opposition, and likely will go into effect in January 2008. Utah already bans smoking in most indoor public spaces and will ban smoking in bars and private clubs in 2009.

Surprisingly, given that many Utahns eschew smoking as a matter of religious principle, Davis County is not the first place to cook up this idea. Calabasas, Calif., has that distinction, enacting an outdoor smoking ban in 2006.

Most people do not disagree with indoor smoking bans, since nonsmokers have little chance to escape second-hand smoke in the confined spaces of a restaurant or other public building. Studies have shown that second-hand smoke can be just as dangerous to nonsmokers as primary smoke is to the smoker.

But banning cigarettes outdoors? That may be a bit extreme for some.

After all, a park is not like a restaurant. A smoker's exhaust is diluted in the great outdoors. A nonsmoker may notice the stygian odor from the cigarette, but the harmful effects are minimal to nonexistent. The kids are arguably at greater risk from the playground equipment than from breathing a little diluted tobacco smoke carried by the breeze.

It's hard to see, some would argue, why smokers in a 10- or 20-acre park should stop smoking to "protect" nonsmokers in the area. Park users are probably more at risk from regular air pollution than they are from cigarette smoke.

Some research suggests otherwise.

Luke Naeher of the University of Georgia sampled air quality outside five bars and restaurants after an indoor smoking ban was enacted in Athens, Ga. Naeher's study, presented at a conference of the American Thorasic Society last month, found that the air contained elevated levels of carbon monoxide and fine particulates, two pollutants regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that are also found in cigarette smoke. Naeher's study found that particulate levels in the smoking areas was between 160.9 and 186.4 micrograms per cubic meter, while a control site only had 63 micrograms of PM2.5, showing that the cigarette smoke was producing more pollutants than passing cars.

There may also be a public safety reason for restricting outdoor smoking. In drought conditions, a carelessly thrown-away cigarette can easily start a fire. Just look at the scorch marks along freeway shoulders this summer and see what damage a cigarette can do.

Laws already bar people from drinking alcoholic beverages in public places, so why not smoking? While a smoker is not likely to become violent or disorderly, he does present a problem for others, especially those with asthma or other respiratory ailments aggravated by pollutants.

Then again, there's always somebody who wants to make a law against something. Government intrudes increasingly into private life, and seems ever more willing to turn regular people into petty criminals. Outdoor smoking bans may be the next example.

[jumar]

I don't smoke, don't like the smell of smoke...but I have to agree that this is taking it a bit to far, to ban people from being able to smoke outdoors.

[asdf]

same.... its a bit much.

[Sombeech]

WOW.

Here's my plan:
Hand out cards to current smokers. Future smokers can get one within the next 5 years. After that, only those who have this "smoker's license" are allowed to smoke for the rest of their lives. Their freedom is not taken from them.

[KillEmAll]

I don't think it's taking it too far. It's banning it from public outdoor places. Smoke in your house, your yard, your car, but why should I have to breath someone elses smoke? It's about friggin' time. I don't know why it's even though of as a right.

[M00km0nster]

This is taking it too far! What is this country coming to when I cant take my kids to the park, breath in that wonderful cigarette smoke? This is American damn it :( I want them to get their fix, and 2nd hand smoke is legal for others under 19 thank you :)

Now I just wish there was a way to get my kids to drink 2nd hand beer somehow....

[Mtnman1830]

Starting July 1st, employees at my place of employment can no longer smoke on the premises. They will have to clock out and leave the property to have their smoke.

We can only clock out once a day for 30 minutes. There are going to be some very grumpy people!!

[stefan]

Starting July 1st, employees at my place of employment can no longer smoke on the premises. They will have to clock out and leave the property to have their smoke.

We can only clock out once a day for 30 minutes. There are going to be some very grumpy people!!

oh my. i would have to argue that this is unreasonable.

[MY T PIMP]

Don't fret there is always chewing tobacco.

[Mtnman1830]

Mtnman1830 wrote:
Starting July 1st, employees at my place of employment can no longer smoke on the premises. They will have to clock out and leave the property to have their smoke.

We can only clock out once a day for 30 minutes. There are going to be some very grumpy people!!


oh my. i would have to argue that this is unreasonable.

Yeah. And to make it worse, the time clocks are on the assembly lines, so it could take 15 minutes to clock out, warm up some food, and get where you are able to smoke.

[shlingdawg]

Starting July 1st, employees at my place of employment can no longer smoke on the premises. They will have to clock out and leave the property to have their smoke.

We can only clock out once a day for 30 minutes. There are going to be some very grumpy people!!

oh my. i would have to argue that this is unreasonable.

Unless he works for some form of government office with which the employees are paid with my tax dollars. In which case I would applaud the notion.

I guess smokers don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to equal employment?

[jumar]

I guess smokers don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to equal employment?

Big difference with smokers is it's not like race or something you can't change....it's voluntary

[shlingdawg]

I guess smokers don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to equal employment?

Big difference with smokers is it's not like race or something you can't change....it's voluntary

I know that, and you know that. But try telling that to someone who's smoked 4 packs a day for the last 20 years (who isn't already dead from cancer).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they should have rights for smoking. Not at all. But I'm sure someone will try to play some sort of "legal" card.

[jumar]

But I'm sure someone will try to play some sort of "legal" card.

Yeah

In a day in age when someone can sue a dry cleaners for $50-some million for a pair of pants, and with everyone trying to avoid taking responsibility by blaming everything on genetics, their parents, Bush etc....

[stefan]

genetics?

[jumar]

I hear people blame all sorts of 'bad habits' on genetics.

[Mtnman1830]

It ususally skips a generation.[/quote]

[HEADHUNTER]

I live in Davis county and am glad this ban is being discussed. Take your smoke elsewhere. If you want to smoke a cancer stick - do it at your house, car, etc... don't blow that crap my way - I don't want it near me or my kids.

Most smokers have courtesy - but it's those scumbags that light up and think it's okay to blow that crap around are really annoying.

Speak up smokers - if you have the lung capacity

[jumar]

"Mind if I smoke?"
"No. Mind if I burp pastrami belches in your face?"

[Sombeech]

here we go