Tobacco control always returns for the patios later. Page seven of the tobacco control handbook instructions are to ban patio smoking AFTER business owners spent thousands of dollars to build them for their smoking customers. This clearly shows that these people have ABSOLUTLY NO CONCERN for local businesses. It’s the “inside-out” provision on page seven. Once these people find gullible lawmakers and get a foot in the door, there’s no stopping them. You will see them walk past clearly posted “smoking allowed on patio” signs only to holler and scream and disrupt an otherwise peaceful gathereing of smoking friends. You may need to CTRL and scroll to read their handbook.
http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/CIA_Fundamentals.pdf
Notice that there’s no mention of patios in the model “smoking ban for dummies” on page eight. They didn’t want that to be seen when the bans were first brought up.
Eric,
I greatly appreciate your leadership on the matter of outdoor smoking. I think you have the right formulation of the issue and are very close to a workable solution.
There is, however, one very serious problem that I think the proposed legislation will likely create if you don’t head it off at the pass. It would be unfortunate indeed if, after all the work that has gone into this, you did not solve the problem or problems that you set out to solve. It would be much worse, however, if you unwittingly exacerbate one of the principal problems you are trying to solve, “the hazard and annoyance of second-hand smoke, especially on children.”
The current proposal has the non-smoking area of the “Inner T” end in the middle of what is, de facto, still part of the playground. I watch kids play all the time on the sculpture just East of the green benches. This sculpture was actually designed with the expectation that kids would play on and around it. Most days I witness at least one conflict between a smoker sitting just North AND EAST of there who (correctly) asserts their right to sit and smoke in that location and a parent who complains that the smoke blows right onto them and their children while they are playing on the ONLY play area for kids on the Commons.
One can reasonably assume that any smokers coming from the West will go as far –but only as far—as they need to go to reach the designated, legal smoking area. It would not take a formal study to anticipate that smoking in this area would likely INCREASE if the draft proposal is passed as is. This area is either IN the playground itself by one reasonable definition, or at least so close to it that smoke moves, in most weather conditions, right onto the kids who play there.
I spoke the other day, for example, with a woman who introduced herself as Jennie Cunningham Ryan. Jennie, whose two kids were playing on and around the playground equipment, describes herself as a “former smoker who is very sympathetic to smokers and smokers’ rights.” Jennie was watching her kids play on the slide as two adults sat on the wall NE of the slide and smoked. Note, they were sitting in an area which, in the current proposal would be a designated smoking area. I asked Jennie if she noticed when people smoke by the playground and if she cares. She said it bothers her a lot and she often takes the kids elsewhere even though she would like to come to the Commons. I asked her what she would think if there were a non-smoking area that ended at the point designated on the map. She said this would be like a “bad joke.” She said you have to not just draw lines on a map in an office somewhere, you have to go to the Commons in different conditions and watch where the smoke blows on the Commons. Even if the boundary was 25 feet away, it would still be a joke.”
To me this gets to the heart of the matter. Is the City willing to ask smokers to walk 18 seconds in order to look out for the health of children? The City either cares about protecting the health of kids and is willing to do something about it or it doesn’t and it just wants to look like it is doing something. If it really wants to do something to prioritize the health of children and I KNOW that you are committed to this, you must extend the non-smoking area to Aurora street.
I have discussed this option with numerous smokers standing outside the Rothschild building and NONE has complained about this. In fact, I just spoke with two women at that location five minutes ago, on this very cold day. I asked them if they knew that there is legislation pending that would regulate smoking on the Commons. “We know,” they said, almost in unison. I asked them where they would want to smoke if they could. They said no one had asked them that before. The first one said I would want to smoke in a space that has some kind of shelter but is not too enclosed and too smoky.” I asked how it would feel if instead of being able to smoke where they were currently standing (on the north side of the building), the only designated smoking area in the vicinity was on the East side of the building, by the bus stop on Aurora Street. They said “lots of people go out that entrance, anyway; it would be no problem.”
While looking out for the air quality for all, I would also look out for the comfort and feelings of smokers. I do not think smokers should be made to feel like pariahs. Why don’t we (and I mean the broader community not just the city) come together and create some comfortable seating and some really nice landscaping on Aurora street (if not in other smoking areas too) to create a pleasant area for smokers to enjoy without having them right on top of a playground. This would be better for business would make it much less likely people would smoke in stairwells and basements and it would be MUCH BETTER FOR THE KIDS I know we all care about. You rock!