Against the recommendation of the city’s parks board, city Parks superintendent Tim Gallagher issued a new rule that bans smoking, chewing tobacco, and any other tobacco use in all city parks. The parks board, along with the city council, had recommended restricting smoking only in areas of parks with high concentrations of children, like playgrounds.
In a letter announcing the new policy, Gallagher wrote, “The negative health effects of tobacco are well documented. As an agency that has as a fundamental mission to support the health and wellbeing of Seattle residents, it is appropriate and beneficial to prohibit the use of tobacco products at parks and park facilities.”
Starting April 1, anyone caught smoking in a city park will be subject to temporary exclusion from that park—up to one day for the first offense, seven days for the second, and 30 days for the third offense. After that, offenders may be arrested. Advocates for the homeless argued that the ban, like the parks exclusion ordinance, would disproportionately target homeless people.
Tweet
Except for pot. We can still smoke pot anywhere in Seattle, right? Since the City Attorney won't prosecute pot, how can he prosecute tobacco, which is still legal? At least outside Seattle Parks?
Except for pot. We can still smoke pot anywhere in Seattle, right? Since the City Attorney won't prosecute pot, how can he prosecute tobacco, which is still legal? At least outside Seattle Parks?
ah, you can't smoke but you can still have a gun!
ah, you can't smoke but you can still have a gun!
What is it with the “advocates of the homeless”? Doesn't just about any rule the rest of society has to follow disproportionately impact the homeless because they choose not to follow any of those rules? Let's just have a blanket exception from all rules for the homeless. If you check out the downtown streets it seems that's the case anyway.
What is it with the “advocates of the homeless”? Doesn't just about any rule the rest of society has to follow disproportionately impact the homeless because they choose not to follow any of those rules? Let's just have a blanket exception from all rules for the homeless. If you check out the downtown streets it seems that's the case anyway.
Blowback happens at Hempfest.
Blowback happens at Hempfest.
Automobiles are detrimental to the health of our citizens. May we ban them from parks, too? Please!
Automobiles are detrimental to the health of our citizens. May we ban them from parks, too? Please!
Um what park can cars drive though?
Um what park can cars drive though?
Hands down winner for most idiotic comment on Publicola to date.
What ignorant fool believes that the homeless population “chooses” A) to be homeless. B) to have their entire life lived out in the public sphere C) to “not follow any of those rules”?
When the city and Mark Sidran made it illegal to sit on sidewalks, do you think that did not disproportionately affect those without a home to which to return? I (and likely you) could sit in our car, in our house, for $3 in a coffeeshop, but the homeless population of our city did not have that option. Perhaps they didn't 'choose' to break the law, they just got tired of standing up all the time.
Sure they are choosing to smoke but I'm going to lay a lot of that blame on tobacco companies lying for years, the addictive qualities of nicotine, and on the fact that being homeless sucks. Maybe they have more important things to do than go to smoking cessation classes – perhaps find their next meal, take care of their kids, live life with a modicum of dignity.
Hands down winner for most idiotic comment on Publicola to date.
What ignorant fool believes that the homeless population “chooses” A) to be homeless. B) to have their entire life lived out in the public sphere C) to “not follow any of those rules”?
When the city and Mark Sidran made it illegal to sit on sidewalks, do you think that did not disproportionately affect those without a home to which to return? I (and likely you) could sit in our car, in our house, for $3 in a coffeeshop, but the homeless population of our city did not have that option. Perhaps they didn't 'choose' to break the law, they just got tired of standing up all the time.
Sure they are choosing to smoke but I'm going to lay a lot of that blame on tobacco companies lying for years, the addictive qualities of nicotine, and on the fact that being homeless sucks. Maybe they have more important things to do than go to smoking cessation classes – perhaps find their next meal, take care of their kids, live life with a modicum of dignity.
Here's a start: Woodland Park. Greenlake Park. Carkeek. Colman park. Lake Washington Boulevard goes through the Aboretum. And most of Seattle's parks are next to streets.
Here's a start: Woodland Park. Greenlake Park. Carkeek. Colman park. Lake Washington Boulevard goes through the Aboretum. And most of Seattle's parks are next to streets.
If the Council decides that the new rule goes too far, can they override Mr. Gallagher and change the rule?
If the Council decides that the new rule goes too far, can they override Mr. Gallagher and change the rule?
Volunteer – parts of Lower Woodland – Seward – the Arboretum (putting a ginormous 120' wide freeway there in addition to the little roads) -
Volunteer – parts of Lower Woodland – Seward – the Arboretum (putting a ginormous 120' wide freeway there in addition to the little roads) -
I'd have more respect for 'homeless advocates' if I actually heard them pushing for real solutions to chronic homelessness, like reopening the asylums (thanks Reagan). Instead I only read about them bitching about stuff like this, or even worse about prohibitions against confrontational begging.
I'd have more respect for 'homeless advocates' if I actually heard them pushing for real solutions to chronic homelessness, like reopening the asylums (thanks Reagan). Instead I only read about them bitching about stuff like this, or even worse about prohibitions against confrontational begging.
Sure. They can pass an ordinance limiting the power of the Parks Sup. assuming they avoid any Charter problems. There are also less direct moves they can make such as denying funds for enforcement. But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for any of this to happen.
Sure. They can pass an ordinance limiting the power of the Parks Sup. assuming they avoid any Charter problems. There are also less direct moves they can make such as denying funds for enforcement. But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for any of this to happen.
I pretty much hate smokers and am not a fan of Hempfest but Gallaghar is going well beyond his limited authority here. He is not elected, he should not determine City policy.
This is same guy who started an international tif with Italy and the same guy who ignored Parks policy when he got married at Discovery Park.
I pretty much hate smokers and am not a fan of Hempfest but Gallaghar is going well beyond his limited authority here. He is not elected, he should not determine City policy.
This is same guy who started an international tif with Italy and the same guy who ignored Parks policy when he got married at Discovery Park.
Has anybody documented the health hazards to people caused by second-hand smoke in an outdoor environment?
I'm a regular visitor to parks and have never ever, in my 50+ years, had to inhale second-hand smoke. The few people I notice smoking always seem to know how to be downwind of their neighbors.
This rule imposed by Mr. Gallagher, contra his own Parks' Board, is just another exercise in state nannyism, for which Seattle has earned justifiable notice.
Has anybody documented the health hazards to people caused by second-hand smoke in an outdoor environment?
I'm a regular visitor to parks and have never ever, in my 50+ years, had to inhale second-hand smoke. The few people I notice smoking always seem to know how to be downwind of their neighbors.
This rule imposed by Mr. Gallagher, contra his own Parks' Board, is just another exercise in state nannyism, for which Seattle has earned justifiable notice.
While I appreciate the pro health aspects of this move, banning people from parks makes no sense to me. And the community center staff have better things to do with their time than go on butt patrol. This comes from someone who managed one of the City's larger centers back in the 70's.
While I appreciate the pro health aspects of this move, banning people from parks makes no sense to me. And the community center staff have better things to do with their time than go on butt patrol. This comes from someone who managed one of the City's larger centers back in the 70's.
Actually, smoking is a big problem at some parks, like Denny Blaine. Whenever I go there to swim in the summer in recent years, it's packed with Capitol Hill hipsters smoking (and drinking), which really does ruin my experience. Especially because it's against the rules to swim out farther than 50 feet in the water, so you can't really escape the people who are smoking and drinking on their rafts without risking a ticket. And people let their dogs swim in the lake, even though that's against the rules too. So even though I welcome rules against all these things, I doubt anyone has to worry because they aren't and won't be enforced.
Actually, smoking is a big problem at some parks, like Denny Blaine. Whenever I go there to swim in the summer in recent years, it's packed with Capitol Hill hipsters smoking (and drinking), which really does ruin my experience. Especially because it's against the rules to swim out farther than 50 feet in the water, so you can't really escape the people who are smoking and drinking on their rafts without risking a ticket. And people let their dogs swim in the lake, even though that's against the rules too. So even though I welcome rules against all these things, I doubt anyone has to worry because they aren't and won't be enforced.
I'm assuming that they aren't talking about reopening asylums because it is no longer the mid-18th century.
Real solutions? I'd advocate for a human services budget in excess of .01%. Then a working shelter system. Then a permanent non-shelter space for those that can't fit in the shelter environment. Then drug treatment policies as opposed to incarceration. Then a working transitional housing facility. Prohibitions against payday loan sharking could help. Anti-predatory lending laws for banks. Rather than running them off from any stability, we could be aiding their ability to return to the fold.
Is that a start for you?
I'm assuming that they aren't talking about reopening asylums because it is no longer the mid-18th century.
Real solutions? I'd advocate for a human services budget in excess of .01%. Then a working shelter system. Then a permanent non-shelter space for those that can't fit in the shelter environment. Then drug treatment policies as opposed to incarceration. Then a working transitional housing facility. Prohibitions against payday loan sharking could help. Anti-predatory lending laws for banks. Rather than running them off from any stability, we could be aiding their ability to return to the fold.
Is that a start for you?
What a dumb f*&^ing rule. Is this the same person who tried to ban firepits on public beaches to address global warming? Somehow, I think he is misusing facts to address his personal agenda which seems to be making parks a nice, shrink-wrapped, utopic versions from his childhood in surburbia.
What's next? Screaming kids and barking dogs for crying out loud?
What a dumb f*&^ing rule. Is this the same person who tried to ban firepits on public beaches to address global warming? Somehow, I think he is misusing facts to address his personal agenda which seems to be making parks a nice, shrink-wrapped, utopic versions from his childhood in surburbia.
What's next? Screaming kids and barking dogs for crying out loud?
if those homeless smokers don’t like the decisions the board makes, they should attend board meetings! lol
with my SUV, any damm park I want to
with my SUV, any damm park I want to
I have to say that this is absolutely ridiculous. I understand wanting to keep children from being exposed to cigarettes, etc, but I don’t feel that a PUBLIC, OUTDOOR area should have such restrictions. This is not a solution to your objective – education and prevention is where you start.
Reopen the mental hospitals and put these folks away where they belong. The way we handle this now is barbaric.
Then we could have nice parks and streets like we used to.
But that would involve paying more taxes – particularly on the part of rich folks and we can't have that. It would ruin the economy. Remember how awful the economy was in the 50's and 60's?
Reopen the mental hospitals and put these folks away where they belong. The way we handle this now is barbaric.
Then we could have nice parks and streets like we used to.
But that would involve paying more taxes – particularly on the part of rich folks and we can't have that. It would ruin the economy. Remember how awful the economy was in the 50's and 60's?
The roads are not really part of the park any more than the street in front of my house is part of my yard. The rules on smoking would most certainly not apply to the roads or the sidewalks along them.
The roads are not really part of the park any more than the street in front of my house is part of my yard. The rules on smoking would most certainly not apply to the roads or the sidewalks along them.
Well banning pot in parks might put a damper on the annual Hempfest which despite being a bunch of dirty fucking hippies, brings in a fair amount of money for the city.
Well banning pot in parks might put a damper on the annual Hempfest which despite being a bunch of dirty fucking hippies, brings in a fair amount of money for the city.
Good thinking Joey, I say you contribute your money and get the ball rolling, I'm sure more will follow your leadership….
Good thinking Joey, I say you contribute your money and get the ball rolling, I'm sure more will follow your leadership….
Hi Erica,
When this was first proposed, banning dogs, leashed or not, was also included in the list of (proposed) newly banished activities. The dogs portion was dropped from the proposal without another word. Can you furnish any information on that?
Thank you
Hi Erica,
When this was first proposed, banning dogs, leashed or not, was also included in the list of (proposed) newly banished activities. The dogs portion was dropped from the proposal without another word. Can you furnish any information on that?
Thank you
Two comments:
One, Gallagher was unwilling to ban beach fires even though the health impacts for those people, ESPECIALLY children, near and not so near the fires are much greater than second hand smoking – and before you start screaming back at me about it being a nanny state, check the data on how awful wood smoke is. (pscleanair.org) And the cost of patrolling and cleaning up the firepits is well over $100,000/year. (Also documented.) There is a reason no other City park system in the Puget Sound region allows beach fires.
Two: No one on this comment thread is commenting on Gallagher over- ruling the Parks Board – yes he has the authority, but what's up with that? Why bother volunteering and debating the issue if he's going to do what he wants to do anyway? Is it a good decision?
Two comments:
One, Gallagher was unwilling to ban beach fires even though the health impacts for those people, ESPECIALLY children, near and not so near the fires are much greater than second hand smoking – and before you start screaming back at me about it being a nanny state, check the data on how awful wood smoke is. (pscleanair.org) And the cost of patrolling and cleaning up the firepits is well over $100,000/year. (Also documented.) There is a reason no other City park system in the Puget Sound region allows beach fires.
Two: No one on this comment thread is commenting on Gallagher over- ruling the Parks Board – yes he has the authority, but what's up with that? Why bother volunteering and debating the issue if he's going to do what he wants to do anyway? Is it a good decision?
I want my smores dammit!! Ban Hummers before you ban the 10 firepits that exist in Seattle parks.
I want my smores dammit!! Ban Hummers before you ban the 10 firepits that exist in Seattle parks.
rabid anti smoker here, wish to put tobacco company execs in jail, etc.
This is stupid and ridiculous.
Three infactions? WTF? We're going to pay city attorneys and $125K a year judges down at muni court to have hearings on three infractions for smoking, pay for police time to go testify? Pay for bialiff time and clerk time? What, have continued hearings so it's really sending a cop to court about ten times to get this exclusion order to enforce this law?
So, say you get an exlcusion order. How's that enforced, btw? Are the cops going to stop everyone and ask them, “do you have any exclusion orders against you?”
This is bullshit feel good fake government that creates more “turf” for government officers to work with, giving them more silly cass to churn and handle and more powers to use but in the end it doesn't do a damn thing in reality ….. in part because the activity just isn't bad enough to involve the expensive, clunky, cranky machinery of government.
People fart an eat potato chips in parks, too, very non role model like….where do we draw the line?
Here's an idea, let's start enforcing the better laws, we already have. Went down to Golden Gardens tht sunny weekend day ten days ago. They had about ten dogs running off leash. One left a big stinking pile of dog crap right where the trail starts. Right there on the sand. Thank you very much hipster dog owners with dyed hair and nose ringlets, you are so cool, being free and showing it to the man, no stinkin' leash laws apply to you! Then walked south to clubhouse area, about 5 more dogs on the beach. I assume there is some health issue here or wildlife issue or water issue apart from the risk of me stepping in dogshit. So, we have open flouting of the anti dog law regarding beaches…..why not actually enforce the rules we already have instead of adding new ones that can't be enforced effectively and that are dubious at best, anyway?
rabid anti smoker here, wish to put tobacco company execs in jail, etc.
This is stupid and ridiculous.
Three infactions? WTF? We're going to pay city attorneys and $125K a year judges down at muni court to have hearings on three infractions for smoking, pay for police time to go testify? Pay for bialiff time and clerk time? What, have continued hearings so it's really sending a cop to court about ten times to get this exclusion order to enforce this law?
So, say you get an exlcusion order. How's that enforced, btw? Are the cops going to stop everyone and ask them, “do you have any exclusion orders against you?”
This is bullshit feel good fake government that creates more “turf” for government officers to work with, giving them more silly cass to churn and handle and more powers to use but in the end it doesn't do a damn thing in reality ….. in part because the activity just isn't bad enough to involve the expensive, clunky, cranky machinery of government.
People fart an eat potato chips in parks, too, very non role model like….where do we draw the line?
Here's an idea, let's start enforcing the better laws, we already have. Went down to Golden Gardens tht sunny weekend day ten days ago. They had about ten dogs running off leash. One left a big stinking pile of dog crap right where the trail starts. Right there on the sand. Thank you very much hipster dog owners with dyed hair and nose ringlets, you are so cool, being free and showing it to the man, no stinkin' leash laws apply to you! Then walked south to clubhouse area, about 5 more dogs on the beach. I assume there is some health issue here or wildlife issue or water issue apart from the risk of me stepping in dogshit. So, we have open flouting of the anti dog law regarding beaches…..why not actually enforce the rules we already have instead of adding new ones that can't be enforced effectively and that are dubious at best, anyway?
I agree, this whole thing comes across as silly.
Are we really going to see this law enforced and is it some big city priority to spend tax dollars even trying to enforce it? Not for me. I would like them to actually enforce the off leash dog law, and the scoop laws before they start making new laws about what you can and cannot do in parks (I know, it's animal controls problem not the Parks Department…whatever).
Also, as a broader question of resources and “boots on the street”, I'd much rather prioritize resources for better public safety for our transit system.
I agree, this whole thing comes across as silly.
Are we really going to see this law enforced and is it some big city priority to spend tax dollars even trying to enforce it? Not for me. I would like them to actually enforce the off leash dog law, and the scoop laws before they start making new laws about what you can and cannot do in parks (I know, it's animal controls problem not the Parks Department…whatever).
Also, as a broader question of resources and “boots on the street”, I'd much rather prioritize resources for better public safety for our transit system.
Also, is it true that this law also includes banning the use of profanity in parks? You can get banned from the park for 30 days for using profanity?
Also, is it true that this law also includes banning the use of profanity in parks? You can get banned from the park for 30 days for using profanity?
not really the most idiotic comment. no.
i don't believe homelessness is a direct choice but i don't really believe in the mystic homeless lottery, either.
there is a class of people out there who believe life is not what happens to you but how you deal with it. how do you suppose this relates to homelessness?
not really the most idiotic comment. no.
i don't believe homelessness is a direct choice but i don't really believe in the mystic homeless lottery, either.
there is a class of people out there who believe life is not what happens to you but how you deal with it. how do you suppose this relates to homelessness?
It's not a LAW, it's a “Code of Conduct.” All the list of rules is doing is expressing the ideal behavior we should expect from folks using Parks facilities.
That's it. Please don't smoke, curse, turn public restrooms into your personal bathroom, etc. If you do, and you're caught, you'll be asked to leave and stay out of the park.
No one's patrolling. No one gets arrested. No one pays a fine.
It's not a LAW, it's a “Code of Conduct.” All the list of rules is doing is expressing the ideal behavior we should expect from folks using Parks facilities.
That's it. Please don't smoke, curse, turn public restrooms into your personal bathroom, etc. If you do, and you're caught, you'll be asked to leave and stay out of the park.
No one's patrolling. No one gets arrested. No one pays a fine.
Hurrah for the No Smoking rule. In addition to the tobacco stench, and the smoker's stench, they don't pick up their butts.
Hurrah for the No Smoking rule. In addition to the tobacco stench, and the smoker's stench, they don't pick up their butts.
In addition to the reek of tobacco, there's the reek of the smoker, and they don't pick up their butts
In addition to the reek of tobacco, there's the reek of the smoker, and they don't pick up their butts
Who catches you? Who asks you leave? And, what if you do not leave and stay out of the park?
Who catches you? Who asks you leave? And, what if you do not leave and stay out of the park?
At least they don't double-post comments…
At least they don't double-post comments…
Joey, reread my post. I used the term 'chronic homelessness' for a reason. The 'temporary' or 'economic' homeless make up the vast majority of the homeless in this country, but very very few of the street people we are discussing here (most sleep in their cars, on friends or relatives couches, ect). I'm talking about the chronic homeless, those who either choose to live outside of normal society or who's conditions (mental problems and/or drug addiction) do not allow them to. The programs you highlight will help the first group (temporary and/or economic) but not the later. The only sane, compassionate solution is to reopen the asylums (or mental hospitals if that word scares you) so they are forced to live out on the streets.
Joey, reread my post. I used the term 'chronic homelessness' for a reason. The 'temporary' or 'economic' homeless make up the vast majority of the homeless in this country, but very very few of the street people we are discussing here (most sleep in their cars, on friends or relatives couches, ect). I'm talking about the chronic homeless, those who either choose to live outside of normal society or who's conditions (mental problems and/or drug addiction) do not allow them to. The programs you highlight will help the first group (temporary and/or economic) but not the later. The only sane, compassionate solution is to reopen the asylums (or mental hospitals if that word scares you) so they are forced to live out on the streets.
Seems to me the goal of this is more about controlling some of the people who are abusing parks than really worrying about the 'hipster' or respectful citizen who is using the park for recreation.
If that's the case, then many of the concerns sited here really shouldn't be that worrisome.
I think Sidran went way to far with his 'civility' laws. At the same time, people sitting around Westlake all day with their pitbulls joined by the drunk dude chasing me around asking for money hardly creates the city environment we designed Westlake and other downtown parks for. And the aggressive panhandlers in many of the downtown parks are not so welcoming for families, tourists, or the people who live and work downtown.
It's time the City starts going after the open air drug dealing, aggressive panhandling, auto prowls, and garbage that is driving small businesses out of downtown/ pioneer square and belltown. And we need a way to talk about all of this without the ACLU and homeless advocates taking a counter position to every move. Agreed we don't want a return to Sidrans' 'civility' laws, but we also don't businesses, tourists and residents moving out of downtown leaving it a wasteland.
We shouldn't become a fascist nanny-state, but we need to start addressing what's happening downtown. Hopefully Publicola can be a rational place for this discussion.
And of course, part of the discussion should be about how we encourage nightlife, street level activity, and arts & culture. Time for those advocates to get together with retailers, business groups and law and order types to come up with an agenda that works for Seattle.
Seems to me the goal of this is more about controlling some of the people who are abusing parks than really worrying about the 'hipster' or respectful citizen who is using the park for recreation.
If that's the case, then many of the concerns sited here really shouldn't be that worrisome.
I think Sidran went way to far with his 'civility' laws. At the same time, people sitting around Westlake all day with their pitbulls joined by the drunk dude chasing me around asking for money hardly creates the city environment we designed Westlake and other downtown parks for. And the aggressive panhandlers in many of the downtown parks are not so welcoming for families, tourists, or the people who live and work downtown.
It's time the City starts going after the open air drug dealing, aggressive panhandling, auto prowls, and garbage that is driving small businesses out of downtown/ pioneer square and belltown. And we need a way to talk about all of this without the ACLU and homeless advocates taking a counter position to every move. Agreed we don't want a return to Sidrans' 'civility' laws, but we also don't businesses, tourists and residents moving out of downtown leaving it a wasteland.
We shouldn't become a fascist nanny-state, but we need to start addressing what's happening downtown. Hopefully Publicola can be a rational place for this discussion.
And of course, part of the discussion should be about how we encourage nightlife, street level activity, and arts & culture. Time for those advocates to get together with retailers, business groups and law and order types to come up with an agenda that works for Seattle.
This is ridiculous. And next they want to ban dogs? My personal observation: most smokers put their butts in the garbage and 99% of dog owners clean up after their pets.
If you ban all these people, who will be left to VOTE FOR park levies? And why should they?
This is ridiculous. And next they want to ban dogs? My personal observation: most smokers put their butts in the garbage and 99% of dog owners clean up after their pets.
If you ban all these people, who will be left to VOTE FOR park levies? And why should they?
And now he's backtracked. Decided to go with what the Board advised
And now he's backtracked. Decided to go with what the Board advised
Homelessness and drug-use are unfortuately problems in any urban environment. It seems to me, panhandling, open-air drug marketing and drug-use are way down, comparative to situations that existed 10 years ago in Seattle, when I would walk to work every morning propositioned by drug dealers up and down Pike Street. And yet, as I wait for the bus at Westlake Center every evening, many of the same drug dealers are wandering around 4th Avenue nearly every night. Conversely, working at an establishment on Western Avenue, it’s a basic fact of the matter there’s an open-air drug market on Western between Bell and Blanchard outside what used to be Casa Latina, a Latino day-labor organization. Every day, there are 5 or 10 people standing there on the sidewalk selling drugs, it's entirely obvious.
While I don't believe that situation acceptable, comparitively speaking, I'd fathom the far greater amount of dollars and cents drug use in any metro area, including Seattle, is conducted by some of those who have far more monetarily than anyone who is homeless. Again, I don't in anyway intend to offer sentiment excusing drug-use by anyone, rather that perhaps drug-use amongst homeless exists as more of a run-off situation, which trickles down from a far larger drug market existing in the United States, not the cause.
Being that I catch the bus at Westlake Center, I’ve noticed during the summer months many of the people skateboarding and crowding the park are kids from area high schools and Mercer Island. I’d also think it’s true the vast majority of Seattle’s homeless don’t panhandle. There are perhaps thousands of homeless in Seattle on any given night, but are there thousands of panhandlers wandering around Downtown? I don’t see how banning smoking in parks is going to change any of that, whether I agree with the ban or not. I’m sort of apathetic to the ban, really. Aggressive inconsideration is an aspect of human nature.
To think of the “deterioration” of downtown. Is the economy of department-store culture based largely upon the exploitation of socially disadvantaged workers in developing countries? I guess, out of sight, out of mind. To speak of homelessness, there are times when I've chosen to camp-out, so to speak, while gainfully employed, because to do otherwise required parting with half my income, the other half being spent on basic necessities, like food. To ban smoking in public doesn't change that in anyway. To construct a greater local economy based upon industry where workers earn wages significant enough to keep roofs over their heads without devoting an entire life to what should be a simple task, might help. Yes, tourism brings income to any environment and yet, isn't tourism also based entirely upon the whims of a segment of society who don't even live in Seattle?
Homelessness is an aspect of any urban environment, a way to negate that should be the creation of employment opportunities that allow people the ability to provide homes for themselves, obviously clothing is manufactured in downtown Los Angeles, for example. The tourism industry, largely provides employment for only a specific demographic of society. When I worked at a hotel, I was promoted from washing dishes to guest services, because I was a member of a specific demographic of society. I'd worked hard in the kitchen and had done a good job, so did the South and Central Americans with whom I worked, but I was promoted because I just happened to randomly conform to a specific demographic, which also meant my income doubled.
Most people who are homeless don't fit that demographic, that has to be difficult and drug-use of any sort exists as a form of escapism, unfortunately, while ultimately self-destructive. The homeless are visible targets for small-time drug dealers, arresting the drug-dealers seems like the best place to start and by extension a greater intolerance of public or private drug-use, for that matter. However, as far as the existence of homeless people in any environment, out of sight and out of mind perhaps isn't the best situation when matter of factly, homelessness is a social issue that has much to do with classism and inopportunity, as anything else. At the moment, I work through and volunteer at the Millionair Club, most of the people there are homeless and I've never felt that to be a hostile environment, while there have been environments where I've worked and lived that I felt were hostile. Thanks.
Homelessness and drug-use are unfortuately problems in any urban environment. It seems to me, panhandling, open-air drug marketing and drug-use are way down, comparative to situations that existed 10 years ago in Seattle, when I would walk to work every morning propositioned by drug dealers up and down Pike Street. And yet, as I wait for the bus at Westlake Center every evening, many of the same drug dealers are wandering around 4th Avenue nearly every night. Conversely, working at an establishment on Western Avenue, it’s a basic fact of the matter there’s an open-air drug market on Western between Bell and Blanchard outside what used to be Casa Latina, a Latino day-labor organization. Every day, there are 5 or 10 people standing there on the sidewalk selling drugs, it's entirely obvious.
While I don't believe that situation acceptable, comparitively speaking, I'd fathom the far greater amount of dollars and cents drug use in any metro area, including Seattle, is conducted by some of those who have far more monetarily than anyone who is homeless. Again, I don't in anyway intend to offer sentiment excusing drug-use by anyone, rather that perhaps drug-use amongst homeless exists as more of a run-off situation, which trickles down from a far larger drug market existing in the United States, not the cause.
Being that I catch the bus at Westlake Center, I’ve noticed during the summer months many of the people skateboarding and crowding the park are kids from area high schools and Mercer Island. I’d also think it’s true the vast majority of Seattle’s homeless don’t panhandle. There are perhaps thousands of homeless in Seattle on any given night, but are there thousands of panhandlers wandering around Downtown? I don’t see how banning smoking in parks is going to change any of that, whether I agree with the ban or not. I’m sort of apathetic to the ban, really. Aggressive inconsideration is an aspect of human nature.
To think of the “deterioration” of downtown. Is the economy of department-store culture based largely upon the exploitation of socially disadvantaged workers in developing countries? I guess, out of sight, out of mind. To speak of homelessness, there are times when I've chosen to camp-out, so to speak, while gainfully employed, because to do otherwise required parting with half my income, the other half being spent on basic necessities, like food. To ban smoking in public doesn't change that in anyway. To construct a greater local economy based upon industry where workers earn wages significant enough to keep roofs over their heads without devoting an entire life to what should be a simple task, might help. Yes, tourism brings income to any environment and yet, isn't tourism also based entirely upon the whims of a segment of society who don't even live in Seattle?
Homelessness is an aspect of any urban environment, a way to negate that should be the creation of employment opportunities that allow people the ability to provide homes for themselves, obviously clothing is manufactured in downtown Los Angeles, for example. The tourism industry, largely provides employment for only a specific demographic of society. When I worked at a hotel, I was promoted from washing dishes to guest services, because I was a member of a specific demographic of society. I'd worked hard in the kitchen and had done a good job, so did the South and Central Americans with whom I worked, but I was promoted because I just happened to randomly conform to a specific demographic, which also meant my income doubled.
Most people who are homeless don't fit that demographic, that has to be difficult and drug-use of any sort exists as a form of escapism, unfortunately, while ultimately self-destructive. The homeless are visible targets for small-time drug dealers, arresting the drug-dealers seems like the best place to start and by extension a greater intolerance of public or private drug-use, for that matter. However, as far as the existence of homeless people in any environment, out of sight and out of mind perhaps isn't the best situation when matter of factly, homelessness is a social issue that has much to do with classism and inopportunity, as anything else. At the moment, I work through and volunteer at the Millionair Club, most of the people there are homeless and I've never felt that to be a hostile environment, while I have worked and existed in environments I felt were hostile. Thanks.
Under constant revision, the rule currently allows spitting, and maybe lighting farts, at the park, if that's the recreation. Each park has its own thing. Myrtle Edwards, for instance, has its own stench after heavy rain–can't ban the source, or is there documentation supporting that sewage smell is a health hazard? The rule appears flexible.
The rule seems based on proof that secondhand smoke is hazardous and that the parks are integral to health and well-being of individuals and neighborhoods. Maybe “health” means a few or more things and getting more people to use the parks is something to strive for.
Homeless people can still inhabit the parks and wash their feet at the library. Keep the rule for now. See where people end up smoking. Revisit the damned thing and at least gather some results. I agree it can be prompted at higher density parks; can be relaxed if there are other items already on fire, like pot.
What started as a total ban is now a lightened version, which allows for continued spitting, and lighting farts, at the park, if that's the recreation. Each park has its own thing. Myrtle Edwards, for instance, has its own stench after heavy rain–can't ban the source, or is there documentation supporting that sewage smell is a health hazard? The rule appears flexible.
The rule seems based on proof that secondhand smoke is hazardous and that the parks are integral to health and well-being of individuals and neighborhoods. Maybe “health” means a few or more things and getting more people to use the parks is something to strive for.
Homeless people can still inhabit the parks and wash their feet at the library. Keep the rule for now. See where people end up smoking. Revisit the damned thing and at least gather some results. I agree it can be prompted at higher density parks; can be relaxed if there are other items already on fire, like pot.
The real reason Gallagher is banning cigarettes in parks is so that no one will damage his NEW beautiful artificial turf — ten fake fields in Seattle parks, ten million bucks — putting out hot butts on it…..or worse, on a hot day, setting the stuff on fire….as happened back east.
The real reason Gallagher is banning cigarettes in parks is so that no one will damage his NEW beautiful artificial turf — ten fake fields in Seattle parks, ten million bucks — putting out hot butts on it…..or worse, on a hot day, setting the stuff on fire….as happened back east.
I don't know where you live, but where I live 99% of smokers throw it on the ground and stomp on it with their feet.
I don't know where you live, but where I live 99% of smokers throw it on the ground and stomp on it with their feet.
No person has any right to dictate how any other person may act.
I don't care who you are, or how benevolent your intentions.
There is only one rule any person must follow to participate in society:
Do no harm to any other person physically or financially.
Beyond that, I will do whatever I want. I reject these rules, and I reject the idea that ANYBODY has the right to dictate what behavior is allowed in public.
No person has any right to dictate how any other person may act.
I don't care who you are, or how benevolent your intentions.
There is only one rule any person must follow to participate in society:
Do no harm to any other person physically or financially.
Beyond that, I will do whatever I want. I reject these rules, and I reject the idea that ANYBODY has the right to dictate what behavior is allowed in public.
Toxic tobacco smoke KILLS 65,000 INNOCENT Americans every year. BAN ALL SMOKING EVERYWHERE AND THEN BAN THE TOBACCO DRUG. Finally, prosecute the tobacco pushers for the wanton murder and genocide of the human race.
Toxic tobacco smoke KILLS 65,000 INNOCENT Americans every year. BAN ALL SMOKING EVERYWHERE AND THEN BAN THE TOBACCO DRUG. Finally, prosecute the tobacco pushers for the wanton murder and genocide of the human race.
“Except for pot. We can still smoke pot anywhere in Seattle, right? Since the City Attorney won't prosecute pot, how can he prosecute tobacco, which is still legal?”
*******************
Got news for you, friend: TOBACCO IS AN ILLEGAL DRUG! It is NOT legal to poison people, no matter how slowly you do it. Now, if you want to claim that the tobacco creeps are getting away with murder, that I'll agree with. They must be stopped.
“Except for pot. We can still smoke pot anywhere in Seattle, right? Since the City Attorney won't prosecute pot, how can he prosecute tobacco, which is still legal?”
*******************
Got news for you, friend: TOBACCO IS AN ILLEGAL DRUG! It is NOT legal to poison people, no matter how slowly you do it. Now, if you want to claim that the tobacco creeps are getting away with murder, that I'll agree with. They must be stopped.
Then, MOVE to Communist China, you moron!
Then, MOVE to Communist China, you moron!
Are you on drugs? It is Communist China that makes up stupid rules like this smoking ban to “protect” it's citizens. The people who support a smoking ban because it poses a danger to passerbys OUTSIDE not only have NO scientific studies that back up their claims, but THEY are the communists.
I don't even know what to say to you other than you are 100% WRONG, and I am embarrassed for you.
Are you on drugs? It is Communist China that makes up stupid rules like this smoking ban to “protect” it's citizens. The people who support a smoking ban because it poses a danger to passerbys OUTSIDE not only have NO scientific studies that back up their claims, but THEY are the communists.
I don't even know what to say to you other than you are 100% WRONG, and I am embarrassed for you.
Yeah! Then ban cars because they cause over 100,000 deaths a year in the US. Then ban all bad foods that cause obesity and heart disease, which is the #1 cause of preventable death in the U.S! Who cares if we put 75% of food business out of business!!!! No more soda! No more candy! No more eating out! Then BAN all extreme sporting events because they are DANGEROUS and we need to PROTECT everyone!!!! Did you see that gut get hurt during the superbowl? NO MORE FOOTBALL either!!!! No watching TV, or internet anymore either because the gamma rays from the screen might cause brain damage! I know we don't have any scientific evidence that really proves that yet, but I'VE GOT A FEELING ABOUT IT AND I JUST WANT TO PROTECT EVERYONE FROM THEMSELVES!!!!
Get my sarcasm yet? Go F&*k yourself and your ignorant protectionism ideals. You are not helping anyone. If you are so afraid of life, stay in your house and stop harassing those who are living theirs.
Yeah! Then ban cars because they cause over 100,000 deaths a year in the US. Then ban all bad foods that cause obesity and heart disease, which is the #1 cause of preventable death in the U.S! Who cares if we put 75% of food business out of business!!!! No more soda! No more candy! No more eating out! Then BAN all extreme sporting events because they are DANGEROUS and we need to PROTECT everyone!!!! Did you see that gut get hurt during the superbowl? NO MORE FOOTBALL either!!!! No watching TV, or internet anymore either because the gamma rays from the screen might cause brain damage! I know we don't have any scientific evidence that really proves that yet, but I'VE GOT A FEELING ABOUT IT AND I JUST WANT TO PROTECT EVERYONE FROM THEMSELVES!!!!
Get my sarcasm yet? Go F&*k yourself and your ignorant protectionism ideals. You are not helping anyone. If you are so afraid of life, stay in your house and stop harassing those who are living theirs.
Alcohol is a poison as well. Should we ban that? Oh wait… we already did, and that didn't work either. Why? BECAUSE YOU CAN'T TELL OTHER PEOPLE WHAT TO DO WITH THEIR LIVES.
Alcohol is a poison as well. Should we ban that? Oh wait… we already did, and that didn't work either. Why? BECAUSE YOU CAN'T TELL OTHER PEOPLE WHAT TO DO WITH THEIR LIVES.
i guess i wont be going to the parks then.
i guess i wont be going to the parks then.