Jump to content

Cleveland: Smoking Ban in parks and public places

Guest jhonopolis
Guest jhonopolis
in City Discussion

Featured Replies

Posted

Cleveland may ban smoking in parks and public outdoor places

 

A proposed ordinance may ban outdoor smoking at all public places connected to the city of Cleveland, including parks, pools and cemeteries — and bring with it a hefty fine for violators.

 

According to the ordinance, these new places would be considered nonsmoking:

- City-owned public parks

- City-owned outdoor recreation areas

- City-owned swimming pools

- Picnic shelters within city-owned parks & recreation areas

- Public Square

- Downtown malls open to the public

- City-owned cemeteries

- Defined areas adjacent to city-owned buildings that are used by the public

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_localcle/20110405/ts_yblog_localcle/cleveland-may-ban-smoking-in-parks-and-public-outdoor-places

Big brother for you.

Even B.B. allowed people to smoke in public though the cigarettes were crappy.

There's already a list of "don't do this, don't do that" on every signpost that says Welcome to Cleveland.  The last thing we need is another such addendum.  This is dumb.

This is not dumb. I cannot stand the piles of cigarette buts that line our sidewalks. It's disgusting

It's another initiative to brand Cleveland as a 'healthy city'  (along with med. mart, WSM, CC, etc.) 

 

Although I very mildly support it in theory and I agree with hubz, littering cig. butts are a mild nuisance, it is not worth City Council spending the political capital (of most smokers who visit Cleveland, whether they live, work, or come here for entertainment) or time on this.

 

 

This is not dumb, this is not big brother.  There is nothing in this that says you can't smoke outside of a bar or restaurant or on a patio.  This is a measure which many cities are taking to improve health and clean up the streets, particularly on city-owned property.  Here in LA, we just banned smoking in front of bars and restaurants.  Really, it's not a big deal. 

This won't pass.  But it will get Joe C. a lot of pub, good and bad.

 

As for the littering concern, I suppose if you're willing to risk that fine, then you're going to be willing to risk this one.  All this would do is deter the already responsible smokers IMO.

I think the trans fats ban will be a tougher sell

I'd rather they just enforce the no littering ordinances, maybe raise the penalties

It may not be presented as such, but I see this as a way to get city employees healthier.  The ban would keep smokers 150' away from all city buildings.  I can already see the gang of City Hall employees down at 9th/Lakeside on the corner puffing (will also turn a 10 minute smoke break into a 20 minute outing).

is this about littering or health?

I think the trans fats ban will be a tougher sell

 

Indeed.  Trans fats are a growth industry around here.

Every decent country has already banned trans fat and smoking is nasty and should be done in your house, not where I have to deal with it. I can only hope that this passes.

I do get sick of walking through peoples smoke when entering a building. I know they already have to smoke so far away from the entrance but nobody follows that rule.

We really don't want to open the "I think your behavior is nasty" bottle.  That gets ugly quick.  Smokers in this county pay for a lot of public goods and they help sustain the arts community.

^ and they can continue to help sustain the arts community without having to smoke on public property. Last  summer and few forum members and I volunteered a couple weekends to clean up the litter in Edgewater Park. The amount of cigarette butts and black n mild tips littered in the park and on the beach was absolutely ridiculous.

I, too, am baffled at people throwing their cigarette butts everywhere. I carry things ridiculous distances to a trash can if I have to. I wish I didn't have to. But I do it.

^ Same here, I dont have it in me to just drop it lol.

I, too, am baffled at people throwing their cigarette butts everywhere. I carry things ridiculous distances to a trash can if I have to. I wish I didn't have to. But I do it.

 

Same here.  I wish we could treat the littering aspect as the separate issue that it is, though it's undeniable that butts and tips constitute a lot of litter.  Food wrappers are also frequently littered, but we're not trying to ban food, are we?  Oh wait, yes we are.  I stand by my orginal assessment: this is dumb.  I don't think we're going to ban or exclude our way to a better tomorrow.

If it helps the city of Cleveland save on their employee health insurance premiums by making smokers cut down or quit, then I'm all for it. 

 

In reality though, it will probably just increase the length of time the employees spend away from their posts on smoke breaks.  I'm sure the union is already working this point of bargaining since they will no longer be able to bargain for wages.    :wink:

  • 3 weeks later...

So city council passed this yesterday as well as the trans fat ban

So city council passed this yesterday as well as the trans fat ban

 

Made national news too.  It was posted on the Drudge Report which made the comments on the linked story predictable.

 

I don't really have any concerns about this new legislation.  Doesn't seem like a big deal to me.  Then again, I'm not a smoker.

To clarify, and ease libertarian concerns, the law doesn't state that you can't smoke or that you can't eat trans fats.  It just further restricts the location of your smoking and the ingredients restaraunts can use.  I say 'further' because we already have such retrictions in one form or another.  I get the slippery slope concerns but you could attach those to just about any regulation.

At best, this is an incredible waste of City Council's time. 

It's an 'Incredible waste' to try and make the city healthier?

At best, this is an incredible waste of City Council's time. 

 

Agreed. And then it will be a waste of law enforcements time when they have to bust people for smoking.

 

The trans fat ban is also stupid. KFC, WalMart, etc. were already getting rid of it, showing that the market and consumer choice were already handling this issue.

 

But hey, why not get more practically unenforceable laws on the books when you have the chance.

At best, this is an incredible waste of City Council's time. 

 

I totally disagree.  It is not a waste of City Council's time if they are debating legislation that could make the city more or less attractive as a place to live and do business.  I'm sure you thought the food truck legislation was a waste of time too...

It's an 'Incredible waste' to try and make the city healthier?

 

Yes, when it involves limiting personal freedoms.

 

Would you feel the same way if the council "tried to make the city healthier" by banning alcohol sales?

At best, this is an incredible waste of City Council's time. 

 

I totally disagree.  It is not a waste of City Council's time if they are debating legislation that could make the city more or less attractive as a place to live and do business.  I'm sure you thought the food truck legislation was a waste of time too...

 

The food truck legislation quite literally wasted time by taking a year to get passed.

It's an 'Incredible waste' to try and make the city healthier?

 

Yes, when it involves limiting personal freedoms.

 

Would you feel the same way if the council "tried to make the city healthier" by banning alcohol sales?

 

Ok they're not banning cigarettes, just where you can smoke them.... Sorry cigg smokers its 2011, time to quit.

At best, this is an incredible waste of City Council's time. 

 

Agreed. And then it will be a waste of law enforcements time when they have to bust people for smoking.

 

The trans fat ban is also stupid. KFC, WalMart, etc. were already getting rid of it, showing that the market and consumer choice were already handling this issue.

 

But hey, why not get more practically unenforceable laws on the books when you have the chance.

 

They said the same thing when the smoking ban for bars went into effect.  "It won't be enforceable and it will be a waste of time for law enforcement."  Well, have you ever seen some "busted" by a cop in a bar for smoking?  Probably not.  Has smoking in bars been nearly eliminated?  Yes.  You put a law on the books and people tend to follow it.  We are law abiding citizens for the most part.  And Cimperman even said this will not be actively enforced and it will be more of an "honor system."  The Gestapo isn't going to be hiding behind trees on public square waiting for you to light one up.

 

And the trans fat ban will be enforced during restaurants yearly visit from the health department.  Hardly unenforceable...

The food truck issue needs to be solved and has taken, so far, a year.  I don't think it's solved even now.  Committees and committees and committees.  Meanwhile, this controversial and frivolous measure sails right through.  Embarassingly misplaced priorities.  New hubcaps for a car with a broken axle.

At best, this is an incredible waste of City Council's time. 

 

Agreed. And then it will be a waste of law enforcements time when they have to bust people for smoking.

 

The trans fat ban is also stupid. KFC, WalMart, etc. were already getting rid of it, showing that the market and consumer choice were already handling this issue.

 

But hey, why not get more practically unenforceable laws on the books when you have the chance.

 

They said the same thing when the smoking ban for bars went into effect.  "It won't be enforceable and it will be a waste of time for law enforcement."  Well, have you ever seen some "busted" by a cop in a bar for smoking?  Probably not.  Has smoking in bars been nearly eliminated?  Yes.  You put a law on the books and people tend to follow it.  We are law abiding citizens for the most part.  And Cimperman even said this will not be actively enforced and it will be more of an "honor system."  The Gestapo isn't going to be hiding behind trees on public square waiting for you to light one up.

 

And the trans fat ban will be enforced during restaurants yearly visit from the health department.  Hardly unenforceable...

 

Listen, I'm not a smoker. I think it's disgusting. I was FOR a statewide indoor smoking ban. My point is, where do you draw the line? Are kids on playgrounds being exhaled on by smokers?  Are people so dumb that they can't make their own choices of what food they eat?

 

Why NOT ban sugar? Will someone give me a good reason why this dangerous substance should be allowed to kill off our population?

Be practical people.  This is how the legislative process works.

 

I could say "why do they have speed limits?"...... "how long until we are not allowed to drive at all?"

 

Or, how about, "why do we have zoning laws?"...... "shouldn't I be able to do whatever I want with MY property?"

 

The slippery slope approach gets tiring.  Try to find a regulation to which it can't be applied.  Fact is, there is always a slippery slope and it is our job to keep the representatives who respect that and boot out the ones who don't.  It's all a matter of common sense, to me, sort of like what the Supreme Court said about obsenity - "I know it when I see it."  These regulations don't cross the line IMO. 

How can someone choose whether or not to consumer hydrogenated oils if they're eating out at a restaurant?

How can someone choose whether or not to consumer hydrogenated oils if they're eating out at a restaurant?

 

What!? Is there a gun to your head?

 

"Eat at that restaurant!" lol

I just can't wait to see all those city employees trudging up Lakeside for their smoke breaks 150' from city property!  Should be a big cloud around E9th and Lakeside!

 

How long do you think before THEY are ticketed?

How can someone choose whether or not to consumer hydrogenated oils if they're eating out at a restaurant?

 

DING DING DING... we have a winner.  Cooking oils are typically not listed on a menu.  You don't know what your food is cooked in most of the time.

Be practical people.  This is how the legislative process works.

 

I could say "why do they have speed limits?"...... "how long until we are not allowed to drive at all?"

 

Or, how about, "why do we have zoning laws?"...... "shouldn't I be able to do whatever I want with MY property?"

 

The slippery slope approach gets tiring.  Try to find a regulation to which it can't be applied.  Fact is, there is always a slippery slope and it is our job to keep the representatives who respect that and boot out the ones who don't.  It's all a matter of common sense, to me, sort of like what the Supreme Court said about obsenity - "I know it when I see it."  These regulations don't cross the line IMO. 

 

You may think it's tiring, but it's true.

 

I'm a lawyer.  I have a profound respect for the law. 

 

That doesn't mean I think it's a good idea to enact "honor" laws like the outdoor smoking ban. That's just a mockery of the law, it creates more law breakers without any ramifications.

 

By all means, it should be okay to stroll down E. 4th with a cup of beer, to use marijuana, to sleep in your car....it's an issue of personal freedom to me.

 

 

 

I could say "why do they have speed limits?"...... "how long until we are not allowed to drive at all?"

 

Or, how about, "why do we have zoning laws?"...... "shouldn't I be able to do whatever I want with MY property?"

 

"Why can't I scream fire in a crowded theater?"..."How long until I am not allowed to talk at all?"

 

"Why can't I drink while I am driving?"..."How long until I am not allowed to drink at all?"

 

"Why am I not allowed to do cocaine?"..."How long until I can't drink Coca-Cola?"

 

"Why am I not allowed to spit on a police officer?"..."How long until I am not allowed to spit?"

 

"Why am I not allowed to urinate on Hts121's front door?"..."How long until I am not allowed to urinate?"

 

You get the point.

How can someone choose whether or not to consumer hydrogenated oils if they're eating out at a restaurant?

 

DING DING DING... we have a winner.  Cooking oils are typically not listed on a menu.  You don't know what your food is cooked in most of the time.

 

Uh...you could try asking?

 

p.s. if the manager does not know, please exercise your God given right to eat elsewhere...

I could say "why do they have speed limits?"...... "how long until we are not allowed to drive at all?"

 

Or, how about, "why do we have zoning laws?"...... "shouldn't I be able to do whatever I want with MY property?"

 

"Why can't I scream fire in a crowded theater?"..."How long until I am not allowed to talk at all?"

 

"Why can't I drink while I am driving?"..."How long until I am not allowed to drink at all?"

 

"Why am I not allowed to do cocaine?"..."How long until I can't drink Coca-Cola?"

 

"Why am I not allowed to spit on a police officer?"..."How long until I am not allowed to spit?"

 

"Why am I not allowed to urinate on Hts121's front door?"..."How long until I am not allowed to urinate?"

 

You get the point.

 

Oh yes, what brilliant examples....thanks for changing my mind lol.

 

p.s. don't think I haven't mapquested Hts front door

p.s.s. I kid...

^^You could also try asking the person next to you at the bar to stop smoking, but that's not how we've decided to deal with that issue. 

 

Look, I would have preferred legislation that forces restaurants to list meals prepared with trans fat oils on the menu.  That way you know what you're getting and you still have the right to eat food prepared with trans fat oil.  But that's not what we got and I'm ok with that. 

Be practical people.  This is how the legislative process works.

 

I could say "why do they have speed limits?"...... "how long until we are not allowed to drive at all?"

 

Or, how about, "why do we have zoning laws?"...... "shouldn't I be able to do whatever I want with MY property?"

 

The slippery slope approach gets tiring.  Try to find a regulation to which it can't be applied.  Fact is, there is always a slippery slope and it is our job to keep the representatives who respect that and boot out the ones who don't.  It's all a matter of common sense, to me, sort of like what the Supreme Court said about obsenity - "I know it when I see it."  These regulations don't cross the line IMO. 

 

You may think it's tiring, but it's true.

 

I'm a lawyer.  I have a profound respect for the law. 

 

That doesn't mean I think it's a good idea to enact "honor" laws like the outdoor smoking ban. That's just a mockery of the law, it creates more law breakers without any ramifications.

 

By all means, it should be okay to stroll down E. 4th with a cup of beer, to use marijuana, to sleep in your car....it's an issue of personal freedom to me.

 

I agree.  Behavioral micromanagement is a misuse of the legal process.  It leads to less respect for all laws, including the important ones.

A message in the public interest:

 

Have you guys wondered about this possibility....

 

That whatever the restaurants use to replace Trans Fat might actually be more dangerous than the banned Trans Fat?

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20823487

Be practical people.  This is how the legislative process works.

 

I could say "why do they have speed limits?"...... "how long until we are not allowed to drive at all?"

 

Or, how about, "why do we have zoning laws?"...... "shouldn't I be able to do whatever I want with MY property?"

 

The slippery slope approach gets tiring.  Try to find a regulation to which it can't be applied.  Fact is, there is always a slippery slope and it is our job to keep the representatives who respect that and boot out the ones who don't.  It's all a matter of common sense, to me, sort of like what the Supreme Court said about obsenity - "I know it when I see it."  These regulations don't cross the line IMO. 

 

You may think it's tiring, but it's true.

 

I'm a lawyer.  I have a profound respect for the law. 

 

That doesn't mean I think it's a good idea to enact "honor" laws like the outdoor smoking ban. That's just a mockery of the law, it creates more law breakers without any ramifications.

 

By all means, it should be okay to stroll down E. 4th with a cup of beer, to use marijuana, to sleep in your car....it's an issue of personal freedom to me.

 

I agree.  Behavioral micromanagement is a misuse of the legal process.  It leads to less respect for all laws, including the important ones.

 

I believe laws should reasonably protect us from each other.  Whether laws should protect us from ourselves is a tougher question.  When emergency room visits cost taxpayer dollars, there is an argument for it.  Regardless, banning smoking in public places seems like a logical step to protecting us considering how much more me know about its harmful effects than we used to, and considering that it's an action harmful to people other than just the one participating in it.  Just like drinking and driving.  You can sit in your basement and get as messed up as you want, but once you get behind the wheel you're endangering the rest of us.

 

Yes, some laws go beyond that and there should be arguments that those laws are a misuse of the legal process (including some of the ones you mentioned).  However, I don't really see that being the case here.

 

And I agree with Hoot's point on the restaurants.  I would have preferred that they were forced to label their menus with the type of oil so we could make a decision.  But I think a ban is better than not dealing with the issue.

A message in the public interest:

 

Have you guys wondered about this possibility....

 

That whatever the restaurants use to replace Trans Fat might actually be more dangerous than the banned Trans Fat?

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20823487

 

Of course that's possible.  We need to work on banning that crap, too.  It should be illegal for restaurants to use anything harmful without your knowing.  (And once again, I prefer just forcing them to notify you of what they're using rather than banning it, but either route is better than nothing.)

^ I agree with you more than you realize.

 

My question is why couldn't Cimperman enact the labeling requirement instead of the outright ban? I would have supported that whole heartedly.

 

Is Cimperman simply jumping on the "follow NYC" bandwagon???

 

I hope not, because it looks like some elected idiots in NY just attempted to regulate whiffleball, kickball and tag! I wish I was making this up...

 

http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzone/2011/04/25/ny-nanny-state-tries-to-ban-beloved-kid-games-wiffle-ball-red-rover-kickball-others-claimed-too-dangerous-by-liberals/

 

edit: OK, the link is anti-liberal I guess, I didn't link this article to bash liberals. I hold many views considered liberal. i wanted to point out it's not just elected officials being ridiculous, it's lawyers, peopple with the "sue everyone" mentality and everyone else capitalizing on the failure to take personal responsibility for ones actions.

 

I'm afraid intentions and bans are no match for the uneducated consumer. You can try and ban every food substance that's decreed to be harmful, and they are still going to choose the delicious, fattening Gyro over the healthy apple.

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

Go to topic listing

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.