Strange Bedfellows
Seattle's park smoking ban is relaxed 
February 18, 2010
The complete ban on smoking in Seattle's 400 public parks has been tossed out one day after it was announced.
Late Thursday Seattle Parks and Recreation Superintendent Tim Gallagher relaxed the rule that would've gone into effect April 1, instead going with a less restrictive prohibition favored by the park board.
"Based on the input from the public that followed my initial decision I have decided that a gradual approach to a smoking ban is reasonable," Gallagher said in a statement.
The park board's rule prohibits "smoking, chewing or other tobacco use" within 25 feet of other people, play areas and beaches.
Reaction had been decidedly mixed to the stricter rule.
Gallagher had signed off this week on a new code of conduct for the city parks. A ban on smoking and all tobacco products was included.
Slog quoted Parks Commissioner Jourdan Keith saying the ban is "pretty much unenforceable....My concern is it will be disproportionately enforced to affect the few people who are already displaced--people who don't have anywhere else to go."
ACLU of Washington spokesman Doug Honig said his group is concerned that the ban is overly broad. "We're speaking out on it," he said.
At Crosscut, Jordan Royer, a former aide to Mayor Greg Nickels and a one-time candidate for City Council, also took issue with the restriction. "If it is legal to smoke on the sidewalk or a parking lot or an alley, why not a park? This rule goes too far, won't be enforced and is not necessary to protect public health or safety."
Initial proposals included spitting as a behavior that could've been banned, but officials backed off that one after people complained that it was too intrusive.
Violators for minor infractions like smoking could receive warnings or be banned from parks for up to a day for a first offense. More serious behavioral problems - like selling or using drugs or assault - could get a person banned for up to a year.
In December City Council members Tom Rasmussen, Sally Clark and Nick Licata wrote Gallagher, urging him to adopt a smoking ban. In 2005 Washington's voters passed one of the nation's strictest smoking bans, barring the behavior in bars, restaurants, clubs, bowling alleys and non-tribal casinos. There's also a rule that forbids lighting up within 25 feet of doors, windows and vents of these places, though that rule is rarely enforced. Passersby are exempted.
Read

---

Park Board was right to rescind smoking ban
September 15, 2009
The Spokane Park Board has reversed its springtime decision to phase in an outright ban on smoking in parks. The practical effect of this unanimous vote is negligible. There was no great effort to enforce it, anyway. The police and parks staff – both stretched thin – have better things to do.
In hitting the reset button, the board has returned to the old regulations. Parks will have designated Tobacco Free Zones in and around areas where children congregate, with signage and peer pressure as the enforcement mechanisms. Enforcement by peers might be more apt to happen now that it is clear that public authorities won’t be showing up.
Some may scoff at the notion of peer pressure being effective, but societal attitudes have shifted significantly over the years. House guests don’t think twice about heading outside for a cigarette. Most wouldn’t dream of lighting up inside without asking. Workers who smoke know the drill: Head for that out-of-the way space designated by their employers. Restaurant and bar patrons have been similarly conditioned by peers and changes in the law.
Complaints about cigarette littering in parks are legitimate, but there are laws that address that.
No community has ever really solved the issue of enforcement. Last week, the city of Wenatchee extended a discussion on smoking restrictions in parks. The police department worries that once it is saddled with enforcement, it would have to field complaints when it has more important things to do. Puyallup has a ban that comes with a $1,000 fine. As of July, nobody had paid it. Does that mean nobody ever smokes in Puyallup parks? Of course not. Tacoma is also wrestling with the issue.
As long as there are larger criminal issues than the nuisance of cigarette smoke at parks, outright bans will not be effectively enforced. And laws that lack any genuine enforcement threat breed disrespect for the law in general. The Park Board has made a reasonable decision in reversing its ban.
The more realistic and honest solution involves public education campaigns, gentle persuasion, stern glares and clear signs. Given time, those combined forces will greatly diminish the problem.
Read

---

Ban Smoking Outdoors Too?

May 9, 2006
Ken Schram

SEATTLE - Smoking is a known health hazard.

But political flatulence is becoming a social danger.

City officials up in Mill Creek are mulling over the possibility of banning smoking in one of their public parks -- an actual outdoor, wind-blowing, under the sun and stars park!

Now, the city's Parks and Recreation board had recommended a smoking ban in all the parks, but the city manager balked at that and suggested what I think is probably a trial run at just one, to begin with.

There's all sorts of bureaucratic gibberish being bandied about to rationalize this effort.

There's the contention that people are packed so tightly together at the Mill Creek Sports Park that they can't possibly avoid second-hand smoke.

Then there's the notion that the park is all about kids' sports, which of course makes it reasonable to subject smokers to a $100 ticket for lighting up.

I think it's about local politicians being up Mill Creek without a paddle.

I see this as yet another attempt to turn smokers into social pariahs, while at the same time slapping them with a hefty fine which, as Yogi Berra says, "...is just as good as money."

I'm trying to quit smoking.

I wish politicians would also quit...sticking their collective nose where it doesn't belong.

Read

Date: Tue May 16, 2006 11:46am(PDT)
Subject: Breakdown on OUR money and how the State is spending it

I wrote to the State asking where does the money go from both the
Tobacco settlement and the new high tax. Remember that supposedly the
settlement was to pay for the "tremendous' costs the State has from
smokers. To me that means it should be held in trust for just that
and nothing else. After bouncing around the various agencies I finally
landed on the one department that had answers; this is what I got back:

Jon,
I apologize for the delay, I was unexpectedly out of the office Friday
afternoon and do not work on Mondays. I have compiled information for
you on the distribution of the tobacco Master Settlement Agreement
(MSA) funds and a breakdown of the distribution of cigarette tax funds.

Washington State's share of payments from the tobacco MSA is used for
general health care services and tobacco cessation and prevention
programs. For example, the settlement payments (along with other
revenues) support the Basic Health program - which is state subsidized
health insurance for 100,000 low-income individuals. Additionally,
$24 million in state grants to local public health departments were
funded from the tobacco MSA. I have attached a two-page summary of
Washington's share of the tobacco settlement collections through this
past fiscal year; the summary includes where the money has been used.
(The fiscal year is the state's financial period and runs from July
through June. So, the fiscal year FY05 is July 1, 2004 through June
30, 2005.)

As for the cigarette tax, the combined state tax rate on cigarettes is
currently $2.025 per pack of 20 cigarettes. The list below shows how
the tax is distributed:

23 cents per pack (about 11 percent) is deposited in the state's
general fund. Money in the general fund is appropriated through the
state's biennial budget and funds a wide variety of government
functions including K-12 education and higher education, prisons,
general government, the legislature, and state social and health
services.
8 cents per pack (about 4 percent) is deposited in the water quality
account and used for various water-related programs.
10.5 cents per pack (about 5 percent) is deposited in the violence
reduction and drug education account. This account funds drug and
alcohol related programs.
101 cents per pack (about 50 percent) is deposited in the health
services account and used to finance state health care programs.
60 cents per pack (about 30 percent) is deposited in the education
legacy trust account for deposit in the student achievement account,
and for expanding access to higher education through funding for new
enrollments and financial aid, and other education improvement efforts.
I hope this information is useful to you, and thanks again for
contacting our office. Please let me know if we can be of further
assistance to you.

Sincerely,
Nicole
OFM Information

Personally I am appalled at the distribution of OUR money, especially
the Tobacco settlement money. I expected that to be held in trust,
,not used, except for Tobacco Related medical needs; since that was
the BIG reason for the settlement it should have been a condition,
perhaps we need to start adding that to our demands in the next go
round. And if it never gets used then it should be returned to us,
either in lump sums of by subsidizing the coast, meaning a reduction
at the check out counter [would that mean we could buy pak of smokes
for 25 cents over the next 25 years? Probably].

This situation violates the basic outlines of how tax will be both
collected and used according to the Constitutions [State and Federal].
Perhaps it is time that we stood up and began demanding what is
rightfully ours.
What say you? Is it time to stand up and be noticed?