Update: Seattle Parks superintendent’s tobacco-ban turnabout

(7:44 pm – updated with Parks Board chair’s reaction in appearance before Alki Community Council)

ORIGINAL 5:44 PM REPORT: Just in from the Parks Department:

Seattle Parks and Recreation Superintendent Tim Gallagher today decided to relax the rule that would have banned smoking in parks effective April 1, 2010, and to approve the recommendation of the Board of Park Commissioners.

The Board recommended this language in the Code of Conduct: “Smoking, chewing, or other tobacco use is banned within 25 feet of other park patrons and in play areas, beaches, or playgrounds.”

“Based on the input from the public that followed my initial decision,” Gallagher said, I have decided that a gradual approach to a smoking ban is reasonable.”

We were first to report yesterday that Gallagher had decided not to accept the Parks Board’s recommendation and instead was going to put a total tobacco ban in place; strong reaction ensued, including (so far) 90+ comments on our Wednesday afternoon story. We’ll hear from Parks Board chair Jackie Ramels in about an hour, as she is scheduled to guest at the 7 pm meeting of the Alki Community Council at Alki UCC.

7:44 PM UPDATE: We’re at the Alki CC meeting now, where Ramels says she was asked by a reporter earlier if the turnabout represented a waste of time – first the superintendent decides to overrule the board, then changes his mind – but her reaction was instead: “I think it illustrates that the Parks Department is responsive to public comment.” In response to questions, she acknowledged the board had concerns that a total tobacco ban would be part of what some had seen as a pattern in the proposed code changes of grounds for targeting homeless people for park removal. She also said she expected enforcement of the new code would be focused more on downtown, since “that’s where the park rangers are.”

36 Replies to "Update: Seattle Parks superintendent's tobacco-ban turnabout"

  • Alki Area February 18, 2010 (6:27 pm)

    Common sense…thank you. The park board DID think about their decision, it wasn’t a random choice. This makes sense. You’re under miles and miles and miles of open sky. A “total” smoking ban is ridiculous. Just don’t smoke on the beach, around others or in the play grounds. But if I want to smoke a pipe in the middle of the woods in in Discovery Park, leave me alone.

  • jiggers February 18, 2010 (6:34 pm)

    Did you read th article here. He said a “gradual approach” Either you just do it or don’t. So much crap.

  • Diane February 18, 2010 (6:37 pm)

    Pathetic, HUGE disappointment!!!

  • Mr JT February 18, 2010 (6:59 pm)

    FAIL

  • Michael February 18, 2010 (7:16 pm)

    Funny, people have such weak wills when it comes to quitting smoking – but when it comes to DEFEND their smoking, suddenly they can muster incredible will power.
    .
    Now let’s levy some heavier fines for butt litter.

  • cjboffoli February 18, 2010 (7:31 pm)

    While I’m sure it will be just as unpopular among smokers, something tells me that the State’s new proposed $1 per pack tax on cigarettes won’t be retreated from as quickly.

  • westside February 18, 2010 (7:47 pm)

    Any law must be considered for its enforceability or it is unfair its application. We do not have the police to patrol our parks and bust people for using a legal, if disgusting, product. But we can prohibit their use near anybody.

    The Parks Board thought about this, Mr. Gallagher did not. This action will help address butt litter, especially on beaches like Alki.

  • Kayleigh February 18, 2010 (9:00 pm)

    Pathetic—catering to the whiners and the addicts and the adolescents. No wonder our society is so screwed up.

  • old timer February 18, 2010 (9:03 pm)

    Good grief,
    Let’s see what tomorrow’s rule will be.
    Although I do not smoke,
    I am glad the smoker’s will have a bit of Public Space.

  • M February 19, 2010 (1:07 am)

    All the anti-smoking people crack me up! Get off your high horses. Before you demonize and insult me for my disgusting habit you ought to examine your own dirty little contributions to creating personal, public and global health hazards! Do you drive a gas fueled vehicle? Oh and let’s go have a look see in your cabinets and take stock of all the chemicals within! Do you eat fast food, meat, non-organic foods? Take prescriptions? Drink? Well then you’re just as guilty as any smoker of polluting the air, continually consuming unsafe products because you enjoy or “need” them and sometimes causing offensive odors. So… Shut your sanctimonious yap. I should be allowed to smoke a cigarette in the open air away from people. And you can go on spewing toxic fumes and destroying our environment while also rotting your internal organs and offending my sense of smell with your chemical laden food and beauty products…

  • Zgh2676 February 19, 2010 (2:33 am)

    Actually reasonable…amazing.

  • Kayleigh February 19, 2010 (5:13 am)

    M, I won’t shut my yap. I have a right to stand up for clean air. You are a typical addict trying to justify your nasty addiction and your weakness by pretending other people do stuff that’s equally bad. We don’t–cigarettes are a drug and drug delivery system and they serve no other function. However bad driving a car is (and I don’t own a car), it at least serves another function. I know lots of people who have quit smoking, so quit whining about how hard it is.
    .
    I pay higher insurance premiums and higher Medicare and Medicaid costs because of you and your fellow smokers. So unless you smokers plan on signing away your rights to the medical care you will need (cancer, heart disease, stroke, COPD, asthma, pneumonia, etc), then deal with the fact that the rest of us don’t like it and will try to regulate it as a PUBLIC health issue. As in, you IMPACT the PUBLIC.

  • mark February 19, 2010 (6:58 am)

    M,

    Did you have a bad day at work or what? Smoke all you want, in the privacy of your own house. Duh.

  • kg February 19, 2010 (7:26 am)

    So when smoking, in the US anyway, has all but disappeared in the coming 20-50 years insurance and related costs should go down right?

  • homesweethome February 19, 2010 (7:55 am)

    good lord – if Virginia can ban smoking in restaurants you would think all the eco-minded healthy people in Seattle would be all for a smoke ban in parks

  • Manuela Slye February 19, 2010 (8:32 am)

    Kayleigh, you are so right, I agree 100%…
    And BTW, I do not appreciate city officials bending over backwards to make the squaky wheel go away and Mr Gallagher is a fine example.
    Too bad for our city to have him as a park superintendent

  • gary February 19, 2010 (9:00 am)

    Why can’t all the “open-minded” liberals on here be a little more compassionate and understanding toward people that might not be just like them? Lighten up and let people light up.

    I imagine as a society we pay much more toward the health complications of obesity in america so maybe we should be discussing how we can get people to eat less.

  • GenHillOne February 19, 2010 (9:33 am)

    Since I wasn’t one of the 90+ comments in the other thread, I’ll say here that I’m glad the Parks Board prevailed in this process. I believe it’s the correct decision for reasons already stated over there, mostly that we’re talking about an outdoor space (though I’m always a fan of providing enough options for proper disposal and distance from crowds/children). What’s maybe more disturbing to me are the superior and venomous (and imho, much more “whiney”) anti-smoker comments on both threads. It’s eye-opening and a disappointing window that I’ll just avoid looking into next time.

  • dsa February 19, 2010 (9:50 am)

    They forgot to totally ban outdoor smoking in parks on air stagnation days.

  • dept of health February 19, 2010 (10:02 am)

    I’m a smoker. last time I checked, I pay for my medical coverage. Maybe you’re talking about public assistance or retirees?

  • J February 19, 2010 (10:19 am)

    Rats. The problem isn’t 25 ft, it’s upwind. 10 feet away downwind isn’t a problem; 50 feet away upwind can be. And the wind shifts. I still support the total ban.

    Note to dept of health: it’s very unlikely you pay all of your medical coverage, btw. You’re in the pool with the rest of us. Our rates are higher because you smoke. To be fair, they’re also higher because of people who don’t exercise enough, etc.

  • William Brewer February 19, 2010 (10:33 am)

    Tim Gallagher should be fired, not for rescinding his earlier decision to ban smoking but the way the entire issued was handled. What an idiot. Get rid of the dead wood.

  • flynlo February 19, 2010 (11:06 am)

    All of the people against smoking in the parks should have a field day with this! Every time that you see someone smoking, move to within 20′ of them. When they move away, move towards them again! Two or three of you should be able to force them out of the park!!

  • mark February 19, 2010 (11:07 am)

    J, you are right on the money. When and if we get true competition in health care the rates for those of us who are healthy will drop like a rock while the unhealthy will find rates unaffordable. Year after year I pay rates that are 10X (if not higher) more than I have ever used in expenses. I say let them smoke all they want, but like all other vices, behind closed doors. Your own.

  • Smokie February 19, 2010 (11:11 am)

    In Nazi Germany, Hitler imposed a nationwide tobacco ban (tobacco in all forms). The ban and its propaganda fueled an increased tension between smokers and non-smokers. (people just love to hate on someone) Fearing reduced sales and loss of revenue, “courtesy awareness” campaigns were broadcast by the Nazis and a legislative program was created and focused on “accommodation” (of the smokers). From Wikipedia: “Tolerance and courtesy were encouraged as a way to ease heightened tensions between smokers and those around them.”

    Funny thing is that, before all this current U.S. anti-smoking propaganda, people weren’t hating on smokers as much as they are now that they think they have the backing of city officials. There weren’t any “heightened tensions” like there is now. The city isn’t really supporting your cause non-smokers. It’s trying to shut your whining up. Truth is, the city/state doesn’t want to lose the revenue our smoking generates, so for all you non-smokers, keep dreaming of your smoke-free world, because it’ll never happen. The government loves our money too much.

  • Smokie February 19, 2010 (11:18 am)

    And I find it laughable that some of you suggest that we should all smoke at home behind our closed doors. 1) Not all smokers live in an owned home – by themselves – so they don’t expose others to second hand smoke where they can smoke “behind closed doors.” Most of us have been pushed outside to smoke – most of us gladly. 2) 98% of homeless people are smokers. What “closed doors” should they smoke behind? Which is precisely why the parks department backed off the total ban.

  • mark February 19, 2010 (11:36 am)

    Smokie, its called progress. We used to be allowed to own other human beings as well. Times change, usually for the better. No one has ever said stop smoking, for that matter, we are closer than ever to making other smoke-able things legally finally. Just don’t subject others to your filthy and unhealthy habits.

  • datamuse February 19, 2010 (12:14 pm)

    Actually…historically, smoking rooms existed for that very purpose in the houses of people wealthy enough to afford the space. The Hindenburg even had one. It was considered rude to smoke elsewhere because the smell offended people.

    Imagine that.

  • J.See February 19, 2010 (12:40 pm)

    I have never seen a smoker move away from people when they light up. I’m sure nothing will change in parks other than non-smokers being irritated that smokers are smoking near them. Personally, the smell of cigarette smoke affects me greatly, and I am forced to deal with feeling really ill when at any bus stop.

    I don’t give a crap if you smoke, I give a crap that you smoke near me. I don’t want to have to smell your cigarette. I’m not an effing Nazi.

    Oh and the person who was bitching about people getting on their high horse about smoking while driving gas guzzling cars and keeping chemicals and pollutants in their cupboards, I don’t drive at all, nor do I have any chemicals in my home. I eat very little meat and purchase mainly organic.

    AND I STILL HATE YOUR STUPID SMELLY BREATH.

  • Ex-Westwood Resident February 19, 2010 (12:57 pm)

    Hmmm….
    .
    I wonder if the same people here who are supporting the TOTAL ban on cigarettes, would be doing the same if a person was smoking a joint????
    .
    I wonder if the ban, if total would apply to “Hemp Fest” which is held at a city park???

  • JEM February 19, 2010 (4:27 pm)

    Notice it does say “tobacco use”, so we can still smoke our joints in the park! Yay!

  • D.C. February 19, 2010 (4:28 pm)

    I don’t smoke and I’m actually allergic to it, but laws like this really bother me. I understand not allowing people to smoke in public buildings or within 25 feet of the door, but to restrict it from public outside areas? This feels very much like the anti-gun ban in parks; an attempt to change an unpopular but legal behavior through city regulations.
    .
    I hate smoking and wish no one did it, especially around me. But these types of laws and rules strike me as the first step towards greater infringments on the liberty and freedom of people to live their lives how they choose (however poorly those choices may be at times).
    .
    And I agree with the other posters, in that it seems like a very strange stance for a city that is so tolerant about marijuana usage. I get the feeling that smoking a joint is more acceptable than smoking a cigarette. And if that’s true, why? Is it because it’s considered hip and popular to do drugs but not to smoke cigarettes?

  • mom February 19, 2010 (6:47 pm)

    You know I am getting tired of being treated like an outcast because I smoke! I do not smoke in my house and I do try to stay away from people on the occasional times that I smoke in public. As far as the financial burden we are causing non-smokers, I believe the taxes that we are paying on our cigarettes is suppose to be covering that, or was that just another bs tax that was put into place!!!!
    And here is another thing for you non-smokers to think about….. Why has the asthma rate increased in our children, while smoking around them has decreased???You might want to check that out on the internet, cigarette smoke has become the blame for everything and honestly its getting a little ridiculous, there are many things in our society that are just as bad and considerably worse than cigarette smoke, so can you get of your soap boxes and find something else to complain about!!!

  • J February 19, 2010 (8:33 pm)

    mom, if no-one is aware of your smoking, you won’t be treated as outcast.

  • glocson February 20, 2010 (12:09 am)

    Love that diesel exhaust and Starbucks waste…Those “hybrid” car batteries are as bad a nuclear waste…

  • Kayleigh February 20, 2010 (8:09 am)

    Legalization of pot is one of the few areas I part ways with my fellow progressives. I’m not sure what is driving the current push in favor of the potheads, but the momentum does seem to be their favor.
    .
    I’m not afraid of my government (especially my local government) because the government is us, the public. And I support public health efforts like smoking cessation programs, health and fitness promotion, etc. I don’t see that stuff in terms of rights; I see it in terms of public health, in which we all have a vested interest.
    .
    Mom,I’m glad *my* mom quit smoking long ago. One of her biggest regrets is exposing us kids to even one iota of smoke. She also doesn’t cop victim status or try to divert blame for her actions. You might learn a lot from my mom.

Sorry, comment time is over.