Savage Pacer - Don't smoke 'em ... in city parks - Comments

I have to laugh when people

beagle44 — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:01:57 -0500

I have to laugh when people complain how about how "GROSS" and "UNSIGHTLY" tobacco litter is. Dog doo doo is far more gross and unsightly. ANY litter is gross and unsightly. I'm not a litter bug so you'll not see my "butts" on the ground.

I'm also not asking to be a "protected class" either. I'm just tired of being treated like something you just scraped off the bottom of your shoe (refer back to paragraph one for an explanation)and being told you can smoke here, but you can't smoke there, even though it is a LEGAL product and we (the government) NEED the revenue from it.

Unlike people who drink and drive, I have never killed anyone in a car accident because of a cigarette. Unlike people who drink, I am still capable of holding an intelligent conversation and do not make a jackazz out of myself because of a few cigarettes.

If parks are supposed to be healthy, then we shouldn't allow people to drive their cars to them anymore. Afterall, the are polluting the air. Beer and wine should not be allowed at Community Park during Dan Patch Days. Talk about litter! Talk about NOT family friendly. Talk about setting a bad example.

Let's face it. Non-smokers nit pick because they can. There are so many more unhealthy, disgusting, dangerous, polluting things out there than cigarettes. Some of those things are even illegal! Gasp!!

Hey everyone! This is

missybear97 — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:25:29 -0500

Hey everyone! This is Melissa Gorman (a current City Council Candidate). I would love to hear all your comments, ideas, or any questions you have for me! I am running for the people, not for anyone else's agenda. Please follow me on Twitter or send me a message as I would love to hear from everyone. I believe I can use Twitter as a quick, easy, and environmentally friendly way to reach the residents of Savage instead of wasting money and trees on pre-printed material.
www.twitter.com/mgorman97

Parks are supposed to be a

farmer_999 — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:06:29 -0500

Parks are supposed to be a clean, healthy, and family friendly place where individuals and/or families can go to enjoy some time outside and maybe get some exercise in. Smoking directly conflicts with those ideas, whether that be because of SHS or tobacco litter. It is also a behavior that I'm sure no parent would want their child to pick up. A tobacco free park policy models healthy behavior and I think would help make not smoking the norm.

Why would you want to be around people smoking anyway?? If a person wants to smoke, that is their decision, but that decision also effects people around them....even outdoors. If you don't believe it adversely affects your health, I would still think it is a nuisance. Plus, tobacco litter is gross, harmful, and unsightly. Smokers should take their habit away from others(they are not a protected class by any means either).

I believe in a tobacco free parks policy...just consider all of the harm that the tobacco industry has caused so many families and the health costs of smoking before you bash it because of government infringement.

The smoking policy story in

beagle44 — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 07:09:59 -0500

The smoking policy story in Saturday's Pacer prompted me to write to our city leaders. Below is a copy of what I sent.

Dear city leaders,
How very interesting to read in today's Savage Pacer that you are moving forward with the no smoking policy in all of the city parks. Maybe you didn't receive any complaints about the proposal because in the October 3 issue, councilman Abbott thought the topic should be opened up for public feedback. Maybe others, like myself, were waiting for a special meeting in which smokers could speak their piece. Obviously the meeting never happened and now it's apparently too late to say anything. Not that it matters. I've lived here for 18 years now and any time city officials have invited the very residents who pay their salaries, to speak up on issues that impact them, those officials turn a deaf ear to them and do what they want anyway. So maybe no one within Savage government has received any complaints because they (the residents) know it is pointless.

So I guess I'll waste my time in telling you it's ridiculous to constantly demean and impose restrictions upon those who smoke. Our own mayor said in the latest issue of the Savage Pacer that the city relies on the revenue from cigarette sales (along with every other municipal and state government) and yet you want to restrict where it (cigarettes) can be used. It's crazy. I understand not having it go on during youth sporting events. I suppose it's a bad influence, but don't you think there are a lot of other bad influences out there as well? Why is it always the smokers that get the bad rap? If I'm taking a walk on one of the park trails, why can't I light up? I'm outside for crying out loud. There are other worse sources of pollution than a cigarette.

In regard to Dan Patch Days. Mr. Brennen was probably correct in that prohibiting smoking would have an impact on Friday night, in particular. If you're not going to let me smoke while enjoying the Friday night concert, then maybe I won't show up next year. Maybe a lot of others won't either. Please don't tell me that it's OK for people to drink at that event on Friday night and then get in their cars to drive home, but it's not OK for me to smoke in an open air park. Maybe if you prohibited drinking ALONG WITH prohibiting smoking, I wouldn't be as miffed.

So Mr. Powell wants to set up a designated smoking area for Dan Patch Days? Why? Will there also be a designated drinking area too? Maybe there should be. If you're going to inconvenience and highlight the bad habits of one group (smokers), then the same should go for another (the drinkers). Better yet, PROHIBIT the BOOZE. That behavior is far more detrimental to children and those around them than smoking ever will be. I DESPISE drinkers and yet I have to put up with them. Why does the city PROMOTE drinking and then driving anyway? Aren't you contradicting yourselves?

Anyway, I've said what I think. You'll do what you think is in my and other smokers' best interest anyway.

Sincerely upset,
Robin

(I removed my last name from the above email when I reposted it here.)

I received a response from Mayor Williams on Sunday. She invited me to come to tonight's city council meeting to voice my concerns. Huh? I already did that in my email. I don't see any point in sitting through one of their meetings and end up talking into thin air (Been there. Done that.). I expressed my opinion in writing. There's nothing more to add.

Thank you to those who suggested keeping this in mind when election day rolls around next month. Incumbant doesn't mean automatic winner. I've voted against them in the past. I can surely do it again.

Remember this vote on

Robert Thibodeaux — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 19:54:31 -0500

Remember this vote on election day, this year and when we get a chance to replace the mayor.
This is the kind on nonsense that is visible and illustrates the other nonsense that we don't always get to see.
Time for these folks to go!
If I wanted the city to over-regulate and waste my money I could live in Minneapolis.
We have enough of the DFL running those cities, we don't need one as our Mayor.

I have been a life long

mmonson — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 14:59:05 -0500

I have been a life long supporter of NON-SMOKERS RIGHTS, I believe that nobody should have put up with others air pollution. Ive talked to my kids about not smoking from the day they were born...
Having said that......No smoking in parks? give me a break! the government needs to stay out of our lives!! Stop making rules to protect me and my family! Ill do that! The Savage City Counsil should spend more time repealing laws and less time thinking of new ones....Stick to what your job is..Police, Fire, Roads, Water and Parks and less time sticking your nose in our lives. I will be watching this vote and I will vote accordingly at the poles!

Mark Monson

Well said! How many

fjeffery — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:34:37 -0500

Well said! How many complaints of smoking in the park does our city get? Who is going to smoke around people there anyway? Who wouldn't move to a different area to smoke if someone requested that also? Taste not touch not, rules, rules, rules. Get off my back and out of my pocket and life.

I am not even going to argue

fjeffery — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:31:50 -0500

I am not even going to argue about our nanny state mayor and council. I VOTE and I talk to people about local voting and encourage them who to vote for. Our current local government needs to give it up.

The Chemistry of Secondary

harleyrider1978 — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 05:39:18 -0500

The Chemistry of Secondary Smoke About 94% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a slight excess of carbon dioxide. Another 3 % is carbon monoxide. The last 3 % contains the rest of the 4,000 or so chemicals supposedly to be found in smoke… but found, obviously, in very small quantities if at all.This is because most of the assumed chemicals have never actually been found in secondhand smoke. (1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80). Most of these chemicals can only be found in quantities measured in nanograms, picograms and femtograms. Many cannot even be detected in these amounts: their presence is simply theorized rather than measured. To bring those quantities into a real world perspective, take a saltshaker and shake out a few grains of salt. A single grain of that salt will weigh in the ballpark of 100 million picograms! (Allen Blackman. Chemistry Magazine 10/08/01). - (Excerpted from "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains" with permission of the author.)

Outdoor bans are even

harleyrider1978 — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 05:33:45 -0500

Outdoor bans are even crazier than indoor bans. The chemical make-up of shs is nearly 94% water vapor and A SLIGHT AMOUNT OF CARBON DIOXIDE with about 3% being carbon monoxide AND 3% CONTAINING THOSE SUPPOSED KILLER CARCENOGENS.........

n-nitrosomines which you hear so much about is actually arsenic..what they dont tell you is that the measurements they took match the naturally occuring arsenic in the air outside everywhere.
they measured levels at 0-29 picograms....which is totally safe...the amount has to be 5 million times that to be harmful to humans........you see how they switched it. Trying to blame shs for what is actually a natural thing. The levels of other things in shs if they can be measured at all are millions if not billions of times smaller than the amounts needed to harm anyone......just remember this second hand smoke is a joke within nano seconds from the burn it turns into WATER VAPOR.....Even the exhaled smoke is loaded down with water vapor...osha has said nothing in shs/ets is going to harm you or anyone else.....what shs will do is irritate those with weak immune responces.......thats why shs is classified as a class 3 IRRITANT BY OSHA AND THE EPA.....Remember this a prohibition movement must rely on scare tactics and big money in order to succeed to the level of getting legislation....These outdoor regulations are even crazier than the first claims made for indOor bans.......

As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright that: "Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997
-harleyrider1978

Don't smoke 'em ... in city parks

Nancy Huddleston — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 10:54:13 -0500

By Nancy Huddleston, Editor

If you got ‘em, don’t smoke ‘em – in city parks that is.

Although the Savage City Council hasn’t formally updated the city’s tobacco use policy in parks, the consensus at Monday night’s (Oct. 12) work session was to extend the policy to ban smoking in the city’s 20 parks.

The City Council is scheduled to formally update the policy at its next meeting on Monday, Oct. 19.