Austin Council plans to ban smoking in city parks (allergies, to move)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Regarding smoking being a fire hazard, it is has been stated by some on this thread and by the politicians pushing this ordinance that smoking is such a fire hazard that it must be banned permanently, and not only during times of severe drought.
The highest concentration of smokers in the parks has got to be during the ACL Music Festival. Smoking was banned during last year's Festival due to the severe drought, but during the previous 9 years of the Festival, with upwards of 70,000 people in the park each day for three days, there has not been one forest fire or any fire to my knowledge started due to smoking in the park.
That seems to me to refute the whole smoking is a fire hazard at all times argument.
Last edited by austinrebel; 10-21-2011 at 07:50 PM..
I think the level of second hand smoke outside in the park could be tested. Scientific measuring devices exist that measure the amount of particulate matter in the air. Stand in the middle of the park and get a baseline measurement, then have somebody smoke a cigarette and see what the change is. If the smoker is standing right next to the machine, and the wind is blowing in the right direction, you should get a reading.
It seems like a silly experiment, but at least it would establish how much SHS there would be in the air.
I think another reasonable compromise would be to prohibit smoking near the children's playgrounds. Presumably some children would not know to move away from smoke if it bothers them.
Austin, the testing you speak of could be, and in some ways, has been, done. I'll link to a satire I wrote about one of the major such studies, but you'll find the link to the primary study there as well of course for reference:
Austin, the testing you speak of could be, and in some ways, has been, done. I'll link to a satire I wrote about one of the major such studies, but you'll find the link to the primary study there as well of course for reference:
I like this ban. It won't change anyhing tho. I personally think that cigarettes should be illegal in general. I would rather see maijauna in the streets sometimes. I detest both tho in general. Majority of people don't smoke so the majority shouldn't have to deal with it. Plus you have to see that the main trash you see in parks is ciggarette buds. If smokers didn't just throw those buds down willy nilly they wouldn't be in this mess. A cigarette bud takes 10-12 years to decay and when I clean parks all I can think is some people have no respect for others. So why should anyone have respect for them . So I can just say there is absolutely no reason to feel sorry for them.
I feel like I'm reading between the lines here, but what I'm beginning to hear is that most people who are really vehemently putting down smokers is that they say they are being disrespected and that smokers are rude and don't care about anyone but themselves (same could be said if you turned the tables). I've heard more name calling from anti smokers than from smokers, and that's all around, not just on this board, and why that's any better than smokers calling people names I have no idea. I'm hearing a lot of "I don't like to be offended....disrespected....have to smell stinky stuff....see people do something I don't like....see people put stuff in the air, on the ground, in their clothes that I don't like". Remember that that didn't end up working with alcohol, which causes health problems. It's smelly (don't tell me alcoholics have wonderful breath and that puke smells like roses) or that people who are alcoholics/drug addicts don't let themselves go physically and may also have mental problems which are a danger to the general public. I know people pish posh the fact that any other thing will be banned once the stinky hazard of smoking is abolished, but really? No, something else will. I mean, has noone payed attention to the fact that food is being targeted? Obesity is a problem, so certain food just HAS to be banned and obese people ostrasized because, poor them, they don't know any better. But ME, Oh, I'm so healthy and problem and offensive anything free that I must save them. I'm sure that maybe some militant vegan group will start talking of the horror of meat that that will have to be banned. You know, it''s bloody, animals have to die and those meat eaters, they"re a wild bunch. If they didn't eat meat maybe they'd be kinder to us. How about Universal Healthcare with medical boards that say certain meds and treatments are too expensive so you can't have them or you're too old for certain treatments so you just have to die because you will only be a drain on the system. Let's face it, life is always going to have something in it that's offensive or makes you feel disrespected or is unhealthy but should we ban everything because of that? Eventually there will be nothing left to ban. What'll happen then?
LOL! Thank you Tex! Yes indeed. The big difference here though, and one of the reasons why the internet is such a deadly medium for those pushing for bans and arguing the health or (in the case of bars/casinos etc at least) the economic effects, is that the simple contradiction doesn't work. Those on our side of the aisle aren't really arguing WITH the opposition as much as we are laying our case out for the public in a forum that is commensurate with our lack of funding. We can't buy TV ads, or stage ten million dollar conferences, or even buy too many $100 press releases. And on the occasions when we *do* manage to grab some face-to-face debate time on camera we're generally up against professionals who've spent significant segments of their careers developing their skills in various forms of public speaking, have tons of nicely tailored sound bites referencing things/people/organizations/statistics that sound "authoritative." Additionally we generally have insufficient time to address such sound bites even when our own speakers are sufficiently skilled to stand up against such opponents in such forums.
Here it's a different story: our arguments can be laid out in full, they can't be dodged and forgotten, and our facts and claims can take on equal weight as those of our more lettered opponents because we can offer instant verification of them through the proper links and citations. The simple "contradiction argument" bolstered by appeals to authority fall flat. The internet allows us an outreach to show the legitimacy of our position to a wider audience than would otherwise be possible.
As noted earlier, I'm not in Austin, so I don't know exactly what's gone down or is going down there. However my experience over the years in being in other places, watching how events transpired in other places, knowing how the Antismokers have worked to advance their cause in other places, and communicating with hundreds of people who've been on the receiving end of the invasions in other places, all lead me to believe that I have some worthy contributions that will help balance the power a bit in battles like the one you're likely to face in Austin once the drought conditions are over.
Without opposition there is simply no way in Jellybeantown that antismoking advocates would ever let the status simply revert to what it was before the drought. They'll magnify the fire dangers in such situations to get the fairly easy "temporary" bans in place, and then fight like heck to keep the "status quo" afterward even though they'd never have been powerful enough to establish that status quo simply on its own at the start.
Eventually there will be nothing left to ban. What'll happen then?
Then, m'lady, they'll come after the roses.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
