Parks And Recreation Smoking Ban Deserves Further Discussion
The City-County Observer believes the partial smoking ban recently passed by the board of the Dept. of Parks and Recreation deserves further discussion. The smoking ban includes both traditional cigarettes and electronic cigarettes, and covers all of the department’s facilities EXCEPT the golf courses, including the Par 3 courses at Howell and Wesselman parks. Also excluded from the ban are the Mesker Park Zoo and Botanical Gardens and the parks attached to those facilities. The ban does cover local neighborhood parks. We see this as problematic in several ways.
We wonder what reasoning is behind the ban’s exclusion of the largest and busiest segment of our local parks. Is it meant to give a “passâ€to the smokers who are literally “paying to play?†If so, we don’t believe such an elitist policy is in the public interest. If it is a safety issue, the Parks Board has missed the mark. In dry weather, a carelessly tossed cigarette butt could do severe damage to a golf course, wooded area of the parks or cause a terrible loss at the zoo, including the lives of the animals and/or the high-end displays.
A smoking ban with no exceptions makes better sense to us than the one that was passed, but does anyone believe that this ordinance could be enforced properly? We don’t believe that it is possible to enforce the policy at all. There are no park rangers, and EPD already seems to have its hands full keeping law and order throughout the city without hunting down smoking ban violators.
We really wonder how the board members envisioned this working out. For us, it brings to mind the famous episode of The Andy Griffith show when Gomer Pyle decided to be enforce Mayberry traffic laws on his own by making some “Citizen’s Arrests.† We can find no viable way to accomplish any semblance of enforcement.
Smoking bans are very fashionable these days, but we believe the decision to do so selectively is without merit. Promotion of healthy activities is one of the basic purposes of Parks and Recreation department’s mission, so a blanket ban would be understandable, although it would still prove unenforceable.
We think this is a “feel good†law that no one will feel good about if they stop and think about it. We hope the Parks Board will reconsidered their action.
FOOTNOTE: we wonder why member of the Parks Board are paid an extremely generous annual stipend for serving on this politically appointed board.  Other people serving on important City Boards and Commissions receive nothing?
This just gives EPD another petty small time issue to go after so they don’t have to fight any real crime.
(…ugh. The article is about smoking. But Bob is thinking about cops, I guess.)
Agree with the Editorial, but it does not go far enough.
The smoking ban should extend to ALL public spaces.
It is unbelievable this remains unresolved.
ALL public spaces should ban smoking!
Evansville leaves the impression of a small-minded, ignorant and unenlightened place because this is still being discussed.
No smoking in ALL public spaces.
Finish this and move on to a more substantive agenda item.
I agree. Smoking should be banned in all public places, period!
Exemptions is why the first smoking ban failed.
Smoking is banned in the free parks but still allowed on golf courses. Welcome to 1985 Evansville. You are now only 30 years behind and that is a small step forward. A full comprehensive ban is the right solution and will pass muster legally. I stand prepared to,congratulate you in the year 2046 when reality finally sinks in. Check your health insurance rates against places that have had smoking bans in place for 10 years or more. It is costing you big time to indulge this filthy habit.
Yep it gets very tiresome living in the past with people who have no clue that they are doing so.
So What is the rational in the E-cigarette ban? They are NOT cigarettes, but nothing more than Nicotine Delivery systems for the Addicted, and seem to present no problem for those in proximity to the Addict.
The Role of the “State” in trying to control unhealthy behavior in Adults is questionable, and selectivity as to
who defines unhealthy behavior, and where it may be practiced, if it presents no threat to anyone but the individual seems a bit of over step toward “Big Brother” government control over freedom of Choice in how a person lives their life. I think each of us could think of a thousand things that are “bad” for you , but is that your business? Mine? Government?
This Ban is no more enforceable than Litter Laws, Speeding on the Lloyd, Used needles in the park, Convicted Felons in possession of Handguns, and a host of other issues of a far higher priority than someone smoking in an open air environment.
They get paid, so I guess they decided to do something for the money, even if it is stupid.
brilliant
Comments are closed.