New Haven Independent

Posted by: Ellis Copeland | December 2, 2008 8:56 AM

When is this lunacy going to stop? Other than the occassional cigar I don't smoke but this is really ridiculous, especially the notion of banning smoking in all public places.

The Anti-smokes are arrogant enough to believe they are the first people of all time to try to stamp out smoking. The Victorians of the late 19th century were as bad or worse than today's anti-smokes. What happened? All their fulminating just made it cool for the kids so the first half of the 20th century became a smoke fest, which is exactly what today's anti-smokes will accomplish-- a new generation of smokers trying to piss off old codgers.

Posted by: Walt | December 2, 2008 9:10 AM

I'm an ex-heavy smoker and probably would not be here if I had not quit 10+ years ago, but this is pure BS.

Smoking beyond the YNH borders is not hazardous to patients or employees other than those smoking and is none of YNH's , or St. Raph's. or Yale University's business. They think they own the whole City.

If they wish to prohibit their employees from leaving their properties to grab a smoke while on the clock,fine, but please keep their hands off the rest of us.

Posted by: Mister Jones | December 2, 2008 9:38 AM

This is getting so out of hand. The City is about to cede another part of the public right of way to Yale. These are city streets, not Yale streets. Where will this end?

Second hand smoke is just not the same problem outdoors as it is in an enclosed space. All the problems this proposal claims to solve can be effectively addressed through less restrictive means, like designating limited smoking areas out doors.

While they are at it perhaps they should ban all motor vehicles. All those cars, buses and ambulances, driving by and idling in the driveways put out much more noxious gas then a few smokers.

I feel bad for the folks who want to take a short break from a loved one's bedside and go outside for a smoke. A smoking cessation program isn't going to solve that person's immediate need, not unless the hospital plans on passing out free nicotine gum to anyone about to go outside to smoke. [Nope, that's not a program. That's just free drugs.]

Kudos to Alderman Lemar for pulling the circuit breaker on this latest power grab.

Posted by: DAFeder | December 2, 2008 10:07 AM

Holy smokes -- I may have just maxed out my near-fanatical anti-smoking biases. I mean, kick their butts out of the U-drive and the children's hospital overhang for sure, but no sidewalks? Is there even any evidence that second-hand smoke is a noticeable health threat on an open city sidewalk?

And more disturbingly, is this how people turn into FedUpWithLiberals and the like?

David

ps/ Ellis C -- "fulminating." Nice.

Posted by: shrbr04 | December 2, 2008 10:22 AM

terrific.while i'm sympathetic to people victimized from addictions to all legal & illegal substances,my sympathy hits a wall whenever forced to encounter clouds of 2nd hand smoke outside public areas where smokers congregate for their fix.i'm libertarian:either criminalize ALL toxic harmful substances,including the worst,tobacco & alcohol,OR decriminalize ALL of them & redirect the resources targeted for prosecution & imprisonment toward rehabilitation,medical,& psychiatric support services for these addicts.

Posted by: Togue | December 2, 2008 10:59 AM

Finally someone is fighting for the rights for individuals with respiratory health problems, of which there are many visiting YNHH. Smoking is not a right and can be limited, but having a respiratory disability not be exacerbated by second hand smoke as you enter and exit the hospital is a right that must always be defended.

Posted by: jawbone | December 2, 2008 11:23 AM

I'm neither for nor against the smoking ban, but I will make this observation. Over the years, I have visited various people at the hospital and my wife and I had two children there. We're not talking about a few smokers congregating at the entrance to the hospital. We're talking about a lot of people. This complex of buildings hold a large number of people and thusly the group of people grabbing a smoke out front is large. It really makes the main entrance of the hospital and your first impression unpleasant.
There has to be an architectural solution to this issue. Put the smokers in a distinct, decently designed area and ENFORCE the rule that this is where you need to go to smoke.
Call me heartless but it is really creepy walking past sick people in hospital gowns smoking in front of a hospital. There must be a better solution than banning it all together, however.

Posted by: Jacki | December 2, 2008 11:50 AM

Maybe if smokers would use the ashtrays that are all over the place the rest of us wouldn't be so upset by smokers. Have you ever counted how many cigarette butts you find on the ground in your daily travels? Smokers are generally filthy, disgusting creatures. Not all, but most.

Posted by: Uncle Nunzio | December 2, 2008 11:51 AM

It's always pleasant to see a man in a hospital gown, hooked up to a IV unit, smoking a cigarette out his tracheotomy ring in his neck in front of a hospital. It's quite a sight.

Anyway, it's a hospital. It should be the bastion of health in the community. Smoking is generally the cause of why most of the people are in the hospital in the first place. Perhaps if the hospital lead by example, a few more people will live longer, healthier lives.

And those that are in good health, or trying to recover from being in the hospital, shouldn't have to be put through clouds of second hand smoke to walk from their parked cars to the front door of the hospital. People choose to smoke, those who are surrounded by second hand smoke have no choice. I don't think there is anything wrong with the hospital working with the city to provide a clear path. It's a freakin' Hospital! Those that think otherwise are just blinded by their addiction. If you choose to smoke, fine, Darwin's theory will take it's course, and you shouldn't be clogging up the healthcare system because of it. Just don't forcefully put your bad health choice on others that are trying to lead healthy lives. There's already enough junk in the air killing us.

Posted by: Alphonse Credenza | December 2, 2008 12:23 PM

Just wait until the city attempts to charge you for a criminal act when you speak your mind.

Oh, wait, hate crimes. What will constitute a hate crime? POLICE STATE here we come.

Doesn't this extra-long arm of government frighten you? It does me.

Posted by: Erik | December 2, 2008 1:18 PM

Manchester Memorial Hospital has a similar smoking ban on its premises. I live across the street from them. Since they imposed the ban, employees and guests sit in front of my house smoking cigarettes all day long. They flick their butts along the sidewalk and leave garbage all over the place. I understand the hospital is trying to encourage healthy lifestyles, but it is naïve to think they can force people to stop smoking. Smoker's smoke because they're addicted. They quit when the time is right for them. This policy is unfair to smokers and the hospital's neighbors. They should create a designated smoking area on hospital grounds away from air intakes and entrances.

Posted by: David | December 2, 2008 1:50 PM

This is just ridiculous, A SIDEWALK smoking ban. Well im sure glad that Crown7 came out with an alternative that way there isnt any worry about any type of Smoking Ban ever.

www.Crown7.com

Posted by: Uncle Nunzio | December 2, 2008 2:03 PM

Another point, to those arguing about the right to smoke on the sidewalks: Doesn't the city have ordinances in place to prevent smoking with in a certain distance of schools? Do you think kids should be smoking around their schools? The city also bans smoking in several public areas such as parks and playgrounds.

Posted by: William Kurtz | December 2, 2008 2:20 PM

I never thought I would see the day, but I had the same thought as Alphonse Credenza when I read about Yale's proposal. I'm not a smoker, and I'm completely in favor of restricting smoking in any and all indoor public spaces and even in private indoor places (cars, for example) when unwilling people will be affected (like children. I hate be draconian, but I distinctly remember a long car trip with an aunt who had to a) run the AC and b) smoke at the same time.)

This is going a little too far, though. Ban smoking on hospital grounds if you want, but public sidewalks are just that--public. Prohibiting smoking by adults isn't necessarily the first step on a slippery slope that leads to an erosion of the First Amendment, but it's a disturbing precedent. What is next? No more soda or fattening food on sidewalks outside hospitals?

I feel for the people with respiratory ailments, but is there any hard evidence that those problems are exacerbated by crossing a sidewalk where people are smoking?

Posted by: branfordrules | December 2, 2008 2:55 PM

"If you choose to smoke, fine, Darwin's theory will take it's course, and you shouldn't be clogging up the healthcare system because of it."

I understand that you're passionate about this, Unk, but what purpose does your interpretation of Darwin's theory (more accurately, Social-Darwinist "theory") do to bolster your opinion other than add insult and acrimony to the mix?

The health risks of smoking to patients, non-smokers and smokers alike, does well to inform your argument, but your callousness is gratuitous.

That said, having spent many long nights with relatives at the hospital myself, I felt weird smoking at the entrance. It felt inappropriate. I'd often walk around the block, but then I'm mobile and I'm not sick. Yet.

But I think that the Alderman was justified in putting the brakes on this one for now. A public referendum is certainly in order.

Posted by: Alphonse Credenza | December 2, 2008 3:55 PM

William Kurtz,

We agree. Agreement is a pleasure. But on what exactly? As I understand it, we agree on what is most important -- that government sticks its powerful hand too far into our lives. And it must be stopped. Either we do it -- which I doubt will happen, after all we have just elected the most liberal candidate in decades -- or it will fall upon its own weight.

Are we free men? Who choose to live, to create, to succeed and to fail as we please, by our own wits?

Or do we continue to rely, fat, lazy, unhappy and handcuffed, on this Socialist monstrosity of government, incompetent bureaucracies, territories of entrenched families, which mandate behavior of a virtual serfdom to such detail that boggle the average citizen?

(All this from a simple ban on an inconsequential behavior? Why, yes, it is another symptom of the disease running rife through America.)

Mr. Kurtz, do we still agree?

Posted by: James | December 2, 2008 4:23 PM

Um, Jackie, if there were an ashtray available I would use it. I used to actually pocket the butt until I could find a proper place to dispose of it, but now I just go for a sewer grate. I don't know where you think all of these public ashtrays are, but I don't see too many in my travels.

More interestingly, why is it that virulent anti-smokers tend to sound like hysterical lunatics prone to hyperbole? "Smokers are generally filthy, disgusting creatures. Really, Jackie? Are you going to stand behind that comment? Or do you maybe think that you're projecting just a few too many of your own hangups onto us animals?

Lastly, ever time I think about quitting I come across some self-righteous chicken-little teetotaler like yourself and decide that to give up cigarettes would be to give up on pissing off people such as yourself. That'll show you. I be laughing at you through my stoma.

Posted by: Joe | December 2, 2008 4:52 PM

And what does this say, that the BOA initially unanimously approved the ban, apparently without a thought of getting public input? I find that the worst part of the story by far. Was there YNHH pressure to get the item through quickly -- before people balked. Or are the aldermen so out of touch with their constituents? The city and Yale need to stop having sex.

Posted by: Ned | December 2, 2008 6:15 PM

How about a compromise: cigarette smoking is banned from the sidewalk adjacent to the hospital, but medical marijuana is allowed...

W
WWW
WWW
WWWWW
W WWWWW W
WWW WWWWW WWW
WWW WWWWW WWW
WWW WWW WWW
WWW WWW WWW
WWWWWWW
WWWW | WWWW
|
|

Posted by: Fedupwithliberals | December 3, 2008 5:29 AM

"And more disturbingly, is this how people turn into FedUpWithLiberals and the like?"

DAFEDER

I thought it was just pure common sense that made me what I am! To think that it all started with cigarettes and nanny state mentality. So if we keep on restricting the rights of people and tell them how to live, we get conservatives! Will forward this to the RNC!!

Look out Obama!!!!!

Posted by: Bill | December 3, 2008 7:59 AM

You won't be ejected from a vehicle in an accident if you are wearing a seat belt.

Posted by: Eddie | December 3, 2008 9:08 AM

As a former smoker, I probably get more annoyed than non-smokers when I get someone's cigarette smoke wafting in my face. My throat gets sore and my eyes get itchy. Not sure why I'm so sensitive to it now, but it's pretty common among ex-smokers.

That said, this is ridiculous.

When I'm outdoors and find myself downwind of a smoker, I generally move out of the way. Problem solved.

I'd like to see the science showing that second-hand smoke in open, outdoor spaces creates a public-health hazard. Until that day, I will oppose the further restrictions on smokers' rights.

Posted by: Eddie | December 3, 2008 9:13 AM

Alphonse: You're setting up a straw man. Liberals don't love big, restrictive government. No one does. That would be preposterous. We simply accept the necessity of government, and insist that it work effectively on our behalf.

Posted by: William Kurtz | December 3, 2008 9:15 AM

Alphonse,

I hope this doesn't spoil the warm and fuzzy moment we're sharing, but I think we agree only on our initial reaction to this proposal by YNHH.

Or maybe a little further. As citizens, it's our duty (not to mention it's in our best interest) to remain vigilant and be prepared to question the government on any intrusion into our personal freedoms. So yes, we should watch where, and how far, government sticks that 'powerful hand.'

In general, I object less when government imposes obligations (i.e., pay your taxes, wear your seat belt, clear the snow off your sidewalk, drive carefully and share the road with cyclists, etc) than when they set restrictions (i.e. don't use drugs, don't smoke, don't say this or that).

There are gray areas or places where the line between obligation and restriction is a little blurry. For example (sticking with the theme of the article) take smoking in a car with a child. If state law prohibits that, is it imposing an unwarranted restriction on personal choice in a private space, or imposing a completely rational obligation to take steps to protect the welfare of a dependent child in a driver's care? As I said before, I would accept that obligation by the government, just like I accept the one that says a child has to be properly secured in a car.

I once heard someone (I don't remember who) describe the difference between conservative and liberal as whether one wanted the government out of the boardroom, or out of the bedroom. I would prefer government pay more attention to the boardroom.

Are we still in agreement?

Posted by: Kris | December 3, 2008 11:53 PM

Like one of the other people who commented on this article, I also live across the street from a hospital that has recently instituted a smoking ban. Smokers sit outside of my house all day and leave butts and trash everywhere, also. I completely understand that the hospital wants to strive for a healthy environment but I don't feel that a public ban is the answer(even though I am a non-smoker and am, at this point, completely fed up with all of the smokers hanging around my front yard.) It's too much of a gray area as far as government intervention is concerned. However, I do feel that the hospital has a responsibility to its NEIGHBORS to designate some area upon their own property where the staff and clients can both smoke and deposit of their garbage in a manner that is unoffensive to everyone.

Posted by: Alphonse Credenza | December 4, 2008 2:21 PM

William

Sorry for the delay. I wanted to think a bit about what you wrote.

1 ) "Or maybe a little further. As citizens, it's our duty (not to mention it's in our best interest) to remain vigilant and be prepared to question the government on any intrusion into our personal freedoms. So yes, we should watch where, and how far, government sticks that 'powerful hand.'"

AGREED

2) "In general, I object less when government imposes obligations (i.e., pay your taxes, wear your seat belt, clear the snow off your sidewalk, drive carefully and share the road with cyclists, etc) than when they set restrictions (i.e. don't use drugs, don't smoke, don't say this or that)."

I'm not sure there is a great distinction between the two, i.e. obligations / restrictions, as you've described them.

Core government regulation and its administration are valuable -- police, fire, roads, certain traffic and safety enforcement, minimal taxation to support core functions, and the like (I don't include the public education system in this core function.) They require minor restrictions upon behavior which improve upon freedom by removing basic impediments to transactions in everyday life. The problem occurs where government activity, either through the enactment of law, administration or enforcement, restricts freedom to choose and act as we believe, beyond those core functions.

Example: we may demonstrate on the Green, but we need a permit. To manage that space for all, the requirement of a permit is reasonable, but it is not reasonable when the permit can be denied at the discretion of the city because the agency director doesn't agree with the marchers.

Hate crime law is a case in point. I see these laws as the first wave of thought crime legislation which will chill free expression, criminalize it, in ways we never thought possible. We are all welcome to hate anyone we please and to express that. (Such hatred is generally speaking stupid and better replaced with love, but that is just my opinion. You are welcome to yours.) Curbing and influencing thought and expression should depend upon social, not legal, pressures.

3) "There are gray areas or places where the line between obligation and restriction is a little blurry. For example (sticking with the theme of the article) take smoking in a car with a child. If state law prohibits that, is it imposing an unwarranted restriction on personal choice in a private space, or imposing a completely rational obligation to take steps to protect the welfare of a dependent child in a driver's care? As I said before, I would accept that obligation by the government, just like I accept the one that says a child has to be properly secured in a car.

UNDERSTOOD -- I think I deal with this above. Taking this a step further, I should certainly be welcome to have my bar patrons smoke in my private bar without government intrusion -- if we constantly redefine private spaces as public, we give greater powers to that 3rd party who shouldn't even be in the room with us. The urban centers, like San Francisco and New York City -- run by a demagogue who pushes a third term past City voters -- is precisely in the forefront of this frightening development.

4) "I once heard someone (I don't remember who) describe the difference between conservative and liberal as whether one wanted the government out of the boardroom, or out of the bedroom. I would prefer government pay more attention to the boardroom."

AGREED

But even then -- one who makes a deal should understand his risk and be willing to take it. We have become such a flabby, lazy society that the average person is less cautious, hard-working and willing to rely on his own gumption than ever before in this country. Why? Because we've got Big Brother to rely upon. That frightens me for the future of the nation and whether it will even survive the next century.

Alphonse Credenza

Posted by: William Kurtz | December 5, 2008 2:21 PM

Alphonse,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I'm glad to see that we stand on some common philosophical ground, even if we sometimes disagree on its practical applications. As election cycle after election cycle, and cable news show upon cables news show reminds us, it's easy to become entrenched in our differences. What's more important is to recognize that for the most part, we all want the same thing: the best community (at local, state, and national scales) to live, work, and play in. Even if people don't always see eye-to-eye on what that community looks like, we all only benefit from an honest and open exchange of ideas.