Mosque: We Don’t Want Smokers, Either

by Abram Katz | October 7, 2009 12:14 PM | | Comments (13)

newstraph.JPGAn aldermanic panel OK’d a hospital’s request to ban smoking on sidewalks out front — then put on hold a similar request by a masjid around the corner.

The Human Services Committee voted Tuesday night to permit the Hospital of Saint Raphael to ban smoking on four public sidewalks surrounding the 511-bed campus. The proposal, similar to one passed for the area outside Yale-New Haven Hospital, now goes before the full board for approval.

Meanwhile the committee decided to take no action on a related request by Masjid Al-Islam of George Street.

Masjid members — including Iman Abdus-Shakur and Alderman Yusuf Shah (pictured testifying Tuesday night) — said they fear that St. Raphael’s smokers will simply stroll across George Street and loiter in front of the mosque, emitting clouds of unwanted tobacco smoke.

The original bill before the committee combined the two areas, around the hospital and the mosque.

While a hospital has a legitimate reason to keep cigarette smoke away from patients, entrances, and exits, committee members said, they asked how the city could legally justify an identical smoking ban in front of the Masjid Al-Islam.

The mosque wants smoking on its sidewalk banned for “moral reasons,” responded Abdus-Shakur.

“There are plenty of other places to smoke. We want the environment clean for our future,” she said.

Alderman Shah, who represents West River and sits on the Human Services Committee, introduced and supported the measure.

“We want to post no smoking signs. We’re not going to grab people and throw them off the property. We would politely ask them to leave,” Shah said.

Westville Alderman Sergio Rodriguez asked Shah how Masjid Al-Islam would otherwise enforce the no-smoking rule.

“We want to deter employees [from St. Raphael’s] who would like to cross the street to smoke. We want permission to design signs and verbiage. We’re not sure what that would be,” Shah said.

“It’s not just us,” Abdus-Shakur said. “We want all of the area to clean up.”

An estimated 12 to 18 percent of the hospital’s employees smoke. They are now allowed to light up in a space adjacent to the emergency room entrance, in an area that would be used for decontamination in the event of a biological attack, Dr. Ernest Moritz told the aldermanic committee. That would change. (Moritz is associate chairman of medicine and co-chairperson of St. Raphaels’ anti-smoking campaign.)

If booted hospital smokers cross the street and are respectfully ushered away from the Masijid, they will simply end up in front of someone else’s house, aldermen concluded.

East Rock Alderman Roland Lemar asked how the city can arbitrarily determine when and where to restrict an otherwise legal right such as smoking. He said he worries about a slippery slope of granting successive private institutions the right to ban legal public activity.

Committee chairman Charles A. Blango of Newhallville suggested that the Shah request, including the hospital and mosque, be separated into two resolutions. The committee’s members agreed. They approved the St. Raphael request by a voice vote. Then they decided they could save time by taking no action on the mosque request for now until the matter received more consideration, including a legal opinion and further debate.

Please Move

On the St. Raphael’s proposal, Moritz convinced the committee that pedestrian smokers could adversely affect patients in the air-conditioned facility.

Smokers congregating at entrances could pose a direct risk to patients and visitors, Moritz said.

As of Nov. 19, smoking at St. Raphael’s, including the parking garage, will be prohibited.

If the full Board of Aldermen approves the proposed ban, as expected, “no smoking” signs will be posted along sidewalks surrounding the hospital, on sections of Chapel, George, and Orchard Streets, and Sherman Avenue.

What happens if someone is walking down Chapel Street puffing happily on a Chesterfield, and crosses Orchard Street to St. Raphael’s’ property?

The answer: Nothing extreme.

The smoker would not be wrestled to the ground, Tased, or otherwise physically coerced, said Tom Mendillo, director of safety and security at the hospital.

An employee could explain the no smoking status of the sidewalk, ask the man to stub out the cigarette or cross the street.

If the smoker refuses and becomes argumentative, the employee is to simply walk away, Mendillo said.

“We don’t push the issue. No one will be asked to leave the property” or be manhandled, he said.







Share this story

Share |

Comments

Posted by: public spaces | October 7, 2009 12:53 PM

Ah, and here is the fall out of the decision. The hospital gets it's way & the neighbors will suffer.

This is what can happen when you try to legislate public spaces and public behavior.

Posted by: hey y'all | October 7, 2009 2:13 PM

hey, i don't want anyone walking by my house and talking. talking is noise pollution, right? who should I contact to pass that ordinance?

Posted by: Bill Saunders | October 7, 2009 3:05 PM

Alderman Shah,

You are playing a bad game of dominoes.

Mark my words, if and when your proposal banning smoking in front of your mosque hits the vote, I will be submitting a similar proposal to ban smoking in front of my home.

Afterall, my home is as close to your mosque, as your mosque is to the hospital.

NOMS -- Not on my sidewalk!!!

Posted by: Ned | October 7, 2009 6:29 PM

What is the hospital doing to reduce the number of its staff who [are nicotine addicts] smokers?

I hope this isn't a move by the mosque to incrementally introduce Sharia into New Haven politics? Will women without head coverings be forbidden to walk in front of the mosque "for moral reasons"? Gays? A person carrying a bottle of wine???

Posted by: anon | October 8, 2009 1:08 AM

I agree you can't legislate on a case-by-case basis, but Shah has a good point here. Smoking contributes heavily to urban air pollution and ground pollution, and should be banned in all public spaces citywide, given that our asthma rates and pollution levels are high enough already. If people want to smoke, they can go to their own homes or take a bus out to Woodbridge. Will Shah please propose a citywide ban?

Posted by: Alderman Shah | October 8, 2009 10:13 AM

Anon:
I will propose a citywide ban If I receive the support to do so.
Ned: "What is the hospital doing to reduce the number of its staff who [are nicotine addicts] smokers?"

If you would have come out to the hearing you could have heard the policies that were discussed. I suggest that you request a copy of the tape or printed copy of the meeting.
The St Raphaels Hospital has their personnel policies in place.

"I hope this isn't a move by the mosque to incrementally introduce Sharia into New Haven politics? Will women without head coverings be forbidden to walk in front of the mosque "for moral reasons"? Gays? A person carrying a bottle of wine???"

Ned Islamic law or Sheria only applies to those who have acceped Islam. My first wife was a non muslim when I married her. Peaceful co-existance has always been the way to approach issues like this.


Posted by: Jack | October 8, 2009 10:34 AM

So just where dose this end? Will the Mosque also want to Ban anyone from walking a dog, or bringing a six pack of beer and a half pound of ham, home from the store?

Posted by: Fedupwithliberals | October 9, 2009 4:00 AM

I can't wait until they pass a gay rights amendment for the mosque!

Posted by: Kevin Ewing | October 9, 2009 4:12 PM

The fact that this is a Mosque is immaterial. I have also spoken with residents who live in the area who are concerned about the smokers congregating in front of their homes. They all support the ban but worry mostly about the butts that will be piled up in front of their property.

We, the organized residents of West River, are very pleased with HSR and how they work with us. YNHH and most other businesses could take lessons from them. We are also pleased to have the Masjid Al-Islam in our neighborhood. Several years ago when we targeted Gilbert Ave as our showcase street both these organizations were at the front of our initiatives and continue to be good neighbors.

The hateful comments about the Islamic religion are uncalled for and inappropriate. Further more they have NOTHING to do with the complaint. What is germane is the potential loitering, littering and second hand smoke.

Posted by: justonesmoker | October 9, 2009 5:41 PM

this is ridiculous. smoking ISN'T the main urban polluter and it's getting so bad we could very well loose our ability to CHOOSE whether or not we do anything. this need to impose a martial morality on people with the idea of "for your and/or our own good" is going to backfire in a big way.
public spaces include people you may not like to see or deal with and no, smokers are not the threat self-righteous lefties or righties would have one think. we're just a great target.
what really gets me are how many of the people who vehemently rage against smokers would also like marijuana legalized. liberal doesn't mean what it use to, eh?

Posted by: Ned | October 9, 2009 6:10 PM

The Koran is like Mein Kampf for Gay people; can't get around that; it calls for their murder - just like the Bible... Littering, loitering and second hand smoke are legitimate concerns. The mosque member's participation in improving the community is laudable and welcome. What I take issue with is religious groups seeking to extend their "morality" into the public sphere. I realize that there is some overlap and differing perspectives. Had the alderman introduced his proposal by way of health, environmental, or even aesthetic objections to smoking, then religious "morality" would not have become an issue.

Posted by: Insider2 | October 10, 2009 2:24 PM

My God we have so many issues that this city is facing such as a under-performing school system, not enough books for all the children in the classrooms, an ever increasing home forclosures, children murdering children, the cutting back on essential city services, just to name a few.

And while this is an important issue the above I guess takes to much time to think about. As I said before the entire BOA should have been voted out of office.

Special Sections

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

Flyerboard

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

NHI Store

Buy New Haven Independent Stuff

News Feed

Powered by
Movable Type 3.35