Brackeen Questions Outdoor Smoking Ban

Wow. At least one alder has learned the history lesson about prohibition.

I get a smoking ban at schools. I don't get a smoking ban at parks.

I completely agree with this Alderman that fines and community service would affect poor and minorities more and as such is unjust and every alder should consider this when voting. That said, the repercussion of a smoking cessation course also doesn't make sense particularly as transportation could become an issue. The penalty should be that a person is asked to leave a school premise or park.

I hate cigarettes. The bad air here is killing me and every AM is a struggle to clear the mucus but I agree with Brackeen that it will be tough on the poor and minority smokers. The new book about poverty and min. wage jobs, Hand To Mouth, states that poor and destitute smoke to relax, put off hunger pangs, to focus, etc. Smoking for a poor or homeless man is like taking a little vacation from hell. These are people who are not able to enjoy all the delights of the city (all cost $$) and never go on vacations anywhere. I have met black people who have never had a vacation.

If the city took better care of the poor and homeless (all smokers), many might QUIT. It is ironic for instance that the New Haven Historical Society on Whitney is featuring a black artist in the gallery but charging $2 to get in, which most black workers cant afford as food and rent are priorities and you can buy a loosie for $2.

It's pretty offensive that Alderperson Brackeen jumped to the conclusion that people of color would violate the law more often than others and even more offensive that he wants to defang a law that a many people in new haven want. want

Maybe one day, I will learn not to reply, but Robyn. It is very unfortunate that you assume I just came to a conclusion with no just cause. You act as if I showed up yesterday. I am a life long nh resident, a person of color who has residents, friends, family, who could potentially be impacted by this. This particular situation for me is a very specific one that needs to be address, I am not going to cower over an issue for political correctness. Get to know a person, before judging motives, speak to the issues. First, I speak as a person who understands the facts. According to a Care Community Study reviews (are most highly populated in general and have large minority populations) the neighborhoods of Dixwell, Fair Haven, Hill North, Newhallville, West River/Dwight, West Rock, West Hills).36%-Black men, 26%- Black woman, 41%- Hispanic men, 26%- Hispanic woman (the good thing is there is a greater part of the population who do not smoke, which is why this ordinance has great potential of reducing smoking levels even more). There are many examples of potential issues, but i will use a recent one. According to the New Haven register, "traffic stops of Blacks and Hispanics in New Haven are at a greater percentage than their driving populations in the city. Blacks represent 20.29 percent of the city's total estimated driving population, but accounted for 46.61 percent of the total traffic stops. Hispanics account for 16.47 percent of New Haven's estimated driving population and were involved in 21.59 percent of total traffic stops." I havent even reviewed income disparities of these neighborhoods, yet.
Let me be very clear, every shred of policy work that I have ever done is inclusive of all people, but in this matter, it could severely impact the above mentioned communities. Everyone deserves a fair shot for an appeal. I will not please everyone, but I am sure not going to sit back and watch a train run over folks without at least addressing these issues and others

Is there any topic that race isn't injected in?

BTW the percentages that I cite are the %'s of the number of smokers in care neighborhoods.

@ Alder Brackeen

According to the Centers for Disease Control, the proportion of African Americans and Hispanics nationally who smoke is smaller than the proportion of non-Hispanic whites. Well over 80% of African Americans and Hispanics are non-smokers who would not be affected by the ordinance. I am aware of no data that suggest that this not true in New Haven as well.

BTW, I worked at the state legislature for 30 years and helped draft amendments. Eliminating the penalties guts the ordinance and in no way could be considered a "friendly amendment."

Are we a month off here and really its April 1st? Pulling the race card on this is pretty wacky and makes me tend to believe this alderman is looking for some publicity.

#1 the BOA isn't making smoking illegal. They are making it illegal to do so on school grounds and public parks to prevent nuisance and protect non smokers health. Smokers can go elsewhere and enjoy their vice without harming anyone.
#2 people won't obey a law without teeth and the NHPD won't enforce a misdemeanor law unless it pays for itself. They've shown that through abysmal enforcement of traffic laws (revenue goes to Hartford).
#3 this is a clear binary issue. You're either sitting in a public park with a burning cigarette in your mouth or your not. Appeals are a waste of public resources.
#4 POC have the exact same free will as everyone else and if they break the law they'll get fined like everybody else.

I'm not sure what Brackeen is concerned about. Do you see ordinances for noise, litter, parking in hand-capped spaces and fire lanes, jay walking, loose animals (cats and dogs), dirt bikes, etc... being enforced?

The alders would do better to spend their time figuring out how to enforce the ordinances they already have rather than concocting new ones (although I completely agree with the ban).

In light of the (unfortunately) reasonable concern regarding selective enforcement, the ordinance could be amended to require officers to note the race and gender of each person cited.

this may be the first time i've read a statement by a new haven politician in the independent and felt encouraged to vote. westville is lucky to have this guy.

I enjoyed a very nice cigar at a city park today. It was beautiful weather. I watched a soccer and baseball game. I will do it again regardless of this silly ban. I walked away from everybody else and bothered nobody. For this I should get a citation? I think not. But good luck with that....

ALDERPERSON BRACKEEN and BRADLEY,

You're misinformed. There is NO "reasonable concern regarding selective enforcement". The recent report on racial profiling during CT traffic stops only show statistically significant evidence of bias in 10 of CTs 169 towns. New Haven isn't amongst them.


http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-state-report-finds-significant-racial-disparities-for-police-traffic-stops-in-20150407-story.html#page=1

and it's not evidence of bias, it's evidence of disparities between the percentage of people stopped and the racial demographics of the town.

Ban smoking on school grounds (it makes sense) and leave the parks as is. Most people of all colors have common sense and would walk away from a crowd to smoke. Others who do not will get the message.

That is the dumb. Don't break the rule and you don't have to worry about paying a fine. Cigs are terrible and smoking them on parks and schools set a bad example. Worst off the people who smoke just throw them on the ground. They should get a fine for littering. So if you can afford to buy the cigs and don't care about setting a bad example for our young children where they go to play then race should not matter. Who cares what color. Don't break the rule. Set a good example for our young people.

NOTEWORTHY,

People like you and BSAUNDERS are generally more considerate than most people. What non-smokers want is no smoke in their faces. Being able to politely ask a smoker to go elsewhere with the power of law to back one up is all this is. You smoking alone in the woods...I can't smell it, there fore it doesn't exist to me.

So if people of one race or color or creed commit a particular crime more often than other people, it shouldn't be illegal because that would be discriminating against them? SMH.

The question should be: who is this new ordinance supposed to protect? Certainly, it is not the smokers. There it goes away half of the public health intent of this policy. If the intention is to protect the non-smokers, then you are looking at the wrong place. The amount of smoking that is still taking place indoors is considerably more important to control. This is happening in most of the rental and multifamily units, which account for almost half of all city housing units. With over 25% of adults smokers in the city and more than half of the population living in rental multifamily units, the amount of exposure to second hand smoke far exceeds the concerns expressed in the new ordinance. Very good public policy has been developed in other cities to combat this problem. But of course, without any real expertise available in the city administration, (is there a health department of board of health anywhere? )no one would expect that an overzealous BOA be educated about more effective options.

ROBN,

Thanks for throwing my hat in the ring on this one, and speaking my voice for me.....

That being said, one doesn't need the law behind them to ask someone politely for respect in a public space.

If you come across circumstances that you find offensive in real life, deal with them in real life as they happen. You are an empowered individual.

You don't need no stinking ordinance.
We don't need no stinkin' Badges...

That is what I find offensive.....

BS,

I disagree. We laws and enforcement; something indicated every day by the bad behavior of too many drivers, riders and peds.

Race,...socio-economic levels,...culture.

None of that matters when talking about public spaces and school grounds.

The only thing that matters is the freedom to be able to go to a park or school yard and not have to deal with someone else's choice.

Smokers need a place to smoke. Ok? Alcoholics need a place to drink. Heroine addicts need a place to use. None of those should be school grounds, period. I understand a park being more lenient but I still think they should have designated smoking areas.

It's not fair to take in the carcinogens from second hand smoke. By having a designated smoking zone in parks like Lighthouse Point - I see a fair middle ground being met.

I am begining to think they should ban smoking on the street. I am watching the people smoking the e-cigs and the cloud of smoke they leave behind. It is so nasty. I shouldn't have to breath that in.

THE1KING,

What are you worried about. If you politely ask people not trail smoke into your face on a public sidewalk its not like they're going to say "F-off!" or punch you in the face or anything?

Robn,

Maybe we should just license and legislate every behavior considered 'anit-social'. That is a slippery slope I am not willing to go down....

While you keep citing un-related reasons, from my perspective you are little more than arm-chair legislating your own personal pet peeve.

As a reformed ex-smoker 12 years out, I support a ban on smoking in public places. HOWEVER... Alderman Brackeen makes a strong point -- the proposed ordinance is flawed by failing to provide for any separate fact-determination process, and for failing to provide any mechanism for appeal of a conviction.

One of the hallmarks of our system of justice (justice for accused offenders as well as justice for potential victims) is "Innocent until PROVEN guilty". Police or other accusers are not allowed to occupy the position of being the judge or official "fact finder. No matter how obvious a smoking violation may seem to be to some, there is no rationale that supports combining the two distinct roles of accuser and judge -- regardless of how minor the fine or community service obligation is that will be imposed. A disinterested party -- other than the accuser-- must determine guilt. And it matters not whether one is "courteous" in how he/she chooses to smoke .. under the terms of the ordinance there can be no smoking -- without exception.

ROBN,

Are you serious ask someone to not trail smoke in my face or my kids. 1st they walk past you and are up the street. 2nd you see some of these crackheads walking around. The people who smoke regular cigs should get a ticket for littering for leaving them on the ground. The people smoking should be respectful and not do it in the first place.

I think tobacco is one of the most dangerous drugs. I'm not really sure why the government allows the sale and distribution of alcohol or tobacco unless they want to keep us all in a fog.

I do notice that a lot of the young men who use vaporizers seem to be walking around downtown clutching them (afraid to let go?), constantly drawing from these devices (chain-vaping), clinging to it like a baby to a bottle. Now, can we really consider that a healthy alternative. Why not just kick the habit entirely?

I'm with Brackeen and others this. Ban smoking near schools but not in parks.

Banning smoking on school grounds is reasonable (yet a far cry from when I was in high school and smoking was legal outside between classes and during lunch, as soon as you turned 16). But banning smoking at huge outdoor spaces like Lighthouse Park seems way overbroad.

While Alderman Brackeen is bringing up some important issues regarding race, enforcement, appeal (which is Good Gov't 101), I think there are some even broader issues at play here, specifically as it is applied to people with mental disorders.

There are a plethora of studies that show a linkage between smoking and schizophrenia, some, in fact, that show a therapeutic relationship between the disease and the substance. In walking the regular streets of this City, schizophrenia is something I see regularly.

So, now we have another reason to harass these poor souls, who are doing there best to fit into the world at large. That seems extremely unfair to a disabled population that is already frought with their regular tangles with 'the system'.

This is an ordinance for elitest snobs who cannot put themselves in somebody else's shoes, but will mandate that somebody else walk in their shoes, even if the loafers don't fit.

BS,

Inner city kids with asthma are not elitist snobs.

ROBN,

Let's make an ordinance to forbid parents from smoking in their own households if they have asthmatic kids, then.

You are a liberal when it suits you, but a conservative at your core

ROBN,

For the record, I don't have a problem with banning smoking at schools -- outdoor, public space is the issue for me. So far, this has been an exercise in over-reach, over-reaction, and over-regulation.

Here is my compromise position:

Rather than the term 'City Park', how about we switch it for the term 'City Playground'.

There are certainly many Parks, with smaller facilities within, designed specifically for kids. If the health of asthmatic inner city kids is your concern, this would certainly direct the area of the proposed ban to something reasonable and focused, and would send a clearer message about smoking and kids, rather than this proposed Draconian Ban that would effect everybody.

It would also be much easier to enforce, and in practice, might be self-policing.

I wouldn't be opposed to that compromise.
I think it is reasonable.

This only person this policy would effect is the person hanging around a children's playground, smoking.....

BS

How about if you acknowledge the founding intention of our country which is that active exercise of freedom shouldn't inhibit the passive freedom of others. In other words, it's wrong to actively choose to do something with negative consequences (like making smoke) which negatively affects others (who aren't allowed by nature or choice to stop breathing.)

Go home and smoke all you want; smoke tobacco, smoke pot; smoke crack if you want. I really don't care unless it affects me. Liberal? Conservative? Don't know, don't care.

Robn,

I offered a reasonable compromise. How about we address that, rather than the noble intentions of our founding fathers???

Otherwise, I guess we will continue to live in our separate worlds....

BS,

You "compromise" is reasonable to you because it gives you everything you want. Since you don't want to admit that that second hand smoke is a public health issue and that generally, smokers (other than yourself, of course) tend not to respect people near them in public spaces, you've chosen an argument about the slippery slope of legislative regulation. You opened the door to arguments about fundamental freedoms, not me.

ROBN,

Then let the federal and state governments regulate this serious health threat.

It seems the BOE could just handle the school angle with a meeting and an internal policy.

Don't the Alder's have more pressing business to attend to????