1. - tom73 - Friday, Oct 19, 07 @ 9:10 am:

   I never understood the logic that allows many smokers–not all–to simply discard their butts. That is littering.

   This is not so much about a “stinky habit,” as the Southtown claims, at least not in this instance. This simply is about littering.

   Stop littering. Everyone.




2. - Holdingontomywallet - Friday, Oct 19, 07 @ 9:16 am:

   I’m not a smoker, but I disagree with this. I would argue that exposure to second-hand smoke outside isn’t really an issue. This is a prime example of government getting too involved in our personal lives. The litter from the butts is an issue, and the there should be a way to deal with this without banning smoking. Government needs to “butt” out of our personal lives.




3. - grand old partisan - Friday, Oct 19, 07 @ 9:19 am:

   The State, County, and City governments all get money every time someone buys a pack of cigarettes.

   The State, County and City governments have all taken steps to limit to opportunities for people to smoke, reducing the frequency with which smokes need to by cigarettes.

   The State, County and City governments are all going broke.

   The State, County and City governments have all entertained the idea of raising taxes on cigarettes in order to plug their budget gaps.

   And the cycle continues…..




4. - L.S. - Friday, Oct 19, 07 @ 9:22 am:

   Smokers are bad, evil people who are destroying everyones health. Until we need that extra buck a pack to balance the books, then they’re ok.




5. - Wumpus - Friday, Oct 19, 07 @ 9:28 am:

   I am not a smoker, oppose government directing these private businesses whether or not to allow smoking, but I can find no fault with this. These are public parks, so I have no issue with them making a rule to ban smoking.




6. - Ghost - Friday, Oct 19, 07 @ 9:40 am:

   If you ride a motorcycle, one of your big complaints are the people who toss their butts out the window. Apparently to many smokers all the worlds an ash tray. I support the ban. I am tired of finding cigarrette butts all over the place. So many thoughtless smokers who just drop their remenants on the ground have brought such problems on themselves.




7. - Skeeter - Friday, Oct 19, 07 @ 9:43 am:

   As someone who is at the parks and beaches daily, I can confirm that the butts on the beach are disgusting.

   Of course, the smokers are not content to merely toss their butts on the beach. Anything else connected with smoking also goes there, particularly lighters.

   What a great day — sitting on the beach with kids and the dog, until one of them [often the dog] grabs somebody’s discarded lighter.

   This law is a nice start. The penalty isn’t nearly severe enough though. $500? Forget that. Make them comb through the sand for a month picking up all that trash. Call it “community service.”




8. - Carfree Chicago - Friday, Oct 19, 07 @ 9:51 am:

   I have to second Tom. It’s not necessarily the smoking that’s the problem outside — it’s the littering. Smokers somehow think they’re exempt from littering laws. That needs to change — ticket them for throwing their crap all over our beaches and sidewalks — and let them smoke if they can be responsible. But creating laws solely to prevent people from breaking other laws is just silly.




9. - VanillaMan - Friday, Oct 19, 07 @ 9:53 am:

   A lot of people don’t realize this, but it is not litter if it is on fire. So throwing butts into the environment is OK.

   And if you want to chuck that old McDonalds napkin, just remember to light it up!




10. - Anonymous - Friday, Oct 19, 07 @ 9:54 am:

    Public beaches and playgrounds ok. But these bans are headed toward private homes like some towns in California have already done. That crosses the line in my opinion. More shocking is how Chico became head of the park district a mere 3 years after running a 100 year old law firm into the ground. Were is the outrage of the Ed Boards?




11. - Ghost - Friday, Oct 19, 07 @ 10:11 am:

    VM tossing things on fire on public property or private property you do not own does consititue arson or attempted arson.




12. - cermak_rd - Friday, Oct 19, 07 @ 10:46 am:

    It’s the litter. If many smokers didn’t just toss their butts on the ground (even when a trash receptacle is available), society wouldn’t be so down on smokers outside (where the 2nd hand smoke is not as much of a threat). 54% of the litter was cigarettes? And how much of a percentage of the beachgoing population are smokers? That’s an awful lot of litter generated. The ban may be unfair to smokers who aren’t litterbugs, but maybe it will encourage them to police other smokers.




13. - Levois - Friday, Oct 19, 07 @ 10:57 am:

    I’m with the littering thing but why use the whole second-hand smoke thing as an excuse? Has that even been proven and why apply it to a situation in the outdoor?. Seems to be you’re more at risk for second hand smoke indoors than you are outdoors.




14. - VanillaMan - Friday, Oct 19, 07 @ 11:31 am:

    Ghost?
    Got ya!




15. - Captain America - Friday, Oct 19, 07 @ 1:55 pm:

    I don’t care if nicotine addicts smoke outside, but I do object to the littering of the public beaches. The ban seems about the best way to solve the butts problem on the beaches. Therefore, the ban on playground and beach smoking seems reasonable.




16. - Squideshi - Friday, Oct 19, 07 @ 2:07 pm:

    “Outdoor bans go beyond health concerns to target perceived bad habits. Rude smokers may have brought this on themselves, but this goes too far.”

    Maybe the Southtown also then thinks that municipalities shouldn’t be allowed to regulate the posting of handbills, because “litter prevention” is often also the “compelling state interest” behind regulating this type of speech.

    “Now it’s the city where foie gras is a crime, baseball managers get sentenced to sensitivity training for offensive language, and having a smoke in the park can get you a $500 fine.”

    Foie Gras SHOULD be a crime. It’s nothing short of torture. The kind of people that are actually able/willing to do this to a suffering animal are the same types of people that also tend to hold little regard for human life, in my opinion. In fact, any psychologist will tell you that torturing animals is one sign that someone may turn out to be a murderer later in life.

    “That’s nothing to sneeze at, or cough at, either. That’s a lot of garbage. Nobody likes to see the beaches covered with butts (you know what we mean) or playgrounds littered with dead cigars.”

    I am personally really tired of smokers treating the world as their own personal ashtray. Almost every time I sit at a traffic light, someone is throwing their butt out the window; and the police don’t do ANYTHING about it. It’s rude and arrogant, and I personally feel no sympathy on this issue. If people want to do drugs, which tobacco definitely is, let them do them in the privacy of their own personal property and homes.

    “Chasing them outside may be reasonable. But where do we expect them to go next?”

    Please. When the homeless stop being chased away from sleeping in public parks, then MAYBE I will worry about the poor voluntary smokers who actually have a home in which to smoke.

    Now, if you smokers actually want to address this issue, why don’t you start up some sort of campaign amongst yourselves pledging NOT to throw your butts everywhere on our public property? Reach out to your fellow smokers and do something.




17. - The Mad Hatter - Friday, Oct 19, 07 @ 4:00 pm:

    I’m a smoker. While I agree that smoking may be harmful to me, I take issue with all the rest of the arguments against smoking.

    First, the litter issue is a smokescreen (no pun intended) so people who don’t like smoking can run other people’s lives. If they’re so concerned about it, where are the receptacles for discarded butts? Go to Sox park and smoke in the designated areas — no receptacles. Go to any Chicago park — no receptacles. Go downtown and watch the people outside all the high rises — no receptacles. People throw the butts out their car windows because the auto manufacturers stopped putting in ash trays. So “anti-litter” people if you’re so concerned, try putting out some receptacles.

    “Second-hand smoke” is nothing more than propaganda based on junk science. When Mayor Daley trotted out the waitress who supposedly contracted lung cancer from second-hand smoke, the compliant media gave her a free pass and took her word as gospel. I’d would have asked her how many other people at her restaurant got lung cancer from the smoke. I’d have asked her if she ever breathed in exhaust fumes from cars, trucks and buses. I’d have asked her if the schools she attended were asbestos-free. I’d have asked her if any other people in her family had lung cancer and if so, what caused it.

    I read in Crain’s last week that the Tribune plans to charge its employees who smoke an extra $100 a month for health care. I wonder, given the article this week about wine causing breast and prostate cancer, if they’ll be charging employees who drink wine an extra $100?

    While I’m on the subject, shouldn’t the Trib and any other media that ran stories about the supposed virtues of a daily glass of wine be open to lawsuits from people who took their advice and now have breast or prostate cancer? It seems to me they failed to verify the facts about wine’s health benefits when they ran those stories.

    Last, since smoking is legal, shouldn’t the Chicago Park District be open to lawsuits by smokers claiming discrimination? Seems to me they’re denying access to public facilities to just one segment of the population. Many smokers, myself included, have tried to quit and couldn’t. Theoretically, I could claim discrimination under the ADA. Where is the ACLU in all this? The civil liberties of smokers are obviously being restricted. Oh, I forgot, the ACLU only takes cases where it can overthrow the establishment.

    To all you anti-smoking whiners I say this: I’m tired of your whining. If I did it your way, I’d have the right to cut out your tongues to stop the whining. But, being civilized, I choose to just move away from you. I suggest you do the same.




18. - Skeeter - Friday, Oct 19, 07 @ 4:06 pm:

    Let me get this right, Hatter:

    Because I know that you MIGHT be a pig, I am obligated to put out cans so you can toss your butts?

    And if I don’t do so, and you just toss them on the street or the beach, it is MY FAULT?

    What a strange and incredibly self-centered world you live in. I’m going to take a lesson from you. If I ever run into you on the street, I think I’m going to have my dog urinate on your leg. And then I’m going to blame you for standing too close. And you will agree that it is, in fact, your own fault.




19. - Skeeter - Friday, Oct 19, 07 @ 4:08 pm:

    With regard to your claim of “disability”: Being stupid and self-centered are character flaws, and not evidence of a “disability.”




20. - The Mad Hatter - Friday, Oct 19, 07 @ 4:16 pm:

    Jeez, Skeeter. The first sign of being unable to argue logically is to attack the other speaker like you just did.

    FYI, I throw my butts in receptacles or garbage cans whenever possible, but if they’re not available, I guess you’d just have me eat them. So, if you’re walking down the street eating a banana and there’s no garbage can available, what do you do with the skin? I bet you eat it.




21. - Skeeter - Friday, Oct 19, 07 @ 4:24 pm:

    Actually, I did respond to your arguments. You just don’t like my response.

    You claimed that it was the fault of the government for not realizing that you would be a pig. Isn’t that correct? Please point out where I am mistaken.

    I responded quite logically by saying that I might agree with that analysis — that my bad habits and those of my family are the fault of somebody else.

    If you can explain why it is the government’s fault (or my fault) for not providing a way for you to dispose of your trash, but at the same time, somehow blame me if my dog happens to urinate on your leg (when you really should know that dogs do urinate in public), I would like to see that distinction.

    Second, you claimed that you had some sort of “disability” that caused you to throw garbage on the street. I disagreed with that characterization. To me, somebody who intentionally tossed there trash on the street but is otherwise mentally capable is simply self-centered. And if you don’t like it, then stop being a pig. There you go — problem solved.




22. - The Mad Hatter - Friday, Oct 19, 07 @ 4:45 pm:

    Well Skeeter, you’re still on the name-calling spree. Since you forced me to go outside to smoke, don’t you think you should give me a place to put the butts? After all, when I could smoke inside I never used the floor for an ashtray, but you took away the indoor smoking areas. You’ve taken the time and effort to mark off all these tiny outdoor smoking areas, so don’t you think you could go just a bit further and maybe put an empty coffee can there to hold the butts? Then your sensibilities wouldn’t be so offended.

    Also, I never claimed I personally had a disability, but I could see where someone might. Since addiction to alcohol and drugs are recognized as addictions, why shouldn’t cigarettes be as well? And if you take that to the next step, an addiction is classified under ADA as a disability. But even then, you twist things around to say that the disability causes smokers to litter, which I never said.

    As for your dog, if he can’t refrain from urinating in public places, perhaps he should be kept in your yard. And if you do take him out in public and he can’t control his urges, I hope you’re not one of those swell people who just leaves his mess for someone else to either step in or clean up.




23. - Papa Legba - Friday, Oct 19, 07 @ 5:22 pm:

    Just my two cents worth.

    Hatter - I’m with you. At venues that do not allow beverages to be brought inside, such as theaters, there are receptacles for the beverage containers to be throw into. Given a place to put “litter” people will place it there.

    Not a difficult solution. Is it? This is just another bright idea from our politicians. Not unlike an unfunded mandate.

    You can only smoke in designated areas, but now it’s the “oh my now its a litter issue”. Come on people.

    When I commuted to downtown Chicago, I was more disgusted by the big nasty loogies horked up and deposited onto the sidewalks. Geez, don’t even get me going on the frozen winter loogies. Ugh.

    I was more worried about what was on the bottom of my shoes than what I breathed in. That air quality in the city is really healthy.

    Skeeter - expand your vocabulary. And don’t slip on frozen dog pee this winter. Although your lawsuit would be humorous reading.




24. - The Mad Hatter - Friday, Oct 19, 07 @ 10:03 pm:

    A final word on this topic: The whole story is nothing more than propaganda. The Park District claimed it picked up 34,000 cigarette butts in three hours. Really? Did someone actually count them? Or was it done by visual estimate? Either way counting them seems like a mighty big waste of tax dollars.

    The Southtown says 54% of the litter picked up was cigarette butts. How was that figure arrived at? Out of every 100 items picked up, 54 were butts? Out of every 100 pounds of litter, 54 were butts? Who took the time to separate it all out?

    Be careful of propaganda people because numbers can be manipulated any way one wants.

    Also, in case you didn’t know, cigarettes, unlike aluminum cans, disposable diapers, six-pack rings, used condoms and whatever else was in the 46 percent, are biodegradable. Otherwise, how could all that nicotine leach into Lake Michigan? I’m still laughing at that one.




25. - Skeeter - Saturday, Oct 20, 07 @ 9:31 am:

    Hatter,
    You raise a valid point.
    I agree.
    We should confine people like you to your yard.

    Nobody “forced you” outside. You have a foul and offensive habit, and people got tired of tolerating it.

    Stop blaming everybody else for your selfish conduct.

    You sound like the drunk drivers who blame the pedestrians for getting in their way.




26. - Squideshi - Sunday, Oct 21, 07 @ 12:54 pm:

    The Mad Hatter wrote, “First, the litter issue is a smokescreen (no pun intended) so people who don’t like smoking can run other people’s lives. If they’re so concerned about it, where are the receptacles for discarded butts?”

    You are the one that is creating the trash, so it is your responsibility to properly dispose of it. Using your logic, because there aren’t usually needle disposal boxes everywhere, diabetics who inject themselves with insulin ought to just throw their used needles everywhere. I disagree.

    Be responsible. If you know that you have voluntarily chosen to engage in an activity that will create trash, plan for the proper disposal of that trash. Either bring some sort of receptacle with you, or hold on to your trash until you get somewhere where there IS a receptacle.

    Is that inconvenient? Maybe, but that’s a burden that you take on by choosing to smoke.

    The Mad Hatter wrote, “‘Second-hand smoke’ is nothing more than propaganda based on junk science. When Mayor Daley trotted out the waitress who supposedly contracted lung cancer from second-hand smoke, the compliant media gave her a free pass and took her word as gospel.”

    There is sound science backing the fact that second-hand smoke causes cancer. Do you actually have anything, other than simple want and belief, that shows that this science is somehow flawed?

    “I read in Crain’s last week that the Tribune plans to charge its employees who smoke an extra $100 a month for health care. I wonder, given the article this week about wine causing breast and prostate cancer, if they’ll be charging employees who drink wine an extra $100?”

    This wouldn’t be a problem if we had single-payer universal healthcare.

    “Many smokers, myself included, have tried to quit and couldn’t. Theoretically, I could claim discrimination under the ADA.”

    LOL. You can’t claim discrimination under the ADA. Addictions don’t AUTOMATICALLY classify as a disability. Maybe in extreme cases, but show me any type of case law backing up your argument.

    The Mad Hatter wrote, “Since you forced me to go outside to smoke, don’t you think you should give me a place to put the butts?”

    No one forced you to go outside to smoke. You don’t have to smoke at all. You CHOOSE to go outside to smoke, because that it where it is legal to do so. Take responsibility for your own voluntary choices.

    The Mad Hatter wrote, “As for your dog, if he can’t refrain from urinating in public places, perhaps he should be kept in your yard. And if you do take him out in public and he can’t control his urges, I hope you’re not one of those swell people who just leaves his mess for someone else to either step in or clean up.”

    Actually, that’s a pretty good example. People leaving pet waste around is disgusting and unsanitary. That’s just as rude and arrogant.




27. - Skeeter - Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 9:30 am:

    The belief that the world is conspiring against smokers is a sure sign that you’ve been smoking too much.

    Everyone is out to get you, Hat. Is that really your point now?

Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.