UPDATE: It seems that not only can the entertainment facilities propose and stipulate their own smoking ban, it seems our libraries already have a ban on their property;
The following actions are examples of conduct not allowed on Library property:
Smoking, chewing, and other tobacco use on Library property.
So the bigger question is what exactly would a city council total ban on smoking entail? The ban already existed in parks and on library property, it CAN be stipulated at the EC and Pavilion. So what does that leave? The sidewalk in front of Carnegie and City Hall? Seems a lot of time an effort was put into a ban that technically already exists.
First off, I would like to thank the 6 councilors that voted for the pared back smoking ban (Erpenbach and Kiley voted against it-they wanted a full ban).
Especially a big thank you to Councilor Erickson for spearheading this effort. Her concerns were quite simple. She didn’t want a fine or criminalization of using a legal product, she wanted to keep children safe in our parks and she wants to further look at this ban, but she wants council involvement and do it in a studied, incremental way, not a ram-rod approach our mayor and his administration takes on these issues.
But there was a bigger question lurking in the shadows. Why hasn’t our entertainment facilities that are privately managed already implemented these changes? The Events Center already has a ban on concealed weapons.
Ironically, managers from both SMG (Events Center/Orpheum) and the Pavilion were at the meeting last night asking for the policy changes. So if they want them, why not implement themselves?
There is nothing stopping either one of them from posting signage and having a management policy that restricts smoking, say, 25 FT from the entrances to their buildings. Since they are privately managed, they can make these policy changes without the assistance of executive order, council direction or health department direction.
Maybe they wanted the council to do all of their dirty work for them? Funny how two managers that make well over a 1/4 million a year combined are not capable of making this decision, that they clearly support, but depend on our part-time council to make a decision based on something that was handed to them on a turd sandwich.
I want to thank citizens who watched this meeting for enduring my long winded statement. I actually cut it off because I was going on so long. When I want to make a statement my usual mode is to write it, and then edit, edit, edit and most of it ends up on the cutting room floor, the final product being the big points we have to hit. In this case I wrote it literally hours before the meeting. So thank you for listening to my long winded statement. I made my decision at the 11th hour after a lot of research and listening to both sides. My abbreviated statement of where I was coming from can be found on my Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/gregforcouncil/
Councilor Selberg hit it on the mark, he got the point across, and very succinctly and eloquently.
In the end, citizens don’t want to be harmed by smokers, but they also don’t want to needlessly take away the rights of those who aren’t harming them in any way. It doesn’t pass the smell test (pun intended) that someone smoking 300 feet away or using chewing tobacco right next to you constitutes any appreciable harm whatsoever to others. That was the core issue citizens have, and I had.
Finally, the final slide presented by city staff at the meeting that stayed up for the entire discussion said this (and by the way I don’t think leaving a slide up from proponents is appropriate when opponents are trying to make their case as well):
“No place where tobacco used is safe”.
That sort of statement, respectfully, to me is hysterical and it does a disservice to those arguing for a ban. There was some hyperbole on both sides, and in both cases it doesn’t help to make the case.
Even if one accepts the premise that there is no ‘safe’ level of second hand smoke, we have to ask ourselves how far we are willing to go to avoid risk. A drive to the grocery store is not risk free. But we still do it. We judge the risk and reward in all sorts of things we do. We don’t take imprudent risks, but we also don’t avoid ANY risk. That wouldn’t be much of a life. To believe that statement literally you would forego enjoyment at a park, at a sporting event, at virtually all public venues on the notion that you might catch a whiff of a cigarette.
We can find a balance of protecting the rights of those who don’t use tobacco, and those that do. The answer lies somewhere in the middle.
Don’t smoke except at bumpouts. The city provides those for vehicular homicide. Take your fishbowl Tequila there too. Capes and matador hats complimentary.
I’m glad as well the full ban did not pass. However, I did not attend the Council Meeting nor have I listened to the Public Input on any replay. And, I am an ex-smoker… but I try not to be an ex-smoker Nazi around those who still choose to smoke. Nevertheless, what I do find kinda perplexing is the concern about the potential big danger of outdoor second hand cigarette smoke at a park . . . .but no worries about smoke from a BBQ fire at a park??!!! Now, we don’t ban BBQs in parks and I would never advocate for that, so isn’t any uproar about the comparatively miniscule amount of second hand smoke from a skinny cig OUTDOORS in a park . . . just a wee bit absurd?
Obviously, the ban on smoking on library property is not enforced.
You can go to the Downtown Library on any given day and there are always several people sitting by the library sign on Dakota Avenue smoking. (And, BTW, the cops spend a lot of time at this library for other issues.)
I am not a smoker and I have asthma. Walking by these smokers does NOT bother me because it is in the great OUTDOORS!!
This community has much bigger issues that need attention than regulating smoking outside. City Administration and City Council……LET IT GO!!
I was in attendance at Tuesday night’s council meeting. There was one hour and 20 minutes of public input on the tobacco ban.
Please, Councilor Neitzert, in the future do not ask citizens to ENDURE your rambling statements. You lost your audience after the first 2 to 3 minutes….I wish I had timed you…..I would be curious how long you rambled on……take a lesson from your fellow councilors and keep it brief.
Should councilors be restricted to 5 minutes like as for Public Comment? Council meetings depress me. There’s so much ignorance. There aren’t that many smokers. They get sent outside. Punishment is in place. People stay away from smoker prison areas and back off from stinky clothes/hair. More tax is better than citing or fining. Keep tobacco at the back of the store inside a locked room and safe. Require a $5 annual special separate city ID that must be shown with a drivers license. Stores will stop selling cigarettes when there’s no demand and extra over 21 employees are needed to leave the register and unlock everything. When it becomes inconvenient and unprofitable, problem solved.
I didn’t attend nor listen to the meeting the other night, however, the city should not create ordinances to prevent people from enjoying parks, bike trails etc. I do not smoke, but I used to, and I understand the demons that go with tobacco use…however, I did not smoke around small children, in public places, or stand in doorways to puff away.
People smoking is less annoying to me than the five fire pits going in backyards surrounding my yard. They burn everything including the oil and oil filters from their oil changes…I have seen them cut up furniture and throw it into the firepit. If we ban outdoor smoking in Sioux Falls, then we should also ban firepits which smoke up the whole neighborhood.
I looked back and I was 10 minutes. And agreed, way too long. I should have said “What Councilor Selberg said…ditto”. His statement was succinct and fabulous. I had lots of reasons I felt I needed to lay it out, but I won’t go through them. Live and learn.
I find it interesting to see the Mayor will release a statement on Monday why he is not signing. I guess he is ok with taking his grandkid to the park swings around smokers.
Funny how the kids get to smoke with the adults this way but can’t buy cigs.