Ban on tobacco use in Seattle parks is intolerant and disingenuous

THE tyranny of the majority has been a problem in Seattle for some time and threatens to get even worse if a ban on tobacco use in Seattle parks is passed.

The Seattle Board of Park Commissioners is considering a revised code of conduct that would prohibit "smoking, chewing or other tobacco use anywhere on Parks and Recreation property."

The board heard comments at its Jan. 28 hearing and will continue to take written comments through Feb. 10. The next day, the board is expected to vote on the revised code of conduct, making its recommendation to the superintendent of Parks and Recreation.

First we had Initiative 901, the smoking ban that applies not only to all indoor public places and workplaces in Washington state, but intolerantly includes the area within 25 feet of any door or window. At this point I think everyone is well aware that this extreme law is not followed in many parts of Seattle because it is completely impractical. In densely populated nightlife areas and retail areas, smokers are left with no option of a legal place to smoke.

In addition, no "official" ashtrays are put outside — probably based on some poor justification that to do so would encourage the law to be broken — resulting in thousands of cigarette butts on the street. Creating a law that is unreasonable leads to inevitable lawbreaking, as well as an erosion of respect for the law.

Now the proposal is to ban all use of tobacco throughout Seattle parks. Lots of people apparently think it is a good idea, offering the weakest kinds of justifications based on personal preference. It doesn't matter if you don't like the smell of smoke. It doesn't matter if you think tobacco use is a filthy, unhealthy habit. Unless a smoker (or chewer) can legitimately be said to be causing harm to other people, there is no justification for a ban based on the preferences of the majority.

It's one thing to have legitimate restrictions based on science — for instance, banning smoking from events where seating is tight and secondhand smoke could legitimately pose a risk and not merely be a nuisance. Unless restrictions are based on this solid scientific evidence of harm, we should all be very frightened by the complete banning of an activity that most people just don't like. Maybe one of your favorite activities will be next.

It was bad enough that the indoor-smoking ban was passed without any consideration of compromise positions that could more fully protect the rights of all (filtering systems, smoking rooms, a more reasonable outdoor smoking provision, etc.). Seattle's existing 25-foot rule is one of the most extreme in the country and is not clearly warranted by the existing literature on secondhand smoke.

Now the same irrational reasoning threatens to go even further to completely ban all tobacco use in shared outdoor parks.

I urge all Seattleites to think seriously about what kind of city we want to become and how much we care about the rights of those who may be in a minority at any given time. People who consider themselves liberals or civil libertarians should remember John Stuart Mill's harm principle, which wisely states, "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

A total ban on smoking and other tobacco use in Seattle parks is unnecessary and intolerant (not to mention disingenuous, given the pollution to our air caused by the cars that many of the sanctimonious nonsmokers drive to the parks).