BANGOR, Maine — A longtime Bangor resident arguing for smokers’ rights gave city councilors something to put in their pipes and smoke Monday night.
As a result, a Bangor City Council government operations committee meeting to evaluate a possible ordinance restricting use of tobacco at all city parks generated a lot of discussion, but no final decision.
Bangor Parks and Recreation Director Tracy Willette presented a joint proposal on behalf of the council’s parks, recreation and harbor advisory committee and Bangor’s Public Health Advisory Committee to ban tobacco use at all public parks and outdoor facilities except Bangor Municipal Golf Course.
“At what point will some other perceived injustice like smoking be punished and diminish the freedoms of others?” asked Mary Lu Philbrook, 70, of Bangor. “The public has been taught to discriminate, shun, demoralize, humiliate and shame smokers. It seems no one has the courage to say enough is enough.”
The committee, which seemed poised to take a vote on recommending a ban on tobacco use at all parks, debated the issue before voting to give a thumbs-up to incorporating comments from Monday’s meeting into a less restrictive approach to regulating tobacco use.
“It’s one’s liberty versus another’s,” said Councilor Ben Sprague. “The question is where one person’s liberty ends and another’s begins.”
Councilor Geoff Gratwick, who is also a physician, said it comes down to prevention of health hazards.
“We don’t want to become a nanny state, but we do want to support public health,” he said.
Councilor Pat Blanchette said not at the expense of individual rights.
“I’m not ready to say no smoking at any place in any park in the city,” she said. “Smokers pay taxes, too. Actually, they pay more.
“We need to respect everybody’s rights. Back off and leave it alone.”
Councilor and Mayor Cary Weston was less strident in his take on things.
“Personally, I hate smoking, but I have a problem with the state taking money in taxes and it going back to the state level, and not local, while also demonizing it,” said Weston. “I don’t have a problem restricting smoking in vehicles with kids present, but I do have a problem supporting this.”
Councilor Nelson Durgin referenced scientific studies showing documented negative effects on others from secondhand smoke in open air areas. He also pointed out that the University of Maine system, Husson University and other colleges in Maine have either banned smoking on campus or are moving in that direction.
“While I agree it’s a hazard, I don’t think it’s something we should totally wipe out,” Weston said.
Shawn Yardley, Bangor’s Health and Community Services director and a former smoker, said 15 percent or more of children today have health issues related to smoking.
“I appreciate the different perspectives here, but there’s no way we can deny the science,” Yardley said.
After more than 30 minutes of discussion, the councilors directed Willette to go back to the joint committee and hash out alternative restrictions such as banning tobacco use within 50 feet of a children’s playground or entrance to a park and establishing more remote smoking areas.
Philbrook seemed encouraged after the meeting.
“People have choices. They don’t have to stand or sit near someone smoking. And cigarettes are still legal,” she said. “It’s a backdoor way to have a prohibition on cigarettes. I’m not saying it’s right. I just don’t think I should have to feel ashamed every time I light one up.”
“We don’t want to become a nanny state, but we do want to support public health,”. I’d say we are already there.
Gratwick should read… “I don’t want you voters out there thinking my agenda is to create a nanny state even though it really is”.
Public parks exist to provide a place for people to engage in healthy recreational activities. Smoking isn’t one of those activities, as it interferes with another person’s attempt to engage in such activities.
Agreed. It’s the statement he made that I’m cutting down.
I am in my 60s and I have never once been kept from a public park by a smoker. You have got to be kidding me.
stay home and protect youself from all toxins.
Then you should ban people from drinking soda pop and eating fried chicken in a park too, because that stuff is pretty unhealthy too AND more people do that in parks than smoke.
And how does one’s drinking soda or fried chicken interfere with another’s pursuit of a healthy recreational activity? I have asthma. It doesn’t take much for someone else’s smoke to interfere with my breathing.
I see. I thought you were talking about the health of everyone at the park, including the people participating in the behavior in question (which is the angle that the university takes, which is why chewing tobacco is banned).
All tobacco products would be banned under the committees’ recommendation.
Ryan, do you mean like skateboarding, picnics and band concerts?
Oh I have talked to him. He wants people living in cluster apartments near centers to save the planet. except for himself that is..
“to go back to the joint committee and hash out…”
What are you trying to say Neff? Play on.
Puns should be used sparingly, and only when the story calls for it. I don’t think this was an initentional pun. But the lead was cringe-worthy.
Shawn Yardley, Bangor’s Health and Community Services director and a former smoker, said 15 percent or more of children today have health issues related to smoking.
“I appreciate the different perspectives here, but there’s no way we can deny the science,” Yardley said.
About the only thing more hyprocritical than a reformed smoker is a politician or lawyer.
How is it hypocritical for a former smoker to advocate for a smoking ban at public parks?
Not hypocritical at all. Maybe enlightened.
Yeah, I don’t think it’s hypocritical, either.
That’s a ridiculous argument that can only be made by a smoker – it’s the sort of black and white thinking that is a hallmark of a person with addiction. The fact that Mr. Yardley gave up smoking simply means that he is now going to live a longer life. He has every right, as much as I do, to remind people of the facts about smoking.
Smoking is dirty and dangerous. If an increasingly small number of people in our society make the decision to shorten their lives, then fine. But that foolish choice should never have an impact on anyone else, especially me. I don’t want to breathe that garbage. I don’t want to look at cigarette butts lying on the ground. I’d love to see the price of a pack go to $30 for a few years before becoming illegal entirely.
I sure am glad President Obama finally quit. Smoking is dirty and dangerous. The small number of people in our society to make the decision to shorten their lives should get educated on the harmful effects that cigarettes cause to their body. Good job Michelle for harping on your husband to quit, he reportedly has done so. I just hope he doesn’t fall off the wagon.
Well, I have a problem with the cities buses, garbage trucks, and the city vehicles spewing their garbage into the air. It stinks and probably causes more problems in children then smoke OUTSIDE in the air. So I suggest we also ban city buses and motor vehicles that destroy the public air and destroy the ozone layer. This by the way is also backed by scientific proof.
I also have the right to remind you that I could undoubtly find may things in your life that is not of such a positive nature and therefore with your logic I CAN remind you!
Sounds like we’re on the same page. I’m also a fan of cleaning up the environment and would join your effort to clean up emissions. In the meantime, let’s get rid of the really nasty stuff first.
I don’t think that exhaust emissions affect the ozone layer. They do contirbute ozone and other oxidation products to the lower atmosphere and contribute to surface air pollution.
Giving up smoking does not guarantee that people will live longer. That is a fallacy.
Ironic that people want to ban smoking in public parks, most of which are surrounded by streets and parking lots.
There is no rule that says that you should never be impacted by an other’s choice that you think is “dirty and disgusting.” I don’t smoke, but I don’t think that smoking is dirty and disgusting, so now what?
Right. But it’s a fact that taking up smoking will kill people sooner.
Which is their own choice, just like yours to live a sheltered life.
Maybe, maybe not. We’ve all seen ancient people who smoke and we all have seen young non-smokers with terminal diseases. Maybe the risks are lowered, sure, but not guaranteed.
I just fear the day when our behavior is regulated based on costs to taxpayers and insurance holders.
He still smokes, i saw him smoke yesterday when i was leaving Uma dropping off someone.
a stakeholder
no proof that children are effected. speculation.
That’s not speculation – it has been proven that second hand smoke (around children in this comment) does effect others health. I’m not sure where you are getting your information.
And your data for that is … ?
How is it hypocritical?
Why is it so difficult for the paper to use Weston’s proper title?
Titles are just words, mean nothing. Why are you hung up on titles?
I think it was to protect the Mayors ego.. we need to know who to bow to.
Why is Mr. Weston, apparently? We have not had the position of mayor since around the early 1930s. Even Gerry Palmer told people when he was the council chair that he was not the mayor, and he had the city’s letterhead reflect that.
Tradition is a tough thing to kill.
ryan, hush, it’s not about facts, it’s about illusion.
I don’t smoke, but I do not support this ban. Maybe the immediate vicinity of the children’s playgrounds, but not the whole park, it is for all of the public. Smoke rises and quickly disperses. Unless you are right next to a person smoking, you do not notice. I feel this is more about trying to stop smoking then protecting non-smokers from smoke.
I agree. And using the current draconian policy that UM has helps to reinforce that notion because that is the sole purpose for their policy: protecting people from themselves.
As a former smoker I am particularly sensitive to smoke even outdoors . When I get a whiff I may go into a coughing fit but always find in necessary to get a drink of water to clean out my mouth.
That said… I don’t think big government is the way to go. If people want me to avoid them when they smoke its on them and its my choice to go the other way.
That’s a good policy. Like anything one doesn’t like, it’s up to that person to avoid it. If there is a group of people smoking and they’re in MY way, why is it that I should say that THEY have to move?
And, of course, that is not the same as people smoking indoors like at a bank or in an office, or smoking in a car with children. I’m talking about the outdoors that are free and open to everyone, whether others find them “dirty and dangerous” or not.
Once again Joe, common sense!!
Uncommon nonsense.
That’s rather harsh, don’t you think? Why is it nonsense?
I agree with paragraph one (my sympathies). I don’t agree with paragraph two.
“We don’t want to become a nanny state, but we do want to support public health,” he said.
Oops! Too late!
Personally, I’d like to see every single smoker in Maine quit and watch this state financially fold up like an accordian.
The amount of money smokers generate for this state with is nothing to be trifled with. I’d like to someday see what the cost of health care for them vs. the amount of revenue they generate REALLY is. No, not brought to you by any partisan “Healthy Network” or such. A real, unbiased study using real numbers and real scenarios compiled by some entity NOT influenced or paid by any special interest group.
No, I don’t smoke. I’m just good and tired of listening to it be blamed for literally every ailment known to man.
True. If anything, there should be a shrine in Augusta on the state property somewhere.
Second hand smoke is horrible. It gets into my lungs, I have a cough, my clothing smells, and it’s offensive. I choose not to smoke for many reasons, one of them for my health. I know when I walk toward the entrance of a building where there are smoking vessels for cigarette butts, people are often huddled around them blowing their smoke and I have to walk through it. I gag.
There are dangerous and horrible consequences to smoking and the second hand affects are well documented. Why should I have to endure the consequences of another persons actions/habits? I have been the one sitting in a park and had someone come to that same bench and either sit or stand near me while smoking and I have had to leave the area. I recognize that each individual has their own right to make the decision to smoke. However, I don’t believe I should be negatively penalized for their actions. I’m not trying to make the smoker out to be a second-class citizen, who should stay away from public areas. Just don’t smoke and blow it around my face or leave the stench in the area.
That is why there needs to be designated smoking areas AWAY from entrances to buildings or parks.
Stay home.
People who don’t smoke shouldn’t have to stay home or vice versa. There just should be designated areas for smokers.
If you’re a smoker in prohibited places, you should stay home.
I see what you’re saying and completely understand. I do wish that the climate were such that people felt comfortable asking smokers who weren’t there first to please not smoke there.
There is too much animosity sometimes and with the way I’ve seen smokers treated I’m not surprised that they’re on the defensive which makes it difficult to talk to them sometimes.
Lets ban next all sugary drinks that are over 10 ozs thats very bad for your health
Look, I don’t even smoke and I don’t like to be around smoking because of the same reasons other people give. The fact is SMOKING IS LEGAL and the sale of tobacco products makes the state a lot of money. Let people do what is legal please and leave them alone unless you are prepared to stop the sale of all tobacco products in Maine because they are harmful to health.
The most productive thing anyone could do regarding the smoking issue is make an ordinance that all public or commercial properties must have a designated smoking area. That way THEIR SMOKERS won’t come over to my property to smoke! Also the second-hand smoke issue would be spread out and less bothersome. Nothing ticks me off more than seeing No Smoking on a property and all the smokers are over next door. It reminds me of dog – walkers.
I would gladly stay out of the parks if the State of Maine would let me smoke in a bar.
If the owner wants to allow smoking, he or she should be able to. And if people don’t want to go there and smoke or be subjected to it, then they won’t go and maybe the bar won’t last or will have to change policy. But it should be left up to the market, I believe.
Joe, you are too regular and have common sense. Thank you, but La La land does not understand your point.
“the councilors directed Willette to go back to the ‘joint’ committee and ‘hash’ out alternative restrictions” ‘joint’ and ‘hash’ in the same sentence, ha, ha–sounds like the reporter was referring to marijuana not tobacco! ;)
People who don’t like anything to do with smoke should stay home. Just stay home in your little protective cocoon.
These meetings are a waste of time, just like any other meetings that the city claim that they want the public to be involved in. They decided already and want you to feel good that you were involved.. There is about 20 people in Bangor who make all decisions and your not one of them.
As before, why should non-smokers stay home? If you keep up that fallacious argumnet, smokers should stay home and good riddance.
I don’t think non-smokers should stay home. I think that there should be a compromise that benefits both sides. The knee-jerk reactions from both sides are counterproductive.
Care about health? Laughable justification for more control. HFCS, aspartame, GMO ingredients, including
wheat, soy products and fetal cells affecting hormones in our processed foods. That would preclude most
restaurants, stores, and bars, food suppliers from doing business in Maine. Oh, and take fluoride out of the water while you’re at it and quit spraying us from above like roaches if you care about our health.
Not laughable,far from it. Deadly serious (pun intended). Unlike your sweeping generalizations.
A rodent telling me that I am making sweeping generalizations after I have given a detailed list! Laughable.
You know he’s probably not really a rodent…
I propose we ban the sale of Alcohol in Bangor..The whole county for that matter. I do not like booze and the smell or sight of it make me ill.. Time to make that utopia for me OK. What a kinder and friendlier place Bangor would be without booze.
Mary Lu Philbrook is my hero!!!
“People have choices. They don’t have to stand or sit near someone smoking. And cigarettes are still legal,” she said. “It’s a backdoor way to have a prohibition on cigarettes. I’m not saying it’s right. I just don’t think I should have to feel ashamed every time I light one up.”
What if we have no choice but to be near or pass by a smoker?
How often does that occur? But if it does, then, if you are near one and cannot leave, then can you ask him or her to not smoke near you (assuming you were there first)? And if there is a smoker minding his or her own business and you find that your only option is to walk right by, then hold your breath for the 2 seconds it takes. I’ve held my breath as I passed by a bus blowing out diesel fumes (right near a tobacco-free campus sign).
A little on the “slippery slope” that apparently – according to the antismoking fanatics – doesn’t exist.
The first demand for a smoking ban was in the late-1980s concerning short-haul flights in the USA of less than 2 hours. At the time, the antismokers were asked if this was a “slippery slope” – where would it end? They ridiculed anyone suggesting such because this ban was ALL that they were after.
Then they ONLY wanted smoking bans on all flights.Then the antismokers ONLY wanted nonsmoking sections in restaurants, bars, etc., and ensuring that this was ALL they wanted.Then the antismokers ONLY wanted complete bans indoors. That was all they wanted. At the time, no-one was complaining about having to “endure” wisps of smoke outdoors.
While they pursued indoor bans, the antismokers were happy for smokers to be exiled to the outdoors.
Having bulldozed their way into indoor bans, the antismokers then went to work on the outdoors, now declaring that momentary exposure to remnants of dilute smoke in doorways or a whiff outdoors was a “hazard”, more than poor, “innocent” nonsmokers should have to “endure”.Then they ONLY wanted bans within 10 feet of entranceways.Then they ONLY wanted bans within 20 feet of entranceways.Then they ONLY wanted bans in entire outdoor dining areas.Then they ONLY wanted bans for entire university and hospital campuses, and parks and beaches.Then they ONLY wanted bans for apartment balconies.Then they ONLY wanted bans for entire apartment (including individual apartments) complexes.Then they ONLY wanted bans in backyards.
If you’re afraid of second-hand smoke, you should also avoid cars, restaurants…and don’t even think of barbecuing.
here are just some of the chemicals present in tobacco smoke and what else contains them:
Arsenic, Benzine, Formaldehyde.
Arsenic- 8 glasses of water = 200 cigarettes worth of arsenic
Benzine- Grilling of one burger = 250 cigarettes
Formaldehyde – cooking a vegetarian meal = 100 cigarettes
When you drink your 8 glasses of tap water (64 ounces) a day, you’re safely drinking up to 18,000 ng of arsenic by government safety standards of 10 nanograms/gram (10 ng/gm = 18,000ng/64oz) for daily consumption.
Am I “poisoning” you with the arsenic from my cigarette smoke? Actually, with the average cigarette putting out 32 ng of arsenic into the air which is then diluted by normal room ventilation for an individual exposure of .032 ng/hour, you would have to hang out in a smoky bar for literally 660,000 hours every day (yeah, a bit hard, right?) to get the same dose of arsenic that the government tells you is safe to drink.
So you can see why claims that smokers are “poisoning” people are simply silly.
You can stay at home all day long if you don’t want all those “deadly” chemicals around you, but in fact, those alleged 4000-7000 theorized chemicals in cigarettes are present in many foods, paints etc. in much larger quantities. And as they are present in cigarettes in very small doses, they are harmless. Sorry, no matter how much you like the notion of harmful ETS, it’s a myth.
They have created a fear that is based on nothing’’World-renowned pulmonologist, president of the prestigious Research Institute Necker for the last decade, Professor Philippe Even, now retired, tells us that he’s convinced of the absence of harm from passive smoking. A shocking interview.
What do the studies on passive smoking tell us?
PHILIPPE EVEN. There are about a hundred studies on the issue. First surprise: 40% of them claim a total absence of harmful effects of passive smoking on health. The remaining 60% estimate that the cancer risk is multiplied by 0.02 for the most optimistic and by 0.15 for the more pessimistic … compared to a risk multiplied by 10 or 20 for active smoking! It is therefore negligible. Clearly, the harm is either nonexistent, or it is extremely low.
It is an indisputable scientific fact. Anti-tobacco associations report 3 000-6 000 deaths per year in France …
I am curious to know their sources. No study has ever produced such a result.
Many experts argue that passive smoking is also responsible for cardiovascular disease and other asthma attacks. Not you?
They don’t base it on any solid scientific evidence. Take the case of cardiovascular diseases: the four main causes are obesity, high cholesterol, hypertension and diabetes. To determine whether passive smoking is an aggravating factor, there should be a study on people who have none of these four symptoms. But this was never done. Regarding chronic bronchitis, although the role of active smoking is undeniable, that of passive smoking is yet to be proven. For asthma, it is indeed a contributing factor … but not greater than pollen!
The purpose of the ban on smoking in public places, however, was to protect non-smokers. It was thus based on nothing?
Absolutely nothing! The psychosis began with the publication of a report by the IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer, which depends on the WHO (Editor’s note: World Health Organization). The report released in 2002 says it is now proven that passive smoking carries serious health risks, but without showing the evidence. Where are the data? What was the methodology? It’s everything but a scientific approach. It was creating fear that is not based on anything.
Why would anti-tobacco organizations wave a threat that does not exist?…
The anti-smoking campaigns and higher cigarette prices having failed, they had to find a new way to lower the number of smokers. By waving the threat of passive smoking, they found a tool that really works: social pressure. In good faith, non-smokers felt in danger and started to stand up against smokers. As a result, passive smoking has become a public health problem, paving the way for the Evin Law and the decree banning smoking in public places. The cause may be good, but I do not think it is good to legislate on a lie. And the worst part is that it does not work: since the entry into force of the decree, cigarette sales are rising again.
Why not speak up earlier?
As a civil servant, dean of the largest medical faculty in France, I was held to confidentiality. If I had deviated from official positions, I would have had to pay the consequences. Today, I am a free man.
Le Parisien…
Smoker’s rights? Which are those? How about the rights of the rest of us to avoid the effects of this filthy habit?
Can’t we all get along?
Heck, the university doesn’t even allow smoking in the PARKING LOTS where cars pollute the air in greater quantities than any group of smokers ever could!
To John Davidson: you comparative toxicology is somewhat suspect but I’m not going to waste time evaluating the data. There’s a lot of cr*p in cigarette smoke that you haven’t accounted for and it contributes extensively to lung cancer in smokers and COPD for both smokers and those non-smokers exposed to smoke.