>Baker City Herald | Baker County Oregon's News Leader

Baker news NE Oregon Classifieds Web
web powered by Web Search Powered by Google

Follow BakerCityHerald.com

Baker City Herald print edition

view all Baker City Herald print publications »

The Baker City Herald is now online in a Replica E-edition form and publishes Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. Current subscribers have full access to the E-edition.

View Paper

If you are not a current subscriber, subscribe today for immediate access.

Subscribe


Recent article comments

Powered by Disqus

Home arrow Opinion arrow Editorials arrow No need for ban on tobacco

Print

No need for ban on tobacco


Sometimes good intentions don’t make good laws.

Such is the case with a proposed Baker City ordinance that would prohibit people from using tobacco products — including smokeless chewing tobacco — in city-owned parks and recreation areas, including the Leo Adler Memorial Parkway.

The City Council is considering the idea, which was suggested by Benjamin Foster, a student at Eastern Oregon University who’s also an intern for City Manager Mike Kee.

We don’t think there’s any compelling reason to impose such a restriction on an activity that’s already banned in most buildings except private homes.

Foster cites surveys showing that a higher percentage of Baker County adults and 11th-graders smoke or use chewing tobacco compared with the Oregon average.

But banning tobacco in parks is not likely to change that.

It’s no secret that tobacco can cause cancer and a host of other ailments, after all, and if the threat of an untimely death won’t convince people to stop smoking or dipping, neither will the possibility of getting a citation.

But what about people who don’t use tobacco but who like to play in the park or take a stroll on the Adler parkway?

They might be annoyed by smokers or snuff-chewers, but there’s no evidence that their health is at great risk.

Secondhand smoke is a proven health hazard in buildings and vehicles, but the situation — or more precisely, the ventilation — obviously is quite different outdoors.

Even researchers who have tried to prove that secondhand smoke is dangerous outside buildings or vehicles acknowledge that smoke, and thus the potential effect on non-smokers, dissipates quickly.

Cigarettes and smokeless tobacco can have other byproducts, of course, including butts.

But littering already is prohibited in city parks.

Although we oppose the proposal to ban tobacco use we believe the debate can serve one worthwhile purpose — to remind tobacco users to be respectful to others by picking up their butts and by not soiling public spaces with their spit.

Print

blog comments powered by Disqus
News
Local / Sports / Business / State / National / Obituaries / Submit News
Opinion
Editorials / Letters / Columns / Submit a letter
Features
Outdoors / Go Magazine / Milestones / Living Well
Baker Herald
About / Contact / Commercial Printing / Subscriptions / Terms of Use / Privacy Policy / Commenting Policy / Site Map
Also Online
Photo Reprints / Videos / Local Business Links / Community Links / Weather and Road Cams / RSS Feed

Follow Baker City Herald headlines on Follow Baker City Herald headlines on Twitter

© Copyright 2001 - 2014 Western Communications, Inc. All rights reserved. By Using this site you agree to our Terms of Use