Denver right to consider no-smoking zone outside urban hospitals

Rocky Mountain News

Thursday, July 24, 2008

Nowadays, smokers assuredly feel that they're being legislatively beaten into nicotine-free submission. Whether it's sending bar patrons into the alley for a drag or coming up with new no-butts zones, smoking ordinances usually bring up questions about whether individual rights are being violated - and whether the benefit to the public outweighs the inconvenience to the Marlboro man or woman.

But there should be few such questions about the common sense of an ordinance proposed in Denver to ban smoking in public areas abutting private hospital property.

Passing by an 8-5 vote on its first reading Monday, the ordinance authored by Councilwoman Carol Boigon heads for its final yea or nay on Aug. 11. While private medical-center campuses have their own rules regarding smoking on their grounds, Boigon said, urban facilities need additional help - and have asked for it - to protect patients. That's in part because of their often irregular layout, with multiple offices and multiple entrances for different ailments leading right out to city sidewalks.

Hence the ordinance, hashed out with the city attorney and the Public Works Department: No smoking on "the public right-of-way" outside hospital properties, which means the sidewalk to whatever grassy strips exist, over the curb and into the gutter to the street.

"This prohibition does not apply to persons in moving vehicles in alleys," states the ordinance, which should put to rest some of the concerns of drive-by puffers.

Violators would face up to a $300 fine. And the hospitals would bear the cost of putting up the no-smoking signs, though if they neglect to post the signs it won't immunize those who choose to step outside and light up. Better take along those nicotine-patch supplies: Ignorance of the rules won't be an accepted defense.

Of course, we'd wish that every Coloradan just knew that it's bad form to puff carcinogens where patients with heart disease, asthma, cancer, etc., were trying to enter a hospital for treatment, and would act accordingly. You don't engage in an activity - outside a medical center, no less - that can make ill individuals even worse. Boigon said that when weighing the voices of various interest groups in such a proposal, she saw the balance clearly tipping in favor of those who must be able to enter a hospital without being enveloped in smoke.

"Sick people don't really have much of a choice," she said.

This ordinance, after all, isn't about the right to smoke. It's about the rights of a patient to not be fumbling for an inhaler after passing through a secondhand cloud outside the hospital door. It's about affording urban patients the same quality of air that is more easily guaranteed by hospitals themselves on large, suburban medical campuses - because in compact urban areas, that public right-of-way is just a huff and a puff away from the hospital entrance.

It's just common sense - no ifs, ands or butts.

• July 24, 2008

  6:06 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Mike846 writes:

  Gee, why not expand the area to include any areas between parking lots and entrances, bus stops, etc. I mean, after all, there is a chance, however slim, that some poor patient will get a brief whif of cigarette smoke from even a block away. What ridiculous logic. The hospital in Louisville, CO has about a 40 acre campus, and you can't smoke ANYWHERE on it. I don't object to trying to keep smokers away from entrances. But, as usual, when liberals get an inch, they want to take a mile. Hide and watch. It won't be long before round three of this nonsense shows up: banning cigarettes throughout the city. Mike

• July 24, 2008

  6:22 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  T1anda writes:

  America's future= Big (liberal)Brother is watching!! What next?? A ban on chewing gum in public??

  Again I ask, what other American freedoms will be taken away???

  Who said- "The further left you go the less free you become!!"

• July 24, 2008

  7:15 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  SheikYurBooty writes:

  It's amazing that cigarettes are still legal at all.

• July 24, 2008

  7:29 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Blair writes:

  This commentary makes it sound like there are smokers by the dozens standing in front of every entrance 24 hours a day. This is not the case and is extremely inflammatory. This is no more than FEAR MONGORING and pandoring. Is there no reason that a designated area cannot be set aside? Or is that a compromise unacceptable to those that beleive in the Nanny State we seem to have become?

• July 24, 2008

  8:13 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  ptorres writes:

  Councilwoman Carol Boigon you need to be considered about car air pollution not alley smokers.

  America's 10 Smoggiest Cities
  Roughly one-third of Americans live in places with unhealthy levels of ozone, the primary component of smog, according to the American Lung Association's State of the Air report, which analyzes air pollution levels in metro areas across the country. Ozone irritates the respiratory tract and can cause asthma attacks, coughing, wheezing, chest pain and even premature death

  During Olympics, Scientists Will Be Studying Air-quality In Beijing
  Modern engines, he also notes, emit many more particles smaller than 100 nanometers than do older engines (a nanometer is one-billionth of a meter). And nanoparticles are rapidly transformed in the atmosphere, Zhang points out. When particles are emitted from the tailpipe of a car, they can be 50 nanometers. But after traveling just 100 meters (11 yards), the particles can shrink to about 20 nanometers.

  If you would spend more time studying the air quality facts you would know that your car is putting out more pollution in one block than 12 packs of cigarettes.

• July 24, 2008

  8:15 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Fireball writes:

  So where will Barack Obama and all the doctors and nurses go to smoke; a block away? It really distresses me to see how many of our healthcare "professionals" smoke. It also distresses me to think that Barack Obama, a smoker himself, could end up making health care decisions that directly affect me. Scares the heck out of me.

• July 24, 2008

  8:56 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  natasha writes:

  I didn't know that Obama smoked. Hmm maybe I do have an ounce of respect for him. Just an ounce though.

  Ron Paul 08

• July 24, 2008

  10:03 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Cwillyrun1 writes:

  Ignorance of the rules? If someone doesn't know they're not allowed to smoke in those areas, and there's no posted signs, it's not prosecutable. That isn't what anyone would define as ignorance...... sorry editor, but you're wrong. Let's put it this way. If you park downtown where there's not a no-parking sign, no meter, nothing to warn a person that they can't park there, a ticket left for the owner will be thrown out of court due to lack of due process. Learn the law!

• July 24, 2008

  10:27 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  blacksho89 writes:

  ptorres:
  I don't think Carol Boigon is a council member in Beijing.

  Everyone else: Answer me this. How can inhaling hot smoke be good for your health?

• July 24, 2008

  10:33 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  infidel91 writes:

  Sorry, Cwillyrun1, but it's you who needs to learn the law. The only reason you can beat a parking ticket where there's no sign is because the ordinance specifically requires a sign. So it depends on how the new no-smoking ordinance is worded.

• July 24, 2008

  10:44 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  T1anda writes:

  blacksho89...how can inhaling ANYWHERE in Denver be good for your health??

  Someone should refute Denver's claim as the capitol of Colorado because of it's brown cloud! I mean brown clouds are not really PC are they??

  Listen up sheeple....A BAN on brown clouds I say!!!

• July 24, 2008

  11:20 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Jimminy writes:

  And community health will be even better served when abortion is as illegal inside the hospital as smoking is outside.
  Personhood '08 !!

• July 24, 2008

  12:27 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  daRock writes:

  While I think that patients entering or leaving the hospital should be protected, a reasonable buffer should suffice. Many of the people at a hospital are relatives or friends of patients. Most smokers increase their consumption when under stress. Designated smoking areas for visitors, patients and staff would not be too much to ask or accomodate.

  How about a bit of compassion for those that struggle with smoking? This is not the place or time to punish them.

• July 24, 2008

  12:31 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  RickyLee writes:

  So, this was shoved through on the pretext that patients in the hospital might be harmed by second-hand smoke from the sidewalks...

  When is the last time anyone saw a window in a hospital room OPEN?!?!?!? This is complete BS, and I'm a non-smoker.

• July 24, 2008

  1:20 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  The_Punnisher writes:

  Uh, many CLINICS that have doctors ( that are too CHEAP to spend the money on AC ) leave windows open all the time.. The hospital is surrounded by them...

  You may not like this law, but it helps the people who often don't have a voice; they certainly don't after inhaling YOUR nicotine..

  Time for REALITY, people!

• July 24, 2008

  2:15 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  RickyLee writes:

  Yeah, right.

• July 24, 2008

  3:41 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  LuckyMe writes:

  I get death certificates signed by doctors at various medical facilities, and I've gotta tell you that Carol Boigon is full of you know what. I'm at hospitals all day long and I don't see people gathered at the entrances to the hospitals blowing their smoke at everyone. If I see someone near an entrance, I ask them to move. Smokers mostly tell me they were by the door because it was raining/snowing. That's what happens to people when you keep pushing them. You push them too far, and they will push back. Rightfully so. I'm a non-smoker, but the anti-smoking group needs to back off now. Like I've said before, the smokers were forced to compromise and they did. Now it's time for the anti-smoking crowd to do the same.

• July 24, 2008

  3:47 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Rallyracer7 writes:

  In response to all the lazy smokers, and friends of lazy smokers... If a designated smoking area is assigned, it is usually "too far away". Is walking across a two lane road too hard to do for your smoke filled lungs? Maybe you too are interested in joining the rest of the people in that hospital? Stop being lazy, walk across the street, smoke your cancer/death sticks, and walk back. Pretty easy I would say.

• July 24, 2008

  3:50 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  blacksho89 writes:

  I'll compromise. Allow smoking in bars and casinos; ban it outside hospitals.
  Deal?

• July 24, 2008

  4:47 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Blair writes:

  Rally,
  Are you too lazy to take 10 extra steps to avoid the smoke? Would you be willing to walk an extra block or two to your car? It seems quite easy for you to call others lazy because you are not the one inconvienienced.

• July 24, 2008

  4:59 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  me2 writes:

  Odd, people who want to breath are now called "lefties". Surely those who want air can move, I mean how insensitive to stand there, inhale smoke, and then complain.

  Smoke where you own the property, if it is not open to the public.

• July 24, 2008

  5:27 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  jamesdenver writes:

  I'm a liberal, proud of it, and all for the smoking ban in bars. But I'm not going to throw a fit if smokers light up outside a building.

  I think individuals can figure out what's courteous and polite for each other. My friends don't smoke right outside a door, but if its 10 degrees and howling wind I'm not going to bit-h if they're huddled up next to a wall.

  If someone is being rude and smoking right next to a doorway enough people will call him a jerk or tell him to move. You don't need laws to force people to respect each other.

  Oh wait I'm a libertarian with that comment huh

  james http://www.futuregringo.com

• July 24, 2008

  7:13 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  peterpi writes:

  I don't smoke, and I can be as liberal as the next bleeding heart, but ...
  Where does this end?
  Hospitals and medical buildings are already covered by local and statewide smoking bans. Bans which (from the signs I read outside some buildings) seem to require no smoking within a certain number of feet from the entrance. But that's not good enough? Now, there's no smoking anywhere around the building(s) to the right-of-way next to the street curb?
  So, smokers end up smoking on the street near the curb, increasing their chances of being hit by a car, which means they're admitted to the hospital, which means increased business for the hospital and doctors, which means greater income for the medical community ... all in the name of public health. Brilliant! These guys belong in marketing.
  Nice of them to tell drivers passing through that they won't be fined. How thoughtful.
  This bill belongs in the ash tray, but it will probably pass. *sigh*

• July 24, 2008

  11:53 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  OLB writes:

  Good Lord, is smoking outside of a hospital really threatening patiants inside?

  Look, why doesn't Denver's fine City Council first pass an ordiance keeping drunks and hobos that smell like last week's laundry off of RTD buses. I almost puked the other day when someone with nasty b.o. sat down next to me while riding the 16L. Now that is real hazard.

  Keep in mind, I don't smoke (hell, it's too expensive to be a smoker nowadays). But it seems that smokers have really taken it in the balls lately.

  Sounds like Denver's City Council is fighting to win the award of "America's Best Nanny-State".