Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

bungocheese t1_irglk56 wrote

Eh, even though I'm 100% down with full legalization I'm ok with this, cigarettes and such are banned in places where it bothers others and especially around kids and this isn't different.

103

_wheresMySuperSuit t1_irgo3mu wrote

I’m on the fence. On one hand, I completely agree with you…. On the other hand, this past summer ii was in NYC, and the law there is weed is allowed anywhere cigarettes are allowed… it felt amazing to smoke a joint in Central Park.

48

bungocheese t1_irgotvd wrote

Personally I'm more or less fine with if cigarettes are allowed so is weed. Not that it matters what my opinion is

51

Far-Soup5169 t1_irju10y wrote

If you’re a registered voter, than your opinion matters.

But yeah, smoking bans should apply to smoking of anything: cigars, cigarettes, weed, crack, meth, brisket. If it’s no smoking, then it’s no smoking, plain and simple.

7

bengo1023 t1_irhhjqe wrote

FYI although it’s not enforced a lot smoking anything is banned in NYC parks

11

_wheresMySuperSuit t1_iri95cv wrote

Didn’t know that tbh. We weren’t the only ones smoking, so I just assumed it was fine.

3

pennynotrcutt t1_irhcslm wrote

If people start leaving roaches everywhere like people do with cigarette butts, that would be annoying AF. That said, I’m pretty confident that’s not going to be an issue.

3

BennyKlankenship t1_irhfchc wrote

Roaches and weed are both typically natural and biodegrade as such. They're nothing like cigarette filters.

20

Far-Soup5169 t1_irju6nx wrote

Just takes one rainfall for a roach to disappear. The cigarette butts take thousands of years to degrade.

Still in favor of less littering in general, but this isn’t really much of an issue.

3

GhostOpera406 OP t1_irglrt7 wrote

I'm asthmatic and think there should be some kind of mechanism to protect everyone's use of a public space. In sufficiently large parks, having a designated area (e.g, maybe move a few picnic tables and designate them as a cannabis smoking area) would suffice to protect everyone's use of the space.

42

Tortankum t1_irhkeh5 wrote

Bro it’s outside.

20

realitythreek t1_irirb2c wrote

Exactly. He should be able to go to a park outside and not have to breathe in smoke.

I’m fully in favor of cannabis and also that there’s a time and a place.

5

RhinoMan2112 t1_irhaz40 wrote

I'm a massive stoner and I'm definitely cool with this. Weed is super stanky and I don't think it's cool to subject everyone in public to that, but especially at a park or whatever.

15

daymanahhhahhhhhh t1_irinone wrote

I’m just happy that I can legally grow a couple plants and keep 4 oz in my house!

2

Funocity t1_irgz7md wrote

I know I'll never see it, but I wish it was illegal to smoke in your car in public. I hate being behind a car with a smoker at a stop light in the summer.

I think smoking anything should be banned in parks and such. You are making me participate because it's smoke, it goes everywhere. Edibles? Brownies? Fine, enjoy. Have a literal weed picnic. But get the smoke out of my face.

−18

BingBong022 t1_irh96xe wrote

Spot on after we ban people smoking in their own cars let's ban people from smoking in their homes too

11

realitythreek t1_irirhqg wrote

It’s already illegal to smoke and drive. As it should be.

1

jt_tesla t1_irgpv9g wrote

If cigarettes are allowed, so should weed. The stigma around weed won’t go away if it keeps being treated worse than cigarettes

43

Proof-Variation7005 t1_irh3n8l wrote

Cigarettes aren’t allowed in parks. It’s not really enforced very well, but it’s been on the books for years

26

silvio_burlesqueconi t1_irhrwo6 wrote

Huh, well, this prolly won't be enforced very well either. Everybody wins!

13

Proof-Variation7005 t1_irixvsx wrote

Except the homeless people and people of color who will be the ones that get the brunt of that enforcement. I don’t think there’s been any follow up on how much or little they’ve enforced it in parks or the large section of downtown that banned smoking so maybe cops just haven’t done anything with it. But I’d bet good money that the majority of tickets probably aren’t students, tourists and white collar workers.

6

realitythreek t1_irirkf6 wrote

Maybe they’ll actually enforce it for cigarettes too. That’d be wonderful.

1

Proof-Variation7005 t1_irixfb9 wrote

I’m not sure it’s really great to have more policing for something that’s a minor annoyance at worst.

2

realitythreek t1_irj2lyq wrote

Just say the word policing and having limits on what you can do becomes unreasonable right? Or, idk, you can set a limit and expect people to abide by it. Like adult humans?

I don’t think restrictions on smoking in public places is unreasonable. And you don’t need an armed cop to enforce it. Someone could come by and say “hey smoke at home okay?”

1

Proof-Variation7005 t1_irj7d45 wrote

I think a city with real and legit public safety concerns and quality of life issues devoting energy to enforcing a minor annoyance that does no real harm would be really wasteful.

2

realitythreek t1_irj7hdx wrote

Cool, difference of opinion then.

1

alphabet_order_bot t1_irj7ict wrote

Would you look at that, all of the words in your comment are in alphabetical order.

I have checked 1,089,729,460 comments, and only 214,560 of them were in alphabetical order.

1

realitythreek t1_irkrgf3 wrote

Good bot

1

B0tRank t1_irkrho0 wrote

Thank you, realitythreek, for voting on alphabet_order_bot.

This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. You can view results here.

^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)

1

ggill1313 t1_irgyp97 wrote

I’m all for all of it being banned in public outdoor spaces like parks. I hate smelling either of them when I want “fresh air.” Go get high somewhere else.

8

Far-Soup5169 t1_irjukcw wrote

At least vape or take some edibles. Not against public usage, just not trying to second-hand inhale someone’s shitty blunt wrap, and equally shitty weed that smells like a dead skunk soaked in diesel fuel.

4

BingBong022 t1_irh99u2 wrote

I'm going to come smoke every day by your window

−13

ggill1313 t1_irhbnja wrote

Your post history indicates you’re a pervert.

3

radioflea t1_irgtywr wrote

I’m indifferent because people will do what they want Irregardless of an ordinance. I personally can’t stand the smell of cigarettes and most weed. I do not understand the appeal of skunk weed.

6

everyoneisnuts t1_irhgwgt wrote

Haha. The stigma around weed. C’mon. You can’t drink in the park, so you shouldn’t be able to smoke weed. Nothing worse than walking around with your kid and smelling that shit everywhere.

2

WetNetBet t1_irguo0n wrote

I’ll just smoke outside of a restaurant then

34

pizzaplantboi t1_irhxgis wrote

Just keep it away from kids like you would with cigarettes. That’s all that matters.

26

evoelker t1_irh38af wrote

People are still gonna do what they are gonna do, they did it when weed was completely illegal they will now

16

hurricanetruther t1_irh9sbk wrote

Just smh at WPRI's attempt at "journalism."

>Providence residents appear split on the city’s decision. Alex Tavares believes the ordinance takes away from the legalization of the drug.

Oh, they do? Have you done some kind of survey? Because it sure looks like you just talked to two people, one in favor, one against. So you have no idea really what the pulse of Providence residents is.

12

Proof-Variation7005 t1_iriyfl6 wrote

Most likely, they asked a bunch of people and used a couple of quotes representative of what was said by everyone. Nobody’s claiming that makes for a scientific poll or something, just that there’s some differing opinions by people who happened to be at the park or wherever they set up shop for the story.

1

hurricanetruther t1_irj60vc wrote

The reporters claimed that residents appeared split on the issue. That's a statement which carries weight. Now you could argue, well, "appear" is in the eye of the beholder, and if you asked a few people what they thought, and you got a mixed bag, then that "appears" like Providence is split, even if that's not the case. But that would be disingenuous or incompetent.

Either write honestly, like, we were on location at Roger Williams Park and asked some people what they thought and here are two quotes to show "both sides"--or report on it seriously. Claiming that Providence's residents appear split on the issue based on a handful of conversations held at one location at one time of day is, to put it mildly, unsupported.

2

Ristray t1_iriiot1 wrote

Smoking isn't allowed at KP but that doesn't stop smokers from littering their shitty butts all over the ground.

It's a good idea to ban all smoking in an area but smokers don't give a damn. This will be useless.

4

JoeFortune1 t1_irijzuw wrote

This lame-duck city council is out of control, offering giant tax breaks to developers/corporations and now this

2

Autumn_in_Ganymede t1_iriucg6 wrote

oh good. maybe I don't have to smell it everywhere I go

2

aubergineeggplant t1_irh6mxa wrote

Oh look another reason to criminalize poor people and black youth since we took a big one away with legalization.

−4

DiegoForAllNeighbors t1_irgyyzy wrote

I am running for City Council and I would not support this ordinance without hearing about the following… does second hand smoke outside endanger others? How many nuisance come into city council from the smell of weed? I’m assuming it’s the smell that bothers people more than the smoke? What is the enforcement mechanism? I’m sort of over laws without enforcement that semi-moralize an activity but then accomplish little… For people who have traveled to other parts of the world where things like public container laws are not a thing, there is not rampant public drunkenness. Quite the opposite. Also— when it comes to issues of drug policy, government should consult people with lived experience: people in recovery from substance use and/or active consumers— somehow I doubt the City explored their opinion on this, but I would love to be wrong…

−7

Proof-Variation7005 t1_irh4qpq wrote

I think you’re missing the plot a bit. Usually ordinances like this and limiting cigarette smoking are very selectively enforced based on race and class. More often than not, this is just a vehicle to harass the homeless.

The argument for this on a health risk basis is a weak one. Secondhand smoke from cigarettes or pot in an open space is an annoyance to people, but it’s hardly a serious health risk.

5

DiegoForAllNeighbors t1_irh726e wrote

Indeed this is precisely what I was trying to get at in a diplomatic and charitable way because I believe that to be a generally constructive way of doing business. I think you’ll get a kick out of our website.

Thank you! www.diegoforallneighbors.com

0