Unbelievable activist anger over homeless smoking ban

Apparently the city’s proposed smoking ban in parks is offensive to social justice. Engaging in behavior that is not just gross, but will lead you to get cancer is now a social justice issue.

Just as a reminder, city leaders announced a couple of months ago that they wanted to expand the Seattle’s smoking ban to public parks.

Related: Seattle parks smoking ban is ‘unnecessary’ advocates say

“Visitors come to parks to enjoy healthful, outdoor recreation. When there are smokers in a park, it diminishes others’ ability to do that,” said Acting Parks Superintendent Christopher Williams.

The new rule would state, according to KING 5, “It is a violation of these rules for any person to smoke or light cigars, cigarettes, hookahs, tobacco, or other smoking material, within all publicly accessible portions of property under Parks’ jurisdiction. For the purposes of this section, “smoke” or “smoking” means the carrying, holding, or smoking of any kind of lighted pipe, cigar, cigarette, or any other smoking equipment.”

Breaking the new rule would result in a warning, followed by possible park exclusion for repeated violations.

But now activists are claiming this is “offensive to social justice” (as if “social justice” is a living, breathing organism with feelings) because they think this rule will somehow disproportionately target homeless people.

Doug Honig with the ACLU of Washington state makes the case:

“The proposal was to ban all smoking in city parks and we think it’s both unnecessary and in practice with disproportionately target homeless people and low-income people,” Honig said.

He believes the current laws are good enough.

“The city already has a rule barring smoking within 25 feet of other people,” Honig said. “We think that’s certainly sufficient to deal with public health concerns.”

Well the ACLU doesn’t get to make those decisions; our representative government does.

The Low Income Housing Institute, in a letter, claims “the ban on smoking in parks is a classic overreach and an offense to social justice” because “this ban is meant to target the poor and homeless that frequent the city parks,” arguing that “[p]eople of color are significantly over-represented among the homeless population.”

Ooof. Talk about a stretch.

But let’s assume, for a moment, this does end up disproportionately targeting homeless people. First, that’s not illegal.

Second, where are the homeless getting the average of $9 to buy a pack of cigarettes? If you’re homeless, you shouldn’t be smoking cigarettes. You should be putting that money to food and shelter, not a dangerous and addictive product.

You’re better off without the smoking habit. You’re better off saving that money and using it on something that will make your life better.

But, I can hear the progressive activists now. I can hear their response to that thinking: “Who are you to tell the homeless how to live? Who are you to tell them what’s better for them. That’s an overreach!”

Indeed, the Low Income Housing Institute says it’s “a classic overreach.”

Oh the sweet, sweet feeling when you use someone’s silly ideology against them.

What was the argument in favor of Obamacare, forcing healthy, young individuals to get health insurance coverage they don’t need or want?

I believe it was “we’re doing it for their own good. They may not know they need it, but they do because when they get sick, they end up getting coverage anyway that everyone else has to pay for. We’re doing this for them!”

How can you support forcing people to buy health insurance they don’t want or need, but then say it’s an overreach to ban smoking in parks because, according to you, it disproportionately hits people who are homeless?

The whole argument in support of Obamacare is that action will make you a healthier person, which translates into cost savings for the entire country because we don’t have to pay for the uninsured. If you are insured, you’re more likely to get health care.

In fact, the ACLU is quoted as saying, after the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate, “The decision is especially welcome for disadvantaged minorities, who are more likely to be uninsured, and for women, who are more likely to suffer gaps and discrimination in their health care coverage.”

Speaking of disadvantaged minorities, including the homeless ones these activists claim would be unfairly targeted with the smoking ban, it turns out studies suggest disadvantaged minorities are often targeted by cigarette companies.

In a study in the Annals of Epidemiology, they write:

Over the past decade, tobacco companies have targeted minority populations when advertising and promoting their products, containing the most widely available, legal addictive drug in the United States. This has contributed to a greater prevalence of cigarette smoking among some minorities and lower-income groups. Black males are more likely to smoke than white males and more often they smoke high-tar cigarettes. They are also less likely to quit smoking.

Researchers from the School of Public Health at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey report that, “menthol cigarettes appear to be more addictive for black and Hispanic smokers than regular cigarettes.”

So on the one hand, these activists say they care about the health of folks, especially minorities, so much so that they want to force the entire country to buy health care. But they also don’t care enough about them to allow a smoking ban to go in place.

Maybe the true social justice problem is your inconsistency on social justice issues?

And by the way, for the record, I’m against the cigarette bans. I’m pretty consistent in the “classic overreach” and “hypocritical government” arguments I make. Maybe these progressive activists will be consistent some day.