3 ms·

Smoking tobacco is banned by law in most public places in Seattle including parks. Then it was decided not to be enforced. They have a history of doing this,

Smoking tobacco is banned by law in most public places in Seattle including parks. Then it was decided not to be enforced. They have a history of doing this, passing laws and deciding they have no effect. Legislative cowardice to actually make the law reflect reality, I suppose. Funny how I can't just decide to relax my vigilance with regards to paying taxes.

nickik 14y ago
Thats why economists nowdays come more and more to the conclusion that looking at the institutions rules is usless. You have to look at the defactor rules not at the ones writen down.
- alanctgardner2 14y ago
  Pedant here: de facto, two words, Latin for 'of fact'. That is all.
veidr 14y ago
That's also one of the things that makes Seattle such a kickass city. Don't "enforce the hell out of the law" like a rookie cop with a hard on. Instead, realize that one of the most important jobs of a city is to strike the right balance to make the city an awesome place to live and work. Laws don't always have to mean heavyhanded enforcement; sometimes they just provide the authority needed to deal with a potential problem in case it ever actually becomes a serious problem. (Which smoking a cigarette in an outdoor park really, really isn't. I don't care to stand right next to smokers either, but in an outdoor park you really don't have to.)
- shawn-butler 14y ago
  This is the antithesis to good law. Crafting laws to deal with potential problems to be used at discretion of police should be avoided at all costs. First, because it is unjust, and second, because it leads directly to either actual or perceptions of abuse of police power undermining faith in the system. These sorts of "nuisance" discretionary laws are often used against minority populations discriminately. Prohibition was essentially a social/cultural movement that was very bad law making possession and distribution of alcohol illegal because it had the potential to lead to things that were already illegal (public drunkeness, etc). These public smoking bans in theory are crafted because secondhand smoke (be it from tobacco or another source) has the potential to cause cancer in people standing nearby in a public park. Of course, neither prohibition nor smoking bans in public parks were ever really about preventing minor incidents of public drunkeness or absurdly low risks of cancer from secondhand smoke. They were obviously about abusing the law in order to discourage behaviour (drinking, smoking) that were previously a cultural norm but for which no actual justification exists for ending. Really bugs me, but I'm obviously biased by preferences for minimalism in regulation and law.
  - veidr 14y ago
    I totally agree with you that it is not good law. I think it is good policing, though. Seattle has a pretty great police department, especially for a city so big. Now, the cops deciding how and what laws to enforce doesn't always work out well, but as a practical matter that is part of what police departments have to do in every city, and Seattle's police seem to do it particularly well.
natrius 14y ago
In Austin, the transit authority wanted to ban smoking at bus stops, but they only have the authority to do so on their own property. The vast majority of bus stops are on city property instead, so they just put up "no smoking" signs at all the stops and don't try to enforce it. http://www.capmetro.org/ridingrules.aspx?id=627 http://www.capmetro.org/ridingrules.aspx?id=627
illuminate 14y ago
"Legislative cowardice to actually make the law reflect reality" You make this all sound like a terrible thing. Not punishing consensual "crime" is excellent, and refusing to enforce unjust laws is the opposite of cowardice.
- shawn-butler 14y ago
  I do think it is a bad thing. The law as written should reflect the practice of it. If smoking in public parks should not be enforced, then it should not be illegal. It shouldn't be up to whether a police officer or some prosecutor finds me agreeable enough of a citizen to give me a pass. That's what I mean by cowardice; on the part of lawmakers who don't want exercise the courage to make the law reflect reality and instead just do whatever is politically expedient.
marcuschristie 14y ago
> Funny how I can't just decide to relax my vigilance with regards to paying taxes. Unenforceable (or very difficult to enforce) taxes occur too. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_tax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_tax

nickik 14y ago

Thats why economists nowdays come more and more to the conclusion that looking at the institutions rules is usless. You have to look at the defactor rules not at the ones writen down.

alanctgardner2 14y ago
Pedant here: de facto, two words, Latin for 'of fact'. That is all.

veidr 14y ago

That's also one of the things that makes Seattle such a kickass city. Don't "enforce the hell out of the law" like a rookie cop with a hard on. Instead, realize that one of the most important jobs of a city is to strike the right balance to make the city an awesome place to live and work. Laws don't always have to mean heavyhanded enforcement; sometimes they just provide the authority needed to deal with a potential problem in case it ever actually becomes a serious problem. (Which smoking a cigarette in an outdoor park really, really isn't. I don't care to stand right next to smokers either, but in an outdoor park you really don't have to.)

shawn-butler 14y ago
This is the antithesis to good law. Crafting laws to deal with potential problems to be used at discretion of police should be avoided at all costs. First, because it is unjust, and second, because it leads directly to either actual or perceptions of abuse of police power undermining faith in the system. These sorts of "nuisance" discretionary laws are often used against minority populations discriminately. Prohibition was essentially a social/cultural movement that was very bad law making possession and distribution of alcohol illegal because it had the potential to lead to things that were already illegal (public drunkeness, etc). These public smoking bans in theory are crafted because secondhand smoke (be it from tobacco or another source) has the potential to cause cancer in people standing nearby in a public park. Of course, neither prohibition nor smoking bans in public parks were ever really about preventing minor incidents of public drunkeness or absurdly low risks of cancer from secondhand smoke. They were obviously about abusing the law in order to discourage behaviour (drinking, smoking) that were previously a cultural norm but for which no actual justification exists for ending. Really bugs me, but I'm obviously biased by preferences for minimalism in regulation and law.
- veidr 14y ago
  I totally agree with you that it is not good law. I think it is good policing, though. Seattle has a pretty great police department, especially for a city so big. Now, the cops deciding how and what laws to enforce doesn't always work out well, but as a practical matter that is part of what police departments have to do in every city, and Seattle's police seem to do it particularly well.

natrius 14y ago

In Austin, the transit authority wanted to ban smoking at bus stops, but they only have the authority to do so on their own property. The vast majority of bus stops are on city property instead, so they just put up "no smoking" signs at all the stops and don't try to enforce it. http://www.capmetro.org/ridingrules.aspx?id=627 http://www.capmetro.org/ridingrules.aspx?id=627

illuminate 14y ago

"Legislative cowardice to actually make the law reflect reality" You make this all sound like a terrible thing. Not punishing consensual "crime" is excellent, and refusing to enforce unjust laws is the opposite of cowardice.

shawn-butler 14y ago
I do think it is a bad thing. The law as written should reflect the practice of it. If smoking in public parks should not be enforced, then it should not be illegal. It shouldn't be up to whether a police officer or some prosecutor finds me agreeable enough of a citizen to give me a pass. That's what I mean by cowardice; on the part of lawmakers who don't want exercise the courage to make the law reflect reality and instead just do whatever is politically expedient.

marcuschristie 14y ago

> Funny how I can't just decide to relax my vigilance with regards to paying taxes. Unenforceable (or very difficult to enforce) taxes occur too. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_tax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_tax