LETTER | City focus should be on criminals, not smokers

[box type="note" style="rounded" border="full"]This letter refers to a subject covered in "Should tobacco be prohibited in Kirkland parks?" asks online survey[/box]

To whom it concerns:

The city of Kirkland is trying to pass a law to ban cigarette smoking in outdoor public places.

Most people who take their children/grandkids to the park and smoke are most likely responsible adults. I take my grandsons to the park all the time, I find a bench away from the play area where I can see my boys and I have a cigarette. Now if there is someone smoking inside the play area, most people including myself have no problem asking them to move outside the play area while smoking. Let the people handle little things like rude smokers, we need to use our resources for real criminals on our streets.

Do we as a community want to waste resources on writing a ticket to a 40yo responsible taxpayer/voter for smoking a legal substance in a park that she pays for?

Women are being attacked on the streets of Kirkland, women are raped in garages, people are dying from road rage, but we want to waste our resources on grandmothers in the parks??? We actually have that kind of money and resources to waste in the city of Kirkland??? That tells me we have far too many cops if we are making new laws to keep them busy.

Question, does the parks department benefit from the revenue off of the tickets you give me for smoking in the parks? Is revenue one of the reasons for creating this stupid law?

When I go into a city that has already implemented this stupid law, I think to myself "what a stupid law, what kind of body of people would allow their city to do this to them?" that is what people will think of our city, a stupid bunch of people allowing their public officials to take away their rights because of rudeness? Just because other cities jump off a bridge does that mean we should jump off a bridge?


Tara A Wilkins PCO/Member 45th Dems