Ulman said he wanted to protect the rights of the non-smoker.

What about the rights of the smoker to partake in the STILL LEGAL practice of smoking?

Does he not care about their rights?

I'm reminded of the quote by the great justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. who said:

"your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

Many people are allergic to smoke. The mere whiff makes them sick. They should not be forced to avoid public parks because of smokers. I'm all for smokers' rights--and their right to smoke ends where my nose begins. Until Smokers can figure out how to ensure that their smoke never reaches my nose in public parks, the ban makes sense.

There's also the factor that many smokers don't feel it necessary to properly dispose of their discarded cigarettes, which leads to more money the parks need to spend to clean up after them. I can't tell you how many times I had to stop my nieces and nephews from picking up someone's discarded cigarette butts when they were small. It's disgusting and dirty.

Our public parks should not have cigarette butts all over the ground. Smokers don't care about my rights, why should I care about theirs? Go home and smoke if you want to smoke. Not in our public parks.

A lot of people are allergic to fragerences as well - does that mean they're next up on the chopping block?

Enjoying nature while you pollute the air and liter on the ground? I never understood the people who choose to smoke in parks- Very backwards if you ask me! Thank you, Ulman!

Hey JR - so following your logic, I guess they should also ban water bottles, Gatorade and soda drinking in the parks, as I see a lot of that litter there as well.

I also don't like the smell of dirty people who exericise and sweat, so they should ban them from the parks as well.

James Madison warned about the tyranny of the minority.

What about peanuts? Automobile exhaust? Shouldn't those be banned as well? The hypocrisy is astounding. The bans are going too far.

What we are seeing now is analogous to a smoker witch hunt. I'm sure the antismokers would love to burn smokers at the stake, if it weren't for the smoke that would would be produced.

I agree with your comment 100% JR. And this is what makes it a filthy habit. We have enough trash laying about because of dirty, lazy people. Cigarette Buts only add to this already sad, and aggravating problem.
And I do not like standing next to someone while they are smoking.
One more thing. We know it's a carcinogen, and greatly contributes to many forms of Cancer. So why should nonsmokers through medicare payments fund smokers hospital stays, and in most instances these people die from their smoking habit in the long run.
The whole smokers rights thing is a bunch of nonsense. I smoked for almost 20 years. QUIT!!!

Yep, we've officially run out of "real" problems in our country and county when our elected officials actually burn calories to address this non-issue.... and now it's an issue. Congratulations.

Nope, I'm a non smoker who doesn't care if someone's smoking or not. Just maybe not on an airplane, that's about it.

Holmes didn't say that, although the quotation is often misattributed to him (and, at times, his father).

It was Zechariah Chafee, a Harvard Law professor, who wrote "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins," in a 1919 Harvard Law Review Article.

"Our public parks should not have cigarette butts all over the ground. Smokers don't care about my rights, why should I care about theirs? Go home and smoke if you want to smoke. Not in our public parks."

RIGHT! Anyone leaving water bottles on the ground in parks means we should BAN WATER DRINKING IN THE PARKS!!!

I'm as liberal as they come, and I can't stand cigarette smoke, but this goes too far. As long as it's still legal to smoke, it should be legal to at least smoke outside. This is just overreaching.

Hey Ken Ulman, while you're at it why don't you ban all of the smoke from all of the factories? That's also contributing to the acid rain that falls not only in the parks but on my deck as well! This is why I never moved to Columbia. The CA will have to charge you all more to enforce this ban. PS: I do not smoke.

If I was still smoking I would'nt pay the fine. They could put me in jail. Then I could get 3 meals a cot, medical and dental. Howard County is a communist county.

Smokers throw their cigarette butts everywhere and the county has to pay to clean it up. it pollutes the environment for the wildlife and for people. The smoke coming from cigarettes is carcinogenic. There is no safe level of exposure to 2nd hand smoke.

This is what you get when you vote for liberal Democrats.

"they should also ban water bottles, Gatorade and soda drinking...What about peanuts? Automobile exhaust?"

As much as I hate smoking because it is a dirty, filthy, and dangerous habit this ban in a public park gives me pause. It wouldn't bother me at all if the ban was instituted but what about people's right to do dangerous and disgusting things in public as long as no one there is offended or endangered? It's probably protected by the Constitution.

Why not just enforce the existing anti-litter laws more effectively? If the existing laws can't be enforced, how are new laws going to be enforced any better? There are always beer cans littering the parks. If that can't be stopped then the smoking and cigarettes can't either. I'm not against new laws - just unenforceable new laws.

What I find so funny about this is that little old conservative Carroll County banned smoking in parks at least a decade ago with virtually NO outcry. Of course, Hancock really apprears to be mistaking local parks for state parks when he talks about campfires and stuff. The vast majority of county parks in the suburbs consist of ballfields, walking paths and picnic benches, not wooded hiking trails and places for campfires. In fact, I think only one park in all of Carroll County allows campfires. As I recall, the main reason they banned smoking in Carroll's parks was because they didn't want parents smoking on the sidelines at kids sports events. As for the issue of being legal, it's legal to drink, too, but I don't know of any county parks that allow consumption of alcohol without a special permit of some kind, and even then in most places I think they are hard to qualify for.

Okay, listen up you anti-smoking hypocrites...it is not illegal to smoke cigarettes. If you are outside and someone is smoking and you don't like it, you can walk away. It's that f*ing simple. And most smokers do not light up while standing right next to someone who isn't smoking. Get real. And as far as butts go, if there is an ashtray available, smokers will use it. If not, most smokers will put their cigarette out and throw the butt in the trash. Again, pretty simple, eh? There are bigger and worse litterbugs in our parks. I just think these types of people like to bitch for the sake of hearing themselves bitch. We all have rights --- not just the anti-smokers, as they sometimes forget.

The people objecting to this remind me of something I seel all the time which both amuses and disgusts me - those who smoke in their cars but blow the smoke and toss their butts out of the window so as not to befoul their own property. Talk about hypocrisy! - If you choose to smoke, deal with the disgusting by products of it youself! (By the way, I smoked 2 packs a day for 22 years before I quit cold turkey - I have no sympathy for those who continue to smoke or complain about how "tough" it is to quit and/or complain about being "discriminated against"!)

You can't always move away. I was trying to enjoy the air show in Ocean City and it was crowded on the boardwalk and beach and the couple next to me were chain smoking and it was unbelievable how oppressive and obnoxious it was. This is often the case sitting on the beach there. It's offensive and undesirable and costly to the overwhelming majority just as many unacceptable social behaviors or actions so are so let's keep it out of our parks.

I am not a Howard County resident. I am a smoker. I think that Mr. Ulman should remember he was elected by the residents of Howard County, smokers and non smokers, to protect their rights. Not just the majority rights. I am sure he would have a fit if smokers refused to pay taxes because they cannot enjoy what they are paying for. I also bet there is a study showing politicians are harmful to the publics health and wellbeing.

The 2nd hand smoke argument may be bogus but take a look on the ground in any park or frankly just about any place else and you will find lots of butts. On one hand I support smoker rights but on the other hand I know lots of smokers and they all throw their used filters out wherever they feel like. It is a filthy habit and most of those who partake don't care about the litter. Find me one smoker who claims they always dispose of their filters properly and I'll show you a big fat liar! Ever seen a smoker in public carrying an ash tray or means of waste disposal? Didn't think so.

Good for Howard County! The reason smokers want to smoke outside is because they can't stand their own pollution. Cigarette smoke is insidious and toxic. Alcohol consumption in public is less of a nuisance or danger. Cigarettes used to be illegal in many states, but no one amended the Constitution to make smoking a right.

I think that one thing that is really important is being overlooked here. This ban may be applied to all county property, and most people don't know how much the county and the CA own. This could end up including sidewalks and the trails that connect homes and apartments in the neighborhoods... We're talking about a complete open-air ban if its applied to all public owned land... this could get really ugly. The ACLU is always looking to defend every deadbeat loser out there and their rights even when its completely wrong and unethical, but I haven't heard them defend this one time!

It's a good thing that smokers are not a protected class in Maryland. I should be able to walk within 6.5 ft of another person and not have to inhale his or her toxins.

You want to smoke? Do it in the confines of your own home. Don't smoke up the oxygen that I have to breath anywhere outside. And for G_D sake! Stay the HE** away from me when you come out of your smoke filled cocoon. You STINK!!! There's no better way to put it then to say it forthright and directly....YOU FREAKING STINK! I won't even allow anyone on my OR team if they even smell of smoke!

Really? As far as trampling on rights and liberties, nothing is too far for Democrats.

I don't smoke, but the restriction on outdoor smoking goes too far. I've never had a problem in a park. Maybe during a performance at Centennial where everyone is close, a moratorium is wise, but in general no.

"If you are outside and someone is smoking and you don't like it, you can walk away."
Why should I have to just because you are rude?
"And most smokers do not light up while standing right next to someone who isn't smoking."
Not true.
"..if there is an ashtray available, smokers will use it. If not, most smokers will put their cigarette out and throw the butt in the trash."
What a big lie.
"We all have rights.."
You don't have the right to do things the majority rules against. And no one is saying that smoking is illegal, so that argument doesn't fly. Sex is legal too, but you can't do it in a public park.
You lose, pal. Go home and smoke all you want.

Goes to far? You have to be kidding. Alcohol is legal, but you can't drink it in a public place like a park. In 22 states, breast feeding is still considered public indecency. I grow up in a home with 3 smokers, and I wish we had these kinds of laws back in the early 80s. Sure, go ahead and kill yourself slowly, just don't do it where its going to affect me. And that includes any publicly owned space that both you or I have access to.

The update to this article quotes a New England Journal of medicine article which states that air-monitoring studies have shown that health risks to people exposed to secondhand smoke outdoors decreases to a large extent when the source of the smoke is more than 2 meters (6.5 feet) away. I belong to an astronomy club that meets in a Howard County park. We are less than 2 meters from each other because we have heavy telescope equipment that must be lifted from our cars to the area of the park where we view the stars. The parking area is limited to a small space which means that we have to be close to each other when our telescopes are positioned . So even by the debatable standard of the article we are subjected to health risks from breathing in the smoke from our members and guests who do smoke cigarettes. Sorry Mr. Hancock but those smokers rights end where non-smoker's noses begin!

The "smoking is legal" argument is really irrelevant.

At least one significant reason that smoking remains legal is that total prohibition carries with it significant costs, such as infringement on the right to privacy, the costs of enforcement (police, the costs imposed on the courts and penal system, etc.). It is not unreasonably to take the position that the costs that would be incurred to impose complete prohibition are not acceptable.

These costs are significantly greater than, for instance, the costs of prohibiting use on public grounds. Thus, one can both reasonably and with a sense of consistency conclude to prohibit smoking on public grounds.

The issue here is not one of whether some overarching principle is being evenly applied, but whether, on a rough and ready cost benefit analysis, the costs of enforcing the limited prohibition can be justified.

Some people out here have common sense and some of you don't and we wonder what is wrong with this country. I also agree with others - if we ban this, then ban all the other trash being thrown on the ground and it's not illegal. Car exhaust is more harmful than any little bit of cig. smoke. I am highly sensitive to smells so as others said, lets ban perfume too. This is ridiculous.

Shame on me for not proof-reading sufficiently.

The sentence: "It is not unreasonably to take the position that the costs that would be incurred to impose complete prohibition are not acceptable" should read: "It is not unreasonable to take the position that the costs that would be incurred to impose complete prohibition are not acceptable."

The sentence: "Thus, one can both reasonably and with a sense of consistency conclude to prohibit smoking on public grounds." should read: "Thus, one can both reasonably and with a sense of consistency conclude that it is good policy to prohibit smoking on public grounds."

Screaming children and barking dogs should be made illegal in County parks too. Noise polution hurts my hearing.

It seems to me that a smoldering cigarette butt and a patch of grass (especially dry patches) are not exactly a good combination. A lot of fires are started by tossed away butts; trying to lessen the chances of public parks being on fire seems like a good idea to me.

I am a smoker (trying to quit because of the nastiness and health risks). I can appreciate the rights of non-smokers and have not been very vocal about it. And I agree that smokers need to dispose of their butts properly. But banning outdoor smoking is plain stupid. If you see a smoker outdoors, walk the other way. It's out of the bars, restaurants, offices and other public places. Now we're gonna have to start opening "smoke-easies" in order to be able to smoke.

I think this is the most stupidest thing i have ever heard plz spare me the details of cigerette butts every were last i checked i see more dog shit and plastic bottles along with over flowing trash more than anything else i quess next they gonna say were u can pass gas you have to go larger than that to protect non smokers theres alot of pollution in the air that dosent even come from smoking daaaa????and am a non smoker

I wish I could ban every behavior that offends me not because there is evidence it causes harm, but just because I'm offended by it. No health study supports banning smoking in outdoor areas because of the risks of second-hand smoke. I am offended by messy and loud children who seem to invade every inch of the parks. I am offended by looking at dog shit everywhere there are dogs in the park because not every owner picks it all up. Can we ban these activities too? I know there's no evidence that these behaviors have any effect on my health but I just don't care.
Maybe this is a result of our lack of respect for science. Teach creationism as scientific fact and I guess it's not a stretch to ban an activity for health reasons when there is no scientific evidence to support the premise.

Just another example of Ulman throwing a non important 'health' issue down the throats of the people of Howard County.. First Vernon Grey, and now this... Citizens of Maryland beware, Ulman has sights on bigger things...Let's just hope someone comes into the picture to stop his future plans....Just your typical young, Columbia democrat, playing the game....

I think the smoke-easies idea is great. Pull the like minded people together and feed that addiction in peace. No one wins with smoking; well, big tobacco does and sometimes Peter Angelos.

Broadening the scope to say that there are other things wrong with the world (dog poop, car pollution, plastic bottles, etc.) as a red herring defense to this issue is an extremely weak argument, a logical fallacy and an even weaker attempt at clouding the issue at hand. The noted issues served up as a distraction to the key issue most likely also need to be resolved to a degree, but really folks - stay focused.

When I go jogging in the winter months the smoke from fireplaces in my neighborhood is so thick that I can barely breathe. It would make much more sense to ban fireplace burning than outdoor cigarette smoking. Isn't fireplace burning really the equivalent to open outdoor burning?

I bet all of you spewing your vitriol (on both sides of the argument) have those lovely "Choose Civility" bumper stickers all over your Lexus SUVs. Gotta love HoCo...

I don't have a problem with it. Drinking, skateboarding and other activties aren't allowed in the park either,for the safety of others in the park.

Why does every issue become a Liberal or Conservative thing to some people ? This stereotyping and polarization is causing more problems for everybody on the local and national level. There's usually a middle ground that can give most people some of what they want. Logically we all have rights and my wife and I would rather not be around people smoking, and we want to enjoy our parks. That's our right. The smoker's right is to be able to smoke and be able to enjoy our parks as well. So, why not designate a smoking section in each park? In my opinion Ken Ulman went too far in calling it a dirty, filthy habit - emotionally charged words for an official who is supposed to represent all residents. Smokers need to work to amend the law to include a designated smoking area in each park. I'll avoid going close to the smoking area and the barbeque area as well when I feel the need to do so.

While we're at it can we also ban the extremely loud exhausts on motorcycles and cars. That is affecting my rights to enjoy the peace and quiet of the outdoors. Mr Ulman - don't just stop with the smokers, keep going - you are on a roll. What's next?