You wild smokers are in a HEAP of trouble out there!
Posted on 08/11/2005 6:18:28 PM PDT by elkfersupper
Smokers beware: Puffing within 25 feet of the door of a publicly used building, a park or in other public spaces could cost you $500 or a year in prison. But if alcohol is being served or you're rolling the dice, well, smoke 'em if you got 'em.
The Metro Council narrowly approved an anti-smoking ordinance filled with exemptions Wednesday. Some council members expressed concern about enforcing the new ban. The long list of exemptions includes bars and lounges, restaurants with liquor licenses and casinos.
"You can smoke -- with limitations. You can drink -- with limitations. You just can't go wild," said Councilwoman Lorri Burgess, one of those pushing the law that would ban smoking in many public places or within 25 feet of a doorway of a publicly used building. The Legislature gave local governments the ability to control smoking, but it was full of those exceptions, Burgess said.
The anti-smoking ban "sends a strong message," she said. "I am realistic that we can't take policemen off the streets" to enforce it, though. Asking smokers to stand 25 feet from the door of a business or public building is not asking too much, she said.
"The issue today is clean air," Burgess said.
Council members Charles Kelly and Martha Jane Tassin also sponsored the proposed ordinance. Tassin said she has "taken a lot of grief" for supporting the smoking ban, but she compared it to the requirement of automobile seat belts or helmets for motorcyclists.
"I hate smoking," Councilman Mickey Skyring said, but he said he was not willing to send someone to jail for it. The ban as proposed includes parks and golf courses, so someone smoking on the 18th green could be sent to jail, Skyring said.
He later proposed a fine of no more than $100 and serving eight hours in community service with the City Court's litter detail. He also proposed eliminating golf courses, parks and part of the levee system. But only he and Council members Pat Culbertson, David Boneno and Joe Greco supported his amendment. Councilman Wayne Carter abstained, and Burgess did not vote.
Culbertson questioned the enforceability of the ban. He recommended a 30-day deferral. "Let's try to find some common ground here -- in a way that makes sense."
Carter, who said he understood both Burgess' and Culbertson's arguments, called on Parish Attorney Wade Shows. The new legal adviser, attending his first council meeting, told members the proposal is "problematic" and he thinks issues needed to have been worked out before passage. But that advice appeared to be ignored.
Eight members voted for the new ban: Darrell Ourso, Burgess, David Boneno, Tassin, Byron Sharper, Mike Walker, Kelly and Carter. Culbertson and Skyring voted no, and Ulysses Addison and Greco did not vote.
No smokers stepped forward to talk against the proposal.
Christina Bannister, owner of the popular Christina's Restaurant near the Governmental Complex, questioned enforcement.
"Smoking 25 feet from my building would put people in the street," she said. "It can have a negative impact on my little restaurant and other small businesses."
She had said she might get a liquor license to be exempt so she could have a smoking section.
Buddy Amoroso said he doesn't smoke and 15 years ago his family business banned smoking. "We are looking at criminalizing a legal activity" and making it the same as driving while intoxicated or possession of marijuana.
But Bill Noonan of the Clean Indoor Air Coalition said passing the ban "is the single most important thing you (the council) can do" for better health in the community. The coalition has 28 member groups, he said.
Dr. Jule Assercq, a family doctor with LSU's Mid City clinic and Earl K. Long Medical Center, said 22 percent of the population smokes, but 100 percent breathes. Smoking is known to cause cancer, she said.
Cigarettes burn 12 minutes, but smokers inhale only 30 seconds of the smoke produced, she said. The doctor ticked off a long list of complex chemicals found in cigarette smoke and suspected or known to be carcinogens, or substances that can cause cancer.
Allowing smokers to be around nonsmokers is like "allowing urination only in the deep end of the pool" for swimmers, Assercq said.
"Smoking 25 feet from my building would put people in the street,"
The ban as proposed includes parks and golf courses, so someone smoking on the 18th green could be sent to jail, Skyring said.
Ping.
In the Land of the Free and in the Home of the Brave?
A DOCTOR SAID THIS????????????????????
Gold courses???????????
These people are INSANE...............
PFFFFFFFT!
But Bill Noonan of the Clean Indoor Air Coalition said passing the ban "is the single most important thing you (the council) can do" for better health in the community.
So having smokers stand in the middle of traffic is good for just whose health????????
What a MAROOOOOON
Pure insanity.
Add inneroutlaw, if you get a chance.
Another moron speaks. Not the kind of doctor many would go to. Just another publicity hound. Pathetic.
And therein lies the problem.
Act like sheep ...
They would rather pay $500 or go for a year to prison. What is going on?!
Added!
You wild smokers are in a HEAP of trouble out there!
I don't understand it either...........
Though I do have to admit, one has to have a pretty strong constitution, and nerves of steel to put up with a lot of what gets thrown at smokers, or even non-smoking supporters at these hearings.
In many cases, money has a lot to do with it. The people that attend the hearing to push these bans are paid to be there.......those opposing them are generally working stiffs, and bar and restaurant owners, especially small ones can't afford to close down their business to go attend these hearings, and regular smokers can't just up and take off work..........and that is why so often these hearings are held during normal business hours instead of in the evening.
But there is the rub...........their justification for these bans is that they should have the choice to go ANYWHERE that is open to the pubic without being offended by smokers.
And they have pretty much taken away the free market choice. Openning a smoking establishment is practically impossible nearly anywhere. Must have accomodation for non-smoekrs. Heck in Delaware even the cigar bars and tobacco shops must be non-smoking.
IN Washington D.C. something like 60% of restaurants are totally smokefree.......but that is not good enough, the nannies want 100%..and the bars as well. They don't have enough choice with over 200 smokefree establishments.in one city????
You said it, my FRiend! Edgewood, NM has a smoking ban, for cryin' out loud! And the only place left to smoke before the ban was at the Dairy Queen!
All this hysteria is, indeed, fueled by money--the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the New Mexico Citizens Concerned About Tobacco, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum.
RWJF is footing the majority of the bills for all these supposed "grassroots" groups, and giving money to states to assist these groups.
I don't care what the issue - if RWJF is in anyway involved, no matter how "good" it sounds..........it always involves further restrictions on rights, increased government, and more nanny-state crapola.
Just think about what they've got their fingers in besides smoking bans........fast food attacks, gun control, tougher DUI laws.......they are insidious...........but it is all about money (and of course control) wiht them.
I haven't figured out the gun-control aspect yet.....but the others are easy to figure out.
RWJF receives the vast majority of their funding from its stock portfolio of Johnson & Johnson.....fight smoking, J&J sells more nicotrol....fight alcohol, J&J sells more anti-abuse drug........fight junk food, J&J sells more sugar substitute (Splenda). The more they get people buying the J&J products the more money RWJF has to spread around to pay people who actually enjoy telling others how to live their lives..........
As you can probably guess........I've got a MAJOR problem with RWJF..even moreso than my major problem with Philip Morris. so my apologies for my long-winded rant.
"You can smoke -- with limitations. You can drink -- with limitations. You just can't go wild,"
Mighty nice of you...Heil Hitl...er...Burgess!
Yes - I found this information almost a year ago when I was doing research. I have become a major label reader these days. I made a list and adjusted my stock portfolio as well.
So now, we can blame bar fights on Paris Hilton.
BTW, is whatever-town-this-is, under discussion, going to paint a series of lines on the sidewalk - smoke|STOP|smoke - because if they don't, I will clean their clock.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.