Government

More News | | | Editor

Smoking ban not expected to come up at today's commission meeting

  • Follow Government

A proposed tougher smoke-free law will likely not come up at the Augusta Commission meeting tonight but might be on a committee agenda next week, General Counsel Andrew MacKenzie said.

The proposed ordinance would ban smoking in all public places, including bars and private clubs, and outdoor work areas such as construction sites. It originally appeared before the Public Service Committee, which voted to have city officials work with public health on drafting an ordinance and then holding public hearings on it. The second of those public hearings was Monday night, so there was probably not time to compile all of the feedback from those hearings in time for the meeting Tuesday, MacKenzie said.

The proposed ordinance might be on the Public Service Committee agenda next Monday, he said.

Comments (13) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Little Lamb
52574
Points
Little Lamb 10/18/11 - 03:05 pm
0
0
I guess all of our posting

I guess all of our posting today was in vain. Is this how the Occupy Wall Streeters feel?

stillamazed
1489
Points
stillamazed 10/18/11 - 03:53 pm
0
0
This is not a one sided issue

This is not a one sided issue believe it or not. One group is not the only ones with rights. There are solutions to this that is why it should be left up to the business owners and not government and we all have plenty choices in this area when it comes to going out so there should be establishments who are allowed to cater to each group, that is the fair thing for everyone and not just one group....

NoHayManera
140
Points
NoHayManera 12/14/12 - 05:09 am
0
0
Either make smoking illegal

Either make smoking illegal or get off the backs of business owners. 1) Any argument that you have about the wrongness of smoking in public areas is null and void; private businesses are not "public areas". 2) Regardless your research of businesses losing/gaining patrons because of smoking is null and void; it's up to the business owner(s) alone to determine how best to bring in patrons. 3) Your concerns for the health risks of smoking are null and void; you do not have to visit any place that allows smoking.

Taylor B
5
Points
Taylor B 10/18/11 - 04:02 pm
0
0
I never thought it would be

I never thought it would be voted on this week.

Cassandra Harris
-3
Points
Cassandra Harris 10/18/11 - 04:50 pm
0
0
I'm kind of torn on this one

I'm kind of torn on this one in that the damage smoking does is more than well documented. From a personal rights pov I understand the smokers want to be able to smoke and give themselves cancer, emphysema, heart disease, strokes, etc. if they desire. However, I think the workers of those establishments deserve not to have their health compromised, and I myself would like to not have to walk through a wall of tar and other carcinogen laced smoke to enter my favorite restaurant. Yes, we nonsmokers can choose to not go to an establishment that allows smoking which is how everyone knows how much I love the boys that run the Metro Coffee House. But I also know a lot of people who avoid it like the plague because it's so smokey.

TK3
562
Points
TK3 10/18/11 - 04:52 pm
0
0
BEWARE! Government (COG)

BEWARE! Government (COG) OFTEN uses the ploy of saying a vote might-not come up, even though it is ON the agenda, in order to reduce any opposition from showing up, and then of course, VOTE and PASS what they want.

Tom Corwin
12409
Points
Tom Corwin 10/18/11 - 05:08 pm
0
0
As today's story pointed out,

As today's story pointed out, it is not on the agenda for tonight. A couple of the commissioners thought it was but it was not. It could possibly come up during committee meetings Monday. Feel free to contact me if you need more information on times, etc.

Taylor B
5
Points
Taylor B 10/18/11 - 05:38 pm
0
0
Tom, thanks for covering this

Tom, thanks for covering this so well. Bravo.

Cassandra Harris
-3
Points
Cassandra Harris 10/20/11 - 03:58 pm
0
0
smartin - could you please

smartin - could you please give us the source of your "letter" from a supposed (and possibly fictional) "doctor" who supports second hand smoke? Most of what is in your alleged "letter" smacks of the nonsense that the tobacco industry used to have actors posing as doctors say in the television commercials I used to see in the 60's and 70's.

Where does this alleged "doctor" practice and in what specialty of medicine? What are his credentials? Is he currently practicing? Retired? Disbarred? Even a real person? So many things we would need to know to take his word aren't there?

Cassandra Harris
-3
Points
Cassandra Harris 10/20/11 - 04:27 pm
0
0
hmm....smartin's letter seems

hmm....smartin's letter seems to have mysteriously disappeared. How shocking.

KSL
164695
Points
KSL 10/20/11 - 08:28 pm
0
0
That is because the comments

That is because the comments violated AC policy of not allowing comments from posters impugning other poster. I, for one, am glad to see they are enforcing their policy impartially.

Cassandra Harris
-3
Points
Cassandra Harris 10/20/11 - 08:37 pm
0
0
His and posts that responded

His and posts that responded to the others that were removed. If a long post uses quotations from a removed post or refers too much to the actual content, it is removed also.

KSL
164695
Points
KSL 10/20/11 - 10:44 pm
0
0
OK, I did your research for

OK, I did your research for you. Have you checked out the smoking ban thread? I guess you can a deny post of yours was removed and I can't prove it. But you and I know.

bjphysics
36
Points
bjphysics 10/23/11 - 08:13 am
0
0
Here’s a peer reviewed study

Here’s a peer reviewed study from The Journal of Psychology

“THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE ANTISMOKING AND NONSMOKERS' RIGHTS MOVEMENTS”

“SUMMARY

In a recent article Markle and Troyer analyze the cigarette controversy as a status battle between pro and antismoking vested interests. They argue that the purpose of the antismoking movement is to lower the status of smokers, symbolically to label smoking as undesirable, unacceptable, and socially deviant behavior, and, hence, to stigmatize and denigrate smokers as social misfits.”

“A. INTRODUCTION

In a recent article Markle and Troyer provide a sociology of deviance interpretation of the long-standing, but recently intensified controversy over cigarette smoking. Markle and Troyer point out that in the late 1960s and the 1970s a variety of laws and regulations were implemented to regulate smoking and the smoker. Drawing an analogy to Gusfield's analysis of the American temperance movement, the authors argue that these strictures were initially assimilative--in the sense of sympathetically trying to aid the repentant smoker to give up his harmful and deviant behavior--but more recently have become coercive--in the sense of angrily engaging the unrepentant smoker as an enemy in a political and legal battle.”

http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=77539715

Back to Top
loading...
Search Augusta jobs