Government

More News | | | Editor

Smoking ordinance moves to Augusta Commission

  • Follow Health

A proposed ordinance to ban smoking in bars in Augusta and other public places will be considered by the Augusta Commission without a recommendation after a committee voted Monday to send it along.

The Public Service Committee voted unanimously to forward it to the Nov. 5 commission meeting without recommendation after a vigorous debate centered around rights: For those in favor, the right to work in a smoke-free environment; For those opposed, the rights of private business owners to choose whether to allow smoking.

“I can’t support it because it goes against everything that I’ve defended for this United States of America,” Commissioner Alvin Mason said of his military service. “I just don’t believe that is someplace we need to be going as a government as it relates to private business.”

But Commissioner Donnie Smith, who has spent more than 28 years as a law enforcement officer, said it is up to the government to set limits that protect people, noting that it is legal to drink alcohol in a bar but not to get drunk and drive.

“We restrict freedoms to look out for those who cannot look out for themselves,” he said. “I certainly believe that we have a responsibility to help the people that generally have these jobs in these bars and these restaurants that can’t find a job somewhere else making a living wage.”

Government has the right to restrict its own property, Commissioner Wayne Guilfoyle said. “But when a government starts interfering with private citizens, private owners, to me that’s a rights issue,” he said.

And if they succeed on smoking, will they be back to tackle obesity, Guilfoyle wondered.

“Probably next it will be our guns,” he said.

While people have the right to smoke, “that person who wants to smoke does not, does not have the right to contaminate someone else,” said Commissioner Bill Lockett, whose youngest son does smoking-related research. “Nobody is trying to take the rights away from a smoker. But we’re just trying to designate areas where the public is invited that smoking cannot be done.”

Amy Lewis, who opposed a proposed tougher smoking ordinance that was eventually voted down in February 2012, said she couldn’t believe the commission was debating it again and decried the “paid lobbyists” in the audience, one of whom works with smoking ordinance efforts in other Georgia counties.

“They are paid to sit up here and try to wreak havoc on different counties,” she said.

Jennifer Anderson, the chair of the BreathEasy Augusta coalition backing the ordinance, said she resents being called a lobbyist and she is pushing for the ordinance because she has been a respiratory therapist for 40 years.

“This is important to me,” she said. “I deal with people every day who have issues related to secondhand smoke.”

For Kirk Miller, the Georgia grassroots manager of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, secondhand smoke is also personal: He lost his father to lung cancer.

“He never smoked a cigarette in his life,” Miller said.

Comments (32) 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
45869
Points
Little Lamb 10/28/13 - 07:02 pm
5
6
Designate

From the story, Commissioner Bill Lockett said:

But we’re just trying to designate areas where the public is invited that smoking cannot be done.”

Yeah, first you'll "designate" the bars. Then in a couple of years you'll "designate" outdoor areas where smoking is forbidden, under penalty of fine and imprisonment. Then you won't be able to smoke on city sidewalks or city streets.

SRD
441
Points
SRD 10/28/13 - 07:27 pm
6
6
Freedom

I find this incredible. Your idiotic decisions are running businesses and citizen's off. Your focus should be on safety, clean-up, and growth. These paid for coalition lobbyist shouldn't be given the time or day. Of course if you want to act like DC socialists and completely ruin Augusta for good, just keep it up and you will soon end up bankrupt! The person's who went to work for these bars or restaurants knew there was smoking there in advance but choice to apply when others would have been thrilled to have their jobs. It was a choice, everyone should have a choice. You people on the commission have no right to infringe on businesses who are acting lawfully, you have no right to act like the health police! If you vote yes, I beg to ask "What's in it for you?"

oldredneckman96
5095
Points
oldredneckman96 10/28/13 - 07:47 pm
6
4
Public Poison
Unpublished

To spray poison in public? That is not a question, it is a crime.

GnipGnop
12227
Points
GnipGnop 10/28/13 - 07:49 pm
7
4
I don't like bars with smoking

So I don't go...it's as simple as that.

dichotomy
32840
Points
dichotomy 10/28/13 - 08:31 pm
7
7
GnipGnop..."I don't like bars

GnipGnop..."I don't like bars with smoking So I don't go...it's as simple as that"

Would you invite oldredneckman to NOT GO with you. He seems to have a problem figuring out that he does not have to go into a bar that allows smoking.

I knew Donnie Smith was bleeding heart big government politician. Hey Donnie....do you mind if I smoke in my RAIN TAX DITCH....after all, it is on COUNTY PROPERTY. I tried to clean the trash out of it today that the CONTRACT GARBAGE HAULER spread as he went down the road but the COUNTY WATER PLANT retention pond was draining so much water into the DITCH IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE that it was too muddy to get into and pick up the TRASH.

Young Fred
17448
Points
Young Fred 10/29/13 - 02:27 am
5
3
I love the story. I love the

I love the story.

I love the “picture”.

Alvin Mason is the man!

On the other hand we have this: “But Commissioner Donnie Smith, who has spent more than 28 years as a law enforcement officer, said it is up to the government to set limits that protect people...”

Is that what you really believe Mr Smith?

I truly hope that all voters remember this moment.

nocnoc
42468
Points
nocnoc 10/29/13 - 07:39 am
4
5
A little history is due.

I remember back in the 1990's when the statement was.....
"All we want is a NON-Smoking area, its not like we are going to ask people to go outside in the rain and cold to smoke."

We see how that went for the smokers. I understand why they doubt it will stop there.

Remember: A government has generations to take away Rights and Freedoms. So they can take an inch here and there. As the old saying goes. "Give an inch and Government will take a mile."

So If you are a NON-Smoker, like myself and family.
Just stay out of the BAR's that allow smoking.
(The Strip joints included.)

But why be a Smoke Fascist and force your will and life style on others?

I am sure sooner or later some business person will see $$$$ in supporting a NON-Smoking Bar concept.

IF THERE IS ENOUGH DEMAND.

--------------------------------

nocnoc
42468
Points
nocnoc 10/29/13 - 07:52 am
5
5
For an Honest report on 2 second smoke.

Since numerous 2nd Hand Smoke Studies have been
shown time and time again to be in error.

Example:
The 1992/93 EPA study was a Meta Analysis (a analysis of existing studies) and later was disproved, but continues to be cited by Anti-smokers. Meta Analysis studies are very difficult to do accurately, and is the easiest kind of study to fake and manipulate data. Because using Meta Analysis process makes the Great Leap and Assumption that the other studies were conducted correctly, honestly and were unbias.

If I may point you to:
Oak Ridge National Labs part of the US Dept of Energy
Report Jan 2000.

Scroll down to Page 6.

http://web.ornl.gov/info/reporter/no11/jan00.pdf

Quoting:
“People who have wanted to regulate
smoking in public places—or ban it out-
right—have relied on old estimates of ETS
concentration and have proved what they
wanted to prove. But if you plug in the hard,
scientific, peer-reviewed data from the 16-
cities study, you do not come to the same
conclusions.”

In short
The public may be, being PLAYED by people with a Private Agenda.
Just like many of those GLOBAL WARMING, fear mongers did,
for the TV fame, $$$, and political say.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT
Consider this quote by one of the leaders of the anti-smoker movement:

"The next two obvious steps, already in progress, are restricting smoking on beaches, parks, lines, doorways...and then restricting it in homes, particularly where there are sensitive children."
- John Banzhaf, CBS Good Morning, April 22, 2001

Little Lamb
45869
Points
Little Lamb 10/29/13 - 08:01 am
3
4
Causation

From the story:

For Kirk Miller, the Georgia grassroots manager of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, secondhand smoke is also personal: He lost his father to lung cancer. “He never smoked a cigarette in his life,” Miller said.

Kirk Miller has absolutely no proof that secondhand smoke caused his father's lung cancer.

Bodhisattva
6162
Points
Bodhisattva 10/29/13 - 08:02 am
3
3
"said Commissioner Bill

"said Commissioner Bill Lockett, whose youngest son does smoking-related research." For what group and would this constitute a conflict of interest requiring Mr. Lockett from abstaining? “Nobody is trying to take the rights away from a smoker. But we’re just trying to designate areas where the public is invited that smoking cannot be done.” Augusta likes to do studies. How about doing a study on the percentage of public access indoor areas that allow smoking vs. those that do not? According to the CDC, 19% of adults in the US smoke. Obviously, the city will need to raise or lower the percentage of places where smoking is allowed to accommodate this 19% of the population. We wouldn't want to take away rights of part of the population and just want to designate an equal percentage of indoor space to match the percentage of smokers. I get the strange feeling you wouldn't find anywhere near 19% of the space is available for people to be allowed to smoke, so shut the heck up.

seenitB4
86943
Points
seenitB4 10/29/13 - 08:08 am
4
2
Like it or not

It is a freedom of choice....don't go where they are smoking...how hard is that.....it won't stop with smoking.

johndavidson
125
Points
johndavidson 10/29/13 - 08:32 am
2
4
This pretty well destroys the
Unpublished

This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke:

http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/28/16741714-lungs-from-pack-a-da...

Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.

By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.

Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.

What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.

“I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study...........................

Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!

The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:

Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.

146,000 CIGARETTES SMOKED IN 20 YEARS AT 1 PACK A DAY.

A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.

Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!

Little Lamb
45869
Points
Little Lamb 10/29/13 - 09:16 am
2
3
ADA

Hmmm, maybe Bodhisattva is on to something. Declare unregenerant, unrepentant smokers to be disabled, and thus a special protected class under the Americans With Disabilities Act. They deserve reasonable accommodation for their disability. Thus, they deserve a certain percentage of indoor space in government buildings, workplaces, and public amenities such as restaurants and bars. They deserve smoking-permitted restrooms.

I'm just pointing out the logic required from Commissioner Lockett's own words.

louiemcman
64
Points
louiemcman 10/29/13 - 09:34 am
3
4
Protect Yourself...Not Me!

I would think the commissioners have more important issues to tackle. The quote "it is up to the government to set limits that protect people" is typical safety Nazi speak that we have way too much of now. Remember those who "governs least, governs best".

johndavidson
125
Points
johndavidson 10/29/13 - 09:41 am
2
4
The precautionary principle
Unpublished

The precautionary principle itself is a catch 22 argument. It entails giving no proof the same standing as actually having positive proof. In essence it makes a negative a positive which we all know you can never prove a negative. By using this principle we might as well all just kill ourselves as chance living with possible threats that might harm us. Its actually created to let the nazis claim whatever they want and get away with it! Its use must be destroyed as its led to total destruction of the scientific process trying to create proof where none exists to begin with,hense the mountain of evidence we hear the nazis preach all over the place without actually being held to any proof at all!

The principle itself cannot stand, it means an end to all we hold dear TRUTH.

Without truth we have no meaning,we have no future,we have no life,no culture. We have only created hazzards that never existed,a culture defeated by fanaticism and led by radical nut cases passing laws based upon NOTHING! It gives basis to outlawing anything based upon nothing,it lowers the standard of proof in court to that of hearsay evidence to now convict!

How did it happen,quite simply ENVIROMENTALISM!

Precaution as Customary Law
The question whether the precautionary principle is a principle of customary international
law has received a great deal of attention, particularly since the principle’s inclusion
in the Rio Declaration.

http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/17/2/82.pdf

Rio Declaration on Environment and Development

The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development,

http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?documentid=78&art...

Having met at Rio de Janeiro from 3 to 14 June 1992,

itsanotherday1
42920
Points
itsanotherday1 10/29/13 - 09:55 am
2
1
Wishy Washy

is what I am on the subject. While I agree that bars and restaurants should be able to make their own decisions on indoor smoking, I'm not so sure about places like gas stations/convenience stores.

Example:
Most of the time I pay at the pump, get my receipt, and move on; but when the printer is out, I am compelled to go in for the receipt. You wouldn't know smoking was allowed until you got to the door. Too late then.

In the past, I played pool in the local league which is majority Rich.Co. , with our one team from Columbia Co. I've always elected to be a sub; only playing at home and the 1 or 2 non-smoking bars in Rich.Co. That is a personal choice on my part, which is as it should be.

seenitB4
86943
Points
seenitB4 10/29/13 - 09:58 am
3
1
Wait just a dang minute

I thought the goovyment wanted the ole folks to fade away...or die out....yaknow we are costing money on the insurance claims....they wouldn't need the death panels then....sooo, encourage smoking--drinking & sky diving.....why is that so hard to figure out..:)
But just for over 55 folks!

itsanotherday1
42920
Points
itsanotherday1 10/29/13 - 10:00 am
4
3
Entertainers

There was a side story about entertainers wanting a smoke free environment.

Well duh! Don't play at smoking venues! YOU make that choice, not the bar.

Little Lamb
45869
Points
Little Lamb 10/29/13 - 10:20 am
1
1
Dead Thread

5 Questions for Jennifer

I thought readers would have fun asking lobbyist Jennifer Anderson questions and then for the readers to answer their own questions. I guess I was wrong.

Bizkit
31300
Points
Bizkit 10/29/13 - 10:39 am
1
1
Sounds like the water in

Sounds like the water in Richmond County is more toxic than any cigarette smoke.

johndavidson
125
Points
johndavidson 10/29/13 - 11:02 am
3
0
If you’re afraid of
Unpublished

If you’re afraid of second-hand smoke, you should also avoid cars, restaurants…and don’t even think of barbecuing.

here are just some of the chemicals present in tobacco smoke and what else contains them:

Arsenic, Benzine, Formaldehyde.

Arsenic- 8 glasses of water = 200 cigarettes worth of arsenic

Benzine- Grilling of one burger = 250 cigarettes

Formaldehyde – cooking a vegetarian meal = 100 cigarettes

When you drink your 8 glasses of tap water (64 ounces) a day, you're safely drinking up to 18,000 ng of arsenic by government safety standards of 10 nanograms/gram (10 ng/gm = 18,000ng/64oz) for daily consumption.

Am I "poisoning" you with the arsenic from my cigarette smoke? Actually, with the average cigarette putting out 32 ng of arsenic into the air which is then diluted by normal room ventilation for an individual exposure of .032 ng/hour, you would have to hang out in a smoky bar for literally 660,000 hours every day (yeah, a bit hard, right?) to get the same dose of arsenic that the government tells you is safe to drink.

So you can see why claims that smokers are "poisoning" people are simply silly.

You can stay at home all day long if you don’t want all those “deadly” chemicals around you, but in fact, those alleged 4000-7000 theorized chemicals in cigarettes are present in many foods, paints etc. in much larger quantities. And as they are present in cigarettes in very small doses, they are harmless. Sorry, no matter how much you like the notion of harmful ETS, it’s a myth.

Little Lamb
45869
Points
Little Lamb 10/29/13 - 11:11 am
1
1
Arsenic

Facts are stubborn things, aren't they, Mr. Davidson?

Darby
25557
Points
Darby 10/29/13 - 11:50 am
5
1
Why do some otherwise bright, articulate and generally

intelligent people do such dumb and stupid things? Why would anyone make it a daily habit to suck carcinogens into healthy lungs until it becomes too late for them and/or their families to do anything to reverse the damage they have done to themselves and their families?

Having said that, the government should stay out of their lives. Let them kill themselves if that is their desire. Pass legislation to protect children and those unable to fend for themselves, of course. But draw a line in the sand and respect individual rights.

Yes, you could argue that they are driving up healthcare costs for all of us and that may even be true. Still, an all powerful and unrestrained government is even more expensive and more dangerous.

If it makes sense to "keep government out of our bedrooms" then is it any less logical to keep those same bureaucrats out of "our" lungs?

Meanwhile, I'll continue to strenuously avoid my otherwise bright and articulate friends (and strangers too) while they continue to cling to their addition and stupidly pollute the air they breathe, destroy themselves and impair the quality of their own lives.

Not to mention what they do to those who choose to associate with them.

Bizkit
31300
Points
Bizkit 10/29/13 - 01:28 pm
1
2
If they are worried about

If they are worried about health safety they should ban alcohol consumption in the same area because it not only associates with cancer (as tobacco) but also correlates with violence. I mean if you're gonna be nanny be a good consistent one rather than some illogical pursuit.

corgimom
32219
Points
corgimom 10/29/13 - 03:12 pm
2
3
Nobody can smoke in bars in

Nobody can smoke in bars in Charlotte, nor in California, and everybody does just fine. What a big fuss over nothing. And alcohol doesn't cause other people around them to get cancer, Bizkit, so your argument makes no sense.

But I notice that nobody on here says "And you know, since it's ok for those workers to be exposed to carcinogens because of their job, then it's ok for my employer to expose me to carcinogens. Because I don't have to work at my job, I choose to work there. " Funny how they never say that.

Little Lamb
45869
Points
Little Lamb 10/29/13 - 03:55 pm
3
2
OSHA

If there were any actual scientific evidence that secondhand tobacco smoke caused illness to workers, then you can bet your bippy that OSHA would regulate it.

There is no such evidence, so OSHA is silent on the matter. These nannies use local ordinances to fight their crusades because local governments don't use the scientific method as OSHA is required to.

Little Lamb
45869
Points
Little Lamb 10/29/13 - 04:38 pm
1
2
E-Cigarettes

Hey, Scott Hudson just said on the radio that the lobbyist wants to have the ban include also E-cigarettes. They don't emit carcinogens, but it must just be a show of solidarity.

Bizkit
31300
Points
Bizkit 10/29/13 - 04:54 pm
2
1
Alcohol would increase the

Alcohol would increase the risk of cancer associated with second hand smoke as it would a smoker. If you smoke and drink your risks of esophageal and cancers of head and neck sky-rocket, so second hand smoke would equally be more toxic with alcohol. It makes perfect sense. And progressives want to control tobacco and alcohol use because they support WHO suggestions to decrease health risks and violence (just like mandatory vaccines). Now I support those ideas too but as an American I support freedom first so if some idiot want to smoke and drink themselves to death then let them have at it. You can't keep people from being idiots-myself included. Surely if you can restrict "Biggie" cups in NY City you can limit alcohol to a breathe limit per drink. Steep fines for anyone who serves someone too much or someone consumes too much-this would be for the greater good-of course.

justthefacts
21756
Points
justthefacts 10/29/13 - 05:06 pm
3
2
Impressive

Corgimom knows everyone in Charlotte and California.

Darby
25557
Points
Darby 10/29/13 - 05:06 pm
2
0
"If there were any actual scientific evidence that secondhand

tobacco smoke caused illness to workers, then you can bet your bippy that OSHA would regulate it."

.
I suppose that might be subject to the clinical definition of "illness". I know that when I'm exposed to secondhand smoke, I get severe headaches, burning eyes, a persistent cough, and a lingering taste in my mouth that lasts for 24 to 30 hours.

That's an "illness" to me. That's why I stay away from smokers and don't allow it in my house or car.

Again, I think government should stay the heck out of this debate.

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs