In December 2007, the city council considered passing its own local smoke-free ordinance to mirror state legislation banning smoking in public places. The motion failed because it needed the approval of a majority of the council (not merely the majority of a quorum), and a couple of council members weren’t in attendance that night. Next Tuesday, the council will try to pass it again.
The arguments are these:
It should be defeated because (a) the state law is poorly written and could lead to downtown businesses getting tickets for non-patrons who happen to be smoking within fifteen feet of their entrance, and (b) the city’s police department is too busy working on more important issues to be called away to give citations for smoking violations; since the state issued this unfunded mandate, the state should enforce it. If the city passes this ordinance, they will have to pay for adjudicating the tickets, whereas if they don’t pass the ordinance, the tickets would be adjudicated by the state’s attorney.- It should be passed because the city would get 100% of the fine if it prosecutes under a local ordinance, and only 50% if under a state ordinance violation. Violations are complaint-driven and not high-priority, thus they wouldn’t pull any officers off their beat or cause any hardship.
The appearance of this ordinance on the agenda explains why the police department is gearing up to do raids on local bars looking for smoking scofflaws. Once this ordinance passes, it will be an opportunity for the city to start raking in some money in fines.
they will pass it. they need the money, remember that 3.1 million dollar shortfall predicted by the city manager….for those of you who haven’t been paying attention to this, watch how this one is going to play out. Clearly the new growth is NOT paying either for itself or essential services…..
Make them sinners pay! Tobacco and alcoh… er uh… I mean: Tobacco and sex clu… er uh… wait a minute. Oh yeah, Tobacco and pornog… no… uh Tobacco and Parking… Yeah, lets get more money from those doggone parkers! Got to get them to stop it.
A poorly written law banning smoking is far better than no law at all. The law can be tweaked. What remains at issue is the irresponsibility of those who smoke and expose others to the factual danger of second hand smoke. I sympathize with those addicted to nicotine and the host of other carinogens in tobacco but there are enough resources out there for those who truly care about their health and wish to quit. The stench of smokers, their clothes and breath is nauseating and the smoker’s cannot smell it! I question the intelligence of those who defend smoking as a lifestyle choice. Smoker’s point out that many die of other causes…and?
First, they came for the smokers….
NP..and your car spews carbon monoxide which is kiling millions so stop driving, wait, nevermind, your on your high horse.
Em…my intent was not meant as moralizing, just factual. I truly sympathize with smokers and their addiction. Again,”many die of other causes” is the cliched response to questioning smokers decisions and how it affects the general non smoking population. Carbon Monoxide levels are falling as car pooling in major cities or public transportation have become better choices. Why does it have to be a comparison rather than a factual discussion. My mother dies of complications of smoking, not carbon monoxide poisoning.