Shop Local
Saturday, December 4, 2010
A discussion session intended to answer questions from local business owners regarding the new indoor smoking ban which takes effect today in Fulton provided a few surprises Thursday.
The biggest of those was restrictions regarding employees’ ability to smoke in their own vehicles.
That issue was sparked when someone asked about customers smoking in drive-thrus. According to Sec. 93-6 of the ordinance written by Fresh Air Fulton and passed by voters on Nov. 2, smoking is prohibited within 15 feet of “... operable windows and ventilation systems of enclosed areas where smoking is prohibited, so as to insure that tobacco smoke does not enter those areas.”
“So if a customer is smoking, do I ask them to put it out?” the business representative asked.
“The answer I’m going to give you today is yes, but it’s complaintbased,” director of administration Bill Johnson responded.
The question then was asked if people were in violation of the ordinance if they are smoking in their car, which usually is considered private property.
“If you’re on the job in a vehicle, you can’t smoke,” Johnson said repeatedly in response to questions regarding employees’ ability to smoke in private vehicles whether they are on break or sitting in their car more than 15 feet from a business entrance. “It’s against the ordinance to smoke in a vehicle if you’re on the clock.”
“Who wrote this ordinance?” asked Jody Paschal, owner of Gidley’s Shoes on Court Street. “I’m just aghast we’re telling people they can’t smoke in their own vehicles.”
Tiffany Bowman, who said she provided technical assistance to Fresh Air Fulton when the group was writing the ordinance, said the intent in including vehicles in the ban was to “protect coworkers if you’re going to a conference or making a delivery with a coworker.”
“You have to remember, (enforcement) is complaint-driven,” she said.
Although the question of smoking in vehicles seemed to draw the most outrage, the crowd gathered at Fulton City Hall on Thursday had many more questions.
“I have a building with tenants upstairs; can they smoke up there on that level?” one property owner asked.
“I’m not going to go into private quarters,” Johnson replied.
Paschal asked what the consequences are if merchants refuse to put up no smoking signs as required by the ordinance.”
“There’s a clause here that other violations (aside from smoking or allowing smoking inside a business) is a nuisance,” Johnson said.
Chris Wilson, city prosecuting attorney, said the fine for a public nuisance violation is up to $100 for the first violation, up to $200 for a second violation in the same year and up to $500 for a third violation in the same year.
“And the city has other options in terms of licensing,” Wilson added.
Another audience member asked whether someone smoking while they walk down the sidewalk — particularly downtown where there are many businesses in close proximity to one another — would be considered in violation.
“We are not going to go after that, but you’ve got to keep moving,” Johnson said.
Someone asked whether it would be a violation to smoke in front of businesses that have closed, such as Fuller’s Jewelry.
“Say they want to get out of the wind, and they stand in the doorway and smoke?” they asked.
Johnson said they would be allowed as it is not a business with employees. In response to a related question regarding smoking in front of businesses after operating hours, he said, “I think that’s OK.”
Yet another question concerned the use of smoke-free or battery-operated cigarettes. Johnson said the ordinance defines smoking as inhaling, exhaling, burning or carrying any lighted or heated cigar, cigarette or pipe in any manner or form.
Another question of interest was whether business owners would be responsible for people smoking near back entrances or within 15 feet even if they could not see the violation.
“As a business owner, you’re fine until somebody brings it to your attention,” Johnson said. “It is then your responsibility to go to them and tell them to put it out.”
Paschal had another question, regarding whether the ordinance applies to businesses where there are no employees.
“If you are the sole (service) provider, it applies,” Johnson said. “If you operate a tax service out of your home, it applies. If you call a plumber, your house has become a place of business (while they are there) and you can’t smoke.”
Johnson said the ordinance also applies to churches that have staff members, as well as hotels — which will not be allowed to offer smoking rooms.
Paschal asked how many signatures are required to put the smoking question back on the ballot. Johnson responded that it would take 734 signatures from registered Fulton voters.
Someone asked whether the City Council can amend the ordinance even though it had been voted into existence by Fulton residents.
“Yes. It’s very clear in the charter that it is no different than any other ordinance,” Johnson said. “On the other hand, it’s the only ordinance approved by voters. Based on that, I think it will be a while before the City Council says, ‘We think citizens were wrong, and we’re going to change it.’”
Comments
rock1853 2 years, 5 months ago
Just another freedom of choice gone. 100 bucks says that the people who voted yes didn't know the details. Now it's time to find something offensive about fresh communist air.
ConcernedCitizen 2 years, 5 months ago
I actually just tried to find research indicating second hand smoke wasn't as bad as it has been reported and all I could find were ones saying that second smoke kills about 60,000 people a year. I'd be interested to see the research you're referring to. Also, I think the health issue is important, but there are other issues, like not having clothes and hair saturated with smoke. If someone were to come in and spray people with a foul-smelling substance that wouldn't be acceptable, it's the same thing.
malmark 2 years, 3 months ago
You're not very smart Graceful, it's 60,000 a year in the US alone according to the estimates. I think now I understand why you just don't get it.
ConcernedCitizen 2 years, 5 months ago
I think 60,000 is a lot, especially if you're one of them. I don't think demeaning those lives helps your argument. Also, I just finished reading the articles you sent, the first one didn't work by the way. The 3rd link you sent refers to a study funded by the tobacco industry and then the article goes on to say that in 2002 the International Agency for Research on Cancer combined 58 different studies and found that secondhand smoke raised cancer risks significantly. The other article admits in the first sentence that second hand smoke is indeed a major cause of heart disease and lung cancer, and then goes on to say that 30 minutes of exposure isn't that bad. I'm sure exposure length is a large factor, but why should I have to be exposed to it all? Just because smokers would only be hurting others for a relatively small amount time is ok? What about the employees of the businesses?
ConcernedCitizen 2 years, 5 months ago
That link worked that time, thanks. I read it, and then I read the comments and one of them in particular analyzed a lot of the arguments made and went through the different studies and showed that the doctor was referring to old studies and cherry-picking data to support his opinion. The author makes the claim that because no one has ever put "Second Hand Smoke" on a death certificate as a cause of death no one has ever died from second hand smoke. That's true, they don't put that on death certificates, they put lung cancer or heart disease instead, because that is the ultimate cause of death. Now what caused the cancer or heart disease though? That's what the vast majority of recent studies have tried to answer and have reached strikingly similar conclusions
So you are arguing now that there are many risky activities in life, yet we still do them anyway. That's true, but we actively seek to minimize our risks and take action to put ourselves in danger as little as possible. I would also argue that there isn't a risk that I'll be hurt by second hand smoke, it's a definitive fact that any amount of second hand smoke will hurt me. The risk is whether or not it gives me some kind of symptomatic disease or not.
Also, risky activities that put people in harm's way are often outlawed or banned. The majority of voters decided that they did not want to be put in harm's way by the smokers of Fulton and so here we are.
malmark 2 years, 3 months ago
Eh, that is the most popular conception of "it's a free country, I can do whatever I want"
ConcernedCitizen 2 years, 5 months ago
The harm is not minimal. You blindly believe that, because you want to believe that and seek out research that reinforces the views you want to hold. You also keep referring to non-smoker's as selfish, but you seem to be arguing selfishly as a smoker yourself. We are asking you to be considerate, and you are refusing. You do not have the freedom to take away the freedoms of others and you have lost sight of that. Stand outside and be a considerate human being.
malmark 2 years, 4 months ago
wow silly me I thought the lives of 60,000 people were important but I guess in the grand scheme of things it's just a drop in the pond, why worry about it.
malmark 2 years, 4 months ago
tell that to the people who are dying from smoking related illnesses, "oh but we think the harm is nearly non-existent, so sorry, but you have to die so we can carry on our addiction"
malmark 2 years, 4 months ago
Going into a smoky bar a couple of times is not going to be solely responsbile, no, it comes from a lifetime of exposure from many sources. One of the routes to curtail the exposure is to pass laws banning it in certain places because even second hand smoke has been shown to be harmful and most of these places are common areas where you will find members of the voting public who are only too happy to pass a law to ban smoking. Who are you to say it's okay to cut these people's lives short so smokers can feed their disgusting oral fixation? I'm pretty sure most people will say they don't want their life any shorter than it already is not one second just so someone in their vicinity can light up a fag.
malmark 2 years, 3 months ago
"Graceful - Nope. I didn't say that. I didn't say second hand smoke isn't harmful. What I said is that allegations against second hand smoke are highly exaggerated. What I am saying is that whatever harm second hand smoke may cause be isn't worth worrying about. What I am saying is that the cost to freedom is more harmful than the limited harmful effects of second hand smoke."
I hear what you are saying but the evidence does not lie. Scientific FACT.
robclark 2 years, 5 months ago
No matter which side you're on, I think we can all agree that it's a silly ordinance, and that it infringes on smokers' rights.
ConcernedCitizen 2 years, 5 months ago
No, I'm pretty sure we can't agree that it's silly. It infringes on smoker's rights, because smoker's were infringing on non-smoker's rights, and non-smokers out-number smokers.
malmark 2 years, 5 months ago
Oh well on that logic, the American way then is to die young and drag the rest of us down with you. Way to go..
malmark 2 years, 4 months ago
oh good well the ban passed because the majority of people voted for it.
malmark 2 years, 3 months ago
Seems pretty rational to me.
malmark 2 years, 3 months ago
and why does having taken a history course have anything to do with it, I am living it.
robclark 2 years, 5 months ago
So we agree that "It infringes on smokers' rights." What makes it silly is that it can not be adequately enforced because it's "complaint-based" or "whiner-based" or whatever they call it.
ConcernedCitizen 2 years, 5 months ago
But you don't agree that smokers are infringing on non-smokers' rights? Don't non-smokers, and really all people have the right to clean air? I've lived in several cities when these kinds of ordinances have gone into place while I was there and it usually takes anywhere from a few months to a year or more, but eventually there's no one smoking inside. I don't know why that is, but some places will get known as smoker hangouts and then the place must get busted and fined or something because then one day there's no one smoking there.
robclark 2 years, 5 months ago
hahaha!! I don't know who told you THAT!!! silly silly silly.
malmark 2 years, 3 months ago
Everyone was not being treated equally. Patrons frequenting these establishments could not sit there and breathe unadulterated air. You do know contaminants in our air is regulated?
robclark 2 years, 5 months ago
The business owner should the one to decide whether or not smoking should be allowed on the premises, not a handful of voters. When that same handful of voters is allowed to dictate what one can or can't do in the confines of their automobile or in their own home, it's time to be afraid...
ConcernedCitizen 2 years, 5 months ago
Well, voters have decided that you can't be drunk and drive "in the confines of their automobile". Are you not ok with that? Besides, I don't really care what you do in your own home. We're talking about places that we have to share. You can step outside easily, I can't very well take my meal outside to eat.
malmark 2 years, 3 months ago
Legislature=voter's representatives, I suggest YOU take the history lesson.
MichelleHohlt 2 years, 5 months ago
Why can't you non-smokers stay out of certain smoking places...gezz, do you guys have to claim every business in town and make all the rules.
MichelleHohlt 2 years, 5 months ago
Your wearing me out ......let's just agree to disagree egabtr1975, what does that name mean anyway?
robclark 2 years, 5 months ago
The issue is far from being settled. I personally collected over a hundred names today at work for the puh-tish'-un (sorry, can't write t-t on here), and there are many others collecting names. Enjoy the 4-5 months of "clean" air lol. It will be on the April ballot, and it WILL be repealed!
malmark 2 years, 5 months ago
Wow I haven't been on here in about a month and you're all still talking about this damn smoking ban! It's so funny to hear all the smokers addicted to their nicotine arguing that second hand smoke this and you don't have the right that... Get over it! Come on I dare you to put it back on the ballot and we'll see how many people we can get to vote this time. And then when you smokers all lose again don't let the door hit you on the way out when you're going to light up your cancer stick in the rain. The people have spoken! Hoo-Rah!
Sign in to comment
Or login with:
OpenID