0

Smoking ban could be stalled by Norcross council

Norcross’ City Council is expected to reconsider a ban passed in May on smoking in parks, like Lillian Webb Park, city buildings and sidewalks. The ban would take effect July 1.

Norcross’ City Council is expected to reconsider a ban passed in May on smoking in parks, like Lillian Webb Park, city buildings and sidewalks. The ban would take effect July 1.

NORCROSS -- Smokers could get a reprieve from a ban expected to go into effect in Norcross in less than two weeks.

After a May vote banning smoking in parks, city buildings and even along sidewalks, Norcross's City Council is expected to reconsider the issue the day after the law becomes effective July 1.

Mayor Bucky Johnson said the ban has caused a slew of comments from residents and business owners. Some appreciate the idea for health reasons, while others feel it is a government intrusion, he said. Downtown business owners are especially worried that patrons could leave the city altogether if they can't even go outside to smoke, he added.

"We want to do what's best for the entire community -- citizens, business everyone," he said.

Johnson was not in attendance at the May council session where the ban was imposed, and he said he has not yet made up his mind on the issue, which came up at a council policy session earlier this week.

While leaders have no plans to halt the ban before the effective date, Johnson said the matter will be up to date at the July 2 council meeting. At that time, the board could vote to keep the ban in place, postpone the enforcement, tweak the ban or repeal it.

If the council decides to reconsider, Johnson said, he plans to organize a meeting to allow for community input.

Comments

Jan 2 years, 5 months ago

Why are the "rights" of smokers to spread the stench of their cancer sticks considered greater than the rights of citizens to be able to walk down the road without being exposed to the poison being spewed around smokers? We don't cater to other addicts! Fortunately, most smokers are considerate and refrain from smoking near ones they think it might offend. It is unfortunate that the few make such a law of "common sense" necessary.

1

teelee 2 years, 5 months ago

I don't have a problem with smokers smoking in or outside of bars, in their own cars or houses, but they don't need to smoke in public places like parks or near public pools. Cigarette smoking is basically just legalized drug use and they stink and kill on top of that. Cigarette butts litter our landscape and our roadways. Cigarettes are the number one form of air pollution that you will come in contact on a daily basis. It's hard to believe that people are dumb enough to even start smoking them in the 21st Century. But if I have to pay money every year to get my vehicle emissions tested to keep our air clean, then they can refrain from polluting it.

Smoke em if you got em, just not in my face.

Smoke em if you got em, just not in my face. by teelee

1

Linda 2 years, 5 months ago

I think emissions from cars is more polluting outdoors than cigarette smoking. Where do you get your facts??

1

R 2 years, 5 months ago

@ Linda - Are you really sure you want to go there?

@ TeeLee "Cigarette smoking is basically just legalized drug use"

So what say you about “Alcohol”? Per some, it's a stinky habit too and at last check, I’ve never read anywhere of a report regarding a fatal accident that a person was driving "under the influence of a Marlboro"...

Be careful what you do support for extensive restrictions, tobacco is legal. As cigarettes go into the future, perhaps so shall the ever narrowing enjoyment of liquor - because in some respects, the SIMILAR long range health costs are striking…

To the local issue at hand, it seems to be a bit over restrictive, since immigrants smoke more now a days than Americans.
No, I'm not a smoker but enough is really enough, the government has other issues it should be addressing.

0

Mack711 2 years, 5 months ago

Lawnmowers polute more than cars and cigarettes. Next they will assign me a day when we can cut grass or require me to use an EPA approved lawn service.

1

FordGalaxy 2 years, 5 months ago

Well, per some environmentalists, the mere act of exhaling is polluting.

1

R 2 years, 5 months ago

Check CA its already there...

1

Cleanupguy 2 years, 5 months ago

Yes, Teepee - the only thing worse would be having tons of aircraft spewing carcinogens over Briscoe Field.

1

richtfan 2 years, 5 months ago

I have no problem with smoking outside whether it is a public area or not. it's outside. if the bird craps on you, are you gonna complain that the city needs to get rid of the birds because of it? and I don't care if a restaurant or bar owner wants to allow smoking in his own establishment. that is his choice. he ought to have the freedom to decide what's best for his customers. if they like it, then they'll come back. if they don't, then they won't. it's not up to government AT ANY LEVEL to get involved in this stuff. it simply is NOT a proper function of government to be micromanaging the lives of people regardless the desires of a particular group of nazi types who want to control everything. And it doesn't matter whether people find cigarette butts on the sidewalk or not. that's not the fault of the cigarette. that's the smoker's issue. we must stop trying to legislate a perfect society (as seen through the eyes of some). Where is the "tolerance" that the left speaks of all the time? Why aren't they tolerant of people who are different from them?

3

kmn 2 years, 5 months ago

Should the bar owner be allowed to serve mixed drinks to 18 years olds, if he thinks thats what best for his customes?

0

Mack711 2 years, 5 months ago

The issue here is smoking in a public place not 18 year old drinkers. Back in the 1970's the State lowered the drinking age to 18 within 2 years raised it back to 21 and it has been that way ever since. To put the smokers in a designated area away from the non smokers is the best solution. For the non smoker they know where the smokers are and can stay away. As for resturants, well they should decide for themselves. One thought is to have a seperate room with a firtration system seperate from the non smokers. Let it be known that they offer smoking rooms to infrom all that come in that smoking is going on. I have no right to tell some one who abides by the law what they can and can not do. And I am a non smoker, never started and never will.

0

originalbob 2 years, 5 months ago

WHY THIS SUDDEN DISCRIMINATION AGAINST JULIE BARKS?

0

Sign in to comment