.

Proposed Smoking Ban Stinks, Some Say

Members of the Stone Mountain city council and those in the audience at Monday's work session discussed the idea of limiting smoking in public places in the municipality.

Members of the Stone Mountain city council shared their thoughts -- some of them strong -- on whether a smoking ordinance for the municipality is a good idea or not during Monday night's work session at City Hall.

"I think the government is involved in too many things that are personal decisions," said councilwoman Nan Nash.

Some in the audience also expressed their opinions on limiting smoking in public areas and near building entrances, saying it could invite lawsuits and negatively affect establishments such as restaurants.

"It would really hurt my business," said Rodney Walker, owner of which opened this year on Main Street.

While some who spoke out against an ordinance said they don't smoke, are concerned about the health effects of second-hand smoke and don't like the smell of cigarettes, they still think it would be a tricky thing to enforce and turn too many people away.

Councilwoman Susan Coletti, though tired of cigarette butts tossed on city streets, also said a smoking ordinance could be a problem in terms of enforcement.

City manager Barry Amos pointed out that, if an ordinance banned smoking within 20 feet of an entrance, smokers would "have to go across the street."

Councilman Richard Mailman reminded everyone that an ordinance could be amended to grandfather in some businesses, such as , which was mentioned a few times during the meeting as an establishment that has a large customer base of smokers and would suffer if included in the ordinance.

At councilwoman Nash's , some employees and visitors have a cigarette outside, she said.

"We're going to lose some visitors if we pass this," she said.

The council will discuss the issue again at its June work session.

Tell Patch: Should the City of Stone Mountain have a smoking ordinance? Why or why not? Leave a comment at the end of the article.

 

 

john davidson May 23, 2012 at 01:00 AM
Springfield Business Journal: Smoking Ban Taking a Toll Lauren Matter Anchor/Reporter 8:59 p.m. CDT, October 2, 2011 Four months into Springfield's city wide smoking ban, some businesses are seeing a decline in revenue. The owner of one Springfield bar, Tailgaters Pub and Eatery on South Scenic Avenue, says they have been losing $1,000 a week since the ban went into effect and had no choice but to close the first weekend of October. Other pubs and restaurants are seeing a revenue decline as well. The numbers range from 25% to a 45% drop in the amount of money they're bringing in now compared to before the ban. Owners say it's difficult to manage cash flow and employment levels, yet owners say they haven't laid anyone off since the ban went into effect. http://www.kspr.com/news/local/kspr-springfield-business-journal-smoking-ban-taking-toll-on-few-springfield-bars-20111002,0,5160335.story What's More Dangerous: The Effects of Smoking or a Smoking Ban? Some local business owners are not pleased with the effects of the city's smoking ban. It has affected us in a bad way," he confesses. "We have lost probably 15-20 percent of our business since the smoking ban has gone into place. We used to get a late crowd of people ordering drinks and maybe an appetizer, but we don't have that anymore.
SavEcig May 23, 2012 at 02:55 AM
Unfortunately, smoking bans are inevitable. When I was a smoker, I was against them. Since I switched to electronic cigarettes, I no longer have to worry about smoking bans, tar, the smell, or high cigarette taxes. There has never been a better time to switch to e-cigs. http://www.savecig.com
smartin May 23, 2012 at 01:44 PM
Vote with your feet! If you don't want to go to a smoking allowed place, don't. If people from New York City (get a rope, as the old commercial says) want to move to the South and then start bossing people around, and bring their new strange form of health socialism, tell them to mosey on back up north. We are not so stupid that we need the government, who, by the way makes more money on tobacco sales than the tobacco companies do, to tell us to avoid things we don't like. Funny thing about smoking bans. All the money to lobby for them comes from the company that sells Nicorette and Nicoderm, and the money is funneled into once respected "non profits" for lobbying purposes. Silly me! I actually thought they were trying to "find a cure" with that money I sent them, until I read their 990, and found out what their salaries are, and their fundraising expenses, and the lobbying expenses. I don't make the mistake of donating to them anymore!!!! And, Yankee, pro ban, Chicken Littles, PLEASE go home!
Jonik May 23, 2012 at 11:55 PM
A site called "Fauxbacco" http://fauxbacco.blogspot.com has reference material galore that shows that "smoking bans" are generally frauds designed to blame the victims, scapegoat the public-domain tobacco plant, and really about getting the cigarette industry (including suppliers of a host of deadly ingredients...and all of their insurers and investors) off a potentially huge liability hit. To not talk about banning those deadly cigarette adulterants, and to not talk about labeling all deadly and untested ingredients, is to be off target....just the way the cigarette cartel wants it. PS: If your govt officials have economic links to pesticides, pharmaceuticals, pulp & paper, chlorine, many Ag Businesses, big insurance, and big investment firms....they may prefer to enact laws against the victims of those entities. And, it looks nice too...as if they are champions of health and "the kids" and all. Not hardly.
Lucas Roberts May 25, 2012 at 12:41 PM
I agree. As a former Manhattanite – It is a no brainer. The smoking ban in New York has been a great thing for the city. This conversation shows how backward thinking this city is. This was a relevant topic five years ago. How can this city become successful when they cannot ban something that is known to be unhealthy and is seen as a negative in today’s society? This city needs to position itself with Stone Mountain. It doesn’t have much else going for it. I do not understand why these city meetings do not talk about how can we align with the existing natural feature of Stone Mountain - rather than, how can we create an art program from nothing, how can we re-image the city, how can we keep smokers at Bev’s place? It should be, how can we connect with the park, what can we do to draw the visitors into our city to make money for the city, what improvements can we make to make our city better to draw in residents and business? I really thought the City of Stone Mountain would entertain some progressive thinking. This town is positioned so well to be successful. BUT instead, we talk about if we should or should not have a smoking ban? Really?

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »