Tag Archives: Smoking Ban
The smoking ban in Boston, Massachusetts, was proposed by the Mayor Thomas M. Menino and it came into action from the beginning of 2014. The lnew law prohibits to smoke not only cigarettes but also e-cigarettes, marijuana and vaporizers in all city open spaces such as parks and cemeteries.
The ban includes Boston Common located close to campus which makes the park a popular place for many Emerson smokers. However, with the smoking ban students have to look for other place to smoke.
Residents of the city say that it will be quite hard to make this law work because there are many people that choose to smoke in the Common. It is a common place for smokers, especially for Emerson students for whom it is the only place to smoke.
Those who violate the law will have to pay a $250 fine. However, at the beginning the enforcement will be on a peer-to-peer basis, which means that ordinary park visitors will inform smokers about the new anti-smoking rules. Fines will be applied in the last resort. People should be well informed about the new rules that recently came into action.
Some people consider the peer-to-peer aspect of the initiative to be problemati. They say that the only people who will eat smoker’s out are those affected by tobacco smoke. Silvia Stantcheva, a junior political communication major, told that Emerson students will not change their smoking habits. Stantcheva smokes about four Marlboro Reds daily and she added that many smokers pretend they are not aware about smoking ban.
Recently the Foundation for a Healthy Kentucky made a poll whose results appear to demonstrate widespread support for a statewide smoking ban including restaurants and bars and support for anti-smoking policies in local communities that already have implemented their various policies.
The question in the poll: “Would you favor or oppose a law in Kentucky that would ban smoking in public places, including public buildings, workplaces, restaurants, offices, and bars?” The majority o respondents told “yes.”
Those who proposed statewide smoking law are aware that when they provide a choice in such polls, the majority of people would favor smoking bans in public places but not on privately owned property.
A big number of government buildings have already implemented smoke free policies because citizens often visit them. And even most privately owned public places have already banned smoking in order to make air cleaner for the customers and workers. .
McDonald’s and The Crazy Fox have prohibited smoking long ago, when there was no official statewide law that prohibits smoking. This all happened without a statewide law.
Another question in the poll: “Where do respondents live?” The answers on it showed the differences in views on various subjects. For example, people from urban areas may have different views than people in rural areas.
According to Susan Zepeda, the foundation’s president and CEO, smoking ban laws are needed for people to quit smoking or to keep from returning to the habit. Zepeda, who smoked in her past, stopped after the Surgeon General said it is harmful. Kentucky’s smoking rates are lowering without a statewide ban which shows the effectiveness of such warnings.
Starting from January, new smoking policy comes into effect at Ohio State University. New smoking ban prohibits use of tobacco on university property but new rules does not penalize those who break them as they do rely on passers-by to remind smokers politely of the ban.
The success of the policy totally depends on the cooperation of smokers and non-smokers. In order to help with rules implementation, groups of volunteers will walk through campus seeking smokers and asking them to stop. Also in next weeks there will be distributed to smokers informational cards calling them to stop.
However, in spite of new anti-smoking rules, students continue to smoke near OSU buildings or while walking across campus. They know about the smoking ban, but say that only a serious penalty can prevent them from smoking.
Dr. Peter Shields, deputy director of the university’s cancer center, says that this smoking ban is going to work because it is not the first university to introduce it. Soon people will understand that they aren’t permitted to smoke cigarettes and so they begin to follow policies. Policy cannot force students to comply. It is not a state law. The policy works in the university only, that is why law enforcement officials cannot punish for policy violations.
Those who repeatedly violate the smoking ban can only be punished for discipline break under existing codes of conduct that require them to follow university policies, However, nothing demands tobacco users to identify themselves, and there is no complaint system even if they do.
Smoking ban was expected to begin in August 2013 as an attempt of Ohio Board of Regents to make public-college campuses of tobacco-free. But the ban was delayed until January 1, 2014.
Is a tobacco-free state, however, there may be made some exceptions for use of tobacco products outdoors near student residence halls. and conference centers.
Use of tobacco products is prohibited indoors and within 10 feet of building entrances.
Smoking is prohibited indoors and near buildings outdoors including Beaver Stadium.
Becomes smoke-free from January 1, 2014. no smoking permitted inside or outdoors on campus, including private vehicles.
Smoke-free state by law.
Tobacco-free from January 1, 2012, except for Native American ceremonies, theatrical productions, some campus retail locations, Nationwide Arena and designated outdoor zones at the Schottenstein Center.
Smoking is prohibited indoors but is permitted in designated private residences or hotel rooms including near building entrances. Sale of tobacco products is prohibited on university grounds.
Smoking is prohibited indoors and within 25 feet of building entrances but is allowed at theater performances, Native American ceremonies, research studies and private vehicles.
Smoking is prohibited indoors and within 25 feet of building entrances, but is permitted in designated areas. University apartment and hotel rooms can be designated smoking areas.
Smoker Joan Claunch, who lives in Bruce, Mississippi, says that smoking ban approved recently in the city by the Board of Aldermen does not bother her at all as long as it is not taken too far.
She says that it would never do to ban smoking in her car and this causes a problem.
Other smoker Kenny Oliver told while he was pumping gas at a Bruce convenience store that probably the new smoking ban is a sign he should quit the habit for good. He wanted to quit some time ago and he believes that this ordinance would help him do it this time.
In his turn, Bruce Mayor Rudy Pope, said he is not against smokers as he has many friends who smoke cigarettes. There is a number of reasons why he decided to outlaw smoking in town of Bruce. First of all, it was estimated that 80% of the people in Mississippi do not smoke, therefore other 20% should be thoughtful of non-smokers.
Smoking ban in Bruce prohibits smoking in almost every public building and in parks, including town square. Also a number of businesses are included as well.
The mayor hopes that a 20-foot no-smoking area for the businesses where smokers will be far enough to avoid secondhand smoke. The ordinance will not touch those who smoke at home.
Accirding to Pope, authorities want to control places which people do visit and stay and if they do not smoke, they also should be protected from secondhand smoke. The majority of people in Bruce support the anti-smoking initiative.
First violation of the law will cost the offender $100. A second offense will cost $200 and a third – $500 fine. The Mayor says that if possible, the city wants to avoid those fines and might even offer counseling services.
Jesse Arreguin, the Councilman of Berkeley City, proposed to prohibit smoking in single-family homes. In her turn, Susan Wengraf, the Councilwoman, was appalled as she supports the proposal to prohibit smoking in multiunit homes.
The major aim is to protect people living in multiunit buildings from secondhand smoke that is considered to have negative effects on health. Residents consider the notion of a single-family-home ban scary. The proposal of Wengraf makes the multiunit ordinance seem reasonable.
Anthony Sanchez, the Arreguin adviser, says that the recommendation is really just a nonactionable subject of future consideration.
Berkeley already has prohibited smoking outdoors in such places as parks, commercial districts and bus stations, and now nonsmokers may walk without inhaling tobacco smoke. Does prohibiting smoking in the workplace, at restaurants and bars mean that work of nonsmoker-rights advocates is already done? No. The job is not done yet.
Therefore, the Berkeley proposal to prohibit smoking in multiunit dwellings is not the first one in Bay Area. Wengraf says that tobacco smoke can enter ventilation systems and spread through a building. But what if does not? What if in the building secondhand smoke does not spread and neighbors does not feel it? So in this case tobacco smoke does not bother others. However, if you smoke in an apartment, you are guilty.
Enter Arreguin, considers that the multiunit ordinance would fall unfairly on residents. Therefore, if the Berkeley City is going to tell what people can do in their own lodgings, it should adopt a ban in any dwelling including single ones.
Arreguin suggests that the ban to be applied if a minor lives in the home or a non-smoker older person. He names it most ambitious smoking ban at private spaces and says it does not matter if you permitted it everyone in the room. However, a man aged 63 cannot stay near a smoker. Cynthia Hallett, the representative of Nonsmokers, says that right now, the policy trend is really for multiunit housing.
Coast Community College District wants to introduce smoking ban at its three campuses and asks its students and college staff for theirr opinion on the subject. The smoking ban to be voted in spring 2014 and it would touch such colleges as Golden West in Huntington Beach, Orange Coast in Costa Mesa and Coastline, which has campuses in Fountain Valley and Newport Beach.
These days, smoking is banned in OCC and Coastline within 20 feet of a building entrance or window. Andreea Serban, vice chancellor of educational services and technology, said that in 2007 smoking was prohibited in Golden West in all zones of campus except parking lots, The smoking policy of the district would ban not only use of tobacco but also e-cigarettes.
Trustees received a warning from the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) and after that they began to review board procedures.
While district staff is working over a new smoking policy, trustees asked first to find out opinion of students. Trustee David Grant says that it is very important to know what students say about it and their opinion should be taken into consideration.
Andreea Serban, vice chancellor of educational services and technology, says that the board should delay making decisions, especially until they have decided how to implement the ban if it is approved. He thinks that if you place No-smoking signs at Orange Coast campus, people would accept it.
However, at the moment people smoke by buildings or may sit down next to you and smoke a cigarette. So it is very important to introduce smoking policy on campus.
Coast is not the first community college district in Orange County tp introduce a smoking ban. Different smoking policies do already exist at Orange’s Santiago Canyon College, Santa Ana College and Fullerton College.
However, smokers are against smoking ban at campus. They do understand that secondhand smoke is harmful for people therfore the ban must be comprehensive.
When a worker of Pasco County school, which was opened before July 1996, wants to smoke a cigarette, he must step outside in area specially designated for that. Health Advisory Committee of the district wants to stop that policy. Thus health care professionals of the community have called on the School Board to change such policy to permit older schools to avoid the tobacco-free designation that new campuses operate under.
The committee says about the necessity to provide a good example for young people and school workers must maintain positive adult role models for students. Besides this, it is necessary to protect students from secondhand smoke at any level.
These anti-smoking messages are not new. In August 2011 there was held a seminar on this subject. Also Students Working Against Tobacco explained their opinion in June current year. Student Andrew Gonzalez said the board that students want schools to be 100% free of tobacco and smokers should go off campus. Ideally, if a teacher smokes, the school must help him quit.
The agreements say, that a pre-1996 school can become 100% free of tobacco only with the unanimous vote of its workers. There is no record in the district of any requested votes in the 17 years since the rule came into action.
The employee relations director Betsy Kuhn said that the chance to change the smoking policy generally is good, because it really needs a change. Several districts have prohibited tobacco consumption among school workers.
Some districts, such as Pasco, have even tried to stop hiring people who smoke cigarettes. The concept was dropped in Pasco after finding it unworkable in its food and nutrition department.
Kuhn said that Pasco’s advisory committee provided a number of reasons to take into consideration when discussing a new direction for tobacco-free workplaces. These are not just public places. These are schools and they must go 100% tobacco-free in order to prevent students from using all kinds of tobacco.
This week authorities of Pleasant Hill city rejected a suggestion to extend smoking ban to shopping centers and downtown. Michael Harris, the mayor of Pleasant Hill, has pushed rules that ban smoking in public places in the city. It is him who suggested the new restrictions.
He got many complaints from citizens who were worried about secondhand smoke at restaurants with outdoor seating in the downtown. Today in Pleasant Hill city there are few places where smokers may light up a cigarette.
Before the meeting Harris said that it is a normal thing to ask authorities to examone if smoking ban in downtown is reasonable enough. However, the anti-smoking initiative failed on a 2 – 2 vote (Harris together with Councilman Tim Flaherty voted for the ban and councilmen Jack Weir and Ken Carlson voted against it). Councilman David Durant was absent from the meeting
In September Walnut Creek implemented an ordinance that bans smoking in all public places including leisure zones, multiunit housing and in downtown. Recently Concord extended no-smoking zone around Todos Santos Plaza. Jack Weir said that he respects citizen’s desire to stay away from secondhand smoke. Several speakers asked if there may be adopted a smoking ban in Pleasant Hill. Police Chief John Moore said that police have received numerous calls about individuals smoking in prohibited zones, but when officers they are already gone
In 2006 smoking was prohibited in and near city-owned facilities and in many places of work. In order to lower exposure to secondhand smoke, in 2010 the City Council introduced special rules that ban smoking at bus stations, ticket lines and at outdoor events on city property.
In the ordinance proposed by the Mayor, there was suggested that smoking ban to be applied to housing with most outdoor and indoor places to go smoke-free. Thus by 2016, owners must make 50% of existing apartment units smoke-free. Several years ago, Park District and the Pleasant Hill Recreation prohibited smoking in all parks, hiking trails, open spaces, parking areas. According to the law smoking is prohibited within 25 feet of a playground.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that secondhand smoke has negative effects on human;s health. Since 2009, many Contra Costa cities have introduced severe anti-smoking rules. Martinez is the first city in the county which prohibited smoking in most public places.
In the near future Nursing Home workers from Franklin County will not be permitted to smoke cigarettes on facility grounds because a new state law comes into action in less than two weeks, on October 29. The law prohibits smoking on the grounds of hospitals and health-care facilities within 15 feet of the entrance.
However, the new law does not prevent visitors and patients from smoking in designated zones as long as they are not within particular distances of the building or the entrance to the grounds. Since ’90s the nursing home had a non-smoking policy but the staff was not mentioned in it.
County Manager Thomas Leitz asked State Department of Health to explain the details of the law, especially he was interested to know if workers would be part of the new ban, but he was told that the final determination has not been made yet. Nursing Home Administrator Mary Palmer suggested that nursing home workers and hospital staff will be placed under the same rules.
Lawmakers asked the explanation of the new law since it states no smoking on the facility grounds. They were interested if smoking ban included the parking zone, for example, if a worker is allowed to smoke in his car. Legislator Sue Robideau raised concerns about safety of workers because smoking ban makes them leave the grounds and go to smoke along a busy highway, especially in winter time.
Rob Haynes, engineer at the State Department of Transportation office in Malone, provided a 2010 statistics. It shows that every day almost 3,400 vehicles pass by the nursing home. Workers get lunches and are not permitted to leave the nursing home grounds during their 8-hour working day. It means that they cannot go off grounds to smoke while on duty.
Legislator Marc “Tim” Lashomb said he is opposed to smoking. In past he smoked but generally for people it is hard to quit, Smokers have their rights and normally their rigts should be respected. While waiting for clarification fro the state, lawmakers decided that Nursing Home workers will not be permitted to smoke on facility grounds or parking zones after October 29.