I don't agree with government smoking bans on private property (restaurants, cars, businesses, etc.), but why shouldn't they be able to ban smoking on government-owned property? If you want smoking in parks, then get a consortium together and buy a private park and let people smoke there.

All the focus is on smoking now, but what about when the government gets smoking taken care of? Will they go after fat people next? Fat kills too. Already they're banning transfats. Are we all so stupid that the government doesn't trust us to have any kind of choices?

I don't agree with government smoking bans on private property [...] but why shouldn't they be able to ban smoking on government-owned property?

I agree. I also think another distinction besides public vs. private property is that that the private smoking ban was decided at the state level, while this would be a local decision. That makes it a little easier to justify if, of course, a majority of the community supported the ban, rather than it just being an edict from well-meaning city officials.

Also, the whole discussion over the statewide smoking ban a couple of years ago just reaked of metro Atlanta pretentiousness. Just about all of the arguments (health of the workers, that it would be "good" for business, etc.) were made from the perspective of upper-middle class Atlantans. People in rural areas generally were ambivalent about a smoking ban, if not mildly against it. But their concerns didn't seem to matter.

Thanks for speaking up for the "country people," Doug.

“It’s distasteful and bad for your health and I decided it was time do something about it,” Harper said.

Well I certainly appreciate your saving us from ourselves Jason Harper.

Jason Harper is a fool.

There is a great episode of Bullshit! on second hand smoke.

I don't see the point in banning smoking in a park and citing second hand smoke as one of the reasons. I can understand the concern about starting fires, but hell...Cochran Park in Stockbridge has trains tracks that run through the middle of it and no one seems concerned that some kid could get killed?

This is a pointless action promoted by a pointless man that has been an absolute failure as county commissioner.

First, to RUSTY-- The problem with Do-Gooders in their last term of public dis-service (aka Jason Harper) making our government into a Nanny which of course knows best how to care for us, is simply this: We Are The Government; It is not THEIR Property because it is OUR Property. Please never forget who works for, and is paid by whom.

Secondly, for BETH -- Will they go after fat people next?

Lord have mercy! I hope not. Then they will have me nabbed, hog-tied and sentenced to 100 years hard labor for committing TWO politically incorrect crimes: Being fat & a smoker!

Open Letter sent to the members of our illustrious Bored of Commissioners:

I hope you will all read the post and comments at http://www.jasonpye.com/blog/2006/12/no_smoking_in_henry_parks.html regarding the ban on smoking at "public" parks. For my own 2-cents, the rationale is purely elitist and proves commitment to political correctness. Henry parks are not the private property of do-gooder socialites or hack politicians serving a niche interest group. Our parks are financed with tax dollars, much of which is provided by smokers. This Government Knows Best mentality serves to create 2nd and 3rd class citizens.

Government exists to provide essential services, and this ordinance serves no defensible public purpose. I hope that you will now consider:

1. Prohibit Norfolk-Southern from using the train tracks at Cockran park in Stockbridge. A kid could get killed there.
2. Prohibit McDonough from proceeding with the elaborate park because of the train tracks located there.
3. Establish fines for every car & truck driver using our roads because of the inherent pollution they cause.
4. Require all county vehicles to use only clean-burning propane or electric motors.

and finally, please consider whether Henry Countians will continue to elect politically correct elitists whose official acts fail to serve the taxpayers who provide them with financing for parks they can treat as private property. This single vote is a prime reason to oppose any contiuation or future imposition of SPLOST. Why should taxpayers vote for a tax that makes them de-facto 2nd class citizens?

L. Stanley

Rusty, they shouldn't be able to ban smoking in public parks b/c it is the people who pay for such parks. Indoor arenas, sure. But outside? That's the beauty of freedom of choice--I can choose to smoke and you can choose to walk away. Or even, you can choose to bitch at me to such an extent that I choose to walk away. Where exactly does the ban stop? In other words, what if I am standing just outside of the park and the smoke, I don't know, rises? Does the government regulation cover ground area only? Because let's face it, you're going to get more smoke in the air than on the ground. How far away must I stand from my park?

Regardless, I don't need anyone else telling me what is good for myself and what I should and should not do. If I choose to smoke, so be it. If I choose to eat trans fats, so be it. Who is anyone else to punish me for not listening to their advice?

Larry,
64 percent of "we the people" support smoking bans (and, again, I'm not among them when it comes to private property). So, on property owned by "we the people," I see no problem with "we the people" banning cigs.

Lets go after the real killer of the American people...Vermont Cheddar Cheese. Say no to the clogger of all arteries.

Nice Thank You for Smoking reference.

If Jason Harper can ban smoking because he finds it distasteful, what else can he ban?

Does any realize this means you can't use the grills at the parks anymore because that is burning a combustible substance?

Why do they ban clear cutting of trees in this county? The killing of trees is also contributing to air that is not clean.

Oh, I am not a smoker, have never been, no one is allowed to smoke in my house or car.

64 percent of "we the people" support smoking bans (and, again, I'm not among them when it comes to private property). So, on property owned by "we the people," I see no problem with "we the people" banning cigs.

Ah yes...rule by consensus. I believe Rand called that the "New Fascism."

I have a lot of respect for you, Rusty, but stop looking at polls, individual liberty should not be taken for granted just because of a poll.

I think it's funny that mob rule goes when we're talking about economics, but as soon as we're talking individual freedom we're dealing with liberty. SOS, different day.

I also find it funny that the government can arbitrarily be the bogeyman that's causing all of our problems or "we the people" when it's convenient to whatever issue we're discussing.

You only have a 1/(population of a jurisdiction) ownership stake in a public park. If more owners say they want cigarettes banned in that public park than say they want to smoke, then they're exercising their democratic right to make the rules. And you lose out on that one. Tough titty.

I think it's funny that mob rule goes when we're talking about economics, but as soon as we're talking individual freedom we're dealing with liberty. SOS, different day.

It's the same issue. We should always side with individual liberty, whether it's personal or economic issues.

You only have a 1/(population of a jurisdiction) ownership stake in a public park. If more owners say they want cigarettes banned in that public park than say they want to smoke, then they're exercising their democratic right to make the rules. And you lose out on that one.

Rights are not to be left to the mob. Whether it's in public or in private.

Rusty,

Do you want a new regulation to cover everything? Just because 50+ % of the people think one way does not mean that there needs to be a law covering it. In general, less government is better. That is what this debate is about.

I smoked for over 35 years. I quit. I find it egregious that any government would ban outdoor smoking. I have lived with smoking anywhere, not smoking in government buildings, not smoking in public buildings, and not smoking in restaurants. No smoking in the park is a bad law. The ban also includes a combustible material ban. That means that you can not BBQ in the park.

Whether smoking is bad for you or whether you dislike second-hand smoke is not the point. The point is government intrusion is bad.

Here is Jason Harper's response to my email:

Secondhand smoke is a leading cause of cancer. As long as I am chairman I do not intend to have children and families subject to such exposure while enjoying their right to use the parks.

The community's health is far more important to me than someone's right to smoke around other citizens in a public park.

Thanks for your e-mail.

***

Isn't that just telling me to go take a flying leap?

He didn't bother to answer my questions about car fumes in the parks and if we can still cook burgers and dogs on the grills in the park.

How do we know 50+% of the visitors to our parks want this ban? No one asked me. Statitics can be twisted for any use you want.

Secondhand smoke is a leading cause of cancer. As long as I am chairman I do not intend to have children and families subject to such exposure while enjoying their right to use the parks.
Please tell me how exposure to smoking in a park is going to cause second hand smoke.

- You are outside.
- Studies have shown that prolonged exposure may cause second hand smoke. Meaning...over the course of years, not at the occasional park visit.

You aren't going to have any health effects from second hand smoke if you are at a park.

Harper's logic here is, not surprisingly, shallow.

The community's health is far more important to me than someone's right to smoke around other citizens in a public park.
Again, the same applies. Why not ban trans-fats like New York?

Why not outlaw liquor in Henry County? Surely alcoholism is a serious health rise to the citizens of Henry County.

Harper can't answer your questions because it would require logic and common sense.

Folks, here is Harper's response to my original email. Make of it what you will.

I am in receipt of your e-mail concerning smoking. I think I speak for all the board members, but you can ask each his or her own opinion. Our banning smoking has purely to do with secondhand smoke being bad for one’s health. I don’t think that is political correctness or elitist. I believe that to be a medical fact. While the government should strive to protect personal rights, it also must protect the rights of others from being infringed upon. In this case people should be allowed the right to use public parks without others causing them to inhale secondhand smoke. I know you smoke, or used to, and I realize you have the right to do so. However, I don’t think you should be able to do that around children and families out for a healthy day at the park.

Thanks for the e-mail. Your comments (wether I agree or not) are always welcome.

Jason

And my reply to Harper:

Jason,

Thank you for this fast response. I honestly did not expect one.

I understand the good intentions behind the ordinance. However, I also recognize the county parks are taxpayer funded - even by the ones who smoke. To the tennis player who says, “We do not want smokers around our kids,” I have a suggestion. Buy some land, and then pay for a private tennis court. Then and only then may she impose her personal desires on those who actually paid for the facility. Another option is to recognize that public facilities are open to the public and offending aspects must be handled without infringing on use or access by any law abiding citizen. After all, public funds finance the public park for public access.

My point is that public facilities are public and not privately controlled for the exclusive desires of any group. That would be a private country club. An ordinance outlawing “possession of any combustible tobacco products” is over the line. Tobacco remains a legal substance. Neither the state of Georgia nor Henry County has passed any laws to the contrary.

Prohibitions against use or possession of alcohol or narcotics make good sense and would garner full support from the entire community. Prohibitions against abusive language or fighting are also sensible and universally accepted.

As for second hand smoke, the fact remains that parks provide an open-air environment. There is ample opportunity to avoid noxious fumes, or even sequester smokers away from the tennis courts or playing fields. To further the point, cars and trucks passing by provide a multitude of air pollutants that could easily waft into the protected area. When might we expect an ordinance against driving near parks?

Sorry, Jason, but for me the ordinance falls into the realm of prohibiting smoking in cars or on public streets. Government need not provide a politically correct Nanny Service when there are ample serious matters at hand.

I will let you know if the Herald actualy prints my editorial on this topic!

Nick Naylor: I speak on behalf of cigarettes.
Child: Chairman Harper says second hand smoke in open outside parks kill.
Nick Naylor: Now is Chairman Harper a Doctor?
Child: No.
Nick Naylor: Now he doesn't exactly sound like a credible expert now does he?

I don't even really care about the public health aspect of this for the sake of the argument. We're talking about government-owned property, and what rules the government should or shouldn't be able to set on government property.

To give a more extreme example...

By your rationale, it's a violation of civil liberties to say that someone isn't allowed to shit in a government-owned pool. Yet, I don't think too many people would complain, and you're always free to shit in your own pool.

The public owns the parks, and the public can set the rules for those parks. If the public says no smoking, then there won't be any smoking.

Rusty, you said it: the public can set the rules.

When was the referendum held? I think we all missed it! Neither Harper nor the entire BoC can rightfully usurp the right of the public to set the rules.

You example of the pool does not follow logic. Laws already exist to prevent and control septic pollution as you describe. No such laws exist pertaining to use of tobacco.

Civil liberties begin and end with acceptance of equal dignity. It is your park; it is my park. I cannot refuse your access and use, and nor can you refuse mine. That is the nature of public facilities. When we Joe Blow Citizens allow 5 or 6 people to unilaterally decide that you or I can be refused because of tobacco, next the restrictions may include hair color, weight, height, the car we drive or the house we live in, skin color or religious preference.

Lines must be drawn. In the absence of public consent, civil liberties have been abused. More importantly, I think, the local governing board has assumed a role for which they were not elected. That type of abuse of power is dangerous and cannot be tolerated.

Folks, I just caught a caveat in the new ordinance:

possession of any combustible tobacco products is also banned.

That means I can dip, chew and spit all over the fancy-pants tennis players!!!

Seriously, though, let's follow Harper's logic. Next we can expect severe fines on folks for publicly expelling methane gas. Those fumes are truly offensive, deplete the ozone layer and contribute to global warming. Mr. Harper, pull my finger!

Larry,
Didn't you just say a few comments ago that the "we the people" are the government? Which is it? Is the government the public or not?

"Our banning smoking has purely to do with secondhand smoke being bad for one’s health.

Being facetious here:

Does that mean that the county police officers have to leave the windows up while smoking in their police cars?

We don't want their second hand smoke getting into the atmosphere while they idle their 4.6L V8 during their Marlboro moment.

Aside from the fact that this is yet another example of government making choices it thinks is best for me, let's think about this whole mob-rule thing.

First, we are not a democracy. So the whole idea of majority rule doesn't necessarily always apply. Second, I heard an analogy once that reminds me why direct democracy is a bad idea and I find it fitting in this case. I can't remember from where I heard it, I want to say Boortz but I can't say that for sure though I can assure you the quotation isn't mine. It goes something to the effect of, "There are ten wolves and two sheep, now let's vote on what's for dinner."

Just a thought.

Just sounds like we have a bunch of idiots for a Boc as for me I dont care when and where anyone smokes or don't smoke. They need to worry more about why my taxes are so high and how to handle this county's money responsibly. Tey also need to do the job we elected them for. I donot remember voting a com. in on baning smoking to our Boc get a grip, or the rest will suffer the fate of Holman and Adams

This is not a civil liberties debate. It's assinine to assert that it is. This reminds me of Walter Sobchak linking every little mundane detail of life to Vietnam. If you say that it is your right to smoke, then how is it not my right to not breathe in your smoke? I believe that I have the right to not breathe smoke if I so desire, and if it is your belief that I must breathe your smoke or not visit the park, then you are no better than Jason Harper and his band of misfits.

This is a law that dictates common courtesy for those of us that are snotty little bastards that have nothing better to do than kill ourselves with poison sticks. When others put up a fight to keep our smokestacks away from them because a) it is discourteous and b) it could possibly maybe one day be harmful, then we get all up in arms thinking our rights are being trampled without thought to the rights of others. That is why this is not a civil liberties debate. Smokers still have the right to smoke, they just don't have the right to do it in a way that infringes upon the rights of others.

And for the record, government intervention sucks. Especially this kind of intervention. If people weren't asshole douches, stupid rules like these wouldn't be necessary. Unfortunately, people suck.

Realist do you need a law to make you courteous if I smoke and you don't if you ask me to not smoke around you I would stop it is not the job of our county state of federal goverment to say what we can and can not do if you think that is the job of the goverment you would maybe vote for ralpf nadder for president just kidding about that. You see what i just don' see why we need laws on the books that can not be enforced. at this rate they make criminals out of everyone.

Realist,

You are outside. It's not different from breathing emissions from cars or trucks.

The question is, what is the proper role of government? I don't believe laws like this serve any means but to score political points.

I think ALL of you are missing the real issue here:
Let's just ban Jason Harper's sorry ass from public parks!

This is the problem when you have the government owning everything. I agree this is a puplic park and therefore the county can set these rules.But the problem is you can not have a private park when you are competing against a government park.Why would people help pay for your private playgound when they play at the puplic playground where the government can use force through taxes to pay for the upkeep of the county park and they think it is free because they do not understand how the county park is paid for.So when you wish for all this free government stuff this is what you get. ENJOY

the problem is you can not have a private park when you are competing against a government park

People pay property taxes & send their children to private schools anyway.

When downtown you can take MARTA, it's sMARTA, or you can take a cab & pay more. People choose a taxi every day because the service is better despite being subsidized by the taxpayers.

The same can be said here about parks. If there's a better private park, for example one of the indoor types that host birthday parties for children, people will go there.

They'll go there because the facilities are often better. They won't go to a public park for a birthday because they're limited or the upkeep is poor.

I have a serious problem with gov't telling Cracker Barrel that they can't have a smoking section. I have a problem with gov't telling everyone except the XYZ bar that they must not allow smoking. I have a problem with intrusive gov't.

But yes, it's county property so if they want to forbid smoking, so be it because it's their property. And for Jason Harper to say it's "purely to do with secondhand smoke being bad for one’s health"?

What's worse, inhaling car exhaust in an open two acre park or second hand smoke?

"People choose a taxi every day because the service is better despite being subsidized by the taxpayers."

MARTA is subsidized, but you know what I meant.

Danny
I know there is private parks and private taxis but how much more of this could we have if the government would get out of the way.We all keep voting for these people and then we complain about what we get.People do not want freedom and liberty.They want their freedom and liberty and they do not care about yours.

Doug,
You & I pretty much agree.

I think people are afraid to have the responsibility it takes to achieve in a less restrictive society.

That's why people rave about no more smoking in restaurants & gov't tells the people "See, we did this for YOU. The majority spoke, and we listened." It takes the choice away from the individual & the gov't decides for them.

It takes away a minor inconvenience of telling the hostess "I prefer not to sit where I can smell smoke, despite your calling it "non-smoking."

Again, the gov't owns the public parks, let them manage it as they see fit. But when they manage how a business can attract or push away patrons, that's where I fear a slippery slope.

Today, I feel (I know, it's an emotion) that people today are more than willing to trade their right of choice for some form of gov't security.

Yep. People chose to sit in their homes with a big hurricane coming because of the security knowing that the government was going to save them. We see how that turned out.

I emailed both Jason Harper and Lee Holman. Harper responded:

Secondhand smoke is a leading cause of cancer. As long as I am chairman I do not intend to have children and families subject to such exposure while enjoying their right to use the parks.

The community's health is far more important to me than someone's right to smoke around other citizens in a public park.

Thanks for your e-mail

Lee Holman did not have a "canned" response. He said in part:

"...and I am not in favor of the new law. I agree with you that government should stay out of our lives."

Lee Holman has a good attitude on this. Have you questioned your commissioner?

How much second hand smoke have any of us been exposed to at a park in this county?

I've spent a decent amount of time at the parks watching my son play baseball for a few years. We also used to go to the park just to enjoy the park.
I never had a problem with second hand smoke. I never felt anyone was imposing on my rights to use the parks.

When bars and restaurants had smoking sections, I could decide on my own if I wanted to enter that establishment or not. I never felt that my rights were infringed upon because I choose not to eat at some places or I had to wait for a non-smoking table.

I am an adult and can make those decisions for myself. I do not need Jason Harper telling me how to live and how to raise my child.

If he is so concerned about the health of the community he should put a stop to the development that is cutting down trees and bringing in more traffic.

I thought the vote by the commissioners was passed unanimously. Yet Lee Holman says he is not in favor of the new law. Why did he vote for it or am I missing something?

From what I can tell form the BOC website, it was moved to an executive session. Larry, is this correct? Aren't executive sessions confidential?

Josh - About the executive session, I am checking on that right now. This is not a matter that legally should be taken into private session.

There are now 43 comments on this topic and only a few in support of the ordinance.

At the Henry Herald Forum there are only 16 comments, but the BoC is taking a beating.

SPLOST money is used to fund the parks and other structures on public property. Property taxes are used to supplement the general fund budget, which is also used to build and maintain public facilities. I suggest that sooner, rather than later, the future of citizen support for discriminatory taxation must be considered.

First, 43 comments here and 16 comments there does not a beating make. Especially when 87% of said comments are from the same six people.

Second, you are skirting the issue with a nice, tidy, little red herring. You say second-hand smoke is no worse than car and truck exhaust. I'll agree. (So why do we smoke? We are purposely putting the equivalent of car and truck exhaust into our lungs. I digress.) Here's the thing. When a poorly-tuned, horribly smokey car or truck drives by, do you breathe in the freshness of their fumes? I certainly don't. I treat that vehicle with scorn. I do everything in my power to not be behind that car. Then, I think to myself, "What a pile of junk. That piece of crap shouldn't be on the road." But, I guess, it should be allowed in the park because we don't want to hurt smokers' feelings.

Third, second-hand smoke has many effects that smokers gloss over. Children that are subjected to second-hand smoke have a higher rate of asthma and ear infections. Plus, everything they own stinks, unbeknownst to smokers or those that live in a cloud of smoke. You can literally smell a smoker just by walking within about five feet of them. Either they reek of smoke, or they have some horrible mixture of perfume/cologne and smoke that smells worse than the smoke itself. You may say, but in this instance it is outside. Go outside and smoke right now with a buddy who doesn't smoke. Then, walk back inside and ask another non-smoker to smell your buddy. I betcha he'll have a faint odor of smoke. He won't realize it, and the smoker sure as hell won't realize it. So, just because it is outside does not mean that all the smoke goes up into the big vacuum in the sky. It is inhaled and contacts those around you unwittingly.

Fourth, I agree with Pat that I am an adult and can make decisions for myself without the assistance of friends on the BoC. However, there are certain things that do not belong in a public forum. For instance, pornography. You have the right to enjoy porn all you want. You should just do it privately. You shouldn't carry around your porn mag and break it out after you've eaten a fine steak. That's just inappropriate behavior. Back to my original closing... I don't want the government to have to do these sorts of things. I think it is out of their jurisdiction. However, people that behave poorly need to be told what is decent public behavior so I have some recourse when my rights are being abridged by public idiots. If we would just take others into consideration when we do things in public settings, these things wouldn't be necessary.

Fifth, smoking is not just about the second-hand smoking. Look at how many cigarette butts are laying around in a common smokers' gathering. I was driving down the road the other day, and four(!) different cars threw out their cigarette and hit my car. This is the sort of thing that will get smoking banned in cars. Again, people behaving like idiots taking their privately acceptable behaviors and making them public. Just don't do this, and the public won't lash out against you.

Beth: You made no sense.

Pat: Exactly. You're exactly right. You can leave if you choose and if the restaurant loses enough people b/c they have a smoking section, I guarantee you that they will eventually make their establishment non-smoking without the government mandating it. That's essentially my argument for trans fats as well but I'll try not to stray.

When I go outside with a smoker, I'm choosing to do that. I know full well that I may smell smokey when I come back inside, but that's my choice. If I want to hang with my smoking buddy and not smell like smoke, it's a pretty good practice that if I stand a few feet away I'm okay because I'm outside. I'm even better off if I stand down-wind. I'm not forced to stand next to him, nor am I forced to stand next to strangers in a park. How close do people who don't know one another stand? If I don't know you and you're standing close enough that I can smell your smoke and be bothered by it, you've come too far within my personal space bubble that strangers shouldn't be in. I guarantee you that in a public park, if someone's smoking and someone else does not wish to be around it, they will move. Or they can even ask the smoker to move if they're that ballsy. The smoker may say no, he may concede; either way is better than the government saying he cannot smoke in the park that he has partially paid for.

Alot of the assumptions in support of the ban are that the smokers are in close proximity to non-smokers. Most public parks I've ever been to are quite large. Second-hand smoke effects are not going to be felt if I'm 5 feet away from you in open air, let's get real here. Why not assign smoking areas within the park? Would that not be more fair? Then the non-smokers would know those areas to avoid. While the argument can be placed that the non-smokers then have areas they must avoid if they don't want to be around smoke, they're still not banned from the entire park. But non-smokers are inherently better than smokers and we know that so smokers are always second-class.

In response to the litter issue, that has nothing to do with the reasons given by Mr. Harper which seem to focus on health aspects. And if you want to fix the litter issue, then fine the smokers who throw their butts on the ground. That goes along with enforcing restrictions already in place instead of posting new ones.

Your rights are only infringed up if you're made to stand next to a smoker in a large park. By not allowing smokers in the park at all, it is their rights that are infringed upon. Whereas, if they were allowed to smoke in the park but only in designated areas, no rights are. Not that I agree with that either, but I digress. Only when smokers make you breathe their smoke, or you have nowhere else to go, are you rights infringed upon. Are these even "rights" at all actually? I get off-topic too easily...

To say this is not a matter of civil liberties is a little misguided b/c it most certainly is. If the park was private, you could prohibit whomever you wish, but it is a public park and any who pay taxes there have equal rights to be there.

Here in Richmond, we don't ban homeless people from public areas (the outcry is amazing when it's attempted) even though they prove more of a security risk than any sort of smoker and they (obviously) don't pay anything to have rights within the parks.

Smokers are well aware of the health aspects associated with the habit. It's their choice to continue doing so. Tobacco is a legal substance. Second-hand smoke is only a factor in enclosed spaces and is only a leading cause of cancer and asthma when exposed in consective, large amounts (i.e. children who live with parents who smoke inside, in the car, etc.). An occasional visit to the park is not going to give you cancer. In reality, the move is nothing more than someone's disdain for smoking and trying to outlaw it in as many ways as possible b/c they can't outlaw the substance yet.

You can't say "I don't think the government should intrude...except in cases where it bothers me."

This is the response from B.J. Mathis:

Our banning smoking has purely to do with secondhand smoke being bad for one’s health. I believe that to be a medical fact. While the government should strive to protect personal rights, it also must protect the rights of others from being infringed upon. In this case people should be allowed the right to use public parks without others causing them to inhale secondhand smoke.

I am a former smoker myself and
understand the issue from both sides. But I will give you a recent scenario from a personal perspective:

My family and I attended the Haunted Trail event at Heritage Park. We had to stand in line for about 45 minutes before it was our turn to walk through the trail. We were surrounded on both sides by people who were smoking. I'm sure they were not thinking anything about how it was affecting those around them, it was completely innocent from their perspective. They were doing what they always do. However the smoke from their cigarettes caused me to start coughing
and my eyes to burn. I was inhaling second hand smoke even though we were at an outdoor event.

Here is another scenario, I experienced this during my kids ball playing season on more than one occasion. When you go to events at a park chances are, 90% of the time, you are in close proximity to other people attending or watching an event. Bleachers are placed to afford you the best view of the games. People who watch the games from the bleachers usually don't think twice before lighting up a cigarette in those bleachers. Many times spectators are holding infants or small children as they watch their other children play. They are being exposed to second hand smoke. I have often seen people on oxygen watching games, that and a lighter is a dangerous mix. These are just two small example as to why it has become a problem. We have had citizen complaints about the issue, are we not obligated to this constituency as well?.

There are very real health risks associated with second hand smoke, medical evidence supports this. Banning smoking carries no health risk at all. We are charged with the task of
providing parks, I believe we are also charged with the task of protecting public health while our citizens use those parks.

I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and opinions with me.

"By not allowing smokers in the park at all, it is their rights that are infringed upon."

This is not what anyone is saying. The ban is against the physical act of smoking in the park. There aren't people standing at the entrance to the park giving each entrant the sniff test to keep out the dirty smokers. Smokers can use the park freely, just like non-smokers. There is no limitation to the use smokers have for the park... they just can't smoke there. Pedophiles can use the park, too. So can murderers, drunkards, rapists, and potheads. There is no ban on any of those people from using the park. You just are not allowed to molest children, murder, be intoxicated, rape, or smoke pot in the park.

That is why this is not a civil liberties issue. No one is saying smokers can't smoke. No one is saying smokers can't use the park. They just don't want smokers to smoke in the park. The "smoking" and the "park using" are mutually exclusive events. Smokers can have full functionality of the park without the use of cigarettes or cigars. Nonsmokers, in your scenario, would have to sacrifice parts of the park so smokers could exercise their "right" to light up.

Finally, if there is even one little bitty iota of a chance that second-hand smoke could possibly cause some sort of harm, no matter how remote that might be, it is a fundamental right for people to choose not to be around such a substance. In an economical scenario, such as restaurants, it is possible for the economic value of customers lost to encourage restaurants to implement smoking bans on their premises. With parks, however, there is no economic value to prohibit smoking, so nonsmokers, unless there is government intervention, have no recourse except to abandon the use of parts, if not all, of the park. As it is a public place, paid for by the entire public, why should only nonsmokers have to sacrifice? Especially when smokers, by merely not smoking, continue to share equal access to the park as nonsmokers?

I was telling someone else about this new law. They agreed that probably the worst part of it is the WAY it was enacted --- brought up at a 9:00 am board meeting with no prior notice and no chance for citizens to speak out for or against it.

Pat,

Lee Holman emailed me back. He is against the law, but would have been the only one to vote against it, so he voted for it.

If that makes sense to you, please explain it to me.

What is the deal with people smoking out in the open at a county park?? I don't smoke and don't like to be around people who do and the smell of smoke but why does our commissioners feel the need to pass such an ordinance? I had rather see a county ordinance preventing people from smoking with 50 feet of an entrance of a public building!

First of all - I dont smoke- I think that its a disgusting habit that - no matter what any of you say- it kills people every single day - Not sure (other than the fact that some people just have nothing better to do) - why everyone is making such a big deal on what the BOC did- they wont be able to enforce it - anymore than the police can keep everyone on the roads from speeding- speeding kills everyday too -the reason that I like the new ordinance is this - people that smoke have absolutely NO disregard for anyone else - I cant stand it when smokers show no consideration for others - I cant stand to see nasty cig buts laying all over the place - the best thing that ever happened was when smoking was banned in eating places - I dont want to be sitting there trying to enjoy a meal and someone who has an addiction to a cancer stick could care less about anyone around them including kids that dont ask to be exposed to that crap - I dont want to go home smelling like an ashtray when I have chosen not to smoke - and have you ever looked at someone who smokes - personally - I appreciate the BOC trying to make things a little better for me and my family especially when those that smoke could care less about anyone else but killing themselves with that stuff

PS - I am also ALL for police roadblocks that are trying to catch all these IDIOTS that drink and drive - whether they set the road block up two feet or 5 miles for Double D's - just last weekend -a drunk driver on the expressway decides that she wants to exit the expressway - and ends up killing two innocent people (one of which was 5 months pregnant) - I wished that they would fry that no good drunk- she has single handedly ruined the lives of ALOT of people

Double D's, where the STDs are surely rampant.

The statewide smoking ban is a clear violation of private property rights.

If you don't like the smoke...then eat somewhere else.

Realist,
My only response to you is this: Why is it the government's responsibility to take care of your health? When did that become an appropriate and acceptable role of government?

It is not the government's responsibility to provide for one's health. This is one part of why the trans fat ban in New York is wrong. People can choose whether they want trans fats or not unless you feel as though by allowing trans fat, you're forcing people to eat them and therefore forcing them to be fat. I want fries, but not the ones with trans fats so instead of finding a restaurant where they don't use trans fats, the government should make it so that every restaurant promotes my good health. Trans fats are a leading cause of heart disease, the number one killer of women, and obesity which leads to other diseases such as diabetes, high blood pressure, congestive heart failure, etc. And since it's the government's responsibility to make sure that doesn't unwittingly happen to me, they have all right to ban them.

It's not the role of government to make sure I'm not exposed to trans fats any less than it is to make sure I'm not exposed to second hand smoke. That's the bottom line, no matter how gross or unpleasant anyone finds the habit.

Dee,
Thanks for proving that people in full support of the ban are far more selfish than smokers are. Also, for grouping all smokers into people who do not care about anyone in world but themselves, someone they want to kill. Because you find it nasty and disgusting (which I'm not saying it's not), you support the ban. "I don't care what anyone says..." no one said otherwise. Not a single person here has said it was not disgusting, healthful, or even cool. But if someone supports individual rights and holds disdain for intrusive government in this particular case, they must think smoking's not gross. If enough people leave a restaurant b/c of the smoke, the restaurant will prohibit it so they can keep business. Bear in mind that no one here is supporting anyone's smoking habit. You can safely guarantee that everyone here understands the risks and effects of smoking and even if anyone here smokes, they know it's disgusting. We're not idiots. What we are not supporting is an overly-intrusive government; a government that plays your parents. By the way, what does a smoker really look like? I'd personally like to hear the answer.

If you dont like the smoke - then eat somewhere else - So if my family sits down and orders and is waiting for our food and some person walks in and cant wait for 45 minutes to support his habit and lights up behind me and my family - I should have to get up and leave and eat somewhere else - Oh ok - that makes all the sense in the world - I really feel sorry for the PATHETIC person who cant just wait until he gets into his own car and then all he has to worry about is killing himself with that crap instead of exposing my family to it - I think that only an extremely selfish person would say that my family should have to eat somewhere else because some addict cant wait until he gets out of an eating place to light up

No actually Emily - I are about the health of my 14 month old daughter and if you or anyone else wants to ruin their own life by smoking - by all means thats what you deserve - but its not your place to decide that its ok for you to ruin my family's life because you have to smoke- you VERY OBVIOUSLY have never had to watch a person die a slow painful death from their addiction to smoking - well - I have - more than one person - and its not any fun at all -

Dee,

It has nothing to do with want you want or what the smoker wants. It has to do with what the property owner wants.

It has nothing to do with want you want or what the smoker wants. It has to do with what the property owner wants.

I agree with both Jason AND Rusty. Let me explain.

Dee, you're 100% wrong. If someone wants to allow smoking on his/her private establishment, then you have no right to tell him otherwise. You knew going into the resturaunt that smoking is allowed. If a smoker shows up 45 minutes into your meal...too bad, you made the CHOICE to eat at an establishment that allows smoking. The state wide smoking ban is a blatant assault on private property rights.

Jason, I agree with your comment. The issue is PRIVATE property rights. When a property owner has a peice of land, he is sovereign over what he allows or disallows on that land.

Here's where I agree with Rusty. The issue, in this case, is not private land. It's public land. With public land, there is no single landowning entity. The land is owned, whether we like it or not, by the collective of people--the group. The "group", also like it or not, is represented by the BOC. So, it seems like they are within their rights as the "group" leaders to act on the behalf of the "group" on the "group's" property.

Are they right? No. Being exposed to a sniff of second hand smoke in an open field isn't going to affect anyone. But, since they act on behalf of the "group", then they technically should be able to regulate the "group's" land...

Just a thought.

First to EMILY: I think I love you. Please run for local office, like the BoC, so I can vote for you!!!

For DEE: I appreciate the motherhood instincts that are flowing, maybe in part because of the new blessed addition to your family. Your kid, my kid, everybody's kids are equally precious and loved. Any of us would fight mountain lions to protect our kids.

But please acknowledge that none of us has rights greater than anyone else. We, as adults, must determine whether we will live in judgement over others, and position ourselves as perpetual victims.

You make choices about how to raise your kid, even where to eat. We just do not have the right to make those choices for anyone else.

"...you VERY OBVIOUSLY have never had to watch a person die a slow painful death from their addiction to smoking"

Incorrect assumption, Dee. I was at my granmother's bedside and acted as her nurse 48 hours before she passed away from a years-long battle with emphysema after 40+ years of smoking and 10 years having quit afterward. Do not, for one minute, ever assume that b/c someone disagrees with you that they have less of a personal connection than you. I'm appalled by the assumption and the fact that you found it "VERY OBVIOUS" that I had never watched a person lose their battle with smoking-related illness because I disagree with a government-imposed ban on smoking in public places. I will be the first to say that my grandmother would be sitting (she couldn't stand for very long) right here beside the majority of us in the argument at that.

Your argument with your child brings me back to the point in the comment to which you responded: if enough people cared about the health of their child to not visit restaurants that allow smoking, that restaurant owner would eventually prohibit smoking to ensure the vitality of his business. It is not the government's responsibility to do that. It is yours to ensure the health of your child. Do I think your child should have to be exposed to second-hand smoke? Of course not. Do I think smoking is healthful? God, no. But do I think the government should impose a regulation on a private business owner that can adversely affect his business and his personal choice to conduct his business in a lawful manner in the way in which he so chooses? Not in any way. If you don't want your child exposed to smoke, don't take him to places that allow it. If enough people do this, the owner of the business will change his policies and if he doesn't--well, you don't want to support a business that promotes the slow killing of your children anyway. And once again I'll reiterate that no one here is defending smoking as a practice and saying it's something wise to do, they're defending the rights of the owners to allow it. It also seems that you're under the impressing that anyone opposed to the ban must be a smoker, which is another incorrect assumption on your part.

And Larry, I'm sorry but unless you live in Richmond, you can't vote for me though I appreciate it :)

In fact, if I were to ever open a restaurant I would put a sign on the door that says "Smokers welcome." In my experience in restaurants in the past, they tip better and are much more pleasant to their servers (probably b/c of their nicotine fix). And if I paid for that building and I paid for that property then no one should tell me that I can't allow it, especially b/c the sign on the door indicates that there will be smoking and anyone who chooses to eat there does so at his own risk. You know, like the "No Lifeguard on Duty" signs at pools.

Jace, while I understand your point completely, I have one question. If the land is public, then how can decisions be made concerning it without the public? If you're thinking from a purely capitalistic point of view, doesn't everyone own the park? Thus, it seems as though there should have been some sort of public forum/vote/discussion before a decision is made regarding the regulations there, right? That's an honest question. If that wasn't done, what makes the passage of the ban okay? Wouldn't the property owner be the public?

Jason, who knew this topic would get so many replies?!

Dammit, I meant "impression," not "impressing." I type too fast.

I think we should pass the smoking ban proposed by the Henry County Board of Commissioners Chairman Jason Harper and name the law “The Jason Harper No Smoking in Parks Act of 2006”.

This act will possibly be the most productive thing Chairman Harper has accomplished in his tenure as Board Chairman.

We sit for hours in traffic because our roads are so clogged with trucks building all this expansion he has been afraid to oppose (they might sue us!), Our children go to brand new schools and sit in “Learning Cottages” due to over the massive population increase, Our quiet neighborhoods roar with the earthmoving equipment clearing out the trees for the new houses and Mr. Harper is worried about Smokers in Parks?

It is unfortunate Mr. Harper can’t see that there are far greater needs for his leadership than Smokers in Parks.

Emily,

I agree with you to an extent. In my opinion, all formal government proceedings, from the smallest city council meeting to sub-committee for the sub-committee on the committee for super secret affairs meetings in congress should be public and announced.

And yes, the park is owned by smokers AND non-smokers. I agree with you there. And furthermore, I think that there are things that should come up in a referendum at times.

Here's where I think we part ways. There is way too much that goes on at all levels of government to have a referendum on every single ordinance that is passed. Nothing would ever get done (which...well, would be a good thing nationally). That's why we have a representative form of government. Do we agree with how the "represent" us at times? No. Hell no.

That's why we have the option of voting them out of office.

I'm not from Henry County, so this is something you guys are going to have to figure out for yourselves, but from the comments on here, it seems like it's high time for some civic action. Time to start the letters to the editor, perhaps a few "civil disobedience" protests at the park...that kind of thing.

Emily,

One more thing, and I hate to be the one to break this news to you:

UGA is going to CRUSH Virginia Tech!

"Thanks Jace, I appreciate you answering my question and will give your answer a lot of thought. You're exactly right about why we have a representative form of government as opposed to a democracy and obviously on that I totally agree. However, I find it hard that someone can represent a people when a matter on which someone is voting isn't made visible to the people whom it is affecting. How else do you know to represent them? And that goes not only on the local level but the state and federal levels as well."

Our government was never meant to have more power than we the people and having the equivalent of a secret session does just that. The government is not above us. And obviously I'm not saying you think that way b/c I know you don't--that's just me rambling.

Honestly...smoking outside in acres and acres of open air as a contributor to second-hand smoke on a scale large enough to be harmful? That's absurd.

And UGA crushing the Hokies? Equally so ;)

Emily,

I agree with you. I'm just saying that technically, the BOC wasn't "wrong". It doesn't mean they are right either.

Go Dawgs!