.

Beach Smoking Ban May be Removed

Gulfport City Council will vote whether or not to remove the beach from the city's outdoor smoking ban Tuesday night.

Gulfport City Council members will vote, during first reading, whether or not to eliminate the smoking ban on Gulfport Beach at the regular city council meeting tonight at 7 p.m. at Gulfport City Hall.

Less than two weeks ago, Gulfport City Attorney Andrew Salzman suggested the council change the ordinance in order to come to a "compromise" and an end to a lawsuit filed against the city. Learn more about that in our article, "Smoking Ban 'Compromise' to Lift Ban on Beach."

According to the agenda packet for tonight's meeting, which is available online:

"The City of Gulfport is currently involved in litigation concerning the constitutionality of Section 17-31. A recent Sarasota county court decision has clarified some of the issues involved in the City's litigation. The judge has ruled that the City of Sarasota cannot enforce smoking restrictions on outdoor public properties that this authority is provided to the State of Florida. The City of Gulfport's Ordinance is based fundamentally on the City of Sarasota's Ordinance."

The proposed ordinance provides the following:

  • Removes reference to public beach area
  • The City will provide designated smoking areas at athletic fields/facilities and children's outdoor play areas. The designated areas must provide for visual access to the athletic fields, facilities and children's outdoor play areas.

About the Ordinance:

Gulfport City Council voted 5-0 to pass a smoking ban on the beach, athletic fields and facilities and playgrounds in the city on Tuesday, November 1, 2011.

The ban affects the following locations in Gulfport:

The ban does not affect:

Related articles:

Lynda January 15, 2013 at 10:03 PM
So the state legislature in its infinite wisdom keeps all power to regulate smoking and guns. This is what allowing one party to dominate state government brings. Maybe after the next few elections, communities will once again be able to create local ordinances that are more restrictive than the ones our (bought and paid for by lobbyists) state legislature allows today. Just another reason to change the state name to Flori- DUH.
William Smith January 16, 2013 at 04:54 AM
Yes more rules and regulations from local dictators is what we need. "
Lynda January 16, 2013 at 11:25 AM
You like the rules and regulations from the state legislature better? Of course they are so knowledgeable about local conditions and needs! I really want some Panhandle know it all to be deciding if Gulfport or Sarasota beaches and playgrounds can have designated smoking areas so the citizens who live here can actually use those areas without having cigar smoke blown in their faces. Some of us cannot be around second-hand smoke. We pay taxes just like the inconsiderate smokers who tell us their right to smoke anywhere trumps our right to breathe. The "local dictators" we voted for were protecting us as well as children who should never be exposed to smoke.
john davidson January 16, 2013 at 12:31 PM
You were warned last year not to pass any illegal outdoor bans yet you ignored and villafied all those who told you it was illegal. Remove them all or be ready to be sued again just as in Sarasota where we struck it down!
john davidson January 16, 2013 at 12:34 PM
If you cant be around second hand smoke then you obviously cant be around ordinary atmospheric air either which is what passive smoke is. How do you even go out in the mugginess of Floriduh or the pollen. Its simple your just making up excuses as usual. There is no harm from second hand smoke,never was.
SavEcig January 16, 2013 at 01:59 PM
I was against smoking bans when I was a smoker. But since I switched to electronic cigarettes two years ago, I don't have to worry about smoking bans, tar, smell or really high cigarette taxes! http://www.savecig.com
Brian Derr January 16, 2013 at 02:05 PM
There are toxic chemicals found in secondhand smoke in concentrations that you would not find in "ordinary atmospheric air." See references below. Even if there were not, cigarette smoke stinks. Why is one person's right to smoke more important than another person's right to clean air? Designating separate smoking and nonsmoking areas seems like a reasonable compromise so people who want to smoke can, and people who don't want to be around the smell or carcinogens can avoid them. References documenting risks of secondhand smoke: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/secondhandsmoke/executivesummary.pdf http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/tobaccocancer/secondhand-smoke http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/secondhandsmoke.html
William Smith January 16, 2013 at 02:34 PM
"Protected" by the city council- no thanks I can think for myself!
john davidson January 16, 2013 at 03:15 PM
About 90% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a minor amount of carbon dioxide. The volume of water vapor of second hand smoke becomes even larger as it qickly disperses into the air,depending upon the humidity factors within a set location indoors or outdoors. Exhaled smoke from a smoker will provide 20% more water vapor to the smoke as it exists the smokers mouth. 4 % is carbon monoxide. 6 % is those supposed 4,000 chemicals to be found in tobacco smoke. Unfortunatley for the smoke free advocates these supposed chemicals are more theorized than actually found.What is found is so small to even call them threats to humans is beyond belief.Nanograms,picograms and femptograms...... (1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80).
john davidson January 16, 2013 at 03:17 PM
TCTactics aims to provide up-to-date information on the Tobacco Control Industry, its allies and those promoting the extremist anti-tobacco agenda that no longer targets just tobacco but ordinary adult consumers who use it. The website explores how this industry – with support from the pharmaceutical nicotine producers and government tax funds – influences and often distorts public health debates, using a whole raft of lobbying, public relations tactics and junk science. http://tctactics.org/index.php/Main_Page
john davidson January 16, 2013 at 03:18 PM
Yes...the 1992/93 EPA report on second hand smoke was thrown out by a judge for fudging the numbers. Essentially, the standard for scientific significance which demonstrates if a variable has an effect at all was lowered. But the judge's ruling doesn't stop the anti-smoking advocates from citing bad science. Here's some other findings that have been taken so far out of context it defies the imagination:
john davidson January 16, 2013 at 03:18 PM
2006 Surgeon General's Report (excerpts) The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between maternal exposure to secondhand smoke and female fertility or fecundability. No data were found on paternal exposure to secondhand smoke and male fertility or fecundability. The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between maternal exposure to secondhand smoke during pregnancy and spontaneous abortion. The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and neonatal mortality. The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and cognitive functioning among children.
john davidson January 16, 2013 at 03:19 PM
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and behavioral problems among children. The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between parental smoking and an increase in the risk of adenoidectomy or tonsillectomy among children. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure from parental smoking and the onset of childhood asthma. The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between parental smoking and the risk of immunoglobulin E-mediated allergy in their children. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and an increased risk of stroke. The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and children’s height/growth. The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between maternal exposure to secondhand smoke during pregnancy and childhood cancer. The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke during infancy and childhood cancer The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between parental smoking and the natural history of middle ear effusion.
john davidson January 16, 2013 at 03:20 PM
Studies of secondhand smoke and subclinical vascular disease, particularly carotid arterial wall thickening, are suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and atherosclerosis. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among persons with asthma. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among healthy persons.
john davidson January 16, 2013 at 03:20 PM
The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and chronic respiratory symptoms. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between short-term secondhand smoke exposure and an acute decline in lung function in persons with asthma. The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between short-term secondhand smoke exposure and an acute decline in lung function in healthy persons. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and a worsening of asthma control.
john davidson January 16, 2013 at 03:20 PM
The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. And finally..... The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and odor annoyance. Source: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library.... If you actually read the surgeon generals report it used mostly "The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship" and even then if you read page 21 they admit that the use of meta-analysis on observational studies is not a widely accepted and controversial practice and yet they do it anyway.
john davidson January 16, 2013 at 03:32 PM
The we can move into epidemiologists that voted to keep doing JUNK SCIENCE in 1997 to keep the tobacco control movement in more linked to junk studies...........it never ends and all your so called links are based upon those same junk science relative risk factor studies these epidemiologists voted to keep doing and why,because the grant money was comming in hand over foot from tobacco control groups when they had billions of big pharma and taxpayer money to abuse it with.
Lynda January 16, 2013 at 03:34 PM
Amazing that my doctor doesn't agree with you, Mr. Davidson. But of course you are much more informed than a Mayo clinic-trained physician. Guess you got all that fine information on the "Internets'!!! You are a rude, inconsiderate bully with an agenda if you refuse to accept other people's right to breathe because you are too ignorant/paid by the smoking lobbby to accept facts. Shame on youl
Lynda January 16, 2013 at 03:36 PM
No, you are "protected" by the state legislature full of people you are not able to vote for or against. "Think for myself". I doubt that is what you are doing on this subject.
john davidson January 16, 2013 at 03:45 PM
The MAYO CLINIC/ MAYO SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH was created at the end of alcohol prohibition by prohibitionists. They just created the last great smoking ban heart attack junk study thats been debunked everywhere. They also just aided Obama with another junk epidemiology study on gun control,which they put out on CSPAN monday just in time for obama's gun lecture today. The Mayo has a long and sordid history creating public health trash science for political causes.
Lynda January 16, 2013 at 03:48 PM
John Davidson. The topic of this article is who should have the authority to pass ordinances affecting local communities smoking/non-smoking areas. Despite all your "second-hand" false information about second-hand smoke, no one will change their mind about the need for designated smoking and non smoking areas. The science and laws are settled on that subject. The state of Florida has decided to designate non-smoking areas, however, they will not allow any other government to decide additional non-smoking areas. I want my local council for whom I can vote for or against to decide which areas of my town should be designated smoking and non-smoking areas. So stop wasting your time copying useless information we have all seen a million times.
john davidson January 16, 2013 at 03:55 PM
The article is about legality of your smoking ban,not if it should be abolished or not. Statelaw is clear and I wouldnt count on that precious statewide indoor ban being on the books in the next few years,the state legislature can amend it at anytime. These bans seem to have a life expectency of about 5-10 years if that from past historical bans in america. The end run is here just be ready to see smokers in your local eatery soon........thats if the owner wants back 35% more paying customers.
john davidson January 16, 2013 at 03:57 PM
Heres a time line starting in 1900,dont be surprised to see the same thing playing out today nearly 100 years later. 1901: REGULATION: Strong anti-cigarette activity in 43 of the 45 states. "Only Wyoming and Louisiana had paid no attention to the cigarette controversy, while the other forty-three states either already had anti-cigarette laws on the books or were considering new or tougher anti-cigarette laws, or were the scenes of heavy anti- cigarette activity" (Dillow, 1981:10). 1904: New York: A judge sends a woman is sent to jail for 30 days for smoking in front of her children. 1904: New York City. A woman is arrested for smoking a cigarette in an automobile. "You can't do that on Fifth Avenue," the arresting officer says. 1907: Business owners are refusing to hire smokers. On August 8, the New York Times writes: "Business ... is doing what all the anti-cigarette specialists could not do." 1917: SMOKEFREE: Tobacco control laws have fallen, including smoking bans in numerous cities, and the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho and Tennessee. 1937: hitler institutes laws against smoking.
Lynda January 16, 2013 at 04:18 PM
Once "hitler" is brought into any argument, however falsely, you have lost.
William Smith January 16, 2013 at 04:30 PM
Except when the facts support the arguement.
john davidson January 16, 2013 at 04:34 PM
Thats in historical significance I brought it in,but I can see how the shoe may fit since you bring it up and that offends you. Im sorry it wasnt my intention. Hitler did have a tobacco control rogram and laws and much of todays laws and propaganda is taken from his very movement. Passive smoking for instance was coined by the Nazi anti-tobacco movement. They called it passervachen/passive smoking in english. Todays advocates coined it second hand smoke in 1975 at the WHO world health anti-tobacco summit by Sir godber. He said we must create an atmosphere where smokers think they are harming others and voila,second hand smoke was reborn and the justification for the comming smoking prohibitional laws as that of yesteryear........
john davidson January 16, 2013 at 07:57 PM
I'd like to see a death report, ANY death report that shows death from SHS! There are none. The 2006 surgeon general's report was based on a 1993 EPA report that was ruled null and void by Judge Oosteen in federal court due to it's fraudulence. Therefore, the Surgeon General’s Report is also fraudulent! The U.S. Surgeon General managed to avoid testifying under oath to a congressional committee along with the commissioner from the FDA. UCLA School of Public Health's James Enstrom fired from that school because he adheres to academic integrity and the powers that be don't want him publishing his findings that are contrary to this agenda and PROVE that this is all nonsense! Complaint Filed Against Carmona's Report: Changing/Omitting Data Filed with Health and Human Services, Office of Research Integrity by Citizen's Freedom Alliance claims: The data for a meta-analysis is the studies collected from the body of research, but the SG omitted two of the largest studies,
john davidson January 16, 2013 at 07:57 PM
The Enstrom/Kabat study and the airline study, one of which demonstrated the opposite of harm from SHS/ETS and the other failed to show any significant association. He discounted the largest study, the Wu-Williams study, as "anomalous" because its results largely agreed with one large study that he had omitted as well as the Boffetta study, i.e. showed the opposite of harm. Moreover, he relies on comparatively small and unreliable studies for generalization to the whole population. In the context of a meta-analysis, this is omitting or changing data. Where is Carmona now? Working in a spa and losing his bid for elected office.
john davidson January 16, 2013 at 07:59 PM
Guess what the SG REPORT OF 2006 would be if the above studies had been included..........No study at all. In other words the combined studies show ,'' NO EFFECT''
Lewis M January 17, 2013 at 12:02 AM
Lydia, Do you have any fact based information for all the discrepencies you so bostfully mock, or are you just blowing smoke out your arse? You have NOt stated one FACT. Only your opinion, however uneducated it may seem.

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