.

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:

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
See more »