© 1999- News-Register Publishing | © The Associated Press
The News-Register and NewsRegister.com are owned and operated by News-Register Publishing Co., P.O. Box 727, McMinnville, OR 97128.
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
The News-Register and NewsRegister.com are owned and operated by News-Register Publishing Co., P.O. Box 727, McMinnville, OR 97128.
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Comments
Bufordthe1st
I think you should listen to Remy. Banning smoking downtown is not the answer and sounds like discrimination to me. Work on the loitering and panhandling problem some other way.
Mudstump
It is always easy for government to target smokers anytime they need more money or want a bandaid to "fix" a homeless and loitering problem. Banning smoking will do nothing to discourage loitering. People will just walk around back for their smoke and then return to the front of the store where they can ask people for money. This ban will target people like me who vaporize nicotine through an odorless and smokeless device. I'll just chose to shop or dine outside of the ban area and I will spend money downtown less frequently. I'll fear that a simple toke on my vaporizer may cost me $250. Who needs that? This will hurt downtown businesses...especially dining and bars. If the councilors don't understand that the problem runs much deeper than smoking they are too dumb or desperate to retain their seats.
tagup
Mud--I think the councilors understand the problem,... they're just looking for something that is enforceable to use as a tool....evidently loitering & vagrancy are not viable legal terms anymore.
Mudstump
tagup - I commend the council for wanting to find solutions to the problem, but this one seems like a stab in the dark to me. Like the article stated...smokers are low hanging fruit and always get picked. I think they need to look deeper for solutions that target the people who are the problem rather than throwing a wide net hoping to snag the perpetrators while punishing folks who are doing nothing wrong.
Mudstump
The homeless folks who are cited for smoking won't pay the fine...they don't have the money. It will be people like me who pay for simply taking a puff. It just doesn't seem like a smart solution.
Lulu
This could be the next equivalent of the bag ban! I suggest we eighty-six those fools wearing their pants so low they can hardly walk--you know, the fashionista statement of binding the knees together?
Rotwang
What garbage - harassing peaceful adults using a legal product. Meanwhile, there's a whole parking structure downtown which is basically unusable because of bums.
tagup
Nice rant...any suggestions for enforcement other than they look like "bums".....?.....
Joel2828
This council and mayor never met a problem that they didn't conclude they could "ban" their way out of. It's smoking in front of the store today, what's next? Are they gonna come inside the store and try to ban plastic bags?
tagup
smoking within 10 feet of an entrance is state code.... not sure you can pin that one on the mayor & council.....
tagup
smoking within 10 feet of an entrance is state code.... not sure you can pin that one on the mayor & council.....
Rotwang
I made no suggestion for enforcement. The city government knows what needs to be done.
Homer
Having just visited Ashland for a few days, I mentioned to my wife how they must have something working for them as I noticed the absence of homeless folks hanging out downtown. We brought it up to relatives that we visited down there and they told us that since the smoking ban was enacted, that reduced the people loitering downtown by almost 100%. Might be something worth trying?
Mudstump
What will the city do with people who are loitering, but do not smoke?
Don Dix
This is just another example of one crowd attempting to force their opinion (smoking is related to bad behavior)) upon those outside the circle.
When nanny state proponents and moral busybodies hook up, the result is always an illegitimate litter of bad ideas.
Sal Peralta
Don Dix. This proposal came from the downtown business owners. So, using your argument, one crowd = Downtown business owners. Another crowd = people loitering in front of their businesses. Which crowd do you side with?
Sal Peralta
Rotwang - Parking structure is high on the list of priorities to address in the current fiscal year. Cleanup, safety improvements, etc.