.

Speak Out: Should Smoking Be Banned in Parks?

The city of Norcross will discuss the ordinance Monday night.

, Norcross councilman Ross Kaul announced that an ordinance to prohibit smoking in all city parks would be proposed in the next policy work session.

Kaul brought up the issue at a Progressional Development Committee meeting, which stirred some debate from both sides.

"Secondhand smoking is worse for younger children and the elderly than primary," said Kaul. "I say no smoking in our parks, [and] no smoking where our children or our families are."

All tobacco products would be banned, added Kaul.

Norcross Patch asking for the public's stance on the subject. As of early Monday, 75 percent of voters agree with the ban. Eleven percent believe there should be designated areas for smoking and non-smoking, and 12 percent think there should be no ban at all.

Now it's your chance to keep the conversation going.

Speak Out: Whether you voted or not in the poll, what do you think of a no smoking ordinance in Norcross parks? Do you think it's necessary, or do you think you should be able to smoke where you please? Let us know in the comments section below.

The proposed ordinance will be discussed during the next policy work session on April 16 at 6:30 p.m. in , located at 65 Lawrenceville St. The session is open to the public.

Cheryl Rankin April 16, 2012 at 03:30 PM
Should be no smoking. There are plenty of places around parks (such as INSIDE THE SMOKERS' CARS WITH WINDOWS ROLLED UP) where smokers can pollute themselves and the air around them. I bring young kids to the parks; why should we have to breathe in stinking smokey air just because someone can't go without a cigarette for a few hours?
Chuck Cimarik April 16, 2012 at 07:07 PM
The article says "Should Smoking be Banned in Parks" the way I read the ordinance it is really no tobacco use (including smokeless & e-cigarettes) City wide. The following comes directly from the proposed ordinance: "It shall be unlawful for any person to use any form of tobacco, including, but not limited to cigarettes, E-cigarettes, cigars, tobacco pipes, chewing tobacco, and any form of smokeless tobacco at or on any indoor or outdoor facilities owned or operated by the City of Norcross,including, but not limited to all public buildings, real property, parking lots, restrooms, parks, sidewalks, roads, athletic fields, rivers, and walking/hiking trails leased, owned or maintained by the City of Norcross, and all areas within 25 feet of the boundary of any such property or facilities." To me this means sidewalks, in your car driving down the street (or parked with your windows up), on your front porch (if it's within 25 feet of the City owned sidewalk). I could support making areas of the park smoke free - but the entire City tobacco free? That's another question entirely.
Sarah Bakhtiari (Editor) April 17, 2012 at 12:04 AM
Thanks for pointing that out, Chuck. When I talked to Ross about it a few weeks ago, he said it only applied to parks, but the paperwork for the policy work session seems to indicate otherwise. I'll get a full scoop on it tomorrow.
Sarah Bakhtiari (Editor) April 17, 2012 at 06:46 PM
After discussing it with councilman Ross Kaul, he said the ordinance would be revised. The new proposal would prohibit the use of tobacco products within 20 feet of all city parks, trails and public buildings. If you weren't there yesterday, check out a recap of yesterday's city council meeting here: http://patch.com/A-s4nL
Dale Cunningham April 18, 2012 at 05:15 PM
In favor of no smoking in parks and within 20 feet of park boundaries. Dale Cunningham

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