Burnet considers no-smoking rules for private businesses
CONNIE SWINNEY • PICAYUNE STAFF
BURNET — City officials are considering expanding Burnet’s non-smoking regulations from city-owned buildings and facilities into private businesses and other spaces where the public frequents.
The Burnet City Council is scheduled to meet Dec. 9 for a first reading of the proposed new ordinance, which also includes rules to treat “vaping” or electronic or E-cigarettes the same as tobacco smoke and assess fines for businesses as well as patrons who violate the ban.
“Several city council members were approached by business owners who thought it might be good to look into it, so we’ve held public meetings and solicited input and drafted the ordinance based on what other communities in the Austin area are doing as well,” City Manager David Vaughn said. “Certainly, you can accommodate smoking areas, but non-smoking customers and people who didn’t want to be influenced by that shouldn’t have to be as they were visiting the establishment.”
Smoking is prohibited on city-owned property; however, if the ordinance passes, the city would require businesses that offer smoking sections to install a mechanically ventilated system for those areas, according to the ordinance.
The amended rules would direct private establishments to prohibit smoking outdoors within 15 feet of entryways, exits and windows and post signs indicating designated areas.
Exemptions include private residences, private offices not accessible to the public, retail tobacco stores and contained outdoor patios adjacent to restaurants, cafes and bars.
Vaughn said he has received positive feedback from the public so far.
However, one opponent raised concerns about the proposed new regulations.
“Let the owners decide,” said Chuck Vohries, a smoker and chaplain of Burnet VFW Post 6974.
The Veterans of Foreign Wars post prohibits smoking inside its facility but offers an outdoor smoking area, he said.
“We go outside on our patio. It’s right outside our door. We’ll have to put signs up,” he said. “What happens in a private area should be held in private. We shouldn’t have politicians dipping into places they shouldn’t be.”
City officials believe the ordinance would not only minimize the reported risk of second-hand smoke on others but also reduce the potential influences on underage smoking.
One section prohibits the possession and sale of E-cigarettes to anyone under 18.
“Generally, (the proposed ordinance) treats vaping the same way as a cigarette. You could not be in a restaurant vaping,” Vaughn said. “(For youth), E-cigarettes are considered a gateway into smoking and to other drug uses as well and something that we’ve heard that there’s considerable use among teenagers in the area.”
If the city council approves the amended ordinance, violators face penalties, considered a class C misdemeanor, with a $100 fine for a first offense, a $250 fine for the second offense and a $500 fine for subsequent offenses.
“We are hopeful that this is going to be something that is primarily voluntarily compliance,” Vaughn said. “We’re not going to be out there looking to cite people or overly enforce the ordinance but, hopefully, give business owners something that when they do have an issue, it gives a little teeth to it.”
A second reading and possible passage of the amended ordinance is expected in January.
connie@thepicayune.com
7 thoughts on “Burnet considers no-smoking rules for private businesses”
Comments are closed.
What I find interesting is this; at the first meeting they were sure to explain how they had a “luncheon”, inviting “all” the local business owners and how widely accepted this was, receiving only positive feedback from the community. Funny, being the owner of a not only a local business, but a vapor shop, I never heard any thing about this. Also, according to the 1st meeting, they stated they checked several other “local” cities…all of the “local studies” they did to compare this to were in much larger cities than ours, i.e. Cedar Park, Leander, Round Rock and Georgetown. Was it too much trouble to check places that really are local and comparable to us, such as Lampassas, Kingsland, Bertram, Llano etc, or was it just a given that in smaller towns, we don’t need the big brother to step on business owners toes? So I guess we are not trying to be Austin, just the surrounding counties of Austin? I also have to throw out there, I was told (by an undoubted reputable source) that there were two restaurant owners (yep only 2) that requested all of this, apparently they don’t have enough gumption of their own to mandate what happens in their business, they have to request that the city step in. Really??
Here is my big thing though, “A GATE WAY TO DRUGS”???? You have to be kidding me? My daughter is a Senior @ BHS and I let her use one with no nicotine (not at school of course). She is an honor roll student and well on her way to college, I have more concerns about the kids doing drugs because there is NOTHING else for them to do in this town than I have with her vaping. I really think they should spend our time and energy doing things more productive to the community than appeasing a couple of business owners with no #$*% and deep pockets. I have parents, almost daily, that find out their kids are smoking and bring them to shop because they want them to quit smoking. Some do have nicotine, but not all of them. So are they taking that right away from the parents as well? Will this mean that parents no longer have the right to take their own child and provide them with an alternative to smoking cigarettes? Like it or not, kids will be kids, and kids do stupid things, no matter what ordinance or law is in place – that is why God gave them parents, not a city council, to help them and guide them and give them better options.
If any one has ANY questions about the vapor concerns, please give me a call, 512-734-5446 I am happy to share my knowledge with any one willing to ask. I also told this to the paper, however nothing from that very lengthy interview ever made it to the paper, I guess it didn’t concur with what they are trying to convince people of. Maybe one day my pockets will be deep enough to get ordinances passed and get REAL information out to the people, until then…I guess we should start the motto “keep Burnet weird since we are following everything else.
Reject this intrusion into individual liberty and the property rights of businesses. Second hand smoke is not a health threat. This is about social control. Reject the smoking ban!
So Vaughn thinks E-cigarettes are a gateway to smoking and other drug use.. hmm. Does he also believe that drinking Cool-aid is a gateway to wine which may lead into beer or heaven forbid whiskey.. Let the owners of private establishments just Put up a sign that reads; Smoking is allowed on parts of these premises.That way those who do not like smoking are warned before they walk in. Money talks Bs walks.
A little on the “slippery slope” that apparently – according to the antismoking fanatics – doesn’t exist.
The first demand for a smoking ban was in the late-1980s concerning short-haul flights in the USA of less than 2 hours. At the time, the antismokers were asked if this was a “slippery slope” – where would it end? They ridiculed anyone suggesting such because this ban was ALL that they were after.
Then they ONLY wanted smoking bans on all flights.
Then the antismokers ONLY wanted nonsmoking sections in restaurants, bars, etc., and ensuring that this was ALL they wanted.
Then the antismokers ONLY wanted complete bans indoors. That was all they wanted. At the time, no-one was complaining about having to “endure” wisps of smoke outdoors.
While they pursued indoor bans, the antismokers were happy for smokers to be exiled to the outdoors.
Having bulldozed their way into indoor bans, the antismokers then went to work on the outdoors, now declaring that momentary exposure to remnants of dilute smoke in doorways or a whiff outdoors was a “hazard”, more than poor, “innocent” nonsmokers should have to “endure”.
Then they ONLY wanted bans within 10 feet of entranceways.
Then they ONLY wanted bans within 20 feet of entranceways.
Then they ONLY wanted bans in entire outdoor dining areas.
Then they ONLY wanted bans for entire university and hospital campuses, and parks and beaches.
Then they ONLY wanted bans for apartment balconies.
Then they ONLY wanted bans for entire apartment (including individual apartments) complexes.
Then they ONLY wanted bans in backyards.
On top of all of this, there are now instances, particularly in the USA, where smokers are denied employment, denied housing (even the elderly), and denied medical treatment. Smokers in the UK are denied fostering/adoption. Involuntary mental patients are restrained physically or chemically (sedation) rather than allow them to have a cigarette.
At each point there was a crazed insistence that there was no more to come while they were actually planning the next ban and the brainwashing required to push it. There has been incessant (pathological) lying and deception. Many medically-aligned groups have been committed to antismoking – their smokefree “utopia” – since the 1960s. They have prostituted their medical authority to chase ideology. All of it is working to a tobacco-extermination plan run by the WHO and that most governments are now signed-up to.
This has all happened in just 20 years. If it was mentioned 20 years ago, or even 10 or 5 years ago, that smokers would be denied employment and housing, and smoking bans in parks and beaches, it would have been laughed at as “crazed thinking”. Yet here we are. Much of it has happened before and it has all been intentional, planned decades ago. We just don’t learn or we’re going to have to learn the very hard way because it has to do with far, far more than just smoking.
Business owners already have the right to prohibit smoking in their establishments and all patrons have the right to refuse to do business with establishments that allow smoking. Let the customer decide where they want to spend their money. They do not need busybody politicians mandating more rules to live by. This has already been pushed TOO FAR in New York City with the mayor trying to control the size of soft drink citizens are allowed to buy. Stop trying to control people and work on getting your streets paved and trash picked up.
Just more liberal politicians trying to screw up the Hill Country. Would you please stop ‘helping’ us and leave us alone! Next you’ll be mandating Methane meters on the tail-side of each head of cattle – geez, enough already. Quit whining and simply move back to California, or should I say, Austin.
Liberal? You have got to be kidding me…..every single elected office in the county is Republican and while City Councils are supposed to be non partisan I bet that all of Burnet City Council and most employees are registered Republicans.
Kind of funny…I am a liberal (gasp….think progress) and when i heard this I thought the same thing only mine was “…all these smaller government people wanting to regulate private business….” I dont agree with it either and think businesses should decide and we the consumer can then decide to go into the business or not. Remember the good old days when you could chain smoke and grocery shop at the same time?