Gilroy and Morgan Hill didn’t do so well in the 12th annual State of Tobacco Control 2014 report released Wednesday by the American Lung Association.
Gilroy might feel like torching its tobacco report card after receiving the lowest grade in the county for the second consecutive year.
California voters and the Gilroy City Council could deliver a one-two punch to smokers this week.
During Monday night’s regular meeting at 6 p.m. City Council plans to vote on a proposed ordinance that will prohibit smoking in public parks except for in designated smoking areas.
Talk of a tobacco retailer's license that would levy an annual $150 to $400 fee on approximately 57 liquor, convenience and grocery stores in Gilroy has been snuffed out.
As the city continues to pursue a ban on outdoor smoking in public places, the vast majority of respondents to an online survey say they support such a policy.
Making the case for a new tobacco license fee and smoke-free parks law in Gilroy
1. It’s very clear from the numbers that education is working
• No! I think they should pass a law banning cats, they're messy, they roam and I'm highly allergic! • No. Although I have never smoked and am disgusted by the smell, another layer of making victimless crimes into enforceable laws is burdensome to our already over burdened police department. Gilroy police staff need to spend their time and our tax dollars on more serious crimes. • I'm a non-smoker married to a smoker. My hubby has free reign of our shared outdoor spaces. He leaves the indoor spaces alone. That's how it should be. I don't see why we nonsmokers can't continue to share our community outdoor spaces with our smoking fellow citizens. Is there any medical data to prompt this? Or is somebody's nose out of joint? If Gilroy has its own cigarette tax, I think that will hurt Gilroy merchants as smokers pick up their coffin nails in a lower tax town, say on the way home from work. • Yes. If it works for New York it ought to work here. • No. I hate smoking, hate cigarette butts and second hand smoke, however, I do believe in personal rights and I do not believe government should have a say in a citizen smoking in the park or on a trail. • Noish ... not crazy about it, a little too Big Brother ... but, eventually, I think it will come to that. • No. When will Americans realize that government intervention into their lives has gone far enough. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are being jeopardized by government's relentless thirst for power. • Yes to the banning in public places, but no to the additional tax on retailers as they are providing something that is legal to the public who want it. The tax burden is high enough for retailers, but it is only fair to ban a substance from annoying others in public areas. • No. What benefit is gained from handcuffing citizens and then taxing them at the same time? You tax a retailer and retailer raises prices. Stop this insane thought of grabbing control. Perhaps it is best that the city move to a 3-month in session operation. • Yes. I am tired of smokers infringing on my health and enjoyment of public facilities. • NO! Not only un-enforceable they are un-needed. Negative effects from second hand smoke from outdoor smokers is unlikely. Current cigarette taxes and anti-smoking laws and outreach programs are effective. • Yes. I have been a part of the Healthy Gilroy Campaign along with youth advocates from Gilroy and Mt. Madonna High and several community based organizations. The Healthy Gilroy Campaign also includes the city of Gilroy staff and County Tobacco Prevention. One lady at the senior center has been a smoker for many years and supports the retail license fee because she is raising her grandson and does not want him to have access to tobacco products and suffer health problems like she is experiencing. I think the Dispatch article was really bias and did not get the other point of view just the Chamber of Commerce's.