Enforce the Smoking Ban

There is no reason in the world to have a no-smoking ban in any city or State. The Owner can put a sign in their doors stating. 'This is a smoking venue" 'This is a non-smoking venue' A simple solution to a political problem

snowbird

Jul 16 2009

Snowbird, Business owners don't have my health in mind when given that choice. They have their bottom dollar at the forefront of their thoughts. What if years ago, we had given them that choice in the ways they handle other things like safety and cleanliness? No, the health dept. will shut them down if they don't meet a standard. Granted, I'll give you this: if an establishment is a "smoking" establishment, and I know this but can't tolerate the smoke, I can make that choice not to patronize the business. But the ordinance is in place and that is the bottom line. So, the editorial's point is enforce the ordinance. Let's not argue something moot. There is no smoking in establishments that serve food in their building or in their outdoor eating areas either. And let's call them out. I'll start by saying I enjoyed the music last Thursday night in the courtyard at Hal & Mal's but not the smoke. Why are there ashtrays on each table if the ordinance bans smokers from lighting up? It is miserable for me, and for many others that I saw getting up and moving away from smokers. Before the ordinance, I just knew, if I wanted live music, I'd have to contend with smoke. Now, I EXPECT these places to abide by the law and thereby allow me to enjoy music without the health hazard. So, as this editorial asks, why isn't the law being enforced, and why, by such a respectable establishment as H&M;is it not being followed?

2599

Jul 16 2009

HA! HA! I love it when freedom loving people give the middle finger salute to oppressive government. Good points Snowbird! Unreasonable prohibitions create a feeling of resentment and disrespect for the law in general and the inability or unwillingness to enforce it flaunts the inefficacy of the authorities in the citizen's faces. It's a lose - lose situation for Jackson. With alcohol coming to the entertainment districts in Rankin county, how many more obstacles can we throw in the way of Jackson's tax base?

WMartin

Jul 16 2009

Business owners are in business to make money They are not in business for their health or your health. If you don't like what ever is in the air then don't patronize that business. Simple eh!

snowbird

Jul 16 2009

Here is something to think about Prohibition..makes a crime out of things that are not crimes.. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principle upon which our government was founded. Abraham Lincoln (December 1840)

snowbird

Jul 16 2009

Missing the point, aren't we? THERE IS AN ORDINANCE IN PLACE. This editorial is not asking if there SHOULD be an ordinance; it's asking that business owners enforce one. A few dissidents will not cause the council to revert back to pre-ordinance times. A majority will overrule that. Your choice to smoke should not affect me or influence my ability to get out and enjoy Jackson's nightlife. When your bad habits infringe on my rights, then we have issues. No one is "banning" smoking. Just the right place and time to. Prohibition didn't regulate when and where alcohol could be consumed. It vilified it, it outlawed it, and it made it totally illegal. Big difference. Smoke in your house, smoke in your car, but don't make me breathe your smoke! And that goes for employees who sit in front of businesses and smoke on their breaks and make me inhale it on the way in.

2599

Jul 16 2009

Smoking bans are based on lies..half-truths etc. Owners should have the right to allow or permit a legal product on 'private' property. It is their business not yours. You have the choice to enter or not enter. Is that to hard to understand.

snowbird

Jul 16 2009

lies? i get sick breathing cigarette smoke. and that's the truth. why deny me the opportunity to enjoy a band? or a meal for that matter?

2599

Jul 16 2009

2599, The business owners have answered. They either don't feel as if the law applies to them or they have decided to ignore it. Either way they are exercising their right to run their establishments the way they want to. It is, after all, their private property. If you don't like it, you are free to go elsewhere. Isn't freedom cool? Snowbird is right, they care more about the bottom line than smoking one way or the other. If enough people didn't patronize the places that allowed smoking you wouldn't need a heavy handed government passing stupid smoking bans in the first place.

WMartin

Jul 16 2009

It is their business not yours. You have the choice to enter or not enter. Is that to hard to understand. That's the same argument businesses used in the 1960s to refuse to serve certain people, and it didn't fly for that, either. They engage in interstate commerce, and what they do affects both the rights and (in the case of smoking) safety of both patrons and employees. We simply don't live in a world where businesses can do anything they please and open their doors to the general public. We are regulated in many ways for safety reasons, for both customers and employees, and should be. In the world of journalism, for instance, it was a long tradition for reporters to sit around smoking over their typewriters, and it didn't matter whether other people working there cared or not. Thank goodness the law doesn't allow smoking in newsrooms any longer. And it would be ridiculous for me to try to say that I am going to allow smoking whether my employees or customers like it or not, and they can just go elsewhere if they don't like it. It would also be very bad for business, as it will prove to be for places that don't keep up with the times. As you know, smoking does not just affect the smoker. That's the huge issue with it. And it's why much of the country now is not allowing smoking in either restaurants or bars. And tourists are beginning to expect non-smoking facilities. My guess is that it will hurt Jackson institutions more than it'll help them to allow smoking, when it comes to attracting tourists, as downtown comes online. The world is changing, and Jackson needs to change along with it. Smokers can still smoke if they want; they just can't do it in places where non-smokers can be affected by it.

DonnaLadd

Jul 16 2009

And WMartin, places that cheat are not playing fair. They are trying to get business by violating the law. If they don't like the law, they should lobby to change it, not break it and hope no one notices. Smokers have plenty of space to smoke without violating the rights of others: It's called outside (or at home, or inside their own vehicles, hopefully without kids sitting next to them). You should have the right to smoke, but not anywhere you want, no matter how it affects others. We have no right in the U.S. that applies without any regard to the effect on others. And 2599 is right, snowbird. You're mixing up the meaning of "prohibition." No one is prohibiting smoking; laws are regulating where it can be done, just as drinking alcohol is regulated for safety reasons. Neither are "prohibited." And I understand, 2599: I just can't physically handle places that allow smoking, as many people can't and won't. And it sure doesn't make sure to pay to go to those places in a world that has figured out that entertainment doesn't need to be "smoke-filled" to be good.

DonnaLadd

Jul 16 2009

The world is changing, and Jackson needs to change along with it. Smokers can still smoke if they want; they just can't do it in places where non-smokers can be affected by it. Well said, Ladd. Well said. As a music lover, it kills me to not be able to go out. I get physically ill with the smoke. And until the big music establishments in town play by the rules, I won't be back out again.

2599

Jul 16 2009

The business owners have answered. They either don't feel as if the law applies to them or they have decided to ignore it. Either way they are exercising their right to run their establishments the way they want to. It is, after all, their private property. If you don't like it, you are free to go elsewhere. Isn't freedom cool? Love the example. How about this? There is a law against the sale of drugs. But I decide to sell them from my home anyway. I don't feel as if the law applies to me or choose to ignore it. Either way, I am exercising my right to run my home/life the way I want to. It is, after all, my private property. Could any rational person agree with my example? Why then, is yours any different?

2599

Jul 16 2009

That's the same argument businesses used in the 1960s to refuse to serve certain people While that's true, I would hardly equate allowing someone to smoke with oppressing a whole segment of the population because of their race. Of course, businesses can't do anything they want no one has even said that, but there is a line where it becomes over kill and detrimental to the business atmosphere in the city to have all these regulations on how, when and with whom you may conduct business. Is allowing smoking on private property something we should use the force of government to stop? Should our government be ready to imprison and use violence against those who resist their unreasonable prohibitions? There is no real danger from second hand smoke aside from the hysterical reaction of non-smokers. Although it's funny to see them fall all over themselves to get away from it, the falling can be dangerous. I do agree that times are changing and that smoking is falling out of favor. I don't have any problem with the owners of bars and restaurants that voluntarily ban smoking on their premises. But, I believe, it should be their choice to make. Not some councilmen pandering for votes as they trample the rights of the minority.

WMartin

Jul 16 2009

2599, How can I not agree. The example you use is reality. It happens everyday. Civil disobedience is cool too. Maybe you think the "War on Drugs" is a rousing success. Kinda like the smoking ban it's stupid and over-reaching. Some things the government simply can't do, no matter how well intentioned you think they are. But that is a topic for a different thread.

WMartin

Jul 16 2009

While that's true, I would hardly equate allowing someone to smoke with oppressing a whole segment of the population because of their race. I didn't "equate" the effects on society, WMartin. I said it's the same bad argument. It didn't work then, and it won't work now, to say that businesses can do anything they/we want just because we're "privately" owned. We still serve the public, and have employees whose lives we should not endanger. Is allowing smoking on private property something we should use the force of government to stop? Well, of course, the government can regulate what happens on private property used for business with the public and employing people (which is not the same thing as private property such as inside your car or home). Should our government be ready to imprison and use violence against those who resist their unreasonable prohibitions? Come on, WMartin, that's the kind of hysterical hyperbole that is beneath someone with your intellect. I think we all know that fines and perhaps challenges of business licenses and so on can make regulation of businesses work without having to imprison or, er, commit "violence" against someone. (What orifice did you pull that one out of!?!) There is no real danger from second hand smoke aside from the hysterical reaction of non-smokers. Oops. You're wrong. There is very real danger to long-term health of those breathing secondhand smoke. Just because you don't like that fact does not make it false. That's the worse kind of argument fallacy you can try. Not to mention, someone should also not have to feel like they're going to throw their meal up because someone sitting next to them is smoking, even if secondhand smoke wasn't a long-term health risk to customers and staff. But it is. So the argument fails on both fronts. Face it, smoking is not a victimless act. Anyone in your vicinity has to breathe your exhalations whether they want to or not. That means you have the right to smoke, but you don't have the right to smoke anywhere and in front of anyone you want to. Although it's funny to see them fall all over themselves to get away from it, the falling can be dangerous. That's a stupid and offensive statement. Sorry. It's remarkable that you find humor in others' physical discomfort. Not some councilmen pandering for votes as they trample the rights of the minority. This isn't logical, either. You've already agreed that smokers don't have the right to smoke wherever they want. You can't get from there to a place where prohibiting smoking in places where the public is invited and served (all of them; not just smokers) is somehow "trampling all over the rights of the minority." It's just silly to say that a smoker's rights are violated because they can't smoke anywhere they want. And if the playing ground is level and enforced equally -- which was the point of this editorial -- you can't say that the rights of businesses are violated because they cannot allow something that endangers the immediate and long-term health of customers and staff members. You're asking for smokers to get special privileges regardless of the rights of non-smokers. Smokers have long gotten those privileges, but that doesn't mean things can't change. You know, like back in 1960s Mississippi. I'm also against the war on drugs. But it is a different scenario. The only way that would be analagous would be if tobacco is declared an illegal substance, and you are prohibited from consuming it anywhere, including outside, your car or your home. No one is prohibited from smoking; the regulations are about where you can engage in an activity that immediately affects those around you. And even if the war on drugs ended, it would still be appropriate to forbid people from passing joints in the middle of a bar-restaurant and forcing others there to hear music to breathe the smoke. Even if the business owner wanted to attract all the potheads in town. (smile) Also, especially in tough recessionary times, it is unconscionable to say that people should just turn down a job they need if they cannot stand breathing hundreds of other people's secondhand smoke on a regular basis. Often, bars in restaurants and bars are the best-paying for non-professional workers.

DonnaLadd

Jul 16 2009

There is no real danger from second hand smoke aside from the hysterical reaction of non-smokers. from the loonies at the American Cancer Society... http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_2_1x_Studies_Highlight_Dangers_of_Secondhand_Smoke.asp no, there is no real danger to non-smokers, is there?

2599

Jul 16 2009

Or from the commies over at the Centers for Disease Control. From CDC Factsheet, verbatim: Definition of Secondhand Smoke * Secondhand smoke, also known as environmental tobacco smoke, is a complex mixture of gases and particles that includes smoke from the burning cigarette, cigar, or pipe tip (sidestream smoke) and exhaled mainstream smoke.1 * Secondhand smoke contains at least 250 chemicals known to be toxic, including more than 50 that can cause cancer.1 Health Effects of Secondhand Smoke Exposure * Secondhand smoke exposure causes heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmoking adults.2 * Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their heart disease risk by 25–30% and their lung cancer risk by 20–30%.2 * Breathing secondhand smoke has immediate harmful effects on the cardiovascular system that can increase the risk of heart attack. People who already have heart disease are at especially high risk.2 * Secondhand smoke exposure causes respiratory symptoms in children and slows their lung growth.2 * Secondhand smoke causes sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more frequent and severe asthma attacks in children.2 * There is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure. Even brief exposure can be dangerous.2

DonnaLadd

Jul 16 2009

More CDC: Current Estimates of Secondhand Smoke Exposure * Exposure to nicotine and secondhand smoke is measured by testing the saliva, urine, or blood for the presence of a chemical called cotinine. Cotinine is a byproduct of nicotine metabolization, and tobacco is the only source of this marker.2 * From 1988–91 to 2001–02, the proportion of nonsmokers with detectable levels cotinine was halved (from 88% to 43%).3 * Over that same time period, cotinine levels in those who were exposed to secondhand smoke fell by 70%.3 * More than 126 million nonsmoking Americans continue to be exposed to secondhand smoke in homes, vehicles, workplaces, and public places.2 * Most exposure to tobacco smoke occurs in homes and workplaces.2 * Almost 60% of U.S. children aged 3–11 years—or almost 22 million children—are exposed to secondhand smoke.2 * About 25% of children aged 3–11 years live with at least one smoker, compared to only about 7% of nonsmoking adults.2 * The California Environmental Protection Agency estimates that secondhand smoke exposure causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 22,700–69,600 heart disease deaths annually among adult nonsmokers in the United States.4 * Each year in the United States, secondhand smoke exposure is responsible for 150,000–300,000 new cases of bronchitis and pneumonia in children aged less than 18 months. This results in 7,500–15,000 hospitalizations, annually.

DonnaLadd

Jul 16 2009

On second thought, maybe we should commit violence on people who smoke in the presence of children. And then imprison them.

DonnaLadd

Jul 16 2009

And, of course, the National Institutes of Health.

DonnaLadd

Jul 16 2009

they say ignorance is bliss...

2599

Jul 16 2009

WMartin, you pop up as a defender of the "right" to smoke and a denier of the dangers of smoking and second-hand smoke with every post on the subject. Unless you're just inserting yourself into the conversation for the "joy" of debate, I have to conclude that no amount of data from any organization will ever convince you, which, decades into the "controversy," puts your position beyond the pale. You remind me of the guy in the airport making the airline wrong for the plane taking off, when he got to the gate 10 minutes after the damn thing was in the air. It's all kind of pointless. No one has the "right" to smoke, nor do businesses have the "right" to permit smoking, per the U.S. Supreme Court and numerous lower court decisions; and certainly, no one has the "right" to inflict their smoke on people who don't wish to breathe it. Smoking, unlike the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, is not a fundamental right, say the courts. Banning smoking from public places does not prevent you from living, restrict any liberties defined by the Constitution, nor does it prevent you from pursuing happiness. And snowbird, freedom in the context of a civilization does not mean that you—or a business—can do anything you want to do just because you want to do it. That's just silly, and you know it (or should). We are a society of laws. If Americans feel a law is unjust, their remedies are through the courts and the legislature. Ignoring a law because you don't like it is no more a defense for breaking the law than ignorance of what the law says. Whether you personally "believe" smoking and second-hand smoke is an issue, leading international health advocates and organizations say otherwise, have been saying so for decades, and have warehouses of research (including research from Big Tobacco itself) to back them up. I guess you can not "believe" in viruses, too, if you like, but that doesn't make you right and viruses "hysterical" fictions. With fewer and fewer people smoking every day, it becomes an economic issue: Continue to allow smoking, and you will lose customers, because more and more people are getting smarter and quitting. Conversely, in Jackson, where a ban was passed but is not enforced evenly (if at all), patrons who smoke will naturally gravitate away from venues which obey the law, unfairly penalizing them. Ultimately, smoking is a health and welfare issue, not a political issue. Big Tobacco and their fleet of lobbyists would like you to believe it's political, but their interests are money, not legalities or Constitutional rights. If you believe Big Tobacco is on your side and fighting for your rights, you are deeply deluded.

Ronni_Mott

Jul 16 2009

Just for the sake of piling on here ;-), this is from Philip Morris' web site regarding second-hand smoke: Public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from cigarettes causes disease, including lung cancer and heart disease, in non-smoking adults, as well as causes conditions in children such as asthma, respiratory infections, cough, wheeze, otitis media (middle ear infection) and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. In addition, public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke can exacerbate adult asthma and cause eye, throat and nasal irritation. Philip Morris USA believes that the public should be guided by the conclusions of public health officials regarding the health effects of secondhand smoke when deciding whether to be in places where secondhand smoke is present, or if they are smokers, when and where to smoke around others. Particular care should be exercised where children are concerned and adults should avoid smoking cigarettes around them. We also believe that the conclusions of public health officials concerning environmental tobacco smoke are sufficient to warrant measures that regulate cigarette smoking in public places. We also believe that where cigarette smoking is permitted, the government should require the posting of warning notices that communicate public health officials' conclusions that secondhand smoke causes disease in non-smokers.

Todd Stauffer

Jul 16 2009

As Horatio Cane said on CSI Miami Poison is in the Dose

snowbird

Jul 16 2009

True, snowbird. And that's why having to breathe a roomful of smoke from dozens of people is a safety hazard, and having to work in it every night is cruel.

DonnaLadd

Jul 16 2009

@snowbird, seriously? really? you quote a Hollywood scripted drama to justify your point? now I've seen it all...

2599

Jul 16 2009

How about this: If a person thinks second-hand smoke is a problem to him and only to him then it is a problem to him and only to him. Then he enters at his 'own' risk. or he doesn't enter at all If another person doesn't think it is a health problem to him and only to him other than he doesn't like the sight and smell of smoke. He then enters if he so chooses.

snowbird

Jul 16 2009

You continue to miss the point: IT IS A LAW. I don't know how much clearer this can be said. If you don't like it, petition the city council to change it back. But until that time, IT IS A LAW. The editorial's point is "hey businesses, play fair. If most are enforcing it, you should, too." Your point is moot. Stop making it over and over. Oh, by the way, the smoking ordinance IS THE LAW. Done arguing with a brick....

2599

Jul 16 2009

So why did Hal and Mals break the law Did anyone report them to JPD?

FrankMickens

Jul 16 2009

good question. and, that i'm aware of, no, no one reported this. for one thing, i wanted to educate myself on that ordinance before i assumed what was going on was illegal. now that i know it is, i won't be going back to hear music in the courtyard. inside, maybe, but outside, no. inside, they seem to be enforcing the ordinance. maybe it is ignorance on their part re: the outside areas?

2599

Jul 16 2009

I was not aware of the "20 foot rule" regarding outdoor spaces. Now, will someone please inform Cups in Fondren of this? I routinely wade through a smelly haze just to get a fix of a non-air polluting addiction: caffeine.

msreader

Jul 17 2009

Msreader, I'm not an expert on this ordinance -- Ronni's the woman there -- but I think that Cups is exempt from the ordinance between they serve so little food. Ronni? It's also important to consider that as some businesses break the law, others will follow. That's why it should be enforced and evenly, if we're going to have it.

DonnaLadd

Jul 17 2009

Some prominent anti-smokers have been quietly forthcoming on what "the science" does and does not show. Asked to quantify secondhand smoke risks at a 2006 hearing at the UK House of Lords, Oxford epidemiologist Sir Richard Peto ¿ a leader of the secondhand smoke crusade ¿ replied, "I am sorry not to be more helpful; you want numbers and I could give you numbers..., but what does one make of them? ...These hazards cannot be directly measured." It has been fashionable to ignore the weakness of "the science" on secondhand smoke, perhaps in the belief that claiming "the science is settled" will lead to policies and public attitudes that will reduce the prevalence of smoking. But such a Faustian bargain is an ominous precedent in public health and political ethics. Consider how minimally such policies as smoking bans in bars and restaurants really reduce the prevalence of smoking, and yet how odious and socially unfair such prohibitions are. By any sensible account, the anachronism of tobacco use should eventually vanish in an advancing civilization. Why must we promote this process under the tyranny of deception? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/29/AR2007012901158.html

WMartin

Jul 17 2009

So, *that* is all you dug up counter to the CDC, NIH, etc.? Come on, WMartin. There are people who get sick on the spot when they smell cigarette smoke. Kids who breathe it get respiratory problems all the time. We know this anecdotally and the research supports it. You just can't win in the 21st century by arguing there are no health risks to secondhand smoking. That's absurd.

DonnaLadd

Jul 17 2009

How is this ban supposed to be enforced? Is it up to us, as patrons, get the establishments to tow the line? Do we report them to JPD? If we do report how will JPD respond? For example, if I were at Fenian's on the deck and someone lit up, would the "smoking police" come out right away and make them stop smoking? Or would Fenian's just get a "courtesy call" the next day? What's the protocol?

LKL

Jul 17 2009

That's a good question, LKL. Merits a follow-up from Ronni. ;-) Obviously, the best thing would be self-regulation and following the law in the first place. "No smoking" signs and the like. If everyone plays by the rules, the law won't be unfair. And, in fact, it'll pay off, as it has in other cities.

DonnaLadd

Jul 17 2009

I am not a lawyer, so please take this for what it's worth. Restaurants can not allow smoking inside or outside within 20 feet of a door, window or ventilation system. If Cups is licensed in Mississippi as a restaurant (and the ordinance specifically includes "coffee shops" in the definition of restaurant on page 5), they are violating the ordinance by allowing smoking on the patio. Come on lawyers. Weigh in on this. Here's the Jackson Smoke-Free Ordinance (PDF, 31.9 MB).

Ronni_Mott

Jul 17 2009

I don't know how Jackson handles it the fines. I do know that Hattiesburg, which started a smoking ban about a year before Jackson, puts the fines and responsibilities on the business. It's up to the owners and employees to keep people from lighting up, and if they don't (and get caught) the city will fine you. I seem to recall the HPD making the rounds after it was put in place to see if people were observing to the new ordinance but I'm not sure how they handled it from there.

KristinB

Jul 17 2009

No smoking laws that are based on lies, half-truths and slanted surveys etc.should be struck down immediatley if not sooner. http://smokersclubinc.com http;//pasan.thetruthisalie.com

snowbird

Jul 17 2009

http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com www.forces.org

snowbird

Jul 17 2009

Snowbird, please link to credible primary sources, not to blogs that just reinforce what you want to believe to be true. When we linked to the health organizations, we didn't link to anti-smoking blogs. We went straight for the real information. Otherwise, it isn't credible.

DonnaLadd

Jul 17 2009

What if the governments mandated that all currently smoke-free hospitality venues MUST provide a smoking section to accommodate smokers, against the wishes of business owners who choose to go smoke-free of their own free will? That wouldn't be fair, would it? Neither are government mandated smoking bans.

snowbird

Jul 17 2009

It's also not logical, snowbird. There is not a right to smoke in any establishment one wishes, nor is it a health issue to allowing smoking; there is no reason that the government would mandate it. Go back to the logical drawing board. And get used to the idea that it's non-smokers' rights to not breathe other people's waste that have been violated for many years, and that will be worked out in upcoming years. That can be done without prohibiting anyone from smoking.

DonnaLadd

Jul 17 2009

Some here think that they should be allowed to smoke wherever they want, regardless of others' health. To those who think this, how do you feel about drunk driving? Using your same logic, the driver has the right to buy alcohol and drink it. When that driver gets behind the wheel, they may or may not have a wreck, but the chance of endangerment of public safety greatly increases when a drunk driver is on the road. The same goes for smoking and second hand smoke. Your second hand smoke may or may not affect someone else permanently, but the chance of endangerment of public safety greatly increases when there are smokers nearby.

chip

Jul 17 2009

An alternative to smoking bans It is clear that separation of smokers from non-smokers combined with air exchange technology is a complete solution to this largely artificial problem. All it takes is regulating authorities setting the standards for indoor air quality on passive smoke, and the technology does the rest. Such air quality standards are common in industrial and environmental contexts. But, to date, no country in the world has set them for smoking areas. It seems clear that the reasons are not scientific, nor are they economic or technical: they are political. As to the annoyance of smoking, a compromise between smokers and non-smokers can be reached, through setting a quality standard and the use of modern ventilation technology. Air ventilation can easily create a comfortable environment that removes not just passive smoke, but also and especially the potentially serious contaminants that are independent from smoking. Incidently I post for the compatible non-smokers on this forum.

snowbird

Jul 17 2009

Decent analogy, Chip. Alcohol is not prohibited, but there are places you can't drink it -- when it can directly hurt others. For the record, I also believe people have the right to, er, do what they want in their bedrooms, but not do the same thing sitting next to me as I'm eating fried pickles.

DonnaLadd

Jul 17 2009

Snowbird, don't try to speak for me or anyone else. I do not support smoking bans for "political" reasons. I support them for health reasons and because I support people's individual right not to breathe second-hand smoke. Also, separation of smokers in businesses doesn't solve the basic problem of the health risks to the people who are employed. And if you haven't figured it out, not allowing smoking in places where others can breath is is a compromise.

DonnaLadd

Jul 17 2009

I am speaking to the people who agree with me, not to the people who disagree with me

snowbird

Jul 17 2009

So you're saying the people who agree with you support the ban for political reasons ... you're not making a lick o' sense.

DonnaLadd

Jul 17 2009

Don't cherry pick and put words into my mouth Read the two paragraphs again "As to the annoyance.... "Air ventilation can easily create...

snowbird

Jul 17 2009

There have been Illegitimate Laws throughout history...and all no-smoking laws (except those related to fire hazards etc) are illegitimate. The top fraud is about calling it "tobacco smoke" without qualification. What it really is, usually, is smoke from Highly-Contaminated Tobacco packed with toxic and cancer-causing pesticide residues, with radiation from certain still-legal phosphate fertilizers, and with dioxin-producing chlorine in the paper and many of the pesticides. The "tobacco smoke" is not even studied to be sure it IS from tobacco at all. Many patents exist for ways to make a "tobacco products" without even a shred of tobacco...but with nicotine extract added, of course. It may well be Corncob Smoke, or Peanut Shell Smoke...as per just two US Patents. Unless a package says it contains tobacco, it could be almost anything. Further, many if not most, of the so-called "tobacco related" or "smoking related" diseases are impossible to be caused by smoke from ANY plant---but they are already known effects of exposures to---guess what?---pesticides, radiation, and dioxins. The laws are criminal acts themselves as they are tools to help the cigarette makers, the ingredients and adulterants suppliers, their insurers and investors, AND complicit public officials, evade civil and criminal penalties. Those criminals who've secretly poisoned and killed untold numbers of people, and who've recklessly experimented upon millions of people without Informed Consent, hope to blame the victims and to scapegoat a natural plant. For affected people to continue to ignore this easily-researched angle, and to continue to call the stuff "tobacco", is to help the prohibitionists and the perpetrators. Except for plain organic cigarettes (for which no studies have yet been introduced), we are talking about Dioxin Dowels, Pesticide Pegs and Radiation Rods. We must DEMAND a prohibition of adding any untested or known harmful non-tobacco substances to cigarettes. We must turn the tables.

Baja K

Jul 17 2009

I didn't, snowbird. I think we're on different wavelengths. Let's let it lie. Your position is more than stated at this point, as is mine.

DonnaLadd

Jul 17 2009

Whatever, Baja K. As far as whether to call it cigarette smoke or tobacco smoke or pesticide smoke, take it up with the "tobacco" companies. They're not interested in "healthy" products. They're interested in making money. As I said before, no one has the "right" to smoke under the U.S. Constitution. Smoking bans have undergone numerous legal tests, right up to the Supreme Court. If a city wants to ban smoking, the are completely within their rights, just as if they want to ban selling liquor on Sundays. The issue here, as has been restated many, many times, is that Jackson has a law that, reportedly, venues are flaunting. Snobird, you're not making economic sense with your argument. Instead of banning smoking you want government to set "a quality standard" and restaurants to pay for "modern ventilation technology" used by heavy industry. That's all well and good—if you can get restaurants to pay for all that technology. I expect most independents and even chain restaurants can't afford it, which is maybe why you don't hear it suggested much, and probably why most restaurants simply don't allow smoking. Maybe they should just charge smokers quadruple prices to raise the funds.

Ronni_Mott

Jul 17 2009

Air ventilation can easily create a comfortable environment that removes not just passive smoke, but also and especially the potentially serious contaminants that are independent from smoking. One interesting consideration in this logic -- it's *cheaper* on the business for the municipality to ban smoking than it is to require these businesses to install high-tech ventilation systems and then monitor those ventilation systems to make sure they're working. In municipalities wealthier than ours, for instance, they've found that high-dollar ventilation systems don't work as advertised: http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:xXPx49mlfOIJ:pdf.plano.gov/health/smoking_ord/ventilation_report.pdf+restaurant+smoke+ventilation&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us Ventilation Systems Can Make Smoke Worse Then there's that pesky Phillip Morris USA again: "While not shown to address the health effects of secondhand smoke, ventilation can help improve the air quality of an establishment by reducing the sight and smell of smoke and by controlling smoke drift." Philip Morris, USA

Todd Stauffer

Jul 17 2009

Smoke from a handful of crushed leaves and some paper that is mixed with the air of a decently ventilated venue is harmfull to your health?? If anybody believes that, then I have some ocean-front property in Ohio I would like to sell them

snowbird

Jul 17 2009

snowbird, you have got to be kidding. When even Big Tobacco admits that smoking and secondhand smoke is detrimental to health, you might want to reconsider your position.

Ronni_Mott

Jul 17 2009

If anybody believes that, then I have some ocean-front property in Ohio I would like to sell them There is a large lake that's almost like an ocean in Ohio.

golden eagle

Jul 17 2009

Snowbird also thinks the world is flat, and will not take no for an answer. So just grin and nod.

DonnaLadd

Jul 17 2009

So, still, how is the law enforced? Does JPD even try?

LKL

Jul 17 2009

and in snowbird's world, the magical fairy sprinkles sunshine on your head to wake you up every morning and out snowbird's door are rainbows and butterflies...everyday. yes, fantasyland DOES exist for some!

2599

Jul 17 2009

oh, btw...from the philip morris (aka big tobacco company) website...verbatim... We also believe that the conclusions of public health officials concerning environmental tobacco smoke are sufficient to warrant measures that regulate cigarette smoking in public places. We also believe that where cigarette smoking is permitted, the government should require the posting of warning notices that communicate public health officials' conclusions that secondhand smoke causes disease in non-smokers. i believe itodd pointed this out above, but it's worth noting AGAIN for those who don't want to read the thread. if the companies that manufacture the product themselves agree, why won't you? they make the stuff. they know what's in it. but you, oh wise one, with all of your "expertise" claim you know better? awaiting my morning rainbows and sunshine...

2599

Jul 17 2009

[Deleted article reposted without attribution]

snowbird

Jul 17 2009

Hey Snowbird, If you are going to blatantly use the 2003 article "The Hazards of a Smoke-Free Environment" by Robert W. Tracinski WORD FOR WORD as your defense for poisoning non-smokers, at least cite a source. Those of us above who have cited FACTS have given the actual source its proper credit. Don't spew non-sense and let us believe it has come from your head...unless you are Robert Tracinski...which I doubt.

2599

Jul 17 2009

OK, plagiarism is going too far, snowbird. We've heard all your arguments. Don't go stealing someone else's.

DonnaLadd

Jul 17 2009

another blatant rip off...Thomas Laprade, 2008... post begins An alternative to smoking bans Snowbird is merely a mimic of things said by others. There's not an original thought in his/ her head. Sorry sir/madam, you have shown yourself to have ZERO credibility here.

2599

Jul 18 2009

Such a shame ...and he/she started off with such promise and zeal. LOL

WMartin

Jul 18 2009

I would like to add something to think about from a non-smoking musician's perspective. I haven't been a smoker for almost a decade now, but I have experienced singing as both a smoker and a non-smoker, and I can tell you it does make a difference. Even as a smoker, it was harder on my voice when I was singing in a smokey room. When I'm performing in a bar where smoking is permitted, I lose my voice quickly and I usually wake up sick the next day, so a performance the following day would be out of the question, or at the least, not up to par. I am pleased that the smoking ban is in place so that I can be at my best when performing. I know I can't be the only singer or musician who is appreciative of the ban. I have always found it ironic when I see people standing in front of a stage, cigarettes in their hands, blowing smoke right in the direction of the musician they just paid to see. If you respect a musician enough to pay to hear them perform, why would you disrespectfully blow smoke in their face and ruin their voice? So instead of whining about the ban in bars, (as far as where there is live music anyway)why not choose to look at it as if you are paying for a better performance and choosing to respect the musician by not contributing to ruining their voice?

caroline

Jul 18 2009

I would like to add something from a professional working musician's perspective. I have not worked regularly since the smoking ban went in in Ohio after working on a regular basis for close to two decades. Musicians are naive to think a smoking ban will improve business. It does not, no matter if it is a small town or large city. These clubs either: a) cut back on live music and hire DJs b) close I have been closed out of three clubs in one year...because they closed. These were not fly by night places. Corporate private work also suffers concerning live music work. I have also spoken to a number of caterers who have said the same concerning less parties since smoking bans went in in Ohio. We have been dealing with this to some extent since about 2004 and then 2007 when a statewide ban went in. It is not a good idea for our kinds of businesses. Most of the musicians I know who like the ban are hobbyists who work infrequently. The rest of us would like to continue to work regularly. Unfortunately, I do not think that day will come back until in my state until our bans are relaxed. FWIW, I know a number of professional opera singers who smoke. I was a bit surprised when witnessing that, but it doesn't seem to effect their performance or I'm sure they would not partake in the habit. However, the smoking bans are not about primary smoking. They are about trumped up fears of SHS. If you ask any antismoking lobbyist to come up with a single death certificate to back up their outlandish claims (53K deaths due to SHS), you will see what you thought was a gentle Dr. Jekyll turn into a rabid Mr. Hyde. One can only surmise that they are cornered with the fact that they not presenting true facts, only in promoting scare tactic propaganda to deceive the general public. There doesn't seem to be any other reasonable explanation for this kind of behavior.

Musician

Jul 19 2009

Musician, to suggest that smoking bans are the "only" reason that bars are going out of business (or that business is off) during this economic slump is ridiculous. Ohio has some of the highest unemployment in the nation—11 percent in June—with neighboring Michigan the highest in the country at 15.2 percent. I suspect that kind of unemployment puts more of a damper on discetionary entertainment budgets than whether people can smoke in a bar. As a matter of fact, a 2003 review of 97 smoking-ban studies said that the bans either had no effect or a positive effect on hospitality industry businesses. I know there are studies that contradict that information (mostly from city and state restaurant associations that oppose the bans), so the best that we probably say is that bans affect business in some areas, while they don't in others. Regardless, in today's economy, it's just silly to blame bad business on a single cause. As to your suppositions that smoking bans are "about trumped up fears" of second-hand smoke and the rest of your post, people have presented numerous citations that prove otherwise from highly-respected, non-partisan sources. To date, no one has presented such primary sources to back up assertions to the contrary. Stop surmising. Present facts. (Blog posts that agree with you are not primary sources) Smoking is a serious health issue, something that even tobacco companies no longer dispute. There is no conspiracy of lies about the health hazards of primary and secondary cigarette smoking.

Ronni_Mott

Jul 19 2009

Why would a smoking ban put a bar out of business? From a consumer POV, how does that work? "Hey, let's go out for a drink and catch Red Hill City!" "Nahhh... I don't think so, man. I can't smoke there anymore." "Oh, yeah." [proceed to sit at home and watch Golden Girls marathon] None of the smokers I know are all that bad off... I mean, they just go outside to get a smoke like everybody else. I wish they didn't have to, as a friend. But as a non-smoker, I have to admit the cleaner air is kinda nice. There's a cough I don't come home with anymore.

Tom Head

Jul 19 2009

I went to dinner last night at a popular Jackson restaurant, it was the first time I had been there since the ban went into effect, and the ashtrays on the patio were a welcome sight. I will probably book the company Christmas party there again this year and I will make sure I let the owner know how much I appreciate his views on the subject.

WMartin

Jul 19 2009

I'm not sure I really understand that either Tom. If there were venues in another municipality that didn't have a ban I guess the smokers would gravitate there. But if it was special event I can't see people staying away JUST because they weren't allowed to smoke. But hell, a Golden Girls marathon is gonna hurt the live music business everytime. That's why there is a Golden Girls ban in many places with a strong local musicians union.

WMartin

Jul 19 2009

Hey, the Chick Ball has gotten bigger, with better turnout, each year, and it's been non-smoking the last two years, I believe. There are people who wouldn't come when we allowed smoking. If the entertainment is good, people will go outside to smoke just like they're doing in most cities in America now.

DonnaLadd

Jul 19 2009

My question is.... "Is this being an issue?" I do get around a little and I have seen the ban working well, but I may not have been in the clubs trying to cheat. In the past three months, I have never seen a smoker light up in Fennian's, Que Sera, or Hal and Mals (except outside), and these were dripping in smoke prior to the ban. In 20 years, they may actually air out! I will say I also just got back from the coast and went to a bar claiming to be the biggest in Mississippi. Very blue collar clients, very rough around the edges. Never saw a single smoker light up inside. All went out and signs were everywhere. Saw a fight between patrons inside, but no smoking indoors. That constitutes some kind of progress. "They respected the smoking ban, but not the assault charges ban" No kidding

AGamm627

Jul 19 2009

it's an issue, 627, when places like Hal & Mal's Courtyard feel it's ok to allow smoking, while places who once had a high concentration of smoking diners outdoors (namely Que Sera) have managed (or so it seems) to enforce the ordinance. If places like Que Sera look to Hal & Mal's example, and take the attitude of "they can so why can't I", there may be a bigger fight on hand to enforce the ordinance. that's what makes it the issue. thus the point of the editorial. i'm surprised (and glad) to hear Fennian's is complying as I had heard they put up major resistance to begin with.

2599

Jul 19 2009

How about enforcing and abiding by the U.S. Constitution that ensures that private property rights are not trampled by mob-rule? The mob has nothing invested and loses nothing with a ban. If you don't want to patronize, D0N'T! A business owners preference trumps a patrons! They don't tell you how to run your life or home. But there are some people who have to run to the government to have things their way at the expense of freedom, they should have left this country so the rest of us can enjoy our God-given freedom this country used to be based on!

marleneb

Jul 19 2009

I realize that it is moot at this point, but the open air areas really should be the owners option. Second hand smoke on the patio at Que Sera can't hold a candle to exhaust fumes from passing traffic when it comes to killing patrons. I don't smoke any more, don't like the smell any more, but feel like the anti-smoking movement is really pushing too hard- and getting kind of obnoxious like those anti-abortion protesters...

Rico

Jul 20 2009

marlene, you can't sell drugs out of your home, fire a loaded weapon at someone in your home, or kill small animals in your home. nor can you drive a vehilce while drinking legal alcohol. your rights? no. sometimes the government has to step in to protect the health of others. the common sense of business owners doesn't prevail here, and neither does your argument for this being a constitutional issue!

2599

Jul 20 2009

Marleneb, how many times do we have to say it? Because you obviously have not read the other comments, here it is again, just for your benefit: No one has the constitutional right to smoke, any more than you have a constitutional right to drink and drive, sell child pornography, punch someone in the face or a whole slew of other activities. Freedom does not mean that just because you want to do it, you can, especially not when your activity has the potential to harm others. Smoking isn't a "God-given freedom" either, as far as I can tell. I'm pretty sure the Bible doesn't cover it. But, hey, I could be wrong.

Ronni_Mott

Jul 20 2009

Ronni M, some might argue that to "eat, drink and be merry" you must also smoke. LOL!!!!!!! At least part of that quote is biblical.

justjess

Jul 20 2009

we're back to this again. i seem to remember a similar stubborn stand-off when this issue first came up when the ban took effect. the point i made then was that on the day the city council voted on the smoking ordinance, there was a room full of people in blue t-shirts supporting it. i saw not one restaurant owner or presumed smoker present in opposition. now, i know that it's difficult for some smokers to walk short distances or stand up or down, but if this was such an important issue to you, maybe you should have voiced your opinion. also, it might be interesting to hear from some of the bar owners and managers in town. we, of course, know how jeff good feels on the matter. i think we might be surprised at how many owners were happy to hear of the ordinance. the worst offender i know of in jackson is martin's. i'm not sure how the ordinace affects them, but i don't think i've been there since it took effect...and i'm perfectly fine with that. smokers can have that place.

C Myers

Jul 20 2009

I can understand the ban in restaurants, I smoke but have rarely ever smoked in a restaurant cause I know nobody wants to smell smoke while they eat. I don't see the need in banning smoking in bars, sure second hand smoke can cause health problems if you were exposed to it 24 hours a day. I think non-smokers over react to the health risk, all those studies say "may","might", and "can" have health problems from second hand smoke. Not that your gonna die the next day just because you were in a bar where people smoked.

BubbaT

Jul 20 2009

Oh LORD, Bubba. I might not drown going over Niagara Falls in barrel either. That doesn't make it safe. No one's over-reacting. Even tobacco companies say second-hand smoke can cause serious health problems. A big part of the issue is that cooks, servers, bartenders, etc. have to work in the environment. In a smoking establishment, that could mean 40 hours a week or more exposed to toxic fumes. Smoking is NOT banned in standalone bars. However, the bar cannot be connected in any way to common areas where smoking IS banned. That includes kitchens, hallways, common entries, etc. Also, in Mississippi, standalone bars can only serve light wines and beers (less than 5% alcohol by volume). If you serve hard liquor, beers or wines over 5%, you must make 25% or more of your receipts from food that you cook. (Standalone bars in resort areas can get a special permit to serve harder drinks.)

Ronni_Mott

Jul 20 2009

while the health concerns certainly are a valid issue, i have always been more concerned about my laundry. prior to the ordinance, a quick trip to fenian's meant having to wash an entire outfit...not to mention in the winter when one might have to air out a coat or sweater for three days after a visit. i'm pretty sure there aren't any laws against mowing one's lawn or running a chainsaw at 3 in the morning(even though in the summer, it might be more pleasant to do so), but people typically don't do it. why? common courtesy, i guess. most people are sleeping at that time of night. i would venture to say that (with the exception of martin's) most patrons in most bars aren't smokers. it only takes 5 or 6 people puffing away in a space the size of fenian's to really smoke the place up. before the ban, yes, they had the right to do just that, but it sure would have been courteous for them to step outside. without the ban, perhaps smokers could just offer to do the laundry of those who choose not to partake in their habit.

C Myers

Jul 20 2009

I would like to point out that if you have ever talked or texted on your cell phone while driving, then you were engaging in an illeagal activity which puts yourself and others around you at risk, and is a policy that is also rarely enforced. Furthermore, the smoking ban has nothing to do with the fact that cigaratte smoke makes you sick or ruins your meal. You have a choice to give your business to an establishment based on any criteria you deem pertinent, including whether they allow smoking or not. The smoking ban is in place to protect the employees, vendors, salesmen, etc who have very little choice in the matter.

The Eskimo

Jul 21 2009

The smoking ban is in place to protect the employees, vendors, salesmen, etc who have very little choice in the matter. So why argue it? It seems as if you agree with a very valid point of the ordinance. Are you asking us all to agree that this is the ONLY reason a ban is or should be in force? It IS in force, and for one of the reasons that you point out. So case closed?

2599

Jul 21 2009

"So why argue it?...case closed?" I don't think anyone would argue that laws should not be enforced. In fact, in the above discussion, not many people are discussing that at all, which is my main problem with all of this. For the most part it is a bunch of comments villianizing and being condescending to people who smoke. All BS aside, I am a smoker and I oppose the ban because I like to have a cigarette after a meal at a restaurant. Selfish? Admittedly. On the other hand, you are (speaking generally...of course I have no idea who you are) a non-smoker, and support the ban because you don't like the smell of cigarettes. Valid point? Granted. We can discuss all that in an article about health risks of second hand smoke, or the ettiquette of smoking. But yet again, at every possible opportunity, the "non-smoking mafia" comes out of the wood work to villianize me and my health choices, and that just p%&*es me off. I try to be considerate to people in ALL aspects of my life. I do not smoke in enclosed spaces, around children, or in places in which smoking is banned. I am very conscious of my surroundings before lighting up, I take it upon myslef to do the right thing and either go outside or not smoke, and I believe that the majority of smokers do the same thing. What I do not like is to be stereotyped as a "second hand menace" who is somehow invading you air space. Their are inconsiderate drivers, cell phone users, obnoxious drunks, people who use vulgar language around children, and, yes, smokers who light up in inappropriate places. There always is going to be. And a law or ban is not going to solve the problem that some poepl are just plain rude.

The Eskimo

Jul 21 2009

Bad example, Eskimo. It's not illegal to talk or text on a cell phone while driving in Mississippi, unless you're driving with a learner's permit. There are such laws, but not here. According to the Governors Highway Safety Association, five states (California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Washington) ban all hand-held phone activity, and all but Washington make it a primary offense, which means a person can get pulled over for no other reason. 14 states ban texting. IMHO, given all of the idiots who drive 20 miles under the speed limit and the near misses I've had with people on cell phones (and two rear-end collisions), talking/texting on cell phones should be illegal. But that's a subject for another thread.

Ronni_Mott

Jul 21 2009

correction ... talking/texting on cell phones while driving should be illegal.

Ronni_Mott

Jul 21 2009

Prohibition of alcohol consumption CAUSED the Great Depression. Didn't matter where it happened. So the time and place argument is moot. The smoking bans are running PEOPLE out of business. Are you ban proponents going to bail them out. Didn't think so.

marleneb

Jul 21 2009

Those that speak of rights, the rights belong to the business owner regarding legal substances, NOT the patrons. Tax dollars do not finance these places, they are not publicly owned. When you start paying the taxes for these places you might have a say on how they operate, until then, stay out of their business, literally.

marleneb

Jul 21 2009

Come on, Marleneb, it doesn't help this conversation a bit to make stuff up. Smoking bans in businesses and places with public commerce are not "prohibition"; to this day, alcohol is banned in certain places and situations for safety reasons, and the government has the right to do that, too. It is simply disingenuous to try to equate these kinds of limited smoking bans to "Prohibition." So just don't bother because the logic doesn't work. We've already discussed that above, as well as the idea that business owners can do or allow anything we want in our businesses just because they are not "publicly owned." Obviously, we can be and are regulated for safety reasons in many way, to protect our employees and our customers. With due respect, your two arguments here are reactionary, not based on facts and are patent fallacies.

DonnaLadd

Jul 22 2009

Bad example, Eskimo. It's not illegal to talk or text on a cell phone while driving in Mississippi, unless you're driving with a learner's permit. I agree; both should be illegal, and will be as soon as enough people have died as a result. Sad that we have to wait that long.

DonnaLadd

Jul 22 2009

Prohibition of alcohol consumption CAUSED the Great Depression. That's the silliest thing I've heard in a long time, Marleneb. Where did you learn your history?

Ronni_Mott

Jul 22 2009

My goodness! So, it wasn't the stock market crash or that people couldn't afford the goods and services they were making (which was one contributor to the crash). Even though I still wouldn't buy it, I'd be willing to listen to the argument of Prohibition being A cause and not THE cause of the Great Depression.

golden eagle

Jul 22 2009

Marleneb - ?????? Please explain how Prohibition caused the Great Depression.

BubbaT

Jul 22 2009

Where do they get this stuff!?!

DonnaLadd

Jul 22 2009

It always amazes me how people are so quick to make statements about smoking when they DO NOT smoke. I find that very interesting. People have the right to do whatever they choose. Just like you have the right to come on here and post whatever you choose. That's your right. Why go to the bible in regards to smoking anyway....all smokers aren't Christians, so why would that arguement even be relevant. I know one thing the bible does say is - THOU SHALL NOT JUDGE....but alot of that goes on over here.

Queen601

Jul 22 2009

I love how defensive the smokers get each time this comes up. It's so cute.

Ironghost

Jul 22 2009

Queen, there isn't a lot of judgeing going on here, although it is a good conversation. Please don't mix that up out of your own defensiveness. This isn't just about people who are against smoking; many people who used to smoke are in favor of smoking bans in places that serve the general public, and can be the most outspoken about it. Even many current smokers don't believe you should do it in a closed facility around non-smokers, and many people in the 21st century see no need to go home smelling like we did after that lovely (except for the smoking) night in F. Jones Corner recently. There is no need for that place to allow smoking, and they will likely run off tourists from other places where smoking bans are in place (most big cities in the U.S.) if they're not careful. Attitudes are changing, even if Mississippi is behind on it. It's not being "defensive" to support a smoking ban in places that serve the public. It's speaking up for the right to not have to breathe other people's smoke--a right non-smokers have long not had access to. That can happen easily without prohibiting smoking. These two rights can co-exist if smokers get over the idea that they can smoke anywhere they want no matter who it bothers or sickens. People do have the right to smoke, just not smoke anywhere they want. No one has the "right" to do anything anywhere they want; constitutional and individual rights *always* have to co-exist with the rights of others, and tend to stop at the point where you're endangering the health and safety and others, which smoking in bars and restaurants does to other patrons and staff. By the way, people do not have the "right" to post here, however; it is a privilege we offer to people who are willing to follow our user agreement.

DonnaLadd

Jul 22 2009

IMHO, given all of the idiots who drive 20 miles under the speed limit and the near misses I've had with people on cell phones (and two rear-end collisions), talking/texting on cell phones while driving should be illegal. But that's a subject for another thread. Why not just outlaw stupidity? You will have about as much chance of enforcing that as a ban on texting/talking while driving. Most of the things we talk about banning have remedies under the law already. If people could prove causality, that someone is harmed through the actions of another there are legal remedies for that. If someone is driving recklessly there are legal remedies for that. We can not try to micro manage everyone's actions and still call ourselves a free country. Those two are mutually exclusive.

WMartin

Jul 22 2009

You can't outlaw stupidity. You can, however, enforce public-safety regulations against things like smoking in venues that serve the public, as well as outlawing talking on cell phones and texting while driving.

DonnaLadd

Jul 22 2009

Maybe Marleneb meant that a prohibition on alcohol caused her great depression, not The Great Depression? Just a thought.

WMartin

Jul 22 2009

Might be a bit of a stretch, but prohibition began in the 20's and the great depression began in 1929 with the stock market crash. Do your own research, tobacco and alcohol are tax and money makers.

marleneb

Jul 22 2009

Ironghost and anyone else who mentioned me in those posts that I am not reading....I AM NO LONGER A SMOKER...I QUIT....But I still believe that grown people who pay their own bills can do whatever they choose to do. People with businesses should be able to have whoever they want in their business - it's theirs. What's cute is the fact that some people think they are the beginning and end of all that is....that's what's cute....

Queen601

Jul 22 2009

Queen, I didn't refer to you. [quote] People with businesses should be able to have whoever they want in their business - it's theirs.[/quote] Should I quote Donna's argument about racism again? I've got a better one: Read Upton Sinclar's "The Jungle"? I guess you wouldn't have minded eating processed meat from Chicago Packing Companies back then. Health and Safety regulations are one area the government can do great good. Smoking bans will do good.

Ironghost

Jul 22 2009

Iron, I love days when you and I are so in synch. They are rare. ;-) Of course, your analogy is right on: white folks made this exact argument before the Civil Rights Act -- that government did not have the right to tell businesses who to serve or how to run their businesses. Queen, I didn't mention you, but I responded to your earlier comment about all the non-smokers being "defensive" because we don't agree with your assessment that businesses should be above regulation. Clearly, that's not the case in the country, not could it be.

DonnaLadd

Jul 22 2009

Do your own research, tobacco and alcohol are tax and money makers. Perhaps, taxing marijuana (thus making it legal)will get us out of the economic funk we're in now?

golden eagle

Jul 22 2009

Where was everyone here (or should I say most everyone) when we were having public comments before the City Council. More polite and educated conversation, like here, might have given us a cleaner ordinance.

GradyGriffin

Jul 22 2009

GE: Oh lord don't get me started on that one. The idea that people would happily pay taxes on something they're used to buying ilegally now is hysterical.

Ironghost

Jul 22 2009

Who said anything about "happily" paying taxes, Iron? The point Golden was making (tongue in cheek) is that if alcohol and tobacco are such great revenue producers, surely pot would be, too. The drug war in America has cost taxpayers billions, and made billions for organized crime. The criminals are winning on that front and have been for decades. Think if we didn't have to spend those billions to fight it, but could tax it just like we do every other thing we buy (groceries, cars, houses, clothes, etc.)

Ronni_Mott

Jul 22 2009

I'll happily trade cigarettes for pot...ummm.. if I smoked it...which I don't... just saying.

WMartin

Jul 22 2009

Ronni: I didn't want to distract from the smoking thing, so I'll keep this brief. People are used to getting it tax free. Who thinks they'll pay taxes on it when it's legal? They still smuggle tax-free cigarettes, you know. People make Moonshine, and they get busted for it. Heck, tax evasion is a major component of crime these days. I don't see "Free Marijuana" as a solution. More like a larger problem than Booze and Cigs combined.

Ironghost

Jul 22 2009

I don't smoke and don't have an opinion on this. All I know is that if anyone blows their smoke on me, I'm gonna beat them up without regards to age, gender or other reason or excuses. I ain't dying from smoke inhalation. Running off at the mouth might get me cancelled some day, though.

Walt

Jul 22 2009

Jackson Free Press

Enforce the Smoking Ban

Previous Commentsshow

More like this story

Support our reporting -- Follow the MFP.

Comments

JFP Tweets

Top Stories

Recent Comments