Tupelo Smoking Ban

[TF Admin]

It looks like it's going to happen. Like it or not. Is this a glimpse of our future government? Regardless of the health concerns, why is it the governments job to FORCE business owners to not accept patrons that have made certain personal health choices?

Why not regulate smoking sections in bars and restaurants? I mean set minimum standards that these places of business have to follow to have a smoking section. Air quality standards, air exchange requirements, etc.

People have been smoking for a long time. There is even evidence that our earliest ancestors smoked many different kinds of weeds and leaves. My grandather smoked, pipes, cigars, and rolled his own cigarettes. He died of natural causes at the ripe old age of 91.

So if the issue truly is concern for others that do not smoke and the health concerns of second hand smoke.....why not regulate smoking sections, instead of stripping yet another right/decision/personal choice from business owners and the public in general?

TF

[granny2young]

I agree. I find it difficult to accept this imposition on people. As a business owner, it should be a choice whether to allow smoking or not in their establishment.

[King Rat]

I agree. Our government is so intent on taking total control of our day-to-day lives that it is sickening. I'm a non-smoker married to a non-smoker and raising non-smoking children but this new ordinance is nothing short of an infringement on the rights of business owners and consumers alike.

[TF Admin]

And now the great Metropolis of Mantachie has joined the fray. Why are these local governments so quick to strip the rights of it's citizens away?

TF

[King Rat]

I think the legislative process is backwards. We pay our representatives (at all levels of government) and grade them based on how they represent us. Perhaps too many of them feel the need to pass laws just so they can brag about them during the next election cycle. So I have an idea:

Instead of paying our elected officials we should charge them. Yep, charge them for the privilege of representing us. If the state legislature goes into special session, instead of paying them extra we charge them extra. I'll bet that would make them get their work done during the regular session. In the case of local officials we charge them based on the number of hours they meet. Maybe then they wouldn't linger about with so much time on their hands just trying to dream up some new ordinance they can impose upon us.

The best thing a lawmaker could tell me during election time is that he/she didn't add a single law to our already bloated books.

[TF Admin]

KR.... <<POP>> That's the sound of opening another can of worms. HEH! I'm amazed at how much you and I think alike when it comes to politics.

TF

[King Rat]

Uh oh. Now people will think we are the same person. ;D

When I was in Mexico a few years ago, doing some programming at a plant, the American plant manager was telling me all about how cheap the labor was. And the great thing was that if had to work overtime they didn't get paid extra because it meant they didn't work hard enough during regular hours (even if a late order caused the overtime). Great, I guess, depending on which side of the coin you happen to be on.

You think Billy "They call mu Billy" McCoy would agree to that in cases of special session?

[TF Admin]

I should have the Council video up by the weekend. Sorry it's late, but the audio is really low, as is ususally the case. Wh can't people speak INTO the microphone, you'd think they were afraid people might here what they say?

Anyway, Here the facts regarding second hand smoke:

www.davehitt.com/facts/index.html

I wonder if the council reviewed this information before stripping another liberty away from the citizens they serve?

TF

[cntryldyx3]

They say you have to be twenty five feet from the entrance of a business to smoke.Well that means I can't stroll up the sidewalks in Tupelo with a cigarett in my hand.But I can go into a bar,get stinking drunk and get behind the wheel of a car.A cigarett has never caused me to go out and run over someone(and I don't drink).I don't believe there are enough cops in Tupelo
to enforce this.I would like to be a fly on the wall when someone tells a drunk man he can't smoke ;D.They may have bitten off more than they can chew.It might get pretty interesting around Tupelo.

[TF Admin]

cntrydlx3 The anti-smoking nazi's are going to enforce it. They will be calling it in to make sure businesses are in compliance. In today's paper, they say they are going to "help" businesses get through this. Just like Hitler helped get the Jews through their struggle by putting them in concentration camps. How dare they impose their will upon the rest of us because they don't like smoking. They use misinformation and lies to get the politicians to do their bidding by making laws that do NOTHING more than strip personal choice and liberties away from the public.

I will stake my reputation that in 10 years, you will see the same number or an increase in the number of lung cancer and asthma patients in Tupelo. This ordinance DOES NOTHING for public health, it is a sham. I cannot believe we, here in Tupelo, would stoop to this level without checking out ALL the information on this issue.

On the website I gave above there is a section of businesses that have closed down or lost business because of similar anti-smoking ordinances. Look at the number from Ireland, where most of this mess started. These businesses directly attribute their losses to anti-smoking laws and ordinances. So to say it won't hurt the economy is an OUTRIGHT lie.

I recently traveled through Bryant, Arkansas where you cannot even smoke in your own vehicle. According to several officials I personally spoke with, the anti-smoking ordinance has hampered economic growth and they are looking at repealing it.

TF

[momof3]

Well I may be wrong to be jumping on the anti-smoking wagon, but I believe that when a person picks up a cigarette and smokes it, they are making a choice. However, when they blow that smoke out and it goes into my lungs and my children's lungs, they are taking away my choice not to smoke. I don't care if they want to smoke or if they don't want to smoke, but I or my children should not be forced to smoke as well. My daughter is very allergic to cigarette smoke and believe it or not, anytime she is exposed, she gets sick. I know that this is a very "sticky" subject and it does go deeper than just a choice to smoke, it goes into politics. But I also know that if a smoker is not going to be courteous enough to not expose my family to cigarrette smoke, then maybe we do need laws to help. Isn't that what most laws have been created for, to help?

[TF Admin]

The average non-smoking person on an average day in their home breathes in more carcinogens than is contained in 6 cigarettes, in addition to other much more deadly pollutants.

I do not doubt that some people are more susceptible to Second Hand Smoke, because they would also have problems with other types of smoke or even smog. Most restaurants have smoking sections, and bars tend to have smoking around the bar area. But like you said momof3, people ultimately make the choice, this includes the PEOPLE that own the restaurant or bar. It is not the government's responsibility to tell me or you or anyone how to live their life and what choices they can and cannot make, unless it is a danger to the public welfare. Second Hand Smoke is NOT a danger to public welfare. Is it courteous? No, but it's not the government's job to dictate manners either. Society does this.

Think of it this way, what if the way you drive ticked people off and enough of them voiced and rallied the politicians and said we want bad driving outlawed on City Streets. Bad driving would be driving slow, putting make up on, changing the radio station, etc. causing you to swerve a little, stay at red lights and extra couple of seconds. In other words, you're technically not disobeying any traffic laws, but other driver's are getting pissed at you because you're driving is making them late for work. Ultimately, you are responsible when you are behind the wheel. So they start a new law that tickets bad driver's.

Someone else came up with a much better scenario regarding sex. You can get unbelievable nasty diseases from sex, yet people enjoy it and do it. Sure, you can't have sex in public places, but it involves TWO people, usually...heh. And exposes the other to possible diseases. It is a personal choice.

Your wallet speaks louder than any words when it comes to business, and in this case, the business owner's will suffer due to business dropping off, AND society suffers because the government has gotten into the business of PERSONAL Choice. If you believe in God, then you may believe he gave us a FREE WILL to accept him or not. This country was founded on this very principle...FREE WILL, to not have our lives dictated to us, and worship, work, play, and pursue our OWN way.

This issue goes way beyond the second hand smoke part. Personal choices are being taken away, and lies are being spread about the effects of Second Hand Smoke to justify it.

TF

[TF Admin]

And momof3...you're not wrong for wanting people not to smoke around your child, especially given her health. But it's one thing to be protective and another to be imposing. I firmly believe the anti-smoking nazi's are imposing their will onto the public in general. It's one thing to be involved in MADD, there is sound evidence and statistical fact to back up why not to drink and drive, heh, and common sense. Anti-Smoking Groups do not have one SHRED of evidence backed up by scientific fact to support their claims, and politicians eat it up for gain. For a supposed intelligent politician to side with them is nothing short of ignorance and stupidity tied together with lack of common sense.

TF

[zipzam]

momof3 said:

Well I may be wrong to be jumping on the anti-smoking wagon, but I believe that when a person picks up a cigarette and smokes it, they are making a choice. However, when they blow that smoke out and it goes into my lungs and my children's lungs, they are taking away my choice not to smoke. I don't care if they want to smoke or if they don't want to smoke, but I or my children should not be forced to smoke as well. My daughter is very allergic to cigarette smoke and believe it or not, anytime she is exposed, she gets sick. I know that this is a very "sticky" subject and it does go deeper than just a choice to smoke, it goes into politics. But I also know that if a smoker is not going to be courteous enough to not expose my family to cigarrette smoke, then maybe we do need laws to help. Isn't that what most laws have been created for, to help?

momof3... i understand your point (as well as i can). i've had good friends that are allergic to smoke. they hack and hack when around a smoker.
then again, they should have the good sense NOT to sit in a place that allows smoking. there were already choices of eating at a non-smoking place (Comer's in Dorsey banned smoking a year or two ago). i'm sure some places in tupelo were smoke free.

i'm annoyed, and will gag, if someone farts when i'm trying to eat my meal. should we outlaw farting in a public place?

[rutrow]

I am an ex-smoker who cannot stand to be around cigarette or cigar smoke. However, I am so against this smoking ban. There has to be more to this agenda than they are saying, sugar-coating and playing out like it is for "people's health".

Big brother is alive and well in Tupelo. Watch out next for the traffic cameras to go into operation. Then audio/videos to watch you and hear what you say. They take a little freedom, then take some more until it is all gone.