Petal Smoking Ban?

[politically incorrect]

Read in the HA today where Petal might consider a smoking ban similar to H'Burg's. While we're at it, let's mandate soap-on-a-rope for everyone taking showers, since slipping on a bar of soap can cause serious injury. Also, no more using those risky step-ladders. Call in a professional who is licensed by the city to do anything requiring you to get more than one foot off the ground. The city can also hire inspectors to come watch how many times we chew our food - there is the danger of choking, you know.

[big john]

Read in the HA today where Petal might consider a smoking ban similar to H'Burg's. While we're at it, let's mandate soap-on-a-rope for everyone taking showers, since slipping on a bar of soap can cause serious injury. Also, no more using those risky step-ladders. Call in a professional who is licensed by the city to do anything requiring you to get more than one foot off the ground. The city can also hire inspectors to come watch how many times we chew our food - there is the danger of choking, you know.You are my new best friend,I like the way you talk.
what we really need is guys with guns to break into peoples homes and go through their food,to make sure everyone is getting the fiber they should. yes, a police force that will go around making sure people are doing the RIGHT things,if they find ice cream in someones freezer,that has too much fat in it,make the family dig a ditch outside their home and shoot them into it,nazi style:smt038 :smt038 :smt038 :smt038 :smt038

[aaron]

Well, I hate to say it, but I don't agree. Smoking in an enclosed building hurts anyone else in that building. Now, if you proposed that capitalism should take care of this (ex. I don't like smoking so I'm not eating there), it's a viable argument. I'd use your argument on the seat belt law, since not wearing your seat belt only hurts you, no one else.

[Imapepper]

Same goes for slipping on soap, climbing up ladders, etc. Those things you do to yourself; smoking affects all those around it.

[pEtAl mIsFiT]

I am with you Aaron 100%. I do not like to go out and smell smoke. I don't want to breath it and don't want my baby or child taking that in as well. If one wants to damage their lungs fine just don't take my lungs with you.

On the seat belt law I agree I hate to wear a seat belt and 99% of the time I don't.

[Imapepper]

I totally hate smoke around me and if possible I will go where it's not. Seat belts I do wear. I just don't feel safe without them.

[pEtAl mIsFiT]

Oh the Smokehouse in Petal is already NON SMOKING

[big john]

when i talk about freedom,i am talking about the owners freedoms.
If the owner wants his place to be smoke free then so be it,same for the guy who wants his place to have smoking.
We have the freedom to go to the one we choose.

[big john]

BTW I have been smoke free for one month now,thank you thank you.
It was hard but i did it.

[pEtAl mIsFiT]

That is great big john! Don't the food tast better now?

I quit 14 years ago myself...

[metal protector]

I think this could be something I agree with. :smt102

[big john]

That is great big john! Don't the food tast better now?

I quit 14 years ago myself...yes,at first everything tasted real salty,so i cut salt almost out of my diet and things taste great now,so that was a bonus.

[aaron]

Business owners lost their rights when they started allowing people to sue them for every little thing. Which, with just a little more news coverage on secondhand smoke, and people will start suing businesses for smoke wondering over into the non-smoking section and giving them cancer. I'm surprised it hasn't happened already. Then businesses wouldn't be allowed to have these sections unless you couldn't detect any smoke in the non-smoking section with a trained dog. This is just a shortcut to where we're going, only lawyers didn't get 40% of $100 billion in this case.

[Engelbert Humperdinck]

wilebill agrees: ahh, somebody who recognizes that owners have rights, too

Using the premise that business owners have rights too, it would be ok for the repair shop owner to pour used motor oil in the creek out back. It’s his and he can do what he wants with it, right?


Congrats Big John!

[SoMissTV]

Using the premise that business owners have rights too, it would be ok for the repair shop owner to pour used motor oil in the creek out back. It’s his and he can do what he wants with it, right?



Or that owners could use blown-in asbestos for attic insulation?

[Tully Mars]

Read in the HA today where Petal might consider a smoking ban similar to H'Burg's. While we're at it, let's mandate soap-on-a-rope for everyone taking showers, since slipping on a bar of soap can cause serious injury. Also, no more using those risky step-ladders. Call in a professional who is licensed by the city to do anything requiring you to get more than one foot off the ground. The city can also hire inspectors to come watch how many times we chew our food - there is the danger of choking, you know.

The City of Petal is NOT seriously considering a smoking ban. The subject was brought up by the HA in response to Hattiesburg's recent ban. It was not part of official deliberations in a Board meeting.


Using the premise that business owners have rights too, it would be ok for the repair shop owner to pour used motor oil in the creek out back. It’s his and he can do what he wants with it, right?

Congrats Big John!

I really don't see what your analogy has to do with the fact that business owners have some rights in this issue. It is the business owners that are generating the majority of the revenue that the City receives and yes they should have some say in the matter. However, as I understand it, turn out for the public hearing on the Hattiesburg ordinance was little to none so I am not sure that any of us have much room to gripe.

By the same token, I am perfectly capable of controlling whether or not people smoke in my place of business without the city's help. What concerns me is that if I don't have their silly little "smoke free business" stickers in my window then I am out of compliance with the ordinance and subject to a fine. Should I also have a sticker that says "no stealing allowed" or "this is a murder-free business"? Seems silly to me to require the stickers.

[wilebill]

So, if you run a business out of your own house, you can't smoke there? You own a one-man band business out of a building you own, you can't smoke there? You have a little small business and you generally go outside on the porch to smoke, but your porch is not 15' away from the door, you can't smoke there? It's raining, but you can't even smoke under your own porch because it's not 15' away from the door? A business is a mail order place with 2 employees who all smoke and have no walk-in traffic but they can't smoke? You can't smoke near a cigarette store?

I'm sorry, there's too much of a mentality that for some reason or another people think that some nameless person owes them an Olive Garden in town (when are they going to give us an Olive Garden? - how many times did I hear that?). It's not some nameless person, it's somebody who plunked down a good chunk of change to do that - for their own benefit. The purpose of any business - in the long run - is to make money for the owner, serving the public is just a means to that end. If a business owner wants to run off his customers, that's his own business. It's not against the law to be a bad business owner, as I've heard CPA's say.

There was at least one no-smoking bar in town. If it was such a great fricken idea why weren't they all non-smoking? If people hated it so much why wasn't this place packed full all the time?

[Engelbert Humperdinck]

So, if you run a business out of your own house, you can't smoke there? You own a one-man band business out of a building you own, you can't smoke there? You have a little small business and you generally go outside on the porch to smoke, but your porch is not 15' away from the door, you can't smoke there? It's raining, but you can't even smoke under your own porch because it's not 15' away from the door? A business is a mail order place with 2 employees who all smoke and have no walk-in traffic but they can't smoke? You can't smoke near a cigarette store?

Using these scenarios, IMO if you run a small business with no walk in traffic, and everyone agrees on the smoking issue, then go for it. I also feel it’s ludicrous to not allow people to smoke in a tobacco store.

I'm sorry, there's too much of a mentality that for some reason or another people think that some nameless person owes them an Olive Garden in town (when are they going to give us an Olive Garden? - how many times did I hear that?). It's not some nameless person, it's somebody who plunked down a good chunk of change to do that - for their own benefit. The purpose of any business - in the long run - is to make money for the owner, serving the public is just a means to that end. If a business owner wants to run off his customers, that's his own business. It's not against the law to be a bad business owner, as I've heard CPA's say.

There was at least one no-smoking bar in town. If it was such a great fricken idea why weren't they all non-smoking? If people hated it so much why wasn't this place packed full all the time?


The problem here is that we have two classes of people who feel wronged. You have smokers who resent being told where they can smoke, and feel that their ‘rights’ have been violated because the City has told them where they can smoke. On the other hand, you have people who are not smokers and have go to places where they have to inhale second hand smoke, and they too feel that their ‘rights’ have been violated. I know you’re going to say, that the non-smoker shouldn’t go somewhere that people are smoking, but that’s just not feasible. You said it yourself that businesses are in business for profit, and as long as non-smokers continue to frequent a business with smokers then they’re (businesses) not going to rock the boat with the others (smokers).

[Engelbert Humperdinck]

[...]By the same token, I am perfectly capable of controlling whether or not people smoke in my place of business without the city's help. What concerns me is that if I don't have their silly little "smoke free business" stickers in my window then I am out of compliance with the ordinance and subject to a fine. Should I also have a sticker that says "no stealing allowed" or "this is a murder-free business"? Seems silly to me to require the stickers.
(Emphasis mine)

I totally agree about the window decal issue. If all public buildings are non-smoking then, there isn’t a need to require all businesses to display a decal, much less to fine them for not having it.

[carsalesguy]

i work at a small used car lot now.....and two out of the three of us smoke......the other lot is out in oak grove not in the city limits. even though we would never smoke in the building, we do go out on the porch and smoke. it's just the way that we have always done it, and we will continue to. there are two door, and front and a back. we are now smoking off the back porch. if the police who don't care if the guy down the street is being mugged stops, we will tell him that we are 15' away from the front door. then i'll tell him to shove it up his a$$. we don't have no smoking signs up. if you don't have enough common sense to walk into here and see we don't smoke in the building, then i don't see the need to have such signs up.

[Conveyor Belt]

I also feel it’s ludicrous to not allow people to smoke in a tobacco store.



I can't drink in a liquor store, can I?

[wilebill]

On the other hand, you have people who are not smokers and have go to places where they have to inhale second hand smoke, and they too feel that their ‘rights’ have been violated. I know you’re going to say, that the non-smoker shouldn’t go somewhere that people are smoking, but that’s just not feasible. You said it yourself that businesses are in business for profit, and as long as non-smokers continue to frequent a business with smokers then they’re (businesses) not going to rock the boat with the others (smokers). (emphasis mine) Is someone holding a gun to your head to go to these places? Can't people vote with their pocketbook, and let the owner know that they won't frequent their business as long as there's smoking in there? Again, that shows the mentality that for some reason business owners owe everybody something. They don't. If they can entice you to buy from them, good; if not it's their loss. It all boils down to how much loss they're willing to suffer.

I don't really have a big problem with banning smoking in restaurants, even though it seems that smokers voted with their pocketbook while non-smokers forced their will upon everyone else by going through the govt. I knew that part was inevitable, even from owners banning smoking. But a blanket ban on every business was just too totalitarian and I never knew the city council was considering such a thing.

[Engelbert Humperdinck]

Is someone holding a gun to your head to go to these places? Can't people vote with their pocketbook, and let the owner know that they won't frequent their business as long as there's smoking in there? Again, that shows the mentality that for some reason business owners owe everybody something. They don't. If they can entice you to buy from them, good; if not it's their loss. It all boils down to how much loss they're willing to suffer.

I don't really have a big problem with banning smoking in restaurants, even though it seems that smokers voted with their pocketbook while non-smokers forced their will upon everyone else by going through the govt. I knew that part was inevitable, even from owners banning smoking. But a blanket ban on every business was just too totalitarian and I never knew the city council was considering such a thing.
This is nothing more than a disruption of the status quo. I’ve been on this planet long enough to have gone from watching the evening national newscaster smoking on screen, to the current anti smoking movement. I agree that a boycott by the non-smoking side would let businesses know if their clientele smokes. But, this is a health and welfare issue. It’s not only for the patrons of an establishment, but mainly the workers. I tended bar in college, and hated breathing that crap, but back then an unskilled college kid making that kind of money, I had to put up with it. But, how much damage did I do to my health? Being pro-business (I’m guessing, no insult intended) I’d guess you’d tell the bartender that he needs to move to a non smoking bar or find a new occupation where it’s smoke free. I don’t have the answer to this argument; I know that I enjoy going out and not breathing in smoke. I feel badly that smokers are being persecuted, truly I am. The only answer is to hold a referendum on it and let the voters decide. But the loser is still going to bitch.

[James Moore]

One shortcoming with the Hattiesburg ordinance is that one cannot legally walk down a downtown sidewalk smoking because you would constantly be passing within 15' of the main entrances to public buildings.

The other issue I have is that smoking is prohibited in an outside courtyard if it is surrounded by more than two walls. That is to say that if the courtyard has three walls and is open to the sky above and open to the world on the fourth side, smoking is prohibited.

I support the concept of smoke free public buildings but have real problems with the above clauses. James Moore (and no, we are not currently considering a smoking ban in Petal regardless of the slant of the HA on a slow news day)

[MSQueen]

okay, i wasn't going to even get involved in the smoking issue, but i just can't help it! i was a 1-2 pack a day smoker for 20+ years, and finally (with the help of hypnosis, willpower, and the "Good Lord") i was able to smoke my last cigarette about 6-7 years ago. it was the best thing (and the HARDEST thing i have ever done in my life)! i also vowed that i wouldn't become one of those "I-QUIT-SMOKING-SO-YOU-CAN-TOO" people and wouldn't become one of those that put smokers down. i've been there and done that, and i understand it all too well to do that.

i understand all the "hoopla" and debate about smokers v. non-smokers... smokers saying it is taking away their rights, and non-smokers complaining about "second-hand smoke" and their health, etc., etc.

i have a question for the non-smokers--

if u are so concerned about the effects of breathing second-hand smoke in bars, in offices, etc., why aren't u JUST as concerned, IF NOT MORE SO, about the effects of the big black smoke that billows and sputters from the big diesel rigs going down our local highways every day?! also, i've been behind some vehicles on our local roads that made me almost gag because of the oil burning out of the exhaust (or WHEREVER it comes out of).

why aren't all of u *up-in-arms* about the effects of that? why haven't any of u tried to seek some reforms regarding THAT type of pollution and the "effects" it may(i would say HAS) on your health?! i would think if all of u were that concerned about ur health, u would be walking around with those little masks over your nose and mouth every time u walk outside, knowing that there are so many harmful pollutants in the air ANYWHERE u go!

[fuzzis]

MSQueen...I would say that it's a matter of immediacy. I deal with cigarette smoke much more often than I do pollution from exhaust.

fuzzis

[MSQueen]

MSQueen...I would say that it's a matter of immediacy. I deal with cigarette smoke much more often than I do pollution from exhaust.

fuzzis

so, that's makes it worse for ur health than pollutants in the air?

[fuzzis]

so, that's makes it worse for ur health than pollutants in the air?

I didn't say that. In fact, I didn't say anything about health.

Because the pollution that cigarette smokers put into the air affects me NOW and much more often, it's what has my focus. Give me time, and I'll get to the rest of it.

Everything in life gets prioritized, and for most people, the things at the top of the list are the things that impact them NOW. (exhaust...low on the list. I keep my windows up and use the re-circulating air feature in my car most of the time)

fuzzis

[SoMissTV]

Diesel exhaust causes lung cancer. (http://www.cleanairstandards.org/article/2004/12/360)

Sounds like you should take this to the city council, MSQueen.

[SoMissTV]

Here's more information on diesel fumes (http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/content/full/51/3/193). However, it looks like you'll need to lobby the EPA as opposed to the city council.

[IGID]

While most cohort and case-control studies have found an association between diesel exhaust exposure and lung cancer, several have not.


I believe every study in the history of man found cigarette smoke causes lung cancer.

[James Moore]

if u are so concerned about the effects of breathing second-hand smoke in bars, in offices, etc., why aren't u JUST as concerned, IF NOT MORE SO, about the effects of the big black smoke that billows and sputters from the big diesel rigs going down our local highways every day?!

I would have to answer that I am a direct beneficiary of the purpose of the big trucks being on the highway whether it's the bicycle shipment being delivered to my business or the fresh milk I'm about to pick up on my way home. I don't like the pollution but I know that large shipments can't be made without fuel being burned.

I benefit in no way from the smoke of others in a building I'm temporarily sharing. James Moore

[politically incorrect]

I would have to answer that I am a direct beneficiary of the purpose of the big trucks being on the highway whether it's the bicycle shipment being delivered to my business or the fresh milk I'm about to pick up on my way home. I don't like the pollution but I know that large shipments can't be made without fuel being burned.

I benefit in no way from the smoke of others in a building I'm temporarily sharing. James Moore

Actually, you do benefit. The city gets the sales taxes off of meals served in restaurants and bars where smokers go to eat and enjoy a drink, and the state gets the tax off of the pack of cigarettes that was sold to the smoker. More revenue for the city of Petal and state of Mississippi.

The issue is not the freedom to smoke, it is the freedom of the business owner to set his or her own rules for their establishment. One does not have to go to a particular store or restaurant if they don't like the atmosphere. As for the workers, if it is just so bad, find another job. No one is entitled to work at any particular business if you can't meet the requirements of the job. If putting up with smoke is a requirement, then find another one.

And, to remind all of you, I don't smoke and never have and find it very disgusting to sit next to someone who is smoking while I am trying to eat. But it is an issue for private individuals to sort out, not the government.

[Omerto]

Actually, you do benefit. The city gets the sales taxes off of meals served in restaurants and bars where smokers go to eat and enjoy a drink, and the state gets the tax off of the pack of cigarettes that was sold to the smoker. More revenue for the city of Petal and state of Mississippi.

The issue is not the freedom to smoke, it is the freedom of the business owner to set his or her own rules for their establishment. One does not have to go to a particular store or restaurant if they don't like the atmosphere. As for the workers, if it is just so bad, find another job. No one is entitled to work at any particular business if you can't meet the requirements of the job. If putting up with smoke is a requirement, then find another one.

And, to remind all of you, I don't smoke and never have and find it very disgusting to sit next to someone who is smoking while I am trying to eat. But it is an issue for private individuals to sort out, not the government.

I was with you on everything, up until the part where you said:

"As for the workers, if it is just so bad, find another job. No one is entitled to work at any particular business if you can't meet the requirements of the job. If putting up with smoke is a requirement, then find another one."

That's about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Get real. The smokers aren't the majority. Their imposing their nasty habit on innocent people. Would you feel the same way if you had a son or daughter is a position where they were very successful and then a smoker is hired to work right beside them and blow smoke in their space all the time? How hard is it to get up and walk outside to light up?

[James Moore]

[quote=politically incorrect;159267]Actually, you do benefit. The city gets the sales taxes off of meals served in restaurants and bars where smokers go to eat and enjoy a drink, and the state gets the tax off of the pack of cigarettes that was sold to the smoker. More revenue for the city of Petal and state of Mississippi.[quote]

Your assumption is that people would stop buying tobacco products and stop frequenting bars and restaurants and also assumes that there would be no added customers who currently avoid bars and restaurants. James Moore

[big john]

There is one thing I like about the new law in h'burg,it is saving me about $2,500 a year,thats about how much I used to spend in local bars.
usm saved me a lot of money too,when they pulled the beer crazyness,wow i should add that up.
heck,keep passing these silly laws,I might be rich one day.
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWW!

[politically incorrect]

I came across this article that summed up my feelings on things such as the smoking ban better than I can say it myself.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzgzNDY3ZTg0YTc1OTAyZjdjNTkyODY2YTY2ODE0YTk=

I especially liked the comment about "dull-witted bureaucrats."

[cubby 1]

All I can say is that if I owned a public establishment, there would be a sign on the door saying that you CAN smoke in my building. The government has absolutely no place in telling business owners that they can't let people smoke in their place of business. I personally do not smoke, but some people need to catch a clue. I hope when it is time for re-election, people will remember who it was that voted for the smoking ban and vote them out. This is just another case of big brother.

[tempatv]

i say just let it go. smokers lost, end of story. too many other large cities have passed the ordinance like Austin, TX; Philadelphia, PA; Chicago, IL and even entire states - Ohio; Massachusetts; Maine; Hawaii; Colorado; Calilfornia. its a losing battle. if a business cant make it without the help of smokers, then they should try some other tactics. i also feel business owners are being a little impatient. things arent going to get better right away. it will take time, but i'm sure those non smokers that hated going out before due to the smoke will begin to fill their businesses.

we have to stop and see if its worth our time to fight this. i dont ever see this being reversed so i say let it go. i'm sure plenty of us would like to have no speed limit, but i dont hear anyone complaining that the government is taking away our rights to go as fast as we want.

i'm a non smoker by the way.