Southaven smoking ban takes effect next week

SOUTHAVEN, Miss. — David Stewart takes a long drag on his cigarette at Southaven’s Country Skillet restaurant. It’s one of his last.

Southaven’s ban on smoking in public places takes effect at the beginning of August.

”The city government is taking rights away for us to smoke. I feel like it should be up to the business owner.”

It’s got smokers, well, fuming over their rights. Lots of folks say it amounts to city leaders telling them how to live.

Southaven’s smoking ban even extends to spaces just outside businesses. In fact, you have to be 15 feet away from a building before you can light up.

Larry Ray, a non-smoker, says it’s only fair.

”I think if a guy showed up out front here with a gallon of Jack Daniels and comes through the door and says, ‘OK everybody’s gotta take a drink,’ and some say, ‘My family don’t drink,’ here’s the point.”

Southaven Mayor Darren Musselwhite said citizens pushed for the ban, calling it a public safety and economic image issue.

But business owner Shirley Looney wonders about that economic image. She says she’s willing to give no smoking a try.

“If this doesn’t work out, you’re gonna see me again on your Channel 3 News because I’m wondering how much taxes they’ll lose if they put all the people out of business,” she said.

Smokers here say it’s not so much about smoking and health, as it is about fundamental American rights.

”If they’re gonna take away my right to smoke in here, what’s the next thing they’ll take away?” asked Stewart.

The ban makes Horn Lake, and unincorporated DeSoto County, about the only places people who smoke can enjoy a cup of coffee and a smoke.

12 comments

  • harleyrider1978

    Its really quite simple Southhaven wanted the 50 thousand dollar grant promised by the WELLMAN BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD OBAMACARE FUNDED INSURANCE FRAUD COMPANY. They are doing the same thing in IOWA.

    The thing that smokers will do like everywhere else is IGNORE THE BAN and smoke where they want to just like always.

  • harleyrider1978

    Judge doesnt accept statistical studies as proof of LC causation!

    It was McTear V Imperial Tobacco. Here is the URL for both my summary and the Judge’s ‘opinion’ (aka ‘decision’):

    (2.14) Prof Sir Richard Doll, Mr Gareth Davies (CEO of ITL). Prof James Friend and
    Prof Gerad Hastings gave oral evidence at a meeting of the Health Committee in
    2000. This event was brought up during the present action as putative evidence that
    ITL had admitted that smoking caused various diseases. Although this section is quite
    long and detailed, I think that we can miss it out. Essentially, for various reasons, Doll
    said that ITL admitted it, but Davies said that ITL had only agreed that smoking might
    cause diseases, but ITL did not know. ITL did not contest the public health messages.
    (2.62) ITL then had the chance to tell the Judge about what it did when the suspicion
    arose of a connection between lung cancer and smoking. Researchers had attempted
    to cause lung cancer in animals from tobacco smoke, without success. It was right,
    therefore, for ITL to ‘withhold judgement’ as to whether or not tobacco smoke caused
    lung cancer.

    [9.10] In any event, the pursuer has failed to prove individual causation.
    Epidemiology cannot be used to establish causation in any individual case, and the
    use of statistics applicable to the general population to determine the likelihood of
    causation in an individual is fallacious. Given that there are possible causes of lung
    cancer other than cigarette smoking, and given that lung cancer can occur in a nonsmoker,
    it is not possible to determine in any individual case whether but for an
    individual’s cigarette smoking he probably would not have contracted lung cancer
    (paras.[6.172] to [6.185]).
    [9.11] In any event there was no lack of reasonable care on the part of ITL at any
    point at which Mr McTear consumed their products, and the pursuer’s negligence
    case fails. There is no breach of a duty of care on the part of a manufacturer, if a
    consumer of the manufacturer’s product is harmed by the product, but the consumer
    knew of the product’s potential for causing harm prior to consumption of it. The
    individual is well enough served if he is given such information as a normally
    intelligent person would include in his assessment of how he wishes to conduct his
    life, thus putting him in the position of making an informed choice (paras.[7.167] to
    [7.181]).

  • harleyrider1978

    This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke:

    Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.

    By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.

    Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.

    What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.

    “I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study………………………

    Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!

    The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:

    Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.

    146,000 CIGARETTES SMOKED IN 20 YEARS AT 1 PACK A DAY.

    A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.

    Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!

  • Bold Truth

    Oh stop whining! I’m glad they took smoking out of businesses. You are right. It is your right to smoke, but if it is dangerous to other people when you are in a PUBLIC place, take it to your own house.

  • Tabatha

    I smoke and I still have respect for others around me that do not smoke. I believe that everyone has a right, but I put myself in a non-smokers shoes and ask myself how I would feel? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, however I think that it’s the right decision.

  • Navy Vet

    A lot of states banned smoking in public places years ago. My parents used to love bowling, but the bowling alley was so full of smoke that they had to stop going (due to allergies). After Michigan passed their law, my parents were able to enjoy bowling and going out to eat again. I do not see at all where there should be an issue. I am a former smoker and I never once smoked inside a building or a car. I would sit outside on a patio or a designated smoking area. I think that smokers that smoke around crowds are just rude.

  • MikeBarret

    Since Mr. Ray brought up Jack Daniel’s I gotta say this. If I’m going to a bar I’m gonna smoke while I’m there so I guess I’ll be staying north of the border with my alcohol and tobacco tax money. Nobody’s saying you should be able to light up in McDonald’s or at the Chuckey Cheese although I remember when you could smoke at most places, even on airplanes! Memphis has it right where smoking in 21 and up establishments can be allowed at the business’s discretion. It should be up to the business owner.

  • james suggs

    I use to smoke until one of my lungs was cut out of my chest.If you are stupid enough to smoke,plz think about other people.thanks southaven

  • Jim

    If you want to smoke that’s fine with me. But please stop the BS about smoking not hurting people Ask any doctor and he will tell you that smoking is the worst thing you can do to your heart. And smoking is the leading cause of COPD.

  • Jill

    Smoking isn’t a right, it’s a privilege. Access to air without toxic secondhand smoke is a right. I don’t want to smoke because I care about my health. You can smoke if you want. But when the air is filled with exhaled tobacco smoke, it is forcing me to as well; smokers should be happy to abstain if it saves lives. Every city in MS where a smoking ordinance has been in place has seen increased tax revenue. And for every link posted above, there are forty to show that secondhand smoke kills. Can’t wait for Wednesday!

  • Sarie

    Smoking isn’t a right- my life not being endangered- that’s a right. Asthmatics, kids, and folks with severe allergies like me should have the right to eat out and not end up struggling to breath. It’s like being assaulted- you try going into anaphylactic shock because some idiot wants to kill themselves smoking and see how YOU feel about it.

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 10,861 other followers