Statewide Smoking Ban Considered
Statewide Smoking Ban Considered Save Email Print
Jackson, Miss.
Posted: 5:19 PM Nov 21, 2008
Last Updated: 6:14 PM Nov 21, 2008
Reporter: Jon Kalahar
Email Address: jkalahar@wlbt.net

A | A | A

Thirty cities in Mississippi have smoking bans in place. There is a push now for a statewide ban.

 
Do you think Mississippi should have a statewide smoking ban in public places, including restaurants?
Yes
No
 

"Generally we choose restaurants that are smoke-free," said Jeanette Gossett of Meridian, a lung cancer survivor.

Gossett said she knows the dangers of smoking and second-hand smoke. She now tries to stay away from both.

"I have a son who smokes, but he doesn't smoke around mom," Gossett said.

Right now, Gossett's hometown isn't one of the thirty cities who have passed smoking ban ordinances. But new numbers from a Mississippi State poll show 80 percent of Mississippians want a statewide ban in restaurants and workplaces.

"The less places people can smoke, it will help then, and it brings to their attention that smoking is bad," said Kimberly Hughes of the American Cancer Society. "Smoking around other people is bad; smoking around your children is bad."

The proposed legislation would ban smoking within twenty feet of workplace entry ways. The main opponent of legislation like this, the Mississippi Restaurant and Hospitality Association, says it will reserve comment until they see the bill in writing.

And once the legislative process is finished, the bill could look a lot different by the time it gets to the governor's desk for his signature.

"We've got our work cut out for us, to work with our leaders in this building to let them know it's time for Mississippi to join the other states," said Hughes.

The big knock against smoking bans, at least from a money-making point of view, is it decreases business.

According to Smoke Free Mississippi, the decrease only lasts a couple of weeks, then customers return.

More Stories
Boil Water Notice

Park Entrance Closed Saturday Morning

Bally Asks to Enter Alabama Case

Do You Want to be a Millionaire?

McNair Taped Suicide Prevention PSA in April

Our Town, Neshoba County: Choctaw Culture on Display

Mississippi Guardsman Awarded Commendation Medal

MSU Riley Center Reveals New Season

Post Your Comments
First Name:
Location:
Enter Comments: characters left
Email (optional):
By posting this comment I have read and agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy:
You must agree to the Terms of Service to continue.
Read Comments
Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
Posted by: smokefreeanywhere Location: Texas on Feb 8, 2009 at 05:23 PM
Try the new healthier way to kick the bad habit. View www.smokefreeanywhere.com and experience Electronic Cigarettes. No tar, No chemicals.

Posted by: MM Location: Ms on Dec 16, 2008 at 01:27 PM
A smoking ban is rediculous unless you ban the product first. Quit picking on the consumer and go after the big tobacco producers. Ban the sell then you want have to ban the use!!

Posted by: Teresa Location: Houston on Dec 11, 2008 at 08:46 PM
Oh Please!! Of all things that Mississippi needs to worry about its not a smoking band! How about producing Jobs and getting the 75% of people off WELFARE! Mississippi has always been backwards and I see they are still heading that way.

Posted by: BOB Location: OHIO on Dec 10, 2008 at 09:52 AM
I love it i can go out and eat and not have a smoker blowing smoke the smell is bad vote no smoking the bars and restarants are closing because people don`t have jobs not the smoking ban

Posted by: Tammy Location: Mississippi on Dec 9, 2008 at 10:42 AM
I think the ban is a great idea! We as non smokers should have the right to not be subjected to the smoke. Just as you as smokers have the right to smoke. We are not taking it from you, we just dont want to have to smoke with you. Do it in your own air, not everyone elses.

Posted by: WORRIED Location: FARAWAY on Dec 8, 2008 at 02:38 AM
I AGREE WITH LISA,GIVE IT A REST..HOW COME WE DO NOT SEE ALL THE CONCERENED AND COMMENTS ON CRIME IN OUR AREA...WELL...HHEEELLOOO!! THIS JUST MAKES ME SICK...

Posted by: LeeAnn Location: FL & MS on Dec 7, 2008 at 12:11 AM
It is have been PROVEN that Smoking does NOT cause cancer.....it ONLY can contribute to cancer cells one already posesses!!! However, the hype from the media and elsewhere has people believing otherwise. Why aren't they going after people who ude cell phones and drive? I know of NO ONE who ever killed someone by smoking and riving, yet as a former Nurse I know of others who have killed people because they were too busy having a conversation on their cell phone to pay attention to the roads. Non-Snokers say they have rights, well to that what about SMOKERS RIGHTS? You can NOT have it both ways. A compromise MUST be found to include ALL people!!!! I am tired of having to fight a FALLICY and so many UNTRUTHS about Smoking!!! The "Dudley Do Rights" have gone after this with a vengence and if they win with this, what is going to be next? Amercia this is your wake up call....Start standing up for your rights before you have NONE left!!!!

Posted by: Anonymous on Dec 1, 2008 at 03:57 PM
I don't mind if you smoke; but why should I have to breathe smoke from your tobacco? I'll be glad to say you can smoke right next to me, if you come up with a way to keep your smoke totally from reaching me.

Posted by: gale Location: enterprise on Dec 1, 2008 at 03:05 PM
Banning smoking in public places is only going to take smokers dollars to places where can enjoy a meal and a smoke home. obesity is the number one killer, are you going to stop fat people from eating at buffet. or people who wear jeans from going to church,sure i agree there should be a seperate area for smoking, but to ban it no. people on cell phones trying to drive, and changing lanes, we all gonna die from something why not from something you enjoy.

Posted by: Anonymous on Nov 26, 2008 at 10:41 AM
If people choose to smoke, that's fine. But the so-called "smoking areas" in most restaurants are a joke. If you're seated near the smoking area, you're breathing the smoke. I don't think it's going to kill me, but the smell is bad and very irritating to my sinuses. Unless restaurants *really* separate the two, there has to be a ban. Non-smokers outnumber smokers. Majority rule should apply. That's just good business. What would be best is if restaurants really separate smoking and non-smoking areas, with proper ventilation, etc. The fact is they don't.

Posted by: Nick Location: Virginia on Nov 25, 2008 at 10:03 PM
So long as tobacco remains a legal product, business owners should be free to cater to smokers as they so choose. 50,000 people who die every year from secondhand smoke is roughly the same number who are killed in car crashes. I bet everyone knows of somebody who died in a crash, but can the high priests of public health name a single person who has died from secondhand smoke exposure? I don't think so. If the goal is to get people to quit smoking, then make tobacco illegal and find another way to come up with the lost tax revenue.

Posted by: Trisha on Nov 25, 2008 at 09:10 AM
I think it is discrimination against smokers. They should have an area for smokers only away for the non smoking area. Why should people who smoke have to pay the price when they could be seperated from the non-smokers!!!

Posted by: LISA Location: MERIDIAN on Nov 24, 2008 at 01:34 PM
THE (ONLY) WAY YOU ARE GOING TO STOP PEOPLE FROM SMOKING IS TO QUIT SELLING THEM ! FIND SOMETHING ELSE TO GRIPE ABOUT GIVE IT A REST !

Posted by: Mike Location: PA on Nov 24, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Why cant people just switch to the alternative...It gets by the bans and able you to smoke anywhere without 2nd hand smoke. www.Crown7.com

Posted by: FUofCU Location: Ohio on Nov 23, 2008 at 08:17 AM
Take it from someone who's persoanlly involved. Ohio's 2006 SmokeFree law has cost us hundreds of small businesses, thousands of jobs, and MILLIONS of dollars. All in the name of lies for the sake of corporate and individual greed. Don't make the same mistake Mississippi. Stand up to the lairs and the frauds! Keep your freedom! Reject the ban!

Posted by: John Location: Meridian on Nov 22, 2008 at 11:33 PM
160,000 Americans die each year from lung cancer, 125,000 die from COPD, and 16,000 - 17,000 die from emphysema. Untold numbers die from tobacco related heart disease. What is this non-sense about truckers and bird flu? Tobacco related illness costs Mississippi tax payers millions every year. Multiple studies have shown that 2nd hand smoke is hazardous. If some businesses do go out of business with a ban, fine! People can adapt...eventually they will get another job. The benefits far outweigh the risks. We should not continue to do stupid things to save a few jobs. Put it up for a vote.

Posted by: virgilk Location: USA on Nov 22, 2008 at 05:21 PM
If you think a smoking ban is a good idea, wait till the Hospitality industry looses jobs and the unemployment starts. Bans have been a loosing proposition in every state.

Posted by: Billy Location: Ohio on Nov 22, 2008 at 03:34 PM
Oh please tell us you took the survey. the questions put forth, the number of people polled, and who payed for it? Truck stops get slammed by smoking bans as a truck stop is the only home a trucker has after 14 in a truck all day.Mom and pop restaurants, Mom and Pop bars and Veteran organizations along with other non profits get shafted. Force smokers outside where they could get BIRD FLUE with has the capability of causing more death than the Black Plague of Europe! Priorities? In Ohio BIRD FLUE 13 million dollars, Federal funding for AIDS 47 million but the anti smoking groups had 380 million to tell kids not to smoke? Oh the American Cancer Society Consoidated state directors make about $500,000 a year! Oh the good life of the rich and powerful! By the way the President of the US only gets about $240,000 a year!

Posted by: virgilk Location: USA on Nov 22, 2008 at 10:16 AM
Of the states that have smoking bans, most have found no increase in revenue because of job loss, business lost to neighboring states or to the Internet and many others too numerous to mention here. A tax based on diminishing returns does not work. Cost of enforcement and smuggling also add to the loss. This Johnny one note, to raise taxes, solution has outlived its usefulness. Those pushing for tax increases are more into selling Smoking Cessation products for profit, not health or increased income to the State. They know it has a negative effect on business but care little as long as they can keep the public misinformed.

Posted by: Reverendcrash Location: Ohio on Nov 22, 2008 at 09:12 AM
Miss prim and proper neglects to disclose The American Cancer Society and the Robert Woods Johnson Foundatio has DESTROYED more lives than they have ever saved. They thrive off of misery and death and go to Dinner Parties, Gambling Junkets,Fund raiser live high on the Hog and spend only 5 cents of all contributed dollars on treatment and research.There are no businesses in Ol MIss that I know of that tells you what you have to do.This crowd proudly boasts it can tell you what you can't do and what you will do or you will pay.Organizatios like this took your Flag and now they want to take your FREEDOM OF CHOICE.Run these Yankee Carpet Baggers back up North where they belong. We know how to Deal with them.

Posted by: Kathryn Location: ohio on Nov 22, 2008 at 08:23 AM
"the decrease only lasts a couple of weeks, then customers return." Lots of places with smoking bans believed that. Full countries in Europe believed that. Take a look at these two stories and see if you believe the anti-smokers' lies about business decreases."Dramatic effects Keck, who owns a steakhouse, lounge and casino, said he spent $18,000 putting up a wall to separate his dining room, when smoking wasn't allowed there, from the bar, where it is. Keck said he lost 60 percent of his dining business, while his bar business went up 300 percent. Unless the law is changed, Keck predicted it will dramatically affect life in small towns, eliminate some bar and casino jobs, cut state tax revenues and deprive smokers of their rights." http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2008/11/22/news/state/24-smokingbar.txt The double whammy is costing bars as much as 30 percent of their business, said Joris Prinssen of Royal Horeca Netherlands, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2780825

Posted by: Bob Location: Chicago on Nov 22, 2008 at 03:40 AM
Here in Chicago, businesses are still waiting after nearly a year. How long will it take? Many small neighborhood bars have to ignore the ban to keep their cuatomers.

Posted by: SStahl Location: FL on Nov 21, 2008 at 09:59 PM
But new numbers from a Mississippi State poll show 80 percent of Mississippians want a statewide ban in restaurants and workplaces. .... The big knock against smoking bans, at least from a money-making point of view, is it decreases business *********** Uh...for anyone who is awake, these two sentences from the article contradict each other. If 80% of Mississippians vote with their feet and wallets, then the market will bend to those preferences. So, there can't really be that many who really want a smoking ban. Most people don't care about whether or not there's a smoking ban but, right now, most people do care about the economy. The health scare hype has been debunked everywhere from the scientific communities to gov't agencies to the popular media to...everywhere. Shouldn't the politicians refrain from wasting their time and the taxpayers resources on this garbage and start doing something productive?

Posted by: Pam Location: Ohio on Nov 21, 2008 at 09:57 PM
I find it amazing that they poll people but not businesses. The losses in Ohio from the ban are devastating. Highest unemployment sinc 1992 with Hospitality & Leisure in #1 spot. Liquor permit holders lost 67.44 million dollars in potential sales the first year. Bars closing. Mom and pop restaurants closing. Let customers poll businesses with their wallets. FYI complaints have been filed on scientific misconduct against ex-surgeon general carmona. Tobacco control fakes the studies. They've been bought by the RWJF who paid for bans while profiting from their 35,435,184 shares in Johnson and Johnson stock..who makes Nicorette and Nicoderm. The ACS, ALA, etc. got paid 99 million dollars in grants for their deeds. Best marketing strategy pharmaceutical money can buy. Secondhand smoke doesn't kill people. Doesn't even make them sick. TOBACCO CONTROL KILLS JOBS AND BUSINESSES. Don't do it, Mississippi.

Posted by: Michael Location: Philadelphia, PA on Nov 21, 2008 at 09:55 PM
"According to Smoke Free Mississippi, the decrease only lasts a couple of weeks, then customers return." SFM lies. Antismoking lobbyists say this everywhere and for all kinds of bans. They fool people into beginning a ban and then make if virtually impossible to reverse. Eventually enough businesses fail that the remaining ones pick up enough customers to survive and the pain is forgotten. But the losses are real and the taxpayers end up footing the bill: not the antismoking organizations, and not the legislators. If you go to http://banthebanwisconsin.com/Documents/MNGraph.pdf you'll see a very clear and simple graph showing what Minnesota's bans did to its charitable gambling revenue over five years. Go to http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/economic.html you'll see long term economic effects on states for up to ten years. Antismokers lie to get their bans. Never forget that for a moment. Michael J. McFadden Author of "Dissecting Antismokers Brains"

Posted by: Thomas Laprade Location: Thunder Bay on Nov 21, 2008 at 09:37 PM
Smoke Free Mississippi says the decrease will only lasts for a couple of weeks? What else would they say? In fact how do they know that??

Posted by: brogers Location: Ohio on Nov 21, 2008 at 08:30 PM
"The big knock against smoking bans, at least from a money-making point of view, is it decreases business. According to Smoke Free Mississippi, the decrease only lasts a couple of weeks, then customers return." This is a total lie. In Ohio, during the first year of the smoking ban 315 drinking establishments closed. More than 5,400 people lost their jobs. Permit holders lost more than 67.44 million in sales. Smoke free "anywhere" tells one lie after another in order to leech a living off of tobacco taxes. Don't let this happen in Missippi.

Posted by: Pete Location: Jackson on Nov 21, 2008 at 07:04 PM
Studies done by many groups in other areas of the country show that smoking bans do not decrease business. Considering that 80 percent of non-smokers and all kids don't smoke, a smoking ban would be welcome in Mississippi.

Sponsored Headlines