Starkville bans smoking in MSU houses
 

Board passes ban on smoking

Sara McAdory
March 27, 2006

Smoking will be prohibited in all indoor public places in Starkville under an ordinance passed by the Board of Aldermen Tuesday.

The ordinance, which will take effect 60 days after it is published in the Starkville Daily News, passed unanimously in a voice vote.

The ordinance prohibits smoking in restaurants, bars, lobbies of hotels, city buildings and other indoor public places. Private clubs and hotel rooms rented to guests are not subject to the restriction.

Smoking is also prohibited in some outdoor areas, including areas "immediately preceding or blocking the entrance and/or exit of an area where smoking is prohibited," attached areas of restaurants that are covered or partially covered with 50 percent or more of the perimeter walled or otherwise closed, and seating areas of outdoor sports venues, the ordinance says.

The drive to ban smoking in public places began in November when a group called Citizens for a Breathe-Free Starkville presented an ordinance banning smoking to the Board of Aldermen.

In February, the board created a committee to draft a no-smoking ordinance for Starkville. The group was made up of citizens from both sides of the issue, aldermen and a student.

"Ultimately, we came to consensus with an ordinance that we developed from scratch for the city of Starkville," Ward 5 Alderman Matt Cox said.

People wearing maroon, black and white stickers reading "Citizens for a Breathe-Free Starkville" sat at the meeting and cheered after the ordinance passed.

Some citizens spoke out against the ordinance, while others expressed concerns about specific parts of the ordinance.

Senior political science major Hunter Lipscomb expressed concern over a section in the ordinance prohibiting smoking in sorority and fraternity houses, which was stricken from the ordinance before it passed because it conflicted with another section of the ordinance.

Lipscomb said that if the ordinance applied to fraternities and sororities, it would be an open opportunity for police, who can enter establishments covered by the ordinance, to come into the houses at any time and give police an opportunity to see fraternities in a negative light.

"It's no lie, the fraternities are often stigmatized in negative ways," he said.

Another fraternity member, Joshua Andrews of Lambda Chi Alpha, asked, "Why are the fraternities not seen as a private residence?"

Ward 3 Alderman P.C. McLaurin explained that another section ordinance saying that it is subject to all other government jurisdictions rules and regulations pertaining to smoking.

Student Association attorney general Aaron Rice said he wanted students to understand the impact they can have on the community.

"Tuesday's events prove that students can involve themselves in the decision-making process and bring about changes in city policy that reflect their interest," he said.

The ordinance requires the person in charge of a building covered by the ordinance to post an at least 2-inch-by-2-inch international no-smoking symbol at the main entrance of the premises.

The business will have to pay for the sticker, Cox said. He said the stickers should cost less than $10 each.

The ordinance will stand for two years after it takes effect to allow the city a chance to evaluate its effects.

After two years, it will be automatically repealed, the ordinance says. The board can then decide whether to reinstate a ban.

OMG, Regulating Public Morality of any kind is unkind!:mad:

Our Duly Elected Morons think they can Be The Kings/Queens of life!

That Shalt Not!:mad:

Getting to close to soilent green for My tastes!:confused:

I completely agree Tom.

Next up; what you can and can't eat, who you can and can't date, and what clothes you must wear.

I went out last night for my buddy's bachelor party, and it was in a city that has 'banned smoking'. I must say, that was the greatest move ever. I didn't stink when I got home, I didn't have to take a shower when I got home, I could breath when I got up this morning, I didn't have sore throat...etc.

My freedom to breathe clean air is more important than your freedom to smoke in a bar. Sorry.

I hope this goes to the State level, and I hope State's begin banning smoking in public buildings, including work places, bars and restaurants.

I really don't see restrictive laws such as this as promoting "freedom" in any way.

Just put in smoke rooms, so all the stinky smokers can all go smell like ash trays together and work on making their teeth look British. And it's not a restricitive law when it's dealing with Public places.

It's been done in California, it can be done anywhere else.

As was stated above, what else is next?:(

CANT, CANT, CANT!:mad: :(

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban

-Rudey

I have to agree with zz-kai, I don't like the fact that I have to inhale second-hand smoke whenever I go out. I'd support a smoking ban. But I'm from California which apparently has strict anti-smoking laws.

In Columbus, they have almost an identical law...it's AWESOME to go bowling and not stink, or go to a concert and not get burned by cigarettes. It is really cool. Really, its not that you CANT smoke EVER...it means that you may have to get up and walk 20 ft outside to smoke...oh you poor dears, that's so stressful.

In the Republic of Ireland, there is a ban on smoking in pubs/clubs/bars/restaurants. Again, it is great. The United Kingdom (including my current home of Northern Ireland) is to follow soon. Most of the people I know, even smokers, are really looking forward to it.

Honestly, I think there are greater problems in the world to worry about. So you don't get to fog up the room with your smoke, boo hoo. So you have to go outside to smoke, boo hoo. So you have to not smoke around those who don't, boo hoo. There are greater things worth fighting for, aside from your right to give yourself and others cancer.

What is Next? Beer in Pubs?

Go to Your Coffeeee Shoppes and drink Lattes!

This is not entirely about Smoking! This is about Rights.!

Is it getting to restrictive in more ways than one?:confused:


OOOOOOOH, I Smoke, I cant Smoke in The OUT Doors!:confused: ;)

What the heck else cannot I do in the OUTDOORS in the Future?:rolleyes:

You're right, it IS about rights. The rights of everyone, not smokers only. By someone putting me at risk because of their dirty habit, my rights are being violated. If I had it my way, smokers would only be allowed to smoke in their homes. Not in their cars, not in public, not in open air, sure as hell not in public places. AND, if they had kids, they'd be banned from smoking in there house as well. I get disgusted everytime I see a person smoking in there car, and those poor kids sitting in the back breathing in that smoke. :mad:

Smoking is a dirty, nasty habit. And I can't believe people continue to smoke, knowing that they are taking a small percentage of their life every puff.

PS, most of the smoking bans in my state, that I am aware of, were voted in by the citizens of their respective communities. That should tell you something, people don't want to be around smokers.

And the 'rights' of smokers to smoke in enclosed buildings is infringing on my 'rights' to breathe relatively clean air in those same environments. When I waitressed, I made decent tips in the smoking section on Fridays and Saturday nights (it was also the bar area), however I felt like I had been hit by a truck the next day. This is in addition to smelling horrid, etc - I had to wash my hair three times to stop smelling like an ashtray!!

Do smokers not realize how nasty they smell?!

Sarah

Didn't Superman's wife just die of lung-cancer (Dana Reeve)? I know she wasn't a smoker.

Not only does cigarettes kill the person smoking them, but the people around them too.

I grew up in a smoking home, I had to go to school smelling like a smoker, and had to deal with ashes coming back in the rear window when my parents would flick ashes out the front window. It was nasty. Can you tell I have had bad experiences with it?? Thankfully my parents quit cold-turkey about 5 years ago - I just hope that 30 years of smoking doesn't catch up to them, eventhough I feel it may.

Previous threads on smoking bans that may be of interest:
http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...cancer+smoking

http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...cancer+smoking

http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...cancer+smoking

http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...cancer+smoking

So smokers tie you up and drag you to places where they blow smoke in your face? You're free to decline to visit establishments that allow smoking. There, isn't that easy?

For the record, I don't smoke and I don't enjoy the smell of smoke. However, I also realize that my preferences shouldn't control the lives of others.

I already avoid smoke-trap establishments. And for the record, the air was clean before it was smoke filled. Preferences or not, smokers don't deserve 'smoking rights', everyone else deserves 'clean air rights'.

PS, and yes, when it comes to my health and other people infringing on it, 'it is all about me'. :)

Get real.

If it wasn't for the anti-smoking nazis and if TOLERANCE and solutions that make both smokers and non-smokers comfortable were promoted instead of selfishness, this would be a much nicer place to live.

The nonsmokers (or rather, antismokers, because not everyone who doesn't smoke is a jerk) are the ones who act like self righteous a-holes, not the smokers.

Please give me some examples of Tolerance. Something like "well, I'm ok enhaling no more than 3 of your cigs. second hand smoke per day'.? Nobody should have to tolerate someone elses dirty habit, smoking or something else, nobody should have to tolerate it...

As for solutions, I'm ok with solutions. Smoking rooms? Great. Smoking sections? Get real. Smoke on the deck outside. That's fine.

And it's not being selfish, its being real. Some people don't mind being in a smoke filled room, some do. But either way, it shouldn't be imposed on anyone.

Tolerance is not getting in someone's face and telling them they're going to get cancer when they light up, or that they stink, or anything else. Can you imagine if a person walked up to a fat person eating a burger and told her she was going to die of a coronary and she's a hog? It's that kind of rudeness masquerading as self-righteousness that pisses me off.

Smoking on the deck outside is NOT fine in winter weather.

Establishments like bars and restaurants can be built so that the smoking areas are isolated from the rest of the restaurant. I agree that the smoking section separated by a plant is silly and useless, but before you condemn it all, realize that some places are doing it efficiently because they have the sense not to alienate a large part of their clientele.

But everyone has that attitude though. Smokers have the right to smoke, no one should try to take that, but people have the right to breathe clean air. If you deny the rights of one group and not of another you're a hypocrite. I don't want to be a hypocrite, and I don't think anyone else does, so let's work together for a solution that works for everyone.


SMOKERS= have the right to smoke in their homes, and any smoke friendly place that is advertised as such, i.e. "
Smoking districts, bars, etc."

Then they'd be away from non smokers.

Y'all need to take a trip to California, and realize that having banned smoking isn't going to cause a rip in the fabric of time. The ability to be able to smoke cigarettes isn't going to make this "a much nicer place to live." Let's really get real and think about how fortunate we are to have good health, when the better part of the world is starving to death.

I LOVE banned smoking. It is delightful to go out to bars and not reek of smoke and have to immediately wash those clothes and shower so I don't stink up my house.

without smoking bans we would never have Charlie Bravo...hooray for Charlie Bravo

I realize that we're never going to agree on this issue. However, do you see why I'm bothered by what you're saying? I think you're saying that inhaling smoke-filled air shouldn't be imposed on anyone. That's fine -- but why should your desire to never encounter smoke anywhere be imposed on anyone? And unless you're forced to be in a smoke-filled room, how is smoke-filled air EVER imposed on you?

I don't think it's an issue of anything being imposed on anyone. In an ideal world, there would be some establishments (restaurants, bars, etc.) that allow smoking, some that don't, and some that have smoking and nonsmoking sections, and we can all choose where we want to go. How could that be a bad thing?

Question for GP: You love banned smoking. Does that justify implementing laws to prohibit smoking in public (or are you just saying you dig it)?

They've banned smoking in bars and restaurants here and I'm pretty sure it's been banned in all other public buildings forever. Most people go outside to smoke, even in the winter, and that doesn't bother me - I have no problemw ith people smoking OUTSIDE as long as it is a reasonable distance from the doorway. A lot of my classmates smoke and most of them think this is reasonable - they can still smoke and I can avoid it if I want to. :D

I want to be able to drive my car without a speedlimit on the freeway.

-Rudey
--Why won't the government let me?

You can in Montana.

Someone's right to expel noxious gas in my general direction ends with my right not to have to breathe it. Considering our right to be where we're at is equal, I consider it to be a morally superior position for me to demand that someone does not engage in an act that is harmful to me simply because I am in their general area.

This is basically the same as my right not to have to navigate the public roads alongside others who have engaged in their 'right' to consume a yard or two of beer before calling it a night.

My right to be in a safe and healthy environment outweighs another's right to engage in acts which render my environment harmful.

I don't think the weather and the mountains would allow me to do it there ;)

-Rudey

LOL. That's a nice balancing analysis, but what does it mean? Does the balance favor banning smoking in all public places?

Do you also favor stricter regulations for, say, factories that cause pollution? Or would you say that a factory has a greater right to be somewhere than you do? Your last sentence sounds pretty hippie-liberal, no?

Not all public places, just public places where non-smokers might go. There might be some need for smoking lounges or restaurants with seperately ventilated smoking sections (which is what we have in Oklahoma).

Quote:

Do you also favor stricter regulations for, say, factories that cause pollution? Or would you say that a factory has a greater right to be somewhere than you do? Your last sentence sounds pretty hippie-liberal, no?

Factories are different. First off, they are highly regulated as to their pollution, so I would first assume (probably wrongly) that they were making a good faith effort to do that. If not, shut 'em down. Secondly, factories do have social value. They create jobs and wealth. They are important to our economy. Factories must be located reasonably close to locations from which they can procure good workers.

Smoking on the other hand serves no social purpose beyond keeping tobacco companies in the black. The thing is that smokers can serve this positive social role creating profit by consuming cigarettes in locations where they won't be harming others by doing so. After a night of partying, I can either choose to chance it and possibly kill myself and someone else on the way home, or I can take the bus or a cab home. The law tells me that I have no right to use the roads that I paid for and the car that I pay taxes on burning fuel that I also paid for (which is all great for the economy) if it puts others at risk. Smoking is exaclty the same. When my law school finals are over, I'm going to get drunk. I'm going to kill a lot of brain cells, and I'm going to let off a lot of steam. The only person who is going to be inconvenienced by this is my fiancée. By being engaged to a law student, she has assumed the risk :) I don't expect perfect strangers to do the same.

there are people with asthma, lung ailments and allergies whose health is impacted when they encounter cigarette smoke. they should be able to breathe clean air when they are out and about.

recently i was at busch gardens in tampa. there are signs everywhere asking smokers to smoke only in designated areas(there are numerous areas all over the park, lots of benches and very shady), in addition to random announcements over the p.a. system.

at one point during the day, i was trying to find a place to sit down for just a minute or two, and the only available benches were-you guessed it-in the designated smokers area.the majority of people were smoking everywhere BUT the designated areas.

finally, a bench in the non-smoking area became available, and i sat down. a few minutes later a woman sits down on the opposite end of the bench, reaches into her purse and pulls out-you guessed it-a pack of cigarettes. she lights up and the wind blows the smoke directly my way.now my choices are A) leave or B) ask the woman to put out her cigarette and run the risk of a confrontation. luckily, her friend walked up and told her that she was only supposed to smoke in designated areas-then they looked around as if to try to find the designated area-they didn't seem to know where the nearest one was(it was directly behind us on a lower level) and the woman was starting to re-settle herself, so i was more than happy to chime in at that point and direct them to the nearest area(which was very near to where we were-and had considerable more shade.) maybe that is why we non-smokers have little tolerance for smokers.

Why do you automatically assume there would have been a confrontation? Just because she's a nasty dirty smoker? She probably just didn't realize where the area was.

See, this is the kind of intolerance and prejudice I'm talking about.

because the majority of the times i have spoken up and have politely asked a smoker to not smoke around me, because i am allergic to smoke, they have become indignant and reacted just like you did. incidently, i never ask a smoker to not smoke if they were there first;i move, but i feel that if i was there first, i have every right to NOT breathe in their smoke.

Politely is in the eye of the beholder.

So many times I've seen the other side of the coin - the person asking for the cig to be put out is straight up rude and the smoker is nice anyway. There are intolerant people on BOTH sides of this issue.

I'm in WI, smoking outside in the winter is just great. I find it funny when a smoker goes outside to smoke, -10 degrees, and takes that first puff, and hoks up a lung. If anything, winter gives you a reason to quit. It isn't really pleasant when the four-foot snowbank that sits right outside the front door to 'that public building' melts in the spring, and you see 5,000 ciggy butts.
Actually, in an ideal world, smoking wouldn't be allowed and we wouldn't have to worry about appealing our businesses to smokers.
I'll leave that at 'agreeing to disagree'. I enjoy debating.

It's your right not to go into a bar that allows smoking. It is not your right to tell a private company that they are not allowed to have a business that allows smokers to smoke.

I think that entire idea is stupid. Like it's been said before. Soon salt, sugar, alcohol, etc will be more strictly regulated.


...and yet the retards in CA want to legalize weed. WTF!

When the voters of a community vote on this issue and pass the law, it becomes a law and therefore must be followed. That's how America operates.