Smoking Ban in Mississippi

[Catdeddy]

The op./ed. is the same shit-for-brains that we have all gotten used to. But read the comments posted on-line to the editorial.
http://www.clarionledger.com/article...ext%7CHome%7Cs

[thebayratt]

A shop owner down here has alot of pull (friends) in Jackson. He was up there a few months ago talking to a few senators etc.. on getting the ban squashed. I can't say he did it all by himself, but glad it didn't pass.

Alot of shops would loose alot of money if this passed. And that would mean less tax dollars in MS and more money going into online vendors...

[Catdeddy]

Originally Posted by thebayratt

A shop owner down here has alot of pull (friends) in Jackson. He was up there a few months ago talking to a few senators etc.. on getting the ban squashed. I can't say he did it all by himself, but glad it didn't pass.

Alot of shops would loose alot of money if this passed. And that would mean less tax dollars in MS and more money going into online vendors...

I think I know who you are talking about.

But what impressed me were the comments attached to the article. For once (it seemed) they actually told the story instead of jumping on the lemming bandwagon.

[cigarfan]

I have always maintained let the privately owned business's make the choice to allow smoking or not. Their market will determine which way they go.
I have no issue with a restaurant having a smoking ban, if it was THEIR decision to do so, and not the that of the govt.
If I don't like it, I can go to a place that allows smoking. And vice versa.

Probably the most stupid ban I've ever heard of is banning smoking in BARS...
geez!!!

But still, the crux of the matter to me, is it should be up the business OWNER..not the govt.

[tonycsmoke]

If you follow what is going on in the smoking ban world you'll see that more and more smoking bans are not passing. Missouri, Texas, Louisiana, Alabama and a couple other states did not approve bans when legislation was filed this year. I've seen several other states not approve increases in tobacco taxes.
Nevada passed a bill that rolls back their ban somewhat (gov has to sign it). Illinios had a couple of bills that rolled back their ban that didn't pass (one made it out of committee). Ohio cut the funding of its enforcement this year and cuts it out completley next year.

This is a good trend for more than a couple of reasons. First as its a political movement (not health as reported) it thrives on money. No political movement gains traction without money. States have gobbled up the MSA money and money from Big Pharma is contingent on getting results (increased nic replacement sales). The more they have to spend to get results they less likely they are to fund in the future.

More states that refuse makes its less likely that others will follow. Not that this is going away anytime soon. Just its probably hit the top of the bell curve and will slowly die away. Smoking bans and outright illegalization of tobacco were part of the temperence movement. It went away then and I think it will go away again.

[Catdeddy]

Originally Posted by cigarfan

But still, the crux of the matter to me, is it should be up the business OWNER..not the govt.

Always been my argument. Let the free market economy and capitolism (patronage) decide.

But Tony--what if the feds weigh in like they did with the drinking age, i. e.--when they forced LA to raise the drinking age to 21 by witholding hwy money until they did? What if they tie fed. funding for whatever programs to passage of a state ban?

[tonycsmoke]

Originally Posted by Catdeddy

Always been my argument. Let the free market economy and capitolism (patronage) decide.

But Tony--what if the feds weigh in like they did with the drinking age, i. e.--when they forced LA to raise the drinking age to 21 by witholding hwy money until they did? What if they tie fed. funding for whatever programs to passage of a state ban?

Not sure if they would do that or not. I know after the "landmark" EPA report the Congressional Research Department researched it and found the report lacking. In fact the CBO was part of the national heart attack smoking ban study that found smoking bans didn't influence heart attack rates. There has never been a Federal Level smoking ban discussion that I'm aware of. It might be that its OSHA and their research didn't find it harmful or its a states rights.