Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 35 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Two aldermen push smoking ban
Published Saturday, November 1, 2008
NATCHEZ — Two aldermen are pushing to get the restaurants of Natchez smoke free.
At the board’s regular meeting on Tuesday, aldermen James “Ricky” Gray and Bob Pollard both said they want to work toward a smoking ordinance.
Gray said Natchez is behind the times.
“I just feel all over the state of Mississippi and other states have already implemented a smoking ordinance,” he said. “We are some years behind. It seems like everything we do, we catch on a little late.”
Pollard said this is something he decided back in the campaign season that he would carry through if re-elected.
“I said, ‘If I win this election, I’m going to pursue the idea of establishing a non-smoking ordinance in restaurants because I don’t want to smell the smoke or smell like smoke when I leave a restaurant,’” he said.
Gray said he also wants to do it for health reasons.
“I feel if a person goes to a restaurant and doesn’t smoke, they should be able to enjoy their food,” Gray said. “Even you have an area for smokers, you still smell the smoke and you still inhale the smoke.
“If it’s involving someone’s health, it’s a no-brainer.”
Pollard said he’s seen it as a waning trend of restaurant smokers.
“Most people that smoke wait until they get outside to smoke anyway,” he said. “There are just a few that smoke in the restaurant, and I think it should be banned altogether.”
Pollard said some restaurants — such as Pearl Street Pasta — have already gone smoke free of the owner’s own volition.
“I don’t think it would hurt business at all. I think it would increase business.”
But the plan is to meet with restaurant owners, anyway.
Mayor Jake Middleton said a sit-down meeting with the owners is in order, that way the city can get the owners’ feel on an ordinance.
“We’re not going to force anything,” Middleton said.
But he said he thinks it’s a good idea.
Both Pollard and Gray said they want to enact a smoking ordinance right the first time and want to do research on other cities that have implemented such an ordinance.
Pollard said there are certain things to take into consideration, such as the Isle of Capri that allows smoking downstairs, but has a restaurant upstairs and restaurants that have bars.
Pollard said he wants the ball to start rolling on this ordinance immediately.
“We’re not going to wait on this,” Pollard said. “I’m going to pursue this full speed ahead, front burner.
“I think we’re past due.”
Comments
Posted by tessa (anonymous) on November 1, 2008 at 12:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
louisiana has the no smoking ban and it is great to be able to eat without all the smoke,and leave without smelling like a stale cigerette!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by fatherof4 (anonymous) on November 1, 2008 at 12:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The Isle of Capri seems to always get around all the rules. Money talks. Let the restaurant owners decide whats best for their business. If you are a non smoker don't go to the places that allow it. Choose the ones that don't allow smoking. If it hurts the business, then the owners can decide for theirselves what they need to change.
Posted by advanced_hominid (anonymous) on November 1, 2008 at 7:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Fatherof4, I can’t believe you are telling non-smokers where they should and shouldn’t go to eat.
Lighting a plant on fire and inhaling the smoke is the behavior of a very confused animal. The enjoyment of a normal, healthy person’s meal comes first. Smokers show blatant disregard for others when they smoke in a restaurant where people are eating and babies are sleeping. Smokers are the ones who should be relegated to an outside area.
The Republic of Ireland has banned smoking everywhere; even in bars where no food is served. The government provides health coverage for the bartenders. So, it is the Irish tax payers’ business that a healthy environment is offered for employees and customers alike.
My friend was a bartender in Hattiesburg, MS. Although he himself was a smoker, he quit eventually because all the second-hand smoke was ruining his health. Money talks… but good health doesn’t have to listen. Thankfully, restaurant owners do not have the autonomy you are wishing for them.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on November 1, 2008 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with fatherof4...government shouldn't be involved in this...it should be left to the business owner to decide whether to allow smoking in his/her establishment or not. Patrons should be allowed to vote with their feet and their pocket books. The clientele, or lack thereof, will dictate which way the owner will decide.
Posted by kpage (anonymous) on November 1, 2008 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm with dangyankee 100%. I refuse to smoke around anyone who doesn't smoke. I'll walk downwind if I'm wanting one that bad and I ask for "nonsmoking" when I go into a restaurant. Food and cigarettes don't mix. I feel if every smoker was this conscientious, we may not have as many complainers. Respect the airspace of those who don't smoke and there will be no problem, as long as butts aren't flicked on streets and sidewalks.
Just don't tell me not to smoke. I make my own choices regardless of anyone's opinion. If I make my choices based on other's opinions, I'd be a brainless galoot. Of course I know the detrimental side effects of smoking, but that's my business. Goodness people, sweep your own doorsteps clean before you tell me how dirty mine is.
Posted by darylwalker (anonymous) on November 1, 2008 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The only ordinance (law) that I think should be passed on privately owned public buildings is IF they allow smoking inside, they should have to post a sign at the entrance saying so. That way a non-smoker can decide before he/she enters the building if they wish to proceed. I'm wary of any law that tells a private owner what he/she can allow on their own property. If it's an illegal activity, that's different, but last time I checked, smoking wasn't still legal.
I am a smoker and I agree that it's a nasty habit. I've quit before and started again during stressful times. I wish to God that it wasn't so easy to get hooked and I could quit again. I just don't think the government should be able to tell a private citizen what (legal activities) he/she can allow on his/her own property. In my opinion, an ordinance like the one being discussed here is no different than telling someone they cannot allow smoking in their own home. If a person's business suffers because they allow smoking, then it's up to them to decide if they should change or not.
I was all for the ban on smoking in government buildings. People usually don't have a choice whether they should be there or not, so it's only right that our smoking shouldn't be forced upon them when they are there, but a privately owned restaurant (bar) is an entirely different matter. A person isn't forced to eat there.
Posted by mike8427 (anonymous) on November 1, 2008 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Although I don't smoke and hate smoking, I wish restraunts could make this decision for themselves. There are alot of restraunts in town that do not allow smoking inside.
Posted by darylwalker (anonymous) on November 1, 2008 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ugh. Blame it on typing before I'm fully away, but in my previous post "smoking wasn't still legal." should read "smoking was still legal."
Posted by darylwalker (anonymous) on November 1, 2008 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
AWAKE!!! I give up.
Posted by kpage (anonymous) on November 1, 2008 at 10:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
That's Kool, darylwalker. Your message was clear to me.
Posted by lookingout (anonymous) on November 1, 2008 at 10:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
i think the rights of smokers are being violated...... i dont thnk the goverment should be able to tell you if you can smoke or not....if they dont want no one to smoke pull them off the market, make them illegal.....oh they want od that cause they bring to much money......
Posted by pride (anonymous) on November 1, 2008 at 12:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"This is a good move aldermen "
Gator what's so good about rights being violated ? Today it's smokers , who's next on the list . I agree with some of the previous blogs . Government is overstepping their so called powers and no one is fighting back . How about less government intrusion . Let the restaurants decide what type customer they want .
Posted by hitchcock (anonymous) on November 1, 2008 at 1:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am a non smoker around a family of smokers so I will probably die from second hand smoke.
When they put up wheelchair parking spaces people didn't feel their rights were being violated. What is the difference in helping someone in a wheelchair than helping someone that has breathing problems? There are so many people that are able to walk, but suffer from asthma and other lung diseases. I guess smokers feel they should stay home if they don't want to be around smokers. Which would be a violation of their rights. So either way it's a no win situation.
What it all boils down to is people don't like to be told what they can do. Stubborness is as powerful addiction as nicotine.
Posted by generalsn (anonymous) on November 1, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
These aldermen would get a good lesson about "public property" if they were 86ed from all the bars in town.
Posted by RICKYSMITH (anonymous) on November 1, 2008 at 2:26 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ucantfixstupid (anonymous) on November 1, 2008 at 2:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If you don't smoke don't sit in the smoking secton and then complain about it, as long as they sell cigarettes people will smoke. Ricky you are an example of someone who sits in the smoking section and complains when you have the option to sit in the non-smoking section. The owners of the establishments should have the option on smoking or not. Not the government, they already implement enough rules and regulations.
Posted by lookingout (anonymous) on November 1, 2008 at 3:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
advanced_hominid i cant believe that you should be able to tell smokers where they can and cant smoke its their rights to choose to smoke and non smokers rights to choose not to so who rights do we need to protect i think if you dont want to be around smokers dont go where they are
Posted by hitchcock (anonymous) on November 1, 2008 at 3:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
RICKYSMITH
You sound like the type that would blow smoke in a dying persons face. Grow up! Another thing hit caps it may help us read your insults!
Posted by RICKYSMITH (anonymous) on November 1, 2008 at 6:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"HITCHCOCK", YOU'RE JUST AN IDIOT. IF YOU CAN'T READ MY MESSAGES IN CAPS, SURELY YOU CAN'T READ "LITTLE LETTERS" UNLESS THAT'S AS FAR AS YOUR EDUCATION TOOK YOU.
AND, "UCANTFIXSTUPID", YOU NEED TO RE READ MY MESSAGE. I DIDN'T COMPLAIN ABOUT SMOKING OR NON SMOKING. I TOTALLY AGREE, IT SHOULD BE THE OWNERS CHOICE.
Posted by NatchezEnema (anonymous) on November 1, 2008 at 7:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think this a joke, you can't tell me that these elected officials don't have something better to do than this! Like, DOING THEIR JOB AND GETTING MORE JOBS AROUND HERE. I am for a smoking ordinance. One that will stop all this stupid smoke blowing out of elected officials like this. MY GOSH CAN'T THEY FIND ANYTHING BETTER TO DO!
Posted by hitchcock (anonymous) on November 1, 2008 at 7:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
RICKYSMITH
For someone that gives their name & also says in a previous comment you own commercial & residential property on Franklin St you sure are a brave lame brain.
I'm beginning to wonder exactly what you smoke!
Now as for an education I graduated from Natchez High School many years ago.
Posted by Lily_Dream (anonymous) on November 1, 2008 at 7:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I detest the smell of cigarette smoke. I care about my lungs and my health. I do not allow second-hand smoke around me, but it's hard to avoid. I agree with the aldermen in regards to getting the ban, but it's going to be a tough fight. I do not think the business owners will lose any business by placing a stipulation on inside smoking. Afterall, there is plenty of air outside. How would you like it if "Bubba" just finished his meal and decided he was going to take a dip of skoal or grizzly sitting right across from your table. While you and your family are trying to finish your meal, he starts spitting. Disgusting, isn't it? It's the same as smoking while the family right next to you, with an asthmatic child is trying to enjoy their meal. It's about being considerate for the people around you. No one is telling you that you cannot smoke. They are simply asking for human courtesy by reserving that smoke until you are outside and away from others.
Posted by NameThatTune (anonymous) on November 1, 2008 at 9:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
People get ready. Natchez has always been behind in modern things. Just about everyone in the rest of the United States conforms to not smoking in public or private facilities. Finally Natchez is catching up about environmental concerns.
And oh yeah, while on the environmental subject, thank you Bubba Kaiser for giving recycling a trial run in Natchez. If it doesn't work out, Bubba will just open ANOTHER business in Natchez. And I saw where he volunteered to be on the recreation committee. Go Bubba, go Bubba!
Posted by barely40 (anonymous) on November 1, 2008 at 10:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It has been very nice on summer trips to Florida not to have to be concerned with 'smoking sections' and the drifting smoke going to non...they banned it years ago. It recently got banned in Gulfport, and the restaurants continue to thrive...it's so much nicer. As far as patrons choosing a place based on the owner's decision in Natchez, come on, there's already such limited choices in town.I hate to say it, but non-smokers would just 'suck it up'(no pun intended) and go inside anyway.But is it really fair of the smoker's to force their hazards on all? Eat up, then go outside. Be nice!
Posted by RobinBrownHayes (anonymous) on November 2, 2008 at 12:01 a.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by unclered (anonymous) on November 2, 2008 at 12:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think they should ban smoking in bars too. It would be nice to go have a drink and not come out smelling like an ashtray.
Posted by darylwalker (anonymous) on November 2, 2008 at 7:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Most non-smokers won't see this in the same light as smokers since this is something that they believe affects them in a positive way. A majority of the smokers see this as an infringement of their rights. Personally, I see this as an infringement on the rights of property owners. If I owned a restaurant/bar/etc, I sure as heck don't want the government telling me what legal activities I can and can't allow on my own property. It should be my right as the owner to choose what I allow and don't allow. This is the same thing as telling a home owner what color he/she can paint their house.
As a smoker, I have no problems with 'non-smoking' restaurants. I eat at them all the time and just light up as I leave. I just believe it's the owner's right to tell me whether I can smoke in there or not.
As far as banning smoking in bars goes, that's just ludicrous. Drinking and smoking go hand in hand, and to say one public health risk (smoking) should be banned so people can go participate in another public health risk (drinking) is a bit 'off' in my opinion. Maybe they should ban getting drunk in bars. I know I'd go out more often if I didn't have to put up with the rowdy drunks in all the bars around town.
Posted by barely40 (anonymous) on November 2, 2008 at 9:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Just a thought,but here's my view on comparing drinking with smoking. When you smoke near me,it affects my health. When you drink, it doesn't affect my health...unless you drive after you've had too many. But with the train of thought shown in the last few post, it's only a matter of time before someone is going to say 'communist' are keeping the drinkers from their rights to drive!! Do you see how stupid that sounds? Just enjoy your hazardous activities without public participation...
Posted by pbnj (anonymous) on November 2, 2008 at 9:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hitchcock.... I think it is great that Ricky is not ashamed to state his name and that he has a business. I mean I guess he could worry about what people think but what is the point when the majority of Natchezians don't shop locally anyway.
And I think smoking bans is the least of our "behind the times" worries.
Posted by Fonzarosa (anonymous) on November 2, 2008 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is how the whack jobs starts I myself don't smoke but it's not
up to me to tell anyone what they can do that is legal. Next thing they will say is I don't like Cowboy boots so you can't wear them into a bar or restaurants in other words were does it stop someone decides you have to wear seat belts in a automobile you
bought and paid for. Get my drift when do we stop trying to involve ourselves in other peoples personal decisions. ?
Posted by barely40 (anonymous) on November 2, 2008 at 10:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We stop involving ourselves with 'other people's decisions',Fonzarosa, when those decisions stop affecting other's health. What's so hard to understand? Why comparing apples to oranges? Boots...bad 'air' others breathe. comeon.......Oh, I smoked 15 years, so I know their view point too...just no longer share it.
Posted by fatherof4 (anonymous) on November 2, 2008 at 4:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Would these aldermen vote to allow a cigerette factory to be built in Natchez?
Posted by NameThatTune (anonymous) on November 2, 2008 at 7:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The aldermen would allow a cigarette factory to be built in Natchez, but the residents would blow their tops! How can any of us choose who locates here? The cigarette factory wouldn't make anybody smoke, just as the Hershey Factory does not make people eat chocolate. It's choices, people. You make your choices; learn to live with your decisions.
Posted by RobinBrownHayes (anonymous) on November 2, 2008 at 8:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well considering that nothing I said in my former post was anything but the truth, I guess someone must have felt that the they couldn't handle the truth. There was nothing to be offended by. I'm offended by a lot of things that people say but am smart enough to know that it's just their opinion.
So Mr Hillyer why was that post so offensive? Please elaborate since it is the dem's choice to have the final say.
Posted by barely40 (anonymous) on November 3, 2008 at 7:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
dragonfly, I said someone else's drinking won't affect another's health(barring drunk driving)...not their own drinking....concentrate.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)