Southeast smoking ban: Little known and largely ignored

11/5/09
Rachel Weatherford

As taxes on tobacco increase, smokers decrease. At least the colleges and the state of Missouri hope that's true. Smoking bans have become popular on college campuses, gaining the attention of the State Senate, who are debating whether it is even possible, but they are determined to try. It has also gained the attention of Southeast, staff and students alike.

Southeast's solution: forbid smoking everywhere with some exceptions. The consensus - comprised of both smokers and non-smokers - was nearly universal on the topic of designated areas in Aug. 2008 when the ban was first implemented. Only a small minority desired a completely smoke-free campus. Southeast student Diana Carter said, "I didn't even know there was a smoking ban. But I'm glad. A smoke free Illinois was good. I'm glad Southeast is smoke free, too. I do wish it was a little stricter, but at least it is there. The smokers have their own place to smoke and I have my own place to breathe clean air."

There are 24 places scattered outside the main campus that allows smoking.

There is no smoking indoors or in university vehicles with two exceptions. The first rule is that students can puff in the designated area in the Towers Main Complex. "So many people live there that it makes sense to make Towers a place," Southeast sophomore Sam Ray said.

The second is that students can use smokeless tobacco in their resident hall. "For the people who are religious and use it in their ceremonies," Ray said. "Or the ones who don't care if it has tobacco or not."

The other regional campuses and Greeks were allowed to determine their designated areas. The Greeks determined their own smoking areas for their individual houses.

"Students and staff are not supposed to smoke, but I know they do," Amy Post said. "Sometimes I'll hear conversations, and I know they plan to go outside. Sometimes I even see them, but I don't know what to do to stop them."

DPS is not the only one responsible for noting smoking in non-designated areas. Everyone needs to assist in smoking prevention. That means if someone, like Post, other students, or professors, witnesses someone continually smoking, remind the person of the law. If it persists, inform the Office of Student Conduct about students or Human Resources for staff and faculty violations. They will proceed from there. Punishment for students and staff caught includes the disciplanary actions from the student handbook.
Read

---

Smoke-free casino tops tourist destination study
December 28, 2008
BILOXI, Miss. (AP) - When it comes to developing a new tourist destination on the Mississippi Gulf Coast most respondents in a recent study say they would prefer a smoke-free casino.
The study was commissioned by the Mississippi Gulf Coast Convention and Visitors Bureau. However, officials warn the study will probably not give a boost to any smoking ban proposal.
That's because casinos in Atlantic City, Colorado and Illinois say they have lost millions of dollars due to smoking bans. Atlantic City's casinos tried it for one month, but with the sluggish economy, city officials repealed the ban.
The Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board also released a report showing machines in smoking sections earn up to 120% more, depending on the casino.
Read

IPCPR Says No Ban Needed in Columbus, MS 
Oct 5, 2008
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Local businesses are choosing on their own to allow smoking or not on their premises and should be left alone to do so. That's the position of the International Premium Cigar & Pipe Retailers Association as articulated today by Chris McCalla, legislative director. "Most smoking bans are based on at least two false premises: one has to do with misrepresented assumptions regarding secondhand smoke and the other has to do with misunderstandings of our constitutional rights," McCalla said.
Columbus, MS (PRWEB) October 5, 2008 -- If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Local businesses are choosing on their own to allow smoking or not on their premises and should be left alone to do so. That's the position of the International Premium Cigar & Pipe Retailers Association as articulated today by Chris McCalla, legislative director.
"Most smoking bans are based on at least two false premises: one has to do with misrepresented assumptions regarding secondhand smoke and the other has to do with misunderstandings of our constitutional rights," McCalla said.
"The Surgeon General's 2006 Report says that the evidence is inconclusive regarding the health aspects of secondhand smoke. That explains why the Occupational Safety and Health Administration does not regard secondhand smoke as an occupational or environmental hazard," he said.
McCalla pointed out that OSHA has established safe exposure levels for secondhand smoke and shown that "Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that it would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that (those levels would be exceeded)," according to Greg Watchman, Acting Ass't Sec'y of OSHA in 1997.
McCalla also cited testing of secondhand smoke air quality conducted by the American Cancer Society that showed secondhand smoke concentrations to be up to 25,000 times safer than OSHA standards. In addition, he said, Oak Ridge National Laboratory testing confirms that results of air quality testing of secondhand smoke in bars and restaurants were, in their words, "considerably below limits established by OSHA."
"Yes, smokers are in the minority, but that is no reason to allow the majority - non-smokers - to have their way regardless of their impingement on the minority's rights. Our nation's founders opposed government intervention into matters better left to the people. That includes private property - like businesses - where owners have the right to decide whether or not to allow smoking on their premises. Customers and employees then have the right to patronize or work at those businesses. That's what's happening in Columbus and we should continue to let it happen," he pointed out.
"Certain businesses are adult destinations aimed at adults who enjoy cigars. For example, no adult non-smoker is going to accidentally walk into a cigar store or cigar bar. Even if they do, such incidental exposure is not going to harm them.
"The bottom line is that for adults who enjoy the legal pleasures of a fine cigar and the celebratory and social aspects of smoking such cigars, it's important for them - and it is their right - to have places where smoking is permitted and children aren't," he said.
Contact:
Tony Tortorici
678/493-0313
tony @ tortoricipr.com
Read

SNUFF IT: Biloxi, Long Beach consider smoking bans

March 29, 2008
BILOXI, Mar 29, 2008 (The Sun Herald - McClatchy-Tribune Information Services via COMTEX) -- -- Two more Coast cities are considering anti-smoking laws similar to those approved by the Gulfport City Council on March 18.

Biloxi Councilman Bill Stallworth is talking with casino executives and working on language for a Biloxi smoking ban he plans to introduce April 15.

Long Beach Alderman Richard Burton intends to bring his proposal to ban smoking in all public buildings back up for discussion. It was tabled in January pending the outcome of Senate Bill 2352, but that bill and at least three others in the Mississippi House died in committee.

Burton was called a hypocrite by his fellow aldermen for proposing a ban when he was a smoker, but said he had quit smoking a few days earlier and hasn't resumed. He also heard arguments that Long Beach doesn't need a smoking ban because it doesn't have a casino or many restaurants, but he said, "That makes this the best time to do it."

Stallworth said he is hearing that a smoking ban could cause a 15 percent drop at city businesses. He knows revenue slid at casinos where no-smoking legislation was enacted. "I've seen the numbers," he said, but, "They didn't have that kind of impact."

In Illinois, it did happen. The first month after the smoking ban, revenue tanked by 17 percent, while profits rose in neighboring Iowa where there wasn't a smoking ban. Atlantic City, Delaware and other places that adopted no-smoking regulations saw a 5 to 10 percent drop in revenue.

With a slow economy and more competition from Florida and other states, Biloxi casino executives say this is the wrong time to be enacting a smoking ban. Casino revenue in Biloxi slumped in February when it should have jumped from an early Mardi Gras and an extra day for Leap Year. In February 2007, when Hard Rock Casino hadn't yet opened, the Biloxi casinos earned $86.3 million. In 2008 that fell to $83 million. January's revenue was down $5.5 million from 2007.

Beverly Martin, executive director of the Mississippi Casino Operators Association, said a smoking ban or anything that affects demand causes "tourism and gaming dollars to flow to those other destinations."

Biloxi Mayor A.J. Holloway banned smoking in city buildings and at the sports complex in his first term, and smoking is prohibited at Biloxi schools and at Biloxi Regional Hospital.

Holloway said he thinks it would hurt the city to impose a smoking ban in the casinos, and Stallworth thinks the mayor might veto his proposal. The city, Biloxi schools and Harrison County get about 4 percent in taxes from the casino revenue.

"Business is down all over the place," countered Stallworth, following a banner year for casinos. He doesn't want to ban smoking altogether in the casinos, but does want smoke-free casino restaurants and a section of the casino floor set aside for non-smokers "that people can get to without going through smoke."

Non-smokers make up 70 percent of the U.S. population, but Stallworth has learned that number is almost the opposite in casinos, where about 70 percent of the customers smoke. Casino hotel rooms, however, are 70 percent non-smoking, which he said shows people want smoke-free rooms for sleeping.

Burton rejects the idea that Long Beach shouldn't enact a smoking ban because it might hurt business. "Do you put your profit above the public health?" he asked. "I'm not really happy with bars being excluded," he added. Those who work in bars are exposed to secondhand smoke and "you can't just switch jobs that easily."
Read

---

Council Revisits Smoking Ban
Smoking Ban Revisited
02/25/08
By Roslyn Anderson, roslyn@wlbt.net

Supporters and opponents of strengthening Jackson's current smoking ban gathered at City Hall Monday. It was the second public hearing to voice their opinions on the ordinance now before city leaders.

Jackson's Planning Committee heard public comment on amending the city's current smoking ban in a hearing where most voiced support for the measure.

Proposed amendments would prohibit smoking in restaurants, bars, stadiums, arenas and within 20 feet of enclosed public areas and work places.

"Scientific evidence shows that there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke," said Dr. Ralph Vance, an oncologist at University Medical Center.

Que Sera restaurant owner Boo Noble questioned the fairness of the smoking ban.

"Why not everywhere? Why restaurants and bars? We get hit so many times with these extra taxes," Noble said.

Supporters said the smoking ban is for the public good and for workers who must endure second hand smoke. Opponents said the government is overstepping its bounds by telling businesses how to operate.

"Second-hand smoke caused my brother to have asthma," said Charles King, a member of the Smoke Free Jackson organization. "He has to go to the hospital once a year, twice a year just to get shots, and also his two boys."

"You can do what you think the public wants from the emotional standpoint, but let's look at it from the scientific and from the financial standpoint," said Ralph Foster, owner of Habana Smoke Shop.

Meanwhile, smoker Jennifer Glorioso said she supports Jackson taking a tougher stand on smoking in restaurants.

"If you can't go an hour without smoking a cigarette and blowing it in somebody else's face, you shouldn't be smoking in the first place," she said. "I don't see where it's necessary to have one while you're at a restaurant. You can wait until you get out."

Committee members Frank Bluntson, Dr. Les McLemore and Charles Tillman support the ban.

Ward One representative Jeff Weill and Planning Committee Chairwoman Margaret Barrett Simon are undecided. Both want more specifics on the ordinance's legality and enforceability.

The city's legal department will provide the committee with a summary of both public hearings before any action is taken.

The smoking ordinance is expected to be voted out of committee sometime in March.

After the hearing Councilman Frank Bluntson shared a letter with the media tha he received from Tico Hoffman, owner of Tico's steak house in Ridgeland, supporting the ban.

"The City of Ridgeland went smoke-free in July of 2007," Hoffman wrote. "At the beginning I thought it might hurt my business. The fact of the matter my sales have increased. I get far more compliments than complaints about the smoke free environment."
Read

---

Proper ventilation can solve problem

August 25, 2007

To the editor:

There has never been a single study showing that exposure to the low levels of smoke found in bars and restaurants with decent modern ventilation and filtration systems kills or harms anyone.

As to the annoyance of smoking, a compromise between smokers and non-smokers can be reached, through setting a quality standard and the use of modern ventilation technology.

Air ventilation can easily create a comfortable environment that removes not just passive smoke, but also and especially the potentially serious contaminants that are independent from smoking.

Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Read

---

Smokers being wronged by city

August 22, 2007

I have watched and waited for the public outcry over the disregard of personal freedom being delivered by our local government. How can citizens who, in every day life, count on their freedoms to pursue happiness stand by and not be heard when their fellow citizens are being wronged?

Before we get started, let me say that I am an ex-smoker. I quit because cigarettes went to one dollar a pack. Not because it was politically correct to do so. (Now there is a useless term to be dealt with in another letter, politically correct.) That was a long time ago and I do not miss them nor am I greatly offended by them.

Smoking is personal, not something that a government should get involved in.

When a government starts making laws that attack personal freedoms everyone should be afraid. I read recently where a study said that grilling food on an outdoor grill produced carcinogens. How many of these anti-smokers cook or attend outdoor cooking where the smoke fills the air? The smell is wonderful and the food is a possible source of cancer. What is next? Shall we ask our government to ban outdoor grilling? I would bet that there is just this sort of , "I know what is good for you," person out there just waiting to pounce on this one also.

For our government to tell a business owner what he can or can not do in his own business is one reason our fore fathers got together and wrote a fine document called "The Declaration of Independence". The XIV amendment allows that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Where was the due process? This is more follow the leader than due process. This should be put on a ballot and voted on to see if this ban is the will of the people. No wait a minute, we tried this with the state flag and although it was adopted the Washington County Board of Supervisors decided it knew what was really better for us, so they refuse to fly our state flag.

Over the years, I have heard it said that people vote with their feet. This means that if you are in a place and you disagree with the way things are run and you can not get them changed, moved to a place that suits you. Why use the government to restrict others' freedoms so they can live the way you want them to live. Maybe you are wrong.

Those of you who are blessed to have a member of the greatest generation in your family need to sit down with them and let them tell you about a little man in Germany who, in 1939, almost brought the world to the kind of government the antipersonnel freedom folks are seeking. Anti-smokers are using their dislike of smoke to force their will on everyone who smokes, when what should be done is not to visit areas where smoking is going on.
Smokers are tax payers, neighbors and friends. It is time the scarlet letter was removed from their chest. The answer is not more laws, but compromise.

Be responsible for you own actions. If you do not like smoke, find a place that does not allow smoking and have a blast. Business owners should have the right to say whether they want smoking or not. Not the government.

I believe our government has much more serious problems to deal with than trying to force businesses to ban smoking to satisfy people who object to smoking. What about our crime rate? Every night on the news we never hear any positive stories because it takes all the local news broadcast to tell about the shooting, stabbing, robberies, car jackings and domestic violence that occurs in this smoke filled city of ours.

Come on Americans, if you want to make a real difference, get involved in our serious crime situation. Do whatever you can to make this city safe and let the business owners deal with smoking. Our elected leaders need to take on real problems, not legislate morality. I guess it is a lot easier to punish law abiding citizens than it is to peruse criminals. After all, it is a lot easier to locate the honest citizen.

Steve Sweet
Greenville
Read

---

January 15, 2007
Julie Goodman
The Mississippi Hospitality and Restaurant Association says it will support a bill for a statewide smoking ban, in part, because it would allow smoking in age-restricted bars with closed-off areas. It also would prohibit new municipal bans, helping give all restaurants a level playing field.

Given the current national trend — which has communities adopting more and more anti-smoking measures — the head of the association said it is better to look at a statewide bill now than deal with dozens of municipal bans.

“Given the current political climate, it’s in our best interest to look at a state ban,” said Mike Cashion, the association’s executive director.

The bill was filed by Senate Public Health and Welfare Committee Chairman Alan Nunnelee, R-Tupelo, whose committee plans to hold a hearing on the issue.

In addition to the smoking ban bill, the Senate also filed legislation that would get rid of state Health Officer Brian Amy and reconstitute the state Board of Health, making his position a cabinet-level job to be filled by the governor. It was filed today just before the chambers prepared to assemble for Gov. Haley Barbour’s State of the State speech.

Lawmakers also had a moment of silence today for state Rep. Leonard Morris, who died Friday of complications from kidney surgery.

The smoking ban bill would amount to a compromise in which virtually every restaurant would be smoke free, but would have the option of closing off bar areas where customers could light up, Cashion said.

There has been a dramatic decrease in revenue in some of the restaurants, especially ones with bars, which have banned smoking, he said.

The legislation would prohibit municipalities from creating smoking bans, but existing ones would be grandfathered in. Inconsistencies can give one restaurant in one city an advantage over another in an adjacent city, as smokers opt to go where they can smoke, he said.

The legislation also says that if a restaurant owner is following the law, he or she cannot be held responsible if a customer lights up in a smoke-free area.
Read

---

Mississippi Considering Smoking Ban