After the fact - KC's smoking ban, three+ years later

[Bowser]

So, now that we have had time to adjust and absorb the smoking ban, how do you feel about it? Was it a good thing, a bad thing, still an unholy infringement on our "civil rights", or do you just not care one way or another?

Poll to come.

[dirk digler]

Booneville expands smoking ban to public spaces, workplaces
by Lena Mitchell/NEMS Daily Journal

BOONEVILLE – Almost two years after enacting a smoking ban in restaurants that did not apply to businesses and other public places, the city of Booneville has passed a more widespread smoking ban.

On Tuesday the Board of Aldermen in a 3-2 vote approved a new ordinance – the Smoke-Free Air Ordinance of 2012 – that prohibits smoking in public places and places of employment.

“The smoking of tobacco is a form of air pollution, a positive danger to health, and a material public nuisance in the City of Booneville, Mississippi,” the ordinance reads. “Accordingly, the City Board of Aldermen of the City of Booneville, Mississippi, finds and declares that the purposes of this article are to: (1) protect the public health and welfare by prohibiting smoking in public places and places of employment; and (2) guarantee the right of all citizens to breathe smoke-free air, and to recognize that the need to breathe smoke-free air shall outweigh the desire to smoke.”

Voting in favor of the new smoking ban were Aldermen David Bolen, Wilda Pounds and Jeff Williams. Voting against it were Aldermen Mark McCoy and Harold Eaton, said city attorney Daniel Tucker.

Williams threw his support behind the expanded ordinance, which Bolen and Pounds had supported in previous efforts to pass it.

The city’s broad no-smoking ordinance follows a move by Northeast Mississippi Community College, which banned all forms of tobacco on its campuses Jan. 1. The city ordinance takes effect 30 days after publication in the local newspaper.

“It’s wonderful and I’m so excited,” said Melissa Nash, coordinator for the Mississippi Tobacco Free Coalition of Prentiss and Tishomingo Counties. “Mayor Joe Eaton has worked really hard on it. I think it’s a step toward Northeast Mississippi being healthier.”

Nash said her organization will provide “no smoking” window signs to any business that needs them with a call to her office at (662) 728-2450. She also has information about smoking cessation classes.

“We want to assist in any way we can,” Nash said.


Read more: pontotoc360.com - Booneville expands smoking ban to public spaces workplaces

[dirk digler]

http://smoking.uslegal.com/smoking-r...s-in-oklahoma/

The Oklahoma Legislature stated that “the possession of lighted tobacco in any form is a public nuisance and dangerous to the public health” and is the basis for the Oklahoma Smoking in Public Places and Indoor Workplaces.[i] This act prohibits smoking any tobacco product in “indoor area open to the public, public transportation or any indoor workplace, except where specifically allowed by law.”[ii]

[AustinChief]

Before we go any further with this... there is an important question that needs to be answered.

To all you smoking ban supporters...

Do you believe that ANY amount of ETS(second hand smoke, sidestream smoke, etc) is too much. That there is NO safe limit to exposure?

If so, you clearly don't care about science or the facts and simply want to push your agenda. There is absolutely NOTHING that supports this view. You may as well believe in unicorns and use that belief to justify whatever crazy law you want to pass.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

http://smoking.uslegal.com/smoking-r...s-in-oklahoma/

The Oklahoma Legislature stated that “the possession of lighted tobacco in any form is a public nuisance and dangerous to the public health” and is the basis for the Oklahoma Smoking in Public Places and Indoor Workplaces.[i] This act prohibits smoking any tobacco product in “indoor area open to the public, public transportation or any indoor workplace, except where specifically allowed by law.”[ii]

Alabama state law:

Dominoes may not be played on Sunday.
http://www.dumblaws.com/law/1

Section 13A-12-1
Certain acts prohibited on Sunday.

Any person who compels his child, apprentice or servant to perform any labor on Sunday, except the customary domestic duties of daily necessity or comfort, or works of charity or who engages in shooting, hunting, gaming, card playing or racing on that day, or who, being a merchant or shopkeeper, druggist excepted, keeps open store on Sunday, shall be fined not less than $10.00 nor more than $100.00, and may also be imprisoned in the county jail, or sentenced to hard labor for the county, for not more than three months. However, the provisions of this section shall not apply to the operation of railroads, airlines, bus lines, communications, public utilities or steamboats or other vessels navigating the waters of this state, or to any manufacturing establishment which is required to be kept in constant operation, or to the sale of gasoline or other motor fuels or motor oils. Nor shall this section prohibit the sale of newspapers, or the operation of newsstands, or automobile repair shops, florist shops, fruit stands, ice cream shops or parlors, lunch stands or restaurants, delicatessens or plants engaged in the manufacture or sale of ice; provided, that such business establishments are not operated in conjunction with some other kind or type of business which is prohibited by this section. It shall also be lawful to engage in motorcycle and automobile racing on Sunday, whether admission is charged or not; except, that this proviso shall not be construed to prevent any municipality from passing ordinances prohibiting such racing on Sunday.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

http://smoking.uslegal.com/smoking-r...s-in-oklahoma/

The Oklahoma Legislature stated that “the possession of lighted tobacco in any form is a public nuisance and dangerous to the public health” and is the basis for the Oklahoma Smoking in Public Places and Indoor Workplaces.[i] This act prohibits smoking any tobacco product in “indoor area open to the public, public transportation or any indoor workplace, except where specifically allowed by law.”[ii]

State and city politicians (hell Senators and Reps on the national level even) are not known for crafting legally defensible laws consistently. BUT in these cases a court would likely ignore the nuisance aspect and move forward with the health aspect. Even then it would be a tough case to defend according to the standards established by the Supreme Court. Unfortunately we'll never see one of these go that far.

Saying that XYZ political body cited ABC as a reason doesn't make it valid. As someone pointed out earlier... sodomy laws were overturned yet I'm sure XYZ state had some bullshit reasoning cited in the law as it was written.

This is like me saying that blood doping is wrong and you countering by saying... but Lance Armstrong does it! Um, ok... that really doesn't change the fact that it's wrong.

[listopencil]

Man, there sure are a lot of dumb laws out there:

http://www.dumblaws.com/

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Before we go any further with this... there is an important question that needs to be answered.

To all you smoking ban supporters...

Do you believe that ANY amount of ETS(second hand smoke, sidestream smoke, etc) is too much. That there is NO safe limit to exposure?

If so, you clearly don't care about science or the facts and simply want to push your agenda. There is absolutely NOTHING that supports this view. You may as well believe in unicorns and use that belief to justify whatever crazy law you want to pass.

I don't have an agenda other than I like to eat\work\live without having someone blow smoke all around me.

I will say that I have different opinions on smoking bans for strictly bars. I think smoking should be allowed for bars as long as they don't serve food.

Now Kyle is there any privately owned business that you believe should not be allowed for people to smoke in?

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

State and city politicians (hell Senators and Reps on the national level even) are not known for crafting legally defensible laws consistently. BUT in these cases a court would likely ignore the nuisance aspect and move forward with the health aspect. Even then it would be a tough case to defend according to the standards established by the Supreme Court. Unfortunately we'll never see one of these go that far.

Saying that XYZ political body cited ABC as a reason doesn't make it valid. As someone pointed out earlier... sodomy laws were overturned yet I'm sure XYZ state had some bullshit reasoning cited in the law as it was written.

This is like me saying that blood doping is wrong and you countering by saying... but Lance Armstrong does it! Um, ok... that really doesn't change the fact that it's wrong.

All I did was answer your question. Yes States and cities have banned smoking by citing public nuisance. I would imagine the vast majority of the bans all pretty much state the same thing because they like to copy each other especially if a court has upheld the law.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

I don't have an agenda other than I like to eat\work\live without having someone blow smoke all around me.

I will say that I have different opinions on smoking bans for strictly bars. I think smoking should be allowed for bars as long as they don't serve food.

I also think that places that serve food (REAL food not some bar that has snacks or whatever) shouldn't allow smoking. It's gross. BUT I don't think they should be FORCED to do so just because I feel that way. Again, easy solution that is good for everyone... make an ordinance related to restaurant air quality. That would solve the problem and be much more legally valid as opposed to an outright smoking ban.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

All I did was answer your question. Yes States and cities have banned smoking by citing public nuisance. I would imagine the vast majority of the bans all pretty much state the same thing.

Sort of.. they mention nuisance but they also mention public safety. They do this for one reason. It's boilerplate. Those are two common exceptions to property rights.. so to cover the law's ass you put both in there and hope the courts agree with at least ONE aspect if it gets challenged.

[go bowe]

an outright smoking ban is not legally valid?

do you have a link for that perchance?

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

I don't have an agenda other than I like to eat\work\live without having someone blow smoke all around me.

I will say that I have different opinions on smoking bans for strictly bars. I think smoking should be allowed for bars as long as they don't serve food.

Now Kyle is there any privately owned business that you believe should not be allowed for people to smoke in?

Hospitals for one. Not for health but for SAFETY... flame and oxygen tanks don't mix. Tons of others that would fall into the same category regarding an open flame.

Otherwise no.

You know what, I'll compromise here and give you one that will fix your restaurant issue. I'd be fine with banning it from anyplace children are allowed to go. While there really isn't much legal justification for this view... there is "some" precedent for erring heavily on the side of caution with children involved. (ie child safety restraints etc)

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by go bowe

an outright smoking ban is not legally valid?

do you have a link for that perchance?

No, I was saying that basing the legal validity on the notion of "public nuisance" won't hold water. Public health or safety is another matter. I don't think most bans pass muster in this regard either but it's much hazier.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Hospitals for one. Not for health but for SAFETY... flame and oxygen tanks don't mix. Tons of others that would fall into the same category regarding an open flame.

Otherwise no.

You know what, I'll compromise here and give you one that will fix your restaurant issue. I'd be fine with banning it from anyplace children are allowed to go. While there really isn't much legal justification for this view... there is "some" precedent for erring heavily on the side of caution with children involved. (ie child safety restraints etc)

I was wondering if you were going to say hospital. But I am surprised you would say for safety not health.

Could you imagine going to a hospital that allowed smoking everywhere. Here you are layed open on the operating table and everyone is smoking and blowing smoke in your open body. Or imagine waking up the hospital with the nurse walking in with a cigarette hanging from her mouth and blowing smoke in your face. Good times and I am sure everyone would like that.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

... there is "some" precedent for erring heavily on the side of caution with children involved. (ie child safety restraints etc)

I think the idea there is that children aren't (and can't be) allowed to make those kinds of choices for themselves.