Goodwin looks to rewrite smoking ordinance Commission candidate proposes four changes

Bowling Green Daily News:

Goodwin has four specific changes he’d make to the smoking ordinance, the first being exempting the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion.

Those groups’ objections to the ordinance have been well-documented.

Secondly, Goodwin would allow for hotels to have 20 percent of rooms designated for smoking.

Goodwin also believes any business with fewer than four employees should be exempt.

Lastly, Goodwin believes all businesses that allow only patrons 21 and older should be exempted.

Mark Bradford said he’d be open to the idea of some type of exemption process for specific businesses.

For Robin Baldwin, she feels as if the people have already spoken.

“The people in the community had their say, and they chose at least three candidates who said, ‘I’m going to vote for a smoking ban,’ ” Baldwin said.

A Nov. 8 victory for Goodwin could go a long way in showing whether the issue of indoor smoking still exists to where it can decide a campaign.

“I’m going to tell you now, I want to address and it and write it right,” Goodwin said.

Hmm
I like this but I think it should go further even than that,allow the owners to decide.
People always vote with their cash.

HB 282 (Dead)

HB 282

(1)  The provisions of this section shall apply to any food establishment that is required to obtain a permit from the State Department of Health under Section 41-3-15(4)(f), that operates primarily in an enclosed facility and that has five (5) or more seats for customers.

     (2)  Any food establishment to which this section applies shall not be allowed to serve food to any person who is obese, based on criteria prescribed by the State Department of Health after consultation with the Mississippi Council on Obesity Prevention and Management established under Section 41-101-1 or its successor.  The State Department of Health shall prepare written materials that describe and explain the criteria for determining whether a person is obese, and shall provide those materials to all food establishments to which this section applies.  A food establishment shall be entitled to rely on the criteria for obesity in those written materials when determining whether or not it is allowed to serve food to any person.

     (3)  The State Department of Health shall monitor the food establishments to which this section applies for compliance with the provisions of this section, and may revoke the permit of any food establishment that repeatedly violates the provisions of this section.

     

I'm glad this one is dead,but before anyone thinks I'm putting this here to be a jerk and dissect ancient history you would need to understand how shocking this read was for me.

I rage against this sort of thing on a regular basis,because it bothers me in so many ways,it shows how demonizing people begins and what it looks like at it's inception.

I wonder what the world would be like if we were all just people again.

The Nanny States of America, Part 3

The Nanny States of America, Part 3:

In Canada, if you walk into a bar, and order a $3.50 beer, the bartender opens that beer for you… ok there is a city tax of 7%, a sin tax of 12%, federal tax of 9%, and goods and services tax of 21%. (Percentage numbers based on taxes in Oakville, ON Canada in 1997). 

Now let’s look at the math, 7+12+9+21=49% tax on that one $3.50 beer, $1.72 in just taxes and that one beer is now $5.22. Now that is if each tax is based the original $3.50. If they can do this on a beer… how long do you think it will be before a simple can of snus or a pack of smokes is carrying 49% tax on them on top of the current outrageous sin, state, federal and local taxes that are on them now? 

In some states this tax can be as high as 90% of the retail cost as it is. Now add to that another 49% to 50% worth of taxes and you are looking at tobacco users footing the bill for a health care system that has already proved failed.  That is if they spend the money where they say and as we have seen in the last article how well they manage the money they say they are using. 

An interesting take from a smokeless tobacco user.

Dwindling number of places where smokers can light up

POINT OF VIEW: Dwindling number of places where smokers can light up - The Sarnia Observer - Ontario, CA:


Some members of the committee also said the outdoor smoking ban may be going a little too far.
Sarnia Coun. Bev MacDougall said smokers are already a highly restricted bunch of folks.
"We can't take away the right to exist gainfully in society," she said.
It's never easy to balance the desire to promote and protect the public health, with the need to maintain and protect the rights of individuals.
But, it's probably easier than being a smoker these days.
As Plympton-Wyoming Mayor Lonny Napper, a smoker, told the committee, it may soon be easier to just pass a law telling them where they're still allowed to light up.

:(
That's not good blogging,but it's the truth.
The more you separate people and the more they are able to see each other as something different the more difficult it becomes to exist in society.
Divide and conquer seems to be the best strategy tobacco control ever thought of.
Harassing and making people feel ashamed,alone and unwanted has done wonders for pushing along the healthist agenda.
Think you are safe because you don't smoke?

Haven't patients suffered enough without this hospital smoking ban?

Ian O'Doherty: Haven't patients suffered enough without this hospital smoking ban? - Ian O'Doherty, Columnists - Independent.ie:

Before he died, my father spent a few years in and out of James's Hospital.

He used to say that the worst thing was the boredom, the endless tedium punctuated only by the ticking of the clock in his ward that used to drive him mad.

A voracious reader, he admitted that there are only so many books you can read in one day and while his body was failing, his mind was, on the whole, still active -- and that's where the ciggie break came in.

He admitted to me on one occasion that going for a smoke was the highlight of his day -- not for the hit of the tobacco but because for him and all the other long-term patients, going for a smoke was a social occasion, a chance to get out of the bed, get out of the ward and have a chat and a fag with some of the others and, to be honest, I could completely see where he was coming from.

Because when my Da and his fellow incumbents met up for a smoke, they were no longer just patients with a numbered bracelet on their wrist, they were men again, individuals in their own right.

Such a satisfying read.
My crappy blogging will never do it justice but it should be read.
The writer touches on such a striking note,this thing we all forget smoker's are people too.
No matter what the anti's say or how they try to spin it,we all of us are people still and deserve some compassion and we deserve to have our dignity intact when we are ill.
Being well isn't just what we or eat or drink or smoke or don't smoke do our mindset has a whole lot to do with it as well.

Ban has no effect on smokers - The Irish Times -

Ban has no effect on smokers - The Irish Times - Wed, Oct 19, 2011:

The smoking ban was introduced in March 2004 by then minister for health Micheál Martin. Its aim was to protect people from second-hand smoke but it had also been hoped that the ban would provide an incentive to help smokers quit.

This has not proven to be the case.

“We really haven’t shifted prevalence of smoking by any appreciable extent beyond what it was prior to the implementation of the ban; we are at about 28 to 30 per cent,” Dr Holohan said.

And of course that isn't the only message that's being spread.

 He also said there was a need to look at the inter-relationship between different lifestyle factors, including tobacco use, alcohol consumption and obesity, and their effects on health.

“People who smoke just don’t smoke, they are also people who are overweight and they are also people who are high consumers of alcohol and we need to understand the interaction of those,” Dr Holohan said.

There was no point in sending out messages about tobacco one day, alcohol the next and obesity on the third day. “We need a much more integrated positive message in relation to health.

“It shouldn’t always be about ‘don’t do this’ and ‘don’t do that’.”

Sounds all well and good,well from their viewpoint in any case. But the thing smokers always told the other people who supported the banning of smoking in public places has come to pass.

They are coming for all of us,it makes me wonder how long before the cacophony of angry voices being raised calling for bans to be repealed won't just be from the smokers.

Because now the people who dislike the overweight and the people who dislike smokers have decided to join forces.

Dr Holohan also raised concerns about the marketing of food and unhealthy products to children.

How long before they join with the greenies and the clean air people.One wonders what sort of focus they would spread with the sort of money and backing that would supply.

That damn slope keeps getting slipperier every single day.

Wales needs 20,000 smokers a year to quit to meet ambitious targets

Wales needs 20,000 smokers a year to quit to meet ambitious targets - Wales News - News - WalesOnline:

WALES needs to persuade 20,000 smokers a year to quit if it is to meet an ambitious target to slash smoking rates.

The Welsh Government wants to cut the number of adult smokers from the current 23% to just 16% by 2020.

But there are concerns about whether Wales’ smoking cessation services can help such numbers tackle their addictions.

The number of adults smoking has fallen only slightly in the last seven years, from 26% in 2004, despite the introduction of the ban on smoking in public places.

This doesn't make sense when you figure in the economic losses from tobacco taxes.
I can't pretend to be well versed enough in this to spout statistics and numbers but every smoker that quits costs the government something.
I'm frankly always surprised that this topic keeps rearing it's ugly head.

I'm not even sure exactly what sort of economic number juggling has shown a positive outcome for governments attempting to stamp out smoking on a huge basis but I wouldn't believe the outcome has changed much from the first time I read this.

"A $1 increase in cigarette excise taxes could affect an
estimated 74,700 to 96,800 jobs"

A nifty little report from the United States own general accounting office came up with that number.
I have tried to figure out what the losses on a worldwide scale would be today but math isn't my strong suit.