Posted by babev1 (anonymous) on January 10, 2009 at 10:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you stop smoking then you should stop drinking! I am not a drinker but I am a smoker

Posted by getalifenatchez (anonymous) on January 10, 2009 at 10:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Get rid of it for God's sake....... Every progressive city and town in America has done so, but as usual, we are a follower, not a leader.... The health implications are enormous, so it's a no brainer.... In regards to drinking babev1, the only thing I have to worry about is driving and someone drunk hitting me, but in moderation, drinking is not going to kill me or hurt someone else near me---where as smoking is not only killing the person doing it, but nearby innocent "victims" as well....... If you got to do it, do it at home, your car, or not a "PUBLIC" place! I also think Mississippi is missing the boat by not increasing the tax on cigs as well..... thats a whole other letter.........

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on January 10, 2009 at 10:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Leave it to the business owners. This is NOT something government should be involved in! Let smokers congregate in smoking establishments and non-smokers congregate in non-smoking establishments. Let us vote with our feet and our dollars. Don't subvert our liberty.

If the BOA wants input let them read the massive input in past blogs about previous articles on this website on the topic. Pollard and Gray are apparently on personal crusades which shouldn't be inflicted upon the public that pays their salaries.

Posted by reneef (anonymous) on January 10, 2009 at 10:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OH OK, you want the tax money from smokers you just don't want the smokers. I find heavy perfume offensive and know many people for whom that it causes health problems. Should it be completely banned from all public places as well. I don't mind a ban in restaurants..I've gotten use to it but if it is banned in all public places I can't even go outside to smoke. As far as health risk go ... I believe heart disease is the #1 cause of death in America. You we ban fatty foods as well. I understand that non smokers have rights and that inside buildings it is impossible to segregate smokers from non smokers but smokers have rights as well. I feel all government buildings and retail establishments could be non smoking and restaurants,bars and casino's could make the decision individually. The business owner could then decide to what business he/she wants to cater. Inthat way the All Mighty Dollar can decide where we can smoke. I do however feel we have the right to smoke in open air places.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on January 10, 2009 at 11:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So the "community" is composed of only tourism "leaders" and business owners who are empowered to speak and decide for all based on their own selfish interests?

Will this meeting be held in Munich or Berlin?

Posted by vidnat (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 12:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree Sam. An establishment should be able to decide.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 12:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Businesses can already decide. This is about granting some people the power to tell others what to do and not about any sort of self determination.

"The Belmont City Council voted unanimously last night to pursue a strict law that will prohibit smoking anywhere in the city except for single-family detached residences. Smoking on the street, in a park and even in one’s car will become illegal and police would have the option of handing out tickets if they catch someone." -http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=66988

The above means no smoking in apartments or condos either.

The no smoking ordinance should be resisted because people who are of the mindset to tell others what to do don't know when to stop. Natchez is full of these busybodies. Don't let them have their way.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 12:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The Nazis banned smoking too, and guns. Except of course, when it came to corpses and exections.

Posted by RamblerGambler (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 1:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As long as each and every smoker has health insurance, it's their own business if they smoke or not. More power to them, if that's what they choose to do with their life, let them smoke till they choke. But, if a smoker has no health insurance, he loses his right to smoke. It's not fair to expect the taxpayers to foot the bill when s/he is in the hospital with a horrible disease due to his/her own choosing.

Posted by frogprincenessntz (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 1:39 a.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 1:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You would have done well in the Third Reich RamblerGambler.

Taxpayers don't have to foot the bill for anyone's health care except in socialist countries. Blame your congress for that and your own socialist attitudes comrade.

Posted by fire39212 (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 1:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

That's a good idea RamblerGambler....But i also think that should apply to having babies...No insurance no pregnancy..Give them the shot or whatever...Just don't expect us to pay the hospital bill...If you are a drug head same thing applies...Why should we pay for your problem?

Posted by timefertruth (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 7:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

IN THIS COUNTRY AND THIS DAY AND AGE, FREEDOM HAS A LIMITED LIFETIME WARRANTY.

Posted by anonymouscoward (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 8:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What's wrong with everyone here? Your freedom ends where mine begins. I have a right to go into a restaurant and actually smell the food cooking, not choke and almost vomit because someone decides to kill themselves across the room. This is the same as banning the burning of leaves in the city limits, since there are too many people too close together to allow the smoke to dissipate. Nobody is saying that you cannot smoke, just do it where it won't affect anyone else.

And as for letting the businesses decide, show me a business that is willing to turn away the Almighty Dollar, especially around here. The doomsayers whined in New York when the ban happened, but nothing ever came of it.

You do not have a right to kill yourself (attempted suicide is against the law) and you do not have the right to pollute the air in a populated space. If you feel like smoking, leave the building.

Posted by babev1 (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 8:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Me sitting in a bar or in a rest. smoking is not going to cause me to act stupit and get in my car and kill someone and yes you can drink yourself to death and you can cause death to other people even more so with drinking it should be done at home also where you don't have to get in your car and drive.So getalifenatchez you need to stop drinking and driving. smoking and driving is better ask anyone who has had a loved one killed by a DRUNK DRIVER what is better and who should have the higher taxes. they also have a place where smokers can sit the drinkers sit all over a rest.

Posted by babev1 (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 8:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

RamblerGambler thats like saying give everyone birth control that does not have insurance I am sick of paying for all the girls having baby after baby after baby that our tax dollars are taking care of if they can stop people from smoking they should say we will pay for 1 baby after that you are on your on but thats wrong that would be telling people how to live their lives the same with the smoking we live in america so that we have rights but everyday their are people helping the goverment take things away from us little thing right now like smoking but soon it will lead to bigger things

Posted by kpage (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 9 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm a considerate smoker...I will not smoke in your air while I'm around you...I promise. But I will light up when I get in my car and I promise not to throw out the butt. I will light up in my own home and in my own yard. I will expect you to say nothing, as I will not tell you what you do to offend me...you know the rules of social etiquette. When society takes away a group's rights because "it offends others", even when said "offense" is done considerately, then change our country's motto from "Land of the Free" to "Land of the Lost". Let's not give up our personal rights because Joe Blow and Susie Swan can't keep their broom off other's doorstep.

Posted by 3on23 (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am against smoking but as to the subject at hand I do feel that the individual business owners should decide for themselves. If I choose to go to a bar or a restuarant where smoking is allowed then that is my choice.

Most smokers have no problem with smoking outside out of respect for others, but with anything there are a few bad apples that make things difficult for the good ones.

Posted by mommytobe (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

if people want to kill themselves smoking, then that's on them....but i don't wanna breathe the crap.

Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't like smoke. I do like courtesy. I say let the establishments decide and let them show unthoughtful people the door. If you stumbled into a reputable place in a drunken stupor,you would immediately be shown the door. Do the same with offensive smokers.

Posted by lil_bit (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 10:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

taking smoking from the bars and casinos would be a very dumb thing, that would make people go out of town to play at there casinos and i know natchez really dont6 care for the night life here but band smoking from bars would send those people out of town to ,so that mean money want be staying in natchez it will be going to these other towns who know if you band smoking fron bars ans casinos your town will lose money ,no matter how you look at things that is a dumb idea!!!!!

Posted by reneef (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 11:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

ananymouscoward: Your freedom ends where mine begins as well. I am a smoker. I try to be considerate of others. If a business bans smoking I have no problem going outside if I choose to go to that business but if smoking is banned in all public areas I don't even have that option.

It is impossible to ban everything that is offensive or a health hazard to EVERYONE. Are we going to ban certain types of clothing because they are offensive to others? Are we going to ban perfumes and aftershaves because they are offensive to others or because it causes health problems for them? Are we going to ban peanuts in restaurants and bars because they are a health hazard to some people. Are we going to ban alchol because of drunk drivers? Are we going to ban knives because some people get killed with them?

There has to be some common sense and courtsey. If it is left up to the business owners then all that has to be done is if nonsmokers refuse to do business with businesses that allow smoking or if smokers refuse to do business with businesses that don't allow smoking the public can then make their wishes known at each business. A business owner should have the right to decide what is allowed in the business he/she owns. That is the business owners right.

As for the insurance question ... You can't smoke if you don't have your own insurance to pay for it. Should you have to have private insurance that will cover the expenses of a liver transplant in order to be able to drink? Should you have to prove you have insurance to cover the cost of a pregnancy? What about having to prove you can support you child/children for at elast 18 years before you are allowed to have children?

If this country is to have true freedom then 50.1 % of the people can not tell 49.9 % of the people how to live. Whilel I don't have a problem with not smoking while I am in a restaurant I feel that each time a small RIGHT is taken away it opens the door for many others.

Hitler's Germany showed this. If you start with the small things by the time you get to the big things there is noone left to fight against them.

Posted by imnms017 (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 11:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Come on, Natchez. Catch up with every other city. Cities much more popular with tourists have already passed smoking ordinances. We should be looking to them for guidance. The city needs to take the step to ensure a healthy public environment for everyone.

And to respond to someone's comment- The reason business owners and tourism officials are specifically involved with this discussion is because they not only are the people who will be most directly affected, but they also bring money to Natchez. Their actions have economic effects on the entire community.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 2:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

imnms are you sure you are in Mississippi and not marooned on an island somewhere?

Business leaders and tourism operators don't bring money to town, they take it from the people who do come. They take this money for their own benefit, not for the public good. All this non smoking nonsense is just to further inflate their already massive egos and sense of control in telling others what they may and may not do.

The only thing these knuckleheads have shared are benefit free minimum wage restaurant jobs and three dollar a day yardman jobs. I don't see how any rational mind equates this with a divine right to rule.

The Chamber of Commerce is far too full of itself and needs to take a chill pill. And all this silly recycling, smoking ban and recreation complex is just stuff that has come out of the US Conference of Mayors and National Association of Counties, subversive far left organizations who are attempting to set nation-wide agenda by influencing local politicians thus circumventing the federal legislative process. Local Chambers and politicians go along with this because they plan and hope to stay at the top of the heap as they are now.

Don't be a maroon. Try to recall that this is America and not Britain or 1930's Germany.

Posted by guy2co (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 3:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

While I understand both sides of this, the people of Natchez better watch out. We are losing our rights. If you think this will stop with smoking you are wrong. Next it will be drinking, fast food, sodas, gambleing, using bad language or any other social habit that offends someone. This may start with smokers, because they are the easiest ones to pick on, but it will keep going. I say let the owners of the business decide. I cannot believe that our aldermen have nothing better to do than come up with something to take our attention from what is really going on. They need to be spending this time getting business in Natchez, not taking it away. I cannot wait until the next election! Go take care of the real issues in Natchez, and when you are finished we can talk about smoking in bars. I am more concerned with how are we going to support our city and have a good tax base. Perhaps the real problem with smoke is that its being blown up our you know whats!!!

Posted by Username (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 3:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Real CHANGE starts at the local level, I'm starting to see the need for some sort of meetup group or something.
We just sit here and type our opinions while our elected officials do WHATEVER THE HELL THEY WANT.
It seems that the local tyrants are able to organize and get things done without much opposition from we the people.You have to remember the hotel tax assessment??? It's campaign slogan was "jobs,jobs,jobs" and now the thing can't even pay it's appointed board members,the people that imposed this tax knew that it would never work but they tricked you into voting for it anyway winning 74% when it only needed 60% to pass.
Nothing is gonna change(for better)until WE THE PEOPLE change.

Posted by guy2co (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 4:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The river boats are not going to come to Natchez, we need jobs, our roads are filled with pot holes, our city depts. are underfunded, city employees need raises, our taxes are too high, the people of Natchez do not feel safe because of crime. We need recreation, better schools, better city contracts with cable one and any other utilities. The list goes on and on, how does doing something legal in a private business top these issues? Were you so concearned for the health of the people of Natchez before or after the hospital went bankrupt?

Posted by Username (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 4:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's one...
The first annual Natchez Shoe Throwing contest is at 4 p.m. Monday at the Grand Soleil.
First place prize = LIBERTY
DISCLAIMER-----Due to the economic crisis we will not be able to provide you with a shoe,so it's BYOS

Posted by anonymouscoward (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 4:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

THE issue is not whether the practice offends anyone, it is whether the benefits outweigh the harm caused. I did not come up with this analysis, the founders of this country did. So, should public swearing be against the law? Is the benefit of saying offensive words outweighed by the offense it causes? No, and as such public swearing IS illegal (disturbance in a public place 97-35-13) as well as public drunkenness and unregulated gambling.

Does smoking in a public place provide benefits to the smoker? yes, a nicotine high and possibly calmed nerves. Does it cause harm? Yes, besides the offensive odor, it causes actual and measurable damage to the lungs and bodies of people in the immediate vicinity. More importantly it harms those most sensitive to it, namely the babies, and the elderly. THEREFORE does the harm outweigh the benefit? YES, therefore the city/county/state/country can restrict this behavior because the collective damage outweighs any possible benefits gained.

Posted by guy2co (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 4:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I thought this was about resturaunts not public places. A public place is not a private business.

Posted by guy2co (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 4:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If it were about the benefit out weighing the harm caused, then why are we not talking about fast food, fried foods, salt or sugar. Clearly these things can also affect your health. I understand that some people do not want to be around smoke, so lets let the business decide and we can choose whether or not to go there. There are non smoking resturants in Natchez, I do not go there, but I think that it is their decision to have it non smoking.

Posted by reneef (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 4:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My opposition to a Citywide Smoking Ordinance is not over whether I personally can smoke. My concern is with the removal of personal freedoms. Not only my freedom to smoke but also the freedom of individual businesses to decide if they would like to allow smoking. Everyone has personal rights and one person's rights can always conflict with anothers. The answer is not for the government to decide which one has more rights. The answer is compromise between individuals. The government interfers in all of our lives too much already. Don't let them interfer more. As intelegent adults we can all work out a compromise together.

Posted by snatchez (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 5:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

doesn't Baxter smoke himself....

Posted by crackbaby (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 5:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How about, if you depend on the state and tax payers to provide you with health care you shouldn't be allowed to smoke or have a fat rich 5,000 calorie a day diet. Both cause health problems the tax payers foot the bill for. Lets see someone tackle that instead of telling local businesses how to run their house. HA HA ain't that a funny?

Posted by sparky018 (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 5:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, I am a smoker and in res. it doesn't bother me too bad cause there is a smoking section but in Bars and casinos i can't handle all the smoke even though I do smoke.. I go to Hattiesburg to the hunt club to go out alot just because you cannot smoke insude there and when I leave my eyes arents red and they don't look like i just finished smoking drugs... instead of having a smokin and no smokin section side by side with no wall seperating them why not put up a wall and door and have the smoking section well ventilated? That would solve alot of peoples problems with the res.. As far as the casinos, i don't go to them so i don't really have much to say on that...

Posted by JunkyardDawg (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 5:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Good ideas crackbaby...people on welfare and food stamps shouldn't smoke, drink alcohol, or eat fat rich 5000 calorie a day diets. Groceries could be purchased with cigarette and alcohol money.

Posted by thompson39120 (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 6:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We all know that smoking ia a VERY BAD HABIT and we all know that 2ND HAND SMOKE effects others and there health as well in many ways and has also been contributed to many deaths as well, but do you think that a sity wide smoking ordinace will solve the problem is the big question. Who will it effect and how will it effect what is already in place there now. You go to a casino to gamble, eat, drink and smoke, and if you surveyed the number of peopl who go there that do smoke, it might out weigh those who don't smoke, so do you think that you will still have those people gambling, and who really wants to run back and forth in and out to smoke, and what about bars, are you looking to implement it there as well, how can you.
Even though I am not a smoker, like the comment above, can anyone tell ME what does FREEDOM MEAN, and what happened to FREEDOM OF CHOICE, because I don't see it.
Hell, NATCHEZ NEEDS all the REVENUE it can get, so why don't you focus on that rather than on a CITY WIDE SMOKING BAN. First try to INCREASE the REVENUE :), then worry about a BAN on something.

Posted by CanYouHearMeNow (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 7:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am a smoker and I respect others when smoking, however, it gripes my as$ for someone to sit down beside me when I am at the casino, already smoking a cig when they sit down beside me and then they want to complain about the smoke. They can take off all of next week and kiss my behind. If you can't stand the smoke bring a mask or don't come to the casino. Another thing that needs be addressed is how much of out tax dollars are being spent at the casino by people who live on the welfare system and stay on the gambling boats every day. I love to go play the slots, but I get up and go to work every day. I don't get a welfare check and sit on my butt 24/7 waiting on someone else to take care of me.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 9:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Anonymouscoward...how apt your handle is! On the contrary, this issue is NOT about offensiveness nor is it about benefit/harm issues. These issues can and have been dealt with by personal and business compromises which make it possible for all but the most militant nonsmokers to exist with smokers.

The issue IS about LIBERTY...period. Public swearing doesn't equate, the law you cite is against public DISTURBANCE, a catch all to allow public swearing to be punished as well as a number of other acts such as public lewdness, etc...in fact, it is a breach of free speech to circumvent the law in that manner. It is also almost never enforced except to strengthen other charges against the offender. If public swearing itself was illegal almost all of us would be in guilty at some time or another...I'm pretty DAMN sure the founding fathers didn't advocate that abridgement of verbal freedom.

Public drunkeness is a restraint for public safety caused by the person's inebriation and lack of judgement. Smokers are not threats to public safety when they congregate in establishments that allow smoking or they smoke outside (unless of course they are contributing to global warming) and the nonsmoking public has the ability to choose whether to enter or not.

"Unregulated" gambling is just as offensive as "Regulated" gambling to some people, yet it isn't illegal. Government simply found a way to make a buck off of gambling. Again, it's virtually unenforcible. Even the good ole boys doin' the enforcing are likely to have a friendly poker game on occasion.

Your argument about those whom smoking hurts most really only counts in private situations rather than public situations. The elderly and children aren't normally going to go to bars or casinos or restaurants that clearly have smoking rules posted. If they do, it is because someone who should have known better allowed it. This leaves it in the realm of PERSONAL RESPONSIBLITY and not in the area that should be legislated.

Get over your militancy and your impulse to dictate public behavior and compromise else you may end up on the wrong end of the next argument about public behavior, that perhaps being against those who are "holier than thou".

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 9:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I hope someone who can go to the meeting will point the Mayor and Aldermen to this blog so they can see that the debate has already occurred and the mood for compromise has overwhelming been affirmed.

Posted by steve_o (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 10:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

While i know this has nothing to do with smokers rights, I just wanted to place it where folks was looking!

http://www.visitnatchez.com/

If this opening video(turn on your speakers) is being paid for by the recently passed hotel tax for advertising, I would give it an A.

Posted by lil_bit (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 10:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

the people who run natchez have no clue on what they are doing,like someone else said our schools need attending to our streets,they dont want to deal with the real problems ,nobody anymore wants to send there kids to any natchez school so why dont they fix that ,natchez is so backwards its sorry,i guess they people running natchez are to big of wimps to tackle something that might give them a little bit of stress like crime or doing something about our schools,why dont they take on the real issuse?natchez just needs to man up!!!

Posted by JunkyardDawg (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 10:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If smoking isn't really bad for you, why are the insurance companies offering better and less expensive premiums to those who do not smoke? Why will insurance companies offer to not raise the rates on company group insurance rates if the employees will agree to stop smoking (at least while at work)?

Posted by JunkyardDawg (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 10:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I love to smoke, but smoking doesn't agree with me. Why do I have to give it up while you can still smoke without it bothering you? Is it true...that it really doesn't bother you? Are you sure? I dunno, perhaps your lungs are as black as your heart since you don't seem to care that your smoking affects others. Also, when I did smoke, it bothered me a great deal for someone else to lite one up while I was eating (gag), so I'm all for a smoking ban in restaurants. I'm also for a smoking ban in section 8 apartments and housing.

Posted by JunkyardDawg (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 11:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ok, ban the alcohol too. Who cares?...Only the alcohol dealers. People will make their own brew, and Smokey and the bandit will be back in business. Next thing you know cigarettes will be illegal and criminals will be peddling them on the streets, and smokers will be going to jail for taking a puff. Then instead of crack houses there will be smoke houses.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 11:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

JunkyardDawg...I can assure you that my heart isn't as black as my lungs, most smokers are considerate of non-smokers, but the debate isn't about that.

The debate really isn't about smoking at all. It's about whether a restauranteur, bar owner, casino owner, or even a small business owner who wants to smoke in his/her own private office, has the right to do so without the government dictating that he/she can or can't.

It shouldn't be up to the government, it should be up to the business owner to risk whether it is better for him/her to be smoker friendly or non-smoking.

It's up to personal responsibility and the right to make decisions. The right for the business owner to make the decision whether allowing smoking is good or bad for his/her business. The right for a non-smoker to enter or avoid a posted smoking establishment. The right for a smoker to enter or avoid a non-smoking establishment. IT IS NOT GOVERNMENT'S ROLE TO MAKE OUR PERSONAL DECISIONS. IT IS AN INFRINGEMENT OF OUR LIBERTY WHETHER YOU ARE A SMOKER OR NOT!

Posted by guy2co (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 11:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Junkyard the issue is not if smoking is bad for you, it's that the people not politicians should decide what is best for them. Its also a great way to pull attention away from whats really wrong. I am sure that smoking is bad for you and that insurance companies save money if clients do not smoke, but they would also save money if you never take a risk like driving or sports. How would you feel if the aldermen decided that everyone over the age of 60 should not be allowed to drive in Natchez. It could be said that they endanger others and that the public would be better off. They could point out that driving is a privilege and that insurance would be cheaper. They could raise taxes on car tags if you are a senior citizen because the money could be used to pay hospital bills for those who are injured in wrecks. Before anyone gets offended I am not picking on older drivers, I'm just using an example.

Posted by barbarj1 (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 11:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I HAVE LOST THREE UNCLES, FOUR AUNTS, SEVEN FRIENDS AND NOW I AM LOSING A COUSIN TO LUNG CANCER. I WAS TALKING TO HER LAST WEEK ABOUT HOW SHE WAS DOING AND SHE TOLD ME THE CANCER HAS GONE TO HER BRAIN. THEY CAN`T FIGHT IT BECAUSE IT IS TOO ADVANCED. SHE HAS MADE PEACE WITH IT BUT THE ONE THING SHE TELLS ME EVERY TIME I TALK TO HER IS "I WISH I HAD NEVER STARTED SMOKING". I LOVE HER SO VERY MUCH AND I WILL MISS HER BUT I KNOW SHE WOULD NEVER HAVE STOPPED SMOKING EVEN THOUGH EVERYONE WARNED HER OF THE POSSIBILITY OF CANCER. HER MOM AND DAD BOTH DIED OF LUNG CANCER AND THEY SMOKIED ALL THEIR LIVES. IF THERE IS ONE THING I HAVE LEARNED FROM ALL THESE DEATHS IS YOU CAN`T WIN THE BATTLE WITH SMOKERS.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 11:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

barbarj1...I'm truly sorry for your losses, but it still doesn't give you or anyone else the right to dictate to others their personal behavior as long as it isn't illegal. Making smoking illegal is an entirely different debate.

Prohibiting smoking in a private business establishment isn't a governemental function, it is an assault on civil liberties. It's one of the few places I can think of that I would like to see the ACLU get involved.

Posted by JunkyardDawg (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 11:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

samMo I bet you said the same thing about seat beats. Now buckle up sweetie and put down those smokes. It's for your own good.

Posted by JunkyardDawg (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 11:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

guy2co you certainly are picking on older folks. Go ahead and just admit that.

Posted by JunkyardDawg (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 11:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

barb very sorry to hear about your loss. I'm sure this topic is very touchy for you.

Posted by guy2co (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 11:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

junkyard I would not pick on them, with luck I will be old one day myself.

Posted by JunkyardDawg (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 11:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

guy unless you keep smoking, drinking, and running around with wild wimenz.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 11:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

JYD...LOL, yeah, I did, but I strap in religiously now.

My point still stands though...people can vote with their feet and dollars as to whether or not they want to support a smoking or non-smoking establishment. Problem is that there are a lot of non-smokers who have no problem going to a bar with smokers and smokers are generally considerate in vacating a non-smoking area to go smoke elsewhere.

The greater issues are: Why isn't there room for liberty and compromise? Why isn't there an alternative to governmental intrusion? Why aren't we, as freedom loving Americans, irate about the incursions upon our freedoms?

Posted by guy2co (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 11:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And when I'm old I still will not want my alderman to determine what I should do whether it's driving, smoking, or any other legal activity that I want to do.

Posted by JunkyardDawg (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 11:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ok then, I'll just have to sleep on these comments and see what dreams may come and then tomorrow I will have it all processed in my mind as to how to reply.

Posted by corvett40 (anonymous) on January 11, 2009 at 11:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't smoke But when I go out to eat They ask where I want to sit Smoking or No Smoking I have had to go in the smoking section sometimes and the smoker seem to not smoke as much I think they care for others even in the area they can smoke all they want So thanks to all the smokers who thinks of others I will never try to stop you.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on January 12, 2009 at 12:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

barbarj, sounds like your family has a genetic weakness to the ill affects of smoking. I would advise your family members to quit doing it.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on January 12, 2009 at 12:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

EnK...thank you Mr. Obvious...LOL.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on January 12, 2009 at 12:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

My pleasure Sam. :)

Posted by frogprincenessntz (anonymous) on January 12, 2009 at 2:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

barbarj, you should have your lungs tested often, as it is more likely that your family has a genetic disposition toward lung cancer whether they smoke or not.

Onto the discussion at hand....the aldermen are trying to deflect attention from the stupidy shown by all over the money for the roads and the Fork of the Roads. Go to the meeting, but hold their feet to the fire for the important stuff. Tell them to take care of city business before sticking their noses into other people's businesses.

Posted by kpage (anonymous) on January 12, 2009 at 6:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Just think, in some states, you can't smoke in your own car. That's not far from happening if they pass the "no smoking in public places" law around here. Then they'll start the "no smoking in your own home" ban. After that passes, cigs will be illegal and as sought after as a rock of crack. Common people thugging for bootleg cigarettes and doing time in the lock-up for growing tobacco in their backyard (exactly how some people's great-grandfathers paid for the house they currently reside in). I picture in my mind the snooty, twisted faces of the prohibition freaks who self-righteously (and joyously, I might add) busted up kegs of alcohol in the city streets. From those old black and white photos, I could just FEEL the self-righteousness wafting off their self-satisfied bodies. This is how I see those who vehemently attempt to deny me my rights as an American. Is this our future, America? First, it's my cigarettes...next, it's your french fries.

Posted by babev1 (anonymous) on January 12, 2009 at 6:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Natchez is stupit you know how many people will stop comming here to see the old homes if they are smokers and they can't smoke when they want. I choose not to go to the balloon races anymore because the drunks are really bad one spilt his beers all over me because he could bearly stand up and I am not a drinker but that is my choice because you know how many people would stop going if they stopped selling beer

Posted by barbarj1 (anonymous) on January 12, 2009 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

EnKiKur and frogprincenessntz you are right. Genetics has a lot to do with some families that have a lot of lung cancer but there are other factors that put everyone at risk. And you are right JunkyardGawg it is a touchy subject with me because until just recently both my chrildren were smokers. Thank God they have quit and I am so very proud of them. I think both of them are heros for another reason that will remain in my heart. I know everyone wants to have their freedoms. I would like to see world peace but that isn`t going to happen either. Some times I think we have carried the desire for freedom of what we want to the extremes. Since the 60`s we have been stretching the freedom thing to the limit. To me freedom is your right to do what you want as long as it doesn`t hurt or infringe on anybodies health or wellbeing. If it does then you need to be in a place where it doesn`t. Just the thoughts of an old lady.

Posted by momoftwo23 (anonymous) on January 12, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bunch of Socialists!

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on January 12, 2009 at 3:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

momoftwo I think the proper descriptive term for these knuckleheads is authoritarian.

Posted by reneef (anonymous) on January 12, 2009 at 4:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

barbarj1: I'm terribly sorry for your loss.

I'm sure smoking paid a part in the losses however, it is my understanding that it is imposislble to prove on an individual basis whether each individual case of lung cancer is caused by smoking. However, I also agree -- that is not the concern here.

Yes ... personal freedom can be taken to far however, I feel it is better to err on the side of caution. Don't take any freedom you do not have to take.