Spring Break
Smoking ban is senseless law
Jed Pressgrove
Issue date: 10/26/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
Jed Pressgrove is a graduate student in sociology. He can be contacted at opinion@reflector.msstate.edu.
Starkville smokers will be standing outside of their favorite restaurants and bars for a long time. Through governmental means better explained in the news article in Tuesday's Reflector, the Starkville Board of Aldermen made the smoking ban ordinance a more permanent law. Usually, this type of lawmaking bothers me. However, based on my personal observation, it seems clear that the board only wants to represent the views of Starkville citizens on this particular issue. So yes, democracy is working to a certain extent in Starkville, even though that's not necessarily a good thing (for a historical example, see the decision to elect Hitler). Regardless, this article isn't about democracy. A more interesting aspect of this event is the lack of debate from Starkville citizens. I was present at the meeting in which the board first passed the smoking ordinance. Although the anti-smoking crowd was better organized, other citizens still stood up and shared their concerns about the downsides to smoking bans. Apparently, this debate was absent from the recent board meeting. Starkville Mayor Dan Camp specifically offered the opportunity for dissent, yet no one spoke.
This could be a hasty estimation. At the same time, it wouldn't be an overstatement to say that negative opinions on smoking bans have lost common ground and sheer presence in Starkville. Strangely enough, the traditional conservatism of the Mississippi populace is slowly eroding. After all, Starkville set the trend. A few other Mississippi cities have adopted similar smoking policies, and Columbus could possibly be next. These reiterations of the Starkville law show that this phenomenon isn't limited to a liberal college atmosphere. The current ban on Sunday alcohol sales shows that maybe Starkville isn't as liberal as some might suggest.
The very foundation of the smoking ban is in opposition to traditional conservative views on both property rights and personal rights.
Starkville smokers will be standing outside of their favorite restaurants and bars for a long time. Through governmental means better explained in the news article in Tuesday's Reflector, the Starkville Board of Aldermen made the smoking ban ordinance a more permanent law. Usually, this type of lawmaking bothers me. However, based on my personal observation, it seems clear that the board only wants to represent the views of Starkville citizens on this particular issue. So yes, democracy is working to a certain extent in Starkville, even though that's not necessarily a good thing (for a historical example, see the decision to elect Hitler). Regardless, this article isn't about democracy. A more interesting aspect of this event is the lack of debate from Starkville citizens. I was present at the meeting in which the board first passed the smoking ordinance. Although the anti-smoking crowd was better organized, other citizens still stood up and shared their concerns about the downsides to smoking bans. Apparently, this debate was absent from the recent board meeting. Starkville Mayor Dan Camp specifically offered the opportunity for dissent, yet no one spoke.
This could be a hasty estimation. At the same time, it wouldn't be an overstatement to say that negative opinions on smoking bans have lost common ground and sheer presence in Starkville. Strangely enough, the traditional conservatism of the Mississippi populace is slowly eroding. After all, Starkville set the trend. A few other Mississippi cities have adopted similar smoking policies, and Columbus could possibly be next. These reiterations of the Starkville law show that this phenomenon isn't limited to a liberal college atmosphere. The current ban on Sunday alcohol sales shows that maybe Starkville isn't as liberal as some might suggest.
The very foundation of the smoking ban is in opposition to traditional conservative views on both property rights and personal rights.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 16
Pete
posted 10/26/07 @ 8:08 PM CST
Smoking bans are a public health issue. It has nothing to do with being conservative, liberal, Republican, Democrat, or independant. According to the Surgeon General and Centers for Disease Control, Second Hand Smoke kills over 50,000 Americans a year. (Continued…)
Dirk Diggler
posted 10/26/07 @ 10:20 PM CST
Smoking in Starkville Bars = The election of Hitler....REALLY?
This screams college newspaper opinion article!
Jed Pressgrove
posted 10/27/07 @ 3:31 AM CST
There's nothing in the article that suggests what you're saying, fictional porno star. The election of Hitler is a simple example of how democracy may not be a perfect system, and that's all the article ever implies. (Continued…)
Bill
posted 10/27/07 @ 10:23 AM CST
Smoking bans have nothing to do with public health - there is no such thing as a "death from secondhand smoke". Name one person you know or even heard of that claimed secondhand smoke as the reason for death. (Continued…)
A.B.C
posted 10/27/07 @ 11:50 AM CST
Censorship is the blocking of information. It has nothing to do with smoking. Moreover, secondhand smoke may not cause INSTANT death, but it leads to death by heart disease and lung cancer; to a quote the ACS' official site: "An estimated 35,000 deaths from heart disease in people who live with smokers but are not current smokers. (Continued…)
Dirk Diggler
posted 10/27/07 @ 3:00 PM CST
Jedd,
First off your example of Hitler being elected is completely false. Check this out...http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitlerdemo.htm.
Secondly, don't you feel that bringing up the Nazi reign, probably the darkest, most depressing time in history, is a little extreme when you are writing an opinion article on a smoking ban, which is becoming common place in most cities across the country. (Continued…)
Jed Pressgrove
posted 10/27/07 @ 8:35 PM CST
First, if my example of Hitler was false to being with, why did you wait until now to share your controversial viewpoint? You probably just recently searched online for the most ridiculous counterargument you could find, as if it means anything when the overwhelming majority of historians and evidence point to Hilter being elected. (Continued…)
A.B.C
posted 10/28/07 @ 2:57 AM CST
Jed, I'm honestly wodnering if you checked out the latest report published by the U.S. Surgeon General in 2006, or any other sources for that matter? From your article: "Of course, the counterargument would involve public health concerns, despite the fact that we haven't exactly confirmed the absolute toxicity of secondhand smoke. (Continued…)
A.B.C
posted 10/28/07 @ 3:21 AM CST
Sorry, I had to continue in a new window. It wouldn't let me type anymore in the previous one.
Your response to Dirk saying the SG has yet to perform a study with an "experimental design" is grounded, but I'm sure very few people are willing to get cancer for the sake of an experiment. (Continued…)
Jed Pressgrove
posted 10/28/07 @ 10:32 AM CST
A.B.C., I'm very aware of the report you shared, and as you can see, it doesn't meet the requirements of an experimental design, which is the only way we can definitely link secondhand smoke to cancer (keep in mind that I have repeatedly said that this would be an unethical experiment). (Continued…)
Post a Comment