Elections are right around the corner and one southeast Missouri town is talking about the upcoming ballot.
It's not a candidate that's creating a stir, but a city ordinance that would ban smoking in public places.
Many businesses in Kennett do not permit smoking in their buildings.
Some restaurants recently changed their policies, while others have been smoke-free for years.
Mr. C's restaurant has been serving the people of Kennett for 55 years, but 15 years ago they said no to smoking indoors.
"Some
of our customers, they were kind of upset," said Mr. C's co-owner Linda
Pender. "But a lot of them agreed with it, thought it was right. We had
a couple that got mad and said they wouldn't be back, but a few months
later they came back. Nobody's really had any problems with it."
The possibility of a smoking ban in Kennett has stirred a strong response from many in the community.
"Our
customers are very upset with it," said Tobacco Superstore Manager Rita
Cole. "They feel like it's taking their privileges away in Kennett.
That they're allowed to smoke wherever they want to."
The ban would prohibit smoking inside public places, businesses and private clubs.
It would also be illegal to light up within five feet of outdoor playgrounds and entrances to buildings.
"I
think it's a good idea," said Pender. "I'm not a smoker myself. Never
have been. And I know a lot of people do. But with the way people are
sick and everything now I think it would be a good idea."
"If
they want to smoke in their home or on their job and it's ok with their
owners or corporations then that's up to them," said Cole. "But we think
it's wrong that they're trying to ban smoking in Kennett."
Cole thinks this ban may negatively affect restaurants, but she thinks the tobacco business will thrive.
"I
think people are going to smoke regardless. It's an addiction and if
they have to just sit in their home and do it they will smoke," Cole
said.
The town seems split between pro-and anti-ban votes.
But Cole added, "I believe when it comes down to it the majority of people will be against banning it."
It will be up to voters to decide on April 8.
The mayor says this is the first time a no-smoking ordinance has appeared on the ballot.
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
5 Texas inmates get sick smoking synthetic pot
Five inmates at an East Texas jail have been hospitalized after
smoking a synthetic marijuana cigarette that was smuggled into the
lockup.
The Gregg County Sheriff's Office on Monday said four inmates were treated and returned to custody. A fifth inmate spent last Friday night in a Longview hospital before being discharged back to the jail.
Lt. Kirk Haddix says a jailer apparently missed the fake marijuana cigarette when booking an inmate. Haddix said jailers became aware of the problem when one inmate appeared to have seizures.
No jailers have been disciplined as the investigation continues.
The Gregg County Sheriff's Office on Monday said four inmates were treated and returned to custody. A fifth inmate spent last Friday night in a Longview hospital before being discharged back to the jail.
Lt. Kirk Haddix says a jailer apparently missed the fake marijuana cigarette when booking an inmate. Haddix said jailers became aware of the problem when one inmate appeared to have seizures.
No jailers have been disciplined as the investigation continues.
Friday, February 28, 2014
Drop in smoking threatens embattled tobacco bonds
Two Western states with some of the
nation's lowest smoking rates are considering cracking down even more by
raising the tobacco age to 21.
Utah and Colorado lawmakers both voted favorably on proposals Thursday to treat tobacco like alcohol and take it away from 18- to 20-year-olds, a move inspired by new research on how many smokers start the habit as teenagers.
"By raising the age limit, it puts them in a situation where they're not going to pick it up until a much later age," said Marla Brannum of Lehi, Utah, who testified in favor of the idea there.
In Colorado, the testimony was similar - that pushing the tobacco age could make it harder for teens to access tobacco, and possibly reduce usage rates among adults.
"What I'm hoping to do is make it harder for kids to obtain cigarettes," said Rep. Cheri Gerou, a Republican who sponsored the measure. Chesterfield Blue
Both proposals face several more votes. But they're the furthest any states have gone to curb access to cigarettes by teens. The director of tobacco studies at University College London didn't know of any other countries considering a tobacco age threshold of 21, but he said raising the tobacco age from 16 to 18 in the United Kingdom proved to be "a public health winner."
Altria Group Inc., which owns the country's largest cigarette maker, Philip Morris USA, said in a statement Friday that they support 18 as the minimum age to purchase tobacco, which Congress approved in 2009.
The company, whose tobacco brands include Marlboro, Parliament and Virginia Slims, said states should wait until the Food and Drug Administration finishes a pending study of about raising the purchase age higher than 18.
"While we recognize that these are difficult issues, we believe Congress has established a thoughtful process for understanding the issue better, and we intend to engage in that process, with FDA, as it takes its course," the statement said.
Altria said the company supports efforts to prevent underage use of tobacco.
A paper published last year in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine said that 9 out of 10 daily smokers in the U.S. have their first cigarette by 18 years of age, and that about 90 percent of cigarettes purchased for minors are obtained by people between 18 and 20 years old.
The Washington-based Campaign For Tobacco-Free Kids advocates the higher smoking age and argues that it could make a serious dent in tobacco deaths down the road.
"We see this as sort of an added step to reducing smoking rates," in addition to higher tobacco taxes and other curbs, said Campaign vice president Peter Fisher.
Armando Peruga, program manager of the World Health Organization's Tobacco Free Initiative, said he supported the U.S. proposal, provided that it would be strictly enforced and that it was accompanied by other tobacco control measures, such as high taxes and smoke-free regulations.
"It needs to be part of a comprehensive policy to counter the tobacco industry's influence on young people," Peruga said.
Four states, including Utah, already require tobacco purchasers to be 19. The others are Alabama, Alaska and New Jersey.
Fisher said the 21-for-tobacco bills are also pending in state legislatures in Hawaii, Massachusetts and New Jersey. Maryland lawmakers considered and rejected the idea this year. New York City last year raised the tobacco age to 21, as did Hawaii County, Hawaii.
Utah already has the nation's lowest smoking rate, about 12 percent in 2011 according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Colorado isn't far behind, at about 18 percent in 2011, according to the CDC.
Despite the low rates, health advocates in both states testified that a higher tobacco age could depress the rates even further.
"Moving it to later, obviously we can help reduce use," said Bob Doyle, head of the Colorado Tobacco Education and Prevention Alliance.
When the legal age of smoking was raised from 16 to 18 in the U.K., there was a significant drop in the number of people who started smoking, University College London's Robert West said.
"The ages from 18 to 21 is a period of huge uptake and even if you're able to delay (teenagers) from starting smoking rather than preventing it altogether, there would be a significant health benefit. You're essentially allowing the rather scrambled adolescent brain to settle down and avoid smoking during that period before they turn 21, after which they may decide they absolutely do not want to smoke anyways," he said.
Utah and Colorado lawmakers both voted favorably on proposals Thursday to treat tobacco like alcohol and take it away from 18- to 20-year-olds, a move inspired by new research on how many smokers start the habit as teenagers.
"By raising the age limit, it puts them in a situation where they're not going to pick it up until a much later age," said Marla Brannum of Lehi, Utah, who testified in favor of the idea there.
In Colorado, the testimony was similar - that pushing the tobacco age could make it harder for teens to access tobacco, and possibly reduce usage rates among adults.
"What I'm hoping to do is make it harder for kids to obtain cigarettes," said Rep. Cheri Gerou, a Republican who sponsored the measure. Chesterfield Blue
Both proposals face several more votes. But they're the furthest any states have gone to curb access to cigarettes by teens. The director of tobacco studies at University College London didn't know of any other countries considering a tobacco age threshold of 21, but he said raising the tobacco age from 16 to 18 in the United Kingdom proved to be "a public health winner."
Altria Group Inc., which owns the country's largest cigarette maker, Philip Morris USA, said in a statement Friday that they support 18 as the minimum age to purchase tobacco, which Congress approved in 2009.
The company, whose tobacco brands include Marlboro, Parliament and Virginia Slims, said states should wait until the Food and Drug Administration finishes a pending study of about raising the purchase age higher than 18.
"While we recognize that these are difficult issues, we believe Congress has established a thoughtful process for understanding the issue better, and we intend to engage in that process, with FDA, as it takes its course," the statement said.
Altria said the company supports efforts to prevent underage use of tobacco.
A paper published last year in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine said that 9 out of 10 daily smokers in the U.S. have their first cigarette by 18 years of age, and that about 90 percent of cigarettes purchased for minors are obtained by people between 18 and 20 years old.
The Washington-based Campaign For Tobacco-Free Kids advocates the higher smoking age and argues that it could make a serious dent in tobacco deaths down the road.
"We see this as sort of an added step to reducing smoking rates," in addition to higher tobacco taxes and other curbs, said Campaign vice president Peter Fisher.
Armando Peruga, program manager of the World Health Organization's Tobacco Free Initiative, said he supported the U.S. proposal, provided that it would be strictly enforced and that it was accompanied by other tobacco control measures, such as high taxes and smoke-free regulations.
"It needs to be part of a comprehensive policy to counter the tobacco industry's influence on young people," Peruga said.
Four states, including Utah, already require tobacco purchasers to be 19. The others are Alabama, Alaska and New Jersey.
Fisher said the 21-for-tobacco bills are also pending in state legislatures in Hawaii, Massachusetts and New Jersey. Maryland lawmakers considered and rejected the idea this year. New York City last year raised the tobacco age to 21, as did Hawaii County, Hawaii.
Utah already has the nation's lowest smoking rate, about 12 percent in 2011 according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Colorado isn't far behind, at about 18 percent in 2011, according to the CDC.
Despite the low rates, health advocates in both states testified that a higher tobacco age could depress the rates even further.
"Moving it to later, obviously we can help reduce use," said Bob Doyle, head of the Colorado Tobacco Education and Prevention Alliance.
When the legal age of smoking was raised from 16 to 18 in the U.K., there was a significant drop in the number of people who started smoking, University College London's Robert West said.
"The ages from 18 to 21 is a period of huge uptake and even if you're able to delay (teenagers) from starting smoking rather than preventing it altogether, there would be a significant health benefit. You're essentially allowing the rather scrambled adolescent brain to settle down and avoid smoking during that period before they turn 21, after which they may decide they absolutely do not want to smoke anyways," he said.
Thursday, February 6, 2014
Smoking Luggage Reported at LaGuardia Airport, Police Say
Authorities responded to reports of a
smoking bag at New York’s LaGuardia Airport, according to Joe
Pentangelo, a spokesman for the Port Authority of New York & New
Jersey.
Terminal C of the airport had been evacuated, according to
Breaking News Network, an emergency-alert monitoring service.
BNN reported that the package was subsequently deemed harmless
and the evacuation canceled. The Port Authority didn’t immediately return calls seeking to confirm the evacuation or its termination. Monte Carlo Silver
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Kicking off Saturday and taking place once a month thereafter, protesters against a recently enacted smoking ban on Boston public property will descend upon the city's storied Boston Common as a show of defiance. A Facebook event page aptly titled Boston Common Smoke Out/Vape Up! is
encouraging smokers to disobey the municipal ordinance and light up
their cigs, stogies, joints and blunts in the center of one of The Hub's
most iconic landmarks.
But they shouldn't. And neither should you.
As a former cigarette smoker and proponent of individual liberties, I find the notion that people would try to promote what's been scientifically proven to cause cancer and a slew of other fatal diseases – redundant almost to the point of annoyance – a deeply misguided and warped view of one's constitutional rights.
While yes, I believe to a rather liberal extent that people should be able to ingest whatever they please and degrade their bodies in the most disgusting of manners as they so choose, it seems they fail to realize the direct endangerment of those around them which should be paramount.
I very much enjoy walking through Boston Common. The amount of history and identity amassed throughout the years over its sprawling 50 acres is like nothing else in the country. Adjacent to the land is Beacon Hill, the Boston Public Gardens line another border and an eerie though lionized cemetery calls an isolated corner home. It goes without saying that Boston Common is a picture of illustrious beauty.
That beauty is lost when the pathways and greenways are littered with cigarette butts and blunt wrappers. In fact, its embarrassing to present such a grimy space to those who travel the world to view what they expect to be a place of purity and antiquity.
The last thing I want while enjoying all of these intricacies is to start jonesing. That's what happens sometimes when I jaunt along through, soaking up all of the happenings while imagining those of yore, as I pass someone and catch a crave-inducing whiff of the nasty looking cig hanging from their lips.
Even more disheartening is seeing young parents strolling along with their little tykes having to make their way through a cloud of carcinogens when all they want to do is enjoy the natural amenities afforded by our fare city. According to the American Cancer Society, cigarette smoke "contains more than 7,000 chemical compounds. More than 250 of these chemicals are known to be harmful, and at least 69 are known to cause cancer." Lucky Strike cigarettes.
I put it to you, smoker: as you light up and take another drag of poison, is your protest really worth the harm being brought upon those dispassionate about your habit?
According to the demonstration's Facebook page, the goal of the event is to challenge the law simply because they find it to be "unenforceable at best and selectively enforceable at worst." Nowhere is mentioned rights, liberties or the contention of governmental overstepping. Simply, the founders of this event "are outraged to learn that there will now be a $250.00 fine for smoking outdoors in a Park in Boston."
I have no problem with peaceful protests. In fact, I agree when Thomas Jefferson referred to general rebellion as a natural manure for the tree of liberty. But that is only true when it serves the common good. Smoking on public property is simply self-serving.
Nobody's telling you not to smoke. Go right ahead. Enjoy systematically losing minutes off your life with every puff. Take it to the sidewalk, street corners, rooftops, wherever. But don't subject your neighbors and community to the same demise. Have a little self-respect. Have respect for your fellow man. And keep in mind that the law is meant to have your health and best interests at heart.
But they shouldn't. And neither should you.
As a former cigarette smoker and proponent of individual liberties, I find the notion that people would try to promote what's been scientifically proven to cause cancer and a slew of other fatal diseases – redundant almost to the point of annoyance – a deeply misguided and warped view of one's constitutional rights.
While yes, I believe to a rather liberal extent that people should be able to ingest whatever they please and degrade their bodies in the most disgusting of manners as they so choose, it seems they fail to realize the direct endangerment of those around them which should be paramount.
I very much enjoy walking through Boston Common. The amount of history and identity amassed throughout the years over its sprawling 50 acres is like nothing else in the country. Adjacent to the land is Beacon Hill, the Boston Public Gardens line another border and an eerie though lionized cemetery calls an isolated corner home. It goes without saying that Boston Common is a picture of illustrious beauty.
That beauty is lost when the pathways and greenways are littered with cigarette butts and blunt wrappers. In fact, its embarrassing to present such a grimy space to those who travel the world to view what they expect to be a place of purity and antiquity.
The last thing I want while enjoying all of these intricacies is to start jonesing. That's what happens sometimes when I jaunt along through, soaking up all of the happenings while imagining those of yore, as I pass someone and catch a crave-inducing whiff of the nasty looking cig hanging from their lips.
Even more disheartening is seeing young parents strolling along with their little tykes having to make their way through a cloud of carcinogens when all they want to do is enjoy the natural amenities afforded by our fare city. According to the American Cancer Society, cigarette smoke "contains more than 7,000 chemical compounds. More than 250 of these chemicals are known to be harmful, and at least 69 are known to cause cancer." Lucky Strike cigarettes.
I put it to you, smoker: as you light up and take another drag of poison, is your protest really worth the harm being brought upon those dispassionate about your habit?
According to the demonstration's Facebook page, the goal of the event is to challenge the law simply because they find it to be "unenforceable at best and selectively enforceable at worst." Nowhere is mentioned rights, liberties or the contention of governmental overstepping. Simply, the founders of this event "are outraged to learn that there will now be a $250.00 fine for smoking outdoors in a Park in Boston."
I have no problem with peaceful protests. In fact, I agree when Thomas Jefferson referred to general rebellion as a natural manure for the tree of liberty. But that is only true when it serves the common good. Smoking on public property is simply self-serving.
Nobody's telling you not to smoke. Go right ahead. Enjoy systematically losing minutes off your life with every puff. Take it to the sidewalk, street corners, rooftops, wherever. But don't subject your neighbors and community to the same demise. Have a little self-respect. Have respect for your fellow man. And keep in mind that the law is meant to have your health and best interests at heart.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)