Shop LocalTuesday, November 2, 2010
Patrons of Fulton businesses soon will be breathing smoke-free air after Fresh Air Fulton’s question to prohibit smoking in enclosed places of employment — including restaurants and bars — won a close race Tuesday with 53.85 percent of the vote.
“I knew it was going to be close, so I’m thrilled,” said Fresh Air Fulton organizer Amanda Stevens, who also is the wellness program director at Westminster College. “We’ve been working so hard to make strides (toward a healthier community).
“I’m proud Fulton citizens have shown they are ready to change health in the city.”
The question of whether or not to ban indoor smoking in Fulton businesses has been a hot topic over the past year, and that conflict of interests was reflected in responses from voters exiting the polls Tuesday.
“I voted yes because I have allergies and it would be nice to go out and not stay up all night coughing,” said Josh Pierce.
“I’m a non-smoker and when I go to Columbia and there’s not smoking in the restaurants, I enjoy it,” agreed Carey Case.
Mark Burton also referenced the indoor smoking ban in Columbia, observing “it doesn’t make a difference in the financial situation over there and it shouldn’t make a difference here.”
Mike Diekamp said he voted yes for the ban because “I think it’s a good idea; I really do.”
“I don’t smoke, and I don’t want my kids around it if I don’t have to,” he said.
Jeff Mayne said he thinks it makes sense to ban smoking indoors.
Christy Slizewski agreed, noting “definitely second-hand smoke has very bad medical side effects.”
“It’s just a healthier environment,” she said.
Her husband, Michael Slizewski took an opposing view.
“I voted no, first, because I’m a smoker. The places that allow smoking, if you know they have smoking you don’t need to go in there,” he said. “It’s by their choice. Most places have smoking sections anyway and some places already don’t allow smoking.”
For most who opposed the indoor smoking ban, it was a question of infringing on the rights of the business owners.
“I don’t think the rights should be taken away from the businesses,” said Jay Bass, who noted he is not a smoker. “I think it’s the right of the businesses.”
“The establishment owners should be able to determine whether to allow it or not,” agreed Becky Bachmann, also a non-smoker. “It’s observed in areas where there is no smoking, revenues go down.”
Acknowledged smoker Melissa Nigh said she opposed the ban for the same reason.
“I voted no, not because I’m a smoker, because there are way too many laws driving into people’s rights,” Nigh said. “I think the businesses should have a right to choose.”
Tom Maupin, a leader with the Fulton Hospitality Association and manager of the Fulton VFW Post No. 2657, said he was not surprised at Fresh Air Fulton’s victory Tuesday.
“If we’d have had $247,000 to spend I think it would have been closer,” he said, referencing the grant that was secured by the group. “We had a good run at them. My concern is, what’s coming next?”
According to Stevens, what is next is to continue promoting Fresh Air Fulton’s various smoking cessation programs.
“Our next step is funding resources for people that are ready to quite smoking,” she said. “We’re working on a cessation program with the county health department.”
Comments
NoNannyState 1 year, 6 months ago
Congratulations to the 1400 people that took it upon themselves to make decisions for the local businesses of Fulton and the rest of the citizens of Callaway County that patronize these establishments but were not allowed to vote. I hope you all go out to eat and drink a lot more in your new wonderful environment, so these places can survive. Enjoy your nanny state. I will be saving my $700-800/month that I used to spend in Fulton, patiently awaiting the reopening of the Old Barn, or some other place of business outside city limits, and outside the overreach of Westminster employees.
Bucky 1 year, 5 months ago
Thanks. Being one of 1400 is a cool feeling.
roadwarrior 1 year, 5 months ago
So Becky you think that taking away the rights of a business owner is a good felling ? I bet you have never been in any of these business that offer smoking and I would also bet that even when the smoking ban goes into effect you still will not go into any of these businesses.
MichelleHohlt 1 year, 6 months ago
I too agree with you NoNannyState, I wish people would just leave us the hell alone. If it were not for the people who smoke and drank where would they get that tax money from anyway? Enjoy spending our hard earned money you guys tax us, though we can't be seen in public with you, we might make you cough or something.
Sublime 1 year, 6 months ago
.- St Louis Fed article on the Economic Analysis of Smoking Bans
http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/red/2006/02/Pakko.pdf
Many businesses did in fact go under in Columbia due to a ban in their city. http://booneliberty.org/StopTheBan/
Its a shame that the free-market and property rights were ignored in regards to this issue this election. Fulton is hurting enough economically why impose regulations which will hurt the financial well being of businesses in this city even more?
roadwarrior 1 year, 5 months ago
Its to bad no one made this information available before the vote.
roadwarrior 1 year, 5 months ago
Our nation's founders opposed government intervention into matters of private property - like businesses - where owners have the right to decide whether or not to allow smoking on their premises. Customers and employees then have the right to patronize or work at those businesses
malmark 1 year, 5 months ago
Maybe we should open a few brothels around here then
roadwarrior 1 year, 5 months ago
Maybe you should. Then you would know what it feels like to work hard to build a business. And then you would know what it feels like to have your rights taken away.
malmark 1 year, 5 months ago
and rightly so in my opinion - and here we come to the crux of the argument, the opinions of the people have been heard and the ban has been approved.
Bucky 1 year, 5 months ago
Our nation's founders also were adamant believers in local politics, that is, pushing the power to the local communities to decide how they wanted to live. It was the federal overreach that the founding fathers were opposed to, not the right of communities to govern themselves. What we have here in Fulton was the will of the people who live in Fulton deciding how they want to live. Nothing wrong with that and Tom Jefferson is not rolling over in his grave. So, get over it, this is the way America was supposed to work.
rock1853 1 year, 6 months ago
Wow! I never would have thought that bill would pass. I would have thought local voters wouuld respect property rights of business owners. I think it should be a crime for those who voted yes to eat salt. If you don't want to be around smoke then don't go where the smokers are. Who is going to police this? I'm pretty sure our local officials have much better things to do than waste time on this. Aye COMMRADE!
malmark 1 year, 4 months ago
Turns out they were more worried about dying than infringing on any 'rights'
rock1853 1 year, 6 months ago
Start listing the business that go down. Then start a list of business that moves out of city limits.
wildwest 1 year, 6 months ago
So who is going to enforce this major crime? Think the Fulton Police have time for this? I hope someone doesn't get robbed when an anti-smoking Nazi calls the cops on someone for lighting up in a BAR. Moronic sheep being led to slaughter by a bunch of hippy college kids who will go away in 3-4 years. Bravo, sheeple.
hooah 1 year, 6 months ago
Welcome to the 21st century. Smoking is bad for you and those around you. Get over it.
Graceful 1 year, 5 months ago
Smoking may be unhealthy but itsn't the government's business. The costs of smoking do not outweigh the cost of the loss of liberty.
malmark 1 year, 5 months ago
Loss of whose liberty? I don't mind trampling on a few people's liberties if they are clinging to a chemical addiction and it is up to the rest of us non-smokers to help them fight it. Talk to a coke addict, of course they don't want to give up their addiction either but we all know coke is banned for everyone's own good.
roadwarrior 1 year, 5 months ago
Who ever said We were asking for your help? The thing you don't understand being from Ireland is here in America We The People know what Liberty and Freedom are. I am sure Growing up in Ireland where the Government tells you how to live your life and who to live it with, Make's it hard for you to Understand. I Get so tired of people from other Country's coming to America trying to tell me how to live my life. Don't need your help and will never ask for it.
malmark 1 year, 5 months ago
What you are failing to understand is apparently I share the opinion of the majority, judging by the results of the vote. So you have nobody to blame but your fellow countrymen for wanting to help you. :)
MichelleHohlt 1 year, 6 months ago
@ hooah,,,,I know right, that's why you should move to Columbia and leave us smokers alone. We will send you a letter when we are OVER IT.
MichaelJMcFadden 1 year, 6 months ago
So Fresh Air Fulton got $247,000.00 to buy 1400 votes eh? And people are acting surprised that the ban won? The American Cancer Society was reported as giving $345,000.00 to buy the vote in South Dakota too.
The idea that these bans are "The Will of The People" is a lie, just like all the other lies used to push them. When the "Clean Air" group in Washington State was having difficulty getting enough signatures for its ban a few years ago the American Cancer Society stepped in there too, with a quarter of a million dollars. The head of the smoke banning group got carried away in publicly thanking the ACS and praised them for giving enough money to "buy" 125,000 signatures.
Imagine what this money would be doing to save you or your loved ones from cancer if it wasn't being wasted on putting bars and small restaurants out of business. Read "The Lies Behind The Smoking Bans" (The New Stiletto) freely available at:
http://encyclopedia.smokersclub.com/257.html
Print it out, bind it in those clear plastic student term paper covers and bring copies for folks to read at your local bar that might be gone by next year. Get people angry enough to resist. The government can't afford to close them all down, and it's not about to dress up National Guard troops in cute little waitress and barkeep uniforms.
The ban is NOT the "will of the people" -- it's the will of a big money lobbying campaign.
Michael J. McFadden Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
malmark 1 year, 5 months ago
"Imagine what this money would be doing to save you or your loved ones from cancer if it wasn't being wasted on putting bars and small restaurants out of business. Read "The Lies Behind The Smoking Bans" (The New Stiletto) freely available at"
I wonder how many people's lives can be saved for as long as the smoking ban is in effect... can you please tell me what the cost of a human life is? 345,000dollars sounds like a bargain, I'm not surprised the American Cancer Society donated the money, prevention is better than a cure anyway.
Graceful 1 year, 6 months ago
No, Mike, it is the will of "the people." However, "the people" do not understand property rights. Public education has failed us.
Graceful 1 year, 5 months ago
So the voting publuic can clean out your bank account if it wants? Take you car? There are limikts to what the voting public should do. A smoking ban crosses that line.
malmark 1 year, 5 months ago
There are limits and the limit is determined by what is considered acceptable by the majority of the (voting) population. Turns out the smoking ban is acceptable.
MichaelJMcFadden 1 year, 6 months ago
egabtr, if the people of Fulton truly wanted a smoking ban ... then why did Fresh Air Fulton need a quarter of a million dollars to get the votes for one?
roadwarrior 1 year, 5 months ago
So it cost a quarter of a million dollars for advertising to 12000 people. No I don't think so. I think a lot of people got paid off.
malmark 1 year, 5 months ago
when you come back with the evidence I will believe you
roadwarrior 1 year, 5 months ago
Common sense in not common
malmark 1 year, 5 months ago
neither is good spelling
MichaelJMcFadden 1 year, 6 months ago
Eg wrote, "Perhaps for a little thing called advertising?"
Exactly. The ban was brought in by a big money paid advertising campaign... NOT by "the will of the people." What other issues have been on the ballot recently where one side spent a quarter of a million dollars while the other side had virtually nothing except some unhappy citizens trying to fight it?
malmark 1 year, 5 months ago
perhaps what the smokers needed was a big national ent-ity willing to contribute money to oppose the ban... like maybe a tobacco company or a cancer society that believed smoking didn't contribute to causing cancer... oh wait... there are none because noone's willing to bet money on that and the research has already proven that smoking causes cancer.
roadwarrior 1 year, 5 months ago
The World Health Organization ran one of the most exhaustive tests on second hand smoke ever done. After years of meticulous record keeping of all the data, their ultimate findings showed no measurable relationship of second hand smoke to any form of cancer or other illness. The only measurable fact they did discover was that of all adult children who came from homes where both parents smoked had had a 22% better chance of NOT contracting lung cancer than did adult children who came from homes where both parents did not smoke. The W.H. O attempted to hid these facts from the public until several astute reporters forced them to make their facts public.
malmark 1 year, 5 months ago
and where is said study?
malmark 1 year, 5 months ago
and why then would they post this on their website
Article 8 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, adopted by all WHO Member States in May 2003, reads:
“Protection from exposure to tobacco smoke 1. Parties recognise that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability.
That wouldn't be very scientific of them.
Graceful 1 year, 5 months ago
Some people need a study to prove what common sense should tell them is obvious. It takes years for someone to get cancer from smoking. They do so by inhaling huge quanti-ties directly into their lungs. The minimimal denisty of second hand smoke can have very little, if any, detrimental health effects.
malmark 1 year, 5 months ago
and everyone thought the world was flat and you'd fall off the edge if you went too close because that seemed so obvious and nobody believed the few people who had STUDIED the movements of the sun and the earth. Are you a scientist who has studied the effects of second hand smoking? I think not...so why would anyone believe your claim or anyone elses that second hand smoke is not detrimental since those claims fly in the face of the overwhelming majority of studies that have found it to be detrimental.
Graceful 1 year, 5 months ago
That everyone thought the world was flat is a myth. Do some research on it. The world is full of "research" that was conducted for political purposes. Giving over control of society to such folks is foolish. Reason needs to prevail. When it comes to second hand smoke it isn't.
malmark 1 year, 4 months ago
That's funny actually it was individual voters who passed it.
roadwarrior 1 year, 5 months ago
Instead of focusing on smokers lawmakers should turn their attention to obesity. There are a lot more obese people in Fulton than there are smokers. Its funny that you could be ticketed for lighting up a cigarette, but a mother with four young children can still go through the drive through and load up on fast food.
Smoking may be frowned upon but rather than live up to the fact that we need to change our Dietary habits we chose to once again pick on the dwindling numbers of smokers who pay more than their fare share of taxes. Taxes that you would think would be used to treat smoking illness but chances are these funds are being used to line the pockets of Fresh Air Fulton.
malmark 1 year, 5 months ago
If I'm fat it doesn't make you fat because you're in the same room, but if I smoke you smoke too except you don't have a filter :D I'm not saying obesity isn't a problem too, I believe people's opinions toward obesity are going to have to change and people are going to have to be more well educated about what they are consuming, but that fight's for another day.
MichaelJMcFadden 1 year, 5 months ago
Deleting accidental repeating of comment.
MichaelJMcFadden 1 year, 5 months ago
Deleting accidental repeating of comment.
MichaelJMcFadden 1 year, 5 months ago
Malmark notes that although the WHO's own major international study showed no overall significant threat from secondary smoke, and indeed even showed that early exposure to such smoke had a significant link to PROTECTING those children from lung cancer later in life, that their FCTC treaty states the threat is "unequivocal." ' Malmark then says, "That wouldn't be very scientific of them." ' You are 100% correct Malmark. It was NOT very scientific of them: it was very political of them. They know that smoking is bad for people's health, and they know that the most effective way to reduce smoking is to terrify people with false claims about secondary smoke. So that explains the dichotomy between what their actual scientific study showed and what their political claim is.
' Clearer now? ' Michael J. McFadden Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Graceful 1 year, 5 months ago
A degree in Peace studies? Did I read that right? In any event, I doubt that we agree on much but in this matter we apparently do. Maybe there is hope for the right and the left to live together.
MichaelJMcFadden 1 year, 5 months ago
You read it right indeed Graceful, and that's part of what got me into this: a recognition of propaganda tricks and an early perception of the divisiveness, conflict, and harm that was coming down the road.
malmark 1 year, 5 months ago
@MJM actually no it's not clearer because I still am not aware of the study to which you are referring. But I have to add, even if you tell us which study it was, there have been a multi-tude of studies conducted with evidence to the contrary especially more recently.
online_editor 1 year, 5 months ago
FYI
The World Health Organization study being referenced is posted as a PDF at jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/90/19/1440.full.pdf
An abstract is available at ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9776409?dopt=Abstract
malmark 1 year, 5 months ago
This study is dated from 1998? I think anyone who is opposed to the notion that second hand smoke is bad for those around you have some catch-up reading to do! In fact, why not check out the latest story about it on a Certain News Network with Dr Gupta.
malmark 1 year, 5 months ago
It's funny too that in this study it referenced two other studies including one in Greece where they found the chance of developing some form of lung cancer was 1.47-2 times more likely in homes where the spouse was a smoker.
malmark 1 year, 5 months ago
oh and while we're all talking about cancer can anyone come up with any studies to show that smoking protects children from heart disease too? Or that smokers are less likely to afford insurance at a level that is sufficient to treat them should they themselves develop any diseases for which they would end up becoming a public charge and unproductive members of society?
Graceful 1 year, 5 months ago
Sometimes the most prudent thing is to live with some things that are labled "dangerous." Sometimes the costs outweigh the benefits. There are some people that can't accept this truth.
ThePatriot 1 year, 5 months ago
Does anyone know who this malmark is. If you notice all his post are copy n past. I can see from his post he does not a any idea what he is even talking about. I think malmark is most likely some middle school kid.
malmark 1 year, 5 months ago
I'm sorry but I can only find two places in this article where I copied and pasted and that is because there is no quote button and for a middle school kid I think I am doing pretty well holding my own in our little debate here considering there are alot of angry smokers on here. Oh wait... I'm not a middle school kid I'm a person with more than half a brain.
malmark 1 year, 4 months ago
<p>@Graceful...why should I pay any cost at all for someone who wants to smoke?Graceful 1 year, 4 months ago
Why? Because freedom should trump your personal desires. In this case the cost outweighs your desires.
malmark 1 year, 4 months ago
excuse me, what about my freedom? you're only free to do what you want so long as you don't infringe on someone elses freedom. Who are you to say the cost outweighs my 'desires'? Apparently the majority of people think that is not the case.
Graceful 1 year, 4 months ago
Yes it is always about what the liberal wants and everyone else is out of luck!!!!. If it ain't your business, it ain't your business. It is their property, not yours. I thought liberals were always concerned about the tyranny of the majority. But that's only when they don't have things their way.
malmark 1 year, 3 months ago
You're right it is their property, but they have to be licensed by the city. They have an obligation to follow city ordinances. It's pretty common practice, you should read about it.
Graceful 1 year, 3 months ago
Oh yes, the governmnet controls everything. The government can ignore the 5th amendment. That is what we have come to.
Sign in to comment
Or login with:
OpenID