NEW CUMBERLAND, W.Va. — The Hancock County Board of Health voted Tuesday in favor of a countywide public place indoor smoking ban despite objections from the county’s largest employer, Mountaineer Casino, Racetrack and Resort.

Mountaineer General Manager Chris Kern told MetroNews it was a disappointing vote.

“We put in a lot of energy and effort trying to communicate with the board, offering concessions, offering ideas for compromise. Those ideas were always accepted by the board, they listened, but they never communicated back with us,” Kern said.

The 5-0 health board vote makes the ban effective July 1, 2015. The ordinance also covers some outdoor public areas and if there are smoking areas they must be 20 feet away from a building entrance.

Kern said Mountaineer has never argued against the ban on a medical basis, he said everyone knows smoking in bad for you, but he said the argument is on a economic basis and the business and jobs it could cost the gaming facility.

“Now we’re going to have to have those unpleasant discussions about…exactly where this is going to impact us in terms of which departments and when we are going to have to make some tough decisions,” Kern said.

Mountaineer is in competition for gambling business with newer casinos in Pennsylvania and Ohio. Pennsylvania has a 50 percent smoking ban while Ohio casinos are smoke free. Kern believes Ohio gamblers will stay home if Mountaineer is also smoke free.

The ban won’t go into effect for 10 months and Kern hinted they may be enough time for Mountaineer to fight the decision.

“We have some alternatives available to us that we’re going to pursue,” he said. “We still feel like we have a few avenues we can go down in hopes of heading this off.”

There are now nearly 30 counties in the Mountain State with 100 percent indoor smoking bans in public places.

bubble graphic


bubble graphic


  • J.Rod

    Very wrong and very bad for buisness here in Randolph county.It has cost my company several thousand dollars in lost revenue.And throwed 100's of cigarrette machines into the dump.I do call them the 5 Idiots in every county very sad what has happened to America.

    • Barbour man

      Barbour County just passed as well--takes effect October 1. How can five people sit in Philippi and pass new "laws"?? Do not know who they even are.

  • zero tolerance

    @harleyrider1778 - Just think if you put the same amount of effort into quitting the 4 inch demon you belong to as you have trying to rally your smoking buddies here........

  • piss on the health board

    How can five idiots make this happen, let's have a real vote. They don't speak for all the county.

    • Jim

      If you put it to a real vote you are not going to win. You will get about 35% wanting to smoke and the rest will vote to be protected from your nasty habit.

    • MP

      You think in a referendum that people would vote to continue smoking in public places? Highly doubtful.

      • harleyrider1778

        Since when are the rights of the people up for a vote,NEVER!

        Ninth Amendment rights are protected!

        The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

        • Jim

          Your right to smoke is not being changed. Your right to expose others who do not smoke and do not want to is what this issue is about.

          • harleyrider1778

            You can read a sign,you can use your nose to smell cig smoke. Or is it you just want to force your hatred via criminal laws down the throats of everyone.

  • ViennaGuy

    - "Those ideas were always accepted by the board, they listened, but they never communicated back with us,” Kern said. -

    That's because they didn't actually accept the ideas. The vote itself was merely a procedure; the actual decision was made a long time ago.

    • harleyrider1779

      Exactly and likely a real fat big Pharma check from Johnson and Johnson along with PHIZER

      • Jim

        The are not hatred laws. They are laws to protect nonsmokers from you rude smokers who think they have a right to make everyone smoke around them. Grow up and take your bike on a long ride and smoke all you want.

        • Michael

          Jim, if all you hated was "the smoke" then you'd be quite content to simply go to the huge plethora of places that have chosen to ban smoking on their own. I hate loud music when I'm trying to talk to someone. I have **NO** desire to pass laws banning bars etc from playing loud music though: I'm quite happy seeking out quiet ones.

          I'm not driven by hate -- I believe if freedom and the rights of people to live their lives as they see fit and associate with the people they see fit in places that they feel comfortable in.

          Do you see the difference? Now go back and look at that Wall of Hate again.

          - MJM

        • Michael

          Not hatred laws? Really? When I was writing the social harms section of "TobakkoNacht -- The Antismoking Endgame" I read over my extracts from tens of thousands of internet postings on this subject. I found literally thousands of those that expressed or encouraged hatred toward smokers in various forms. I selected excerpts from 130 of those postings and assembled them into four condensed pages, a la Orwell's Two Minutes Of Hate. They're reproduced as a single wall poster suitable for free reading, download, printing, and sharing by activists at http:/

          Jim, I'd suggest you read what's there, and then tell us a bit more about what hatred laws are.

          • harleyrider1779

            The Smokers' Graveyard

            In Memory of all the smokers driven to their deaths by smoking bans


            Hate campaigns the world over via the WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATIONS FCTC TREATY...........smoker hatred government stamped leads to murder and criminal enterprise just as Michael pointed out. You might win today but history reflects the truth where smoking bans are concerned and its always ABOLISHED along with the Prohibitionists themselves as they beg forgiveness from the ones they victimized!

          • Jim

            Your addiction is speaking for you. I do not hate smokers. I hate the smoke. It makes my asthma flair up and can't breath for hours. You may like it but do it where it only hurts you and you alone. Sorry to burst your bubble but you are wrong and will have to just get over it. Go BOH. Hope it happens in every county in WV!!!!!!!

      • Charles

        Showing your lack of knowledge. PHIZER is actually PFIZER.

        • harleyrider1778

          I guess you can tell Im not on theyre PAYROLL ehh!

          • harleyrider1779

            Charles like I said the state will now likely intervene against the health depts. The states cut of Casino revenues is now in jeopardy along with what those funds paid for. Or didn't you guys and gals on the BOH think about that lil problem. Your desire to screw everybody equally may cost you every smoking ban passed by a board of health all across the state of WV!

          • Charles

            You're obviously on somebody's payroll. Indications are that you are from Kentucky. Please go back there and do you're smoking in public. Kanahwa County Circuit Court upheld the right of the Kanawha-Charleston Health Dept. to enact no smoking rules years ago. It's working. If you can't stop smoking long enough to go eat a meal, then stay home.

  • harleyrider1779

    You see in Kentucky the supreme court ruled health depts. don't have legislative powers it appears in WV they somehow think they have legislative powers and police powers.

    • Jim

      Good move to Kentucky. WV Supreme Court has already ruled in favor of the Smoking Bans here. Go buy some beer take a bike ride out to the country and enjoy them all you want in the great outdoors.

      • harleyrider1779

        Like I said this will now move to the legislature for sure. You think the Casino doesn't have friends in Charleston just waiting to repeal your stupid bans.........its coming as political will for smoking bans is fast dead..........You see your bans are passed not by elected officials but appointed HEALTH CRONIES.

        • harleyrider1779

          Heres a time line starting in 1900,dont be surprised to see the same thing playing out today nearly 100 years later.

          1901: REGULATION: Strong anti-cigarette activity in 43 of the 45 states. "Only Wyoming and Louisiana had paid no attention to the cigarette controversy, while the other forty-three states either already had anti-cigarette laws on the books or were considering new or tougher anti-cigarette laws, or were the scenes of heavy anti- cigarette activity" (Dillow, 1981:10).

          1904: New York: A judge sends a woman is sent to jail for 30 days for smoking in front of her children.

          1904: New York City. A woman is arrested for smoking a cigarette in an automobile. "You can't do that on Fifth Avenue," the arresting officer says.

          1907: Business owners are refusing to hire smokers. On August 8, the New York Times writes: "Business ... is doing what all the anti-cigarette specialists could not do."

          1917: SMOKEFREE: Tobacco control laws have fallen, including smoking bans in numerous cities, and the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho and Tennessee.

          1937: hitler institutes laws against smoking.This one you can google.

  • harleyrider1779

    Come to Kentucky folks we cater to smokers especially those who enjoy bingo and casinos and a restaurant they can smoke in. We are becoming the SMOKERS TOURISM CAPITOL! Hate it for your losses WEst Virginia and the rest of ya...........we will enjoy taking your money!

    • Jim

      You can have it. When you or someone you love dies from cancer caused by smoking maybe you will change your narrow little mind.

      • herefreeman

        Cancer Caused by smoking??? That is an opinion. Many non and Anti smokers die of cancer as well. Quit chasing the red herring! When that happens MAYBE science can figure it out. The American Cancer Society will have no part of a cancer cure as it would put them out of a lucrative living! So they keep throwing the red herring around.

        • Jim

          Ok addict do some research maybe you will quit. Addicts are NEVER the expert on a subject. Are we going to ask those addicted to meth their opinion on the subject? NO.

    • Bye Smoke

      Great idea! Send all smokers to Kentucky to live, gamble, and drink! Let Kentucky have the slogan "Ashtray of America", who else would want it??

      • harleyrider1778

        Everybody else after they outlawed all the smokers money from their states.

  • Mary W.

    Why is it that we're only focusing on the negative health effects of smoking? I think the ban is great but why can't we outlaw gambling and drinking as well. Thousands of lives and families are hurt each day by a loved-one's uncontrollable gambling addictions (i know, I've witnessed it first-hand). Also, pass all the smoking laws you want but alcohol is a very dangerous substance as well. People don't kill others by having a cigarette and getting behind the wheel and killing someone else. Just as many health ailments are related to drinking as they are to smoking.

    I believe these so-called health departments are sending a troubling message that its bad to smoke but drinking and gambling are ok.

    • harleyrider1779

      Mary the state Government will have to pass a law limiting the local health depts. powers.

      They have become what they think of as a power within themselves and can do whatever they want. they even think they have police powers can you imagine that.

  • harleyrider1779

    Casino loses smoking battle in Hancock County

    You really cant say that. A simple majority vote will repeal it. It will get repealed all of them do in the end.

    • Denny

      In your dream. I think you been breathing to much smoke from you know where.

    • Jim

      Better do your homework. This has happened all over the state and each time the supreme court has held up the Bans. The legislature gave the BOH the powers to do this. If you want it changed then you have to change who you vote for and send to Charleston.

      • harleyrider1778

        I said it will take the state to change the law. Id say its likely to happen very soon. They've made to many folks mad.

        • Jim

          Yes too many folks mad. The smoking rate in WV is about 28%. Do you know what math is????

          • Jim

            @ I'm honest at least. What about the nonsmoking employees. Want them to quit their job just so you can smoke. Honest please selfish is more like it.

          • I'm honest at least

            You can make the choice not to go into a place if you don't like what's going on inside. That is your right as a nonsmoker. Seems your confused as to what rights are.

  • harleyrider1778

    Heres an oldy but oh so true even here:

    The Tri-Lakes Clean Air Alliance referenced a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study of 11 Missouri cities which found no negative economic impacts.

    You just have to laugh at the claims in the SPRINGFIELD COUNTLESS BUSINESS LOST UPWARDS OF 40% IN PROFITS GONE AND OTHERS SHUT DOWN FROM NO BUSINESS YET they didn't care in the world and wont even post the actual truth. The CDC study like the 9 states study was actually made by a grant from BIG PHARMA the ones backing the bans to sale NRT drugs thru the ACS's quit lines where they make upwards of 12 million a year running selling patches and guns that have a 98% failure rate.
    Smoking ban hurts Springfield bars and clubs
    The State Journal-Register (Springfield) reports today that profits are down — way down — at Springfield bars and fraternal clubs thanks to a city-wide smoking ban:

    [ILBA Executive Director Steve] Riedl also cited numbers showing Springfield bars and fraternal clubs reported to the [Illinois Licensed Beverage Association (ILBA)] revenue losses ranging from 7 percent to 70 percent between Sept. 18 and Oct. 10, 2006, when compared to the same time frame a year ago. The average revenue loss among the businesses was 25 percent, according to the ILBA.

    Riedl said Springfield establishments provided the ILBA with gross sales figures from the two time periods. Riedl argued that such an approach paints a clearer picture of the ban’s economic impact.
    Huh. That’s funny. I thought this ban was supposed to increase revenues. Weren’t all those disenfranchised non-smokers supposed to rush right out to the bars once the ban took effect?

    “Any small business caters to the customers’ demands,” [bartender Vicki] Wilson said. “It’s a supply-and-demand business. And bless their hearts, the non-smokers just don’t really come in to the bars. I don’t think they did before the ban, and I don’t expect them to after the ban.”
    The ILBA is now working to overturn the ban: “Riedl said one or more aldermen will introduce for first reading on Nov. 8 an ordinance that would exempt bars and fraternal organizations from the indoor [smoking] ban.”

    More power to ‘em. Keep an eye on this story because it won’t be long before Smoke-Free Illinois is knocking on Peoria’s door asking for an indoor smoking ban at bars and restaurants.

    • Educated West Virginian

      Smoking will not be around in twenty years. There has been many studies that show that smoking bans do not hurt businesses on the long term. The bans are to protect people and employees who do not smoke.
      Get a life smokers, I know it is hard to quit but as a non smoker I am tired of paying all your medical bills. When smokers get sick, they stay sick.
      Additionally, on average, smokers are less educated and make far less money than non smokers. That alone should make people in WV and everywhere else want to quit.
      There is nothing like seeing the typical coal miner family that drives around in a $50,000 jacked up truck with two kids in the back and both parents with cigs hanging out of their mouths driving back to their $35,000 trailer. These kids have no chance.

      • frogman

        Dear educated West Virginian. I'm glad to find there is a self proclaimed one. No doubt educated by the same system that indoctrinated the board of health.

        The studies you refer to are manipulated by the Anti smokers that created them.

        You attack smokers , on average , as being less educated and make less money than non's. Your arrogance SCREAMS indoctrination. Try critical thinking, which I'm sure you have no idea what that is. Ask a 7 year old.

      • harleyrider1778

        There has been many studies that show that smoking bans do not hurt businesses on the long term.

        On the long term.........roflmao they all wnet bankrupt which is wat this was about killing the mom and pop stores,bars and restaraunts,bowling alleys,bingo halls etc etc...........they all went bankrupt up to 70% in losses after a ban went into effect. You aint kidding anyone at all. My brother makes over 250 grand a year and he and his wife and all of them smoke and with PHDs in science and economics,sociology etc etc.

      • harleyrider1778

        Smoking has been around for 600 years and you think its going to go away in 20 years. You will be sadly mistaken. WV smoking rate hasn't gone down in 20 years they say. Today theres more smokers worldwide than at anytime in the last 200 years.

        • harleyrider1778

          World Atlas: More People Smoking Cigarettes than Ever

          There are more people smoking now than ever before, despite health warnings and the rising price of cigarettes. In 1980, 4,453 billion cigarettes went up in smoke, which increased to 6,319 billion in 2010. By 2020, you can expect to find nearly seven billion cigarette ends littering the world.

          Top of the charts in terms of nicotine addiction are Asia and Australia, which is where 57 percent of cigarettes are smoked today.

          These alarming statistics are among many of the intriguing facts laid bare in the ninth edition of Dan Smith's The State of the World Atlas.

          Elsewhere, the book reports that 19 percent of Americans say they could not feed their families in 2011, despite living in one of the world's richest countries. Meanwhile, 20 percent of India's population remains undernourished, despite its Gross National Income rising by 450 percent since 1990.

          An even more shocking revelation is that 2.5 billion people live on less than £1.25 a day, which represents one in three of the global population.

          • Charles

            What does all that have to with smoking? Please just go back to Kentucky. You're just a shill for the tobacco industry.

  • harleyrider1778

    Of course smoking bans don't hurt business.
    "Its original owners envisioned it as a luxury resort that just happened to have a casino, and eschewed many staples of casino culture, including a buffet and bus trips for day-trippers. But that strategy - as well as the only overall smoking ban in Atlantic City - turned off customers, and Revel filed for bankruptcy in 2013, a little over a year after opening."

  • harleyrider1778

    BTW Ohio's smokefree casinos just went smoking because of losses!

    • MP

      Not true. They are pending regulatory approval to allow gambling, namely slot machines, in their outdoor smoking areas. Still no smoking inside.

      • harleyrider1779

        Indoor slots is where not outdoors the electronics is where its at!

        • harleyrider1779

          Well obviously some smokefree Nazis is busy trying to get me banned from metronews and now I cant hardly get a comment in so I will say Later suckers.............

          • Jim

            Your the sucker. Sucker of deadly smoke into your body. Bet you smell pretty good. Like a dirty ashtray. How many women does that get you? Of course we all know what biker chicks are like.

        • harleyrider1779

          Heres why Ohio is doing it..

          Evansville's smoking ban ruled unconstitutional
          Posted: Feb 11, 2014 10:22 AM CST Updated: Feb 18, 2014 11:32 AM CST

          By Sean Edmondson, Digital Content Producer - email

          The Indiana Supreme Court has struck down Evansville's smoking ban.

          Tavern and private club owners say the exemption of Tropicana Casino violates the state constitution, and the Indiana Supreme Court agrees.

          According to the in majority opinion by Chief Justice Dickson, the city exempting riverboat casinos from the Smoking Ban " tantamount to the government 'selling' an exemption from the Smoking Ban for the bonus of anticipated financial benefits while burdening other citizens and snubbing our framers' intent in drafting Article 1, Section 23."

          Click here to read the Supreme Court Justice's opinions on the decision.

          Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke released the following statement on the court's decision:

          "We are disappointed by today's ruling of the Indiana Supreme Court. The ordinance that was struck down was a bipartisan piece of legislation. It was passed 7-2 by the City Council and approved by me. The legislation was designed to protect the health and safety of Evansville residents, not to create the so called unequal treatment between bars, taverns, private clubs and the riverboat casino. It is important to note that in addition to the bipartisan approval by the City Council and me, the ordinance was deemed constitutional by the trial court, three court of appeal judges, and two of the five Indiana Supreme Court justices. We encourage businesses to continue to enforce a no smoking policy, while the city continues to evaluate the legal implications of this ruling."

          The decision means that the 2012 amendment to Evansville's smoking ordinance which expanded the smoking ban to bars and restaurants but exempted Tropicana Casino, has been stricken in its entirety.

          The decision also states, "The 2006 Smoking Ban is therefore restored as it existed before the 2012 amendment."

          The 2006 ordinance prohibited smoking in workplaces an other public places in the City of Evansville, but exempted bars, private clubs, and riverboats.

          Last year, a Vanderburgh County judge and the Indiana Court of Appeals rejected the tavern owners' argument, saying the casino mostly serves people from out of state, and that the casino pays taxes taverns are not required to pay.

          The Indiana Alcohol & Tobacco Commission says establishments that are no longer prohibited from allowing smoking as a result of the ruling must still follow with the state smoking law. In particular, all of the appropriate signs must be posted, and an exemption form must be filed with the Indiana State Excise Police, before allowing smoking.

  • zero tolerance

    Woohoo another county in WV you can go enjoy yourself without coming out smelling like a damn ashtray.

    Spare me your personal rights whining and that they will be coming for guns next!

    Go outside so the rest of us don't have to breathe that crap!

    Thank You Hancock County BOH!

  • Charles

    Suck it up, people. Kanawha County passed a 100% smoking ban years ago. Restaurants said they'd have to close because nobody would come anymore. Guess what? They're still here. People who couldn't stand the smoke showed up. You'll live. The state is spending about $2 Billion on healthcare for diseases caused by smoking with resulting complications. Next step is to pass at least a $1 per pack cigarette tax and attack the root cause. We still have over 20% smoking-talk about stupid! That's stupid. Wake up, people. You're killing yourself and those who have to put up with your second-hand smoke.

    • harleyrider1778

      Charles you want to start naming these so called dead to SECOND HAND SMOKE or just admit its all made up to begin with. When you claim 50 thousand dead it should be very easy to name em all right!

    • harleyrider1778

      Charles West Virginias smoking rate hasn't dropped in over 20 years. The costs are lets say FICTICOUS,they make em up as need be!

      Slim truth in smoking and obesity costs

      A leading actuary has lampooned health lobby figures on the costs of smoking and obesity as being extravagantly inflated and based on suspect methodology.

      Tobacco figures are smokin'Geoff Dunsford is similarly wary of the costs estimates for smoking.

      Assessing the anti-smoking lobby’s $31.5 billion cost figure – found in “The costs of tobacco, alcohol and illicit drugs abuse to Australian society 2004-05” by David J Collins and Helen M Lapsley – Dunsford once again shines the torch on the “non-financial” costs and “intangible costs”.

      Of the $31.5 billion, some $19.5 billion are "intangible costs" – that is psychological costs of premature death borne by the smoker and others. Then there are $9.4 billion in “other financial costs” for productivity losses (smoko breaks perhaps?) and $2.2 billion in “non financial costs” such as unpaid labour costs.

      In the Collins and Lapsley report there is a discount for savings to the health system from premature deaths. But this is only $700 million on the $1 billion in actual costs to the health system.

      On the more nebulous costs, estimated by a "demographic approach", the focus is on the additional number of persons who would have been alive today had there been no smoking deaths over the past 40 years.

      “An estimate of 369,161 was provided to the authors by John Pollard (he had no other involvement with the report).”

      To get to this $19.5 billion, the authors multiply the reduction in the population (369,161) by the value of the loss of one year’s life ($53,267), after adjustments.

      As Dunford points out, this report puts a different value on life than does Access Economics. Whether Access prices obese people more highly than skinny smokers - or Collins and Lapsley believe smokers are worth less than one-third of the value of fat people - we can’t be sure from “the literature”.

      Indeed each report mentions “the literature” and the large variation in assumptions included in “the literature”, although they also fail to explain, he says, why the numbers they adopted were relevant to their particular health problem.

      In addition, the "value(s) of a statistical life" and the "value(s) of a statistical life year" adopted were significantly different ($6.35 million and $266,843 for obese people, and $2 million and $53,267 for smokers).

      Presumably – and these are our words not Dunsford’s - the pricing of a statistical life would also become more complicated when calculating the demographic of people who are both obese and smokers. Do we just average out the $6.35 million and the $2 million?

      Dunsford however does point out the gross hypocrisy in the government’s position on smoking and revenue. Governments reap very fat profits from smokers.

      Subtracting the financial costs of smoking to the health system at $300 million, plus taxes forgone (from statistical smokers) at $2.9 billion, from the $6.7 billion in taxes levied by state and federal governments on tobacco products, leaves $3.5 billion in profit.

      Dunford says the higher welfare payments to smokers could be offset by the pension savings from higher smoker mortality. Still, a $3.5 billion profit from smokers is a tidy amount for the budget.

      When it came to the publicity for the “plain packaging” initiative, it would have been helpful, says Dunstan, to cite the $31.5 billion in “costs to society” rather than a more realistic figure.

      “Indeed, assuming the media release’s (Roxon’s office) expected reduction in adult smoking from the current 16 per cent of the population to 10 per cent is achieved, the reader could be forgiven for estimating the ‘cost’ to fall by … $11.8 billion,” says Dunstan.

      But such an assumption would be wrong as the methodology is flawed.

      “The problem with the … definition of costs is the way in which past drug abuse is incorporated into the costs for a given year,” says Dunsford. ‘‘Indeed, if all smoking stopped, (this) methodology would still generate a large cost of smoking in the next year by virtue of the effect of the past deaths.

      “This is rather counter intuitive! Arguably it renders the methodology meaningless for the purpose of addressing cost reduction initiatives”.

      'Burden of disease' missing

      Finally, Dunsford points out that in the case of the beyondblue calculations, the $14.9 billion of annual costs to society from depression did not include a ‘'burden of disease'’ number. “Does this reflect the often suggested lack of interest by the government in mental health problems? Not so. Burden of disease numbers are available which show DALYs (disability adjusted life years) due to depression are significant – particularly when associated causes of death, like suicide, are included.” he says.

      He estimates that about $33 billion of non-financial costs could be added to the annual cost numbers for the personal impact on the loss of wellbeing from the burden of depression.

      Dunsford’s work is further proof we can’t place much store in lobby group costs claims. It’s more a case of plucking out a big number and working out some methodology to justify it.

  • harleyrider1778

    Clean Air Quality Law

    It is hereby ordered that all things that generate chemical releases simular in nature to tobacco smoke are hereby OUTLAWED.

    1. Automobiles and gas or diesel engines or any other contrivance that emits chemcial releases. This savings equals to the public not being forced to inhale 100s of billions of cigarettes each day.

    2. All plants are outlawed as they releases tons daily of the Carcinogen ISOPRENE. Equal in volumes of Millions of cigarettes each day.

    3. Restaraunts will be outlawed from preparing any cooked foods as these release 100s of millions of equal cigarettes each day.

    4. In home cooking is also outlawed as it produces upwards of 10s of thousands of equal cigarettes inside and outside the home.

    5. Outdoor cookouts and fireworks are outlawed as they releases 100s of millions of equivalent cigarettes a day or on weekends in the yards and parks of our city.

    6. Humans are hereby outlawed from existence insode the city limits as their own human breath contains hundreds of the same chemicals as found in tobacco smoke!

    7. Nature itself is outlawed as it generates Billions of chemcial releases naturally into the atmosphere a day hense posing a threat to human life.

    8. This Clean air law becomes effective Immediately.

    9. Your preference of suicide is a personal choise,Police will write tickets and lock up any survivors after this law becomes effective. A grace period of 30 days will be in place to educate the public on its existence.

    Signed into law by the GHOSTOWN ADMINISTRATION

    • MP

      Good luck with your tirade. The number of smoking bans are increasing, not decreasing.
      82% of the US population would rather not be bothered by smoking.

      • harleyrider1778

        They said the same thing back in 1917 too! lmao

        19th Century Laws in the 21st Century

        Heres a time line starting in 1900,dont be surprised to see the same thing playing out today nearly 100 years later.

        1901: REGULATION: Strong anti-cigarette activity in 43 of the 45 states. "Only Wyoming and Louisiana had paid no attention to the cigarette controversy, while the other forty-three states either already had anti-cigarette laws on the books or were considering new or tougher anti-cigarette laws, or were the scenes of heavy anti- cigarette activity" (Dillow, 1981:10).

        1904: New York: A judge sends a woman is sent to jail for 30 days for smoking in front of her children.

        1904: New York City. A woman is arrested for smoking a cigarette in an automobile. "You can't do that on Fifth Avenue," the arresting officer says.

        1907: Business owners are refusing to hire smokers. On August 8, the New York Times writes: "Business ... is doing what all the anti-cigarette specialists could not do."

        1917: SMOKEFREE: Tobacco control laws have fallen, including smoking bans in numerous cities, and the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho and Tennessee.

        1937: hitler institutes laws against smoking.This one you can google.

  • Dumb Liberals

    County will lose money as a result. Then they will cry crocodile tears about the lost revenue. Stupid does as stupid liberals do!

    • harleyrider1778

      the fix was in long ago. This was just a formality it wont last long as you see politically smoking bans are becoming a very big political liability as the people learn there was never any harm to themselves or anyone else from a smokers smoke.

      Even ASH and the ACS openly admit the bans have lost political support. At the local levels what happens is the ObamaCare Slush fund gives a city 50 grand if they pass a grant like here:

      Gautier Alters Anti-Smoking Ban

      Gautier’s new smoke free ordinance has now gone up in flames. At Tuesday night’s city council meeting, officials voted to alter the ordinance to allow smoking in restaurants and bars.

      Some business owners say the ordinance, adopted just last month, forces them to lose business from their smoking customers. Director of the Jackson County Mississippi Tobacco Free Coalition, Kelly Lamb, says getting rid of the ordinance will cost the city thousands of dollars in grants. The city will no longer qualify for cash awards from BlueCross BlueShield.

      Lamb says, “It’s a $50,000 grant that can go straight into the city, that can be used for walking trails, for schools, and then after you have been awarded that, it opens the door for you to be eligible for many other BlueCross BlueShield funding.” Officials voted five to two to change the ordinance.

      When 50 grand is told to take a hike and freedom restored, the Nazis must be shaking in their JACKBOOTS!

      Now go and check to see if the county is getting a big big grant from doing this,I bet ya the checks being inked right now!

      • Jim

        Funny not one smoking ban has been overturned by the courts in WV.

        • harleyrider1778

          Simply because smoking is a political issue not a health issue and guess who owns the courts politically.

          The ones pushing the bans! Its just like during prohibition.