Jo its the city that broke the law,not Mr.Strickland. He is simply defending his rights and those of others. If you really want to debate the subject of second hand smoke JUNK SCIENCE which is the justification used for smoking bans everywhere I will be glad to debate with you here and now,I will let you shoot first ok!

Don't worry about Strickland, Jo...a fool and his money are both soon taken away.

Jo another simular point here that will affect you is banning sodas from being served in restaraunts.Its the same thing and right here they are trying to do just that,that will affect you as a non-smoker wouldnt you think.........

Bloomberg one-upped. Cambridge MA (home of Harvard and MIT) wants to entirely ban the sale of soda, never mind the size, just ban it, period in all restaurants.

http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cityClerk/PolicyOrder.cfm?item_id=35515

If the cups that sodas were served in stank like cigs...and then afterwards if all those vile soda drinkers tore up the cups in little pieces and threw them all over the ground..then..yes, John...if you infinite wisom...you are right again..and they would ban sodas also.

This smoking ban may be a good thing and save a few lives and make for a more pleasant dining experience or getting drunk in the club experience. But that is irrelevant to me.

The bottom line is WHO IS ANYONE OR ANY GOVERNMENT AGENCY TO HAVE THE AUDACITY TO TELL ME OR ANYONE WHAT THEY CAN DO IN THEIR OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY WHEN IT DOES NOT AFFECT ANYONE WHO DOES NOT CHOOSE TO GO THERE? You do not have a right to a smoke free bar. You do not have a right to a smoke free McDonald's. If you want it build it. If there is a demand for it then it will come which is how the free market works.

This is not the end. This is not the beginning either. It is another stop in the ongoing campaign to turn the entire country into a nanny state. It is not right. It is not fair. It is more government intrusion into our private lives and into private enterprise. It is an attack on civil liberties and people are too blind to see it.

WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE? Are Happy Meals being banned next? Perhaps no salt? No drinks over 16 ounces? Last I checked heart disease IS the number one killer so why would it be far fetched to go there? When will this government control reach the home? When is the government going to tell me I can't fry my potatoes in a certain oil in my own kitchen because it's unhealthy?

Yes, the people will adjust all right. But this smoking ban is NOT a good thing."

CJ the bans already in restaraunts except where food bars exist where xx number of dollars are for food only! As far as smoking bans being the total norm,they thought that same thing in 1919 when prohibition came down and they also thought the same of tobacco prohibition during the same timeframe. Historical fact in point:

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.

If smoking bans and prohibition would have withstood the test of time theyd still be here. But thats wasnt the lasting effect was it. Todays bans will be no diferent........onward to repeal we march and Stricklands fight is but one in a long war of prohibitions on free people of the world. Thats right it is a world wide fight against smoking bans as the WHO world health orginizations FCTC anti-tobacco treaty causes,mostly written by tobacco free kids for the UN and the WHO,Tobacco Free Kids is a group created by Big Pharma aka johnson and johnson makers of nicorete and the gum for smoking cessation. Thru there RWJF created non-profit group ROBERT WOODS JOHNSON FOUNDATION!

Again, John..the bans ''in restaurants except where food bars exist''...are ALSO ''baby steps'' to get us where this is all going...the total ban of smoking in public places. Many cities that presently or in the near past, that had or have a ''designated smoking pato/area''...soon proceed to ''the next step''...and then ban the smoking form those areas also. Step by step...the days of smokers having thier way with the rest of us ''ARE OVER''. We will win..the smokers will lose..plain and simple truth. It does not matter if it is sooner ..or later...it's happening. And the irony is.... taking money (court costs, etc) from people like Stickland..are only helping the casue ''against'' smoking. Don't think this is not costing him ''big time and big money''. He is or will win little battles, but will lose the war...but only for so long. Strickland is the ''double whammy'' of fools. He is not only the fool who will be parted from his money, but he is also the fool who has himself as his lawyer.

Please keep crying CJ its quite amusing!

I wouldnt be counting on any total prohibitions on smoking in Floriduh,the states tourist industry is huge and accounts for billions a year in state income besides the revenues generated from tobacco purchases and tobacco used in the hospitality industry thru out the state.

I don't have ''to count on it''. Are you serious? Do you think Florida is the only good tourist area. Yeah..it's nice here and all that...but the smoking is ''exactly;; one of the factors that keeps it from becoming ''even a bigger'' destination. That's real funny that you imply tourists come here so they can smoke. I don't have to count on anything..it's ''gonna'' happen. Just like it is all over the country. Sorry to be the one to tell you...but Santa Claus is not real , either. Well..maybe Santa is...but not the Easter Bunny.

"
I’m Robert E. Madden MD, FACS. I am also a non-smoker. HOWEVER, I am a passionate opponent of smoking bans. My opposition is due to loss of individual freedom and abuse of scientific fact.

I am a practicing chest surgeon, and a former cancer researcher. I am also past president of the New York Cancer Society. I will not tell you that smoking is harmless and without risk, but what I will say is: 1) it’s a personal choice and 2) so called second hand smoke (ETS) is virtually harmless. One may not like the smell but it has not been shown to cause cancer, and if people don't like the odor then they may go elsewhere. Those who support the ban have no right to deny 24% of the adult population their enjoyment of a popular product based on hatred of smoking. This attitude is that of a bigot, akin to anti-Semitism or racism.

To me the most offensive element of the smoking bans is the resort to science as “proving that second hand smoke causes lung cancer”. Not only is this unproven but there is abundant and substantial evidence to the contrary. It is frustrating, even insulting, for a scientist like myself to hear the bloated statistics put out by the American Cancer Society (of which I am a member) and the American Lung Association to justify what is best described as a political agenda. Most non-smokers are neutral. Anti-smokers hate smoking. It is this last group that drives the engine of smoking bans.

-Respectfully,
Robert E. Madden, M.D.

I think it is safe advice to never hire a ''chest surgeon'' to work on you if he is against smoking bans. A surgeon like that sounds more like someone trying to teach a duck to make his first sound. Reminds me of the ''doctor'' in Cannonball Run with Burt Reynolds and Dom Delouis (sp).

''Dr Madden'' sounds like one of those doctors who passed college with a D- and bought thier degree online for $249.99 using a coupon.

CJ, have you always been so gullable? You're a perfect example of someone who's been brainwashed by the zealots at tobacco control. Ridiculing Dr Madden because you're blind to the truth is quite sad really.

"There are about a hundred studies on the issue of passive smoking. First surprise: 40% of them claim a total absence of harmful effects of passive smoking on health. The remaining 60% estimate that the cancer risk is multiplied by 0.02 for the most optimistic and by 0.15 for the more pessimistic … compared to a risk multiplied by 10 or 20 for active smoking! It is therefore negligible. Clearly, the harm is either nonexistent, or it is extremely low.

Professor Philippe Even,
World-renowned pulmonologist, president of the prestigious Research Institute Necker for the last decade, now retired.

CJ, I think we're maybe being a little too technical for you, what, with quoting doctors and scientists and all.
Maybe Penn and Teller..."Second Hand Smoke Bull5hit" is more to your liking!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6WITuzkS_g

...oh come on, Dave..you can go ahead and let this doctor open your chest off...but I'd rather take my chances on one I could throw a dart and see which one in the phone book it lands on. You sound like someone who needs a better health care policy.

...don't know about Penn and Taylor..but the Dick Van Dyke ''Cold Turkey'' was funny..and well within my ''technical understanding'' of how nasty smokers are.

By the way...just so you know..''shielded cursing'' will get your comment deleted here. I am not a fan of censorship and like to see what people write, so I'm just telling you so you don't get any comments of yours deleted. I have learned this the hard way also. I may not agree with you, but you are not on my list of people that I don't like to the comments of. We all ''know'' who that person is..it's just hard to keep track of what name he is using. Are you his twin brother?

First packs dont say second hand smoke kills,dont know where you got that from my friend.

Secondly Can you name any deaths from second hand smoke or even first hand smoke because theres absolutely no death certificate stating such nonsence.

In fact they cant even proove direct smoking causes disease!

JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS"
7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18
November 2004.

http://cot.food.gov.
uk/pdfs/cotstatement
tobacco0409

"5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke - induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available.

Dharma, great name and comment.

Junk Science - a term used to describe false or misleading research that is offered as real science, but which was not obtained using the accepted scientific method . The term "junk science" is often applied to deceptive environmental and health studies.

Just remember that the food sold in these venues also contains trace amounts of these 4700 chemicals, 200 poisons and 50 carcinogens. Food, like tobacco, is a biological material. Food, like tobacco, is comprised of the same amino acids, proteins, and carbohydrates. Food, like tobacco when heated produces the same byproducts, which are the same so-called trace amounts of substances which antismoking activists use to justify the elimination of tobacco smoke. The bottom line??? --anyone who eats in a restaurant, (or at home for that matter), is still exposed, and therefore still absorbing the same stuff, even after bans are in force.

Naples tried to get bill 211 passed to remove the states preemeption law on smoking.It was D.O.A. in comittee! yet the smokefree advocates are still pushing it!

2011 HB 211 Florida Clean Indoor Air Act Died in Health & Human Services Quality Subcommittee

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/sections/ ... ssionId=66

Current state law:

This legislation expressly preempts regulation of smoking to the state and supersedes any municipal or county ordinance on the subject".:

Sarasota and other communities are in clear violation of state law!

Nope actually nothing has changed since 2004 at all. There are no toxicology studies proving the end points to disease causation to either direct smoking or even second hand smoke. In fact the following confirms no harm from second hand smoke:

Tobacco Control Scotland has admitted it has no record of any deaths or demonstrable harm caused to anyone from second hand smoke as the UK Govt pushes forward the idea of third hand smoke, aka Invisible Smoke, without any evidence at all.

Bill Gibson, The International Coalition Against Prohibition (TICAP) chairman, was interested to know how many actual deaths and respiratory illnesses were recorded in Scotland from passive smoking, given the reported guesstimate 13,000 figure which is repeated parrot fashion year after year.

He put in an FOI request and found that there wasn't one death or respiratory illnesses attributed to SHS or tobacco. Perhaps I should repeat that. Not one death has been recorded in Scotland as definitely related to tobacco smoking or passive smoking.

http://patnurseblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012 ... eaths.html

If we did the same the world over we would get the same answer.

Remember this story from last year:

B.S. Study: 600,000 People Die Worldwide From Secondhand Smoke Every Year

http://grendelreport.posterous.com/bs...

As for the dangers of secondhand smoke in parks, how many of the 36,000 to 50,000 deaths attributed annually to SHS in the United States would occur at the levels found in parks? I suspect the answer would be very few, if not zero.

Skycat. You are losing track of the original reason that smoking ban in public places is ''really'' an issue, especially here locally. Yes...SHS is a concern..but the truth is..if cig smokers were not so filthy and detructive in thier habit..they would not have near the heat down thier back. If it were ''just'' fire threats, the stink, the staining, the burn marks, etc...then maybe we non-smokers could be cutting them some slack....but cig smokers expect us to put up with too much from them. The fact they ALSO ''litter'' so much is the proverbial ''last straw''. Here locally, as it has in many other communities when they first start atacking this issue..the initial things that puts the negative focus on the smkers is the amount of cig litter that volunteers notice during clean up projects. You can't address litter issues without also attacking smoking also.

CJ: I have seen many businesses and smokers and like-minded individuals whose only desire is to be let alone, presumably to deal with their own filth, stench, stains, burns, etc., prevented from doing so by anti-smoking activists themselves. It is ban activists who constantly interfere with smokers willing to gather elsewhere, by intervening as protectors of innocent adult bar patrons and job seekers, even if it prevents smokers from getting jobs where there might be smoke.

It is ban activists who are now attempting to restrict smoking in some smokers' own apartments which will no doubt drive them somewhere else to become targeted again by anti-smokers. They even want to ban e-cigarettes which leave no litter.

Smoking ban activists have lost credibility in my book because no matter what solutions the smokers propose, the activists are there, or just around the corner, with a roadblock.

skycat...did you read ''anything'' I wrote to you? I have followed this story locally here in Gulfport for many months and remember when and why the subject of the bans at some of the public places was brought up.

''Litter''.

I explained that to you...but I guess you are just to stubborn to bend. Smokers have made thier own bed. If smokers would ''police fellow smokers''...and jump thier bones when they are being obnoxoious...then maybe smokers might have been able to keep on keeping on as they have. The problem is..smokers all have each other's back , and that get them nowhere. Sure, there is a smoker here or there that is sensible about thier habit..there just is not enough of them.

''Apartments''...bad example. Rental property would be another bad example. I agree that in a home you ''own'' (free and clear...not financed)..then that would be a good example where you should have these rights you mention. I agree with that...but your fire insurance should cost you ten times as much as mine does.

CJ: If it is a litter issue, why not just jack up the fine for cig litter? But wait, didn't this whole issue start over a guy smoking a cigar? Since cigars don't have filters and are fully biodegradable, I presume you are willing to allow those. Maybe when I get back from my lobotomy appointment I'll be able to believe that it's just a coincidence that the litter issue fits in perfectly with the objectives of the smoking ban movement.

Skycat, you wrote''..didn't this all start ove a guy smoking a cigar?''

No..it didn't...at least not locally here in Gulfport. All over the country the smoking bans ''start'' for a variety of initial reasons..but it is common for the litter connection to initiate it.

A while back, I belive after a 49th St. litter clean-up volunteer group effort here in Gulfport, some of the volunteers could not help note the tremendous percent of cig litter compared to other litter. It was brought up at a council meeting. From there, it took on a life of it's own...and the beach smoking bans, etc were part of the result. In other localities, the bans additionally start simply over second hand smoke issues, and a multitude of other reasons. A smoker here, and a smoker there can step in and ''say'' or write in blogs how ''they call other smokers out for bad cig manners''...but frankly...I've never seen that. Honestly, it seems the only time a cig smoker uses an ashtray (like that makes it's all OK) is if other people are around. Otherwise, they just flick them away on the ground, put them out in planters, grind them dead on wooden railings, etc, etc, etc. Who are they fooling? Without a doubt, most smokers simply can't figure out a way to smoke in public without it being a burden of some sort on somebody else. Cleaning up after a smoker is about as much fun as picking up dog poop after other peoples dogs. Skip the operation to find out if smoking and litter is connected. It is.

Litter!!!!....hahaha don't make me laugh! My oh my, you are getting desperate to come up with such a pathetic excuse. Cigarette litter is miniscule and regardless of what the tobacco control zealots tell you, it doesn't cost anything to clear up, as it just gets swept up with the rest of the litter in the streetcleaners sweep.
Taking your argument to the next, obvious stage, do you also advocate an outdoor ban on McDonalds, sodas, newspapers etc, which produce FAR MORE litter?

The 1993 EPA study into the dangers of enviromental tobacco smoke, is the sole reason why the American Cancer Society, The American Lung Foundation and The Americn Heart Foundation have been so vociferous against ETS. It's an absolute disgrace that the anti-smoking bandwagon has just kept on rolling, totally disregarding the U S District Court's decision that

"The EPA's procedural failure constitutes a violation of the law"

"....the EPA 'cherry picked' its data"

"EPA deviated from acceptable scientific procedure...to ensure a PRE-ORDAINED OUTCOME"

The courtcase makes for fascinating reading.

http://archive.tobacco.org/Documents/980717osteen.html

Everyone who can read the law for what it actually says raise your hand!

Obviously the Gulfport city council cant read even after they were repeatedly warned of it!

Nope Lynda not for a second,however your city ordinance has smelled like dead fish since its inception. Just as the indoor smoking ban has. None of you think for an instance that your not destroying your own movements agenda with these rediculous outdoor bans. Dr Siegel last year stated these outdoor bans will be the deathnell of the indoor bans,it puts at risk everything already achieved. He was quickly kicked out of tobacco control and its GLOBAL LINK propaganda line on the internet. If any of you have any knowledge of GLOBAL LINK you know exactly what Im talking about!

Anyone who would like to have "john davidson" sat down in a windowless, tiny room with a cigar smoking machine, please raise your hands

We would both be just fine and heres why:

According to independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke........

They did the figures for what it takes to meet all of OSHA'S minimum PEL'S on shs/ets.......Did it ever set the debate on fire.

They concluded that:

All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes

"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes

"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes

For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time

The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA

Anyone who would like the anti-smoker zealots sat down in a garage for the next 20 minutes with the car running, or in the same garage with 100 people smoking all day long, according to their own preference, by all means raise your hands.

You wouldn't really want to see them harmed regardless of what they believe or say they believe, now would you?

Next time you see a woman sitting with their infant children at a bus or train station, think about that will you. Funny she would seat them away from the smoking section, within a false sense of security, in line with her largely popular beliefs.

We can only imagine what bribes and deals were made to get VIETNAM to pass a smoking ban nationwide! Like maybe most favored nation status in trade agrrements like china! Or perhaps they were guaranteed loans to shore up their currency too as the WHO has promised those countries that invoked a smoking ban in the FCTC treaty...

Ya thats it gotta be,as all the states defund tobacco control at all levels and take away all the MSA funds.............ya they really want to outlaw tobacco products. BTW what revenue did tobacco control ever generate for the state coffers.........answer NOTHING BUT A BIG FAT BILL FOR THEIR EXISTENCE!

Great example. A country who is so known for their diplomacy and civil liberties. You just stated that almost 50% of the adult smoked. So who voted? Exactly. No one.

There are still a lot of well trained people with guns and know how, who in the vast majority love their American cigarettes. So who is going to do the enforcement? The Special Interests hypochondriacs and loonies who promoted the ban? Perhaps the Government Sock Puppets who infect public discussions with their glad handing of government encroachments with disrespectful attitudes against anyone who isn't sold?

We can only hope.

My thanks and gratitude go out to all Vietnam Vets who helped make it possible for the improvements in Vietnam today. What a great thing you Vets did to aid these people. I am one American who does not feel it was all for nothing. In war, the rewards are often vague and indiscreet. Sure, Williiam, they still have significant human rights issues, but those problems are almost welcome compared to the atrocities they faced during the domino principle threat the region was onced faced with. Your sarcasm was ill in it's placement. No one ever doubt the significance of the meaningful effort our country and others put out for Vietnam and others in SE Asia. I take my hat off to my fellow vets, from Vietnam and elsewhere. At least now, things such as tobbacco bans are issues to be decided upon over there instead of the enslavement and slaughter they once delt with. All wars waste innocent lives, but Vietnam was as honorable of a cause as any. I can't let your comment meant to taint our vets efforts go without calling you out on it. Thank you, David, for your fine comment. I took it in the light you meant it.

There was a time when I smoked and chewed, and like the ''country boy'' I am that ''can survive''...I would have ''spit some beechnut'' ...right in your eyes just for thinking that thought. There are few who would have much of a chance to use your right hand as you state. Good way to get it broke. Big talk, ''Scott Ewing''. Your comment is out of line. Seems you need to learn more than just some smoking manners. I like to try and stay within The Patch blog rules, out of resepct to Cherlene, but you have crossed a line that even ''John'' would not do..and we all know how low he can go. I am above commenting back to you as I'd really like to right now...but I doubt ''either'' of our comments will be here much longer and will be deleted. You are your own worse enemy, and you certainly do not help others who agree with your cause. Making comments like you have just done are simply those of a thinned skin coward. Get off the porch and go jump in a lake....and hope your never let me see your right hand coming.

Shill? I am new to the area and only trying to fit in somewhere. I was unaware of what a ''shill' was. I thought it was another new Florida thing I had not learned about yet. I looked it up. I assure you, I am not shill. I live here and I do have strong opinons, though. I also hate bullies like ''John''.
People here in this blog topic, that keep appearing out of nowhere, that stike me as a ''shill'' are ''John...whatever he goes by''.
If I ''was'' a shill..then I could understand your anger with me..because I don't like a shill either. You may not be aware how many Gulfport Patch blogs on this topic that ''John'' has ruined. Often resulting in comments getting deleted and generally stirring up anger abut things he has no real inteest in. He does not live here. Ironically, he may even be a paid blogger who does not smoke and is only here for his paycheck.
Maybe you don't know that.
What I do know about you, though, is that you have stated you are a sucker puncher. A person who does that is as low as they can get and not what I define as a man. I prefer ''John's'' presence here more than a dbag like you. These blogs here used to be more fun, but due to past bad history on this topic and the trouble ''John'' has stirred up..many of ''the regulars'' have bowed out making comments anymore. Personally, I am still in the fight because of how strongly I deplore people like ''John'', and you. Without the support of the usual crowd here, though, I am wearing down.