The city's smoking ban has won a major legal victory.
Douglas County District Court Judge Jack A. Murphy has ruled that enforcement of the city's smoking ban should continue while a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality makes its way through the court system.
In an order made public Thursday, Murphy also rebutted many of the arguments made by Lawrence bar owner Dennis Steffes, who claims that the 18-month old ban is unconstitutionally vague and illegally supersedes state law.
City leaders took the judge's decision as a good sign for the future of the ban, which essentially prohibits smoking within all indoor workplaces, including bars and restaurants.
"I think the judge's order indicates that the plaintiff is not likely to prevail in this case," Lawrence Mayor Boog Highberger said.
At least not yet, Steffes said. He said he had not yet read the order but had long been prepared to lose the case in district court; he is committed to appealing the ruling to the Kansas Court of Appeals.
Steffes
"It seemed obvious from the very beginning that this case was going to end up in Topeka one way or the other," said Steffes, who operates Coyotes, 1003 E. 23rd St., and Last Call, 729 N.H. "This isn't even close to being over."
Murphy's order allows the case to continue. However, it removes the threat of a temporary injunction that would have forced the city to stop enforcing the ban while the lawsuit is being argued, which likely will take several months.
"I think a temporary injunction would have caused a lot of confusion for the public," Highberger said.
Murphy wrote in his order that Steffes failed to meet several of the legal hurdles required to obtain an injunction. The most important one was the court agreeing that Steffes had a likelihood of ultimately winning the lawsuit. Murphy said that was unlikely.
Specifically, Murphy said he did not find evidence the city's ban was too vague.
"The city's smoking laws are clear in what conduct is prohibited: smoking is prohibited in most enclosed places and places of employment," Murphy wrote.
But Steffes - and his attorney, William Rork, of Topeka - have argued the law is vague because it does not give business owners enough specific instructions on what to do if a patron begins to smoke in their establishments.
Murphy also wrote that Steffes' argument that Lawrence's ban illegally supersedes state laws governing smoking was unpersuasive. He said the Lawrence law was more stringent than state regulations but did not conflict with them.
Steffes, who testified in court that sales at his two bars have declined significantly since the smoking ban, thinks his case still had merit.
"Private enterprise should be allowed to run their business without the government taking it over," Steffes said.
Smoking ban
More about the smoking ban
- 6News video: Report spurs talk of state-wide smoking ban (06-27-06)
- On the street: Do you think Kansas should adopt a statewide smoking ban?
- Ban could snuff smoking statewide (06-28-06)
- Report: Dangers of secondhand smoke more pervasive than previously thought (06-28-06)
- 6News video: Judge rejects smoking ban suspension (06-06-06)
- Judge again upholds city's smoking ban (06-07-06)
- 6News video: Smoking ban remains contentious 18 months in (01-15-06)
- Effects of city's smoking ban still in dispute (01-15-06)
- 6News video: Judge rules in favor of city smoking ban (12-22-05)
- Judge upholds city smoking ban (12-23-05)
- 6News video: Suspension of smoking ban in hands of judge (12-17-05)
- Smoking ban now in judge's hands (12-17-05)
- Kansas Health Foundation Grant
- Douglas County receives grant to expand anti-smoking efforts (12-05-05)
- More stories about the smoking ban »»
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
merrill (anonymous) says…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politic...
merrill (anonymous) says…
U.S.A.
States that have enacted smokefree workplace legislation for all workers, including restaurant and bar workers
1. California
2. Delaware
3. New York
4. Connecticut
5. Maine
6. Massachusetts (2004)
7. Rhode Island
8. Montana
9. Vermont (2005)
Beaches and Piers that have banned smoking (or restricts smoking to designated areas) in order to decrease litter:
Hawaii -- Hanama Bay, Oahu, HI 1993
NJ-- Belmar (2001)
California -- Solana Beach (2003), San Clemente (2004), Santa Monica (2004), Los Angeles (2004?), Malibu, Huntington Beach, Carpinteria and Newport Beach. Capitola City. Los Angeles County enacted a temporary ban in late June that will run through Thursday on two county-run beaches, Topanga and Marina (2004)
New York --
Florida -- Ormond Beach, FL
Australia -- Manly, Sydney, Queensland
UK -- Bournemouth
Local parks that ban or severely restrict smoking:
¢ Bellaire, TX in public parks
¢ Eastchester, NY, in some sections of Lake Isle Park
¢ Greenburgh, NY, has limited smoking at Anthony J. Veteran Park, its primary recreation area, leaving only two designated smoking sections there.
¢ Mesa, AZ, bans smoking in just about every outdoor space where the public congregates
¢ Mount Olive, NJ, smoking is forbidden at outdoor recreation areas
¢ New York City, NY, smoking is prohibited at children's playgrounds and in public places like work sites, sports arenas, schools and restaurants
¢ Putnam County, NY, banned smoking on its public lakeside beach
¢ Rye, NY, Kiddyland section of Playland Park banned smoking in all lines for rides at the amusement park
¢ Scarsdale, NY, recently adopted a no-smoking policy for all public parks that have play equipment for children and at playing fields and pools as well as in all village-owned vehicles.
Sharon, ME, smoking is prohibited on beaches and in public playgrounds
¢ Westchester County, NY
merrill (anonymous) says…
More news:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/429...
topflight (anonymous) says…
hey den"ass" steffes, leave it alone, most are happy the way it is.
DaREEKKU (anonymous) says…
Hurrah!
merrill (anonymous) says…
Marion no one has told you that you cannot smoke so carry on. I just hope you don't die a painful death.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
He's certainly living a painful life.
conservativepunker (anonymous) says…
Why is Smoking so important? It killed my Father, it killed my Mother. Do these people think of themselves as some latter day Sartre or Kerouac sipping cappucino or demitasse solving all the worlds problems while on their butt in a cafe?
Rossp (anonymous) says…
Keep up the fight Dennis!
Hong_Kong_Phooey (anonymous) says…
Old Steffes ought to look at the fact that his bars are trashy and filled with thugs for the decline in business, not the smoking ban.
Rossp (anonymous) says…
Aren't most "bars" trashy? The last time I was in Coyotes it had improved a lot with cleaness.
Liberty (anonymous) says…
The question is not whether you like smoking or not. The question is: Do you really want government to intrude into a new area of banning things or stay in the area in which government was originally intended to function? We have government intruding and reaching into areas in which they should not function. This is called tyranny, and they get it by picking on these types of things like smoking to get useful idiots to back them up so they can implement more and more control. Make sure that you really want more and more government control, because once they have it, they will want more.
mom_of_three (anonymous) says…
For all those who support the smoking ban - what happens when you walk on the sidewalk downtown and are next to a smoker? You will encounter smokers your entire life, and even if the smokers aren't lighting up at the moment, the smell will get you. I am not a smoker, but I think the smoking ban is stupid. If there was too much smoke, I CHOSE not to go there.
Liberty (anonymous) says…
Since the judge is basically working for the city/state, he is in the position of having to protect the system and government made laws. If the judge was impartial, he would not have the burden of proof on Mr. Steffes, but on the Constitutionality of the ban. The law should be on trial, not Mr. Steffes. This is called Jury nullification, where the law is being judged, not just Mr. Steffes.
gccs14r (anonymous) says…
The government regulates lots of things to "promote the general welfare" of the citizenry, from water usage to toxic waste disposal. Be happy (I guess) that you can smoke at all. In two generations, I think tobacco will be completely illegal.
gccs14r (anonymous) says…
mot,
I generally hold my breath until I'm upwind of them.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
Apples and oranges, Marion. Even if marijuana were legal, smoking it in public would be banned along with smoking tobacco. And despite your attempts to muddy the waters, tobacco is still legal-- just not in enclosed spaces in places of employment. Really not much different from alcohol-- there are places where it is legal to consume, and places where it's not. Same goes for sex and excretory functions-- definitely not illegal, but there are certainly places where they aren't allowed.
And try this one out-- go to an empty, isolated field and yell "Fire!" Then go to a crowded theater and do the same thing.
Rainy (anonymous) says…
The government of Lawrence did not just one day wake up and say "Hey, I think I'll pass a smoking ban today". There were numerous studies done, and input listened to from both sides of the issue via email, letters, letters to the editor, and community feedback sessions at city commission meetings.
Secondly, the people of Lawrence had the opportunity to put this issue to a vote and a certain group of individuals chose not to turn that petition in and call a referendum.
Most likely, high chance, the ban would have been upheld by public vote.
I do not agree with a lot of things "government" is doing. However, I know for a fact the Lawrence commission did not arbitrarily pass the smoking ban. Personally, I'd like to see tobacco regulated in general as it is severely hazardous to health.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
My personal opinion is the ban should be relaxed, with limits on the size and number of smoking establishments. Places like the Pig or Java Break could be smoking joints, Granada and Bottleneck wouldn't be. Restaurants should stay non-smoking.
ive_got_my_ascot_n_my_dickie (anonymous) says…
Places like the Pig or Java Break could be smoking joints, Granada and Bottleneck wouldn't be. Restaurants should stay non-smoking.
==========
Let's reverse it because I'm a nonsmoker and I like going to the Pig and Java Break, but I don't go to the Granada.
Liberty (anonymous) says…
Jury nullification is where the people have more power than the government and more power than the judge. That is why the judge doesn't want anyone in the jury to know about the power that they have through jury nullification of a bad law to keep government power in check. I noticed that the questionare to be on a jury asks if you know about jury nullification. This is evil. It should not be counted against you because you know your power in the system and know that you have more power than the judge or government which created the bad law. The law can even be constitutional, and the people have the power to strike the law down. You people should read the Citizens rule book/Jury handbook.
Here is a web site to read the Jury Handbook: http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/70...
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
I also said limit the number of smoking establishments. That would mean that there would also be a number of non-smoking places like the Pig or Java Break. Places like bottleneck and granada are about being venues for live entertainment, not places primarily for swillin' and smokin'-- keep the ban in place for them.
Jury nullification doesn't strike down laws-- it merely prevents conviction one case at a time.
gccs14r (anonymous) says…
All it takes is one smoker to make a place a smoking establishment. How fair is that to the 200 non-smokers who are in there? Do you know how expensive dry cleaning is?
I didn't realize just how much I appreciate the smoking ban until I traveled through the South last summer. Holy cow. Those people smoke everywhere and everything is sticky with a thick coating of brown tar. Gross.
wonderhorse (anonymous) says…
Marion
"oh
that means choice and we're not talking about abortion.
never mind"
I'm not quite sure I know what you mean by this. Currently, Lawrence has decided to set aside letting the market decide whether there should be smoking establishments or not--taking away choice. That I understand. There is no choice for the owners, and the non-smoking patrons don't have to choose which establishments to support with their non-smoking dollars.
Currently, abortion is legal, and pregnant women can choose to have an abortion. What is the comparison? I'm confused.
gccs14r (anonymous) says…
Marion is infamous for red herring arguments.
Pywacket (anonymous) says…
Oh, Marion... I like you despite your bad self. Can't be with you on this one.
My dad is hooked up to oxygen, has very little lung capacity left, and can't talk for five minutes without becoming out of breath. He's in & out of the hospital and depressed. I hope he lives long enough that his youngest grandchildren will have some memory of what an interesting and cool guy he was.
When he was young, smoking was glamorized. It was not only legal everywhere, but encouraged. In the Air Force, they got all the free smokes they wanted. What a favor. He has tried, earnestly and repeatedly over the years, to quit. I truly believe the sh** is more addictive than heroin.
I agree that we need to keep an eye on creeping gov't control. But people (most of whom, including myself) are idiots. Until we--not just the sensible types, but the feeble-minded, the bad-intentioned, the ignorant--can make flawlessly wise decisions, there will always be a need for laws. (Don't think for a minute I wouldn't have killed a few deserving scumbags ere now, were it legal! ;-)
The debate over just which laws are needed makes for spirited discussion and keeps us thinking, which is never a bad thing. So to simply disagree with any law on the basis of "it's gov't interference and gov't interference is bad" is not much of an argument. Total free-for-all does. not. work. So...we are in a state of constant flux over what laws are and are not needed. Again--this makes us think. Good.
We know, from the example of Prohibition, that a flat-out ban on smoking would never work. But maybe, by making it less a socially approved activity than in my dad's youth, by making acceptable smoking venues scarce, by making the cost steep enough to deter the "curious but not yet hooked," and by continuing to get the word out to youth, we can continue the current strong trend toward fewer smokers in this country.
Look at statistics on traffic fatalities and injuries since seatbelt laws were enacted. We heard the same outcries of "gov't interference" back then, and the same suspicion and fear that Big Brother was encroaching too much. But those laws have been overwhelmingly successful in terms of lives saved. Laws CAN have a positive effect.
And a side benefit to this one is that those who do not wish to immerse themselves in smoke no longer are forced to when they go out to a public venue. Smoking is unique--other bad habits might impact only the person who chooses to indulge in them, but there is no way to confine smoke to the smoker. In restaurants, smoking sections are a joke. In bars, they are nonexistent.
I have no illusions that I'll change your mind on this (no more than you could change mine), but I respect your views and welcome the exchange of thought on the matter. Unless or until the law is struck down, I will continue to choose Lawrence's smoke-free bars and restaurants over those smoky venues in nearby towns when I decide to go out.
cowgomoo (anonymous) says…
Excellent observations Pywacket. My father died recently of smoking caused respiratory illness. It was horrible watching him struggle for breath. I was holding his hand when he could struggle no more.
I recognize the limited government argument (and I hope someday we're not going to try to take away my double cheeseburgers) but I agree that a smoking ban in enclosed public meeting areas is not a bad thing and not over intrusive.
wonderhorse (anonymous) says…
Pywacket
"And a side benefit to this one is that those who do not wish to immerse themselves in smoke no longer are forced to when they go out to a public venue."
That's the point--a bar is not a public venue, it is a privately owned business. You are not forced to go into it. As a matter of fact, they have the right to refuse you entry. Businessmen would not allow smoking on the premises if enough of their clientele objected, but as has been pointed out, there was a very nice, non-smoking bar called the Bella Lounge that had to go out of business because the non-smokers wouldn't come in. At the time, it was the only non-smoking bar in Lawrence, but the non-smokers voted with their $'s and put it out of business.
gccs14r (anonymous) says…
There's a reason why a non-smoking bar can't succeed in a city full of smoking bars and it has everything to do with non-smokers' appeasement of the addictions of their smoking friends.
If you're so certain that a smoking bar will be a big hit, put one up in the county. The city limits are thataway.
wonderhorse (anonymous) says…
gccs
Let me get this straight--the non-smokers (and someone on this board has said that we are in a majority) wouldn't go to a non-smoking bar just to appease their smoking friends? Well, I guess it's a good thing that gov't stepped in so that the non-smokers wouldn't have to put their collective feet down and say, "No, let's go to the non-smoking place tonight". It would be disturbing if they would actually have to take a stance.
And as to opening my own bar--no thanks. I've been here for 30 years and seen too many go out of business, some for little or no reason that I could discern.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
" Well, I guess it's a good thing that gov't stepped in so that the non-smokers wouldn't have to put their collective feet down and say, "No, let's go to the non-smoking place tonight"."
I believe that's exactly what happened, and why there is now a ban.
wonderhorse (anonymous) says…
Yep, sad commentary that gov't needs to be involved in our relationships with our friends, isn't it? When I went out with my smoking friends, we didn't always go to the smoking place. Now, we don't go anyplace--they, because they can't smoke anywhere, me because I am following my own advice and voting with my $'s
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
The need to exercise personal responsibility is as present as ever, but with the ban in place, the all-too-pravalent tendency of too many smokers never to do so has been somewhat mitigated.
wonderhorse (anonymous) says…
By trampling on the right of the business owner to run his/her business as they see fit--smoking or non-smoking.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
I guess none of us gets to do exactly as we wish all the time. Ain't life a bitch?
gccs14r (anonymous) says…
Marion,
Perry doesn't have a smoking ban. If you're dissatisfied with the socioeconomic climate of Lawrence, I'm sure they'd be happy to have you for a resident. If Perry isn't appealing, the State of Kentucky, with its whopping 3 cents per pack tobacco tax (lowest in the nation), beckons.
corporate_sleaze (anonymous) says…
Marion is right, too much government meddling in private affairs.
mr_sassy_pantsss (anonymous) says…
my vote: ban smoking in public.
Godot (anonymous) says…
Out this evening with some smokers, some non-smokers. The smokers had to go outside, in the cold, to smoke. They had to, because they are addicted.
They are already prone to coughs and colds. Making them go outside, in the cold and wind, to tend to their addiction, actually makes them more susceptible to colds and infections.
We make all sorts of exceptions for drunks and drug addicts, but we force smokers to expose themselves to further health risk, all in the name of health for those who don't smoke.
Why do we coddle some people with addictions, and put others with an addiction that is, at this time, perfectly legal, at further health risk?
Do we just want them to die and go away?
gccs14r (anonymous) says…
"Why do we coddle some people with addictions, and put others with an addiction that is, at this time, perfectly legal, at further health risk?"
Because the emissions from their drug of choice harm innocent bystanders.
beer_N_cigarettes (anonymous) says…
reincarnated.
mr_sassy_pantsss (anonymous) says…
It's disgusting. I hate it, hate it, hate it. Just stop it everybody.
mr_sassy_pantsss (anonymous) says…
To Marion,
Hi. well, I don't know if I should cry or laugh. Are you trying to hurt my feelings? The emotional tug of war is too stressful for me. Please clarify your comments Mr. Marion.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
Yea, it's really friggin cold out there tonight, poor babies.
"They are already prone to coughs and colds."
Why don't they quit smoking, then?
"Making them go outside, in the cold and wind, to tend to their addiction, actually makes them more susceptible to colds and infections."
An old wives' tale. Exposure to extreme elements doesn't cause colds and other infections-- viruses other microbes do. But smoking does lower resistence to these microbes, so why should their indulgence in their addiction mean that others should also have their immune systems compromised?
mr_sassy_pantsss (anonymous) says…
Mr. Marion,
You're are an entertaining person for only being a sophomore in high school.