Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, November 22, 2005

Possible temporary lifting of smoking ban delayed

Attorney for bar owner urges business to allow smokers to light up anyway

November 22, 2005

Advertisement

A legal effort to at least temporarily allow Lawrence smokers to again light up in public places was delayed Monday but not entirely extinguished.

Dennis Steffes, a Lawrence nightclub owner who operates Coyotes, 1003 E. 23rd St., and Last Call, 729 N.H., was not allowed Monday to make arguments before Douglas County District Judge Stephen Six on a motion to suspend enforcement of the smoking ban. The suspended enforcement was sought pending the court's ruling on a lawsuit by Steffes that alleges the ban is unconstitutional. Instead Six ordered that the case be heard by District Judge Jack Murphy on Dec. 16 because he had heard a previous case involving the same issues.

Steffes said the latest delay added to his frustration because he has been seeking a temporary injunction to suspend enforcement of the law since July, one year after the ban began and when he determined sales at his nightclubs were down by 40 percent.

"The system is being exercised," Steffes said. "It has been a real lesson in how our justice system works. But I grow more determined as these types of things happen."

Steffes' attorney, William Rork, said he also was disappointed in the delay because he believed the city was being allowed to "improperly impose its will on citizens in an unconstitutional manner."

Rork has argued the ban is unconstitutionally vague and improperly supersedes state law. The city has rebutted both arguments.

Rork said he had advised Steffes to simply allow smoking in his business and let the city try to enforce the provision. The city failed to win convictions in four of the five cases it has brought against Steffes and later dismissed the one remaining case when Steffes appealed his conviction to District Court.

"I would prefer that he start allowing smoking and put up blinking lights to advertise it," Rork said.

But Steffes said he didn't plan to defy the ban.

City attorneys were prepared Monday to argue against Steffes' request to suspend enforcement of the ban. In a brief filed Monday morning, city attorneys argued the injunction would confuse the public and be unfair to businesses that have added outdoor patios and undertaken other expenses to adjust to the ban. They also argued suspended enforcement would be harmful to public health and were prepared to cite studies that suggest heart attack cases have been reduced by 40 percent in some communities that have adopted a smoking ban.

If granted, the injunction would suspend enforcement of the ordinance - which prohibits smoking in most indoor public places - for the duration of the case. Rork said that likely would be one to three months.

Comments

kansasboy 9 years, 1 month ago

Sales are down 40% because Coyotes sucks, or myabe the country bumkins that did go to Coyotes now go to other country bars like the Ranch because it is smoke free. "Smoke up Johnny!"

jayhawks71 9 years, 1 month ago

Too bad the anti-ban group, which had collected enough signatures to put this issue to a referendum DISENFRANCHISED those who signed those who DEMANDED a referendum with their signature.

I can't believe that I haven't seen more postee regarding THAT move. People sign for a referendum and the "powers that be" decide, on their own, to toss the signatures. Talk about making a decision 'for the people."

Hypocrites.

Raider 9 years, 1 month ago

The "powers that be" didn't decide to simply "toss" the signatures. The illustrious city commission told them that if they'd not turn in the petitions that they (cc) would work out a compromise. The minute the deadline passed for the signatures, the "People's Council" said there would be no compromise. So you can thank the wonderful powers in City Hall for the lack of a petition. They successfully manipulated their opponents and kept Ms. Keller happy.

newsreader 9 years, 1 month ago

If they lift the smoking ban, I would stop going to the bars nearly as much. I love not smelling like crap when i go home, and being able to breath the next day.

red6102003 9 years, 1 month ago

I run a bar in lawrence and our sales droped 50% from the smoking ban and it wasn't a gradual decrease I am talking the numbers droped in half from june to july when the ban went in effect.

mgsidbll 9 years, 1 month ago

I have always been a supporter of the ban....I hate going out and smelling like crap when I get home...and coughing from inhaling other people's toxins. I was so overwhelmed the first time I went to Free State Brewery after the ban was placed...I was hit by the fabulous smell of their food when I walked in the front door...I had never been able to smell it like that before!

I am currently 8 months pregnant and I have REALLY enjoyed being able to go out to eat or to watch a game instead of being forced to be anti-social because I'm afraid that I might suffocate my baby...I hope the ban stays so I can take my little guy out with me in public when he arrives!

Jamesaust 9 years, 1 month ago

Thanks Mr. Steffes for continuing to waste my tax dollars.

geriluva 9 years, 1 month ago

There is a simple solution to all of this: just let the bar owners decide! If they want a smoking environment in their establishment then let them! There should be smoking bars and non-smoking bars, just let the owners decide and this whole thing could be over with.

Moderateguy 9 years, 1 month ago

Mr. Steffes is hardly some sort of man of principal. He's just looking to make a buck at any cost. He's also the one who said "not my problem" when Last Call was attracting all those gang bangers from KCK. They were robbing convenience stores and shooting at each other on the way out of town. I wish his profits were down 90% so this guy would be out of business. I don't believe his 40 percent number either. Tax revenues have not even shown the 10% conservative reduction we were supposed to have from the ban opponents. In fact, they have shown a modest increase overall.

cwrist 9 years, 1 month ago

red, were you comparing your june-to-july sales to how you did in that span last year, or just comparing month-to-month? Because students are leaving town by mid-june so your number of patrons naturally is going to fall. Some of those who have tried to use sales figures (when I say 'some', I'm not necessarily accusing you of this) to mislead people on the financial cost of the ban. Personally, most of the bars I've been to since the ban have been just as busy as before the ban, but that's just my perspective.

princess 9 years, 1 month ago

To all of the bar owners inflating their "losses" in order to gain sympathy for wasting our tax dollars fighting this ban for their own greedy purposes:

YOUR PROFITS ARE NOT WORTH OUR HEALTH.

So spare me your tears would ya. They aren't going to make me want to cough up a lung just to eat/drink in your establishment.

Also...Coyotes blows. It always has blown and it always will blow.

newssleuth2814 9 years, 1 month ago

I am a non-smoker and I prefer to not be surrounded by cigarette smoke, however if I want to go to a bar, the presence of cigarettes should be something I expect.

Just as you can't drink beer in most public places, but you can in bars, I think this rule should apply to smoking.

Go ahead and make most public places smoke free, but I think a bar is an acceptable place to smoke and for those places that also make good money on their food, I think they would do well to make non smoking sections anyway (have them actually be a separate area away from the smoking section please).

Having smoke free areas is fine. People have a right not to have to deal with other people's cigarette smoke, but smokers have rights also and there's no reason to take away from their rights.

kansasboy 9 years, 1 month ago

Jayhawks71: Government has thrown out petitions before. It was the abolitionist in the 1830's that got signitures from 1 million people to end slavery. ( and we know how that ended.)

princess 9 years, 1 month ago

Smokers don't have the right to kill all of us. They can kill themselves if they want, but we shouldn't be subject to it. I can't believe that we've put up with this as a society as long as we have. I mean, if someone chooses to shoot up that is one thing, but if they come over and stick the needle in my arm because I happen to be in the same public place, that is entirely another. I don't see the difference.

Let's not forget about the workers of these establishments either. While we as patrons can come and go as we please, these people are stuck in the cancer pits for hours on end. And with only the finest employer provided health insurance that money can buy I am sure.

passionatelibra 9 years, 1 month ago

I agree with newssleuth2814. When I choose to visit an establishment one of my considerations is the environment (i.e. smoking or non, sports bar or not, etc). It's my decision.

I vaguely remember a place that was non-smoking and they ended up changing it to smoking because they weren't getting enough business... Does anyone know the name of that place or if it's still open?

Rainy 9 years, 1 month ago

Raider:

The City said they would look at arguments for/against a compromise. They never promised to compromise on the smoking ban. A hearing was held, they listened to facts and figures and testimony from people on both sides of the argument and decided the compromise (ventilation systems to filter out smoke) was not healthwise, because most studies show that those air filtration systems to not do what is promised and do not filter out enough of the carcinogens to remove the risks associated with second hand smoke. I'm sure there are probably minutes/documentation regarding the commission's decision not to approve the air filtration system compromise, because I know a LOT of information and studies were sent by the Clean Air Lawrence group.

Those petitions boiled down to the anti-ban group taking a gamble. Chances are, if the smoking ban went to a vote, it would have been upheld by the people. I've seen all but one ban upheld. Even the most recent case in Austin, Texas a federal judge upheld a ban that was voted in by the people of Austin.

I speculate the anti-ban group was hoping they could win the compromise argument with the city commission, so they didn't turn in their petitions. The city commission looked at all the arguments and documentation and studies and decided that the suggested compromise was not in the best interest of public health. Therefore, the compromise was not reached and the petitions were no longer valid since the deadline was passed.

That is nobody's fault except the people who collected the petitions. They should have filed the referendum within the time guidelines and had the public vote.

Judy Keller did not single handedly pass this ordinance. There were several committees formed for research and development of suggested policy over two or three years of time. The douglas county health department was involved with their health improvement project, as was The American Cancer Society, The American Heart Association, Tobacco Free Kids, Tobacco Free Kansas, staff of Lawrence Memorial Hospital, staff of DCCCA, and concerned and interested citizens of Lawrence, KS.

This ordinance was years in the making, and took the work of numerous people to bring it to fruition. I did some of the intitial research for this project back in late 2001. And people were gearing up for this months before I ever came on board.

Raider 9 years, 1 month ago

Rainy, The fact still remains that Judy Keller and her group railroaded this thing through at the behest of certain special interest groups, instead of letting it go to the voters directly. Then, when the commission voted it down, the special interests applied a little more pressure and got one of the commissioners to reverse his vote. It makes one wonder exactly what Judy and her group did to accomplish this. The whole thing reeks of dirty politics, and the ones playing dirty are Judy Keller and her special interests.

This should have went to a public vote. Judy and her group have no right to force their will upon the rest of us.

princess 9 years, 1 month ago

Ah yes, damn those elected officials for protecting and advocating for our health. What with their fancy science and data and research and what not. Damn them all to hell!!

Did ya detect some sarcasm? Good, 'cause I'm layin' it on pretty thick:)

red6102003 9 years, 1 month ago

our numbers droped 50% compared to the previous yr and have yet to rebound and I am not talking small numbers I am talking several thousands of dollars per month drop and that was from four yrs of numbers combined analysis. not just comparing what we did the previous month. Why do you think all the bars in lawrence have wanted to get rid of the ban. every bar has taken a hit from the ban. More people are staying home and throwing house parties. That's why the number of noise complaints have tripled

passionatelibra 9 years, 1 month ago

Well if it works that way then they should go after cars next because they promote laziness since we don't have to walk anymore and obesity is a big issue in this country. Not to mention the toxins that are released in the air everytime someone drives...

Hong_Kong_Phooey 9 years, 1 month ago

Uh, someone please show me where it says in the Constitution that people who puff on burning leaves rolled in paper have their own rights?

jayhawks71 9 years, 1 month ago

kansasboy, the GOVERNMENT didn't throw out the petition. Those who collected the petition chose to TOSS those signatures on behalf of those who signed. Hypocritical ANY way you look at it.

And Rainy, wouldn't it have been a shame for the ban to be upheld by the voters, who, through the process of petition, DEMANDED a referendum; the anti-ban organizers realized that, had the referendum to uphold the ban passed, they had NO recourse. This isn't about being "tricked" by the city commission, this is about seeing the writing on the wall; the writing read FAILURE.

Raider 9 years, 1 month ago

Sarcasm noted, and appreciated. :-)

I don't doubt the the commissioners were looking out for the best interests of the community. What I disagree with is the method in which this was done. Instead of putting it on the ballot and allowing us to decide for ourselves, they listened to Judy Keller and her deep-pocketed special interest friends. The commissioners originally voted against the ban. Then Keller and Co. tightened the screws a little bit and got one of the commissioners to change his vote in their favor. ANyone with any kind of common sense should be able to see the type of dirty game that Keller and Co. played to get their agenda passed.

Had the commissioners let the public vote on it, and it passed, I would have no problem with it whatsoever.

-

passionatelibra 9 years, 1 month ago

Hong_Kong_Phooey,

The same question could be asked about people who drink alcohol. Yet the prohibition (if I remember my history correctly) was overturned because it infringed on the rights of the drinkers. An extreme example, I admit, but an example non the less...

It all comes down to the freedom to choose. People who own businesses should have the right to choose whether or not they want smoking or non smoking, serve alcoholic drinks or don't. Then it is up to the consumer to decide whether or not they want to take their business to that establishment.

Steve Jacob 9 years, 1 month ago

Again the easy solution...You can allow smoking in your business but no one under 18 or 21 allowed. That seems to be the ban going around now. Best compromise.

lua423 9 years, 1 month ago

Maybe its time to think about where you are at and what you are doing before you complain about occasionally inhaling second hand smoke. Its not like you are at the grocery store buying a healthy dinner for you family, or church for that matter. You all want to be high and mighty when it come to second hand smoke being so unhealthy, but that Supersized Big Mac and Fries you just ate was well over 1600 calories. How many people actually think twice about shoving half a pizza in their mouth while consuming multiple bud light's. The best part...I like the ban, but I am so sick of listening to people cry about it. Shut up and go on a diet!

princess 9 years, 1 month ago

passionatelibra:

Your alcohol comparison has one fatal flaw. Yes, a person has a right to choose to drink. (or smoke) It is their body, black lungs and all:) They do not have the right to force that onto others. Allowing smoking in public enclosures forces smoking onto other people.

srj: No this is not the best compromise. We aren't just talking about consumers. We are also talking about the rights of workers to be provided a healthy and safe work environment.

lua423: Stop generalizing and labeling people. It weakens your argument.

passionatelibra 9 years, 1 month ago

Princess,

I agree it is their body whether it be cancer from smoking or DUI's, killing someone in a DD accident or any other thing that can happen to a person from making an un-healthy decision. That's the thing... it's a CHOICE.

The people who choose to work in places that have smoking are making that CHOICE. There are jobs in other establishments that do not have smoking.

Non-smokers have a CHOICE on whether or not they go to an establishment that allows smoking. No one is forcing them.

While I feel that the point lua423 was making was a very valid one, I agree it was a bit harsh. But it was my choice to read it... :o)

red6102003 9 years, 1 month ago

here is another solution why not adopt a ban similar to what salina has in place. There restaraunts have to be smoke free and bars if they allow smoking have to be a 21 and up establishment and cannot smoke until after 10pm

passionatelibra 9 years, 1 month ago

red,

Any ideas why a time was added to that? I would think that 21 and up would be sufficient. Anyone know any history/reasoning behind the specified times?

princess 9 years, 1 month ago

There are laws against Drunk Driving.

There are standards for health and safety for all jobs. There should be no exceptions. Smoking is not allowed in office buildings, why should bars be exempt?

passionatelibra 9 years, 1 month ago

There are laws against drunk driving yet it still happens and it costs society a lot of money. Drinking isn't allowed in the office place either, maybe we should stop bars from serving alcohol... Oh wait, then it wouldn't be a bar it'd be a McDonalds.

Economy would crash, people would scream foul because then it would be effecting their world and infringing on their right to act loud, obnoxious, and stink in a bar (yep, drinking makes people smell too). Then add that it impares ability for logical reasoning and causes health damages (just like smoking).

Again, it comes down to choice.

princess 9 years, 1 month ago

Okay, your argument has veered out of control. It has lost logic. Are you actually using your assumption that DD costs society even though there are laws against it as an argument regarding choice?

Workers aren't allowed to drink on the job anywhere. Again with the weak and vague reasoning.

Give me a valid reason why Bars/ Restaurants should be exempt from safety standards? I argue that they should be under even more scrutiny. Dogs aren't allowed in those establishments because they could shed and hair could contaminate food or beverage. I argue that a cigarette sheds it's ash in the same manner.

If you can't give me a valid reason, then I will use my freedom of "choice" to end this conversation as it is going no where fast and probably boring others.

passionatelibra 9 years ago

Yes, you have that choice and I stand behind my argument 100%. The problem with this issue (and many others) is that people don't want to open their minds to other possibilities. They want their way and no other. No compromise. Closed minds.

The arguments that both sides have are very valid the problem is that you can take an argument for one side and apply it to the other. Drinking causes just as much damage as smoking does but the person down the road has no choice whether a drunk hits them or not. Legal or not, it happens. You have a choice on whether you go into a room full of cigarette smoke and expose yourself to potential health issues. As for ashes getting into the food of others, they must be drunk if they can't hit an ashtray.

The main reason for my not supporting the smoking ban is this, it's a bar or a restaurant that has an OWNER. Not some government ran entity that came out of thin air. They have a right to decide whether or not they want smokers in it. If they want to cater to the non smoking crowd I say go for it. But if they want to allow smokers in their bar, then they should have every right to do so. Who are we to tell someone else how to run their business when it comes to something so insignificant as whether smoking should be allowed or not? No one is being forced to go there. I said it once, I'll say it again... if you don't like a place because people are smoking, then don't spend your money there.

I agree this is going nowhere fast but it was fun! And I loved hearing anothers viewpoint. Have an awesome Thanksgiving!

Greg Yother 9 years ago

I do agree with the concept that we need to let the market determine what facilites are smoking; if we non-smokers really cared, we would simply boycott. It is obvious we don't care enough to do that. The Granada originally opened as smoke free, as well as a few other places but they simply couldn't afford to stay in business. That tells me that we just don't care enough. If we did, we would flock to those places and natural market forces would prevail. BUT...(next post)

Greg Yother 9 years ago

The worker safety issue is something else entirely. The whole "choose where you work" argument is BULL. That's the same as saying "OK, new employee (single mom trying to raise three kids who doesn't have a lot of option where to work) we at this company happen to release toxic fumes out of the airvents...if you don't like it, go work somewhere else." All businesses must adhere to safety standards that do not endanger the health of the employees. I do believe that every worker has the right to work in a cancer-free environment. To just "find another place to work" is not a reality for many hard working folks with very limited options, just trying to get by, living paycheck to paycheck, etc. It would seem to me that in a lot of instances these places that are filled with smoke turn out to be the only option for a lot of these folks. That to me seems to supercede the privaledges of smokers and the rights of business owners.

lv2ride 9 years ago

Princess,

Yes, YOU are boring others! but like someone else said prior it was my choice to read it (it amazes me sometimes how silly people can be)...Where in the world did you come up with your screen name anyway...not very fitting of you, from what I have read of your posts. If you don't want to be subjected to the smoking...then for crying out load DON'T SUBJECT YOURSELF TO IT!!! workers also CHOOSE to work in the bars...if they don't want to be around it then maybe they should work somewhere else. It is not like they have no clue that there will be smoke there when they start the job! It is really plain and simple to figure out. I invite you to end your "conversation" Please.

posted by newssleuth2814->****

---Having smoke free areas is fine. People have a right not to have to deal with other people's cigarette smoke, but smokers have rights also and there's no reason to take away from their rights.


newssleuth2814,

I totally agree with your ENTIRE post 100%!!!! The two comments that I copied above, stood out the most to me!! It is like you took the words right out off the tip of my tounge!!!

Thanks for your post!

To everyone else that is just complaining.....HAVE A WONDERFUL AND HAPPY DAY!!!!! It takes twice as much energy to complain and be miserable!!

Charles L Bloss Jr 9 years ago

I thing the smoking ban is a very good thing. I know people that are allergic to cigarette smoke, and they would never go out to eat. Even though there were smoking and non-smoking areas, the smoke would go everywhere. I do not think people have the right to do something that could cause cancer in other people by breathing their smoke. It's quite different from a lot of other things people have the right to do, even if others don't like it, because this particular habit endangers everyone around the smoker. Also, Billy Rork is one of the best lawyers I have ever known. If I hired him, I would listen to his advice. I wouldn't eat in that restaurant, if the man did defy the smoking ban, however. Thank you, Lynn

jwmound 9 years ago

Since when were bars deemed part of a healthy lifestyle anyways? Smoke-em if you gott-em!

Liberty 9 years ago

Hkp, since no one else answered your question;

The Constitution of the United States in the Bill of Rights. The preamble of the Bill of Rights says:

"...in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its (government's) powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficient ends of its institution."

Also: Article IX; The enumeration (listing of God given rights) in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others (other rights not listed here) retained by the people.

Also: Article X; The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (All laws not listed in the Federal Constitution would be prohibited to the States unless the people gave them this power specifically, not a city council giving themselves this power).

In other words, if the power is not specifically listed for the government to exercise, then that power goes to the State of that people or to the people themselves since all power is derived from the people. The Kansas Constitution does not specifically list the power of a city to have a smoking ban or a fireworks ban, therefore the power goes to the people and errs on the side of freedom and not tyranny.

Hkp, if you would take the time to read the Constitution, you would know these things. Especially if you are a police officer or have a background in this area. How can you protect my rights as a police officer if you don't know what they are?

jwmound 9 years ago

A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate. Thomas Jefferson, Rights of British America, 1774

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account. Thomas Jefferson, letter to Monsieur A. Coray, Oct 31, 1823

Democratical States must always feel before they can see: it is this that makes their Governments slow, but the people will be right at last. George Washington, letter to Marquis de Lafayette, July 25, 178

But the mild voice of reason, pleading the cause of an enlarged and permanent interest, is but too often drowned, before public bodies as well as individuals, by the clamors of an impatient avidity for immediate and immoderate gain. James Madison, Federalist No. 42, January 22, 1788

lv2ride 9 years ago

posted by passionatelibra->

The arguments that both sides have are very valid the problem is that you can take an argument for one side and apply it to the other. Drinking causes just as much damage as smoking does but the person down the road has no choice whether a drunk hits them or not. Legal or not, it happens. You have a choice on whether you go into a room full of cigarette smoke and expose yourself to potential health issues. As for ashes getting into the food of others, they must be drunk if they can't hit an ashtray.

passionatelibra,

Very well said!!!!!

thx1138,

If you are a single mom trying to raise three kids, chances are you do not belong in a bar (or anywhere but at home with your children) at 1am in the morning!!! weather you are working or not!! But I guess that is my opinion!!! and that is my choice and my right.......right?!?

Greg Yother 9 years ago

lv2ride:

In a perfect world, folks wouldn't have to work graveyard shifts to feed their children. Reality: lots of times people don't have any choice in order to avoid being homeless and having their children taken away from them. That's my point. It happens all time. In a lot of cases they don't WANT to do it, so what ends up happening is that in many cases the people that are the most in need are the ones who get screwed.

Even so...come on, we're not talking strictly about bars at 1am. In smoking bars there are smokers in there from open to close. And restaurants...same deal.

I vote for not subjecting our hardworking less fortunates (and anyone else for that matter) to health risks in the workplace. Join me lv2ride... try to see reason through all the smoke :)

Greg Yother 9 years ago

By the way, the whole "less fortunate" thing is merely one example at one end of the spectrum; did not intend to paint a picture that servers in general are dirt poor and one step away from homlessness; most are probably students, etc. but my point still stands.

passionatelibra 9 years ago

THX - I understand your point about the workers to a certain degree. I am a single Mother and I had restrictions on what I was willing to deal with when working or not deal with. I still found a job. I know it can be hard but it can be done. I did it in this town... BUT I do understand the point you're trying to make.

No smoking in restaurants I can see. But I can not and do not understand the no smoking in a bar... that's just going overboard.

mom_of_three 9 years ago

I agree with passionatelibra's post, too - let the owners decide what their establishment should be. I do think that the some of the owners have lost money by the city making establishments smoke free. I am not a smoker, but I don't like the ban. If I went out, and a place was filled with TOO much smoke, I went somewhere else. It's a choice! And if you stayed home because you were scared of smoke, it was a choice. You also choose where you work. If you work in a bar, there is a great chance of smoke! The whole less fortunate argument doesn't work with me because there are other places to work, and dangers in those places also. If you attack bars and owners, you better attack all "unhealthy" establishments.
If you don't want to be around smoke, you better stay home! The smoking ban in restaurants is not going to save you from health risks. You might stand next to a smoker at a grocery store and have to breath.

lv2ride 9 years ago

yes, some do have to work graveyard shifts to make ends meet but there are also those out there that are more interested in being out and about instead of staying at home with their kids where they should be. (and try to justify going out with a job in a bar) What are they doing during the day? While kids (of age) are in school? Sleeping from being out too late the night before? I by no means live in a perfect world, I am a mom of three...and I have a full time day job while my kids are in school. I am a non smoker and don't like the fact that at times I smell like smoke when I go to a public place...but I choose to be there. The 1am was an example of moms (parents, not just moms) being out in the middle of the night or even late at night...I am not stupid!... I know that smokers are there from open to close! Point is, go check at the local grocery store, or walmart etc...there are a lot of places that people can work and would not be around smoke, and can work late if that is what works for them.

lv2ride 9 years ago

THX1138,

like I said that is my opinion!

passionatelibra & mom_of_three,

Thx for your replies..it is nice to know there are still some "down to earth" adults out there!!

passionatelibra-- I agree, everyone has their limits and preferences, it all depends on how hard you are willing to work to find the job you want that will work for you!!

Greg Yother 9 years ago

mom-of-three & lv2ride:

Yep, there are other places to work but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree that in some situations, that is the only work some folks can find that pay enough to make ends meet. But more importantly yes, let's "attack" all dangerous workplaces! Or more accurately, minimize danger in the workplace for all workers. I thought that is what we have been doing as a society for years with all of the various worker protection laws. Does that not sound like a good idea? Same as businesses long ago that had other policies that were dangers to workers. We as a society outlawed them and applied them to all businesses, not just simply advised people to find work elsewhere.

lv2ride 9 years ago

agreed to disagree. Have a nice turkey day. :+)-

Commenting has been disabled for this item.