The city's smoking ban never sleeps.
Tiffany Hurter, a bartender at Conroy's, found that out the hard way this week.
Hurter became the city's first nonbusiness owner or manager cited under the city's workplace smoking ban early Wednesday.
Police officers received a tip that the bar was serving drinks after the legal cut-off time of 2 a.m. on Wednesday. A police officer went to the bar, 3115 W. Sixth St., and found no drinking but discovered Hurter smoking a cigarette while talking with a fellow employee and a couple of other friends Hurter had agreed to give a ride.
Hurter said she wasn't aware she was breaking the law and said she didn't think the ticket was justified.
"From my understanding, this was put in to protect employees," Hurter said. "I don't understand if he was trying to protect me from myself or what."
Hurter said the one other employee in the establishment also was a smoker, who happened to not be smoking at the time.
City Prosecutor Jerry Little, though, said the law seemed to be clear on the matter.
"It is like I told her, it is a 24-hour ban," Little said.
Tiffany Hurter, a bartender at Conroy's, holds the citation she received from a police officer Wednesday for smoking after the bar had closed. Hurter is the first smoker to receive a smoking citation. Hurter said she was unaware that the ban was still enforced after hours.
Hurter said Little offered her a plea bargain that would reduce the maximum $100 fine down to $25. She also would have to pay $42 in court costs.
Little said this was the first time the city had issued a ticket to someone other than a business owner. Typically, the city issues tickets to business owners or managers who have allowed illegal smoking to occur in their businesses. Smokers typically aren't ticketed.
But Little said the ordinance always has allowed smokers to be ticketed. This situation was different from normal because a police officer was on the scene. Normally, Lawrence firefighters respond to smoking complaints. They typically do not issue tickets to patrons because city officials have determined that they do not have the necessary training to issue tickets to members of the general public.
David Corliss, the city's director of legal services, said Hurter's case did not signal a change in the city's enforcement policy.
Hurter is scheduled to appear in Municipal Court on Oct. 12. She said she was considering taking the case to trial.
A Lawrence nightclub owner, Dennis Steffes, has filed a lawsuit in Douglas County District Court alleging that the city's ban is unconstitutional. That case is awaiting a trial date.
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.
Solomon (anonymous) says…
It's good to know that the Storm Troopers are out there protecting the citizenry.
cowboy (anonymous) says…
Was this a double secret undercover operation ? I'll bet the COPS show will want to come to Lawrence now to film all this high drama crime fighting !
neopolss (anonymous) says…
worst waste of taxpayer dollars ever. I'm sure someone's car was broken into last night while this yahoo was cracking skulls over smoking.
blessed3x (anonymous) says…
Don't blame the officer! He's just enforcing the stupid law your idiotic City Commission forced upon you people. Then again, there's no one to blame but the Lawrence citizenry for electing such a bunch of hippie dead beats to the commission anyway. Now it would be REALLY funny if this gal voted for the current commission members. What sweet justice that would be. You people made the bed, now lie in it or change it!
jayhawks71 (anonymous) says…
neopolss- what additional tax dollars were "wasted?" The office was going to be paid whether he/she was sitting in the patrol car filling out a report, "looking" for that car being broken into, or issuing a citation.
The usual hyperbole rears is head of course. "Cracking skulls" and "yahoos". Give me a break. If you are anti rule of law go find an island and start your own society. If you are against this law, band together with other like minded people and have the law put to a referendum... oh yeah... a group already did that and then their "leaders" decided at the last minute to unilaterally pull the signatures that had been collected. Brilliant move in the face of certain defeat.
If you actually think that the police prevent crime (your example) you are living in a fantasyland. Police are a reaction to crime and rarely prevent it. Even the Supreme Court has ruled that the government has no obligation to protect you (and that means the police have no obligation to prevent a crime from occurring).
spikey_mcmarbles (anonymous) says…
Isn't there a sign on the door at Conroy's that says smoking is prohibited inside?
poolside (anonymous) says…
If the JW is correctly reporting, the officer was called on a suspiscion of serving alcohol after hours. A real reason to respond. It is unfortunate that the girl got a ticket. And I think she probably should not have. But even though I am a non smoker, and like having my food taste better, I am one who thinks that the rights of others have been discriminated. I was one of those tossed signatures.
craigers (anonymous) says…
At least this proves that they will ticket somebody that is smoking instead of the owner. The law was for everybody and not just during business hours. Just pay the $67 and move on. If she goes to trial now that would be a waste of tax payers money because if she isn't going to pay the 67 bucks you had better believe she won't want to pay a 250/hour lawyer, but the court might appoint one for her.
harrierist (anonymous) says…
I am not a smoker, but this is just another law that prohibits personal freedom, of use of a legal drug. If second hand smoke is bad then in any instance the legal drug should be banned. But if government is really worried about the air then they need to issue a warning that all humans stop breathing. Because the air as it is has the potential down the road of life, in causing your death. Lawrence does have the air pollution from Topeka blowing your way. Air pollution from industry and automobiles for heaven sake, does more arm to your lungs than second hand smoke. Plus most smokers I know are careful to put the damn things out when finish. People don't realize that by just walking down inner city Lawrence that they are breathing large amounts of Carbon monoxide from car exhaust. It is not enough to kill you, but it is one cause of why people who live in urban areas like Kansas City Missouri are tired all of the time. Too many Hem molecules in the blood tied up with CO and can't an average amount of O2 diffusion.
Centrist (anonymous) says…
Firstly .... I am all for the ban. But after hours??? C'mon!! The law was passed to protect the "public", not the bar owner .. this is going way too far. I don't want to see the ban lifted, but I do want it to be freakin reasonable! It should stipulate "during operating hours" or perhaps if a "non-employee" or "non-proprietor" is on the premises" ... or something like that. We CAN have some flexibility here ...
mightyquin (anonymous) says…
I wonder who called in the "tip" that booze was being served after hours? It was probably a smoking ban advocate that knew the police wouldnt send someone just to investigate someone smoking in a public building.
Confrontation (anonymous) says…
Awww, poor baby couldn't wait to pop that cig in her mouth! I'm all for reducing the population through stupid health decisions. The law is a great law to protect those of us who can make intelligent decisions about smoking. Too bad she didn't understand that "no smoking in a business establishment" meant "no smoking in a business establishment." Maybe we need to waste tax dollars on a training designed to explain the obvious.
hurlehey (anonymous) says…
There is a sign in a window @ 15th and wakarusa that says "Cigar Lounge coming in October" anybody knowwhat thats about?
bearded_gnome (anonymous) says…
Cigarettes, BAD--Pot good...
and the Lord Mayor Boog, said "its just a little pot."
how about, "its just a little tobacco?"
Liberty (anonymous) says…
If anyone is for this draconian "law" they can expect it to be abused and expanded. Government has a long history of pushing the envelope when given authority that they should never have had. They will eventually find a way to invade your homes with their 'protection' for your safety. This is no surprise except to those in favor of controlling others through the gestapo.
Liberty (anonymous) says…
The $42 is for the judge's retirement fund. Perhaps if you offer $84, the judge will ignore the next infraction and look the other way???
Confrontation (anonymous) says…
Someone must be a fan of the slippery slope theory. How is a smoking ban in businesses the start of complete government control? Perhaps the tax laws led to the speed limit laws to the internet laws to the smoking ban? Please, put on your trenchcoat and enjoy your anarchist meeting.
red6102003 (anonymous) says…
Here is how I see it our government was founded by the people for the people. Now it is run by the government for the government. The only reason there is a smoking ban is to see if it will save them tax money from hospital bills that they have to dish out money for from their pocket, so they can give themselves a raise. More people die from sun exposure than second hand smoke. What's next banning us from going in the sun? I't just like paying taxes Remember the boston tea party which was supposed to put in law that there would be no taxes. Well then for WWII they put taxes in affect to pay for the war and were to end taxes after the war. But they saw how much money they were making and didn't say anything and everyone kept paying without really thinking about. Now you can't find anything anymore that isn't taxed in some shape or form. Now just like this smoking ban government is keeping up with pushing it's limitations. And until the people quit playing follow the leader and start standing up for their rights as an american it will only continue and do nothing but get worse.
topflight (anonymous) says…
boo hoo. quite your damn bitchin and pay the damn fine. lets look at you options here. i can pay the $67 fine and be done with it. or i can hire a lawyer and try to prrove nothing and spend 500 plus dollars. oh yeah, dont forget, you will probably have to take off work to go to court so you are also out of that money. oh yeah, dont forget gas to get there. but wait, someone might be a hippy without a job and a car.
same with the rest of you, find something else to bitch about, something important.
dotteboy (anonymous) says…
Note to bimbo bartender: Draw blinds and lock door when engaging in illegal activities after hours in a drinking establishment. If no blinds are present, insist owner install some.Explain to him blinds may save him a hefty ABC fine. I never got caught breaking all applicable state and municipal regulations after I closed the bars I worked in and partied on the bosses dime.
Also, there is no conspiracy or "smokestapo". You got caught. Pay the fine like a woman.
dotteboy (anonymous) says…
Topflight needs a hug... and spellcheck.
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
What more can be said, what a crock of paternalistic crap.
compmd (anonymous) says…
In my opinion, smokers are creatures of lesser
intelligence. Breathing while walking down the street is
worse than smoking? Worse than inhaling concentrated
particulates? Wow. Take a couple chemistry classes.
Conroy's is known to be smoker friendly. The owner is a
staunch opponent to the smoking ban. In fact,
nonregistered voters could register to vote at the bar so
they could vote against the smoking ban. I've got nothing
against the owner or his employees. In fact, they are all
pretty nice people. However, the bartender blatantly broke
the law, and got caught. Simple as that. People are not
allowed to break a law just because they don't like it.
Civil disobedience in this case is not financially or
legally a good idea for the citizens of Lawrence.
redjayj (anonymous) says…
Lesser intelligence....hmmmm... sounds awfully superior to me. I hope you never have a problem with something. Of course, you are perfect. What a jerk.
Lynn731 (anonymous) says…
She endangered the health of the police officer by puffing away and spreading the carcinogen laden smoke all over the bar, never mind about her addicted smoker friend. Abusing nicotine is different from abusing most other drugs. When one smokes, they spread the smoke all around them, and usually, due to ventilation systems all over the room or several rooms. I don't want to breathe their nasty, smelly, dangerous smoke. Hence the law. Non-smokers have the right to breathe clean air free from all the poisons addicted smokers fill their lungs with. Addiction to nicotine is equal to or greater than cocaine. The difference is, if you shoot up cocaine (as long as you don't drive after) you usually affect only yourself. When you smoke, you endanger the health of persons all around you. The officer did very well, good job! I think it should be illegal to smoke anywhere but in your home or in your car, and then only if children aren't present. Thank you, Lynn
compmd (anonymous) says…
Most of the people who post here are brighter than average,
but none are perfect. I'm far from perfect. Though I
wonder how someone who pays lots of money to knowingly
introduce toxins to their body, causing inevitable
long-term health problems and a shorter life, could be
equally as intelligent or more intelligent than someone who
chooses not to do those things, given all else equal. If
you don't wonder that, then you haven't met a smoker who
budgets for packs but not food or bills. They are out
there, and not hard to find.
I feel bad for smokers who have developed health problems.
But in the end, it was their own bad decisions that got
them there. Nobody else's. Responsibility needs to be
taken for one's own actions.
I wish to apologize to anyone I offended in these two
posts, including redjayj.
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
Here is a novel idea, how about smoking and non-smoking bars, eateries, and coffee shops? That way each group can support or avoid the establishments of their choice? Because that leaves the choice in the hands of individuals. If you proudly sport a T-Shirt that says "My body, my rules" and yet are thrilled about the anti-smoking ban.....you might be a non-smoking facist from Lawrence.
jayhawks71 (anonymous) says…
It baffles me when people talk about cigarettes as being a "legal drug." What makes ANY drug illegal is whether there is a law against it, by definition. Smoking in a place of business is NOT legal in the city and therefore it is an illegal drug when consumed in violation of the law.
Then there are the people who talk about the emissions from autos and factories. First, there are laws restricting those. Second, do three negatives make a positive? Where is the logic in this supposedly educated city!
The law was not passed for the sole purpose of "protecting the public" it was first and foremost for the protection of the employees. Go home and smoke. Step outside and smoke. Stop assuming that the air belongs ONLY to you. You infringe on my right to life when you steal/cloud our shared air. Laws are passed to address one person infringing on the rights of others.
If you respond, "then what about the business owners!"
First, businesses have no protection under the constitution, people do. Second, the inalienable rights are listed, in order, life, liberty, and property. Property rights are tertiary. The right to life trumps it.
While I don't want to get into the mix regarding "lesser intelligence" a corrolary of intelligence, level of education is negatively correlated with smoking. The higher one's level of education, the less likely one is to smoke. Not a statement/attack on smokers, but the relationship exists. You figure out why.
Finally, why do smokers think that they can spew their waste anywhere they please? If you can control the diffusion of your smoke, do it and puff away wherever you want. It isn't the fact that YOU are inhaling the smoke and its carcinogens. It is that you are spewing your toxins into the air (which, mind you, the owner of a property does not own). I bet most smokers would certainly have a problem if I decided to relieve myself on the table at which they dine. It is no different. It is societally unacceptable to do that, and it is becoming societally unacceptable to spew smoke into the air.
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
First, business owners are people and they and their property (their businesses) are protected under the constitiution. Second, people are allowed to make all kinds of "bad choices" once they become adults (unprotected promiscuious sex, drinking to excess, eating bad diets) all of which argueably negatively impact others in society. Third, many smart people smoke and many dumb people don't, it's their life and should be their choice. Finally, no one argues that smokers should smoke anywhere they please. If they choose to smoke and if the business owner chooses to allow it, feel free not to work there or patronise the establishment. That model seems to work well most everywhere else.
While you might not relieve yourself in public, you don't seem to have any problem doing virtually the same thing here with your absurd analogy. If you proudly sport a T-Shirt that says "My body, my rules" and yet are thrilled about the anti-smoking ban.....you might be a non-smoking facist from Lawrence.