Advertisement

Lawrence and Douglas County

Lawrence and Douglas county

Effects of city’s smoking ban still in dispute

January 15, 2006

Advertisement

Those who made New Year's resolutions to quit smoking have had two weeks to contemplate the decision.

Is it worth the hassle? Can they stick to it?

Similarly, Lawrence itself is experiencing the effects of such a decision nearly two years after banning smoking in "all enclosed public places."

"It wasn't my idea, and I wasn't on board at first," said Lawrence Mayor Boog Highberger. "But I think this is the most popular decision I've made since I've been on the City Commission. I know in certain circles it's not, but it is if you count the population as a whole."

While the commission instituted the ban based on public health concerns, the main opposition continues to stem from those citing economic fallout. Three types of businesses seem to be the most vulnerable: bars, restaurants and music venues.

"Downtown is taking a major hit," Nick Carroll said. "There are a handful of places right now that are contemplating, 'Is it even worth being in business?'"

Carroll is in a unique position to gauge the effects. He owns The Replay Lounge and The Jackpot Saloon. Replay has an ample outdoor patio in back, while Jackpot has none.


Rick McNeely, owner of Jazzhaus, 926 1/2 Mass., is one of few Lawrence bar owners who support the smoking ban.

Rick McNeely, owner of Jazzhaus, 926 1/2 Mass., is one of few Lawrence bar owners who support the smoking ban.

He said Replay's inside bar revenue was down about 60 percent and the outside up about 60 percent since the ban.

"It used to be even in the summer," he said. "Now, even though it's winter, the back bar is stronger."

Though Replay was the first music venue to feature an outdoor area, he said the amount of smoking clients gained by this setup didn't offset the overall financial decline.

"Everything else is going up," he said. "All expenses are going up. The city is growing. The sales should be up 5 to 10 percent. But they're not. If you don't have growth, you're losing."

Like L.A.

Lawrence's ban is still among the harshest in the nation, falling in line with cities such as Los Angeles and New York. Unlike smaller towns (such as Ames, Iowa) that allow smoking at restaurants and bars after a certain time in the evening, the law is no more lenient toward indoor businesses than if the establishments were within a commercial airplane.

A number of venues created an outdoor patio area or expanded an existing one.

"I have a lot more people on the patio now, but I had to spend a lot more money on the patio, putting the roof on, getting the heaters and that kind of stuff," said Rick Renfro, owner of Johnny's Tavern.

Renfro said his sales were down 15 to 20 percent from 2003, yet he was able to recoup most of that by raising his prices. That and the ban combined to drive away some regular customers - a group he prefers to call "professional drinkers."

"I think a lot of them don't like people telling them what to do as much as anything," he said. "It's not just the smoking. I raised my prices so now they can go to the liquor store and buy a six-pack for what they can buy two beers here.

"I think only 20 percent of the national population smokes now. My little, small Johnny's universe of people, it's probably more like 60 to 70 percent. ... Johnny's is going to survive, and I'll get by, but it just makes it a heck of a lot harder to do that."

What about the music?

Some claim Lawrence's music scene has borne the brunt of the smoking ban.

"I can easily say we're not the same music scene," said Carroll, whose clubs feature live music several nights a week. "Look at Bottleneck's calendar and tell me if it's the same. Look at the Jackpot; we're not doing what we were a year and a half ago. We know we can't pay those big guarantees because we're not certain we can fill the room."

Carroll said many of the national acts that played at one of Lawrence's many concert spots their first time through the Midwest are now bypassing the city to play at similar clubs in Kansas City.

"This (smoking ban) is the worst-case scenario: We're the first ones who are doing it and we're the only ones who are doing it in the state," he said.

Rick McNeely, longtime owner of The Jazzhaus, disagreed that bands were skipping Lawrence for more smoker-friendly locales.

"We had a pretty rough couple of months at first, but it seems to all be sorting itself out," he said. "Everybody is getting used to it. That's the way people say it is everywhere. Whenever there's a smoking ban, the clubs really get hit hard for a few months, then it all kind of works itself out."

But he said the club's out-of-town crowds were thinning because of the ordinance.

"We did lose a lot of our south Johnson County business that we were getting," McNeely said. "For those Blue Valley kids and those at 135th and Roe, it's faster and safer to come to Lawrence than it is to go to Westport, in addition to a whole lot more fun. But I do think it's gradually starting to filter back - so to speak."

Regardless of the economic repercussions, he approved of the prohibition.

"It makes it better for everyone," he said. "Who wants to smell like an ashtray?"

Health benefits?

Measuring the short-term health benefits of the ban is a little more tricky.

"In order to see the difference from an environmental change like the indoor smoking ban, you have to have organized research both before and after the ban," said Dr. Steve Bruner of Lawrence Family Medicine & Obstetrics.

"Several good studies now have shown that an indoor smoking ban dramatically reduces the incidence of heart attack (27 to 40 percent) within the short time of the institution of a ban. In Lawrence, it's very difficult to study that, because we're not an isolated community. People with heart disease go to multiple hospitals around the area, and that's further complicated by the fact that Lawrence Memorial has a new heart program that occurred simultaneously with the ban."

As for the long-term benefits, Bruner cited statistics by the National Cancer Institute that attribute 3,000 deaths from lung cancer per year attributed to secondhand smoke.

"I'm not like an anti-smoking Nazi at all," Jazzhaus owner McNeely said. "I'm not crazy about sitting around people smoking cigarettes, but I don't get up and tell them to move or put it out. As far as an individual health issue, I know I'm going to be 55 in a few months. How healthy can THAT be?"

Comments

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 2 months ago

Shh! Don't say that so loud, jannie-- it's supposed to be a secret.

0

janniebullinlawrence 8 years, 2 months ago

I think you will find him picketing funerals, but I bet you already know that.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 2 months ago

I've really no more interest in joining Phred's cult than I do in joining Marion's, but have him send me an application if you think I'd be a good fit.

0

janniebullinlawrence 8 years, 2 months ago

Justice has spoken, accept it. innocence has outweighed your propaganda and obvious hatred, hey I hear Phred is looking for someone just like you to join his Klan, better get moving.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 2 months ago

Seems like you have a pretty firm obsession with continuing the accusations against Shauner, along with defending Marion as if he were the Messiah.

Get a grip, lady.

0

janniebullinlawrence 8 years, 2 months ago

you have no proof who sent those cards. It was investigated and it was a bust. Seems everyone in legal circles has let go, but for whatever reason you don't. I imagine you have lived the most pristine life and have never been accused of anything wrongly. hum lucky you.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 2 months ago

What do you call Marion's and Vito's baseless smear campaign of Shauner if not a form of ad hominem (some of us can even spell it correctly) attack?

If Marion is the best you can do to satisfy your obvious need of hero worship, I really feel for you. Isn't there a higher quality cult you could join somewhere?

0

janniebullinlawrence 8 years, 2 months ago

Here is the deal you participate in Ad Homein attacks which attempt to deter from the topic. What does anyones personal life have to do with their right to speak freely? You sir are an A**hole to the full extent of the definition. One time I would like to see you stick to the issues rather than attack those with whom you disagree.

0

one_more_bob 8 years, 2 months ago

jannie, the story didn't say that marion sent the postcards. It did say that he was the one posting the allegations on 'that site'. Is that not true? Did he not file for bankruptcy? What part of that posting isn't true?

0

janniebullinlawrence 8 years, 2 months ago

Bob that is simply untrue. Questions were asked of many in reference to the postcards in question, but here is a reality if it were not true Schauner would have sued, his ex wife would have commented. You know Bob you beat dead horses alot. Perhaps you might consider looking into so counseling for the inferiority complex you suffer. While you may never be as fine a man as Marion; you could be good enough.

0

one_more_bob 8 years, 2 months ago

"Posted by Multidisciplinary (anonymous) on February 14, 2006 at 8:08 p.m. (Suggest removal) Can someone please tell me what businesses Marion owns or operates?"

"Marion Sidney Lynn, also known as M.S. Lynn Jr., AAA Pawn, Free State Press, Pretentious Cow, Free State Pawn, and Whitewolf..."

From: http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/sep...

When he's not doing that: "...The postcard comes after a Lawrence Internet forum, rivercitytalk.com, had posted allegations that Schauner's 1971 marriage to a Larned women ended as a result of domestic abuse. Schauner denied those allegations as well. "Totally untrue," Schauner said. "Find one scintilla of evidence to prove that. It is not true. There is no such information. It is a bald-faced lie." The Journal-World has discovered no evidence that supports the allegations. Court documents from Pawnee County showed that the couple's divorce was settled amicably. When contacted by the Journal-World, Schauner's first wife declined comment about the marriage. Marion Lynn, the individual who posted the allegations on the Internet, said he had no idea who sent the postcards..." From: http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/apr...

0

janniebullinlawrence 8 years, 2 months ago

MD normally I would go off on you for asking such a question, but after reading your earlier post on another thread I will say this; Marion is a very good businessman. But what one does for work certainly does not define the man. Beyond his business abilities Marion is among the finest of human beings I have ever known. His compassion for others supercedes any monetary gain he could every establish through a business venture. I infact just emailed him minutes ago and told him what I thought of your post. I think too often people place far too much stock on what a person is worth rather than the worth of the person. When the rubber meets the road doallars do not matter because you see you cannot take it with you. I am sure this is not the answer you were seeking but it is what I have.

0

Multidisciplinary 8 years, 2 months ago

If you wish to answer that privately, wisdomweathered@hotmail.com

0

Multidisciplinary 8 years, 2 months ago

Can someone please tell me what businesses Marion owns or operates?

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 2 months ago

It seems to me you do have a choice, and you are exercising it by staying away from Lawrence.

Too bad your addiction prevents you from seeing some great shows.

0

Columbia_Smoker 8 years, 2 months ago

I have stopped traveling to Lawrence for shows because of this smoking ban. I am a smoker and live in Columbia, Missouri. I will take my disposable income to locations that don't feel like using fascism to enforce a hateful opinion against smokers. Unfortunatly, i'll be doing the same thing in Columbia soon. I can't wait to vote to criminalize the public consumption of alcohol now that I see just how far some of you will go to circumvent stinky clothes instead of using the liberty of choice. Cherry picked second hand smoke studies don't have anything on the tangible reality of drunk driving. I guess Live and Let Live isn't as much fun as limiting choice these days.

0

down_the_river 8 years, 3 months ago

(Finally)

The biggest challenge to the media strategy of the anti-smoking crusaders has come in the past six months from within the ranks. Michael Siegel, a physician and tobacco control scientist has decided to eschew the dogma and stun his colleagues by insisting on the truth. Anyone who wishes to learn what's really going on in the anti-tobacco crusade could not find a better source of science than Dr. Siegel presents. He is now a political outcast in a movement he was a leader of just two years ago. His review of the other study Doc was alluding to in the JW article can be found at his blog:

tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2005/11/premature-conclusions-from-pueblo-more.html

Let's not even touch on the curious studies of nicotine as preventative for Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.

0

down_the_river 8 years, 3 months ago

One of the two health studies Doc was referring to is the Helena Montana study directed by the smoking activist and Mechanical Engineer, Stanton Glantz. The study first reported a sixty percent drop in heart attacks during a smoking ban period, but later revised it to a forty percent drop. This is still rife with problems from a scientific standpoint (see responses in the British Medical Journal bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/bmj.38055.715683.55v1) such as very small sample size, no accounting for smoking/nonsmoking status of the victims, no accounting for exposure to secondhand smoke among victims, no acknowledgment that the same drop in mortality had been noted at the same facility in previous years while there was not a smoking ban in effect. In other words, a good headline grabber, but very poor science.

What we know about lung cancer, two to four percent of active smokers will develop lung cancer. (www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews....) Ninety percent of lung cancer cases are among active smokers, five percent are radon exposure, and the remainder are attributed to one of thirty to forty causative agents: asbestos, silica, wood dust and second hand smoke among them. So, even though there is a sixteen percent increase in lung cancer possibly attributed to secondhand smoke, it's a small increase from a very small number. Also, most of those increases are postulated to be spouses of smokers, rather than workers at restaurants, and certainly not customers at restaurants.

As a final reality check on the mortality threat posed by secondhand smoke, if you believe the theoretical 50,000 to 60,000 deaths each year as suggested by some activists, filter it through your experience. Take the number of years you have lived in Lawrence, multiply it by 20, and that's the number of people who have theoretically died in Lawrence during the time you've lived here. Does that resulting number match what you are aware of? If not what do you attribute the difference to?

Smoking stinks, it burns your eyes, irritates your nasal passages and fouls your hair, and for smokers, it cuts your life expectancy by 7 to 10 percent. If smokers quit, the health of Lawrence will improve, but it most likely won't have much of any impact on the mortality of us nonsmokers.

The smoking ban is designed to abate the nuisance for us nonsmokers, and hopefully entice a few smokers to quit, so they can reap the health benefits of a nonsmoking lifestyle.

(Please note, several of the links cited are to popular press articles for simplicity's sake. They can provide further reference to source studies with links or detailed search.)

(one last continued)

0

down_the_river 8 years, 3 months ago

Here are a few notes to consider when hoping for a boost in the health factor of Lawrence with the diminishment of secondhand smoke. The first thing to ponder is the fact that of the 18 developed nations with a greater life expectancy than the US, 15 have greater rates of smoking, and by extension, greater exposures of secondhand smoke (sometimes much greater, e.g. Japan). Something else may be a factor in the US life expectancy than secondhand smoke?

For normal cholesterol level nonsmokers, our greatest health risk is stress. (www.azstarnet.com/dailystar/related articles/36672.php) Secondhand smoke does not show up in the nine factors that contribute to ninety percent of heart disease deaths. Stress does play a role, so perhaps getting wrought up about tobacco smoke is much worse than breathing it?

If you are exposed to secondhand smoke and are concerned about the impact on your heart, have a drink. The blood thickening impact of one cigarette is balanced by two drinks. (www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/31...) Since the typical guest in a nonsmoking section of a restaurant would inhale the equivalent of one cigarette after 3 years of once a week dining visits, they should be able to sneak two glasses of wine or beer into those 150 visits. (Continued)

0

Meatwad 8 years, 3 months ago

ljreader wrote: "It seems to me it is discriminatory to owners of bars, restaurants, and other private businesses to not be allowed to choose whether or not they wish to allow legal substances (such as tobacco) into their establishments, as well. I agree with Marion. Tobacco use in private business places should be the choice of the owner. Whether or not you wish to visit or work in a smoking environment is the choice of the individual."

If it weren't a health issue, I would agree. If the tobacco could stay with the user instead of filling the entire environment and lungs of employees, the public and everyone around the user, I would agree.

0

Meatwad 8 years, 3 months ago

:)

We could ALL make a LONG list of bars that went out of business before there was a smoking ban?

Maybe the Jackpot wouldn't have done well anyway? I've been to several shows there and when it's crowded, you can't see the band and the sound isn't great. If the stage were higher so that sightlines were better and if the sound were better, maybe that would help business? I'm not saying the smoking ban never hurt any bars... but I also think that some bars like to use it as an excuse. The patio on the Replay is one of the best places to be... for smokers and non-smokers. Always has been. Also, it's generally only $2 or so to get in, so if there is a band playing that you've never heard of, no big deal, wheras the Jackpot admission price is usually $5-$8. The Replay has a MUCH better set up and that's why it does well, better than the Jackpot. Most people don't mind paying $2 for a band they've never heard of, and if the band isn't to their liking, they can hang out on the patio.

0

Marion Lynn 8 years, 3 months ago

Meatwad wrote:

"Posted by Meatwad (anonymous) on January 16, 2006 at 11:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If I owned a business and it wasn't doing well I would be happy to have something (the smoking ban) to blame, too. Rather than take a good look at the reality of the situation and maybe my business would have slipped whether or not people smoked inside of it. Bars go in/out of business ALL THE TIME. That is reality."

Meatwad, might I suggest that you would not recognise or understand reality if it bit you on the butt.

Thanks.

Marion.

0

ljreader 8 years, 3 months ago

Food and drink are legal substances, yet some retail stores choose to ban them from their premises ("No food or drink allowed" signs), while others do not. It seems to me it is discriminatory to owners of bars, restaurants, and other private businesses to not be allowed to choose whether or not they wish to allow legal substances (such as tobacco) into their establishments, as well. I agree with Marion. Tobacco use in private business places should be the choice of the owner. Whether or not you wish to visit or work in a smoking environment is the choice of the individual.

0

Meatwad 8 years, 3 months ago

I was talking to a smoker friend a few weeks ago at Free State. She told me she was initially so angry about the smoking ban that she wrote an angry letter to the city council. She has since changed her mind and when she ran into Boog on the street, told him that the smoking ban is the BEST thing to ever happen to Lawrence. Who would possibly want to SMELL THAT BAD? Smokers have NO IDEA how bad they smell until they quit. Many smoking people LIKE the smoking ban because they smell less bad by smoking outside. If you did a survey of the people smoking outside on Mass, I'll bet you'd find a majority LIKE or could care less about the smoking ban.

0

Meatwad 8 years, 3 months ago

If I owned a business and it wasn't doing well I would be happy to have something (the smoking ban) to blame, too. Rather than take a good look at the reality of the situation and maybe my business would have slipped whether or not people smoked inside of it. Bars go in/out of business ALL THE TIME. That is reality.

0

Marion Lynn 8 years, 3 months ago

Goose wrote: "Posted by goose (anonymous) on January 15, 2006 at 11:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

marion--

your arguments are good. you're right about the fact that people have the choice to go or not to go to the establishments that allow smoking. most of the people that detest smoke do avoid the smokier environments. unfortunately for all of us, one smoker imposes on the right to breath fresh air of many non-smokers. for many years the law has protected the right of the smokers by making it legal to smoke in resteraunts, bars, ect. with the number of smokers being around only 20 percent of the population now, those laws are obsolete. non-smokers have legally changed the law so that smoking is no longer permitted in public places. if this law is so unjust, then it should be no problem for you and people like you to change it back. instead of whining about this issue online for the last 16 hours, why weren't you out there trying to fight it in a way that will actually get something done?"

I am not now advocating for nor have I EVER advocated for supposed "smoker's rights".

I advocate for the right of business to select and serve its chosen clientle.

Regarding the number of hours that I spend on the net....

...internet advocacy of any cause is the single most effective method of drawing attention to any issue.

I am fortunate in that I make my living on the net and am in front of the computer anyway so I am able to post while the cash register rings away!

Too bad that there are so many in society today who cannot function without the "guidance" or coercion of government.

Thanks.

Marion.

0

ljreader 8 years, 3 months ago

Ahhh,personal responsibility. It is your personal responsibility to not go into places where there is smoke, if you don't like it, instead of imposing your preferences on everyone else. I know people severely allergic to perfumes and aftershaves. While you are odorfree from smoke, you may be making other people sick in public and workplaces with those products. Your reasoning dictates that we should ban those, too. I don't even smoke, but I defend the rights of those who wish to, especially in a bar setting. Go to a bar- most of the patrons spend most of their time outside. If business owners were allowed to make these choices for their own establishments, they chips will fall where they may. If nonsmoking establishments are more popular, then they will get most of the business and force the smoking establishments out.

0

EvaTrujillo 8 years, 3 months ago

Remember when the tabacco companies lost? That was completely wrong. Their packs of cigs clearly show a warning, and based on that, the smoker knew the ramifications. The smoker and their family should have never sued the tabacco companies. After reading the statement that the smoking ban here in Lawrence, Ks, has caused more littering of butts, methinks, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY is a trait that must encouraged amoungst people who smoke. About the second-hand smoke studies - those are probably slanted and there's alot of variables to substantiate the ill-effects of smoke, but this is 2006 - you can make something up to get your way (like weapons of mass destruction). But really, just as miners must have un-polluted air to breathe, so must the wait help. Cheers to all, it's Martin Luther King Day, the guy was defending the rights of garbage workers to have equal pay before he was murdered.

0

stbaker 8 years, 3 months ago

Ember, don't you know that obesity causes heart disease? aka Coronary Artery Disease? People don't just die from too much fat. They die because their hearts can no longer sustain the workload involved with maintaining vital organs and that extra hundred pounds of tissue? Perhaps you should not be so quick to insult someone, eh? I'm not saying that smoking is the only cause for heart disease, just a leading risk factor. And you don't need to preach to me about harmful chemicals in household products. However, do you sit behind the exhaust of your vehicle inhaling the exhaust? Do you use your toilet bowl cleaner for eye drops? You wouldn't knowingly do this, because you know it's potentially harmful, even fatal, right? Insulting people shows your insecurities. It doesn't reinforce your intelligence.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 3 months ago

"This ban has contributed to the pollution you complain about, sbaker."

The butt is created by a smoker, whose responsibility it is to dispose of properly. Blaming their irresponsible behavior on the ban is abusrd.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, there is an exception in the law, (the hallmark exception, for lack of a better term) that could be used as a template for exceptions in bars and restaurants. It would be an uphill battle to get that exception into law because this existing ban is very popular, but if it's that important for people to swill and smoke, quit bitching and do something.

0

ljreader 8 years, 3 months ago

I don't like to see all the butts laying around outside, either. ..which is another argument against the ban. The proper place to dispose of butts are in an ashtray, on top of a bar or table. This ban has contributed to the pollution you complain about, sbaker. I can also argue that if you take prescription drugs, those have been found to get into our water supply- Perhaps we should ban your use of those, too. It is easier for me to choose not to enter a smokey establishment, then for me to choose not to drink water. No one is arguing that smoking is good for you. The argument is that in a free society, folks should have the choice of what they want to do to their own bodies.

0

Ember 8 years, 3 months ago

AU contraire, Stbaker. None of those reports lists a single death where the MAIN cause of death was second hand smoke. It is, at best, a tertiary (3rd leading) cause of death in EVERY single report that I have read in the last 3 years.

Give me a list of every single chemical in cigarettes and I can find them in everyday, household products and common interactiosn in the real world that we deal with every single day. Who's to say those products aren't the leading cause?

And heart disease is no longer the leading cause of death in this country. Obeisity is. Read a newspaper once in a while. Would do you good.

0

stbaker 8 years, 3 months ago

In the long run, it's likely that the smoking ban will save everyone more money. Heart disease is the number one killer in America, and billions and billions of dollars are spent each year (lost wages, loss of productivity, medical costs). Subjecting thousands of employees and patrons to second-hand smoke increases the risk of developing heart disease. By implementing the smoking ban, Lawrence is likely doing the economy a favor, as well as all those who choose (or chose, rather) to work in a smoking establishment because that's where they could earn a living. With many jobs, there are occupational hazards. People who work in healthcare are provided with gloves, gowns, masks, etc. to help protect them from pathogens. Those who do asbestos abatement are provided with appropriate protective clothing and respirators. Those who work construction are provided hard-hats and earplugs. I could go on and on. The smoking ban was not about tearing away the rights of smokers, but about protecting employees and customers from having to be exposed to the thousands of carcinogens in cigarette smoke. Oh, and then there is the backlash from those who oppose the smoking ban about people choosing to eat in restaurants that allow smoking. Well, how many non-smoking establishments were there prior to the smoking ban? Subway? The Taco Bell/Pizza Hut bar at Target? Oohhhhh...My mouth is watering. Give me a break.

Ember: Medical Journals...Scientific Journals...There are a couple of places to start when researching the perils of second-hand smoke. Some beaurocrat is not just rolling the dice and pulling the fact that second-hand smoke is very carcinoginic out of his arse.

The smoking ban is great. Now, if some smokers would just be courteous enough to dispose of their cigarette butts in an appropriate receptacle, instead of on the sidewalks, or out their car windows.....The alcohol industry advocates for drinking responsibly, what about smoking responsibly (how many forest fires are started by discarded smoldering cigarettes?)?

0

goose 8 years, 3 months ago

marion--

your arguments are good. you're right about the fact that people have the choice to go or not to go to the establishments that allow smoking. most of the people that detest smoke do avoid the smokier environments. unfortunately for all of us, one smoker imposes on the right to breath fresh air of many non-smokers. for many years the law has protected the right of the smokers by making it legal to smoke in resteraunts, bars, ect. with the number of smokers being around only 20 percent of the population now, those laws are obsolete. non-smokers have legally changed the law so that smoking is no longer permitted in public places. if this law is so unjust, then it should be no problem for you and people like you to change it back. instead of whining about this issue online for the last 16 hours, why weren't you out there trying to fight it in a way that will actually get something done?

0

Ember 8 years, 3 months ago

"Sales tax receipts are up..."

What a silly argument. Of course they are up. The prices are up to offset the loss in business. Most incoming funds means there is more to tax. Nice to know that people still understand the concept of percentages in this day and age.

Bozo, about your comment about supporting an enclosed smoking area. I hate to tell you this, but this ban makes such a concept illegal. Hallmark had to throw around a lot of weight just to get their smoker's only breakroom, and it still had to have massive amounts of ventilation present. I know that at one point, the plant itself threatened to close doors permanently.

I never said anything, though, about alcohol taxes, since they are NOT astronomical, but cigarette taxes are absolutely insane. When my grandfather started smoking, back before MLK made his march, a pack of cigarettes cost roughly 10 cents, depending on where you went for them. That same pack of smokes is now over $3.00 a pack. The taxes levied on a pack of cigarettes are figured into the price, and THEN sales tax is charged.

The money will never be used to promote quitting smoking, and we both know that. It will be used to shore up a variety of special interests that the state has going, and if there is any left over, well, they might consider spending a little on a few billboards, or maybe a study. That's about it. Kansas got billions of dollars from the big tobacco settlement. Where did it go?

And smokers never enforced their will on anyone, ever. Smokers never lit up in the non-smoking sections. Smokers never purposely blew their smoke towards anyone behaving themselves in public. Air circulation is the reason cigarette smoke never stayed in one place. Hate to break it to you, but second hand smoke is NOT a living entity and it does not roam willy-nilly just because it can.

Air currents and thermal drafts from food, hot beverages and bodies, as well as doors opening and closing, and people moving hither, thither and yon is what circulates smoke.

But none of it matters. Some beaurocrat that none of use will ever meet in person, let alone talk to in passing, announced, through some very faulty data gathering, that second hand smoke is a leading cause of so many diseases. I say he's full of it, because it takes a certain amount of any chemical to create the changes in the human body needed for cancers to form, for example. If a smoker has to smoke for at least 10 years before there is even a hint of any permanent damage, then how int he hell can 3-5% of that total amount affect anyone?

It's about personal comfort, and the non smokers' personal comfort zones were feeling cramped, so hey expanded, pure and simple.

0

Marion Lynn 8 years, 3 months ago

Forty years ago we were fighting against folks like you.

A lot of good freezing our butts of in front of Strong Hall did us.

The real problem is that so many of us have BECOME you!

Bob Dylan

Subterranean Homesick Blues

Johnny's in the basement Mixing up the medicine I'm on the pavement Thinking about the government The man in the trench coat Badge out, laid off Says he's got a bad cough Wants to get it paid off Look out kid It's somethin' you did God knows when But you're doin' it again You better duck down the alley way Lookin' for a new friend The man in the coon-skin cap In the big pen Wants eleven dollar bills You only got ten

Maggie comes fleet foot Face full of black soot Talkin' that the heat put Plants in the bed but The phone's tapped anyway Maggie says that many say They must bust in early May Orders from the D. A. Look out kid Don't matter what you did Walk on your tip toes Don't try "No Doz" Better stay away from those That carry around a fire hose Keep a clean nose Watch the plain clothes You don't need a weather man To know which way the wind blows

Get sick, get well Hang around a ink well Ring bell, hard to tell If anything is goin' to sell Try hard, get barred Get back, write braille Get jailed, jump bail Join the army, if you fail Look out kid You're gonna get hit But users, cheaters Six-time losers Hang around the theaters Girl by the whirlpool Lookin' for a new fool Don't follow leaders Watch the parkin' meters

Ah get born, keep warm Short pants, romance, learn to dance Get dressed, get blessed Try to be a success Please her, please him, buy gifts Don't steal, don't lift Twenty years of schoolin' And they put you on the day shift Look out kid They keep it all hid Better jump down a manhole Light yourself a candle Don't wear sandals Try to avoid the scandals Don't wanna be a bum You better chew gum The pump don't work 'Cause the vandals took the handles

0

EvaTrujillo 8 years, 3 months ago

"A Tarrington smoker would rather fight than quit." Sigh. Imagine that fifty years ago, smokers always had to ASK, "Mind if I smoke?" instead of assuming it was okay. Imagine smokers disposing of their butts in an empty pack instead of throwing out on the ground. The irresponsible few smokers have now become way too many. And now this requires intervention.

0

Marion Lynn 8 years, 3 months ago

Well, ya know, I smoke like a chimney and need to quit, like really bad.

My arguments are not about smoking; I do not advocate smoking and believe that no one should start and that everyone who smokes should quit.

Smoking bans are not about smoking, health, employee safety or bad odours.

Smoking bans are about power.

I do not believe that it is the job of government to resolve this issue.

Given the opportunity, the free market would take care of itself and all would prosper.

Thanks.

Marion.

0

corporate_sleaze 8 years, 3 months ago

Personally, I think smoking is a vile, digusting, harmful thing to choose to do. I hate the smoke, the odor, the staining and the resulting problems it causes.

However, every poster (except this Marion person) always misunderstands this subject, the fundamental concept, the clear line of reasoning that is being misapplied.

Don't force a business to not allow a legally produced, legally distributed substance from being legally consumed by a legal consumer on the premise of a private business.

There is no law that forces a nonsmoker to enter a smoking-permitted business. A nonsmoker enters a smoking-permitted business completely of their own choosing. So, if you don't like the smoke then don't go into these businesses.

Excersize "consumer choice" and find a business that does not permit smoking... because that business owner chooses to cater to your particular customer preferences as a nonsmoker.

But, you say you can't find any businesses (restaurants, coffee shops, whatever) that are nonsmoking. Then again, excersize consumer choice... ask for it.

If that doesn't work then start your own smoke-free business. If there's a "free" demand for such a business, it will probably succeed. If there's not a demand for such a business then the free market has spoken.

0

Eybea Opiner 8 years, 3 months ago

I'm a former 41 year smoker, who has been quit for 13 years. I like the fact that establishments are smoke free, but I would trade that for the freedom that has been stolen from the business owners. They are the ones who have put their capital at risk and they should have the right to allow smoking, or not.

Before the ban there were some establishments I wouldn't frequent because the atmosphere was simply too smokey. If the militant non-smokers would have stopped visiting establishments where they found the environment oppressive, then written the management a letter outlining their decisions, the management may have made changes. If not, that would just prove that not enough people cared enough to impact the business.

If we are so worried about health issues shouldn't we ban smoking altogether? If it is such a deadly thing, why do we permit it at all? It should be simple enough to not grant any business permits to sell cigarettes. How about banning those loud rock concerts that are ruining the hearing of young people, not to mention the i-pods which are doing the same thing. Maybe we should forbid those smoke-free restaurants from serving food that our city council deems "bad" for us. I imagine Rundle would have some ideas.

If mama state is going to take care of us, she should do a complete job.

0

ljreader 8 years, 3 months ago

Personally, I've never understood the argument that the smoking ban is designed to protect the health of the employees working in a smoking establishment. Where you work, is also a matter of choice. I don't choose to trudge thru human waste, therefore I choose not to be a plumber. I do not choose to suck in poisons all day, therefore I do not seek employment as an exterminator, etc, etc. I would think that people who don't like smoke, would not apply for employment at a bar. I also think it is unfair to change the rules on business owners midstream. How many knew what they signed up for when they decided years ago to open a bar- The ones that are already operating should be grandfathered in, and remain smoking establishments, if they choose. Then, only impose the smoking ban on new establishments.If a prospective bar owner thinks he can't make it without smokers, then he /she has a choice of deciding to open a new bar or not. It's not a great solution, but it would at least be a compromise.

0

EvaTrujillo 8 years, 3 months ago

Right on!!! Life here in this town with over-priced cheap built houses, pyro-developers, and little grade-school students left alone every Wednesday due to teacher-collabation, has now has something that really, really is positive. The smoking ban now lures my family and friends to come visit us (from other towns). Having better air rocks!!

0

Marion Lynn 8 years, 3 months ago

Kookamooga wrote:

"Posted by Kookamooka (anonymous) on January 15, 2006 at 8:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I guess his head didn't explode after all!"

No, you haven't got it right yet.

It is I who causes the heads of whining Pseudo-liberal/Neo-socialist/controlfreaks to explode.

I keep the remnants in jars of formaldehyde as trophies of a good job well done.

Thanks.

Marion.

0

Kookamooka 8 years, 3 months ago

I guess his head didn't explode after all!

0

Marion Lynn 8 years, 3 months ago

Observer wrote: "Posted by observer (anonymous) on January 15, 2006 at 7:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thing is Marion, there are certain regulations for the right to operate a place serving the public. No business owner can decide what rules he will obey or ignore. The ban was passed legally. The legal way to overturn it was not followed. Take it to a vote via petition, I'll sign the petition for a vote and then vote to keep the ban. I think the petition proponents realized they would lose, that's why they dumped the idea. The fact that a small minority of whiners don't like it doesn't prove it's a bad idea or doesn't accomplice what it was intended to. ie: Protect everyones health."

Since you specify that you area concerned with places that "serve the public", am I to assume that you would have no opposition to the establishment of private clubs which permit smoking?

Thanks.

Marion.

0

dudesmithy 8 years, 3 months ago

The smoking ban rocks. Now if the smokers could just get a few more manners and quit using the parking lot, street, sidewalk, parks, lakes, etc...as their own personal ashtray...we'd be even better off.

-DS

0

dex 8 years, 3 months ago

The Key Question: "If you do not like smoke, why do you go into smoking establishments?"

because i'm making a tradeoff, i will live with the discomfort and nebulous second-hand smoke risks to enjoy the services offered by an establishment. those establishments that are "too smokey" don't get my business.

the people that whine on the forums about better tasting food or their imaginary "rights" want it all, they percieve the short term advantage of eliminating the tradeoff mentioned above without considering the tradeoff that they're forcing upon business owners and the unknown tradeoff that takes a few years to play out: the possible decrease in downtown locally-owned businesses because those are the ones most likely to have fewer resources and management crutches as franchise businesses. and, assuming the observations by the replay owner in article are accurate, a possible decrease in selection of high-quality live rock entertainment.

what is the cost of the smoking ban? moreover, what is an acceptable cost? keep in mind that the costs are carried by those that stand nothing to gain from the ban. is it okay if one business goes under? two? three? did the city commission carefully weigh potential the costs? did the ljworld highlight the the potential costs in every article about the supposed 'benefits' to the ban?

my impression from reading the ljworld and chatting with the intellectual "elite" on the hill for the past 5 years has been 'no' and as such, i would not open a business in lawrence, kansas if given a choice among other similar towns because lawrence, as a community, doesn't appear to take seriously the "community" (city commision) decisions that have a direct and tangible, if unknown, effect on the investments of those who put their dollars in the community.

the "counter argument" to this argument will rest on the faulty premise that the smoking ban saves the lives of those that work and shop at those establishments. this presupposes that the customers and the employees don't have a choice in the matter. "they shouldn't have to make a choice between their health and a job/dinner" but then again, i shouldn't have to make a choice between a cheeseburger and a salad. why not ban cheeseburgers while we're at it?

the smoking ban won't be the first time that prohibitionist laws will put the people of kansas at an economic disadvantage relative to their friendly neighbors to the east.

0

observer 8 years, 3 months ago

Thing is Marion, there are certain regulations for the right to operate a place serving the public. No business owner can decide what rules he will obey or ignore. The ban was passed legally. The legal way to overturn it was not followed. Take it to a vote via petition, I'll sign the petition for a vote and then vote to keep the ban. I think the petition proponents realized they would lose, that's why they dumped the idea. The fact that a small minority of whiners don't like it doesn't prove it's a bad idea or doesn't accomplice what it was intended to. ie: Protect everyones health.

0

gccs14r 8 years, 3 months ago

Of the businesses that continue to have fewer customers this long after the ban, I wonder how many of them raised their prices? That's what ran me off. I'm not spending $4 for a beer.

0

Marion Lynn 8 years, 3 months ago

RED HERRING but I expected little else.

Thanks.

Marion.

0

Kookamooka 8 years, 3 months ago

(this is the place in the log where Marion's head explodes)

0

Kookamooka 8 years, 3 months ago

I appreciate the fact that marion can take his money, his cigarettes and his manner and enter a smoking establishment... in another city. Way to excercise your right to smoke! Somewhere else.

0

Marion Lynn 8 years, 3 months ago

"Smoker's rights" do not exist in any special form; a smoker has no more or no fewer rights than yourself and I have never contended otherwise.

What you really are looking for here is to be able to control how another person runs his/her business.

I keep asking the question, "If you do not like smoke, why do you go into smoking establishments?

And you keep not answering.

Thanks.

Marion.

0

observer 8 years, 3 months ago

No Marion, you're wrong. To open a business to server the public, you're required to meet certain standards in order to receive a license. If food service, certain healthy standards must be met. Certian occupancy standards, certain building safety standards, Concerning alcohol services, certain operating hours. So, a business must meet certain standards. Why not for health reasons, regulate smoking? I know I like the current rules. Unfortunately in visiting KC or Topeks, occasionally I forget to request non-smoking and wind up regretting ever going there. Why does some smokers rights trump my rights to breathe fresh air

0

Marion Lynn 8 years, 3 months ago

No, Observer, you are wrong.

Something has been lost here and that is the ability of a business owner to choose his/her clientle and what has been gained is an increase of government intrusion into the persoanl and business lives of Americans.

No one forces you to enter a smoking establishment and you will NOT admint this fact......

If you do admit it then the entire faulty premise on which the smoking ba is based collapses into the pile of excrement that it is.

Thanks.

Marion.

0

observer 8 years, 3 months ago

Marion, I think the only loss that is apparent is smokers have lost the right to force their bad habit and in far too many cases, bad manners on others. Sales tax recipts are up, business fairlures appear normal. Lawrence has a lot of business failures normally. Poor planning, lack of good business plan, poor management, poor customer service, etc. Fact remains if you depend on smokers, approx 20-5% of potential customers to survive, then you need to re-assess your business plan.

0

Marion Lynn 8 years, 3 months ago

Hear, Hear!

Well said!

Thanks.

Marion.

0

dex 8 years, 3 months ago

nobody is going to comment on the bit about the replay? the comparison between the indoor vs. patio sales against data from pre-smoking years is the closest that the ljworld will come to publishing a careful scientific study of the economic effects to food/drink business owners from a city-wide but not statewide smoking ban. though the replay only represents one trial and if we take the buisness owners at their word, then it's clear that the smoking ban does have an effect on the bottom line of local businesses. proponents of the ban are gambling with the investments of others, mostly those that have chosen to invest their dollars in the community. why not open your own smoke-free business if smoke in the businesses owned by others bothers you so much?

those that are least able to adapt (probably downtown locally owned are among them), those with thin profit-margins or lack of mangement skill and creativity, will probably be victoms of the ban. that is in addition to the loss of the right to allow the use of a legal product on the land of property owners.

the current and recent city government enacts policies that makes lawrence, kansas a less desirable place to do business compared to other towns, all things to the bottom line being equal. if new jobs are less important than the convenience of walking onto somebody else's property where people might be doing things you don't like, then by all means ban smoking ... and whatever else is bothersome. just understand that there is a tradeoff, the ban is a 'win' for some people and a 'loss' to more people than just the smokers.

0

Marion Lynn 8 years, 3 months ago

Or the asylum run by the lunatics, otherwise known as Lawrence, Kansas.

Thanks.

Marion.

0

glockenspiel 8 years, 3 months ago

People don't have the RIGHT to go to a restraunt. Its a privelage granted to you by its owner.

If an owner decides to allow smoking at his establishment, you have the RIGHT to not go.

If you insist on choosing safety over freedom, you will soon find yourself living in a cage.

0

Sigmund 8 years, 3 months ago

The effect of the smoking ban is that we know Lawrence citizens are willing to submit to facism as long as it is aimed at some politically incorrect group. I fully expect a new bans on drinking in downtown bars, unprotected sex, caffinated drinks, and on fatty foods to be next.

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 from Lawrence.

0

Marion Lynn 8 years, 3 months ago

Tolawdjk:

Why would YOU want to go where people smoke?

It's one of my days off and I what I enjoy jerking are the chains of the not-too-tightly-wrapped New Facist Left and they respond ever so well with their ad hominem attacks, spoiled logic, red herrings and refusals to deal with the questions on the table.

Actually I rarely go to non-smoking eating or drinking establishments.

I go where my dollars are welcomed by the operators.

Not going someplace because you don't like what is done in that place is simply the exercise of personal responsibility.

You seem to have some trouble with that concept.

Thanks.

Marion.

0

tolawdjk 8 years, 3 months ago

Marion's entire arguement is a wonderful circular jerk. Don't like something, then don't go there. He smokes, so he can go everywhere. You don't, so you shouldn't. It's fine for him, he gets where he wants, what he wants, and when he wants.

Except that his perfect world doesn't exist. People are "impossing" thier will on his world. And he has no other outlet than to rant and rave on here.

It's kinda sad to watch dinosaurs die.

0

Marion Lynn 8 years, 3 months ago

Kookamooka:

Your post only demonstrates that you cannot find it within yourslef to refrain from entering an establishment which permits smoking.

"1. the smoking ban meant we wouldn't have to do our laundry right away to remove the smoke smell from our house and 2. My husband just quit smoking recently and didn't want the temptation."

The smoking ban means nothing of the sort.

You make the choice to enter a smoking establishment or not.

No one forces you to do and then "have" to do your laundry.

If your husband is so afraid of temptation then he'd better do a whole lot of staying home and keeping his head in the dand.

You have just placed your husband's personal responsibility for not smoking on others by telling us that he the behaviour of others offers him "temptation".

Oh and this evening.....

...this "middle aged" guy is headed for the more civilised and unrestricted environs of Westport and The Plaza.

I'll probably drop $50-60 tonight and much more if I get "lucky" and not a dime of it will be spent in Lawrence and I am by no means alone.

Thanks.

Marion.

0

Kookamooka 8 years, 3 months ago

My husband and I just recently drove to KC for the evening and ended up choosing to come back to Lawrence for a drink for two reasons.....1. the smoking ban meant we wouldn't have to do our laundry right away to remove the smoke smell from our house and 2. My husband just quit smoking recently and didn't want the temptation.

I love the smoking ban! We should be attracting more people from KC who want to eat food that tastes really fresh, not smokey! I think it's a HUGE selling point. Middle aged Johnson Countiers should eat in Lawrence EVERY WEEK.

0

Marion Lynn 8 years, 3 months ago

Thrag wrote:

"Posted by just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) on January 15, 2006 at 1:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"If you go to a concert, for example, do you accept that the volume of sound will most likely be damaging to your hearing?"

earplugs

Couldn't care less about AB Coker."

We already know that you do not care about business so try dealing with the questions on the table!

Thanks.

Marion.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 3 months ago

"If you go to a concert, for example, do you accept that the volume of sound will most likely be damaging to your hearing?"

earplugs

Couldn't care less about AB Coker.

0

Marion Lynn 8 years, 3 months ago

Deal with the questions, Twinkletoes!

Thanks.

Marion.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 3 months ago

Take the Hallmark "exception" and adapt it to bars, coffee shops and restaurants (I assume other business can already do the same thing Hallmark did) and I could support it.

I say keep alcohol and tobacco taxes exactly where they are, but anything above the regular sales tax should be devoted exclusively to the social and public health costs of the use of those drugs. Beyond that, its users shouldn't be financing other unrelated government programs.

What businesses are you referring to? Highberger works for the state, Rundle works for the Merc (where your sit-in by smokers wouldn't have been tolerated even before the ban,) Shauner works for KNEA in Topeka, and I'm not sure what Hack does these days (retired teacher.) Are you going to take over Amyx's barber shop?

0

Marion Lynn 8 years, 3 months ago

You have lost this one, Thrag.

Thanks.

Marion.

0

Ember 8 years, 3 months ago

Lobby all you want. O.S.H.A. is only moderately overseen by Congress, and funded much less than any other governmental organization in effect today. Kind of deflates the whole lobbying argument.

Nothing has ever been said about creating an enclosed area for smokers in any establishment in this city, now has there? Hallmark is the only business that I can think of that has made any progress in telling the city to store the ban some place interesting and amusing.

I notice you have absolutely no comment on a smoker's only establishment. Why is that?

I'll stop b*tching about smoking bans when you, personally, start lobbying for the reduction of tobacco taxes nationwide. Heck, just here in Kansas would be a nice gesture.

Marion has the jist of the problem when he brings up the issue of choice. Choices for smokers have been reduced, with no alternative options presented accept suffer through it.

A non smoker had the ability to choose whether or not to go into an establishment that allowed smoking, pre-ban that is.

If you go to a concert, for example, do you accept that the volume of sound will most likely be damaging to your hearing?

Want an example of a business, not connected to bars or restaurants, that has been affected, go talk with A.B. Coker over by the S.R.S. building. I know for a fact that their business has dropped off from less cigarette sales in business around town. They provide quite a few businesses with cigarette, cigars and chewing tobacco.

I still think an effective demonstration for smokers would be to gather in a business owned by one of the commisioners and break the ordinance, and let THEM deal with this stupid form of enforcement.

Or better yet, in city hall. Who would get the fine then, as the business owner? The city itself?

An amusing idea, to say the least.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 3 months ago

Smoking is still a legal activity in Lawrence, Marion. All you have to do is CHOOSE to do it someplace that is NOT an enclosed public area.

0

Marion Lynn 8 years, 3 months ago

Bozo, aka "Thrag", wrote:

"Posted by just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) on January 15, 2006 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The overall effect is one of preventing you from imposing your will (and smoke) on me."

No one can "impose" smoke on you unless YOU CHOOSE to go where people are smoking.

Thrag says, "Unnnggggghhhhhhh!

Thrag not like smoke!

Thrag compelled by unseen force to go where is smoke!

Must not be smoke as Thrag has no self control and cannot make good decisions for Thrag!

Need law!"

You're in a bit of a box here, Twinkletoes; on one hand you tell the readers that you CAN make the CHOICE to not enter a smoking establishment and then in almost the same dance across the keyboard tell the readers that smoke is being "imposed" on you!!!!!!!??????

Could we please make up our disordered mind?

Thanks.

Marion.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 3 months ago

The overall effect is one of preventing you from imposing your will (and smoke) on me.

0

Marion Lynn 8 years, 3 months ago

Aptly named Bozo Wrote:

"Posted by just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) on January 15, 2006 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That's pretty much what this Ilk does, and it's so much easier these days."

This being the case, why do you need a law which imposes your will on others?

Thanks.

Marion.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 3 months ago

"Just another fine example of people wanting what people want, and not giving a rat's rear end about anyone else."

This would describe way too many smokers, especially those so vocally opposing the ban.

"Why doesn't O.S.H.A. flat out ban smoking in places of business, if it is so harmful?"

I'm sure that has absolutely nothing to do with the millions spent on lobbbying and lawyers by the tobacco industry, does it?

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 3 months ago

That's pretty much what this Ilk does, and it's so much easier these days.

0

Marion Lynn 8 years, 3 months ago

Bozo writes:

"Posted by just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) on January 15, 2006 at 12:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How about the choice to smoke outside or at home, rather than exposing other people to it?"

How about you and your ilk stay out of establishments which have chosen to allow smoking?

Thanks.

Marion.

0

Ember 8 years, 3 months ago

Still waiting for links to reports that state conclusively that second-hand smoke was the leading cause of anything even approaching a health risk.

Just another fine example of people wanting what people want, and not giving a rat's rear end about anyone else. I mean, honestly, didn't this all start up because some JoCo yuppie in training whined to her daddy about it, or some such nonsense?

Why doesn't O.S.H.A. flat out ban smoking in places of business, if it is so harmful?

What I want to know is why it is illegal, suddenly, to operate a smoker's only establishment? Doesn't that fall under the category of Free Enterprise? Didn't think a local ordinance could interfere with federal laws, but I could be wrong.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 3 months ago

How about the choice to smoke outside or at home, rather than exposing other people to it?

0

Marion Lynn 8 years, 3 months ago

I have never advocated that smoking be allowed on busses.

You have not dealt with the questions.

Smoking bans are NOT about smoking, health, employees, taxes or anthing but power, control and the aribitrary and unnecessary impostion of unwarranted restriction on business.

You are presumeably a sentient being and therefore you have the power of "choice" and therefore have the ability to make the decision to not enter a place in which smoking is allowed.

You have yet to deal with this fact although in The People's Republic Of Lawrence, it would seem that "choice" is only to be allowed when dealing with the murder of children in the womb and smoking pot.

Thanks.

Marion.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 3 months ago

I answered your question, Marion.

And, no, non-smokers don't want to ride on the back of the bus.

0

Marion Lynn 8 years, 3 months ago

WARNING: THE ATTACK OF THE RED HERRINGS!

NOW AT YOUR LOCAL NEWSPAPER!

Bozo(Aptly named, mind you!) wrote:

"Posted by just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) on January 15, 2006 at 11:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It's legal only in a smoking breakroom that is a very clearly defined exception.

Perhaps you smoking advocates should put together an equally well-defined exception for bars/restaurants to present to the commission."

I have NEVER advocated smoking and have so written repeatedly on this forum.

I advocate for free enterprise.

I cannot help but notice that you, Bozo Twinkletoes have again done your famous keyboard dance around the questions which I have asked.

To answer the question which you have wrought out of your overtaxed brain, there would be no issue of separate smoking areas if those who did not want to be around smoke simply refrained from entering an establishment which allowed smoking.

Thanks.

Marion.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 3 months ago

It's legal only in a smoking breakroom that is a very clearly defined exception.

Perhaps you smoking advocates should put together an equally well-defined exception for bars/restaurants to present to the commission.

0

Marion Lynn 8 years, 3 months ago

"Posted by hurlehey (anonymous) on January 15, 2006 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

still legal at Hallmark. the chamber saw to that. Gues their employees don't matter."

Bad news, Hurlehey....the employees were the ones who threw the fit about the smoking ban and so impressed Hallmark management that it constructed a separate smoking room for those who choose to smoke.

There was darned near a revolution at Hallmark when the nitwits on the Commission enacted the ban!

Looks to me like good responsive management and isn't that what the Pseudo-liberal/Neo-socialists sekk?

Thanks.

Marion.

0

hurlehey 8 years, 3 months ago

still legal at Hallmark. the chamber saw to that. Gues their employees don't matter.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 3 months ago

Maybe they wanted to go in there to have a drink, or hear the music, eat the food, hang out with their friends (smokers and non-smokers.) And given that the majority of establishments used to be "smoking establishments," choices were pretty slim if you only went to "non-smoking" establishments, especially if there were smokers in your group who wouldn't consider such places.

0

Marion Lynn 8 years, 3 months ago

Next of course comes the question, "What gives anyone the right to force a business to change its plan when all involved; ownership, management, employees and clientle have agreed that partcipation in an otherwise perfectly legal activity shall be allowed on the premise?"

Thanks.

Marion.

0

Marion Lynn 8 years, 3 months ago

Cleverly skipping over the keyboard and skirting the real issue, those who support the ban have failed in every instance to deal with the question.

"Why would a non-smoker wish to enter a smoking establishment?"

Thanks.

Marion.

0

Confrontation 8 years, 3 months ago

I love the smoking ban. Maybe all those people (smokers) who don't like it should move to Topeka, and take the homeless with them. I'd hate to have us ranked as the 2nd meanest city for smokers.

0

Pilgrim 8 years, 3 months ago

Welcome to the nanny city of Lawrence. The answer is NO!

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 3 months ago

"Elitist" does not immediately come to mind when I read your posts, Marion.

0

kpippen 8 years, 3 months ago

The nerve of us non-smokers!! Not wanting to breathe second hand smoke! What an outrage!

Keep your cancer sticks to yourself.

And if people dont want to go out just because they cant smoke, then they are slaves to nicotine.

Dont blow your poison in my face just because your hooked on tabaky and cant go 5 minutes without a puff.

hands smokers a box of tissues

0

Marion Lynn 8 years, 3 months ago

Bozo wrote:

"Posted by just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) on January 15, 2006 at 10:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

We're so lucky to have someone of your high standards protecting the values of baublery and conspicuous consumption."

You should be glad as it is a part of the REAL world and a part of the world that you will never enter.

I'd much rather deal with folks who do not have to ask the price than the average American "shopper" carrying around his/her raggedy second hand copy of last year's "Consumer Reports" thinking that they have a three-day "right of recission" on all purchases.

That which starts with value retains value.

Case in point; I know of a now elderly lady who in 1965 read that the two most economical autos to own and operate based on the number of years kept and miles driven were the Volkswagen Beetle and the Rolls-Royce Cloud III.

And they were.

Finding the Beetle to cramped for her six-foot frame she secured a loan on her house and bought the Roller.

Deducting the interest on the home loan was an added benefit not experieced to the ordinary auto buyer as well.

In the intervening forty years she has owned but two cars; the Cloud and an old Chevy pickup used for trips to the flea markets.

The Roller has logged some three-quarters of a million miles, has been rebuilt top-to-bottom-front-to-back once, has had three engines and is still going strong.

She figures that she is hundreds of thousands of dollars AHEAD of the ordinary trade-it-in-every-three-years- gump consumer and she is right.

And the cachet of the Roller to boot!

I simply prefer to deal with folks to whom I need not explain value and who understand that the true price and value of a thing do not lie in its initial monetary cost.

Elitist?

No, not at all.

Just good business sense.

Thanks.

Marion.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 3 months ago

We're so lucky to have someone of your high standards protecting the values of baublery and conspicuous consumption.

0

Marion Lynn 8 years, 3 months ago

Bozo wrote:

"Posted by just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) on January 15, 2006 at 10:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"You know, "them", the generally unqualified clueless public?"

I understand. You probably see enough of them at RCT as it is."

No, you do NOT understand and have clearly shown yourself to be a part of "them" by your lack of perceptiion.

It is much easier and much more profitable to deal with people who already know what they want, understand the costs invovled anda who are not "just looking."

The average goat-roper around these parts decides that he or she would like to have a Rolls-Royce and may actually have the money to buy one but not enough to maintain the car.

Faced with the prospect of a $250.00 thermostat or a $2300.00 water pump such folks experience near-death experiences at the cost of such parts and are a pain in the kiester so I avoid dealing with them at all costs.

A truly fine diamond or other precious stone may well command the price of a new house so why waste everyone's time talking to someone who lives in a second-floor studio flat?

To me the term "unqualifed" ususally means that the "shopper" hasn't the knowledge or money to play the game so I do not invite them to the table.

Thanks.

Marion.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 3 months ago

"You know, "them", the generally unqualified clueless public?"

I understand. You probably see enough of them at RCT as it is.

0

Marion Lynn 8 years, 3 months ago

Bozo wrote:

Posted by just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) on January 15, 2006 at 9:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So, is the smoking ban what caused your downtown business to fail, Marion?"

Sorry there, Bozo, the business did not "fail"; it moved and morphed and is going stronger than ever.

Just gottheHelloutofDownwtown!

I do not require retail space; only a small office with a wall on which to hang a couple of business licences, cut my overhead by almost 80% , eliminated 90% of the headaches associated with dealing with "them" and took sales up over 500% by doing so.

You know, "them", the generally unqualified clueless public?

I deal only with those who know what they are doing and they are for the most part a much better class of people than the usual Downtown mix.

A hard won and expensive lesson but that is OK as such lessons are not easily or quickly forgotten.

Thanks.

Marion.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 3 months ago

So, is the smoking ban what caused your downtown business to fail, Marion?

0

Marion Lynn 8 years, 3 months ago

Downtown had enough problems to begin with; very high rents, very high taxes, very high insurance rates for old decrepit buildings and a declining retail clientle such that all it took for some businesses to be pushed into the abyss was the smoking ban.

I wonder why our society has degraded to the point at which it is necessary to have arbitrary laws imposed when the solutions already existed?

If one does not like smoke, simply refrain from entering smoking establishments.

The solution is far to simple and demands that people exercise personal responsibility.

We live in a society in which responsibility is sfhited around like the proverbial hot potato.

Although I encourage no one to smoke, I stil do smoke and rearely visit downtown for my recreation; it's too easy to hit more enlightened and less restrictive areas nearby.

Thanks.

Marion.

0

admills 8 years, 3 months ago

If these local "professional drinkers" aren't going to a bar anymore, what are they doing? I doubt they're traveling to KC or (gulp) Topeka to drink every night. Hey professional drinkers, if you're reading this, let us know. I'd like to meet some of you. I can imagine all the professional drinkers and smokers huddling together in some obscure garage in west lawrence watching an 8" TV through their own cancer causing fog while drinking Miller High Life and bickering like a bunch of old women.

Also, isn't business turnover a part of downtown? What every happened to Dos Hombres, Blew Jacket, The Bike Shop, Roly Poly, Brown Bear, Easton's, Everything but Ice, Sakaroffs, etc. (I know! the smoking ban got 'em). I thought that the majority of new businesses don't make it anyways. Seems like everyone just to blames the smoking ban. How about the familys that will actually take their kids out now because of the ban? Maybe these owners need to make some adjustments to their business model so they can reap the benefits.

0

Marion Lynn 8 years, 3 months ago

The entire smoking ban issue could have been avoided if we did not live in a society which is so irresponsible that it cannot make rational and adult decisions.

The resolution is this: "Gee, I don't like smoke so I am not going into that establishment!"

The concept is too simple for most to grasp.

Additionally there is that crowd of Pseudo-liberal/Neo-socialists which belives that it must impose its brand of AllThatIsGoodAndGreen on everyone, not realising or not caring that it is actually imposing its own kind of totalitarianism.

"Choice" is only a good thing when it comes to baby killing through abortion-on-demand.

Thanks.

Marion.

0

Moderateguy 8 years, 3 months ago

Fairly lopsided article that's just trying to stir up public opinion. "This guy says that he's losing a bunch of money." Well, prove it! The sales tax revenues don't back you up. The only month it was really down was when we lost in the first round of the NCAA tournament. Think that had anything to do with it? Come on LJW, do some real research, and stop this he said, she said stuff. As far as the Jackpot Saloon, that place can't figure out what it wants to be. First it was a tappas bar, apparently now it's a music venue. Bottom line, people have been threatening to close because of the ban since before it was implemented. It hasn't happened.

0

nut_case 8 years, 3 months ago

Like the ban...hate the way it was implemented. A VOTE would have bee nice.

0

cowboy 8 years, 3 months ago

New Yorks study is a bogus piece of research. If you have ever traveled to the city you know once there you are a captive without choices !

0

Shardwurm 8 years, 3 months ago

I love coming to Lawrence to dine!

Food tastes like it should and I don't have to get up and leave because of some thoughtless smoker.

I wish all cities did this!

0

Richard Heckler 8 years, 3 months ago

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/04/AR2006010401310.html

EDITORIAL: Philly, it's your turn Source: State College (PA) Centre Times, 2006-01-13

The way Philadelphia City Councilman Michael A. Nutter sees it, "We're now virtually surrounded." . . .

Nutter was referring to the three neighboring states with laws banning smoking in most workplaces, restaurants and other night spots.

In other words, the region is going smoke-free - and it's long-past time for Philadelphia to join the mainstream and limit indoor smoking. . .

Approval of the smoke-free law is a proud moment for the state, long the butt of jokes for its air quality. . . .

Tavern owners who feared a Philadelphia smoking ban would send their customers to South Jersey don't have to worry about that now. . . .

Ideally, the whole five-county region would go smoke-free, if not all of Pennsylvania, as proposed by measures so far stranded in Harrisburg committees. Philadelphia should be leading the way, but eight holdouts on City Council have yet to embrace the idea. . . .

Street can do better than that. The mayor launched his administration with a progressive, public-health outlook . . .

For that prediction to become reality, the mayor must get a move on and exert his leadership skills: The great cities of today are providing healthy indoor settings that are

¢ Bowling alley operators strike out in bid to snuff smoking ban Source: (Long Island, NY) Newsday, 2006-01-13 A Superior Court judge on Friday denied a request by bowling alley operators to stop Gov. Richard J. Codey from signing legislation that will ban indoor smoking in most public places.

Superior Court Judge Neil Shuster rejected the Bowling Proprietors Association of New Jersey's bid for a preliminary injunction prohibiting Codey from signing the law, which would outlaw smoking in bars, restaurants, bowling alleys and other indoor places. Gambling areas of casinos are exempt from the ban.

The bowling group, which says the ban will cost bowling alleys business by keeping smokers away, contended that Codey's status as governor ended when the 211th Legislature formally ended Tuesday. Codey, who is state Senate president, became acting governor in November 2004 after Gov. James E. McGreevey resigned.

Codey plans to sign the New Jersey Smoke-Free Air Act into law Sunday.-

--------------------------Austin Texas
http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/content/metro/stories/05/8smoking.html


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4573460.stm

0

Richard Heckler 8 years, 3 months ago

Survey Shows New York City's Smoking Ban is Good for Business; Other Cities, States Should Follow Suit Oct. 21, 2003

Today, you can add more data to the mountain of evidence that clean indoor air laws are good not just for health, but for business, too. The impartial Zagat survey of the impact of New York City's smoking ban confirms what every other credible survey has shown: Smoking bans are popular with the public and pose no economic threat to restaurants, bars or other businesses.

When New York City was debating its proposed clean indoor air law, the tobacco industry predictably argued that a smoking ban would be bad for business the same argument that industry has made whenever a smoking ban has been considered, whether on airplanes, in restaurants, at stadiums or anywhere else. But Zagat found that not only has New York City's smoking ban not hurt restaurant business, it "has given it a major lift."

The survey of 29,361 diners, conducted from May through mid-July, found that 96 percent are eating out the same amount or more often as a result of New York City's smoke-free restaurant law. Specifically, 23 percent said they were eating out more often because of the law. Seventy-three percent said they were eating out the same. Only 4 percent said they were eating out less often. The survey also found that the number of jobs in restaurants and bars in New York City are up as are hotel occupancy rates.

Of course, the real benefit to smoking bans is to the public's health. Environmental tobacco smoke increases the risk of coronary events by about 30 percent and results in approximately 35,000 deaths from coronary heart disease among nonsmokers every year.

Again, the economic numbers shouldn't surprise anyone they merely confirm what other cities and states that have banned smoking in public places have learned. California, which banned smoking in restaurants and bars in 1998, also saw positive economic benefits as have other cities and states across the country. The real surprise is that more cities and states aren't doing the same. More than a quarter of the U.S. population more than 70 million people now live in a jurisdiction that has enacted a comprehensive smoke-free law. Political leaders in the rest of the country need to follow suit and provide this protection for their citizens. If they do, they'll not only be protecting the health of their citizens, they'll be giving their economies a boost as well.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.