To the editor:
I have a question to the members of Clean Air Lawrence and the group of commissioners who took the legal activity of smoking and devastated many businesses in Lawrence by changing the law to make it illegal without a popular vote of the people and by disregarding the scientific evidence that disagreed with your political position.
My question to you is: Will you do the same to make indoor hookah smoking illegal as well? Do not Middle Easterners and others that partake in this activity also deserve your protection, or are they different and not affected by secondhand smoke like the rest of us? Both hookah smoking and cigarette smoking are social activities deeply rooted in the tradition of our cultures.
Why do you press for one to be illegal and not the other? Is this political correctness gone awry? Many in Lawrence would love to hear an explanation.
Tom Conroy,
Lawrence
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.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"Both hookah smoking and cigarette smoking are social activities deeply rooted in the tradition of our cultures."
Fewer than 25% of the population smokes, and that there are that many is mostly because of the addictive properties of tobacco, not tradition.
"Why do you press for one to be illegal and not the other?"
They didn't, Tom. If someone wants to open up a similar shop for cigarette smokers, they are free to do so.
Tychoman (anonymous) says…
Oh please, what a deluded letter.
Name five businesses "devastated" by the clean air ordinance.
*listens to crickets*
tony88 (anonymous) says…
"I have a question to the members of Clean Air Lawrence and the group of commissioners who took the legal activity of smoking and devastated many businesses in Lawrence by changing the law to make it illegal without a popular vote of the people and by disregarding the scientific evidence that disagreed with your political position."
It sounds like smoking has caused this guy to forget his punctuation. He actually sent that sentence in for the public to read? Pitiful.
kuhusker (anonymous) says…
This guy doesn't remember his facts very well. The reason there was never a public vote on the anti-smoking law was because the pro-smoking crowd decided not to turn in their petitions (they DID have enough signatures, apparently).
They (quite rightly) did the math and figured out that they would have gotten defeated soundly at the polls. Can't blame them for not trying...
Tychoman (anonymous) says…
Wow Marion thanks for the KKK reference with the Progressives. Yeah that's really going to add to your list of fans and credibility.
What a load of bull.
BigAl (anonymous) says…
I agree with Tychoman except he's being generous. I don't think 3 businesses could be named that were "devastated", let alone 5.
Confrontation (anonymous) says…
Marion had a cigarette shop, which explains his sadness.
KS (anonymous) says…
The Kansas Supreme Court is going to settle it once and for all, unless someone has had lunch with them to sway the decision.
Tychoman (anonymous) says…
I don't see any proof, Marion, just more of your usual hot air.
18% isn't a lot. There are a lot more drinkers in the world than smokers.
Progressive isn't an insult, or implied bad word.
ilovelucy (anonymous) says…
P-crack: unless you are a teetotaler, why don't you stop by one of the establishments that Marion mentioned and talk to the owners? Get their stories and figures?
Even though I don't think anything will change, I get so tired of doubting Thomas's like yourself.
Inform yourself! Pull your head out of your crack and listen.
kuhusker (anonymous) says…
The pro-smoking crowd knows that the majority of the city favors the ban; that is why the pro-smoking PAC refused to put it to a public vote and prefers to fight it out in the courts. So much for democracy, eh?
By the way, as a side note, there are numerous other towns in Kansas that have passed bans similar to Lawrence's since Lawrence did its thing. That is one reason the court took the case.
If the court does rule that state smoking law must be uniform (an unlikely ruling but still possible), the likely result is that a statewide ban would be passed by the Kansas legislature. That would be an ironic result, although I suppose during the few months between the court decision and a legislative response the smokers would get to enjoy a brief last hurrah of public hacking at their favorite bars!
Tychoman (anonymous) says…
You mean the pro-smokers could have put it to a vote but just didn't?
Shucks. It must suck telling yourselves that you've lost instead of letting the voters of the City tell you themselves.
monkeyhawk (anonymous) says…
The truth of the matter is--
the petition was abandoned on a promise by the city commission to address the issue. Once the petitioners dropped the paper, the commission basically said "ha, ha, we lied".
kuhusker (anonymous) says…
The court system has a place in our democracy, Marion, but its job is to address constitutional violations, not act as a "second chance" for a PAC which couldn't win in at the ballot box.
If you are OK with the court overturning the smoking law, would you be just as OK with the court overturning, say, a law banning same-sex marriage? The principle is the same, you know...and unpopular minority which can't win at the ballot box asking the court to overturn the will of the people.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"The truth of the matter is--"
If you don't like the truth, just make sh*t up.
giantchurro (anonymous) says…
Its so nice to go into a bar without breathing smoke. I bet the bars have seen a 18% increase of customers who DONT smoke.