Advertisement

Archive for Thursday, April 26, 2007

High court considers city’s ban on smoking

Decision on bar owner’s constitutional challenge could come in June

April 26, 2007

Advertisement

Reader poll
Who will win the legal case over the city's smoking ban, now in front of the Kansas Supreme Court?

or See the results without voting

City's smoking ban under fire from supreme court

Lawrence's three-year-old smoking ban comes under fire today as a Lawrence bar owner asks the Kansas Supreme Court to overturn the city-wide smoking ban. Enlarge video

— You can still smoke outdoors in the city of Lawrence.

That fact, a city attorney told the Kansas Supreme Court on Wednesday, is a major reason the city's nearly three-year-old smoking ban doesn't violate the Kansas Constitution.

Whether that argument is enough to keep the smoking ban on the books now rests in the hands of the state's seven Supreme Court justices. The court heard oral arguments Wednesday on a case filed by Lawrence bar owner Dennis Steffes, who contends the city's smoking ban is unconstitutional.

The court said the earliest it would issue a ruling on the legality of the ban, which prohibits smoking in essentially all indoor work places, is June 8.

Much of the approximately one-hour hearing focused on whether the city had illegally superseded a state law that Steffes and his attorney contend allows the city to limit - but not entirely ban - smoking in public places.

But Toni Wheeler, director of legal services for the city, said a total ban is not what has happened in Lawrence.

"There are still many places where people can smoke in Lawrence," Wheeler told justices.

The city ordinance does not prohibit people in public places from smoking on outdoor decks, patios or other open-air spaces. But some businesses - such as some downtown bars, for example - don't have the necessary property to allow them to have an outdoor smoking area.

Billy Rork, an attorney for Steffes, said the fact the city's ordinance makes it impossible for some businesses to have any smoking areas at all makes it illegal under the statewide law.

"That is the heart of the issue," Rork said after the hearing. "Smoking wasn't just restricted. It was abolished."

The issue appeared to pique the interest of some justices. Justice Lee Johnson questioned Wheeler on a part of the state law that says proprietors may designate smoking areas in their businesses.

"It says smoking areas may be designated by the proprietors, not the City Commission," Johnson said.

Wheeler, though, said the city does have the ability to pass "reasonable restrictions to protect public health." She also said the state law clearly says cities can pass ordinances that are more restrictive than the state law.

Justices also spent time on one other argument made by Steffes, who owns two local bars, Last Call and Coyotes. Steffes has argued the city ordinance is unconstitutionally vague because it does not tell business owners what they are required to do when they find someone smoking in their businesses. Steffes said specific instructions are important to protect business owners.

"If we have to drag someone out by their feet because they're smoking, that is my liability that we're dealing with," Steffes said. "Has the city deputized us to enforce this ordinance?"

But Wheeler said a business owner always could call the police for help in removing a smoker who became belligerent and refused to stop smoking or refused to leave the premises.

Justice Carol Beier, though, questioned Wheeler about why the city ordinance didn't have more specifics about what business owners could do to comply with the law. Wheeler said she believed the city wasn't legally required to provide such specifics. She also said the lack of specifics provided business owners with flexibility in how to best deal with their customers.

The case is attracting statewide attention. The League of Kansas Municipalities formally joined the city in defending the ban. League representatives have said if Steffes wins the case it could threaten all city smoking bans in the state.

Members of the bar and hospitality industry also were on hand. Phil Bradley, executive director for the Kansas Licensed Beverage Association, said Lawrence bar and restaurant operators continue to be keenly interested in the issue.

"I will say that I think it is unfortunate that we weren't able to work something out with the former City Commission before it came to this," Bradley said.

Residents who helped push for the ban in Lawrence also continue to monitor the progress. Kathy Bruner, a leader of Clean Air Lawrence, said she's confident the majority of Lawrence residents support the ban.

"I think the citizens of Lawrence wouldn't hesitate to become very vocal if this ban were overturned," said Bruner, who attended the hearing. "I think they love it."

Comments

KsTwister 7 years, 8 months ago

Hallmark can have their indoor area? City lost money, I don't care who says they didn't the fact that they cut their own throat and now want to increase taxes is proof enough. Bruner thinks wrong. As I said before, if you don't like it,what are you doing in a place that has smoking? I don't take my tennis racket to the bowling alley. To make the owners responsible for babysitting customers is a bit much.

jonas 7 years, 8 months ago

That would be a good cry. Unlike cigs, mary would make tons of people chill the f' out.

cms 7 years, 8 months ago

The photo associated with the story grosses me out. Yuck.

warthog 7 years, 8 months ago

I actually don't think the law goes far enough. They should ban all smoking within the city limits... and spitting... what a disgusting habit... and sex... and farting... and... they should outlaw june bugs... I hate those... and chocolate... french fries... burgers... all blue food...

perkins 7 years, 8 months ago

Let's review. According to the press and to those in the position to know... we have the Justice who frequently falls asleep on the bench during attorney arguments. (but refuses to resign) We have the academically undistinguished Justice, whose appointment caused some legislators to seek a requirement of Senate confirmation of the governor's judicial appointments. And we have the Justice caught discussing the school finance case, a case that was currently before the Court, with members of the legislature.

All rise! This Court is now in session!

buffalo_star 7 years, 8 months ago

i like the idea that a ban on smoking was done at the local level, law makers become less accountable the farther away they get whether its topeka or washington but our local government has to look us in the eye everyday. side note: the habitual use of tabacco is proved to cause grave illness and death but its legel but heroin is proved to cause grave illness and death but its illegel i don't understand.... oh the tax revenue that's it! it always comes down to money doesn't it

shawn1040 7 years, 8 months ago

In 2003 New York City amended its antismoking law to include all restaurants and bars, including those in private clubs, making it one of the toughest in the nation. The city's Department of Health found in a 2004 study that air pollution levels had decreased sixfold in bars and restaurants after the ban went into effect, and that New Yorkers had reported less second-hand smoke in the workplace. The study also found the city's restaurants and bars prospered despite the smoking ban, with increases in jobs, liquor licenses and business tax payments.[*] A 2006 study by the state of New York found similar results.

  • "Bars and Restaurants Thrive Amid Smoking Ban, Study Says." 29 March 2003, The New York Times.

Smoke that!

Richard Heckler 7 years, 8 months ago

Tobacco smoking is quite legal and has not been banned. Tobacco companies manipulate product levels to keep their financial base strung out on smoking. The larger problem could be that this smoking minority have a difficult time not smoking.

Tobacco smoke has a tendency to create a burning sensation in my eyes. Plus the concern for second hand smoke. Considering that 80% of the population does not smoke it is my guess that a citizen vote would support the current smoking current restrictions. It was also my understanding that a voter approval would lock the restrictions in for 10 years.

KS 7 years, 8 months ago

My bet is that this ordinance is not long for this world and shouldn't be. I don't smoke anymore. It's nasty. Gave it up years ago, but I still believe that since it continues to be a legal product, the business owner should have the right to say smoking or no! I don't gotta go there.

TtownKUlivin 7 years, 8 months ago

I know more people who smoke cigarettes that lie around and do nothing, than those who smoke mary..

nbnozzy 7 years, 8 months ago

You know folks...... we got our change in city commisioners just in time. Had the old lot of stooges still been seated down at city hall, I suspect they'd have adopted the Cheryl Crow "one square of toilet paper" concept and heavily enforced it upon us with a fervent nazi like attitude.

Here's hoping the new commision learns to back off of what consenting business owners and patrons want. To smoke or not to smoke............. let them decide.

Bill Chapman 7 years, 8 months ago

Smoking is a health risk - not just to the smoker, but the people around him/her as well.

My father has a very bad case of asthma - so bad in fact that he cannot even breathe in the "second hand smoke" from someone standing 5 - 6 feet away without having an asthma attack. In severe cases this can lead to suffocation and death if treatment is not given immediately. My father has to carry a Epi -pen around with him when he goes out in public because of this. If he has an attack and is not able to use it he will most likely die. Many businesses my father would like to visit will NEVER ever see him enter their door due to this fact (I speaking of restaurants, mainly). I wonder just how many others are in the same situation as my father and just how much business is lost due this problem.

EXks 7 years, 8 months ago

So you took the bait Marion! I knew you would....LOL.

My post was SATIRE !!!!!!!!

Stop your SOPHOMORIC name calling, take a Valium, and with agression, better take it with a swig of Jack Daniels, grab a dictionary and look up the meaning of SATIRE!!!

ksrover 7 years, 8 months ago

That same report posted by the NYT also states:

"Critics say the report is flawed because it does not separate bar and restaurant statistics, whereas bars have suffered more from the ban, critics contend. The increase in tax payments and jobs must be weighed against the restaurant industry's emergence from the post-9/11 recession, said David Rabin, president of the New York Nightlife Association."

"But the report does not reflect the harsh realities faced by the city's bars, which catered to a smoking-heavy crowd before the ban, said bar merchants, who questioned why bar data was not separate in the report. The city's answer is that data that separates bars from restaurants is not reliable, said Sam Miller, a spokesman for the Department of Finance.

"We'd be guessing, and we probably wouldn't be as accurate," Mr. Miller said.

To try to demonstrate where the report fell short, David McWater offered his own experience: he owns five taverns in Manhattan, including Nice Guy Eddie's and Julep in the East Village. Last year, he said, his businesses experienced, on average, a 1 percent increase in sales, compared with the usual 8 to 15 percent sales increase enjoyed by the bars in previous years."

Personally, I'd like to see that report. I strongly question why they did not seperate bars from restaurants. "Wouldn't be accurate"??? I fail to see how it wouldn't be accurate - unless it wasn't "accurate" towards what they were hoping to portray.

SettingTheRecordStraight 7 years, 8 months ago

That picture of the smokers puffing away on their cancer sticks reminds me of why this country should never take the idiotic step of providing socialized medicine to its citizens.

John Spencer 7 years, 8 months ago

I don't think anyone is arguing that smoke is bad, it is. The problem as I see it is the City telling a business how to run its business in relation to legally sold and used substances. It seems to me that a big sign on the front of the business stating it is a smoking allowed, smoker friendly or similar should be sufficient, and let the 80% f the public that doesn't want to go there spend their dollars elsewhere. The city could generate additional dollars by having a smoking allowed establishment license. The ban would have made more sense if it had actually affected all businesses equally, but it doesn't and I think that may sway the court.

EXks 7 years, 8 months ago

wow, nothin like smokin', guns, gays, & god that gets the right wingers all riled up. forget about Iraq!

how many packs did you burn thru today Marion??

irishdevil99 7 years, 8 months ago

Ugh... I hope the ban isn't overturned. It's one of the things I love about going out in Lawrence -- I know that my eyes won't start to sting, my throat won't start to get scratchy, and when I go home at the end of the night I won't reek of smoke. (Beer, maybe... smoke, no.) I went to college in North Carolina, and I couldn't stay in any bar for more than about an hour before having to leave.

Kam_Fong_as_Chin_Ho 7 years, 8 months ago

Steffes is afraid to enforce the smoking ban at his establishments because he knows that Last Call and Coyotes are the two bars in Lawrence that are most likely to have gun-toting customers to contend with.

Emily Hadley 7 years, 8 months ago

"If we have to drag someone out by their feet because they [take off their pants], that is the bar owners' liability that we're dealing with; has the city deputized them to enforce this ordinance?"

YES ! !

Bar owners always could call the police for help in removing a [pantless patron] who became belligerent and refused to [put on their pants] or refused to leave the premises.

I greatly respect and appreciate Mr. Steffes' fight for civil liberties, his efforts to improve security at Last Call, and his bold statements against vague legal issues and their resulting discrimination, but I believe that the security forces working in both of his bars are fully trained and equipped to respond to patrons violating all city, state, and federal laws while inside their businesses. In addition, it seems to me he has ample room to build a patio at Coyote's, as well as the ability to use the already-partitioned area of the sidewalk in front of Last Call.

We have always had businesses where there was no possibility of a smoking section. The details of those standards (separate ventilation, walls, etc.) are up to the local government, i.e. the citizens, to decide.

At least, if it is overturned, the non-smokers will all now have fabulous patios to escape to.

bugmenot 7 years, 8 months ago

I'm pretty sure the heavy smokers in New York (and elsewhere) aren't going to quit going to bars because of this. Stop pretending this is a "bar owner's rights" issue, and be honest. You didn't used to have to go outside to smoke and you're too lazy to do it now. That's what people are pissed about. No one's losing revenue, no matter which way you twist the numbers. People will keep going to bars and keep going to restaurants. The difference now is that people who don't make idiot lifestyle choices which cause them to get cancer will be free from carcinogens.

aeroscout17 7 years, 8 months ago

As I travel quite a bit I forget how lucky we have it here in Lawrence. I keep being surprised when I walk into a restaurant and they ask me "smoking or non-smoking." Even in non-smoking areas you can still smell the smoke. Smokers, get over it. The tide is shifting, the laws and norms are changing. I can't have sex in a public place (legally) and now you can't smoke in bars or restaurants unless you are outside. You are the minority so deal with it.

bugmenot 7 years, 8 months ago

Exactly. No one's up in arms about the no shoes, no shirt, no service regulations. "How dare you tell a bar owner how to run his business by saying all patrons have to wear shoes!" Yeah, I'm sure this is a cohesive libertarian argument the smokers are making. How selfless of them!

irishdevil99 7 years, 8 months ago

Gee, irishdevil99, what was it in that bar that so held your interest that you remained the smoking environment for an HOUR?

Depends on the bar. Typically some combination of alcohol, sports, and the opposite sex. But there's only so long you can remain attractive to the opposite sex when you're coughing and your eyes are watering, which may be why I never once managed to find a decent date by going out to bars.

EXks 7 years, 8 months ago

GOP 2008 platform, purveyors of family values

  1. a loaded gun in every home
  2. my god is better than your god
  3. smoking and lung cancer, it's as american as apple pie

ilovelucy 7 years, 8 months ago

Consumer1: couldn't agree more. That man is a certified idiot.

bugmenot 7 years, 8 months ago

Honestly, people. It's not about the patrons being willing to "risk their lives." Certainly, patrons overwhelmingly enjoy the smoke-free environment, but this law was created to protect the workers there - wait staff, bartenders, greeters, etc.. Should people have to risk their lives to work? And before you trot out the same tired argument, "Well they can work somewhere else" (just like you say, "Why don't you just not eat in restaurants that allow smoking), think about that. Was that your reaction back when they banned smoking on airplanes ("just don't travel, if you don't like smoke")? That's completely and utterly ridiculous and it's based completely in a selfish desire to do exactly what you want when you want. Those of you who truly espouse a libertarian viewpoint upon which your distaste for the ban is based, fine. I don't agree with your ideology, but at least you're being honest. Most of you say, "I don't like the government telling bar owners what they can and can't do," but you mean, "I'm too lazy to get up and take my nasty habit outside." Stop being so hypocritical. It's not like people are going into smoking lounges and trying to ban smoking. They are bars, where the main purpose is not smoking, but is drinking alcohol and socializing. They are restaurants - again, the main purpose is not smoking, but eating. GET OVER IT.

bugmenot 7 years, 8 months ago

Hey, Marion. Sure, open a smoker's lounge, get employees to sign waivers and non-coercion forms saying they truly want to work there, damn the consequences. Sell just tobacco and provide a place for smokers to sit and socialize. I have no problem with that. It'll go out of business for lack of interest, but whatever.

karmaxs3 7 years, 8 months ago

Eat healthy

Don't drink

DON'T SMOKE

Exercise

Die Anyway....

Get over it. Live your life and stop worrying about the other person. No one gets out of here alive, and a few meals or drinks in a smoking establishment isn't going to shorten anyone's lifespan. Or don't go there. That's a CHOICE too.

Geesh.

booze_buds_03 7 years, 8 months ago

Marion-Why are we not allowed to bring animals with us when we go to the supermarket?

Because it is a health hazard.

Thanks

kneejerkreaction 7 years, 8 months ago

Marion,

Smokers have a right to smoke and non-smokers have a right to not smoke. When you put the two in close proximity in a public place, which one violates the rights of the other, ipso facto?

Choice of going or not going to an establishment, or working there, shouldn't have the extra caveat thrown in of 'do I feel like breathing smoke this evening?'. I think the operative word here is "public". Public places are just that, for the public. You keep your rights, I'll keep mine but in public places there has to be a compromise. That means you can't ruin my meal because I have your smoke in my mouth and nose.

kneejerkreaction 7 years, 8 months ago

Marion,

It's not as simple as you say. Let's speak economics. No business owner, smoker or not, wants to roll the dice and say 'smokers only' or 'non smokers only'. Which group would you exclude? Neither, of course. Therefore you designate Smoking and Non Smoking sections. And you sitting in the smoking section violate the rights of the non smokers, or not?

The smoking ban in Lawrence simply puts all businesses on an equal footing and we can all have our rights.

UKept 7 years, 8 months ago

Marion's got a point. Let the market decide. Why should non-smokers get to dictate choice any more than smokers?

If you don't smoke, go to a non-smoking bar. If you smoke, go to a smoking bar. If the smoking bar is cooler, then go to the smoking bar and expect smoke. If the non-smoking bar is cooler, be prepared to take your cancer on the patio.

It's simple, and it's certainly more fair than the non-smoking 'majority' forcing everyone to play it their way.

kneejerkreaction 7 years, 8 months ago

Bravo Marion. Way to go. Maybe you could have doubled your money if you hadn't halved your customer base.

Bars, I see differently. If your only source of revenue is alcohol I say do what you want with S or NS. But if you have other things to attract people, like food, then I say NS.

prioress 7 years, 8 months ago

Another non issue. If they allow smoking and you don't like it, don't go there. If you don't like smoke, don't work there. QED.

KsTwister 7 years, 8 months ago

OMG can you not just answer the question he asked? If I mortgage a building and then pay $1mil to start it up and I want to make smoking allowed ----can I? I will tell you that there is smoke inside before you walk in the door----SO YOU MAKE YOUR OWN CHOICE at this point.

mom_of_three 7 years, 8 months ago

I agree with Marion on this issue. If someone decides to have a bar allowing smoking, and people want to work there knowing that, then that type of establishment should be allowed. People worked in bars for years knowing 2nd hand smoke could cause cancer, and I guess they didn't care.

mom_of_three 7 years, 8 months ago

My husband smokes and I don't. He has tried to quit, knows the consequences, but just can't.
But when we went out to eat, he even preferred non-smoking because he doesn't smoke when he eats.
And I would know, in the old days, when we went out with friends to a bar, that there would be smokers, and even my husband could smoke. It's a choice we made, that we should be allowed to make.

Eride 7 years, 8 months ago

One of our government's primary functions is to regulate the health and safety of its citizens. Why would it allow junkies to force feed non-smokers toxic chemicals in public areas?

It regulates hundreds of thousands of different things for the exact same reason it regulates smoking indoors. You smokers act like this is some brand new form of persecution when it is only a response to the growing mountain of evidence linking the dangers of second hand smoke to human health.

Another funny hypocrisy I like to point to is the amount of smokers who will not smoke at home next to their children indoors but are more then glad to light up next to me in a restaurant or bar. I think that shows that even the majority of the smokers understand how dangerous their habit is, they just don't care when it comes to strangers.

Selfish junkies are the reason why the government is forced to step in. Now I can eat my food and drink my wine without only tasting tar and chemicals. Not to mention just avoiding the heart disease and cancer causing second hand smoke. :)

Within 5 years the majority of the states within the US will have laws banning indoor smoking statewide (If not a national law by this time). Face it, you are a minority. The majority of people would rather not sit in a restaurant and breathe and taste your second hand smoke. The majority of people would rather not be exposed to toxic chemicals. The end of your filthy habit taking place indoors in public places is coming.

kneejerkreaction 7 years, 8 months ago

Marion, I think personal experience examples weaken the argument. Have YOU ever manufactured cigarettes? Have YOU ever manufactured beer? If not, then why are you an expert in their use and sale? Kinda silly, huh?

Fact is, as Eride goes into detail, I don't want to breathe your smoke and I have a right not to when I go out. Personally, I'd move smokers into their homes. The smoking ban in Lawr. has served to ruin all the few outdoor venues, 'cause that's where they congregate now.

kneejerkreaction 7 years, 8 months ago

MomofThree...so you're saying that people don't care if they die of lung cancer? whhhaaatttt?

Christine Pennewell Davis 7 years, 8 months ago

as an adult you have a choice to leave as a child you really do not.

shawn1040 7 years, 8 months ago

SO, If I own a bar and find that it's cheaper to insulate it with asbestos, tile with asbestos tiles, have lead water pipes and paint with lead paint, should I be able to?? Why should the city, state or any federal agency tell me what I should do in MY establishment - right?

GREAT idea Marion!! Let the free market dictate everything!! Because we all know that businesses would NEVER do anything to hurt the consumer or their employees.

Linda Endicott 7 years, 8 months ago

"Depends on the bar. Typically some combination of alcohol, sports, and the opposite sex. But there's only so long you can remain attractive to the opposite sex when you're coughing and your eyes are watering, which may be why I never once managed to find a decent date by going out to bars."

I think the reason you never managed to find a decent date in a bar is because most of the men there are drunks. Oh, and only looking to get laid. Yeah, there's your dream date for you.

Nobody in their right mind goes to a bar to find a serious relationship prospect.

Eride 7 years, 8 months ago

I enjoy how Marion will avoid responding to any posts that strongly contridict his statements by asking a random question that has usually nothing to do with the subject at hand and demanding it be answered.

booze_buds_03 7 years, 8 months ago

Marion- I would just like to know what your questions were?

kneejerkreaction 7 years, 8 months ago

Marion, you keep referring to unanswered questions? I've been clear where I am on this matter...what's the ?.

shawn1040 7 years, 8 months ago

I don't think Marion knows the question.. So here it is: Should the city ban indoor smoking? Yes!! WHY??

Research has generated scientific evidence that second-hand smoke causes the same problems as direct smoking, including lung cancer, cardiovascular disease and lung ailments such as COPD, bronchitis and asthma.[5]

A study issued in 2002 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization concluded that nonsmokers are exposed to the same carcinogens as active smokers.[7] Sidestream smoke contains 69 known carcinogens, particularly benzopyrene and other polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, and radioactive decay products, such as polonium 210, of natural radioactive minerals.[8] Several well-established carcinogens have been shown by the tobacco companies' own research to be present at higher concentrations in sidestream smoke than in mainstream smoke.[9]

[5] Boyle P, Autier P, Bartelink H et al.. "European Code Against Cancer and scientific justification: third version (2003).". Ann Oncol. 14 (7). [7] Disparity in Protecting Food Service Staff from Secondhand Smoke Shows Need for Comprehensive Smoke-Free Policies, Say Groups. [8] Involuntary smoking. Retrieved on 2006-07-15. [9] Schick S, Glantz S. (2005). "Philip Morris toxicological experiments with fresh sidestream smoke: more toxic than mainstream smoke.". Tob Control. 14 (6): 396-404. PMID 16319363.

kneejerkreaction 7 years, 8 months ago

shawn1040....kkaaaakkkkkkkkkk!!!!!!!

Just reading your treatise has given me a second-hand readers' hack.

Linda Endicott 7 years, 8 months ago

A lot of the things you mention have also found to be true of car exhaust, shawn.

Yet no one has proposed banning cars. Everyone is exposed to those toxins, but no one seems to have a problem with having their children around it every day.

This is why the smoking ban really isn't a health issue. If you are so vehemently opposed to one thing that you perceive to be a serious health threat, then you should be just as vehemently opposed to everything else that has a serious health risk.

Yet you aren't. When someone bring up the subject of car exhaust, or perfumes, or wood smoke, or any of the other myriad of things that can contain the same toxins, everyone is rapidly making excuses as to why smoking is somehow worse than all those other things. Because banning those things would personally affect you, and not someone else.

It's not about health at all. That's just the excuse that's been given. Most of the rabid smoking ban supporters would still support a ban, even if they could prove tomorrow that second-hand smoke is not dangerous at all. It's just because you personally don't like it.

And some have even admitted that on these forums.

Outsidelookingin 7 years, 8 months ago

Why can't we just all get along? Several years ago, when I was still a smoker, I went to a baseball game at the local city park. I was sitting there smoking a cigarette when this nice little older lady climbed up to the top of the bleachers and sitdown next to me. She wasn't there 2 minutes until she started waving her hands in front of her face, coughing and saying that my smoke bothered her. Being the considerate person that I am. I told her I was smoking before she sat down next to me if she didn't like my smoke she could sit somewhere else.

shawn1040 7 years, 8 months ago

crazyks - Last time I checked I cars aren't allowed in restaurants or bars.

I guess you are saying the SCIENTIFIC evidence is corrupt right? Even the evidence from the tobacco companies?

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 7 years, 8 months ago

Let's just use democracy. Put it to a vote. Why did the prosmokers not follow through on that? They had enough signatures on their petition to call for a vote. Is it because they would lose? You bet. They knew they might have more chance, if they took it to court.

kneejerkreaction 7 years, 8 months ago

I've still yet to hear ANY argument from the smokers' forum except blindly stating that it's their "right" to smoke wherever and whenever they want and the rest of the world can just deal with it.

justthefacts 7 years, 8 months ago

My prediction; The part of the ban making bar owners responsible will be struck down - too vaugue to be enforced etc. BUT the idea of banning smoking in a public place is legaly - and can work. They just have to tinker with the language a bit - to make the person doing the illegal smoking the law breaker - not those who run a place. Just my prediction. Time will tell.

shawn1040 7 years, 8 months ago

WOW - Marion is getting personal now..

Talk about a logical fallacy!!

Eride 7 years, 8 months ago

"as an adult you have a choice to leave as a child you really do not."

This is one of the ideas behind the smoking ban that employees truely do not have a choice to leave. It is the same concept used to regulate all other work place hazards such as other forms of noxious chemicals like some forms of paint, paint thinner, adhesive, etc. Where people can be exposed to those things, in what form and in what amounts is highly regulated and it is the exact same concept as smoking indoors.

You can argue all you want that the employees can just choose not to be employed there but there is already a mountain of precedent showing that it is not a valid excuse for exposing employees unnecessarily to dangerous and toxic chemicals and fumes and it isn't a very large leap going from adhesive to second hand smoke.

" lot of the things you mention have also found to be true of car exhaust, shawn.

Yet no one has proposed banning cars. Everyone is exposed to those toxins, but no one seems to have a problem with having their children around it every day."

Sorry, I have never heard of a restaurant that will allow you to drive your car through the wall and park it in the middle of the building. Although I suppose after you drive your car through the wall it will no longer be an enclosed space... Laugh...

KsTwister 7 years, 8 months ago

Thanks Marion, you beat me to it. Non smoker that I am.

"I've still yet to hear ANY argument from the smokers' forum except blindly stating that it's their "right" to smoke wherever and whenever they want and the rest of the world can just deal with it."

I have yet to see that --PROVE IT. Show me that statement,if it deals with a private business (such as a bar that has smoking);you lose. The argument isn't blind but some of you are,which explains why the city has to protect you from yourselves.

kneejerkreaction 7 years, 8 months ago

Thanks for your vitriolic explanation Marion. Ok, point taken.

irishdevil99 7 years, 8 months ago

"I think the reason you never managed to find a decent date in a bar is because most of the men there are drunks. Oh, and only looking to get laid. Yeah, there's your dream date for you."

Yes, that too. ;-)

I'll be completely honest in my motivations. I like the smoking ban because it allows me to go out and eat, watch a game, play pool and have a few drinks without experiencing the physical discomfort that typically is visited upon me when I'm in a bar that allows smoking. In my experience, when smoking is legally allowed in bars, the market forces the bars to allow it, so I wouldn't anticipate having many if any smoke-free options should that change.

I'm less certain on the legal aspects. I'm unfamiliar with the state statute that allows cities to limit but not ban smoking, and I'm not familiar enough with Kansas law and the KS constitution to know how the ramifications should play out. (And it seems like these are the issues most likely to be at hand in the courts, not market forces or health of workers).

kneejerkreaction 7 years, 8 months ago

Take a pill Marion. You're out of control. So, you lose.

rhd99 7 years, 8 months ago

No one should be forced to work in an environment that has smoking. I agree. The attempt to justify this ordinance is big heart, empty headed. Holding establishment owners like Steffes for other people's irresponsible behaviors in the bars is not only outlandish but it is not going to solve this problem in the long run. Steffes & others like him MUST be able to establish their own rules while at the same time protecting the health of all customers & workers.

kneejerkreaction 7 years, 8 months ago

As to your sane question, M, why can't a business designate itself as S or NS? If people under legal consent are present. How's that?

KsTwister 7 years, 8 months ago

Knee:"As to your sane question, M, why can't a business designate itself as S or NS?

ELABORATE, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?-"If people under legal consent are present. How's that?" Are you under 21?

Flap Doodle 7 years, 8 months ago

Marion's caps lock is sticking again.

I expect he's having to pause to wipe the spittle off his monitor every couple of minutes.

KsTwister 7 years, 8 months ago

Text messaging has ruined the children's English. That will make a parent smoke.

Greg Yother 7 years, 8 months ago

Even though Marion , by splitting hairs, has pointed out some flaws in the particular use of the asbestos example, that's what I see as the closest example of what I thought was the true spirit of the non-smoking ban...the true intended goal.

As far as the answer to the GREAT MARION QUESTION, I believe the logic might go something like this:

Smoking would be banned in the establishment you mentioned because the risk to the employees (to hell with the customers), who are merely trying to eek out a living, is a greater concern than the rights of the customers to smoke, and the rights of the owner to run whatever business he wants, however he wants.

And although the emlpoyees can "just go work somewhere else," the logic is this is superceded by the fact that the failure of the marketplace (which is the non-smoker's fault by the way by not caring enough to boycott) to provide little to no non-smoking environment in the bar/restaurant industry, results in a significant portion of the population left with fewer options (and of course it's low wage folks that get screwed...as always). In general, it is a choice to provide the freedom for everyone to work anywhere they choose without fear for thier health, at the cost of a certain amount of rights of business owners and smokers.

I realize Marion that you and many others care much more for the personal liberties side rather than sacrificing some rights to provide more opportunity for others, and I respect that. That's awesome that whatever issue pops up, there are folks firecely fighting to protect personal liberties...it's all just a question of where you draw the line.

By the way Marion, this post is not trying to convice you or anybody else which is the right way or the wrong way; I'm just trying to answer your question.

Respectfully, THX1138

nbnozzy 7 years, 8 months ago

How many of you that are against Steffes right to have smokers in his bars even patronize his places? Show of hands.......

Then shut up!

kneejerkreaction 7 years, 8 months ago

I wasn't talking about bars, M. I'm addressing businesses that serve food, where kids may eat. To H. with the kids though, I don't want someone's smoke in my mouth when I'm eating. Kids, though, are typically the ones that may not have a choice about where they go, they just get brought, and therefore would be protected by a city-wide NS ban.

Greg Yother 7 years, 8 months ago

Marion wrote: "Would children living in a home in which the parents smoke be any worse off in a restaurant which allows smoking?

A slippery slope!

You see, it's really all about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!"

Now that's a damn good point Marion.

But my question is (which was posed earlier), do you believe that the market should dictate it all? Conceptually speaking, should situations exist where businesses spend nothing for safety, resulting in employee death, so they can maximize profit, as long as the employees are aware of the dangers? Resulting in a situation where a significant number of employees choose to work there only out of financial desparation?

rhd99 7 years, 8 months ago

Folks, in reading the dialog of just the past few minutes, it does come down to two words: Personal responsibility. If one cannot recognize that each of us is responsible for our own actions, then maybe we should not be at a bar. I take seriously the notion that people's health is priority #1. Government intervention, however is not the answer to this problem. What will government intervention solve? I submit to you, it will resolve nothing. How far back does this problem go, I am not sure, but I am sure about this: Personal responsibility starts with two sides: The customer (you & I) excercising good judgement & the business owner (while being ABLE to establish his/her own rules while protecting the health of workers & customers) making an honest living while also establishing a safe & fun environment.

irishdevil99 7 years, 8 months ago

Marion -- Chill. I was trying to take a light-hearted approach to the debate. Clearly, I failed or just had the wrong audience. Allow me to explain that I don't actually give a rat's *** about "the bar scene" when it comes to dating (or dating in general, for that matter... it's been a while since I had to worry about that).

If you want my reasons for wanting the ban in place, it's the entirely selfish reasons that I detailed about in my last post. I want my bar-going experiences to be comfortable, and that's difficult to do in a smoking bar.

If you want me to say why it SHOULDN'T be allowed, that's a little tougher. I'll reiterate -- I am not a lawyer or legal scholar and I don't know the law. I can't even say for sure that it shouldn't, although I lean in that direction based on the logic as I see it.

Arguments that seem reasonable to me in favor of keeping a ban:

1) The government can and does regulate business all the time, frequently in ways that counter the natural market force. It doesn't allow you to sell alcohol to 20-year olds, even if it's not for their own consumption. It forces you to have a special license to sell alcohol. It forces restaurants to follow certain health codes. The free market might not demand these things, but the government regulates them anyway.

So, if the government has the right to regulate this aspect of the business, why should they? The obvious answer is:

2) Health reasons. Patrons may have a choice (though again, I wonder what percent of bars would choose to be completely non-smoking if given the option. Does anyone have this data from before the ban?), and it seems like an hour of exposure here and there probably won't kill them (though I've never studied the data). Those who work at those establishments, though, are being dealt some serious harmful effects that the government will probably end up having to pay for down the road. It doesn't matter that they can choose whether or not to work there -- the government is responsible for making sure that workplaces are safe for the workers.

So, Marion, what makes you so vitriolic about this issue? You seem to be on the attack against anyone who offers a preference that counters your own, and I'm genuinely curious -- why is this so upsetting to you?

kneejerkreaction 7 years, 8 months ago

All I know is that I really like the notion that anywhere I go in Lawrence I won't be sniffing and tasting what comes out of someone else's mouth.

nbnozzy 7 years, 8 months ago

And kneejerk..... how many Lawrence citizens don't want to smell the exhaust of your car? Or breathe the toxins that were emitted from the factories that had to make your clothes, your food, the building materials for your home, etc.....

in a nutshell, we all infringe on our neighbors in one way or the other. Thats science, thats life.

We have freedom of choices in our country. Let those who wish to exercise theirs by having a bar with smoking patrons, have it. It boils down to this: Its none of your damn concern if you don't own the business or patronize the place. You, like many others, wish to tell the rest of society how to live. Back off. I can decide for myself whether or not I choose to be around smokers.

Now I am going out to the edge of town where I can go eat a lunch with smokers, see half nekkid dancers, and have a beer. How much does that offend you? I care less........

kneejerkreaction 7 years, 8 months ago

nbnozzy...what a stupid bunch of comments.

TheGoldenBoy 7 years, 8 months ago

Not only is Steffels challenge of the city's "no smoking in restaurants ban on its way out but so is the Last Call!

oldgoof 7 years, 8 months ago

To Marions 9:58 post, I edit and resubmit, on the issue of empoyee consent: . See, the question that the (asbestos mining) ban people will NOT deal with is this:

If a guy or a gal wishes to run a (asbestos mining) establishment, all of the employees are aware that the place is a (asbestos mining) establishment and CHOOSE to work there and all of the customers know that the place is an (asbestos mining) establishment and those customes CHOOSE to go there, why should (asbestos mining) be banned in that establishment?

...

No Marion, this IS a question I can answer.

SloMo 7 years, 8 months ago

I can't help but suspect that if Freestate had put its bar back in the beer hall where it belongs, and made that and the UPSTAIRS its designated smoking areas, the ban would never have happened. But no, what's-his-name thumbed his nose at his own customers (half of them anyway). So why didn't they just go somewhere else? Well, poor Freestate, it's a victim of its own success - people WANT to go there! What a problem to have, huh? So, when the non-smokers weren't accommodated, they petitioned THEIR government and got the smoking ban passed.

How about we allow businesses to offer smoking sections, provided they are able to keep the smoke contained in that area? Of course, that would rule OUT the outdoor smoking areas, but that would probably be alright with most people.

John Spencer 7 years, 8 months ago

So much one sided ness, Kneejerk are you not able to make a choice about where you go or don't go? Marion, please don't blow a gasket, your not going to change their views. shawn, are you actively working on having all the fast food places shut down? There is certainly enough evidence to show they do more damage to more people than cigarette smoke. I have a friend that is allergic to shellfish, he doesn't go to restraunts that serve them, because if he accidentally got one, he could die. Should we ban all shellfish from Lawrence also, so he is safer? I don't like smoke, and if the ban lifted and the bar I frequent allowed smoking, I would not go there anymore. I wouldn't apply for work at Hallmark, because they allow smoking in there. Why do so many of you need to have the Government run your lives? Start making choices for yourselves.

preebo 7 years, 8 months ago

The bottom line is that City-wide smoking bans in establishments within the city exist throughout the country, so based on the existing operation of municipalities the plaintiffs have nothing to prop their case on.

I would surmise that the city will win this one, and at the best case for the plaintiffs is to lobby for some provisos allowing for completely separate smoking areas on the premises.

kneejerkreaction 7 years, 8 months ago

Wereallmonks. - right now no one in Lawrence has to think about S or NS places. So why should everyone's life be more difficult by making S or NS a criteria to contemplate when deciding a locale to frequent? There are plenty of government regulations regarding safety and health, from building a house to running a business, so how is smoking different? What are we going to do, keep a running list on the fridge of approved venues?

The question Monks., should be, 'why should smokers make life more difficult, not to mention unhealthy, for others?'. What's fair about that?

kneejerkreaction 7 years, 8 months ago

Well, M., the government will make decisions for us whether we like it or not. With all the bad decisions they make, when they make a good one, like the smoking ban, I'll just enjoy it.

kneejerkreaction 7 years, 8 months ago

There you go with the "Questions" again Marion. You've had those answered to any thinking person's satisfaction by more than one person.

stuckinthemiddle 7 years, 8 months ago

The ban should be thrown out by the court, but continuous air monitoring should begin in all bars and restaurants that allow smoking. And if the level of any toxin is over the EPA or OSHA acceptable level, all customers and employees should have to wear NIOSH approved respirators.

nbnozzy 7 years, 8 months ago

Kneejerk..... my comments are on target. Too bad your comprehension levels are sub par.

kneejerkreaction 7 years, 8 months ago

stuck. and how much do you want to pay for these scientific experiments and safety guards? Are you willing to pay $47 for a gin tonic?

kneejerkreaction 7 years, 8 months ago

nbnozzy....my golf game has nothing to do with my comprehnesion level.

nbnozzy 7 years, 8 months ago

Mr_Ramirez..... why not take your family to places that don't have smoking patrons? Or do you just love to invite confrontation?

That's the problem with you simpletons. You don't want it and you don't want anyone else to have it either even though you do have choices to go to places that ban smoking. If I want to go to a bar that has smoking that should be my right, not yours. So get your morals off me.

nbnozzy 7 years, 8 months ago

kneejerk, your IQ level equals your golf game....

about 96, right?

kneejerkreaction 7 years, 8 months ago

nbnozzy: you can't take automobile exhaust and industries that pollute for the common good of clothing the unwashed masses and equate that to the smelly-fingered goober smokestack sitting next to you in a restaurant ruining your cheeseburger and gazpacho.

stuckinthemiddle 7 years, 8 months ago

knee, it's not "scientific experiments", it's just air monitoring and it's not that expensive or difficult. The cost of respirators would likely be passed on from the bar or restaurant owner to the customers, but that cost wouldn't be so high and it might be another reason, beside the stink of tobacco smoke for people choosing non-smoking establishments.

kneejerkreaction 7 years, 8 months ago

That, my nbnozzy friend, is just ridiculous.

kneejerkreaction 7 years, 8 months ago

stuck...ok...but I still prefer the Lawrence ban. I mean, how many chicks could you meet in a bar while wearing a gasmask?

stuckinthemiddle 7 years, 8 months ago

knee, there you go... another reason one might choose a non-smoking establishment, being able to meet people who aren't wearing respirators. Though... there would likely be at least some fetish interest in the "gasmasks".

kneejerkreaction 7 years, 8 months ago

...and nbnozzy you CAN go to a bar and exercise your screwed up morality of god given rights to coffin nails and stinky clothing, just not in Lawrence.

John Spencer 7 years, 8 months ago

Knee, Most peole can't make a choice about the condition or safety of a building when they walk into it, hence building codes. People need to be made aware of what products can do to them when they use them, thats why there are labels to read. Smoking is not different it is a legally sold, controlled, and legally available. It has a label that says it is bad for you. Again, why wouldn't a sign on the front of a business be sufficient for you? If you don't want to; smell, see or smell like, smoke, than don't go in there. Smokers are not trying to make life more difficult or unhealthy, they just want to hang out together, and eat or drink watch games play games. Why can't you make a choice based on all of the availabel information and not pay money to a business that alows smoking on the premises? Ram, Why don't you look up the numbers on the food you eat and check the CDC for the numbers of people that die from heart disease related to diet?

Godot 7 years, 8 months ago

Marion, good point about the Lebanese smoking bar. What is up with that? It shares the same air space, hallway and bathroom with a really, really nice restaurant. As a non-smoker, I am offended by the smoke from the Hookah Bar that wafts into the restaurant? By the way, that restaurant has nothing to do with the hookah bar, other than to be negatively impacted by it.

How can the City allow this situation, but not allow restaurants that want to have smoking to enclose a portion of their restuarant for that purpose?

irishdevil99 7 years, 8 months ago

Marion,

That's fair. I agree that there are too many laws and I think the government often tends to legislate morality when it really doesn't need to. While not a libertarian, I do lean in that direction on a lot of issues... I think the government should generally back off and let gays marry, let people smoke marijuana, and, probably, let bars and restaurants have smoking areas as long as they provide VERY good ventilation systems to the degree that neither other patrons nor employees are put in harm's way.

But, on the other hand, this is one of the rare times that the government's intrusion is improving my quality of life, so I'm continuing to be selfish and root for the ban to pass legal muster.

marxisnotdead 7 years, 8 months ago

Colorado has a state-wide ban on smoking in all businesses etc. In addition, smoking must be restricted to at least 15 feet from any public entrance. What a wonderful sigh of fresh air it has been. Moreover, similar to the study mentioned earlier, after a short revenue decline for businesses the revenue actually increased 5-7% for many businesses. This due to the fact that many non-smokers who frequented businesses such as bars, restaurants, etc spent more time within the establishment once they entered the doors. And, the smokers still came except they smoke outdoors...15 feet from the entrance. Many of our anti-smoking ban stalwarts have now changed their tune and have openly embraced the law. Our casinos have an exemption but now there is a movement to include those as well, however, with mixed reviews.

dragonfly_28 7 years, 8 months ago

All right people listen up! No matter if you are a non smoker or smoker we all have are rights. We all can pretty much make up our own minds on what we want to or not do ect. You all can debate this until you are blue in the face and it will not change a thing. Besides most of you are missing the whole point of this anyway.

I am a smoker. Yes, I am aware of the health risks. But guess what it is my right to smoke if I want to. Just like it is your right not to smoke. It is a person's choice what establishment to walk into or not. Nobody is twisting your arm! So, just deal with it. I hope that the surpreme court deems it unconstitional but hey that is my opinion.

bugmenot 7 years, 8 months ago

Hey, smokers. Let me try some of your dumb logic back on you. If you don't like the fact that you can't smoke in bars in Lawrence, why don't you just move? You have a choice about where to live. You can move to a city with no smoking ban. Makes about as much sense, doesn't it?

Greg Yother 7 years, 8 months ago

I thought the Lebanaese deal was that the law allowed for smoking in tobacco shops. It's as simple as that, isn't it?

bugmenot 7 years, 8 months ago

Dragonfly, you completely miss the point. Yes, you have the right to smoke, but even you must be aware that your smoking means the people standing in the same room as you are essentially smoking as well, correct? They didn't choose to smoke.

And, as to the health effects, I just don't understand smokers. I watched my dad die a long, sad death from cancer. I can't imagine purposely doing something that would put you in that position. I urge you to think of your kids (or your parents, if you're too young to have kids yet) and seek cessation assistance. Honestly, it's probably the saddest way a person can go, especially if it's avoidable.

Greg Yother 7 years, 8 months ago

Oh sorry, I didn't see marion's last post before I posted. Marion, what are the other requirements and specifications of the ban which clearly preclude smoking in the Lebanese place? (honest question)

kneejerkreaction 7 years, 8 months ago

dragonfly - Non-smokers just deal with it? No, smokers deal with it. If you as a smoker are the offending party, then you have to be inconvenienced, not vice versa. And, the only people getting blue in the face during this argument are the ones with the wacky blood pressure from smoking too much.

monkeyhawk 7 years, 8 months ago

A MINORITY VIEW BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 2007, AND THEREAFTER

Phony Science and Public Policy

The public has become increasingly aware that the science behind manmade global warming is a fraud. But maybe Americans like bogus science in pursuit of certain public policy objectives. Let's look at it.

Many Americans find tobacco smoke to be a nuisance. Some find the odor offensive, and others have allergies or asthma that can be aggravated by smoking in their presence. There's little question that tobacco smoke causes these kinds of nuisances, but how successful would anti-smokers have been in a court of law, or public opinion, in achieving the kind of success they've achieved based on tobacco smoke being a nuisance?

A serious public health threat had to be manufactured, and in 1993 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stepped in to the rescue with their bogus environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) study that says secondhand tobacco smoke is a class A carcinogenic.

Why is it bogus? The EPA claimed that 3,000 Americans die annually from secondhand smoke, but there was a problem. They couldn't come up with that conclusion using the standard statistical 95 percent confidence interval. They lowered their study's confidence interval to 90 percent. That has the effect of doubling the margin of error and doubling the probability that mere chance explains those 3,000 deaths.

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) said, "Admittedly, it is unusual to return to a study after the fact, lower the required significance level, and declare its results to be supportive rather than unsupportive of the effect one's theory suggests should be present." The CRS was being kind. This kind of doctoring of research results would get a graduate student expelled from a university.

In 1998, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer released the largest ever and best formulated study on ETS. The research project ran for 10 years and in seven European countries. The study, not widely publicized, concluded that no statistically significant risk existed for nonsmokers who either lived or worked with smokers.

During the late '90s, at a Washington affair, I had the occasion to be in the presence of an FDA official. I asked him whether he would approve of pharmaceutical companies employing EPA's statistical techniques in their testing of drug effectiveness and safety. He answered no. I ask my fellow Americans who are nonsmokers: Do you support the use of fraudulent science in your efforts to eliminate tobacco smoke nuisance in bars, restaurants, workplaces and hotels?

You say, "Okay, Williams, the science is bogus, but how do we nonsmokers cope with the nuisance of tobacco smoke?" My answer is that it all depends on whether you prefer liberty-oriented solutions to problems or those that are more tyranny-oriented.

cont.

monkeyhawk 7 years, 8 months ago

The liberty-oriented solution has to do with private property rights, whereby the owner of property makes the decision whether he will allow smoking or not. If one is a nonsmoker, he just doesn't do business with a bar or restaurant where smoking is permitted. A smoker could exercise the same right if a bar or restaurant didn't permit smoking. Publicly owned places such as libraries, airports and municipal buildings, where ownership is ill defined, presents more of a challenge.

The tyranny-oriented solution is where one group uses the political system to forcibly impose its preferences on others. You might be tempted to object to the term "tyranny," but suppose you owned a restaurant where you did not permit smoking and smokers used the political system to create a law forcing you to permit smoking. I'm sure you'd deem it tyranny.

The public policy debate on smoking has been settled through bogus science. My question is, how willing are we to allow bogus science to be used in the pursuit of other public policy agendas, such as restrictions on economic growth, in the name of fighting global warming?

dragonfly_28 7 years, 8 months ago

Just because a person is a smoker dosen't mean they have high blood pressure! You can be a non smoker and have high blood pressure too.

But I am not going to be told that I cannot smoke either it is my choice!! I am not just going to smoke in my house because the non smokers don't like it. I will smoke where I want.

kneejerkreaction 7 years, 8 months ago

dragaon....you smoke in your house, around your kids or around any kids that might be in your house?

dragonfly_28 7 years, 8 months ago

I don't have kids as if it is any of your business! Don't get me wrong I am considerate of those around me who don't smoke. I do ask first. But when you start to lecture me about it I will go ahead and lit up.

kneejerkreaction 7 years, 8 months ago

dragon - reminds me of the Steve Martin Sat. Night Live joke....."do you mind if I smoke?"....."Not at all, do you mind if I fa*t?"

beatrice 7 years, 8 months ago

If this gets overturned, then there just might still be hope that I can open my in-door fireworks bar. It will be a beautiful place, made with old wood paneling. Anytime during the night, customers will be allowed to fire off the fireworks they brought with them. Oh sure, there is always the possibility of being killed from second-hand fire, but you don't have to come in if you don't want to. My business, my rules. Right? Plus, we will be sure everyone is aware of the lead-based paint used in the making of our dining plates. I just like that color red. Again, my business, my rules. And let me tell you about how we don't really like the way other restaurants keep their meat in refrigerators. Silly law. Why should we have to refrigerate meat? Just because some looney liberal government official thinks it might be unhealthy otherwise? Who cares about health laws and regulations. Any business should be allowed to make up any rules they see fit. Right?

Christine Pennewell Davis 7 years, 8 months ago

funny beatrice but I still want the fourth of july back.

dragonfly_28 7 years, 8 months ago

what you don't fa*t in public I'm sorry you are so bloated then. But at least you asked first.

Now back to the smoking ban that you are for or did you forget what we are talking about here? If it dosen't get overturned I will not smoking in restraunts or bar. But that doesn't mean I have to like.

Christine Pennewell Davis 7 years, 8 months ago

monkeyhawk please no more on the global warming my head jus can not take anymore of it.

Christine Pennewell Davis 7 years, 8 months ago

smoking in a resturant should be a no but in a bar yes. Even if the resturant has a bar still no.

kneejerkreaction 7 years, 8 months ago

The Lebanese hookah supposedly passed because of it's historical/cultural significance to the Lebanese people. I don't buy it. Tobacco predates Chris Columbus on the US continent, and we're not clamoring for this to be our cultural legacy. Maybe smoking in a water pipe makes the difference, but I still don't buy it. The smoking ban should apply to the Hookah House as well. But, Lawr. Commissioners in an effrot to be the eternal rose-colored liberals, and accepting of other cultures, bought into the malarky that the owners of the Hook. house fed them.

aceofspades 7 years, 8 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

nbnozzy 7 years, 8 months ago

Anonymous / kneejerkreaction says:

nbnozzy: you can't take automobile exhaust and industries that pollute for the common good of clothing the unwashed masses and equate that to the smelly-fingered goober smokestack sitting next to you in a restaurant ruining your cheeseburger and gazpacho.

Ozzy sezs: of course you can. You make choices and live with them. You don't have to drive an automobile. You don't have buy manufactured clothes, etc... YOU choose to.

And along that line..... YOU dont have to go into bars where patrons smoke. YOU can make that choice. And you can also leave alone those who want to participate although you don't.

Any comprehension coming through to you yet?

nbnozzy 7 years, 8 months ago

Anonymous / ram67rod says:

nbnozzy, What's the matter with walking outside to smoke. Why must you do it inside. Not everyone that frequents the bars smokes, tough guy.

ozzy kindly responds: I am one of those non-smokers in bars. Quit 20 years ago. I however, am not so pompous as to tell the other patrons in a bar whether or not THEY should be allowed to light up. Thats their choice. If I don't like, then I can leave.

kneejerkreaction 7 years, 8 months ago

Alas, another day of taking roundhouse swings at my fellow Lawrencians comes quietly to a close. sigh* As our namesake the Kansa Indians would say..."hookah hey"....

Eride 7 years, 8 months ago

"have a friend that is allergic to shellfish, he doesn't go to restraunts that serve them, because if he accidentally got one, he could die. Should we ban all shellfish from Lawrence also, so he is safer?"

The difference is that shell fish is dangerous to a miniscule proportion of the general population while smoking is dangerous to EVERYONE.

Wow that has to be the worst comparison I have seen today.

nbnozzy 7 years, 8 months ago

Anonymous / Mr_Ramirez says:

"Mr_Ramirez..... why not take your family to places that don't have smoking patrons? "

which would be 'what; if the ban was not in place??? EXACTLY SIMPLETON.......there wouldnt be any!

and....i said restaurants NOT bars Simpleton.

Before you go off on your espresso induced rant check what i said simpleton.

Have another carton and calm down, ok, simpleton

I referred to BOTH restaurants and bars and apparantly that was too much for you to handle so I'll dumb it down to a level you can hopefully understand.

Before the smoking ban, there were places in Lawrence to eat that didn't allow smoking or restricted areas where you could take your family dining without being surrounded by ciggy smoke. So you had choices to begin with. There were also 2 bars in town that were smoke free. But they were about to go under and eventually did ban or no ban.

Lastly, I don't smoke but I am not the nazi you are to tell other adults how to conduct themselves in privately owned establishments. My "simpleton" remark for you forever stands. You just don't get it.

Eride 7 years, 8 months ago

"Mr. Ramirez:

You would NEVER "have" to breathe toxic smoke if you didnot take you family to a smoking establishment!

See how simple that is?"

Why should the majority be excluded from restaurants so the minority can make the selfish choice to smoke indoors? A practice that is known to be dangerous to other people. And considering no one here is disputing the dangers of second hand smoke I think it is safe to say everyone agrees that it poses severe health hazards. So again, why should the majority be precluded from restaurants and bars so a minority can take part in an unhealthy and dangerous activity that poses a DIRECT risk to everyone in their proximity?

nbnozzy 7 years, 8 months ago

Anonymous / kneejerkreaction says:

...and nbnozzy you CAN go to a bar and exercise your screwed up morality of god given rights to coffin nails and stinky clothing, just not in Lawrence.

how naive are you? It happens everyday in Larryville. You are definitely out of the loop.

Linda Endicott 7 years, 8 months ago

Shawn,

Tell me, exactly where can people go to get away from the toxins in car exhaust? Outside? Do you think just because it's all outside that you don't get a dose of it every day? Especially from all those diesel engines that transport the things you love to consume...

Not too many years ago, the scientific community talked about how many people had radial tire particles in their lungs. How do you get away from that? Yet no one seems overly concerned. No one is clamoring for a ban.

And for those of you who have mentioned the asbestos factories, etc., and how people who work there know about the dangers ahead of time, and can make the choice whether to work there or not.

The same is true of restaurants or bars. If it is a smoking establishment, it will be posted on the front of the building. If you do not wish to work in that kind of environment, then I suggest you don't apply for a job there.

Clean air? Give me a break...take a random sample of that "fresh air" outside, and go have it analyzed. See what you find in it.

No comments at all about how the EPA skewed the results of the second-hand smoke study until those results showed what they wanted?

Tychoman 7 years, 8 months ago

Smoking's gross. Any kind of smoking is gross.

It's disgusting and dangerous to other people. And don't jump on me with that "Don't go to a smoking restaurant" BS because that's an idiotic red herring comeback--MARION.

warthog 7 years, 8 months ago

Smoking is dirty, costly, unhealthy; people who smoke don't realize how foolish they look with a cigarette sticking out of their mouths. It's not sexy; it's not cool; and it's not smart.

That being said, until the government grows the kahonies to outlaw tobacco (they won't) and make it illegal to grow, purchase, and smoke, it seems stupid to make it illegal to smoke in certain establishments. LIke Marion said, if you don't like the smoke, don't frequent those places. Why would you even want to? Just to have the opportunity to make a fuss and get a little attention because you don't have the common sense to take your business elsewhere? Or maybe you think everyone should just live according to your rules. Wouldn't that be nice?

I work at an establishment that sells cigarettes. I'd really rather they didn't. They're a hassle. And if we are out of someone's preferred brand, it's like we tried to drive a stake through their lungs. But they're a money maker. Every time the price goes up, the owner just smiles his evil little grin and banks the profit. People complain and then shell out the money for them. We also used to be a smoking establishment. A few customers complained when we had to tell them they couldn't smoke there any longer. What were they to do? Every other business was the same way. So they buy their cigarettes and keep right on puffing outside.

It's true. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

i_have_only_valid_opinions 7 years, 8 months ago

Smokers - I want to know how you justify exposing non-smokers everywhere to lung disease and nasty stink just so you can be weak and not have to quit your nasty addiction? Seriously, how do you justify exposing others to health risks?

i_have_only_valid_opinions 7 years, 8 months ago

That's not an answer to my question, Marion. Don't side-step the question and give me an answer. What about on the street when there are other people standing around close enough to inhale your crappy smoke filled air? Really, tell me how you justify forcing your smoke into other people's lungs.

Don't give me this "you can move away from me" crap either. That just means that you think you have more of a right to be somewhere than others do. Is that your mentality? That you are more important? That you have the right to chase non-smokers out of public places so you can smoke?

Does smoking make you special?

i_have_only_valid_opinions 7 years, 8 months ago

So, do you think you should be allowed to smoke at baseball games and the like? Around other people in the stands?

EXks 7 years, 8 months ago

"You did a good job of writing like some of the Christian Taliban around here"

-------Marion

Hello??? Pot calling kettle black!

Ah, hello..... Marion, you there??? Pick up the clue phone!!

EXks 7 years, 8 months ago

Marion reminds me of my know-it-all brother-in-law, (a cross-breed of Fed Flntstone and Mr. Peabody) a...... grumpy self proclaimed expert in every subject known to human kind. Everybody has one in their family, whenever he starts flapping his lips, I just turn on the MUTE button!

Thanks,

i_have_only_valid_opinions 7 years, 8 months ago

OK, Marion, I see your point. I just would like to keep a balance between the have & have nots. As a non-smoker, I don't want my options to be "acquiring lung cancer" or "having absolutely no place to eat out and have some drinks". That's all.

scott3460 7 years, 8 months ago

Good for you, Marion. Hope you have success with the effort!

Commenting has been disabled for this item.