Archive for Thursday, August 30, 2007
Proposed statewide smoking ban debated
Committee says cities should decide
August 30, 2007
Advertisement
Reader poll
Statewide smoking ban
State Rep. Arlen Siegfreid, R-Olathe, and chairman of the House-Senate Committee on Federal and State Affairs, talks about Thursday's hearing on a proposed statewide smoking ban.
Supporters and opponents of a statewide smoking ban square off
Some Kansans want smokers to keep it outside and ask lawmakers to enact a statewide ban on smoking inside public places. Enlarge video
On the street
Are you in favor of a statewide smoking ban?
No. I’m not in favor of that. I feel like if you’re going to a bar, you should expect there to be smoke. It should be up to the business owner.
Topeka — Despite pleas from health officials Thursday, a legislative committee snuffed a statewide ban on smoking in indoor, public places.
The House-Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee said smoking ban decisions should be made by local cities and counties.
State Rep. Arlen Siegfreid, R-Olathe, chairman of the committee, said he didn't find a compelling reason for the state to get involved and would rather that "local entities decide that they want to do this on their own."
In June, the Kansas Supreme Court upheld as constitutional the city of Lawrence's three-year-old smoking ban in nearly all indoor workplaces.
Siegfreid said the ruling reinforced the authority of cities and counties to decide the issue, rather than the Legislature.
But Kansas State Health Officer, Dr. Howard Rodenberg, said a statewide smoke-free law would positively affect the health of residents.
"This piecemeal approach is not helping all Kansans," he said. He was backed by numerous public health groups.
Each year, second-hand smoke kills more than 250 Kansans and plays a role in more than 2,100 new heart attacks, Rodenberg said.
A total of 24 states have smoke-free laws, as well as 19 cities in Kansas, affecting more than 20 percent of the state's population.
But many bar and restaurant owners maintained it was their right to make the smoking decision themselves.
And even funeral operators opposed the proposal, saying that because many funeral homes also serve as residences of the funeral directors, the ban would be unworkable.
"I still believe that this is America, and Americans should be able to do as they please when the product they choose is legal," said Mike Magors, owner of the Salt Mine in Baldwin City.
Annette Paden, owner of Our Place in Leavenworth, said 90 percent of her customers smoke. "They come here to have a beer and a cigarette," she said. "I see no problem with that, and neither should you."
And Pam Scott, executive director of the Kansas Funeral Directors and Embalmers Association, opposed the proposal.
Scott said she was concerned a ban "would prohibit smoking in the portion of a funeral home which is being used as a private residence."
But some business owners testified in favor of a smoking ban.
Wayne Martin, co-owner of the bowling alley Royal Crest Lanes and Wayne & Larry's Sports Bar in Lawrence, said the smoking ban in Lawrence has lured more families to the bowling alley.
"We don't see people leaving Lawrence to bowl out of town so they can smoke," Martin said.
A statewide ban was proposed during the last legislative session but was passed over in favor of more study.
Even though the committee will not recommend a statewide ban when the Legislature meets in January, Siegfreid expected the issue to come up again from individual lawmakers who support the proposal.
Smoking Ban
- Group petitioning for smoking ban (08-01-07)
- City's smoking ban upheld (06-23-07)
- Highcourt considers city's ban on smoking (04-26-07)
- Citysmoking ban challenge to be heard (04-18-07)
- Citynot alone in defending smoking ban (02-26-07)
- Committeepostpones action on statewide smoking ban bill (01-31-07)
- Statewidesmoking proposal raises ire (01-18-07)
Top ads RSS
- Patient Care Technician Full time position at Kansas Dialysis Services ...
- FOOD SERVICE • Food Service Worker Underground Mon - Fri ...
- IT Director Newcomer Group, a privately owned, forward thinking company ...
- Maintenance Director Full Time-Experience Required LPN/RN Full Time 2PM-10PM Apply ...
- AWESOME $ Year round work + full time positions. $1,600/ ...
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Veritas boys triumph February 7, 2010 · 3 comments
- ‘Tea party’ is Palin’s people February 7, 2010 · 224 comments
- Proposed constitutional amendment to block federal health care reform considered February 9, 2010 · 45 comments
- Seabury student bee champ 3rd year in a row February 6, 2010 · 30 comments
- Kansas Legislature considers poverty waivers for those looking to get married, but unable to pay fees February 9, 2010 · 33 comments
- Tehran moves closer to warhead capacity February 9, 2010 · 42 comments
- Poll: Paper, plastic or, no thanks, I brought my own tote bag? February 8, 2010 · 47 comments
- Rep. John Murtha, Iraq war critic, dies at 77 February 9, 2010 · 89 comments
- The only choice February 9, 2010 · 53 comments
- Bill would allow big-cat hunting February 9, 2010 · 71 comments
- Under her wing: Parent writes book on developmental disabilities February 8, 2010
- Eudora man hospitalized after head-on crash into tree February 9, 2010
- KU employee suspected of charging personal items on university credit card February 9, 2010
- KU communication studies professor is a finalist for MU post February 9, 2010
- Open house to discuss Highway 56 moved to Baldwin City school February 9, 2010
- HealthGrades releases list of hospitals with lower mortality, complication rates February 9, 2010
- Bill would allow big-cat hunting February 9, 2010
- Aldrich’s father gets to ‘live a dream’ — in Lawrence February 9, 2010
- Love bonds February 8, 2010
- KDHE orders salvage yard to change practices February 9, 2010
31 August 2007
at 12:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jayhawker07 (Anonymous) says…
“And Pam Scott, executive director of the Kansas Funeral Directors and Embalmers Association, opposed the proposal.”
Must have a negative effect on there business!
31 August 2007
at 1:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Rightytighty (Anonymous) says…
I also don't see more families in bars because of this ban. Glad the bowling alley is see profits but who cares about all the other businesses in town.
31 August 2007
at 1:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
local_support (Anonymous) says…
It's not going to kill anyone to go outside and smoke.
Oh wait, yes it is.
31 August 2007
at 4:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
davidmm (Anonymous) says…
Glad to see the state doesn't want to make public health its “business.”
31 August 2007
at 6:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
doc1 (Anonymous) says…
The only reason for that is the state doesn't want to lose out on all the tax dollars from the extra sales of cigarettes. Tax money is more important than health of Kansans to them. I say ban the stuff. I'm sick of the dirty stinky smokers pushing it on other people. Some smokers will fall back and say it should be the responsibility of the business, however no business is going to ban smoking unless they know all other businesses would ban it too. The responsibility is in the hands of the state.
31 August 2007
at 7:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
buffalo_star (Anonymous) says…
PUBLIC health is everyone's business so get this ban done already!
31 August 2007
at 7:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
KS (Anonymous) says…
If it is bad for you, the state can just outlaw tabacco. Stop sales. Just watch the black market then. Another drug problem. Less taxes collected by the state. Raise taxes on the rest of us to make up the difference. The state will NOT do a statewide ban. Too much money involved in smoking.
31 August 2007
at 7:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
@David, the state is indeed making public health its business with their decision. They ask the cities to do the legwork is all; cities have their power to enact laws/ordinances from the state (home rule). Telling the cities to do it is not really taking their hands out of it. If they wanted to say NO to smoking ordinances, they could have done so with that process known as legislation.
@KS, tobacco and smoking tobacco in a public place (yes, for the millionth time, a place that relies on entry by the public is a public place; when OWNED by the public, we call that “publicly owned”) are two different concepts. The very reason the state doesn't outlaw tobacco is the reason you give; there is no need to create a black market. Restricting use is a viable and successful alternative to prohibition, which does not work.
31 August 2007
at 8:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BrianR (Anonymous) says…
“Last year, more people were killed by automobile accidents, heart attacks, lung cancer, and natural causes combined than by any one tomato.” —Attack of the Killer Tomatoes, 1978
31 August 2007
at 8:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mom_of_three (Anonymous) says…
Let's look at this from another numbers standpoint.
Yes, smoking is bad. People dying is bad.
Kansas population is 2,764,075.
According to the article, 250 people died from second hand smoke. That's less than 1% of 1% of the population of Kansas.
over 2,100 people had a heart attack related to smoking. That's 10% of 1%.
And yes, those few hundredth percent of those people had families.
It will affect all of us in one way or another.
But it's not up to the legislature to make this decision, but the cities. They need to decide what kind of financial burden to place upon it's residents.
31 August 2007
at 8:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Bubbles (Anonymous) says…
Ban promiscuous sex also. Anyone that reports to the doctor with symptoms will be fined $1000.
If liberals really were SO concerned about saving lives they would implement this plan immediately.
31 August 2007
at 8:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Bubbles (Anonymous) says…
This is about saving lives logy. People are dying of aids that could be saved!
We need to start fining fat people also. Fatties are flooding our medical facilities. This is about saving lives!!!
We must save lives logy!!
31 August 2007
at 9:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
Jayhawker07 (Anonymous) says:
“And Pam Scott, executive director of the Kansas Funeral Directors and Embalmers Association, opposed the proposal.”
Must have a negative effect on there business!
__________________________________________
How?
I don't say this as license or excuse to smoke… but ultimately, one way or another, Pam Scott's industry **WILL** get you.
For one of use here, it might even be later today… :)
Death is a part of life.
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
http://www.uscentrist.org
31 August 2007
at 9:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mom_of_three (Anonymous) says…
The state was right to stay away from implementing a ban, and I hope it continues to do so.
It might start with smoking, and then what is next, alcohol because it's bad for your kidneys and causes kidney disease and death.
Logarithmic - Second hand smoke was believed to be the cause for 2100 heart attacks in Kansas, and 250 deaths. It didn't say the 2100 people died from their heart attack.
I understand your point and your reasoning, but it's a decision we can't make for other people.
31 August 2007
at 10:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Kontum1972 (Anonymous) says…
there should be a city tax on smoking…….the tax police go around to all establishments when the see someone smoking they charge them one dollar they are given a tax receipt to deduct at the end of the year….plus they get a discount on funeral services when they die of lung cancer, or congestive heart faliure.
just think of all the revenue…i see smokers in groups outside smoking…easy money..!
just think of the profits for the city of lawrence…then they would not have to raise the prices on swimming at the swimming centers.
ps that receipt is only good for that day….the next day its a new ball game.
31 August 2007
at 10:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Ragingbear (Anonymous) says…
Every once in a while the human race craves a little something called “Personal Choice”.
31 August 2007
at 10:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Confrontation (Anonymous) says…
We're not talking about taking away anyone's personal choice to smoke. We're just taking away their right to harm other people with their habit.
“Annette Paden, owner of Our Place in Leavenworth, said 90 percent of her customers smoke. “They come here to have a beer and a cigarette,” she said. “I see no problem with that, and neither should you.” …as Annette's lungs continue to fill with tar and she coughs up green slime.
31 August 2007
at 10:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cheeseburger (Anonymous) says…
Ragingbear-
you're right, but when your 'personal choice' interferes with the 'personal choice' of another, and when your 'personal choice' is determined to be a public health risk, and when you continue to engage in said offensive behavior, then someone must intervene. Moving the smoking activity outside should be viewed as a reasonable compromise by both sides.
31 August 2007
at 10:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
justthefacts (Anonymous) says…
Quotes all from the same author:
“An earthman expects to find a law, a printed law, for every circumstance.”
“Government is a dangerous servant and a terrible master. You now have freedom — if you can keep it. But do remember that you can lose this freedom more quickly to yourselves than to any other tyrant.”
“You might even consider installing the candidates who receive the least number of votes; unpopular men may be just the sort to save you from a new tyranny. Don't reject the idea merely because it seems preposterous — think about it! In past history popularly elected governments have been no better and sometimes far worse than overt tyrannies.”
As for how to pay for things without taxation: “I can think of several ways. Voluntary contributions just as churches support themselves… government-sponsored lotteries to which no one need subscribe… or perhaps your Congressmen should dig down into their own pouches and pay for whatever is needed; that would be one way to keep government down in size to its indispensable functions whatever they may be. If indeed there are any. I would be satisfied to have The Golden Rule be the only law; I see no need for any other, nor for any method of enforcing it. But if you really believe that your neighbors must have laws for their own good, why shouldn't you pay for it? I beg you — do not resort to compulsory taxation. There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.”
“Must be a yearning deep in human heart to stop other people from doing as they please. Rules, laws- always for other fellow.”
“Seems to be a deep instinct in human beings for making everything compulsory that isn't forbidden.”
31 August 2007
at 11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Defender (Anonymous) says…
“Annette Paden, owner of Our Place in Leavenworth, said 90 percent of her customers smoke. “They come here to have a beer and a cigarette,” she said. “I see no problem with that, and neither should you.” :as Annette's lungs continue to fill with tar and she coughs up green slime.”
And that is her personal choice, not yours, period.
31 August 2007
at 11:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Ragingbear (Anonymous) says…
If we had the right to not have other people's habits put us in danger, then all bars should be closed. After all, drunk drivers got to get their beer somewhere, don't they?
31 August 2007
at 11:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mom_of_three (Anonymous) says…
Logic-
Are you saying the state has the right to protect you from “poisonery”, but doesn't have the right to protect the free choice of cities to decide what to allow or not to allow or of the citzens to choose? If you don't like smoking, don't go into an establishment that allows it, very simple.
make you voice heard by not spending your dollars in those places.
But the state can't make the decision for us or for cities.
I don't think the state has the right to decide what cities or businesses want in their establishments when it comes to smoking.
And stop putting words in my mouth. I said no such thing as you posted. don't be a dum - no won't go there.
31 August 2007
at 11:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mom_of_three (Anonymous) says…
cheeseburger,
yes, you can move the smoking outside, but then someone outside is offended, by the posts I have read here the past two days. It seems those who oppose smokers want them to stay out of the public populace.
Just let the businesses decide what they want to allow, and then we can make our choice by going to those businesses based on their decision.
Sounds fair to me. If you don't go where the smokers go, then you should be fine, and dandy, right.
31 August 2007
at 11:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cheeseburger (Anonymous) says…
Ragingbear -
you're right again, and almost nothing would make me happier than to close all the bars. If you consider all that happens in society which has, as its direct root, the excessive consumption of alcohol, we could eliminate quite a bit of unnecessary pain, suffering, and costs.
31 August 2007
at 12:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cheeseburger (Anonymous) says…
mom_of_three -
hope you don't smoke around your children!
No, your 'proposal' is not fair, because in some instances, there is only one of a certain type or brand of business in town, and if they chose to allow cancer-stick users to pollute their establishment with carcinogens, then those who elect not to poison their bodies have no place to go. As an example, this town, for all intents and purposes, has one bowling center. If they were to allow it, where are the health-conscious types supposed to go? And yes, outdoor smoking is still offensive to me, but it's not nearly as bad as indoor smoking, so I can accept that as a compromise.
31 August 2007
at 12:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
doc1 (Anonymous) says…
Cheeseburger-
Nicely put. Some people are missing the point about personal choice. Your other post stated the point perfectly.
31 August 2007
at 12:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mom_of_three (Anonymous) says…
I don't smoke at all. I have stated it before and I guess I will need to state it again.
And to answer your question, if the only bowling alley allows smoking, then it's up to you to decide if you want to frequent that establishment or drive to another city or yet, open your own smoke free establishment.
31 August 2007
at 12:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mom_of_three (Anonymous) says…
Don't smoke, never have, never will.
i am done for today
31 August 2007
at 12:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Confrontation (Anonymous) says…
“And that is her personal choice, not yours, period.”
Sure, smoking is her personal (and incredibly stupid) choice. However, she seems to love knowing that the smokers in her bar are infecting other people.
31 August 2007
at 12:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cheeseburger (Anonymous) says…
mom_of_three -
…and I would say nearly the same to you: If the only bowling alley DOESN'T allow smoking, then it's up to you to decide if you want to frequent that establishment or drive to another city, or better yet, open up your own smoking-permitted establishment. If the habit of choice was not deemed to be offensive and hazardous, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But it is both.
31 August 2007
at 10:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
“Life ain't fair and you have no reasonable expectation under the law of having “someplace to go” which suits your personal requirements.
“If you don't like smoke, don't go where the smoke is.”
_________________________________________________
“Life ain't fair” for whom, exactly?
Clean air advocates, or nicotine addicts?
Gun enthusiasts, or shooting spree victims?
Pro-life or pro-choice?
Your side or the other side?
Get a clue yet?
Doubt it.
Thanks
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
http://www.uscentrist.org
http://www.americanplan.org
1 September 2007
at 9:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cheeseburger (Anonymous) says…
Marion wrote:
Life ain't fair and you have no reasonable expectation under the law of having “someplace to go” which suits your personal requirements.
Cheeseburger writes:
I believe I do have a reasonable expectation under the law of having someplace to go which is free of carcinogens, poisons, and other harmful substances. Isn't that one reason we have certain governmental agencies like fda, usda, etc. to help protect the citizenry of this country from idiots who don't know any better?
4 September 2007
at 7:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Defender (Anonymous) says…
“Sure, smoking is her personal (and incredibly stupid) choice. However, she seems to love knowing that the smokers in her bar are infecting other people.”
Sorry Confrontation, but you're an idiot.
“If the only bowling alley DOESN'T allow smoking, then it's up to you to decide if you want to frequent that establishment or drive to another city, or better yet, open up your own smoking-permitted establishment. If the habit of choice was not deemed to be offensive and hazardous, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But it is both.”
A ban on smoking will not allow a business to have the choice of allowing amoking, so this is just a pointless post.
“I believe I do have a reasonable expectation under the law of having someplace to go which is free of carcinogens, poisons, and other harmful substances. Isn't that one reason we have certain governmental agencies like fda, usda, etc. to help protect the citizenry of this country from idiots who don't know any better?”
Aren't we talking about private business'?