Archive for Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Lawrence bar owners, activists weigh in on state smoking ban
Senate debate replays discussion here
January 17, 2007
Advertisement
Smoking ban
- Chat about downtown bar concerns with Nick Carroll (01-03-07)
- Smoking ban in Garden City set to begin (12-31-06)
- Checkup finds Kansas healthier (12-06-06)
- Smoking ordinance prompts Parsons bar to go private (11-26-06)
- Clean Air Lawrence member is honored (11-24-06)
- Overland Park passes business smoking ban (11-08-06)
- Smokers welcome - and legal - at shop (09-08-06)
- State court will decide legality of smoking ban (08-29-06)
Topeka — Lawrence bar and restaurant owners Wednesday brought their dissatisfaction with a Lawrence indoor smoking ban to the Capitol to fight against a proposed statewide ban.
"I believe government has no role in accommodating personal preferences at the expense of private business," Chuck Magerl, owner of Free State Brewery, told the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The committee is considering Senate Bill 37, which would prohibit smoking in public, indoor areas.
Magerl said if the state believes secondhand smoke is devastating to non-smokers then it should "have the courage to ban the sale of tobacco in Kansas."
Several other Lawrence businessmen wrote letters to the committee telling them that the 2 1/2-year-old Lawrence ban has hurt their establishments.
Tom Conroy, owner of Conroy's Pub, said that since the smoking ban went into effect, he has had to cut his workforce from 27 to 13 because of a loss of business.
"A smoking ban, in my experience, is bad for business," Conroy wrote.
But proponents of the Lawrence smoking ban and numerous health officials testified in favor of the measure.
Kathy Bruner, chair of Clean Air Lawrence, said Lawrence residents consider the smoking ban the norm.
"They only comment when they go outside of the city and have to endure the smoking environment of the uninformed and the unfortunate," she said.
Dr. Howard Rodenberg, state director of health, urged the committee to approve the bill, saying it would save lives and also influence others to quit smoking or not start.
The committee took no action on the bill.
More like this
- Statewide smoking proposal raises ire 27 comments / January 18, 2007
- Birthday wish list: donating to others 2 comments / December 10, 2006
- D.A. clears detective in shooting 16 comments / March 18, 2007
- Working with patients motivate AIDS project volunteer December 3, 2006
- Black Student Union leaders try to strengthen school's unity 9 comments / November 26, 2006
Top ads RSS
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Mangino's contract outlines probe November 21, 2009 · 22 comments
- Researcher: Writing proves Shroud of Turin is real November 21, 2009 · 9 comments
- Four decades in crisis mode November 21, 2009 · 7 comments
- Nothing to lose: Reeling KU huge underdog for a change November 21, 2009 · 11 comments
- Muslim countries seek blasphemy ban November 20, 2009 · 28 comments
- United Way about $800,000 short of $1.8 million campaign goal November 20, 2009 · 19 comments
- The cowboy way: Williamstown church ministry draws unique following November 21, 2009 · 1 comment
- Nation has right to ask ‘why?’ November 21, 2009 · 16 comments
- Blog: Palin Book Could Be Your Cheapest Source For Winter Fuel November 20, 2009 · 64 comments
- Just 2 years left: It’s not too soon to start missing Oprah November 21, 2009 · 4 comments
- Mangino's contract outlines probe November 21, 2009
- Four decades in crisis mode November 21, 2009
- CLARENCE E. RINKE OBITUARY October 19, 1999
- On target November 21, 2009
- Sexual healing: Dennis Dailey coaches couples with tough love at his intimacy workshop November 20, 2009
- Researcher: Writing proves Shroud of Turin is real November 21, 2009
- Not-so-gentle reign November 19, 2009
- 40 years ago: Construction begins on Meadowlark addition November 21, 2009
- Chiefs honor ex-left offensive tackle Roaf December 15, 2008
- Commission votes against including gender identity in Lawrence's anti-discrimination policy November 19, 2009
17 January 2007
at 12:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
NotASquishHead (Anonymous) says…
I disagree with the government telling business owners what they can/can't do, but I must admit I am a HUGE fan of the smoking ban. I actually forget how much of a fan I am until I go to Johnson County/elsewhere to eat dinner… the smoke just ruins the experience. I also must say I am a big fan of Free State Brewery and I enjoy it even more without the smoke.
I think most of the business owners are just complaining to blame someone else for their lack of business. If business was good, don't you think Conroy's would still be Kasper's?
17 January 2007
at 12:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kuthruandthru (Anonymous) says…
Second hand smoke has been proven to be unhealthy, if the government isn't going to let me drive drunk because I may hurt someone then why would they let me smoke next to someone when it knowingly harms them?
17 January 2007
at 12:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says…
I don't necessarily agree that the govt is able to regulate a business on this issue, but I have to say that I personally LOVE the ban.
Even when I used to smoke, I'd prefer to smoke outside out of basic consideration for those that don't smoke. Only time will tell if secondhand smoke hurts but I believe it ultimately does.
I know it's cold outside, but 5 minutes isn't that miserable to stand in. If we reverse the ban, we're taking a step backwards compared to the rest of the country.
17 January 2007
at 12:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kuthruandthru (Anonymous) says…
To scootterxlch: If aren't deciding how a product is used, then why can't I drink a beer when I drive?
17 January 2007
at 12:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hipper_than_hip (Anonymous) says…
Magerl is so full of crap! The brewery is full almost all the time with families, old people, and those who couldn't/wouldn't put up with the clouds of smoke from the trustafarians.
Put up some numbers Chuck: Freestate's revenue pre-ban vs revenue post-ban.
17 January 2007
at 12:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
rockchalk77 (Anonymous) says…
“Second hand smoke has been proven to be unhealthy, if the government isn't going to let me drive drunk because I may hurt someone then why would they let me smoke next to someone when it knowingly harms them?”
Perhaps they should ban motorcycles too? While you're more likely to hurt yourself in a crash, I end up paying for the medical bills with increased insurance rates.
Perhaps we should tax fat people as well? They're already banning trans-fats in some places, so why not just levy an extra tax on anyone overweight?
I understand the argument of health and good of the people, but somewhere we have to draw the line. Almost everything is harmful to someone in some way, at least with bars and restaurants you have a choice to go in or not, and the establishment has a choice to make it non-smoking (before the ban) - none of us has a choice if some idiot gets drunk behind the wheel and goes out driving while intoxicated.
17 January 2007
at 12:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Newell_Post (Anonymous) says…
One of the reasons I like traveling to California on business is that you can walk into any bar or restaurant and not have to encouter the vile assault of second hand smoke. Your freedom ends where my nose begins and non-smoking sections don't work.
17 January 2007
at 12:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jackalope (Anonymous) says…
Just a few thoughts - if the improvident use of antibiotics produces antibiotic resistance diseases that kill others should a person's use of antibiotics be banned? If the promotion of high fat foods encourages their consumption and produces heart disease in the general unsuspecting or uncaring population should high fat foods be banned? If alcohol contributes to thousands of deaths and vehicular accidents each year as well as fueling a massive portion of the crime in a community as well as consigning thousands of family members and small children to abject poverty, abuse and even death, should alcohol be banned?
17 January 2007
at 12:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kmat (Anonymous) says…
What the hell ever happened to personal rights? If a business owner wants to have an establishment that allows smoking and it is legal for tobacco to be sold in KS, then why should the state dictate that the business owner can't allow a LEGAL substance to be used? I am the most liberal, socialist person most would ever meet and I'm floored that people want the govt to dictact what can and can't be done on private property with LEGAL substances.
Those of you that are so proud of your smoking ban are giant hypocrits. There were some no smoking establishments that tried to make it in Lawrence, and they all failed miserably because YOU didn't go to these establishments. You chose to go to smoking establishments and complain about it.
Lawrence has become nothing but an overgrown town full of whiners. “I don't like smoke.” “Everyone should have to do what I like.” Waaaaaaaa. I hear a bunch of babies crying in this town.
For those of us that do know many business owners in town, it has hurt business. And how do you like all the butts around downtown now?
It should be up to the business owner to regulate how LEGAL substances are used on THEIR property, not a bunch of whiners. If you don't like that a business allows smoking, then don't go there. Money talks, lazy people that want to just complain whine.
If you are so concerned about what you are breathing in, they why aren't you complaining and petitioning to have car exhaust regulated? Sit behind a bus in traffic, sucking in all those wonderful diesel fumes, and tell me that second hand smoke is more deadly. Why do lung cancer rates continue to increase as smoking rates decline??? polution. If you want to solve a problem, then actually solve the REAL problem. How many of you whiners are driving gas guzzling SUV's and sedans?
I can say from experience from living in L.A. where they took the smoking ban to the extremes that many, many bars along Newport and Huntington Beach had to shut down. When I go back home to Newport, there is one lonely bar left on the beachfront. It used to have lots of bars that had bands playing nightly and the whole area was always busy at night until closing time. Now you're lucky if they can get any bands to play, very few people are there past sunset and the once great party beach had become dead at night. A lot of friends had to shut down their places, all because of smoking bans.
So, whine all you want. It only shows that we have become a nation that thinks it needs to police everything instead of focusing on real issues.
17 January 2007
at 12:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
nekansan (Anonymous) says…
The only possible reason Lawrence business owners would be against a statewide smoking ban is that the local ban has indeed improved their business. The Lawrence ban is going nowhere, the majority of people like it. If the entire state bans smoking the Lawrence businesses dirty little secret will be out and they will no longer enjoy the exclusiveivity of blaming their nonsmoking policy on the man. They would loose one of the greatest things about going out in Lawrence and suddenly share it with everywhere in Kansas. They do not want that to happen..
17 January 2007
at 12:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kuthruandthru (Anonymous) says…
Rockchalk77, you have a choice don't drive. Just like I have a choice, not to eat.
17 January 2007
at 12:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jackalope (Anonymous) says…
It would appear that a simple sign on the door of any establishment to the effect that there is either smoking allowed or not allowed would warn away those who object to the status and let the free market sort out who stays in business.
17 January 2007
at 12:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“So, whine all you want.”
OK— we'll just follow your fine example.
17 January 2007
at 1:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dncinnanc (Anonymous) says…
Rockchalk-
There is no comparison of smoking and drinking… a person drinking (and this is the key word that we all forget,) responsibly, as in either using a designated driver or calling a cab, does not pollute the air of those around them. Those who smoke, do. And while you're at it, I like your idea of a “fat tax”… I'm sick of my premiums going up even though I actually give two sh*ts about taking care of myself and my body. Fatty whines “I can't lose weigghhttt” while eating fast food and sitting on the couch all day, I'm calling bullsh*t!
C'mon, bring it on… rip me to shreds :-)
17 January 2007
at 1:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Newell_Post (Anonymous) says…
Some thoughts for Jackalope:
1. Profligate use of anitbiotics by humans is banned. That's why you need a prescription for most of them in this country. We should also ban them in animal feed and treatment except where really necessary. This issue affects the entire population, not just the user.
2. I don't know of any “second hand high fat foods problem.” Dig your own grave any way you want. Just leave me out of it.
3. Alcohol has medical benefits in moderation and there is no “second hand drinking” problem, unless you get really creative. Drunk driving is illegal, as it should be.
17 January 2007
at 1:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
“Kathy Bruner, chair of Clean Air Lawrence, said Lawrence residents consider the smoking ban the norm.
“They only comment when they go outside of the city and have to endure the smoking environment of the uninformed and the unfortunate,” she said.”
Oh, Kathy, Kathy, there you go, making stuff up again. If you cannot win your argument with real facts, you ought to get out of the fight.
17 January 2007
at 1:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Confrontation (Anonymous) says…
The smoking ban is one of the few positives of living in Lawrence.
17 January 2007
at 1:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kmat (Anonymous) says…
“One of the reasons I like traveling to California on business is that you can walk into any bar or restaurant and not have to encouter the vile assault of second hand smoke. Your freedom ends where my nose begins and non-smoking sections don't work.”
Newell-Post - you make my point for me. My freedom ends where YOUR nose begins???????? Maybe I think you smell bad. Maybe your perfume sucks. Maybe you don't bathe enough for my tastes. Should I get to dictate what you should smell like or where you get to go? You'll say there's a difference, but I've left places because of people that put on so much perfume or cologne it made me gag. Did I complain to the bar owner or the govt and try to get it banned - no. I was a grown up and left.
And since I'm sure it will be brought up, yes I smoke. But, I smoke outside of my house out of respect for my cats, who don't have a choice about where they are. You have a choice to go to a private business. Before the ban I went outside at restaurants to smoke, but did smoke in bars. No one goes to a bar to be healthy.
17 January 2007
at 1:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
MeeMa8 (Anonymous) says…
I agree with Magerl. Ban tobacco! It is the only known thing to cause cancer that has not been banned. Why? Tobacco companies and tobacco growers have enough money and lobbyists to make use congress never passes that law. Anything else known to cause as many deaths as tobacco would have been banned years ago.
17 January 2007
at 1:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Newell_Post (Anonymous) says…
Point of information:
The California ban is written into the state labor law, there. This was justified as protection for the employees who work in restaurants from a toxic substance. (Not for the protection of the customers, at least on paper.) The CA rationale is that a customer can indeed choose to go where they want for the occasional restaurant meal, but employees who work there all day every day have little choice except to quit.
17 January 2007
at 1:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
moderationman (Anonymous) says…
These arguments are so frickin juvenile. Do smoking bans truly hurt business? Depends on where you look. If you ask the bar owners in New York (the greater metro area including Long Island, Westchester, Duchess and Orange counties, its been a rousing success. They actually like it. Business has increased and their establishments don't smell as bad.
Government already regulates many legal substances for varying reasons. Protecting the health of citizenry would seem to make sense. I personally wish we would follow the lead of NYC where the cost of a single pack of cigarettes is $8.00+. A funny thing happened when the taxes were raised…smoking decreased by 11%.
Methinks that Magerl is complaining because while food sales are likely higher, bar sales are likely down and guess where most restaurants make the most profit.
17 January 2007
at 1:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jackalope (Anonymous) says…
Newell wrote that profligate use of antibiotics by humans is banned. Oh, to the contrary. They are so overused that antibiotic resistence diseases are on the rise.
Newell wrote that there were not second hand high fat foods problems. On, to the contrary. The children of adults who do not recognize the problems are often consigned to a short life of morbid obesity. Or is it OK to only harm your children?
Newell wrote that alcohol has medical benefits in moderation. No doctor that I have ever seen has told me to go drink even moderately. And, drunk driving is only one of a myriad of serious problems and even death caused by alcohol.
I guess it all depends upon who's drug of choice is being stomped on. And, again, it would appear that a simple sign on the door of any establishment to the effect that there is either smoking allowed or not allowed would warn away those who object to the status, either smoking or non smoking, and let the free market sort out who stays in business.
17 January 2007
at 1:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Defender (Anonymous) says…
“Magerl is so full of crap! The brewery is full almost all the time with families, old people, and those who couldn't/wouldn't put up with the clouds of smoke from the trustafarians.”
hipper_than_hip, Magerl never said it hurt HIS particular business, so your idiotic attack is giant bunch of bullcrap. Magerl does not believe that gov't has any business regulating business in this manner, that is his big problem with the ban. Maybe you should take a reading comprehension class before you go attacking people, but I doubt you would get much from it.
“I believe government has no role in accommodating personal preferences at the expense of private business,”
That's the quote. do you see 'hurt my personal business' anywhere in this quote?
17 January 2007
at 1:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Newell_Post (Anonymous) says…
kmat:
If I have BO it's not hazardous to your health. If I wear too much cologne, it might be hazardous if you are chemically sensitive. There are indeed a few places that have “scent free” zones, although that is just too, too, precious for even me.
17 January 2007
at 1:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Newell_Post (Anonymous) says…
Jackalope:
1. Try going to Mexico where you can buy almost any antibiotic over the counter. Abuse of antibiotics is a huge problem there with the attendant resistant diseases that then creep across the border. At least we try to hold it down a little. We should do more.
2. A number of studies have been published reporting health benefits of red wine, in particular. I know several people whose doctors have suggested they drink red wine or beer in moderation to help with a variety of problems including circulatory problems.
17 January 2007
at 1:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
rockchalk77 (Anonymous) says…
“Rockchalk77, you have a choice don't drive. Just like I have a choice, not to eat.”
I guess you've never seen a drunk driver hit a pedestrian or crash into a house. I have.
Also, I wasn't aware that a restaurant was the only place one could get food. So much for cooking at home…
Besides, a number of restaurants have been non-smoking for a very long time.
If you want to take things to an even greater extreme, if you go out drinking and drive home, OR call a cab, then you've added more pollution to the air than if you smoked a whole pack of cigarettes at the bar by yourself.
I have no problem with a business being non-smoking. I just think it should be the ownder's choice.
17 January 2007
at 1:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
feeble (Anonymous) says…
Something like 29% of the US population are users of tabacco products, according to the latest data I could find on the NIH and CDC's websites. Seeing as “The Tabacco User” is not a protected class or minority, who do you think will really win this discussion in a democracy?
Even if you add in the part of the voting populace concerned with individual rights, you'll still have far less than a simple majority against a smoking ban.
17 January 2007
at 1:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
I believe Colorado has taken the statewide step and Washington D.C. came on board this year.
17 January 2007
at 1:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kmat (Anonymous) says…
Newell - your post stated that it was you nose that should decide what others can do. I only pointed out how selfish YOU are.
And the comment I read about smoking declining in NYC. Smoking isn't declining, the cig sales are declining because NYorkers go to NJ and Conn to buy smokes.
This all comes down to the rights of business owners. As I said before, let business owners decide what their customers can do in their place of business. If the smoking ban does increase business, then I'm sure all these business owners will make their places non-smoking. If it comes down to money, the business owners are going to do what makes them the most money. Hence, they are protesting the ban because it does cost them money. The bars and grills are seeing the decline because people still go out to eat, they just leave right after their meal instead of sticking around and having some drinks. That does effect the bottom $. Free State is always packed as usual, but you'll notice that these people don't stick around and drink and many of us that liked to hang out there to have some beers don't anymore.
If they want to make restaurants non-smoking, then fine. Forcing bar owners to not allow smoking is beyond reason. Someone please find me one person that is going to a bar to better their health. You can't. Even those that “supposedly” have been told to drink by their doctors (which either shows that these are bad dr's or people are lying to justify their drinking) aren't going to a bar for a sip of red wine. Some studies show benefits, others don't.
17 January 2007
at 1:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kuthruandthru (Anonymous) says…
Rockchalk 77: The “ownder's choice”? I just feel that my options for where to eat should not be limited by the poor choice of others. The world knows smoking is bad for you, so in my opinion you shouldn't be able to bring others down with you. Now if you want to smoke in your house or in your car, feel free, but you should not be allowed to smoke some where I am going to eat.
If you are really interested, there was an article in JAMA a few months ago where they tests individuals who work at bars before a smoking ban and then a year after the smoking ban went into affect. So I may have a choice, but what about the single parent who needs a job? Are you willing to say they should have to suffer too? Oh wait let me guess you are going to tell them to get another job….right…of course then they lose any insurance benefits they have, probably don't really have time to look for a job being the only child care provider, but heck that is there problem not yours, right?
17 January 2007
at 1:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Newell_Post (Anonymous) says…
kmat:
That's a great compromise! I like it.
Restaurants = non smoking.
Bars = owner's choice.
Ya gotta eat. And if you are a business traveler, you aren't going to cook your own. You're going to eat in a restaurant.
You don't gotta drink in a bar. That is purely optional.
Only problem is like in the old days defining the difference between a restaurant and a bar. That caused all kinds of weird liquor law problems for restaurants that served drinks…
17 January 2007
at 2:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
rockchalk77 (Anonymous) says…
“So I may have a choice, but what about the single parent who needs a job? Are you willing to say they should have to suffer too? Oh wait let me guess you are going to tell them to get another job….right…of course then they lose any insurance benefits they have, probably don't really have time to look for a job being the only child care provider, but heck that is there problem not yours, right?”
I'm confused - are you talking about bar and restaurant employees that don't want to work in a smoking establishment? I agree that it is unfair, but that doesn't really make it any different than a number of other situations that we all find ourselves in at one time or another. It's not fair I have to drive an hour to work, but I do it because it pays better and I like where I live.
Also, out of curiosity, where are these restaurant employees with health insurance benefits? Unless you're talking about management, none of my friends that work as waiters or bartenders get any sort of health coverage.
17 January 2007
at 2:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
daman (Anonymous) says…
Newell Post - what about sports bars that relay of food and alcohol to make a profit. Oh I forgot, profit is a dirty word in this town. If someone is making a profit they deserve whatever they get.
17 January 2007
at 2:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kmat (Anonymous) says…
KUthruandthru - find some restaurant employees that are getting good health care plans working as a waitress. Why do you think we have so many uninsured?
If you all want total smoking bans, then there must be universal, govt funded health insurance like Canada has. Then they can dictate what citizens do.
This whole thread only shows that selfishness is what is most important in this country. Screw the bar owners, screw personal rights, just satisfy those that will scream the loudest.
And I love how no one will comment about how non-smoking establishments in areas that don't have smoking bans tend to always fail. Why would that be??????
17 January 2007
at 2:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
daman (Anonymous) says…
This argument goes nowhere, half like the ban, half don't like it and the reasons for each vary. The bottom line is the ban is here and its staying. All I have to say is its a slipperly slope with these bans and where do they stop? Wait until your government bans something you want or like that is otherwise legal. If you live in Lawrence, just get use to liberalism disguised as “tolerance” “diversity” “public health”. Lawrence is a joke when it comes to your city government. Isn't Rundle a bagger at the Merc? Ha!!!!
17 January 2007
at 2:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ScottyMac (Anonymous) says…
What about the single mothers (and fathers) who had good paying jobs that were destroyed by the ban?
Free State Brewery may or may not have suffered significantly from the ban, but I can assure you that many other places have.
Let me list a few: Stu's, Crosstown Tavern, Tap Room, Conroy's.
Before the ban, Conroy's was damn near the smokiest place in town. But apparently Tom's customers prefered it that way. Otherwise, he wouldn't have laid off half of his staff. Tell me, would your hypothetical single mother prefer a good paying but smokey job, or no job at all?
But in the scheme of things, Tom probably isn't suffering the most. Look at Stu's. That place was once upon a time a vibrant, popular little tavern. They used to have great live music every weekend: rock, blues, country. I'll bet Kathy Bruner and her ilk have never stooped to step one toe inside of Stu's, but his regulars loved the place.
But his regulars don't come around as much anymore. He rarely has bands anymore. Nobody comes out to see them. You might hate smokey bars. But some people love them. For some, the bar is the only place where they can go to enjoy their habit.
17 January 2007
at 2:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Newell_Post (Anonymous) says…
kmat has the right idea.
restaurant = non smoking
bar = owner's choice
Drinking in a bar or working in a bar is a purely voluntary activity. Eating in a restaurant isn't always 100% voluntary. If it derives more that 10% of its revenue from food, it should fall under the restaurant rules.
17 January 2007
at 2:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cellogrl (Anonymous) says…
Okay, just to clear up one thing that was said CLEAR at the top… Conroy's is no longer Kaspar's because the Conroy's bought out Kaspar. That's the only reason it changed.
17 January 2007
at 2:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jackalope (Anonymous) says…
Eating in any particular restaurant is not 100% voluntary? Has anyone heard of anyone being forced to eat in a restaurant they did not want to. Is there only one restaurant in town? Are there no non-smoking restaurant in communities that have not banned smoking in restaurants?
17 January 2007
at 2:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
I have never heard of or seen anyone “forced” to eat in any resturaunt.
If you do not likie smoke, so not go where the smoke is.
Thanks.
Marion.
17 January 2007
at 2:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Coach_Eric (Anonymous) says…
t-i-e kmat, t-i-e!
Interesting debates on here today, between the Local Burger article and now this.
Personally, I'd prefer it be the owner's choice as to whether or not they allow smoking, but it's outta my hands. Merely represents a minor inconvenience to me to have to walk 50 feet to go outside and light up. My non-smoking fiancee on the other hand…she hates it because we (my friends and I) leave her at the table for 5 minutes. As long as I bring her a Cosmo on my way back in she *usually* forgets to be mad at me…
Anyway, I only wish more places would put an ashtray/butt-collector out. Kills me to toss my butts down on the sidewalk but if you know you're a non-smoking place and you have smokers there you should either have one of your employees pick them up, or have a place to dump them.
But…at least you can smoke in the Bird! Or so I've heard…
17 January 2007
at 2:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
rollcar (Anonymous) says…
I for one find that I have been spending a lot more money at restaurants in town since the ban was implemented. Before I was forced to either eat at home or take my kids to unhealthy (and usually corporate) fast food establishments that did not allow smoking, and now my options are limitless.
And as for bars, I now have friends who prefer to come to Lawrence from KC on the weekends rather than me traveling there, all due to the smoking ban.
Complain all you want about your rights, but my guess is that there are enough people like me who would have a hard time going back to being run out of enjoyable businesses by smokers. Once upon a time people complained about losing the right to keep slaves, and the right of men to hold exclusive voting rights. The world tends to evolve for the better, people. Get over it.
17 January 2007
at 2:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Newell_Post (Anonymous) says…
I travel on business a lot. (>50%) They usually don't let me roast a chicken in my room at the Marriott. In theory, I could maybe do a lot of different things but, as a practical matter, I wind up eating in restaurants more than I would actually like to.
On a recent trip to Chicago, I TRIED to find a non-smoking restaurant without success.
I also drink in bars with customers, vendors, etc. That is good for business, but not mandatory.
17 January 2007
at 2:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jackalope (Anonymous) says…
Bad news! A smoking ban in Kansas will not solve any problems in chicago. Oh, I forgot, this is Lawrence, the lawful guardian of the world.
17 January 2007
at 2:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
EXks (Anonymous) says…
How many of you out there have actually witnessed a friend, loved one or relative actually DIE right before your eyes due to lung cancer or emphysema all because of that glamourous cigarette?
Oh, if only you could experience first hand the devestation smoking caused!
17 January 2007
at 3 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
deec (Anonymous) says…
I've watched my grandfather and a friend die from old age, a dear friend die from heart failure, an aunt die from a massive stroke. I imagine the experience is probably pretty much the same.
17 January 2007
at 3:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
rockchalk77 (Anonymous) says…
We should probably ban alcohol then too. Wouldn't want to watch someone die from liver failure.
Not everyone that smokes dies from lung cancer and emphysema, similarly, not everyone that drinks dies from liver failure or a drunken car accident. It is not written in stone that you will develop diabetes and die from eating too many Krispy Kreme's either.
And dying is generally unpleasant no matter how it occurs.
17 January 2007
at 3:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LawrenceRes (Anonymous) says…
*Smoking kills more people than alcohol, AIDS, car crashes, illegal drugs, murders, and suicides combined.
*Annual health care costs in Kansas directly caused by smoking- $854 million!
-Portion covered by the state Medicaid program-$180 million
-Residents' state & federal tax burden from smoking-caused government expenditures-$547 per household
-Smoking-caused productivity losses in Kansas-$823 million
www.tobaccofreekids.org
Smoking in public places does not fall into the same category as alcohol abuse, antibiotics, motorcycles, obesity, etc. Those are all personal and individual choices. If your breath stinks of beer and you breath on me it does not affect my health. If you eat like crap, that is too bad for you, but it does not clog my arteries. If you misuse antibiotics, once again, you are not polluting my body. If you ride a motorcycle that is a personal risk. I have friends and family who smoke and they do not insist that I breathe in their smoke and they are curtious enough to take it outside. They do not mind the smoking ban because they acknowledge that their smoke is harmful to others. That is the point here, and whether it is a bar or restaurant that has the smoking ban is not a legitimate argument either because it is still a place of employment. Just take it outside.
17 January 2007
at 3:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
red6102003 (Anonymous) says…
I could see having a smoking ban for places were there are children around or open to people under the age of 21. But a bar establishment were only adults are able to enter this should not apply. You as an adult have the choice of if you wish to enter the establishment or go somewhere else. I have seen what it has done to the bar we have here and since the smoking ban has been put in place buissiness has fallen over 50%. And has yet to recover more people now stay home and have house parties. Thus is why the noise complaints for parties around town have more than doubled. If something doesn't get changed on the smoking ordinance bars are going to start closing around town. Ours is close to closing our doors because of loss of buissiness because of this ordinance.
17 January 2007
at 3:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
EXks (Anonymous) says…
No quite the same, my mother, may she rest in peace, smoked her entire life. She was diagnosed with terminal lung cancer three years ago
On her death bed she was gasping for air,
literally suffocating, so much so tht she begged the hospice nurse to end her life with an overdose of morphine. When that didn't work she begged God for death. No, not a pretty sight to watch.
So when it comes to a smoking ban, yes I'm all for it, if it can save ONE single life. Cigarettes are the real weapons of mass destruction.
17 January 2007
at 3:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
deec (Anonymous) says…
Yup pretty much the same. Dying people gasp for air. When they stop gasping, they are dead.
17 January 2007
at 3:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
KS (Anonymous) says…
It is still a legal product and people should be able to use tabacco legally in designated public areas. Some communities have reached a compromise. No smoking in resturants, but it is okay in bars after 9 PM. The state will NEVER outlaw tobacco. They get too much tax money from it. That is a given.
Logic does say that if it is bad for you, the state should ban it, but they won't. So which is it? BTW, I am an X-smoker. One of the best decisions in my life was to quit. Would never take up the habit again, but I still think a smoker has some rights too and a compromise should be in order.
17 January 2007
at 3:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
phi1977 (Anonymous) says…
Lets ban alcohol, it effects more people everyday than smoking ever could. Alcholism, drunk driving, child abuse, spousal abuse, lost productivity, it makes the smoking effect look silly. Ban McDonalds, it makes some people fat. Ban Krispy Kreme it makes people fat. Be very very careful you Lawrence liberals, your favorite activity may be the next one banned if the “govt” views it as bad for society. If non-smoking bars and restaurants are so popular, where were they pre-ban???
17 January 2007
at 3:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
EXks (Anonymous) says…
Yup pretty much the same. Dying people gasp for air. When they stop gasping, they are dead.
posted by deec
––––––––
Think you're real clever with that remark don't you?
So typical coming from such an amateur such as yourself.
17 January 2007
at 3:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jackalope (Anonymous) says…
Take it outside. OK, that is an option no matter where you are. But, it must be remembered that this is the time of year when the leading cause of death among smokers is hypothermia.
17 January 2007
at 3:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
deec (Anonymous) says…
Huh?
I had 6 deaths of friends and family members within a 17 month period, so I don't think I am an “amateur” at mourning. I lost 2 close friends, an aunt, an uncle, my grandma and my father in this period. In our family we call it The Bad Year.
Sorry the reality of death offends you. I was bedside for all the folks I mentioned in my first post. The deaths were the same. You sit and wait after each breath to see if there will be another one afterwards. When they were done breathing, they were done living.
17 January 2007
at 4:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bulldawgs (Anonymous) says…
I had to lay off most of my staff over the summer, and again, I didn't schedule nearly 1/2 of my staff between semesters…smoking ban…not hardly…because the students my business caters to are out of town…
In 1900 buggy whip manufacturers were in every town…not so much anymore…so learn to adapt to the new reality and shut up about how it is not fair.
17 January 2007
at 4:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
imastinker (Anonymous) says…
I am a non smoker. I have never even tried it. I don't like being around people that smoke. Luckily, I don't have to if I don't want to.
I don't go out to eat a whole lot, or to bars. I do like going to non smoking restaurants and bars, but do not think it is right that it's mandatory and not the owners choice. I don't have to go there, and people that work there don't have to work there. I can cook at home, and waitresses can find another job. I've never been forced to stay at a job I didn't want to, and I don't believe that people that work in bars are forced to stay either.
The comparison to drinking and driving is unfair. Drinking and driving can kill other people immediately who have to be on the road. A better comparison is the seat belt law, which is also wrong.
17 January 2007
at 4:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
karmaxs3 (Anonymous) says…
Don't smoke
Don't drink
Eat healthy
Exercise
Die Anyway….
No one gets out of here alive. Get over it and enjoy life while you got it.
Geesh.
17 January 2007
at 4:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mom_of_three (Anonymous) says…
I am a non-smoker, and my husband is a smoker. Doesn't smoke around me or our family. And he is trying to quit.
However, I believe a restaurant or bar owner should be able to make the choice if his establishment should be non smoking or smoking. Then it is my choice and your choice whether to go to that establishment.
17 January 2007
at 4:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cutny (Anonymous) says…
It's easy to blame the smoking ban for a decline in a bar or restaurant's receipts. However, it would seem to me that if people really wanted to eat your food or drink your liquor, they would. As for Conroy's, how is your burger/deep-fried frozen food-off-a-truck any better/different than any other purveyor selling the exact same thing. I think it says more about the quality of your food and/or prices than it does about the smoking ban. I do however agree with Mr. Magerl. If the state government is so concerned about smoking, then they should have the courage to stop the sale of cigarettes throughout Kansas.
17 January 2007
at 4:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
budwhysir (Anonymous) says…
I am sure that Lawrence already has this ban so weighing in wont make much difference.
Its typical big government telling individual business owners how to run thier business. If I dont like someone smoking, I go to the non smoking section or take my food home to my non smoking house.
When I go to a bar, I expect to be around a little smoke. Doesnt bother me any. I wouldnt dare ask the owner to tell everyone to stop smoking just because I was there to eat or drink.
I never have run into anyone who has told me that in order to go into a place I had to smoke so why should I say they cant come in because they smoke. Yes I could use the dont smoke around me argument but I save that one for other times.
If I went to a place to eat and the owner didnt want smoking, all he would have to do is put a sign up that says no smoking, wouldnt bother me at all. If I went to a place that allowed smoking because the owner didnt mind, I wouldnt care
17 January 2007
at 4:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
KS (Anonymous) says…
The state won't take tobacco off the market. Too much tax revenue for them Same thing on car pooling. They don't want you to do that either (regardless of what they say). Too much tax collected on a gallon of gasoline. The state is such a hypocrite on these matters. Find a compromise.
17 January 2007
at 4:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
for the ban in dinner est. not so much in bars but either way not a problem for me.
17 January 2007
at 4:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
rockchalk77 (Anonymous) says…
“As for Conroy's, how is your burger/deep-fried frozen food-off-a-truck any better/different than any other purveyor selling the exact same thing. I think it says more about the quality of your food and/or prices than it does about the smoking ban.”
Having been there before and after the smoking ban was put in, I can assure you the food and prices are not any different. There are however, fewer patrons.
They do have Buffalo burgers though, which I haven't found anywhere else in town. Yummy!
17 January 2007
at 4:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
Funny the LJW put the Hookah Bar photo on the story, but did not mention the joint in the article.
That place is a lounge; I hear they even have dancing; they just serve smokes and humus instead of beer and pretzels. How is that allowed, and how is it allowed to operate in the same air space as a restaurant, while the restaurant cannot allow smoking?
17 January 2007
at 4:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
rollcar (Anonymous) says…
Can anybody name me some non-fast food restaurants/bars in Lawrence that voluntarily chose to be entirely smoke-free prior to the ban? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm sure there were a few, but I honestly do not know of any. Certainly not the marquee places that make Lawrence the unique town we all love (Free State, Vermont St. Bar, The Bottleneck, Louise's, Henry T's, etc.).
That was exactly the number of choices people had if they wished to avoid the smoke. As unreasonable as you think it is that you can't smoke where you want, it is just as unreasonable to tell others that they can't eat or drink where they want. Like it or not, sometimes legislation is required to save the masses from the vocal minority.
17 January 2007
at 4:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Godot:
If the wording of the Lawrence Smoking Ban is examined, it will be found that the Lebanese Hookah Bar cannot be permitted under that ban.
It is commonly believed that the only criteria is the percentage of sales when in fact that is not the case.
The bar is is violation several ways and the city Of Lawrence, Kansas has given special dispensation for reasons unknown.
I can only imagine that this special and discriminatory treatment has been granted to accomodate in some way, “cultural diversity”.
If any of you doubt me, please take the time to READ the ban and take a look at the various parameters for banning smoling.
The ban may be found here:
http://web.ci.lawrence.ks.us/legal_se…
Thanks.
Marion.
17 January 2007
at 5:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
I'll help you out here.
Here are a few of the reasons that the Hookah place is illegal under the Smoking Ban.
Food is served there.
The Ordinance:
“E) Food Service Establishment shall mean any place in which food is served or is prepared for sale or service on the premises or elsewhere. Such term shall include, but not be limited to, fixed or mobile restaurant, coffee shop, cafeteria, short-order cafe, luncheonette, grill, tea room, sandwich shop, soda fountain, tavern, private club, roadside kitchen, commissary and any other private, public or nonprofit organization or institution routinely serving food and any other eating or drinking establishment or operation where food is served or provided for the public with or without charge. ”
The prohibition:
“G) Food service establishments and licensed premises, excluding areas of a food service establishment or licensed premises that are not enclosed such as patios, outdoor dining areas, and courtyards.”
That's one reason and proof that special and discriminatory dispensation is being given to the place.
Thanks.
Marion.
17 January 2007
at 5:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hitme (Anonymous) says…
Thank you for the ban! I hate eating out in KC and Topeka because of the stink! Who cares if business is down for bars in Lawrence - I don't. Smoking is for the weak!
17 January 2007
at 5:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
MadAsHell (Anonymous) says…
The smoking ban was one of the best things the city has done recently. And Chuck, just to let you know, I eat at Free State twice as much as I used to before the ban..!!
17 January 2007
at 5:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
peachesncream (Anonymous) says…
i cant stand someone who smokes either its a nasty habit and worse when a woman does it…gag. but if you go to a bar you know your gonna encounter smoke ,,, so if you dont wanna encounter smoke dont go to the bar… easy enough .. stop all your B***hin and find something else to worry about ……
17 January 2007
at 6:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Esq2eB (Anonymous) says…
I have no problems with smokers blowing their second hand smoke on me at the bars. It is what they like to do and it is a natural by-product of their enjoyment.
However, I like to drink beer and a natural by-product of such is pee. So hopefully the smokers wont mind if every once in awhile I get up on a bar stool and urinate on their heads. This action, while revolting and unsanitary, is still more healthy for them, than second hand smoke is for me.
17 January 2007
at 6:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
crazyks (Anonymous) says…
EXks,
My mother smoked for most of her life, too. And she died from cancer.
Cervical cancer. I never once saw her hold a cigarette THERE.
Oh, and by the way, they checked her out thoroughly in the hospital the last time she went in. Her lungs were clear.
Yes, I watched her die, and it was a terrible thing. She gasped for air at the last, too, and it had nothing to do with her lungs. This is just something that dying people do.
All lung cancer is not caused by smoking. Ever hear of radon? All people who get lung cancer are not smokers, nor do they all have contact with people who smoke. All people who smoke do not get lung cancer.
So I don't understand how they can say that smoking definitively “causes” lung cancer. For one thing, there are too many other variables that you can't eliminate, such as grilling, car exhaust, perfumes, etc.
And if smoking “causes” lung cancer, then why doesn't everyone who smokes get it? Why do people who have never smoked get it?
In all the research I have done online and in the library, a smoker is much more likely to die from a heart attack or from blood vessel breakage during coughing than from lung cancer.
Is smoking good for you? NO. But it's LEGAL, and they shouldn't be able to tell business owners that they can't allow a LEGAL substance on their own property.
Is car exhaust good for you? NO. But I don't see anyone rallying to ban cars or limit their use. Everyone says, “oh, but I NEED my car! That's just silly!”
So banning or limiting something that is a known health risk is not okay as long as it's something YOU want to keep?
You breathe in more carcinogens in a day from car, truck and bus exhaust, from radial tire particles, from radon, from factory emissions, than you would from sitting next to smokers.
17 January 2007
at 6:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
phillip (Anonymous) says…
I am sick of reading false and flawed analogies to drinking and driving, and other medical conditions, and personal liberties. The bottom line is that If I want to go to the bar with my friends and not enhale smoke or smell like it after five minutes, that is my right. People who want to smoke may always just step outside, without harming anyone. If the laws allow smoking, there will be no bar that I can go to without inhaling or smelling like smoke. Most Lawrence bars have smoking areas, and I don't thing that the Hawk or the Ranch or Quinton's or Brothers has lost business. Besides, smoking and drinking aren't related. I don't see what the issue is.
17 January 2007
at 7 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Weezy_Jefferson (Anonymous) says…
I'm all for the ban, and I try to empathize with those who are opposed to it. However, I find myself having a hard time empathizing because most of the opposition consists of smokers, and smokers are–well, how can I put this gently?–addicts.
Most smokers already become irate when people nag them to stop smoking, so just imagine how they feel when the STATE tells them to do so. Sheesh!
crazyks touches on a subject that piques my interest, namely that smoking is bad for you but is legal, as are alcohol and car exhaust. The reason that the “sins” of smoking, drinking, and oil consumption are legal is because they've become giant capitalist industries. These industries employ too many people and spend too much money for this country to make smoking, drinking, and oil consumption illegal. I find it amuzing and alarming at the same time that this country thinks it's OK to sell beer in “funny” TV commercials during football and basketball games but is absolutely horrified that marijuana–far less deadly than alcohol–may be used for medicinal purposes. As for smoking, what would this country be like today if the cash crop along Tobacco Road was pot instead of tobacco? People would secretly raise tobacco plants in their garages, be busted for possession of even a single cigarette butt, be labeled as dopey “bacco” heads, and so on.
But I digress. My point is that just because smoking is legal doesn't make it alright. It would be wonderful if the giant tobacco and alcohol companies had an epiphany and said “Wow, wait a minute, we shouldn't be doing this. Let's sell (fill in the blank) instead.” It would be wonderful if the auto industry could switch every vehicle on the planet to run on solar power or corn oil. Pipe dreams. So, as consumers, we have the responsibility to try to lessen the harm as much as we can.
17 January 2007
at 7:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
People who do not want to be around smoke COULD exercise the personal responsibility to not go to places where smoking is allowed.
Thanks.
Marion.
17 January 2007
at 7:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Pogo (Anonymous) says…
We've gone out and spent “bundles” of money at music establishments, food establishments, and bars since they became smoke free. We know of several other couples who've done the same thing.
Keep the ban on public smoking.
17 January 2007
at 7:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cowboy (Anonymous) says…
People today and new liberals which populate Lawrence are no different , have little tolerance for anyone else around who doesn't fit their tight little bag of issues , too noisy , too fast , too loud , too smelly , too poor , too rich , meateater / vegan , dope smoker , police , black , alien , right/left , all of us need to take a live and let live refresher course.
17 January 2007
at 7:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ashuck33 (Anonymous) says…
There is absolutely no economic evidence that universal smoking restrictions hurt business. Los Angeles and New York City are perfect examples of thriving metro areas that have not been hurt-actually, NYC saw a 6% increase in restaurant business. 4 states voted for smoking restrictions this past Nov and they ALL passed. The health aspect of the restriction is not even up for argument-the evidence is insurmountable that second hand smoke does damage. For 2 hours spent in a smokey bar, that is the equivalant of smoking 4 cigarettes.
http://smokefreeohio.org/oh/about/doc…
http://smokefreeohio.org/oh/about/lea…
I live in Ohio but was born and raised in Lawrence. If Ohio can do it, so can Kansas. Please see the above links for FACTS on this issue. I look forward to visiting KS when the entire state is smoke free. It's great Lawrence did it, although I am annoyed the porch at Free State is too smoky. They should restrict smoking to 30ft there.
17 January 2007
at 7:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Ragingbear (Anonymous) says…
I used to smoke just over a pack a day for several years. I don't know if anyone here knows this, but the mere smell of smoke, even a wisp is one of the foulest, gut wrenching scents to us. We also know that the smoke sticks to everything. In a house of 3 smokers, I saw the walls of one room turn to a sickly brown from the accumulated deposits. Now, that being said.
The issue we run into here is a matter of rights. The rights of business owners to decide their own policies, and the rights of individuals to come to that business without being slammed with a cloud of smoke from somebody else. Whether people want to accept it or not, if you have a business with any sort of walk-in policy, your business pecomes a public venue.
However, that the government sees fit to step in and tell us how to live our lives, and run our businesses in a matter such as this only serves to perpetuate the “nanny government” that we have come to rely on so heavily. Furthermore, in order for said nannies to do their jobs, they have to tread on people's rights to do something for them. This is a clearcut example of said rights slowly being dissolved away. If we can't even address something as minor of this in a unified public voice, simply telling the city that they will not comply as a whole, then what are we ever to do when we find the police busting into our houses, arresting us, ceasing all property, and holding us for indefinite periods of time without cause, or warrant?
17 January 2007
at 7:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Dayna38 (Dayna Lee) says…
At some point people are going to realize that our freedom suffers everytime “they” make rules that effect everyone. If you don't want to be around smokers, don't. If you want to live your whole life trapped in your house, do.
17 January 2007
at 7:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
KS (Anonymous) says…
I thought a local bar owner had convinced the Kansas Supreme Court to review the validity of the smoking ban in Lawrence? Should we not be seeing a decision on that one soon? That should settle this matter.
17 January 2007
at 7:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Why do you people who do not like smoke insist on going to places in which smoking is allowed?
Thanks.
Marion.
17 January 2007
at 7:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Confrontation (Anonymous) says…
Had to repost this (Best Post of the Day!!!):
Posted by Esq2eB (anonymous) on January 17, 2007 at 6:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
“I have no problems with smokers blowing their second hand smoke on me at the bars. It is what they like to do and it is a natural by-product of their enjoyment.
However, I like to drink beer and a natural by-product of such is pee. So hopefully the smokers wont mind if every once in awhile I get up on a bar stool and urinate on their heads. This action, while revolting and unsanitary, is still more healthy for them, than second hand smoke is for me.”
17 January 2007
at 7:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TtownKUlivin (Anonymous) says…
Let me be the first to say, I loved coming home and changing clothes 3-4 times a day because wherever I went there seemed to be a one alarm fire going on. If you liked the smoke in all the businesses, maybe some of these owners should by fog machines to simulate smoke to gain back its following. Granted, smoking is a terrible choice health-wise, you can't ban the sale of it. It was our economy's foundation when this nation was young and to ban it now would put many, many people out of jobs. I could go on, but thats it.
17 January 2007
at 7:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
fsbchuck (Anonymous) says…
The major issue that prompted me to go to Topeka on this bill was the ban on outdoor smoking that's in SB 37. Smoking would be banned within 10 feet of any door or openable window anyplace except a stand alone private home. Simon Chapman, editor of Tobacco Control, the influential journal of the anti-smoking movement wrote a scathing opnion piece in the journal titled “Banning Smoking Outside Is Seldom Ethically Justifiable.” Dr. Michael Siegel reports “these policies (outdoor smoking bans) are not supported by scientific evidence.” I would be happy to email a copy of my written testimony to anyone who asks. It is a 10 minute read, so it wouldn't fit here, but it will provide details beyond the two partial sentences in the newspaper article. Send request to fsb@freestatebrewing.com
17 January 2007
at 7:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
It will be noted that none of those who support smoking bans will answer any of the questions which I have proffered up to them.
Thanks.
Marion.
17 January 2007
at 7:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
budwhysir (Anonymous) says…
Marion, I read your posts, for some reason, I am unable to find any ground to disagree on. You have the correct information, I think they are all scared to challenge us
17 January 2007
at 8:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Menazort (Anonymous) says…
Non-smokers who engage in rightous campaigns to rid the world of smoking are fundamentally vile, evil creatures. Think for a moment about reality. Really think about it. OK, a limited number of individuals will realize the terror that is inherent to mortal existence. We will all die. Nature is the ultimate, primary killer. It's written in our DNA. Our most significant purpose (imposed by nature and its laws) in life is to procreate thereby propogating our genes into yet another generation. Like us, the new generation will suffer through their life, produce some offspring and die. This genetic shuffling will spiral through time on earth until we destroy eath other through war, polution, asteroid collision, etc. If humans avoid the aforementioned means of extinction, some unfortunate humans will need to deal with the Earth being consumed by our dying sun. Not a pretty picture. Will not smoking have an impact on existential matters?
Life is suffering. Why can't I have a smoke while drinking a beer at a local bar? It's sad, really sad. Religion used to take the role of making our painful finite period of consciousness worse than it needed to be. You would hope that a more secular society would be mindful of our lot in the universe and back off. Nope. Unfortunately, it has spawned activists frothing at the mouth to rid us of our bad habits.
17 January 2007
at 8:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
lynnd (Anonymous) says…
“I'm all for the ban, and I try to empathize with those who are opposed to it. However, I find myself having a hard time empathizing because most of the opposition consists of smokers, and smokers are–well, how can I put this gently?–addicts.”
=======================================
Not true. I have never even tried a cigarette and am thoroughly disgusted by them. And let me say that I do appreciate being able to go to a bar or restaurant and not leave smelling like smoke.
However- in my opinion- this issue is NOT about smoking, but about a business owner's rights. A private business owner should have the right to decide whether or not to allow a LEGAL activity to take place on its premises.
If the government wants to protect us from all that dangerous smoke, then make tobacco illegal. Yes, I know it won't happen. But a smoking ban is just another way of appeasing the clean air lobbyists while not ticking off the tobacco lobbyists. In the end, it's the regular folk like us who lose out, and the big money folk who win.
17 January 2007
at 8:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Bud:
I believe that you are correct.
There are no reasonable and rational challenges to be made.
Thanks.
Marion.
17 January 2007
at 9:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ashuck33 (Anonymous) says…
Marion-
You have posed every question every smoker in Ohio has ever posed. You have brought up the old “privacy” rights theory, health, personal choice, etc. So, if you're looking for someone to refute you, I suppose I'll step up and remark. But not because you need a rebuttle. Just because I can't resist the urge to tell another smoker that us non-smokers have a right to go to a bar, listen to music, drink, socialize, and enjoy all that comes with a bar or restaurant. And we have a right to do it not surrounded by someone's smoke. Reasonable and rational you say? It's so ironic-what about my right to breathe clean air-a free natural resource? So are you going to tell me bar owners own the air inside their bars? I am confidant any statewide proposal regulating smoking will pass-maybe that is why a lot of us don't want to engage such foolish rationale such as yours.
And I am very disappointed that an establishment such as my old favorite, FSB, would be opposed to such regulations. I think a lot of bar owners need to realize that for every patron they have that threatens “not to go” because they can't smoke, there are an equal number who don't go because there is smoke.
17 January 2007
at 9:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bluelawrence99 (Anonymous) says…
It never ceases to amaze me to see a long blog after any article that speaks of the smoking ban.
It always seems to be the non-smokers that start in. In fact, I can remember when someone posted something on Larryville regarding a new club/lounge in Lawrence where you could smoke inside.
Boy-here come the non-smokers crying about it. FYI-if it were a business owners choice(like it should be)-then don't cry about-just don't freakin' go there!
I am an x-smoker and wouldn't mind if some bars were non-smoking and if some allowed it. It would then be my choice to go either place, but I refuse to pitch a fit about it.
17 January 2007
at 9:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Weezy_Jefferson (Anonymous) says…
lynnd says: “However- in my opinion- this issue is NOT about smoking, but about a business owner's rights. A private business owner should have the right to decide whether or not to allow a LEGAL activity to take place on its premises.”
But see, that is precisely what I'm trying to get at. Smoking became legal long before we knew how dangerous it is, and tobacco companies grew too rich and too powerful too quickly for us to make smoking illegal. The only reason smoking is legal is because the tobacco companies have trillions of dollars to keep it that way, plus they know that their consumers are hooked–regardless of the “warnings” on the cigarette packs (a clever way for companies to shun responsibiity).
So, with that said, I find it difficult to sympathize with businesses that want to expose people to smoke, just because it's legal.
17 January 2007
at 9:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ashuck33 (Anonymous) says…
Great addition, Weezy. What people fail to consider as well is the campaign tobacco companies waged long ago to make people believe smoking was actually GOOD for you. It was a deliberate (and successful) attempt to keep people hooked despite findings to refute that. Big tobacco continues to pump billions of dollars into campaigns against anti-smoking proposals. It would be my hope that in my lifetime, smoking production ceases in the US, but I know it probably won't ever happen because of the financial aspects.
As for your comment, Bluelawrence 99, show me another free state porch on a warm July evening with the sun setting, drinking an ad astra and eating artichoke dip, minus the smoke, I'm there. To my knowledge, there isn't another smoke-free porch on Mass street facing west that serves that exact artichoke dip and serves ad astra……..
17 January 2007
at 9:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
lynnd (Anonymous) says…
ashuck33-
Can you explain, then, why several local establishments over the years who chose to be non-smoking before the ban, failed miserably? People didn't go there! that's why.
How about the clean air lawrence folks, who went into one of my favorite downtown bars on the night the ban passed, and proudly declared “we'll be in here all the time now” and then….were never seen again.
Like I said, I personally enjoy the smoking ban….but not at the expense of private business owner's rights. It has nothing to do with smoker's rights, it has to do with the business owner's rights, period. When you start down this path of regulating, what's next?
17 January 2007
at 10:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cdc (Anonymous) says…
All I can say is that one of the many things I love about living in Lawrence is the smoking ban.
Honestly, I go out MORE often because I don't have to worry about smelling yucky and taking a shower before i sleep.
I don't know if it's right or not to legislate what a business can or cannot do, but it's most enjoyable for me.
17 January 2007
at 10:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Newell_Post (Anonymous) says…
Marion:
Let's go back to the California example. It is illegal in California (and everywhere else I know of) for employers to expose employees to uncontrolled levels of benzene, asbestos, or a lot of other known carcinogens. The legality and constitutionality of these laws have been tested and upheld many times. The argument that “well, if they don't like it they can go to work somewhere else” doesn't cut it in the world of labor law.
The California law does not ban all smoking. It merely bans smoking in bars and restaurants to protect employees from exposure to another known carcinogen. (It does not protect the aesthetic sensibilities of drinkers and diners.) I believe the CA law has also been tested and found legal and constitutional as a matter of labor law.
Personally, I think the CA law goes a little too far. One time when I was there, the newspapers were reporting a case where a sports bar had created a smoking room. The staff was prohibited from going into this room. Patrons were required to go out to the bar to get their own food and drinks which they could then take into the smoking room for consumption while they smoked and watched TV. That would seem to be OK to me, if the smoking room had a really good and completely separate HVAC system to protect employees and non-smoking patrons. Of course, I have walked through airports with “smoking lounge” rooms that you can smell from 50 years down the corridor. Maybe it isn't possible to keep the atmospheres separate enough.
In my recent experience, the bars and restaurants in Silicon Valley are doing just fine and have not suffered one bit from the smoking ban.
In answer to some posts above, I have seen three relatives die of lung cancer. Two were heavy smokers; one was an avid non-smoker. Unfortunately, the avid non-smoker lived with one of the heavy smokers. Don't try to convince me that second hand smoke doesn't increase your odds of lung cancer. Some of the posts above rely on the same logic the tobacco industry used for years you can't prove to the standards of hard science that smoking causes cancer in humans 100% of the time. That's mostly because we don't allow experimentation on humans the way we allow experimentation on animals. Smoking or second hand smoke clearly increases your odds of getting lung cancer and drowning in you own precious bodily fluids is a miserable way to die.
17 January 2007
at 10:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Weezy_Jefferson (Anonymous) says…
lynnd, what establishments have failed because of the ban? I know that some businesses are claiming that the ban is hurting their sales, but have some businesses actually failed? You may be telling the truth, but I'm finding this hard to believe that a business's hopes and dreams are symbiotic with allowing people to smoke. As someone mentioned in a previous post, if you're a business and you rely that much on smokers, you might want to consider improving your food, service, or whatever.
Oh, and here's another reason why I have a hard time sympathizing with those who oppose the ban: I'm beyond sick-and-tired of seeing cigarette butts carpeting the Mass Street sidewalks and seeing smokers casually flick their butts away–again, cigarette butts–when they're finished polluting their lungs. My dear smokers, the world is not your ashtray.
17 January 2007
at 10:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Laws like the smoking ban contributed to my decsion to go excusively internet.
I make the rules for my business and if you don't like my rules, you can do business with me or not.
I am the dealer and I have called the game.
If you do not want to play, fold up your cards and hit the bricks!
You want to buy what I have for sale, you must follow the instructions or go find the item someplace else.
Easy and I don't get headaches from dealing with the sort of entitlement-minded whiners who hang around this and other forums.
Or Lawrence, for that matter.
Thanks.
Marion.
17 January 2007
at 11:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
crazyks (Anonymous) says…
Ashuck…what clean air? Do you really think the air outside, what with all the car exhaust and factory emissions and such, is really clean? As for the “clean” air in your home…try doing an analasys of a sample sometimes, and discover all the little nasties in your “clean” air home that you didn't even know were there.
I had a friend whose father was a farmer for many years. He never smoked, but he died from lung problems anyway…due to being around all the chemicals and fumes associated with farming…all done outside in that “clean” air you like. Do you think those fumes don't travel through the air, too?
“smoking became legal long before we knew how dangerous it is'…well, gee, Weezy, so did cars…or asbestos, or a lot of chemicals, or perfumes…but they've banned very few of them.
Cars are dangerous. You can wipe out your whole family or someone else's in an instant, even if you haven't been drinking. Do you always wear a seat belt? Do you always obey the speed limits? Do you always adjust your speed to the existing weather conditions?
Imagine the hue and cry if they tried to ban cars, or limit their use. How addicted are you to your car? And no, getting to work isn't a good enough excuse. People used to get to work, and school, and even other towns, long before cars existed. They used to WALK. Now we have all these handy-dandy labor saving devices so that we never get any exercise and have to pay some health club hundreds of dollars in order to sweat.
everything in this world, natural or not, poses some danger to humans. But we can't ban everything, can we?
Do you know how they originally decided that smoking supposedly caused cancer, Newell? They hooked dogs up to machines with cigarettes and made them “smoke” 24/7. Something that no smoker does. They decided that hair dye caused cancer by making the poor dogs drink it. So I don't know that I totally rely on the research, either, because their methods are kind of screwy.
If you don't believe me about this, look it up online. Try going through some old Life magazines sometime.
I don't buy the second-hand smoke theories, and I never have. There are just as many reliable studies that say second-hand smoke has no detrimental effect on others as there are studies that claim it does.
18 January 2007
at 12:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Tychoman (Anonymous) says…
A statewide smoking ban? Go for it. A smoking section in a restaurant is like a peeing section at a pool.
18 January 2007
at 12:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Weezy_Jefferson (Anonymous) says…
crazyks, you're missing my point. If my point and I were standing at City Hall on 6th and Mass, you'd be at the South Park gazebo.
People will never shed their dependence on cars; nowadays, with cities getting bigger and commutes getting longer, abandoning cars altogether isn't very realistic–but adandoning our reliance on OIL is. We have the resources to do so.
People aren't “addicted” to cars; rather, they're addicted to the convenience. And I even hesitate to use the word “addicted” when talking about cars, for that kind of waters-down the seriousness of addiction. Nicotine, on the other hand, IS an addiction. It's a narcotic. It makes addicts become incredibly defensive when people threaten to take away their “legal” drug, and it makes them come up with the most amazing excuses to keep on puffing away (e.g., “It's my right to smoke,” “It's my body,” “Second-hand smoke doesn't hurt you,” etc., etc.).
No, we can't ban everything. But as individuals we all have the personal responsibility to not be selfish a-holes and think only of ourselves. If you choose to smoke, hey, more power to you, and good luck with that lung-splitting cough. However, think about those of us who have exercised our right to not smoke. If you put a smoker and a nonsmoker in the same room, both are entitled to their rights and freedoms. But if one's rights and freedoms endanger the health of the other, then a line must be drawn. If smokers can't keep their addiction in the privacy of their own homes, does that mean the rest of us have to suffer through their addiction with them?
18 January 2007
at 7:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
crazyks (Anonymous) says…
So not banning or limiting something that's proven to be dangerous to hundreds of thousands of people each year (cars) is okay, because we're “addicted” to the convenience?
Either you are for healthy alternatives, or you are not. You can't support one ban supposedly for health reasons, and ignore any other possible bans for health reasons just because it would inconvenience you.
Isn't that what you've accused the smokers of doing?
18 January 2007
at 9:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jackalope (Anonymous) says…
Some say that it is their right to not smoke. Other say that it is their right to smoke. Again, it would appear that a simple sign on the door of any establishment to the effect that there is either smoking allowed or not allowed would warn away those who object to the status, either smoking or non smoking, and let the free market sort out who stays in business. What's the problem? Why should the government force private business to serve either group? Neither is a constitutionally protected class.
18 January 2007
at 9:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
imastinker (Anonymous) says…
Jackalope -
That's too obvious.
These people say thaty have the right to go to a bar and not get smoky. They are wrong. They do however have the right to open their own bar, make it non smoking, and enforce it. Why they didn't do this is unknown.
I think the moon bar was non smoking before the ban. My wife went there a few times with friends. She also didn't buy gas from gas stations that allow smoking inside. This stuff works - but people need somethign to complain about.
18 January 2007
at 9:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Next will be a prohibition against whatever kind of music it is that a given group dislikes.
Thanks.
Marion.
18 January 2007
at 10:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LawrenceRes (Anonymous) says…
If you are against the smoking ban do yourself and the rest of us a favor and educate yourselves before you post. Reading some of these posts is making me sick seeing the amount of ignorence about the subject. Allow me to clear some misperceptions up with some facts:
“Smoking accounts for at least 30% of ALL cancer deaths and 80% of lung cancer deaths.”
“Smoking is associated with increased risk of at least 15 types of cancer; nasopharonyx, nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses, lip, oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, lung, esophagus, pancreas, uterine cervix, kidney, bladder, stomach, and accute myeloid leukemia.”
“Smoking is a major cause of heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, chronic bronchitis, and emphysema, and is associated with gastric ulcers.”
“Secondhand smoke contains numerous human carcinogens for which there is no safe level of exposure.”
“Seconhand smoke contains more than 4,000 substances , more than 50 of which are known or suspected to cause cancer in humans and animals, and many of which are strong irritants.”
—American Cancer Society
www.cancer.org
With a smoking ban everybody wins. 100% of people can go to the establishment. And 100% of the smokers can still smoke as many cigarettes as they want. Just in a different location- outside. We can all enjoy the establishments Lawrence has to offer. If you want to pollute your body that's fine, just not indoors where other people including infants, children, pregnant women, the elderly, and the rest of us have to breath it in too. The smoking ban is a compromise.
It is unrealistic and irrational to say “if you don't like smoke, don't go out.” You have to come up with something more mature than that.
18 January 2007
at 10:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Weezy_Jefferson (Anonymous) says…
crazyks, you're resorting to faulty logic. It's as if you were arguing that water should be banned because somebody somewhere wants to ban alcohol. That somebody lists all the dangers of alcohol, but you chime in by saying something like “Yeah, but more people die in water-related incidents every year, so why not ban water, too? You can't support one ban for health reasons and ignore other possible bans.”
We can't ban cars because it's unrealistic. Can you imagine what would happen to every industrialized country's economy if we didn't have cars? How would some Lawrencians, for example, commute to their jobs in KC? How would Mrs. Smith drop off her three kids at school four miles away? Be real, crazyks. The healthy alternative would be to make cars as safe as possible, and that's what manufacturers are doing. How do we make cigarettes as safe as possible? Well, you can take out the nicotine, but then people wouldn't get addicted, and the giant tobacco companies would go out of business.
Now, do you have any more erroneous car analogies left in you?
18 January 2007
at 11:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
lawrenceRes:
You do not HAVE to go to a bar or restaurant which permits smoking.
Thanks.
Marion.
18 January 2007
at 11:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LawrenceRes (Anonymous) says…
Smokers do not HAVE to suck down a cigarette with their food.
Smokers do not HAVE to go to a bar or restaurant which prohibits smoking. Thus far, the ban is not state-wide.
I wonder how business owners would feel if non-smokers really didn't go to their establishments anymore. Then they really would suffer being that non-smokers make up approximately 75% of the population.
Thanks.
LawrenceRes.
18 January 2007
at 12:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
imastinker (Anonymous) says…
Lawrenceres -
That's the answer. You hit it right on the head. Stop going to places that allow smoking. Write a letter and tell them why. They'll get the hint. I have no idea why more pressure has not been put on restaurant and bar owners by the public to do this. Almost every other place of employment is non smoking by now - and the government had nothing to do with that!
Also - I am well aware that smoking is bad. Very bad. That is beside the point. It's about the degredation of personal rights by the government.
For the record, I do not smoke. My wife and I like going to smoke free places. I just don't feel that it's the governments place to tell business owners what they can and can't do. Business owners can make their own choices as to what will help their business most.
18 January 2007
at 12:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
rubix (Anonymous) says…
OK, then don't go to the restaurant/bar. Thank you for keeping your smoke at home. I sure don't want to smell it while I eat. Is it so hard to just go outside to smoke? Sorry, but you chose a habit. It may have been popular to smoke at the time, but more and more…its less popular. I'm glad I save my money for gas, food, and other things in life.
18 January 2007
at 12:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
rubix (Anonymous) says…
“A smoking section in a restaurant is like a peeing section at a pool.” That has to be the best anaolgy yet.
18 January 2007
at 2:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
imastinker (Anonymous) says…
All the pools I frequent are already non peeing pools. They have bathrooms for that. I don't think I would go to a pool that allowed peeing. That's gross.
18 January 2007
at 2:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
imastinker (Anonymous) says…
I soppose if a non peeing person wanted to go to a peeing pool however, that would be their right. It would be kind of stupid to go to that pool then and complain about the fact that people peed in it - but here we are.
18 January 2007
at 2:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
imastinker (Anonymous) says…
I know how to spell suppose. Fat fingers syndrome.
18 January 2007
at 2:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
rubix (Anonymous) says…
I am guessing that it was the concept of the idea. I wouldn't knowingly go to a 'peeing' pool either. Same as going to a bar or restaurant that allowed smoking. The point being made here is that freedoms and rights have limits when they start having invoking upon the freedoms and rights of others.
18 January 2007
at 2:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
rubix (Anonymous) says…
Whoops…should have done a little better job with my editing…
18 January 2007
at 2:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
imastinker (Anonymous) says…
The rights of others have limits as well. For instance, I believe that all government buildings should be smoke free, because you have to be there. Other than that, you can pick where to go. When was the last time you saw smoking in a movie theater or bank or grocery store? Those business owners decided to be smoke free because of their customers. You shouldn't frequent a business that does not care about your health. Restaurants that allow smoking are essentially saying that. Bars are definitely saying that.
18 January 2007
at 3:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LawrenceRes (Anonymous) says…
So is the degredation of personal rights by a fellow citizen acceptable? Do I have to accept that when I am in a public place you have the right to pollute my air and damage my health? Sorry I don't like to enhale a side of rat poisen, cyanide, methalol, carbon monoxide, DDT, arsenic, etc with my food or with the occasional drink. smoke all you want!!! i don't care if you are a smoker, just don't jepordize my health, only your own!!!
And it works both ways-nobody is forcing the smokers to enter a restarant or bar that is non-smoking. There are plenty of smoking establishments (for now), just not in Lawrence.
18 January 2007
at 4:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
imastinker (Anonymous) says…
Lawrenceres - a restaurant is not a public place. It's a privately owned place where the public can come if they want. I agree with you in federal buildings, college campuses, hospitals, etc., but not in private restaurants and bars.
18 January 2007
at 4:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LawrenceRes (Anonymous) says…
You got me there. I just can't understand why it's such a big deal anymore. It looks to me like the smokers and non-smokers are doing fine with the indoor smoking ban. And we all know it's better for public health. Did anyone see my first post about the costs Kansas faces alone each year?
18 January 2007
at 7:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
crazyks (Anonymous) says…
I don't see it as faulty logic, Weezy.
If your main reason for supporting the smoking ban is because of the health benefits, then you are a hypocrite if you purposefully ignore other things that are also a health risk simply because “it isn't practical” or “it's never going to happen”.
To get on another path besides cars, what about fireplaces or wood stoves? How many people die each year due to them? You get the exact same fumes and gases from burning wood that you do from smoking a cigarette. Though the smoke from one burning log is a lot more intense than from one burning cigarette.
Not to mention all the people who die from house fires every year because they left a fire unattended, or didn't clean the flu properly or as often as they should have.
Not everyone uses these things, and not everyone thinks they're essential to civilization as we know it now (like many do with cars). Yet there's no movement to ban or regulate fireplace use or use of wood stoves. Golly, I'll bet there are even some bigger, fancier restaurants that have fireplaces, and use them liberally while patrons and employees are there. Since it's the same toxins being put into the air, why isn't there a bunch of hue and cry about it?
If you truly believe that health reasons are the most important thing behind the smoking ban, then you should also be concerned about these other things, and do what you can to try to change them.
If you don't, then you are simply placing your own personal preferences over somebody else's. And you ARE being a hypocrite.
Kind of like the guy I knew here who owned a pharmacy. He didn't think people should smoke, and didn't allow it in his store, many years before everyone else jumped on the bandwagon.
Yet you could go in his store and buy those cigarettes that he so violently disagreed with. He kept them stocked all the time, and apparently had no problem with his conscience when he sold a pack to someone.
Have the rates of lung problems and cancers in areas with smoking bans been dropping since the start of those smoking bans? If not, why not?
Actually, I've been hearing on the national news that the incidence of lung disease has been soaring in the last few years…long after the crusade to ban smoking in public places had already taken place.
18 January 2007
at 9:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Weezy_Jefferson (Anonymous) says…
OMG, crazyks, you are out of control. And here I thought I'd heard every excuse under the sun for justifying smoking. Thank you for expanding my knowledge on the subject.
But hey, let's not confine your wildfire logic to fireplaces and wood stoves. What about bath tubs? A lot of injuries happen in bath tubs…let's ban them. What about shirt buttons? Babies can choke on them, so let's ban shirt buttons. And stairs! People fall down stairs, let's ban them, too. Hmm, what else? OH! I know: How about Everything On God's Green Earth?
Speaking of Earth, it's about time you came back down to it, crazyks. Let's review some basic facts. Cigarettes contain nicotine. Nicotine is a narcotic. Nicotine is addictive. Cigarettes lead to cancer, not to mention yellow teeth, yellow fingers, bad breath, and other health impairments. A lot of people don't want to do that to themselves. Respect that. If you want to continue to smoke like a chimney, OK. But do it at home or in designated areas.
Banning or regulating eveything on the planet may be impossible, but we do what we can to ensure everyone's safety, from equipping cars with air bags to putting a warning label on a cup of McDonald's coffee. If smokers don't have the consideration to know that their addiction may be causing others actual bodily harm, then a ban on public smoking is very much needed.
19 January 2007
at 12:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
crazyks (Anonymous) says…
Nicotine is not the thing in cigarettes that supposedly causes cancer. And I don't think even you could claim that someone could get addicted to nicotine from second-hand smoke.
Why is bringing up fireplaces and wood stoves out of place? You get the exact same toxins from them that you do from buring cigarettes, which is what everyone's been b*tching about. You get a lot of the same toxins from car exhaust that you do from a burning cigarette.
Look it up online if you don't believe me.
I'm claiming that people who support the smoking ban for supposed health benefits are hypocrites. They don't give a damn about other people's health, or even their own, otherwise there are plenty of other things that are dangerous that they wouldn't do.
They're just using the health thing as an excuse to ram their personal preferences down everyone else's throats.
And I think you need to take a chill pill. You get entirely too worked up over posts on a message board from people you don't even know.
I don't lie awake nights stewing over things that others say on these boards. Do you?
19 January 2007
at 12:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
crazyks:
Nice post!
Thanks.
Marion.
19 January 2007
at 2:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Weezy_Jefferson (Anonymous) says…
crazyks, crazyks, I don't know where to begin with you. Let me just neatly pick apart your last post piece by piece:
(1) I didn't say nicotine causes cancer. You made that connection. And I never said people get addicted to nicotine from second-hand smoke. Again, it's all you.
(2) Bringing fireplaces, wood stoves, cars, or whatever else you can think of into the equation is pointless because (a) the list of everyday dangerous objects is endless and (b) you're slowly veering from the issue at hand. Stay with me on this.
(3) To say that people who support the ban “don't give a damn about other people's health, or even their own” is so outrageous that I had to read it several times to make sure you had actually typed those words in that order. You're making grand, sweeping generalizations and painting a picture with a hideously broad brush. No wonder your arguments tend to, shall we say, stray.
(4) I actually laughed when you said people use the “health thing” to ram their personal preferences down everyone else's throats. Classic. Yeah, I suppose wanting to keep my lungs clean is a “health thing,” much like not wanting tuberculosis or emphysema is a “health thing.”
(5) It's nice of you to worry about me, really, but I'm not worked up at all. I'm having fun! I like to debate with people to get their side of the story and see how things can be taken in from different points of view. Granted, I'll try to make people see my point of view as well. If I just simply do not comprehend where a person is coming from (this is where you step in), I'll try to wring every bit of info I can out of him or her.
So, I agree with Thanks_Marion: Nice post!
19 January 2007
at 6:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
reginafliangie (Anonymous) says…
I have a thought, is somebody gonna try to sue a town, area, section, etc. because they got second hand smoke damage from being outside where the smokers have to go. So instead of polluting the air inside a business the smokers are polluting the outside air where everyone has to be at some time or another. Yes, there is a much larger space outside, but I can't imagine that there won't be some effect from second hand smoke in the outside air. Seems no matter how much space is given it will eventually come down to that. Because people who support the ban will start complaining about that until they can get the entire state non smoking. Yes, smoking is unhealthy, but so is most things when over done or with other things, no body has figured out how to live forever, something eventually kills you, but there are so many other things out there that can hurt you, Yes? Just courious. I can see the headlines now.
19 January 2007
at 8:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
sharron5rs (Anonymous) says…
I agree with Marion and kmats posting. Also as I said yesterday big brother is comming!!!
I USED to enjoy “going out”,relaxing,maybe having a drink or two. Talking with my friends, at my favorite bar.
Yes that included smoking.
I tried to keep going after the ban on smoking, but after a month of non-smoking, I had to stop going. Not only did I not enjoy myself by not being to have a smoke with my drink. My nerves couldnt handle the loud, screaming, running, out-of-control childern, whose non-smoking parents had brought them to a” BAR”.
What kind of parent would bring a child (infant and up)to a BAR.
You had the choice to come into a non-smoking place (which you did once!) Why did it have to be a place which many people go to get away from screamimg uncontrolled children. You could of gone to a nice resterant, but NO, it had to be at a bar.
So not only did all you higher than thou activicts ruin the smokers time you had to ruin the enjoyment of adults trying to relax, and deal with YOUR rights to a smoke free establishments.
Smoking in bars- arlight
Smoking in restraunts- smokefree,I'll give you that.
19 January 2007
at 8:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
rubix (Anonymous) says…
I guess we should just let smokers rule the world and let them smoke all day where ever they please. What in the world was I thinking? All of us non-smokers should stay home I guess. Wow…you guys get way too wrapped up in defending yourselves and your cancer sticks. Maybe when you all die 20 years early from lung, throat and mouth cancer, I can breathe a sigh of relief and come out in public without having to inhale your second-hand pack of Marlboros…
19 January 2007
at 10:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
crazyks (Anonymous) says…
If you want to keep your lungs totally clean, Weezy, you'd better just decide to stop living in this world right now. With all the other toxins out there, this is an impossible goal, and you know it.
You act as if smoking is the only thing that kept your lungs from being clean, your air from being clean, and you know that this also isn't true. But, since the other things don't inconvenience YOU or bother YOU at this particular moment in time, you're willing to ignore them. And there is no ban on something that you consider your right to do…yet. But once they start banning things, they won't stop at smoking. Just wait and see. Eventually they'll pick on something that you want to do.
I call you a hypocrite, and will continue to call you a hypocrite, because the supposed health benefits from a smoking ban are not your primary reason for supporting the ban. You know it and I know it. Perhaps you have talked yourself into this fallacy and WANT to believe it. But you know better. Otherwise, you'd be just as concerned about those other things that could affect your health, and would be doing something to lessen their presence in your life, too, instead of sitting there saying things like, “it's not practical”, “it's not going to happen”, or “you have faulty logic”.
It's always “faulty logic” when you don't want to listen to what someone else has to say, isn't it?
Since when do opinions have to be based on logic?
You had a choice before about avoiding smoking. You didn't need to go to those restaurants that allowed it. But I assume you did anyway, since you complain so much about it now. I also assume that no one put a gun to your head and made you go to those places, so evidently any negative health impact that you thought it would have on you was not as important at the time as eating out was. You were able to ignore any possible health risks for something you wanted to do at the time. Just as you still do now concerning car exhaust, factory emissions, and smoke from anything that burns, including fireplaces, grills, and wood stoves.
Just be honest. You would still support the smoking ban, even if they could prove tomorrow that second-hand smoke had no negative effects to others, wouldn't you?
And show me those stats proving that the incidence of lung disease has in any way lowered in all those areas that have had smoking bans for so long.
19 January 2007
at 10:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Weezy_Jefferson (Anonymous) says…
I'm tellin' ya, rubix, I'm amazed that people will go so far to defend an addiction. It paints a pretty grim picture, doesn't it?
19 January 2007
at 10:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
rubix (Anonymous) says…
I just can't stand the smell of smoke…it really makes me gag. I could care less the health impact of smoking/non-smoking/second hand smoke. It stinks, makes my eyes burn, makes my clothes stink and tastes disgusting when you take a breath. Go ahead…defend your addiction and try to divert the 'health stats' however you want (car exhaust, pollution, etc.) We don't park our cars in the bars and restaurants and let them idle so we can inhale the fumes. But, you are trying to make it sound like we should let smokers light up a pack for everyone else to breathe in?
19 January 2007
at 11:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
crazyks (Anonymous) says…
You probably come in contact with more car exhaust, etc. in a day now than you ever did before when you went to a restaurant and were around smokers, rubix.
But at least your post is honest, and states quite clearly that your reasons for supporting the ban don't have anything to do with the supposed health impact.
I applaud you.
19 January 2007
at 11:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Weezy_Jefferson (Anonymous) says…
Ah, crazyks, we finally get to the root of where all of your ideas on this issue stem from: “Since when do opinions have to be based on logic?” Well, since never, but if you want them to be credible and stand up in a debate, it's a pretty good idea for the ideas to have at least SOME logic. Otherwise, the debate can spin on and on, as this one is doing.
The thing is, crazyks, I'm trying so hard to listen what you have to say, but it's nearly impossible to take you seriously because you refuse to foucs on the issue at hand and continue to associate me and other nonsmokers in a sort of fantasy conspiracy theory.
I will try to make this as simple as possible for you. Yes, I know, there are other toxins in the air besides cigarette smoke. However, just because we can't stop them immediately doesn't mean that public smoking has some sort of invisible force field to protect itself. And all of the other societal ills ARE being addressed; nobody is singling out smoking in public. Cars, wood stoves, fireplaces, bathtubs, etc. are being made safer. We're looking into alternative fuel sources other than oil. So you have quite the audacity to assume that none of those other ills matter to me or others who support the smoking ban.
I'll attempt to make this even simpler. Smoking is an addiction. Smoking produces harmful effects. Smoking at home in private is OK because no one else is subject to your smoke. Smoking in public is not OK because the smoke–unlike the smoker–cannot distinguish between smokers and nonsmokers and will pollute anybody's lungs that it can find. Therefore, as logic dictates–oh, oh, there's that “L” word–if a smoker has any shred of decency or respect for other human beings, he or she will keep the smoke to his- or herself. Those, my friend, are the bare bones of what this issue is about. Society has tried to help smokers keep the smoke to themselves by designating smoking sections or separate smoking rooms, but even this hasn't been able to stop the detrimental effects of smoking. So, what else is there to do?? No, we can't sit around and do nothing just because we also have to worry about wood stoves and fireplaces and car fumes. We have to enact a ban on public smoking. The IDEAL solution would be to ban cigarettes altogether, but, as I've mentioned, the big tobacco companies would never let that happen.
Does this make at least SOME sense? I don't think I can make it any simpler than that.
19 January 2007
at 11:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Weezy_Jefferson (Anonymous) says…
scenebooster: Oh, man, the whole legality issue opens up another can of worms. The only reason that smoking is legal is because the big tobacco companies rose to power long before the harmful effects of smoking were realized, and smoking remains legal because these companies have billions of dollars to keep the economy running. So, yes, smoking is legal. But what if old Tobacco Road in the early years of this country had raised crystal meth instead of tobacco (pretend that crystal meth comes from a plant)? Sure, we know of crystal meth's dangers today and would never legalize it. But if the early colonists had raised crystal meth crops, created a consumer market from it, and established giant businesses around it that employed thousands of people, I think we'd be holding a debate today about should crystal meth be banned in public. That's kind of a silly example, but what would today be like if our forefathers knew about carcinogens?
I agree with you: People who know they are sick shouldn't go out in public, and parents shouldn't send their sick kids to school. And i always wash my hands. :) But I would say that you can't catch emphysema or lung cancer from someone's runny nose.
When the whole smoking ban debate started years ago, my stance was to ban smoking in all public places EXCEPT bars. I figured bars are places where the usually health-conscious folks don't go, and that people going into bars already know there will be smoke. But then a friend of mine who's in a local band said that when she would perform at The Bottleneck the smoke would be so bad that she couldn't see or breathe at times. After bars weren't allowed to have smokers light up, she said the events were much safer and more enjoyable. It makes sense: Bar patrons can still hang around, listen to music, play pool, and socialize, but, to be considerate of others, they can step outside if they feel the need to cater to their harmful addiction.
19 January 2007
at 12:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
budwhysir (Anonymous) says…
Hey wheezy, can I bum a light
19 January 2007
at 1:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
imastinker (Anonymous) says…
Smoking is legal because it's a personal choice. Gambling is legal too - and alcohol.
This isn't about health benefits or car exhaust or nicotine. It's about where the limit of government is. I say business owners can make that decision and if it bother non smokers that much - then don't go there and tell the OWNER why you are not going there anymore.
19 January 2007
at 1:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
crazyks (Anonymous) says…
As long as tobacco is still a LEGAL substance, Weezy, neither you nor the government should be able to dictate to business owners what they can and can't allow in their own establishment.
Is smoking addictive? You bet. I never claimed it wasn't. Is that a good reason to ban it? Not unless you also want to ban a myriad of other things that people can get addicted to, either a physical addiction or a psychological one, which can be just as difficult to overcome.
Is smoking good for you? I never claimed that it was. But I believe that any damage due to smoking is all against the smoker. I do not believe that there is any damage done to those around the smoker, any more than people receive damage due to being around someone's fireplace.
Sometimes you have to exaggerate in order to get someone's attention, huh?
Maybe you can't catch emphysema or lung cancer from others, but if you are sick and go out in public anyway, or touch someone with unwashed hands, you can indeed pass a virus or infection along that could be fatal to someone. You have no idea about the status of the immunse systems of everyone you come into contact with.
The common cold could kill someone with AIDS, for example, since it can trigger a more serious infection. Not everyone who has AIDS is going to announce it publicly.
The issue at hand?
The issue at hand is that tobacco use is LEGAL, and the government shouldn't be able to dictate to people what they can and cannot allow in their own establishment.
You should not be able to totally ban the use of a legal substance.
I do not find you credible, either, since you have not posted any stats at all on how the incidence of lung disease has lessened at all in any place where there have been smoking bans for quite some time.
If smoking is the big, bad health wolf, then not allowing smoking should be having some effect, shouldn't it? Besides your personal view on aesthetics, I mean.
Is that simple enough for you to understand?
19 January 2007
at 1:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Weezy_Jefferson (Anonymous) says…
budwhysir: You sure can! Just take it outside.
imastinker: Smoking, gambling, alcohol–-personal choices, yes; but they're legal because all three are big money makers for this country.
If I remeber correctly from school eons ago, one of the purposes of a government is to protect its citizens from harm. Everybody has rights to freedom of religion, expression, and the pursuit of health and happiness, or something like that. If someone's freedom happens to cause harm to another person (e.g., exercising the freedom of speech by yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theater), some guidleines must be set.
And I must reiterate that smoking is an unhealthy addiction. I suppose people have the right to be addicted, but come on. If your addiction hurts you and only you, that's one thing. But when it hurts innocent bystanders, your “rights” need some fine-tuning.
19 January 2007
at 1:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Weezy_Jefferson (Anonymous) says…
crazyks, you are hung up on two things: (1) smoking is legal and (2) smoking harms only the smoker.
(1) If tobacco companies were small mom-and-pop establishments and didn't make that much money, the government would claim cigarettes to be a health hazzard and would recall them, putting tobacco companies out of business and thereby making smoking illegal. But tobacco companies are giant ogres that can throw money at lawmakers. There's your legality. Does that make it right? Common sense should scream “no.” But, alas, it is legal, so the government has to set some regulations.
(2) Second-hand smoke IS dangerous. If you want stats, I'm sure someone from the American Medical Association would be more than happy to give them to you.
Enacting a public ban on smoking isn't going to suddenly make lung diseases disappear or even lessen dramatically in a short time period. But it would help, for crying out loud. I'm all for the government trying to help. If smokers aren't willing to think of others, someone has to step in. As for businesses. if they're worried that most of their revenue comes from smokers, they should probably set up a smoking section outside or revamp their wares.
crazyks, I think your “points” are sometimes too simple. You need to learn to empathize.
19 January 2007
at 1:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
imastinker (Anonymous) says…
I do believe that second hand smoke is dangerous. Inside. Outside - very negligible. Therefore all government buildings are and should be smoke free. Private businesses and residences should be able to choose to be smoke free and enforce this. Since you know before you walk in a building whether there will be somking going on, you can decide whether or not to go in. If enough people don't go in, things will change.
takings things to the extent you are suggesting is going to far. Smokers aren't hurting other people in restaurants and bars any more than other people are hurting themselves by going in. It's all personal choice - and there's a lot of it in this country.
19 January 2007
at 4:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Weezy_Jefferson (Anonymous) says…
imastinker: But don't you see? Smoking is harmful and is an addiction. Why do we have to cater to other people's harmful addictions? Just because it's legal? Smokers can still exercise their personal choice in the privacy of their homes.
scenebooster: I know the crystal meth comparison is silly, but it makes perfect sense. If people way-back-when knew about the dangers of cigarettes like we do now, I doubt we'd be having this conversation.
And I agree: Alcohol and trans-fats should be banned, too. Alcohol especially; trans-fats not so much because eating a Big Mac doesn't hurt the person next to you or make you too drunk to drive.
It would be wonderful if the government didn't have to tell adults what they can and cannot do in their own personal time; however, some adults either are unable or don't care to take others' health into consideration. What if an employee at a smoker-friendly bar is getting sick from all the second-hand smoke, but she can't quit because she can't afford to or can't find another job? Would she have to suffer just because some smokers are exercising their legal right?
This country needs to wake up from the “all about me” mentality that was spawned in the 80s and learn to think about the welfare of others. If I were a smoker, I would like to think that I'd have the decency and compassion to puff all I want at home and spare others from unwillingly partaking in my disgusting habit. But, then again, if I were a smoker I'd be addicted, and I'd probably be very defensive about my right to smoke and make a whole laundry list of excuses to justify my desire to smoke wherever I damn well pleased.
19 January 2007
at 5:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
starliterambler (Anonymous) says…
This town is Mother Thersaed to death—The traffic way can't go threw because 1)a tree frog is possibly in the way or 2) there might be a indian burial ground some where in there—can't smoke becuse we dont want you to forget about the tax dollars 3) we got those remarkable roundabouts because some clown went to Europe and thought it was cool. Next it will be the cell phones because people just can't chew gum and talk at the same time. Well i like to smoke I'm for the traffic way an i drive over the roundabouts and I'm stll going to talk on my cell phome
19 January 2007
at 6:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Weezy_Jefferson (Anonymous) says…
While you're at it, starliterambler, take some English grammar and spelling lessons.
19 January 2007
at 8:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
daman (Anonymous) says…
hey “weezy” your logic sucks. First of all, if we stop catering to people's bad habits as you say, then no bars period, not to mention no fast food and the list goes on. As for the employee who gets sick from the second hand smoke, well, that's a stretch that he/she gets sick from second hand smoke but not some 10,000 other airborne illnesses first but for the sake of argument, okay? Find another job. There are assumped risks with a lot of jobs, firefighters know they will inhale smoke, police know they can get shot, etc…. they assume the risk when they take the job. It's not like it's some sort of latent defect they didn't know about when they applied. That same employee can work in a thousand different establishments that require the same level of skill (very little). Then again, I'm one that believes in a free and open market society with limited government intervention in the market place. Look what happens when govenment enters the private sector, Eagle Bend and the “T” are just two examples.
19 January 2007
at 8:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Weezy_Jefferson (Anonymous) says…
daman,
Stop trying to justify smoking and look at it for what it is: An addiction that does nobody any good anywhere. I'm sorry if you think that sucks, but that's the way it is. C'est la vie.
20 January 2007
at 12:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
daman (Anonymous) says…
hey weezy, I'm not trying to justify smoking, I don't smoke. It's about individual liberties and not allowing government to intervene into the free market anymore than they absolutely have too. Smoking ban today, prohibition again tomorrow, where does it end? Maybe someday they'll ban something you enjoy even though it's otherwise perfectly legal, like masturbation.
20 January 2007
at 1:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
rednekbuddha (Kelly Powell) says…
just punch the non smoker who gets self rightous about the ban…..and coplaining about someones grammar just shows that you do not have a viable arguement…and that you are douche monkey.
20 January 2007
at 2:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Weezy_Jefferson (Anonymous) says…
Yeah, I had a feeling that this long-winded discussion would eventually reach smut level. I'm just surprised it took this long to happen, considering what I heard about reader reaction posts in general on ljworld.com. That's too bad, for I was looking forward to engaging in debates without having to come across the words “masturbation” or “douche monkey.” Now, instead of feeling like part of a debate, I feel I'm back in junior high. Sorry, but I'm a little old for that. So, you kids continue to have fun. I'll go look for intelligent conversation elsewhere.
20 January 2007
at 3:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
rednekbuddha (Kelly Powell) says…
wow, does the princess act come with a tiara? sorry we tried to inject some humor after us smokers have been told ad nauseum about how f*cked up we are….and that any arguement we have with the ban is simply our raging addiction….and sister if you think this is smut get on over to lawrence.com where the do not censure us
22 January 2007
at 12:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
crazyks (Anonymous) says…
You didn't want to enage in debates, Weezy. You wanted to state your opinion, and then demand that everyone agree with you.
When they didn't, you began calling names. So I'm not sure exactly where you think junior high attitudes came from.
And you still have not posted any links to any studies that claim that the incidence of lung problems has in any way been affected by the numerous smoking bans that have been in effect for so long.