Archive for Friday, June 22, 2007
Court upholds Lawrence smoking ban
Law ‘not unconstitutionally vague’
June 22, 2007
Advertisement
Ruling: Steffes vs. City of Lawrence
Read the Kansas Supreme Court opinion upholding Lawrence's smoking banThe Kansas Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of Lawrence's smoking ban.
In an opinion released this morning, the court sided with the city on all matters that had been challenged by Lawrence bar owner Dennis Steffes.
Lawrence's ban on smoking has been in effect since July 2004. It had been challenged by Dennis Steffes, owner of Last Call and Coyote nightclubs, who said the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague and illegally supercedes state law.
But city officials said they have the authority to establish a smoking prohibition inside businesses based on local government's home-rule authority to protect the health and safety of citizens. The Kansas Supreme Court agreed.
In the case, Steffes challenged a lower court's ruling that upheld the ban as sufficiently specific, and additionally ruled that he had not submitted enough evidence to establish a loss in profits caused by the smoking ban.
Instead of conflicting with state laws establishing smoking policies, the court ruled, "we conclude that under this statute, the legislature has invited cities to regulate smoking in public places to the maximum extent possible."
The city's smoking ban ordinance, the court added, "provides sufficient warning to a person of common intelligence that one who owns, manages, or operates a public place may violate the ordinance if he or she knowingly allows, i.e., tacitly, passively or, even explicitly accepts, smoking on the premises."
More details as they develop.
22 June 2007
at 10:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
sourpuss (Anonymous) says…
That should be that then.
22 June 2007
at 10:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Wilbur_Nether (Anonymous) says…
I'm looking forward to reading THIS decision. I certainly notice the difference in my dining experiences when I eat out in communities that don't have such a ban.
22 June 2007
at 10:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Dracul (Bill Chapman) says…
Oh goodie!
Now the city commissoners will try to control what more people can do in “public” places.
Maybe they will come up with a breathing tax so they can “fix” the city budget without actually trying to balance the damn thing.
22 June 2007
at 10:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RonBurgandy (Anonymous) says…
Hallelujah!
22 June 2007
at 10:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
I am not surprised as the appeal was launched on an unsound basis. Had the appeal been based on unequal enforcement as will the next filing, things would have certainly turned out much different.
22 June 2007
at 10:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
NDNJAYHAWKER (Anonymous) says…
I can understand no public smoking but for pete's sake let it go in the bar! It is great going home after spending the night out on the town without smelling like smoke, but I really think if you are old enough to party you might as well have fun doing it and a cancer stick in your hand if that is what you choose to do!
22 June 2007
at 10:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Reality_Check (Anonymous) says…
Another, and final, beating for the pro-smoking/restaurant-owner crowd.
So, how many $1000's of taxpayer (and private) monies was literally wasted on these stupid lawsuits?
22 June 2007
at 10:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ModSquadGal (Anonymous) says…
Oh come on — sore losers! You KNOW the ban is a actually good thing. DEEP down in your (black, nicotene and tar filled) hearts, you WANT to quit smoking and smelling like an ashtray, clouding up the world with your dirty, cancer-causing smoke, and forcing YOUR bad habit onto those who have chosen NOT to engage in such a disgusting practice.
YOUR rights have been hurt??? When are you guys going to just give up and admit you DO impinge on the rights of others by smoking, and you SHOULD have restrictions placed on your actions because they affect other people unjustly?
Why don't you focus your efforts on making a smoke-free, non-nicotene, non-cancerous cigarette? THAT would be a worthwhile cause…
22 June 2007
at 10:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Fueldrum (Nick Combs) says…
Not nearly as much money as was figuratively wasted.
=)
22 June 2007
at 10:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Compy (Anonymous) says…
Not that they actually can prove it, but I don't care if bars lose money, they are profitting solely off of people's addictions. So, too bad. Find a way to support yourself and your family without taking advantage of people who are poisoning themselves daily because they are unhappy with life.
Also, I don't care if you think it's your right to smoke wherever you please, or allow smoking in your establishment, I am a socialist. Individual rights are no more sacred to me than the flag (which I will gladly burn or defecate on)
So all of this is very funny to me. I love Lawrence for upholding my extreme values. Let me reiterate, I am a socialist. I think I can decide what's better for most people than they can.
I am not being sarcastic. Hopefully this post won't be deleted, I think it's a little less scathing than the previous one.
22 June 2007
at 10:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
murphy59 (Anonymous) says…
“YOUR rights have been hurt??? When are you guys going to just give up and admit you DO impinge on the rights of others by smoking, and you SHOULD have restrictions placed on your actions because they affect other people unjustly?”
Right on sister, preach it!
22 June 2007
at 10:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
geniusmannumber1 (Anonymous) says…
MY problem with all of this is that i choose to smoke, because it is my right to make my own decisions about what I put into my body, but the only way I'm able to smoke is sitting in a room full of smokers, because I have no arms. Since the ban was put in place, it's been very difficult for me, and I am forced to constantly have smokers over to my house, so they can smoke, and occasionally sharpen my hooks. I have trouble getting them to leave in a timely fashion and I have to get up at 5:00 a.m., six days a week, to get to my job as an assistant soccer coach. As a result, I'm constantly very tired, and unable to function at my best.
So my question is, you so-called progressive Lawrence types, who was thinking about MY rights when the smoking ban was put in place?!? I'M the one with no arms.
22 June 2007
at 10:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
There are several other avenues down which another challenge to the ban will be launched.
You see, according to the City Ordinance, it makes no difference that most of the sales in the Lebanese joinht come from tobacco sales.
The ordinance specifically prohibits smoking where food is served or in where anyone waits for any kind of service.
There are more but these two are the most obvious.
If you doubt me, take the time too look up the flawed document on the City website.
22 June 2007
at 10:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
packrat (Anonymous) says…
SInce the ban went into effect, my family is able to go out to eat. We have a severe asthmatic who couldn't tolerate any place with smoke. I hate smoking.
I think that places should be allowed to declare themselves smoker-friendly. If someone chooses to work there, then they are assumed to know the risks. Smoker-friendly establishments should not allow children in them.
I don't like government interference at this level. What's next, telling me that I can't smoke in my own home because I have children?
22 June 2007
at 11:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says…
I just don't see why it's so tough for people to go outside to smoke? Are people really staying home as opposed to going to bars b/c of this?
When I was a smoker, I actually preferred to go outside to smoke…I hated second hand smoke then too, and I smoked a pack a day for several years.
22 June 2007
at 11:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kneejerkreaction (Anonymous) says…
Dracul (Anonymous) says: Oh goodie! Now the city commissoners …… will come up with a breathing tax.
******
Well Drac, they did, kind of. It's called fines if you're caught with smokers in your estabalishment. Personally, I like breathing, so tax away. Otherwise we'd have Taxation without Respiration, and I KNOW no one would like that.
22 June 2007
at 11:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
Excellent decision. So I guess if Steffes doesn't like Kansas rulings he can take his money and cars to a different location/state instead of creating local headaches. His money is allowing him to be a pest.
“I think that places should be allowed to declare themselves smoker-friendly. If someone chooses to work there, then they are assumed to know the risks. ”
What if this just happens to be the only job available that keeps someone with a family off of food stamps?
22 June 2007
at 11:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hk45 (Anonymous) says…
The majority of bars and restaurants who did not have an outside smoking area now have built them to accomodate the smokers. I see no problem with the ban and it is sure is wonderful to go in a restaurant and not smell smoke. You do not realize how nice it is until you go to another city where smoking is allowed and you get stuck beside the smoking section.
22 June 2007
at 11:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
fletch (Anonymous) says…
“So I guess if Steffes doesn't like Kansas rulings he can take his money and cars to a different location/state”
Pleeeeeease let Steffes go somewhere else. I suggest Branson.
22 June 2007
at 11:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mom_of_three (Anonymous) says…
My hubby has been a smoker since college. He doesn't smoke in the house, or while he is eating, so when eatting at restaurants, we always sat in non-smoking anyway. But he does smoke inside sometimes when we do happen to go to a bar when we are out with friends.
I think the businesses should be allowed to choose if they want smoking or not.
Everyone knows the risks and everyone should be allowed to choose (owners, workers, diners).
22 June 2007
at 11:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
lilhaileyscomet (Anonymous) says…
I agree with alot of you… I am a smoker and have very much enjoyed going to eat and not having the smoke around. I do like to go out occasionally and sometimes it puts a damper on things not being able to smoke, but I have enjoyed it more than anything. I dont smoke much and when you could smoke in the bars I would smoke too much and inhale everybody elses as well and wake up not being able to breath the next day. But I can also see through others views as well… I do think it should be up to the owner of the bar to decide whether they want to allow people to smoke.. Their employees choose to work there, knowing that they will be around smokers and customers come in there with the same knowledge.. Restaurants however I dont think should have smoking areas.. I dont like to be around smoke while I am eating, imagine how a non smoker feels.
I feel it is the same when it comes to employers saying their employees cant smoke.. And that they will fire you if you do, even in your own home. We have that right at our home. At work they can tell you not to smoke on their property, but if you step off that property then they have no right to tell you what you can and cant do.
22 June 2007
at 11:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
stuckinthemiddle (Anonymous) says…
I personally don't much care about this one way or another… but I do think there is a legitimate property rights issue.
And I still think that ventilation and air monitoring would be the way to go. I'm interested in what kinds of levels of any toxins would show up in restaurants and bars and if there would be levels of toxins that are considered by the EPA or OSHA to be unacceptable hazards.
Has anyone seen such data?
22 June 2007
at 11:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
lilhaileyscomet (Anonymous) says…
I agree with alot of you: I am a smoker and have very much enjoyed going to eat and not having the smoke around. I do like to go out occasionally and sometimes it puts a damper on things not being able to smoke, but I have enjoyed it more than anything. I dont smoke much and when you could smoke in the bars I would smoke too much and inhale everybody elses as well and wake up not being able to breath the next day. But I can also see through others views as well: I do think it should be up to the owner of the bar to decide whether they want to allow people to smoke.. Their employees choose to work there, knowing that they will be around smokers and customers come in there with the same knowledge.. Restaurants however I dont think should have smoking areas.. I dont like to be around smoke while I am eating, imagine how a non smoker feels.
I feel it is the same when it comes to employers saying their employees cant smoke.. And that they will fire you if you do, even in your own home. We have that right at our home. At work they can tell you not to smoke on their property, but if you step off that property then they have no right to tell you what you can and cant do.
22 June 2007
at 11:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
chemegirlie (Anonymous) says…
I am in full favor of the smoking ban. Someone above suggested that businesses should be allowed to choose if they are smoker friendly or not. Lets look at this from both points.
As a non-smoker, I would have to completely avoid a “smoker friendly” place (such as a restaurant) to enjoy my preference of being smoke free. I could never enjoy a meal at that place without being subjected to inhaling smoke….however
A smoker can go to a smoke free place and, if the need arises, step outside, have a cig, come back inside and resume enjoying his meal. He would be able to still enjoy the place and be able to practice his smoking preference.
So, tell me how the smoking ban nconveniences smokers more than no smoking ban would nconvenience non-smokers.
22 June 2007
at 11:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
chemegirlie (Anonymous) says…
and yes…i know that my i's are missing from inconvenience both times…caught that typo after I posted it
22 June 2007
at 11:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Mkh (Anonymous) says…
I appreciate the smoking ban. Thank you.
22 June 2007
at 11:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
crazyks (Anonymous) says…
While that is true right now, chemegirlie, what happens if they suddenly decide that smoking won't be allowed on the entire property?
It could happen, you know. It has at some other places.
22 June 2007
at 11:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Crazyks:
That is the next step.
Chemegirl:
Yes, if businesses were allowed to CHOOSE, you would then have to make a decision as to whether or not to enter that place and that would most likely kick your entitlement minded ratbrain into catatonia.
22 June 2007
at 12:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
emilyhadley (Emily Hadley) says…
I wonder how many establishments would prefer to keep smokers out if the ban were dropped.
22 June 2007
at 12:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
stuckinthemiddle (Anonymous) says…
emilyhadley
My guess is that you'd end up with a fair split of places sticking with no smoking and others going back to being smoker friendly… and everyone would have a choice as to which places they went to… It would be a true supply and demand thing…
22 June 2007
at 12:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Oh but we must NOT grant the power of CHOICE!
Except when it comes to killing babies.
22 June 2007
at 12:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Wilbur_Nether (Anonymous) says…
stuckinthemiddle accurately noted “…there is a legitimate property rights issue….” Which, in my mind, is what makes the whole darn thing so fascinating. Several issues are at odds with each other, each of which is legitimate: the property rights of business owners, the rights of individuals to freely engage in legal behaviors, and the public interest in minimizing health hazards. Balancing the tension between the three with reasonability is the challenge. Unfortunately, giving more weight to any one of these has the effect of limiting the other two. When laws first began to appear that required restaurants to provide a non-smoking section, this same debate occurred. Little criticism of these laws exists today, though.
22 June 2007
at 12:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mm (Anonymous) says…
The only problem I have with the smoking ban is we didn't get to vote on it. I feel something this important should be placed on a ballot. If it passes then there shouldn't be any problem. The people have expressed what they wanted. Not just a small few.
22 June 2007
at 12:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
crazyks (Anonymous) says…
Eventually, the pendulum will swing the other way. It always does, given enough time.
Or another cause of the moment will be found….
22 June 2007
at 12:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
stuckinthemiddle (Anonymous) says…
Wilbur_Nether
Good points…
I believe that one of the prime reasons that we have such contention over this is because the route taken, a ban, is fairly extreme.
There is no doubt in my mind that the public health issue could be sufficiently dealt with, with the use of ventilation, filtration and air monitoring and business owners should be given this option. This might actually better serve public health than the current situation where in many cases patrons have to walk through the outdoor area where people are smoking and the smoke can be rather thick.
22 June 2007
at 12:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
EXks (Anonymous) says…
The only problem I have with the smoking ban is we didn't get to vote on it. I feel something this important should be placed on a ballot. If it passes then there shouldn't be any problem. The people have expressed what they wanted. Not just a small few.
posted by mm
Perfectly, logically and rationally well said mm, ….. let the citizens of Lawrence vote on this issue, put it on the ballot……the ban would PASS by a large margin.
22 June 2007
at 12:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kneejerkreaction (Anonymous) says…
The citizens of Lawrence DID vote on this issue. They elected the City Commissioners, didn't they? It's a no brainer. Smokers have no more of a right to invade my space than I have to invade theirs. Maybe Steffes will now shut his yap and go away.
22 June 2007
at 12:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
stuckinthemiddle (Anonymous) says…
It's my belief that you have no particular rights when you are on someone else's property other than the right that the property owner affords you.
kneejerkreaction
Would you go into someone's house and demand that no one smoke because you have some kind of a right not to breath their smoke?
22 June 2007
at 12:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
acg (Anonymous) says…
Yeah, like this was a big surprise. Just go ahead and make tobacco products illegal Kansas! Wait, that's right, you like having the tax money that tobacco sales generate. Make up your mind, hypocrites. Is tobacco good or bad?
22 June 2007
at 1 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Horace (Anonymous) says…
There is no such thing as property rights. If you think there are, then where did they come from?
22 June 2007
at 1:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
stuckinthemiddle (Anonymous) says…
Horace
The Magna Carta… for starters… and the U.S. Bill of Rights…
22 June 2007
at 1:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says…
acg,
Nobody is telling smokers they can't smoke. It's not hard to walk 20 feet to go outside to smoke.
I think Scenebooster suggested the best compromise…offer tax breaks to businesses that create an outdoor section for smokers.
Some of you against the ban may argue that it's my choice to go into a smoky bar which is true to an extent. The main reason I go to bars anymore is to see a specific band which is usually designated to one bar (no choice), especially if it's a touring band. So, with no ban, I'm forced to breath in second hand smoke if I want to see the band. With the ban, I can still see the band and all the smoker has to do is go outside for 5 minutes to smoke. I don't see a problem with the latter.
22 June 2007
at 1:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
packrat (Anonymous) says…
I'm against the tax breaks. If a business wants to cater to smokers, the owners should pay for their own patio. The costs of the patio is a legitimate business expense and is already deductible from taxes.
22 June 2007
at 1:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Confrontation (Anonymous) says…
When did Marion get a uterus?
22 June 2007
at 1:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Of course those who dislike being around smoking could simply refrain from entering places where smoking is allowed but like the zombies in a Wes Craven movie, they are compelled:
“Not like smoking! MUST go to smoking place!”
Ratbrains.
22 June 2007
at 1:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Confrontation (Anonymous) says…
I'm fine with the gov getting involved in business management, especially when business owner completely disregard the health of their workers. If these businesses could do anything they want, then they'd secretly fund the city commish. What? They already do that? Hmmm.
22 June 2007
at 1:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Confrontation (Anonymous) says…
Why don't those who smoke refuse to go into non-smoking places, such as grocery stores? Better yet, why don't they move to another city? Of course, then they couldn't get to Health Care Access for their free (a.k.a. tax-payer funded) emphysema meds or get free chemo at LMH.
22 June 2007
at 1:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dozer (Anonymous) says…
Marion got his uterus at the same time he picked up his law license, became a CPA, went to veterinarian school, was a city planner, became an engineer, was a certified arson investigator, and he received all these things from the University of Phoenix online.
22 June 2007
at 1:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
HalsteadHawk (Anonymous) says…
Noy that the commmision has the power to control business practices can get the following laws passed:
No screaming babies in restraunts that serve liquor.
No tight fitting clothes for overweight patrons and employees of restraunts.
I really enjoy the lack of smoke at my favorite eating/drinking holes but it is just a start, lets finish what we started.
22 June 2007
at 1:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
stuckinthemiddle (Anonymous) says…
The truth is that the vast majority of smokers will never take any emphysema medicine, nor will they receive chemotherapy. And, many of those who do will have been paying for health insurance most of their adult lives and will have paid taxes that help fund any free treatment that people may receive at a hospital.
And businesses should be concerned about the health of their workers. It's just good business, but you don't need a smoking ban to insure safe working conditions.
Restaurants and bars should be allowed to install ventilation/filtration systems and monitors to establish and maintain safe working conditions.
22 June 2007
at 2:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Reality_Check (Anonymous) says…
The entire state of New Mexico is smoke-free indoors after 6/15/07. Los Angeles has been smoke free for years. Oregon has been smoke free for several years. Guess what? No shortage of bars or restaurants in any of them.
Remember, only 23% of the public smokes. Majority rules, enough said, move on.
22 June 2007
at 2:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
stuckinthemiddle (Anonymous) says…
ram67rod
Ventilate, filter and monitor the air, then people in restaurants and bars will be kept safe.
22 June 2007
at 2:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
stuckinthemiddle (Anonymous) says…
And the great thing about this kind of ventilation/filtration system is that it would not only improve health by removing cigarette smoke, it would also remove other unhealthy contaminants from the air.
It would also pull a lot of the non-hazardous, but not so pleasant odors out of the air that you find in public places… like nasty perfumes and colognes… and body orders…
The air would be quite pleasant…
22 June 2007
at 2:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
chemegirlie (Anonymous) says…
Did people gripe this much when the health department instated the “no shoes, no shirt, no service” rule?
22 June 2007
at 2:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says…
“Ventilate, filter and monitor the air,”
These options do help, but when there's a group of people smoking, these options generally cannot keep up. Going outside is best for everyone…including the smokers who probably don't smoke as much as they would if they could stay inside and nobody has to breathe the second-hand smoke.
22 June 2007
at 2:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kneejerkreaction (Anonymous) says…
stuckinthemiddle (Anonymous) says:
It's my belief that you have no particular rights when you are on someone else's property other than the right that the property owner affords you
*******
That changes when the property is not private, but open to the public. A home is different from a business as far as what you can and can't do. Businesses are many times grey areas in the public domain since they court the public and are therefore held up to a greater scrutiny than one's home.
22 June 2007
at 2:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
stuckinthemiddle (Anonymous) says…
Roadkill_Rob
Well designed ventilation and filtration systems will make the air quality in a restaurant that allows smoking better than the air quality in a restaurant without and system that is non-smoking.
22 June 2007
at 2:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hk45 (Anonymous) says…
My only problem with smokers is I still have to smell it and inhale it when I do not want to at restaurants or outside. I have the problem when I do make a “choice” to sit in a “non-smoking” section and I still smell someone smoking. If there was some magic barrier to keep the smoke around the smoker and polute the air I breathe then I would not care if someone smoked in a restaurant, but it is not like that. Yes, people have to choices to smoke or not smoke, but many times you do not have the choice to breathe in the smoke…that is the problem!
22 June 2007
at 2:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
stuckinthemiddle (Anonymous) says…
kneejerkreaction
How does it change when it's open to the public… other than the owner may be taking on certain liabilities…
Has anyone ever successfully sued a restaurant or bar for health effects of secondhand smoke?
22 June 2007
at 2:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says…
Stuckinthemiddle,
I don't doubt that a well-designed ventilation can work really well…it's just that when there's a big group of people smoking, you'll still find it hard to escape some of the second hand smoke.
22 June 2007
at 2:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kneejerkreaction (Anonymous) says…
Stuck., “open to the public” is tantamount to “open to regulation”. The SC of KS held that Lawr's Home Rule argument about protecting the public is valid. I doubt this descision would have been upheld, or perhaps even debated, had the premise been a private residence.
Whether anyone has successfully sued a rest. or bar or negative health effects is not the issue. People have successfully sued tobacco companies though, although I still have yet to understand why.
22 June 2007
at 2:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
stuckinthemiddle (Anonymous) says…
Roadkill_Rob
I'm trying to imagine the scenario you're talking about, and sure… it could happen… it could be difficult in some cases and that's why you monitor… and if levels go up you'd have to take action…
22 June 2007
at 2:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
stuckinthemiddle (Anonymous) says…
So: I wonder just how miserable folks were for so many years before the smoking ban…
If my memory serves me… there was no shortage of non-smokers in the restaurants and bars around town. I remember them being rather crowded… with all those non-smokers willingly exposing themselves to the hazard of secondhand smoke… And it always seemed that people were having a good time:
If the ban had never gone into effect: would the bars and restaurants in town be nearly empty now: because people are now so aware of the dangers of secondhand smoke and have a new health-conscious attitude?
22 June 2007
at 2:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
stuckinthemiddle (Anonymous) says…
kneejerkreaction
I wouldn't be so sure that in the future a law banning smoking inside private residencies couldn't be passed and upheld by this same court…
My main argument is not so much against the government saying that you have to keep the public safe, but rather the government saying how a business owner has to do that…
Again… I think it's only good business to keep people safe but giving owners options, such as ventilate and monitor would be good government…
22 June 2007
at 2:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
stuckinthemiddle (Anonymous) says…
~chuckle~
Well, I've said more than enough…
22 June 2007
at 3:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kneejerkreaction (Anonymous) says…
Some great ideas, Stuck. And to give business owners all the freedom they need, let's get rid of the annoying food inspectors, fire & occupancy inspectors and general structure inspectors. Then business owners can have all the freedom they want to reuse old food, fill their rickety buildings to the brim with revelers and stop having to worry about about paying for expensive and pesky fire systems.
Go back to sleep Rip van Stuck and awake in the real world of irresponsibility.
22 June 2007
at 3:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
person184 (Anonymous) says…
Marion (Marion Lynn) says:
Oh but we must NOT grant the power of CHOICE!
Except when it comes to killing babies.
_____________________________________________________________________________
So you don't agree with abortion, (okay). But you do agree with slowly killing those around you? Hey, maybe they deserve it.
22 June 2007
at 3:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
openminded (Anonymous) says…
Marion:
When you said:
Oh but we must NOT grant the power of CHOICE!
Except when it comes to killing babies.
You were mistaken!! You DO have a choice-either live in Lawrence or live somewhere else!
22 June 2007
at 3:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Confrontation (Anonymous) says…
There needs to be a national ban on smoking in public places. It'll only help prevent new smokers and make current smokers reconsider their disgusting habit.
22 June 2007
at 3:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
wonder_gams (Anonymous) says…
The owner of the bar should have a choice on whether or not they allow smoking in their establishment. Non smokers are not held at gunpoint and forced into a smoky bar. Nor are intoxicated individuals forced to drive under the influence. It's your health. You are the one that needs to accept responsibility for the choices you make.
22 June 2007
at 3:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
samsnewplace (Anonymous) says…
It is wonderful to eat a nice dinner out without the bother of smoke blowing into a non-smoking area. At the same time, I see nothing wrong with smoking in a bar, with a drink, relaxing after a hard days work. I don't smoke, and don't frequent places that allow smokers. Non-smokers have a choice too.
22 June 2007
at 4:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Mr_Ramirez:
Why don't YOU consider staying OUT of a coffee house which allows smoking?
Are YOU a zombie compelled to enter?
22 June 2007
at 4:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…
compy wrote: “Find a way to support yourself and your family without taking advantage of people who are poisoning themselves daily because they are unhappy with life.”
How true. Pay heed all priests, pastors, rabbis, imams, monks, etc.
Oh, are we talking about smoking and drinking? I thought this was the religion thread.
22 June 2007
at 4:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
monkeyhawk (Anonymous) says…
a minority view
by walter e. williams
release: wednesday, april 11, 2007, and thereafter
Phony Science and Public Policy
The public has become increasingly aware that the science behind man made global warming is a fraud. But maybe Americans like bogus science in pursuit of certain public policy objectives. Let's look at it.
Many Americans find tobacco smoke to be a nuisance. Some find the odor offensive, and others have allergies or asthma that can be aggravated by smoking in their presence. There's little question that tobacco smoke causes these kinds of nuisances, but how successful would anti-smokers have been in a court of law, or public opinion, in achieving the kind of success they've achieved based on tobacco smoke being a nuisance?
A serious public health threat had to be manufactured, and in 1993 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stepped in to the rescue with their bogus environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) study that says secondhand tobacco smoke is a class A carcinogenic.
Why is it bogus? The EPA claimed that 3,000 Americans die annually from secondhand smoke, but there was a problem. They couldn't come up with that conclusion using the standard statistical 95 percent confidence interval. They lowered their study's confidence interval to 90 percent. That has the effect of doubling the margin of error and doubling the probability that mere chance explains those 3,000 deaths.
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) said, “Admittedly, it is unusual to return to a study after the fact, lower the required significance level, and declare its results to be supportive rather than unsupportive of the effect one's theory suggests should be present.” The CRS was being kind. This kind of doctoring of research results would get a graduate student expelled from a university.
22 June 2007
at 5:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
EXks (Anonymous) says…
IF a bar, club or coffeehouse business owner wishes to cater to strictly smokers OR non-smokers I don't have a problem with that concept. Certain bars are known to cater to bikers, ethnic groups, gays, lesbians, grouchy old men, etc. I'll make my own choice and give my business to that owner. I firmly believe smoking causes cancer and are weapons of mass destruction, (I witnessed my mother's own slow death from lung cancer, caused by 40 years of smoking)…..if a bar is all smoking, it won't get my business because I won't go there.
22 June 2007
at 5:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
trinity (Anonymous) says…
heh. just wait until big brother legislates something that hits the anti smoking folk; the wail will be heard for miles&miles. sort of like paris' “it's not faiiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrr, moooooooooooooooooooooooommmmmmmmmm!!!!!!!!!”
22 June 2007
at 6:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dozer (Anonymous) says…
What is “Big Brother” gonna do Trinity, force me to smoke?
22 June 2007
at 6:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
erod0723 (Anonymous) says…
Trinity,
If you are inferring to a law banning smoking nationwide— good luck with that. Remember how well prohibition went….
22 June 2007
at 6:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hanni213 (Anonymous) says…
Originally I didn't like the smoking ban. But, it made it easier for me to kick the habit. Haven't smoked since November. When I go out, the temptation to smoke is not there. That has made it much easier to stay quit.
22 June 2007
at 7:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
coneflower (Anonymous) says…
I'm sorry this inconveniences the smokers, but they really should quit for their own sakes, and they have no right to force their second-hand smoke on others. You don't want to watch someone die from lung cancer. From a selfish perspective, I'm glad I don't come home reeking of cigarette smoke every time I walk into a restaurant.
22 June 2007
at 7:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Coneflower:
Why would you want to go into a restaurant that allows smoking?
22 June 2007
at 7:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
coneflower (Anonymous) says…
Marion, you may have forgotten what it was like when every restaurant was a smoking restaurant. Or maybe you're younger than I am.
22 June 2007
at 8:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink