Push for statewide smoking ban gaining momentum / LJWorld.com

Lawrence and Douglas county

Survey shows most community leaders in Kansas support ban

The push for a statewide smoking ban is gaining momentum. A new survey shows most community leaders in Kansas support snuffing out cigarettes in places like restaurants, bars, and businesses.

By Scott Rothschild

August 13, 2008

Topeka — The tide is turning in favor of a statewide ban on smoking in public indoor places, officials said Wednesday.

A new survey was released that shows most community leaders in Kansas support snuffing out cigarettes in venues such as restaurants, bars and businesses.

State Sen. David Wysong, R-Shawnee Mission, said the Legislature should enact a statewide smoking ban when it meets in January.

"The sooner we take care of this on a statewide level the sooner we will spend less money," in health care costs, said Wysong, who has championed smoking bans in the past.

The new study funded by the Sunflower Foundation surveyed city clerks and governing board members in 57 cities in Kansas.

Nearly 64 percent of respondents said a smoking ban should be implemented locally, and 63 percent said it should be implemented by the state, according to the survey.

"Our findings provide evidence that community leaders want to see a smoking ban implemented either at the local or state level," said Dr. John Neuberger, who conducted the study. Neuberger is a nationally known epidemiologist and professor of preventive medicine and public health at the Kansas University Medical Center.

Cigarette smoking remains the leading preventable cause of death in the United States, causing an estimated 438,000 deaths each year, according to the National Cancer Institute.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the United States and in Kansas, killing more than prostate, colon and breast cancers combined. Approximately 80 percent of cases are attributed to smoking.

Health officials have said the annual health care cost in Kansas caused by smoking is nearly $1 billion.

Wysong's proposed ban was held up in the Legislature last year after opposition was lodged by some businesses. Some said business owners should be able to decide for themselves whether to allow smoking.

But Wysong said, "It's not a private rights issue anymore. It's a health issue."

He said he believed the chances were good that when the Legislature meets in 2009 it will approve a smoking ban.

Copy and paste the link:

LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

mom_of_three (anonymous) says…

I guess I don't understand how banning smoking in public places is supposed to reduce a smoker's chance of cancer and related costs. Oh, but maybe statistics on second hand smoke related cancers would be more relevant to the story and to his legislative proposal. But what are the chances someone would only have second hand smoke exposure when they go out to eat or go to bars? Most people know a smoker, don't they?I just don't see how it would drastically reduce the costs like the proposal says...Is a smoker supposed to quit because they can't smoke in public places? Is that what Wysong thinks? I am a non smoker by the way, but I think owners should be able to decide for themselves if they want a smoking or nonsmoking establishment.
August 13, 2008 at 1:37 p.m.
kcpose38 (anonymous) says…

If the general public was in favor of a smoking ban, there would already be non-smoking establishments all over the place trying to cater to a non-smoking crowd. Business owners are all trying to make money and if ther was additional money that could be made by being non smoking they would be doing it. In most of the cities that have eneacted the ban it has been done by the city council, with little input from the public and business owners. My guess is that the city council members don't even frequent the bars that they are wanting to regulate. If there is a ban, it should be decided by a general vote, not by the state or city. Believe it or not, I have never smoked in my life!
August 13, 2008 at 2:20 p.m.
misterlee (anonymous) says…

"I am a non smoker by the way, but I think owners should be able to decide for themselves if they want a smoking or nonsmoking establishment."Mom, if you think owners should have that right, shouldn't the public have a right to decide if we want smoking or nonsmoking establishments in our communities? There are a lot of reasons that I've enjoyed the smoking ban in Lawrence and the new one in KCMO. It's nice to come home from a night out and not smell like cigarette smoke. I know several smokers, but I'm never in their presence when they smoke. I can tell they smoke by how they smell. I'll let others discuss the health issues, and there are many. There is no health benefit from smoking as far as I know.
August 13, 2008 at 2:25 p.m.
Gina (Gina Bailey-Carbaugh) says…

There is no disputing the effects smoking, either by direct smoking or by second-hand, has on the health of those exposed. A smoking ban does not take away the "rights" of individuals to smoke. It protects the clean air of everyone. Auto makers have been dealing with cleaner emissions for years - don't see any of them going bankrupt.Business owners always worry about the bottom line, but in reality by being smoke-free more people have access to eating out and going to bars - namely those with asthma, etc. Despite urban rumors, no business has gone under by a smoking ban. Those in Lawrence that closed just after the ban went into effect were already in financial trouble and closed for reasons other than a smoking ban.
August 13, 2008 at 2:31 p.m.
cldick (anonymous) says…

there should be no more right to smoke that a right to snort cocaine or shoot up heroin. seriously people, we're talking about something really nasty here. there is no positive side to smoking. it's only harmful and addictive, and should thus be outlawed altogether.for now, the best we can do is ban it from public places, tax the hell out of it, and ban advertising. everything in its time.
August 13, 2008 at 3:11 p.m.
Lynn731 (anonymous) says…

I certainly agree, and hope they do issue a statewide ban on smoking in public places. This is one of the nastiest, most addictive habits known to man. If they want to kill themselves that's one thing, but they have no right to kill me with it. Thank you, Lynn
August 13, 2008 at 3:26 p.m.
allateup (anonymous) says…

misterlee.....I do not believe the no smoking law was or has been decided by the public. I do believe we should leave it up to the public to vote on it and not the local or state government.
August 13, 2008 at 3:56 p.m.
denak (anonymous) says…

I think this is great! I didn't know how much I really loved the smoking ban in Lawrence until I went to Topeka recently and ate there. Even though we were in the "non-smoking" section, you could still smell the smoke.It was disgusting. Ruined the taste of the food and gave me a headache.I was glad to get back to Lawrence.DenaP.S. Another upside to this smoking ban in Lawrence is not wait time. Since this smoking ban went into effect, I think I have only waited for a table once. The whole resturant is opened up to seating so we no longer have to wait for a seat in a certain area. It cuts down the wait time considerably!
August 13, 2008 at 3:58 p.m.
rando1965 (anonymous) says…

isnt this America .tTaking our rights one at a time whats next our flag ???????
August 13, 2008 at 4:02 p.m.
roscoekr (anonymous) says…

I beleive that it a city wishes to impose a no smoking ban in there public places, then they should not be able to sell cigarettes in any place the ban is in affect. Therefore the city or county or even a state should be able to reap the tax benefits of the sale of cigarettes
August 13, 2008 at 4:07 p.m.
hornhunter (anonymous) says…

Hey dick, The only difference between cigarettes, cocaine and heroin, is that cigarettes are legal!! D.A.Whats next beer, wine. Sometimes it kills quicker then smoking but it also can have long term effects. Don't see anyone pushing for this. But then again they would have to drink something else after a good dinner on the town.roscoekr,Both smokes and alcohol in most states and counties have a heavier tax it called a SIN tax
August 13, 2008 at 4:36 p.m.
tangential_reasoners_anonymous (anonymous) says…

logrithmic: "In the words of Captain Jon Luc-Picard, regarding the proposed smoking ban throughout the State of Kansas: "Make it so."( Actually, I think he just had a Singer in need of repair... "Make it sew." )
August 13, 2008 at 5:32 p.m.
kansas778 (anonymous) says…

More control, less freedom, how depressing.
August 13, 2008 at 6:03 p.m.
tired_of_it (anonymous) says…

Listen if a bar owner or any business owner for that matter wants to allow smoking in his or her place that is up to them and their patrons. You don't like it don't go in there.They are the ones who own it,pay the taxs and insurances.We have to wear seat belts cause the insurance companys complained.Is going to save lives and money,I didn't see any savings.You?While your at it lets ban plastic bottles save room in the landfills.Plastic bags save our streams don't forget perfumes and aftershave some can't handle it you know.Hell I know lets work 12-14 hrs a day give the money to the govt and let the tell us what to do how to dress and where we can go or not go.Keep it up people we're headed that way! Don't laugh not far from it.So much for the Land of The Free. If they want to smoke put a big sign up smokers welcome all others stay out!!! Get off it find somthing worth while to bitch about,i'm tired of it!!!!
August 13, 2008 at 6:19 p.m.
tangential_reasoners_anonymous (anonymous) says…

*smoldering*
August 13, 2008 at 6:49 p.m.
scott3460 (anonymous) says…

"The first place got the price of the drink and a message."But statistically you will become incapacitated and die earlier than the non-smoking customers of the business. The business will have the opportunity to make money off of the non-smoker for a longer period of time and therefore, it is in the best interest to choose to cater to the non-smoking public, as opposed to the disease and dying smoking population. Then there is the issue of disposable income. Non-smokers do not fork over disposable income toward their addiction, so they should have more disposable income to pay toward the services the business provides. Also, non-smokers tend to be more intelligent, better educated and, therefore, better off financially than the smoker and more able to spend disposable income at the business.
August 13, 2008 at 6:58 p.m.
Confrontation (anonymous) says…

I can't wait for this ban! Smoking is disgusting and smokers and their habits shouldn't be catered to at any location. Sucks to be you!
August 13, 2008 at 9:09 p.m.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…

Ban, ban, ban that cigarette.
August 13, 2008 at 9:20 p.m.
karmaxs3 (anonymous) says…

I love how everyone here in favor of the ban has demonized the people who smoke. How very human of you all. I bet none of you have any nasty disgusting habits that might offend anyone else in the world, eh? How about nose pickers? They leave their bacteria everywhere their hand lands. That definitely increases health related costs. Or crotch scratchers. Hate to think what one might catch opening a door after one of them. yee gads. Grow up. All of you.Eat right.Exercise.Don't smoke.Don't drink.Die anyway.Every last one of us.
August 13, 2008 at 9:33 p.m.
Gina (Gina Bailey-Carbaugh) says…

karma, first of all, not all of us demonize others. Secondly, yes, good handwashing stops the spread of germs. However, it is much cheaper to treat an infection than cancer, asthma, emphysema, etc.And, last, yes, we all will die, but we should have the option to not die due to someone else's addiction.PS. Please remember to wash your hands after going to the bathroom. You might not have touched any cootie spots on yourself, but the person ahead of you might have and you have to touch the stall latch, door handle, etc. after they did.
August 13, 2008 at 10:13 p.m.
Gina (Gina Bailey-Carbaugh) says…

Best comeback:"Go get bent, ya troll"lol
August 14, 2008 at 12:14 a.m.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

August 14, 2008 at 3:01 a.m.
Maracas (anonymous) says…

rando1965 (Anonymous) says:isnt this America .tTaking our rights one at a time whats next our flag ???????------------------------------------------------------------------------Smoking is not a right.
August 14, 2008 at 5:52 a.m.
davidsmom (anonymous) says…

I'm all for the ban, but why ban smoking but keep the selling of cigarettes legal? It doesn't make sense.
August 14, 2008 at 7 a.m.
dweezil222 (anonymous) says…

I can understand the restaurants; do you really need one that bad while you're eating? But bars... come on. Let each establishment decide for itself. If the non-smoking contingent is really that big, any moron with a fifth-grade knowledge of economics knows a free-market economy will serve that need, and smoke-free bars voluntarily will open. The two can coexist, and each can serve their own market share.Oh, and to whoever was talking about workers above... I agree with your point, but it's not like you don't go into a job with some knowledge of what the working conditions are like. If you care that much about the secondhand smoke, the existence of a set of smoke-free restaurants (again, I must emphasize, something that market forces will drive to happen without a ban) will give those workers a place to be employed. Remember, you don't have to take a specific job, and it's not as though there's any shortage of restaurants out there.
August 14, 2008 at 10:09 a.m.
karmaxs3 (anonymous) says…

Obviously my sarcasm was lost on Gina.....
August 14, 2008 at 12:03 p.m.
Gina (Gina Bailey-Carbaugh) says…

I have sarcasm defection sheild, karmax. =)
August 14, 2008 at 4:42 p.m.
Gina (Gina Bailey-Carbaugh) says…

or deflection......need to check my 'l' key
August 14, 2008 at 4:48 p.m.
karmaxs3 (anonymous) says…

I simply find all arguments~for, and against~ludicrous and juvenile. No, I do not think taking away personal freedom in a free country is ever justified. Nor do I believe any one person, or majority of persons, has the right or duty to control the nonviolent actions of any other person. This is one of those ridiculous situations where people will have strong, albeit, misplaced opinions about what others should or should not do, and then claim how much it affects them personally so it is their right to have an opinion. It really doesn't matter. What will be, will be. This argument is only a small symbolic image of what has become of our country. Make of that what you will.And I still say~Eat right.Exercise.Don't smoke.Don't drink.Die anyway.At least I'm enjoying the ride. How about you?(notice, I have not indicated my personal smoking or non-smoking habits. It doesn't really matter.)
August 14, 2008 at 5:26 p.m.
dweezil222 (anonymous) says…

Karmax, you are the perfect libertarian.
August 14, 2008 at 5:37 p.m.
Gina (Gina Bailey-Carbaugh) says…

karmax, whoop tee doo.The right to an opinion is about all that we do have.Thanks for sharing your non-opinion.
August 14, 2008 at 9:10 p.m.
dr_salt (anonymous) says…

Some of the "nonviolent" effects of secondhand smoke are respiratory infections, asthma and cancer.
August 15, 2008 at 9:36 a.m.