Archive for Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Smoking ban proposal introduced in Kansas Senate
Statewide measure would require November vote
January 29, 2008
Advertisement
Topeka — Voters would decide in the November election whether to enact a smoking ban in their county, under a proposal introduced today in the Legislature.
"I believe this bill will save tens of thousands of Kansas lives," said state Sen. David Wysong, R-Mission Hills, one of the sponsors of the legislation.
The measure was introduced in the Senate Judiciary Committee. A hearing is expected in the next week or so.
Under the measure, each county will have on the Nov. 8 general election ballot the question of whether to ban smoking in public places.
State Sen. Jim Barnett, R-Emporia, who is also a physician, said, "I've alrady had patients tell me they are planning to stop smoking because of this bill."
Wysong said allowing county votes on the issue was the most politically expedient way in the Legislature to get a ban in place.
Under the bill, if voters in Douglas County rejected a smoking ban, the smoking ban in Lawrence would still remain in effect, he said.
More like this
- Bill would let counties decide bans on smoking 34 comments / January 30, 2008
- Discussion due 3 comments / March 31, 2008
- Committee postpones action on statewide smoking ban bill 1 comment / January 31, 2007
- Statewide smoking ban hits snag in committee 8 comments / January 30, 2007
- Board of Regents asked to put weight behind proposed statewide smoking ban 4 comments / October 14, 2009
Top ads RSS
- Customer Service/ Manager Trainees!! $450/wk. Must be able to start ...
- Factory Outlet $1800/Mo. Starting Pay Its the holidays and we ...
- Federal Home Loan Bank
- Temporary Programmer Univ. of KS, Geological Survey Write function and ...
- Occupational and Physical Therapy Staff Positions. Rehab Center seeking full, ...
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Blog: When Will We Get Our First Snow? November 11, 2009 · 26 comments
- Attorney for man who says he shot George Tiller won't present 'necessity' defense November 10, 2009 · 74 comments
- Blog: We Aren't Smart Enough November 10, 2009 · 29 comments
- Jihadist threat underplayed November 11, 2009 · 52 comments
- Mandatory service November 11, 2009 · 62 comments
- Independent counsel behind Bill Clinton investigation will speak at KU November 11, 2009 · 21 comments
- Blog: Strippin' Ain't E-Z November 11, 2009 · 32 comments
- Blog: The Ordeal Of Carla Nash November 11, 2009 · 19 comments
- Blog: Dillons, Hyvee, And Checkers — I'Ve Shopped And Compared. See The Results. November 8, 2009 · 221 comments
- Lawrence man robbed at gunpoint, kidnapped November 10, 2009 · 34 comments
- Food magazines seek niche November 11, 2009
- KU Hospital has record year November 11, 2009
- Gary Bedore’s KU basketball notebook November 11, 2009
- Sunflower School educator chosen as Lawrence Master Teacher November 11, 2009
- A grand slam November 11, 2009
- Woolridge makes it official, signs with KU basketball November 11, 2009
- Code Talkers break silence November 11, 2009
- Gorillas’ Iba floored by Jayhawks November 11, 2009
- Options discussed for lighted path between KU, downtown November 11, 2009
- KU's Learned Hall closed for several hours after early-morning mechanical problem November 11, 2009
29 January 2008
at 11:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Confrontation (Anonymous) says…
These jerks are finally doing something beneficial for the health of Kansans.
29 January 2008
at 1:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bulldawgs (Anonymous) says…
This is a very interesting bill…
Sounds to me mostly that they are passing the buck, but allowing each county to decide what to do…but at least it levels the playing field.
First of all, it is a county-by-county ban… If it isn't passed, a local ordinances will still be in force (either city or county).
I can't see this passing, because the tobacco lobby will not like the fact that they will have to fight this in 105 counties…
24 March 2008
at 12:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Arnold (Anonymous) says…
This bill seems rather tedious to me. I mean it's a war against smokers and non-smokers, the same war that has been going on for years. Most smokers disagree with this bill and I can guarantee that almost all of the non-smokers agree with it. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if this bill is a 50/50 split, if not extremely close. I am a smoker myself and I personally disagree with the bill. The complaint is that acute respiratory problems occur from this, especially in minors. But has anyone actually seen a smoker intentionally blow smoke in a kid's face? And with everything else that pollutes the air, how do we know that second-hand smoking is a major cause of these problems? And how many members of the senate voting in accordance with this bill are in fact non-smokers?
24 March 2008
at 12:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
beobachter (Anonymous) says…
Arnold, one of many links available
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library…
30 July 2008
at 12:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snowbird (Anonymous) says…
Sen David Wysong says this bill will save tens of thousands of lives.Up to this point there must be thousands of people who have died solely from second-hand smoke.Can the Senator name three people who have died solely from second-hand smoke?If he can't name three people then who in their 'right' mind would believe anything the Senator would say.http://pasan.thetruthisalie.comhttp://smokersclubinc.comwww.ventilatedsmokingrooms.ca
30 July 2008
at 7:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Musician (Anonymous) says…
There's little details here as to exactly what this ban is.If they want to ban smoking at the courthouse, the drivers' license agency etc..those are public places that people have to use at various times. I have no problem with that since they are truly public places.If they are trying to wheedle in to private business owners places of business and attempt to force a ban on them, it will create economic problems. That is a given.It has in every other place one of these things has been implemented regardless of the claims of the antismoking organizations.Antismokers don't come out in droves as promised and many longstanding businesses end up closing, particularly bars and/or Ma and Pa restaurants.Chains are not immune to having to close, but Ma and Pa certainly have this kind of trouble first.I have been shut out of 3 bars in my small city alone as they started closing one after another. I might add this is in a city under a statewide smoking ban. The level playing field in states with smoking bans is a fallacy. Smokers do stay away from bars when they are non-smoking, no matter whether they can or can't drive a few miles to the next town without these draconian rules. Seeing a handful of people smoking outside a bar is generally the amount of people who are actually patronizing the bar.In our ban state, border towns are hurt the worst. I am most familiar with the situation in Cincinnati, where nightlife is deader than a doornail and business is absolutely booming in Covington/Newport KY, right across the river. This particular KY area recently has voted to not implement smoking bans and the reason is more than obvious.The smoking ban has devastated the bar business. Musicians feel this firsthand before one bar staff member is let go as the entertainment fund is the first to go.I worked regularly for many many years before the advent of these bans. It makes one wonder if it may be a back door to attack the bar business, seeing how many places have closed in less than a year.Glad I don't own a bar. It is really horrible to see these people lose their longstanding livelihoods in many many cases in very short amounts of time when these bans go in.