Advertisement

Archive for Monday, March 24, 2008

Senate committee OKs statewide smoking ban

Legislation unlikely to pass House

March 24, 2008

Advertisement

A statewide ban on smoking in indoor public places, which appeared dead in recent days, was revived Monday.

The Senate Ways and Means Committee approved the smoking prohibition on a 9-2 vote to send the measure for a possible vote by the full Senate.

State Sen. David Wysong, R-Shawnee Mission, sponsor of Senate Bill 660, said the proposal may win approval of the full Senate but likely would get stopped in the House.

"I don't think it really has a good opportunity this year in the Legislature, but I believe now this will be one of the three or four top issues during the election cycle," Wysong said.

Under the proposal, smoking would be prohibited in public places such as restaurants, bars and businesses.

Exemptions were made for commercial vehicles, tobacco shops, a proposed casino in southeast Kansas, veterans and soldiers nursing homes and designated smoking areas in other adult long-term care facilities.

State Sen. Marci Francisco, D-Lawrence, testified in support of the bill, saying the smoking ban in Lawrence has been a success. Sales taxes collected from food services and drinking places in Lawrence have increased since the ordinance took effect in July 2004, she said.

But Philip Bradley, representing the Kansas Licensed Beverage Association, said liquor sales in Lawrence have lagged the rest of the state since the ordinance took effect.

Dr. Roy Jensen and Dr. Karen Kelly, director and deputy director of the Kansas University Cancer Center, supported the bill, saying it would save lives of people who get cancer from second-hand smoke.

"The irrefutable scientific evidence is that second-hand smoke is not just an annoyance, but is a very serious health hazard that causes premature death and disease," Jensen said.

Comments

Meatwad 6 years ago

Hmmm. Look who on this thread are the crotchety, nasty, angry, insulting name callers, maybe they need to go have a cigarette (outside-haha) and calm down. None of the crochetys have said anything new. It's the same old tired worn out useless arguments. Smokers are goin' outside. Big deal. Who cares. Get over it.

0

Meatwad 6 years ago

notajayhawk says: "Here's a thought: Something like 20% of the population smokes. Why not allocate 20% of restaurant and bar licenses to smoking establishments?"

I'm cool with that.

0

Marion Lynn 6 years ago

beobachter:

Don't go where smokers congregate and you don't have a problem,

0

beobachter 6 years ago

notajayhawk, name says it all.Think the statement you posted says it all. " who's so self-centered and has such a sense of entitlement that they think they can impose their own preferences on others, that others' preferences take a back seat." This is exactly what smokers are demanding.

0

notajayhawk 6 years ago

hail2oldku (Anonymous) says:

"Damn it's always funny to see when someone can't come up with a legitimate point..."

You obviously wouldn't know a legitimate point if it was the one on top of your head.

Right now there are choices. The ban would remove choices. Now, tell me (since you haven't addressed a single point made here by theopponents of the ban other than to whine that your preferences, even if passing through a town, are more important than the preferences of the population of that town), how do you justify taking away other people's choices so you can have yours?

The reason I have so little patience with people like you is that I can't abide by anyone who's so self-centered and has such a sense of entitlement that they think they can impose their own preferences on others, that others' preferences take a back seat. If you expect to be treated cordially try having an iota of respect for others once in a while.

0

redjayj 6 years ago

I wonder how many people that support the ordinance are fat i say ban sugar chips and pop. fat people raise my premiums as much as smokers and are equally offensive in a resturant

0

Jcjayhawk1 6 years ago

Thank God for government intervention. I am so glad they are protecting me from myself. Without government I would have to decide if I want to go to a smoke filled bar or a non-smoking one. Voting with my dollar is a thing of the past. Thank you Kansas..............thank you!

0

hail2oldku 6 years ago

Damn it's always funny to see when someone can't come up with a legitimate point so they start belittling their opponent instead.

I'm all for letting you consume your cigar/cigarette/pipe. I won't even lecture you on what you are doing to your health. I'm just opposed to the smoker who thinks that it apparently doesn't matter what their habit does to my health. IF I have a choice, which is often not the case (props to those establishments in your little town that have chosen to go smoke free), I will go to a smoke free establishment when in areas without a ban, but when I am on the road and need to stop for a meal, even the non-smoking section of most eating establishments smells stale and often has second hand smoke wafting through. That means that I have no choice but to get my meal to go, or I drive on in search of a non-smoking establishment. Either way the exact same argument can be made for you, the smoker, who is by your own admission in the minority.

0

notajayhawk 6 years ago

And by the way, hail2oldku, since civics apparently wasn't your best subject, we don't live in a democracy, it's a constitutional republic. This means a couple of things. Unlike a pure democracy, it's not supposed to be a pure case of majority rules, it's supposed to be majority rule with minority rights. The 80% is not supposed to be capable of taking away the rights of the 20%. It also means that just as the federal government does not have complete control over what happens in the individual states, the state is not supposed to have unlimited control over the counties and cities. Maybe you're old enough to remember a little thing about Sunday liquor sales? It was only a few years ago, I suppose it's possible you were old enough to read back then.

If the people in my town can allow both smoking and non-smoking establishments, and both are patronized, and nobody loses their right to choose, what right do the people in JoCo, Lawrence, and Topeka have to tell us we have to change those arrangements?

0

BABBOY 6 years ago

Marion:

How is this exactly a liberal issue? Are conservatives suddenly the champions of civil rights in this country? If so, perhaps you can help those on the conservative right side of things with their selection of justices because none of the judges they support give a crap about civil rights. In fact, it is your type of justices that find this bill constitutional, not mine who would likely view it as a privacy violation. I am sure most liberals would accept a decision saying this infringes on privacy because of the bigger picture involved but the conservative types on the court are not going to make that kind of ruling and that is why all of this stuff is getting passed nationwide.

In other words partner, you did this to yourself....

On the flip side, I prefer smoke free bars and grilles. If this bills passes, the number of places available will increase dramatically. Thus, while opposed in principal, I am ecstatic with the result...

0

notajayhawk 6 years ago

Well, genius boy, since there are currently places (like where I live) that allow smoking and the ban would not permit them to do so, the apparently not. But it's okay, I realize you're a little slow on the uptake here. (God I hope your screen name doesn't mean they actually gave an idiot like you a diploma.)

0

hail2oldku 6 years ago

You're the dim one nota. You were the one telling me to drive to JoCo in order to avoid smoking establishments even though they didn't implement their ordinances until after Lawrence. You're the one who originally mixed the local and state issues so I was responding to YOU not the story which is about the STATE.

While we are on the state subject though, since it is "allegedly" a representative government (gawd I love how you use all those little quotation marks and asterisks) wouldn't those people that are discussing this be representing the will of the people in Brown, Ness, Ellis, Wichita, etc. counties?

0

notajayhawk 6 years ago

hail2oldku (Anonymous) says:

"And, duh, JoCo communities passed their ordinances after Lawrence did. And tell me again, why can't a smoker drive that 15 minutes out of their way and go to Topeka if they want to include tar and ash with their dining experience? Once again pot meet kettle, you are making the argument for us."

Okay, I realize you're not the brightest bulb in the lamp, but I'm pretty sure the "statewide" in the title of the story you're posting comments to includes Topeka. Moron.

And I don't have to drive to Topeka. The town in which I Iive has both smoking and non-smoking establishments. I have the choice and so do the non-smokers. Of course, if you get your way, we'll lose that choice, even though I doubt you ever set foot in our little town.

Even someone as dim as you obviously are can see that right now there is a choice, as there always has been, but a statewide ban would remove that choice, even in places where nobody has ever considered it a problem.

0

hail2oldku 6 years ago

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says:

Which means, duh, that non-smokers have choices. If the whiners who complained they had no choices before the smoking ban in Lawrence had driven fifteen minutes out of their way and spent their money in JoCo, then the restaurants in Lawrence would have been forced to follow suit. But the whining entitled brats can't go out of their way, can't be bothered having to actually do something to get what they want, they have to have the government take away any choice.

Talk about growing up - who's been calling who names?

And, duh, JoCo communities passed their ordinances after Lawrence did. And tell me again, why can't a smoker drive that 15 minutes out of their way and go to Topeka if they want to include tar and ash with their dining experience? Once again pot meet kettle, you are making the argument for us.

0

notajayhawk 6 years ago

hail2oldku (Anonymous) says:

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says:

"Mr. Pot, I'd like to introduce you to Mr. Kettle."

"Why is it that the 8o% (using your numbers not mine) that do not smoke have to bend over for the 20% that do?"

What a self-centered clown. That's the pot calling the kettle black? I said I was in favor of choice. I even said it could be allocated according to the percentage of the population to guarantee non-smokers had a choice. I even said smokers might have to pay more for their choice. Nobody has ever suggested that there should be a ban on non-smoking establishments, and it has never been that way. Smokers aren't insisting that they should be able to smoke anywhere, that they should be able to remove non-smokers choices. This ban is about removing choice, about the 80% enforcing their will on the other 20% because somehow they are entitled to go everywhere and have people follow their rules.

"The reality is that smoking regulations are spreading. Every city in JoCo now has similar regulations."

Which means, duh, that non-smokers have choices. If the whiners who complained they had no choices before the smoking ban in Lawrence had driven fifteen minutes out of their way and spent their money in JoCo, then the restaurants in Lawrence would have been forced to follow suit. But the whining entitled brats can't go out of their way, can't be bothered having to actually do something to get what they want, they have to have the government take away any choice.

If the people in JoCo want to have a smoking ban, let them. If the people in Lawrence want one, let them. What right do the people in Johnson County or Lawrence or Nebraska have to tell people in Wallace or Greeley or Wichita County, or anywhere else, that they don't have the right to trust their own citizens to make choices, that they can't allow smoking on the odd chance that a passer-by traveling through on their way to ski in Colorado insists on being able to stop for lunch there? Entitlement? Not a single smoker here has claimed any right to go to a non-smoking etsbalishment and light up. It's the non-smokers who insist on the right to go anywhere they want and make others accomodate them.

Grow up.

0

hail2oldku 6 years ago

And nota - in regards to your "Lawrence - 28 square miles of whining entitlement surrounded by reality"

The reality is that smoking regulations are spreading. Every city in JoCo now has similar regulations. KCMO's no smoking regs went into effect yesterday - and I do agree theirs is more resonable since it allows smoking in bars and other locations after 9:00pm. Nebraska is working on enacting a statewide ban as are many other states. It is the smokers that need to quit with the entitlement whining and face reality.

0

hail2oldku 6 years ago

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says:

You chose to live in Lawrence, and then somebody has a responsbility to run their business the way you want directly across the street so you don't have to go out of your way? Waah. What a bunch of entitled whiners.


Mr. Pot, I'd like to introduce you to Mr. Kettle.

Why is it that the 8o% (using your numbers not mine) that do not smoke have to bend over for the 20% that do?

0

notajayhawk 6 years ago

sonicstimuli (Anonymous) says:

"Everyone against the ban keeps saying, "If you don't like smoke, vote with your dollars and stay out of smoking bars." Let's think back before Lawrence had a smoking ban. Can you point out which bars I could go to that didn't allow smoking? Which establishment was I supposed to go to in order to show my support of drinking in a smoke free environment?"

Wah wah wah.

Why should I have to drive into Lawrence to get to a Target or a decent grocery store?

Why should I have to drive all the way to Kansas City to get decent Italian food?

Why isn't there an airport I can get to in five minutes?

What's with all these state office buildings being in Topeka instead of here it's convenient for me?

You chose to live in Lawrence, and then somebody has a responsbility to run their business the way you want directly across the street so you don't have to go out of your way? Waah. What a bunch of entitled whiners.

The reason you didn't have non-smoking restaurants in Lawrence before the ban is because all the while you were b*tching about it you kept flocking to the smoking restaurants and spending your money. Had you actually gone a few miles out of your way to spend your money elsewhere, the Lawrence businesses would have had no choice but to change. But why should you be inconvenienced when you can just get the government dictate your terms to everyone else?

Here's a thought: Something like 20% of the population smokes. Why not allocate 20% of restaurant and bar licenses to smoking establishments? Or why not charge a hefty additional license fee to allow smoking, like some places in the country do with extra hours? Then everyone has a choice. But that wouldn't be good enough for you folks, would it - you are so special that you're entitled to go to those 20% too, and force others to live by your rules.

Lawrence - 28 square miles of whining entitlement surrounded by reality.

0

its_getting_warmer 6 years ago

Hee, hee. Haw, haw. Hee, hee. Poor, poor, Marion. This is all just an effort by us to "control" him. And boy is it fun. Hee hee. Haw, haw. Those liberals in Olathe, and now in the State Capitol too!

Hee, hee. Haw, haw.

0

jafs 6 years ago

As a non-smoker, I have very much enjoyed the smoking ban in Lawrence.

Before the ban, there were many restaurants which I enjoyed for their food, but not for the smoky air.

Even with non-smoking areas, it seems that it is very difficult to provide clean air if there are smoking areas as well.

Why should smokers have a much wider choice of restaurants, bars, etc. than non-smokers?

0

hail2oldku 6 years ago

sonicstimuli (Anonymous) says:

Everyone against the ban keeps saying, "If you don't like smoke, vote with your dollars and stay out of smoking bars." Let's think back before Lawrence had a smoking ban. Can you point out which bars I could go to that didn't allow smoking? Which establishment was I supposed to go to in order to show my support of drinking in a smoke free environment?


Well there you go sonic, proof that everyone either needs to smoke or they were ok with breathing second hand smoke when they went out since there weren't any non-smoking establishments. (turn off sarcasm)

What I think is telling about all of this is the number of people that drive to Lawrence from Topeka (and JC before their cities implemented a ban) to eat/drink in Lawrence because they could do so without the smoke. Yes, those people are voting with their pocketbooks but there are others that for whatever reason (gas prices, poor eyesight, can't drive at night, etc.) that are unable to make that choice.

0

sonicstimuli 6 years ago

Everyone against the ban keeps saying, "If you don't like smoke, vote with your dollars and stay out of smoking bars." Let's think back before Lawrence had a smoking ban. Can you point out which bars I could go to that didn't allow smoking? Which establishment was I supposed to go to in order to show my support of drinking in a smoke free environment?

0

janeyb 6 years ago

Kansas Supreme court has said smoking bans are legal. Ban the smoking statewide and Lawrence businesses can quit complaining about how they are getting screwed. Kansas business will all be screwed together and people will be able to breathe. Interesting that it is the Kansas GOP that keeps proposing the bill in the legislature. When did they become the liberals?

0

The_Original_Bob 6 years ago

How many quotation mark flags can Marion/Nick Danger accumulate before he gets sent to the penalty box? He is even starting to mix it up by using these.

0

Harderfaster 6 years ago

Everybody makes fun of the ban, but you will all live longer because of it!

I can hardly wait to live longer!!

0

Marion Lynn 6 years ago

Again, more of the Loonies writing about things which I have not said, have no t implied and haven't even menttioned!

This is how the "liberals" spin; otherwise known as "how they lie".

They read like teenaged girls passing notes in class!

The problem is that so many people pay attentnion to the form rahter than the substance of what they have to say.

No really rational reasons why businesses should not be allowed to cater to those who choose to use a perfectly legal product, no real reason why smoking and non-smoking establishments should not co-exist other than the old "I have the RIGHT to go where I want so you have to cater to me!"

It is about control and only about control.

One day the "control" will be exerted on them and then anad only then, will they get the point but by then, it will be too late.

They can't or won't tell you why they would want to enter a smoking establishment but only why they "feel" why there should be none!

The entire problem would not exist if they simply stayed out of smoking establishments but they find themselves incapable of that because they have been taught by a failing educational system and a now failing sense of entitlement to place responsibility for their actions onto others.

You can smoke in this business, you cannot smoke in this business.

They are all about "choice" on some things but dictatorial on others.

Funny people "liberals".

0

Bob Harvey 6 years ago

I find it hypocritical of governments who want to ban a product as bad while happily and necessarily collecting millions of tax dollars from the very same folks they wish to restrict.

Where will all of those tax dollars come from when everyone quits smoking? Mirror, mirror on the wall.

0

Chris Golledge 6 years ago

Marion,

So, you'd just as soon do away with all laws regarding the health and safety of employees?

0

its_getting_warmer 6 years ago

Marion and his smoking logic.

Makes you wonder if nicotine isn't responsible for the logic holes in his brain.

Ha, ha, ha, ha.

0

misseve 6 years ago

my half a cent that i am sure will be ignored...

I am NOT a smoker but when i went to bars and clubs i expected to be surrounded by smokers. that was my choice. When i took my children out to eat i chose to go to places that did not allow smoking. In some places in KCMO they allow smoking for establishments that are bars and those places that serve food for the most part, you cant smoke there and for those that are both they allow smoking after 9 pm. to me this is more reasonable than an all out ban...

0

Marion Lynn 6 years ago

Notice how people come up with all sorts of completely imaginary scenarios and set up the strangest value systems instead of just making the choice to go to non-smoking establishments and saty out of those which permit smoking?

Shows that it ain't about smoking....it is about control; purely and simply.

0

Marion Lynn 6 years ago

Meatwad:

What compells you go enter a smoking establishment?

Are you possessed by an invisible smoking demon?

0

Meatwad 6 years ago

SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says: "You don't have to patronize to the private businesses that choose to allow smoking, you know."

By that logic, we need to allow smoke EVERYWHERE. So if you don't want to breathe carcinogens, you'll be free to avoid supermarkets, any and all offices, airplanes, busses, your doctor's office, as Setting says, you don't have to patronize those businesses.

Also, the only people who are against indoor smoking ordinances that I respect are those who fight for smoke to be allowed EVERYWHERE with NO exceptions, and also fight for restaurants to have NO health regulations whatsoever. If you believe that there should be NO health regulations of any kind for food, public places, airplanes, supermarkets, etc.... then I have no argument for you. you win the debate. But unless you want NO health laws at all, I have no respect for your argument because all you're doing is picking and choosing what health laws YOU want.

0

notajayhawk 6 years ago

Meatwad (Anonymous) says:

"I don't know what Marion is writing because I haven't read anything he's written for at least a year. If I want to continue to read and post, I have to skip over anything he writes. But I see that Jayhawks is responding (I'd read that but I'm sure it's the same arguments also - I already know them and agree with them): but thank you Jayhawks for being there, I know its frustrating to deal with certain mentalities, but someone's gotta do it."

Well, at least you're not being close-minded or anything. [groan]

0

Meatwad 6 years ago

I don't know what Marion is writing because I haven't read anything he's written for at least a year. If I want to continue to read and post, I have to skip over anything he writes. But I see that Jayhawks is responding (I'd read that but I'm sure it's the same arguments also -- I already know them and agree with them)... but thank you Jayhawks for being there, I know its frustrating to deal with certain mentalities, but someone's gotta do it. Indoor smoke is a menace and BIG DEAL if smokers smoke outside. A LOT of them don't even care if they have to smoke outside.

0

Meatwad 6 years ago

I hope it passes, even though it probably won't because of the backwardness of this state. Maybe we could for once look like a forward thinking state that is ahead of the curve (eventually it's going to be in every state), instead of our usual backward selves.

0

Arana 6 years ago

I have mixed feelings about the ban. As a nonsmoker I enjoy walking into a place and breathing. Yet all together it seems wrong to ban someones right to smoke. A restaurant, but a bar? Personally I think it should be the business right to decide. Before Lawrence had the ban I was able to find plenty of places to eat that weren't clogged with smoke.

0

Marion Lynn 6 years ago

notajayhawk:

The problem is that far too many people in our society today are incapable of functioning on even the most basic level without government "guidance".

They are sheepole; dependent on government to tell them the simplest things and control their lives.

They lead fear-based lives and rely on government to allieviate those fears.

0

notajayhawk 6 years ago

jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says:

"No business owner was "forced" to open an establishment in an environment in which the owner knew that they were subject to regulation in the public's interest."

But then, that's not what we're talking about, is it? We're talking about business owners who opened their businesses in an environment where smoking was allowed, and they had to choice to make at the time. Now, after they invested in the business and they made that choice, the government is stepping in and saying they have to change their business practices.

I live in a town where businesses are allowed to decide for themselves. We have bars and restaurants, some allow smoking and some don't. People can decide which to patronize, and if the business is adversely affected by those consumers making those choices, they are free to change. If a non-smoker wants to try the food at a smoking restaurant, or they are going out with a bunch of smokers who want to go to a smoking restaurant, they are free to decide if they want to go or not. Smokers are free to make the opposite choice, i.e. they can eat at a non-smoking etablishment as long as they agree to the fact that they can't smoke there. What's the problem? The non-smokers have plenty of places they can go to, why is it that they insist on some "right" to go to the smoking establishments too and tell the people who have been patronizing those places for years that they have to respect the wishes of a non-smoker?

0

mulitdisciplinary 6 years ago

shouldn't that have been: I'm

gonna

start

throwing

flags

for

"inappropriate"

and

"excessive"

"use"

of

"quotation"

"marks".

See

if

I

"don't".

Me wonders if someone hasn't hacked into snaps computer!

0

Marion Lynn 6 years ago

Jayhawks wrote:

"...... The ordinance does not deprive ANYONE of the core of a restaurant's purpose,,,,"

Marion writes:

The business owner sets the purpose, not you.

If the business owner sets the purpose to do business with smokers, you have no right to demand that the business owner change the biz to suit your petty needs.

0

Marion Lynn 6 years ago

Aw, snap, no one cares what you do or what you think.

0

Flap Doodle 6 years ago

I'm gonna start throwing flags for "inappropriate" and "excessive" "use" of "quotation" "marks". See if I "don't".

Also see: http://quotation-marks.blogspot.com/

0

jayhawks71 6 years ago

Marion, why do you get to decide which restaurant I can go to because you and your ilk decide to pollute the air with your death wash of smoke? You STILL get to go to ANY restaurant you want, smoker or not; you simply have a restriction placed on where you can partake in your habit. The ordinance does not deprive ANYONE of the core of a restaurant's purpose. Why can't you be a good neighbor and afford everyone the same freedom you STILL have? And really, ALL you are asked to do is take a few steps out the door. You get to smoke. I get to breathe. You get to eat a hamburger at your favorite establishment and so do I. You get to drink a beer and so do I.

See, some, maybe even many smokers are good citizens and understand the tradeoff and they go outside, ordinance or not... it isn't smokers that are inconvenienced by the ordinance, it is the lazy, self-righteous ones who can't simply be a good neighbor. If all smokers were as considerate as many are, there would be no need for such and ordinance. Once again, a few rotten apples giving off their poison.

0

jayhawks71 6 years ago

@Marion, you forgot one more "forced" comment...

No business owner was "forced" to open an establishment in an environment in which the owner knew that they were subject to regulation in the public's interest.

0

snowbird 6 years ago

Government gone wild

The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation - from sea to sea- has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed threat of "second-hand" smoke.

Indeed, the bans themselves are symptoms of a far more grievous threat; a cancer that has been spreading for decades and has now metastasized throughout the body politic, spreading even to the tiniest organs of local government. This cancer is the only real hazard involved - the cancer of unlimited government power.

The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or a phantom menace, as a study published recently in the British Medical Journal indicates. The issue is: if it were harmful, what would be the proper reaction? Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educating people about the potential danger and allowing them to make their own decisions, or should they seize the power of government and force people to make the "right" decision?

Supporters of local tobacco bans have made their choice. Rather than attempting to protect people from an unwanted intrusion on their health, the tobacco bans are the unwanted intrusion.

Loudly billed as measures that only affect "public places," they have actually targeted private places: restaurants, bars, nightclubs, shops, and offices - places whose owners are free to set anti-smoking rules or whose customers are free to go elsewhere if they don't like the smoke. Some local bans even harass smokers in places where their effect on others is obviously negligible, such as outdoor public parks.

The decision to smoke, or to avoid "second-hand" smoke, is a question to be answered by each individual based on his own values and his own assessment of the risks. This is the same kind of decision free people make regarding every aspect of their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to befriend or sleep with, whether to go to college or get a job, whether to get married or divorced, and so on.

All of these decisions involve risks; some have demonstrably harmful consequences; most are controversial and invite disapproval from the neighbours. But the individual must be free to make these decisions. He must be free, because his life belongs to him, not to his neighbours, and only his own judgment can guide him through it.

Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Cigarette smokers are a numerical minority, practicing a habit considered annoying and unpleasant to the majority. So the majority has simply commandeered the power of government and used it to dictate their behaviour.

That is why these bans are far more threatening than the prospect of inhaling a few stray whiffs of tobacco while waiting for a table at your favourite restaurant. The anti-tobacco crusaders point in exaggerated alarm at those wisps of smoke while they unleash the systematic and unlimited intrusion of government into our lives.

0

Marion Lynn 6 years ago

No one need be "deprived" of "breathable air" if they eschew smoking establishments.

See how easy that is?

Go to the non-smoking establishments if you like and leave the smoking establishments to the smokers.

0

jayhawks71 6 years ago

SettingTheRecordStraight, restaurants are public places. A public place is not something OWNED by the public (e.g., city hall, a city park), it is a place that by virtue of its existence is open to the public. Your claim has been made time and again that because restaurants are owned by an individual they are not "public" and therefore are not subject to regulation by government, that is, the people. By virtue of opening a business and agreeing to regulation, which restaurants do... they agree to have health inspections and OSHA inspections, for example, they have clearly agreed by their action (opening the business in light regulation) that they do NOT have an absolute right to do anything they want inside of said property. If they wanted to pay their servers 12 cents an hour, they could not do so even if the server agreed to take 12 cents an hour. This might not be right, but that is irrelevant here because the point is that they have agreed to abide by regulations. Finally, to address another tired old retort in advance...one's home requires an explicit invitation (e.g., opening ones door and stepping aside) to enter, a restaurant does not. A private club requires an explicit invitation, a restaurant does not. A restaurant is a public place. Stop playing semantics... If every restaurant required an explicit invitation to enter, rather than the implicit one that exists, most would go out of business.

0

jayhawks71 6 years ago

Guardian, the "people" had a chance to vote. In fact, the anti-ban people circulated a petition in 2004 and gained enough signatures to hold a referendum and then THEY withheld the signatures and disenfranchised everyone that signed the petition. If you want to talk about acting in an undemocratic manner... telling people that if they signed, that would lead to a vote on the ordinance... and then...oops... they changed our mind. They essentially LIED to all those who signed the petition.

Why oh why did they do this? The reason is simple, they knew that they would lose the vote and then, once the ordinance had been validated through referendum, overturning it would require a Herculean, and probably illegal, effort. The number of people they needed to get a public vote was something like 10% of the people that had voted in the previous election (i.e., about 3800 signatures... they had 5000). The people wanted to speak. They were quieted by the misleading efforts of the aforementioned group.

The story is here: http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2004/dec...

Marion, why don't you champion a new effort to get a vote if you believe so strongly in democracy and the "right" to choose whether you have a right to do something that violates the rights of others by depriving them of breathable air.

0

hawkperchedatriverfront 6 years ago

marci says the sales taxes have increased at bars and restaurants. but overall the city sales taxes have decreased, guess we need more bars, more bars please, and leave the butts outside on the ground..thanks marci, you are a dear!

0

Jim Phillips 6 years ago

My whole issue with the ban is that the government thinks it has the power to do it just because it can. Look, I really don't care if cigarettes are banned or not. Put it to a vote and let the majority rule. This is supposed to be a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people", so let the people decide. I think the chances are good that the ban will still pass, but "Big Brother" has been taken out of the equation.

0

Flap Doodle 6 years ago

snap writes:

because

we

enjoy

watching

you

get

all

frothy

at

the

idea

of

a

state-wide

ciggie

ban.

Still

having

a

wonderful

un-outed

internet

life

.

0

Marion Lynn 6 years ago

No one is "forced" to work in a smoking establishment.

No one is "forced" to enter a smoking establishment.

No one is "forced" to opereate a smoking establishment.

Why are addtional laws necessary?

0

jayhawks71 6 years ago

Oh here we go again! Same ol' Marion spouting off his demands... does this place ever change?

Marion, are you really up in arms about the wood smoke being spewed into the atmosphere? If not, take your red herring and get a real argument. Wood smoke being released into the well-ventilated outdoors is not at all similar to a smoking restriction ordinance (calling it a ban is silly, it is not banned) designed to keep people from venting their carcinogenic irritant into an enclosed area. You want to claim that there is similarity to bolster your argument, but it is nothing more than a red herring. Is wood smoke being spewed and issue, perhaps it is, but all you would do is play the fascism card if people demonstrated the extremely rational consistency in behavior that you are trying to lure.

0

Chris Golledge 6 years ago

Well, it would free the business owners from having to tick off customers. (The legislature would shoulder that burden.)

But more importantly, cigarette smoke is a known toxin and someone has to work in the businesses. You shouldn't be forced between taking a job and taking care of your health. I'm kind of surprised that it hasn't fallen under an occupational health standard already.

0

beobachter 6 years ago

might want to check out non-smoking laws in KY before you sound off.

0

gccs14r 6 years ago

Maybe we should encourage all the nation's smokers to move to Kentucky. Both nonsmokers in Kentucky can then move anywhere they like.

0

Marion Lynn 6 years ago

Yes, Kieth and tragically now the lyrics you posted typify the "liberals" these days.

0

SettingTheRecordStraight 6 years ago

Eride,

It's not apples to apples. So the question remains: Can reasonably-informed, free-willed consumers avoid private businesses who choose to allow their patrons to smoke? A: Yes!

I, for one, am for far less government interference in the affairs of private business. Our culture is already over-regulated. Advocates for more governement over-reach in matters of commerce likely have Noam Chomsky books on their shelves.

0

Keith 6 years ago

You left out your favorite part:

Maggie comes fleet foot, face full of black soot, talking that the heat put, plants in the bed but the phone's tapped anyway, Maggie says that many say they must bust in early May, orders from the DA. Look out kid, don't matter what you did. Walk on your tiptoes, don't try, 'No Doz.' Better stay away from those that carry around a fire hose, keep a clean nose, watch the plain clothes, you don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows.

0

jonas 6 years ago

Damn! I missed my spread!

Marion in 4 comments or less, 3 to 1.

But alas, number 5.

0

Marion Lynn 6 years ago

Funny how the once so liberal "liberals" have come to be about control more laws and repression of freedoms.

"I don't like what you do, so you can't do it anywhere; even if all there agree on what they are doing. I don't like it!", say the New Liberals.

This is not what we were about all those years ago and as Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and he is us!"

"Ah get born, keep warm Short pants, romance, learn to dance Get dressed, get blessed Try to be a success Please her, please him, buy gifts Dont steal, dont lift Twenty years of schoolin And they put you on the day shift Look out kid They keep it all hid Better jump down a manhole Light yourself a candle Dont wear sandals Try to avoid the scandals Dont wanna be a bum You better chew gum The pump dont work cause the vandals took the handles!"

0

mulitdisciplinary 6 years ago

Phil Bradley is accustomed to everyone listening to him. Will he outweigh Marci's voice? (It's not LHS anymore Phil.)

0

Windlass 6 years ago

I feel a sin coming on.

0

its_getting_warmer 6 years ago

Marion, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

0

Pilgrim 6 years ago

RETICENT_IRREVERENT (Anonymous) says:

Why does this have to go through the legislature?

Can't Bremby just make a ruling?


I'll bet he thinks he can. (Fool)

0

Pilgrim 6 years ago

Eride (Anonymous) says:

You want to talk about rights, how about the rights of people to NOT breath in toxins and carcinogens?


You have every right to not patronize those places that allow smoking, and I should have every right to patronize them as they are if that is my choice.

The nanny state out of control. I hear Taps being played for individual choice and responsibility.

0

Marion Lynn 6 years ago

"Signs, signs, everywhere a sign..........."

0

Eride 6 years ago

" Anonymous user

SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says:

Eride,

You don't have to patronize to the private businesses that choose to allow smoking, you know. "

This is the same argument that has been used against all regulation of business. It hasn't worked in the past and it still doesn't work now.

You can use the same exact argument to argue against the requirement of food handling requirements for restaurants. "Well you can just choose to patronize those restaurants who care enough to follow health codes to prevent the spread of disease." Or maybe laws that safeguard employees from undue exposure to other forms of noxious airborne toxins. "You can just choose not to be employed there."

I mean seriously, when you type that kind of argument how do you NOT realize how asinine it sounds?

Your logic is flawed.

Does indoor smoking pose a risk to those who breath

0

rachaelisacancer 6 years ago

I'm a smoker for a smoking ban, but mainly because I need more motivation to not smoke (as addicts can attest to).

But as a whole, how can Kansas justify a statewide smoking ban when they won't support a statewide safety belt law?

Both smoking and not wearing your seat belt can result in the injury or death of others. Both can pile up huge economic costs for the entire state. Yet when someone says, "Wear your seat belt" the people say, "No way, Jose, you can't tell me what to do." And when someone says,"You can't smoke in here" the people say, "Oh yes, it's very important that we not endanger others."

Why is that?

0

Marion Lynn 6 years ago

What about the wood smoke which often hovers over Downtown as the result of the unregulated smokers and wood-fired ovens used by several restaurants?

Wood smoke is far more toxic than tobacco smoke and I hear no wailing about "second-hand" wood smoke!

0

hail2oldku 6 years ago

SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says:

Eride,

You don't have to patronize to the private businesses that choose to allow smoking, you know.

Not Eride, but yes I know I don't have to patronize a place that allows smoking. Why, though, should I have to avoid public places - city parks, Truman Sports Complex, downtown Lawrence - because people choose to "share" their second hand smoke with me?

0

beobachter 6 years ago

it is not solely a private business if it serves the public.

0

Defender 6 years ago

"You want to talk about rights, how about the rights of people to NOT breath in toxins and carcinogens?'

You already have this right. It's called not going where smoke is.

0

SettingTheRecordStraight 6 years ago

Eride,

You don't have to patronize to the private businesses that choose to allow smoking, you know.

0

RETICENT_IRREVERENT 6 years ago

Why does this have to go through the legislature?

Can't Bremby just make a ruling?

0

The_Original_Bob 6 years ago

That's comedy. The Casino lobby is so far deep into these cats that they are exempted from the ban. Same thing is happening in KCMO. They want to ban smoking except for the casinos.

0

Eride 6 years ago

It was only a matter of time. Why anyone believes it is fine if they submit other people to toxins and carcinogens is beyond me.

If you want to smoke fine, just do it in a place that doesn't harm everyone else around you. You want to talk about rights, how about the rights of people to NOT breath in toxins and carcinogens?

0

Raider 6 years ago

These "leaders" in our legislature just crack me up. They want a state wide smoking ban because of clean air concerns, yet they are dead set on building these coal-fired power plants, regardless of what they do to our health/environment.

Kansas: Where your lobbying dollar goes a LONG way!!

0

Flap Doodle 6 years ago

That would be the Tex Williams version.

0

SettingTheRecordStraight 6 years ago

"Under the proposal, smoking would be prohibited in public places such as restaurants, bars and businesses."

But these are not "public places"! They are private businesses who have a right to not have government intefere to such an extent with their activities.

0

SettingTheRecordStraight 6 years ago

I hate smoking, but I hope this bill dies in the House. A sacrifice of personal liberty for what some consider convenient is a bad idea every time.

0

autie 6 years ago

hey snap. Would that be the Ray Benson version?

0

Flap Doodle 6 years ago

Ban, ban, ban that cigarette!

BTW

,

still

having

a

wonderful

internet

life

.

0

Marion Lynn 6 years ago

Lariza anda rdave13:

Do you mean to tell me that folks in Indiana make CHOICES as to where to spend thier dollars?

People in Indiana do not feel compelled by unseen forces to enter smoking establishments?

Could it be that in Indiana the Free Enterprise system works?

0

autie 6 years ago

Now I discern the great conspiracy. Ban public smoking. Build coal fired plants in Holcomb. All the smokers move to Finney County so no will notice their smoke! Economic development in action. it is all just as clear as the western Kansas sky.

0

rdave13 6 years ago

Lariza: I just moved here from Indiana recently and you are very, very correct. Everyone there smokes everywhere ...nonsmoking resturants in Indiana are few and far between....and packed!!!

0

Windlass 6 years ago

As the crow flies....death to freedoms.

0

Jake Esau 6 years ago

Go for it! I miss Lawrence's smoking ban now that I'm in Indiana... I swear everyone here smokes.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.