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.
More like this
- Committee revives statewide smoking ban bill 6 comments / March 25, 2008
- Bill would let counties decide bans on smoking 34 comments / January 30, 2008
- Board of Regents asked to put weight behind proposed statewide smoking ban 4 comments / October 14, 2009
- Legislators hear new reason for why a smoking ban is good for Kansas 58 comments / January 20, 2009
- Discussion due 3 comments / March 31, 2008
Top ads RSS
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Blog: How Has Obama's Stimulus Helped You? November 21, 2009 · 101 comments
- One dead after car-motorcycle accident near 27th and Missouri November 27, 2009 · 22 comments
- Obama to promise 17% cuts in U.S. emissions in next decade November 26, 2009 · 69 comments
- Anger control November 27, 2009 · 24 comments
- Turbine manufacturer passes on Lawrence site November 24, 2009 · 115 comments
- Blog: Malthus Vs The Pope November 27, 2009 · 2 comments
- 3-step approach to health care reform November 27, 2009 · 22 comments
- Letter claims bad conditions at juvenile facility November 27, 2009 · 19 comments
- Kansas Athletics seeks football fans to invest $34M for Gridiron Club November 27, 2009 · 38 comments
- Fear tactics November 27, 2009 · 27 comments
- Atomic veterans gaining recognition March 28, 2009
- Message warns students at Perry-Lecompton not to attend class today April 20, 2007
- Santa arriving in Downtown Lawrence Friday night November 27, 2009
- NFL roundup: Broncos back on track November 27, 2009
- Where but in Lawrence? November 21, 2009
- Tennessee Tech coach thankful November 27, 2009
- FBI agent, KU alumnus to speak at Lied November 27, 2009
- Kansas Athletics seeks football fans to invest $34M for Gridiron Club November 27, 2009
- New trial sought for 1992 murder case November 28, 2009
- Technology Association sets luncheon November 25, 2009
24 March 2008
at 1:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Larzia (Jake Esau) says…
Go for it! I miss Lawrence's smoking ban now that I'm in Indiana… I swear everyone here smokes.
24 March 2008
at 2:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
rdave13 (Anonymous) says…
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!!!
24 March 2008
at 2:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
autie (Anonymous) says…
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.
24 March 2008
at 2:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
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?
24 March 2008
at 2:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
Ban, ban, ban that cigarette!
BTW
,
still
having
a
wonderful
internet
life
.
24 March 2008
at 2:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
autie (Anonymous) says…
hey snap. Would that be the Ray Benson version?
24 March 2008
at 2:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…
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.
24 March 2008
at 2:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…
“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.
24 March 2008
at 3:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
That would be the Tex Williams version.
24 March 2008
at 3:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Raider (Anonymous) says…
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!!
24 March 2008
at 3:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Eride (Anonymous) says…
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?
24 March 2008
at 3:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
The_Original_Bob (Anonymous) says…
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.
24 March 2008
at 3:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RETICENT_IRREVERENT (Anonymous) says…
Why does this have to go through the legislature?
Can't Bremby just make a ruling?
24 March 2008
at 3:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…
Eride,
You don't have to patronize to the private businesses that choose to allow smoking, you know.
24 March 2008
at 3:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Defender (Anonymous) says…
“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.
24 March 2008
at 3:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
beobachter (Anonymous) says…
it is not solely a private business if it serves the public.
24 March 2008
at 3:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hail2oldku (Anonymous) says…
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?
24 March 2008
at 3:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
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!
24 March 2008
at 3:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
rachaelisacancer (Anonymous) says…
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?
24 March 2008
at 4:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Eride (Anonymous) says…
“
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
24 March 2008
at 4:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
“Signs, signs, everywhere a sign………..”
24 March 2008
at 4:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mulitdisciplinary (Anonymous) says…
Phil Bradley is accustomed to everyone listening to him.
Will he outweigh Marci's voice?
(It's not LHS anymore Phil.)
24 March 2008
at 4:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
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!”
24 March 2008
at 4:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas (Anonymous) says…
Damn! I missed my spread!
Marion in 4 comments or less, 3 to 1.
But alas, number 5.
24 March 2008
at 5:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Keith (Anonymous) says…
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.
24 March 2008
at 5:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…
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.
24 March 2008
at 5:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Yes, Kieth and tragically now the lyrics you posted typify the “liberals” these days.
24 March 2008
at 5:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gccs14r (Anonymous) says…
Maybe we should encourage all the nation's smokers to move to Kentucky. Both nonsmokers in Kentucky can then move anywhere they like.
24 March 2008
at 6:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
beobachter (Anonymous) says…
might want to check out non-smoking laws in KY before you sound off.
24 March 2008
at 6:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cg22165 (Anonymous) says…
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.
24 March 2008
at 6:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
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.
24 March 2008
at 7 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
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?
24 March 2008
at 7:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
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
.
24 March 2008
at 8:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Oracle_of_Rhode (Anonymous) says…
Ban the cancer, please.
24 March 2008
at 8:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Guardian (Anonymous) says…
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.
24 March 2008
at 9:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
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.
24 March 2008
at 9:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
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.
24 March 2008
at 9:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
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.
24 March 2008
at 9:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snowbird (Anonymous) says…
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.
24 March 2008
at 9:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
@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.
24 March 2008
at 9:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
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.
24 March 2008
at 9:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
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/
24 March 2008
at 9:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Aw, snap, no one cares what you do or what you think.
24 March 2008
at 9:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
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.
24 March 2008
at 9:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mulitdisciplinary (Anonymous) says…
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!
24 March 2008
at 9:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…
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?
24 March 2008
at 10:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
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.
24 March 2008
at 11:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Arana (Anonymous) says…
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.
24 March 2008
at 11:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Meatwad (Anonymous) says…
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.
24 March 2008
at 11:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
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. 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.
24 March 2008
at 11:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…
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]
24 March 2008
at 11:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Meatwad (Anonymous) says…
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.
25 March 2008
at midnight
Suggest removal
Permalink
mulitdisciplinary (Anonymous) says…
Here's what's happen in the UK. Cigarettes to be sold “under the counter”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main….
25 March 2008
at 12:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Meatwad:
What compells you go enter a smoking establishment?
Are you possessed by an invisible smoking demon?
25 March 2008
at 12:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
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.
25 March 2008
at 1:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
misseve (Anonymous) says…
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…
25 March 2008
at 8:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cg22165 (Anonymous) says…
Marion,
So, you'd just as soon do away with all laws regarding the health and safety of employees?
25 March 2008
at 9:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Pleiku (Anonymous) says…
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.
25 March 2008
at 9:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
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”.
25 March 2008
at 10:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
The_Original_Bob (Anonymous) says…
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*.
25 March 2008
at 10:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
janeyb (Anonymous) says…
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?
25 March 2008
at 10:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
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?
25 March 2008
at 10:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hail2oldku (Anonymous) says…
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.
25 March 2008
at 11:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jafs (Anonymous) says…
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?
25 March 2008
at 2:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…
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.
25 March 2008
at 2:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hail2oldku (Anonymous) says…
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?
25 March 2008
at 2:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hail2oldku (Anonymous) says…
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.
25 March 2008
at 3:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…
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.
25 March 2008
at 3:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hail2oldku (Anonymous) says…
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.
25 March 2008
at 3:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…
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.
25 March 2008
at 4:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hail2oldku (Anonymous) says…
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?
25 March 2008
at 4:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…
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.)
25 March 2008
at 4:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BABBOY (Anonymous) says…
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…
25 March 2008
at 4:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…
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?
25 March 2008
at 4:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hail2oldku (Anonymous) says…
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.
25 March 2008
at 5:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jcjayhawk1 (Anonymous) says…
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!
25 March 2008
at 5:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
redjayj (Anonymous) says…
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
25 March 2008
at 5:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…
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.
25 March 2008
at 5:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
beobachter (Anonymous) says…
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.
25 March 2008
at 7:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
beobachter:
Don't go where smokers congregate and you don't have a problem,
25 March 2008
at 11:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Meatwad (Anonymous) says…
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.
25 March 2008
at 11:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Meatwad (Anonymous) says…
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.