Health policy leader fighting for statewide smoking ban
The state's chief health policy leader isn't giving up on her fight for a statewide smoking ban. Enlarge video
The state's top health policy leader said Wednesday that her group plans to ask state legislators again next session for a statewide smoking ban.
Marcia Nielsen - executive director of the state-appointed Kansas Health Policy Authority - said the fact legislators won't be facing re-election in 2009 may give a ban a better chance of winning approval. A smoking ban proposal this year failed to make it to the floor of the Senate or House for a vote.
"I've certainly heard that next year could be a better year for it," Nielsen said.
But Nielsen - who was in Lawrence on Wednesday to speak at a Lawrence Memorial Hospital leadership retreat - said the fate of a statewide smoking ban likely will be determined in the next few months.
"I think a lot of it depends on the work that stakeholders do this summer and fall to elevate the issue in the minds of legislators," Nielsen said. "It is one thing for legislators to hear about a ban while they are in Topeka, but if they don't continue to hear about it all year long, it makes it easier for them to ignore."
Lawrence in 2004 became the first city in the state to implement a citywide smoking ban in public places and in most indoor places of employment. A group of Lawrence citizens who pushed for the city ban has remained active in lobbying for a statewide ban, but local governments haven't joined that effort. For example, the City Commission annually delivers a list of legislative priorities to area lawmakers, but support of the proposed statewide ban didn't make the list. The city-appointed LMH board of trustees also hasn't taken a position on the statewide ban proposal.
Judy Keller - an LMH board member and an original supporter of the city smoking ban - said what legislators probably need most is time to study data about how smoking bans can improve health.
"When people have the opportunity to really review the data, it is a very compelling case," Keller said. "It has been shown that the two most important things we can do to improve health in Kansas is to reduce tobacco consumption and fight obesity."
But smoking ban proposals often have faced opposition from people who say they are an intrusion on individual rights, and from bars and restaurants that say the bans hurt their sales.
"There clearly are legislators who look at this as a local control issue," Nielsen said.
Nielsen, though, said her group - appointed by the governor and the Legislature to recommend health policy - likely wouldn't significantly change its proposal to legislators next year. In addition to the smoking ban, the Health Policy Authority also proposed a 50-cent increase in the state's cigarette tax to fund health initiatives. That proposal received little traction in the Legislature.
"It is incumbent on us to keep the drumbeat up," Nielsen said. "If you think you are going to get everything you want in a single legislative session, you haven't been around a session. My idea is to bring back a plan that is shockingly similar to what we just proposed."
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
storm (anonymous) says…
Here's the best solution....because smokers got to smoke in public for the last 70 years then have a statewide smoking ban for the next 70 years . They can chew their toenails instead. Thank you Ms Nielson.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
Smoking in public should be allowed if the smoker eats the ciggie butts.
BigAl (anonymous) says…
Harderfaster. You can't have it both ways. First, the "liberals" were blamed for banning smoking in public places and now you say that "liberals" won't ban cigarettes because of taxes.Which is it? And by the way, I agree, let's legalize pot.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
snap writes:marioni, are you referring to your own stinking pit of a 'forum' that only you & enforcer & cool read?Stillhavingawonderfulinternetlife.
SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) says…
More government telling us what to do. Too bad.
BigDog (anonymous) says…
The state won't totally ban cigarette sales because they themselves are addicted to the $120+ million they receive in tobacco taxes.The Health Policy Authority needs to prioritize items if they want to move forward health issues in Kansas. Last year their proposal had 21 items at a cost of $85 million in state funds. They refused to prioritize these items and presented them as a package to the legislature expecting them to pick what they liked from the package.This group was formed to advise the legislature on health issues ..... next year please advise them on what are the top health issues in priority order.
whatatown (anonymous) says…
JESUS! When are you non smokers going to quit taking hits on us 'others'! I would have thought for sure that there would be some new complaint since we've had our ban in effect for so long. Blame the city government for the ugly appearance of cigeratte butts laying on the ground on Mass Street. There need to be more public ashtrays, or some that were given to bars upon the initial passing of our city ban. I personally carry around a butt-collector, but maybe I will start throwing them down on the ground out of spite for you whiners. For the rest of you- if you don't like the smell of cigeratte smoke, get a bubble to live in. I don't like the smell of perfume after people douse themselves but you don't hear me complaining! There's a lot of things I don't like- for instance paying for YOUR childrens education, paying for the West side of town to get a new 'calming island', paying for Kasold to be lit up like a ball-field every night, having a family sat beside me in a resturaunt and parents not being able to control their kids, thus ruining the meal of everyone in the surrounding area of a resturaunt. Now there's an idea! Let's give up a smoking ban and get a state-wide public child ban!
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
"Blame the city government for the ugly appearance of cigeratte butts laying on the ground on Mass Street."Nope, a piece of burning garbage does not become the responsibility of the city just because a smoker may have the manners of a spider-monkey.
Confrontation (anonymous) says…
whatatown=proof that all smoking leads to paranoia.
LA_Ex (anonymous) says…
Man would I love to see a statewide smoking ban. My wife and I are more likely to visit a restaurant or bar in Lawrence because of it. And on the rare occasion we do travel out of town to eat/drink/listen to music, we are immediately reminded of how much nicer it is to stay in town.
Buggie7 (anonymous) says…
I think this is stupid....In restraunts anyway and bars. I believe it should be left to the owners of the establishment should be able to say if its non smoking or smoking. If they believe that smoking hurts business then put up no smoking signs. It should be their choice and the non smokers can decide whether they want to go to that establishment or not. I know a place that is not doing well since this ban in Lawrence and the non smokers are not supporting their business like they said they would. Also in the bars? I mean come on people history in bars tells you they have alcohol and smoke if ya dont like it go somewhere else. I know im gonna get a lot of haters on this one but OH WELL