Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Smoking ban supporters rally in Topeka

April 29, 2009

Advertisement

— Supporters of a bill that would ban smoking in indoor public places blew out 400 “birthday” candles on Wednesday to symbolize the lives that they said would be saved each year in Kansas through the reduction of secondhand smoke.

“Everyone has the right to breathe clean, smoke-free air,” Kansas Department of Health and Environment Secretary Rod Bremby said during a rally that took place as the Legislature convened the wrap-up session.

Gay Cornell of Coffeyville, who works with the Cancer Action Network, said her father, Larry Conley, died at 34 from smoking. He had been a rodeo clown and bullfighter and “lived his life as a cowboy but died because he was the Marlboro Man,” she said.

House Bill 2221 — the Clean Indoor Air law — has been approved by the Senate but has been bottled up in the House.

Advocates are hoping that the House will vote on the measure during the wrap-up.

Supporters of the bill say too many people are forced to work in places where cigarette smoking is allowed.

“This issue’s time has come,” said state Sen. Jim Barnett, R-Emporia, who is a doctor.

Opponents of the measure say local jurisdictions should determine whether to ban smoking.

Comments

honestone 5 years, 7 months ago

I am not a smoker but I always worry about the State dictating how a businnes owner chooses to operate their business along with the State telling you which businesses you should frequent. Wouldn't it be better if you were allowed to decide for yourself if you want to go into that bar or resturant and the owner got to decide if they wanted to take the chance that the non-smoker would not come into their shop?? Just a thought...

scaramouchepart2 5 years, 7 months ago

Being a non smoker who now can enjoy dining out. If it were state wide it would be equal across the board. In Lawrence, despite the comments, the smoking ban hurt no business. The couple of businesses that went out of business were already on the way out and just didn't want to accept the blame for not providing a place people wanted to go.

Bossa_Nova 5 years, 7 months ago

i hear ya logrithmic, i got your back on this issue.

Bob031800 5 years, 7 months ago

Next up let's ban the sale and public consumption of alcohol, that will help us all be safe from drunk drivers, domestic abuse, assaults and battery, and people making a public nuisance of themselves...oh wait too many people drink and don't like their rights infringed on...okay let's keep after the smokers because they stink!

greenvera 5 years, 7 months ago

Government has to step in when we are being irresponsible. Bars and restaurants have the opportunity NOW to say that they do not want to be a smoking establishment. And in Topeka, they still choose to remain smoking. Therefore the people who are being wise about their health and choosing not to smoke have no options for smoke free restaurants. And the smokers who are not understanding the consequences for those around them let alone themselves, should not have the upper hand in this situation. Smoking should be banned in restaurants. It's not good for the people and if a business thrives off of its smoking negligent customers than they need to rethink their priorities. Again, business or lives. Which comes first? Quite frankly, my family chooses NOT to go out to eat in Topeka because of the smoking. I think we would eat out far more often (as we did in Lawrence after the smoking ban was passed) if the community was smoke free.
Business owners should run by two mottos, be responsible and care for your customers. Allowing smoking and the impact it has on others is purely irresponsible and financially driven. And it is clearly not empathetic toward the health and wellbeing of your customers. The government has to step in when we allow something so primitive and unhealthy to still take place in our restaurants because no one will do it themselves.

Practicality 5 years, 7 months ago

Lets see. . . . .

Logrithmic wants to ban cigerrettes for the public good but legalize drugs for his own enjoyment.

Can anyone say hypocrite?

Chris Ogle 5 years, 7 months ago

This is one smoker who wants to quit. Everytime I try, I end up so grouchy that I can't even get along with myself. Cigg smoke stinks... period. I air my house out all the time... trust me... it smells like smoke. My father passed away a few years ago.... he had lung cancer. I need to quit, quit, quit...

Eddie Muñoz 5 years, 7 months ago

"Next up let's ban the sale and public consumption of alcohol, that will help us all be safe from drunk drivers, domestic abuse, assaults and battery, and people making a public nuisance of themselves…oh wait too many people drink and don't like their rights infringed on…okay let's keep after the smokers because they stink!" -- This is not a good correlation, and the ban isn't because smokers stink it's because the cigarettes they smoke pollute the air around them.

snowbird 5 years, 7 months ago

Lives that would be saved from second-hand smoke? No one on this planet ever died or got cancer solely from second-hand smoke. Having said that, who in their right mind would believe anything Rod Bremby would say.

http://smokersclubinc.com http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com

kmat 5 years, 7 months ago

I am an ex smoker and you current smokers have no idea how disgusting you are. You won't until (if) you quit. I feel 1000% better than I used to. My health is so much better. You are fools to think you aren't doing harm to others.

xbus - try Chantix. That drug works miracles. After a couple of weeks, it is so easy to not smoke. It blocks the nicotine and gradually weans you off of it (as it builds up in your system). By the time you quit lighting up, you won't be jonesing for a smoke. In fact, if you smoke it tends to make you feel a little ill. And, you get wicked cool dreams while taking the drug. I would recommend it to any smokers.

Quit trying to say we need to ban alcohol if we ban smoking in enclosed, public spaces. You drinking only affects my health if you drink and drive (break the law). No one is saying you have to quit smoking, you just can't do it in enclosed public spaces. Puff away outside or at home all you want and kill yourself slowly.

Porchdog 5 years, 7 months ago

This is all very sad. We have been socially fractured, friends and families put at odds, persuaded to fight among ourselves about whether smoking is good or bad.

This battle, AND the bans, serve the cigarette industry, and the sold-out public officials who have for decades let the industry get away with literally murder by contaminating tobacco with some of the most deadly toxic and cancer-causing industrial substances on the planet...most importantly, the roughly 450 pesticides that are registered for this use, dioxin-creating chlorine contaminants (pesticides and the bleached paper), and radiation from still legal use of certain phosphate fertilizers. And that's not even to mention the added Burn Accelerants, addiction-enhancing additives, and hosts of kid-attracting sweeteners and flavors...not to mention (again) the fact that any number of low-end brands may not contain any tobacco at all but, instead, fake tobacco made from industrial waste cellulose. For one example, search up "US Patent 3,978,866" and ask your local "anti smoking" officials how they found dreaded tobacco smoke in that.

We should stop this battle and re-group to push for serious prohibition of ANY untested or toxic or carcinogenic or fire-starting, etc., non-tobacco substances in cigarettes. Who'd agree that that stuff should be there for a second? Otherwise we face the threat of ANOTHER crime causing, costly, socially destructive, prison filling Prohibition. It's Reefer Madness II.

We should ask why it is that Not One smoke-ban law yet has presented evidence about harms of smoke from plain, Un-Contaminated tobacco to justify bans on tobacco....and criminalization of those who think and are told their typical cigarettes are just tobacco. They are not, by miles.
To call a typical cigarette "tobacco" is to use cigarette industry marketing deceits. It is as patently absurd as it would be to call a newspaper a "Pine Tree" just because the newsprint came from tree pulp. Typical cigarettes are FAR more processed and adulterated than even that. So, let's call it what it is: Contaminated Tobacco, or Pesticide Saturated Tobacco, or Dioxin-Emitting Chlorine-Contaminated Tobacco. Surely smokers and non-smokers can join in condemning that....and condemning the govt officials who let it happen and never found the human decency to tell or adequately warn anyone.

Search up "Fauxbacco" for more...and also "Bill Drake Smoke and Illusion". for deeply relevant, rarely-discussed material…some even from the government itself, that ought be presented , in public, to the smoke ban crusaders.

Porchdog 5 years, 7 months ago

Someone wrote that banning smoking was a "workers' issue". Hardly. Where else does this corporate establishment have concerns for workers? No where. Jobs sent overseas, pensions "legally" stolen, job-safety rules fought at every turn, rights to associate and unionize are undermined, minimum wages way below living wage, etc etc...BUT, workers...without being asked if they want this favor....are to be "protected from smoke"...often even their own smoke. Workers, arbitrarily, are NOT protected from other indoor air pollutants...pesticides, chlorine cleansers and disinfectants, emissions from synthetic building materials, exhaust in auto shops and garages, saw dust, printer fumes and on and on. No...Just the "threat" tobacco smoke and their own behavior. This "protection" too often involves bodily searches for traces of nicotine, intrusions into privacy off the job, losses of jobs galore in shut-own bars and bowling alleys' etc, loss of tip income, endangerment while out in back alleys for smoke breaks, and endangerment from the new "job" of having to enforce smoking laws on customers. Workers are also well "protected" from information about heaps of non-tobacco toxins and carcinogens in typical cigarettes...and are "protected" from getting compensation from the cigarette makers who have used workers (and everyone, smoker and non smoker) as Guinea Pigs for their cigarette adulterants for many decades.

Workers need protection from these protectors. We all do.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.