Advertisement

Archive for Sunday, December 19, 2010

GOP may push for repeal of state smoking ban

December 19, 2010

Advertisement

— After years of struggle, smoke-free advocates got the necessary votes during the last legislative session to win approval of a statewide ban on indoor smoking in public places.

The ban, which took effect July 1, prohibits smoking in restaurants, bars, workplaces and other indoor public spaces.

But that victory may go up in smoke next year.

Opponents of the ban have been heartened by the results of the November election, which saw an increase in the number of conservative Republicans sent to the House, and say the law may be changed when the Legislature reconvenes in January.

Rep. Brenda Landwehr, R-Wichita, said she will push for a bill that repeals the ban and substitutes it with a proposal that duplicates statewide an ordinance that had been in effect in Wichita prior to the statewide ban.

That ordinance allowed smoking in a business if they paid a fee and built a separate room and ventilation system.

Landwehr said the statewide ban has been detrimental to lots of businesses, especially bars.

“Some are struggling,” she said.

Landwehr said some bars have lost lucrative pool tournaments because of the smoking ban.

And, she said, the exceptions in the law are hypocritical.

The gaming floors of state-owned casinos and some private clubs are exempt.

“That is just so wrong,” she said.

Gov.-elect Sam Brownback, a Republican who takes office Jan. 10, has said he opposes the statewide ban. He said the smoking policy should be left up to local units of government. He has also said the state should lead by example and ban smoking in state-owned casinos.

“That smoking ban ought to be on the state facilities and leave the other issues to the local control,” Brownback said during the campaign.

Supporters of the statewide ban said the exemptions were compromises needed to get the bill passed.

Dr. Jason Eberhart-Phillips, Kansas state health officer and director of health in the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, said he isn’t sure if there is enough momentum to alter the statewide ban.

Smoking bans, he said, have an almost immediate positive effect on public health by reducing heart disease and cancer.

“We will continue to make that case,” Eberhart-Phillips said. Plus, he said, when smoke-free is society’s “default” position, “that sends a powerful message to our adolescents that smoking is really not a cool adult thing to do.”

Mary Jayne Hellebust, executive director of the Tobacco Free Kansas Coalition, said she was not aware of any state that passed a smoke-free law and later repealed it. Once the laws are in place, the public generally likes them, she said.

“We have not encountered any huge push backs,” Hellebust said. “At this point, as with any law, once it goes into effect, the majority of people abide by it. People really do like going places that are smoke-free.”

Jerry Neverve, owner of the Red Lyon Tavern, 944 Mass., said he was ambivalent about revisiting the smoking issue.

The city of Lawrence had a prohibition on indoor smoking for years before the statewide law took effect.

Neverve said he believes the ban cost him about 20 percent of his business. Before the ban, he said, he employed 18 people; now, 11.

“You just do what you can and adapt,” he said.

He said a law, such as Landwehr’s, that would require a separate ventilation system was probably unrealistic for his bar and other smaller-sized establishments.

“I can’t imagine a lot of people putting in a whole new system,” he said.

Comments

MichaelJMcFadden 3 years, 3 months ago

Hmmm.... neither "Seeker of Truth" nor "Cayenne" seem to have been able to come up with any substantive criticisms of the "Lies" booklet noted above. Anyone else? - MJM

0

MichaelJMcFadden 3 years, 3 months ago

Seeker, those aren't claims, those are references of actual fully-referenced individual studies showing how their design, interpretation,and reportage have been distorted to promote the goal of smoking bans. As I said: if you have any specific substantive criticisms of anything in there, feel free to come back and share them here.

  • MJM
0

seeker_of_truth 3 years, 3 months ago

All I see are a bunch of claims not supported by any real facts.

0

MichaelJMcFadden 3 years, 3 months ago

Cayenne said to SMartin: "Provide a source for your claim that they're lying and someone may believe you"

OK Cayenne, how about "The Lies Behind The Smoking Bans" at:

http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/PASAN/StilettoGenv5h.pdf

You'll find a number of studies referenced and analyzed there and you'll be able to see perfectly well how they lie. If you have any substantive criticisms of anything in "The Lies..." please feel free to come back and expose them here. I am open about who I am, what my "competing interest" might be claimed to be, and I stand firmly behind every word that I write.

Michael J. McFadden, Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

0

WIpatriot 3 years, 3 months ago

Politicians are no longer leaders, they are followers, and this lands squarely on their heads. That will change with real leadership elected into office recently. Much like the global warming scam, the second hand smoke scam has become like a religion for the extremists and beyond. It's blossomed so big it's now considered fact. Unless, of course, you do a little digging. You'll find out that it is exactly like global warming. All are financed by an entity that stands to gain huge profits. In the case of SHS, it's Pharma, makers of their own nicotine brands. I say it's time to take SHS to trial. Then lets see who wins, Pharma or our citizens and business owners who've been robbed of their right to run their business without a scam taking away their rights! Anyone bowing to this charade should be very ashamed of themselves!

0

WIpatriot 3 years, 3 months ago

One of the 5 main things the Constitution guarantees is that this nation protect property rights (from smoking bans) and earnings (taken for tobacco control), yet this uneducated government would take away the rights of tobacco companies and privately owned businesses. It seems that tobacco control believes that they are in charge of the Constitution these days. We The People did NOT give tobacco control this power, and it's time to take it away from them!

0

WIpatriot 3 years, 3 months ago

One of the 5 main things the Constitution guarantees is that this nation protect property rights (from smoking bans) and earnings (taken for tobacco control), yet this uneducated government would take away the rights of tobacco companies and privately owned businesses. It seems that tobacco control believes that they are in charge of the Constitution these days. We The People did NOT give tobacco control this power, and it's time to take it away from them!

0

WIpatriot 3 years, 3 months ago

You walk down a street you see a building. It's just a building. But when you walk into the building and you see the energy and ingenuity of the owner. Since tobacco control stepped in to take over, we have lazy, covetous marauders dictating how an owner should run their business. The mob dictating their preferences on someone who put their energy and hard work into something others could enjoy as well. The smoking ban is an attack and deprives owners of property, which IS the fruits of labor, especially if they cater to smokers who make up 1/3 of the population! A U.S. Supreme Court judge once said "It's not the right OF property which is protected, but the right TO property, sacred from arbitrary interference.” Our nation’s founders would be appalled!

0

Scott Morgan 3 years, 4 months ago

I'm waiting. Smoking. Nasty, another persons problem. Even the wrong conclusion by Merrill and others smokers do not pay their way has few freedom fighters.

Tell me how many of you realize our lakes and forests have been regulated to the point a law abiding nature loving citizen can't really enjoy. Unless you wish to show your tag (papers to a uniformed govt. employee) be directed to a site, given the rules of the area next to a loud Winnebago, and honestly does anybody really enjoy this?

How many generations does it take before citizens forget little joys of life like walking alone on a beach have vanished. Libs love the wonderful novel Fahrenheit 451. Perhaps they need to rethink the theme.

0

Scott Morgan 3 years, 4 months ago

merrill, when do you plan on drawing a line in the sand and demand government stop taking away your freedoms? When the feds take over the internet? No, they would never do that, would they?

Take anything government get their paws on. For example.

Our founding fathers would freak out if they knew in 2010 a law abiding citizen could not make a campsite on a local lake. The Corp of Engineers stole those freedoms just in the last generation like a cat burglar. Heck, in the next decade the Corp may make it illegal just to look at them.

0

Richard Heckler 3 years, 4 months ago

Removing the ban will not be an attraction to new industry. It will cost all employers located in Kansas more money for medical insurance.

0

bobberboy 3 years, 4 months ago

are the koch brothers in to selling cigs now ?

0

beatrice 3 years, 4 months ago

Is the GOP trying to lock in the addict vote for 2012?

0

Scott Morgan 3 years, 4 months ago

Pace, nice post. No the war on drugs is not working. What perhaps will bring sanity is when we can't afford to clog up courts with expensive low level drug cases. Believe I read where some CA courts are refusing to hear small amount of weed cases. No change in philosophy, just budgets.

I think any smoking ban will eventually go to this on private property.

Trickle down so to speak. Weed smokers realize it's still illegal so don't flaunt, cops realize to stay away from recreational users, DA's ignore or slap hands, and the issue melts into one of many laws still on the books, but ignored. Worked well back in the day for several states. Get whacked with 5 lbs, you be in jail. A couple of ounces a warning, or in some cases the small fine. It was a 5.00 fine where I went to school and I don't remember seeing anyone openly smoking in front of cops or such.

off topic

In 2010 no patient recovering from anything should suffer pain or other side effects which can be medically helped. If a patient is suffering the MD is at fault.

0

Kash_Encarri 3 years, 4 months ago

Interesting that even SPAIN is enacting a ban. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40765714/ns/world_news-europe/?Gt1=43001

As the article points out, they have a reputation as a country being easy on smokers.

0

pace 3 years, 4 months ago

I wasn't thinking of medical marijuana as a pain killer. I hadn't heard it was good for the pain in the late stages of cancer. My mom died from cancer and we didn't consider it for her, As she said, "well the good thing about my diagnosis is I don't need any treatment, I am a goner". She caught it late. My only personal experience was when a woman I knew was fighting and it helped her keep the food down, she used cookies. nibbled them. Chemo was really hard work and it really was a battle between wasting and lasting. She won. I don't know your experiences or information sources. There are many conditions that marijuana help. I just glanced at the wickapedia item on it and you are right, some people think it helps with pain too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_... As for distribution and misuse of it, I am sure you are right in that some people have jumped into the pool without their "suits" but I haven't heard the nightmare you describe. My friends in 'ca. say it is working but those same friends think the war on drugs is not working. I was talking about republicans in Kansas because that is what we have here and the topic was the republicans wanting to repeal the state wide ban on cigarettes.

0

Scott Morgan 3 years, 4 months ago

Pace, name a name or vote where a Republican voted real true, not the wink wink haha let's bypass laws and make weed legal by faking it as medical use. Marijuana is legal as a medicine, although by far not the best in cancer cases. Or, is cancer pain just an excuse to make it easier to get an illegal substance?

Have you followed how the California weed laws have backfired? Everything detractors claimed would happen, happened.

BTW.......why not make it legal anyway. At this time it isn't and we must follow our laws. Just blaming one party or the other is not the answer now.

Yes Pace I have held love ones in my arms as they passed from cancer. None I sat with could smoke a bong full of weed. Dangerous with the oxygen tanks around too.

0

Richard Heckler 3 years, 4 months ago

Brownback agenda:

Waste time and increase medical insurance profits......

0

pace 3 years, 4 months ago

I think the ks republicans wanting to repeal the smoking ban so they can drink booze and smoke comfortably is deeply hypocritical.Tthey have a strong stance against medical marijuana. Maybe if they hung out less at bars and spent some time visiting the sick they would have different priorities. Booze, cigs, aren't the only ways to ease the economy. Medical marijuana eases suffering. Ever try to keep some needed nurishment in a cancer fighter? It is a better fight than making sure someone can smoke while they belt some down.

0

Scott Morgan 3 years, 4 months ago

Worked for the government, worked in private industry. Private industry treated me much better, watched out for my well being.

When can we expect common sense from our legislators? That's what most folks I associate with wish for. Just common sense.

0

IndusRiver 3 years, 4 months ago

Realistically, smoking bans are designed to criminalize a legal product and the legal use of that product. Hence, millions of Americans smoke and roughly thousands more children smoke but their product of choice is typically not of the adult variety. Where you smoke could put you that much closer to being placed under arrest unless I'm mistaken. This smacks of a Soviet society so I guess we are there now.

Furthermore some doctor's instruct their patients to not go outside in extreme heat and/or extreme cold so, apparently, smoking bans have the prevailing authority to overturn a physicians order.

To say the least, if harmful smoke in the air is destined to define your life's destiny then it may be best for you to avoid most of the world, which is polluted thanks to carbon emissions.

In the end, we as people don't know what will kill us, however, these backers of the smoking bans appear to have assumed for their selves a knowledge beyond God that they do, in fact, know.

Kudos to the clowns! They're here.

0

Scott Morgan 3 years, 4 months ago

beatrice, I think our government passes far too many nitpicky regulations. The costs always are passed to the consumers. Remember, this comes from a cold heart Republican. In the areas of food production and distribution new regs are directly hurting the poor.

I've seen a few winters in my day. Lets not time travel to 1910, but how about 1950. Never heard of mass illnesses regarding food before a few years ago. Just think of the salmonella problems. Massive. Yet, every year we add regs which bring up the purchase prices of essential food items.

Ever read a can of peas? I realize Jenny Jogger wants to know exactly how many calories are in her mayo. Sally mom o Three wants to stretch every dollar she has to feed and clothe her children. She could care less if her peas are free range or too salty.

Give the consumer a choice. Bert Biker can purchase his expensive researched carrots, the rest of us can save some pennies for the pursuit of happiness.

Another example of over regulation.

People working in closed heating/cooling buildings are hacking/sneezing like sick weasles. Talk about disgusting. Every year it gets worse, and like a river Washington regs keep coming. Of course common sense and science teaches us fresh air is good for us. Yet, most building do not have windows a person can open. Energy conservation is the excuse. I wonder if anybody has done a study on the long term effect of breathing stale air year after year?

Just think about it for a second. Government does an excellent job at air quality, then forces us inside to breath pollution.

0

pace 3 years, 4 months ago

i just used your list of gibberish. If it doesn't make sense, that is on you. I thought maybe you were writing some of that cranky poetry that tea party people use.

0

TopJayhawk 3 years, 4 months ago

Let's take a look at liberal social causes just in my memory: 1)The danger of global cooling. 2) The danger of ozone depletion. 3)The danger of having a gun in the home. 4)the danger of global warming. 5) The danger of second-hand smoke. All based on lies, or at least shabby science.
All based on fear, notice the commonality of the D-word? 'Nuff said?

0

Armored_One 3 years, 4 months ago

I admit.

I'm going to be lazy.

Can anyone cite a research study done in the last 25 years that shows what the actual rate of chemical transferance is from the smoke that is produced by the burning of tobacco and the inhalation rate of the average human being of the "second-hand" smoke exhaled by the primary smoker?

Also the absorbtion rate of the chemicals by that primary smoker, and the concentrations that occur in a "standard" sized enclosed area?

I never managed to find any, but then again, like I said, I am being lazy right now.

Oh, and while we are on the topic of online researching, could someone please post the tax revenue that was brought in by the state the year before the bans started and the current fiscal projections? I'm curious as to whether there is a noticable drop, which might account for the hundreds of millions of deficit in the state budget.

I still find it slightly amusing/curious that these medical professionals can't find a cure for the flu, or the cold, but they can state with absolute authority that smoking causes this ailment and that ailment, but enviromental hazards are not included in any of their studies.

I'd call it food for thought, but what's the point?

0

yourworstnightmare 3 years, 4 months ago

I opposed the smoking bans in Lawrence and at the state level. However, I must say that I appreciate smoke-free restaurants. I like smoke free bars, but I wouldn't mind if smoking was allowed in bars.

Smoking is a matter of personal responsibility and freedom. However, it is absolutely established that smoking causes increases in health care costs and thus on insurance premiums.

I guess if we as a society can handle the increases in our insurance premiums, then light 'em up.

0

pace 3 years, 4 months ago

I quit smoking, it was tough, I think smoking was hard on my health and body. My husband never smoked. I like smoke free restaurants. I don't happen to drink and don't usually go to bars. I nor my husband support a state wide smoking ban. I find it ridiculous to make a law telling an owner of a business that he/she or the employees can't smoke inside their own place, they have to go outside.

I do know it is unfair to employees they have to choose between being in smoke or having a job. I had a boss at the xxx who didn't like me, he didn't like anyone who wasn't a crook or a fellow drunk. . I had just quit smoking and he could only meet me when he was on break, and he would accidentally blow smoke in my face. If that wasn't convenient, he would see me next week. Employees have a choice to work in a smoking environment or not but it is hard to tweak paying your bills or putting up with someone's smoke. I think smoking in government offices or places where the public needs to go for service should be prohibited , but cafes, bars, privately owned shops, it should be up to the owner.

0

dogsandcats 3 years, 4 months ago

Repeal the ban and allow businesses to choose whether they allow smoking. If anyone really believes that a non-smoking business would do better, this would allow for new businesses to open and choose to be non-smoking. Then we'll see which businesses do better. And if all the smoking ban proponents are right, maybe my favorite places which would then allow smoking will not be as crowded.

0

CorkyHundley 3 years, 4 months ago

Give the emotional Democrat clan whatever they want if it means they will leave normal people alone. Better yet. Ban all cigs and watch what they do when their gravey train of tax dollars disappears. They'll probably double the prices for a ride on the T.

Unfortunately, it is not in their genetic makeup to leave normal people alone. Harvard says they have the RDR 4 gene that makes them the way they are.

0

smartin1955 3 years, 4 months ago

First Nationwide Study Finds No Link Between Smoking Bans and Reductions in Heart Attacks Jacob Sullum | December 20, 2010

Last year, criticizing a CDC-commissioned report from the Institute of Medicine that endorsed highly implausible claims of immediate, substantial reductions in heart attacks resulting from smoking bans, I noted that the authors had ignored the most comprehensive study of the subject, which found no such effect. Now that study, which at the time of the IOM report was available as a working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research, has been published by the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. Instead of looking at small cities with volatile hospital admission numbers—the M.O. of studies that linked smoking bans to dramatic reductions in heart attacks—the authors of the new study, led by Kanaka Shetty of the RAND Corporation, used nationwide data to see if smoking bans were associated with changes in hospital admissions or mortality. "In contrast with smaller regional studies," they write, "we find that smoking bans are not associated with statistically significant short-term declines in mortality or hospital admissions for myocardial infarction or other diseases." In fact, "An analysis simulating smaller studies using subsamples reveals that large short-term increases in myocardial infarction incidence following a smoking ban are as common as the large decreases reported in the published literature."

Since 2003, when activists began claiming that workplace smoking bans immediately cut heart attacks by 40 percent or more, I've been saying that some jurisdictions will see such drops purely by chance, while others will see no change or increases of similar magnitude. Before you can say that smoking bans are associated with short-term declines in heart attacks (leaving aside the biological plausibility of such a link), you have to show that the first phenomenon is more common than the other two. Anti-smoking activists such as Stanton Glantz, preferring to cherry-pick examples that fit their theory, have never done that, and now we can plainly see why: It isn't true. Although heart attacks do decline in some places with smoking bans, there are just as many places where they rise. On average, the difference between jurisdictions with smoking bans and jurisdictions without smoking bans is essentially zero.

0

smartin1955 3 years, 4 months ago

If your research fails to show an adverse effect of an environmental exposure on human health, then your research is apparently no longer "aligned" with the mission of the Department and School....As soon as you obtain negative findings and report them, you have deviated from the School's mission and you are at risk of being fired....

Is there no room for a difference of opinion in a public health institution? Must all faculty members [toe] a certain party line, regardless of what their research shows?

(This is what happens when you WON'T lie)

0

smartin1955 3 years, 4 months ago

Epidemiologist Fired for Reporting Unhelpful Results Jacob Sullum | August 19, 2010

James Enstrom, an epidemiologist who has worked at the UCLA School of Public Health for 34 years, was recently fired, supposedly because his research "is not aligned with the academic mission of the Department [of Environmental Health Sciences]." As Michael Siegel notes, this rationale is patently false. The department's official mission is to "explore the fundamental relationship between human health and the environment," and that is exactly what Enstrom has done. The problem is not that he tackled the wrong questions; it's that he came up with the "wrong" answers. Specifically, he has failed to find a connection between exposure to fine particulate matter and disease. Worse, he is a prominent critic of the view that such a connection is established well enough to justify new regulations by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). He has not only criticized the evidence underlying the proposed regulations but has made trouble by pointing out that a key CARB staffer, Hien Tran, had falsified his academic credentials and that a UCLA colleague who supports regulation of fine particulate matter, John Froines, had served on a scientific panel that advises CARB for 25 years without being reappointed every three years, as required by law. Froines, who has publicly ridiculed Enstrom, participated in the faculty vote recommending his dismissal. Enstrom's popularity among his colleagues was not enhanced by his work on secondhand smoke, which also failed to generate politically correct results.

These circumstances have led observers such as Siegel, Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters, Bakersfield Californian columnist Lois Henry, epidemiologist Carl Phillips, and Jeff Stier of the American Council on Science and Health (where Enstrom is a trustee) to conclude that Enstrom's sacking was politically motivated. Siegel reviews Enstrom's impressive body of work dating back to 1975, which includes studies reporting positive as well as negative results (among them important research on the lifestyle factors that make Mormons less prone to cancer). Siegel concludes that Enstrom "has not been afraid to report the results of his research as they unfold," an openness to evidence that clashes with what appears to be the true mission of his former department:

The mission of the Department of Environmental Health Sciences is not to "explore the fundamental relationship between human health and the environment." Instead, its mission is to show that fine particulate matter pollution and other environmental exposures adversely affect human health.

0

smartin1955 3 years, 4 months ago

1- Go to the Kansas Watchdog site or the Wichita Voice for Liberty and see the "

Fuzzy Science of Second Hand smoke" story. You can WATCH Eberheart lying!

2 Go to Kansas Health Insitute site and see the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Funding for the pro ban agenda.

3 Go to Tobacco Free Kansas site and see the RWJF funding.

4 Go to American Cancer Society and see the RWJF funding.

5 You don't know how many students you have at KU?

#6 People are PAID to lie. They get grant funding to do it. Especially Lawrence. THey have no problem lying since they are not required to testify under oath. (Ask your Dr Meyers why HE thinks that this newspaper, and no other newspaper would print the correction to his Heart Attack Study, and he, and the media KNEW it had been corrected.

7 The Kansas Health Insitute is a lobby group.

8 The American Cancer Society is a lobby group, and is sitting on a $1.6 billion interest earning savings account. That money could help alot of poor sick people. They do not give money to help the sick, they give themselves million dollar paychecks, while volunteers hand out snacks, brochures, and give rides to sick people.

8 Business losses are VERY well documented. Eberheart and the Kansas Health Insitute lied about that too. Massive info on ban losses from Michigan, South Dakota, Illinois, Ohio, Ireland, Greece, and now Kansas. (Now they say it's alright that these businesses are failing. It's for the common good. This after they shouted from the rooftops that businesses were not hurt by bans!)

10 Dr Barnett and Parkinson pushed the ban. Dr Barnett got beaten in his bid to go to Washington. That was a massive effort on the part of a thousand small business people, their families, friends, and customers. We know how much bullying and blackmail went into forcing the ban vote in the House and Senate.

11 You can repeat the propaganda until you are blue. It does not change the facts. THe pro ban, multi billion dollar industry is simply a well orchestrated marketing campaign to sell nicotine replacement products for the Johnson and Johnson "family" of companies, through their "philanthropic arm", Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

12 NO ONE wants tobacco banned. The Cancer SOciety, the Heart or Lung Associations, (who also receive massive grant funding from RWJF) the Surgeon General, (she is on the Board of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation!) Tobacco Free Kansas, the State of Kansas, the federal government. Not ANYONE, ANYWHERE! Banning the selling of tobacco would result in the collapse of the nicotine replacement product market AND completely stop the myraid of grant spongers who live off the pro ban funding. THEY would be out of work with the tavern owners! COOL!

13 Let's stop being hypocrites! Let's have the bought off with pro ban ad money media tell both sides of this story. The WHOLE truth. Then, if we want tobacco banned, we shall ban the selling of it statewide. Easy, yes?

0

monkeyhawk 3 years, 4 months ago

I have posted this info before, but it apparently fell on deaf ears since most people want to believe any lies or distortions that scientists and other authority mongers come up with. I personally cannot stand cigarette smoke, but I cannot stand power trips and control freaks even more.

“Secondhand smoke debate ‘over.” That’s the message from the Surgeon General’s office, delivered by a sycophantic media. The claim is that the science has now overwhelmingly proved that smoke from others’ cigarettes can kill you. Actually, “debate over” simply means: “If you have your doubts, shut up!”

First consider the 1993 EPA study that began the passive smoking crusade. It declared such smoke a carcinogen based on a combined analysis (meta-analysis) of 11 mostly tiny studies. The media quickly fell into line, with headlines blaring: “Passive Smoking Kills Thousands” and editorials demanding: “Ban Hazardous Smoking; Report Shows It’s a Killer.”

But the EPA’s report had more holes than a spaghetti strainer. Its greatest weakness was the agency’s refusal to use the gold standard in epidemiology, the 95 percent confidence interval. This simply means there are only five chances in 100 that the conclusion came about just by chance, even if the study itself was done correctly.

Curiously, the EPA decided to use a 90 percent level, effectively doubling the likelihood of getting its result by sheer luck of the draw.

Why would it do such a strange thing? You guessed it. Its results weren't significant at the 95 percent level. Essentially, it moved the goal posts back because the football had fallen short. In scientific terminology this is know as “dishonesty.” http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelFumento/2006/06/29/killing_the_passive_smoking_debate

0

thuja 3 years, 4 months ago

Dig a hole, fill it in. Repeat. P.S. You get paid for this.

0

spacemonkey 3 years, 4 months ago

Well this repeal just goes to prove the point even more that the Republican's do not car about the health and well being of the people.

0

Joe Hyde 3 years, 4 months ago

If a statewide fee is imposed on restaurant and bar establishments, who collects the fees from these businesses and how will that money be spent? And if all restaurants and bars must build a separate smoking room (or area) along with installing a dedicated ventilation system to remove smoke, who inspects and approves these areas for structural and HVAC compliance? And what is the penalty for non-compliance?

Also, wouldn't the complications inherent in this "ordinance substitution" necessitate the state creating a new bureaucratic structure (or expanding the size of an existing one) to tabulate fee payments, conduct inspections and enforce compliance? If so, given the state's economic challenges we can infer that the regulatory enterprise would be chronically under-funded and under-staffed, likely resulting in mission failure to protect the public safety in this important health matter.

It just seems to me that the present statewide smoking ban is the easiest, cheapest and best way to go. This proposal to repeal and replace it with something more complex amounts to watching your German Shepherd chase its tail while squirrels eat up his dog food.

0

smartin1955 3 years, 4 months ago

I thought you folks in Lawrence were the educated people. Eberhart-Philips lied to the Health and Human Services Committee. I was there. Several other pro ban propagandists lied about the KU Study on Heart Attacks. (It was corrected WAY down 5 monthes before the testimony, but pro ban is so arrogant, and they were not required to testify under oath, so they just lied away about businesss losses and health effects) They were not required to testify WHERE their funding originates, Johnson and Johnson nicotine replacement company. It was a circus of liars. People from the Kansasa Health Insitute, which is NOT a Kansas governmental agency, lied along with the rest. They also receive funding from Johnson and Johnson to lobby for smoking bans.

I realize it drives you control freaks CRAZY to think that someone is sitting in a bingo hall or or bar, smoking and having fun with their friends, but just get OVER yourself! And no, they are not killing busboys. These tiny businesses do not have busboys.

You all can come up with more balderdash! The world is not warming, at least not until spring, and no one forces anyone to be around where people are smoking. Not in bars. Not in pool halls.

Last time I checked we were supposed to be a free country, where people had rights to assemble, and rights in their own property. We all know that Lawrence is the most progressive, MOST inhabitated by grant spongers, town in Kansas. Try, for one day, to mind your own business. I know that will be difficult, but just TRY.

When Sam gets in you can keep your local smoking ban. You have 40,000 new customers regularly. Out here in the REAL world we have customers we have served for 30 years. And they smoke. And not one has fallen over dead, and not one bartender has. So please, get a grip on your imagination. We are trying to save businesses out here, and provide revenue to the State.

0

BABBOY 3 years, 4 months ago

Republicans:

They give you the right to blow smoke in other people's face, but will not acknowledge the right of a women to chose what to do with their own body.

That is why I hate republicans. Blow smoke in my face and see what happens........

0

Scott Morgan 3 years, 4 months ago

beatrice, the busboy can make a choice as well. Last I checked the voting public rejected Socialism.

0

Richard Heckler 3 years, 4 months ago

Republicans know how to give the medical insurance industry one more excuse tp increase medical insurance rates.

Not too smart!

0

macon47 3 years, 4 months ago

its mainly just old folks that smoke just shoot em oops , they are the only ones left paying taxes the others are on the dole never mind

0

Scott Morgan 3 years, 4 months ago

Excuse me, but I thought Republicans were the party taking away individual rights.

Tisk tisk, smoking affects others. Tisk task, our nation promises pursuit of happiness so if you don't like smokey bars then do not patronize them.

Sounds pretty simple to me.

0

begin60 3 years, 4 months ago

Race you back to 1954, but hey wait, seems like things in KS have been standing still since before then anyway!

0

Doppleganger 3 years, 4 months ago

Legalize marijuana because that smoke is good for you. Everybody knows that certain kinds of smoke is good for you.

0

Joe Blackford II 3 years, 4 months ago

Rep. Brenda Landwehr, R-Wichita, said she will push for an ordinance to allow smoking in a business if they paid a fee and built a separate room and ventilation system.

& Indoor Plumbing, too? What will the Fire Marshall post as capacity for 2 stalls & a urinal? I see an eco devo future for unisex restrooms with coaster dispensers here in Aggieville.

0

finance 3 years, 4 months ago

If this is repealed, I'm leaving the planet--happily. Wait, no cheering. What a bunch of dorks: repeal a law that prevents all of us from choking on foul, filthy air? What kind of idiot would even articulate such a stupid idea and believe he/she would get a standing ovation? Well, I guess we know: GOP. How many things can we invent to describe what GOP stands for? None of them good, of course. Jeez. Stupid, stupid, stupid, GOP. Enough said.

0

ignati5 3 years, 4 months ago

The state could use the revenue from increased tobacco sales.

0

adagio 3 years, 4 months ago

This ban needs to stay in effect!

0

mr_right_wing 3 years, 4 months ago

mr_right_wing say:

relax, don't do it.

0

Raymond Munoz 3 years, 4 months ago

I'd like to invite folks to see some of the oral pathology books we have at the dental clinic. If you saw the effects of smoking on your oral health, you'd want to stop, or at least try to stop!

0

zzgoeb 3 years, 4 months ago

Repeal the healthcare reform bill, repeal the smoking ban...now there's a great plan for the medical cabal and rich investors! You Go Governor Sam!!!

0

macon47 3 years, 4 months ago

the only reason i would support this is because the state has admitted the no smoking policy hurts business, with exempting thier casinos.

the businesses would have never had the problem in the first place if they would have spent the money for effecient smoke eaters instead of waiting and hiding behind the law

i dont like screaming kids , thats why i dont go to walmart or mcdonalds.

i never did figure out why non smokers felt the need to go to every bar and bowling alley to whine

0

Slowponder 3 years, 4 months ago

Would someone ask Brenda for a light? What rational businessperson is going to spend the $$ to pay a fee to Brenda and then pay for a separate air system and ducting? Note there are scant details on the amount of the fee. Anyone who does a rudimentary cost/benefit analysis is going to figure out the cost outweighs the benefit.

Posing this as a liberal vs. conservative or tobacco vs. social conservative misses the point of Brenda's loony proposal. This is to make a governmental buck off of an addiction. Brenda's final solution is just crass.

0

Robert Kiefer 3 years, 4 months ago

Good! I guess someone read both the ban as written, & the constitution on the same day. At least the GOP can see through the smoke!

0

tomatogrower 3 years, 4 months ago

I say go ahead and get rid of the ban. Then Lawrence can keep theirs, and start an advertising campaign to entice those who were happy with the ban. Then people can travel from all around to continue to enjoy their smoke free environment, and they can rake in the dough. The motto could be "Breath easy in Lawrence.".

yourworstnightmare, Social conservatives or liberals? Who is responsible for this ban? You conservatives are really confused on this issue, aren't you?

0

yourworstnightmare 3 years, 4 months ago

Social conservatives versus tobacco. Now this is a battle I will watch.

0

beatrice 3 years, 4 months ago

They banned smoking at gas pumps first. They should start there.

0

sputum 3 years, 4 months ago

Vitamin N is good for you even if is second hand. Studies have shown that babies who receive vitamin N in large doses starting at an early age are far less likely to need health care after the age of 60.

0

deskboy04 3 years, 4 months ago

Nice to see some efforts to increase personal freedom.

0

SamShaw 3 years, 4 months ago

heck we're all going to be sucking in coal fumes in a few years anyway. what's a few cigs gonna hurt?

0

yourworstnightmare 3 years, 4 months ago

Tobacco lobby versus social conservatives. Who will win?

Landwehr arguing for the rights of bars, where liquor is sold, drunkeness encouraged, and sex free-flowing?

I will just sit back and enjoy this one. I'm betting on the tobacco lobby.

0

SamShaw 3 years, 4 months ago

next on the agenda: asbestos, it's really not that that bad.

0

Flap Doodle 3 years, 4 months ago

You can never underestimate the ability of embittered and disappointed Democrats to be bitter and disappointed.

0

seeker_of_truth 3 years, 4 months ago

You can never underestimate the stupidity of Republican politicians and of those that vote for them.

0

irvan moore 3 years, 4 months ago

encourage smoking? wow, some of these politicians are even dumber than i thought.

0

Thinking_Out_Loud 3 years, 4 months ago

Between the budget and economic situations, the most important thing this group can find to spend their time on is the smoking ban? cheeseburger is right, I think. If the voters perceive that the representatives they elected in November are not addressing the correct priorities, there may be new representatives in two and four years.

0

generalsn 3 years, 4 months ago

Wisconsin, Michigan, and recently a few other states, are the first victims of the "new improved" ban. After several years, the ban lobbyists are finally learning something about bars. Notice on page eighteen of their instruction book, the update instructing their tax exempt political action committees lobbyists to avoid starting bans in the winter, as was done with many previous bans. This way the real effects won't be seen for several months, until it gets dangerously cold. In the meantime they can flood gullible news sources about how "successful" the ban is for business before winter arrives. Here in Chicago, many bars patiently waited the first year for these new customers, but as the second winter approached, and the fanfare faded into forgotten history, many small working class neighborhood adult bars (not family restaurants that serve alcohol) had to decide whether to allow smoking, or close. Most successfully got their regular patrons back before winter set in. The only time the snitchline is called is when someone gets 86ed, even from the bars that comply. No one cares. Here's their instruction book for their tax exempt political action committees, with the update on page eighteen;

http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/CIA_Fundamentals.pdf

0

kernal 3 years, 4 months ago

Unbelievable. This idiotic proposal may put KS in the negative news light once again. Thanks, KS GOP.

0

Edward Coan 3 years, 4 months ago

That's ridiculous. So they now have to spend a ton of money on ventilation systems which is probably not cost effective in getting a 20% increase in sales.

0

cheeseburger 3 years, 4 months ago

As a conservative, I am extremely disappointed in Landwehr and any others in the GOP who think the ban should be repealed. The voters overwhelmingly supported the GOP in November to get this country back on track, and repealing the ban is a huge step backward. Let's be progressive, not regressive.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 4 months ago

So, the Republicans have already identified an issue to distract from their utter inability to address real problems. There will be many more.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.