Archive for Sunday, December 19, 2010

GOP may push for repeal of state smoking ban

December 19, 2010


— 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.


just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 5 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.

Robert Marble 7 years, 5 months ago

and of course, the democrats are doing such a stellar job addressing real problems eh?

davidnta 7 years, 5 months ago

Of course! Have you seen this Congress? Despite the negativity coming from the media and the Republicans, this Congress has been quite productive and President Obama got a lot of his agenda accomplished.

libertarianjim 7 years, 5 months ago

If they were in favor of repealing the pot smoking ban in the state, they could garner more support.

Bob_Keeshan 7 years, 5 months ago

For instance, a government ban on abortions...

And gay marriages...

And... well you get it.

TopJayhawk 7 years, 5 months ago

Kangaroo man. You can get abortions,. Straw man argument. This is a property rights issue. Let's just ban you.

John Hamm 7 years, 5 months ago

And you can get gay marriages - straw argument.

emceelean 7 years, 5 months ago

people deserve the opportunity to work in a smoke-free environment.

jafs 7 years, 5 months ago

Removing all workplace regulations doesn't "force" anybody to work at an unsafe workplace.

jafs 7 years, 5 months ago

And it doesn't mean they'll be safe either.

TopJayhawk 7 years, 5 months ago

You are the one who has failed to grasp the mening of the word freedom. It means you can do whatever legal activity you want without the Govenment interfering. You're basic misunderstanding of the word is a glimpse at what is wrong with liberals. Now, back in the livestock trailer with the rest of the sheeple.] You make my head hurt with your convoluted thinking.

7 years, 5 months ago

Ah, yes, another progressive conservative. What will they think of next?

kernal 7 years, 5 months ago

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

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 5 months ago

Liberals smoke pots and conservative smoke tobacco... What's the difference?

OzChicklet 7 years, 5 months ago

The difference is that no one has ever DIED from pot, but there is medical proof people die from smoking tobacco. I say, let the GOP smoke 'em if they got 'em...kill 'em off faster....

monkeyhawk 7 years, 5 months ago

"The difference is that no one has ever DIED from pot..'

...such an absurd statement, I could not let it go. I am not anti-pot by the way. I am pro-choice.

"Marijuana and Cancer

Consider these facts before you decide to smoke pot.

There are more cancer-causing agents in marijuana than in any other substance presently known to man. Crude marijuana contains more carcinogens (one hundred fifty more) and in greater concentration than tobacco.

One joint deposits four times as much cancer-causing tars in the smoker's airways as does tobacco smoke. Smoking three to five joints a week is equal in harmful effects to smoking 16 cigarettes daily. Smoking one joint a day is equal to a pack of cigarettes daily. Three joints smoked per week for three to six months carries the same probability of developing lung cancer as smoking a pack of cigarettes daily for 20 to 30 years.

Because the pot smoker tends to breathe in the smoke more deeply and hold it longer than the tobacco user, greater harm is done to the lungs. Five times as much carbon monoxide (associated with coronary diseases) is inhaled in marijuana smoke as in tobacco smoke."

Marijuana Smokers Face Rapid Lung Destruction -- As Much As 20 Years Ahead Of Tobacco Smokers

ScienceDaily (Jan. 27, 2008) — A new study finds that the development of bullous lung disease occurs in marijuana smokers approximately 20 years earlier than tobacco smokers.

overthemoon 7 years, 5 months ago

I'm a liberal (or so everyone says even though I think I'm pretty moderate) and I don't smoke pot.

kernal 7 years, 5 months ago

Yeah, right. You can also switch that around.

generalsn 7 years, 5 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;

Thinking_Out_Loud 7 years, 5 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.

irvan moore 7 years, 5 months ago

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

TopJayhawk 7 years, 5 months ago

You cannot overestimate the stupidity of the above statement, and of those that agree with it.
I believe in property owners' rightst to set their own rules. Anything else is curtailing freedom.

jafs 7 years, 5 months ago

Then bars, restaurants and private businesses should be free to discriminate in employment and customer base on the basis of race, gender, religion, sexual preference, etc?

Flap Doodle 7 years, 5 months ago

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

yourworstnightmare 7 years, 5 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.

kernal 7 years, 5 months ago

Sounds like a liberal's dream come true. Drugs, booze and sex. Oh, wait, I mean, sounds like a conservative's dream come true, but under the table.

deskboy04 7 years, 5 months ago

Nice to see some efforts to increase personal freedom.

LogicMan 7 years, 5 months ago

You jest?

Take a look at what natural Niacin is made from.

Ron Holzwarth 7 years, 5 months ago

"far less likely to need health care after the age of 60."

I think I get it - it's because they're dead!

beatrice 7 years, 5 months ago

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

yourworstnightmare 7 years, 5 months ago

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

tomatogrower 7 years, 5 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?

Jonathan Becker 7 years, 5 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.

cayenne1992 7 years, 5 months ago

"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."

You're very much correct. Quite a few localities already have bans in place. I'd be curious to know, if it were between her proposal and the existing ban, what an establishment would prefer. Her proposal will fail, and as a result, the ban won't likely be repealed.

zzgoeb 7 years, 5 months ago

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

Raymond Munoz 7 years, 5 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!

Scott Morgan 7 years, 5 months ago

How about looking at some MRIs of the overly obsessively workout freaks who don't see age creeping up on them. Some of those operations are not cheap. they pay replacement knee taxes? Do they pay extra for the monthly shoulder checkups on medicaid. Folks who choose to smoke pay heavy taxes for their health care.

How much does it cost medicaid when a doc tells an older person to slow down and they don't. Everybody knows a few types like this. Who pays for the hip replacement when gramps tries snow skiing the black trails. Not a week goes by when I find yet another story of grandma cracking up something.

Ever notice how many of the bikers look like death warmed over.

jafs 7 years, 5 months ago

At least with our experience with health care premiums, smokers aren't paying more than non-smokers.

I think they should be.

gudpoynt 7 years, 5 months ago

whoa. Are you really trying to compare the health care costs perpetuated by smokers to the health care costs of people remaining active as they age?

I'll let readers pause for a moment to consider the ludicrousness of that argument before proceeding to call it stupid.


That argument is stupid.

Bill Getz 7 years, 5 months ago

The state could use the revenue from increased tobacco sales.

finance 7 years, 5 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.

TopJayhawk 7 years, 5 months ago

Hey finance, you like being told how to live your life? Now that is stupid. Stupid is taking away individual rights. Stupid is wanting the government to tell you what to do. Stupid is willingly giving the Gooberment the opportunity to tell you what to do. Stupid is hiding behind health issues to take away rights. Stupid is trying to undo two hundred yrs of freedom.
Stupid is as stupid does.

gudpoynt 7 years, 5 months ago

Stupid is not being able to wrap a stupid mind around the very basic idea that any form of government is the VOLUNTARY relinquishing of certain freedoms in exchange for certain securities.

Stupid is looking at ANY form of government action and REFUSING to see ANY benefit simply because it is coming from the "gooberment".

Stupid is blindly going about your day enjoying the securities that government provides, oblivious to the freedoms your ancestors VOLUNTARILY gave up in order for you to have them, because they were smart enough to realize their benefits, and that absolute freedom for anyone to do anything wherever or whenever they want does not equate an advanced civilization.

Joe Blackford II 7 years, 5 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.

begin60 7 years, 5 months ago

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

Scott Morgan 7 years, 5 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.

beatrice 7 years, 5 months ago

sound pretty simple ... until you realize you just killed a busboy with your second hand smoke.

Sorry, but this issue isn't just about junkie patrons who might want to breath in their polluted air, it is about employees and their heath. You can't put the genie back in the bottle at this point. Jobs aren't exactly plentiful right now. You can't tell people who currently work in a bar / restaurant that they now must suddenly work in an environment that can kill them. If this happens, the state will be sued by many employees.

However, anything Kansas can do to take the spotlight for stupidity off my current home of Arizona, I'm all for it.

Richard Heckler 7 years, 5 months ago

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

Not too smart!

Scott Morgan 7 years, 5 months ago

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

notanota 7 years, 5 months ago

Socialism doesn't have anything to do with smoking ordinances.

gudpoynt 7 years, 5 months ago

Are you saying you value the employers right to reduce the safety of the busboy's work environment over the busboy's right to keep the job he's working at at it's current safety level?

and quit trying to out red-blood other Americans with the "We ain't no socialists" crap. It exhibits all the misguided frustration of a simpleton.

Scott Morgan 7 years, 5 months ago

A fallacy, more and more Republicans are pro-choice. Actually kind of a pun, Republicans are for more choices. Like Health care for instance.

There should not be a ban on smoking on private property, ever.

I do not smoke and hate the smell. I will not patronize businesses where smoking is allowed. What is this so hard for Libs to understand? I will not tell others who wish to do something completely legal to stop because I don't like it. Always always they bleat it's for the kids, it's for the environment, it's for the poor, and then rush some dim witted fix it scheme which always seems to backfire. Sadly the backfires result in situations like Detroit in 2010.

beatrice 7 years, 5 months ago

So what other health restrictions in the work place are you against? Should gas stations allow smoking at the pump? Should restaurants be allowed to store their rat poison with their food products? While you may not care for a healthy work environmment, others of us do.

TopJayhawk 7 years, 5 months ago

Babboy. Blow smoke up my arse and see what happens. Stupid post my man. A women can do as she pleases with her body. It's the body of the baby that causes the problem.

Sheila Martin 7 years, 5 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.

cayenne1992 7 years, 5 months ago

"I thought you folks in Lawrence were the educated people."

OK, yes, statistically speaking yes.

"People from the Kansasa Health Insitute, which is NOT a Kansas governmental agency, lied along with the rest."

Provide a source for your claim that they're lying and someone may believe you. Otherwise, you're not doing much for your argument.

"Try, for one day, to mind your own business. I know that will be difficult, but just TRY."

I believe your elected legislators enacted this state-wide ban, no? I'm almost certain Lawrence didn't cause the state legislators to enact the state-wide ban. Furthermore, this is only going to further become the norm. Read a little about smoking bans throughout the USA and other countries.

"Last time I checked we were supposed to be a free country, where people had rights to assemble, and rights in their own property."

Yes, those rights still exist. We also have health organizations to ensure that certain standards are met for the safety of patrons as well as fire codes, etc. Would you argue those restrictions violate the right to assemble? I'd bet you could dig and find that the courts have established those do not violate the Constitution--same for smoking bans.

"You have 40,000 new customers regularly."

Again, cite your sources. We educated folk need more than just emotional rants.

"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."

First sentence--do you think those of us living in a fake world haven't had the same customers for 30 years? Does that even make sense to say that you're situation is completely different from what's normal throughout the country?--no it doesn't. Your third sentence is likely false--I'd be willing to bet someone has, in fact, fallen over dead in some restaurant somewhere in the last 30 years. You may be trying to save business, but the smoking ban is not going to cause you to lose your business. You may think that it does, but you've provided no source or documentation to show that it does. Besides, when the entire state bans smoking, it's quite difficult for your patrons to eat elsewhere, since they'll likely face the same difficulty somewhere else in the state.

The reality is that smoking bans haven't caused businesses to fail (at least there's no documentation to suggest it has). Who's living in an imaginary world?

Get some facts and come back.

jafs 7 years, 5 months ago

I generally agree.

But it seems reasonable that smokers may choose not to patronize certain businesses if they can't smoke in them, just as the reverse may be true for non-smokers.

cayenne1992 7 years, 5 months ago

That's perfectly reasonable, yes. But leaping to the conclusion that businesses will fail as a direct result of a smoking ban is a far cry from this observation.

gudpoynt 7 years, 5 months ago

that's why a state-wide ban makes sense. It doesn't favor anyone in particular.

Putting a policy in place that allows smoking if a business a) has the capital to section off a part of their establishment, and b) pay the fees associated with a license, obviously only helps those who already have the money to do so, and would do nothing for a smaller business without the resources.

In fact, since those businesses that DO have the capital would then be able to cater to the smoking crowd, then the smaller businesses would probably lose that clientele, making it more difficult for them to compete.

Surprise surprise, a GOP policy proposal that favors those who already have more resources, does nothing for those who have fewer, and perpetutates inequity within industry. Shocker.

Joe Hyde 7 years, 5 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.

spacemonkey 7 years, 5 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.

monkeyhawk 7 years, 5 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.”

cayenne1992 7 years, 5 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"

Nobody wants to believe lies--well, perhaps some do, but most don't. To be honest, most people will struggle with the idea that being exposed to second-hand smoke causes absolutely no effect on a person's body, as you would suggest. I don't think it's hard to grasp that exposure to second-hand smoke is more harmful than no exposure to second-hand smoke. And, while all studies contain error, there's strong correlation to suggest second-hand smoke adversely affects one's health, regardless of the 90% confidence level. It's almost common sense.

You also lose me when you suggest that scientists are paid to lie. There's no grant funding tied to lying, not even especially in Lawrence (which sounds emotional in nature) more than anywhere else, as you've said below. Also, in order for one to believe you, you need to provide a motivation for those scientists to lie. Grant money isn't tied directly to the result of the study, rather being tied to the ability and past history of a scientist to produce well-founded, well-researched results.

Many of your other arguments are just rants. For example, reference your comment about the ACS (#8) below. I'm not sure what that has to do with the merit of a smoking ban, which leads me to answer your question as to why people choose not to listen to you--you're not sticking to the argument.

Furthermore, nobody has advocated to complete ban of tobacco products (again off topic), but rather that SMOKE from tobacco products in public places shall be restricted.

Sheila Martin 7 years, 5 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?

TopJayhawk 7 years, 5 months ago

Yes the science behind second-hand smoke is about as reliable as all of the lies surrounding global warming. But the liberal sheeple love it. Put a ring in their nose and they are happy.

gudpoynt 7 years, 5 months ago

jesus you people.

I'd like to see a study about how long it takes cynics to buy into something in the face of overwhelming evidence. Will you scrap for every single morsel of information that contradicts a substantial and reputable body of work across competing, non-partisan educational research facilities in order to "prove" it false.

Just because you find a small amount of contradictory evidence does not invalidate all of the very real results contributed by the scientific research community. If we were dealing with a mathematical proof, then yes, a single contradiction could prove something false. But we're dealing with research. The more there is, the clearer the picture.

Are you so cynical and paranoid that you can't trust science? I mean, science isn't perfect, but it's the most unbiased system of discovering facts that we have at our disposal. What would you rather believe? The few over the many? The ones with a personal interest in the outcomes?

And please spare me the conspiracy theory rant about how the scientific research community is riddled with corruption. I work within it, and believe me, it's not nearly that dramatic.

Sheila Martin 7 years, 5 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.

Sheila Martin 7 years, 5 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)

cayenne1992 7 years, 5 months ago

Oh come on, there's more to the story than he "WON'T lie", and you know it. If they fired him because he won't lie, he would have a awful strong case against the school.

cayenne1992 7 years, 5 months ago

awfully above. I'm not going to argue with you anymore. Consider it an admission of your superior ability to detect this grand scheme.

TopJayhawk 7 years, 5 months ago

Yes. This kind of thing is rampant with our liberal scientists. Cayenne goes on to further prove your point by having a hissy fit and going home to cry.

Sheila Martin 7 years, 5 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.

dogsandcats 7 years, 5 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.

pace 7 years, 5 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.

beatrice 7 years, 5 months ago

I disagree. Ownership of a business doesn't allow the owner to do as he or she pleases. In your own private home, fine, but not a business. What other safety areas do you think should be done away with? No more health inspections of restaurants? I mean, if someone wants to subject patrons and employees to exposed asbestos in the walls, should they be allowed to do so? Smoking is a health issue, and people shouldn't have to choose between health and paying the bills in order to get a job.

yourworstnightmare 7 years, 5 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.

TopJayhawk 7 years, 5 months ago

Before Topeka passed it's own disengenuise ban, Seventy-four percent of restauraunts already were smoke free. But the lie was that you could not eat a meal in town without your lungs being invaded by smoke.
Just more lies from the enlightened crowd.

jafs 7 years, 5 months ago

Well, my experience in Lawrence is that many places have become much more pleasant to patronize as a result of the ban.

I'm absolutely certain that nothing like 74% of Lawrence restaurants were smoke-free prior to the Lawrence ban.

Armored_One 7 years, 5 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?

jafs 7 years, 5 months ago

Just a small point.

Being able to identify a cause and being able to cure an ailment are not the same thing - scientists know what causes the flu - a virus - but are unable to cure it.

jafs 7 years, 5 months ago

Just a small point.

Being able to identify a cause and being able to cure an ailment are not the same thing - scientists know what causes the flu - a virus - but are unable to cure it.

TopJayhawk 7 years, 5 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?

pace 7 years, 5 months ago

So you are saying the conservatives are promoting global cooling as a social cause and that science is dead not god, a gun in a home won't kill an intruder, that second hand smoke is a right under the constitution, that you are afraid. You are making some sort of sense, is this some sort of old alchemy where one just chants magic words and the moon eclipse will end and the rooster will crow again?

TopJayhawk 7 years, 5 months ago

If you say so pace. Way to change the subject, and throw out a bunch of non sequiters.
Whatever works for you. The post was actually pretty clear. If you can't get it, it's on you my friend.

TopJayhawk 7 years, 5 months ago

Pace must have taken debate. Did ya have one of those really cool little brief cases?

pace 7 years, 5 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.

Scott Morgan 7 years, 5 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.

beatrice 7 years, 5 months ago

So do you think that all government regulations that oversee a healthy workplace should be eliminated?

If not, where do you draw your line? Personally, I draw the line it at being able to breathe air that won't give me cancer years down the road just because of a bunch of selfish junkies need to get their fix. That seems like a very reasonable thing to expect in the work place, just like one shouldn't anticipate sexual harrasment or having to work around unsafe machinery. Would you tell the person who is being harrassed that they should just go find another job since that is the way the owner wants to treat employees? Yes, I know they are totally different things, but they both point to the fact that regulations are in place for a reason -- to protect workers.

I don't know about government control on windows forcing them to not open, but the air in skyscrapers tend to be circulated with air conditioners of some sort. It is't actually "stale" air. Besides, by telling smokers they need to step outside where the fresh air is in order to smoke, isn't the government actually doing them a favor? (yes, an attempt at humor at the end)

jafs 7 years, 5 months ago

Generally agreed.

But opening windows and allowing fresh air to circulate is much healthier than breathing conditioned air all day long.

And, of course, environmentalists would be in favor of this, not opposed, as wissmo incorrectly states, since not using heating or cooling systems saves energy.

IndusRiver 7 years, 5 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.

beatrice 7 years, 5 months ago

So do you think that all government regulations that oversee a healthy workplace should be eliminated? I'm guessing the very thought of striving to maintain a healthy workplace is just too much a communist idea for you. To hell with all workplace regulations -- long live the labor barons!

Scott Morgan 7 years, 5 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.

pace 7 years, 5 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.

Richard Heckler 7 years, 5 months ago

Brownback agenda:

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

Scott Morgan 7 years, 5 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.

pace 7 years, 5 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. 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.

Kash_Encarri 7 years, 5 months ago

Interesting that even SPAIN is enacting a ban.

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

Scott Morgan 7 years, 5 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.

beatrice 7 years, 5 months ago

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

Richard Heckler 7 years, 5 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.

Flap Doodle 7 years, 5 months ago

You know what? I'd swear I just saw this exact same post on another thread.

Scott Morgan 7 years, 5 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.

Scott Morgan 7 years, 5 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.

pace 7 years, 5 months ago

I wish they better regulated the industries using public waters, air and land as free industrial dumps. How many generations will have to pay for their free dumping. That crud ruins drinking water. I really like living in a country where you can drink the water. Pollution, wastes and filth should be regulated, self regulation doesn't work. Wish it did, but the chemical company up river from your farm won't think twice. I expect, demand, the government protect the public rights. I find personal rights to be assaulted pretty evenly by both parties. The conservatives want us to carry citizenship papers and the liberals want us to be healthy. darn both sides.

WIpatriot 7 years, 5 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!

WIpatriot 7 years, 5 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!

WIpatriot 7 years, 5 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!

WIpatriot 7 years, 5 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!

Commenting has been disabled for this item.