Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, February 3, 2010

New legislation in Kansas House would overturn local smoking bans, including Lawrence’s

Bill would implement weak smoking ban statewide, no stronger measures allowed

February 3, 2010

Advertisement

Advocates of a statewide ban of smoking in public places, criticized a new bill Wednesday that they said would overturn local anti-smoking ordinances, including the one in Lawrence.

“This undoes a decade of good public policy on the local level in Kansas,” said Jake Lowen of Clean Air Kansas. “This is the tobacco industry’s dream bill.”

House Bill 2642 would be a statewide smoking ban, but would allow smoking to return to inside public places with ventilated rooms, smoking and non-smoking sections, and hospitality establishments that pay a fee to allow smoking, Lowen said. It would prohibit local communities from having a smoking ban that is stricter than the statewide law.

The Senate has already approved a statewide ban and Gov. Mark Parkinson said he hopes to sign such a bill into law. The House has not passed the latest proposal.

Comments

Jeff Zamrzla 4 years, 6 months ago

you should put your angst to work against ALEC, funded by many major corporations. Most of our state legislators are members, it's where they go for "model" legislation such as TABOR, the idea that has been so great for Colorado that COlorado Springs is shuttering parks, turning off street lights, cutting emergency responder jobs, has quit fixing the streets and will have no swimming pools open this summer. Ya gotta love ya some conservatives, they have the lowest property tax in the nation.

0

homechanger 4 years, 6 months ago

banning k2 but lifting the indoor ban on tobacco. the voters are the suckers.

0

OonlyBonly 4 years, 6 months ago

It's about time! Politicians need to get out of this - you want a smoke free environment then don't patronize establishments that allow smoking. Vote with your $$ don't shove your concept of right down my throat!

0

gccs14r 4 years, 6 months ago

It's official: The Kansas Legislature is a body of morons.

0

Randy Leonard 4 years, 6 months ago

Will Kansan's ever wake up and vote these idiots out of office?

0

KSManimal 4 years, 6 months ago

It's a great plan! With all that second-hand smoke going around, the SIDS rate will skyrocket, and then we'll save a bundle on public schools!

Brilliant!

0

bigmike 4 years, 6 months ago

I would not go into a building that allowed smoking even if it was my favorite place to eat! I Just wish you smokers knew how disgusting you smell, but you can't because the oder is in your house, car, on your clothes, soaked into your skin, your hair etc... Smokers are as pathetic as a crack/meth head!

0

kansasmutt 4 years, 6 months ago

HEY i have a great idea. Leave the choice of a business being smoker friendly or non smoking to the owners. Freedom of choice , the american way. Post signs if smoking is allowed and non smokers can shop elsewhere. Hire employees who smoke and all is good.Shove your ban up you $%# .As a business owner, it is my american given right to allow smoking in my business since i pay the bills and i set the rules. If you dont like it, you dont have to enter , easy as that.

0

RogueThrill 4 years, 6 months ago

I am a fan of small government unless small governments make decisions I disagree on, then small government is dumb.

0

KS 4 years, 6 months ago

It's nice to breathe clean air, but it is still a legal product and as such, it should be the decision of the business owner. My bet is that should this pass, most businesses would remain smoke free. If it is bad, take if off the market and see how fast the state would change their attitude when they would miss the taxes. BTW, I don't smoke.

0

ConcernedCynic 4 years, 6 months ago

To be perfectly honest, I like it when the the government infringes on our liberties when it benefits me (i.e. going home after I eat out not smelling like an ash tray). Otherwise, the government can stay out... and for once I am not being sarcastic.

Although, I also wonder how we can blame Lew Perkins for this.

0

hwarangdo 4 years, 6 months ago

Hmmm ... well now, guess i'll have to eat lots and lots of kim chee and visit our legislators ...

0

hwarangdo 4 years, 6 months ago

ever watch someone die of emphysema ? ... it ain't pretty

0

gccs14r 4 years, 6 months ago

So business owners should be able to burn mercury incense, serve rotten horsemeat, and beat their slaves? Seriously, SHS is a public health issue, and the least the government can do is ban it in public places until they get around to banning tobacco outright.

0

sad_lawrencian 4 years, 6 months ago

I moved here from Connecticut in 2007 and I was dismayed to find out that Kansas does not have a comprehensive statewide smoking ban. Therefore I found it very fortunate to live in a town, Lawrence, that DOES have a comprehensive smoking ban in place. I would see it as a violation of the state legislature's authority to tell communities like Lawrence that these towns and localities cannot have a local, comprehensive smoking ban. I am hoping that the Kansas legislature has a few good men and women who are smart enough to kill this silly new bill before it even gets out of the committee. If Kansas DOES pass some kind of relaxed law that basically supports the tobacco companies, I will probably find a new state in which to live.

0

JHawker 4 years, 6 months ago

This would be the most ridiculous bill a political office could pass. A smoking ban, that permits smoking, is simply an oxymoron and the idea of it should be an embarrassment to any political leader. What a horrible idea to move back in time, to allow for an increase in second-hand smoke, and to be poor role models for younger generations.

0

anon1958 4 years, 6 months ago

Sad_lawrencian (Anonymous) says…

I am hoping that the Kansas legislature has a few good men and women who are smart enough to kill this silly new bill before it even gets out of the committee.

ROFLMAO, what a noob.

0

Thinking_Out_Loud 4 years, 6 months ago

Wait...so the Legislature is opposed to Home Rule?

0

parrothead8 4 years, 6 months ago

Separate smoking and non-smoking sections...what a joke. As if the smoke knows it's supposed to stay in the smoking section.

I guess we'll start eating at home again more often. Sorry, restaurant owners.

0

pace 4 years, 6 months ago

The Kansas legislature should just incorporate, the republicans just sell to industry, What they sell is the lives and earning of working families.

0

kansasmutt 4 years, 6 months ago

Simple question for you non smokers. Are you willing to pay extra for your so called clean air ? If a ban is implemented that decides for me to go smoke free in my business ,i own , i will sue the state for lost revenue and civil rights violations. This will cost the non smokers millions in legal cost’s. I ask non smokers another question. When ( and it is coming ) they tax your red meat and soda , are you going to lay down and just say " ok, take my money and if you want ban my soda" like good little kids ? Think for a bit about what is happening to our rights , smokers and non smokers. We have a choice, this is still America with a Bill of Rights and a Constitution.

0

jumpin_catfish 4 years, 6 months ago

ConcernedCynic said… To be perfectly honest, I like it when the the government infringes on our liberties when it benefits me.

Spoken like a true sheep, educated in the Lawrence school district I assume.

0

compmd 4 years, 6 months ago

Survey says...most of you are looking at this all wrong.

This can be tackled from an employment law standpoint. Now that there are stricter bans that exist, and the state is forcing those out, it is implicitly condoning hazardous work environments and discriminatory hiring and employment policies. What does the nonsmoking bartender who gives a sh!t about his health do when a bar owner decides to permit smoking in his bar? If he complains, he'll get fired and replaced with a smoker or someone who doesn't care about the unsafe/unhealthy environment. This bill promotes hostile, unsafe, and discriminatory practices and should be killed. If it does pass, its going right to the courts.

0

gccs14r 4 years, 6 months ago

"So you are opposed to letting adults make adult decisions. How sad for you."

Yes, Pilgrim, I think public health laws are a good thing. I'm glad we don't have sewage running in the streets.

0

Joseph Jarvis 4 years, 6 months ago

I tried to look up the bill's sponsor, but can't find it online. Does the Kansas legislature not publish that information?

Try searching for history on 2642 here: http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-billtrack/index.do

I'd give a deep-/perma-link for that search, but the state website doesn't appear to do that either. :(

0

notajayhawk 4 years, 6 months ago

tanzer (Anonymous) says…

"booze is legal and we have laws regulating its consumption. so what's the fuss?"

Well, for a start, prohibition was repealed. It's actually legal to drink in such places as restaurants now.


Red meat is on the government's list of known carcinogens, and the grilling of said meat fills the air with carcinogens. When is the Kansas government, or at least Larryville, going to step in and pass a law against selling cooked red meat so the public can be protected from this huge second-hand threat? I have the right to go into any restaurant I want without being forced to suffer the health risks from all you meat addicts.

0

jayhawklawrence 4 years, 6 months ago

I quite smoking about 100 times and finally kicked it when I realized that breathing second hand smoke for one hour or more got me addicted again.

I never have any desire for cigarettes and have not for years because whenever I am around a smoker I start looking at my watch.

Smoking in bars and night clubs will just create more addicts, unhappy people with bad health and load up our health care system with billions in additional costs and as a result, load up our politics with a billion silly arguments about more health care reform..or not.

0

Kirk Larson 4 years, 6 months ago

A compromise: Smokers can smoke in restaurants, but non-smokers can spit in their food.

Smokers can smoke outside, but littering is a $100 fine. For each butt.

0

Ralph Reed 4 years, 6 months ago

Here's a permalink (as of today) for the text of the bill. http://www.kslegislature.org/bills/2010/2642.pdf There's no mention of who sponsored the bill in the text of the bill that I could find.


As a side note, I smoked for over 25 years and was finally able to quit in 2000. I applauded the Lawrence smoking ban. Cigarette smoke any more is pungent and sometimes makes me sick to my stomach. So, don't be surprised if I ask you loudly to put out your cigarette while I'm eating. Also, don't be surprised if I get sick because of the smoke while or after eating, leaving a mess to clean up.

0

Steve Bunch 4 years, 6 months ago

More dim bulbs flickering 'neath the Dome. Morons.

0

seriouscat 4 years, 6 months ago

Smoking should be banned in all indoor places that are open to the public. Even most smokers can acknowledge that it is fair and sensible.

To all the people who smoke and complain about the bans: Do you have a niece or nephew. Grandkids maybe? Would you light up a cigarette and smoke it in the same room with them?

Do you blow smoke in the face of your loved one who is recovering from a bad cold and is still coughing up phlegm for weeks?

Would you do that to someone who has asthma or some other serious respiratory problem?

If yes, because you are an adult and the gubment has no business blah blah blah, then congratulations! You are an A***hole.

0

gatekeeper 4 years, 6 months ago

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

tanzer (Anonymous) says…

“booze is legal and we have laws regulating its consumption. so what's the fuss?”

Well, for a start, prohibition was repealed. It's actually legal to drink in such places as restaurants now. ///////

But there are still laws regarding where you can consume and what you can legally do after you've drank. You can't drink anywhere you want to. You can't drive or walk around if you're wasted. And that's for public safety reasons. You drinking in a bar doesn't endanger me. You driving after leaving that bar does. You smoking at your home or in your car doesn't endanger me. You smoking next to me at a restaurant or bar does. I agree with the poster that said that it is about protecting the majority of the population of Lawrence, A small percentage of you smoke, but you feel you have the right to endanger the health of the majority. And you red meat comment is stupid. You eating a steak is bad for you, but there aren't toxic, cancer causing fumes coming off that steak that can give me cancer.

0

jafs 4 years, 6 months ago

kansasmutt,

I would very much like to know what restaurant you own/manage.

Given your attitude, I'd prefer not to patronize it any more.

0

notajayhawk 4 years, 6 months ago

Cappy (Anonymous) says…

"A compromise: Smokers can smoke in restaurants, but non-smokers can spit in their food."

That's a fine trade, Cap, since I, for one, would have the common sense to eat elsewhere if there was a sign posted on the door reading "Spitting in food allowed."

0

bigmike 4 years, 6 months ago

hey notajayhawk

something tells me you are a closet MEAT addict,,,

0

acg 4 years, 6 months ago

ConcernedCynic said… To be perfectly honest, I like it when the the government infringes on our liberties when it benefits me.

This floored me! Are people really that easily manipulated by the establishment? Wow, head right over that cliff, sweetie.

Oh, and troll, no one believes for one minute that you have a sizable anything.

0

meggers 4 years, 6 months ago

Just an editing note to Mr. Rothschild:

There should not be a comma after 'places' in the first sentence.

0

Ralph Reed 4 years, 6 months ago

@joejarvis

I found out the bill was introduced by committee, meaning the chair introduced it on her own behalf, or on behalf of someone in the committee.

Brenda Landwehr, Rep, Wichita introduced the bill. http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-house/searchHouse.do?rep=4449

0

Ralph Reed 4 years, 6 months ago

@joejarvis.

p>@joejarvis.>

The bill was introduced by the Health and Human Services Committee.

0

thelonious 4 years, 6 months ago

Well, my wife and I have been eating out more and attending a lot more live music shows over the past few years after we could do that without inhaling a pack's worth of cigarette smoke while doing so. If this passes, looks like we'll go back to take-out food and taking a pass on seeing live music at ths clubs. I think this will hurt the restaurants and clubs more than help them, because there are a lot more non-smokers like me out there than there are smokers. I have allergies and asthma and I am simply not going to go to establishments that force me to inhale second hand smoke.

0

Sheila Martin 4 years, 6 months ago

No one is trying to force an establishment to allow smoking. If the Lawrence taverns are all doing great, and business is booming, WHY would they want to? If a few places want to allow smoking, why not? We didn't need a law for this in the first place. It's called the free market. As Mr Spock would say, "It's illogical" If a sign on a door says "smoking allowed", do you go somewhere else, or walk in and start complaining? If people don't support smoking places, they will close. (Drives you control freaks NUTS, doesn't it?)

0

BorderRuffian 4 years, 6 months ago

lawrenceguy40 wrote…

"An improvement! The government has no place infringing on an individual's liberty."

That's right. The government ought not enact ANY piece of legislation that denies me the right to breathe clean air. If the issue was JUST about smokers and their right to kill themselves slowly while reeking of stale cigarette smoke and grinning with yellow teeth and bad breath, I'd say, give them their right to be stupid. But the issue goes far beyond those with bad breath and brown-stained fingers - it affects non-smokers young and old.

You smokers do NOT have the right to inflict the affects and side-effects of your disgusting and unhealthy habit on everyone else. What makes you think you do? You argue that non-smokers have the right not to hang around places where you smoke, but what gives you the right to restrict where I may go by your breathing out malodorous, lethal clouds of smoke and hacking your lungs out while I dine?

0

scott3460 4 years, 6 months ago

Drug addicts and corporate greed. What's the matter with Kansas?

0

Sheila Martin 4 years, 6 months ago

Let the owner decide. He will sink or swim based on his decision. Or go buy that smoking bar and make it non smoking. Put your money where your mouth is! Small business owners do. I don't like Hip Hop and Rap music, I think it's unhealthy. SO I don't go where it's played. I don't go in and whine and try and force the owner to play country music.

0

notajayhawk 4 years, 6 months ago

gatekeeper (Anonymous) says…

"And you red meat comment is stupid. You eating a steak is bad for you, but there aren't toxic, cancer causing fumes coming off that steak that can give me cancer."

http://www.cancerproject.org/media/news/fiveworstfoodsreport.php

"Grilling or broiling meat over a direct flame results in fat dropping on the hot fire and the production of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon-containing flames. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) adhere to the surface of food; the more intense the heat, the more PAHs are present. They are widely believed to play a significant role in human cancers."

http://www.dukehealth.org/health_library/news/duke_medicine_news_health_tip_turn_down_grill_heat_on_cancer_risk

"Line your grill with foil poked with holes to allow the fat to drip down. That, and avoiding smoke flare-ups, which also contain cancer-causing substances that coat the meat, will lessen your exposure."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/health/19real.html

" ...the Department of Health and Human Services has added heterocyclic amines - the compounds formed in red meat, poultry and fish during the grilling - to its list of carcinogens.

"At least one other group of chemicals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which can also collect on meat cooked over hot coals, has been on the agency's list since 1981."

Just out of curiosity, gates - where do you think the rest of that smoke goes?

"But there are still laws regarding where you can consume and what you can legally do after you've drank. You can't drink anywhere you want to."

Which would be different - how, again, from the proposed legislation? Nowhere in the story do I see anything about making smoking unrestricted. It says there will be a ban on smoking, with exceptions. You'll have to have some kind of permit, at an additional fee, to allow smoking on the premises. You know, pretty much the way alcohol consumption is regulated.

I live in a town where we have restaurants and bars, some of which allow smoking and some of which don't. We must be a lot smarter than y'all in Larryville, though, since we seem to be able to figure out which is which and make our choices accordingly.

0

Septembermorn 4 years, 6 months ago

Ok...let's keep the obese out of public areas, they offend some...oh, I'm sorry, that's a disease. Let's keep the bratty kids that parents think don't bother the other patrons out of public places, they offend many...oh, I'm sorry that's a disease. If you don't want to be around smokers stay out of places that allow smoking. You don't have the right to demand every site as a non-smoking area..who are you...a Nazi? Smoking is an addiction. Show a little compassion to smokers. Most, if not all, smokers I know would quit if they could. I don't think it is up to us non-smokers to determine where they can or cannot smoke. MYOB!!

0

gccs14r 4 years, 6 months ago

Having a designated smoking area in a restaurant is like having a designated peeing area in a swimming pool.

0

tomatogrower 4 years, 6 months ago

"kansasmutt (Anonymous) says… HEY i have a great idea. Leave the choice of a business being smoker friendly or non smoking to the owners"

To all restaurant owners and bar owners: Only about 20% of US citizens smoke. And some of those smokers don't like sitting in smoke filled room. So if you allow smoking in your establishment, you run the risk of losing about 80% of your business, especially in Lawrence where we've gotten used to being smoke free. Think about it.

0

meggers 4 years, 6 months ago

Godwin!

And for the record, this liberal believes that private business owners should be able to cater to the clientele of their choice. If the public at large wants greater protection from the evils of second-hand smoke, just require business owners to clearly post whether or not they allow smoking. A person then has the option of entering the establishment, or passing it up and finding one that better suits their individual preferences.

0

beatrice 4 years, 6 months ago

To those claiming it should be up to the individual owners, I have to laugh at how absurd that it. Business owners don't get to just set their own rules for what hazards are acceptable for their clients and employees! OSHA anyone? There are many, many health and safety rules by which businesses must adhere, and not subject others to cancer-causing air is just one of them. Just because some people are drug addicts doesn't mean others need to suffer because of their junkie habits. Deal with it!

0

MyName 4 years, 6 months ago

Okay this is dumb on many levels. First of all, no business is going to do something on its own that is going to tick off a large number of its customers and send them to a competitor, so those saying "it should be up to the business" are being naive. An outright ban creates a level playing field.

Secondly, if the state wants to set up a minimum level of regulation, that's fine with me, but if local communities want to have stricter enforcement on a public health issue, then it should let them. I mean we still have dry counties in this state FFS.

It sucks that people need tobacco so much that they're willing to hang outside in 30 degree weather to get their fix. But it does make for cleaner and healthier air inside, and having already gone through years of breathable air in bars and restaurants, there's no way to argue it was better before the ban.

0

Richard Heckler 4 years, 6 months ago

Watch health insurance premiums increase yet again.

I believe Kansas City,Mo went non smoking recently.

0

shotgun 4 years, 6 months ago

I like this! I want the foul mouthed drunken idiots that hang out behind Astro's to go inside and smoke!

0

Ivoryfox 4 years, 6 months ago

There is a simple solution to this. Approximately 15-20% of the population still smokes. If an establishment feels they must cater their business to these people, fine. The remaining 80% of the population can go elsewhere, and the ignorant establishment owner that keeps crying about "lost revenue" can finally realize the foolishness of caving in to the vocal minority.

0

Ricky_Vaughn 4 years, 6 months ago

I can understand banning smoking in restaurants, especially if they're family-type places.

Bar owners should be allowed to choose. From reading this thread, there's obviously a market out there for both types of bar.

I'm sure there are owners that would never bring smoking back into their bar and those who wish they could bring it back.

Someone said "let's vote with our dollars". I agree. I think there will be plenty of "votes" for both sides of this coin.

0

MyName 4 years, 6 months ago

@MJM:

the ban folks claim that “the people want a ban” so why would a biz worry about ticking “the people” off if it's giving them what they want?

Because even if the majority want a ban, no business will want to lose even a minority of their customers if they can help it. Especially since, as you said, a large number of non-smokers will tolerate some indoor smoking. There are two possible results of this legislation, either businesses become self-segregating so that some places become smoke-free and the rest don't, or the more likely result is that businesses become so scared of losing customers that they all pay the fee and no place is smoke-free anymore.

Neither outcome is good from a public health standpoint, or from a fairness standpoint. In the second scenario, second hand smoke increases for all places. In the first, a large number of people are no longer going to businesses based on how well they are run, but based upon whether or not smoking is allowed.

And good job on completely ignoring my other point about why local communities should still be allowed to set their own standards if they wish. Anyways, the bottom line is this isn't about whatever kind of "anti-smoking" pseudo-psychological BS you're peddling. It's simply looking at the results of this legislation, realizing that they are worse than the way it is done now, and pointing that out to the idiot legislators who proposed this.

0

Melissa Sigler 4 years, 6 months ago

We've become accustomed to the lifestyle here of breathing in clean air...it has helped some people quit, and even those who didn't for the MOST part don't mind and respect the ban. Bringing back smoking would harm businesses. if you're a business owner and you allow smoking, consider my business, and a majority of Lawrence's other citizens' business, gone. Regardless of whether or not second hand smoke is harmful, the majority of us would rather not effing smell like a cigarette.

"Ok…let's keep the obese out of public areas, they offend some…oh, I'm sorry, that's a disease. Let's keep the bratty kids that parents think don't bother the other patrons out of public places, they offend many…oh, I'm sorry that's a disease. If you don't want to be around smokers stay out of places that allow smoking. You don't have the right to demand every site as a non-smoking area..who are you…a Nazi? Smoking is an addiction. Show a little compassion to smokers. Most, if not all, smokers I know would quit if they could. I don't think it is up to us non-smokers to determine where they can or cannot smoke. MYOB!!"

You're an idiot. Why would people who care about their lungs and wellness want to show compassion and/or feel sorry for someone who doesn't give a crap? No one is banning the outside...go ahead, go outside, smoke up, kill your lungs and your body, for the love of god, PLEASE DO, we could go without your ridiculous idiocy.

0

Melissa Sigler 4 years, 6 months ago

"There is a simple solution to this. Approximately 15-20% of the population still smokes. If an establishment feels they must cater their business to these people, fine. The remaining 80% of the population can go elsewhere, and the ignorant establishment owner that keeps crying about “lost revenue” can finally realize the foolishness of caving in to the vocal minority."

I'm all for it. As long as there is competition (somewhere smoke-free where I can find the same service/products) then this is a fine solution.

0

MyName 4 years, 6 months ago

First of all, I would hardly call a city with a smoking ban "suffering". If you want to talk about real life suffering, look at Haiti. But my main problem is still about how this will affect cities, like Lawrence, that have a ban in place, which you left out and continue to ignore. If the majority want to have a total ban on indoor public smoking, why should the legislature roll that back?

But I already addressed your other "point" and my response "what's so wrong with that" is simple: why should anyone be forced to choose a bar or restaurant based upon whether or not it has clean air inside?

0

beatrice 4 years, 6 months ago

McF: "The fanatical Antismokers"?

You mean, "the breathers"?

What other legal vice or addiction -- fatty foods, alcohol, sex -- can harm or kill those who choose not to participate? Are there any?

Second-hand smoke can kill those who do not smoke. That should be the end of the story.

0

anon1958 4 years, 6 months ago

kansasmutt (Anonymous) says…

Simple question for you non smokers. Are you willing to pay extra for your so called clean air ? If a ban is implemented that decides for me to go smoke free in my business ,i own , i will sue the state for lost revenue and civil rights violations. This will cost the non smokers millions in legal cost’s.


LOL, who lifted up the rock and let this guy loose. I just cannot understand how people come to believe in these wild fantasies. This guy needs a breathalyzer hooked up to his computer key board!

0

dontcallmedan 4 years, 6 months ago

Still waiting to learn what business kansasmutt owns so we can spread the word.

0

feeble 4 years, 6 months ago

"...that pay a fee to allow smoking.."

this caught my eye. I believe this is the relevant part of the bill:

Any facility which desires to utilize an exemption pursuant to either subsection (g) or subsection (h) of section 3, and amendments thereto, shall pay an annual fee in the amount of $1 per square foot of space designated as a smoking area pursuant to such exemptions.

The fee required by this section shall be paid to: (a) The city if the facility is located within the boundaries of the city; (b) the county if the facility is not located within the boundaries of the city. Such fee shall be paid in accordance with requirements designated by a governing body of the city or county.

Anyone want to take bets on how often this fee gets raised over the next ten years, provided the bill passes?

0

fewopinionsshared 4 years, 6 months ago

I registered just to comment on this issue. I don't feel strongly enough about most issues to waste my time debating, but here goes. Lots of comments have already been posted, so this is just a drop in the bucket. Yes, smokers have their individual right to smoke. But yes, non-smokers have their right to breathe smoke-free air! If I choose to drink til I'm vomiting all night, that's my choice. If I want to breathe the smoke, I'll smoke for myself. I don't force alcohol down your throat. I don't vomit on you when I've had too much to drink, or even talk in your face with alcohol on my breath - neither of which are harmful to your health (unless I'm sick of course)! Another point, my sister lives in southern Kansas and dreads going out to the local smoke-laden bars and clubs. She envies my ability to go out and have a great time and come home not stinking of smoke. (I shouldn't have to come home and shower and wash the night's clothes asap to get the stench out before going to bed!) She planned an outting with some work friends to Lawrence (over two hours away!) to enjoy a smoke-free environment. Yes! People coming TO Lawrence to take advantage of the smoke-free situation! (Unfortunately, mandatory overtime canceled their plan.)

0

gorilla10 4 years, 6 months ago

Smoking causes Hundreds of dangerous health problems, is bad for anyone to breathe in even second hand smoke, SMELLS, Hurts eyes, Causes clothes to smell extremely bad the next day, non smokers have no control indoors and for crying out loud it's FIRE being lit INDOORS. What kind of fools would want to allow this indoors. You are an idiot if you smoke indoors in the first place because you arent only hurting yourself, YOU ARE HURTING OTHERS!!!.....Im not mad at the laws or whatever. IM MAD AT THE SMOKERS!!!!!!

0

ConcernedCynic 4 years, 6 months ago

Jumping Catfish - no I was born and raised in the backwoods of Wisconsin - near Green Bay. I just moved to Lawrence a few years ago. I enjoy the smoking ban, I don't like the seat belt rule (even though I always wear it when I'm in a car) or states like Wisconsin that have a helmet rule. The difference between the seat belt rule and the smoking ban is that you are only killing yourself if you don't wear a seat belt. Smoking slowly kills everyone around you. So, this smoking ban benefits me and I like it. The seat belt rule does not benefit me and I don't like it. btw, Lawrence is not even close to being liberal - try Madison, Wisconsin.

0

frank mcguinness 4 years, 6 months ago

Pilgrim2 says: "At least the legislators recognize the right and ability of adults to make adult decisions on their own. Your superiority complex is nauseating"

So then why the fudge are they trying to ban K2?????

0

Richard Heckler 4 years, 6 months ago

Smoking invades the privacy of others because the drift of smoke cannot be contained.

0

donna66604 4 years, 6 months ago

I am a smoker and I feel that, yes, the fact of a business being smoking or non-smoking should be up to the business owner. If a non-smoker does not want to be around the smoke then they don't have to patronize the business. I see that many non-smokers are saying that they think all business' should be non smoking to be fair to them, but then where does that leave the smokers? Is it fair to smokers that every where they go is non smoking. I know shs can lead to cancer, but I also know that it takes a lot of exposure for it to happen. You cant sit there and say that would be fair to have all business' be non smoking when it wouldnt be fair for the smokers. Although I feel that the only places that should be allowed to be a smoking establishment would be bars for the sole reason that usually when someone goes to the bar they can be there for a while.

Now, I also do believe, as a smoker, that when I go to a place that is non-smoking, it does not kill me to go without a cigarette for an hour or so, which is usually how long it takes to get your meal and finish it. We dont need to light up while waiting or right after eating. I know I can wait til I leave to light up, so I dont think it would be that hard for everyone else. That is something that we all could be able to handle. I mean really who wants to sit in a nice restaurant and have to sit and smell the nicotine while eating their food. As a smoker I know that nicotine gets in the way of the way food tastes, wether it be that I am smoking or if someone else is. I understand that everyone wants it their way. Non-smokers want smokers outside and smokers want the right to smoke inside. I am sure that there can be a happy medium. The reason the government has to step in is because obviously, look at us, we can agree, together.

As for the drinking comments, I do believe that smoking a cigarette does not impair anyones ablilites, other than to breathe properly, lol. We know that alcohol makes a person incoherent at times, but smoking doesn't, and therefore that is the reason there are laws about where you can drink and not.

0

gccs14r 4 years, 6 months ago

Any business that permits smoking should have to restrict itself to having only smokers for employees, customers, and vendors. Then we'll see who still wants to permit smoking in his business.

0

shiraz 4 years, 6 months ago

 Here's a very useful summary of the basic information about second-hand smoke for any of you who really believe that smoking is not a serious health threat to non-smokers:

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS

 You need to smoke?  Smoke at home.  If you have children, smoke in the back yard only.  Smoking should be done in private among consenting adults only.
0

Richard Heckler 4 years, 6 months ago

The greater majority of consumers do not smoke perhaps around 80%.

If those 80% decided to boycott.... cafes and drinking establishments would go out of business.

Now that so so many have been introduced to non smoking socialization tobacco smoke would seem rude. It is likely a substantial loss in business would be noticed. Who knows for long?

Smokers cannot live without smoking. Non smokers can live without going out for dinner.

0

sad_lawrencian 4 years, 6 months ago

I am genuinely surprised to see how many pro-smoking-in-public people are commenting on this article. Really, people, this is the 21st century. I said before on this page that I would leave Kansas if they passed some kind of law that struck down the smoking ordinance in Lawrence. If I have to go into restaurants such as family establishments and smell smoke, I point-blank will no longer go into those establishments. If this bill in the Kansas House of Representatives DOES pass, I will leave the state for good. Yes, I feel that strongly about it.

According to Wikipedia: "As of January 2010, 25 states have enacted statewide bans on smoking in all enclosed public places, including bars and restaurants: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan (effective May 1, 2010), Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin (effective July 5, 2010)."

It's time for Kansas to join their ranks. This is not a civil liberties issue; it's a public health issue.

0

sad_lawrencian 4 years, 6 months ago

Public smoking should be banned, period. End of story. Pilgrim2 has twisted my words around from my previous post. I am hoping other nonsmoking patrons would join me in avoiding any bar, club, or restaurant in which smoking is permitted. Hopefully those establishments would go out of business.

I get go sick and tired of smelling cigarette smoke every time I walk into Wal-mart; seeing people throw their butts out of their cars every time I drive down Iowa St.; walking though a parking lot and smelling it coming from people's cars. It's sad that people don't understand that it will kill them someday, whether it's cancer, emphysema, heart disease. I've seen my own friends and relatives waste away from it, and I thank God I never started or I would probably be as addicted and hopeless as these people are.

And in response to the person above who said smoking is not hazardous beyond the health implications, I've seen smokers who light up in their cars and their hands leave the steering wheel, and their attention is diverted, and you would tell me this is any different from a driver texting or talking on their cell phones while driving (another area where the state legislators have been sorely inadequate)?

0

akuna 4 years, 6 months ago

It only takes one smoker to ruin a restaurant.

0

sad_lawrencian 4 years, 6 months ago

I am not a liberal. Only stupid people resort to labels and name calling.

0

mom_of_three 4 years, 6 months ago

Many in my family smoke or have smoked. Not all smokers get cancer and not all those who get cancer get it from second hand smoke.
I am married to a smoker who can not smoke while he eats, he smokes outside the house, and not in the car. He doesn't smoke around anybody. Actually, he quit last week, and hopefully, it lasts.
But regardless, a business should decide what kind of clientele they serve, if they want smoking in their establishment, and the workers can decide if they want to work there.

0

sad_lawrencian 4 years, 6 months ago

Yeah, when it comes to my health, I do.

0

sad_lawrencian 4 years, 6 months ago

I think we could take all the hegemonic, "conservative" people from Kansas... and ship all of them off to, say, Montana. There you can puff, snort, smoke, chew, spit and watch NASCAR till the cows come home. Oh yes you can have Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin too.

0

sad_lawrencian 4 years, 6 months ago

And maybe while they're enacting my statewide smoking ban, they'll repeal the gay marriage ban, and we'll bring back more abortion providers. Oh, I am in favor of the death penalty, how does that fit your image of me as a liberal?

Kansas needs stronger Left-minded leaders. I am not necessarily a liberal (in fact, I voted for George W. Bush in 2004) but we do need people who can stand up to the right-wing ideologues like that idiot Sam Brownback and his ilk.

0

sad_lawrencian 4 years, 6 months ago

I miss Connecticut and my native New Jersey. At least the leaders with any cojones out there are all Democrats and liberals, so I can get into equally-entertaining arguments with them by claiming I am a conservative Republican. I am liberal in Kansas and conservative in Connecticut. It's true. Sad state of the world we live in. At least Connecticut doesn't force you to breathe other people's fowl smoke.

0

sad_lawrencian 4 years, 6 months ago

And the more I think about it, this country is getting more liberal, which makes my spine tingle. Perhaps someday we will have fair, affordable, universal, single-payer health insurance. Maybe we can stop alcohol-related deaths on college campuses (see my comments on another JW article). It would be so nice to go into a restaurant in [insert random Kansas town] and not smell cigarette smoke.

The thought of all of these things happening makes me smile. :) We are lucky to live in a semi-enlightened age when people are at least semi-aware of the dangers of cigarette smoke. It's a far cry from many other countries, especially eastern Europe and Asia, where a much larger percentage of the population smokes. I feel bad for them.

Yes, it is late but I have no state-mandated bed time. For I am but a single person with no wife or family to report to, so I can more or less go to bed whenever I want.

0

kimmydarling 4 years, 6 months ago

I moved back to Kansas from California and was astonished when I was asked if I wanted smoking or non in a restaurant and then? Then? Lawrence was a smoke free city indoors. It is fantastic.

Your right to smoke takes away my right NOT to if it is an enclosed space. Children in those places don't get the choice to say, "no thanks, I'd rather eat at home without the carcinogens and chemical inhalents in the air".

You can drink alcohol legally, it's still illegal to do so in a moving vehicle. You can smoke legally, it is and should STAY illegal to do so in a public building.

I make the choice not to smoke. I don't like having that choice taken from me because someone wants to light up two tables away.

0

samsamsamsam 4 years, 6 months ago

barrypenders is everything that is wrong with america.

0

samsamsamsam 4 years, 6 months ago

barrypenders is the product of natural selection

0

Richard Heckler 4 years, 6 months ago

Eating out in Westport is smoke free now... at least at the micro brewery.

0

Stuart Evans 4 years, 6 months ago

what in the hell is up with our lawmakers. open pocket, insert wad of lobby dough.

All you fat cat bastards that think you know what's good for us. We're done with you. the next election cycle may come with an angry, pitchfork wielding, mob.

0

Stuart Evans 4 years, 6 months ago

samsamsamsam (Anonymous) says… barrypenders is everything that is wrong with america.


is this because he's calling for legalization of marijuana? I fully agree with him. the PROHIBITION of marijuana (and all illicit drugs) is a drain on our society and it's people. Prohibition was born from racism and corporate greed; all for a plant that has been safely used for thousands of years, and only in the 1930's made illegal.

What's wrong with America is ignorance and stupidity. both of which surround the prohibition stance on marijuana.

0

lounger 4 years, 6 months ago

I loved my dad but he was a smoker and smoked for years around us kids. Unfortunatly he died of a heart attack no doubt brought on by years of SMOKING HORRIBLE TOBACCO! This is a bad, bad Idea for sure. This ban needs not only to stay in place they also need to extend it out to the sidewalks so my kids dont have to have a wiff of HORRIBLE TOBACCO SMOKE when we come out of stores. THe alley way could be used for smoking and then we all could breathe easy....

0

honestone 4 years, 6 months ago

from a non-smoker of 15 years... Didn't Lawrence have a smoke free sports bar a few years back??? I think they went out of business? I knew a girl that worked as a barkeep in a strip joint but was offened by the patrons behavior. Maybe she should have gotten a job in a different place. To all of my other fellow non-smokers...save the hate filled verbage...

0

fewopinionsshared 4 years, 6 months ago

Ha, MichaelJMcFadden: exactly why I don't normally waste my time debating such issues, an answer for everyone, yet no realistic solution.

Admittedly, I don't know what the bill states at this point, but the least that should happen, if the ban is overturned, is have ventilation requirements. It always seemed silly to have to sit (Yes mcfadden, it was my 'choice' to patronize the business - prior to the ban. I don't patronize smoking establishments anymore, since there are non-smoking alternatives!) in a "non-smoking" area that was in no way divided from the "smoking" area. And an extra fee for smokers to use the area to fund the ventilation installation and up-keep so only the ones who use it pay for it, not all smokers on an all-around cigarette tax for OSHA to oversee.

And my dad, too, smoked from the age of 13 and died at the ripe old age of 58. He smoked in the house and car with us, and I've grown to despise it, as early as junior high. In his 40s, my teenage older sister had a baby and insisted he not smoke around the baby. Even he obliged.

So many out there who are so addicted (or plain selfish) to not go without a puff for a few hours... sad... Ya know, smoking around non-smokers is just plain selfish!

And Mcfadden, like others who may not have responded to your comments - we have better things to do with our lives... I know my stance on this issue and don't have to justify it to you! This is my final post on this issue. Just because someone doesn't respond, doesn't mean you converted them or you were 'right'... And, no, I won't be reading your book, because I'm sure someone could write a contradictory one, page-for-page, with legit data and stats to back up their view.

Adios... Getting ready for a fun weekend in L-town while it's still smoke-free!!! Go 'hawks!

0

notajayhawk 4 years, 6 months ago

merrill (Anonymous) says…

"The greater majority of consumers do not smoke perhaps around 80%.

"If those 80% decided to boycott…. cafes and drinking establishments would go out of business. "

And merrill wins the stupid post of the thread award!

Um, merrill?

I'm willing to bet 80% of the population stays out of strip clubs and other adult-entertainment venues. They still stay in business.

Most likely 80% of the population have never been to a shooting range/gun club. They still stay in business.

Well over 80% of the population don't send their kids to private schools. They still stay in business.

Heck, merrill, over 98% of the population do their long-distance traveling by some other mode of transportation than train, but Amtrak stays in business.

Oh, sorry, before all the prohibitionists get their corsets in a bunch and say we're talking about restaurants, how about this: Do you think more than 20% of the population eats Thai food? Or Sushi? Yet those places stay in business.

No business tries to appeal to 100% of the population, merrill. Many, if not most successful small businesses target their market and try to offer things nobody else has to stay in operation. Or did you think 100% of the population lines up to buy tofu, patchouli, or K2?

And that's what this is all about. People with common sense don't go to a vegetarian restaurant and demand to be served a T-bone steak. People with common sense don't bring their kids to Hooters for chicken wings and demand the waitresses cover up. They just don't go to those places. But the whiny, entitled, 'me-me-me' generation can't have that - even if 80% of the establishments were non-smoking, that's not good enough - they might want to go to one of those other places someday, so they have to have every place conform to the their rules.

Those of us that live in places where we have both smoking and non-smoking choices available laugh our a**es off at those of you that can't make those choices for yourself.

0

KatyMKay 4 years, 6 months ago

I am a smoker myself, BUT allowing people to smoke in a closed facility, ventilation or not should not be acceptable. I like walking into a bar, restaurant, or any other facility and getting a breath of fresh air. I can happily walk outside and smoke a cigarette. I do feel sorry for those non-smokers who would have to sit in a restaraunt, whether the smoking and non smoking sections are on different sides of the facility... it turns into a smoke house. You can walk into any place and know if someone had smoked a cigarette. Also, im not a huge fan of bringing my daughter out to eat and her getting hit in the face with second hand smoke. Definitely not happy with this thought!!!!

0

woodscolt 4 years, 6 months ago

House Bill 2642 more aptly put:

Parkinson called House Bill 2642 “a ridiculous piece of public policy that is nothing but a fraud.”

Thank you guv. best post yet

0

beatrice 4 years, 6 months ago

McF, I didn't ignore your first response, I simply missed it. You claim that OSHA didn't set rules on smoking because their findings were far below their normal levels of concern. Even if this is true (and I am wondering how old the studies are to which you refer), you ignore my basic premise that there are many laws placed on businesses that limit the dangers to which they can subject their employees, great and small. Do you or do you not agree? This is the same, unless you believe second-hand smoke doesn't kill. Then, you are simply in denial.

You ignored the fact that businesses really don't just get to make up the rules according to what they want and don't want. They really, really don't. That is just a fact of business in America (and most of the rest of the world).

As far as my noting that alcohol consumption isn't a direct danger to others, you write "Alcohol is obvious in terms of wife beatings and murders in addition to car accidents"

Drinking alcohol isn't illegal, just as smoking isn't illegal. Beating your spouse, killing others, and driving drunk, however, are illegal. (You can smoke, but you aren't allowed to just burn people at random with your cig, either.) The outward action of the drinker is what harms the non-drinkers, it isn't the alcohol consumption itself. I certainly enjoy a drink now and again, but I don't drive drunk and I certainly don't beat my spouse. Smoke if you want to, just don't do it where it will effect others. Not that hard to work out that equation.

"fatty foods (at least meat) produce 40% of carcinogenic PAH pollution in Los Angeles."

For starters, eating is a necessity and most Americans do eat meat. Smoking tobacco of any kind is not a necessity. We also drive cars, which pollute the air. We can walk everywhere, but that would take too long, and many people do want cars that pollute less, but it is a slow process, I'll grant you.

For argument's sake, lets just say your statement of cooked meat and pollution in Los Angeles is true. Terrible thing, wouldn't you agree? However, this would mean that your argument for smoking indoors is that the world isn't a perfect place, that we shouldn't make changes to improve dangerous air, and thus two wrongs make a right. Correct? Not the best grounds on which to base an argument in my opinion. If anything, it is just a good argument on why you shouldn't live in Los Angeles.

nota: "Those of us that live in places where we have both smoking and non-smoking choices available laugh our a**es off at those of you that can't make those choices for yourself."

Don't you mean "cough" your a**es off?

Those of us who live in places that do not allow smoking indoors in public places just breath.

0

dontcallmedan 4 years, 6 months ago

Maybe I'll buy a copy of Dissecting Antismokers' Brains and burn it in the nursery.

0

gogoplata 4 years, 6 months ago

I say we pass a bill advocating freedom.

If you're OK with people smoking in your restaurant/bar then smoke up. If you're not then ban smoking.

the land of the not so free and the home of the not so brave

0

kansaskev61 4 years, 6 months ago

Socialism is socialism whether it's banning smoking in public places or forcing me to have government health insurance. Take back your state and take back your country.

0

kansasmutt 4 years, 6 months ago

It all boils down to choice. You want to run a non smoking business, you have the American right to do it and nobody can stop you. You want to own and run a smoker friendly business, you have the American right to do so, unless a group wants to stop you because they don’t like it. Move to fn Russia if you are anti freedom. I am sure you’ll fit right in. Ban or no ban, my business will remain smoker friendly !!!! Not one complaint ever in the many years of being in business. Ask the old owner of Dons Steakhouse if the smoking ban hurts businesses. Ask most bar owners if the ban hurt Lawrence bars. Ask owners of small town bars if business grew 45% when Lawrence and the big cities passed smoking bans. Those of you who joined the non smoking band wagon are brainwashed lemmings, as far as I am concerned. Our state leaders are just greed mongers taking money from people who have an agenda against smokers. They have a budget to save the state to do, but waste time with this and banning cigarette lighters, what a bunch of goofs.

0

sad_lawrencian 4 years, 6 months ago

Obviously a lot of the "negative" (opponents of a smoking ban) posters on here are business owners. Why otherwise would they feel so threatened?

0

Lacy Mohler 4 years, 6 months ago

In the Topeka Capital Journal the Governor called the House bill a fraud and said he would veto it. The response was:

"But House committee chairwoman Brenda Landwehr, a Wichita Republican, said the measure Parkinson supports is a fraud because it bans smoking in private businesses while allowing it in state-owned casinos."

Of course someone from Wichita is one of those behind it, but she is right as a true statewide ban should include casinos. I just wonder how all the little burgs in Kansas without a ban and with one little bar would feel about having to pay for the privilege of smoking in it?

I believe 36 cities in Kansas have passed a ban and that it will continue as a local decision which is probably the true intention of the House bill.

0

sad_lawrencian 4 years, 6 months ago

One day smoking will be banned here, as it is currently banned in 25 states across the United States. Kansas is not progressive in any way, shape or form, but the ban will happen here sooner or later. It's only a matter of time. The tide is turning.

0

notajayhawk 4 years, 6 months ago

beatrice (Anonymous) says…

"Don't you mean “cough” your a**es off?

"Those of us who live in places that do not allow smoking indoors in public places just breath."

About all you're capable of, apparently.

I was referring to the non-smokers who were smart enough to stay out of smoking-allowed establishments, dearie. The ones who aren't inflicted with that monumental sense of whiny entitlement that's so rampant in Larryville.

0

kansasmutt 4 years, 6 months ago

The ones who are for a ban must be lemmings. You don’t have the brains to not enter a place with a sign that allows smoking ?????? We as people should be smart enough to read and know if we want to work or visit a smoker friendly business, or have we reverted back to being Neanderthals ? Man i am loosing faith in our people. You want our leaders to feed and dress you for work too ? Do we need to have someone tell you it`s time for bed ? Do you want a wake up call every workday so your not late ? Can you not decide how to live your own life and want to tell everyone how to live their lives ? Control, that is all it is. You cant control your self, so you want to control others and feel powerful ? Is that it ? Take the time to read this and you might just see how stupid this issue realy is. It is so so so simple. leave it as a choice for everyone. That is so frikin simple and easy.If you are not smart enough to stay out of a smoker friendly business, you need help.

0

beatrice 4 years, 6 months ago

McF, you basically ignored my comments. Instead of re-addressing your claim about OSHA or on preparing meat, which I stated we should assume was correct, why not address the questions I asked.

Is your argument that cooking meat is bad, so we might as well allow smoking too? Two wrongs make a right? Is that really your argument against a smoking ban?

Regarding the OSHA claim, are you also suggesting that second-hand smoke isn't a threat to non-smokers?

nota, nice to see you still have your little boy panties all in a twist and that anything I write makes you get alll grumpy sexist. You are funny and sad, all rolled into one.

0

notajayhawk 4 years, 6 months ago

beobachter (Anonymous) says…

"No real intelligence or reasoning in either. Just a selfishness for their bad habits and lack of will power to stop smoking."

Smokers are saying there should be some places where smoking is allowed, and some places where it's not. Non-smokers are saying that's not good enough, that since they don't smoke NO place should allow it. And in BeO's addled brain, it's the smokers who are being "selfish".

Brilliant, BeO, just brilliant.


beatrice (Anonymous) says…

"nota, nice to see you still have your little boy panties all in a twist and that anything I write makes you get alll grumpy sexist. You are funny and sad, all rolled into one."

I think bea just doesn't like the way cigarette smoke interacts with the blue tint in her hair.

You're the one obsessed with panties, bea, and I'm the sexist one? BTW, especially after your comments (i.e., whining) to McF, it's amusing you didn't even make an attempt at addressing the point, which (since it sailed right over your poor old head) was that where we live, people are smart enough to go where smoking is allowed if they smoke, and patronize other establishments if they don't. Again, since they aren't whiny, entitled 'it's-all-about-me-and-you-have-to-live-the-way-I-say-you-do' brats like - well, like you.

0

kimmydarling 4 years, 6 months ago

Really? We people are going directly to socialism? Good lord, it's no wonder Kansas is traditionally the butt of all the jokes about ignorant and backwards Americans if this is really how the argument will progress. What I'm seeing is "the majority voted this down" "FREEDOM!" "right ..but we voted that we didn't want it..." "SOCIALISM! NOOOO!" "I.. what?" "AMERICA, FREEDOM! HELL YEAH!" "Health risks?" "did you not hear me say freedom?" "oh..right..."

Honestly, American law has always been based on the idea that the good of many outweighs the desires of one. If the majority of the population does not smoke and, as science has proven, smoke from cigarettes poses an inherent public health issue as it has the potential to at the very least cause fatal disease... then yes, the government has every right to protect public health by banning it in locations where they deem it to be unsafe.

If you want to smoke outside? I don't like it, but I won't stop you because there's plenty of fresh air moving around to keep it from being breathed in by other people who choose to not smoke. Want to smoke indoors? Stay home and cook yourself your own dinner or mix your own drinks.

0

beatrice 4 years, 6 months ago

nota, indeed, I want it to be all about me, not drug addicts or junkies like you, who get to choose the quality of air the rest of us get to breathe.

Blue tint in my hair? Ouch, that really hurt.

Of course, I know I'm in better shape than you, have probably lived longer already than you even will, certainly will enjoy quality of life well beyond your sad, hacking existance, and don't have to weeze when I wake up in the morning or watch people turn their faces when I talk to them because they are trying to avoid the horrid smell of rancid decay you call your lungs, junkie.

McF, is that your own website, or just a pro-tobacco lobbyist site that supports your views? How about you site some slightly reliable sources, say something closely related to the medical industry perhaps? Seriously. To argue that second hand smoke isn't harmful just proves you have no credibility at all. None. As I just stated to nota, people like you are not going to be the ones who get to decide the level of air quality the rest of us get to breathe.

0

BorderRuffian 4 years, 6 months ago

Lawrenceguy40:

What an amazing bit of hyperbole! How can you possibly equate the one thing with the other? That's nonsensical.

Where is it assumed that you (the smoker) have any right whatsoever to sit down next to me and breathe your foul smoke all over me? First, it is poisonous. Second, it is rude, third, it (and you the smoker) stink and are highly offensive to me.

If your habit did not affect me, I truly wouldn't care, even though I find the habit offensive. Just like a three-hundred pound hairy dude in his 60's in a spandex bathing suit offends my senses, unless his wearing of that ridiculous suit impacts my health or well-being, I really don't care. But cigarette smoke DOES affect my health and well-being. What makes you imagine that I should be required to be affected by that?

0

beatrice 4 years, 6 months ago

Pilgrim2, congrats on having quit, however, should gas station owners have the right to decide whether or not people can smoke at the pumps? Should business owners get to choose the level of asbestos insulation they have in their walls, or restaurant owners decide if they want to store their cleaning products with their raw meat, or to buy their uninspected seafood from the back of a trunk, or use lead-based paint on their walls and on their dishes, or factory owners to hire children to work their machinery, or ....

I believe you get the point. Just because business owners used to be able to make all of these types of decisions without government interference in the past doesn't mean it is best that they still do today. It is a health issue, that is all.

0

scaramouchepart2 4 years, 6 months ago

It is not a choice to allow smoking and then the non smoker can decide if they wish to enter. In a non smoking environment both can still enter and enjoy. It is really stupid of a business owner to tell 70% of the county, and therefore, customers to take a hike for a few smokers.

0

scaramouchepart2 4 years, 6 months ago

Pilgrim; It is about choice, your way limits choice for most. History has shown business owners will do the least in order to bring in the most bucks to the point of taking people's health out of the equation. If business owners had given a reasonable choice to all we would not be here debating this question. If I ate out I had to go early before the smokers got their. Now I can spend more money and stay longer at my favorite resturants and have dessert or even a drink. Like most non smokers now have a choice to pay more for their time in an establishment that does not allow smoking. I ate in Topeka yesturday and I even asked if they had smoking in the resturant. Topeka is smoke free and we stayed for dinner and spent over $50 they would not have gotten if we could not stay.

0

beatrice 4 years, 6 months ago

Pilgrim, you don't agree with business regulations of any kind. Got it.

I don't agree, and thank goodness, that boat has already sailed and those who agree with you are stuck on shore. We aren't going back to the days of child labor, sweat shops, monopolies, sexual harrasment, unregulated kitchens in restaurants, unregulated meat processing, let alone no standards on pharmecutical production and any number of other things that are violations today. So you can wish it were still the 1800s, but it isn't. What you are talking about isn't about choice, it is about abuse. I am proud to stand on the side of the workers, not the corporate money barons.

0

BorderRuffian 4 years, 6 months ago

Pilgrim2:

You make it sound so easy for one to elect not to habituate establishments where smoking is allowed. You make it seem as if the problem lies with the non-smoker and not the smoker whose filthy habit is unhealthy and offensive to those around him/her. However, it is not that simple.

The decision whether or not to allow smoking is not one that is esy for most establishment owners to answer based solely on preferences. Competition for market share is tough and if giving in to smokers means more business, then most places will opt to allow smoking. The choice is really not up to them. It is a matter of survival, so do not give me the free choice stuff.

The bottom line is that smokers pose health risks to those around them, and besides that their smoking is offensive and filthy (check out the litter outside on the sidewalks and intersections and count the thousands of filthy, germ-laden cigarette butts).

I repeat: smokers DO NOT have the right to inflict their sick habit on everyone else.

0

tomatogrower 4 years, 6 months ago

A question for those who think they should have freedom to pursue their addiction in public: Do you think it would be ok for people to have sex in public? drink in public? shoot up heroin in public? pick your nose in public? not wear clothes in public? Do you really think people should be free to do whatever they want in public? Smoking is an addiction, yes, a legal addiction, but it's not something I want my grandchildren around, anymore than I want them around junkies and drunks. You still have the freedom to smoke in your own home and your car, no one is stopping you. You even have the right to get your children addicted, but stay away from me and my family.

0

beatrice 4 years, 6 months ago

"but I know that's your looney left superiority complex kicking in."

And to think, we were doing so well without the name calling.

If "superiority" is what is needed to say "No!" to allowing cancer-causing bioproducts from a particular type of addict's drug infiltrating the air for all to be subjected to, including employees (this is an employee's rights issue to work in a healthy environment, after all), so be it. Sometimes somebody just has to be superior to another. Glad it is me.

Seriously, what about all the other things I wrote of? Do you really believe businesses should have absolutely no limits placed on them when it comes to employee and customer safety -- as long as it is posted out front? Do you really believe the business scenario in today's world would be better served if we had the lack of regulations as found in the 1800s than we what we have today? That is what you are arguing for.

0

beatrice 4 years, 6 months ago

The problem is, they are still needlessly dangerous! We have many, many laws that protect society against needlessly dangerous scenarios -- everything from speed limits (can't the people decide on how fast they want to drive?) to laws against driving drunk (As long as everyone knows drunks might be driving out there, what is the problem, right?) to dumping chemical waste. Not allowing smoking in public places is another of these worthwhile restrictions on all.

Scenario - An employee who is working in a restaurant that allows smoking. The job pays well and provides medical benefits. He learns that he has lung cancer, will need to go through chemo treatments and have part of a lung removed. If he quits his job where the smoke that caused the cancer is in the air, guess what ... he loses his insurance, so he can't quit. Too bad, I guess you would say.

Exactly what kind of disclosures are we talking about: Sign above the door that says "Eating here can kill you."?

Finally, would you think it okay if the sign above the door read "We hire Whites only," or "We allow sexual harrasment"? I mean, everybody would know what the situation is right up front, correct? Not allowing discrimination in hiring or not allowing sexual harrasment in the work place is meant to protect workers. Not allowing cigarette smoke in the air is meant to make the work place a safer place.

I'll stick with being on the side of employees rights to work in a safe environment. That is the "choice" I, and many others, have chosen. To be against worker safety is an extremely arrogant stand to take.

0

Boston_Corbett 4 years, 6 months ago

We don't want a smoking ordinance, because if we do, Johnny's and Free State will be forced to close! Chuck told us so.

Oh.... Nevermind.

0

dontcallmedan 4 years, 6 months ago

MJM- I'd love to dine on a patio in Lawrence on a nice day. But I won't, because smoking is allowed, and the drug addicts you so vigorously promote, would think nothing of stinking up the air surrounding my food.

0

sad_lawrencian 4 years, 6 months ago

My side is winning. End of story. You can now go out in Lawrence and you have a reasonable chance of not encountering second-hand smoke. We went out to eat last Friday night in a bar on Mass St that was probably a smoking establishment at one point, and it was amazing to see how busy (packed!) and smoke-free it was. So... this argument (from the so-called "business owners" on here) about bars and restaurants losing customers when they disallow smoking is ludicrous. So... I want to take a moment and ponder what I said: You can now go out in Lawrence and you have a reasonable chance of not encountering second-hand smoke. Thank you to the "liberals" and the fearless lawmakers (and the citizens of Lawrence who elected them) for passing this nonsmoking ordinance in 2004. :)

0

gccs14r 4 years, 6 months ago

There is new research out of Berkeley today citing the cancer danger in third-hand smoke. Apparently the sticky crap that gets all over everything reacts with combustion byproducts to create carcinogens that are absorbed by contact. Yay! Now you don't have to breathe secondhand smoke to get cancer, all you have to do is touch something after a smoker has been there.

0

kansasmutt 4 years, 5 months ago

sad_lawrencian (anonymous) says... I moved here from Connecticut in 2007 and I was dismayed to find out that Kansas does not have a comprehensive statewide smoking ban. Therefore I found it very fortunate to live in a town, Lawrence, that DOES have a comprehensive smoking ban in place. I would see it as a violation of the state legislature's authority to tell communities like Lawrence that these towns and localities cannot have a local, comprehensive smoking ban. I am hoping that the Kansas legislature has a few good men and women who are smart enough to kill this silly new bill before it even gets out of the committee. If Kansas DOES pass some kind of relaxed law that basically supports the tobacco companies, I will probably find a new state in which to live. . . . . .


Hey, U Haul has rental trucks so you can go back east and spead your BS to those do gooders. Need help packin ? OSHA doesnt even care about smoke, check out what they say http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=24602 If you hated it so bad back east, why are all you from back east changing Kansas ????????? Go Home. CHOICE is what Kansas wants, not control. If you dont like choice, then i say move back to Con and control them, they seem to like it. The Indians had no choice, but we see the wrongs we did them, and now choice is what this state needs to do, not control. Choice is the fact at hand, not just smoking or not smoking. Your group of lemmings are shallow minded and want total control over others.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.