Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Kansans rally for statewide smoking ban, point to health benefits

February 9, 2010

Advertisement

On the street

Would you like to see the local anti-smoking ordinance overturned?

Yes. I’m a smoker and I would like to go to the bar and have a beer and smoke a cigarette, like the good old days.

More responses

Americans have come a long way when it comes to implementing smoke-free areas.

Let’s hope Kansas doesn’t take a big step backward.

The Senate has passed a statewide smoking ban.

But House Bill 2642 would overturn anti-smoking ordinances such as the one in Lawrence. While it would establish a statewide ban on smoking in indoor public places, it would allow numerous exemptions. For example, restaurants and clubs could continue to allow smoking if there are separate smoking and nonsmoking areas.

The bill is scheduled for a hearing Wednesday before the House Health and Human Services Committee.

“I think it’s a joke,” said Lawrence resident Kathy Bruner, of the Tobacco Free Kansas Coalition. “I am ashamed of the time that they took to put that together when we have so many pressing issues.”

Study after study has pointed to the benefits of laws implementing smoke-free areas.

“They say eight hours in a smoking venue is like smoking a pack and a half of cigarettes,” Bruner said.

Each year, tobacco claims 3,800 lives and costs the state $927 million in health care bills, according to a report released recently by five health-based organizations.

Bruner said she became an strong advocate of smoke-free laws while working in the office of her husband, Dr. Steven Bruner.

“I watched so many people’s lives be shortened and compromised by tobacco disease-related processes, and we didn’t know back then, but now we know. It breaks my heart every time I see a young person start.”

— Kathy Bruner, of Tobacco Free Kansas Coalition

She’s not alone.

More than 100 American Cancer Society advocates are expected to gather Wednesday in Topeka to support a smoke-free Kansas. There will be a press conference at 10 a.m. at the Kansas Association for Justice, 719 SW Van Buren.

Past Event
Rally for smoke-free Kansas

  • When: Wednesday, February 10, 2010, 10 a.m.
  • Where: Kansas Association for Justice, 719 SW Van Buren, Topeka, KS
  • Cost: Free
  • More on this event....

Among those speaking: first lady Stacy Parkinson; Rep. Charlie Roth, R-Salina; Dick Morrissey, deputy director of health for the Kansas Department of Health and Environment; Rep. Tom Burroughs, D-Kansas City; and Gay Cornell and Tonia Carlson, of the American Cancer Society.

After the conference, the advocates will march to the Capitol for a rally, and then go inside to meet with legislators.

To symbolize the lives lost in Kansas to secondhand smoke this year, 380 pairs of shoes will be displayed on the Capitol’s east steps.

According to a recent American Cancer Society poll, more than 70 percent of Kansans support a strong smoke-free law for the state.

Comments

lawslady 4 years, 10 months ago

Go ahead and ban it state wide BUT DO NOT MESS WITH CITIES THAT WANT TO MAKE IT EVEN MORE STRICT. Respect home rule. Or leave it up to the locals to decide. If the new state law is going to make the current ban LIGHTER and ban cities from making it even tougher, it really isn't being done for health. It's being done to make the cities back off.

lawslady 4 years, 10 months ago

Go ahead and ban it state wide BUT DO NOT MESS WITH CITIES THAT WANT TO MAKE IT EVEN MORE STRICT. Respect home rule. Or leave it up to the locals to decide. If the new state law is going to make the current ban LIGHTER and ban cities from making it even tougher, it really isn't being done for health. It's being done to make the cities back off.

LeviCircle 4 years, 10 months ago

How in the world is this filed under the "News" section, and not "Opinion"? When the second sentence of a story is the sentence, "Let’s hope Kansas doesn’t take a big step backward.", and it's NOT a quote from a proponent of a position, that is poor, poor journalism. The subject matter is irrelevant - the entire piece reads like a press release.

"Let's hope" that the LJW doesn't really consider this P.R. piece actual news, and puts it in the opinion section, where it belongs.

SouthWestKs 4 years, 10 months ago

There was a study done in Europe on baning smoking.. They found that it would cost much more it in medical expenses because people would live longer.. How come nobody wants to talk about that?? Are we looking in the wrong direction..

Brak 4 years, 10 months ago

If you are that adverse to smoking then just don't go to establishments that allow it. I don't agree with what goes on in Bed, Bath, and Beyond, but you don't see me trying to get them shutdown, I just don't go there.

Randy Leonard 4 years, 10 months ago

SouthWestKS, I guess according to your reasoning we should just set time limits on lifespans. We'll just execute everyone on their 50th birthday. That will create huge savings in medical costs.

generalsn 4 years, 10 months ago

Here's the source of the bans, Johnson and Johnson, the founding fathers of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the makers of Chantix and Nicoderm.

          http://www.referencecenter.com/ref/reference/RWJohnsnF/Robert_Wood_Johnson_Foundation?invocationType=ar1clk&flv=1

As can be seen, the American Cancer Society, The American Lung Association, and the American Heart Association get millions from them to support smoking bans. It's simple marketing strategy.

           http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?id=14912

And where the money is going: Note on page seven, the "inside out" provision promising to return later for the patios AFTER business owners spend thousands to build them for their many smoking customers, clearly showing that they have absolutly no concern about local businesses

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

gccs14r 4 years, 10 months ago

There's a new study out today that outlines the cancer hazard in tobacco smoke on surfaces. That pretty much means that there is no place where smoking can be permitted, because the smoke is going to end up touching a surface eventually.

gatekeeper 4 years, 10 months ago

Thing (Anonymous) says…

If you are for a statewide ban on smoking, you had also better be for banning K2, marijuana and other substances. I don't smoke, but I don't like the government telling me that I can't. ///

They aren't telling you that you can't smoke. They're telling you that you can't smoke in places where you will endanger the health of others.

I heard this morning that AC/DC (heavy smokers) now have to tour with oxygen tanks and take breaks to go back and breath. Smoking's great.

Smoke your lawn clippings in your own home for all I care, but when you feel your right to smoke a substance that is known to cause cancer to the poor people around you, we should have laws to protect our health. The MINORITY of people in this country smoke and anti-smoking laws are there to protect the health and safety of the MAJORITY.

gccs14r 4 years, 10 months ago

"They aren't telling you that you can't smoke. They're telling you that you can't smoke in places where you will endanger the health of others."

Now we're finding out that that's everywhere smoke can touch. Houses that have been smoked in will have to be treated the same way as someplace full of asbestos.

Ernest Barteldes 4 years, 10 months ago

When New York banned smoking in bars, restaurants and clubs there was a huge backlash at first, but after a while people actually began to appreciate it. In neighboring New Jersey, it took another couple of years for them to enact similar legislation --- and many Manhattanites would take the train to puff away at bars in Hoboken (I actually saw former wild child Jenna Bush there once).

But I do appreciate coming home after a night out without smelling like an ash tray... Im all for those bans now.

SouthWestKs 4 years, 10 months ago

All I said was the cost are going to go up.. But the people that want the bans claim that cost will go down.. Looks like the banners logic is flawed..

BHannegan 4 years, 10 months ago

A major heart attack study has just been published in the European Journal of Epidemiology the negates the earlier meta-analysis done by Dr. David Meyers. Read the new study here: http://mogasp.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/smoking_bans__heart_attacks_tuscany_study_2010.pdf

The study found no association between heart attacks and smoking bans. Dr. Michael Siegel of the Boston University School of Public Health says of this study:

"Importantly, this published study was not considered by the Institute of Medicine committee which reviewed this issue and released its report in October of last year. It was also not considered in published meta-analyses on this topic. Because of the high sample size of this study, it is likely that inclusion of this study in the previous meta-analyses would have negated their results." http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/01/published-study-finds-no-effect-of.html

BHannegan 4 years, 10 months ago

Dr. David Meyers has admitted that his dramatic heart attack findings were a mistake. His revised numbers show that smoking bans had no effect on heart attack rates:

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/12/error-disclosed-in-meta-analysis-of.html

Here is a link to the correction Dr. Meyers issued in The Journal of the American College of Cardiology. Has the LJWorld covered this?

http://content.onlinejacc.org/cgi/content/full/54/20/1902-a

BHannegan 4 years, 10 months ago

The most comprehensive study yet conducted concerning the public health effects of smoking bans has found that smoking bans do not decrease mortality rates, hospital admissions or heart attack rates in communities that impose them. The study was conducted by researchers from the Rand Corporation, Stanford University, the University of Wisconsin and the Congressional Budget Office. The National Bureau of Economic Research has already circulated this study, CHANGES IN U.S. HOSPITALIZATION AND MORTALITY RATES FOLLOWING SMOKING BANS, as a working paper, and it will soon be published in a major medical journal. http://www.nber.org/papers/w14790 Read the study here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/19698233/SSRNid1359506

The researchers summarize their study:

"U.S. state and local governments are increasingly restricting smoking in public places. This paper analyzes nationally representative databases, including the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, to compare short-term changes in mortality and hospitalization rates in smoking-restricted regions with control regions. In contrast with smaller regional studies, we find that workplace bans are not associated with statistically significant short-term declines in mortality or hospital admissions for myocardial infarction or other diseases. An analysis simulating smaller studies using subsamples reveals that large short-term increases in myocardial infarction incidence following a workplace ban are as common as the large decreases reported in the published literature."

BHannegan 4 years, 10 months ago

Kathy Bruner is mistaken when she says that working in a venue that allows smoking equals smoking 30 cigarettes. The Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory studied this and found that the most exposed bartender breathes about 1 cigarette worth of tobacco specific particles in a 40 hour week. Most breathe far less.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26653074/Published-Version-Waitstaff-Bartender-Study

Richard Heckler 4 years, 10 months ago

KCMO is going smokeless. Westport brewery is smokeless. The Plaza appears to be smokeless

Tobacco smoke cannot be contained as smoke travels freely and invades the privacy of anyone under the same roof.

80% of the population do not smoke. Why promote smoking?

Why go backwards?

Is it impossible for some to eat or drink without smoking? Isn't that an addiction?

Richard Heckler 4 years, 10 months ago

The majority of our legislators are real experts at wasting time aka money aka tax dollars.

kansasmutt 4 years, 10 months ago

From above """ Each year, tobacco claims 3,800 lives and costs the state $927 million in health care bills, according to a report released recently by five health-based organizations.""""" This is the most bogus statement i have heard in 40 years. More non smokers die in Kansas than do smokers every day. I cant count how many people die from heart disease and cancer , who never smoked and came from non smoking households. KFOC ( Kansas for Freedom Of Choice ). Soon to be suing Kansas for billions. If you do gooders want to control everyone, go to an island and rule it under your own inbreed government. When you have a documented 80 years study of smokers and non smokers that is controled and real, you post it with the facts, not just your own twist and thoughts, real hard facts. Owh, you dont have that ? Sorry , sell your crap to another country.Everyday another study comes in on things and they say, well we thought this was bad for you, but sorry it`s not, our mistake.Funny thing is, Most smokers live to be 80 plus years old and the average life span of us humans is 72. The life span of us humans is going down with more people not smoking.Seems to working just fine. Any other great ideas ?

down_the_river 4 years, 10 months ago

"To symbolize the lives lost in Kansas to secondhand smoke this year, 380 pairs of shoes will be displayed on the Capitol’s east steps."

Since they've been promoting a ban for over 10 years, that's 3,800 Kansans killed by secondhand smoke. Why not do something more than symbolic, and bring the family of one of the deceased in to a hearing to testify? It would be powerful.

But their reluctance to do so suggests they know those death reports are bogus, and it's just a shrill tactic, not an accurate statement.

I hate the smell of cig smoke, but I hate the stench of lies more. Tell the truth people, or stay out of other peoples' lives.

crispysyn 4 years, 10 months ago

Upfront and Simple: If a bar or restaurant allows smoking, and you don't like it. DON"T GO. Go somewhere else. Why should smokers be ostracized. If you go to a smoking establishment knowing it is a smoking establishment, you don't have the right to complain about it. Restaurants, okay, I will give you that one. I smoke. I do not smoke in restaurants anywhere even if they allow it. I am there to eat, then I go home. But bars, if you go into a bar, you are fully aware of what comes with that. You are consenting to it, stop complaining.

gccs14r 4 years, 10 months ago

All it takes is one smoker to spoil an establishment for thousands of non-smokers. Why should your perceived right to flaunt your drug addiction take precedence over the health, safety, and comfort of everyone else?

BigAl 4 years, 10 months ago

Brak (Anonymous) says… I don't agree with what goes on in Bed, Bath, and Beyond, but you don't see me trying to get them shutdown, I just don't go there


I'm still trying to figure out what goes on in "Bed, Bath and Beyond"

Sheila Martin 4 years, 10 months ago

Tobacco Free Kansas grant from Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, $1,200,000.00. American Cancer Society, share of $99,000,000.00 grant from Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Kansas Democratic Party $5,000.00 from Pfizer. Pfizer makes Chantix. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation holds over 30,000,000 shares of Johnson and Johnson stock. J&J and Pfizer are in the "family" of J&J companies. They market Chantix, Nicoderm, Nicorette, Nicotrol, Nicoderm CQ. They provide big money for newspaper ads, which is WHY this was reported as "news", not as opinion. (The Second hand smoke is poisonous.com ad is funded with Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Funds too, it's funneled into Kansas through the Kansas Health Foundation in Wichita. Much of this money travels through numerous, supposed non profits, so they can hide the pharmaceutical connection. Even the KHPA and the KDHE get grant funding from nicotine replacement) As in all things, follow the money.) No one wants to ban the selling of tobacco products. What they want to do is demonize smokers onto nicotine replacement products and Chantix. Since the State and these groups have failed, with the hundreds of millions of dollars they have blown of our tax money and illegally lobbying for a drug company, they now want small business people to do their job for free. And the rent seeking legislation, for pharma, needs to be stopped.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.