Archive for Thursday, February 25, 2010

House approves statewide smoking ban; measure goes to governor

State Reps. Brenda Landwehr, R-Wichita and Dave Crum, R-Augusta, confer Thursday during debate on statewide smoking ban. Both legislators voted against the proposal.

State Reps. Brenda Landwehr, R-Wichita and Dave Crum, R-Augusta, confer Thursday during debate on statewide smoking ban. Both legislators voted against the proposal.

February 25, 2010, 10:04 a.m. Updated February 25, 2010, 2:43 p.m.

Advertisement

Supporters of smoking ban sport T-shirts with message to vote for the bill. They were seated in the House gallery in February 2010 as the House debated and eventually approved the measure.

Supporters of smoking ban sport T-shirts with message to vote for the bill. They were seated in the House gallery in February 2010 as the House debated and eventually approved the measure.

Kansas moving toward smoking ban

The state of Kansas could become the nation's 29th to go completely smoke-free. Enlarge video

— What Lawrence adopted in 2004 soon will be the law of the land throughout Kansas: a ban on smoking in most indoor public places such as restaurants, bars and workplaces.

The Kansas House on Thursday approved 68-54 a statewide ban, and Gov. Mark Parkinson indicated he would sign it into law when it hits his desk.

“This is a victory for workers, families, businesses and future generations,” said Parkinson, who had called for a strong smoke-free bill when the 2010 session started in January.

Supporters of the ban sitting in the House gallery cheered when the gavel came down on the vote to concur with a Senate plan that had been approved last year.

Reader poll
Should Gov. Parkinson sign the statewide smoking ban bill headed to his desk?

or See the results without voting

Rep. Charles Roth, R-Salina, called the measure “a legacy vote” and probably the most important bill in the past 20 years to improve the health of Kansans.

Urging his colleagues, he said, “You’ll have the opportunity to provide clean air to employees and patrons of almost any workplace. This is a bill you’ll be able to tell your children when you go home that you voted for clean air in Kansas.”

The legislation will ban smoking in restaurants, bars and other businesses. Cities that want stricter bans are allowed to do so.

Critics said the ban is an infringement on the rights of businesses and local governments to decide whether to restrict smoking.

They also blasted the proposal for exempting the gambling floors of state-owned casinos, some private clubs and 20 percent of hotel and motel rooms.

“It’s not a comprehensive clean air act. It’s a farce,” said Rep. Brenda Landwehr, R-Wichita.

Landwehr, chair of the House Health and Human Services Committee, asked for more time to craft a compromise. Her committee had an alternative that would have permitted smoking in restaurants and bars in designated areas and would have pre-empted local ordinances, such as the one in Lawrence. Parkinson had called that bill a “fraud” and supporters of a ban said they were tired of waiting. The issue has been debated off and on for four years by the Legislature.

Of the area delegation, Barbara Ballard, D-Lawrence, Tony Brown, D-Baldwin City, Paul Davis, D-Lawrence, and Tom Sloan, R-Lawrence, voted for the measure. Anthony Brown, R-Eudora, and Lee Tafanelli, R-Ozawkie, voted against it.

Comments

Jcjayhawk1 5 years, 1 month ago

Why are Casino's an exception? Ohhhh I see it's because it would effect business and the taxes the state gets from people throwing their life away for an indirect blessing of their addiction.

Where are the liquor police? They should ban it as well. 250K people die every year from it.

Chris Golledge 5 years, 1 month ago

Jcjayhawk1, If the guy next to me is drinking, I'm not forced to consume the waste products.

introversion 5 years, 1 month ago

They forgot to add the fact that this ban will not be honored in Leavenworth County.

killfloor 5 years, 1 month ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

killfloor 5 years, 1 month ago

So you delete peoples comments that aren't anti smokers

Randall Barnes 5 years, 1 month ago

FREEDOM OF CHOICE. If i choose to smoke or i choose to drink or i choose to eat all the good greasy food and not exersize, well it is my body not yours.and if you don't want to smell smell second hand smoke then go somewhere else.wearing seatbelts kill,more people die each year wearing seatbelts than those who do not. so it is my choice so leave me alone.

killfloor 5 years, 1 month ago

uh oh rando 1965 is not an anti smoker better delete his comment

Eddie Muñoz 5 years, 1 month ago

rando1965 - I choose to not be exposed to your cigarette smoke. You drinking or eating junk food does not affect me and is irrelevant to this topic. See cg22165's comment above.

jbiegs 5 years, 1 month ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

not_that_crazy 5 years, 1 month ago

I was confused which bill the story was about, also. But, Landwehr doesn't like it....so it is okay in my book.

mom_of_three 5 years, 1 month ago

Isn't it kind of hypocritical for casinos to be exempted? I mean, do they think that people won't go gamble if they can't smoke? But I mean, everything has told us otherwise....

introversion 5 years, 1 month ago

Rando,

Stop running my health insurance premiums through the roof with your freedom of choice.

jbiegs 5 years, 1 month ago

Rando, Do the world a favor and start eating more greasy fast food, smoke all day long, and don't ever wear your seat belt while driving. LOL

the dumbest of the herd breed the most

nobody1793 5 years, 1 month ago

"smoking would still be permitted in...private clubs..."

So how does this work. Could a bar declare itself a "private club", sell an annual membership at the door for 5 bucks, and allow smoking inside? Did they just create a giant loophole?

Randall Barnes 5 years, 1 month ago

ok i don't smoke,and i did't say smoking or second hand smoke was good for you, just let the people of america choose for them self.if you don't like it go somewhere else that's all i am saying.

Shardwurm 5 years, 1 month ago

There was a non-smoking casino in Las Vegas for a while but it went under.

They should consider banning smoking on the casino floor but have those cages like they do in the airports where people stand there like crazed animals not only smoking their own cigarettes but breathing each other's. Would be even better if it was one-way and they could be seen from the outside but they couldn't see out. Like an exhibit!

killfloor 5 years, 1 month ago

You're all self righteous liberal hippies. There is a little thing called freedom of choice. Who are you to judge. No I don't smoke.

estespark 5 years, 1 month ago

Freedom of choice? Ok. I choose to support the smoking ban.

killfloor 5 years, 1 month ago

Just let the government control everything you do then.

gccs14r 5 years, 1 month ago

Some ban is better than no ban. Get everyone else taken care of, then make the casinos smoke-free later. It's way better than the other bill that would have prohibited cities from enacting stricter regulations. The next two areas to cover are smoking in cars and outdoors. (Smoke in the privacy of your own home with the windows closed, but only if you own the house and don't have children, pets, or a non-smoking partner.) Maybe eventually we can squeeze the tobacco use areas into the methadone clinics.

headdoctor 5 years, 1 month ago

“farce” and “hypocrisy.” Indeed. They want the sin tax from it yet want people to quit. How screwed up is that? If it is so bad ban it all together and be done with it instead of playing this talk out both sides of the mouth trick. Then watch them scurry about whining about not enough revenue.

It would be kind of interesting if they ever did a total ban on it how much of the population would have to switch to mood altering prescription drugs. I would guess in the first few months of a total ban than things like brawls and domestic violence would triple over night.

William Pike 5 years, 1 month ago

DUMB. I have kids and do not smoke and still feel that this is sooo incredibly stupid. They need to let bars w/ a license allow smoking in the least.

tomatogrower 5 years, 1 month ago

You don't have to stop smoking, you just have to do it in the privacy of your home, just like if you have sex, you have to do it in the privacy of your own home. You aren't allowed to walk down the street drinking a beer either. Get over it. No one wants to watch you get your fix of nicotine. It's an addiction. Do you want to allow drug addicts to shoot up anywhere too?

M. Lindeman 5 years, 1 month ago

You all are so happy about this non-sense bill. Why stop there, lets ban anyone obese from going into fast food restraunts you because it is for there own good. They a very big strain on the health care system. We should also ban any protesting (anti-war, save the snails) because it offends alot of people. We just can't have those kind of eye sore or second hand odor linguring from you. I am just amazed on how some people are content in giving up rights. That is just as long as it ones that don't effect them or the rights they think there intitled to. Just keep going down that road, it is going to come back to bite us all when we don't have any rights.

chzypoof1 5 years, 1 month ago

I'm amazed at how quickly people are willing to give up their rights for a degree of "comfort". It is your choice to go somewhere that allows smoking. Your choice to not. Let the businesses decide. Quit letting the government decide our lives for us.

Shardwurm 5 years, 1 month ago

You pro-public smoking folks seriously need to reflect a moment. Your second-hand smoke is proven to cause health risks in other people. That's the key - in other people. Get it? Your habit is impacting my health. How is it you think that's a right?

I support your right to smoke entirely. If they tried to outlaw cigarettes I'd be right there fighting for you. But I do not support your right to impact the health of me or my family because of your choices. Therefore, you should take your habit outside or in designated smoking areas where it minimizes the risk to others.

Or are you saying you would rather kill someone than be courteous?

On the other hand I believe that when I get cancer I should be allowed to sue every single smoking establishment I've ever been in. A couple of lawsuits like that and the businesses wouldn't complain so much.

M. Lindeman 5 years, 1 month ago

Shardwurm (anonymous) says... You pro-public smoking folks seriously need to reflect a moment. Your second-hand smoke is proven to cause health risks in other people. That's the key - in other people. Get it? Your habit is impacting my health. How is it you think that's a right?

I support your right to smoke entirely. If they tried to outlaw cigarettes I'd be right there fighting for you. But I do not support your right to impact the health of me or my family because of your choices. Therefore, you should take your habit outside or in designated smoking areas where it minimizes the risk to others.

Or are you saying you would rather kill someone than be courteous?

On the other hand I believe that when I get cancer I should be allowed to sue every single smoking establishment I've ever been in. A couple of lawsuits like that and the businesses wouldn't complain so much.

rdragon write:

Show me the data on second hand smoke, because just like global warming. We are finding out the data has been fudged and tinkered with. If I own a bar and allow smoking, that is my right as the owner. If smoking is something you don't like, then you have the right to stay out. You have never been forced to go to that business in the first place. So why do you think you have the right to tell the business owner what he has the right to do? Oh I forgot it is to satisfie your wants.

Grammaton 5 years, 1 month ago

No one has a right to be safe and healthy wherever one may go. If you're alive, nothing is guaranteed.

feeble 5 years, 1 month ago

Clearly, banning W begets bans on X, Y and Z, and we can't go around banning Z, can we?

I also love all the arguments for super citizens. My individual rights trump your individual rights! No, your civil liberties infringe upon my civil liberties!

Finally, calling for evidence to be presented, then dismissing any evidence that /might/ be presented as tainted, because of controversy in a completely separate discipline of science, is hilariously awesome. Clearly, gravity doesn't exist because there's a hole in the fossil record, amirite?

Perhaps some posters should stop hyperventilating and use the internet for a somewhat worthwhile purpose, like looking up the actual text of the bill?

feeble 5 years, 1 month ago

ilikebutter (anonymous) says...

Just so we are clear on this....smoker's on average save non-smokers 11% on their health insurance bills.

By dying faster?

91.341341343% of all unicorns abuse methamphetamines. See, we can both play this game.

Jenni Allen 5 years, 1 month ago

I am a smoker and damn proud of it, I will stop when i am dead I refuse to be a clone like the rest of you anti-smokers. Its my body not yours .I have had it with you self-rightous ex-smokers you are a bunch of hypocrits

avaholic 5 years, 1 month ago

I want to start by saying I am not a smoker. I do not wish to smoke. I am also not going to start a post by insulting other people that voice their opinion.

That being said, I do not agree with a smoking ban. I believe it should be up to a store owner. It is their establishment and they have a right to allow people in to that establishment and give them the best experience they can. I guess my question would be, why do all resturants and bars have to do the same thing? If a bar owner wanted to have a bar that is pro smoker, that would be fine with me. Would I go to it? No. It is a choice that I made as someone that is concerned with their health. But I equally think that an owner that wants to ban smoking has every right to do that as well.

Also, health insurance premiums are not higher because of smokers. Smokers are usually charged more than non-smokers.

Grammaton 5 years, 1 month ago

In my own opinion, I think both sides could argue this into the ground using healthy common sense. Ultimately the argument would lead nowhere. I don't believe that this issue has anything to do with control or infringement on rights. I think it has to do with the general smoking populace failing to increase sensitivity and awareness and asking themselves simple questions and making small gestures. For example: "I'm out here smoking and there's five people that are about to walk past. I don't know if they smoke or not, but just in case, I'm going to blow my smoke in another direction and try to keep my cigarette out of the way so it doesn't mark their clothing on accident."

Let's try another example: You love to drink, and like to be around people drinking and generally don't have a problem with people drinking. You're having a get-together in your home, and a person has had so much vodka that he (let's just say that it's a male) becomes rude, impulsive, and offends at least most of your guests. You decide to kick him out.

This is about us not controlling ourselves, so the opportunity to smoke in public may be removed. I see the same behavior a lot in my work -- a particular group makes frequent mistakes in mis-keying vital data, and no matter how much you stress that they should copy and paste this particular piece of data, it just keeps happening. So you remove the opportunity for error by making the data field populable (is that a word?) only by paste command.

I would call myself a heavy smoker. It's what I do on my time when conditions are right and I enjoy it. But if someone doesn't like it, I'll put it out. I'm not the poster child for smokers, but there is such a thing as being a smoker with so much entitlement that it becomes rude. And that's just not cool.

madcow 5 years, 1 month ago

"oneeye_wilbur (anonymous) says...

STupid idea."

Yeah, that about sums up your post.

XEPCT 5 years, 1 month ago

Sign it. Smoking should be done outside.

not_a_republican 5 years, 1 month ago

You guys just dont get it. I am fine with banning smoking in publicly owned buildings even parks. Anything owned by the public. but not in a bar or restaurant or any other establishment that is privately owned. I dont like smoking and I have the choice not to go to a bar or restaurant that allows smoking. If I go to a bar and it reeks of smoke i have the option of not going in. Im not going to ruin it for all the people that go there and want to smoke because of me. Its my choice and right to not patranize that establishment. It is not my right to tell the other people there that i dont t like smoke so none of them can. I have the option to go elsewhere. but a courthouse for example i have to go to occasionally adn as the public i own it so no you cannot smoke in my courthouse or any other public place that i as the public own. howeveer if you are in youre own bar, restaurant, or bowling ally that i dont own and you want to light up feel FREE!

mom_of_three 5 years, 1 month ago

Seems a little hypocritical that smoking was not banned in the casinos that are state owned. Why would that be - they have repeatedly told business owners in Lawrence that their businesses aren't down due to the ban. So why are they scared to ban it in casinos?

I am a non-smoker, and I think that businesses should have a right to chose their clientele. My grandparents were smokers that lived into their late 70's and 80's. There are no guarantees in life.

M. Lindeman 5 years, 1 month ago

beobachter (anonymous) says... pilgrim2, you are a prime example of why smoking ban was needed.

rdragon writes:

I have seemed to miss your point. If you all where really so worried about our health. You would have been trying to banning all auto's, far more peoples health are effected. So really, if it was about our health and others and NOT about your wants. You would have first started with those nasty dangerous cars. So please do us all a favor, stop trying to tell everyone it is about others health, because the is just bunk.

viagra_sailor 5 years, 1 month ago

Apparently drunks and food eaters can live, but those who gamble can die, whether it be first or second hand.

ModSquadGal 5 years, 1 month ago

Oh all you sad, sorry, pitiful smokers. WAHHHH! You're right to pollute everyone else's air space is taken away. Your ability to FORCE your addiction on others is gone. Would you feel the same way if a ban was enacted that stopped heroin addicts from injecting innocent bystanders, or from stopping people from spitting in your food?

I go to restaurants, etc. to have a good time, not to have other people infect my life with their poor choices. If you want to kill yourself with smoking - HAVE AT IT. Put a fish bowl over your head and leave me alone. You have NO ONE else to blame for your addiction but YOU. I choose not to partake, so YOU should (and now do, THANKFULLY) have to sacrifice to continue to abuse yourself.

Sorry - but not really. GROW UP AND DEAL WITH IT.

gccs14r 5 years, 1 month ago

Property rights are not absolute. In fact, the concept of property ownership issues from the state and is subject to any rules the state wishes to impose.

down_the_river 5 years, 1 month ago

Downtown Lawrence is now (or within weeks) a no smoking zone. Since smoking is illegal within 10 feet of any doorway, most of the sidewalks downtown will now be off limits for people walking downtown with cigs. A bit more strict than the current ban in Lawrence.

M. Lindeman 5 years, 1 month ago

ModSquadGal (anonymous) says... Oh all you sad, sorry, pitiful smokers. WAHHHH! You're right to pollute everyone else's air space is taken away. Your ability to FORCE your addiction on others is gone. Would you feel the same way if a ban was enacted that stopped heroin addicts from injecting innocent bystanders, or from stopping people from spitting in your food?

I go to restaurants, etc. to have a good time, not to have other people infect my life with their poor choices. If you want to kill yourself with smoking - HAVE AT IT. Put a fish bowl over your head and leave me alone. You have NO ONE else to blame for your addiction but YOU. I choose not to partake, so YOU should (and now do, THANKFULLY) have to sacrifice to continue to abuse yourself.

Sorry - but not really. GROW UP AND DEAL WITH IT.

rdragon writes:

So your gas burning that spits out all those toxins is ok for me to breathe? Oh I forgot, your gas guzzler spits out more toxin, but that is ok right? Lets all be honest with ourselves, it has nothing to do with our health. It has everything to do with controlling others to fit what we want. To say different is bull, so just stop spitting our your bull.

Richard Heckler 5 years, 1 month ago

Smoke cannot be contained. It flows freely invading the privacy of others. Kansas is far from alone in this decision. I noticed the Plaza and Westport are smoke free. It's growing....

To further encourage smokers would only encourage medical insurance giants to take even more money from consumers as if $6,000,$8,000,$14,000 and $20,000 a year is not enough.

notajayhawk 5 years, 1 month ago

tomatogrower (anonymous) says...

"You don't have to stop smoking, you just have to do it in the privacy of your home, just like if you have sex, you have to do it in the privacy of your own home."

I can have sex in a hotel room, too. Or have we changed that to only 20% of hotel rooms allow sex?

"You aren't allowed to walk down the street drinking a beer either. Get over it. No one wants to watch you get your fix of nicotine."

Well, guess what, tomato - now you get to watch people smoke outside every bar and restaurant in the state.

"It's an addiction. Do you want to allow drug addicts to shoot up anywhere too?"

Oops, must have missed the part where shooting up drugs became legal and made the state millions and millions of dollars in tax revenue.


avaholic (anonymous) says...

"I guess my question would be, why do all resturants and bars have to do the same thing?"

Because the whiny, entitled generation just might want to go in there some day, too.


ModSquadGal (anonymous) says...

"I go to restaurants, etc. to have a good time, not to have other people infect my life with their poor choices."

Then again, if you're stupid enough to walk into a room where people are smoking, that would be YOUR poor choice, wouldn't it? Take a little personal responsibility - or, to quote a recent post, stop saying "WAHHHH!", and "GROW UP".

kernal 5 years, 1 month ago

Aside from it being an addiction harder to quit than heroin or cocaine, smoking is also a slow form of suicide. Your choice, but spare me your second hand smoke.

not_a_republican 5 years, 1 month ago

ModSquadGal,

Do you not realize that when you go to a restaurant you are going to a privately owned business not a public place and you are going there by choice not being forced? Even before lawrence banned smoking there were a lot of eating establishments that were already nonsmoking by choice and you were welcome to frequent them instead of ones that alowed smoking. If you decide to go to a restaurant and it allows smoking it is your choice weather to stay or go. If you dont like the smoke WALK AWAY! It is not your rite to eat at any privately owned restaurant you choose. It is no different than you wanting to come eat at my house and telling me I cant smoke while you are there. Restaurants don't force you to go to them they invite you. If you dont like what they have on the inside just leave. just like if you didnt like the food you would leave. Or the music they play, or the weird smell comming from the kitchen.

Why is this concept so hard for you selfish, do-gooder, "i know whats best for everyone" liberals to grasp?

I realize that if you are in a park or at the library, we all own those places and therefore have the right to a smoke-free environment. But we have no ownership (unless we are the actual owners) in the restaurants we frequent or the bars or stripclubs or casinos or even clothing stores or any other privately owned business. And if the people that own them want to smoke or allow smoking and i dont like it I CAN GO ELSEWHERE!

I wouldnt want someone ifringeing on my rite to breath clean air. If i am in a public area or establishment or even at my house and could smell the smoke from my neighbor then something should be done about that.

tomatogrower 5 years, 1 month ago

That being said, I do not agree with a smoking ban. I believe it should be up to a store owner. It is their establishment and they have a right to allow people in to that establishment and give them the best experience they ca

Should store owners also have the right to allow public sex? Should they also have the right to let people shoot up? Smoking is an addiction, it just happens to be a legal addiction. People can smoke in their own homes, they just need to keep it away from others. Enjoy your addiction, just do it in private.

Steve Jacob 5 years, 1 month ago

Atlantic City and ILL. casinos suffered 20-30% declines in business after smoking bans went into effect, to explain why casinos are exempt.

leedavid 5 years, 1 month ago

OK...now can the legislature get on to doing something about the state economy? Looks like they are cleaning out the closet before they get to the stuff that really matters.

mickeyrat 5 years, 1 month ago

Other than the more overt hypocrisy of not banning smoking in casinos, I enjoy the more subtle idea that I'm still forced to inhale second-hand engine exhaust, all the time, every day, and not a one of these anti-smoking crusaders seems to give a whit about it.

jayhawklawrence 5 years, 1 month ago

As a former smoker I know it is possible to quit.

I believe that some of us have the genetics that make it more difficult.

Please rid this world of second hand smoke.

That is my prayer to God.

Your life will become so much better without this evil.

Please rid this world of cancer causing tobacco.

Amen.

Lacy Mohler 5 years, 1 month ago

From the Topeka Capital Journal:

"Scott Schwab, an Olathe Republican, said smoking will be pushed into homes as parents will no longer be able to smoke in bars.

"If secondhand smoke is the concern, you are pushing it into the home environment," Schwab said."

No wonder the ban passed if this is the best argument anti-ban representatives could come up with.

notajayhawk 5 years, 1 month ago

jkanderson (anonymous) says...

"Scott Schwab, an Olathe Republican, said smoking will be pushed into homes as parents will no longer be able to smoke in bars."

I agree, pretty poor argument - so he's saying it's better for the parents to leave the kids home and hang out in bars?

meggers 5 years, 1 month ago

So much for smoking a couple of ciggies over bottle of wine or a beer. I know this a mixed bag politically, but as a card carrying liberal, I suspect many Lawrence progressives are heading directly towards their own self-fulfilling prophesy. They don't want to be like Johnson County, yet they demand a sanitized version of what they hold nostalgic.

Although I only smoke infrequently, I absolutely adore smoky, dark bars that have their own sort of feral gravity. I especially love a good jukebox.

With that being said, I realize that many would walk out of such an establishment just as quickly as I would walk out of a hip-hop show at the Granada. Actually, I would not pay the cover to see such a show. It doesn't mean it's a bad show, it just isn't my thing. The same rule should be applied to every business. YOU aren't laying down the capital or paying the bills, so it's absurd to ask a business owner to cater to your interests over the interests of his/her target customers.

I wouldn't want that as a business owner and I definitely don't want it as a consumer. Having said that, I have some half-stale ciggies in my glove box if anyone knows a place where we can find Johnny Cash, The Dead, and The Flaming Lips all on the same jukebox.

gccs14r 5 years, 1 month ago

Again, it's a public health issue. A business owner can't burn mercury as incense, for instance, or serve powdered lead as a spice, even if he has customers clamoring for it. Not everything a business owner wants to do is fair game. Even having a business is contingent upon state approval and the procurement of a federal tax license, so there's nothing free or private about it. The folks using auto exhaust as a counter example seem to have forgotten about the last forty years of ever-tightening restrictions on what can be emitted, and apparently are unaware that modern car exhaust is much less toxic per unit volume than is cigarette smoke.

hutchster 5 years, 1 month ago

Ahhh but yet we jump in our poluting automobiles Everyday and drive right past folks making a healthy choice and walking!!! You guys whine about smoking yet the polution and toxins that produced by your cars, your electric, The factories that make your clothes, the weed killers and fertilizers sprayed in your lawn, your lawn mowers, tractors, motorcycles, Yahts, skii boats, Airplanes, The factories that make your clothing and shoes, The sun!!!!!! Holy crap the sun causes skin cancer!!! Stay home dont go out ...........what do we do now? Point being theres a but load more to worry about than second hand smoke! Its crap that just because a person does or doesnt do it that they think the government should take there side. Its no more a public health issue than your garbage you set out every week, or the household cleaners you use around your children.......grandchildren.....or who ever heck no one has rulled out that laundry soap causes cancer anymore than they have proven cigarettes do. As a bussiness I should have a right to decide if I want to allow smoking in my establishment or not! If I loose costomers because of it then thats my fault..If a non smoking establishment loses customers because of it then thats their problem........Its not up to the government!!

bookemdano 5 years, 1 month ago

hutchster, so if you wanted to cook up a vat of poisonous chemicals in your restaurant and waft the fumes over people's entrees that should be OK with the government too?

Cars pollute (though a lot less than they used to) but at least they serve a useful purpose in society as a conveyance, shuttling people to and from productive undertakings. Smoking has no upside whatsoever--it's a vice, pure and simple.

Cars also spew their fumes OUTSIDE, which is exactly where your pollution should be as well.

I don't see what is so difficult about stepping outside for 5 minutes to get your nicotine fix. It ought to be common courtesy, but since it isn't it's a damn good use of government.

notajayhawk 5 years, 1 month ago

bookemdano (anonymous) says...

"so if you wanted to cook up a vat of poisonous chemicals in your restaurant and waft the fumes over people's entrees that should be OK with the government too?"

Funny you should mention that - because it apparently IS okay with the government.:

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

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

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

"THE BOTTOM LINE Chemicals in grilled meat have been shown to increase the risk of cancer."

whiskyboy58 5 years, 1 month ago

i have owned and operated a small neighborhood bar for the past twelve years. the last two i have experienced a decrease in customer spending and a increase in overhead. utilities, taxes,insurance and product. three fulltime employee's and myself rely on this business to house, feed and school our families. less than 10 percent of my regular customers are nonsmokers. a smoking ban will more than likely be the straw to break the camels back. i say "if you don't like the air in my bar, don't come in" it's that simple.

leedavid 5 years, 1 month ago

Whiskyboy, I happen to have quit smoking but I agree with you. You should be able to own an operate a legal establishment anyway you see fit. If that involves smoking at the bar, so be it. The public has the right not to support your busines if they so chose. I do not think it is right for government to ban a legal behavior, smoking, in a private business. What will they do next, ban drinking in a bar?

kansasmutt 5 years, 1 month ago

Just like living in Russia. This is pure BS and will break the state in 6 months if passed. As a business owner , i will allow smoking in my business and post a warning sign to all who enter. I also have a $300 million dollar fund to pull from to sue anyone who try`s to stop me .I and other businesses will break the state in court battles. Smoking is a choice we make and as an owner this is my choice to make. You have the choice not to enter a bar or a strip bar or a adult toy store and will continue to have a choice at my business. If passed this bill will be the most devistating thing to happen to Kansas business in our states history. You will see a failure unlike anything you can imagine. You can kiss your local businesses goobye and also look for a sales tax and property tax hike of around 8% to 15% very soon. I think you all have seen what it has done in CA , NY and other states. They are broke and soon We the people of Kansas will join the list of failed states.If you dont smoke, BEWARE your drinking is going to tripple in price in the next year or less. If you own property, sell it now and get ready to leave Kansas. If your on a fixed income, sorry, you just lost the game of life. If your about ready to open a business, think again, all your numbers just went down the sh#$$er . Bottom line, if this bill passes ALL Kansans be hurt bad. What is ironic, is that the hardest hit will be the ones who are backing the bill. That my friends is called karma.

M. Lindeman 5 years, 1 month ago

gccs14r (anonymous) says... Again, it's a public health issue. A business owner can't burn mercury as incense, for instance, or serve powdered lead as a spice, even if he has customers clamoring for it. Not everything a business owner wants to do is fair game. Even having a business is contingent upon state approval and the procurement of a federal tax license, so there's nothing free or private about it. The folks using auto exhaust as a counter example seem to have forgotten about the last forty years of ever-tightening restrictions on what can be emitted, and apparently are unaware that modern car exhaust is much less toxic per unit volume than is cigarette smoke.

rdragon writes:

BULL!!!

Richard Heckler 5 years, 1 month ago

If people quit smoking they will have more money for brew,gambling and other so called vices. However smoking has not been banned.

Now that a smoking restriction has been put in place we all should expect to see a 60% drop in the cost of medical insurance. You know that big business that just keeps on taking and taking and taking.

Lawrence was seeing 8%-15% property tax hikes during the unstable "boom town economic" period caused by economic displacement and mighty mighty inflation which ultimately led to taking the economy down the tubes.

No smoking has not killed Westport or Lawrence.

Have people forgotten 8 -10 million lost jobs recently and those people may be out of work for years to come according to radio news. This is where the hard times are coming from not a no smoking law.

Here's the source of the huge unemployment situation. TWICE they have put millions out of work which adds to their long history of messing up and messing with financial institutions: http://rationalrevolution0.tripod.com/war/bush_family_and_the_s.htm

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2009/0709macewan.html

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/10/good_billions_after_bad_one_year

down_the_river 5 years, 1 month ago

I wonder if the folks at Quintons, Replay and Louises downtown have seen this law? It's more restrictive than the Lawrence ordinance, and means they will no longer be able to have their nice outdoor areas in back available for smoking patrons. Ouch.

PosseComitatus 5 years, 1 month ago

Tough issue, bad law. My interpretation of our constitutional republic tells me that your individual liberty ends where your neighbors begins. Issues like this are why we institute a government in the first place, to draw those lines in the sand. The liberty was not taken away, it was restricted so as not to infringe on the liberty of others.

With that being said the casino exemption is pure hypocrisy. As you should recall that Indian reservations are sovereign territories and this law would have no effect and this in turn would give an unfair business advantage to the Indian casinos over the new state run casinos if they banned smoking in them. They chose to exempt the state run casinos so as not to lose business to the Indian casinos. So in effect the state is saying that you can smoke in their bar, but not in Joe's bar down the street which in turn gives the state an unfair advantage over the individual business.

See when the law would effect the bottom line of the state budget it is an economic issue, but if it only effects the bottom line of the small business owner it's a health issue.

Uniform application of the law is more important than the law itself and we can't allow the government to exempt themselves from it. This is a bad law and it will be overturned in the courts for this very reason.

ivalueamerica 5 years, 1 month ago

It is amazing how many of you feel you have some inalienable right to give me cancer.

jafs 5 years, 1 month ago

kansasmutt,

Please tell us the name of your establishment.

notajayhawk 5 years, 1 month ago

ivalueamerica (anonymous) says...

"It is amazing how many of you feel you have some inalienable right to give me cancer."

It is amazing how many of you feel you have some inalienable right to to go wherever you want and tell others how they have to behave because of it. It is amazing how many of you feel you shouldn't have to take any personal responsibility at all. It is amazing the monumental sense of entitlement the whiny brats of Larryville possess.

leedavid 5 years, 1 month ago

ivalueamerica (anonymous) says... It is amazing how many of you feel you have some inalienable right to give me cancer.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Naw....what is amazing is some people feel that a private bar has to loose business because they don't want smoking in it. Especially if they don't even support that bar to begin with. How are you getting cancer from a bar you don't go to?

gccs14r 5 years, 1 month ago

Yes, I want to know what establishment ksmutt claims is his, too. I can't believe someone with such a poor grasp of English spelling has $300, much less $300 million.

estespark 5 years, 1 month ago

Smoking is bad. Mmmmkay...

South Park

Ricky_Vaughn 5 years, 1 month ago

What a bunch of Nanny-State BS. The danger of second hand smoke is a bunch of BS too.

Ricky_Vaughn 5 years, 1 month ago

@ Nurnberg

Because bartending, cooking, and serving are healthy career choices...

leedavid 5 years, 1 month ago

Beobatcher....what are you going on about? No one can smoke in there today. Talk about stupidity. This bill is going to get signed. At issue is why can a governement tell a private business they can not allow smoking? The non smokers would not go in the bar, so how would they be harmed?

notajayhawk 5 years, 1 month ago

beobachter (anonymous) says...

"kansasmutt, please provide the name of your business so us non-smokers can avoid it."

Here's a suggestion - why don't you just avoid any business where you see people smoking?

Ricky_Vaughn 5 years, 1 month ago

I don't mind the gov't telling me what's best for me, but when they make it law, it takes away my freedom of choice. Isn't this supposed to be a free country?

leedavid 5 years, 1 month ago

Nurnberg, are you saying that with government safety standards, coal mines are safe? No of course your not. Coal mines are not safe. The employees know that and they chose to work there anyway. I don't think anyone of them will tell you they are safe.

jafs 5 years, 1 month ago

nota,

kansasmutt's attitude is particularly offensive, and some of us would prefer not to support his/her business because of that.

I'm sure that's why he/she has not disclosed the name, despite being asked to do so a number of times.

On other posts, he/she has criticized our educational system (which may be valid), but the posts contain numerous examples of poor grammar/spelling.

It seems that the educational system of his/her time wasn't much better than the current one.

leedavid 5 years, 1 month ago

Nurnberg, are you saying that with government safety standards, coal mines are safe? No of course your not. Coal mines are not safe. The employees know that and they chose to work there anyway. I don't think anyone of them will tell you they are safe.

William McCauley 5 years, 1 month ago

(quote)You pro-public smoking folks seriously need to reflect a moment. Your second-hand smoke is proven to cause health risks in other people. That's the key - in other people. Get it? Your habit is impacting my health. How is it you think that's a right? (quote)

As an ex smoker, and outdoor sport enjoying person, I have to ask, do you drive a car? Well your tailpipe fumes are are gas'n me out and I'm tried of breathing it in, it's causing health risks to my lungs, and those emissions have killed thousands of people across the country, if you don't believe me try a simple test and start your car in the closed garage and sit in your car for 5 hours.

No reason someone shouldn't be able to walk down the street smoking in public, same as you should be allowed to drive your car down the street and gas out the planet.

If a person owns a bar or place to eat and they want to allow their customers to smoke, that should be their right as a property owner, you have the right to support that place of business with your wallet, you have the right to invest your money and start a competing smoke free business for you and your like minded friends. What is so hard about that kind of playing field.

leedavid 5 years, 1 month ago

Nurnberg, I agree with you. The employees heatlh should be an issue. Now if we have a smoking bar and someone applies to work there, they know what the conditions and safety factors are. If they don't find them acceptable they can go work in a non smoking bar.

Melissa Sigler 5 years, 1 month ago

At least in Lawrence, even if they did let the property owners decide, I'm pretty sure most of the establishments here would still be smoke free....they'd have to be pretty dim to think they'd keep their customer base how it is now. Even some smokers agree that having the ban inside is more pleasant.

Melissa Sigler 5 years, 1 month ago

I really despise people who are in denial about second hand smoking harming other people (or themselves, for that matter)

How many studies need to come out that prove this...google it, people.

M. Lindeman 5 years, 1 month ago

mdsigler83 (anonymous) says... At least in Lawrence, even if they did let the property owners decide, I'm pretty sure most of the establishments here would still be smoke free....they'd have to be pretty dim to think they'd keep their customer base how it is now. Even some smokers agree that having the ban inside is more pleasant.

rdragon writes:

I disagree with you statement. I think most bar owners would love to get back the business they lost when the ban went into effect. Sure there would be few owners that would choose to stay smoke free, but history shows. A non-smoking bar goes out of business when competing with smoking bars.

leedavid 5 years, 1 month ago

Nurnberg....not so. I have read and understand your position. My experience in labor disputes was this. Everyworker is subject to unnnecessary and preventable health hazards everyday. There is hardly a product in use that does not have a health warning on it. That just can't be prevented. Some employees perform tasks that are dangerous. The employer is required to inform them of the dangers, the employee assumes the risk. Unless the employer knew of the hazards, did not warn the employee and did not take sufficent corrective actions.

Unless things have changed, that's the law.

jafs 5 years, 1 month ago

leedavid,

I believe that's simply not true.

Doesn't OSHA exist in order to prevent employees from being exposed to dangerous work environments?

Doesn't it in fact mandate that employers provide a safe working environment?

leedavid 5 years, 1 month ago

Jafs of course it does. Now are you going to tell me employees work in safe environments? Take the above example are you saying that working in a coal mine is a safe working environment?

For the record I quit smoking after 34 years, four years ago. I can't stand the smell of smoke or the smell of smoke on a smoker. I am more about freedom to run a private business.

Ricky_Vaughn 5 years, 1 month ago

I think both types of establishments could succeed in Lawrence.
Just look at the thread...it's pretty divided. Give the people what they want!

John Spencer 5 years, 1 month ago

I laugh at this article saying it will reduce costs, reduce them for who? We have heard for years about one thing or another will lower health costs, and I do not remember a single time that health costs have gone down. It's all a sham. Passive restraint seat belts were done to save lives, reduce health care costs, cost went up. Speed limits were reduced to save money and lives, costs didn't go down they went up. Businesses (smaller ones anyway) were forced to go non-smoking, costs still went up. As someone else said "if everything they are doing this to save us money, they better quit of they will drive us all into bankruptcy."

Flap Doodle 5 years, 1 month ago

{putting on Thready McThreadjack hat} Speaking of governors, Paterson in NY has joind the ranks of Democrats who are choosing not the face the voters again. {taking off Thready McThreadjack hat}

leedavid 5 years, 1 month ago

Nurberg of course not, except underground San Francisco....

Look how many private businesses across the country still have smoking in them. If it were an OSHA issue that would not be the case.

Look at the woman killed by the Killer Whale. She chose to work in an environment that she knew was dangerous, with an animal that was a known killer. The employer does not have liability. Yet that was an extremely dangerous working enviornment. Painters work in an unhealthy environment, the employer is not liable for that...the list goes on.

This is about freedom of choice to operate a business, to work in that business, and to be a customer of that business.

feeble 5 years, 1 month ago

Technically Snap, Paterson /never/ faced the voters.

feeble 5 years, 1 month ago

Technically Snap, Paterson /never/ faced the voters.

feeble 5 years, 1 month ago

yay double posts! is this a browser based bug?

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.0.18) Gecko/2010021501 Ubuntu/9.04 (jaunty) Firefox/3.0.18

Grump 5 years, 1 month ago

Shame on you Rep. Lee Tafanelli for voting against a bill that about 75% of Kansans support.

killfloor 5 years, 1 month ago

http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/second.htm (you might have to copy and paste) I'll just leave this here for all of you saying that second hand smoke will kill you or cause you cancer.

ivalueamerica 5 years, 1 month ago

leedavid, you are a hoot.

Just make it up as you go along...it is a familiar trait.

Facts are very different, states that have imposed smoking bans have shown no change in closure rate of bars and restaurants than in years before. Same store sales were down for about 4 months, some as much as 10%, then recovered to pre-ban rates.

If you want to take up a cause, are you able to do it without making things up?

Flap Doodle 5 years, 1 month ago

Good point, feeble. I stand corrected. {putting on Thready McThreadjack hat} Speaking of governors, Paterson in NY has joined the ranks of Democrats who are choosing not the face the voters. {taking off Thready McThreadjack hat}

gccs14r 5 years, 1 month ago

"If you willingly accept the position, it is NOT exploitation."

Desperate people do desperate things. Think about those horrible company towns that existed in the beginning of the 20th century. Take the job, do the work, and hope you don't die before you earn enough to put a meal on the table for your family. The company doesn't have to care, because there's a line down the block of men willing to replace you, despite the conditions. You're stuck, because there's nothing else available, and you're on the hook to the company because they charge you more for goods and services than they pay you, extending you "credit" to make up the difference that you have no hope of paying off.

gogoplata 5 years, 1 month ago

What happened to Freedom and Liberty?

storm 5 years, 1 month ago

Some smokers would rather fight than switch....to pacifiers.

Bob_Keeshan 5 years, 1 month ago

notajayhawk (anonymous) says...

ivalueamerica (anonymous) says...

"It is amazing how many of you feel you have some inalienable right to give me cancer."

It is amazing how many of you feel you have some inalienable right to to go wherever you want and tell others how they have to behave because of it. It is amazing how many of you feel you shouldn't have to take any personal responsibility at all.

I'm allowed to poop, but I'm not allowed to poop wherever I please.

I'm allowed to have sex, but I'm not allowed to have sex wherever I please.

Where is my freedom and liberty?

The whole "personal responsibility" line is a canard.

notajayhawk 5 years, 1 month ago

Bob_Keeshan (anonymous) says...

"I'm allowed to poop, but I'm not allowed to poop wherever I please."

Really?

Have they banned that in restaurants and bars in Lawrence, too?

"I'm allowed to have sex, but I'm not allowed to have sex wherever I please."

And as I asked earlier, is that limited to 20% of hotel rooms now?

"Where is my freedom and liberty?"

You have the freedom and liberty to not patronize establishments that allow smoking. It's too bad you don't have the personal responsibility (let alone understand what that means) to make that choice for yourself.

jonas_opines 5 years, 1 month ago

I have it on good authority that secondhand smoke and obesity are leading causes of global warming. Just look at how hot and sweaty overweight smokers are most of the time.

bookemdano 5 years, 1 month ago

@ilikebutter, smokers are charged higher premiums because in general they USE MORE MEDICAL SERVICES. That is how insurance works. If you are charged less it is because you are a lesser risk, not because someone else is arbitrarily charged more.

Similar to how a 40 year old male pays less for auto insurance than a 16 year old male. The reason is that the 16-year old has a higher likelihood to file a claim than the 40 year old. They don't charge the 40 year old less BECAUSE they charge the 16 year old more.

Again, this is how insurance works and has always worked.

domino 5 years, 1 month ago

Bars and restaurants do employee non-adults.


Restaurants, perhaps. Bars, no.

Not exactally correct - an eating establishment can have an adjoining bar area that can employ many different aged people. The regulations (as I remember them) are that you have to be 21 to be bonded as a bartender (can mix & dispense - open beer bottles) - at 18 you can serve alcohol but not mix or dispense, but at 14, you can work there bussing tables and pick up the partially finished beer bottles and drink glasses!! Makes no sense to me, but most of the liquor laws don't!

My point was, that non-adults can be working in a "bar/supper club" type atmosphere. I totally think it should be up to the individual owner whether their establishment is smoking or not.

There is a very nice sports bar in the Wichita area that opened a couple years ago that is smoke free - people never thought it would go, but it has done well from many people who want to go to the sports bar setting without the smoke. It is somewhere I would go, if I were in that area more.

Bob_Keeshan 5 years, 1 month ago

Smokers can still walk down the street smoking a cigarette.

I can't walk down the street naked.

Where is my freedom? Where is my liberty?

Smokers still have more freedom and liberty than owners of stereo equipment. Smokers still have more freedom and liberty than drinkers. Smokers still have more freedom and liberty than gun owners. Smokers still have more freedom and liberty than people buying cold medicine. The list goes on and on and on.

Give it a rest with the freedom and liberty nonsense. It isn't freedom and liberty you're complaining about, it is change.

yankeevet 5 years, 1 month ago

Just quit smoking......................

Ricky_Vaughn 5 years, 1 month ago

@ yankeevet

Quit telling us what to do!

jking 5 years, 1 month ago

If you ask me, they should ban it all together. At least this will make all the public places smell better. But if they ban smoking, the city would have to build like 20 more jails.

kansasmutt 5 years, 1 month ago

The first thing this law will do is open the door for smokers to smoke any place in Kansas. A ban of some and not every public building is and has been proven illegal. If it gets the final signature , it will go to federal court in 24 hours and cost the state millions and millions to fight. Any business owner who has 1/4 Indian blood can allow smoking in his or her business as per laws on the books that date to the 1800s. Those laws are part of a treaty and can not be changed , due to federal law. Millions are in the pipeline to block this smoking ban and if the state wants to enforce it, it is going to be very hard and a long drawn out legal battle. You non smokers best beware, your rights are about to be stripped away very soon on alcohol and some taxation you will poop your pants over. I am for everyone’s rights, not just smokers. I am quitting , so this ban won’t effect me personally, but i am standing up for my rights and yours. You who are all giggly over this ban need to rethink your thoughts and get to thinking about rights and democracy , before you clap too loud. This is ONLY the beginning of changes that will hurt ALL KANSANS.

ivalueamerica 5 years, 1 month ago

Well, I guess the I HAVE THE RIGHT TO GIVE ANYONE IN PUBLIC CANCER group should be allowed to whine.

They lost, the Governor will sign it as more and more are doing across the country.

Let them whine, I will still end up with cleaner air.

kansasmutt 5 years, 1 month ago

Hey Lemmings. Ever heard of choice ? It is sad that you can not read a sign stating Smoking Allowed and go to a non smoking business. Shallow minds have shallow thoughts. Drink up yuppys, your liquor tax is getting a boost from your wallet soon. Happy now ? The fight in the courts will start soon , if the smoking ban bill is signed. It is still just sad to see people who dont like something and want to ban it from those who like it. It shows how shallow and thoughtless a mind can become in this age. No personal control, so they must ban together to control others, very very sad. Our founding fathers are rolling over in their graves as we speak.

independant1 5 years, 1 month ago

As Rosanna Rosannadanna would say, "it just goes to show." Good idea, we need more laws. We need a law for every good idea. Is it still illegal to swallow snakes in Kansas? We need more enforcement too. CCTV is the answer!

Life isn't complicated enough, there's just too much freedom going on.

jafs 5 years, 1 month ago

kansasmutt,

Your posts would cause our founding fathers to turn over in their grave - they were intelligent, well-educated men who were able to formulate complex thoughts and use the English language correctly.

What business do you operate?

WIpatriot 5 years ago

Since when do We The People allow polls to decide to legislate taxes and demonize an entire segment of our population, this case smokers! Let's hope that the next Congress and Senate will have the guts to shut down this kind of rubbish! If they don't we WILL find some who will! This nannying from ANY anti this or that group must stop!

WIpatriot 5 years ago

If our country was a democracy, 51% of the people could decide they want to kill the other 49%. That is why our nation is a Constitutional Republic, to protect the minority, in this case, smokers! These days laws are enacted by polls. We need to get rid of these lawmakers who keep giving voters anything they want and elect those that abide by the U.S. Constitution. I think all bar owners should file a class action lawsuit against the state for trampling their private property rights! These are thugs enacting these laws in the first place!

WIpatriot 5 years ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

WIpatriot 5 years ago

Smoke free advocates try to sell the success of smoke free initiatives and laws but never tell of the amount of money the states lose, nor do they report truthfully of the damage it causes to business owners. There is NO business without an owner! These advocates are like reformed alcoholics. They NEED a nanny to tell them how to live and expect everyone else to follow. Every time a ban is enacted, big pharma's stock goes up because their own brand of nicotine is in demand and government has become their puppet. Our government needs to wake up to the fact that business owners had Constitutionally protected private property rights and they have taken them away for mob-rule.

beatrice 5 years ago

I'm sure wipatriot was really upset when they "banned" asbestos in building insulation too. Break out the well-armed militia! We want our asbestos back! It should be for the business owners to decide what level of cancerous material they can subject their employees and customers to, not the government! We own businesses and we want whatever we want whenever we want we! We want to smoke indoors, we want our walls filled with asbestos, and while we are at it, we want child labor back too! After all, it was the government that "banned" child labor, not business owners! Rise up people - rise up! {cough - cough}

Commenting has been disabled for this item.