Come July 1 there will be a new set of smoking rules in Lawrence, including some that make it tougher to smoke outside.
City commissioners at their meeting Tuesday will review how to make Lawrence’s 6-year-old smoking ban mesh with a new statewide ban that will begin next month.
“It is important that we don’t lose key provisions from our ordinance,” said City Commissioner Aron Cromwell. “We won’t go backwards on this.”
Cromwell said he expects commissioners to keep the parts of Lawrence’s law that are stricter than the state’s, while adopting the stricter provisions in the state law.
Restrictions on outdoor smoking are among the tougher provisions on tap. As previously reported, the state law prohibits smoking within 10 feet of a doorway or other intake to a building. That will mean many of the sidewalk dining areas along Massachusetts Street will be nonsmoking areas.
“You can take a walk down Mass Street and see there are very few places more than 10 feet away from a door,” Cromwell said.
Commissioners are expected to keep provisions of the local law that prohibit smoking in private clubs — such as the Eagles or Veterans of Foreign Wars — country clubs and adult care homes. The state law would allow smoking in those locations. The state law also would allow people to smoke nontobacco related products, if they are otherwise legal. The Lawrence law prohibits such smoking.
Commissioners meet at 6:35 p.m. Tuesday at City Hall.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
oneeye_wilbur (anonymous) says…
Good, get rid of the cigarette butts in front of the bars, businesses.
Hoots (anonymous) replies…
I say just get rid of all the BUTTS in front of businesses. Getting sick of nasty comments because I didn't give someone my wallet.
oneeye_wilbur (anonymous) says…
Now then, tomorrow the city commission is to review Mr. Loring Henderson's management plan.
So, this smoking issue needs to be addressed in the plan. Mr. Henderson does not expect to move from 10th and Kentucky for at least 18 months.
Smoke or NO Smoke at 10th and Kentucky?
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
nekansan (anonymous) says…
Please begin to ticket the littering smokers. A sentence of 10 hours community service picking up the butts that are found by the hundreds up and down Mass street would be ideal......
corkster (anonymous) replies…
awesome idea, nekansan!
The_Big_B (anonymous) says…
Next ... a farting ban!
Hoots (anonymous) replies…
Let me eat Chili or give me death.
sunshine_noise (anonymous) replies…
LOL Guess I'm in trouble - I'm the Fluff Queen for sure. Pfffffffffft!! Farts are funny.
redneck (anonymous) says…
I feel a little sorry for the smokers, but I'm tired of them blowing smoke in my face.
corkster (anonymous) replies…
i am a smoker, although i wish i wasn't (and eventually don't plan to be), but i do try to avoid blowing smoke around people who aren't smoking, and actually even people who are. it's probably one of the rudest things you can do. (rudest? most rude?) i wish they could invent a cigarette that gives the satisfaction of a nic fix, but none of the harmful poisons. wait, is nicotine alone a poison? is it harmful secondhand? i dunno. BUT, i do know that smoking itself is harmful to everyone, and us smokers can't complain about everyone else looking out for themselves. it's a part of it, just like the s**tty addiction part.
Keith (anonymous) replies…
Check out e-cigs, I don't smoke but I've got a couple of friends who switched to them on the way to quitting.
gatekeeper (anonymous) replies…
Yes, nicotine is harmful, firsthand or secondhand. It's a stimulant. It is a vasoconstrictor (constricts arteries). It makes your body release cholesterol into your blood. So, blocks your restricted arteries, causing strokes and heart attacks.
sunshine_noise (anonymous) replies…
Then don't sit next to them or look their way. What makes you so special that you can't share space with someone different then you? OMG. It like when we have a bunch of kids and one kid is annoying what does the adult do? Tell the others to just ignore him or stand somewhere else. Grow up America.
pizzapete (anonymous) says…
Sounds reasonable to me.
Armored_One (anonymous) says…
If we are raising taxes on cigarettes to try and span the gap between what we have for the state budget and what we need, then how screwed are we, as a city, state and nation going to be when it is either banned outright or priced out of existance?
How many public services will be on the chopping block at that point?
Education funding?
Medicare?
At what point is enough exactly that?
cait48 (anonymous) says…
I have an e-cigarette (electronic). There is no smoke or butts involved in it. It gives you the taste and feel of a cigarette without the tar, carbon monoxide, etc. of a real cigarette. You appear to blow "smoke" but it's water from an atomizer and affects no one around you and has no smell. The barrels which contain the electronics come in different colors and don't even look like cigarettes. I'm curious to know how the state and local bans will affect my public use of it.
terrapin2 (anonymous) replies…
You can use the electronic cigs anywhere you want. Indoors and out. People sometimes freak out at first because it looks like you are smoking, but it is legal to have them anywhere.
cait48 (anonymous) replies…
Is there somewhere I can verify this? My husband is freaking out because he sees me being the first "test case" for some over eager cop.
terrapin2 (anonymous) replies…
I see people use them in bars around town. I'm sure there is info somewhere about the legality, but there is no smoke, so it doesn't fall under the smoking ban. It's a big step up from candy cigarettes, but really you're just using a nicotine replacement, like a patch, but you also satisfy the "act of smoking" habit as well. You are really just pretending to smoke. You can then buy cartridges that slowly wean you off the nicotine. I've seen several friends quit this way.
terrapin2 (anonymous) replies…
You can use the electronic cigs anywhere you want. Indoors and out. People sometimes freak out at first because it looks like you are smoking, but it is legal to have them anywhere.
Hoots (anonymous) says…
Such morons!! Like the Police have time to enforce this total junk too? What next...they can only smoke on rooftops? Jeez...it was fine the way it was. Do politicians really have so little to do? If so they only need to meet once every two or four years. I don't smoke and I think this is amazing in it's stupidity.
bbxs (anonymous) replies…
the way it was would have been fine if people would have used the ashtrays instead of throwing the butts on the ground. i am one of those people who enjoy a smoke with my beer, however i used the ashtrays provided for us. its the butts all over the ground that is the real issue. this is their way of "fixing it".
bbxs (anonymous) replies…
the way it was would have been fine if people would have used the ashtrays instead of throwing the butts on the ground. i am one of those people who enjoy a smoke with my beer, however i used the ashtrays provided for us. its the butts all over the ground that is the real issue. this is their way of "fixing it".
sunshine_noise (anonymous) replies…
Agreed!!!
dulcinea47 (anonymous) says…
What the heck are smokeable, legal, non-tobacco products??
EarthaKitt (anonymous) replies…
Mmmmm.... Cloves.... (I think I am the only person on earth who loved them.)
dulcinea47 (anonymous) replies…
I did too, actually. But it's still mostly tobacco in there, plus you can't get them anymore.
jehovah_bob (anonymous) replies…
Yummy. I still have a pack that I'm saving since you can't buy them anymore.
EarthaKitt (anonymous) replies…
Mmmmm.... Cloves.... (I think I am the only person on earth who loved them.)
mazzy (Sarah Wallace) replies…
Electronic Cigarettes. I use one by Revolver - www.tryrevolver.com
Haven't had a real cigarette in almost 2 months!
cait48 (anonymous) replies…
E-cigs are not smokeable.. Put a lighter to one and you're not going to do anything but melt plastic and REALLY stink up the place.
terrapin2 (anonymous) replies…
electronic cigarettes
c_doc77 (anonymous) says…
I am a non-smoker and I hate second-hand smoke. That said, I don't think the government has the right to prevent people from smoking outside or even inside if business owners allow it. And what gives the city of Lawrence the right to ban smoking in private clubs? I see this as part of another incremental step towards ultimate collectivism, which is inherently antithetical to civil liberties.
ModSquadGal (anonymous) says…
Ha ha - i love it!
vegasnut (anonymous) says…
I have a neighbor that smokes outside and every time i have the attic fan on it sucks all her nasty smoke in my house. I say ban all smoking!
Jhammons (Jeffrey Hammons) replies…
That's a little unreasonable. Have you told her that her smoke is bothering you? I'm sure there is another place outside she could smoke that wouldn't annoy you. And if that doesn't work then there's not much else you can do but not use your attic fan and deal.
homechanger (anonymous) replies…
Vegasnut. Keep your fan off! Westar burns coal to power that crappy fan. No fan no smokey house. Glad I could help.
mr_right_wing (anonymous) says…
From what I've heard these new e-cigarettes (advertised on this very website!) are not covered by smoking bans and they are not taxed as traditional cigarettes are.
No...I'm not a smoker, I've just also heard they are stench free!!
(Apparently they are not necessarily less harmful than the real thing.)
alfie (anonymous) says…
You will not be able to walk down mass with a smoke because you will pass alot of doorways within 10'. They will need to walk and smoke in the street
Jhammons (Jeffrey Hammons) says…
I'm a smoker but i feel like this only makes sense. Smoking inside a house leaves a smell that can never be removed and ruins the value of the house. The state owns these houses so they should be able to dictate the conditions of living in them. I smoke outdoors only, sure i can smoke in my apartment but I don't want it smelling. I hate the smell of smoke stains just as much as a nonsmoker, and i also try to practice curteousy when smoking in public.
Although i litter my buds, so suck that man!
terrapin2 (anonymous) replies…
No, you sucked it now throw it away!! I smoke occasionally and never do I throw a butt on the ground. What gives you the right to throw your trash that will be around for many years to come all over the streets, sidewalks, roads, etc... It's called an ashtray. Use it.
mr_right_wing (anonymous) replies…
I agree...it really is disgusting seeing discarded cigarettes everywhere you go. We have an ordinance for what dogs leave behind; maybe one for smokers is due?
jafs (anonymous) says…
Up until the last sentence, I thought you were the rare considerate smoker, but then,...
MyThoughtsOnTheMatter (anonymous) says…
Re: smoking ban in public housing.
It's reasonable, logical. There's always a price to pay. Consequences are not necessarily bad, but they are always there:
If you own your own home you get to smoke as you choose. You also get to be responsible for the consequences; smoke caused things to household structure and/or yourself. The price you pay, the consequence incurred is directly out of your pocket. You can do it your way.
If you choose or must rent there is also a price/consequence; another person is part of 'your home' now who may/may not choose the price of smoked caused things to come out of their pocket. Whether we care for this or not, it's now you and someone else to work out the particulars.
If the circumstances of one's life find public housing to be the recourse/choice we find the 'landlord' has now become a 'body' with finite resourses whose goal is reasonably priced housing for thousands of people. Now it is not just you or just you and another person. This is a 'body' who must make decisions on a large scale for a large amount of people and limited resourses. This gets tricky because the price/consequences of one person's actions takes on a whole new level of the meaning of consequences and who's going to pay... for one person's choices or actions or accidents. And the cost in dollars for one person's accident can effect the quality of life for a much larger group. Dollars for quality of living for the many being diverted to clean up and repair of the one or few is unacceptable when the culprit is cigarettes and the smoke produced. Lest those of us who find ourselves in need of subsidy feel abused by smoking bans in public housing be assured that this smoking ban is not limited to subsidy. Entire rental apartment, duplex, and housing consortiums nationwide have already banned and/or are in process of doing so. Individual landlords have gotten fed up with smoke cleanup in turning over their property and are banning. This has nothing to do with public housing. This has much more to do with banning smoking's time has come.
Also, unless one "walks in the shoes" of those who are physically, mentally, and/or emotionally addicted to smoking cigarettes, it is only hubris to use judgments.
However, it is certainly fair to stand against the smoke from cigarettes that enters 'your' world, the casual cigarette trash tossed by cigarette smokers that enters 'your' world, the drain on 'your' pocket by health care and building maintanance and repair in continuing to support smoking.
The decision in this matter would logically be decided by the price and who has the pockets. If one has the ability to pay for one's own choices without inflicting consequences on anyone else...... go for it. Smoke away. If not, there's going to be compromise. This is a fair, if not always comfortable, consequence. We don't always get what we want, but if we try sometimes we just might find, we get what we need.
FBrumm (anonymous) says…
The main thing that sucks about this article is how it makes all smokers look bad. I'm a smoker and I happen to be careful who I smoke around and always use an ashtray or put it out and throw it away. I understand that this possible new law is mostly about keeping establishments smoke free, but come on.... Would you rather deal with a smoker going through a nic fit because they can't smoke anywhere downtown?
kansasfire911 (anonymous) says…
So now we will have a bunch of smokers standing in the middle of Mass. Street on Saturday and Friday nights. Awesome.
asbury (anonymous) says…
@kansasfire911: lol! pmsl!!
agl (anonymous) says…
Wouldn't this affect the back patios as well? Seems like they are all small and within 10ft of a door. Hope that doesn't hurt business. I know there are a lot of non-smokers, but there are a lot of smokers that go out to have a few drinks as well. They might just decide to drink at home. Or, they might go to dinner and then instead of staying for a few drinks, take the party home so they can have a few smokes as well. Just sayin. It does seem like it should be up to the business owner. Free country, right....
jafs (anonymous) says…
The possibility nobody's mentioned yet is that people might decide to quit smoking if it becomes too inconvenient.
That wouldn't be such a bad thing, imho.
cait48 (anonymous) replies…
Then go the full step and make tobacco illegal and cut off what little revenue stream they have left from it. Much better to just tax it out of existence and let it die a natural death. Then they can turn around and do the same to alcohol. Just wait until your favorite shot of whiskey costs you 30$ at the bar. They're halfway there now.
agl (anonymous) replies…
But you do realize that the already ailing budget would be in severe crisis if all smokers quit tomorrow, right? I mean, I think we should be thanking smokers for their contribution because I definitely don't want to have to pay more in taxes, yet we also can't afford for our communities to lose even more money.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
Well, we could always legalize all drugs and tax them.
That would raise revenue and decrease expenses.
merrill (anonymous) says…
Anyone with medical insurance is already paying more in taxes aka medical insurance premium.
Smoking creates cancer and respiratory problems galore = high dollar medical care.
Medical insurance CEO's,upper level management,BOD's and shareholders are not about to give up profits for smoker soooo consumers pay more.
oneeye_wilbur (anonymous) says…
How about a 16person Pedicab, Smokers Only. Is that legal? The operator would be in an enclosed space suit with ventilator. When does this Pedicab venture start up? How does this work in the rain? Does the pedicab have a pedicabcover?
oneeye_wilbur (anonymous) says…
How about a 16person Pedicab, Smokers Only. Is that legal? The operator would be in an enclosed space suit with ventilator. When does this Pedicab venture start up? How does this work in the rain? Does the pedicab have a pedicabcover?
oneeye_wilbur (anonymous) says…
How about a 16person Pedicab, Smokers Only. Is that legal? The operator would be in an enclosed space suit with ventilator. When does this Pedicab venture start up? How does this work in the rain? Does the pedicab have a pedicabcover?
windjammer (anonymous) replies…
You only need to hit once One Eye
windjammer (anonymous) replies…
You only need to hit once One Eye
windjammer (anonymous) replies…
You only need to hit once One Eye
Yeoman2 (anonymous) says…
Ah, our clueless and core-less commissioners finally get a hand on this burning issue!!
Armored_One (anonymous) says…
Idle question, not that most of the genetically challenged that are sounding off in favor of this idiocy will care...
What happens if they do ban smoking, wholly and completely?
Kansas, already facing a few hundred million dollar shortfall will come up another 110-150 million short.
"Big Tobacco", to use the catch phrase, employs well in excess of 1 million people, between the farmers, the factory workers and everyone else involved.
I already know this is pointless to rant about, but oh well. Nobody cares about what anyone else wants except what they want and that is the ONLY opinion that matters to them. Perhaps if governmental morons were trying to ban, say, video games, you'd actually stand up and take notice.
Sad to say, the U.S. Army has already come to the conclusion that video games are damaging our youth drastically. Don't believe me, look into why they are changing basic training to include MORE physical training because the recruits they are getting are becoming less and less physically capable of meeting the demands of basic training.
You've all sacrificed the basic freedom of thinking for the mediocrity of mental slavery. Absolute treason against humanity. The really disgusting part is when you DO jump over that cliff, those of us that you chain to us out some misbegotten sense of morality are going to be dragged over with you.
Well, perhaps not all have surrendered it. It's blatantly obvious that the majority present have, though. Sickening.
jrswift (anonymous) says…
Gee, if the city commission would like to avoid "butts" on the sidewalk, they might consider putting in a few places where one could reasonably dispose of them....and "they" could stay off the sidewalk, along with most of the state legislature.
independant1 (anonymous) says…
Create designated smoking areas, smoking parks.
Then things would be swell!
independant1 (anonymous) says…
something tells me the commission doesn't have enough on their agenda. reeks of a gnit on a gnat.
independant1 (anonymous) says…
the commishes have neglected other risky behavior that is not healthy for the citizens, like walking home from bars at about 2am. could enact ordinance to ban walking after 01:30 within 0.5mi of bars and save folks from bodily harm or prohibit young males, ages 18-23, from streets except during daylight hours (with exception for to/from work/school). risky sexual behaviors should be on the agenda. lazy boy recliners, web surfing/blogging and channel surfing are unhealthy for 28-60yr olds. ban the sale of lard and consumption of animal fat within city limits (oh gawd, there go the best pie crust and croissants). the list of unhealthy behavior is a long list, the commishes need to step up the pace.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
The difference between smoking and all of the things you mention is that smoking is harmful to those around you, while your items harm only yourself.
independant1 (anonymous) replies…
They are indeed harmfull to taxpayer wallets
RCNIII (anonymous) says…
I dont think it's a good idea to ticket-perhaps if there were a meter type ticket-where you could drop off the money-like we already have downtown-because there are already enough cases pending backing up the court system, putting 'criminals' warrants in with the criminals-which wastes more tax payer money on attorney's, judge's time, paper, electricity, hourly employees, gas to get to and from court, plus all the time logging in the offender into the system-then if they're caught all the paperwork the officer takes to fill out when he or she could be finding a real criminal. Now, if the tickets add up-that's another thing. But I think a few city paid city workers issuing 'cigarette citations' in the form of 'parking tickets' would certainly use those first few ticketed smoking in front of a bar or club or restaurant-as an example-and that might get under the smokers skin a little and make them stop.
I dont smoke, I am allergic, I think its nasty, a waste of money, and I hope the tickets start at $20 and the taxes go up on cigarettes.
Here's a laugh-remember smoking sections?!?!
independant1 (anonymous) says…
Remember when doctors smoked? lsmft