A Tonganoxie man has filed a lawsuit against the State of Kansas, claiming the smoking ban to take effect July 1 is unconstitutional. The suit was filed earlier this month. On Friday, four other Wichita-area businesses joined his suit.
Kevin Haislip owns the Downtown Bar and Grill at 622 E. Fourth St. in downtown Tonganoxie. He received his private club license in May 2009. Part of the statewide smoking ban allows businesses that received their private club license before January 2009 to be exempt from the law.
He claims that grandfathering in the earlier-established businesses is a violation of the equal protection clause under U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment. “If they can have smoking, why can’t we?” Haislip asked.
Haislip is preparing for the ban by building an outdoor smoking area for his customers. He estimates that 60 percent of the club members at the Downtown Bar and Grill are smokers.
A hearing is set for Tuesday in Topeka, where Judge Franklin Theis will hear arguments regarding the smoking ban.
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.
SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) says…
Allow willing patrons and willing employees to make their own decisions about whether to eat at and work at esablishments that allow smoking.
I'm a non-smoker, and I hate cigarette smoke, but we don't need the government telling thinking adults how to run their affairs.
prairiebison60 (anonymous) replies…
That is a private business and the man shoul be able to do as he pleases.. Big dady G. has no right to interfere...Vote these Socialists out and WE won't have problems like this in the future
brendasue58 (anonymous) says…
I have smoked for over 35 years and do not smoke in restaurants, but bars???? Come on! I know alot of so-called non-smokers that smoke when they drink. I personally think that the ban on bars is decriminating against my right to choose. Why do non-smokers get all of the rights? If there is a sign on the door stating that it is a smoking establishment, they have a right to choose whether to go in or not, but if there is a ban it takes away my right to choose. Now there are places that you can't even smoke on their property, even outside, I guess the non-smokers control the outside air too! i think these people are getting really ridiculous!!! i will no longer support these businesses, I think it's time that I get some of my rights back!!!
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
snowbird (anonymous) says…
government power the real heath hazard
The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed threat of "second-hand" smoke.
Indeed, the bans are symptoms of a far more grievous threat, a cancer that has been spreading for decades and has now metastasized throughout the body politic, spreading even to the tiniest organs of local government. This cancer is the only real hazard involved – the cancer of unlimited government power.
The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or is in fact a phantom menace, as a study published recently in the British Medical Journal indicates. The issue is: If it were harmful, what would be the proper reaction? Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educating people about the potential danger and allowing them to make their own decisions, or should they seize the power of government and force people to make the "right" decision?
Supporters of local tobacco bans have made their choice. Rather than trying to protect people from an unwanted intrusion on their health, the bans are the unwanted intrusion.
Loudly billed as measures that only affect "public places," they have actually targeted private places: restaurants, bars, nightclubs, shops and offices – places whose owners are free to set anti-smoking rules or whose customers are free to go elsewhere if they don't like the smoke. Some local bans even harass smokers in places where their effect on others is negligible, such as outdoor public parks.
The decision to smoke, or to avoid "second-hand" smoke, is a question to be answered by each individual based on his own values and his own assessment of the risks. This is the same kind of decision free people make regarding every aspect of their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to befriend or sleep with, whether to go to college or get a job, whether to get married or divorced, and so on.
All of these decisions involve risks; some have demonstrably harmful consequences; most are controversial and invite disapproval from the neighbours. But the individual must be free to make these decisions. He must be free because his life belongs to him, not to his neighbours, and only his own judgment can guide him through it.
Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Smokers are a numerical minority, practising a habit considered annoying and unpleasant to the majority. So the majority has simply commandeered the power of government and used it to dictate their behaviour.
That is why these bans are far more threatening than the prospect of inhaling a few stray whiffs of tobacco while waiting for a table at your favourite restaurant. The anti-tobacco crusaders point in exaggerated alarm at those wisps of smoke while they unleash the unlimited intrusion of government into our lives. We do not elect officials to control and manipulate our behaviour.
getreal (anonymous) says…
Many states have had smoking bans for years already and the sky has not fallen as so many of the "chicken littles" complain on here. I'm sure history will show the smoking bans in a favorable light. Our great great grand kids will wonder just how dumb we were that we ever allowed cancer causing chemicals to drift through the air of our workplaces, restaurants, and bars.
If people want to smoke even though they know it is harmful, that is fine, but they should not be allowed to harm me, my children and grandchildren.
Thanks to those in government who are working to make Kansas a healthier place to live!
freethinker (anonymous) says…
getreal. the key word is private club . you don't have to join.the man is being discriminated aganist. because of a date. getreal please!