Some businesses will be exempt from statewide smoking ban
A Tonganoxie business and others from around the state challenged the ban, which goes into effect tonight at midnight. The Tonganoxie business and 27 others will be exempt tonight. Enlarge video
Topeka — District Judge Franklin R. Theis on Wednesday issued a temporary injunction affecting 31 Kansas businesses, keeping them from having to abide by the statewide smoking ban that goes into effect today.
The exempt businesses are private clubs, including the Downtown Bar and Grill in Tonganoxie, owned by Kevin Haislip. Shortly after the decision was announced, Haislip said he celebrated with a drink.
“I think it’s a start,” Haislip said. “I think anybody who wants a Class B club should have smoking if they want to. If you don’t want to be a member, don’t join.”
Haislip’s attorney Michael Merriam and an attorney for four Wichita businesses, Tuck Duncan, went Tuesday before Theis to argue why they believe the statewide smoking ban is unconstitutional.
The men argued their points for different reasons. Merriam said the ban was unfair because it provides an exemption for private clubs that obtained their license to operate before January 2009. Haislip obtained his license in May 2009, so he would have had to go smoke-free today.
Duncan claimed the ban was unconstitutional because it did not provide equal protection for business owners, because state-owned casinos are also exempt from the ban.
Theis issued a 16-page ruling that outlines his decision. He concluded that the Downtown Bar and Grill, along with other businesses that are considered Class B clubs, should not have to go smoke-free.
Kansas Attorney General Steve Six described the judge’s decision as a victory: “The rest of the state, the rest of the folks, will have the benefit of the smoking ban and all the things that go along with that to help public health.”
Gov. Mark Parkinson issued a statement shortly after the decision was announced: “While a temporary ruling has been issued affecting a small number of private clubs, this does not deter the state from pursuing this legislation’s ultimate goal.”
Wednesday’s decision will likely have no impact on Lawrence businesses. Although the city has a number of private clubs, Lawrence’s smoking ban applies to them.
According to Lawrence City Manager David Corliss, “We don’t believe the injunction impacts our local ordinance, because we are more stringent than the state law in that we don’t have a number of exemptions that are included in the state law.”
Six said he would continue to fight for the smoking ban as it was written: “The role of the attorney general is to defend the law that the Legislature passes, and we continue to appear in court and defend the smoking ban that was passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor.”
Both parties will have to appear in court at a later date for further argument. But for now, 31 businesses that earlier were included in the ban are now exempt.
And Haislip says, that’s good enough for him.
“It’s not done yet,” he said. “I’m happy for all the other bars that get to smoke, too.”
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.
lawrenceguy40 (anonymous) says…
Great news for freedom.
A step backwards for the liberal goal of total control of the population.
124 days and another leap will occur.
monkeyspunk (anonymous) replies…
Kansas has a Republican Senate and House.
Keith (anonymous) replies…
It's just an automated posting script, don't try to reason with it.
BlackVelvet (anonymous) says…
if the state's casinos don't have to follow the law then the rest of us shouldn't. period.
what BS
dabbindan (anonymous) replies…
i am 100% supportive of the ban if properly written i agree with you 100% as well. exempting casinos is all about the money when they tried to say the law is all about health. you can't have it both ways state of kansas.
srj (anonymous) replies…
If they ruled today the KCK casino was going to have to be smoke-free, they would stopped building and sent the workers home.
Eride (anonymous) says…
There are very similar laws on the books in several different jurisdictions.
Most likely this injunction will be reversed quickly on appeal.
ylime3499 (anonymous) says…
YAY!
justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…
All for one and one law for all. Bring out your e cigs.
tange (anonymous) replies…
Here's a testimonial from a non-smoker.
I've been surrounded by smoking family members my entire life. When a son stayed with me briefly, earlier this year, the butts piling up outside my house and potential fire hazard had me springing for an eCigarette alternative. I bought a couple of starter kits, and "we" gave them a try. What a difference. No more nasty smelling, particulate smoke. Just vapor. On the trial run, I recall him saying, "Now, I can smoke in your car." The knee-jerk reaction was, "No, you ca...." But then I realized that what he was saying might be true. As it turned out, even within the close confines of a vehicle, the eCig did not appear to compromise air quality. It simply evaporated, without residue; no lingering nastiness.
Here's a "Tip"... turns out the least expensive option to be had online is also one of the highest rated. Don't waste your money on the singles which can be picked up at convenience stores locally. Get a simple two-piece version (new atomizer with each cartridge). The least expensive option comes with a couple of batteries (the long, tobacco part of a normal cigarette) and, if you're a heavy smoker, then additional batteries can be purchased separately. Cartridges come in 10-packs, in a variety of flavors and nicotine strengths, from 0 to 12 or more mg. Your non-smoking spouse will appreciate that you no longer taste like an ashtray, but minty or chocolatey or strawberry-y, instead.
Granted, you're still inhaling nicotine, and rumor has it that nicotine painted on a rat's back grows cancer, but if you're gonna smoke anyway, then eCigs are a much less caustic alternative. (It's not clear what the secondhand implications may be, but, at this point in time, they appear to be "legal" at least.) My son and I took some along to a concert in KC, and, almost immediately, we were approached and told we could not smoke in the venue. When we pointed out that the eCigs were not tobacco, the heavies simply walked away.
So, vape 'em if you can find 'em. Taper 'em, and eventually quit refilling the cartridges and recharging the batteries. I have a set I'll keep as a memento of days gone by... nicotine days disappearded into thin air.
Ray_Finkle (anonymous) says…
I hate cigarettes, but not as much as I love freedom.
Phillbert (anonymous) says…
Um, are you sure about that?
http://cjonline.com/news/legislature/...
A statewide smoking ban will move ahead as planned but won't immediately affect certain private clubs, a local judge ruled on Wednesday.
jkealing (Jonathan Kealing) replies…
Sorry. We took the associated press report and they made a mistake. I rewrote it for ourselves once I was able to read the 16 pages of dense legal discussion for myself.
Phillbert (anonymous) replies…
You should get some Continuing Legal Education credits as a reward for reading the decision.
jkealing (Jonathan Kealing) replies…
If only I were an attorney!
Boston_Corbett (anonymous) replies…
Really wasn't that dense. Ask the wife.
lawyerlee (anonymous) says…
Read decision by downloading PDF here: http://www.shawneecourt.org/decisions...
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
I predict that the statewide ban will be upheld except for the exception for casinos, which will be required to follow the same rules as everyone else.
mcontrary (anonymous) says…
Yay? 30% of the population is stupid enough to smoke and applaud inflicting their idiocy and polution on the rest if us. Guess I'm a liberal- liberate me from the idiots! Thank goodness most bans are upheld.
Liberty275 (anonymous) replies…
Liberate yourself. Stay away from businesses that allow smoking and spend your money where smoking is forbidden by the business owner. That way you get a double win.
bigmike (anonymous) says…
FYI: We do have freedoms in this country, but in no way is this a "free" country. It hasn't been since the very first law was put in place.
I am glad we have laws to protect us from ignorance...
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) replies…
"If an owner of a property wants smoking or non-smoking it should be their prerogative. "
They still have that option. They just can't do it while using it as a public accommodation and place of employment. They merely need to make a choice-- is this a place of business, or a smoking lounge.
notajayhawk (anonymous) replies…
You DO understand the difference between "public" and "private", don't you, boohoohoohoozo?
(Pssst - that was a rhetorical question, of course you don't.)
Boston_Corbett (anonymous) says…
The actual news was, and headline should have been, that the smoking ban went into effect for thousands of locations and businesses, despite legal challenges
That there is a temporary restraining order, which may or may not stick, for 28 locations, is a sidebar.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
After the courts strike down the casino exception, the legislature should create a new exception which could work for the casinos, as well.
It would allow nicotine dens of limited number and capacity which serve nothing but tobacco and beverages, and don't expose employees to secondhand smoke. It'd be fairly simple to define and implement, and could satisfy all those nicotine addicts incapable of going out in public without lighting up.
notajayhawk (anonymous) replies…
That's pretty much what already existed, regulated by nothing more than the marketplace. But the whiners decided they should be able to go to those places, too.
factstraight (anonymous) says…
"nota" why should my choices be limited by someones lack of desire to live a healthy life? Are you telling me that if I wanted to carry around a box full of radioactive material that I should be able to do that because the marketplace could regulate peoples safety. I can see it now, I go into a restaurant and the hostess asks me "radioactive area or non-radioactive"? I don't consider myself a whiner, just someone that enjoys tasting my food and actually clean air is a pretty good thing too. Personally I couldn't be happier that you are notajayhawk.
notajayhawk (anonymous) replies…
First of all, your choices are in no way limited. You have a *choice* to make at all times. If your friends are going to hear a particular band at a club that allows smoking, you have the *choice* to go with them or not. If their company and the talent of the band outweigh the smoke, you go - if not, you go elsewhere.
Second, other than a monstrous sense of entitlement, what in the he** makes you think you have some god-given right to unlimited choices - the same choices you want to take away from others? Do you have some inherent right to use the bathrooms assigned to the opposite gender? Do you have some right to go to a steakhouse and ask them to shut down the grill because you're a vegetarian and you can't tolerate the smell of burning meat? Do you have some right to join a private car club formed by owners of Corvettes if you drive a Hyundai? If a group of people form a private club and choose to allow their members to smoke, you DO have a right to join - you do NOT have the right to tell them to change their rules to accommodate you.
If one of your friends smokes in their home, you have a choice to enter their home under those conditions, or not. Or do you think you have some right to go to THEIR home and tell them they can't smoke while you're there?
As for the tired old nonsense about carrying around radioactive material (or shooting off guns or whatever else has been thrown around in the various discussions on this issue), there are certain jobs that require your exposure to such hazards on a regular basis - e.g. working at a nuclear power plant, or in some kinds of manufacturing or research jobs. You make the choice to take the job or not.
Liberty275 (anonymous) replies…
>> why should my choices be limited by someones lack of desire to live a healthy life?
Why should another person's choices be limited by your desire to lead a healthy life?
>> if I wanted to carry around a box full of radioactive material that I should be able to do that because the marketplace could regulate peoples safety
Private employees routinely carry around boxes of radioactive materiel. You just aren't allowed to be around while they work with it.
Uhjh (anonymous) says…
Do goers go away!! Smoking is legal and the state gets lots revenue from it. It should be up to the owner of a business.
Bob_Keeshan (anonymous) replies…
Eating chicken is legal, but it isn't legal for a restaurant to leave it out for too long or to undercook it.
Handling raw food with your bare hands is legal, but not if you are in a public place. Gotta wear gloves.
Lotsa stuff is legal, but is regulated in public places in the same way smoking is being regulated.
notajayhawk (anonymous) replies…
I can, however, fail to wash my hands before cooking chicken that's been left out too long in my own home. You don't have the right to invite yourself over for dinner and insist I do otherwise.
Bob_Keeshan (anonymous) replies…
You can smoke in your own home, too. You just can't smoke in public places, because that's regulated.
Looks like all of a sudden you got it.
notajayhawk (anonymous) replies…
Perhaps if once in a while you actually read the stories you try to comment on, Bobbie - the story pertains to private clubs, doesn't it?
Bob_Keeshan (anonymous) replies…
Private clubs are not unregulated free for alls exempt from all forms of government regulation.
Private clubs are still, by definition, public places. They are licensed as such. Private workplaces are also, by definition, public places. Public places does not, in a legal sense, necessarily mean every member of the public has open access.
Try again, as so far all you've done is made my point for me.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
Hypothetical:
If you invite someone over for dinner, fail to wash your hands, and serve chicken that's been left out too long, and they die as a result, are you legally liable?
notajayhawk (anonymous) replies…
I doubt it. I seriously doubt that in a private home you have the same reasonable expectation that food is being handled or prepared in a manner consistent with professional standards.
If you've already SEEN your neighbor's barbecue, and choose to eat food prepared on it anyway, I would think you're the culpable party.
Kind of like joining a private club (or even entering a public saloon) that explicitly allows smoking.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
If I go to a friend's house for dinner, I have no idea whether they prepared it hygienically or not, unless I watch them do it.
Generally speaking, I'd think you have a reasonable expectation that they're not going to kill you, especially when the information about how to prepare it correctly is widely disseminated.
Any lawyers have any ideas on this one?
Armored_One (anonymous) says…
How long does it take for smoking to kill an average sized human being?
I've searched through the e.p.a., c.d.c., w.h.o. and A.M.A. and can find no studies, reports or even hypothetical guesses as to how long it takes for smoking to kill. There is the exact same amount of information available as to how fast second-hand smoke will kill the average human being.
But yet we are bombarded by this report and that report and some wahoo in Australia that just concluded a study saying it kills 'X' amount of people every year.
How do you know that was the primary cause? Do they radio tag these people and follow them around and observe everything that they do?
22 years of smoking at least a pack and a half since the first couple of days and no cancer in me. My mother smoked for longer than I have been alive, and only after she quit was she diagnosed with health problems, to the tune of over 5 years later. My uncle has smoked for longer than my mother and no cancer there either. My grandfather died from a heart attack, just like his father, 5 of his brothers, both of his uncles and his great grandfather. Only my grandfather and his father smoked.
In fact, none of the smokers that I know have any form of cancer. A few have asthma, but all but one had that condition since childhood.
Where is the public health crisis??
Uhjh (anonymous) replies…
Obesity!! Trans-fatty acids and high fructose corn syrup.
Guitarzan (anonymous) replies…
My father used to use the same convoluted pseudo-reasoning you just spelled out here. He smoked cigarettes every day from the age of nine. Three months before his 64th birthday he was diagnosed with lung cancer, and he died eleven weeks later. Cigarette smoking was a secondary cause of death listed on his death certificate.
Research has concluded time and time again since 1964 that cigarette smoking cause cancer. Just because you haven't seen or acknowledged this first hand among an extremely small circle of relatives and friends does not negate these conclusions.
TopJayhawk (anonymous) says…
facts straight.
What a completely rediculous straw-man argument. Is this what passes for logic on the left side? You know, the side that wants to take away the rights of the people?
Bob_Keeshan (anonymous) replies…
Indeed, I hate the left and its insistence on warrantless wiretaps, etc.
Ricky_Vaughn (anonymous) says…
I wonder how many businesses in Lawrence will go the private club route...
artlover (anonymous) says…
roll yer own and smokem if you gottem.....
Jcjayhawk1 (anonymous) says…
The state owned casinos should be no exception. If the bars are subject to the ban the casinos must follow suit.
IndusRiver (anonymous) says…
Too bad the nanny state has lost sight of that simple piece of common sense.
-----------------------------------------------------
I'm not so sure it's a nanny state, but more of a police state. That's probably the key thing about the non-smokers. For all of their goals met they dangerously go far to create the police state.
IndusRiver (anonymous) says…
Anyway, two people, and this was not that long ago, who both had respiratory illness died, and they died young. But each of these men's lives were controlled by the government because both lived in public housing and both were led around by government employees on virtually all of their needs. But I have never seen people die faster than these two did because I have respiratory problems, but I refuse to let the government control me to my early grave.
I'm alive because I make the decisions for me.
IndusRiver (anonymous) says…
But if the non-smokers can't handle cigarette smoke then there's a hell of a lot of things out there that they aren't going to be able to handle.
Seriously, not intended for little girls and little boys.
factstraight (anonymous) says…
nota
liberty
topj
you guys crack me up
notajayhawk (anonymous) replies…
Hey, great rebuttal using facts and logic, fs.
Care to make an attempt at addressing the point of the argument instead of dismissing it blindly because it doesn't agree with your blinder-constricted POV? (Somehow I didn't think so.)
I'm glad YOU don't consider yourself a whiner, fs. Personally, I share your delight (and quite likely exceed it) that I'm notajayhawk, if you're a typical example of the breed.
The_Big_B (anonymous) says…
Does Six really believe this will make our bars "healthy places"?
Really?
What a dweeb.
I don't smoke, but I've never had anybody try to keep me against my will in a place that allows smoking. Sheesh! I'm planning on the State wiping my backside any day now.
fosso (anonymous) says…
Anyone watch the Pann & Teller's Bull#$^ on secondhand smoke? (youtube has part of it)
Or let alone, anyone research it!?
It's the smell activists don't like. That's it. Plain and simple.
You have a choice to enter/leave a bar (haven of health?) if you don't like smelling like burning leaves. Let the owner have freedom of choice.
I'm fine with the ban in restaurants.... but bars... statewide?
Exemptions to state owned casinos!? Reeks (pun intended) of profits directly hitting the state, screw the little guy and his business and right to operate for their maximum profit.
Where did intelligence and liberty go?
Eride (anonymous) replies…
Oh, so, it is the smell? Not the hundreds of toxins and carcinogens present in second hand smoke?
Oh, so... no one has researched it and found anything?
Well, here is a research report from the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer that contradicts everything you claim. I suggest you read it.
http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monogra...
I find it hilarious that you claim everyone who is against it is stupid when it is clear that you have not actually looked into any "facts" yourself. The Tobacco companies *own* research shows that second hand smoke is dangerous (some of it shows it is *more* dangerous then the smoke the smokers are huffing).
There are hundreds of medical and scientific studies out there that wholly contradict your statements including studies done by companies who had a subjective interest in the outcome.
fosso (anonymous) replies…
Go to sleep.
You obviously never read anything other than your own agenda.
Yes I've read BOTH sides.
Go suck on your car exhaust which is relatively as "deadly".
For real!? Second hand smoke is MORE dangerous than someone directly inhaling!? You need to use your critical thinking. Asinine people like you make me sad.
By the way, do you like the smell of cigarette smoke?
Guess what!? I don't smoke! Go figure. I like our constitution. You obviously don't.
Eride (anonymous) replies…
Hmm.
If you knew what you were talking about and had indeed... well, read anything at all, you would realize there are not two sides to your assertion that second hand smoke is not dangerous. It is a fact that second hand smoke is dangerous. You can feel free to hold an idiotic opinion that despite the reams of evidence and studies showing it to be true that it is not... but your uneducated opinion hardly holds enough sway to change reality itself (as much as you might believe otherwise). I already cited you one such study and if you simply utilize google I assure you that you can quite readily find hundreds more like it. You however have done nothing but insult people, make broad proclamations of your opinion phrased as if it were a fact and invoke "freedom."
Now if you want to argue your belief that nonsmokers should just sit there and suck up dangerous toxins and carcinogens against their will... well, feel free to make that argument. I'll just sit back and laugh at you. I really enjoy your repeated references to "freedom" and "our constitutional rights." Hate to break it to you buddy but that just contradicts your argument even more. Don't you think at some point that the right of a person smoking to smoke in public might perhaps trample on the right of a non-smoker not to breath in toxins and carcinogens in public? In that case whose rights prevail? That all assumes one tiny little fact that makes your argument seem even more illogical... you have no constitutional right to smoke. So I guess we are really just talking about some form of ethical right or natural right and I would again point to whose rights should be superior?
jafs (anonymous) replies…
If someone is smoking filtered cigarettes, it's entirely possible that the secondhand smoke, which is not filtered, is in fact more dangerous than the smoke the smoker is inhaling.
notajayhawk (anonymous) replies…
Maybe - if they had their lips stuck to the other end of the cigarette. Otherwise I would think second-hand smoke is a bit diffused in the atmosphere before it reaches anyone else's lungs.
Eride (anonymous) replies…
I already linked a study, you don't even have to take the 0.1 seconds to google the subject yourself. Try reading about it. You are just wrong.
factstraight (anonymous) says…
nota-
wow, agree to disagree, since I have a life, I am not going to sit at a computer and argue with you for 3 days. You stated your opinion I stated mine, and believe me yours is every bit as blinder constricted as mine. You will never agree with me and I will never agree with you so what is the point of your angry attack. I guess that's why I am not a professional blogger such as yourself. Maybe there is a sight for not so angry amateur bloggers. Have a good evening
notajayhawk (anonymous) replies…
Typical. And just what I've come to expect from the whiny, entitled Larryville crowd.
First of all, YOU took issue with one of MY posts. I (and others) pointed out that your response was, to say the least (or the most, perhaps), pretty weak. Your reply to that, rather than try to explain or expand on, was to say that those who pointed out the weakness of your argument "crack me up". (I also found it amusing that, after saying "Personally I couldn't be happier that you are notajayhawk", you claimed *I* was the one starting to "attack".)
And when you get called on that, you "have a life" so you're not going to sit here and argue for three days. Another thing I might point out is that my exchange with you started less than 11 hours ago (you've been at it longer than I have), considerably less than three days.
Here's a piece of advice, little one, from a so-called "professional blogger": Don't start an argument you can't finish.
Have a wonderful evening.
Armored_One (anonymous) says…
"Just because you haven't seen or acknowledged this first hand among an extremely small circle of relatives and friends does not negate these conclusions."
- Excerpt from Guitarzan
Define small. I have dozens of friends all across this nation and a goodly chunk of Europe as well. Did I state how many people I was referencing, beyond my immediate family? By immediate, I meant direct bloodlines, not cousins of a cousin.
How many other toxins did your father injest on a regular basis? How many of them are known to cause cancer in one form or another?
And that strikes to the heart of this hypocracy. The numbers involved simply do not mesh when compared to other leading statistics.
In the end, none of it will matter. Smoking will be banned and eventually, most likely within a generation at most, be eliminated. The 200-400 million dollars in taxes will be gone, and state economies will start crumbling. Kansas is already suffering under a staggering sum of 400 million dollars of a shortfall in the budget. Taxing cigarettes and tobacco out of existance is only going to worsen the issue.
I don't mind the tax. I would prefer it to be much lower, given that gasoline, which everyone uses, is only taxed 50 cents a gallon at the moment, whereas cigarettes are taxed over a dollar for something that lasts a much shorter amount of time. Eventually, that reprehensible failure of the government will be brought to task.
There is nothing wrong with a tax. A tax that forces people to stop using something is unethical, at the very least, but more than that, self crippling. It's as brain dead as hanstringing yourself then entering into a race with Olympic sprinters. Doesn't require any special education to see it, either.
Just a basic grasp of grade school mathematics.
notajayhawk (anonymous) replies…
"The 200-400 million dollars in taxes will be gone, and state economies will start crumbling."
Not to mention the livelihoods (and thereby payroll taxes) of those who make their living in the tobacco industry ...
Bob_Keeshan (anonymous) replies…
Clearly offset by the 400-800 million dollars in smoking related health care costs.
State economies will flourish.
notajayhawk (anonymous) replies…
Uh, yeah. 'Cause everyone that smokes must be on Medicaid. I mean, nobody that smokes would EVER pay their own healthcare costs.
[Rolling eyes]
Armored_One (anonymous) says…
"Not to mention the livelihoods (and thereby payroll taxes) of those who make their living in the tobacco industry ..."
Nota, I tried demonstrating the mathematics behind that as well in an earlier article and was accused of being paid to present basic math for examination. The logic behind that claim still baffles me in numerous ways.
I can't seem to find any numbers pretaining to how many people the tobacco companies employ, either directly or indirectly. Assuming several thousand wouldn't be out of line, though.
Doesn't matter, though, what information is presented to the rabid "get rid of smoking" fans. They don't want to know anything beyond what is right under their noses, pun intended. When income taxes shoot up another 5 percent or gasoline is taxed another 50 to 75 cents a gallon, then they might wake up to reality, but until then, Rome is going to proverbially burn and fiddles are a dime a dozen right now.
notajayhawk (anonymous) replies…
I lost the bookmark long ago, I remember seeing a chart made up by some public policy organization or another about the relationship between higher taxes and the corresponding drop in tobacco consumption. They did report on the lost tax revenue resulting from that drop in sales, and as a tiny little footnote they mentioned the losses associated with putting tobacco workers out of their jobs. It was a small, but significant enough to consider, amount of money. Of course they had to make it a bigger deal than a small footnote - after all, the liberals can't be known as the ones putting farmers out of work.
factstraight (anonymous) says…
Thanks for the advice nota, I will have a wonderful evening.
Armored_One (anonymous) says…
"Clearly offset by the 400-800 million dollars in smoking related health care costs.
State economies will flourish."
-- Quoted from Bob_Keeshan
Where do you get your numbers? Kansas, by it's own admission, and referenced in a previous post of mine, spends under 200 million a year on smoking related illnesses. States that spend that much also have a much stronger tax base in terms of smokers, thus they have a higher state income from those taxes.
Medicare costs, as well as Medicaid which is typically state funded, for smoking related illnesses ranks third to fourth in most states across this nation. I could swamp you with statistic after statistic, but you wouldn't bother reading them. What would be the point, other than to prove yourself wrong, and no one sets out to prove themselves wrong after making a blanket statement like that.
In short, I feel you know little to nothing about what you are talking about, whereas I spend a couple of hours every day researching this topic. I don't do it out of any other reason than self interest, namely how bad am I going to get shafted when the state government comes up short several hundreds of millions of dollars worth of income because some fool can't be bothered to simply not go somewhere that something they object to is happening.
If you don't like rap/gangsta music, you probably shouldn't go to a concert performed by one of those musicians.
If you don't like meat, then don't eat a hamburger.
Restaurants I can vaguely understand, although I still object to them being subject to a smoking ban, but bars? There is nothing healthy in a bar. The lighting is abnormally bad, which can damage your eyes, the volume is frequently above the standard levels of hearing, thus damaging your ears, and alcohol... well we all know what alcohol can cause.
Intelligence, and by default common sense, is on an inverted curve when compared to the number of people involved. If you don't believe me, look at Congress for my example.
notajayhawk (anonymous) replies…
Or the IRS.
Armored_One (anonymous) replies…
Very true. LOL
Bob_Keeshan (anonymous) replies…
You made a blanket statement that tobacco products and apparently jobs tied to tobacco products generate 200-400 million in tax revenue a year for, apparently, this state.
There is absolutely no evidence for that. You can swamp all you like with statistics, so long as they are as phony as this one they merit little more than equally outrageous claims.
none2 (anonymous) replies…
Don't pay any attention to Armored_one. Anybody who is as emotionally wrapped up in the issue as he is cannot clearly see facts. It doesn't matter if Jesus, Albert Einstein, or Madalyn Murray O'Hair, Obama, Bush, etc. all came with irrefutable proof for the negative affects of tobacco on its users, its second hand inhalers, its costs to society; his mind would still be closed.
I'll will tell you this. I have a friend who had 5 bypasses in March. ALL the doctors involved in his care put the blame on the nicotine he had been using for the last 30+ years. Luckily he had insurance. The cost of the initial week alone was over $100,000.00. I had to pay his deductible which was a few thousand. Forget what I paid, and just figure that if only 2,000 people had coronary artery disease totally only $100,000.00 as a result of nicotine that resulted in such medical needs, you would get your 200 million bill. There may not be that many such occurrences in Kansas, but I'm also not including cancers etc that are more typically blamed on smoking -- such as lung cancer. I'm also not including the ongoing costs of such illnesses, etc.
Of course I'm sure armored_one would say my friend's health condition wasn't due to nicotine since I would bet that he thinks he knows better than the health care professionals that deal with this daily. He may spend 2 hours searching for his answer, but he obviously knows little about reality. I've seen the bills; I've paid some of them. He is simply an addict who is full of himself. Let him rant and rave; he really has nothing better to do.
notajayhawk (anonymous) replies…
Ooh, good comeback, Bobbie - 'Yes, my numbers were pulled out of my a**, but that's okay because you didn't provide the source for yours, so I get to double the numbers you provided.'
Brilliant, as always, kangaroo.
Bob_Keeshan (anonymous) replies…
Tell me some more about how private clubs are just like your private home.
And way to back up the original post. Thanks for proving my point, troll.
notajayhawk (anonymous) replies…
Well, bobbie, since you apparently don't have the intelligence to figure this much out, "the original post" wasn't mine, and I left it to Armored_One to provide his own figures. But since you apparently aren't bright enough to use Google, there are approximately 130+ million packs of cigarettes sold in this state annually, on which the state makes an average of 99 cents per pack. Add in another 6% or so of that for non-cigarette tobacco products.
Then try figuring out how much businesses pay in income tax from the profit on those 130+ million packs. At every level. There may not be all that many tobacco farms in Kansas, but there are wholesalers, distributors, and retailers. That's a lot of business income tax.
And a lot of jobs. Approximately 27% of convenience store sales are cigarettes. How many people are we talking about if every convenience store in the state could afford to lay off just one clerk, bobbie? Not to mention *every* employee of those wholesalers, distributors, and retailers.
It's not so important to me that I delve into all the exact figures, but I've found out enough to see that $200 million in lost revenue to the state is well within reason. And your figures came from where, again? Oh, that's right: You admittedly pulled numbers out of your a** with the justification that you didn't believe Armored_One's figures. (At least, for once, you admitted you really don't know what you're talking about.)
If you're looking for trolls, bobbie, try a mirror.
notajayhawk (anonymous) replies…
And gee, I almost forgot: All you need is a dictionary to understand the difference between "public" and "private", bobbie. Of course, you'd actually have to be able to read - and understand the words.
Why don't YOU regale us by telling us more about how *private* clubs are just like a *public* place, bobbie?
Bob_Keeshan (anonymous) replies…
It's called the Kansas statute book.
Private clubs are still public places. They do not have the same legal standing as private residences, which is your contention.
Are you truly that dense?
Armored_One (anonymous) says…
None, please show where I said smoking was not health damaging. Until you can show that I have said it wasn't, the rest of your argument is as pointless as you claim mine to be. I give irrefutable facts to support my stance, whereas all you present if your own, narrow opinion.
Of the two, the one that is willing to provide evidence to substantiate their stance shows more education on the topic, as well as a feverant dedication to reality, not wishes and whims.
But as I said before, this is all a moot point. Eventually the non smokers will impose the social change regardless of anything else. The states in this nation, and the federal government itself, will be without those generated taxes. A business that is no longer in business cannot be taxed, and a non-existant business will not produce a product to be taxed.
If you claim otherwise, I fear for your children.
Armored_One (anonymous) says…
We'll put it in more simplistic terms, Bob_Keeshan, since you seem to be incapable of small leaps of logic.
The jobs and products produced by Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds and company are taxed by Kansas. If those companies were not in existance any longer, due to no one being able to afford their products because of those taxes, there would no longer be that income generated byt he state for the state.
Any further questions?
Bob_Keeshan (anonymous) replies…
Nobody would dispute that. There's no way you get to 200-400 million in tax revenue off of the jobs that are wholly dependent upon tobacco companies.
And it is clear there is no way to get to that number because you've yet to do it.