Governor Mark Parkinson is expected to sign a bill for a statewide smoking ban into law this week. The bill would help keep Kansas air cleaner and healthier for Kansans to breathe.
March 9, 2010, 11:42 a.m. Updated March 9, 2010, 11:42 a.m.
Advertisement
Topeka — Gov. Mark Parkinson will sign into law the statewide ban on indoor smoking in public places later this week.
The ceremony will occur at 10 a.m. Friday, according to advocates of the bill. The measure was approved last earlier this session when the House agreed to a Senate-approved bill.
The legislation would ban smoking in most public indoor areas, such as work places, bars and restaurants.
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2012 The World Company. All rights reserved. See our terms of use for RSS feeds.
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.
helter_skelter (anonymous) says…
As a former smoker who can't stand the stench of smoke, all I can say is: "Thank God!" Smokers, you just don't understand how horrible you smell. Even just having you in a room will make that room stink. Even if you're not actually smoking in that room. The odor that you carry around with you after a cigarette... there's just no way to do the horrible smell justice. You just don't know until you quit smoking.
misterlee (anonymous) says…
This is long overdue. I quit smoking more than forty years ago, and have no regrets about doing so. I can smell a smoker 10-15 feet away. Lawrence's anti-smoking policy has made me go out many more evenings than I used to because I don't come home smelling of smoke. I get to enjoy live music more that I could with smoke.
rtpayton (anonymous) says…
This smell argument of why to ban smoking seems silly. If this is your reasoning why not ban indoor plumbing because my poop stinks also! Sometimes you can even smell it in another room.
zstoltenberg (anonymous) says…
There are lots of exceptions built into this bill, that's how they slipped it through. It will also negate the existing city bans and ease restrictions. It's a giant step forward for the state, but it will be a step backwards for Lawrence.
Keith (anonymous) says…
Are you sure about the local bans? I read the bill that passed will not replace stricter local laws.
dulcinea47 (anonymous) says…
Keith, you're right about it not replacing stricter local laws. There are a lot of loopholes in it and it won't be that strict for places that don't already have smoking bans, though.
trinity (anonymous) says…
i am a recently quit smoker-8 weeks. if i ever get as high and mighty and hoity-toity as some of y'all "ex" smokers like me, somebody please give me a good thump on my noggin please? geesh almighty. i don't ever want to go back to the habit! so far so good, i am enjoying the smoke-free-ness. and i've gone in to bars, etc; and it does indeed smell horrible! but it is *my* choice that i go in these places, nobody has held a gun to my head and forced me. i guess i am just all about individual rights and less damn government.
trinity (anonymous) says…
i am a recently quit smoker-8 weeks. if i ever get as high and mighty and hoity-toity as some of y'all "ex" smokers like me, somebody please give me a good thump on my noggin please? geesh almighty. i don't ever want to go back to the habit! so far so good, i am enjoying the smoke-free-ness. and i've gone in to bars, etc; and it does indeed smell horrible! but it is *my* choice that i go in these places, nobody has held a gun to my head and forced me. i guess i am just all about individual rights and less damn government.
beatrice (anonymous) says…
Another problem with recent non-smokers -- they have twitchy posting fingers.
LadyLuck (anonymous) says…
The issue isn't just about the odor. It's about the rights of those who don't wish to be consuming all the toxins of second & third-hand smoke. There are many carcinogens in second & third hand smoke that is horrible for everyone smokers are around. It should be a smokers right to smoke, but it should also be a non-smokers right to not have to be in an enclosed space breathing in all that nasty junk. Welcome, prohibition of indoor smoking!
PitBullGrandma (Paula K) says…
trinity...what worked for you ?
BadAssterson (anonymous) says…
rt-
It's okay to have stinky poop or even loud poop, just as long as you keep it at home. Never take it into a public place or you may offend somebody who takes quiet, non-stinky poops...even if they are a former stinky pooper.
beatrice (anonymous) says…
trinity, in reality, chances are you won't have to get as goofy about non-smoking as are many present day, longterm nonsmokers. In your future as a non-smoker you will be allowed to enter any establishment you want and it won't be filled with smoke (assuming you don't want to waste your money at any of the casinos, that is). You won't ever have to put up with it in the first place.
Best of luck on staying a non-smoker. From friends, I know, don't ever think you can have just one -- not even in a year from now.
SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) says…
Thank you, nanny-state government, for reminding us that we're all dependent upon you to make our decisions for us. Prior to this, we were incapable of choosing to not patronize private establishments that (horrors!) allow thinking adult customers to choose to smoke.
BTW, I'm a lifelong non-smoker who hates the stench and effects of cigarette smoke.
SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) says…
Thank you, nanny-state government, for reminding us that we're all dependent upon you to make our decisions for us. Prior to this, we were incapable of choosing to not patronize private establishments that (horrors!) allow thinking adult customers to choose to smoke.
BTW, I'm a lifelong non-smoker who hates the stench and effects of cigarette smoke.
flux (anonymous) says…
As a non-smoker, I'm tired of hearing all the other non-smokers whine
somedude20 (anonymous) says…
I will say that smoking actually makes some of our summertime street bums smell better. I know that smoking stinks but those dudes (and dudettes) smell far worse that cigs (or even poop for that matter) and they have 50% more dirt on em than Pig-Pen
summer smells, cigaretts bums and birthers live forever
may Charles Barkley bless you
rtpayton (anonymous) says…
Does anyone think Barack Obama or Sarah Palin smells?
flux (anonymous) says…
I dont like Sarah Palin but I bet she smells really nice
shotgun (anonymous) says…
somedude20 love the barrypenders parody! LOL
I was hoping the loophole to allow smoking in bars would stick. All of the foul mouthed drunks that congregate outside some bars are bad for the environment.
whats_going_on (anonymous) says…
somedude20 (anonymous) says…
I will say that smoking actually makes some of our summertime street bums smell better. I know that smoking stinks but those dudes (and dudettes) smell far worse that cigs (or even poop for that matter) and they have 50% more dirt on em than Pig-Pen
summer smells, cigaretts bums and birthers live forever
may Charles Barkley bless you
rrrrrrrrrrrrrofl. nice.
I'm glad someone finally commented on the hideous smell that smokers bring along with them as a plus for banning indoor smoking, it seems like people bring up every excuse under the sun besides that one. And its true, I'd rather not smell like them, its disgusting. No offense to any of you who do choose to smell like a rotting corpse.
snowbird (anonymous) says…
Government gone wild
The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling from sea to sea
has nothing to do with protecting people from the "threat of second-hand
smoke" but are themselves symptoms of a far more grievous threat: a
cancer that has been spreading for decades throughout the body politic,
reaching even 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 a phantom
menace but rather, if it were harmful, what would be the proper reaction?
Should anti-smoking activists satisfy themselves with educating people
about the potential danger and allow them to make their own decisions,
or should they seize the power of government and force people to make
the “right” decision?
It seems they've made their choice. 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 outdoors.
The decision to smoke or to avoid “second-hand” smoke, should be made by
each individual according to his own values and 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 love, whether
to go to college or get a job, whether to get married or divorced, and so on.
All these decisions involve risks; some may have harmful consequences or
invite disapproval from others. But the individual must be free to make these
decisions because his life belongs to him, not to others, and only his own
judgment can guide him through it.
Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Smokers are
a minority, practicing a habit often 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 few stray whiffs of
tobacco smoke while waiting for a table at your favourite restaurant. The
anti-smoking crusaders point in exaggerated alarm at those tiny wisps while
they unleash the systematic and unlimited intrusion of government into our lives.
kansasmutt (anonymous) says…
Just a quick note for you non smoking tax payers. I will be first in line to file a suit against the state. $300,000.000 to back it up. Start saving soon ( non smokers ) to pay your taxes when the state is broke. I just have to say one more thing. You who feel this ban is just and a great win are total morons. It is another bite out of our personal rights and shows one thing, Morons cant make the choice to go into a business with a sign saying Smoking Allowed. Grow a brain and use your god given right of choice...( Mr. Governor, i am asking one last time before you sign this bill to think twice. Why do you think you have the right to tell a business owner to not allow smoking ? Answer that for me please.) If you sign it, we will see you in court soon. Even OSHA doesn’t consider second hand smoke worth limiting and regulating. Check out the link ----- http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadi... -------- I will allow smoking in my business even after it is signed, if so. It is my right as a business owner to post signs and allow smoking if i so chose to do so.
kansasredlegs (anonymous) says…
Best legislation to come out of the legislature this session. Long overdue. I have never smoked a cigarette in my life; however, I quit smoking when I moved out of the family home and left the family of smokers behind.
friend73 (anonymous) says…
I am a smoker (I know bad habit) But I still think this isn't right. People that own an establishment, Should have the right to say smoking or not. I am not promoting smoking at ll what so ever. But I don't understand you pay tax's but yet they say you have to do this or that. I get very flustered because this is america an it seems like everytime you turn around, u can't do something. slowly but surley all of our rights are getting taken away. No I don't wanna smoke a cigerette and blow it in your face but do I wanna have the right to smoke or what ever, yes I do. I am just waiting till they can tell u what do to in ur own home? It sure isn't like how is used to be yrs ago. Everyone thinks the they are so perfect, No one is. Making more goofy laws don't help. Worry about sex offenders and murders.. OO we'll I can't change nothing just speak my opinon.
bd (anonymous) says…
To all you smokers!!
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!
riverat (Joe Hyde) says…
Some current smokers may in the past have tried quitting the habit but failed, and are considered trying again at some point. Some of those may be looking at this statewide smoking ban as a helpful assist, in that event. Of these folks, the ones who frequently enjoy dining, drinking and hanging out in clubs, restaurants and bars where smoking has been allowed might soon have a little easier time giving up the smoking habit.
I quit 30 years ago and -- I can't explain why this is -- but being around smokers doesn't bother me so long as the smoldering cigarette isn't drifting smoke directly into my face, or their exhaled smoke isn't being blown at my face, or the room's secondhand smoke isn't too thick.
The following medical information is ancient news now, but 30 years ago when former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop first publicized these findings they were a revelation to me, as it explained why my earliest efforts at quitting smoking always failed. Two key things Dr. Koop said: 1) Nicotine is a physically addictive substance, which means every smoker who quits will absolutely suffer a week or so of chemical withdrawal symptoms that are extremely unpleasant, and; 2) It takes the usual smoker, on average, five attempts to set aside the habit of smoking.
The first few times I tried quitting, I didn't yet have this information; consequently, I had no idea why I became so incredibly nervous. Learning from Dr. Koop that what I'd experienced were withdrawal symptoms -- this made it so much easier to quit next time I tried. It helped me greatly, being able to identify the "withdrawal punch" for what it is, and to know with certainty beforehand that withdrawal was going to hit me hard. Made the whole miserable ordeal...interesting.
So to bar patrons who step outdoors to smoke but are thinking of quitting or trying again someday to quit, it might help you to know that backsliding is the norm. If you keep failing it's nothing to be ashamed of; there's nothing wrong with you. And ironically, as I learned, when your numerous attempts to quit eventually result in success, it's nothing to be proud of. It'll just be an adjustment you made, one that hardly anyone will notice.
jadkansas (anonymous) says…
I find it interesting how the most taxed demographic is also the most restricted. But it's all good. I have always chosen to smoke outside, anyways. But as Kansasmutt and others have said, this is the right of business owners to decide how to run their establishments being violated more than the right of smokers to light up indoors.
And to bd and all the other immature people, enjoy your soda tax, because the government needs to get their taxes from somewhere and since they keep chipping away at smokers and we're dwindling in numbers, you'll be picking up the tab.
july241983 (anonymous) says…
For those interested, the Governor also approved the K2 ban this morning.
BadAssterson (anonymous) says…
kansasredlegs (anonymous) says…
Best legislation to come out of the legislature this session. Long overdue. I have never smoked a cigarette in my life; however, I quit smoking when I moved out of the family home and left the family of smokers behind.
--------------------------------------
redlegs-
Did you make the decision to move out on your own? Or did the government force you to move out?
Kind of nice to make your own decisions isn't it?
none2 (anonymous) says…
snowbird (anonymous) says…
Government gone wild...
==================================
I'm sorry, but your view of history is very myopic. Sure government has expanded, but a lot of it is because of an even more virulent cancer than you mentioned -- diminishing individual self-control. In past generations, many people had codes of personal conduct that meant government didn't need to make a rule for every bit of minutia. Fewer people live by any such rules or codes of conduct anymore.
For instances, my grandmother would tell me how shocked she was by people who would declare bankruptcy. When she was young, her father once told her, he would rather die that bring such shame on his family by declaring bankruptcy. Now people buy what they want and then declare bankruptcy. We have talk shows where people reveal to the whole nation all sorts of intimate details about themselves, their loved ones, their neighbors. These are things that people used to consider as private information. For another example, people criticize the entertainment industry for the content of their movies. That industry used to practice its own censorship.
The problem with addictive substances is people involved with them tend to loose codes of conduct even if they would like to have some kind of code. When I go to a restaurant, I know that I shouldn't be smacking, snorting, picking my nose, belching, farting, throwing up, flossing, spitting, blowing bubbles, brushing my hair, scratching my crotch, taking my shoes off, putting my foot on the table, taking off clothing, or a host of other ill mannered activities. Nobody is going do die if I do, but I would be so embarrassed and ashamed if I did such things where others were trying to eat. Nevertheless, one seldom sees such things while eating in public because people control their own behaviors. Sure someone could request that the government setup laws, but laws aren't necessary when individuals control their own behavior in public for the good of all. Now if people felt , for instance, that nothing quite finished off a superb meal more than letting a big one rip, and this became common enough that it was no longer a rarity. Then don't be surprised if someone starts an anti-farting campaign. If that makes little dent in this rude behavior, then eventually laws restricting where one can fart might result.