Previous   Next

Should the smoking ban be suspended while the district court considers its constitutionality?

Asked at Massachusetts Street on November 22, 2005

Browse the archives

Photo of Matt McKillip

“No. I think they should keep it in effect. It was passed by the people who we voted for, so until it’s overturned, it should remain intact.”

Photo of Elizabeth Collins

“I think they should let it remain in effect until they decide. It’s only fair to the nonsmokers.”

Photo of Bassem Chahine

“I think they should suspend it and bring back the smoking sections.”

Photo of Chris Turnbull

“No. Since it’s already been made a law, it should remain a law until it is found unconstitutional.”

Related story


labmonkey 12 years, 6 months ago

I love comming to Lawrence or Lincoln, NE where smoking bans are in effect. I can go out without smelling like someone placed me in an unventilated closet with 2 chain smokers. I wish Emporia, Pittsburg, and other towns would pass a smoking ban.

Hong_Kong_Phooey 12 years, 6 months ago

No way. A bar is a place for drinking. That is it's purpose, whether or not some other side habits used to be commonplace in them or not. Spittoons used to be in bars but they were outlawed because they were hygienically unsafe (not to mention downright gross). Smoking is the same way. Drinkers should not be forced to breathe in other people's smoke because they want to get a DRINK at a BAR. Simple as that.

b_asinbeer 12 years, 6 months ago

Good point Phooey. Whenever I go out with friends, I don't come home at night smelling like cigarette anymore. To tell you the's kinda refreshing. I don't want to inhale the smoke of others whenever I'm in a public place. If I'm at a smoker's house, I don't protest because it is their house, and they have every right to smoke without interference.

So, no, don't suspend.

Kookamooka 12 years, 6 months ago

I agree. I don't worry about taking my asthmatic child out to restaurants anymore. It used to be a life threatening event. Do smokers realize how many people their smoke negatively effects?I guess they don't care. Babies? Elderly people with supressed immune systems? Asthmatics? People with allergies? These populations didn't "choose" their health issues, smokers are "choosing" to shorten their lives. Let them make that choice independantly and not contribute damage to anyone elses health. It seems like for every smoker that refused to go to a bar due to the smoking ban, there were five non smokers choosing to stay home without the ban.

JHawker 12 years, 6 months ago

i believe the law should stay in place and i certainly hope that it will remain in effect past the courts' decision. whether in a restaurant or in a blue collar joint there are people with asthma, people allergic to smoke, and people who simply dont want to smell like an ashtray when they return home at night! It is a smoker's decision and choice to light up - however the smoker automatically assumes the responsibilities that come with it that include respecting those around him and not being a health threat to others. I find it downright disrespectful for someone to light up in the presence of others especially without asking if someone minds. Only in the privacy of their home should others accept the decision or leave themselves. I only wish Europe would start activating smoking bans!

l_eustacy 12 years, 6 months ago

No, Keep the Ban!

When I visit reataurants and bars in other cities, I miss Lawrence.

Let smokers kill themselves without taking the rest of us with them!

The rest of the world will catch up with us eventually. Columbia, MO is considering it now.

killjoy 12 years, 6 months ago

Love the smoking ban! Hate roundabouts!

As for the pro-smokers comments above, is that funny or what? What comes to mind is, "Sometimes it is better remain silent and be thought a fool..."

sharron5rs 12 years, 6 months ago

YES! YES! YES! The bar I go to is NOT a food establishment. It is a drinking place that used to always be swamped. But is not even full on game night like it used to be. It does not advertise food. You can get a burger if you want one. It used to be a fun and relaxing place for all. Now sadly it is not.And IT IS HURTING.

neopolss 12 years, 6 months ago

Thank you Marion. Nice to see you here again. I agree. Must we hand over every decision to the government? Is our own inability to control our behavior and actions that pitiful? I guess it is.

The second point, which is often overlooked, is power of consumer. When this ban was approved it took away all power from the consumer. I am a firm believer in allowing the consumer base decide business and bust. If you don't like how a business operates, you gather a few friends and petition the owner, you fill out a comment card, you stop attending. So many people complain about "evil" Walmart, yet it is their own actions that determine if Walmart receives any business or not.

Hey, I stopped going to Wendy's after getting served cold food and a twenty mintue wait. So why would someone not go to a place that has bad food, but would go if it is smoke infested? Nevermind the fact that the infestation of smoke was really exagerrated. Many places have excellant ventilation.

Again though, if this is the road we are going, if we need government to control and regulate our unhealthy ways, then we need to immediatly ban all ice cream businesses in Lawrence. Second hand smoke affects roughly less than 1% of the total population. Obesity affects almost 33% of the population. Which is a bigger issue? Second hand smoke or second hand cheeseburger? Its obvious that we cannot control our own actions, government, please help us! BAN ICE CREAM!

italianprincess 12 years, 6 months ago

Not even going to comment on today's question. Its only going to cause arguements between people all day anyway.

Feeling like cr@p anyway, was feeling better there for a minute, but it lasted but a day. Took off yesterday and slept the whole day.

Have a great day everyone, take lots of Vit C so you don't get the blues like me. Man I hate being sick, looking forward to the 4 days I have off this week.

thomgreen 12 years, 6 months ago

Keep the ban for good. Maybe I am a sheep, but at least I'm not dumb enough to think that Dennis Steffes has anything more than his own greed in mind when challenging this ban. He could give a damn about anyone elses constitutional rights.

Purell 12 years, 6 months ago

Smokefree is wonderful.

At my aunt's funeral, my counsins and I realized that all of our parents, an entire generation, had died of smoking-related diseases. It was very sad to realize that all of their lifespans had been shortened.

I feel sorry for smokers. There is help, but you have to be willing to help yourselves.

bankboy119 12 years, 6 months ago

I'm going to agree with neo and marion on this one. Less government, more consumer power. The ban shouldn't be in effect in the first place. If you can't handle it, don't go there or petition the owner. Economics isn't about WHO goes to the business but how many people do. I can't be around smoke because it affects my eyes so much it's like I'm crying all the time. I choose not to go to the bars and find another establishment. If you have a problem with the bars that do allow smoking, start your own business and ban smoking there.

Sigmund 12 years, 6 months ago

When I go to the bars the inside non-smoking sections are relatively empty and the smoking patios are packed. The ones without a smoking patio have a constant group of smokers standing on the sidewalks. The ranswer is to let the owner of the establishment decide. Many will prefer to keep non-smoking, others will choose to allow smokng. Then all of Lawrence (patrons, owners and employees) will have a choice, just like the vast majority of the rest of the country has. If they can trust their adult citizens to make their own choice, why can't Lawrence?

Lifting the smoking ban will not mean you have to patronise those places that allow, or ban, smoking. Non-smokers will still be able to go home after a night out smelling of their favorite fabric softener and cologne, unless you get so drunk you accidently wander into a smoking bar or spill a beer all over yourself.

If you proudly sport a T-Shirt that says "My body, my rules" and yet are thrilled about the anti-smoking might be hypocrite from Lawrence.

Sigmund 12 years, 6 months ago

Darn it! I hit the 'post' instead of the 'preview' button. Here is the corrected post, sorry for the duplicate. By the way, does anyone else wish there was a spell checker on this site?

When I go to the bars the inside non-smoking sections are relatively empty and the smoking patios are packed. The ones without a smoking patio have a constant group of smokers standing on the sidewalks. The answer is to let the owner of the establishment decide. Many will prefer to keep non-smoking, others will choose to allow smokng. Then all of Lawrence (patrons, owners and employees) will have a choice, just like the vast majority of the rest of the country has. If they can trust their adult citizens to make their own choice, why can't Lawrence?

Lifting the smoking ban will not mean you have to patronise those places that allow, or ban, smoking. Non-smokers will still be able to go home after a night out smelling of their favorite fabric softener and cologne, unless you get so drunk you accidently wander into a smoking bar or spill a beer all over yourself. If you proudly sport a T-Shirt that says "My body, my rules" and yet are thrilled about the anti-smoking might be hypocrite from Lawrence.

trinity 12 years, 6 months ago

neo you're my hero (disregard any matrix innuendo here!); marion, so're you-it's just that neo is a little less abrasive in his stance. ;)

honestly, the point neo made is so very valid; when the H, if this regulation of people continues to accelerate, are the powers that be going to start harping on the overweight? hmmm? wanna get alarmed-then look at the stats. especially for your little darlings who never go outside to play anymore, but sit in front of a screen playing totally asinine video games or viewing tv shows that portray kids as savvy, snappy lil' rascals who tell their parents where to get off. because parents have generally lost control of kids and their raising because they're afraid to say NO or offend the little darling, or perhaps because they're just too damn busy to attend to a kids' true needs.

bah humbug, let's get back to frivilous ots questions-these make me have heartburn! i am going to go smoke now.

trinity 12 years, 6 months ago

purell your pity is misplaced. i don't need or want it. why don't you throw it to someone who really wants or needs it?

lonesome_breeze 12 years, 6 months ago

Duck!! for cover!!...its the rapture!!!...I agree with Neopolss and bankboy on something. OHMYGOSH Less government more freedom of choice.

Marion..your first post was brilliant. "We're taught to treat our bodies like temples...I've treated mine like an ole honkeytonk. Greasy cheeeburgers and cheap cigarettes will surly get me if they aint got me yet""

killjoy 12 years, 6 months ago

Lawrence smells better now


The read is rough in German. Don't trust the web-based translators.

canyon_wren 12 years, 6 months ago

Great comment, Trinity--especially about the "little darlings!"

Though a non-smoker, I agree that the ban goes too far. Let the market place determine which places let customers smoke.

I guess it wouldn't hurt to leave the ban till the legal decision is reached--flip-flopping is confusing. I just hope the courts have the sense to see it is an "over-reaching" law that is unfair.

bankboy119 12 years, 6 months ago

I say we just ban fat people. If we ban them until they can make a rational decision to eat right then we don't have to look at them. We also don't have to worry so much about aisles being crowded because the people that will be allowed out won't take up as much room. In fact, let's ban old people from driving. Did you guys see the story about a month ago about the old guy that hit someone and killed them and then kept doing with the pedestrian in his windshield? Old lady, get out of here and go back to your nursing home on the bus. We should corrall (sp) all of the old people in one place so they don't harm the rest of us. Crap let's ban all the short people too. They can't reach up high enough in stores and always have to get help. If you're a midget, you're screwed. If we got rid of the short people then the store employees would have to worry less about helping the shorties reach items high on the shelves. Wait, instead of banning old people let's ban tall people and make shelves shorter. Then we could have shorter stores but a larger floor plan because it's hard to be short.

The smoking ban is ridiculous.

Purell 12 years, 6 months ago

Roundabouts? - we have Lawrence?

Aiko 12 years, 6 months ago

I will guess 155 post total on this topic....

badger 12 years, 6 months ago

I honestly don't really care about the smoking ban itself, just the strife and drama it's caused. Here in Austin, a smoking ban was just enacted, but with a provision I think Lawrence could learn from. If a business put in a separate ventilation system for a closed smoking section (one restaurant I know of has the smoking area glassed in upstairs, like a little Smokerquarium) before the ban went into effect, they can keep their smoking section. The air filter systems in some of those sections are strong enough that you can feel a soft breeze if you're nearby when the door opens, and I think owners aren't allowed to penalize employees who specify that they won't work in the smoking section. Since the vast majority of servers are smokers and don't mind working the smoking section as long as they're not forced to, it tends not to be a problem.

Also, as this is a warmer clime, most of the places already had patios, decks, or other outdoor seating, which is still perfectly usable even here at the end of November (I'll be eating my lunch out on the patio at the sandwich shop today and reading my paper in the 70-something-degree sunshine), so the ban really hasn't caused that much strife here. It was, however, also voted on by the people instead of just being enacted.

I seem to remember that several businesses in Lawrence requested that a plan to allow separate ventilation systems be considered, and that seems like it would make the "I don't want to come home smelling like smoke and having an asthma attack" people and the "I want to be able to smoke in public" people both able to get some of what they want.

As to today's question specifically, the only person of the four up there whose reasoning makes sense to me is the fourth, that since it's been made a part of the law, it should remain one unless it's actually overturned. If just challenging the validity of a law suspended that law until its constitutionality was resolved, what's to keep someone from challenging the constitutionality of other laws because they want a window in which they can do something usually illegal and have it be perfectly legal? It's also not fair to people who believe in following the laws to keep switching those laws according to the court status of the law: "Hey, that's illegal. No, wait, now it's not. Oh, too slow! Now it is! No, just kidding, you're fine..."

trueninetiesgirl 12 years, 6 months ago

marion you said if we dont want smoke around are kids dont go there. are you saying that we should not go to the stores too. there is people standing by the doors smoking all the time.

trinity 12 years, 6 months ago

i'll bet it all that there'll be 200+ posts by midnight, alex...

badger 12 years, 6 months ago

Yeah, Marion?

That genie is long since out of the bottle, and he's not going back in. Smoking bans, and their increased presence in this world, are a fact, and they're not going away, and no amount of pretentious German posturing and being the first person to bring abortion into YET ANOTHER conversation will set it back to what it was. The antismoking advocates have gotten a taste of victory, and I don't think they'll give up just because you think they should, especially if you're just going to shout and be a jerk instead of actually discussing the issue like a reasonable, rational human being.

Learn to compromise, because that's the closest thing to a win you're going to see. Keep up the stridency, and you'll just get rolled right over with no chance to stop it. There are ways to respect what both smokers and nonsmokers want, and ways to be reasonable. I realize that being reasonable as opposed to shooting off your mouth complaining that the world you refuse to work with won't work with you doesn't come naturally to you, but it would be well worth the effort to learn.

Liberty 12 years, 6 months ago

Why would the city make "laws" that are questionable at best and clearly unconstitutional? This should send a red flag to most folks... (except the police state types that enjoy total government control which in itself is unconstitutional).

I don't like smoke, but there was nothing wrong with people going to a place where they don't smoke if they want that type of atmosphere instead of forcing their wishes on a group of people everywhere.

What if they said, you can't go to that type of church anymore; or you can't eat ice cream in Lawrence??? Do you really want a total control government? What happens when they start picking on you?

Purell 12 years, 6 months ago

Well said Badger.

(I wouldn't call using a German translating program a pretentious thing)

jonas 12 years, 6 months ago

I would agree with Marion, but don't feel the need to be a screaming harridan today so I'll probably side with Neoppls(sp?). And, despite the tone, an unbiased view would show that they are, in point of fact, the only ones promoting a viewpoint that has a logical base other than "I don't like it."

Not that it matters, fairness and logic are usually the first things to go.

At any rate, as to the question, then no, it should not be suspended. I think it should be repealed, and should not have been passed in the first place, but to suspend it is just flip-flopping, and will serve no purpose. It's not going to get ruled unconstitutional, even though the argument could be made that it is, because the odds are stacked too far in it's favor, and it's too popular. Majority wins. Hell, the gay marriage ban is as unconstitutional as you can get, and it still got passed in most states, because of the simple fact that there are too many people afraid and against it. This is no different.

jonas 12 years, 6 months ago

Oh yeah, and to pre-empt. . . .

No, smokers smoking in smoking allowed bars and resteraunts was not selfish in the same context as non-smokers forcing their will on other folk with things like this ban. Smokers were just doing what they were allowed to do by the owners. If a smoker was trying to force smoking into a non-smoking resteraunt, then you would have equal selfishness.

Gotta go.,

Charla Welch 12 years, 6 months ago

The ban should stay in effect until the decision is made, even though I don't support the ban.

I'm an ex-smoker. I don't really enjoy smelling like smoke when I come home from the bar. However, I know that if I owned a bar, and I still smoked, I would want to be able to smoke in my own damn bar.

I say it should be up to the businessowner.

daddax98 12 years, 6 months ago

The Flamingo (da' bird) still allows smoking. If you want to drink and smoke (and don't mind naked women) go there. I think the many of the bar owners secretly are happy the ban is in place but it should be their choice.

Aiko 12 years, 6 months ago

How about the fragrance area in department stores and/or people who wear way too much cologne or perfume? Many people hate that and suffer from allergies, etc. so how should we remedy that issue? I am with Badger that if you don't like it don't go!

sunflower_sue 12 years, 6 months ago

My family eats out much more often now. After the smoking ban, we were approached by the owner of a bar and asked if the smoking ban had anything to do with our choice to eat there that day. Our answer was yes. We were trying to decide between eating in Tonganoxie or in Lawrence. We chose the latter because we knew we could eat and not come out smelling like an ash tray.

I understand all the arguements pro and con. I'm surprised that no one has brought up the worker's health issues. (Maybe they did and I missed it...I was trying to avoid reading all of Marion's posts). I would not be opposed to allowing "smoking bars"...but then we go back to the health issues of the workers.

Marion, your first post was possibly one of the dumbest I've ever read on this site. You started off well, but totally lost it. I don't recall that people are forced to eat red meat, drive corvettes, yadda, yadda... And then to pick on someone about their asthmatic kid? How juvie of you. I LOVE the smoking ban! If for no other reason, to tick off people like you. If you are trying to convert people to your way of are doing a pretty poor job of it. Your arguement would be that if you want to smoke...stay home! That's a no brainer!

Ya'll have a good day. I can't watch this train wreck today.

wondering 12 years, 6 months ago

Well, despite every warning and law, about 22 percent of Americans still smoke.

Why not let 22 percent of bars/restaurants allow smoking?

bankboy119 12 years, 6 months ago

It really does come down to government control. And looking back in history and even today, the more government control, the worse the economy...unless you're getting welfare in your trailer then you're probably happy that the government is taking everybody else's money so you can sit at home and get more obese and be able to afford liquor and cigarettes with the money you do make instead of spending it on something that will actually better your life.

badger 12 years, 6 months ago

I'm perfectly comfortable making decisions for myself. I decided, after all, not to start smoking. Before the ban, I hung out at a very smoky coffeehouse downtown quite often, and never once complained that people were allowed to smoke there, because I accepted that it was a smoking establishment, but they served very good coffee, so I figured smelling like an ashtray at the end of the night was the price for good conversation and tasty coffee.

Oh, a Boston Tea Party reference! How novel! I imagine no one's ever used THAT before to paint the government as unduly oppressive! There are a lot of differences there, sparky. The first is that the citizens of Boston didn't elect the people taxing them. That was their objection, not the taxes themselves, but the lack of representation. You have representation. You may not have voted for your representation, and you may not like or respect the people on the city council, but you are voluntarily part of this community, and those are the people this community has chosen to lead it, so you abide by those decisions, work within the system to change those decisions, or leave the community that has chosen to govern itself this way. I paraphrase you when I say, "You don't like liberals? Well, don't go where the liberals are!"

Also differentiating you from the Boston Tea Party is that you're shooting off your relatively anonymous mouth on an internet web board while they took what is known as 'direct action'. It's pretty easy to complain and call names and spout off about how you're oppressed and burdened by the 'sheep' that don't agree with you, but what constructive action have you really taken to try and resolve this? You run for office? Work on a political campaign? If so, kudos to you for working within the system for change. If you did that, and you still didn't get the change you wanted, then the system has spoken and your sort of change isn't what the majority of politically active people in the area wanted.

If you didn't want to work within the system, and wanted to engage in direct action, then why haven't you started throwing things into the river, if you're so keen on the Tea Party tradition? I'm sure that if you really see yourself as an 18th century Boston patriot, you can find something to throw in the river as a protest.

Oh, by the way, my reference to the German as 'pretentious' related to the hackneyed use of German terms and language to imply that we're all living under the Nazis and don't know it. It's one step shy of calling your opponent Hitler, and frankly, comparing a ban on smoking to the wholesale genocide of WWII, with the extermination of millions of people and the unlawful imprisonment of millions more, with a bloody and brutal war waged across continents, disgusts me in its self-indulgent petulance.

glockenspiel 12 years, 6 months ago

I hope some day I can start a buisness, and then I will let people come in and tell me how to run it.

Linda Aikins 12 years, 6 months ago

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

avhjmlk 12 years, 6 months ago

I haven't read all the comments, but I do want to say that the editorial board seems to be attempting to make up for yesterday's flop of a question.

Linda Aikins 12 years, 6 months ago

From yesterday's question - thanks for the great explanation Badger! I actually understood it!

Posters Anonymous. I'm there.

Hi. I'm Gootsie And I am a Poster. I haven't posted for 30 seconds.

killjoy 12 years, 6 months ago

Kind of fun at first watching Marion implode, but now that it's reached the pathetically desperate level, the amusement has faded.


Purell 12 years, 6 months ago

Gee, do you think one person has too much time on his hands? Since today's board is in the hands of a jr. high student. I'll check back tomorrow too.

Liberty 12 years, 6 months ago

The smoking ban and fireworks ban are the fruits of Democracy. Democracy always results in a despotic government and mob rule. It is just a matter of time till it self destructs into despotic government.

This country started as a Constitutionally limited Republic and not a Democracy. The Federal government implemented the "Democracy" (forcing the alteration of the Kansas Constitution in order to be admitted to the new United States corporation [instead of the old United States of America government]) during the "Civil war". This is why Kansas had 4 different Constitutions (The fourth being altered to fit the new form of government). If you look at them you will see that we used to be "electors" instead of just voters electing Reps and Senators to the Corporation of the United States. The Republic still exists, but has been put aside (in violation of the Constitution which says that we are to be provided a Republican form of government). The Federal government's Democracy started in the aftermath of the "civil war" or war for States Rights. Our Republic was quietly and secretly overthrown at that time during the diversion of the war. We need to return to the Republican form of government that this country was based on which protects the minority from majority rule and it also protects the majority from the minority forcing unjust laws like the smoking ban and fireworks ban through. It also keeps your Constitutional Rights instead of "Civil Liberties" which are liberties given to you or taken away by the government.

avhjmlk 12 years, 6 months ago

Actually, electors still exist. Why do you think they talk about electoral votes during every presidential election? The electors in the state, depending on how the individual state constitution assigns votes, vote for the presidential candidate based on the popular vote in the state.

jonas 12 years, 6 months ago

woowee. . .

. . . .if marion were a dog he'd be taken out to the backshed and have daylight let through him.

. . . .and I even agree with his stance.

bankboy119 12 years, 6 months ago

True, Liberty, very true. Amazing what you don't learn in history class though. Virginia had every right to secede from the nation. Abe didn't like that and thought that keeping the US together was more important than states' rights. Since then we've gone downhill more and more.

Liberty 12 years, 6 months ago


Please do more research. It is very clear if you read the four different Constitutions of Kansas to follow the changes that happened back then. The electors in the state are different electors under the corporation. See the civil service act of 1933 (I think)...

You are supposed to be an elector and not a voter in a Republic. You can not elect a Rep unless you are an elector according to the Constitution (in the Republic). As a voter (in the Democracy), you can elect an employee of the government within the corporation. What this means is: We have a "government" where all the seats in the Republican form of the government are empty. We have not had a real Rep. since the "Civil war". What you are doing today is voting in a corporate employee like you would in a stock proxy. That is why the President only fills "the office of the President" as an employee of the Corporation of the United States. It is lawyer tricks and smoking mirrors to keep you in the dark about what they have actually done to set aside the Republic and implement their Democracy.

beatrice 12 years, 6 months ago

Conservatives complaining about not having freedom of choice. What a laugh! I wish conservatives applied their own argument to other areas of life. Take same-sex marriage, for instance. Does the right to choose one's own path apply here? And you call others hypocrites for agreeing with the ban. Please.

If I own a gas station, can I allow people to smoke? No. Why? Safety concerns. Just because you own a business doesn't mean you can put your employees in unhealthy working conditions if they can be avoided, even if the employees agree to these conditions. This doesn't apply to just smoking, as factories were forced to change their ways throughout the 20th century!

In Phoenix people are still allowed to smoke in bars and restaurants, but I believe a vote is upcoming next year. Too bad the petitions to allow a vote in Lawrence were discarded by those who collected them. Does anyone remember this? They knew they couldn't win the vote, so they tossed the signatures in the dumpster at the last minute. Why wasn't anyone up in arms over this trampling of democracy? So put that in your despot and smoke it.

beatrice 12 years, 6 months ago

Gootsie: This one is for you!

zzzz zzz zzz zzzzz zzzzzzzzz z zzzz zz zzz zz zzzzzzzz zzzz zzzzzzz zz zzzzz zzzz zzzzz z zzz zzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzz zz zzzzzz zzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzz zzz zzzzz zzzzzzzzz zzzzz zz zzz zzz zzzzzz zzzzzz zz zz zz z zzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzz zzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzz zzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzz z zz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zz zzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzz ...

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 12 years, 6 months ago

Fat people, what kind of ice cream someone eats, and what church someone goes to does not affect someone else's health. This is why drinking is legal, driving while drinking is not. I have no problem if the city issues a smoking license to certain bars, who cater to adults, but no restaurants. If you can't sit for an hour without smoking so you can eat (even though smoking ruins your sense of taste), then you have a problem. In fact, those of you who are so concerned about being controlled by the government don't seem too concerned about being controlled by a weed. I bet those cigerettes have more control over you than the government.

beatrice 12 years, 6 months ago

bankboy: "Virginia had every right to secede from the nation. Abe didn't like that and thought that keeping the US together was more important than states' rights. Since then we've gone downhill more and more."

Have you actually stooped to the level of saying we were a better nation when states had the right to choose slavery than we are now? Remarkable! To voice an opinion that is pro-slavery is repugnant and shameful, even if you meant it as a joke (and you have given no evidence of humor in your statement). Pathetic.

bankboy119 12 years, 6 months ago

Actually dor I'm not being controlled by a weed at all. bea, you can choose your own path. Why don't you and your 'friend' go get a civil union?

As for unhealthy working conditions...if they're smoking as well how is it even more unhealthy? Smoking isn't the only unhealthy working condition. What about the guys in iron mines? Or trucking companies that have their drivers going for 20 hours per day to make a deadline? What about the damage this computer is doing to my retinas right now? Should I not have to use the computer all day so my vision doesn't get bad? You know with bad vision I could end up killing some in a car wreck because I couldn't see well. Guess it's my company's fault.

Manson 12 years, 6 months ago

"city attorneys argued the injunction would confuse the public and be unfair to businesses that have added outdoor patios and undertaken other expenses to adjust to the ban"-City Attourneys

Other expenses? How bout thousands of dollars? Does that sound better? These are major expenses that the city FORCED on the local business. Why is it diffrent now with the suspension of the ban? The city had NO regard for the additional costs to the business owners and now wants to champion their financial woes? The city is a two headed snake that serves itself and its adgenda. Better watch out if you are a business owner you might get bit.

bankboy119 12 years, 6 months ago

Lol bea I can always count on you to twist my words can't I? Nothing a liberal like you does better right? Actually, if you need me to explain it further so you don't have to have your panties in a bunch, the comment was focused on how States' rights should be held above Federal rights. It clearly says it in the Constitution as well....but I'm sure you must have overlooked it. If you really want to get started on a debate about slavery and the Civil War you should do it on another board. Slavery was not why the US started the Civil War, it was actually a very minor reason. Lincoln didn't even want to slaves to migrate north. Would you like some references to that? When I get home tonight I'll give you those if you'd like.

bankboy119 12 years, 6 months ago

Oh and just so you don't have another reason to cry, I don't think slavery is a good thing and it definitely should not be allowed. I've posted that before when you tried your best to twist what I've said. Let's be more mature next time okay?

beatrice 12 years, 6 months ago

bankboy: "bea, you can choose your own path. Why don't you and your 'friend' go get a civil union?"

Why is it that if someone claims to have an opinion on a subject others jump to conclusions. Last week I was told that I must have had an abortion (not true) because I found it humorous the way some people turn every conversation in that direction, and today I learn that I must have a "friend" because I say conservatives are highly selective in their application of freedoms of choice. FYI: I am straight, and married for nearly 20 years. So your little name-calling is off target. Try again with an actual agument rather than making stupid accusations, but remember, homophobia is queer.

As far as the rest of your "argument," there are indeed laws to protect people in iron mines (unlike in earlier years), just as there are laws that declare a trucker can't drive 20 hours a day. If they do, they are breaking the law. In America, employees have the right to a safe and healthy work environment, despite your silly exaggerations of this basic concept.

lunacydetector 12 years, 6 months ago

In 1993, the EPA announced that second-hand smoke was "responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in nonsmoking adults," and that it " impairs the respiratory health of hundreds of thousands of people." In a 1994 pamphlet the EPA said that the eleven studies it based its decision on were not by themselves conclusive, and that they collectively assigned second-hand smoke a risk factor of 1.19. (For reference, a risk factor below 3.0 is too small for action by the EPA. or for publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, for example.) Furthermore, since there was no statistical association at the 95% confidence limits, the EPA lowered the limit to 90%. They then classified second hand smoke as a Group A Carcinogen.

This was openly fraudulent science, but it formed the basis for bans on smoking in restaurants, offices, and airports. California banned public smoking in 1995. Soon, no claim was too extreme. By 1998, the Christian Science Monitor was saying that "Second-hand smoke is the nation's third-leading preventable cause of death." The American Cancer Society announced that 53,000 people died each year of second-hand smoke. The evidence for this claim is nonexistent.

In 1998, a Federal judge held that the EPA had acted improperly, had "committed to a conclusion before research had begun", and had "disregarded information and made findings on selective information." The reaction of Carol Browner, head of the EPA was: "We stand by our science:.there's wide agreement. The American people certainly recognize that exposure to second hand smoke brings:a whole host of health problems." Again, note how the claim of consensus trumps science. In this case, it isn't even a consensus of scientists that Browner evokes! It's the consensus of the American people.

Meanwhile, ever-larger studies failed to confirm any association. A large, seven-country WHO study in 1998 found no association. Nor have well-controlled subsequent studies, to my knowledge. Yet we now read, for example, that second hand smoke is a cause of breast cancer. At this point you can say pretty much anything you want about second-hand smoke.

Bad science is used to promote what most people would consider good policy. I certainly think it is.

-Michael Crichton

Hong_Kong_Phooey 12 years, 6 months ago

Marion: Maybe your business is failing because you spend your entire day online posting to the LJ-World.

beatrice 12 years, 6 months ago

What twisting? Those are your words, bankboy. "Since then we've gone downhill more and more." Your Words! I would have thought a konservative like you would have learned a lesson about the application of history in trying to make an argument from one of your heroes, Mr. Trent Lott. However, I'm happy to learn that you are actually against slavery, despite what your earlier statement suggests.

(Thanks for that application of the letter 'k", blueharley! I think I will use it with great frequency.)

hkp: LOL!

bankboy119 12 years, 6 months ago

You're right it was an exaggeration, very good. Any other basic concepts we need to cover? America has some of the toughest laws against worker abuse. Your allusion to saying that smoking at a gas station because of safety and smoking at a bar because of safety are two different things. Now before you start ripping on me next time because of an exaggeration maybe you should stop twisting words to fit whatever crap you want to make it out to be.

Linda Aikins 12 years, 6 months ago

Beatrice, is that a game of hangman? Is there a T?

Linda Aikins 12 years, 6 months ago

Bea, you have a Bob covering your back. You are safe and blessed!

I'm thankful for Bobs.

jvr 12 years, 6 months ago


are you canadian?

just wondering you spelt favor as favour

beatrice 12 years, 6 months ago

Thanks bob, gootsie, and a+. These folks just make me laugh, and I do try to make a debate out of the arguments that come up. Most is in good fun, and of course I don't take it seriously. I also tend to strike back, rather than get defensive and try to explain myself, which is where IP gets in trouble. (I must admit the insensitivity of the abortion accusation threw me for a bit of a loop -- I mean, what if it had been true? That would be just plain ugly. Since debate was out of the question at that point, I stooped to name calling. ugh. Not my finest hour.) Besides, I don't mind the liberal label and so people like to dump stuff in that general direction with me as the goat. Also, I know I can push buttons with the best of them -- like today, accusing bankboy of being pro-slavery -- classic. : )

Gootsie, it isn't hangman. It is an anagram of your earlier post with all the zzzzzzzzs. (I guess if you have to explain a joke, it isn't that funny.)

Finally, Marion: The following line caught my eye "perals before swine"? Is that like setting up a dangerous, perilous obstacle course for pigs? However, in all honesty, when you start to SCREAM, I stop reading. Get back to me when you learn to behave yourself in public. bea

avhjmlk 12 years, 6 months ago

Marion, saying that "no one FORCED you to enter a smoking environment" is like saying "no one forced you to be driving on the highway near a drunk driver who rammed your car into the Jersey barrier, paralyzing you from the waist down for life."

avhjmlk 12 years, 6 months ago

Also, saying that the city doesn't have the right to restrict people from smoking in public places, eating/drinking establishments, or any work environment flies in the face of the fact that people in certain states have to have their cars emissions tested.

You have the right to drive, but you don't have the right to legally drive a vehicle that is proven to be unacceptably hazardous to the environment. You have the right to smoke, but not in an environment that makes it unacceptably unsafe for the rest of the population that has the same right to be in the establishment as you do.

avhjmlk 12 years, 6 months ago

Gootsie, have you gotten to the end of a countdown? Feel free to think I'm a moron, but what's the "one" for?

Linda Aikins 12 years, 6 months ago

afhjliftoffmlk - I had to put two postings on to get #99 and #100. But I'm not sure I did it right.

avhjmlk 12 years, 6 months ago

Hee hee hee.

That's something I would do!

badger 12 years, 6 months ago

Hey, Marion:

NO ONE is FORCED to live in a liberal community.

NO ONE is FORCED to move to a liberal community.

If you DO NOT WANT to live in a liberal community then STAY OUT of liberal communites!

NO ONE will FORCE you to live in a liberal community.

It is the simplicity of the solution that causes the conflict.

Since the earliest days of this nation we have been subject to a class of citizen which is almost completely unable to recognize that the restrictions they wish to impose upon the lifestyle choices of others are just as galling as the lifestyle decisions their fellow citizens wish imposed upon them, and cloak their desire to do as they please as 'the right to do as they please' while limiting the freedoms of others under the guise of 'protecting society'.

No one has a guaranteed right to 'do as he pleases' without social limitations, and those who say we have too many laws usually mean that we have too many laws they don't agree with. Maybe we do have too many laws, but since there seems to be a significant portion of the population that either supports or does not strenuously object to the majority of them, what precisely do you suggest doing about it? A flat ban on new laws? Wouldn't that laws?

I agree that both sides of any argument are usually guilty of a certain degree of blindness to the hypocrisy of their demands when they opt to either restrict the rights of free adults or demand that their rights not be restricted in any fashion.

The price of living in a civilized society in which you have a right to say what ethical and legal codes that society will adopt is that when that society adopts codes you disagree with, you attempt legal means to change them, and if those legal means fail, you either abide by those codes, or you refuse to abide by them and accept the consequences of your actions (jail, fines, social ostracism, whatever).

And, bankboy? Don't even get me started on the muddle that a serious 'States Rights' platform would make of the educational, defense, economic, and legal systems in this country. We're starting it now with marriage, when a marriage recognized as legal in one state isn't recognized as legal in another, but a decree of divorce, as a court document, is still valid nationally. That has huge potential for trouble.

avhjmlk 12 years, 6 months ago

I'm actually NOT working from the assumption that people are forced to enter smoke-filled restaurants. The assumption I'm using is that people have the right to enter an establishment without being forced to suffer the consequences of someone else's poor choices. Yes, smoking is legal. The city has now decided (within its authority to regulate the operation of certain kinds of establishments, just like it can decide that bars can only be open until such-and-such an hour at night) that it's, in fact, NOT legal to smoke in these places.

It's legal to drink alcoholic beverages. It's not legal to have an open container in a public place unless that place has a license to serve. A sidewalk is not licensed to serve alcohol, therefore it's illegal to carry an open container on a random sidewalk.

And your argument of "if you do not want to burn your finger, do not touch the not [sic] stove", the cigarette smoke response to that is "if you do not want to inhale cigarette smoke, don't smoke."

The restaurant doesn't put off the smoke, the cigarette does. The stove puts out the heat, not the kitchen. Saying that the solution to the public smoke thing is to not enter a restaurant where smoking is allowed is akin to saying, "if you don't want to get burned, don't go into the kitchen."

avhjmlk 12 years, 6 months ago

The logical argument would head toward the source, not the general location. This is why cars in California are emissions-tested. California does this, probably in response to EPA air quality regulations, which are applied nationally (and whose rules are tailored to follow the current state of air quality in a particular location). California has not made it illegal to drive a car. They have made it illegal to drive certain dirty cars.

italianprincess 12 years, 6 months ago

Didn't I say this question would cause problems and have people arguing back and forth.

I need some more orange juice.

avhjmlk 12 years, 6 months ago

Really, I was starting to feel a bit like the character "Julia" on that old show "Designing Women."

italianprincess 12 years, 6 months ago


Can I have mine with a really tall glass of orange juice please? I need all the Vit C I can get in right now.

beatrice 12 years, 6 months ago

On the other side of the sheep debate:




Linda Aikins 12 years, 6 months ago

Marion's posts remind me of Fred Phelps' signs!

beatrice 12 years, 6 months ago

Hey Marion, dolt is my name-calling word of choice. Go find your own!

Hong_Kong_Phooey 12 years, 6 months ago

Marion, you really don't need to put a double space between every incomplete sentence you write. I find myself skipping past most of your posts simply because I don't have the patience to scroll through them for that long.

neopolss 12 years, 6 months ago

Posted by avhjmlk (anonymous) on November 22, 2005 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Marion, saying that "no one FORCED you to enter a smoking environment" is like saying "no one forced you to be driving on the highway near a drunk driver who rammed your car into the Jersey barrier, paralyzing you from the waist down for life."

No it isn't.

Not even close.

Marion cracks me up. I think many don't get his humor.

swamp_rat 12 years, 6 months ago

Marion, seek professional help, specifically "anger management." Meanwhile, try a patch (over your mouth). ;) Fallacious? Specious? Did someone get a thesaurus for his birthday? Good for you! clap, clap:)

Fangorn 12 years, 6 months ago

No, it shouldn't be suspended. It should be repealed. I didn't realize property rights were subject to popular vote. But I suppose anything is possible in the People's Republic of Lawrence!

Ceallach 12 years, 6 months ago


To whom it may concern: ms_canada has been delivered safe and sound to a hotel, near the airport, that provides shuttle service and will be off to San Diego early tomorrow morning! She had such a great time -- thanks to all those who visited with her or posted messages, she really got a kick out of them.

Looks like Fangorn's back and ready to lock and load : )

bearded_gnome 12 years, 6 months ago


Cealach, it was a pleasure for me and for Mrs. Gnome to meet you and MS_Canada at PT! we had a wonderful time with you two ladies! I hope you two went down to that other business we discussed. the coffee was good too.

Mrs. Gnome was delighted at your common acquaintance and will call her soon.

Thank you for hosting MSC here in Lawrence Ceallach...I just wish MSC could write us from her CA destination to let us know how she's doing in the land of fruits and nuts.

do you think we should take some childrens' blocks away from them, since they don't seem to know how to play nice [after reading today's ots}?

put the smoking ban on hold, stop it altogether. just require that "nonsmoking sections" are 'truly" free of smoke. allow businesses to operate with some segregation of smokers. no, I do not smoke, and do not like the smell of smoke at all. I really dislike that the current law here has a bunch of smokers 'outside' smoking, along Mass, and I'm walking by, or have to pass through the haze to get into the business my destination. I'd rather they be inside, and contained.

now, as to workers' health in exposure to the smoke...well, I think that in some jobs, that's your working conditions, as in a bar tender at a bar in a normal town. can't take the smoke, find a different profession, or be the bouncer for that the door?

good night all.

Staci Dark Simpson 12 years, 6 months ago

I agree with neopolss, Liberty and Marion somewhat. We are grown ups, we are capable of making our own decisions. I am a non smoker but have resorted to going out in other places than Lawrence because you can't smoke in Lawrence. My friends have the right to light up if they want, I get tired of going outside to carry on a conversation. A few hours of smoke isn't going to hurt you. Hell if your clothes stink, put them in the washer and wash your hair before you go to bed, its not rocket science. Once the government starts taking rights away its just going to keep on going. Like someone said earlier, one day some of your rights might get taken away, then what are you gonna do? Peace out, S

mom_of_three 12 years, 6 months ago

Let the establishment owners decide if they want to be smoke free and what kind of business they want to attract. Repeal the ban and institute freedom of choice for the restaurants owners and patrons.
And I am a non-smoker.

renegade 12 years, 5 months ago

Arguing on these post are like competing in the Special Olympics... even if you win, you're still retarded.

bearded_gnome 12 years, 5 months ago

Thanks for joining us too...have a nice day!

Commenting has been disabled for this item.