Advertisement

Previous   Next

Are you in favor of a statewide smoking ban?

Asked at Massachusetts Street on August 31, 2007

Browse the archives

Photo of Bethany Asbell

“No. I’m not in favor of that. I feel like if you’re going to a bar, you should expect there to be smoke. It should be up to the business owner.”

Photo of John Tucker

“No. I think the individual towns have a right to choose for themselves.”

Photo of Byron Redmond

“Yeah. I would be in favor of that. Smoke bothers my allergies, and I prefer not to be around it.”

Photo of Devin Fuchs

“No. I think businesses should have the choice to adequately separate the smokers from nonsmokers.”

Comments

storm 6 years, 7 months ago

No bans, just give em tickets for littering - all the time, make it a massive effort, like speed traps. Every smoker is a litterbug.

0

Crossfire 6 years, 7 months ago

The ban's ok with me. Just wondering who's gonna shovel all the butts piling up on the Kansas/Oklahoma border. And will all the Kansas City, KS hookers have to go to MO?

0

lubyloo 6 years, 7 months ago

I'm absolutely in favor of a state-wide ban. I can't stand breathing smokers' nasty cigarette smoke. Since I have to breathe and smokers don't have to smoke, guess what? They can wait until after their meals/drinks, go home or into a back alley, and smoke away. When you think about it, whether there is a ban or not, it's actually quite rude and selfish for smokers to cause all of the nonsmokers to breathe their smoke.

0

denak 6 years, 7 months ago

Personally, as someone who is allergic to cigarette smoke, I would LOVE a statewide smoking ban.

Before Lawrence had its ban, I would go into resturants feeling fine, looking forward to a good meal with my family and leave, unable to have tasted the meal, my eyes watering, head aching and eyes watering.

Smokers choose to smoke. I don't choose to have an extreme physical reaction to it.

Also, as for the assertion that a smoking ban will hurt buisness. I don't believe that to be true. Didn't the Replay Lounge just get voted one of the best bars in the state a few months ago..and it is non-smoking.

Dena:0)

0

promitida 6 years, 7 months ago

I'd love it if Kansas banned everyone from releasing carcinogens into the air at will. Duh people. This is a good thing.

0

Das_Ubermime 6 years, 7 months ago

No, thankfully that hypnosis wore off. My wife seems to have enjoyed it and for some reason I have this urge to do the laundry and bark like a dog whenever she snaps her fingers... but this distraction was about 4 years old with blue eyes. She's a sweetie, but sometimes she seems to mistake me for a jungle-gym.

I hear the doves train by dodging traffic.

0

RETICENT_IRREVERENT 6 years, 7 months ago

Das, Distracted? By a chick wearing those large copper tinted sunglasses?

Jayhawks71,
Did you catch my spelling error with "usally"? s/b "usually"... I also left out the the pronoun "you" just a bit later...

consumer1, I swear those dove are trained by Patches himself. They can sure jink.

0

consumer1 6 years, 7 months ago

RI funny "dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge" I love that show. I would be a lookin for the bast*rd Black and Tans at the ren fest. I be a good Irish lad meself. Me Grandmother was shipped over during the Potato famine. Thanks for the warnin! Con1

0

Das_Ubermime 6 years, 7 months ago

jayhawks71,

I wasn't correcting anyone, nor did I even allude to doing so in my post. In fact, I was actually thinking of the 'coup d'etat' spelling when I misspelled it 'coup de'tat'. Both the spelling and the length of time it took me to post were due to being distracted while typing the post. Maybe before you make such an *** of yourself next time, you should take the time to ask what was meant.

0

dminear60 6 years, 7 months ago

I wanted to respond to mom_of_three but jayhawks71 said all there is to say! Your response was well said and I could not agree with you more jayhawks71. You rock. Any chance you want to run for president?

0

logicsound04 6 years, 7 months ago

"Your analysis is 100 percent legally sound. Clearly, the State can do what they are preposing from a constitutional standoint. But the question was, should they from a blanket ban."


I understand that the question was "should" it happen, and I've provided clear reasoning as to why I believe that the ban should take effect, but all anyone seems to respond with is basically a long-winded "Nuh-uh".

I just get tired of the "capitalism" fallback argument. People act like the ban shouldn't happen because business owners have the right to do whatever they want to run their business, and that all change in our society should be a result of people "voting with their dollars". I can't count how many times I've read, "don't like it, go somewhere else" on the basis that if enought people demanded a smoke-free environment, the market would provide one.

0

janeyb 6 years, 7 months ago

Statewide smoking ban? Yes, yes, yes!!!

0

Flap Doodle 6 years, 7 months ago

Don't ban "friday, friday friday!"

0

joe_cool 6 years, 7 months ago

Just a reminder to all those who think busineses should have there own choice on allowing smoking. Do not forget there is history behind these bans. The government has banned smoking on all US flights in 2000 (these flights are not public property).

As knowledge increases and spreads on the detriments of smoking there will likely be more banning of smoking in confined areas.

0

Tony Kisner 6 years, 7 months ago

If you can subject your employees to second hand smoke at a bar why would you not be able to subject your employees to second hand smoke at ATT for example? What is the difference? Do people who work at bars deserve less than those who work at State office buildings? Do they not actually need to work? Only tending bar as recreation and there fore deserving of less than clean air?

Who is going to pick up the health care cost of these bar keeps later in life? Me the taxpayer when they are eligible for Medicare? It would seem that the public health system (Medicare and Medicade unpaid bills at the county hospital) is a subsidy for the Bar owners, passing on the cost of unsafe working conditions on to the tax payer.

Smoke'm if you gott'm but don't come to me later and say I need some help paying for a lung/heart transplant.

0

Azure_Attitude 6 years, 7 months ago

Ah, yes my dear Sunny Sue. Time for the goody basket - but I do like it to be a little cooler. It gets really freakin' hot out there is all that garb and lether bodice.

0

BABBOY 6 years, 7 months ago

Logic:

Your analysis is 100 percent legally sound. Clearly, the State can do what they are preposing from a constitutional standoint. But the question was, should they from a blanket ban.

I say no, but it is a close call. I see the public risks and do not personally smoke and hate smelling some rude idiot blowing smoke over me when I am trying to eat. I just hate government telling me what to do and I can deal with rude idiot on my own. I am a big boy.

0

Confrontation 6 years, 7 months ago

It's interesting how some parents want to make Kansas as smoker-friendly for their children as possible. You may not be taking your kids to the bars right now (although I bet some are), but they'll end up at the bars eventually. It's a socialization thing. Even if they don't smoke, they'll get hours of cancer-causing smoke down their throats.

0

sgtwolverine 6 years, 7 months ago

I think this ban is just a bandage. The best solution would be for the state to ban addiction. Wouldn't that solve a lot of this?

0

Pywacket 6 years, 7 months ago

Scenebooster~ in response to your response to my comments....

Yes--that is exactly why we do not have anywhere NEAR the problem with meth, heroin, etc., that we have with tobacco. Stop and think for a minute--what would happen if those drugs not only were legal (now and for many decades past), but encouraged, glamorized by the entertainment industry, provided free to young military recruits, promoted with splashy, sexy advertisements for decades, and so on and so on..

Do you really think the rate of use of those drugs wouldn't be exponential to what it is now? Laws keep them in check. Laws keep our impressionable teens from being able to stick some quarters in a machine and get some crack for after school fun.

Yes, there will always be some illegal use. There will also always be thievery, rape, and murder. It's a bogus argument to say that we should just allow (everywhere) anything anyone wants to do, no matter how much it harms themselves and others, for the flimsy reason that they'll do it anyway. Statistics and common sense say that a whole hell of a lot fewer people will do it anyway if it is not promoted as something socially accepted and encouraged.

And this is not an outlawing of tobacco--it's a restriction of where it can be used. Lots of things are restricted because otherwise people are too damned selfish to think of anyone else. If people were perfect, we wouldn't need any laws, would we?

God knows, we shouldn't need laws telling people they should not murder or rape anyone. Do you think it's a good idea to strike those laws and leave it to individuals' personal discretion? Just because you may have common sense, decency, and consideration of others, don't make the mistake of thinking everyone else does and that the gov't should let everyone do whatever they wish.

Anyone who missed logicsound04's and logrythmic's posts, above, should scroll up and read them. Logicsound very nicely deconstructs the lame, flag-waving "personal freedom" argument.

0

jayhawks71 6 years, 7 months ago

@mom_of_three, you make the exact mistake I pointed out in a previous post. When you said, "It's about freedom, people. Businesses should be able to decide who patronizes their restaurant, not government. "

Smokers are not restricted from patronizing any business as a result of the smoking ordinance PERIOD. NO SMOKER is banned from going to eat hot wings at a local establishment for the reason of being a smoker.

And just for fun, why should the business owner's "freedom" trump my freedom? What if I want hot wings at your restaurant and you say no. Why are you a such a big fan of property rights that inhibit someone else's freedom? You advocate restrictions on freedom, so don't get all high and mighty about other cases of freedom restrictions!

0

jayhawks71 6 years, 7 months ago

@Das, who said "c1, its coup de'tat"

Coup d'etat is correct as is your spelling, however, I like hypocrisy more than the act of incorrectly correcting someone in an apparently indignant manner. BOTH forms are correct. No need to correct someone for a correct spelling.

0

logicsound04 6 years, 7 months ago

"I speaking specifically of businesses deciding whether they want to allow smoking in their establishments. Don't mix anything else into it. One specific topic here, logic."


No, mom, you bring in all sorts of topics when your justification is nothing more than "this should be a personal business decision". WHY should this be a personal business decision? I have provided reasons why it should not--namely, public health.

And if you think THIS issue should be left to the business owner, the why shouldn't business owners be allowed to determine the other issues I mentioned for themselves? After all, your only reasoning was an arbitrary assertion that it "should" be that way.

If an owner should be allowed to decide whether to permit smoking inside, then why shouldn't he be allowed to choose whether he wants to sell alcohol after 2 am? It is his business, right?

My only point was that you're going to have to provide more rationale as to why THIS issue is untouchable by the government when so many other commerce-related issues are currently regulated by the government.

0

mom_of_three 6 years, 7 months ago

btw, don't smoke, never have, never will.

done for today

0

jayhawks71 6 years, 7 months ago

@monkeyhawk.... I have consistently supported the smoking restriction and I despise the Patriot Act. These are non-conflicting in my mind for a number of reasons, but one reason mostly satisfies any potential hypocrisy (which I also despise). Both "laws" are intended to to reduce/eliminate a potential harm/threat to human life, however, one addresses and attempts to eliminate a KNOWN threat through a focuses ONLY on those who threaten. The smoking restrictions are focused not even on "smokers," but on people who are partaking in the act of smoking in an enclosed public area. There is a subtle difference between the two. If SMOKERS were being kept out of restaurants, I would be there to protest against such an ordinance. The ordinance does not discriminate against people, it restricts action. The net cast by the smoking restriction is narrow and focused; people that are smoking are caught in its net.

The Patriot Act, in contrast casts a wide, unfocused net. It catches ALL of us then some of us fall out of the net. It is not (necessarily) discriminatory because it catches all of us in some way (however, some might receive special scrutiny due to clothing, skin color, or headdress). However, our phones are tapped, our bodies are invaded by current and upcoming scanning instruments at airports and our government officials as well as other invasions into our lives without reason or warrant. And government officials are simply lying to people about what they are doing.

Ultimately, the smoking ordinance is transparent. Perhaps enforcement should be tweaked, but the methods of enforcement are known (even if not perfect... what enforcement is perfect?), and they do not restrict anyone's ability to go to a restaurant or a bar. Smokers and non-smokers are equally welcome by establishments (as long as their money is real). Business owners KNEW they were subject to regulations (e.g., health code, OSHA) when they went into business, yet they did so anyway. Claims of absolute property owners rights are empty because the act of opening a business and applying for a license (regulation) demonstrates awareness that there one does not have absolute right to do anything in one's business.

Therefore, claiming hypocrisy of smoking ordinance supporters / Patriot Act despisers is flawed in many ways. They are not incompatible beliefs and therefore, being in favor of one and against the other is not hypocritical.

0

mom_of_three 6 years, 7 months ago

I speaking specifically of businesses deciding whether they want to allow smoking in their establishments. Don't mix anything else into it. One specific topic here, logic. And i think the state did right by allowing the cities to decide. The cities can work with their business community to decide what is right for their cities.
All in all, it should be up to the businesses to decide what to allow, and it's up to the public to decide which establishments they wish to frequent.

0

logicsound04 6 years, 7 months ago

"Businesses should be able to decide who patronizes their restaurant, not government."--mom_of_three

"Since when did we live in a communist society that dictates what we can and cannot do."--dbrm4ever2006


Wow, there are lots of people confusing governmental regulation in the interest of public health with a Big Brother police state.

Have you people forgotten that the government steps in to regulate commerce ALL THE TIME in this country?

Health code Fire code Equal Opportunity Employment Working Condition Safety Sexual Harrassment Not to mention all the products that are just plain illegal, in spite of the fact that there are likely business owners who would like to sell those products to make more money and attract additional patrons.

If I, as a business owner, wanted to allow only non-Christians in my place of business, how many of you "too much government" people would defend my right to "choose my patrons"?

Smokers are not being denied any rights--they are still permitted to smoke.

Business owners are not being denied any rights that aren't already subject to governmental regulation.

Why don't you people worry about REAL governmental intervention, as in the case of The Patriot Act? Oh wait, I forgot--terrorism is scary, so we don't mind having our rights as sovereign individuals trampled. But when you going to try and tell me where I can and can't smoke, it's 1984.

0

Pilgrim 6 years, 7 months ago

Not just no, but Hell No! Business decision, nothing more. Leave the nanny state to San Francisco and China.

0

MaryKatesPillStash 6 years, 7 months ago

dbrm4ever2006, I believe the word you were looking for was fascist, not communist. And, uh, last time I checked, the government does tell us what we can and cannot do, to protect our well-being.

0

Roadkill_Rob 6 years, 7 months ago

It's not like the smokers are being denied privelages...all they have to do is walk about 20 yards and go outside for about 5 minutes. Is that too much to ask?

This ban has become a norm throughout the world and for good reasons. I used to be a smoker and even then, I preferred to go outside. It's not that hard, even in the winter.

0

trinity 6 years, 7 months ago

awww think of me blue, and say hi to bill for me, lmaoooooooo-he'll be the one with the rat shovel head blowing oil all over the place! woulda gone to perry but the significantly awesome other has a gig saturday nite. :(

i will lift a bud lite to all ya perry goers! :) have a great time! and keep the shiny side up. :)

friday friday friDAY friday friday friDAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!

0

Bobbi Reid 6 years, 7 months ago

I don't smoke, but my husband does. I don't think it is right to ban smoking, but maybe limit it to certain areas. Since when did we live in a communist society that dictates what we can and cannot do.

0

gogoplata 6 years, 7 months ago

Leave it up to the business owner to decide if they will allow smoking on their property. Less government is better. While I'm at it do we really need seatbelt laws?

0

scenebooster 6 years, 7 months ago

"Ban the stuff. The more kids see it as social anathema, the less interested they'll be in using it themselves. If for no other reason, this is a valid and positive reason to ban it in public."

Um, is this why we don't have any problems with drugs in this county, city, state, nation, planet?

Regardless of whether tobacco, dope, heroin or meth are legal or not, people will continue to use and abuse them.

0

snazzo 6 years, 7 months ago

I don't think people realize how awesome smoking bans are until they become the norm. Now I go to places like Topeka or KC, and am disgusted when the hostess asks, "smoking or non?" Are you serious? You let people smoke in here? That's nasty. Also, I can't begin to explain the gross feeling after attending a show in the KC area, when I leave a venue absolutely drenched from head to toe in smoke residue, with my throat and sinuses aggrevated and scratchy. Yeah, I could've done without that little side-effect.

0

Ceallach 6 years, 7 months ago

Con1, if you're heading to the KCIrishFest this weekend be sure that your kingly attire doesn't look too English. Many Irishmen have not yet learned to play nice with the English monarchy :\

0

Ceallach 6 years, 7 months ago

Py, I can readily identify with your loss. Three years ago my father died of lung conditions that were the result of a similar set of circumstances. He began smoking as a teenager and did not successfully beat the addiction until after the damage was so great his final years were spent in total dependence on inhalers and a nebulizer. That is probably one reason I have mixed opinions on the bans. Coming from a long line of rebellious hooligans, I do not want the city/state/gov telling me what to do about . . anything. Yet I know the damage that particular habit does to smokers, their families, and others who have to "share" their habit.

RI, that info did come from one of the many cheat sheets I use daily. I do admit to having memorized é but that's because "back in the day" we didn't need no stinking Dreamweaver, FrontPage, etc., to create a website . . . yes . . . I'm that old :):)

0

Gootsie 6 years, 7 months ago

"Is that a turkey leg in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me?"

I can just hear it now...

0

sunflower_sue 6 years, 7 months ago

A_A, time to get the goody basket out already?

0

sgtwolverine 6 years, 7 months ago

Blah blah blah blah. Blah blah. Blah blah blah!

I think that says it all.

0

Azure_Attitude 6 years, 7 months ago

No sir, I don't like it!

Con1, good thing for you that the RenFest is starting this weekend. You can walk down the lanes attired in your crown and kingly robes and no one will look at you and say, "WFT is up with that guy!?!"

0

logrithmic 6 years, 7 months ago

The Master Settlement Agreement with the Tobacco Companies permits them to use:

"¢Continued use of image advertising, including the use of human images with proven youth appeal, such as the Marlboro cowboy;

¢Continued promotions in bars and other locations popular with "young adults" who serve as role models for younger teenagers;

¢Continued brand sponsorship of events, such as NASCAR racing, limited to one series of events per manufacturer, with no restrictions on the televising of brand-sponsored events;

¢Unlimited sponsorship by the corporate parent companies (not brands), such as Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds and U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company;

¢Direct mail solicitations and advertising;

¢Advertising and sales of Tobacco Products on the Internet;

¢Point-of-sale advertising inside stores selling tobacco products;

¢Outdoor advertising on the property of more than 500,000 retail businesses where tobacco products are sold, provided the signs are smaller than 14-square feet; and

¢Use of coupons, promotional allowances such as slotting fees, retail value-added programs such as "two-for-one" offers, and other efforts to boost the appeal of tobacco products at the point of sale."

Pay special attention to point 2. It is a sad fact that smokers that promote smoking in bars are inadvertently giving permission to the cigarette companies to market their deadly products to kids. Many restaurants have bars too. Chili's, Applebee's etc.

Complete citation here: http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:FgWClbjCxYYJ:www.wmitchell.edu/tobaccolaw/resources/eckhart.pdf+cigarette+manufacturers+promotion+in+bars&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=37&gl=us

0

RETICENT_IRREVERENT 6 years, 7 months ago

Ceal, Thanks for my portion of the collective E-card... â'°

Really now...
I hope do not have those codes memorized.
Please, please tell me you just have a handy-dandy cheat sheet...

Tommorrow marks the start of my annual personal "Battle of Britain" I will be putting up flak hoping the doves will fly into it. They possess the uncanny innate ability to dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge.

0

Pywacket 6 years, 7 months ago

Oh, hell yes, children.

How about a planet-wide ban?

RIP, Dad: October 1933--June 2007

They hooked him when he was a teen and they were legally allowed to lie about the dangers that were already known. They reinforced it with the free smokes in the military, when those dangers were becoming well documented but were still under wraps. He tried so hard to stop when the hazards were finally out in the open. He was one of those who (for whatever reasons) couldn't do it. That **** is more addictive than heroin and should be viewed with as much hatred and opposition in our society. He never blamed anyone but himself, but his children feel differently.

I would gladly watch every tobacco company official from middle management on up, die a slow, agonizing death. Don't care from what. But that's beside the point, I guess.

Ban the stuff. The more kids see it as social anathema, the less interested they'll be in using it themselves. If for no other reason, this is a valid and positive reason to ban it in public.

0

logrithmic 6 years, 7 months ago

acg, your either misinformed or deluded or both.

The cigarette manufacturers look at bars as their last bastion for "hooking" the young on their product. They subsidize bar owners with constant promotions, free glasses and napkins, etc. They also sell their products at the bar. Their lights hang inside the bars. You think none of this is relevant?

When you defend the right of bars to permit smoking, you are granting license to the cigarette companies to continue to use this platform to addict the young. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

In response to your ad hominen attack on me, I will refrain from an ad hominen attack on you. I'll simply state the words of your Lord: "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do."

0

black_butterfly 6 years, 7 months ago

I am for the smoking ban. I don't smoke and I don't want to have to inhale smoke when I am out in public. If I go to a restaraunt I don't want to be forced to eat pork just because the person seated a few tables away is eating pork. So don't make me inhale someone else's smoke just because they are having a nicotine fit! As one other poster said, Go smoke in your own stinky, smoke stained home and kill your own children with second hand smoke inhalation, not me and my children. People who don't smoke don't realise how gross their clothes, hair and breath smell. When my sister stopped smoking she said "I had no idea how bad the smell was". As far as the bar owners go, people will NEVER stop drinking, so don't worry about losing business. They will gripe about it and keep coming to your bar and going outside to smoke! Put the ban through!

0

sunflower_sue 6 years, 7 months ago

statewide ban? NO! That being said, I truly enjoy dining in Lawrence and not smelling like I've been out to the bar all night.

Ceal, funny!

C1, May I kiss your ring? You do realize that you need a very large and gaudy pinky ring to be king, right?

0

acg 6 years, 7 months ago

Another question: Why do smokers defend the marketing of smoking companies to addict young people?

That's ridiculous! Most of the people that I know smoke, including family, and I've never known anyone that defends marketing companies trying to addict young people. You're just talking about of your a** now. I don't know a single smoker who doesn't wish they have never started and tries emphatically to disuade young people from picking up the habit. That comment was typical lies and misinformation spread about people that smoke. Yeah, they're all gathered in someone's basement right now trying to figure out how to hook all of the children on cigarettes. Then the world will be ours!! Pbsssh, idiot!

0

blue73harley 6 years, 7 months ago

Ever see "Demolition Man"? When y'all are finished with all of your bans for the collective good, I wanna be Simon Phoenix in your namby pamby litttle world.

Meanwhile, it truly is FriDAY, FRIday, FrIDay and in a few hours me and my scoot will be headed to the ABATE rally at Lake Perry with a tent, a bottle of Jack, some cigars and NO helmet. God Bless America!

0

Bladerunner 6 years, 7 months ago

Everyone remember Sept. 19th is National Talk like a Pirate Day! Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhh! Smoking sucks!

0

mom_of_three 6 years, 7 months ago

It's about freedom, people. Businesses should be able to decide who patronizes their restaurant, not government. The state legislature was right to keep hands off on this policy. Too bad the city of Lawrence didn't put it to a vote when they decided. But perhaps the rest of the cities in Kansas will have that right.
No, I am not a smoker. Never had any problems with eating out prior to the ban. If I didn't want to inhale heavy smoke in certain bars, then i didn't go there. I CHOSE to go somewhere else.

0

geppetto 6 years, 7 months ago

smokers should only smoke in their own house

0

Mr_Ramirez 6 years, 7 months ago

Looks like you poor smokers are gonna lose another one. LOL!! Too bad.

Please smoke in your own nicotine stained home.

0

logrithmic 6 years, 7 months ago

Both RepubliKLAN Huckabee and DemoCRAP Clinton want to introduce nationwide indoor smoking bans. The handwriting is on the wall....

Another question: Why do smokers defend the marketing of smoking companies to addict young people?

0

Gootsie 6 years, 7 months ago

C - VERY CUTE!

C1 - Your highness. We are in trouble now.....

friday friDAY FRIDAY!!!!! friday friDAY FRIDAY!!!!!!!

0

Tychoman 6 years, 7 months ago

Amen, Jonas. It was almost like there was a state law enforcing smoking over in China.

Ban it here, ban it everywhere. It's disgusting and dangerous.

0

logrithmic 6 years, 7 months ago

There is now a movement in Congress to outlaw this nationwide. What the state legislature does may be out of their hands soon. Thank God!

0

consumer1 6 years, 7 months ago

I guess If I am am going to do it I should know how to spell it. Many thanks you all will be rewarded with high positions in the Kingdom. Yes, I think it will be bloodless, My plan, will be revealed to those loyals in the near future. "Oh! be sure to bring your cigarettes". (and some real cool ideas for the "Coup d'etat"). King Con1

0

acg 6 years, 7 months ago

And monkeyhawk hits it right on the head......... "How many of you who salivate over the smoking ban (or the circus, fireworks, rental bans, etc.) are incensed by the Patriot Act, or cheer the city downgrading the penalty for smoking pot? Pure hypocrisy that most of you want equal rights for all people unless it is something that you personally find distasteful"

I have nothing else to say about this one, personally. I think the government should never have enough control on us to impose a ban like this one, especially when the product in question is a legal one. But then again, I've never liked having big brother look over my shoulder, or someone else impose their view points on me and my lifestyle, so I'm never going to agree, and I haven't smoked in almost a year, so it's not even about ciggies to me.

0

Ceallach 6 years, 7 months ago

I have a hard time with any statewide ban. But then again I hate to sit in the non-smoking section, just beyond the pathetic glass semi-partition, and breathe other people's smoke in a restaurant.

RI, 0233.

Happy, "I Don't Care Friday"!!!

btw, I intended to send this call to all y'all yesterday but I couldn't decide when I should send it, if I should send it, or how I should send it. I talked with several friends about it but by the time I decided, it was too late to send it. Hope everyone enjoys it as much as I did. http://www.hallmark.com/ECardWeb/ECV.jsp?a=0062472554777M000000N&product_id=

0

Das_Ubermime 6 years, 7 months ago

c1, its coup de'tat

Meh, this has been rehashed more times than I can count. If it is an environmental toxin, then it should have concentration levels which it can be safely kept under. But no, nobody is really interested in such things.

Back to your pointless arguments...

0

logicsound04 6 years, 7 months ago

"Coup d'etat" is the spelling.

This is not an equal rights issue people. There are plenty of things that are not prohibited in the public sphere, especially in cases of public health.

Do you get indignant that you aren't allowed to eat at a restaurant without your shirt on? What about the fact that dogs (except for seeing-eye dogs) aren't allowed in restaurants and bars--is that an affront on your RIGHTS?

Comparisons to unhealthy foods ludicrous, as the negative effects of eating a quadruple bacon cheeseburger with a side of bypass surgery does not affect your neighbor. The only person whose arteries are clogged is the person choosing to consume the burger, whereas with cigarettes both the smoker AND the non-smoker are subjected to the carcinogenic fumes of the cancer stick.

Comparing the indoor smoking prohibition to television is silly, as television does not have an averse impact on physical health and also does not affect people around you.

Finally, comparing the indoor public smoking ban to the Patriot Act is simply insane--it is trite to compare someone who is being detained/spyed on against their will to someone who simply has to wait until they get outside to smoke a cigarette.

I find it amazingly childish that people who want to be able to smoke (at the expense of those around them) wrap themselves in the constitution and bleet "my rights are being infringed" when it is in fact they who infringe upon the rights of the rest of us to be able to shop, eat, drink in public without inhaling noxious smoke.

0

dminear60 6 years, 7 months ago

jayhawks71 said it very well. It is not a ban. However, the fear mongers out there would like for you to believe it is a ban. I am in favor of prohibiting smoking in public buildings. I love going out in Lawrence and not smelling like a cigarette when I go home.

0

RETICENT_IRREVERENT 6 years, 7 months ago

consumer1, Way to phonetize!

Coup d'etat... There is usally that funky "e" with the apostrophe but I do not know the unicode for that. Let us just use "coup"

Bloodless?

0

consumer1 6 years, 7 months ago

Yup Yup Yup!! I want the state to become a dictatorship. I want to be KING of Kansas. No voting required. If I knew how to spell it I would have said I was planning a (koo de tau?). Can someone who would like to have a position within my Kingdom please advise your future King on the correct spelling. Your loved ones will be considered for regional position. (also you may smoke in the palace). Your King

0

monkeyhawk 6 years, 7 months ago

Just wait until all the fatties out there are banned from eating their sugar and carbs. Or those with screaming monsters are banned from imposing their offspring on fellow diners & shoppers. (There is already an effort to force new mothers to breast feed.) What will you do when the government bans your children from the t.v. babysitter, or wants to place a ban on alcohol, or legislate any of your behavior deemed to be offensive or less than prudent?

How many of you who salivate over the smoking ban (or the circus, fireworks, rental bans, etc.) are incensed by the Patriot Act, or cheer the city downgrading the penalty for smoking pot? Pure hypocrisy that most of you want equal rights for all people unless it is something that you personally find distasteful.

0

canyon_wren 6 years, 7 months ago

Here in Utah, for a long time, no smoking has been allowed in truly public buildings, but has been allowed in private businesses like bars, cafes, etc., which provide non-smoking areas. It seems to work well--of course, the state is mostly Mormon, and so the majority of the population doesn't smoke. I am opposed to a state-wide ban that includes private places like bars, etc. As many posters--and some of those interviewed--have said, people don't HAVE to patronize--or WORK AT places which allow smoking.

I have never smoked, and never will, but personal freedoms matter a great deal to me. We are having 'way too many controls on our lives now and it is getting scary.

0

any 6 years, 7 months ago

Being in a business that doesn't smell like smoke is a side-effect. The overall goal is better health. Smoke can have an adverse effect on health. Yes, if you choose as a patron to go to a place that has smoking you could argue that is your choice. What about someone that needs a job, any job, to pay bills? Should their health be put at risk due to the smoking of someone else? Since smoking cannot be contained to the single individual that is causing it, this means it becomes an issue for everyone. Big government means more taxes and I'm not a fan of that, but when the government seems to be looking out for my health, I suppose I can go along with that.

0

jonas 6 years, 7 months ago

After China, you realize how nice the smoking ban is, because everyone smokes there thus everything stinks. It makes not smoking very difficult, and even if you don't you always smell like smoke and usually your throat hurts a little bit. It's very inconvenient.

But the government shouldn't exist to support my convenience. All that above is just my point of view, only correct along my own predefined, more or less arbitrary guidelines. The thing about legislating to fit not just my rights but specifics within my lifestyle choices, is that invariably someone else with a different lifestyle is getting screwed.

But hey, as long as I can force other people to make the sacrifices and not make them myself, then it's all par for the course as far as I'm concerned.

0

jayhawks71 6 years, 7 months ago

There is no smoking "ban" in Kansas. Smoking is restricted in certain places. You can still smoke. Stop calling it a BAN. A ban implies that the act is not allowed, anywhere, under any situation. You can walk outside of an establishment and light up on the street, in a public park, at home, and in many other places. This is a ban? Hardly.

0

adriennerm 6 years, 7 months ago

I don't smoke, I have never smoked and I don't understand people who chose to smoke. In fact, I was shocked by the number of smokers in kansas. I moved here from Chicago in July 06. I thought the rule was in order to live here you had to smoke.

I guess you all know what my vote is.

0

militant 6 years, 7 months ago

worldwide ban enforced by nuclear weapons

0

okjhok 6 years, 7 months ago

I agree with RI...the smoking hotties can stay...the rest of you with the disgusting habit need to take it elsewhere...smoking=bad news brotha

0

Tom Shewmon 6 years, 7 months ago

Kansas lawmakers must've planned a great new progressive tax schedule and now feel empowered to tell people, "No Smoking". What next?

0

RETICENT_IRREVERENT 6 years, 7 months ago

What? Now all the hotties will be forced to go to other states? I think the smoking hot chicks ought to be allowed to stay in Kansas.

0

jimjones 6 years, 7 months ago

Smoking is for losers. Let them kill themselves without me. Not just yes, but HELL YES.
Have a nice day

0

trinity 6 years, 7 months ago

here we go 'round the roundabout re smoking again! sigh

statewide ban? not just no but HELL no.

0

budwhysir 6 years, 7 months ago

iM IN FAVOR OF THE STATE DOING WHATEVER IT SEES FIT TO BAN WHATEVER IT WANTS TO BAND. tAKE A LOOK AT IT, IF THE BAND SMOKING, THE POWER PLANTS WONT BE ABLE TO POLUTE THE AIR WITH ALL THE SMOKE COMING FROM THE SMOKE STACKS. UNLESS THEY MOVE THEM OUT OF THESTATE. AND THEY BETTER QUITE DRIVING ALL THOSE FANCY BUSSES WE PAID BIG MONEY FOR, THOSE THINGS SMOKE MORE THAN 6 PACKS A DAY

0

weatherguy48 6 years, 7 months ago

I think that if you don't want to be around smoke, don't go around it. If you go to a bar and people are smoking....tough sh-t. That issue is between YOU and YOU, not you and me...

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.