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.”


trinity 10 years, 1 month ago

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

statewide ban? not just no but HELL no.

adriennerm 10 years, 1 month 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.

weatherguy48 10 years, 1 month 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...

budwhysir 10 years, 1 month ago


okjhok 10 years, 1 month 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

jayhawks71 10 years, 1 month 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.

jonas 10 years, 1 month 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.

any 10 years, 1 month 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.

canyon_wren 10 years, 1 month 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.

monkeyhawk 10 years, 1 month 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.

dminear60 10 years, 1 month 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.

Ceallach 10 years, 1 month 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.

acg 10 years, 1 month 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.

Tychoman 10 years, 1 month 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.

Linda Aikins 10 years, 1 month ago


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

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

geppetto 10 years, 1 month ago

smokers should only smoke in their own house

mom_of_three 10 years, 1 month 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.

Bladerunner 10 years, 1 month ago

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

acg 10 years, 1 month 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!

sunflower_sue 10 years, 1 month 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?

black_butterfly 10 years, 1 month 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!

lubyloo 10 years, 1 month 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.

Grundoon Luna 10 years, 1 month 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!?!"

sgtwolverine 10 years, 1 month ago

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

I think that says it all.

sunflower_sue 10 years, 1 month ago

A_A, time to get the goody basket out already?

Linda Aikins 10 years, 1 month ago

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

I can just hear it now...

Ceallach 10 years, 1 month 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 :):)

Ceallach 10 years, 1 month 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 :\

snazzo 10 years, 1 month 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.

gogoplata 10 years, 1 month 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?

Bobbi Walls 10 years, 1 month 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.

trinity 10 years, 1 month 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!!

Roadkill_Rob 10 years, 1 month 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.

MaryKatesPillStash 10 years, 1 month 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.

mom_of_three 10 years, 1 month 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.

jayhawks71 10 years, 1 month 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.

mom_of_three 10 years, 1 month ago

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

done for today

jayhawks71 10 years, 1 month 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.

jayhawks71 10 years, 1 month 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!

sgtwolverine 10 years, 1 month 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?

Confrontation 10 years, 1 month 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.

Grundoon Luna 10 years, 1 month 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.

Tony Kisner 10 years, 1 month 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.

joe_cool 10 years, 1 month 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.

janeyb 10 years, 1 month ago

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

dminear60 10 years, 1 month 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?

promitida 10 years, 1 month ago

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

denak 10 years, 1 month 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.


Crossfire 10 years, 1 month 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?

storm 10 years, 1 month 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.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.