Advertisement

Previous   Next

Do you think Kansas would benefit from a statewide smoking ban?

Asked at Massachusetts Street on January 18, 2007

Browse the archives

Photo of Heather Rose

“I guess so, but I sort of have mixed feelings about it. I feel like it shouldn’t be prohibited in bars that don’t serve food.”

Photo of Scott McClure

“Yes. I guess I’m in favor of anything that promotes healthier people.”

Photo of Philip Chiles

“It could be a benefit in terms of public health, but I’m not convinced that secondhand smoke is as harmful as they say it is. It definitely wouldn’t benefit the businesses.”

Photo of Lauren Vossen

“I think it would, but it would probably benefit the nonsmokers the most.”

Comments

denak 7 years, 3 months ago

As someone who is severely allergic to cigarette smoke, I am all for the ban. I have lived in this town for 10 years, and before the ban, going into a resturant was always a risk. There were several times where I could not finish a meal with my family because of the effects of the smoke even though we were seated as far away from the "smoking" section as possible. Now, I don't have to worry about that. My allergies do not stop anyone from smoking but smoking stops me from enjoying time with my family and friends. The ban on smoking isn't as detrimental to your quality of life as your smoking is to my quality of life.

As for buisness "hurting" because of the smoking ban. Since the ban went into effect, I haven't heard of one bar or resturant that has gone out of buisness, stictly and solely, because of the ban. There are all kinds of safety, sanitary and establishment laws that bars and resturants have to abide by in order to operate because those laws, however cumbersome, are for the good of the general public. People who want to go out to bars are still going to go to a bar. People who want to go to a resturant are still going to go to a resturant.
It is that simple.

As for the whole "obesity/junk food" debate, it isn't really comparable.

People are obese for a number of reasons. The primary one in this country is our lack of movement. We don't excerice or even move a lot anymore. Our towns aren't built to encourage walking and outdoor activities. That is the primary reason people are fat in this country.

Secondly, there are genetic and hormonal disorders that contribute to a person being obese.

Smoking is a choice. However, for some, getting "fat" isn't.

Furthermore, unlike cigarette smoke, I have never heard of anyone getting sick because there was a fat person sitting across the room from them. Smoke travels through the air. Fat doesn't. Maintenance people spend half their day picking up cigarette butts that have been thrown on the ground. Haven't heard of anyone picking up gobs of fat.

As I have walked down Mass. street, I have been hit with cigarette butts. I've never been hit with fat.

Smoking is a choice. And contrary to what some belive, the government does have a right to step in and regulate in the interest of public health. (ie the FDA, OSHA, mandatory vaccinations for children)

As far as I'm concerned, this ban doesn't present any undue hardship on the bar owners nor on the smokers themselves. If a person wants to smoke, they can step outside or simply abstain until they lhe or she leave a resturant.

So I am all for the smoking ban and I would favor it being state wide.

Dena

0

gc610588 7 years, 3 months ago

Big Brother rises again!

We have a similar problem here in Indiana, regarding smoking bans in our local restaurants and bars.

Some of the business owners, (and thank God) are fighting this useless law in court!

For one, alcohol and cigarettes are legal. (the logic behind this still overwhelms me) But nevertheless, it is!!! It's just another legal "wet dream" for the attorneys to get together, and once again, blow the taxpayers money to kingdom come!!! Here in Hoosierland, we have had smoking/non smoking rooms in our restaurant and bars, for a great number of years now, with no major complaints.

Secondly, I wonder how much the government is doing to help business owners pay their taxes on their establishments, help find affordable health care for their employees, paying for the maintenance and upkeep on their premises each year. I'm sure most business owners would like to concentrate "solely" on growing their business, instead of needlessly ducking the almighty hand of big brother!!!

Just remember, your local businesses are the key to your local economic engine. There are still several communities around this country that accept people for who they are. (and they just might take their business somewhere else!!!)

I don't drink, I don't smoke, I don't do drugs!!! But I sure as hell wouldn't tell my local business owner how to run his/her business EITHER!!!

If the business owner thinks it's a good idea, let them make the decision...NOT BIG BROTHER!!! i'M SURE THEY HAVE ENOUGH WORRIES OF THEIR OWN!!!

p.s. make sure you buckle up too!!!!

                                                          g.c.
0

budwhysir 7 years, 3 months ago

IS ANYONE LISTENING TO POOR OLD BUD????

The politicians dont want to get rid of smoking. Think of the tax revenue the get from allowing the sale of smokes. They only want to tell you when and how you can smoke.

A smoking ban will require additional taxes, additional permits, allow for tickets to be written for breaking ordinances, these tickets will increase income for the cities and county governments.

Anyone who thinks smoking will ever be illegal is wrong. They will even be able to write you a ticket for smoking in your car. Imagine having to close your windows and blinds to smoke in your house. They know smoking is an addiction. Addictions can be taxes and regulated

0

The_Original_Bob 7 years, 3 months ago

Sue - Come on? What was your hubby offered in the can? No fair. Details. I need DETAILS.

Also, how are the company sponsored enimas in INdia?

0

Liberty 7 years, 3 months ago

People should not be servants to government. Governments are to be the servants of the people.

Since the government is the servant of the people, the Kansas government can only make laws from the authority given them by the people of Kansas, which are within the scope of the Kansas Constitution (the rule book for the Kansas State Government). Since the Kansas Constitution does not authorize the authority to government to create any bans, any such attempt would be considered illegal and unconstitutional by the people of Kansas, who is the authority of the State of Kansas government.

0

RETICENT_IRREVERENT 7 years, 3 months ago

sue, Have you arranged for the company limo to pick you up?. Good luck.

I have heard most of your employees are staging a sleep in. They are protesting human disturbance to indigenous wildlife and exploitation of spinner dolphins your company is so famous for.

0

deec 7 years, 3 months ago

Worse than stepping in a big loogie-stepping on a used condom.

0

sunflower_sue 7 years, 3 months ago

ip, I've been offered the chance to buy many things here in Bangalore...and what the hubby was offered in "the men's room" left me laughing for a good long while!

0

BABBOY 7 years, 3 months ago

I think Bone777 has a pretty good idea. I am generally opposed to regulations that take a way freedoms, but also understand how disgusting cigarette smoke is to the non-smoker. But, frankly, if a place is too smoky, then I usually just go somewhere else and that place does not get my money. I really do not need government's help in that decision. Bone's idea makes sense in that smokers can go to a smoking establishment which I would assume would include most bars in that they could apply for the license as well and non-smokers can go to non-smoking establishment or vice versa if they can tolerate the smoke or prohibition on smoke with the choice left up to the individual. The freewill and Capitalism will decide which ones prosper.

But, whatever happens, I am sure the The Flamingo Club will always prosper.

Have a great day.

0

The_Original_Bob 7 years, 3 months ago

R_I -

Oh, I see now. Well, I can't remember, but am I running for some sort of office? I can't remember. Anyhow, a softer, kinder, and huggier Bob will definately get the Oprah block vote. I'll save the venom and pointed comments for Meet the Press.

0

mr_daniels 7 years, 3 months ago

I am smoking as I write this. And I will enjoy a cool menthol anytime I want and blow kool smoke rings whenever I f'n wish. Come and get me all you PC Liberal Swine! If ya dare!

0

beatrice 7 years, 3 months ago

TOB, it was just a general statement, not a matter of my mind set here.

I think RI needs a hug. (RI)

0

Tom Shewmon 7 years, 3 months ago

"What about hawking a loogie on the sidewalk?"- Scenebooster

That is undeniably the most disgusting thing to encounter, I stepped out of my truck one day at a quick shop and nearly stepped in one twice the size of a silver dollar......gross!

0

conceptual_continuity 7 years, 3 months ago

Gosh.

It would truly break my heart if a couple of bars in Lawrence had to close

That in itself would probably save more lives than a smoking ban

One day a real rain will come and wash all the trash from the sidewalk

0

RETICENT_IRREVERENT 7 years, 3 months ago

T_O_B, I am not saying it is a bad thing.

In fact, It is kind of "cute" and refreshing.

I have just noticed for the past week, maybe longer, you have been kinda, well, rather "huggy". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWT8Gg...

And not only with sponge bea, but with many others too. Not in a "needy" way, but in a "bridge building" way.

Well it could be a "needy" way.

I mean I may not be the most astute observer of social dynamics.

It just seems kinda Kafkaish - Like a rottweiller metamorphosing into this bounding tail wagging cuteish puppy.

0

sgtwolverine 7 years, 3 months ago

Rob, as long as you believe that your comfort in a place you simply want -- not need -- to go is paramount in this discussion, we will not see eye-to-eye.

0

The_Original_Bob 7 years, 3 months ago

Bea - Yikes. You were already past the "outburst" stage. Thanks for thy mercy.

0

beatrice 7 years, 3 months ago

TOB, I prefer "smack-down" rather than "outburst."

0

swamp_rat 7 years, 3 months ago

sun-sue goes to show, when you're on vacation, you're not really away! Aaah, technology. Have fun with your dolphins.

0

The_Original_Bob 7 years, 3 months ago

R_I -

I merely wanted to make sure I was not on the receiving end of a Damn, Bea! outburst. If I were to abandon my Christian faith, I probably would not convert to Hindi. I'd lean towards some radical offshoot of Mormonism for the perks of unlimited guns and women. Although, one of these Nature religions might work as all I'd need to do is eat mushrooms and pet the earth and complain about the corporate bulldozer that is wrecking our Mother.

0

jonas 7 years, 3 months ago

Oh man. . . . . infuriating.

I don't have the energy to be this angry. I'll catch you all later.

I'm still quit, by the way. If I didn't smoke in the last 30 hours, then I think I've got it licked.

0

Bone777 7 years, 3 months ago

I think business owners should be able to buy a permit, just like a liquor license, and allow tobacco in their establishments.

Proper ventilation, clear signage, etc.

Employees who don't like smoke, won't choose to work in those establishments.

People opposed to nudity don't usually apply at The Flamingo Club to work.

0

Pywacket 7 years, 3 months ago

From R_I, hours ago: "Damn Py, Are you going to venomously attack my "wanna-be hummer" , my weedeater, my soot and particle beltching diesel tractor, my motorized bicycle, my ambience enhancing open fire pit, and my burn barrel next?..."

(smile) Nope... While those things have issues, not one of them shares the unique position of tobacco. Cigs are truly in a class of their own for many, many reasons.

I doubt you operate your burn barrel or fire pit inside places of business day after day or that either of them (unless you are burning tobacco) are as toxic to others as cigarettes in enclosed areas are.

There are a lot of "potentially dangerous" things that, for practical reasons, can't be banned outright (cars and, yes, diet Coke being among them), but lots of those things provide demonstrable benefits to offset their risks. What benefits can cigarettes claim? (And please read the med. lit. closely before claiming that they "calm the nerves" or help with weight loss.)

No.. I have a fairly laid-back attitude about most things. If my neighbor wants to burn leaves a few times in the fall, I actually enjoy the smell. Although I'm sure I would NOT if the smoke filled every restaurant, bar, etc., that I walked into, every day of the year. I even approve of fireworks on the 4th of July. Kindly compare the deaths/injuries of yearly fireworks with the deaths/illness/impaired quality of life caused by smoking or inhaling secondhand smoke.

I'm not quick to approve of sweeping regulatory laws. But the evidence against smoking (and passive smoking) continues to pile up, as do the bodies, and there is no offsetting benefits to balance out tobacco's risks.

After riding the fence on the question of bans for several years and trying to put aside my personal feelings in an effort to remain objective, I have finally climbed down on the side of bans.

As I watch my own dad die slowly of emphysema, I can't help but think that if our society had not had such an open-armed, accepting attitude toward smoking when he was a teen---if they had known of the dangers and ACTED on that knowledge by bans, treating smokers like pariahs (instead of glamourizing them on the silver screen), and making it inconvenient and expensive for youths to start up--my dad would now still be a reasonably healthy 72-year-old, not in & out of the hospital every few weeks, not gasping for breath to talk to his kids, not dragging oxygen around 24/7, and not likely to die before his first grandchildren graduate from high school. He is depressed, broken, and declining steadily.

They didn't know back then (largely because of the $$$ the tobacco firms spent lying and paying unethical health officials to lie) and youth was actively recruited. Never again.

If banning cigs, raising taxes on them, treating smokers like social skunks (because, yes, they STINK) will keep upcoming generations from being fooled into thinking there's anything sexy or cool about smoking, I'm there!

0

ohjayhawk 7 years, 3 months ago

bea - If you take T_O_B's advice and decide to "buy Ohio", I'd be happy to pick up some fireworks for you! Of course, getting them to you brings up a whole bunch of other issues since most carriers (UPS, FedEx, USPS) ban the transportation of fireworks. :(

0

Roadkill_Rob 7 years, 3 months ago

Sgt,

How is requiring a smoker to go outside "superior leverage?" The smoker only has to stay outside the duration of the cigarette (5-7 minutes) then they can come back in.

However, in the opposite case, I have to deal w/ personal misery the entire duration I'm in the smokey bar.

Is going outside too much to ask? I don't think so.

0

Luxstarness 7 years, 3 months ago

Yes I do think there should be a state wide smoking ban. Why do I have to suffer when I leave my house due to someone else's problem? I should not have to smell like stinky smoke when I leave a restaurant, or a bar or anywhere. The smokers made the choice to smoke and therefore should deal with the repercussions of that habit. They should not be able to oppose there habit on me, because lets face it if you smoke you are not only affecting yourself but every single person that walks by and that's being selfish. I also think that smokers who throw their nasty butts on the ground or out their window should be fined and given a ticket. Look what their habit does... Its sure beautiful walking downtown or on campus until you look down at the ground, littered by all the cigg butts of people who are so irresponsible that they could not just put it out and place in the trash. So YES to a smoking ban, and YES to no smoking everywhere!

0

scenebooster 7 years, 3 months ago

"Same goes with smoking in public places."

What about hawking a loogie on the sidewalk? Or sneezing? Shaking hands without washing them? Being sick in public?

And what do you mean by "public places"? There are rules to get into bars (i.e. 21+, can't be intoxicated).

All of this is besides the point, which is that this gives unfair advantage to some business while putting everyone else at a disadvantage...as I said, I don't smoke, and if the ban was put in place to cover all public places (something that I'm not sure would be legal, but might be) I would be totally for it. As it is, they city would need to allow every business that doesn't have a smoking deck but wants one a variance to build it. Otherwise, let the business owner decide - there is absolutely nothing keeping such an employer the right to declare his or her establishment as "no smoking allowed" and let people vote with their dollars.

0

RETICENT_IRREVERENT 7 years, 3 months ago

T_O_B, What is all this peace, harmony, and brotherly love crap? Are you going all Richard Gere on us? (minus the gerbil). You didn't just go to your hometown for the holidays did you? I think you shaved your head, put on a robe and joined some order of Tibetan Monks.

Fireworks are legal for "religious ceremonies"

I myself belong to the "Religious Society of Hudson Maxim & Joseph Wilbrand", I do not know how you, as a Tibetan Monk, stand on this issue.

0

macon47 7 years, 3 months ago

you can smoke all you want to at the bird, and you dont have to put up with the whiners that love to rave about the smokers

0

beatrice 7 years, 3 months ago

sgt, customers bringing in their own fireworks ... Brilliant! You know, I could use a business partner, and with your keen mind ...?

Only problem I'm now having is trying to find an insurance carrier.

sc: "You can drink yourself to death, or go and get in your car and kill a bunch of people, so should they ban drinking in bars?" No, but they should "ban" drinking and driving, which, in fact, they have. Same goes with smoking in public places.

0

scenebooster 7 years, 3 months ago

"I'm just saying, as a non-smoker, why do I have to find a different place to go b/c a place is smoky? There are numerous reasons I like to go to certain bars so why does a smoker have an "overwhelming right" to blow smoke in my face?"

You don't have to. You can make the decision - is it worth it to put up with the smoke, or should I stay home?

To me the point of all of this isn't smoking - if you're dumb enough to kill yourself slowly with the cigs, go for it - it's the gov't telling a business how they can run their business. Smoking is not illegal. You can drink yourself to death, or go and get in your car and kill a bunch of people, so should they ban drinking in bars?

The ban gives un-fair advantage to businesses with outdoor smoking areas - you can't just go out and add that to a bar that doesn't have it already (even if you could afford it the city wouldn't let you).

The ban sucks (I don't smoke, BTW, but I do work in bars).

0

budwhysir 7 years, 3 months ago

With all the talk about illegal unions and local burger, I seem to have lost time to worry about people smoking.

0

sgtwolverine 7 years, 3 months ago

Second-hand fire. I love that.

Also, bea, I think your comparison would be better if you had it so you allowed customers to bring their fireworks into the bar and set them off.

I'm just saying.

0

The_Original_Bob 7 years, 3 months ago

Bea -

Setting off fireworks in KS is illegal except for a couple days around the 4th.

Lead-based painted plates are outlawed.

Sorry, not biting.

But, dearest Bea, if you do open your Fireworks for Freedom food place, I'd look into getting your fireworks from Ohio.

0

beatrice 7 years, 3 months ago

I want to open a bar and restaurant in a lovely, free-standing wooden structure. Since I love the freedoms of my country so much, I want to put on a patriotic dinner show that includes shooting off fireworks. Indoors. The customers will like it and they, along with the potential employees, say they don't mind the health risk of possibly dieing from second-hand fire. Should I be allowed to open according to this business plan? If not, why not, and how does this differ from allowing smoking -- except for the obvious expediancy of death from second-hand fire over second-hand smoke? Should people be allowed to bring their children into my "Fireworks for Freedom" bar and grill? Should the fireworks only be allowed in the bar section of the establishment, or can they be in the family part of the restaurant? We also serve dinner on lead-based painted plates, all on the up and up. My business, my rules -- right?

If I own a business, should I have to take any precautions, ever, for the long and short term safety of customers and employees? Where do you draw your line?

0

Tom Shewmon 7 years, 3 months ago

And campfires should be banned.....you've heard about the the lungs of thousand plus year old cave-dwellers who scientists determined had lungs worse than those of a heavy smoker----this is a travesty; those poor people died at a young age from smoke, not really campfire smoke--because back then, they were not actually campfires, but just fires---you know for heat, cooking, light etc etc. I don't think people "camped out" back then, does anybody have any information on this---any KU anthropologists on the forum today----when did "camping" really start? And cowboys, what about their lungs, poor guys--did they consider what they were doing as "camping" and were campfires harmful to them? Lots and lots of questions and the government needs to address them all and solve the problems for us, before it gets worse.

The Boy Scouts and Campfire Girls could file lawsuits if this were ever further investigated and put on the books.

We need to clean up our messes and this includes all messes from the past.

0

sgtwolverine 7 years, 3 months ago

Rob: you're the one asking for leverage right now. Not the smokers. You want the leverage to point them out the door. I think it's worth noting that you're asking for superior leverage over smokers, not equal leverage.

That said, I don't enjoy frequenting smoky venues, so I tend to avoid them. I understand what you want, and I'm not entirely against it; I just don't want to pound my fist, raise my voice and make my demands simply because they're my demands.

0

innocuous_posts 7 years, 3 months ago

s_s, did you buy any torpedoes while you were in Bangalore?

0

sunflower_sue 7 years, 3 months ago

RI, if the weather in KC cooperates, I'll be back from my 16 day junket to Bangalore on Sunday...you and the spousal unit can go on a date then.

ip, beat a dead horse? I'll one up you. I'll beat a dead trap-door buffalo for a Klondike bar. :P

0

Roadkill_Rob 7 years, 3 months ago

Sgtwolverine,

I see what you're saying, but if I want to be at the same place as a smoker, why do they get the leverage by claiming it's their personal right. Yeah, we both want to have our way, but I don't think it's that much to ask a smoker to have some common courtesy and go outside.

Most smokers don't have the common courtesy and don't go outside even w/out a ban.

I guess I'm kind of sick of smokers' rights. If I want to take a 5 minute break at work every hour, I'm looked upon as lazy whereas a smoker is excused. Yeah, those poor smokers are so repressed.

0

sgtwolverine 7 years, 3 months ago

TOB: "Hugs and Kisses."

Are you distributing Hershey's chocolate now? If so, you are my hero for today.

0

The_Original_Bob 7 years, 3 months ago

Bea - You misunderstooded me. That was my opinion of your opinion. I know you did not say make them illegal. I'm just saying if your pov is the reason, then they should just go away. Sorry about the confusion. Hugs and Kisses.

0

macon47 7 years, 3 months ago

i think it is fortunate our government wants to protect us from our stupidity.

0

Theno21 7 years, 3 months ago

I think the smoking ban should be an option that bars can use, if they want it than they can ban smoking if they dont want it then let people smoke in the bar.

0

budwhysir 7 years, 3 months ago

Instead of banning smoking, why not put a $5.00 fee on all lighters and matches.

0

stupidsystemwithphoneynames 7 years, 3 months ago

Worried about the chemical in cigarette smoke?

Want to ban the Alkanes (linear, branched or cyclic); Aldehydes and other carbonyls (e.g. formaldehyde, acrolein, etc) Alkenes (e.g. 1,3 butadiene) Aromatic hydrocarbons (e.g. benzene) Polycyclic romatic hydrocarbons Inorganic gases (carbon monox -ide, nitrogen dioxide) Heavy metals (some detected in both mixtures) and Acids (mostly organic acids)?

http://www.energyindependencenow.org/pdf/fs/EIN-TobaccoCarExhaust.pdf

THEN DO IT BAN THOSE CHEMICALS - but you just banned your gasoline burning car and don't forget the diesels which also spew out the same chemicals as tobacco (Aza-arenes and N-heterocyclic amines)

Guess you will QUIT DRIVING right? Stop pollutting the air with those nasty chemicals that cause cancer?

Over 600,000 people die annually from obesity and its related illnesses (diabetes, heart disease etc) and the number is going up expontentially each year. About 40,000,000 million people smoke and less than 1% (400,000) die from respiratory illnesses due to smoking. 20% of people with lung cancer never smoked - guess it was caused by your car's exhaust then, eh?

Guess we better ban potato chips, fried food, gravy, pop, candy and all the junk those obese couch potatoes suck down.

0

sgtwolverine 7 years, 3 months ago

Rob, I know what you're saying. My point is that you're taking the argument well out of the health concern arena -- which does have some validity -- and into the "because I want to go there, that's why" arena, which really goes both ways. You want to go somewhere without smoke; maybe someone else wants to go somewhere with smoke. Do you see what I'm saying? That argument just says you want something, and others could level that same argument right back at you. We all want something.

Again, I'm not arguing that smoking is good; I'm just saying your argument is not the right one.

0

deec 7 years, 3 months ago

Actually the act of smoking a previously lit cigarette while fueling up is a low risk action. Back before they put stickers on the gas pumps, people smoked while pumping gas frequently, and there was no epidemic of exploding gas stations. Ditto cell phones. Many regulations are more about liability than safety, such as the one I saw once about not using the newly-purchased hammer to hit one's fingers.

0

Roadkill_Rob 7 years, 3 months ago

sgtwolverine,

I'm just saying, as a non-smoker, why do I have to find a different place to go b/c a place is smoky? There are numerous reasons I like to go to certain bars so why does a smoker have an "overwhelming right" to blow smoke in my face?

Why not go outside? It's not that hard to do. Like I said, nobody has to quit smoking in the city limits. People are acting like they're being put in concentration camps over this issue.

This will soon be a nationwide ban so you might as well get used to it. I'm sorry, I guess I don't get too sympathetic for smokers, even though I was one.

C'mon, guys, is it really a big deal to step outside?

0

beatrice 7 years, 3 months ago

TOB, "If you go with Bea's point, then just make cigs illegal." What the ...? I never said that. I think if someone wants to smoke, they can. Just don't do it near me. Smoke at home. Give the kids cancer. Whatever. Just don't do it where you could give me cancer. That is all.

optimist: "There are tens of thousands of lives lost commuting to work each year. Should we ban automobiles? Let's stop using "public safety" and "public good" as an excuse for denying others their freedom." So, are you opposed to the laws on the books now that govern how cars are to be safely used? If we don't ban cigs in public, should we get rid of laws about drinking and driving? Get rid of laws on speeding? It isn't making cigs illegal, just as cars aren't illegal. It is about making things safer for everyone. You can't drink and drive legally because it could cause harm to others, just as you shouldn't be allowed to smoke near others in a public area.

As always, I ask -- should smoking be banned while filling up at the gas station? Sure, people might blow up, but isn't it the station owner's business and shouldn't he decide? See how silly that argument is?

0

rollcar 7 years, 3 months ago

I am a property owner in Lawrence (my private residence). Is it up to a me as a property owner to decide whether to allow public urination on my property in plain view of passersby?

No, it is not. Peeing is a perfectly legal activity, but with certain societal restrictions, and rightfully so.

In the best interests of the public at large, there are matters that can not be left up to the discretion of property owners.

0

ohjayhawk 7 years, 3 months ago

sgt - Yeah, the buildings definitely give you a warm and fuzzy feeling, don't they?

0

ohjayhawk 7 years, 3 months ago

T_O_B - The real kicker is that these fireworks stores aren't just on the borders. They are all through the state, meaning a person who buys fireworks there would have to travel about 2 hrs just to be outside the state!

0

sgtwolverine 7 years, 3 months ago

Well, TOB, those who opposed the fireworks industry have found themselves waking up next to a lit fuse in a warehouse full of fireworks.

Ohjay, I always enjoy getting to the border and seeing the giant "FIREWORKS" signs next to those run-down buildings.

0

The_Original_Bob 7 years, 3 months ago

"And yes, sgt, it is still the case in Ohio that you can buy fireworks, but must "promise" you will set them off elsewhere... boggles the mind."

That's rich. I didn't know the fireworks lobby was that powerful.

0

bobberboy 7 years, 3 months ago

Yea send the stinkin cancer stick smokin fools home.

0

ohjayhawk 7 years, 3 months ago

Second day in a row where the OTS questions hits on a topic that has just been implemented in Ohio. So far, it has been a big mess. The latest hitch is that private clubs (i.e. VFW's) are not exempt from the law. If a private club has employees (either paid or unpaid), they must abide by the non-smoking ban. They are not too happy with that. http://www.ohionewsnow.com/?sec=home&story=sites/ONN/content/pool/200701/880285786.html

However, enforcement, once it begins (another hitch... enforcement was supposed to start Dec. 7 http://www.mydailysentinel.com/articles/2006/12/12/news/local_news/news01.txt), will be complaint driven. They will not be going out looking for violators. Someone would have to complain for a violation to be punished. Therefore, I imagine many private clubs (and some public establishments) will try to sneak under the radar and allow smoking.

And yes, sgt, it is still the case in Ohio that you can buy fireworks, but must "promise" you will set them off elsewhere... boggles the mind.

0

JumporFall 7 years, 3 months ago

What I do not understand (maybe someone can explain) is why it is not up to the owner of the establishment whether or not smoking should be allowed. After all, it is their business, right?

0

ms_canada 7 years, 3 months ago

My city has had a total ban on smoking in any public place for 2 years now and it seems to be working. It started gradually. About 4 years ago a ban was placed on restaurants deemed family restaurants. Children allowed, smoking not allowed. Patrons could still smoke in restaurants but no children allowed. That worked ok and then came the total ban even in bars. All public places. We have a street in a certain location that is very trendy and popular with neat shops and neater bars. One enterprising pub rented a large bus and parked it out front on cold winter nights and pub crawlers could repair to the bus for a ciggy and then back inside. That worked ok, too. Haven't heard anything about it this year. In London, England there has been no smoking for many years in pubs, so the patrons spill out into the street with their glasses of bitter or lager in 1 hand and a cig in the other hand. It can be rather a nuisance for those passing by on the sidewalk. Otherwise it works ok.

0

i_have_only_valid_opinions 7 years, 3 months ago

There is a huge difference between someone choosing to smoke themselves and subjecting others to harmful second hand smoke. Just like alcohol, if someone chooses to use tobacco despite the health warnings, go ahead and make that personal decision. But don't make it for anyone else. It is no one's right to knowingly subject other's to these irreversable adverse health effects for a few minutes of nicotine pleasure. Just like it is illegal to drink and drive because you will harm others, but feel free to drink responsibly.

Don't ban the sale, but ban the effects from harming others in public.

0

Marion Lynn 7 years, 3 months ago

The Lebanese Hookah joint serves food and smoking is permitted in clear violation of the ordinance.

I wonder why this special and discriminatory treatment has been granted.

Thanks.

Marion.

0

BorderRat 7 years, 3 months ago

Watch for the loopholes. I'll bet the ban will allow smoking in a Casino. Can you say State Tax Revenue?

0

Bone777 7 years, 3 months ago

"You've come a long way baby......"

Washington state banned smoking in all establishments and 25 feet from any doors or windows.

Less freedom for smokers, but much more enjoyable to go out.

With the 25 foot restriction, no 'smoking area' second hand smoke in any building.

0

budwhysir 7 years, 3 months ago

So, if we ban smoking, and then allow establishments to buy a special permit that will allow smoking, and then put an additional tax on smoking products, we can increase tax revenue on smoking.

Also, we should ban all fast food places from serving anything that takes longer than 2 min. to cook. After all fast food should be fast and I hate standing in line for too long to get my food. I dont mind that it clogs my arteries and causes health problems I just want it the way I want it.

0

person_of_interest 7 years, 3 months ago

TOB is right on!

This is getting ridiculous!

If smoking is that bad/horrific for the masses....well then, why not just make it illegal?

Oh, yeah! That's right! If that were to happen...then the government wouldn't be able to collect its whopping cigarette tax and spend it on things other than what it said/promised it would!

Oops! How silly of me! I almost forgot about that!

0

person_of_interest 7 years, 3 months ago

Yeah, I'm sure that a statewide smoking ban will go over real well in western Kansas!

0

Marion Lynn 7 years, 3 months ago

I wonder why it is that all these folks have come to beliieve that they have the "right" to go anywhere they like and to make the rules for the places which they go?

"I want to see that band but the bar allows smoking so I "feel" that the bar needs to change it rules for little old me!"

Another reason that I love doing business on the 'net!

You just BLOCK the entitlement-minded whiners!

Thanks.

Marion.

0

sgtwolverine 7 years, 3 months ago

"I also don't like the argument, 'If you don't like the smoke, don't go to the establishment!' Well, sometimes there is a band that comes to town and they don't play anywhere else. It's nice to be able to enjoy a show w/out watery eyes."

You know, I'm not at all a fan of smoking, but that's not exactly a convincing argument. I don't think you have an overwhelming "right" to be able to see any show in town without encountering smoke.

I'm not saying smoking is a good thing; I'm just saying there are far better arguments and reasons than that one.

0

RETICENT_IRREVERENT 7 years, 3 months ago

Damn Py, Are you going to venomously attack my "wanna-be hummer" , my weedeater, my soot and particle beltching diesel tractor, my motorized bicycle, my ambience enhancing open fire pit, and my burn barrel next? (I think spousal units new garden tractor would be safe from your persecution... it does not smoke much, and as an added benefit... it is EPA compliant)

The "Public Spaces" smoking ban does not affect me much... a.) I only smoke when I'm floating in a swimming pool and extremely blitzed/snookered. b.) The only person I can talk into watching my devil spawn is always on 16 day junkets to Bangalore...

0

gyroduck 7 years, 3 months ago

Yes and as for what other people think, I just plain don't care.

0

sgtwolverine 7 years, 3 months ago

Actually, I'd be all for a ban on Diet Coke. Can't stand it.

One time, a friend of mine ordered a Coke, and they brought him a Diet Coke. You should have seen the look of disgust on his face when he took a drink.

0

Roadkill_Rob 7 years, 3 months ago

I have mixed feelings about this issue but I wish people would stop using the argument: "Why don't they ban fatty foods, since it's bad for me too!"

That's not the point. It's a secondhand smoke issue; not a personal rights issue...you can walk 20 feet to the front door and smoke a cigarette outside w/out a problem.

I also don't like the argument, "If you don't like the smoke, don't go to the establishment!" Well, sometimes there is a band that comes to town and they don't play anywhere else. It's nice to be able to enjoy a show w/out watery eyes.

Like I've said before, I'm an ex-smoker and even when I did smoke, I preferred to go outside. It really isn't a big deal.

0

biggunz 7 years, 3 months ago

i liked someone else's idea, if you're so concerned about public health, just ban tobacco sales in the state. period.

0

optimist 7 years, 3 months ago

There are tens of thousands of lives lost commuting to work each year. Should we ban automobiles? Let's stop using "public safety" and "public good" as an excuse for denying others their freedom. Those of you in favor of the government interfering in the personal decisions of average American's should at least have the courage to acknowledge that is what it is. For this reason extending to a statewide bane would be an even worse travesty.

I don't like being around smokers myself. I rarely if ever go out to eat at restaurants, especially those with bars as they tend to attract more smokers. That is however my choice as it is the choice of the restaurant owner to allow smoking and cater to that demographic. I don't believe I have the right to deny people the use of a legal product in a venue open to the public when allowed by the owner of the private venue. In that case the government acting on behalf of some or even a majority does not automatically make it a reasonable intrusion even for "public safety" reasons.

I caution all of you to take note that nearly every controversial decision undertaken by legislatures or the judiciary was passed under the pretense of "public safety", "public good" or "equal protection". Anytime these arguments are used we should be skeptical as the Constitution and its intent are slowly being eroded.

0

Azure_Attitude 7 years, 3 months ago

The non-smokers ARE staying away along with a large portion of the smokers, at least from the bars!! They may be frequenting the restraunts more, but that isn't doing anything for taverns whose businesses are truly suffering. I agree about non-smoking in restraunts, but not bars.

0

Mr_Ramirez 7 years, 3 months ago

**Youve been extinguished smokers!**

Too bad.......

"Land of the Free""Whats next?" LOL!!! Kleenex???

Nice Diet Coke and Junk Food comparison.
Idiots, its not the same....

Poison yourself in your own homes or outside.

0

sharron5rs 7 years, 3 months ago

BIG BROTHER IS COMMING!!!!! The only thing I see from banning smoking is less income for establishments that they have already banned smoking in. Why not ban drinking? More people are killed from drunk drivers than secondhand smoke. I get tired of reading about smoking. Lets start a NEW subject already!!!

0

Azure_Attitude 7 years, 3 months ago

What you said Buddha!!

America, Land of the Free*

*Some restrictions apply. Void where prohibited.

0

innocuous_posts 7 years, 3 months ago

I'd beat a dead horse for a Klondike Bar!

0

Pywacket 7 years, 3 months ago

Well said, rollcar!

Southerngirl, did you read rollcar's comments? Do you get the difference now? When your "beloved diet Coke" starts making its way into other people's bloodstreams while you're drinking it in a public place, and when overwhelming evidence that your Coke (all by itself, not added together with myriad other food/drink items) has devastating health consequences, THEN maybe it will be banned from public spaces. I might add, when your Coke makes everyone else in the room go home with reeking hair and clothes, that will exacerbate people's desire to ban it in public.

But as long as you can drink your Coke without everyone else in the room being FORCED to share it, and without it causing all kinds of health problems for those people, and without it making those people stink, there's really no reason to ban it, is there? I don't think you have much to worry about.

Some are quick to say that nonsmokers (who are an increasing majority) should just "stay away" from venues where smoking is allowed. We are fed up with that "solution." We've put up with that attitude all our lives.

The bans all over this and other countries attest to the notion that this is an inherently unfair solution and tramples the rights of the majority, in order to allow a self-righteous minority poison the air for everyone as they feed their addiction wherever they please. It's about time that minority face up to a shift in the balance or their rights vs. our rights.

This fits with the old saw, "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." Let the smokers "just stay home" for a few decades, as we have been told to do, and see how they like it. Or maybe they can lobby their beloved tobacco companies to come up with cigs that have "self-containment" filters---something that will actually collect all the toxins and odors rather than releasing them into the air. The tobacco firms are so effing brilliant, I'm sure they should be able to rise to this challenge.

0

budwhysir 7 years, 3 months ago

I think the benefit would come from extra taxes for special permits and fines for smoking in non smoking areas.

0

Gootsie 7 years, 3 months ago

T, I would only post during working hours and not on breaks, being a "state" employee, for a Klondike bar.

OR I would buy *** some valium, for a Klondike bar.

0

RETICENT_IRREVERENT 7 years, 3 months ago

merrill, "Landlords are banning smoking in some places maybe for insurance reasons."

Is it just in the bathrooms? Maybe to cut down on underage smoking?

0

The_Original_Bob 7 years, 3 months ago

Merill - If a landlord wants to ban smoking on his properties that is supercool with me. It is his property. What I read is that whichever city is wanting to ban smoking in single unit residences.

0

Richard Heckler 7 years, 3 months ago

Landlords are banning smoking in some places maybe for insurance reasons.

0

rollcar 7 years, 3 months ago

There are very few activities in which one can participate in public that have a disgusting and potentially dangerous effect on those around them, but smoking is one of them. If getting your precious nicotine fix is that important to you, let me introduce you to a little something called Skoal. Of course, then people will argue for their right to spit on my shoe.

0

The_Original_Bob 7 years, 3 months ago

Trinity -

The question should be, "What wouldn't you do for a Klondike bar?"

R_I -

Well put. On both points. I went out to a few Mass St. bars the other night for the first time in forever (with the exception of Free State). I see more people chewing and leaving their cups full of that lucsious mix of spit and chewed up tobacco all over the place. And it ends up on the floor. Lovely.

Bea and Doc1 bring up kind different points of view. Bea's point is understandable and so is Doc1's. But if you go with Doc1's point then, yeah, Diet Coke's, Big Macs, Klondike Bars, etc... would also need to be banned as they are responsible for higher insurance rates as well. If you go with Bea's point, then just make cigs illegal.

0

RETICENT_IRREVERENT 7 years, 3 months ago

anxiousatheist,

Kind of like banning the use of marijuana, crack, and meth will lead to them not being bought?

0

RETICENT_IRREVERENT 7 years, 3 months ago

Just make sure every public establishment has sawdust covered floors, and spitoons.

0

doc1 7 years, 3 months ago

YES, GET RID OF IT. ITS STUPID AND I'M TIRED OF PAYING FOR OTHER PEOPLE WHEN IT COMES TO RAISING MY HEALTH INSURANCE ALL THE TIME.

0

beatrice 7 years, 3 months ago

Second hand smoke can kill, but there is no such thing as second hand eating. Why must people always combine the two as if they are one and the same? Other countries have shown they are willing to believe science -- why not our nation? Like evolution, I guess the jury is still out on cancer for some folks.

Not just Kansas, but the nation! Smoke at home if you want to. There are plenty of things you can do at home that you can't do in public, and smoking should be one of them.

0

Clint Gentry 7 years, 3 months ago

Banning the use will lead to cigs not being bought. No need to jump straight to the outlaw of sales. And yes, cigs do cause cancer via second-hand smoke, why don't any of you "freedom fighters" grasp that?

0

sgtwolverine 7 years, 3 months ago

Trinity, I would smoke in public in Kansas while voting for Obama for president ... for a Klondike bar.

0

sgtwolverine 7 years, 3 months ago

I have to agree with others: if you want to go this route, don't just ban the use. Ban the sale. Banning smoking but allowing the sale of cigarettes is just a weak halfway effort. It's not even a compromise.

This makes me think of the fireworks shops clustered around the Michigan/Indiana and Michigan/Ohio borders. You can buy "illegal" fireworks, but you have to promise not to use them in that state. (At least, that's how it worked last I knew. It has been a few years.)

0

trinity 7 years, 3 months ago

ok is anybody ELSE ready for a new ots question?? is it just me or have we been beating this dead horse quite a bit lately?? aggggghhhhhhh!

ots question for today; what would YOU do for a Klondike bar?

:)

0

southerngirl 7 years, 3 months ago

I am not a smoker and I don't like to be around someone who is smoking, but what is next? Will they ban my beloved diet cokes because they are bad for me? How about junk food? When and where does personal responsibility come in? Have a wonderful day everyone! d

0

KS 7 years, 3 months ago

It is a legal product. You want to ban smoking in public places, ban the sale! That will never happen. The state gets too much tax from tobacco. I am not a smoker. The State of Kansas is a hypocrite on this matter.

0

RETICENT_IRREVERENT 7 years, 3 months ago

You could wait for a lifetime To spend your days in the sunshine You might as well do the white line It's a crazy situation But all I need are cigarettes and alcohol!

!/4 gram or less, It's a traffic ticket.

0

The_Original_Bob 7 years, 3 months ago

Too early for such rambling... my point was, as far as I'm concerned the Lawrence smoking ban is settled. I've accepted that. No need to rehash 3 years of arguments. I'm more worried about what's next on the list of stuff that needs to be banned to save me from death.

0

Kelly Powell 7 years, 3 months ago

land of the free my ass.........

0

The_Original_Bob 7 years, 3 months ago

A statewide ban? Um. Lawmakers are chickenpoop. Just make it illegal. Oh wait? Then they won't get all the kickbacks/campaign donations/free trips from Big Tobaccy? Freaking hypocrites.

My answer is no. Hell no. Just another ban on personal freedom. I remember back when Lawrence was debating a ban and a few folks had the forethought to say that a public ban wouldn't be the end. They were right. The anti-smoking folks (and god bless em by the way... they are just looking out for you), are now trying to ban smoking in apt./condo complexes in some areas of the country.

At this time in the morning I can't help but think that Kansas would benefit from each citizen having a delicious buttery biscuit every morning. But I suppose after the cigs are as illegal as weed, then the zealots will try to make butter and carbs illegal.

I don't smoke. I can finally see that when these bans start happening for "the greater good", they snowball into utter ridiculousness. The smoking ban didn't affect me, but someday one of these morons will try to ban something that does affect me.

0

blue73harley 7 years, 3 months ago

Yep, it would benefit the whiners.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.