Advertisement

Previous   Next

Are you happy to hear that the Kansas Supreme Court upheld Lawrence’s smoking ban?

Asked at Massachusetts Street on June 23, 2007

Browse the archives

Photo of Kristin Deters

“Yes. That’s great news. I don’t like smoke. I don’t like to smell it when I’m eating, and I don’t like to smell like it when I get home.”

Photo of Joey Prude

“I think it’s OK. One of the big drawbacks as a musician is that people will leave during the show to congregate outside instead of staying inside to watch the bands.”

Photo of John Jones

“Yes, because they should be looking out for the rights of everyone involved. But when there’s a harmful substance involved … the rights of those who don’t use that substance should take precedent.”

Photo of Julia Patrick

“As a smoker and bartender it’s not good for my social habits or tip money, because people spend … more time outside. But it is nice to go home and not smell like smoke or have to take fresh-air breaks.”

Comments

jonas 7 years, 6 months ago

I like it, but the principle of the matter makes me stand against it, as I have been. But it's certainly not going away.

mick 7 years, 6 months ago

I don't care. As a smoker I stopped going to restaurants and bars with the ban. I don't miss it and Im sure the non-smokers don't miss me (except the owners.)

erod0723 7 years, 6 months ago

When did smokers get alienated as more vile than drunks? People feel sympathy for a drunk that needs a liver transplant, but not for a smoker who needs a lung transplant. Why the double standard?

redmorgan 7 years, 6 months ago

I'm not a smoker, but I still believe it should be at the proprietor's discretion to ban smoking in his/her establishment rather than the government's.

happilycaffienated 7 years, 6 months ago

I can sit at a table with other people who are drinking but I don't have to drink. Sit at a table with smokers and you are going to be breathing other people's smoke and going to smell like smoke when you leave. I don't like having any beverage spilled on me or the smell of smoke left on my clothing but I can change my clothes faster than I can wash and dry my hair to get the smoke smell out.

Liberty 7 years, 6 months ago

In my opinion, it's not a popularity contest about whether you like smoke or not.

It is about the principle of keeping government powers in check and under the authority of the Constitution of Kansas and all of the people of Kansas, not just the non-smokers in a popularity contest. The Kansas legislature or city government is not free to make whatever laws it wants to, but only that in which it has been granted specific authority to control by the Constitution of Kansas and approved by the people of Kansas.

A Grand Jury is the strong arm of the people, acting as a check and balance to unauthorized government power. It has the authority and duty to investigate as a check and balance to insure that government officials are doing their Constitutional duty and not exceeding the authority that has only specifically been given to them through the Constitution of Kansas and by the people. (Government authority (judicial, legislative, and executive) has a way of expanding itself if left unchecked). A Grand Jury can have a very beneficial effect to help keep government as it was intended to operate: By and for the people of Kansas. Jury nullification is another good tool to eliminate bad laws by cities governments or the legislature if needed.

H_Lecter 7 years, 6 months ago

Ecstatic. I like some parts smoked, but not my lungs

Kookamooka 7 years, 6 months ago

I know people in KC who drive to Lawrence to eat at our smoke free restaurants because they think the food tastes better here. I wonder why?

kchuskerfan 7 years, 6 months ago

I appreciate the views of those that want to keep smoking out of restaurants and away from kids. However, If I'd like to go to a bar that doesn't serve food (Sandbar, for example) on a Saturday evening at 11pm and have a drink in one hand and a cigarette in the other while with friends, why is that a problem to most of you? It's 11pm on a Saturday evening. There's no kids out, it's an establishment that would require 21 and older adults to be there. I do not want to go outside to have a smoke and leave the drink inside. I cannot take my drink outside. There should be allowances for people that are not commiting a crime, and are enjoying a legal substance. Some find smoking objectionable, some find drinking objectionable. I happen to enjoy both occasionally and am willing to be accomidating and considerate of others rights. However, where are my rights here? I'm willing to have restrictions placed upon my rights to be considerate of others but what adults chose to do at 11:00pm, if legal, should allow for me to have a drink and a smoke and I think that there should be a fairly simple compromise here.

jonas 7 years, 6 months ago

"erod0723 (Anonymous) says:

When did smokers get alienated as more vile than drunks? People feel sympathy for a drunk that needs a liver transplant, but not for a smoker who needs a lung transplant. Why the double standard?"

Because not many people smoke, and lots of people drink. It's much easier to revile someone you've never met that you don't have a connection to, especially on their one random unhealthy behavior that you don't yourself subscribe to. Double standards are inevitable in any us vs. them situation.

lynneraye 6 years, 9 months ago

Lawrence has gone the same route as the states of Mass, Conn.NY and my state of Rhode island and as well as the countries of Ireland , France and even Italy The casino's at Foxwoods and Mohegan sun are also talking of going smoke free

Commenting has been disabled for this item.