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
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
- 100 years ago: Automobile owners asked to help area veterans May 29, 2012 · 2 comments
- National group seeks repeal of 'Stand Your Ground' law in Kansas May 27, 2012 · 146 comments
- Sound Off: How can I check someone’s criminal record? May 28, 2012 · 7 comments
- On the street: How did you spend your Memorial Day? May 28, 2012 · 26 comments
- U.S. military sees new appreciation May 28, 2012 · 27 comments
- Kansas tax act most regressive in nation May 27, 2012 · 253 comments
- Sound Off: How much does the city’s transit system collect in fares compared with how much it costs May 27, 2012 · 130 comments
- Poll: Do you support Gov. Sam Brownback's income tax cuts? May 23, 2012 · 84 comments
- Remove politics, and redistricting map falls in line May 27, 2012 · 37 comments
- Tax gamble May 26, 2012 · 81 comments
- Thread of pain ran through Jackson’s career June 28, 2009
- Kansas tax act most regressive in nation May 27, 2012
- Friends mourn Lynn Bretz, former voice of KU May 28, 2012
- Kansas football scouring country May 29, 2012
- KU’s Elijah Johnson cautious at camp May 29, 2012
- Hilltop executive director Pat Pisani stepping down May 28, 2012
- City, county mull upgrade to emergency radio system May 28, 2012
- Book helps family heal after tragedy May 28, 2012
- Famed author takes on Kansas October 7, 2005
- Retreat offered for writers May 28, 2012
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
jonas (anonymous) says…
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.
prospector (anonymous) says…
Puppies make me happy.
Nanny State
Big Brother
Inalienable Rights
This is not the Pursuit of Happiness.
jimjones (anonymous) says…
Smoking is for losers
Napoleon_Dynomite (anonymous) says…
Heck Yeah!
FireMarshall_Bill (anonymous) says…
This is great news!
RockyInn (anonymous) says…
Smokers SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!
mick (anonymous) says…
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 (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?
redmorgan (anonymous) says…
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 (anonymous) says…
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 (anonymous) says…
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 (anonymous) says…
Ecstatic. I like some parts smoked, but not my lungs
sgtwolverine (anonymous) says…
Cough cough.
Kookamooka (MJ Browne) says…
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 (anonymous) says…
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 (anonymous) says…
"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.
hitme (anonymous) says…
Jonas,
It has more to do with smoking stinks and everyone else has to smell it (and smell like it) when others are smoking. I won't go into the health problems.
It should have never been allowed in the first place.
I'm thrilled!
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
I think in public buildings--that's a "public building," as opposed to a private business--smoking should be banned.
Private businesses? Leave that decision to the owner; however, I do think the so-called "smoking section" or "non-smoking section" should be outlawed. Those never work. Either the entire business is "smoking," or the entire business is "smoke-free." Nothing in between, as it simply does not work.
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
http://www.uscentrist.org
lynneraye (anonymous) says…
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