Previous   Next

Do you think Kansas should be a smoke-free state?

Asked at La Prima Tazza, 638 Mass. on January 15, 2009

Browse the archives

Photo of Susan Mahler

“Yes, I do … (for) health purposes, secondhand smoke.”

Photo of Brian Sifton

“Yes, I do. … My father was a smoker his whole life … then he got emphysema and needed a lung transplant.”

Photo of Amy Brockman

“Hell, yes … (for) health reasons … and it’s nice to go out in the evening … go home and not smell like an ashtray.”

Photo of Ryan Ludwig

“(No,) I think it should be a city-by-city decision.”

Related story

Comments

Dani Davey 6 years, 4 months ago

Ryan Ludwig doesn't know what he's talking about.

Trobs 6 years, 4 months ago

Great idea. Remove a few more freedoms from our Citizens. Next comes your guns because only criminals need them. Then your Free Speech. Then we're living in a fascist state. A stretch? A quote from Hitler in 1938. "‘The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."Small steps...

appleaday 6 years, 4 months ago

No one's banning smoking. Those who choose to smoke will still have the right to smoke. The ban ensures that those who don't smoke aren't exposed to second-hand smoke in public places.

gccs14r 6 years, 4 months ago

A statewide ban makes the most sense. Then all we'd need is for MO, OK, CO, NE, and AR to follow suit. It's coming, it's just a matter of time.

Flap Doodle 6 years, 4 months ago

A big steaming plate of B & G would look nice right now.

OldEnuf2BYurDad 6 years, 4 months ago

No, don't outlaw it. Just tax it to extinction. That's a win-win for everyone.

jonas_opines 6 years, 4 months ago

"A lot when you're the one who'll someday die from lung cancer. It's a horrible, long, way to die."The people who will die this way (just the smokers, for the most part) will likely not be affected by the ban. They're still going to smoke.

Chris Ogle 6 years, 4 months ago

Don't know about the whole state, but I certainly should be smoke free.

billbodiggens 6 years, 4 months ago

Kansas should also be alcohol free or does that step on the toes of those who want their wine tasting parties so they can complain about smoke in a bar they would never go to.

Trobs 6 years, 4 months ago

I do have a problem with my tax money helping to pay for selective abortions. A child is not a question. That's for another arguement.

billbodiggens 6 years, 4 months ago

Alcohol is dangerous to an ordered society."About 6 in 10 convicted jail inmates said that they had been drinking on a regular basis during the year before the offense for which they were serving time. Nearly 2 out of 3 of these inmates, regardless of whether they drank daily or less often, reported having previously been in a treatment program for an alcohol dependency problem."Source: Greenfield, Lawrence A., US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Alcohol and Crime: An Analysis of National Data on the Prevalence of Alcohol Involvement in Crime (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, April, 1998), p. 27.

Fangorn 6 years, 4 months ago

I think Mr. Sifton should advocate the abolition of guns first, since obviously someone held one to his father's head all those years and made him smoke.autie: I have to appreciate the irony of someone saying "smoke free will be just a pipe dream", considering the origin of the phrase. :)I will reiterate what I've said on this board before: it is not the state's concern if a business allows smoking or doesn't. If you don't like smoke - and I personally can't stand smoke - than you don't have to patronize or be employed by businesses that allow it. Eat, work, play, shop somewhere else. Or write to the owner and say "I really like your pizza/books/dresses/whatever, and I'd shop and buy a lot more from you if you banned smoking in your restaurant/store/wherever." Or, if you're more assertive (and well funded), just buy the business and make it smoke-free.Many habits and activities are unhealthful. I will laugh long and hard at the Smoke-Free Cheering Section when the all-knowing, all-caring, all-powerful government decides to ban some activity or substance they enjoy because it's unhealthful. I know that's a bit schadenfreude of me, but hey, a guy's got to get his amusement somewhere.

Sheila Couchman 6 years, 4 months ago

why is this [new] word on the street guy asking people that don't even live here. they should hire the old guy back.so why should we care what other towns think?our town is already smoke free.keep taking our privledges away then we won't be as free of a country that we once were

Mary Darst 6 years, 4 months ago

Even as a X-smoker and after a lot of thought...It should be left up to the owner of any given establishment. Mainly towards bars......If they make it smoke free, then someone needs to be in charge of cleaning up the cigarette butts. That was one of the first things I noticed about downtown Lawrence the 1st time I visited after the smoke free thing was passed. You know after more thought....I have 2 brothers and 2 sisters.When we were growing up we would take 2 week vacations every summer. Both my parents smoked. You would think after spending all that time in a closed up car we would be dead. Also, I never knew one person growing up who has asthma. I do understand it is bad for you health...But what else are we breathing that is any better. We could all wear masks when we go out. Anyone been to a cold Bluegrass in Winfield?

jonas_opines 6 years, 4 months ago

I agree with Treebeard. (might put that on a t-shirt)

sgtwolverine 6 years, 4 months ago

Today's question is misleading; there would still be smoke in Kansas, not just from cigarettes in private residences but also from various other objects that are or were recently on fire. If it want to be a truly smoke-free state, is Kansas going to have the courage to ban fires?Oh, and I enjoyed the pipe dream comment, but I'm disappointed nobody has ended a retort with, "Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it." Let's be more topical, people! (Topical like relevant to current events, not topical like an ointment.)

jonas_opines 6 years, 4 months ago

"Do you have a problem with your tax dollars going to help pay for abortions?"Without flaming or threadjacking, if possible, when does this happen?

Bossa_Nova 6 years, 4 months ago

why do so many of you who are opposed to banning smoking in public places think the rest of us dont have the right to go into a building and not have to breath your nasty, disgusting, stinky, redneck cigarrette smoke? if you wanna smoke be my guest, just dont infringe upon my right to not have to breath it and have the smell infested in my clothes, hair, skin, etc. us non-smokers have rights too, especially when we're the majority. what happened to majority rule?

Sheila Couchman 6 years, 4 months ago

I think "Fangorn" just used a word from the 1890's...

John Hamm 6 years, 4 months ago

No only no but He&^ no!Leave us some appearance of civil liberty.If you don't like cigarette smoke frequent non-smoking establishments! It's your choice for you not for me.

Fangorn 6 years, 4 months ago

Bossa Nova: De Tocqueville warned us of folks with that kind of mentality. He called it the "tyranny of the majority". btw, you should keep your bigotry to yourself. Rednecks probably don't like you either, but they should besmirch you in this forum.I do not smoke. I have never smoked. I have no desire to smoke. Got that? I just want to make that very clear, since some cannot seem to grasp the idea that it is possible to oppose a smoking ban based on the concept of liberty rather than a personal preference for what substances to use. If you don't like the smoke in a restaurant, eat somewhere else. Is it that difficult a concept to understand? If you think their burgers are the best in town, but they allow smoking, order your food to go. Don't like visiting your smoker friend's house? Ask them to visit you instead - and refrain from smoking in your house (emphasis on your). I agree with banning smoke in public buildings, like the court house or other government offices where citizens occasionally have no choice but to go. But businesses that are merely open to the public are privately owned. It should be up to the owner to make that decision.

gogoplata 6 years, 4 months ago

Majority rule does not promote liberty.I am afraid that a majority of Americans do not love liberty.Majority rule is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

Fangorn 6 years, 4 months ago

cknajsmeemaw: Schadenfruede is a German loan word, from two words meaning "harm" and "joy". It means pleasure taken from observing the misery of others. It's what I'll feel when the government decides, for instance, that being outweight is no longer acceptable and institutes mandatory exercise sessions, "health awareness" classes and monitoring by a state or local "health czar" for those whose BMI exceeds a sertain threshold. Yes, that's a ridiculous example. But once you've conceded that the governent has the right to make certain choices for you, the only question becomes where do you draw the line? I guarantee you the line will eventually be drawn in a place the smoke-free crowd doesn't like.

Fangorn 6 years, 4 months ago

How embarrassing! I misspelled schadenfreude in my last post. Sorry about that.

Fangorn 6 years, 4 months ago

odg, "certain" not sertain. I can't type today.....

gogoplata 6 years, 4 months ago

No it is garbage to use government force to squash individual liberty. “Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant -- and a fearful master.” —George Washington, 1797

Fangorn 6 years, 4 months ago

TOB: I won't be able to stay on regularly, but it's good to be able to contribute when I can. I'm glad to see you and some others are still faithfully holding down the fort!logic: What you are saying is your desires (i.e. to eat in a smoke-free environment; a good goal, really) overrides the property rights of the owner (gosh, I just can't keep emphasizing that word enough; eventually it will dawn on some people that it actually means something) of the business to make choices regarding that business. Before the ban, you could have started a campaign to ask restaurants to go smoke-free. Believe me, if you'd convinced them they'd make more money by banning smoking, those who light up would have found themselves on the outside looking in. And I would whole-heartedly support such actions. But you would rather use - or I should say, abuse - the power of government to force your personal preferences on someone else. You didn't have to "sit at home waiting for the market to correct". You could have taken action. You likely chose not to. If you'd started a petition to the business owners, I didn't hear about it. I would have signed it if I had.

gogoplata 6 years, 4 months ago

I do oppose the health and fire code. There are very few things that the government does that could not be done better by the free market.

Chris Ogle 6 years, 4 months ago

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says… If you oppose the smoking ban on the basis of “liberty”, I can only assume you also oppose the health code and fire code on the same basis------------------------------------------What???

Fangorn 6 years, 4 months ago

"just as there is no inalienable right to enjoy most leisure activities unfettered." Like eating in a smoke-free environment! :)

Fangorn 6 years, 4 months ago

French fries are bad. NYC banned transfat (which, ironically, was once heralded as the healthy substitute for saturated fats). Let's ban French fries. Meat is high in cholesterol. Out it goes! Alcohol. Oh, buddy, don't get started on how bad that is! (Too late, billbodiggens already shattered our illusions there.) Non-skim milk has too much fat. And all milk has lactose. Some are lactose-intolerant, you know. Save the dairy cows! No more milk! Steps are dangerous. Someone could slip and fall. Can't have those. Glass can shatter and create a laceration hazard. No windows. So we should all eat in street-level, cinderblock-built restaurants (no fire hazard there) with no windows and no indoor lighting (electrical hazard) that serve only rice and tofu.Again, that whole paragraph is hyperbole. But the question remains: where do you draw the line? We disagree sharply on where to draw it. I believe your criteria for the limitations of government power will one day come back and bite you in the shorts. On that day, I will fight with you to curtail that power back to within its Constitutional limits...just as soon as I stop laughing at you.

Fangorn 6 years, 4 months ago

logic: "An ideal solution is a mix of regulation and nonregulation, especially when it comes to public health/safety." I agree with you there. But I think we'll continue to disagree on the ratio of the mix.

JSpizias 6 years, 4 months ago

For those of you who favor a rational and scientific approach take a look at blogs run by Michael Siegel, one of our leading researchers on the hazards of tobacco smoke. Also, examine the actual data in many of these reported studies on the hazards of secondhand smoke. The effects are usually marginal at best with a 10-15% increase in hazard ratio and wide confidence intervals.http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/http://www.tobaccocontrolintegrity.com/The hype and lies about the dangers of secondhand smoke have become completely absurd. Now some are even hyping the dangers posed by "thirdhand smoking"!http://www.reason.com/blog/show/130926.htmlThere was much hoopla in the news recently about a publication from the Center for Disease Control showing a drastic decrease in heart attacks and attributing it to laws outlawing smoking. In contrast to some other studies, this was a non-peer-reviewed report in an in-house publication.CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports.http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5751a1.htmIt is a deeply flawed study that does not support the conclusions drawn yet has been widely reported by the press as "gospel"http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/01/cdc-pueblo-smoking-ban-reduced-heart.htmlFrom Siegel's blog (tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com)I am a physician who specialized in preventive medicine and public health. I am now a professor in the Social and Behavioral Sciences Department, Boston University School of Public Health. I have 20 years of experience in tobacco control, primarily as a researcher. My areas of research interest include the health effects of secondhand smoke, policy aspects of regulating smoking in public places, effects of cigarette marketing on youth smoking behavior, and the evaluation of tobacco control program and policy interventions.

gogoplata 6 years, 4 months ago

Individual liberty is a reasonble issue on which to stand against regulatory action to me.

Fangorn 6 years, 4 months ago

logic: What?! You mean I'm not all-knowing? My entire self-concept has been annihilated! Lol!You are consistent in your points and that counts for a lot in my opinion. But we will contiue to agree to disagree and perhaps one day discuss it over our rice and tofu and local (non-smoking) eating establishment. ;) Our goal should be to convince enough non-smokers to vote with their dollars while petitioning the restaurants all together, so the change happens at once, as you suggest. In my view, that would preserve the property owners' rights and create more smoke-free space for non-smokers to enjoy. We share a goal here but want to use different means to achieve that goal.[You know, I think we scared everybody else off the board. Alas, my second day back and already I've become a pariah!]

SpeedRacer 6 years, 4 months ago

Yes I do think Kansas should be smoke free. I cannot tell you how many times I have had to deal with smoke from prairie fires while driving across state. I also think that a dome should be built over the state to keep the temperature at a comfortable 75 degrees and control the climate. I also want clothing optional beaches and fish that are required by law to take the hook. I want beer fountains at every intersection on the round-a-bouts. Oh, and I want it legislated that all farts must smell like roses. Please raise my taxes by 600% to ensure that all of this happens.

Fangorn 6 years, 4 months ago

Expletives! I knew I left something out of my posts. I'll try to work on that.

phoggyjay 6 years, 4 months ago

let's do our part and go green. anything that's green is okay to smoke.

Deja Coffin 6 years, 4 months ago

I think they should ban public smoking, spandex, and mullets. I know that would sure upset a lot of my family members!

Left_handed 6 years, 4 months ago

The only way I support making it a smokefree state is to ban the sale and possession of any form of tobacco. Otherwise the laws are hypocritical.

bombshell 6 years, 4 months ago

What exactly does making a state "smoke-free" mean? Does that mean that there's no indoor smoking and no outdoor smoking at public establishments?? Or just make cigarettes illegal? I approve the smoking ban, but I think it very unlikely that all of a sudden, everyone who does smoke will only do it in their own backyards.

gogoplata 6 years, 4 months ago

Prohibition doesn't have a good track record Left_handed. We can't even drugs out of maximum security prisons.

stuckinthemiddle 6 years, 4 months ago

is it fascist to have a law prohibiting defecating on public sidewalks?is it taking away someone’s freedom to have a law that prohibits them from discharging a firearm inside the city limits?the whole “fascism” and “taking away my rights” arguments are mostly silly… especially when we’re talking about public smoking… and someone brings up Hitler banning guns…no one is banning guns in Kansas… as a matter of fact gun rights have been increased considerably in Kansas over the past few years…the argument that is worth having is whether or not smoking in bars and restaurants presents the same level of public threat as feces on the sidewalk and bullets flying through the air… and… if people are limited similarly in their ability to protect themselves from these things…

Fangorn 6 years, 4 months ago

TOB: Godwin's Law. I had to look it up. And a small sliver of my vast ignorance was chipped away. I must say the Law is certainly relevant to this forum, isn't it! Lol!Prospector: I almost posted something similar to your tongue in cheek remark. But I was concerned that someone would take it seriously. You just never know around here. :)

Fangorn 6 years, 4 months ago

Oh, yes. A right-wing state with a Democrat governor and half its House delegation.

billbodiggens 6 years, 4 months ago

Police departments simply salivate when anti-smoking laws are mentioned. The criminal anti-smoking laws become one of their pretext stops of choice. And an effective tool to harass businesses they do not approve of. The on-line Garden City paper (Garden City followed Lawrence in its insanity and went one step further into the abyss by having a 50 ft zone around the main entrance of a business.) tells of the police giving tickets to a bar owner for people standing in her parking lot smoking. They were not fifty feet from the door. Apparently, Garden City requires bar owners to have a gate at their parking lot with enforcer all around the building. Lawrence officers ticketed a person who was all alone in a bar after closing. Any time a politician says we have to trust the good will and common sense of law enforcement the politician fails to remember that law enforcement is made up of members of the same specie as the politician and the general public. And those members of that specie do stupid things on a distressingly frequent basis. I am a non smoker. I just don’t go where smoking is taking place. It is that simple. And I have never gone without because of that decision. It’s all just a hubbub to occupy the minds of people who want to control other people and accept no responsibility for themselves. It’s a perfect dog in the manger situation where the dog either cannot or will not eat the hay, so nobody else can either.

9070811 6 years, 4 months ago

why does it matter if you're a dem or pub? Does anyone think for himself? Fail. These parties should be called "I want to be crammed in a glass house that has party lines and certain ideals that I must adhere to, I can not think for myself, even when I 'derail' from my party, I must not speak aloud"anywho. Business owners have the right to cater to other's pleasures (mmm...) just like catering to the closet drunk at the bar who is going to cuss in front of you kid.

9070811 6 years, 4 months ago

And maybe mommy&mommy, daddy&mommy, daddy&daddy, or single mommy or single daddy will stop taking little Harry out to eat and start creating lovely homecooked family meals at the table where children can learn to respect their parents.Oh, and if it's a treat, well then it'll be a treat to go to nice, smoke free restaurant.yadda yadda yadda blah blah blahThe smoking "ban" won't mean a thing. Except that we'll have to stay inside to avoid the looming clouds of smokey emissions coming from the coal plants (should they be build).

Bossa_Nova 6 years, 4 months ago

smoking in public places should be banned. its not a matter of liberty, its a matter of health. you can make the pissant claim that nonsmokers should just not eat at or go to places where smoking is permitted, but as one person mentioned above, it's the smokers creating the burden, they should have to deal with it and not expect the rest of us to be burdened by their lack of consideration. at the same time, would you say its ok for a nuclear plant to dump their waste whereever they feel like regardless of who it's harming witin the vicinity? i guess you could argue that it's a matter of liberty and those who dont like it should just find another place to live, but it's not quite that simple is it?but perhaps it is a matter of liberty. i guess if the smokers dont like the ban on smoking in public buildings, then they can go somewhere else to eat, drink and live. isnt that what they propose to us nonsmokers?

9070811 6 years, 4 months ago

"you can make the pissant claim that nonsmokers should just not eat at or go to places where smoking is permitted" or it could be be phrased smokers should just not eat at or go to places where no smoking is enforced.I like to see things positively...like my statement.

billbodiggens 6 years, 4 months ago

The only problem with righteous indignation, Bossa Nova, is the it is so tiresome and as tiresome and tedious as, oh, say the Bossa Nova.

Fangorn 6 years, 4 months ago

Nova: First it's rednecks, now you're being bigotted toward ants. You're not a nice person!Your example is specious, and I sincerely hope you're intelligent enough to realize that (and understand the word "specious"). A power plant dumping waste will affect many people around it, whether or not they go to the facility or not. Smoking in a restaurant won't affect people in the next building, let alone the next block or the next city. And let me make this very clear: THIS IS ABOUT PROPERTY OWNERS NOT ABOUT SMOKERS!!!!! Sorry to have to yell, but you just don't get it. If a restaurrant owner (there's that pesky word again) decided to make her establishment non-smoking, I wouldn't lift a finger in protest for the smokers who wanted to light up at her business. It's her choice. This is a property rights issue, not a smokers' right issue. But if you'd actually read and understood my posts, you'd know that.

Fangorn 6 years, 4 months ago

btw, I suggest colbyjack or a nice, smooth gouda.

jonas_opines 6 years, 4 months ago

"would you say its ok for a nuclear plant to dump their waste whereever they feel like regardless of who it's harming witin the vicinity?"They could put a wall around it and post a sign, so you know not to go in. Assuming your point was more than simply hyperbole. Anti-smokers, however, have other options than simply not going to restaurants. For instance, they can use their money as a group, with some concerted action, to either get business to voluntarily clear out smoking, or install ventilation systems that lessen or remove the health threat of second hand smoke. Of course, these are admittedly much harder than having special interest groups and government agencies hold their hands, do all the work, and simply screw everybody who falls into the other category, but whatever. And logicsound, on your notion of health and fire codes. The difference, as I see it, is knowable versus unknowable risk. When you frequent a restaurant, you as a patron have no way of knowing, generally, whether your food is prepared safely and sanitarily, or the building is not prone to explode or burn down at any moment. That is what makes third-party monitoring of these things necessary. (Although I suppose they would be redundant if we were to simply make the choice to call the first people dying or sickening unexpectedly Guinea Pigs who sacrificed for the rest of us, but that's beside the point)Smoking sections, restaurants, etc., were all knowable risks. You see the sign, and you make an informed choice as to whether the potential effects of secondhand smoke on your health for the few minutes you are exposed to it is outweighed or not by your desire to eat the food there. At least, that's the way that I see it.

billbodiggens 6 years, 4 months ago

Logicsound-what-ever said: "There is no inalienable right to smoke without restriction, just as there is no inalienable right to enjoy most leisure activities unfettered." Like maybe going to any resturant you like but cannot because there is smoke there. Logicsound-what-ever just screwed his logic straight into the ground.

ksrover 6 years, 4 months ago

" .. guess if the smokers dont like the ban on smoking in public buildings, then they can go somewhere else to eat, drink and live." Oh - and we do. I don't have a problem with smoke-free establishments, but if I do choose to smoke, I will take my business elsewhere. My views lean towards Fangorn's - leave it up to the individual business owners. However, I can see a point from Logic's posts. Great exchange you two!

jonas_opines 6 years, 4 months ago

"What color of wrist band do they do?"No wristbands, wear a tux, or a black suit./and waddle

woodenfleaeater 6 years, 4 months ago

I went to a Penguin Day Awareness convention, everyone was wearing tuxes....No wait, that was a wedding.

Fangorn 6 years, 4 months ago

Good night, everyone! This was a lot of fun today. Penguins and power plants and poo. Oh, my!

persevering_gal 6 years, 4 months ago

Yes, please!!! I really don't like how I walk to class and get stuck behind the smokers. I developed asthma due to second-hand smoke (and no, this was not from being in the bars since I do not hang out there). I really don't care that people smoke, I just wish more smokers would have respect for those of us who want to have good health and smoke an a more isolated area.Scientific research is now displaying results on third-hand smoke or the toxins/chemicals and the aroma that are left behind due to cigarette smoke and how harmful it can be to infants and children - sometimes adults.http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/health/research/03smoke.html?emhttp://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-third-hand-smoke

jonas_opines 6 years, 4 months ago

"However, I might point out that perhaps the risks of secondhand smoke are not as knowable to the general populace as one might think."I would agree with that. For one thing, in the list of deaths each year from second-hand smoke that keep popping up in advertisements and arguments supporting smoking bans, I have yet to see one that is divided along people who live with a smoker (heavy exposure) and people who were only exposed in bars and restaurants (light exposure). >B^)>"I've seen more than one post on this issue claiming that the smoking ban is inappropriate because no risk from secondhand smoke exists (JSpeizas on this thread and DouglasCountySucks on the other, are just 2 that come to mind immediately)."Sources should, of course, be considered.

jonas_opines 6 years, 4 months ago

"A higher intake of folate reduces the risk of stroke in male smokers by 20 percent"Any idea how much smoking raises that risk in the first place? That sounds like $1000 cash back on a Ford Pinto. It's nice to have it back, but you've still wasted your money and potentially endangered your life.

Calliope877 6 years, 4 months ago

Nah, I think we should all gather around a hookah and smoke up.

vinividivici 6 years, 4 months ago

I smoke. I prefer going outside to smoke. If I owned a business that fared better if I permitted smoking inside, I would allow it. Someone before made a comment that before the smoking ban, there were no non-smoking establishments to be found. How is it this issue always digresses to the "masses of whiney smokers who don't care about their health" (true or untrue) when it's really about a business owner's right to run to allow patrons to use a perfectly legal substance in their establishment? How this is an even an issue baffles me...

sgtwolverine 6 years, 4 months ago

“'Although these observational data do not prove a causal relation, they indicate that high consumption of folate-rich foods (e.g., whole grains, green leafy vegetables, oranges and legumes) may play a role in the prevention of stroke,' the researchers said."I really hate that, because among the general public, that "may" often becomes a "does."

Fangorn 6 years, 4 months ago

Invictus: Nothing is categorically safe or unsafe. It is simply a matter of degree. Even pure, clean water is fatal in large quantities, and I don't mean just drowning. You can literally drink yourself to death with just water. Arsenic is fatal in large concentrations but occurs naturally in ground water in many parts of the nation. In trace amounts, it is harmless. My own job (both civilian and military, actually) is very dangerous...if I am careless. If I do not care to take the risks accociated with a certain job, I can decline to do that job. Even if second-hand smoke has a longterm detrimental effect, a potential employee still has the right not to work there. And believe me, working around second-hand smoke is a lot less hazardous than working around moving aircraft. So, yes, business owner should do what they can to mitigate any potential dangers, but they cannot reasonably create an entirely "safe" environment. The owner and the potential employee both need to exercise a bit of Operational Risk Management.

Fangorn 6 years, 4 months ago

I see your point, invictus. It is preventable. Or avoidable, which would be my option of choice, since it preserves the right of the business owner. Every one of use has the right not to work or eat at a restaurant that allows smoking.Some years ago, the owner of Walnut Lanes (bowling alley) in Springfield, MO, became a Christian. He renamed his business Lighthouse Lanes and decided to ban smoking. His business went up quite a bit. It was nice to have a place to bowl that wasn't hazy with smoke. I think his experience should be instructive to other business owners. But it was a voluntary choice, not a governemnt choice.

darkangel0000 6 years, 4 months ago

Voluntary, yes. Where will the government stop? Will they ban smoking in our homes, in our backyards? I live in Md. Making a whole state smoke free, while still raking in the profits from the taxes off cigarettes is wrong. You can't smoke anywhere in the whole frickin state?? Unbelievable. So, I am assuming they are going to stop selling them in Kansas. Right?? Yes, it is legal, but to what point. You can smoke here, but you can't smoke there. Fine, no problem. I respect the rights of non smokers. But smokers have rights too. But I have the right to smoke in my home and backyard. And anywhere I please in the great outdoors. What are they going to do, arrest me?? There are places the government can't touch. This is becoming a Gestapo state.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.