Advertisement

Previous poll Next poll

Do you support Kansas Gov. Mark Parkinson’s proposed statewide ban on smoking in public places?

Response Percent Votes
Yes
 
75% 1303
No
 
24% 412
Total 1715

Comments

danemary 5 years ago

more and more government control of my life--just like Germany before WWII

0

Daniel Speicher 5 years ago

Yes, dane... First they take away your "right" to blow cancerous smoke into innocent people's faces... Then comes the mass genocide and creation of the Third Reich. Definitely a logical jump.

--Danny Speicher

0

slowplay 5 years ago

I am an occasional smoker (especially with adult beverages) and I have no problem going outside to smoke. My wife, who doesn't smoke, will only go to non-smoking establishments. She loves Lawrence for the very fact. Make it state wide.

0

chzypoof1 5 years ago

I agree with the government intrustion, not necessarily the 3rd reich part. It's little steps like this, little things that the goverment controls, that conditions us to government control. In America it will take a little more to get us to give in to these things, but eventually it will lead to more control.....gun control, cameras everywhere, etc....

0

texburgh 5 years ago

If Ireland and Italy - two countries with a far greater percentage of smokers than the U.S. - can enact nation-wide indoor smoking bans, I think we can do a state-wide one here in Kansas. And before the crazies begin the "why not ban hamburgers" idiocy - let's make the point once more: If you want to harm your own health eating tons of fatty food, go right ahead. There's no such thing as second hand fat so one person with a horrible diet is not killing the person at the next table. When your habit harms the health of others, then it needs to be controlled.

0

Ricky_Vaughn 5 years ago

Isn't having to smoke outside already good enough? Hell, just make them illegal all together if you don't want anyone to smoke.

0

Ricky_Vaughn 5 years ago

I think that businesses should be left to decide whether or not to impose smoking bans.

Non-smokers would still have the choice to avoid "smoking" establishments. Nah, we'll just go after the smokers again.....and again.....and again.....

0

Mary Darst 5 years ago

I am an X smoker. I believe it should be left up to the establishment owner. I know that smoking is bad bad bad, but I think they have taken it to an extreme. There are a lot of other things in the air that are probably dangerous to breath. I just think you should have a choice.

0

chzypoof1 5 years ago

There's nothing paranoid about keeping our freedoms. I don't even smoke, but this is just an intrusion into people's lives. Leave it up to the owner. It is your CHOICE to go there if there is smoking....

0

kansasmutt 5 years ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

Flap Doodle 5 years ago

Perhaps if so many smokers weren't total pigs about dropping their cigarette butts on the ground for someone else to deal with they wouldn't have such a negative image.

0

James McGuire 5 years ago

This just makes sense. Why should the majority be subjected to health risks so that a few can smoke where they want.

0

Ricky_Vaughn 5 years ago

@ mcguirej:

I think you're smart enough to avoid a group of smokers if you see them on the street.

0

CrazyDiamond 5 years ago

kansasmutt, Sitting in the dark in your mom's basement posting ignorant drivel may be a fun pasttime or a serious hobby, but it is definitely not a business. So you have nothing to worry about. Well...

0

avaholic 5 years ago

I have to agree with Ricky_Vaughn and charliejohnson. Let the establishment choose which group they want to cater to. I am not a smoker nor do I enjoy smoking establishments. But smokers prefer a place that allows them to smoke and who am I to say they can't.

I like loud music that can be harmful to my ears. Its a choice I make. Some people don't like loud music. Should we ban it because some people don't like loud music? I don't.

We are not children and we can decide for ourselves if we want to go somewhere are not. Let the business owners choose and the people will decide.

0

spiff 5 years ago

Doesn't matter, requiring FSC makes smoking a wholly unenjoyable experience anyway. Relative to the cigs I previously enjoyed.

0

2002 5 years ago

If cigarettes are outlawed, then only outlaws will have cigarettes.

0

LogicMan 5 years ago

Yes, but with an exception for those places that can provide decent air to breath. For example, bars with excellent fans airing them out.

0

tym4fun 5 years ago

I won't go into a smoke filled bar for an evening out even if there is a great band playing. However, I believe the business should decide if there can be smoking in their own establishment. That way FREE PEOPLE have a choice. Let's stay far away from the government controlling more of our every day lives.

0

puddleglum 5 years ago

oh, c'mon-a lil' 3rd reich never hurt anybody

and smoking is gross, right up there with vomit.

remember when free state was complaining about the lawrence smoking ban gonna 'kill' their business?

0

ralphralph 5 years ago

I want the State to wipe my ass each morning and each evening. I'm just not capable of reaching back there any more.

0

Keith 5 years ago

Ralph, how would they know which end to wipe?

0

KansasVoter 5 years ago

As a marijuana smoker, smoking bans take away the cigarette smoke that camouflages my smoke when I want to puff in public, so I'm completely against smoking bans.

If the state would just decriminalize marijuana and enforce the drug tax stamp laws (although they'd need to lower the tax amounts) they'd bring in a very nice stream of revenue. If they'd just lower it to $1 per gram (it's $3.50 now, which is outrageous) people wouldn't have any problem paying their taxes on their pot if they knew that it would keep them from getting hassled. Or they could Americanize the taxing and tax it by the eighth ounce, quarter ounce, ounce, qp, half pound, and pound. If they were really smart they would legalize but make it a state-run monopoly. The state could grow it and sell it without any middleman and we'd be out of debt in just a few years.

0

sinkorswim 5 years ago

Absolutely! Please do!!! I love the fact that Lawrence is smoke-free...for the most part. I'd go eat at Free State Brewery more often if you didn't have to make your way through the throng of smokers out front.

0

Danimal 5 years ago

This is retarded. Why not just ban everything thing that anyone might be offended or affected by at any time anywhere?
I keep looking around and wondering what is going on in this country. I think that I've narrowed it down to the citizenry wanting the government to penetrate into every aspect of their lives. Eventually we're going to have some kind of welfare/nanny state without even the most mundane individual liberties and a populace that sits around playing Xbox while waiting for their government check to arrive. Further, for all of you cry babies out there that are moaning about "cancerous 2nd hand smoke." Grow up, modern living is so toxic that a little second smoke really isn't going to impact your health. I'm sure that everyone in Lawrence is breathing in far more particulates and pollutants that come out of the power plant north of town than someone's cigarette. I'm not a smoker, but it still upsets me that everyone turns into a sniveling child at the sight of a cigarette, but pays no mind to all the really horrible things in our air, water and food. I guess it's because the smoker's are a minority and it's easy and fashionable to take them on.

Some day our nation is going to be conquered by a foreign army, and that army will be smoking cartons upon cartons of filter-less Camels. And despite their hacking smokers coughs, we Americans will be too fat, lazy and stupid to oppose them. This is my crazy rant for the day, and now it's finished.

0

zettapixel 5 years ago

Taking in an hour's worth of 2nd hand smoke is the same as smoking 4 cigs yourself... so yeah, I'm all for this ban.

0

Richard Heckler 5 years ago

I don't remember Free State being concerned so much about killing their business. I do believe they were some about letting the business make the choice.

Free State did focus on air filtering systems a whole lot. I do believe Free State would have invested in the best equipment and may have accomplished what Free State set out to achieve......... if that's possible.

Free State also challenged the health risks to some degree.

Free State was ahead of the game by having that nice outdoor patio,which BTW does not eat up sidewalk space.

In the end business is good.

The ban got a huge boost when a small group of young women declared the ban would NOT stop them from going out AND would NOT stop them from dancing the night away.

0

Practicality 5 years ago

KansasVoter (Anonymous) says…

"As a marijuana smoker . . . . ."

That explains it all. No need to read anymore.

0

tomatogrower 5 years ago

chzypoof1 (Anonymous) says…

I agree with the government intrustion, not necessarily the 3rd reich part. It's little steps like this, little things that the goverment controls, that conditions us to government control. In America it will take a little more to get us to give in to these things, but eventually it will lead to more control…..gun control, cameras everywhere, etc….

So, should the government not control me when I take your cigarette out of your mouth, because your smoke is in my air space, and put it out on your lips? Who would be running to the government for protection then? They aren't taking away your right to smoke, they are just telling you that you can't do it in public. You can't drink in public either. Considering how many of the Turkish style smoke houses have come and gone in Lawrence, I don't think most of the smokers in Lawrence are really into smoking enough to take it public. And the bars have provided patios for their smoking clientele. I know a lot of people who like to come to Lawrence to eat, because their right to clean air in a restaurant is protected by the government.

0

moonfly 5 years ago

avaholic (Anonymous) says…

I have to agree with Ricky_Vaughn and charliejohnson. Let the establishment choose which group they want to cater to. I am not a smoker nor do I enjoy smoking establishments. But smokers prefer a place that allows them to smoke and who am I to say they can't.

I like loud music that can be harmful to my ears. Its a choice I make. Some people don't like loud music. Should we ban it because some people don't like loud music? I don't.

We are not children and we can decide for ourselves if we want to go somewhere are not. Let the business owners choose and the people will decide.


Indeed. *applaud

0

del888 5 years ago

who's Mark Parkinson?

0

tomatogrower 5 years ago

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Those who support smoking bans are compelled by unseen forces to enter smoking establishments so they can whine.

If you don't like the smoke, don't go where the smoke is.

So easy a cave man could do it.

But not a “liberal”.

So I should also have the right to grab a smoker's cigarette, because his smoke is making me sick to my stomach. Or I have the right to puke all over him/her. If you don't like me puking all over you don't smoke around me. Even easier. You can't tell me who to puke on. I have a right to puke anywhere I want. Good old conservative logic, Marion.

0

kansasmutt 5 years ago

I see my post was removed by the anti smoking LJW. What a lame deal.Right to free speach being stomped out.

0

kansasmutt 5 years ago

crazydiamond.)) You have no clue. my parents are dead and i am in my office. You my friend have not an inkling to the business or real world. But i enjoy seeing your lost post,s Enjoy. Smoke up __~~

0

Broshaft 5 years ago

I completely agree that people should not be allowed to smoke in public indoor locations, there's no reason to smoke indoors around so many other people who don't appreciate it.

But the language "public places" scares me, it's a pretty broad term, possibly meaning anything that is not private property. Which could mean Streets(if your smoking with your car window rolled down, could be grounds for a ticket), sidewalks, out on the lake even if your miles away from anyone, parking lots, certain driveways, basically all municipal, state or federal owned land.

Which is essentially how marijuana is treated, as long as your not seen in public smoking or selling it, it's ignored. It makes me wonder how long it'll be before they do the same thing with alcohol and then fatty foods. I wouldn't be surprised, if bars, liquor stores, wine bars, steak houses, tex mex restaurants and fast food restaurants were a thing of the past in 15-20 years. Which I wouldn't mind, I think people are too fat and have too many beer belly's as it is.

I just wonder if the government would overstep it's bounds turning a group of people into a something that is seen but not heard much as they did with homosexuality up until the '70's, viewing the sexual preference of individuals as sick and unhealthy(Far more people are infected with STD's and die from them than have or will ever die from smoking, particularly AIDS and Hep A,B and C, maybe all sexually attractiveness should be banned too to prevent people from being promiscuis to save us from STD's and people should just be covered in full body robes with peep holes).

The problem is, what makes something unhealthy enough to ban? We have industrial plants that cover cities in smog but we ban smoking. It sounds like a double standard to me. Smoking has gone down 50% in 10 years and 80% in 70 years, yet hospital visits have gone up twenty times since the '40's. Three times when you take into consideration population increases. You can blame most of that on obesity. "Thinning" down our population should be our biggest concern because seeing someone stuffing there face at 400 pounds makes me just as sick if not sicker than seeing someone smoking in a restaurant.

0

Carl_Sagan 5 years ago

Practicality (Anonymous) says…

KansasVoter (Anonymous) says…

“As a marijuana smoker … . .”

That explains it all. No need to read anymore.

As a marijuana smoker, I wrote immensely insightful and intelligent texts... but you wouldn't know because you quit reading after the first sentence. So there! Marijuana smokers aren't even allowed to smoke/ingest in their own homes let alone around children in their trailer.

0

fordman 5 years ago

TO "BABYBOY"

Screw the smokers,well screw you BABY,ok all you tree huggers think about this the smokers are taxed out the A%% and when they quite and they will all a some point, then the goverment will tax something else and WE WILL ALL PAY THEN!!Like 6.00 a gal. for gas or 5.00 gal. for milk.The bottom line is you will win the no smoking but will lose in the end and the goverment will be the overall winner by more taxes for all.

God Bless the USMC

0

jonas_opines 5 years ago

"Carl Sagan is both discredited and dead."

As opposed to Marion, who is at least not dead.

0

Blessed4x 5 years ago

In the article, the governor states "public places" not indoor public places. Does anyone know if his plan would ban smoking in ANY public place (i.e. street rights-of-way)? If it does, would inside a private vehicle within city right-of-way be off limits? Or walking down the street?

0

bks253 5 years ago

To suggest business owners have the right to spread the stinch of smoke is nonsense. Don't waiters and waitresses have the right to breath clean air like most other workers today? Yes, it's time for a statewide smoking ban.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.