Advertisement

Previous poll Next poll

Should Gov. Parkinson sign the statewide smoking ban bill headed to his desk?

Response Percent Votes
Yes.
 
73% 887
No.
 
24% 297
Not sure.
 
1% 16
Total 1200

Comments

WIpatriot 4 years, 1 month ago

Legislated smoking bans are not only unnecessary, they are an affront to the personal rights of smokers and non-smokers, alike, and they cost tax revenues and jobs and result in more failed businesses. It's not up to the government to make this decision, period!

0

WIpatriot 4 years, 1 month ago

It does pay to be educated, none2!

0

none2 4 years, 1 month ago

WIpatriot (anonymous) says…

... Adolph Hitler Tactics used by tobacco control. ============================== Another pro-smoker who went to the Shatner Drama School for the Melodramatic.

0

beatrice 4 years, 1 month ago

Your right to smoke ends where the lungs of others begin. Deal with it, junkie.

0

WIpatriot 4 years, 1 month ago

“All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.” “By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise” “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it” “The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one.” “It is not truth that matters, but victory” “The day of individual happiness has passed” “The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force.” Adolph Hitler Tactics used by tobacco control.

0

ivalueamerica 4 years, 1 month ago

face it,

Smokers no longer have the right to blow cancer into my face.

Move along now and find something else to whine about.

0

Liberty275 4 years, 1 month ago

Just another law to ignore. Pay the fine because freedom isn't always free.

0

WIpatriot 4 years, 1 month ago

Much like the newly exposed global warming debacle, which is nothing but an excuse for the government to legitimize the extreme taxation it would bring, the second hand smoke issue is nothing more than a way to control a huge segment of the population, perhaps as much as 1/2 of it or more. The newly created obesity 'crisis' that has kids feeling guilt, not love, is nothing more than a way for big pharma's controlled FDA to further limit our choices and thus our very freedom! I know many professionals (educated) who will NOT work under smoke-free rules and have quit! So how many of the brightest and best has the professional world lost due to the preference of those less educated? How many business owners have lost everything due to those with their snobby anti-smoker bullying? Smokers Welcome, Non-Smokers Welcome, Anti-Smokers Buy Your Own Business, You Are Not Welcome!

0

WIpatriot 4 years, 1 month ago

You know that surgeon general's report on second hand smoke? www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/second... DEBUNKED! Health Facts And Fears ww.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.800/news_detail.asp Everything else: DEBUNKED! www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv21n4... AND: www.google.com/search?q=SECOND+HAND+S...>

For this we give up freedoms that we've had for hundreds of years!

0

WIpatriot 4 years, 1 month ago

The health choices of free Americans is NOT the government's role! The Nazi's tried this and got away with it for some time, where are they now? The government enacted Prohibition, what happened to that? Our government officials need to get out of the business of taking away private property rights! Once upon a time, the penalty for treason was the gallows!

0

WIpatriot 4 years, 1 month ago

Smoking bans are DESIGNED to close pubs, kills two birds with one stone. It drives the need for the sheeple to purchase big pharma's products. Big pharma is all about behavior control, not finding cures. They aren't shy about it, it's right on their tax exempt foundation's website. In fact,you can buy their book on Amazon for $80.00: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Series on Health Policy, Tobacco Control Policy. http://www.amazon.com/Tobacco-Control-Johnson- Foundation-Anthology/dp/078798745X

0

kansasmutt 4 years, 1 month ago

jimjones ) What makes you God ? You have a brain, i think. Are you not man enough to let humans make a choice to enter or pass by a business with a smoker friendly sign ? It appears you and your group of do gooders cant think on your own. Its called CHOICE here in America. Your group is what is destroying the American way of life. You don’t believe in CHOICE. (sad-lawrencian ) You are just another lemming like the others. You want to control others and do not have a brain that can decide not to enter a smoker friendly business. If you feel SOOO strong about no smoking in a business , invest your hundreds of thousands of dollars and open your own non smoking business. See how easy that is, its called CHOICE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are just another one of those lemming control nuts. Invest your dollars in your own business and see if you want lemmings telling you how to run it, how long before you go bust with this FN ban. We have hundreds of millions to fight this if it gets signed and believe me, we will battle it like no other state has in this nation. I would like to think our governor is smart enough to not sign it , and let businesses put up signage to protect those who are non smokers. Signage for storefronts = $5.00 ------- Lawsuits in court = MILLIONS of tax dollars wasted.

0

jimjones 4 years, 1 month ago

c_dubya,

You're confused. When did smokers feel empowered to think that polluting the air is OK? Wake up, the stupidity is ending.

0

c_dubya 4 years, 1 month ago

Good Lord if a place wants to allow smoking and you don't like smoking then don't go there. Holy cow when did the nanny state become so fine with everyone?

0

ivalueamerica 4 years, 1 month ago

the LET ME GIVE ANYONE IN PUBLIC CANCER crowd has lost.

They can cry all the rivers they want, we will still have cleaner air.

0

sad_lawrencian 4 years, 1 month ago

I can only see this as a positive. I wish all these "let the business owners decide" people would just go away.

0

Bob_Keeshan 4 years, 1 month ago

Tomorrow's poll question - should the sun rise tomorrow?

Yes. No. Not sure.

0

Meatwad 4 years, 1 month ago

I'm glad Kansas has finally joined with the rest of the smart states who have banned indoor smoking. The complainers will get over it and enjoy their ability to breathe air that doesn't contain carcinogens.

0

Meatwad 4 years, 1 month ago

Wow, I might actually step foot in Topeka now. I refused to go there every time I was invited due to the smoke filled restaurants and bars. It will be nice to go to Dave and Busters in KCK too, I went there once and said 'never again' until they ban smoking.

0

none2 4 years, 1 month ago

Calliope877 (anonymous) says... Tobacco, alcohol (bootlegging), and hemp were the three primary "goods" that this country's young economy was built from....

============================ Ah, lets bring back nostalgia. Have you forgotton that plenty of money was made off of the slave trade followed by share cropping ? Perhaps it was a farce to have the Emancipation Proclamation?

As to the consqeuences of tobacco, obviously you are clueless. Stay that way if you wish, perhaps someone stupid out there might consider such ignorance as endearing.

0

KSManimal 4 years, 1 month ago

100% support.

Those folks in the "each establishment should be able to decide, then patrons can decide where to spend their money" camp.....

You're forgetting about the folks who aren't patrons, but EMPLOYEES. See, sometimes people need a job, and they have to take what they can get. It isn't an issue solved by "if you don't like smoke, go someplace else" kinds of over-simplified answers.

0

Calliope877 4 years, 1 month ago

Tobacco, alcohol (bootlegging), and hemp were the three primary "goods" that this country's young economy was built from. It seems somewhat hypocritical that the government has banned the use of one (hemp); wants to eventually ban the use of another (tobacco); but alcohol is still legit despite the fact that it's the deadliest of the three both on the individual and societal level (drunk driving; alcoholism induced domestic violence; slow agonizing death that makes dying from cancer look like a picnic). Yes, I understand people perceive these substances a little differently now than they did back in the mid to late 1700s with all the medical advanements we have, but it's unlikely that the usage of these substances will change despite the efforts of the government to curb them for the "greater good" of society...what a farce.

0

Clark Coan 4 years, 1 month ago

About a century ago, it was illegal to sell cigarettes in Kansas (loose tobacco and papers were okay). I wonder if in a couple of decades when only 5-10% of the population smokes, there will be an effort to ban cigarettes?

0

tomatogrower 4 years, 1 month ago

shicks44 (anonymous) says... I'm against state and local bans against smoking. If the United States wants to get rid of smoking, then ban it at the federal level. Otherwise let people choose. This in between judgmental stuff is for the birds. Make a decision already.

No one has banned smoking, you just can't do it in public.

domino, so you think that owners should be able to only serve white people? Do you think owners should be able to allow public sex? Perhaps people should be free to decide whether or not they want to drive drunk. I'll bet more people's health has been ruined by second hand smoke, than by drunk drivers.

0

domino 4 years, 1 month ago

First of all, I think smoking is a dirty, filthy habit that is horrible for not only the smoker, but also for those around them. That being said, I quickly checked and cast my "no" vote on this poll.

I feel that restaurants/bars should be allowed to decide whether they will be a smoking or non-smoking establishment. As I non-smoker, I can either to choose to go to an establishment where I know there is smoking allowed or choose to go somewhere that is smoke free. Most times, I would choose the smoke free, however, it should be my decision whether it is important enough for me to endure the smoke in order to support that particular establishment. I think each establishment should, however, have to choose if they will be smoking or non-smoking - not one section for each group, unless there are different rooms or areas that are completely closed off from each other. It always seemed crazy to me to go somewhere and ask to be seated in the non-smoking section and the area within a table or two is smoking!

0

dlkrm 4 years, 1 month ago

shicks44

The only way the federal government can ban smoking would be via an amendment to the constitution. Only states and cities have the authority to pass laws against smoking. The 10th amendment leaves to the states all legislation not directly addressed in the federal constitution. Therefore, state and city governments have the right to ban smoking.

This was a brilliant aspect of our federal constitution as envisioned by the founders, as it then leaves the states to compete to be the best place to live, work, or conduct business, rather than being dictated to by an all-powerful federal government.

0

Daniel Kennamore 4 years, 1 month ago

shicks,

You seem to be confused. This bill in no way takes away your right to smoke, just your ability to force me to breathe your second-hand smoke.

0

Clint Gentry 4 years, 1 month ago

The confusion of the conservatives thinking that it is "their choice" to smoke totally disregards the others forced to inhale their smoke. But this isn't a surprise, as the conservative mindset only takes their point of view into consideration, pretty selfish. And I know what the next argument will be out of conservative mouths will be, "but let the business decide", or some such other nonsense...Quick answer, Do we have a health department for a reason? We already dictate what restaurants can/can't do...you can't serve roadkill, you can't have wild animals running around, etc....the ant-govt. arguments are becoming stale, and increasingly pointless...

0

macon47 4 years, 1 month ago

i have never figured out why non smokers so desperately wanted to go to smoking bars in the first place

their seems to be plenty of non smoking venues for them and their families.

i think it is a bit two faced to have a bill that expempts state run casinos, but is is no different than exempting politicians from the no call list

that shows who really loves you

the state needs jobs and school funding

our politictians are worred about toy lighters k2, and smoking

0

shicks44 4 years, 1 month ago

I'm against state and local bans against smoking. If the United States wants to get rid of smoking, then ban it at the federal level. Otherwise let people choose. This in between judgmental stuff is for the birds. Make a decision already.

0

nudist 4 years, 1 month ago

The casinos are exempt due to a clause in the 1881 Souix/Kiowa reservation management act that allows reservations the use of tobacco at-will for religion and profit. This was determined at the committee level after they were informed by the atty(lobbyist) from fed. res. pact.

0

jlw53 4 years, 1 month ago

I am as anti-smoking as there is and would be for this bill if it did not exempt certain factions, but I voted no because it should include casinos and all other public places if it is going to have any credibility.

0

situveux1 4 years, 1 month ago

Sign the bill that bans everyone in the state EXCEPT state owned casinos.

Do as I say, not as I do government at its best.

0

AnnaUndercover 4 years, 1 month ago

As a quasi-social libertarian who works in a smoke-filled establishment, I could argue both for and against this bill.

+1 for "not sure."

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.