Voters in Manhattan and commissioners in Winfield have added their cities to the growing list of Kansas towns that have banned smoking in public places.
In Manhattan, residents voted 9,440 to 7,347 in favor of a broad no-smoking ordinance.
“This pretty much covers any place of employment or public place,” said assistant city manager Jason Hilgers. “… Patio areas are even covered, too. If it’s within the place of employment, in or out, smoking is prohibited.”
Clean Air Manhattan this summer had brought the ordinance to commissioners, with a petition containing about 1,600 valid signatures, Hilgers said at the time.
“The commissioners either could have accepted it or placed it on a ballot, but the commission rejected it, so it automatically went on the ballot.”
The commission earlier had voted against a similar proposal. The version of the ordinance approved by the electorate was more restrictive than the one commissioners voted down, he said.
A group advocating against the smoking ban campaigned against it and likely influenced the vote.
“It was a little closer than it would have been if that group had not been out advocating for an alternative,” Hilgers said.
In Winfield, commissioners voted 3-0 on a smoking ban that will go into effect on Jan. 2.
“There are really no exemptions on the ordinance,” said City Manager Warren Porter. “So any place open to the public would be prohibited from allowing smoking indoors.”
The ban includes motels, bars, and restaurants.
“About the only exemption there for fully enclosed facilities are residences,” Porter said. “The apartment buildings, you can smoke in the apartment, but not in the hallways, lobbies, wash areas, common areas, those public-access areas.”
The ordinance was brought to the commission by a clean-air coalition on Feb. 28.
Winfield officials held approximately six public meetings to let citizens discuss their views on the proposal, and the county health department held a public forum on May 22.
“Everybody at that forum spoke in favor of a clean-air proposal of some kind,” Porter said.
The proposal came after the “Vision 20/20” survey, a county-wide sampling of everyone in all of the communities in Cowley County.
“Over 80 percent of the folks that responded to the survey on the random sampling supported some kind of smoking ban,” he said.
The survey contained a broad range of questions about economic development, community health, and other topics, he said.
“We’ve only had five people speak directly at a public meeting that was against it,” Porter said. “We did not have the public outcry or the issues that I think you have had, but I also think it goes back to a college community with many more bars (in Emporia).”
Porter estimated that 12 to 14 bars and restaurants would be affected by the ban.
The owner of two motels in Winfield was pleased by the ban, Porter said; it was something he had wanted in place, but did not want to have to institute a ban himself. Additionally, a bar owner built an outdoor patio in anticipation of the vote.
Porter said some business owners had, in one way or another, let the city know they were happy with the commission vote.
“I’m glad you did it, because it’s easy to blame government,” Porter paraphrased the remarks of business owners. “Long-term, five to 10 years from now, probably nobody’ll think much about it.”
The Winfield ordinance will be enforced by the chief of police or his designated agent. A violation of the ordinance, which is a misdemeanor, is punishable by a fine up to $100 for the first offense, a fine up to $200 for the second offense within one year, and a fine up to $500 for a third offense within a one-year period.
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Great! Two more Kansas cities have jumped on the BAN-WAGON (spelling correct). And the one guy says he is glad the government did it "cause it's easy to blame government." No balls ! No COMMON SENSE! Not in Emporia.
Steve
November 10, 2008 at 2:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Join me at 4th & Commercial for the parade tomorrow with your anti-ban signs to watch the parade. I'll buy the coffee.
Steve :)
November 10, 2008 at 2:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
generalsn (anonymous) says...
I wonder if the commissioners will get a lesson about "public property" when they are banned from every bar in town.
November 10, 2008 at 3:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
smith_ron (anonymous) says...
And if the public votes for the ban, are you going to ban them, too? Seems to me that would not be good for the pocketbook.
November 10, 2008 at 7:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justthefacts (anonymous) says...
Banning people from business based on their beliefs or opinions is bias and quite frankly opens you all up to a civil rights violation and probably a good law suit. Before you all start sending out the ban letters, you may want to check all those Constitutional principles everybody has been spouting off lately.
November 10, 2008 at 7:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Pretty childish rhetoric here, I would start to seriously consider that the people of Emporia could very well vote this in as well if put to a vote here. Too bad a democracy is not more like Burger King where you can have it your way all the time eh?
November 10, 2008 at 9:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
"Banning people from business based on their beliefs or opinions is bias and quite frankly opens you all up to a civil rights violation and probably a good law suit."
Except if they are smokers eh?
Don't quit your day job, you've got no future as an Attorney.
November 10, 2008 at 11:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
zeus (anonymous) says...
You got that right, looks like more useless "facts" from facts. I surprised we didn't get some sort of a page long dictation on the matter as usual.
November 11, 2008 at 1:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
generalsn (anonymous) says...
The bartender is not required to serve anyone who may be detrimental to his business. A lawmaker who voted for a smoking ban is a detriment to his business and may be legally required by the bartender to leave his "public property"
November 11, 2008 at 7:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Pingeon (anonymous) says...
I am surprised that the city did not have this on the ballot for the election. This would have ensured that the most people possible would have voted on it since they were already there voting for a president. There is no better turnout than for a presidential election.
Unless they are just planning on letting it sit around and never do anything about it.......
November 11, 2008 at 7:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
When a smoking ban in Emporia is enacted. What will the next so-called "non-useful purpose" individual citizen freedom of choice activity that will be banned, because someone believes that he, she or they are the only ones who have the right, knowledge and power to tell all citizens how all citizens should be living their lives ?
Kind of reminds me of what happened in Europe in the mid to late 1930's.
November 11, 2008 at 8:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
"Kind of reminds me of what happened in Europe in the mid to late 1930's."
Except Nazi Germany's smoking ban wasn't as restrictive as CAE's.
November 11, 2008 at 8:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"Banning people from business based on their beliefs or opinions is bias and quite frankly opens you all up to a civil rights violation and probably a good law suit."
Except if they are smokers eh?
Don't quit your day job, you've got no future as an Attorney.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See the problem with that line of thinking is that if this went through smoking would be illegal, so there would be no exception. Faulty logic sir, I will bet this goes to a vote myself so if it happens guess you better ban some of the new customers that might frequent your establishments, they probably did not see things your way, I would hate to hear what Joe the Plumber would say about that lol!
November 11, 2008 at 9:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
I would like to know what would be the best way to find out how many citizens of Emporia would be willing to sign a petition to present to the City of Emporia to change the current City Commission form of government to a City Council form of government.
I was thinking of opening a web site so citizens could visit it and put their names on it so I could possibly get a count as to how many would sign such a petition and then possibly post a petition on the web page or physically have a petition for them to sign in front of Walmart or possibly arrange to have the petition at one of the business places that will be most affected by a smoking ban.
November 11, 2008 at 10:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
trainrech (anonymous) says...
This needs to be decided with a public vote, plain and simple. That way the majority can be either allowed in or banned from the bars depending on the outcome.
But wait, votes are private, so how will one know how each person voted?
November 11, 2008 at 10:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
The people who are pushing the smoking ban will not be going to the bars and restaurants that currently allow smoking anymore than they currently do now, so that would be irrelevant trainrech.
methusla, I predict coffee and other caffeine products will be on the tax the snot out of and work towards banning agenda next. Certain religious groups already ban their "flock" from consuming them.
November 11, 2008 at 11:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
trainrech (anonymous) says...
[neighbor - The people who are pushing the smoking ban will not be going to the bars and restaurants that currently allow smoking anymore than they currently do now, so that would be irrelevant trainrech.]
You apparently don't frequent Bruff's on a Friday or Saturday night...
You have generalized that all people who go to bars and restaurants smoke or would otherwise be opposed to the ban. I don't think this is a valid statement. That is why I suggested the issue be decided by the voters.
November 11, 2008 at 12:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
You know what they say about assuming. My wife is a non-smoker, she does not feel cigarette smoke is a problem in Bruffs, in fact she stated that she would have thought it was non-smoking if she hadn't seen a handful of folks smoking there. I don't smoke when I go to Bruffs, I'm there to eat, like at most restaurants I go to, I prefer non-smoking when I'm eating. That personal choice is easily accomodated in Emporia, I have multiple places to choose from to avoid smoke while eating. I agree with my wife, the last few times we have went to Bruffs, I've never once smelled smoke with people smoking one or two tables away. I could though smell that dried blood, nasty alcohol breath smell. I rarely patronize bars anymore, because of the drunk/loud/obnoxious people, the loud music, and those with foul smelling alcohol breath(I used to fit into each of these descriptions). No, it's not an age thing, I've been to the bars/clubs that cater to adult, non-college aged citizens too. Drunks are drunks no matter their age. Sure, a public vote would probably lead to the enactment of a smoking ban, but given the opportunity to convass the votes, I'm betting the majority of those voting for it were not and will not be bar/grill customers no matter the outcome. I just don't see Steve Sauder and Ms. Walters sitting at the bar at the S&S Cafe to have breakfast once their ban is enacted. There will be no increase in the number of customers going to bars or Bruffs once this takes place, and people will still be diagnosed with lung cancer and other breathing disorders once we get everyone to stop smoking. Then what will be blamed, taxed, and banned next?
November 11, 2008 at 1:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
I urge everone, including smoking and non-smoking citizens and especially the CAE advocates to visit the following website, http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/1000, and view an eye opening internal company document that proves the tobacco industry has had the technoligy and know how to make a "Healthy Cigarette" since 1966.
Just think about the concept of a "Healthy Cigarette" could have been on the market since 1966 or before!
November 11, 2008 at 4:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
P.S.
Sorry, the website is, http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/1..., sorry for the incomplete address in the above post.
November 11, 2008 at 8:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
After revisiting the tobacco documents website and reading and studying more documents, I found that I need to revise my statement about "Safe Cigarettes". I should have said a "Safer Cigarette" and I appologize for not reading the document correctly. Also after further study on the same site I have found that the cigarette manufacturers add some 1,110 additives to cigarette tobacco, which is almost double the number I got from another site.
However this still does not change my opinion that the effort to clean up cigarette smoke should be 100% directed at the tobacco manufacturers and not the unwitting users of the tobacco products.
The home page of the site is www.tobaccodocuments.org,
you will find a treasure trove of informtion.
November 11, 2008 at 9:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justthefacts (anonymous) says...
I'm glad to see your reasoned responses are to bash anyone who dares to mention something other than what you believe in. Reaffirms my faith in Darwin's Theory.
November 11, 2008 at 11:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
goodoleboy & others:
Today we in Emporia can, (like BugerKing), have it our way all the time. Smokers can choose the few businesses that allow smoking and non-smokers can choose the majority of busineses that do not allow smoking.
After the ban passes non-smokers will have all the choices and smokers will have none.
The number 1 question of this issue is "Name 1 place in Emporia where someone is forced to breathe 2nd hand smoke?"
This question remains unanswered!
Steve
November 12, 2008 at 6:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
rbow-You are absolutely right on all accounts.
And I believe that most of us realize that smoking is not the healthiest thing to choose to do. But it is still your personal freedom of choice to do so.
I know that I will probably be chastized severly for my next statement but here it is anyway.
I also believe that this whole ban smoking thing in Emporia is not only a health thing, but is also a flex the power muscle issue as well.
I say this, because smoking is banned in each and every publicly owned building and business in Emporia now anyway. So why is there such a push to ban smoking practically everywhere else, except, so far, your private residence and when will your private residence be next on the ban smoking agenda.
I have discovered through some long and hard searching, that the tobacco company's are really to blame for providing such an unhealthy product to the public, not the smokers who use their products.The smokers are just an unwitting pawn. However no one seems interested in making the tobacco companies clean their product up.
November 12, 2008 at 9:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Kujiin (anonymous) says...
This exactly what they want fighting with each other! The next thing you know they're takin away public restrooms because people don't follow common sense and wash their hands after they (well you get the picture). I would much rather take my chances with second hand smoke, rather than to bet that 100% of the people who prepare the food we eat wash their hands after a pit stop.
I think maybe people that are for this smoking restriction, should go to Manhattan or Winfield to eat or stay home and eat.
November 12, 2008 at 2:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )