Kansas smoking ban faces uphill fight
The Associated Press
Thursday, February 5, 2009
TOPEKA — A proposed Senate bill would ban smoking in most places in Kansas, but even its chief supporter concedes it faces an uncertain future.
The bill bans smoking in most public places, including restaurants, bars and retail stores, along with workplaces and any government building. The ban also applies within 10 feet of any doorway, window or air intake for any place where smoking is banned.
But the measure has its opponents, including those who believe such restrictions are best handled by local governments. State health officials say at least 25 city and county governments have enacted clean indoor air laws, covering about 28 percent of the state’s population.
Senate Majority Leader Derek Schmidt said Wednesday that the bill might be debated next week in the chamber but he wants to give senators a chance to review it and consider other options.
Proposals to enact a statewide smoking ban have been considered for several years, but this year is the first time the issue will be debated in the Senate.
The National Conference of State Legislatures says at least 23 states require most public places and workplaces to be smoke-free, including restaurants and bars.
“This issue has been plagued by the inflexibility of its proponents from the beginning and that probably remains true. There’s probably 21 votes for a smoking ban, but I’m not sure there are 21 votes for this smoking ban,” said Schmidt, an Independence Republican.
The Senate Public Health and Welfare Committee endorsed the bill Tuesday after making a few changes, including delaying its enactment until January 2010.
“It’ll take a little time to adapt to the legislation and this would give businesses the time needed to adapt,” said Committee Chairman Jim Barnett, an Emporia Republican.
Barnett, one of three physicians in the Senate, said the main reason for a broad smoking ban is the effect of secondhand smoke.
“Exposure to smoke can cause cancer. That is a well accepted belief in the medical community,” Barnett said.
Sen. Mary Pilcher Cook, a Shawnee Republican, cast the lone dissenting vote in committee. She said such a bill “isn’t a proper role for government” and smoking bans should be left to individual business owners.
“I hate smoking, but we’re becoming very discriminating toward people who smoke,” she said. “Just because I don’t like it doesn’t give me the right to tell somebody that they can’t smoke in the same restaurant.”
House Majority Leader Ray Merrick said the proposal would get a chilly reception in his chamber, where many legislators believe local control is best in most cases.
“If they want to do it, let the locals do it. Don’t step back and use us as an excuse for doing it,” said the Stilwell Republican. “We’re taking freedom away from people trying to run a business. It’s up to me to decide if I want to patronize a place. I shouldn’t be dictating what that owner ought to do.”
If the bill makes it to the House, it likely would go to the Health and Human Services Committee. Chairwoman Brenda Landwehr said she would decide whether to have a hearing after reviewing the bill.
“What I’m hearing is, ‘Let the locals do it,’ and that’s my personal opinion, too,” said the Wichita Republican.
Barnett agreed local control is a factor.
“I’m looking for a floor of protection for the public while recognizing Kansas has a strong tradition of control by local units of government,” he said. “We don’t know what the floor is and that’s why it has to go through the process and be tested.”
The bill exempts private homes and personal vehicles, tobacco shops, state soldiers’ homes, hotels where smoking is allowed in no more than 20 percent of the rooms and adult care homes and long-term care facilities with designated smoking areas.
Smoking ban bill is SB 25.
ON THE NET:
Kansas Legislature: www.kslegislature.org
Comments
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
CarolT (anonymous) says...
The real issue is ANTI-SMOKER SCIENTIFIC FRAUD, not "freedom versus health." More than 50 studies show that human papillomaviruses cause over ten times more lung cancers than they pretend are caused by secondhand smoke. Passive smokers are more likely to have been exposed to this virus, so the anti-smokers' studies, which are all based on nothing but lifestyle questionnaires, have been cynically DESIGNED to falsely blame passive smoking for all those extra lung cancers that are really caused by HPV.
http://www.smokershistory.com/hpvlung...
The anti-smokers have committed the same type of fraud with every disease they blame on smoking and passive smoking, as well as ignoring other types of evidence that proves they are lying, such as the fact that the death rates from asthma have more than doubled since their movement began.
http://www.smokershistory.com/newview...
And it's a lie that passive smoking causes heart disease. AMI deaths in Pueblo actually ROSE the year after the smoking ban.
http://www.smokershistory.com/etshear...
The government has no right to restrict peoples' liberty without a compelling justification. The anti-smokers have no such justification, so THEY COMMITTED SCIENTIFIC FRAUD TO DECEIVE THE PUBLIC.
February 6, 2009 at 2:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Notice the quote from our esteemed Dr.
“Exposure to smoke can cause cancer. That is a well accepted belief in the medical community,” Barnett said.
NOTICE THE WORDS "CAN CAUSE" & " WELL ACCEPTED BELIEF". shouldn't that be DOES CAUSE & UNDISPUTED FACT.
I want Undisputable Facts before you pass a law taking away my rights!
Why can't we have this Lady representing us in the Senate?
Sen. Mary Pilcher Cook, a Shawnee Republican, cast the lone dissenting vote in committee. She said such a bill “isn’t a proper role for government” and smoking bans should be left to individual business owners.
“I hate smoking, but we’re becoming very discriminating toward people who smoke,” she said. “Just because I don’t like it doesn’t give me the right to tell somebody that they can’t smoke in the same restaurant.”
Steve
February 6, 2009 at 6:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Dr. Jim, Dr. Jim, Dr Jim,
In reference to your quote in the ap story:
Barnett agreed local control is a factor.
“I’m looking for a floor of protection for the public while recognizing Kansas has a strong tradition of control by local units of government,” he said. “We don’t know what the floor is and that’s why it has to go through the process and be tested.”
Dr. Jim, WE HAVE A FLOOR RIGHT NOW. REFER TO KANSAS SMOKING LAWS ON THE BOOKS RIGHT NOW.
IF CITIES WANT A STRONGER LAW THEY CAN DO IT LOCALLY. WHAT KIND OF DOUBLE TALK ARE YOU PRACTICING? PEOPLE LIKE YOU GIVE POLITCIANS A BAD NAME.
Steve Corbin
February 6, 2009 at 9:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
We don't know what the floor is but I can tell you it's slippery and it's sloped.
February 6, 2009 at 9:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
seriouslyfolks;
And our senator from Emporia is waxing the floor.
The state law on the books right now is almost exactly like Emporia's was before the ban. It seemed to work pretty well & it covered everyones rights. How did this double talker get re-elected?
Steve
February 6, 2009 at 10:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
My guess is that he is trying to push this through the state before the April election in Emporia. I've said it before, if the smoking ban fails in Emporia, all someone has to do is go to Topeka, raise their hand and say "if this got voted down in your hometown of Emporia, what makes you think its good for the rest of Kansas?"
Just a thought...
February 6, 2009 at 11:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
What's funny about that is, if he DOES get this pushed through the KS legislature, then how many tens of thousands of dollars did CAE waste pushing this through the city commission?
Just another thought...
February 6, 2009 at 11:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jackslap (anonymous) says...
I think Dr. Jim is waxing something else to. :)
February 6, 2009 at 11:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Matt, You could be right about the good doctor trying to get this passed before our Vote in April. But I have e-mailed every senator and representative in Topeka and the response so far looks bad for the doctor. All the more reason for people who are against this ban to e-mail the people quoted in the story. Be sure to include your mailing address in your e-mails, all the e-mail accounts up there want to verify your mail.
Steve
February 6, 2009 at 12:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
WAX ON-WAX OFF.
NOW I GET IT. IT'S TIME FOR FAMILY COUNSELING!
February 6, 2009 at 8:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
csmith2367 (anonymous) says...
i dont think smoking should be made ileagal .. however non smokers should not have to be forced to be subjected to it .i do believe that smokers should have to go outside to smoke . i quit 4 years ago and feel much better now than i did then .. and didnt realize how bad i smelled all the time ...now when i come home from a place that allows smoking i have to shower all over again because my hair and cloths wreak of ciggarette smoke ... i like to dance , i like to play pool and i like to bowl... why should i not be able to go and enjoy these activities because i dont want to deal with the smoke .. i have lived in Denver and they have a smoking ban and businesses seem to still be thriving , I live in North Platte Ne that just passed a smoking ban in june and now the restaurants seem busier for bars i think a beer garden is good .. it allows the smokers a comfortable place to smoke without having to leave the establishment .
July 18, 2009 at 10:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
csmith2367
You live in Nebraska, Nebraska can be non-smoking for all I care. Just tend to you own knitting in Nebraska and let Kansas and us Kansans tend to our own knitting, thank you.
And non-smokers are not " FORCED " to be exposed to smoke. Ever heard of concious choice.
July 18, 2009 at 10:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Dr. Blub, er Blab, er Babl er Barnett, I believe has bigger and higher aspirations than being a Kansas State Senator from Emporia. I believe he has aspirations of being a D.C. Senator from Kansas, and that is the reason for his push for a Statewide smoking ban.
July 18, 2009 at 10:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
csmith2367
I am sorry to hear that people in Nebraska people are forced to be around smokers against their will. You should move to Kansas, it is illegal here to force people to go places against their will. I thought it was federal law but I guess I was mistaken. I'm sure glad I don't live in Nebraska. I quit the smokey smokes 13 years ago and have been able to avoid shs very easily when ever I wanted to. I guess Kansas is just .............. well ........................ better. As Bob Barker used to say "Come on Down!"
Seriously R. Folks
The folksiest of folks.
July 18, 2009 at 10:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Oh snap, It was Rod Roddy that said "Come on down!" not Bob Barker.
Who let the folksy out?
Seriously R. Folks
July 19, 2009 at 4:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )