Senate amends House bill to include smoking ban
Bill will return to house
By Russ Morgan (Contact)
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
The Kansas Senate has amended a House bill to include a statewide smoking ban, and the House will likely take up the bill on Wednesday.
House Bill 2221 originally dealt with the public release of health records from child care facilities, but was amended by the Senate to include the provisions of Senate Bill 25. The Senate’s bill to ban smoking statewide was tabled in the House Health and Human Services Committee.
“We have a House-passed bill that went to the Senate, and the Senate basically gutted it and put the smoking ban in it,” said Rep. Don Hill.
Hill said the bill will return to the House, which can then either make a motion to concur or not concur. If the House does not concur, a conference committee will be appointed.
“Procedurally, a motion to concur with the other chamber’s changes in a bill is always in order,” Hill said. “There’ll probably come that motion at some point, to concur with the Senate.”
A motion to concur needs 63 votes to pass.
“At that point, it’s a done deal,” Hill said.
The bill to ban smoking across the state resembles the ban Emporians will vote on next week, with minor differences. The statewide smoking ban would allow smoking in private clubs that were licensed before Jan. 1, 2009; it would allow smoking in 20 percent of the rooms in hotels; and it would allow smoking on the gaming floor of a casino or a racetrack. Emporia’s ban ordinance does not include those provisions.
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
For those of you who don't know, Jim Barnett is the one pushing this. I'm not sure why he didn't wait until Emporia had voted on it to push it through (unless he is trying to do just that, which means its not a health issue, its an agenda). For those of you who want to read the old bill (hard to do with all the lines, but you still can) and the "amendment", here is the link:
http://www.kslegislature.org/bills/20...
March 31, 2009 at 5:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
I can't wait until the eggs & issues. It's time for a tea-party!
Steve
March 31, 2009 at 5:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eatasheep69 (anonymous) says...
Yeah! Hopefully a no smoking tea party.
March 31, 2009 at 5:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
eatasheep;
of course it will be non-smoking tea party. egg's & issues is held in a PUBLIC BUILDING. You know one that you as a taxpayer owns.
March 31, 2009 at 6:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Free4all (anonymous) says...
would a state wide smoking ban over ride a city smoking ban if Emporia votes it in Tuesday so private clubs can allow smoking?
March 31, 2009 at 6:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Free4all--
As far as over-riding, that I'm not sure. If I understand it right, it is an add to, but can't take away, type of thing. Again though, I'm not 100%, but I will try to find out the answer. Wouldn't it be sad if it passed at state, and Walters Inc spent how many tens of thousands of dollars for nothing?
March 31, 2009 at 6:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Free4all;
the senate version of the state ban says;
All class B clubs that already hold a class B license as of 1-1-2009. Those clubs would have ? days to notify the state of their intention to allow smoking. Thus the only clubs in Emporia that would be allowed to be smoking are VFW LEGION, and EAGLES.
March 31, 2009 at 9:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Pingeon (anonymous) says...
rbow - I believe you are correct other than that if the Emporia ban passes, it is more restrictive. Therefore, VFW, Legion and Eagles would not be able to allow smoking.
March 31, 2009 at 9:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
I think we ought to run Barnett and walters for Gov. and Lt Gov. they both want to run our lives so theyed make a good pair. Think about it; at least the whole state would have to put up with them and they'd be out of the county
March 31, 2009 at 9:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Pingeon:
You are correct in your last.
I want everyone here on this little forum to show up sat. at the eggs & issues forum to hold our ELECTED reps feet to the fire. And Everyone bring a TEA-BAG or two to show our displeasure. These EGGS & ISSUES have been "over easy" for way to long. Would you go to jail for your beliefs?
Steve Corbin
March 31, 2009 at 9:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
8:00 A.M Sat, at the Lyon County Courthouse, Jury assembly Room, Be there, NO CONCEALED CARRY ALLOWED!
Steve
March 31, 2009 at 9:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
But tea-bags are allowed.
March 31, 2009 at 9:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
blulitespecial (anonymous) says...
Teabags it is.Unless we can get "Gentleman Jim"to resign first.
April 1, 2009 at 2:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
rbow- I will certainly try and be there, with tea bag at the ready.
I urge as many smoking ban opponents that can be there, by all means be there, as you know T. Walters, the Sauders and a lot of the " FREEDOMS, RIGHTS, CIVIL LIBERTIES " banning and trampling army will definately be there. To root and cheer for their , and I do mean " THEIR " man in government, as he is certainly not all the peoples man in the State legislature.
April 1, 2009 at 8:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
There is no way I'm going to the Eggs and Issues meeting Saturday morning. I'm not going to hand Jim Barnett a tea-bag, and then tell him what an agenda-driven, non-representating kind of guy I think he is.
I'm not going to e-mail every representative in the house and tell them that Jim Barnett does NOT represent Emporia, because if he did, he would at least wait 4 days to try and push his agenda through, after the city he represents has a public vote on the same matter (FYI--Salina is voting on a smoking ban on Tuesday too).
To be honest, I've actually been re-thinking the health issue behind this. I'm starting to wonder if this really is about health issues, and not a personal agenda for Bobbi Sauders and Teresa Walters. Who cares about business owner rights! If you are all going to ban something I don't like, I'm all for it! I'm starting to think they may have some valid points that I have over-looked.
I think crackinsack may have been right all along!
NAH! APRIL FOOLS!
April 1, 2009 at 8:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jmcmannis (anonymous) says...
dang josies you had me going there for a moment, dont scare us like that lol
April 1, 2009 at 11:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jmcmannis (anonymous) says...
Can anybody tell me when results of the Smoking Ban vote will be posted on Tuesday and where one can go to watch the returns if they do that sort of thing for local elections.
Vote NO April 7
Dont Tread On Me
April 1, 2009 at 11:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
77flint (anonymous) says...
BURROS!!!!
April 1, 2009 at 12:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
It's good to see THE APRIL FOOL, AKA 77 Flint is posting his astute thoughts on all the blogs today. Thanks for your input.
Steve
April 1, 2009 at 1:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
EsqEB (anonymous) says...
Mrs. Walters would not want to be Gov. or Lt. Gov. She would actually have to work for her paycheck, rather than GRANT it.
April 1, 2009 at 1:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
brightliner (anonymous) says...
Hey Matt (josiesbar) You are slightly mistaken about Salina and don't read too far - you won't like the ending!
Voters will get their say
3/29/2009
It looks likely that Salina voters will decide whether to enact a tougher smoking ban. That's a great way to settle the hubbub.
Here's a little background for those who missed Friday's story by reporter David Clouston.
In 2002, the Salina City Commission approved the current partial smoking ban. It allows smoking in restaurants only between 9 p.m. and 5 a.m.
Opponents of that ordinance gathered enough petition signatures to force an election. Sixty percent of voters were against the repeal, allowing the ban to stand.
Commissioners approved the new ordinance in January. It is set to take effect in May and prohibits smoking in virtually all buildings except private homes.
The city commission will have three new members after the April 7 election, and there is a chance they will repeal the tougher ban. If they don't, then ban opponents say they have enough signatures to put the ordinance to another public vote.
On the other side of the fence, smoking ban supporters promise that if a new city commission repeals the ban then they will petition for a public vote.
Either way voters will have their say, and we bet another solid majority will support tougher restrictions on smoking.
This is a great debate between those who argue that business owners should decide what happens within their walls and those who believe public health hazards outweigh those rights.
We favor the latter argument. Government has the responsibility to protect public welfare, even if it means infringing on private property rights.
That's why the city inspects restaurants for roaches and dirty hands, forces people to mow their lawns to keep mice from moving in, and stops folks from leaving wrecked cars on their front yard and driving down neighborhood home values.
Banning smoking goes right along with those responsibilities.
That's the drum we'll keep beating. We look forward to hearing from those who don't agree.
-- Tom Bell
Editor & Publisher
822-1491
April 1, 2009 at 2:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Tom, thanks for the update, I had heard they were voting on something to do with the smoking ban, thanks for clearing that up.
Just to let you know, I got a really bad kink in my neck reading your article, because it was so slanted.
Matt
April 1, 2009 at 2:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
All of the articles/editorials in that rag are that way Matt, they like to only give one side of the issue there press coverage, his side only.
April 1, 2009 at 3:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
That's pretty ballsy/really stupid, for a newspaper to take a side in an issue that's going to be voted on by the public. I give The Gazette and staff credit, in my opinion, they have done a very fair job of representing this issue. Thank you for not being like the Salina paper, haha. Wow!
Matt
April 1, 2009 at 4:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
Showing a total lack of class or intelligence, crackinsack posted, "Be careful, 77flint. Speaking (or typing) in Spanish has been known to draw hateful comments from the pro-SHS crowd."
So now crackinsack is saying that if you are against having your rights taken away for a problem that doesn't exist, you are a racist.
When casting your votes on Tuesday, I hope you will all remember which group continually resorts to lies, outrageous and unsubstantiated allegations, subterfuge, and pathetic, low-class comments such as the one quoted above.
Remember that people like crackinsack want you to be just...like...them.
Don't let people like this do your thinking for you. Vote NO.
April 1, 2009 at 6 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
77flint (anonymous) says...
Quando podemos encontar pesonas sin educacion solment voy hablar con ellos. (rbow o Steve) tu mente es tao pequeno. Tu pensas que soy una persona contra o por esta lei, mas tu no sabes nada sobre nada. La unica cosa que es verdade, tu no es listo.
Que passa una buena VIDA!!!
April 2, 2009 at 8:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
driveonby (anonymous) says...
Tom Bell of the Salina Journal, has been asked repeatedly to report how much his paper is receiving from the Kansas Health Foundation, who get BIG funding from nicotine replacement interests. He simply refuses to say. The Salina Journal, the Capitol Journal, and the Wichita Eagle Beacon, are the three MOST biased in the state. I wonder, if you asked the Gazette about who pays for the pro ban ads, if they would tell you. Didn't you guys request full disclosure of all funding for the pro ban campaign some time ago? Make sure they include this money that does not go directly through the CAE, but comes into media to support their campaign. It's the same money.
April 2, 2009 at 9:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
CAE and It"s Followers let the cat out of the bag.
A letter to the Gazette from Susan Moran tonight with this quote.
"Emporians, vote “yes” to do away with our smoky bars and restaurants."
Not protect the health of workers.
Not to save the children.
Not to make smokefree businesses, but
"TO DO AWAY with our smoky bars and restaurants."
ANY QUESTIONS AS TO THE TRUE MOTIVES HERE?
April 2, 2009 at 10:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
And 77flints responses in Spanish make no more sense then his responses in English.
Esteban
April 2, 2009 at 10:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
ONLY TWO MORE DAYS LEFT TO VOTE "NO" EARLY!
VOTE EARLY
VOTE NO
AND CHOOSE WHERE YOU GO.
April 2, 2009 at 10:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
rbow,
My spanish is a little rusty, I haven't used it regularly. But I believe that the following is a rough translation of 77flints last comment !
When we are able encounter people without education usually I go to speak with them. (Rbow or Steve) your mind is too small. You think that I am a person against or by this ban , but you know anything on nothing. The one thing that is true , your is not ready.
That pass a good LIFE!!!
April 2, 2009 at 10:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Wow, 77 Flint no tiene espacio para llamar a cualquier persona sin educación!
April 2, 2009 at 10:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
How about a little more info to read !
The purpose of those who are truly
concerned with public health is to
reduce harm, not to take abolitionist
or moral postures. With that in
mind, we can comment as follows
on the two statements above.
1. As noted earlier, of the “long
list of diseases”, no one single
etiological causality can be proven
for active smoking. There are
strong statistical links between
active smoking and lung cancer
(although, statistically, it occurs at
over 70 years of age, when the
probabilities of cancer in general
are much higher), which justify
attributions of causality. But there
is a fundamental difference
between attribution and proof, as
the former indicates a deductive
extrapolation from indirect and
often randomly occurring
phenomena, and the latter an
incontrovertible, predictably
occurring phenomenon that
removes all doubt. That
fundamental distinction has been
shamefully blurred for public
consumption by “public health” in
its crusade against smokers and
the tobacco industry, and for the
purpose of prohibition, taxation
and behaviour control – and so has
the use of the word “cause.”
VOTE NO and retain your rights, freedoms and liberties !
April 2, 2009 at 10:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Does what Jim Barnett did with the State Wide Smoking ban really suprise anyone ? I believe we all know or should know that Barnett like our local governing body is very " tight " with the CAE, EDA, its members, etc. and that this is the underhanded way things are done in all forms of government. And I believe that we all know or should know how " Lobbying and Lobbyists " work, by paying a legislator to introduce or vote for a piece of legislation or law !
Shoot, if this State wide smoking ban is passed by the State legislature, all those legislators who voted to pass this State Wide Ban will undoubtedly have their bank accounts grow almost over night ! These so-called public servants of the people, only serve certain individuals, group of individuals or corporations and the rest of us people, be damned !
VOTE NO !
April 2, 2009 at 11:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
77flint (anonymous) says...
methusla/rbow "Estaban"
Podemos ver que voce nao entiendas. Eu voy ajuda cuando quierem aprender mas cuando tienen una mente cerrado nao posso ensinar-los. traduzir esso!!!
April 3, 2009 at 9:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
come on 77flint,
My Spanish is just as bad as yours.
Please try English, my spelling is bad enough, without trying to read your Spanish.
April 3, 2009 at 10:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Dies ist wahrscheinlich die passendere Sprache für die Bannestützen.
Wählen Sie nein bitte
April 3, 2009 at 10:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
seriously:
I did understand your;
Vote No Please and thank you.
Steve
April 3, 2009 at 10:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
77flint (anonymous) says...
Nao era falando espanol.
Mas os palvaras que "serious"
"This is probably the more suitable language for the ban supporters.
Vote no please"
parece que sao um pocoquita Racista!!!
Posso entender qual que lingua que falas, brigado!!
April 3, 2009 at 1:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )