Smoking ban heads to Governor for approval
Friday, February 26, 2010
Where in Kansas smoking would allowed by bill
TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Smoking would be banned inside most Kansas businesses and other public places under a bill legislators sent Thursday to Gov. Mark Parkinson.
Those places include:
— Bars.
— Restaurants.
— Retail stores.
— Other places of employment.
— Public transportation, including school buses, cabs and limousines.
— Almost all areas in hospitals.
— Educational facilities.
— Libraries.
— Courtrooms.
— Theaters.
— Auditoriums.
— Museums.
— Banks.
— Restrooms.
— Elevators.
— The “common areas” of hotels and motels and 80 percent of their guest rooms.
The bill exempts:
— Private homes.
— The gambling area of a casino or dog- or horse-racing track with slot machines operated under a contract with the Kansas Lottery.
— Designated smoking areas in nursing homes.
— Designated smoking areas in long-term care units of health care facilities.
— Tobacco shops.
— Private clubs.
———
Source: HB 2221, as amended in the Senate.
Proposed smoking ban clears Kan. Legislature
By JOHN HANNA
Associated Press Writer
TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Kansas moved Thursday toward banning smoking in restaurants, bars, offices and other public places after a bill imposing restrictions on lighting up cleared the state Legislature.
The House approved the bill, 68-54. It had earlier been passed in the Senate and will next go to Gov. Mark Parkinson, who has already endorsed the bill and signaled he would sign it.
Parkinson said the new restrictions which would take effect July 1, would reduce cases of smoking-related diseases, including cancer, in Kansas. Health officials estimate that 4,000 Kansans die from smoking-related disease every year, about 300 through exposure to secondhand smoke.
“People are dying. People are becoming ill,” said Rep. Barbara Bollier, a Mission Hills Republican and a retired anesthesiologist. “They are asking you to help them stay well.”
Critics of the bill consider its restrictions too intrusive and accused its supporters of hypocrisy. Sheila Martin, the owner of the Top Hat club in Hutchinson, noted that the state collects taxes on tobacco products and licenses businesses to sell them, while condemning them as unhealthy.
“I think the whole situation is sick and cruel — to isolate these people and take away their freedom to assemble with their friends,” she said, referring to smokers.
Twenty-four states ban smoking in restaurants and bars, according to the American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation, and North Carolina — the nation’s biggest tobacco-producing state — joined the list at the start of the year. The foundation says 19 of those states also ban smoking in workplaces.
Its backers said the bill would protect workers by requiring employers to provide smoke-free offices and shops. About 30 spectators in the House gallery wore black T-shirts declaring their support for the measure.
Zach Johnson, a bartender at the Hyatt Regency in Wichita, said working in a smoker-friendly environment always bothered him. His hotel’s bar is now smoke-free, and he learned about a year ago that he has an allergy to tobacco smoke.
Without a statewide ban, he said, “It would limit the jobs I would be able to work.”
Some opponents argued that decisions on smoking should be left to cities and counties, so that the regulations could be tailored to each community’s needs. Three counties and 36 cities — home to more than half the state’s population — have passed ordinances restricting smoking, though they vary.
Martin said small bars and taverns will be devastated. She was skeptical that the bill’s exemption for private clubs, including hers, offered much protection and believed she would lose many customers.
Like other critics of the bill, she’s upset that it exempts the gambling areas of four casinos authorized by a 2007 state law. The casinos would be built and managed by private developers for the Kansas Lottery, which owns the rights to the gambling and the gambling equipment.
House Health and Human Services Committee Chairwoman Brenda Landwehr upbraided supporters for accepting a bill that did not go far enough, noting exemptions for private clubs, designated smoking areas in nursing homes and 20 percent of the rooms in hotels and motels. Tobacco shops also would be exempt.
“It is not a comprehensive clean air act,” Wichita Republican Landwehr said. “It’s a farce, and I don’t think that we should be a part of that.”
She opposes statewide restrictions but told House members she was willing to work on an alternative proposal. Public health advocates and others were skeptical about what would emerge from such discussions.
Blue_Dog (anonymous) says...
Don Hill voted for it. Peggy Mast voted against. Would like to know both of their reasons.
February 26, 2010 at 9:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yev_kassem (anonymous) says...
Wonder if any bars in Emporia will change and become private clubs?
Any insight on what that takes Mr. Corbin?
February 26, 2010 at 9:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
Parkinson needs to approve the bill to protect the people. As a gesture that this isn't about unnecessary government control, however, he needs to add a provision that allows the sale of alcohol on Sundays state-wide. Throw the people a bone and let 'em know you care about their protection AND freedom!
'enry
February 26, 2010 at 10:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
yev_kassem
not reported on here, but the exemption for class b private clubs applies to only those class b clubs that had a license on Jan1, 2009. Drinking establishments, (DE's) cannot reapply for a class b license. There are no class b clubs in Lyon county
February 26, 2010 at 10:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Steve
This is a real question, not a rhetorical one.
What are Class B clubs?. Are they the old private, non fraternal clubs that used to abound before liquor by the drink was approved?
February 26, 2010 at 10:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
No Sunday sales of booze Henry,
But they are doubling the tax on it!
Today I think, and Parkinson is for that also.
February 26, 2010 at 10:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
biscuit,
You've got Class A fraternal, like the V and Legion and Elks clubs.
You got Class B which are private clubs, you must sell a yearly license for 10.00 and serve only members and guests.
And then after much wrangling we got DE, (Drinking Establishments), which are open to all over the age of 21.
Most private clubs went to DE to avoid the fines that a private club would have to pay for serving a non-member.
most of us also thought it was a way to bring the drinking laws of Kansas into the 20th century.
What were we thinking?
February 26, 2010 at 10:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
The Lariet Lounge was the last private club in Emporia.
February 26, 2010 at 10:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
You also have class A Social clubs like the country club
February 26, 2010 at 10:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
What's that line in that country song?......Hind sight's 20-20....
February 26, 2010 at 10:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
fawn196166 (anonymous) says...
well i think this smoking ban has gone way to far....i wish they would tell me i cant smoke in my house cause....i would have a few words to tell them.....and olpe liqure store sells beer and liquor on sundays...i know that for a fact cause i was just there sunday...so lose the dang smoking ban!!!
February 26, 2010 at 10:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Could I open a Class A social club....say like Biscuit's Club....but I guess Biscuit and his social guest still wouldn't be able to smoke without offending 'enry, even though he would be allowed to drink there on Sunday.
But biscuit probably wouldn't want 'enry to join anyway...☺
February 26, 2010 at 11:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
biscuitboy,
My drinking on Sunday may offend you, but it doesn't harm you. Your smoking in public places harms me and all those around you. Offending others is not the issue here; harming others is. Don’t cloud the issue with personal preferences.
'enry
February 26, 2010 at 11:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
'enry
Your drinking on Sunday does not offend me in the least. Neither does drinking on any other day,,,,nor buying liquor on Sunday....nor smoking in my presence even though I do not smoke or drink either one.
Please don't try to force me into your contention that this is all a morals and religious problem. Have you forgotten my position on your other favorite topic?
What I do have a personal preference for is people that will allow others to live their lives as they please without forcing their personal preferences on them. Very much as you like for people to not force their religious preferences on you. Kinda like allowing people that want to smoke to be allowed to by ones that don't, by just leaving them alone.
But it has long been obvious to me that the only personal preference you care about is your own no matter what personal preferences others might hold. And in my book that is called ego-centered arrogance.
You are welcome!
February 26, 2010 at 11:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
biscuit,
BINGO!
February 26, 2010 at 11:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
biscuitboy,
I totally understand where you are coming from when you state, "allow others to live their lives as they please without forcing their personal preferences on them." Unfortunately, there is a problem with that way of thinking... Sometimes, people like to live their lives in a way that is dangerous or harmful to others. The question is: do we let these people do as they like even if it puts others in danger? We have to draw the line somewhere and I think the line should be drawn when your actions harm others.
Some people may like to live their life by driving drunk.
Some people may like to live their life by sacrificing children to the gods.
Some people may like to live their life by flying planes into buildings full of people.
Some people may like to live their life by smoking around others.
Freedom is important; I agree with you there. I believe, however, we need to limit the freedoms of people who may harm others with their actions.
We have laws against drunk driving, do you think drunk drivers should just be "left alone".
We have laws against murder, do you think murderers should just be "left alone"?
Now, we have laws against public smoking, yet you feel smokers should just be “left alone”... Why are they the exception? Hmmm... It sounds to me that you are using your own personal preferences to decide what is right and what is wrong. You think harming others with SHS is ok, but I disagree. This is exactly why we have a democratic government; so the majority gets their way.
'enry
February 26, 2010 at 11:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
PocketKings (anonymous) says...
yea majority gets their way because they aren't smart enough to stay away from businesses that allowed smoking in the first place. =\ Responsibility for your actions failed (Entering the busienss that allowed smoking in the first place even though they proceeded to sit in the nonsmoking section KNOWING that the smoke may or may not still be in the air of the business because the business allowed smoking) and thus people don't like the smoke so they outlaw it.
February 26, 2010 at 12:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
PocketKings (anonymous) says...
Smoking only needed to be outlawed from public places not privately owned restaurants and bars. =\.
February 26, 2010 at 12:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
PocketKings (anonymous) says...
"Sometimes, people like to live their lives in a way that is dangerous or harmful to others."
Driving a car is harmful to others drunk or not drunk.
An Obese bus driver that may have a heart attack at any moment may kill all the others on the bus in a crash.
Sigh.
February 26, 2010 at 12:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eucharistandcannabis (anonymous) says...
Hooray! A healthier Kansas, and not to mention lower insurance premiums.
February 26, 2010 at 12:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
PocketKings (anonymous) says...
We have laws against drunk driving, do you think drunk drivers should just be "left alone".
We have laws against murder, do you think murderers should just be "left alone"?
We don't have laws yet about french fries causing heart attacks and how pop should be outlawed yet but it's coming.
Why should we even bother making a law if it can be prevented by simply avoiding it. You don't like gang bangers? Don't go near that side of town. Are you allergic to peanut butter? Don't buy peanut butter. You can't avoid someone murdering you and you can't avoid someone driving drunk.
You can avoid smoking by banning it in public places but why does privately owned businesses have to suffer? It's your choice in the first place to go into that restaurant. Smoking kills? Oh really is that anything new and you didn't know that already after countless commercials drilling it into your head? How about obesity and heart attacks... someone might get too fat and land on my face and smother me to death. BETTER OUTLAW THAT TOO!
February 26, 2010 at 12:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
PocketKings (anonymous) says...
Clean and Healthy food emporia should be created.
To believe that we should have the right to eat healthy and not risk getting fat and hurting others.
February 26, 2010 at 12:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
KellyG (anonymous) says...
This is a great thing especially for those who suffer from breathing problems we have to avoid so manhy restraurants even when there is a non smoking section because the smoke travels and irritates my daughter's asthma. Yea! My family and I can be normal and go out again.
February 26, 2010 at 12:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
PocketKings (anonymous) says...
Offshore oil drilling... isn't there a law that states the us can't drill so many miles off lands but since its in international waters china has a oil platform drilling oil in the atlantic.
Global warming... WE GOTTA STOP DEM CO2 EMISSIONS! Whilest china and india are pumping far greater amounts into the air.
FAIL.
February 26, 2010 at 12:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
But 'enry
Every example you gave in your list does not prevent the harm from occurring...it only punishes the one that caused the harm after the harm has occurred. And even then the punishment for the harm is only handed out after a court of law has determined there was indeed damage done and it was done by the person that is charged with doing it. Such law is pro-active.
So fine. Let us then make harming people with cigarette smoke a pro-active law also. And I then will be happy with your ability to prove in a court of law that you were first harmed by cigarette smoke...and that smoke was caused by this smoker. When you do that then I will agree wholeheartedly with your prosecution and conviction of that offender.
But until you either do that...or you make all the laws you mentioned above preventive also...(thereby making the very act of driving a vehicle while drinking equal to vehicular homicide) I will view your argument as so much smoke and mirrors. As the only example in american law whereby a person is convicted of a crime without anybody ever having to prove that a crime was committed nor prove whom it was committed by
Punish the smoker after you prove the harm was done.....and done by him....like we now do the drunk driving laws.....and I will agree with your stand.
Not until!
February 26, 2010 at 12:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
PocketKings (anonymous) says...
"This is a great thing especially for those who suffer from breathing problems we have to avoid so manhy restraurants even when there is a non smoking section because the smoke travels and irritates my daughter's asthma. Yea! My family and I can be normal and go out again."
Do you also avoid restaurants that serve alcohol?
Please define normal. What may be normal for you might not be for others. =0.
Seriously if you wanted to pull the children into play why not make establishments that allowed smoking have an age requirement (SUCH AS THE SMOKING AGE REQUIREMENT AND RESTAURANTS THAT ALLOW ALCOHOL REQUIRE AGE 21 TO PROCEED.)
February 26, 2010 at 12:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
KellyG
Were there no non-smoking restaurants available to you and your daughter before the ban? I believe there were quit a few. Did you just not like them....or did you just have a special preference for S&S Cafe?. That was about the only fully smoking restaurant left before the ban.
euchiristandcannibis
That is an interesting take from someone who supports the legalization of smoking marijuana
February 26, 2010 at 12:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
KellyG (anonymous) says...
Wow very Emporia centered attitude again, some people like to get out of the town of Emporia once in a while, I was talking about across the state.
February 26, 2010 at 1:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
PocketKings,
It's about harming OTHERS with your actions, not yourself. I can drink all the booze or eat all the fried food I want and it won't harm you if you're sitting next to me. The same can't be said for smoking. See? Different.
biscuitboy,
The smoking ban works the same as a drunk driving ban. I COULD get behind the wheel and drive drunk the same as you COULD go smoke in a bar. Whether we actually harm someone or not, we'll still be punished if caught because there is a chance we COULD harm someone. Either way, you're only punished if caught...it's just easier to get caught smoking in a crowded bar than it is driving on the street drunk. Both laws are meant to stop the action beforehand by using the threat of punishment as a means to sway people from doing it in the first place. Most folks will consider the punishment of getting caught not worth attempting the action. You’re more likely to get caught smoking in public because it’s easier to see, but that doesn’t mean it is less fair than the DUI laws. It just means there is a greater risk of getting caught.
'enry
February 26, 2010 at 1:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
But if you get caught driving under the influence you are prosecuted and convicted for driving under the influence.....not for harming someone under the influence. You are not prosecuted for harming under the influence until you actually are proven in court to be the one to have actually harmed someone.
There are many reasons why driving under the influence might be considered ill-advised (therefor illegal) other than the potential harm for others. So prosecution for harm is not pursued until it is proven that harm has been done. The only reason for passage of the smoking ban was the assumed harm it does to others. So prosecuting smokers for that assumed harm without any proof of harm by any particular person is not the same as writing a ticket for DUI. It's more like writing the ticket for vehicular homicide without any proof that anyone was harmed,,,or that you harmed them.
There is a big difference.
February 26, 2010 at 1:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
koalemos (anonymous) says...
I used to stop at a local tavern every day after work and meet up with friends and coworkers. I would spend about $400 per month on food, drink, pool and tips at that tavern. About 95% of the other customers in that tavern smoked cigarettes and we were all against the smoking ban because it would mean that we would have to find a different place to go to after work. The smoking ban was passed and my group overcomes the smoking ban by meeting at a private residence. The only thing we don’t have there is the lottery but people gamble with dominoes so the only one who suffers is everyone who enjoyed the taxes on our purchases, the profits from our lottery losses, and the tavern employees who used to earn tips for waiting on us. Of course the proponents of the smoking ban said that they were going to go out and spend, spend, spend so I don’t see any problems for the business owners and their employees. Have fun with the statewide ban. I’m sure the nonsmokers with asthma will spend a lot more money that those of us who learned $4,800 per year can buy a lot of food in Wal-Mart and a lot of beer in the liquor store and still leave enough for a pool table and a juke box. Thanks CAE!
February 26, 2010 at 1:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
biscuitboy,
I'm not sure I understand your point. You say, "you are prosecuted and convicted for driving under the influence.....not for harming someone under the influence". Isn't the same true for smoking in public? You are fined for smoking in public...not for harming someone while doing so. If I supposedly run-over your foot while I'm driving drunk, you'd have the burden of proof in court to prove that I really harmed you. If you harm me in the bar with your SHS, I'd have to prove in court that your harmed me. You're right; being prosecuted for the potentially harmful action is different than being prosecuted for actually harming someone. What I don't get is how the smoking ban is different than the DUI ban... They seem the same to me both in purpose and enforcement. Both bans are preventative measures; not forms of punishment.
'enry
February 26, 2010 at 3:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yev_kassem (anonymous) says...
I knew you would have the answer Steve. Thanks!
'enry and biscuit--
Don't you think every facet of the smoking debate has already been discussed enough.
The fact is Emporia has a smoking ban in place and it appears that the State soon will also. It really doesn't matter what side you are on, we all are going to have to obey the law or face the consequences. There are many laws that I don't like and many that I do like. So it really is 6 of one and a half dozen of the other.
February 26, 2010 at 3:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
koalemous,
I understand your reasoning about not going to bars now, I would hope that you decide to return to your favorite hang out once in a while , just to support the employees and owners. I would like to ask you a question, and I am NOT trying to be a smart ass. Did you and all of your group, (that meet at private homes), vote in the election? As we lost by only 6 votes I sure hope it wasn't because your group of friends didn't vote.
February 26, 2010 at 4:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
yev_kassem,
Your point is well taken, the Only reason to talk about this now is how and why our elected officials voted on this.
AND TO HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE for their votes.
February 26, 2010 at 4:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Your right yev_kassem....
So I will close with this last point......The DUI law was not passed with the presumption that the harmful offense had already occurred or the assumption that it would for certain occur.
The smoking ban was passed with the expressed assumption that the harm was already occurring at the moment.....without proof that it really was occuring to any person actually being subjected to the smoke at the time it was enforced.....or even any real clear idea of exactly what the harm amounted to. But other than holding the people that passed it responsible at the polls next election...I too am sick of arguing about it.
February 26, 2010 at 4:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
koalemos (anonymous) says...
There are not very many things in this life that a man really has a choice on. Where to go after work to wind down is still one of those rare choices. After working in a smoke free workplace all day, the last place I want to go is outside in the cold to smoke.
Steve, I know it was only 6 votes but I was not allowed to vote on that issue. I'm not an Emporia resident...just an Emporia customer.
February 26, 2010 at 8:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
koalemos,
Enough said. Thanks for your support.
So I think we can agree on something. There are too many people who want to protect us from our selves who think government regs are the end all save all.They are the same people who will be wandering the streets asking "BROTHER CAN YOU SPARE A DIME"
February 26, 2010 at 9:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
liveyourlife (anonymous) says...
I'm glad i moved out of Kansas when i did! state wide smoking ban makes me sick and i dont even smoke!!!
February 26, 2010 at 10:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
What will they blame next when people are still suffering heart attacks and developing/suffering from cancer?
Do you really believe the medical community wants to get rid of the two highest revenue producing human services they provide?
Biscuit, debating the subject with crackenry is a major waste of your time, they'll repeat the same garbage over and over and over again like they were taught to do. It worked on them.
February 26, 2010 at 11:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Thank You neighbor. Point well taken!
February 27, 2010 at 3:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
les_herschler (anonymous) says...
Thanks, folks. Y'all make me laugh.
February 27, 2010 at 8:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Well les....I'm glad we'all could return the favor.
February 27, 2010 at 9:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Health officials estimate that 4,000 Kansans die from smoking-related disease every year, about 300 through exposure to secondhand smoke.
Now if you assume these figures to be mostly correct. This would mean that out of a Kansas population of 2,802,134 people 4000 die from smoking-disease, which is .1427483% of the entire Kansas population. Which means, there is a chance that 1 in 700 people will die from smoking-related diseases.
Now, of those 4000, 300 died through exposure to secondhand smoke. This means that out of the Kansas population of 2,802,134 means that 1 in 9304.446666 persons will die from secondhand smoke exposure or .0107061% of the population of Kansas will possibly die from second hand smoke exposure. I believe that the ban-smoking crowd, has blown the whole, " you smokers are harming me or you smokers are killing me " propoganda way out of proportion, just so the ban smoking crowd can excersize their need for control of others and trampling the freedoms and rights of others, by any means available to them.
The below information may be of some interest.
AP: Alcohol-related accidents high in Kansas
Published 12/14/2009 in Local News
WICHITA (AP) -- A federal study showing Kansas had the second-highest increase in alcohol-related traffic accidents in the nation last year reveals that the state's drunken driving system needs overhauling, advocates say.
A report from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found that the number of alcohol-related traffic deaths in Kansas rose 36.1 percent from 2007 to 2008.
The increase comes even as the number of overall highway deaths in Kansas dropped to an all-time low, according to state accident records.
Kansas ranked 27th in the overall fatality rate and 16th in the alcohol-related fatality rate. While alcohol-related traffic deaths rose in six states in 2008, the rates declined in 40 states.
Pete Bodyk, chief of the Kansas Department of Transportation's traffic safety bureau, said it was possible that economic struggles led to more alcohol consumption and impaired driving.
http://www.gctelegram.com/news/ap-ks-...
This will be my last comment on this subject, for I tire of trying to debate with some who have the mentality of a watermelon .
February 27, 2010 at 9:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
koalemos (anonymous) says...
Could it be that Kansas doesn't have anything close to a Public Transportation System. Can't take the subway. Can't take the bus. If you take a cab from a bar in Emporia to a house in Mattfield Green you better have a lot of money in your pocket and a way to get back for your car tomorrow. The federal government provides grants for public transportation but our representatives don't know what public transportation is so they spend it on short buses that don't connect communities at all.
February 27, 2010 at 10:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
I often hear/read how backwards and behind the times Emporia is, however, before the ban there was maybe two restaurants that allowed smoking. The reason being was that the demand for restaurants that allowed smoking was/is diminishing. If prior to the ban a place with it's prehistoric ways such as Emporia had so few smoking allowed restaurants I can only imagine that any other place that one would want to visit(in or out of state) would have massive amounts of smoke free restaurant to choose from and it would most likely be very difficult to find a place that does allow smoking. The whole argument that it was hard to avoid shs before the ban just does not hold water. I do realize that bars are a different story and it was more difficult to find a bar with out smoke and to that I say ................ um? yeah. It's a bar.
February 27, 2010 at 12:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
koalemos (anonymous) says...
I really miss living in the Pacific Northwest. You can get on a bus that stops in front of your house, ride it to the hub and transfer to another bus that stops in front of where you are going. The transportation hub in Salem Oregon has buses going to the transportation hub in Portland, Oregon. From Portland you could catch a bus going anywhere in Portland or to the hub in Olympia, Washington where you can catch a bus that takes you to the Olympia Beer Company where you can take a tour and try free samples then catch a bus back down to Portland then back to Salem and back to your house. All for around a quarter. Now that is an effective public transportation system. We should copy it.
February 27, 2010 at 2:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
solong (anonymous) says...
And um yeah, you can't smoke in bars now either. FAR OUT!
February 28, 2010 at 12:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eucharistandcannabis (anonymous) says...
I googled "Dogpatch." Is this the correct destination?
February 28, 2010 at 8:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
koalemos (anonymous) says...
I predict that more private homes will turn into a speak easy type of gathering place as a result of this legislation.
March 1, 2010 at 7:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
bluedog,
Don Hill said he voted for it because it was a compromise.
Peggy Mast voted against it because she saw it for what it was.
From her newsletter;
"The bill passed with 69 votes but without my
support. My biggest opposition to the bill was the
hypocrisy of exempting state owned and operated
casinos, bars, and restaurants because it might hurt
their business."
Note the word "HYPOCRISY".
Don hill needs to rethink his definitions of compromise and hypocrisy in government. Even though Peggy Mast was for a statewide ban, she stood by her principles and voted against this bad bill.
everyday speak;
It would harm casinos in Kansas City Ks. if smoking was not allowed gamblers would go to Missouri casinos instead.
So the excuses about public health and bans not hurting business don't seem to hold water, at least not in the Kansas Legislature.
March 2, 2010 at 6:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Apparently it depends on which foot is wearing the shoe Steve!!! I have been unhappy with many of Peggy Mast's positions but at least she put principle before expedience on this. Unless of course she knew that the people in her district were largely against the ban anyway...then she could kill two birds with one stone.
March 2, 2010 at 7:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Don't misunderstand, I am against the bans in any form.
And they DO hurt business. My state lottery sales, (mostly KENO), were down $85,000.00 last year, due in no small part to the smoking ban. So a state owned casino that didn't allow smoking would NOT be viable in the K.C. area.
Remember when people smoked everywhere?
Then there were laws that prohibited smoking in taxpayer funded buildings and businesses, that was ok.
Then laws were passed restricting smoking on private property, for the public health.
NOW we have a new law permitting smoking on taxpayer financed and owned property.
where are we going here?
March 2, 2010 at 7:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )