The passage of restaurant smoking bans in New York City and other places likely means that such a ban will eventually happen in Wichita. The Eagle editorial board is divided on this issue, however, with some members wanting the city to prohibit smoking in restaurants, and other members not wanting the government to interfere with private business decisions. But regardless of whether Wichita passes a smoking ban, restaurants are free now to be smoke-free. And it is encouraging that, as a news story in the Sunday Eagle noted, an increasing number of restaurants are making that choice.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Raptor on Too many exemptions
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- Raptor on Too many exemptions
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
20 Comments
I ate at Jimmy’s last night, but will never again eat at Toc’s. I hate walking out smelling like cigarette smoke the rest of the day. Sure has cut into my partying days, though. Just as well.
The smart criminals are in Washington.
Oops, wrong subject. Time for some more caffeine. . ..
Interesting that some argue that the defining issue is keeping government out of private business. In light of the health effects of second hand smoke, that seems a bit lame for an enterprise that is open to the public. Private clubs that allow smoking might be an answer for those who can’t handle a meal without a smoke.
Many people in favor of smoking bans overlook the purpose of a restaurant. The purpose of a restaurant is not to feed the public. The purpose is to make money. Nobody is forced to enter any eating establishment. If you don’t like the smoke then don’t go there.
The most interesting comment by Phillip is that since NYC did it then Wichita will. Are we masters of our own destiny or just lemmings?
Rage,Have a cigerette instead.
If a restaurant bans smoking and you can’t stand a meal without a cigarette, then don’t go there. I always thought the real purpose of a restaurant was to make money by providing a place where people can enjoy a good meal.If banning smoking means we’re lemmings, I’ll be the first to jump off the cliff!
There is nothing worse than going somewhere for a meal and finding out that the restaurant allows smoking everywhere. I ate lunch at Town & Country one day and left stinking of cigarette smoke because the witch behind me thought it would be fun to annoy me by blowing smoke directly at me for an hour. I suppose the smokers all need someplace to eat, but when they eat and smoke at the same time…. that’s disgusting! I would fully welcome a smoking ban in this town. You’d think by now, people would have learned enough about how bad smoking is for their health that they would voluntarily quit. Maybe having nowhere for them to go would force some of them to make the choice to finally put down the cigarettes.
A friend of mine was just diagnosed with COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). She nor her husband have ever smoked, but she grew up in a home where her parents both were heavy smokers, it just took years for the damage to her lungs to present itself (not unlike smokers). Now she has to be on meds and take breathing treatments, probably for the rest of her life.Anyone who lights up without regard to how it may effect others is totally selfish.
I don’t care either way. Though I don’t want them to ban them in bars. I like the atmosphere of a smoke at a bar.
Smoke doesn’t bother me that much. Not as much as bad kids running around a restaurant. I think they should ban children at restaurants.
I do not remember the last time I went to a restaurant that allowed smoking everywhere in the building.
I do not remember the last time I went to a restaurant that allowed smoking period. Often I simply once finished with my meal go outside. But this is an old tale, for ever story someone can relate about a rude smoker I could tell an equally rude story about my experience with a non-smoker. I believe the statement that there are more non-smokers then smoker maybe wrong. Certainly at work that is not the case, the smokers break room is smaller then the non-smokers. Yet even the non-smokers set in there, that is where most of the people are. On the shift I am on, out of thirteen people there are only three non-smokers.
One person I work with came from California, she said that she believes more Kansans smoke then not.
It certainly should be left up to the owner of the business whether they allow smoking in their establishment.
Maybe put a sign out front that indicates whether or not smoking is allowed, so the whiners on both sides of the issue can make an informed decision about whether to patronize or not.
Joe, it takes awhile for the damage from secondhand smoke to show up in your lungs, so it’s not very healthy to spend time in smoke filled bars. Someday you may find that smoking bothered you more than you think.
Damoon,
At least it was his choice. Using the police power of government to make others to ‘do the right thing’ is wrong. Today we force restaurants to go smoke-free. Next their entire menu can only have 200 calories. After that every third customer has to be a handicapped minority peace activist.
This is a slippery slope, it is best to resist it early rather than later when they mandate that your home must be smoke-free.
Great, now I’ve gone and violated my one rule about a single post per thread. Just great. . .
One shot…
You are not dealing in fantasy. In California, the legislature has looked into banning smoking in your own car. Why? Because they can.. they succeeded in banning it in restaurants, bars, beaches, certain cities ban smoking outside, etc.
The ban on smoking in bars was supposedly based on protecting the people who work in bars. I agree with you, and think businesses should be allowed to choose and post their policy. That way, we can actually act like adults and make our own decisions, instead of letting the government make more and more and more decisions for us.
But what if the “arguement of extremes” went the other way? If business owners decide whether or not they want to allow smoking their establishments, people will want to enjoy a cigarette while watching a movie, or flying on a plane. Patients, nurses, and doctors will want to smoke in the hospitals. How about an English professor lighting up in the classroom? Or some good Christian enjoying a smoke at Sunday services? If the nonsmokers don’t like it, they can go to a “non smoking” theater, airline, hospital, university, or church.
I say give smokers an inch and they will probably want to take a mile!
Interesting thought, Damoon…
How about freedom of choice? Let the airlines decide (with publicity)..and let market forces determine success/failure. Let movie theaters decide–smoking or not, and let market forces decide. Hospitals? Nawww…most people are not there by choice.
I can see it now..an all smoking airline. Would probably go bankrupt in 2 weeks, but would be nice to have the freedom to choose instead of mindlessly following the government’s edict of how they are going to take care of us.
No, I am not a smoker, I just am tired of the government meddling in every single aspect of our lives. When will the mandatory blood pressure tests start?
Ray & Damoon,
I think that people who tout market forces solutions for most things rank the value of personal autonomy above all other values. Over the years the disciplines of moral philosophy and ethics have tended to see it differently.
Most ethicists do not regard autonomy (self-governance) as an absolute right. The line is typically drawn at the point where one’s autonomous actions infringe on the rights of others.
I have a right to health that second-hand smoke clearly violates. I think it is okay for government to be concerned with the rights of non-smokers and believe there is adequate justification for the same. Protecting the health of citizens is not paternalistic to my way of thinking.
Well said, Steve.
I believe that anti-smoking authorities have been lying to us about the dangers of secondhand smoke. I have formed a group to fight smoking bans called KEEP ST. LOUIS FREE! We defeated a smoking ban in St. Louis by challenging the notion that secondhand smoke kills people. Check out the real science of secondhand smoke and see how NYC hates its ban: http://www.nycclash.com If you want help fighting a smoking ban in your city, contact me at hanneganlounge@safeplace.net
Read this estimate of ETS danger by researcher David Kuneman taken from a STLtoday.com blog “No Smoking in Illinois?” and decide for yourself if anyone’s liberty needs to be taken away.
Ok, lets go to all the so-called studies which “prove” ETS is a hazard. There are two kinds of ETS studies… sloppy ones and well executed ones. The sloppy ones are those which are case-controlled. This means, the researcher asks a nonsmoking lung cancer patient what airborne carcinogens he/she was exposed to. If 30% more patients respond to being exposed to lots of smoke, the researcher concludes ETS increases Lung Cancer risk 30%. These studies usually involve a few hundred patients. This is where you get your data from. Trouble is, patients are not experts and do not know if they were exposed to asbestos, lived in a home with a radon problem, etc. The patients have all heard ETS causes LC, so they blame that. Please go to http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/ for a more complete explanation.
The well executed studies are called cohort studies. These rarely conclude ETS causes Lung cancer and Heart Disease. In cohort studies, thousands of persons are enrolled and all are healthy. They are divided among those exposed to smoke..or not. After about 30 years, the researcher contacts as many as he can locate, and determines the health of the study subjects. These are more expensive to run. The most well known of the cohort studies is the UCLA study which found no risk. These kinds of studies are less subject to bias.
The EPA report combined the results of 13 studies, and all but one were case controlled. They could Have used all 58 studies completed at the time, but did not simply becasue if they had, they would have been forced to conclude ETS is safe. According to the EPA report, even using those 13 studies, without the Frontham study, they would have concluded ETS is not dangerous. Trouble with the Frontham study is she refuses to let anyone see her raw data. I have a copy of the complete EPA report—that’s what it says.
In summary, we have the EPA claiming ETS is dangerous, and the Dept of Health and Human Services which only cites studies conducted by antismoking groups, and has never actually done a study of thier own claims ETS is dangerous. We have OSHA, the Congressional research service of the Library of Congress, and OakRidge Nat Labs claiming ETS is not dangerous.
Now, lets move on to population studies. All good epidemiology text books teach than when a weak risk such as a 30% excess risk is determined from epidemiology studies, then the researcher has to conduct population studies to either confirm, or reject the 30% result. If the researcher checks the prevalence of the disease indentified, as being more common in populations, more exposed, then the risk is confirmed. The trouble is, Europeans only get about half as much Lung Cancer as we do, and they are exposed to more ETS and always were. This according to WHO. And euros smoke about 1/3 more than us, and always did and euros live about 2 years longer than we do. Another population study is that in the US, age-adjusted rates of heart disease, nonsmoker’s lung cancer, asthma, COPD, and days missed from work are higher now than than in the 1970s when we were exposed to about 9 times more smoke. There is also a higher rate of childhood cancer, birth defects, middle ear infections, asthma, and most other diseases blamed on smoke today, than in the 1970s. early cases of smoking related cancer among young adults are increasing.. Again see http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/ for more detailed info. Population studies fail to confirm the 30% increased risk these case-controlled studies claim exist. And it’s more than just a litle odd no matter which disease you’re referring to, the elevated risk caused by ETS is always claimed to be the same- 30%- not double, as Dean claims.
I think the fact that we have removed 90% of all ETS, and nothing good happened, speaks volumes as to what we can expect if we remove the last 10% of ETS exposure. Dave Kuneman