The Kansas Supreme Court will hear a challenge next week to the 3-year-old Lawrence ban on smoking in public establishments. The appeal argues that the ban illegally supersedes state law and is unconstitutionally vague.
What could this mean for other cities in Kansas with similar laws?
“The authority they all are drawing from is the same authority, and if the court rules against Lawrence, they are potentially ruling against other ordinances,” said Don Moler, the League of Kansas Municipalities’ executive director.
Change may be coming, and it smells a bit stale. What do you think about smoking bans?
Posted by Ross Stewart
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
- Jed on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
45 Comments
Walking around with an open ignition source that generates smoke seems like a good idea to ban.
Smoking bans have no place in a free society.
As a non-smoker I can say that second-hand smoke bothers me greatly, but I don’t like the idea of these blanket bans.
In Salina, one pizza eatery owner wasn’t too happy because in the very back of the building – far away from any cooking or eating area – is his office…he owns this building…and he can not have a smoke there.
I fully expect to see cigarettes TOTALLY banned within the next few years by the folks who are promoting Global Warming, anyway, since that runaway train is careening down the track at breakneck speed, sucking up gullible followers who refuse to think for themselves.
Sure, folks will be healthier if they don’t smoke. Sure, they won’t stink from stale smoke odor.
It will be a big feather in the hat of those who want to control what we put in our mouths, what we breathe, see, etc. The Food Police, Center for Science in the Public Interest, will be thrilled that lawmakers are taking steps to control our personal habits.
…and the US slides closer and closer to Socialism…..and eventual ruination.
Smoking should be banned except for the outdoors or special air tight “smoking booths” that would vent directly to the outdoors. Smokers are the only class of drug addicts that believe that they have a right to infect everybody else with their filthy habit. You generally don’t see heroin addicts shooting up in public do you? Not only do I think smoking should be banned indoors anywhere at anytime, I also agree that employers should have an absolute right to reject applicants that smoke from consideration (although I don’t think employers should be able to fire smokers whom they hired as smokers). Generally smokers are slobs too. You often see them toss their butts on the road. Also, the tax on a pack of cigarettes should be at least $5.
“In Salina, one pizza eatery owner wasn’t too happy because in the very back of the building – far away from any cooking or eating area – is his office…he owns this building…and he can not have a smoke there.”
Oh, I just wanna CRY for this poor man! I mean, after all, his employees have to go into that area and I guess it should be OK for him to poison them with his filthy nasty habit.
And since this was brought up, I wonder what the policy is at the Wichita Eagle-Beacon. I bet they don’t allow smoking inside the building do they?
Kev – and how is it you KNOW he was subjecting the employees to the smoke in HIS office?
You’re such an advocate for the little guy….too bad you don’t give any consideration to the guy who OWNS the business, the building, and is paying those ‘little guys’ salaries.
If the employees did NOT go in any area where they were around his smoke would you support allowing him to smoke?
Or is this really all about controlling another’s behavior?
What ever happened to free choice? As an ex smoker, I suggest a thought…rather than completely ban smoking, have business owners decided for themselves and their customers..and have a sign on the outside letting people know if it is a smoking or not establishment.
That way, the hypersensitive can avoid it, and the smokers can have a place to go. The free market could determine if such businesses can continue to make it or not.
We have way too many laws about far too many things now..this is just another nanny attempt from a government that is out of control and trying to protect us from everything.
Of course, the ‘there outta be a law’ crowd supports more laws and less freedom every day. We don’t need more laws…we need more personal responsibility and freedom.
And I guess you don’t drink either do you? Pricks like you are the ones who attempt to govern our Constitutional Rights of Freedom. What one does outside the workplace is NOT an employer’s business as long as it is not illegal. It is NOT a crime to smoke and it is NOT right for an employer to hire or fire a person based on their personal habits outside the workplace environment. Smokers are not all slobs and are probably cleaner than you are. Also, smokers in general are polite about not smoking where it is now allowed but that does not give ANYONE the right to tell US that we cannot Smoke PERIOD! If you don’t like it, tough! We do have rights too and we are supposed to be protected by the Constitution. Get off your higher than thou chair and get a life beyond trying to take away our rights that we have and fought to have once we left England.
“Smoking should be banned except for the outdoors or special air tight “smoking booths” that would vent directly to the outdoors. Smokers are the only class of drug addicts that believe that they have a right to infect everybody else with their filthy habit. You generally don’t see heroin addicts shooting up in public do you? Not only do I think smoking should be banned indoors anywhere at anytime, I also agree that employers should have an absolute right to reject applicants that smoke from consideration (although I don’t think employers should be able to fire smokers whom they hired as smokers). Generally smokers are slobs too. You often see them toss their butts on the road. Also, the tax on a pack of cigarettes should be at least $5.”
I can see banning smoking in confined spaces, but outdoors is a completely different matter. If smoke free workplaces, and dining establishments are so desireable, we need the options of having both smoking and non smoking establishments. Then everyone could have their choice.
What’s the excuse this month for higher gas prices?
Oops, thought I was on the open thread!
Query: if an employer furnishes health insurance to employees, and if the rates for said insurance are higher for smokers than for nonsmokers, then should an employer be free to reject smokers as job applicants and to terminate smoking employees, even if said employees who smoke only do so “on their own time”, away from the workplace?
Good points GS —
Kev
“Generally smokers are slobs too. You often see them toss their butts on the road. Also, the tax on a pack of cigarettes should be at least $5.”
Regrettably I am a smoker, and as hard as I try it has been difficult to quit — just like an alcoholic —- took a quick look in the mirror and other than about 10 lbs overweight – I don’t think I look like a slob (subjective I guess and ignoring the torn t-shirt and sweats I’m wearing) — I don’t throw my butts on the ground (I still field strip em sometimes and put the filter back in the pack to dispose of later) — I don’t smoke in restaurants and usually not in smoke filled bars either. I would agree that a $5 tax on smokes would help many like me to quit — (Cook County [Chicago) raised the cig tax by about a dollar a pack almost overnight raising the cost of a pack to 6-7$ 2 things happened –don’t know how many — but many were inspired to quit and a lot more went to collar counties / Wisconsin / Indiana to get 3$ a pack smokes). So there is a real mixed bag of results unless all the states do the same thing not much will change.
I do think there should be a “sin” tax of sorts — particularly on those things that we know are harmful to the society as a whole. (Part of that village thing!!) Would increasing the tax on alcohol help decrease the number of families destroyed by alcoholism, the number of deaths / injuries from drunk drivers? It could put a lot of money in state / county and city treasuries. I did some research last year and if I remember right Kansans consume something like 62 million gallons of alcohol / beer / spirits a year (2004 or 2005 numbers). Raise the tax a dollar a gallon (equates to what about 10 cents or less on a can of beer?) bingo – 62 million available to fund addiction programs, repair universities infrastructures, promote business / tourism in Kansas, perhaps enough money to not need a casino in SE Kansas (for those of you who don’t want one). Raise em a little higher on imported alcohol to help domestic brewers etc to increase / keep market share ? (Something’s not right when we buy French wine and then rail at them for not helping the war on terror)
I doubt it would ever fly because the liquor lobby, (like the tobacco lobby) would raise a huge uproar, and our politicians will bend to the campaign bucks.
Also, if we want to eliminate the health hazards presented by smoking, would it help for everyone / associaton who has investments / stock / mutual funds with Tobacco companies to pull their investments from those companies?
Smoking and smokers are easy to pick on.
The fatties are next! Trans fat ban!
You know I wouldn’t care so much about the smoking bans indoors really if they’d stop trying to get everyone to stop smoking by force. By barring employment by smokers, to not allowing smoking on the premises even outdoors.
They’ve gone too far. Now it’s time to fight back.
and anyone who says this isn’t about picking on smokers simply because THEY don’t like it is smoking something else.
Exactly Joe, it’ll be fat debit cards coming next. Turn it in every week before you get to buy the government mandated groceries. Two pounds overweight and it’s lettuce for you for the month!
I know i will get stoned for this, but doesn’t it seem like the most “liberal” communities are the ones that often have the greatest restrictions? For instance, smoking bans, outodoor consumption of ice creams (think Monterey)etc?
And liberal communities are also the meanest to their homeless population and minorities as well.
It’s basically white elitism. Lawrence is a good example.
Last time I was in Monterey (last summer) I ate ice cream outside.
Joe – the difference with smoke is the issue that smoke from ‘your’ cigarette can migrate to ‘my’ air. That is not the case with my French Fries.
Was it not Monterey that passed the city ordinance about eating icecream outside while not in an approved area? My memory must be failing. i will have to do a search.
Joe, perhaps things have changed in the nearly 28 years since I last resided in Lawrence, but at that time, the University community could be generally described as politically liberal, but the city itself, excluding the University community, was most definitely not. In fact, the University community itself was not nearly as politically liberal in 1977 (return to school from the USAF) as it had been in 1973 (leave school for the USAF).
As I say, it’s been 28 years; things may have changed. However, the homeless policy which you properly point out is reflective of attitudes in Lawrence closely held, “back in the day”, by the permanent residents there.
I’ve know people that turned down good jobs because they smoked. They’d rather be poor, live off welfare so they can smoke.
Some smokers are careless too. I can remember at least half a dozen times traveling down an Interstate and get a spark spewing cigarette butt bouncing off my windshield.
I remember a Lt. Col I worked for that I didn’t know who smoked. I went to his house and he lit up. When I asked him about it, he said around my job I am professional won’t smoke and won’t subject others to the smoke of my cigarettes.
I thought that was the best answer I’ve ever heard from a smoker.
Amend end of 11:11AM post by striking period at end of last sentence and adding the following thereto: “who were not a part of the University community.”
Rep – and a good answer at that!
Be careful Joe Williams on picking on FATTIES, they can sit on you and not know it.You can disappear for years in the folds of blubber.What do you think happen to Jimmy Hoffa?
Vaughn, I’d say no, else it would be simple to extend the logic to anyone that was overweight, didn’t work our regularly, drank, or had a genetic pre-disposition to some disease.
“If the employees did NOT go in any area where they were around his smoke would you support allowing him to smoke?”
Yes but I have never been in any business where employees never go near or in the boss’ office.
The law in Georgia is that a business must make clear that it is a smoking business on the signage and nobody under 21 is allowed to enter.
The genereal rule on employment is this- your employer may fire you for any reason at anytime or for no given reason at all except for things like race, sex, national origin and religion- and in some places homosexuality. He may fire you for smoking, being overweight or being underweight. Unless you are union, you have no right to a job at all. I do not support that concept but that is the law.
The problem with “outdoor smokers” in many areas is the fact that they tend to gather and engage in their nasty dirty habits right outside the doors where people have to run a gauntlet of smoke to enter or exit the building. The should be forced to go around the corner, into the alley or parking garage to smoke.
“As I say, it’s been 28 years; things may have changed. However, the homeless policy which you properly point out is reflective of attitudes in Lawrence closely held, “back in the day”, by the permanent residents there.”
Things have changed. Douglas County is the only “always blue” county in Kansas.
If I were a Supreme Court Justice, I would light a delicious Sancho Panza cigar (creamy flavor in a dark maduro wrapper for a mere four bones at the shop), just as I am doing now, and put out a bold, sweeping statement that banning activities in general is a lousy idea. The popular trend at the moment is to bag on smoking and it’s easy to see all the sheep getting in line. This comes as no great surprise, of course. People only mind it when things are banned if they happen to enjoy the banned activity. You currently have a pattern where employers and legislators think that it is their business to get right smack dab in the middle of your business. And then you have the increasingly fragile citizenry, who apparently can’t withstand a split second of walking through some guy’s cigarette smoke on the sidewalk outside of a building. Let me tell you something: if that brief exposure to smoke is enough to put you down, then you were fated to be ill from the start and you were going to join Julius Caesar, anyway. The only thing that I want to ban is banning itself, a moratorium on the practice for a decade. Next they’ll try to bring back ostracism.
Kev, I would suggest that is a reflection of the University community and the votes cast thereby. I am aware that at my time on campus, political activity by students, et al, tended to be limited to national elections, and local matters were essentially ignored by the same folks (sometimes, to their disadvantage).
Ostracism for smokers? Sounds good to me!I’m really allergic to cigarette smoke, so don’t give me the bullshit about “smoker’s rights”, your rights stop where mine begin, and I have the right to breathe.
Perhaps Ms. Caruso can put together a list of activities that she wishes to have banned and they can ship it on up to the Supreme Court and get the whole thing done in a single session. After that, everyone in Kansas and the United States will simply have to keep it in mind that their rights end where Ms. Caruso’s begin. Presumably, the aforementioned poster retains the option to add to the list in the event that other allergies arise as time goes on. Sounds reasonable enough to me, Ms. Caruso. We can all just check in from time to time at “We Blog” to see if you thought of anything else that we really shouldn’t be doing. I already figured out that I damn right well better not get poor. Until then, it’s going to be the Sancho Panzas after dinner and the lovely Carlos Torano Virtuosos before bed.
I forgot to mention that I might mix in an H. Upmann Belicoso on occasion, or perhaps a Partagas Black Clasico. Dark chocolate is the flavor on that one. I’ve never smoked a bad one.
I really don’t give a damn what you do to your lungs, just don’t do it around me. The idea that you think you have the right to pollute my air with your poison shows how shallow and self centered you are.
Mary – will you join me in supporting people’s choice to smoke as long as they do not EXHALE?
Query: if an employer furnishes health insurance to employees, and if the rates for said insurance are higher for smokers than for nonsmokers, then should an employer be free to reject smokers as job applicants and to terminate smoking employees, even if said employees who smoke only do so “on their own time”, away from the workplace?
Posted by: Vaughn Tolle | April 20, 2007 at 08:59 AM
Vaughn – If that is the case, then what about people who do not eat healthy or drink heavily. The former is the second highest cause of preventable death, after smoking, and the latter has been shown to cause heart disease and liver disease. I understand insurance is out of control, but smoking is not the only cause for poor health, and soon, will not be the worst cause. Soon it will be obesity, and how in the WORLD do you legislate obesity prevention?
TDT, that’s really a red herring. Smoking is a specific and easily identifiable health risk that can be easily avoided by on simple thing: Stopping smoking.
Dietary health risks are a different story. People can’t just stop eating. :)
TDT, I read something just this morning that leads me to believe that the next step for employers is to attack obesity. It is not an issue for legislation; rather, it is an issue to be determined between the employer and employee in reference to the provision of medical insurance as an employment benefit.
Abraham Lincoln said, “It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues.” When you consider that Hitler did not smoke and Churchill had one burning all the time, Honest Abe might have had a point. I would take it further: statesmen trend toward vice; tyrants trend toward perfectionism.
Don’t worry, I have my share of vices! But at least mine aren’t a threat to anyone but me.