Like his predecessor, Gov. Mark Parkinson supports a statewide smoking ban in public places. He said this week that he also may push for an increase in the state’s 79 cents-a-pack cigarette tax. Both moves could help lower the yearly toll that smoking-related illness takes on Kansas, including 4,000 deaths and $200 million in Medicaid costs. And the statewide public ban makes sense, given the proven health risks of secondhand smoke. But with so many communities now having their own indoor clean-air ordinances, passing a statewide ban becomes more complicated. In Wichita, for example, some businesses that chose last year to continue to allow smoking spent money to create smoking rooms with separate ventilation. Will public health trump local control?
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
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- Blaidd_Drwg69 on Whose ‘unchecked spending’?
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- Blaidd_Drwg69 on Too many exemptions
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- Jed on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
12 Comments
I compromise should be reached. Make sure the law is enforceable.
There should be a way to allow locals to have a say in what their community does.
Find a compromise.
Here we go again. If they are going to put a new tax on cigarettes and ban smoking, then they should do the same for alcohol. Of course they won’t because most people want to drink. Does that make it o.k. to drink and not to smoke? I have seen alcohol do more damage than smoking has. I wonder if the new governor takes a drink? And Rhonda, what about the proven health risks of drinking?
public health my foot. “Proven health risks from second-hand smoke’ is bullsheet. Just as much of a myth as ‘Saddam has weapons of mass destruction”.
Stop playing propaganda nazis.
All in favor say “Aye.”
All opposed, “Cough up a lung.”
If cigarettes get so high priced that people can’t afford them, they can quit them and buy marijuana. I hear it only costs half as much. The money saved on quitting cigarettes can also be spent on alcohol. Evidently it is SAFE to use. No health hazard associated with alcohol??
The tax burden on that last smoker might drive him or her to drink!
You can bet there will be loopholes in that smoking ban. The legislature is not about to give up all that revenue!
As I’ve said before, sin taxes give the state a vested interest in keeping people sinning.
*snicker*
Somehow, I knew PeeMom would weigh in on this one.
“79 cents-a-pack cigarette tax“, mov-oo off of my cash utters!.
Its not Communism if it does not effect you!
if it is all about “public health” when will the nanny government start requiring legal weight limits? mandatory blood pressure levels?
I don’t smoke and am not directly affected by smoking laws. I am, however, continually appalled by the increase in nanny laws.
Raptor aren’t you one who cries and writes editorials about the need to ban cell phones while driving?? or is it just a nanny state law when its something you a oppose?
Smoking should be banned in all public places. Bars, stores, restaurants, all of them. Drinking is not a valid comparison. Someone having a drink does NOT get you drunk along with them. There is no way someone could smoke without forcing you to also breathe that smoke. It’s not the same.
Let people smoke all they want at home. In public, take it outside.
And before you whine about drinking and driving, that’s already against the law. If the police would buy more breathalyzers than radar guns, maybe they’d catch more impaired drivers.