Kansas lawmakers puffing about smoking ban
Barb Shelly
The Kansas Legislature shows signs of regressing.
About a dozen House members are co-sponsoring a bill that would roll back the excellent statewide ban on smoking in public buildings and most private businesses. Their effort, House Bill 2690, would leave it up to business owners to decide whether smoking should be allowed, as long as the clientele was 21 or older.
This is moving in the wrong direction. As Mary Jayne Hellebust, executive director of the Tobacco Free Kansas Coalition, told a legislative committee, lawmakers should be moving toward the exemptions written into their 2010 smoking ban law. I’d put the state-operated casinos at the top of that list. There is no reason they should be allowed smoking privileges when private businesses aren’t.
Nationally and in Kansas, research consistently shows that smoking bans dramatically improve air quality and health outcomes. Preliminary studies on the first year of the smoking ban have shown it has not overall resulted in a slippage of business for bars and restaurants. Some proprietors have moved from opposing it to applauding the ban.
Let’s hope the Kansas Legislature is too busy mulling some of Gov. Sam Brownback’s more radical proposals to move this bad idea along.
George Hunsucker
Northland
1 year, 2 months agoYes ma’m ms. shelly. Why should a business owner have any control over running her/his business when CONSENTING ADULTS are the only customers present?
I much prefer your all-knowing heavy hand of government TELLING the property owner what to do. Why, that’s the American way, isn’t it? To hell with property rights and personal responsibility, we, the lib govt. know better, so shape up!!!
Mindi Gomez
1 year, 2 months agoPerhaps they have seen the results in the only smart city in the area.
Raytown saw millions of dollars in tax revenues raised when Kansas City put in a smoking ban, then again when Independence put in theirs, Raytown has more police officers, new bridges, better street maintenance and all on the backs of the hated smokers, a group that has been victimized by a minority of pesky, small minded folks who do not understand that a drink and a cigarette are part of life, and that smoking should be allowed in bars.
I hope this trend goes nationwide, and that the victims of the latest witch hunt can have their freedoms back.
Non smokers have their own venues, let the smokers have the same right.
Roger Feeley
1 year, 2 months agoLike or not folks, we are all in this together. It’s a fact that smokers run up higher medical bills and those bills are paid by us all. Please don’t be surprised if those of us who don’t smoke aren’t too thrilled by the cost of those of us that do. The same goes for other self destructive behaviors like not using motorcycle helmets, drinking and driving, etc, etc.
If smokers want to be totally free of the nanny state, they are going to have to decline the benefits of sharing health insurance with non-smokers. That would mean a health care system just for smokers.
Pam Parker
1 year, 2 months agoBarb Shelley thinks the Kansas smoking ban is excellent, huh? Well, what bar does Ms. Shelley own? I just love when people who have no financial investment in a business offer their editorial comments!
I’m tired of people who do NOT own OUR businesses making decisions that impact OUR businesses!
And to Mr. Feeley, smokers pay their OWN medical bills! What other “self destructive behaviors” do you want to ban? Skateboarding, rollerblading, hockey, etc?
I’m surprised you weren’t on the panel on CNN that spent 10 minutes discussing BANNING HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL because it’s a risky behavior. Where will you people like you END pushing your morals off on everyone else? Are you going to ban keno, gaming casinos, too? How about you take care of nannying your OWN family and leave everyone else alone. Oh…and your kids don’t belong in our adult-only bars.
Barb Shelly
1 year, 2 months agoThank you all for your comments on this post. I especially appreciate hearing from a bar owner. While I’ve never thought about a health care system just for smokers, as Roger proposed, the data is clear that smoking is a big expense in state Medicaid programs.
Sheila Martin
1 year, 2 months agoBarb knows as much about the science of second hand smoke as she knows about running a bar! And by the way, you would have had more comments from bar owners if the paper had not blocked them fron signing in this morning!
Bob Johnson
1 year, 2 months agoIf you google “Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, smokeless states program” You will see the funding source that keeps these “coalitions” going. Johnson and Johnson.
Allan Marshall
1 year, 2 months agoWhile this was sad to read, I’m not surprised that someone who probably has never talked to a bar owner affected by a smoking ban(and he/she noticing the major loss of customers), and has an irrational hatred of smoking because of how successful the anti-smoking lobby has demonized smokers, wrote such an disappointing opinion piece. What business should someone have to complain about smoking, if this is to pass, and smokers have a limited number of adult-only businesses(other than casinos) they can patronize again? I would assume this bill would require smoking bars to post exterior ‘this is a smoking establishment’ signage, so I don’t see what’s the problem as long as one uses common sense, and votes with their wallet for smoke-free bars, if they dislike smoky bars that much.
IMHO, I’d rather see the state ban relaxed further to the fairer level that the Wichita city smoking ban was set at, but this is a welcome start for restoring property rights, and for the personal liberties of bar owners that’d rather cater to smokers, and those who would rather hang out in a smoking environment. It will always be wrong to demonize minority groups within the overall population and impose unnecessary laws, just because a vocal few may have an irrational hatred of smoking, and disguise it under the banner of health.