The Kansas City Council thought it knew best last January when it passed a weak smoke-free law that covered a limited number of bars and restaurants.
But voters thought differently. In April, they approved a tougher law proposed through an initiative petition by health-advocacy groups.
Finally, after years of debate, the city has a law that protects people from harmful smoke in public places, including all bars and restaurants.
However, politicians are looking at ways to change what voters approved just five months ago. This matter, scheduled for discussion today at City Hall, does not deserve a rushed verdict. The proposed changes would:
Allow smoking in tobacco shops.
Modify where smoking is permitted on casinos.
Tobacco shop operators have complained to City Hall that the ban has harmed their businesses. They point out that some cities, including New York, exempt tobacco shops from smoke-free ordinances. But bans in states such as Washington do not.
In the April vote, Kansas Citians knew the proposed ordinance was one of the nation’s strongest. Based on that election, the council should not create a new exemption for tobacco shops.
The proposed casino modification is another matter. The current law allows smoking on “the paths of ingress and egress immediately adjacent to and contiguous with the excursion gambling boat.” So people have been lighting up in hallways outside gambling floors.
During the smoke-free campaign, however, voters were constantly told that the law would confine smoking to the gambling floors. The proposed restriction could better achieve that result. It says people could smoke in an area “within which gaming is allowed,” but not in hallways.
That change would appear to be more in line with the voter sentiment expressed last April.









Delicious
Digg
Thomas, Why don't you
Thomas,
Why don't you tell us that your own Ontario passed a tougher smoking ban by a vote of 71 to 6. 71 to 6 ... if my grade school math helps me here that is over 10 to 1. What a majority.
In fact you could almost say it was unanimous.
I guess the public spoke in your province as well.
You know the people in your area who passed that law were elected by YOU. If you don't like the outcome run yourself or elect people who feel the same way you do but with a 10 to 1 vote - I see there are fewer than you think.
Down here ... "We The People" voted. And "We The People" passed the law - not our government. But thank you for reminding us of the difference between your Canadian laws and our local laws.
Smoking bans are the real health hazard
Smoking bans are the real hazard
The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation -
from sea to sea- has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed
threat of "second-hand" smoke.
Indeed, the bans themselves are symptoms of a far more grievous threat; a
cancer that has been spreading for decades and has now metastasized
throughout the body politic, spreading even to the tiniest organs of local
government. This cancer is the only real hazard involved - the cancer of
unlimited government power.
The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or a phantom
menace, as a study published recently in the British Medical Journal
indicates. The issue is: if it were harmful, what would be the proper
reaction? Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educating
people about the potential danger and allowing them to make
their own decisions, or should they seize the power of government and force
people to make the "right" decision?
Supporters of local tobacco bans have made their choice. Rather than
attempting to protect people from an unwanted intrusion on their health, the
tobacco bans are the unwanted intrusion.
Loudly billed as measures that only affect "public places," they have
actually targeted private places: restaurants, bars, nightclubs, shops, and
offices - places whose owners are free to set anti-smoking rules or whose
customers are free to go elsewhere if they don't like the smoke. Some local
bans even harass smokers in places where their effect on others is obviously
negligible, such as outdoor public parks.
The decision to smoke, or to avoid "second-hand" smoke, is a question to be
answered by each individual based on his own values and his own assessment
of the risks. This is the same kind of decision free people make regarding
every aspect of their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to befriend
or sleep with, whether to go to college or get a job, whether to get married
or divorced, and so on.
All of these decisions involve risks; some have demonstrably harmful
consequences; most are controversial and invite disapproval from the
neighbours. But the individual must be free to make these decisions. He must
be free, because his life belongs to him, not to his neighbours, and only
his own judgment can guide him through it.
Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Cigarette
smokers are a numerical minority, practicing a habit considered annoying and
unpleasant to the majority. So the majority has simply commandeered the
power of government and used it to dictate their behaviour.
That is why these bans are far more threatening than the prospect of
inhaling a few stray whiffs of tobacco while waiting for a table at your
favourite restaurant. The anti-tobacco crusaders point in exaggerated alarm
at those wisps of smoke while they unleash the systematic and unlimited
intrusion of government into our lives.
We do not elect officials to control and manipulate our behaviour.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Fascist Law! Many in KC
Fascist Law! Many in KC voted otherwise. Too many people wanting to save people from themselves. You know Hitler banned smoking....Just a thought.