By Yael T. Abouhalkah, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist
Check off another victory for KC's tough smoke-free law.
On Tuesday, the Missouri Court of Appeals upheld the law passed by voters in 2008.
The result: Smoking continues to be banned in bars, restaurants and many other public places in Kansas City.
That's wonderful news for tens off thousands of Kansas Citians who don't want to be exposed in public places to harmful cigarette and pipe smoke.
The victory was yet another defeat for Jonathan Sternberg, the attorney representing a bar that is challenging the city's law. He has long claimed that state law doesn't allow the city to prohibit smoking in certain public places.
So far, however, the courts are agreeing with the city's legal team, which says the city can regulate smoking in public places.
Delicious
Digg
Thanks punky...
Good read. Interesting that statistics are only through '97. Also interesting, the dreaded SMOKE was no where mentioned in the article.
history of occupational safety
interesting read.
http://www.weitzlux.com/workaccidentshistory_725.html
Why?
Why is it the voter's business what happens between a business owner and his employees? Shouldn't it be their business? And if it is AT LEAST AS important the workers have a safe and healthy workplace it seems to me this law makes it MORE IMPORTANT than the business owner's right to run his business as he sees fit.
Now I will agree safety is extremely important. But it sure seems to me there has been a rush to crush property rights here.
my
you are wielding a heavy hand with the post editing today, Yael.
sure
I recognize that there's no absolute "property right," and that the right of the property (or business) owner ends where the rights of others begin.
I'm simply arguing that the right of a worker to a safe and healthy workplace is at least as valid as that of the business owner to run his business as he sees fit -- and that it's certainly permissible for the voters of Kansas City to prioritize the worker's right to a safe working environment over a business owner's right to allow smoking.
Bingo Twas...
The fact of the matter is the libs want to continue getting all this free tobacco money, while passing regressive sin taxes that hurt the "poor" whom the libs profess to be soooooooooooo concerned about.
In fact, the libs only concern about the poor is every election cycle when the libs want and, mysteriously to me, get their vote.
Yes, property rights, Interface
because the property he mentions is a place of business owned by a private citizen who wants to serve (and make a profit) from law-abiding people.
Your argument (popular vote) only is applicable for property that is owned by the public.
Now if you want to make smoking illegal, that changes things.
It seems to me
Interface, you are also picking and choosing what rights to protect.
property rights?
what about a worker's right to a safe and healthy working environment?
Seems to me that you're picking and choosing what "rights" you'd protect.
Furthermore, if this were truly a "fascist" decision, seems to me that, by the definition of fascism, the corporate entities would have overriden the will of the people as expressed in the popular vote to ban smoking in enclosed workplaces.
But you've demonstrated time and again that you don't seem to understand just what fascism is, other than a term to bandy about against those with whom you disagree.
.
.