By Yael T. Abouhalkah, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist
KC Health Director Rex Archer is checking into whether the Police Department is violating the city's smoke-free ordinance by allowing suspects to smoke while being interrogated at police headquarters.
I called the Health Department Wednesday after seeing this paragraph in a document written by police Capt. Don Sight. He was discussing what the department would want in a new regional jail, to be operated by Jackson County.
It should also be noted, most detectives would like to be able to offer cigarettes to suspects while interrogating them. Detectives allow prisoners to smoke in the interrogation rooms on the second floor. If possible they would like to be able to continue this. Many detectives feel that this is a key for getting a confession from certain suspects.
But police headquarters are in a public building, which presumably means smoking should not be allowed there.
The voter-approved initiative passed in 2008 applies to all city buildings.
On Thursday I called Overland Park and Olathe to see whether the area's next two largest cities allow suspects to smoke while being interrogated.
They don't.
"That's just not been an issue with us," said Jim Weaver, public information officer for the Overland Park Police Department.
Ditto for Olathe's department, said city spokesman Tim Danneberg.
Both did say that, if police wanted to allow a suspect to smoke during interrogation, they would go outside to do it.
And both conceded that the KC Police Department handles a lot more suspects in a day than do Overland Park and Olathe.
If the KC Police Department is violating the smoke-free law, the agency probably will have to come up with some other way to handle smoking and suspects.
Delicious
Digg
Comparing the interrogation
Comparing the interrogation methods used by Olathe and Overland Park with the KC police department is reminiscent of Eddy Murphy's comparison of the Detroit and Beverly Hills police departments in the movie Beverly Hills Cop. Both Olathe and OP have very good police departments but the criminal element they routinely deal with might be slightly different than what the Kansas City detectives face, if only in their use of tobacco products. I'm surprised you didn't check in with Aunt Bea to see if Andy and Barney every offered Otis a smoke when they were trying to find out the location of his favorite still.
Yael does
And we don't even know yet if it is true! At least Yael did mention that in the article.
So why does Yael write a nice article like this instead of waiting to see if it is true? Or calling the police himself and asking? Now that's a good question.
Good Grief..
.... who cares.
Ban Sources
These smoking bans will probably go down in history as one of the greatest marketing scams ever by using tax exempt political action committees calling themselves "charities". They want to "hurry up and pass the bans" before people find out who is paying the lobbyists pushing for them by using our tax money.
Here's the beginning of the ban movement in the USA.
www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?ia=143&id=14912
Here are the instructions from Johnson and Johnsons' (makers of cessation products) RWJ Foundation for their tax exempt political action committees. They are getting enough money from the RWJ Foundation, plus using MY tax money. They aren't getting any more money from me.
www.no-smoke.org/pdf/CIA_Fundamentals.pdf
Riled up the Nest
Those pro-smoking gnats are swarming you again, Yael.
chazzykc _just can't stand_ to see articles about smoking bans. Have you been forcing him to read them?
And this generalsn spews his tripe on every message board in the country. Google him, if you have time to waste on sheer tedium.
Keep up the good work, Yael. You must be doing something right!
Give it a rest Yael
How many more vacuous anti smoking rants must Yael subject us to? It's at least his twentieth over the last 12 months or so.
Here's a subject worth opining about: What is the purpose of a blog? It would appear that Yael and his reactionary superiors are committed to redefining the term.
Yes: it's your website. Yes: it is your right to do as you wish on your website.
But at some point is it not incumbent on the Star to declare, simply, that they are disinterested in hosting what we, the comsuming public, have come to expect from a weblog.
You guys have, in just this week, censored posits of not only a significant number of fairly loyal participants but also many of those of the "priviliged" Midwest Voices columnists.
You Guys have even removed entire threads from the blog with as many as 25 participants in the threads. What gives with that?
Is it important? Not in the grand scheme of things. No, of course not.
But, is it bothersome to those who view the Star with a degree of urgency regarding the survival of our fourth estate standard bearer?
ABSOLUTELY
Their have many pejoratives directed at the Star's left leaning editorial board on this blog and in the letters to the editor. The Star's folks rarely respond.... in any forum or form. That's OK.
It seems to this reader that it would be in the Star's long term interest to build a solid following of participants with legitimate controls in place with well communicated rules consistently and fairly applied.
Perhaps the death throes rumored around the web hold more weight and focus than developing and nurturing one of the backbone components of the "new media".
I would hope that is not the case. I would also hope that the star would advise us what their intent is moving forward.
Smoking Ban
This whole ban thing is a joke. Here in my area of Chicago, some of the patrons in small neighborhood bars that ignore the Illinois ban are off duty police officers. Some of them call their favorite bars if the "butt police" are in the area. The only complaints are from neighbors of the bars that comply. Al Capone is laughing in his grave. "Just sign this confession, then you can go out and smoke" Chicago's John Burge would have loved the ban.
JHC!!
AYSM??
Exuse me, I have to get back to the real world now........
Yael, good catch
I'm SO GLAD you are on the ball and caught the police doing this. After all, there aren't more important things to cover. What's next I wonder?
Getting a flashback
of Sharon Stone in "Basic Instinct" on being told there was no smoking in the building while being interrogated:
"What are you going to do? Charge me with smoking?"
Actually, you have to wonder about the wisdom of taking subjects outside to smoke. Are they shackled and cuffed? What happens the first time someone escapes while on a smoke break?