Yes, ban smoking in KC casinos. Here's what Atlantic City did

Bill, the study shows that nonsmokers in homes with smokers are exposed to more smoke than if there is not a smoking ban. Presumably there are staying home to smoke instead of going out in public and that's why they expose others to more smoke. While on its face it sounds ludiicrous, I can see it happening.

However the fact that nonsmokers, and especially children are exposed to ANY smoke is reprehensible.

This is not the fault of bans or taxes, it is the fault of irresponsible parents and other residents living in the same domicile who smoke in the same room as the children or nonsmokers.

If you're so afraid of children in homes with smoking parents breathing more smoke, you should be going after the smokers.

The smoking ban will cause Kansas City kids to breathe more smoke. Is this OK with you?
http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications.php?publication_id=3523

"Reducing second hand smoke or reducing the epidemic of obesity?"

Why not both?

Clearly, smoking bans tend to lead to fewer folks smoking. It's a no-brainer public policy move in that not only does it eliminate a health hazard for nonsmokers, but it has the collateral effect of reducing smoking rates across the board (which no doubt is why R.J. Reynolds poured a quarter of a million dollars into the "NO on 3!" campaign).

How would you address obesity, Mark? I don't see a move that could be taken that would be as cheap and as effective as the smoking ban is for addressing smoking.

You can't control what people eat. Would you advocate putting public funds into recreational facilities? Bettering parks? Creating more walking areas?

Or is it a case of "you can lead a horse to water...."?

How much will our health insurance premiums and health care costs be reduced now that this public smoking ban has taken affect? Second hand smoke has been protrayed by the KC Star as public health enemy number 1, so we should see significant improvements in health and reductions in health care cost. Please, tell me how much does Blue Cross of KC anticipate lowering premiums in the next few years?

I'm just curious about which health issue will lower health care cost more? Reducing second hand smoke or reducing the epidemic of obesity? What's the answer KC Star?

I've just become your #1 fan.

As a bartender I can say unequivocally that what Bill Hannegan believes isn't "worth regulating" is MY health and safety. He doesn't even live here, so he doesn't get to decide that! I can speak for myself, thank you. And I say "hallelujah" to the smoking ban.

I've been in places with big ventilation/filtration systems and they're only as good as the proper maintenance performed to keep them working correctly. But even then, they don't keep the air clean. Only lack of smoke will do that.

"Smokeaters" don't work and are annoying, exhaust/fan systems are prohibitively expensive and as I said, must be properly maintained (if you have ever been in Buzzard Beach in Westport, they have a system that does absolutely nothing to eradicate the smoke and I know it cost a LOT of scratch to install - and it only would affect the main floor if it actually worked).

Bill Hannegan doesn't care about workers' health, that's obvious. Anyone who thinks any (ANY) amount of passive or aggressive smoke is harmless is living on another planet. I don't care if it's going to kill me or just make me more susceptible to colds and flu: if it's bad for me it's bad for me. And what doesn't kill me actually weakens my immune system (apologies to Descartes).

Stay in MN or St. Louis or wherever it is you live and let me breathe clean air, Bill. The total ban can't go into effect soon enough for me.

As for the casino loophole looking like "divide and conquer," looks like it was a great strategy. Kansas City voters were plenty smart to take the first step in freeing the rest of our enclosed work places of a known health hazard. Did all you smoking zealots scream foul when airlines went smoke free? How about city buildings? Grocery stores? Department stores? Hospitals? There's a good reason smoking is prohibited in these places and it's because it's a health hazard and an annoyance. Those employees (and nonsmoking customers) were valuable enough to protect from the dangers of passive smoke. Why not your local restaurant/bar staff? Are we not worth it? Is your addiction so much more important?

Bill Hannegan wants me to suffer until casino employees don't suffer? That's outrageous. But why would any rational community reverse the will of the people? The city council wouldn't (and should never) dare. Bill thinks it's okay for me to smoke involuntarily. It's ridiculous to believe that anything coming off a cigarette is ONLY harmful if you suck on the cigarette directly. Is there some magical filter it goes through before hitting my nose? No, and it's folly to think it isn't damaging my lungs. Interface is right. The casino loophole should be closed next.

So keep your crusade to your own town, Bill, unless you're lobbying for the casinos to go nonsmoking too. Try pretending you care about people. You're tilting at windmills. You can't even vote here and neither can the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

You are the disgrace, Bill, trying to influence people on the other side of the state to rally against the voting majority. You should be ashamed of yourself, stating that workers aren't worthy of a healthy working environment.

Thank you, Interface, for being a steady, rational, eloquent voice in the smoke.

"Please tell me why the casinos were excluded from the public vote. This just looks like divide and conquer to me."

Me too. In retrospect, seems to have been a fairly sound strategy. Now we'll see if they're successful and get the casino loophole closed.

"I don't believe secondhand smoke in properly ventilated and filtrated venues is a health problem worth regulating."

Thanks for sharing your opinion. I'm sticking with the American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, and the Surgeon General on this one.

"With the nwe regulations, the only place you will be able to smoke is in a completely enclosed room with no slot machines or anything else."

I think Ross Balano will back me up in saying that's an incorrect reading of the plain language of the new law. The measure voted in on Tuesday exempts "casino gaming areas" from the ban.

What happens in Kansas City affects the rest of the state. A St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter asked my reaction to the Kansas City ban this morning. So apparently the press thinks I should be looking at the Kansas City public smoking law.

Please tell me why the casinos were excluded from the public vote. This just looks like divide and conquer to me. Why weren't Kansas City casinos smart enough to see this? When such a law was proposed in St. Louis, casinos here rejected the exemption and rallied to the cause of mom and pop businesses. Thus we have no ban.

I don't believe secondhand smoke in properly ventilated and filtrated venues is a health problem worth regulating. And OSHA agrees with me. So I believe bars should be given a stay of execution until the casinos are included. I really do feel sorry for Kansas City bars.

What the writer fails to mention is that since the partial smoking ban was passed in March of 2007, the casinos have lost over 10% of their annual revenue after years of steady growth. Granted, a part of that is due to the economic downturn, but the vast majority of it is to business lost to nearby states and Indian Reservations that have either slot parlors or casinos without smoking bans. With the nwe regulations, the only place you will be able to smoke is in a completely enclosed room with no slot machines or anything else. I'm not a smoker (by choice, not because I was forced to by the government), but I am smart enough to know smoking gamblers are not going to give up a winning slot machine or go have a cigarette in the middle of a hot streak. They will simply find themselves a casino that will let them smoke and gamble at the same time.

Contrary to the opinions espoused by the media and the American Cancer Society, a large number of people, smokers and non-smokers alike, have no problem being around second hand smoke. It's all a matter of common courtesy and respect for others. I do know that there are other casinos near Kansas city and if they allow smoking, Kansas City casinos can expect a loss of revenue. The virulent anti-smoking crowd seems to forget that a large number of gamblers may not be smokers, but may have partners, friends, spouses that are.

Bill, by your own admission, you're either from St. Louis or Minnesota, or both, and you don't live in -- or one hopes, vote in -- Kansas City. Given that, I can't help but observe, yet again, you seem oddly concerned with the laws that Kansas Citians are voting on.

Moreover, what you propose would be an absurd response by the Council, one which directly ignores the health concerns of folks who work in bars and restaurants as well as those who work in casinos, in addition to being in direct contravention to the will of Kansas Citians as expressed in Tuesday's vote.

A rational response would be for the City Council to close the Casino gaming floor loophole, so that Casino gaming floors, like Casino bars and restaurants and other bars and restaurants, and, indeed, all enclosed KCMO workplaces, are subject to the same clean workplace air standards.

When St. Louis County Councilman Kurt Odenwald tried to put a smoking ban on the ballot back in 2006 that exempted casinos, conservative groups organized and stopped him. Where were the conservative groups in Kansas City? I just was talking to a St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter who is writing a smoking ban story for tomorrow's paper. She pretty much agreed with me that a public health law that bans smoking in a cigar shop but allows it on the casino gaming floor is a joke and a disgrace.

I feel sorry for Kansas City bar owners. The Kansas City Coucil should vote in a measure that allows smoking in bars until smoking is outlawed in casinos. Kansas City looks terrible right now.

I’m awfully glad that you read what you are voting for. Now I wish you would take time to read what is actually written on this blog before repeating, again and again, the same old line.

Let me explain for you.

Today Yael laments the weakness of the mayor and the lack of guts and leadership by the city council because they didn’t include the casinos. He calls the Atlantic City approach, “much better.”

My point is that Yael should have expressed this opinion before April 8 rather than wholeheartedly supporting the law that was voted in on April 8.

Yes EVERYONE knew that the casinos were exempted before the vote. Yael was fine with that before the vote. Why not now? I suggest to you that there was a conscious effort to avoid saying anything even remotely negative so as not to adversely affect the outcome.

And NO, I don’t think the voters are idiots. In fact I believe the opposite. It was me that wrote on this blog that we should not encourage or support a challenge to this new law and that the will of the people should be respected even though I still feel that the ban is bad law. See my column, “No challenge to smoking ban” submitted on April 10 if you need proof.

Ross Balano Midwest Voices 2008

It was well-publicized, both by the Star and elsewhere, that the plain language of the measure had an exemption for the gaming floors of casinos, though it did apply to non-gaming areas of casinos.

From Saturday, April 5:

Question 3 on the Kansas City ballot asks voters whether smoking should be banned from bars and restaurants.

Health-care advocates and many civic organizations support the ban, saying Kansas City should join other cities internationally in providing comprehensive smoke-free work places. Opponents say a ban would hurt the mom-and-pop bars and restaurants that are the mainstay of Kansas City’s nightlife.

If voters approve the ban, it takes effect in 60 days and supersedes a City Council measure that took effect March 24. Smoking would be banned at all times in Kansas City bars and restaurants. It would still be allowed on casino gambling floors, but only until a ban is adopted in casinos in neighboring cities.

If the ban is defeated, a law passed by the City Council remains in effect. That law allows smoking at all times in bars, and allows smoking after 9 p.m. in restaurants with liquor licenses, as long as all patrons are 21 or older.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/story/563161.html

From Fri., April 4:

The smoking ban, Question 3 on the ballot, was the result of a grass-roots petition initiative. It rivals another measure that the City Council approved in January and that took effect March 24.

If the ballot measure passes, it will replace the City Council’s smoking rules. If it fails, the council measure remains the city law. The measure requires a simple majority for passage.

The ballot and City Council versions represent two attitudes toward smoking. One follows a smoking-ban trend around the country; the other says that smoking is still a legal activity and should be allowed in adult venues.

The main differences between the two approaches:

• Restaurants and bars: The council version allows smoking in bars and in restaurants with liquor licenses after 9 p.m. as long as all patrons are 21 or older. The ballot measure simply bans smoking from all bars and restaurants.

• Stadiums: The council version halts smoking throughout Kauffman and Arrowhead. The ballot measure leaves the status quo, which prohibits smoking in seating areas and restrooms but generally allows it in more open areas.

• Casinos: The council measure allows smoking in the city’s two casinos, including in casino restaurants after 9 p.m. The ballot measure allows smoking on gaming floors but prohibits it in bars and restaurants in the casino complexes. Smoking on the gaming floors would be banned as soon as casinos in neighboring counties go along.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/neighborhood/kansas_city/story/560116.html

Also on Friday, April 3:

QUESTION 3

Prohibit smoking in enclosed places of employment, enclosed public places and on public sidewalks abutting acute-care hospitals, while allowing it in casino gaming areas until all casinos in the Missouri counties of Jackson, Platte and Clay, and the Kansas counties of Johnson and Wyandotte are obligated to prohibit smoking within the casino areas where gambling games are allowed to promote public health by decreasing exposure to secondhand smoke and creating smoke- free environments in the work place and all public places.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics/story/559951-p2.html

I didn't go back any further because that's as far as the free, non-archived stuff on the Star's website went, but it's plain as the language in the ballot measure that yes, Virginia, the exemption for gaming floors of casinos was indeed covered in the Star (and trumpeted about over and over again on signs funded by R.J. Reynolds America as well as mentioned a number of times on this website by not a few folks, including our own Ross Balano himself.

So yeah, the myth that the casino gaming floor exemption was somehow swept under the rug by the Star is just that, a myth.

Let's see if the City Council has the cajones to close the loophole in Question 3, which was clearly a strategic move on the part of the clean air proponents to keep the casinos from trying to sidetrack this much-needed measure.

This story should have been written and printed BEFORE the April 8 vote.

There were many of us trying to make the point that it was wrong not to include the casinos but The Star said nothing. Perhaps there was a concern that saying this before might in some small way hurt the chances of passage.

A real show of guts would have been for The Star to have called for the inclusion of the casinos before the vote.

Ross Balano Midwest Voices 2008

Keep the pressure on, Yael!