SMOKING BAN

madman · Member

SMOKING BAN

Don Quixote · Member

Yah, I hear you madman. Judging from your letter you are mad as h*ll. Chill out.

Not sure how I feel about this issue. i.e. your right to smoke, my right to clean air.
I just know that the restaurants you mentioned no longer get my $$. Because each time I try, I always come out smelling like a big fat cigarette, and I don't even smoke. It gets in my clothes, even in my nostril long after the meal. I just can't do it, I've tried. Non-smoking section, ha. Incidentally, I like to eat at a restaurant in Ponca City, and they have a totally separate smoking section. (I mean completely enclosed, separate air and everything)
I guess I've pretty much told you how I'd vote on such an issue. Don't take it personally. I believe in individual rights and thinking along this line.

So, I feel your pain, but, I also don't want to get cancer either. I feel sorry for the workers in these places that are forced to breathe the smoke for 8 hours every day. What about them? Get another job? Probably not in this economic climate.

To ban or not to ban, that is the question. The citizens of Arkansas City will get a chance to decide.

longtimer · Veteran Member

I think a total ban is a bit too big brotherish. Having said that, putting a non smoking area in any open room without a physical separation is like putting a no peeing section in a swimming pool. It just doesn't work.

Yes we live in a free country. A country where the majority rules, at least in theory. 17% of adults smoke. That leaves the majority of 83% subject to the bad habits of the minority. I'm a reformed smoker. I stopped cold turkey in '82 from three packs a day. I am empathetic to the plight of of smokers BUT smokers need to realize that their smoke doesn't stop at the edge of the table they are sitting at. Yes smokers have rights but does that mean that the 83% of non smokers have no rights? Because Ark City has no smoke free restaurants, we don't have the right to enjoy a restaurant meal?

I was invited to join Clean Air Cowley County and I did but as I noted above I don't agree with a total ban as passed in Winfield. I think that private clubs & other organizations that require membership fees should have the right to exempt themselves. I feel it's wrong to totally ban a substance that is legal to buy & possess. However I also feel it's wrong for the minority to subject me to their bad habits.

If both sides are willing to compromise there should be common ground to be found somewhere in the middle. At the last meeting I asked the members to seek the business community's active participation since they will be affected by any changes. It is also incumbent on us, the citizens, to educate ourselves and voice our opinions.

There will be several open workshops designed to educate the public and city leaders about the dangers of second hand smoke. Before the process is done there will be ample opportunities for everyone to voice their opinions for or against. I encourage everyone with a concern to speak with those running for the commission and voice that concern for it will be that body that makes the final decision.

Lastly I don't share your paranoia about losing your second amendment rights because of a smoking ban. Any right given to one can be a right taken away from another. The balance of those rights is fluid and over time, constantly changing. Good for you that you are voicing your opinion. I hope you don't stop there. Citizen participation in all levels of governance is good.

blah · Senior Member

I'm going to have to agree with longtimer as well, a complete ban of smoking is too much because it applied to those in the private sector who should be allowed to decide that for themselves. I also agree with longtimers point about Daisy Mae's and Apco, the biggest factor in my decision not to eat there is the smoking atmosphere. I don't think you would see a net change in the number of customers at either of these places due to smoking (I mean holding off on a cigarette while in a restaurant isn't too big of a deal, most people don't start smoking until after they are done) and at the same time those who stopped going to those restaurants because of the smoke might start going more.

Zeke Bender · Member

They can have my cigarettes when they pry them from my cold, dead, hands.

Annlee · Veteran Member

I always wonder?

Every States budget is 1/4 or more from collected taxes on cigerettes?

Now the USA Government plans on cigerette added taxes to pay for all the New Medical for Children they passed?

I watch people, and I see far more smokers around than non-smokers: Makes me challenge the figures so many use that just do not logically add up?

I am probably a small passive smoker: One pack lasts me two weeks or more. Yet, when I desire one that is also my right, and where no smoking is posted I honor that request. But, outright bans in an entire City come from panic and fear as I see it, and from less than the majority in most instances. Although, I am sure many would disagree with that eye sight logic.

I do believe each business owner should always have the right to choose either way they decide, and politics should not enter that equation whatsoever.

Moreover, history teaches us that in times of bad employment and job loss that many who never smoked begin to smoke and those that do smoke begin to smoke more. Our economy is only at the tip of it's decline and over the hill resides DEPRESSION...which common sense sees as a real possibility. Even the trillions being pumped into the US economy will not be enough if history once more tells the tale: Japan in the 90's put trillions and trillions into their economy and THAT FAILED 100%....SAD BUT A TRUE FACT.

The smoking industry if viewed as a whole entity is larger than AIG.......You really want it sunk?

My thoughts shared: Blessings.......Annlee

Yossarian · Member

Here's my problem with the whole idea, the main arguments for and against hinge on two false ideas.

One is a person's right to clean air. This is just silly. What natural right does someone have to clean air in any place? If you are above a smoke stack, you have no right to clean air. So right away that idea should be dropped. If a someone starts blowing smoke into your home, then you have a legimitate complaint. In public, you have no right to clean air. Otherwise we would actually care about the pollution that pours out of cars.

On the reverse side is the idea that people have a right to smoke. That's just as silly. If you walk into my home, what natural right do you have to smoke? If I don't want you to smoke in my home, you don't have a real complaint if I ask you to step outside. If you are in your own home, I don't think there is a question that you can smoke if you chose to.

My biggest problem is the way these bans ignore the rights of business owners. This is the only legitimate right in this problem, and it is the one being infringed upon. If owners want to have a smoking section, that is their choice. If they lose your business because of it, that is their choice. If they can't find people to work their, that is their choice. But they own the place; they pay the upkeep, it is their decision. Look at bars. Some bars have smoking bans, some don't. Guess which ones are more popular? I think allowing or disallowing smoking is a personal decision of an owner and often a business decision. To force them to choose one way or another is to infringe upon that right.

On a side note, are you all really that afraid of dying from second hand smoke? If you were, maybe you should reconsider everything else in this world that is killing you just as fast. Say, time. Car emissions. What you eat. How you don't exercise. This isn't meant to apply to anyone in particular, but seriously, we're all dying. If people want to have fun while they're here, let them. If the citizens of ark city really cared about second-hand smoke, they would just force all of the restaurants with smoking out of business, not killing them with imposing legislation, like every other beautification bill passed.

Just my two cents.

blah · Senior Member

I don't think it has anything to do with a fear of dying from second hand smoke, more of the general disregard that most people who do smoke have for those of us whose choose not to. We can all come on here and claim that we smoke responsibly as not to impose on those who don't, but I think if you looked at the population as a whole you would find that not to be true.

madman · Member

I am glad to see that some people view a city wide smoking ban as wrong. Yossarian makes a good point about right to clean air. If a person drives a car, then by "right to clean air" you are infringing on my rights. Yet I agree that if I walk into your house and light a cigarette, I am not only disrepecting you and your family, but really stepping on your "right to clean air".

My arguement is still the same, DO NOT STEP ON THE TOES OF BUSINESS OWNERS. That was my arguement to begin with. If you notice, in my opening post, that I will not smoke in a non-smoking business. I have no problem with a business owner telling me that I can't smoke in their place of business. What I have a problem with is the city making the decision for me or the owner.

Next, I understand that a lot of people don't smoke. I know they would like no one to smoke. I know a lot of people who smoke also want to quit. If they want to quit bad enough they will, without the city, or government telling them to. For the smokers who want to quit, there are programs to help you.

I am a smoker, but I do not drink alcohol. I have an idea, since I don't drink, and drunk drivers have accidents, which in turn raises my insurance rates on my vehicles. I don't like being around people who are intoxicated, so I choose to not go to the bar, amazingly I can make that choice without someone telling me to. Oh yeah, sometimes drunk drivers even kill people in the wrecks. Why don't we, as a country, reinstate prohibition. We can all get together and sue the manufacturers of alcoholic beverages, claiming that we did not know that alcohol would impair our judgement and motor skills, just like they do with cigarette manufacturers.

Don't like my ideas on alcohol, sorry, I don't like the ideas about smoking. Smoking kills, I know this, alcohol does too. In fact if you drink too much, yoou can die really fast, like within six hours. Where is this argument. Yeah you could fall asleep smoking and burn your house down in less than six hours also. I have never heard of someone intoxicated from smoking while driving, swerves into on coming traffic, kills a mother, father, their four year old, but the newborn lives. Yeah I know, far fetched, but it happens with alcohol.

If smoking is outlawed, which is coming, then everthing that a person does which could inflict harm on themselves or others should be outlawed. The two that stick out are smoking and drinking, use your imagination for other ways, because it is a really long list.

"My right to smoke, your right for clean air, your right to drink, my right to live"

Yossarian · Member

Good post madman.

I like to think of smoking as the noble form of suicide.

longtimer · Veteran Member

What the commission needs to do is put it on the ballot with three choices decided by plurality. One option would be a total ban in all public places. The second would be a ban except for bars & private clubs and the third would be no change from the way it is now. Let the citizens decide.

madman · Member

I agree that it should be put to a vote, but the vote should only be for those places in which the public pays taxes on. The public should not take it upon themselves to tell a business owner what to do. If I were a business owner and I think that my business could be better by making it a non-smoking establishment, then it would be my choice. Not some choice left up to the public to decide.

It is not fair.

Granted the public is what makes a business profitable, yet the public doesn't put in the long hours, paperwork, licenses, or deal with all the other headaches of running a business. If a patron of an establishment has a qualm about something, smoking or not, then that patron needs to inform the manager or owner.

My gripe boils down to the Big Brother stance we have taken. BACK OFF!

Yossarian · Member

Why would they ever bother to do that? They would much rather just do whatever they want.

longtimer · Veteran Member

madman wrote:

I agree that it should be put to a vote, but the vote should only be for those places in which the public pays taxes on. The public should not take it upon themselves to tell a business owner what to do. If I were a business owner and I think that my business could be better by making it a non-smoking establishment, then it would be my choice. Not some choice left up to the public to decide.

It is not fair.

Granted the public is what makes a business profitable, yet the public doesn't put in the long hours, paperwork, licenses, or deal with all the other headaches of running a business. If a patron of an establishment has a qualm about something, smoking or not, then that patron needs to inform the manager or owner.

My gripe boils down to the Big Brother stance we have taken. BACK OFF!

I'm going to have to disagree Madman. If one of the criterion for the city not having the "right" to pass any ordinance was whether it affected private property owned by a tax payer the city would have no right to stop your next door neighbor from raising hogs as long as the owner is a tax payer. The same goes with building an adult video store next door to you, or any of a million other undesirable prospects. The very fact that you have neighbors and live inside an incorporated city means if what you do affects anyone besides yourself the city can regulate it. Is it good policy to regulate everything they have a right to? No, that is why a vote of the affected citizens is the way it should be handled.

Yossarian · Member

I'll say this longtimer, a society has a right to enforce morality. That is why adult entertainment businesses are often blocked. While in all honesty it would not hurt anyone, typically the city decides that morally they will not allow it.

The question is whether or not it is immoral to smoke. I think you would be hard pressed to argue that. If it was so abhorable, we would have made it illegal long ago. However, this is not the case. So if it is not a moral issue, then shouldn't the owners have the final say?

longtimer · Veteran Member

I'm not talking about morals. I don't argue morals. One can't expect the whole world to have the same standard of morality.

There's nothing moral or immoral about raising hogs in the city but it's a bad idea & the city bans it. If the argument that a business owner should be allowed to permit smoking simply because they are the owner was valid then the hog "owner" should be able to breed them anywhere in the city as long as they own the property.

I am saying the it should be decided by a vote of the citizens but the simple fact that someone owns a property is not a valid reason for exemption. I do think a business or organization that requires a dues paying membership such as the American Legion or a private club could be exempt because they are not, in my opinion, a place open to the general public. If the citizens of Ark City vote to exempt them great, if not, that's fine too but the decision should be made by the citizens. ALL of the citizens.

I'll wager that if it is put on the ballot the voter turn out will be larger than normal.

madman · Member

I am glad to see that some people have observed that the no smoking ban is what it is, just another way for the government to control you. The meeting went well, I think, and I was glad to see that others shared my same views. I especially like the comment about the "information" being propaganda.

If they do send it for a vote of the people, that would be the best thing to do. If the community decides that they want no smoking in all establishments, then I will obey the new laws. My peers voted for it and I respect it, just don't let a city commision make the decision.

longtimer · Veteran Member

madman wrote:

If they do send it for a vote of the people, that would be the best thing to do. If the community decides that they want no smoking in all establishments, then I will obey the new laws.

Agreed. I was disappointed that two of the commissioners present decided to take the cowardly way out & tell the proponents the only way it'll be put on the ballot is by petition. No problem.

Zeke Bender · Member

Amen! The last thing we need is for a city commision to make a decision. That ain't their job.

madman · Member

First off, I want to clear up one thing. I try not to break any laws, and my last post is a little fuzzy even to me. I said "if the community decides...then I will obey the new laws." A law is a law period. The point I was trying to get to was I would rather the people vote for it, because then I would know how the people felt, and I'm more inclined to appreciate their decision, than a commisioner who woke up on the wrong side of the bed. I would still not break any laws, I consider myself a law abiding citizen.

Certain things can be decided by the commission. But lately it seems that they have made some poor decisions. With these decisions, have come outcry from the public forcing them to review and come to a different decision or forget the matter altogether.

Now if this smoking thing goes any futher the next step should be a vote. I understand the petition part, but it seems a couple commissioners want to overstep their bounds. By this I mean the attitude they had in stating they want a petition. This shows me that once again, they would rather make the decisions, than leave it to the people.

If it does go to a vote I would like to remind you to inform yourselves, study what is to be voted on, and place your ballot for what would be best for the community, yourself, family and future generations. I don't want to sway you in any direction, even though my posts have been pretty outspoken, but as I have stated in my last post "I will obey the law" no matter what it is. Also if my fellow citizens and peers actually had a vote, no matter what the outcome, I would be very satisfied.

I think this thread, in itself, is really good. It gives quite a bit of both sides of the situation, and you don't get that with a whole lot of threads. I encourage more discussion yet.

Hope this post made sense, I'm pretty tired and need to go to bed at this point.

ksu_nutzer · Member

Does the new smoking ban include people using chewing tobacco? Doubtful. They don't mind their kids walking through a big puddle of spit and getting hepatitis.

madman · Member

I still make a firm stance against the smoking ban, but I have a question for those who are for it.

From what I gather the biggest arguement is the topic a second hand smoke. Am I correct for thinking this? If so I have another option for those who smoke that just might make the non-smokers happy.

I smoke, have for years, but recently I was informed about an electronic cigarette. This thing is smoke free, tar free, and all that other harmful stuff that traditional cigarettes are full of. It still has nicotine, so for those who use it they can still get their nicotine, without making others sick from smoke!

I have yet to try one, but according to those who use them, most have cut out smoking altogether. There are still risks, such as nicotine poisoning, but NO SMOKE. I have no idea why I smoke, I assume for the nicotine, but I feel there is now an option for the smoker, other than the nicotine patch or gum. According to those who use it, it reminds them of smoking without filling their lungs full of tar, and making others around them sick from smoke.

I recommend to the smokers out there to do some research and seriously consider the e-cigarette. I have done my research, and plan on buying my last pack of traditional cigarettes tomarrow, and will soon be using and e-cigarette.

longtimer · Veteran Member

I can only speak for myself Madman but yes, secondhand smoke is the main issue for me.

BTW Mel Kuhn is the best thing that's happened for the non smoking folks. Keep writing your letters Mel. Keep claiming that cigarette smoke isn't dangerous and that you know more than the world's scientists. Even most of the smokers I've talked to are embarrassed for/about you. Thanks for the boost.

Mr Common Sense · Newbie

1. Just because you can buy it legally, doesn't give you the right to use said product in a public place. You can buy and possess a handgun and shoot a shotgun legally, but you can't do it in a restaurant.
2. The non-smoking public has had it with breathing in other people's pollutants. Second-hand smoke is more deadly than straight smoking. You have the right smoke as of now, but we also have the right not to be poisoned by you.
3. Smoking is only still legal because of tobacco lobbyists paying off our politicians in Washington. Anything else that has been proven to kill you would have been banned years ago.
4. You can still smoke, just do it in the privacy of your own home. Let's treat it like nudists, sexual relations, etc. Keep it in your home. Just because it is legal, doesn't mean we all have to suffer through it.
5. My mother-in-law recently had a heart attack and was told she was healthy except for a tremendous build-up of plaque in her arteries caused by smoking for the past 60 years. That was it for her. She quit immediately. My wife then also quit her habit after 30 years of smoking. It can be done. I just takes a little willpower.
6. I do, however, think it would be up to each business owner. If they want to allow smoking, then let them. They just won't be patronized by the non-smoking public. Money talks and the ban will be on.

Zeke Bender · Member

1. Conversely, I can buy a beer in a restaurant, but I can't take it outside in public and shoot it.
2. Is straight smoking more deadly than gay smoking?
3. Second ammendment argument I ain't getting into.
4. We ALL don't suffer through sexual relations.
5. Quitting smoking takes a LOT of willpower.
6. Amen.

johnny · Newbie

fine get rid of smoking altogether. i dont like breathing all the fast food grease wow that a kill you too. so lets ban that also.

Military man · Newbie

The city and state tell you what to do all of the time. From how to prepare your food to how clean you establishment has to be.
People can make it without smoking for the lenght of the meal.
when was the last time you smoked during a movie down at any theater?

Cisco Kid · Member

Effective July 1, 2010, smoking will be prohibited in most of the following indoor locations in Kansas:
          o Public places
          o Places of employment
          o Restaurants
          o Bars
          o Within 10 feet of business entrances and air intakes

    * Effective July 1, 2010, businesses will be required to post signs stating that smoking is prohibited by state law. These signs are available for free by download or mail upon request.
    * Fines, for owners/operators and smokers:
          o 1st violation = not more than $100
          o 2nd violation within 1 year = not more than $200
          o 3rd and additional violations within 1 year = not more than $500 per violation
          o Each individual smoking in an establishment where smoking is prohibited is a             separate violation for the business.

    * The following locations are exempt from the Indoor Clean Air Act:
          o Tobacco shops that derive not less than 65% of gross receipts from the sale of                    tobacco
          o Gaming floors of lottery gaming facilities or racetrack gaming facilities
          o Up to 20% of hotel/motel sleeping rooms
          o Designated indoor areas of private outdoor recreational clubs (i.e. golf clubs,                        hunting clubs) where minors are prohibited.
          o Designated smoking areas of adult care homes and long-term care facilities

o Class A and B private clubs licensed before January 1, 2009, that notify the Secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment by September 28, 2010, of their intent to allow smoking. The notification form and directions are available by clicking here.

+ A Class A club is a nonprofit social, fraternal or war veteran's club operated for the exclusive use of members and their families and guests. A Class B club is operated for profit by a corporation, partnership or individual. Both Class A and B clubs are licensed by the Director of the Kansas Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC), a division of the Kansas Department of Revenue.

* Day care homes third or subsequent violations shall be grounds for suspension of license, certificate of registration or temporary permit.

* Effective July 1, 2010, it will be unlawful to sell cigarettes or tobacco products by a self-service display except in a vending machine that is permitted under HB 2221, Sec. 7, subsection (t) or in a tobacco specialty store. This ensures tobacco products are safely placed behind the counter in places where minors may have access.

* Where local clean indoor air laws have provisions stricter than the state law, these local provisions will prevail. Where local laws have provisions less strict than the state law, state law provisions will prevail effective July 1, 2010.

Cisco Kid · Member

Just how concerned are the Clear Air folks about the health of the children of Ark City?

They've figured out that members of community need to be protected while out in public settings and have acted in the best interest of the people, but will they do the same for the voiceless children subjected to ETS in their own homes?

Does AC have the balls to take this a step farther?

The National Asthma Council of Australia cites studies showing that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is probably the most important indoor pollutant, especially around young children:^[72]

Smoking by either parent, particularly by the mother, increases the risk of asthma in children.
The outlook for early childhood asthma is less favourable in smoking households.
Children with asthma who are exposed to smoking in the home generally have more severe disease.
Many adults with asthma identify ETS as a trigger for their symptoms.
Doctor-diagnosed asthma is more common among non-smoking adults exposed to ETS than those not exposed. Among people with asthma, higher ETS exposure is associated with a greater risk of severe attacks.

madman · Member

Ok I've been pretty quiet as of late, even after the state law passed, but really cisco, REALLY, you are willing to let the government tell you that you can't do someting in your house!
Now don't take that out of context and say, "well you cant do drugs or cook meth in your house." I'm saying smoking is legal for anyone over the age of 18, drugs are not legal period.
What I gather from your post is that smokers should not be allowed to smoke in their own house. That is absurd. In case you have forgotten, we are Americans, our ancestors fought for our freedom from Great Britian. We do have rights, we do have freedoms, you want them to pull freedoms away.
I honestly have no problem with the current smoking ban, because weak citizens allowed it to pass. I say weak, because a person is weak to let rights and freedoms be taken away. If you don't believe me just wait, it was fairly easy to ban smoking, just wait, they will ban something else and keep doing it until you have nothing. Little by little big brother is taking over. Maybe that is what the American citizen wants. Do you want someone to tell you what to do constantly? I for one do not. Someone took rights away in another country once, I believe his name was Adolph Hitler from Germany. Come on, stop being weak, stop being told what to do, its pathetic.
If you don't like smoking that is fine, I won't smoke around you. But I for one don't like alcohol, I think it makes people ignorant, causes wrecks, marital issues and death. So since I don't like alcohol I think all bars should close, just because I don't like it. I don't like it and I want my way, if I don't get my way I'm going to whine about it until I do. By the way how many bars does Ark City have? Five not including the Country Club, Legion and VFW. How many liquor stores? Five of those. Close them all.
If you don't make your voice heard, they won't listen and just keep the bans coming. I said it once, remember at one time they banned alcohol, it was called prohibition. Not old enough? Look it up in a history book.
As Earl Pitts would say "WAKE UP, AMERICA!"