Apolitical Topic?

[lacrew_2000]

OK, I don't think people's opinions on this break down on party lines:

Smoking Ban

Kansas has passed and will soon implement a statewide smoking ban, in bars, shops, etc...with the exception of state run casinos.

I think a bar should be able to allow smoking if he wants...the counter-argument is that people have to work at the bar, and will be exposed to smoke...to which I say many professions expose people to dangers and pollutants.

The most interesting part of the law is prohibiting smoking 10 feet from a door or window...so all those people huddled against the building in the cold...they need to take a few steps back now.

It is being challenged in court, because the exception for casinos seems unfair.

I should mention that I am not a smoker.

[topnotchmassage]

I am NOT a smoker...yet still I personally believe smoking SHOULD be allowed in bars...Not necessarily bar and grills where people can choose to take their kids...but bars where you have to be 21 to enter.
You have the decision, at that point, to 'enter at your own risk'...or not!

[vitokc]

I am a former smoker and it used to annoy the hell out of me when I heard complaints about smokers. 20+ years as a non smoker has allowed me to appreciate
good health and I avoid smoking establishments. Smoke all you want, allow your customers to kill themselves if they prefer, just don't expect my business.If its a combined bar & grill, I stay out. I don't drink or go to bars so drink and hack away at will.

[catnipdipper]

I feel it is another conservative plot to legislate morality! jkjkjkjkjkjkjk

I am a smoker and I really don't mind so much when it involves others in the same place, i.e. restaurants and bars etc. I do like being able to smoke in a casino otherwise I would have to keep getting up and down.

Marlboro is marketing a spitless snuss now in numerous flavors "for those situations where you just can't smoke." I tried it and felt nausea on the mint flavor.

As long as I can smoke after sex I will be fine.

[dirty dog]

I think topnotch hit it on the head, it involves choice, the employees working in the the bar make a choice to work there, the people in the bar make a choice to be there. This is a prime example of government legislating behavior. By the way I am a non smoker, never smoked tabacco and have not smoke weed for 25 years LOL. I also think Vito expresses the proper way to disagree with a bar that allows smoking if it bothers you dont go there. Its all about choices, the problem arises when those who can make a choice dont feel as it they should have too and everything should be catered to their world and beliefs.

[lacrew_2000]

When Topeka passed its smoking ban last year, some of the bars just outside the city got flooded with smokers...to the point that it drove away non-smoking business. At least one put in a high dollar ventilation system, to have completely different HVAC systems for the smoking and non-smoking section, so half the bar would be fairly smoke free. That money is wasted now...but it may have been a way to compromise on this: you can allow smoking if the smoking area has its ouw HVAC.

BTW, I know someone who smoked in a non-smoking hotel room. Somehow they were able to tell she smoked (it sounded like it was more advanced than just smelling it)...and she had to pay a hefty fine to the hotel.

[lacrew_2000]

Originally Posted by catnipdipper

I feel it is another conservative plot to legislate morality! jkjkjkjkjkjkjk

Even though you are joking, I will concede that many in the Kansas GOP have disappointed, and rolled over on this...when I would have expected them to have been opposed on the intrusion into private business.

Reading comments made by our local leaders, when Topeka passed its ban, there was an attitude that Topeka would be seen as backwards if it didn't pass a ban...so the ban is supposed to attract tourism?!? and give people a more favorable view of the city...all image stuff....which seems to supercede basic conservative principles about government intrusion.

I expected it from the Democrats. If you remember 'Buttman' from the 1992 presidential election, the DNC made a calculated decision to drastically reduce acceptance of contributions from Tobacco companies...and paint the GOP and GB senior as 'in bed' with big tobacco. It worked...and was very ballsy, considering Al Gore's roots. Anyway, ever since, tobacco has been a 'wedge issue' in alot of ways.

[JT]

It should be the choice of the business owner to allow it or not, period!

[Guest090920]

Originally Posted by catnipdipper

As long as I can smoke after sex I will be fine.

I don't know if I smoke after sex with my favorite companion, I never looked! Should I?

[Gryphon]

Originally Posted by JT

It should be the choice of the business owner to allow it or not, period!

True, but that isn't the wave of the future. When the tobacco lawsuits were in full swing 10-15 years ago, some predicted that soft drinks and fast food would be the next target. They were laughed at then, but look at what's happening now. We're moving toward the Demolition Man world where "Anything that isn't good for you is bad for you and therefore bad and therefore illegal." I may have to learn to knit...

[john_galt]

For catnipper, who had to get political, in a class last semester the smoking ban came up. Slightly over half the students in the class identified themselves as Republicans and of those four were conservatives. The four conservatives were against the ban and half of the remaining Republicans were against the ban. Nearly all of the "democrats" supported the ban. FYI; the class was about political polling. So your comment about conservatives covert actions has about as much substance as a beer fart.
I am not, nor have I ever been, a smoker and I am against the ban because of freedom.

[KCJoe]

I don't smoke and I don't really care whether smoking is banned or not. All I can say is that years ago, I quit going into bars because the smoke was making me sick and I decided to pretty much quit drinking outside the house because of it. Stopped in Sedalia a few weeks back on the way to the lake and while sitting at the bar waiting for a table a lady started smoking and I remembered I wasn't in KC anymore. Annoyed me to the point I got up and left.

[lacrew_2000]

Adding to Gryphon's comment, for those who live on the Missouri side, Kansas did consider a 'soft drink tax' this last session. I think the only reason it wasn't passed was logistics...i.e. how much would they tax if you had unlimited refills at Burger King for example....but Tobacco tax increases are yielding diminishing returns, so the next in vogue sin tax will be fast food and soft drinks.

I like going into non-smoking bars myself. In Manhattan, there was a bar with a completely different building out back for non-smokers. It was great...bar owners were making the switch on their own...but I don't like the government forcing the issue.

[Guest052813-01]

I am in a quandry about this - I am against the government imposing their will on business owners to prohibit the use of a legally obtainable product, yet, because of a personal issue, I want to see all smoking banned in all enclosed public areas.

Let me state what I am against:

I'm against the banning of smoking in open-air public places (stadiums, parks, etc.).
I'm against any company prohibiting its employees from smoking when that employee is not working on the company's property or representing that company to the public.
I'm against the banning of smoking in a person's own residence or vehicle, regardless of the situation.

So it comes down to - do I think it is the right of the government to ban smoking in publically accessible enclosed areas? The libertarian/conservative in me says no - but I would choose not to be a patron of an establishment allowing smoking.

[sipapi]

I agree with the orginial premise of the thread that the smoking issue is apolitical. People's individual freedom and/or rights are thrown around on this issue. As a left leaning liberal I prefer not to have others legislate my personal choices. The rub comes though whenever my "right" to smoke a legal substance in a public arena interferes with someone elses "right" to breathe clean that I have not polluted. I have many bad habits with smoking being near the top, but whenever my smoking in public infringes on others right not to breathe my smoke, I have no problem with that being legislated. The perfect political tradeoff, ban smoking in public places , allow cigarettes and other naturaly grown tobacco to be smoked in private without penalty. But hey, I'm for sin taxes, make pot and prostitution legal then tax the hell out of it. Pay for play.