Council shows little support for comprehensive smoking ban

It should be left up to all bar and restaurant owners whether they will allow smoking or not in their establishments. It is their business and no one should tell them how to run it. If people don't want to frequent a place where they allow smoking, they can go to a place where they don't allow smoking.

I am not a smoker but every place that I fequent has a good ventalating system for smoke. If anything, maybe bars and restaurants should put a smoke ventilator in their places. Wichita has made so many bad decisions, ie.. arena, no casino, river walk has been on the agenda since I came to Wichita in 1978? A ban will be another bad idea with over 1,000 eating places in Wichita.

A radical concept to let the business owners decide who to cater to. Let the customers do the forcing not the politicians.

Ridiculous, backwards, backWOODS, white-trash, embarrassing, etc... I could go on and on describing the city council's decision NOT to pass a smoking ban. The city of Wichita is constantly discussing how to make the city more progressive and attractive to visitors. Look around, Council Members. The most progressive and happening states/cities have smoking bans. ALL states on the west coast have some kind of ban. Most of the east coast (including DC, NY, and Virgina) and cities such as Dallas and Chicago have fairly rigid bans in place. The states/cities that don't? The MAJORITY of these are in the midwest...which is notoriously slow to keep up with the rest of the US. Sometimes this is not a bad thing! In this case, however, it is embarrassing.
Without a comprehensive ban in place, Wichita will be added to the list of trashy, classless places to visit and live. Wake up and hop into the 21st century. It's a nice (and clean) place to be!

ebd wrote:

Ridiculous, backwards, backWOODS, white-trash, embarrassing, etc... I could go on and on describing the city council's decision NOT to pass a smoking ban. The city of Wichita is constantly discussing how to make the city more progressive and attractive to visitors. Look around, Council Members. The most progressive and happening states/cities have smoking bans. ALL states on the west coast have some kind of ban. Most of the east coast (including DC, NY, and Virgina) and cities such as Dallas and Chicago have fairly rigid bans in place. The states/cities that don't? The MAJORITY of these are in the midwest...which is notoriously slow to keep up with the rest of the US. Sometimes this is not a bad thing! In this case, however, it is embarrassing.
Without a comprehensive ban in place, Wichita will be added to the list of trashy, classless places to visit and live. Wake up and hop into the 21st century. It's a nice (and clean) place to be!

Other towns in Kansas have passed bans, and Kansas City will likely hold a referendum in April on a comprehensive smoking ban. Polls how a majority of Kansas city residents support the ban. Hopefully big tobacco won't spend huge sums of money to try to defeat it. I would imagine it's only a matter of a year or two before Wichita and the possibly the state have bans in place.

Anonymouse wrote:

<quoted text>
Other towns in Kansas have passed bans, and Kansas City will likely hold a referendum in April on a comprehensive smoking ban. Polls how a majority of Kansas city residents support the ban. Hopefully big tobacco won't spend huge sums of money to try to defeat it. I would imagine it's only a matter of a year or two before Wichita and the possibly the state have bans in place.

Looks like the "progressives" are already taking root in Kansas. A better word however would be "socialists".

I would expect to see more "seatbelt checkpoints" in the future as well.

So sad...

http://www.opkansas.org/_Assets/agendas/counc...

These efforts include: passenger restraint programs (Operation ABC, Clicks STEP program, seat belt checkpoints, etc.), sobriety checkpoints and special enforcement efforts (high visibility enforcement, saturation patrols). If successful with this grant application, the Overland Park Police Department will inform Operation Impact members of our “Click It or Ticket” campaign and encourage their participation.
----------

The most dangerous smoke in the air these days is the smoke from our rights going up in flames.

Anonymouse wrote:

<quoted text>
Other towns in Kansas have passed bans, and Kansas City will likely hold a referendum in April on a comprehensive smoking ban. Polls how a majority of Kansas city residents support the ban. Hopefully big tobacco won't spend huge sums of money to try to defeat it. I would imagine it's only a matter of a year or two before Wichita and the possibly the state have bans in place.

Thanks for the heads up. I personally wrote a letter to the Wichita City Council and mayor denoting the experiences in Ohio with our smoking ban. Many, like me, will continue to tell the truth.

Well at least the Newton Kansas council had a little more appreciation for public health and the wishes of the people.

Newton Goes Smoke Free Next Week

No butts about it. Newton will be smoke free starting January first and residents are fired up.

Many Newton residents feel their rights are being suffocated. Starting Tuesday, smokers will find they're limited to where they're allowed to light up. Smoking will be prohibited in all public areas including restaurants, bars, and hotels.

Other residents are excited about the change. Some say they don't eat in restaurants that currently allow smoking, but with the new ban they will. They say they don't like the taste of the smoke or how they smell when they leave the establishment.

City officials say their vote to extinguish the smoke is representative of what most residents want. They say they're just trying to make the city a cleaner and healthier place.

It's an issue which is lighting up emotions, but still putting out the cigarettes.

http://www.kake.com/home/headlines/12916997.h...

Anonymouse wrote:

Well at least the Newton Kansas council had a little more appreciation for public health and the wishes of the people.
Newton Goes Smoke Free Next Week
No butts about it. Newton will be smoke free starting January first and residents are fired up.
Many Newton residents feel their rights are being suffocated. Starting Tuesday, smokers will find they're limited to where they're allowed to light up. Smoking will be prohibited in all public areas including restaurants, bars, and hotels.
Other residents are excited about the change. Some say they don't eat in restaurants that currently allow smoking, but with the new ban they will. They say they don't like the taste of the smoke or how they smell when they leave the establishment.
City officials say their vote to extinguish the smoke is representative of what most residents want. They say they're just trying to make the city a cleaner and healthier place.
It's an issue which is lighting up emotions, but still putting out the cigarettes.
http://www.kake.com/home/headlines/12916997.h...

I left a message of condolence for the people of this town.

Sheri wrote:

<quoted text>
I left a message of condolence for the people of this town.

As a teacher, you are one of the poorest role models I've witnessed.........Sure, you may not be a Debra Lafave, but to choose a pro-public smoking issue as the agenda you want to promote, it speaks of addiction......

Sheri wrote:

<quoted text>
I left a message of condolence for the people of this town.

Condolence for what, the tobacco companies who'll lose cigarette sales?!

its about time wrote:

<quoted text>
As a teacher, you are one of the poorest role models I've witnessed.........Sure, you may not be a Debra Lafave, but to choose a pro-public smoking issue as the agenda you want to promote, it speaks of addiction......

As a human being, you are one of the poorest role models I've witnessed. To choose an agenda that cripples freedom speaks of a lack of respect for our rights as human beings. It speaks of an addiction to control

Anonymouse wrote:

<quoted text>
Condolence for what, the tobacco companies who'll lose cigarette sales?!

It will not be the tobacco companies who lose sales. It will be the business owner, just like in Ohio. Smoking bans do not reduce smoking, so BT will not lose.

Sheri wrote:

<quoted text>
It will not be the tobacco companies who lose sales. It will be the business owner, just like in Ohio. Smoking bans do not reduce smoking, so BT will not lose.

Smoking bans do not reduce business. The only time I've heard anything about business being damaged is second or third hand information from smokers posting here who claim that someone they know is now having problems. There has never been an independant study done that shows that business is negatively affected by a ban. Minnesota went no smoking just this fall and things are just fine as far as businsses there are concerned.

Smoking ban no smoking gun
http://erstarnews.com/content/view/1499/179/

its about time wrote:

<quoted text>
As a teacher, you are one of the poorest role models I've witnessed.........Sure, you may not be a Debra Lafave, but to choose a pro-public smoking issue as the agenda you want to promote, it speaks of addiction......

To even bring Debra Lafave into the discussion is quite telling. The demonization tactics never end do they.

Among the posters on this board, Sheri is certainly among the finest.

Sheri simply promotes free thinking. Something moral busybody control freaks like yourself would never comprehend.

You do know that your kind is nothing new right?

Anonymouse wrote:

<quoted text>
Smoking bans do not reduce business. The only time I've heard anything about business being damaged is second or third hand information from smokers posting here who claim that someone they know is now having problems. There has never been an independant study done that shows that business is negatively affected by a ban. Minnesota went no smoking just this fall and things are just fine as far as businsses there are concerned.
Smoking ban no smoking gun
http://erstarnews.com/content/view/1499/179/

Today another Columbia business call its quits after seven months of a smoking ban and cites 30 percent loss of business due to the ban. This is the sixteenth so far.

http://www.columbiatribune.com/

The 30 percent loss cited is consistent with the overall 5 percent loss for all restaurants due to the smoking ban found by Federal Reserve economist Dr. Michael Pakko.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/regecon/op/CRE...

Anonymouse wrote:

<quoted text>
Smoking bans do not reduce business. The only time I've heard anything about business being damaged is second or third hand information from smokers posting here who claim that someone they know is now having problems. There has never been an independant study done that shows that business is negatively affected by a ban. Minnesota went no smoking just this fall and things are just fine as far as businsses there are concerned.
Smoking ban no smoking gun
http://erstarnews.com/content/view/1499/179/

Please.

Look what you have done to our war heros for Pete's sake!

So sad...

http://www.denverpost.com/colleges/ci_5888502
Utah lifts VFW smoking ban
By Brock Vergakis
The Associated Press
Article Last Updated: 05/13/2007 11:38:27 AM MDT

Salt Lake City - Standing behind the nautical-theme bar at Veterans of Foreign War Post 3586, Sandy Bonner savors the Newport cigarette she's smoking while a small crowd of customers in their 20s watches a basketball game in a nearly empty room.

Business is slow, she says, but two weeks ago it was worse.

That's because on April 30 a ban on smoking in VFW halls and other fraternal organizations that had been in place since January was lifted.

"We'd lost probably 50 percent of our customers," Bonner said between cigarettes. "It's coming back - but it's not completely back." As cities and states nationwide increasingly ban smoking in bars, restaurants and public parks, Utah has taken the uncommon approach of temporarily lifting a ban.

Freedom wrote:

<quoted text>
Please.
Look what you have done to our war heros for Pete's sake!
So sad...
http://www.denverpost.com/colleges/ci_5888502
Utah lifts VFW smoking ban
By Brock Vergakis
The Associated Press
Article Last Updated: 05/13/2007 11:38:27 AM MDT
Salt Lake City - Standing behind the nautical-theme bar at Veterans of Foreign War Post 3586, Sandy Bonner savors the Newport cigarette she's smoking while a small crowd of customers in their 20s watches a basketball game in a nearly empty room.
Business is slow, she says, but two weeks ago it was worse.
That's because on April 30 a ban on smoking in VFW halls and other fraternal organizations that had been in place since January was lifted.
"We'd lost probably 50 percent of our customers," Bonner said between cigarettes. "It's coming back - but it's not completely back." As cities and states nationwide increasingly ban smoking in bars, restaurants and public parks, Utah has taken the uncommon approach of temporarily lifting a ban.

Guess what Freedom, bars close very frequently. Do you think that without any smoking restrictions nobody would ever go out of business. Every week in any major city a bar probably closes. The economy has a lot more to do with whether a business succeeds than whether people can smoke inside it. Many states have had bans for years, and they don't have a greater business failure rate than states that don't. And bars that were poorly managed before are not suddenly going to do better afterwards. It's easy to blame a smoking ban on failure, when in fact the business may not have been well managed and may not have been doing well to begin with.

Anonymouse wrote:

<quoted text>
Other towns in Kansas have passed bans, and Kansas City will likely hold a referendum in April on a comprehensive smoking ban. Polls how a majority of Kansas city residents support the ban. Hopefully big tobacco won't spend huge sums of money to try to defeat it. I would imagine it's only a matter of a year or two before Wichita and the possibly the state have bans in place.

If they put it on the ballot, it will exclude casinos. Divide and conquer.

Sheri wrote:

<quoted text>
Smoking bans do not reduce smoking...

http://cc.workopolis.com/work.aspx...

"According to a new study by Statistics Canada, smokers who live in newly smoke-free homes or work in smoke-free offices were more likely to quit the habit over the next two years than those with no restrictions at home or at work."

"27 per cent of smokers who initially reported no restrictions at work, but two years later reported a complete ban, had quit. That was more than double the 13 per cent of smokers who continued to face no restrictions at work that quit."

KHartman wrote:

<quoted text>
http://cc.workopolis.com/work.aspx...
"According to a new study by Statistics Canada, smokers who live in newly smoke-free homes or work in smoke-free offices were more likely to quit the habit over the next two years than those with no restrictions at home or at work."
"27 per cent of smokers who initially reported no restrictions at work, but two years later reported a complete ban, had quit. That was more than double the 13 per cent of smokers who continued to face no restrictions at work that quit."

Counting on those chantix , patches & gum sales due to force