Aug

30

Is Kansas ready to go smoke free?

August 30, 2007 | 13 Comments

According to Kansas Public Radio’s Peter Hancock, some Kansas Legislators are considering a new statewide smoking ban for a future legislative session. The new interest is based on the 2004 Lawrence city ban passing muster with the Kansas Supreme Court earlier this year.

In a separate-but-related incident, scrappy ‘burb Shawnee saw some chamber drama this week as sitting councilman Kevin Straub (of Straub Construction) attempted to advance a smoking ban before the city task force studying the issue had completed their work (due to the council on Sept. 24). Shawnee resident Tony Lang, in turn, told the council he would circulate petitions to call for a public vote.

Illinois and Colorado are the only nearby full statewide bans, with the former going into effect Jan. 1, 2008 (Oklahoma has a 2006 ban, but still allows for separate, ventilated smoking areas; the 2006 Arkansas ban excludes 21-and-over bars). Existing metro municipalities with full citywide bans are Fairway, Independence, Lee’s Summit, and Roeland Park (Leawood, Lenexa, and Overland Park take effect after the first of the year). Kansas City, Missouri, has a ban that will be effective after 85% of metro population is covered by other bans. Depending on who you talk to, a statewide ban in Kansas would meet/exceed that goal or fall just shy — with some claiming that the 85% figure was designed to be unattainable.

Categories: Politics


Comments

13 Comments so far

  1. tommy boy on August 31, 2007 9:35 am

    yes kansas is ready to be smoke free. Hooray.

    Come on Kansas City get on the band wagon

  2. ScooterJ on August 31, 2007 10:14 am

    And, thankfully, Kansas has again decided that the decision to go smoke-free is best left to the free market and individual private property owners and has already decided against considering this ban. Hooray!

  3. DaveKCMO on August 31, 2007 12:31 pm

    i think history has proven that just because the legislature abandons an idea once doesn’t make it a forbidden topic in the future. besides, if the free market were really satisfying the voting public, we wouldn’t be having this conversation today. also, it doesn’t help that smokers have a lower life expectancy (by 13-14 years) and their numbers are shrinking (down to 21% of adults in ‘05), ensuring that a smoke-free world is unavoidable whether the government intervenes now or not.

  4. ScooterJ on August 31, 2007 1:33 pm

    No one has given the free market a chance on this issue. Smoke-haters just go straight to the government demanding laws rather than voting with their wallets. Then, when they get the government to give them their way, they continue to not bothering to patronize the establishments they forced to go smoke-free.

    Look at Independence. Family owned businesses that have thrived for decades are now dropping like flies because nonsmokers forced the issue yet still only go to the bland, sterile, “safe”, national chains that were mostly already smoke-free to begin with.

  5. john on September 1, 2007 9:00 am

    I was really hoping this would go somewhere, but mostly because it is the best hope for getting a real smoking ban in KCMO.

  6. patrick on September 3, 2007 1:59 pm

    “Look at Independence. Family owned businesses that have thrived for decades are now dropping like flies …”

    I can’t think of a single reason to visit Independence pre- or post-smoking ban, so I doubt that has much to do with it.

    That also ignores Lawrence, which also has a government-imposed smoking ban. Last time I was there the restaurants, bars and concert venues on Massuchusetts seemed to be thriving.

  7. ScooterJ on September 3, 2007 3:42 pm

    Patrick, 120,000 people live in Independence. They don’t need for you to have to go there, they have their own built in customers. But when the government of Independence strips the rights of business owners to offer a particular ammenity while compeetitiors right across 40 Hwy in Kansas City still have that ammenity, it’s a no-brainer where those customers are going to go. They can find a smoking alternativein in some cases, only yards away.

    It’s a myth that no Lawrence businesses have been harmed. However, they do have the added benefits of a built-in customer base of college students, plus mainly the fact that there’s noplace else for residents to go without driving half an hour outside of town in any direction.

  8. Tim on September 4, 2007 7:04 am

    You got it right, Scooter.

  9. patrick on September 4, 2007 8:42 am

    ScooterJ,

    It’s also a myth that mom-and-pop businesses in Indepedence were thriving prior to a smoking ban. That market can only support so many strip clubs and porn shops.

    So beyond the negligible half-hour drive for Lawrence residents, there are “built-in” customer bases for both Independence and Lawrence. Both have smoking bans. One city’s downtown is thriving, another’s is a wasteland. There’s more to it than the smoking ban.

  10. ScooterJ on September 5, 2007 5:17 am

    Yeah, Patrick, that Mrs. Tonahill, she’s such a peddler of pornography. (:rolls eyes:)

  11. ScooterJ on September 5, 2007 5:17 am

    Yeah, Patrick, that Mrs. Tonahill, she’s such a peddler of pornography. (:rolls eyes:)

    The anti-property rights zealots will stoop to any ridiculous claim to get their way,

  12. Tim on September 5, 2007 8:11 am

    Hey, Scooter, in case you didn’t notice, Patrick has negative comments about pretty much everything.

  13. Me on June 30, 2008 1:23 pm

    Neighbors Lounge on 40 highway is allowing smoking and is collecting money to pay the fines.

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Speak your mind