News

Are bar owners in Independence happy with their ban? Do Independence business owners believe the ban is costing them money and driving them out of business. Forget the studies by public health groups. Ask the bar owners themselves!

Of course government should care about the air quality of private businesses open to the public. But government should allow the hopsitality industry the same access to ventilation and air filtration technology that solves the smoke issues of other industries. This technology is affordable and readily available. It is used by other industries to bring their air quality into compliance with OSHA air quality standards.
Why not allow bars and restaurants to use it?

Comment by Bill Hannegan — March 26, 2008 @ 02:26PM

Governments gone wild

The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation from
sea to sea has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed threat
of second-hand smoke.
The bans are symptoms of a far more grievous threat; a cancer that has been
spreading for decades. This cancer is the only real hazard involved -- the
cancer of unlimited government power.
The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or a phantom
menace. The issue is: if it were harmful, what would be the proper reaction?
Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educating people about
the potential danger and allowing them to make their own decisions, or
should they seize the power of government and force people to make the
"right" decision?
Supporters of local tobacco bans have made their choice. Rather than
attempting to protect people from an unwanted intrusion on their health, the
tobacco bans are the unwanted intrusion.
Loudly billed as measures that only affect "public places," they have
actually targeted private places: restaurants, bars, nightclubs, shops, and
offices -- places whose owners are free to set anti-smoking rules or whose
customers are free to go elsewhere if they don't like the smoke. Some local
bans even harass smokers in places where their effect on others is obviously
negligible, such as outdoor public parks.
The decision to smoke, or to avoid second-hand smoke, is a question to be
answered by each individual based on his own values and his own assessment
of the risks. This is the same kind of decision free people make regarding
every aspect of their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to befriend
or sleep with, whether to go to college or get a job, whether to get married
or divorced, and so on.
All of these decisions involve risks; some have demonstrably harmful
consequences; most are controversial and invite disapproval from the
neighbours. But the individual must be free to make these decisions. He must
be free, because his life belongs to him, not to his neighbours, and only
his own judgment can guide him through it.
Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Cigarette
smokers are a numerical minority, practising a habit considered annoying and
unpleasant to the majority. So the majority has simply commandeered the
power of government and used it to dictate their behaviour.
That is why these bans are far more threatening than the prospect of
inhaling a few stray whiffs of tobacco while waiting for a table at your
favourite restaurant. The anti-tobacco crusaders point in exaggerated alarm
at those wisps of smoke while they unleash the systematic and unlimited
intrusion of government into our lives.

Thomas Laprade

Comment by Thomas Laprade — March 26, 2008 @ 02:55PM

If the public was honestly and truthfully informed about the effects of second-hand smoke, there would be fewer no-smoking laws in this country.
A little smoke from a handful of crushed leaves and some paper that is mixed with the air of a decently ventilated venue is going to harm or kill you?

There has never been a single study showing that exposure to the low levels of smoke found in bars and restaurants with decent modern ventilation and filtration systems kills or harms anyone.

As to the annoyance of smoking, a compromise between smokers and non-smokers can be reached, through setting a quality standard and the use of modern ventilation technology.

Air ventilation can easily create a comfortable environment that removes not just passive smoke, but also and especially the potentially serious contaminants that are independent from smoking.

Thomas Laprade

Comment by Thomas Laprade — March 26, 2008 @ 02:58PM

I myself am a smoker. I don't love the fact that I smoke, but hey, its safer than the many other things I could be addicted to.

I understand people's want for a smoking ban. It just makes them feel better. What really gets me about this issue is that Casinos are except from the ban. Our local government should not favor a particular business over any other. Obviously, and it is clear from article, our local government is bowing to the casinos purely for financial reasons.

I think it sends the wrong message for a government body to show favoritism to any business regardless of size. It sounds like business as usual for KCMO government. If there is to be a total smoking ban, then make it total.

Comment by Fair Play — March 27, 2008 @ 08:37AM

Shall we ban all things that we don't like. People must be carefull not to force their preferences on others to the point where everthing done and said is regulated and or forbidden. It can be construed as a loss of another freedom. The wife and I usually visit 4 different restaurants that we prefer, 3 of the 4 are non-smoking. We do this by choice, now we find that our choices are being deminished. If there is more profit and more of a demand for smoking or non smoking then shurely people will decide the market. Currently we have the right to choose between smoking or non-smoking, that right is soon to disappear. People need not worry about errosion of freedoms via the Government!!! Speaking of Government intrusion, by what right does the KC city council disreguard the will of the people. It is simple, if you do not like a smoking environment, don't work or go there. It is your choice and mine, I believe I can determine what I want to do or not, that whole adult thing ya know, the question is can you?

Comment by Whitney — March 28, 2008 @ 09:08AM

What if I want to open a bar or restarant and only cater to smokers?

Comment by Ron Green — March 30, 2008 @ 12:04PM

I dont understand how we went from being free to make our own choices to being told what we can and cant do. If I want to smoke that is my choice. If I want to have a cigarette after a meal that I am paying for I should be able to do it. Everybody is talking about second hand smoke and how it kills people, do we need to ban it from everyplace in the city, but the places that gives money to the city. Ok, so what about drinking? Someone can go to a bar, get drunk, geet in their car and drive home, maybe, if they dont hit something or someone or kill someone, but thats ok, we can still drink and noone wants to banned that. Come on people, who are you guys to tell me where I can and cant smoke? I for one am grown-up enough to make up my mind. If I dont want to go to a place that has smoking I dont, if I do then I do, it is a FREE CHOICE I make, not a choice for the goverenment or anyone else to make for me. It isnt fair nor right to push your wants and beliefs onto me or anyone else. If you dont like the smoke then stay away from it, easy as that. To me you guys that want this banned is no better then the people that took GOD out of the schools, courts, and probally your lives. The U.S.A isnt Burger King, you cant always have it your way. You need to realize you arent the only ones in the world. I for one think this banned is uncalled for and everyone needs to vote NO. It is the smokers choice not yours. I support the smokers on this one. Good Luck to the smokers, I hope you win.

Comment by Jo — March 31, 2008 @ 08:42AM

Don't stop voicing your concerns. Don't pass up your opportunity to choose. This is American and we all have the right but understand that the current ban works. Restaurants like Town Topic that don't sell liquor are now non-smoking and others like Fiorella's Jack Stack say to support their family atmosphere they went ahead and banned smoking completely instead of trying to change over for the last hour of the night. Remeber though there are places like Garozzo's who want to offer their customers a place where they can enjoy a cigar with a glass of wine after dinner (after 9PM of course). A YES on 3 takes away that choice and for me who's bar is right up against Wyandotte County and North Kansas City (neither has a ban in place) I'm a little worried. So please use your voice; start with your favorite restaurant or bar or just your neighborhood restaurants and bars. As a bar owner, I listen to what my customers want. Its how a small business owner builds and maintains a steady client base they need to keep the doors open. If you can show a business owner they can keep or grow their actual customer base then they will make any changes necessary to keep their doors open. I understand the health concerns for employees who are "forced to work" in an environment that allows smoking and I agree and stand by any non-smoker who doesn't want to work in an environment that would force them to be exposed to cigarette smoke but the city and the new ban don't - otherwise Casinos wouldn't get an exemption. Owning my Tavern is my American Dream and I will do whatever it takes to preserve it, but try to understand I don't provide health services, I am not public transportation, I am not a registered voting center and I don't have a kitchen on site, if you don't want to come in my door, you don't have too. Please, be a real American and let my customers decide if they want my TAVERN to be smoking or non-smoking, leave the city out of it. I cater to the comfort of my customers and it doesn’t matter to me if I have a bar full of people who want to enjoy a drink without having to breathe someone else’s cigarette smoke or a bar full of people who want to smoke while they drink but a city wide ban leaves me only one of those choices. It doesn't matter to me whether I own smoking bar or a non-smoking bar, I just want to own an "OPEN" bar and the best way for me to do that is to let my customers tell me if they want their local hangout to be a smoking or non-smoking environment. I want too give the customers that help me pay my bills the ability to make the decision - not the city and certainly not a bunch of people whose real interest isn't my bar it's their own political agenda. If you want a voice in my business, come down, grab a stool and tell me how you feel over a few drinks - otherwise keep it to yourself. Democracy and Capitalism - what could be more American?

Comment by Gary Dwyer — April 1, 2008 @ 06:22PM

"Vote for Question 3 if cigarettes bother you. Vote against Question 3 if you think the government has no business regulating the air quality in bars and restaurants."

If you're not smarter than that, you should be.

Restaurants and bars are already free to prohibit smoking on their premises. The fact that most don't is, indeed, telling. If "cigarettes bother you," you are free to patronize establishments that already prohibit smoking. You are free to express your desire that the owner change his policies. The owner's freedom of choice is preserved, your freedom of choice is preserved.

This "I don't like it, so you can't do it" neo-puritanism, whether it applies to this, abortions, porn, drinking, etc., is vastly more obnoxious than any cigarette smoke.

Comment by Maureen Lawlor — April 2, 2008 @ 04:40AM

April 9, 2008

An open letter to all Kansas Citians who voted for the Smoking ban last night:

I have decided that I would like to inflict some of my convictions on my top 5 picks of folks that annoy me and cause me undue stress and heart palpitations. I will be filing a petition with City Hall to get a vote in the next general election to have banned the following individuals from all the places smokers want to frequent without annoyance, whether the proprietor of the establishment wants me there or cares to serve me or not:

1) Loud, obnoxious people who have to have input on every conversation within their earshot and have done anything in any topic of discussion bigger, longer, louder or better than those who are actually a part of the conversation;

2) Arrogant narcissistic people, you may or may not know who you are. Something in your life has made you feel like you have no fault in any situation and you are better than the rest of the world. While there are very few, if any, that hold you in as high esteem as you hold yourself, their opinions are obviously bunk, right;

3) All drivers who choose to drive slow and not pass traffic in the fast lane (that's the left lane for those of you who don't know). If you had bothered to read or remember the drivers manual you were supposed to know before you took your drivers test you would know that the left lane is a passing lane and you are to YIELD to all oncoming traffic. The lane is not there so you don't have to be bothered with those annoying things you have to do to be a defensive driver like you know, use your mirrors or actually turn your neck to see if you can get over in to the center lane of traffic that is passing you by while the long line of traffic behind you just sits there because if we go around you on the right, we will get a ticket;

4) Fake, no self-esteem individuals who binge and purge whole pizzas and other mass quantities of food to fit in to their size 2 clothes and then look at and mock the rest of us who are okay with ourselves just the way we are. This also includes the plastic surgery crowd, someone in heaven created you just the way you are, we would have accepted you that way with all your little faults;

5) Anyone born in the Millennial Generation between the years 1982 and 2002, or for that matter any person from any generation that thinks they are just owed something because "they are". Some of these individuals fall under category 2 above but that is not a catch-all. These people are easy to spot they come to work and do nothing but complain that they might have to do something. To cover this, they sit at their computers and surf the net and hit the Alt-Tab key that goes to a Word document or Excel spreadsheet any time anyone with any authority comes by. If you look in to the history of these documents you will see they were created on the day the person started their employment and edits are only made on a once monthly rotation. This is the brilliance of what they do, when the authority figure stops by to see what it is they actually do to earn their paycheck this person has an automatic setting that turns on like clockwork, it is called the habitual ass kiss function. They discuss family matters with the authority, their favorite sports team, compliment the authority figure on how well the current ________ is going (fill in the blank: weight loss; new car purchase; new home purchase; cosmetic surgery; self-esteem course; management course; or any other thing that matters to or will uplift said authority figure). Obviously not all individuals born in this generation are "Millennial" there will be a brief non-intrusive test to see if you will be banned or not;

As you will see, smokers can fit in to any one of these categories. Therefore, there will be a 90 day grace period built in to the vote. If you are a smoker and display any one of these characteristics you will have 90 days to join the real world or you will be banned. Also, not all non-smokers fit in to any one of these categories, you have seen them speak in any number of editorial pieces or on blogs. These non-smokers are ones that feel that we live in the United States of America and that while smoking is not healthy and some find the smell unpleasant, smoking is non-the-less legal. They also understand that there have been, for long periods of time, food and drink establishments that do not allow smoking at any time in every metropolitan area in and around Kansas City for some time. They also clearly understand that this is the United States of America and that the proprietor of any establishment that pays its taxes and pays its bills should have the right to open its doors as it sees fit, so long as it is within the law (again smoking is not illegal). Therefore, there will a list compiled of patriotic and clear thinking individuals who are non-smokers, you will be allowed to occupy the same space with us, we will maintain a non-smoking area for you in any one of these establishments so we can co-exist peacefully. The math of it all will have to be worked out by the voters with a clear 2/3 vote margin meaning if 2/3rds (not 1/2) of the voters want these people banned from our chosen establishments they will be banned permanently and forever.

Please understand, we smokers are free thinking people. We understand that we have made a choice that may have adverse health effects for us. Some of us may even choose to quit smoking at some point. But first and foremost we are free citizens of a democracy and do not wish to quit smoking because you want us to. Like I said the reason for this new initiative is that the 5 types of individuals listed above cause us adverse health conditions such as very high stress levels that lead to many adverse health effects. Another adverse effect is that we have to avoid you which causes us problems with just living our daily lives. One those occasions we are caught in close proximity to you terrible things start to happen to us immediately such as the throbbing, filet knife through the brain feelings and heart palpitations. I firmly believe these individuals are leading us at certain points to be near a stroke or aneurism.

Maybe the restaurant and bar owners want to be able to choose whether they allow smoking in their own establishments because they have to spend a good deal of their lives in those establishments and they want the establishment and patrons to reflect their morals, likes and dislikes. Keep it up folks, someday someone is going to propose a ban against something that you hold close to such as a lifestyle, food, who knows where this will end up. By the way, boycott Boozefish wine bar in Westport for holding the election night party for the uptight City Councilwoman Cathy Jolly!

Comment by Jill W. — April 9, 2008 @ 03:54PM