No Smoking In KC bars and restaurants

[D.]

http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/567725.html

i don't smoke or go to bars, but shouldn't this be up to each individual bar/restaurant ?

Kansas City’s bars and restaurants must go smoke-free within two months after voters on Tuesday approved a comprehensive workplace smoking ban.

The ban won by a 52 to 48 percent margin in unofficial final returns.

Cathy Jolly, a Kansas City councilwoman and cancer survivor, praised the grassroots petition effort to put the measure on the ballot.

“This was citizen-led,” she said. “This wasn’t government-sponsored.”

Tuesday’s decision, Jolly said, will make the city “a healthier place to work, to eat, to be out and about.”

Kansas City joins nearly a dozen metro area communities in deciding, through elections or council votes, to prohibit smoking in bars and restaurants. The measure also calls for Kansas City’s casino gaming floors to go smoke-free when casinos in neighboring cities approve similar bans.

Supporters hope Tuesday’s vote is a tipping point for other area cities to join the smoke-free trend. Unified Government Mayor Joe Reardon plans to introduce an ordinance soon that would ban smoking in Wyandotte County public places, including bars and restaurants, according to spokesman Mike Taylor.

The election capped a passionate debate in which owners of Kansas City neighborhood bars and restaurants argued that a ban was unfair and would devastate their businesses. They said the ban puts them at a competitive disadvantage to the casino gaming floors as well as to entertainment venues in nearby cities that still allow smoking.

Gretchen Wilhelm, a cook at The Peanut bar and grill on Main Street, said business is already off since some smoking restrictions recently took effect, and she feared job losses. She worried the ban will hurt locally owned food establishments that give Kansas City its special flavor.

“I really think it should be up to the business owners’ discretion,” she said. “As an adult, I resent not being allowed to make my own choices concerning my health.”

Health-care advocates and civic leaders countered that business rights stop when they infringe on nonsmokers’ rights to breathe clean air. They were especially concerned about mounting health-care costs and the risks to bar and restaurant employees from prolonged exposure to secondhand smoke.

The new law takes effect in 60 days and supersedes a rival City Council measure that took effect March 24. That measure allowed smoking in bars at all hours and in restaurants with liquor licenses after 9 p.m.

The council measure also banned smoking throughout the Truman Sports Complex. The new law does not address smoking in open-air parts of the stadiums, but the Royals have decided on their own to allow smoking only in certain areas near the turnstiles.

The campaign leading up to Tuesday’s election was waged with money from Big Tobacco on one side and major health-care contributors on the other.

Tobacco giant Reynolds American Inc. of Winston-Salem, N.C., contributed more than $220,000 to the group opposing the ban. Proponents of the ban received more than $240,000 in contributions, primarily from the American Cancer Society, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, Health Care Foundation of Greater Kansas City and St. Luke’s Health System.

The new law will be enforced by the Kansas City Health Department. Health inspectors expect most smokers to obey the law, based on their experience since some workplace smoking restrictions took effect in mid-2005. The department has received about 200 complaints since then, but most are resolved quickly.

“Generally we’ve had good compliance,” said Bert Malone, director of environmental health services. “We ended up citing only a handful of people.”

The city has not provided any additional funding for education or enforcement, so the Health Department will handle violations as it has in the past, by responding to complaints. Malone said people can call the department, but most choose to fill out a complaint form on the department’s Web site, www.kcmo.org/health.

When the department gets a complaint, it first sends a warning letter to the proprietor. If complaints continue, the department investigates. If a smoker is ticketed, the first violation can result in a fine of up to $50 for the smoker and up to $100 for the proprietor.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What it does
The new law takes effect in 60 days. It:

• Bans smoking in all Kansas City restaurants and bars. The current law, which went into effect March 24, allows smoking at all hours in bars and after 9 p.m. in restaurants with liquor licenses.

• Allows smoking on casino gambling floors — until casinos in neighboring cities adopt similar bans.

• In effect, changes little at Kauffman Stadium. The Royals have voluntarily limited smoking.

[Nimrod's Son]

Sorry David, you must be under the mistaken impression that you have any control over the business and property that you own.

[hastduvergessen]

people should have the right to spraypaint the table in front of them and inhale the fumes if the establishment allows it

[Sepiae]

No. Boston passed this legislation and it is awesome. I used to smoke, but it's so nice to go out to see a band or spend an evening hanging out in a bar and not come home absolutely reeking. Except now when I go home to North Carolina, I can barely stand it. I never could smell it in restaurants until I moved.

Also, the past couple of dudes I've tried to get with that I met in bars were smokers, and it's excellent way to excuse yourself from the group and have a private conversation.

[Banana]

No the bans at bars and restaurants are good. I love going into bars and not having cigarette smoke fill the place up. If you really want to smoke badly, step outside, no need to bring that shit inside.

[SlingeroGuitaro]

austin passed this a few years ago. nobody listened.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by Sepiae

No. Boston passed this legislation and it is awesome. I used to smoke, but it's so nice to go out to see a band or spend an evening hanging out in a bar and not come home absolutely reeking. Except now when I go home to North Carolina, I can barely stand it. I never could smell it in restaurants until I moved.

Also, the past couple of dudes I've tried to get with that I met in bars were smokers, and it's excellent way to excuse yourself from the group and have a private conversation.

Um, look.. the places you were in always had the right to make their establishment non-smoking.

[Sepiae]

The city only permits a certain number of restaurants to stay open past a certain time, hence there are only like 2 diners in Boston. I do think it'd make sense to do the same with smoking.

[Banana]

IT does make sense to do the same with smoking. Banning smoking from bars and restaurants only improves them.

[Sarcastic Smile]

Originally Posted by Sepiae

The city only permits a certain number of restaurants to stay open past a certain time, hence there are only like 2 diners in Boston. I do think it'd make sense to do the same with smoking.

You can smoke in VFW and elks in MA.. doesnt that sound like a fun night out?

[Debaser]

its been like this in California for at least 10 years or more.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by Banana03

IT does make sense to do the same with smoking. Banning smoking from bars and restaurants only improves them.

If it improved them... for the people who OWN that property.. don't you think they would have done it on their own? To improve their businesses? The businesses that they, you know, own?

[Fattening Ass]

big whoop

[Nimrod's Son]

Whether or not you want to go to a bar that allows smoking, it doesn't mean the government should have the right to tell those privately owned businesses what to do

If more people wanted to avoid smoking, why not patronize a bar that does agree with that philosophy and doesn't allow it in their establishment?

[Sarcastic Smile]

did a lot of it happen after that club fire in RI? the laws changing i mean

[Banana]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

If it improved them... for the people who OWN that property.. don't you think they would have done it on their own? To improve their businesses? The businesses that they, you know, own?

If a bar bans smoking, while other bars around them have not, it's going to hurt that one bars business. If all bars ban smoking, it's not going to hurt business at all. It improves overall bar experience because than you don't have to leave reeking of that cigarette smell, or be drinking in a place that smells terrible and is smoked up. Plus it's healthier overall. If you really need to smoke, step outside of the bar and smoke, no need to bring your annoying habit inside to others.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by Banana03

If a bar bans smoking, while other bars around them have not, it's going to hurt that one bars business. If all bars ban smoking, it's not going to hurt business at all. It improves overall bar experience because than you don't have to leave reeking of that cigarette smell, or be drinking in a place that smells terrible and is smoked up. Plus it's healthier overall. If you really need to smoke, step outside of the bar and smoke, no need to bring your annoying habit inside to others.

really? it seems to me you're saying that the majority WANT this and thus that place would have a booming business

[Thaniel Buckner]

i like this part of nimrod's son.

[Thaniel Buckner]

when i was in georgia, we had a meal at the earl. i as about halfway through my meal when i noticed an ashtray on the table.

it was pretty great to light up right there at the table after a great meal.

[Sepiae]

Originally Posted by Sarcastic Smile

did a lot of it happen after that club fire in RI? the laws changing i mean

No, I think the sprinkler laws that caused such a ruckus last summer had a lot more do with that than the smoking ban.

[Banana]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

really? it seems to me you're saying that the majority WANT this and thus that place would have a booming business

I wouldn't say the majority want it. But it's such an easy ban to do that does no harm in the end, only helps others out who go to the bars and don't feel like dealing with cigarette smoke. There is no logical reason to not ban smoking in bars.

[JapanAlex]

there has been a ban throughout the UK. it's great! i smoked for a few years and its so good to have this ban - many smokers dont notice what theyve done to themselves until they quit!

with the ban now in place the UK will save millions in hospital funds and cancer will (slowly) go down nearly 40%...

if that is not the best reason for a ban i dont know what is

second hand smoke gives cancer and or kills people too you know--???

[Skylarq]

what would you guys have thought in the 1970's when the indoor clean air act was enabled and smoking was banned in most workplaces? is that different than this to you? you choose to work certain jobs. if you don't want to be around smoke, should you have to work outdoors?

[Thaniel Buckner]

Originally Posted by Banana03

There is no logical reason to not ban smoking in bars.

what about infringement upon the rights of people who like to smoke in bars,

[Banana]

Originally Posted by Thaniel Buckner

what about infringement upon the rights of people who like to smoke in bars,

Go and smoke outside. How difficult is it for you to do that? It's much more of an inconvenience to have to deal with your smoking if I am inside the bar.

[Thaniel Buckner]

Originally Posted by JapanAlex

there has been a ban throughout the UK. it's great! i smoked for a few years and its so good to have this ban - many smokers dont notice what theyve done to themselves until they quit!

with the ban now in place the UK will save millions in hospital funds and cancer will (slowly) go down nearly 40%...

if that is not the best reason for a ban i dont know what is

second hand smoke gives cancer and or kills people too you know--???

hey asswipe i hope you don't spend anytime outside around any running engines either if you're so concerned about what you're breathing in.

[Thaniel Buckner]

Originally Posted by Banana03

Go and smoke outside. How difficult is it for you to do that? It's much more of an inconvenience to have to deal with your smoking if I am inside the bar.

how about this, i go to the bars i can smoke at, and you you go to the bars where i can't.

if it's such an inconvenience.

[Banana]

Originally Posted by Thaniel Buckner

how about this, i go to the bars i can smoke at, and you you go to the bars where i can't.

if it's such an inconvenience.

No because I don't want to have to limit myself to certain bars because you have an addiction you can't handle. I shouldn't have to compensate for your weaknesses. How about I go to whatever bar I want to without having to deal with cigarette smoke/smell, and you go to the same bars, but when you feel you oh so must smoke, step outside for a few minutes.

[mercurial]

all the pubs smell like dirty carpets, stale beer and body odour now

[mercurial]

it's very, very smelly