Voice For Liberty

Search results for: “smoking”

  • Kansas smoking ban opponents meet in Wichita

    A group primarily composed of business owners met in Wichita on Thursday to discuss the recently passed Kansas smoking ban and what might be done to overturn it or mitigate its damage to business.

    Phillip Bradley of Kansas Licensed Beverage Association briefed the group on the current status of the smoking ban and what types of action might be possible in the future.

    Bradley told the group that it’s nearly impossible to get a new bill through the Kansas Legislature at this time. The greatest chance for action is to have an amendment added to a bill that’s already in conference. He mentioned SB 454 as a possibility, adding that it’s being made into a “Christmas tree,” meaning that many interests are attempting to add to the bill.

    There are three issues related to the smoking ban that can gain traction with legislators, Bradley said. The first is that the state exempted state-owned casinos from the smoking ban.

    The second is the “ten foot rule,” which says that smoking is not allowed within ten feet of “any doorway, open window or air intake” of a building, except for those buildings (like state-owned casinos) that are exempt from the smoking ban. This is a problem for downtown areas or malls where businesses may be in close proximity to each other, and to sidewalks and outdoor patios where smoking is permitted.

    The third relates to treating similar classes unequally in the law. Private clubs that were in existence before January 1, 2009 can be exempted from the smoking ban. Private clubs formed after that date, however, are subject to the smoking ban.

    Bradley explained some of the difficulties involved in understanding legislative action. The so-called “gut-and-go,” for example, is where a bill that is passed by one chamber — say the Senate — is stripped of its content by the other chamber, the House of Representatives in this example. The original text of the bill is replaced with new text, which might refer to a totally different topic. The reformulated bill — passed by the House, even though it now refers to a totally new and possibly entirely different subject — goes back to the Senate as having already been passed by that body.

    Representative Brenda Landwehr, a Republican who represents parts of northwest Wichita and who is chair of the House of Representatives Health and Human Services Committee, addressed the group and offered advice as to how to influence legislators. She recommended personal telephone calls to legislators explaining how the smoking ban will impact their businesses. If legislators say studies show that smoking bans have no impact on business, she suggested callers ask legislators why the state exempted its state-owned casinos from the smoking ban. “People don’t understand the amount of money that bars bring to this state,” she added.

    Landwehr said that the state-owned casinos, being exempt from the smoking ban, are competition to already-existing bars near the casinos, both existing and those that may open in the future.

    She advised the group that legislators generally respond first to people who live in the district they represent.

    Ali Issa, owner of Heat Cigar and Hookah Lounge in Wichita, where the meeting took place, urged the group to take action. Expressing the concern that the smoking ban is harmful to business, he said “Our goal is to stay in business.” He urged the group to make calls to legislators and spread the message through social media like Facebook.

    A question asked by some business owners asked about the possibility of gathering signatures on petitions. As Kansas has no initiative and referendum process, it’s not possible to force votes on state laws through this process. Petitions, however, can powerfully express the sentiment of the public.

    It was mentioned that under a conservative Kansas governor — presumably Sam Brownback — the smoking ban might not survive. But Sheila Martin, a Hutchinson business owner and activist in the smoking ban issue, said that many people will be out of business by the time Brownback becomes governor in January 2011.

    The group plans to hold a public meeting soon to bring attention to this issue.

    A website has been established to support the efforts of business owners. It may be accessed at Kansas Right to Choose.

    Other coverage of this meeting is at Business group will fight state’s smoking ban.

  • Testimony opposing Kansas smoking ban

    Submitted by John Todd.

    February 13, 2008

    Senate Judiciary Committee
    Kansas Legislature
    State Capitol
    Topeka, Kansas 66612

    Subject: My testimony presented in OPPOSITION to Senate Bill No. 493 concerning crimes and punishments relating to smoking.

    Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, thank you for allowing me this opportunity to speak to you in Opposition to passage of Senate Bill No. 493 concerning crimes and punishments relating to smoking, aka the Kansas smoking prohibition act.

    My name is John Todd. I am a self-employed real estate broker and land developer from Wichita. I currently serve on the Governmental Affairs Committee and the Board of Directors of Wichita Independent Business Association. I am the Wichita Area Volunteer Coordinator for Americans For Prosperity—Kansas. I have been working with the Wichita Business and Consumer Rights Coalition in an effort to stop a smoking ban ordinance currently being debated by the Wichita City Council. I appear before you today as a private citizen, speaking only for myself and not for any other group.

    I do not smoke, but does that give me, or even the majority of non-smokers in our state the right to use state law to restrict the rights and freedoms of those people who choose to smoke? A Democracy is like two wolves and a sheep deciding where to go for lunch. The lone sheep would have to agree with De Toquiville who described that situation as the “tyranny of the majority.” The pledge of allegiance describes our country as a “republic.” Our founders established a republican form of government in order to protect the individual’s rights from the tyranny of the majority.

    The sale and use of tobacco products is legal in our state. The sale of tobacco products produces tax revenue for our state, and government officials think that is positive. And, our Federal Government still subsidizes the growing of tobacco in tobacco growing states.

    The passage of Senate Bill # 493 is not needed because the smoking problem has been solving itself, for several years on the local level, without government intervention by the natural and voluntary action of our free market economic system. Over the last two to three decades, restaurants, bars, and other businesses have been “voluntarily” regulating smoking and non-smoking in their businesses all over our state without the need for government mandated regulations, and without the need for government enforcement. This move to non-smoking establishments has been consumer driven, and businesses have voluntarily responded to this demand. Some businesses owners still choose to offer smoking for their customers since their customers demand the freedom to smoke. Freedom demands choice by business owner and customer. And, Private Property Rights are best preserved when property owners are free to use their property as they see fit. State government needs to stay out of the smoking debate.

    Several cities in our state have adopted smoking ban ordinances while others have not. There are studies that show smoking bans cause economic harm to some businesses, and I have heard testimony from business owners in Wichita who have or will be impacted negatively by the passage of a proposed smoking ordinance by the City of Wichita. Like most regulations, the ordinance is complicated to the point of making it unenforceable. And, who is going to enforce the ordinance? Will additional city staff and the resultant bureaucracy be required for enforcement? What is enforcement going to cost? Will enforcement be selective or arbitrary? What economic impact will the ordinance have on business? Is the ordinance even necessary?

    The proponents of the ordinance are voicing concerns about public health and public health costs associated with smoking. Will this same group be pushing for city ordinances dealing with obesity with mandated diet and exercise? What will the penalties for failure to comply? Who will decide the standards?

    The proponents of the proposed city smoking ban ordinance appear to be the same group who want to direct the lives of other people since they know what is best for them. They have no problem supporting law that limits individual freedom of choice, and private property rights.

    Milton Friedman says, “A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that…it gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.”

    The “voluntary” and “market-driven” solution to the so-called smoking problem has been happening automatically all over Kansas without the need for additional state law that criminalizes and punishes people who are partaking in their freedom to enjoy a legal product and activity. Senate Bill #493 looks like another regulation on the backs of business and property owners with the potential for creating an enforcement process that will be impossible to police, but at the same time create another level of expensive bureaucracy for a non-existent problem. I ask you to oppose the passage of Senate Bill #493.

    Related articles:

    It’s Not the Same as Pee In the Swimming Pool

    Property Rights Should Control Kansas Smoking Decisions

  • Wichita Smoking Ban Starts. Sharon Fearey is Excited.

    Today, September 4, 2008, marks the first day of the ban on smoking in Wichita. It’s not quite a total ban, and that has some smoking ban supporters upset. In a letter to the Wichita Eagle, anti-smoking activist Cindy Claycomb writes “If you are a supporter of clean indoor air, please do not spend your money in businesses that allow smoking indoors, including smoking rooms. If we continue to spend our money at places that allow smoking indoors, that tells the business owners that we do not care — that we will tolerate secondhand smoke even though we all know the harmful effects.”

    Not everyone is upset, though. In the Wichita Eagle article Smoking ban takes effect; for smokers, end of an era, Wichita city council member Sharon Fearey is quoted as “I feel this is an exciting time for the city.” If, like council member Fearey, you appreciate increasing government and bureaucratic management of the lives of Wichitans, you might be excited, too. Those who value liberty and freedom, however, are saddened — even if they aren’t smokers.

    Fortunately Ms. Fearey is precluded from running again for her seat on the city council by term limits. The two architects of this smoking ban — Lavonta Williams and Jeff Longwell — can run for election again. The position held by Ms. Williams is up for grabs in the March 2009 primary. Hopefully the citizens of Wichita city council district one will elect someone respectful of property rights, not to mention personal rights.

    For more coverage of the smoking issue and why it’s important, these articles will be of interest: It’s Not the Same as Pee In the Swimming Pool, Haze Surrounds Wichita Smoking Ban, Property Rights Should Control Kansas Smoking Decisions, Let Property Rights Rule Wichita Smoking Decisions, Testimony Opposing Kansas Smoking Ban, and No More Smoking Laws, Please.

  • No more smoking laws, please

    There is no doubt in my mind that smoking cigarettes and breathing secondhand smoke are harmful to health. If a young person asked my advice as to whether to smoke cigarettes, I would strongly urge them to avoid smoking.

    But it doesn’t follow that we should have laws against smoking, or laws that govern how businesses such as bars and restaurants must accommodate smokers and non-smokers.

    Smoking is (and should continue to be) a legal activity. It seems unlikely to me that there are adults who are not familiar with the data about the risks of smoking, and they are entitled to make up their own minds as to whether to smoke.

    In a similar fashion, business owners should be able to allow smoking or not, as they judge best serves the interests of their customers. Already many restaurants have judged that their customers prefer no smoking at all. That decision may drive off smoking customers, but that’s the business owner’s decision to make.

    Some businesses allow smoking, presumably because the owners decide it is in their best interests to allow smoking. If their customers tell them otherwise or if customers stay away, the business owner has a powerful incentive to change the smoking policy, either to ban it entirely, or to create a more effective barrier between smokers and non-smokers.

    People, through their free selection of where they choose to spend their dollars, will let bar and restaurant owners know their preferences. After some time we will have the optimal mix of smoking and non-smoking establishments based on what people actually do, not what politicians think they should do. Isn’t that better than using the heavy hand of government to force change?

    I believe that markets, if left to their own mechanism, would serve to reduce smoking. Already smokers pay more for life insurance. If it is true that smokers have more costly health problems than non-smokers, why not let health insurance be priced separately for smokers and non-smokers?

    Or, when renting an apartment, a landlord could charge smokers more to compensate for the higher risk of fire and the extra cleanup costs when the renters leave.

  • Let property rights rule Wichita smoking decisions

    A system of absolute respect for private property rights is the best way to handle smoking, as it is with all issues. The owners of bars and restaurants have, and should continue to have, the absolute right to permit or deny smoking on their property.

    Not everyone agrees with this simple truth. Charlie Claycomb, co-chair of the Tobacco Free Wichita coalition, asks in The Wichita Eagle why clean air is not a right when smoking is a right. The answer is that both clean air and smoking are rights that people may enjoy, as they wish, on their own property. When on the property of others, you may enjoy the rights that the property owner has decided on.

    It’s not like the supposed right to breathe clean air while dining or drinking on someone else’s property is being violated surreptitiously. Most people can quickly sense upon entering a bar or restaurant whether people are smoking. If you do not want to be around cigarette smoke, all you have to do is leave. That’s what I do. It is that simple. No government regulation is needed: just leave. If you wish, tell the manager or owner why you are leaving. That may persuade the owner of the property to make a decision in your favor.

    Employees may make the same decision. There are plenty of smoke-free places for people to work if they don’t want to be around smoke.

    Some think that if they leave a restaurant or bar because it is smoky, then they have lost their “right” to be in that establishment. But no one has an absolute right to be on someone else’s private property, much less to be on that property under conditions that they — not the property owner — dictate.

    Property rights, then, are the way to solve disputes over smoking vs. clean air in a way that respects individual freedom and liberty. Under property rights, owners will decide to allow or prohibit smoking as they best see fit, to meet the needs of their current customers, or the customers they want to attract.

    A property rights-based system is greatly preferable to government mandate. Without property rights, decisions are made for spurious reasons. For example, debate often includes statements such as “I’m a non-smoker and I think that …” or “I’m a smoker and …” These statements presuppose that the personal habits or preferences of the speaker make their argument persuasive.

    Decision-making based on personal characteristics, preferences, or group-membership happens often in politics. Wichita City Council member Jim Skelton, evidently once a smoker and opposed to smoking bans, is now receptive to bans since he quit smoking. Mr. Skelton, I ask you for this courtesy: would you please publish a list of the things you now take pleasure in, so that if you decide to quit them in the future, I shall have time to prepare myself for their banning?

    Lack of respect for property rights allows decisions to be made by people other than the owners of the property. In the case of a smoking ban, the decision can severely harm the value of property like bars or restaurants that caters to smokers. This matters little to smoking ban supporters like Wichita Vice Mayor Sharon Fearey. But we should not be surprised, as her record indicates she has little respect for private property.

    By respecting property rights, we can have smoking and non-smoking establishments. Property owners will decide what is in their own and their customers’ interests. Both groups, smokers and nonsmokers, can have what they want. With a government mandate, one group wins at the expense of the rights of many others.

  • Let free markets, not laws, regulate smoking

    Today, in the town of Hutchinson, Kansas, an indoor smoking ban takes effect. I hope Wichita does not pass the same law. I believe the evidence that shows smoking is tremendously harmful to the health of the smoker, and also dangerous to those around the smoker. Personally, I don’t care to be around smokers and I take measures to avoid places where I will be exposed to cigarette smoke. So shouldn’t I favor a smoking ban in Wichita?

    We should let free markets instead of the government decide whether there will be smoking in places like restaurants and bars. In this way, people will be able to smoke or avoid smoke as they see fit. If restaurant owners sense non-smokers don’t like eating in smoky restaurants, they can either eliminate smoking (at the risk of losing smoking customers), or they can build effective separation between smoking and non-smoking sections of the restaurant. Or, if they choose to cater to smokers, they can create all-smoking section establishments. The choice is theirs.

    People, through their free selection of where they choose to spend their dollars, will let bar and restaurant owners know their preferences. After some time we will have the optimal mix of smoking and non-smoking establishments based on what people actually do, not what politicians think they should do. Isn’t that a better way?

  • Property rights should control Kansas smoking decisions

    A system of absolute respect for private property rights is the best way to handle smoking. The owners of bars and restaurants have, and should continue to have, the absolute right to permit or deny smoking on their property.

    Not everyone agrees with this simple truth. Some ask why is there no right to clean air when there is the right to smoke. The answer is that both breathing clean air and smoking are rights that people may enjoy, as they wish, on their own property. When on the property of others, you may enjoy the rights that the property owner has decided on.

    It’s not like the supposed right to breathe clean air while dining or drinking on someone else’s property is being violated surreptitiously. Most people can quickly sense upon entering a bar or restaurant whether people are smoking. If people are smoking, and patrons decide to stay, we can only conclude that they made the choice to stay. The owners of bars and restaurants do not have the power to force people to stay and breathe smoke.

    Employees may make the same decision. There are plenty of smoke-free places for people to work if they don’t want to be around smoke.

    Some think that if they leave a restaurant or bar because it is smoky, then they have lost their “right” to be in that establishment. But no one has an absolute right to be on someone else’s private property, much less to be on that property under conditions that they — instead of the property owner — dictate.

    Property rights, then, are the way to solve disputes over smoking vs. clean air in a way that respects freedom and liberty. Under property rights, bar and restaurant owners will decide to allow or prohibit smoking as they best see fit, to meet the needs of their current customers, or the customers they want to attract.

    A property rights-based system is greatly preferable to government mandate. Without property rights, decision are made for spurious reasons. For example, debate often includes statements such as “I’m a non-smoker and I think that …” or “I’m a smoker and …” These statements presuppose that the personal habits or preferences of the speaker make their argument persuasive.

    Decision-making based on personal characteristics, preferences, or group-membership happens often in politics. Lack of respect for property rights allows decisions to be made by people other than the owners of the property. In the case of a smoking ban, the decision can severely harm the value of property like bars or restaurants that caters to smokers. This matters little to smoking ban supporters, but as we have seen, they have little respect for private property.

    By respecting property rights, we can have both smoking and non-smoking establishments. Property owners will decide what is in their own and their customers’ interests. Both groups, smokers and nonsmokers, can have what they want. With a government mandate or majority rule, one group wins at the expense of the rights of many others.

  • Haze surrounds Wichita smoking ban

    Remarks delivered to Wichita City Council, May 6, 2008. Listen here.

    Smoking ban supporters claim that they have the right to go to bowling alleys, bars, and other such places without having to breath secondhand smoke. That’s false. No one has the right to be on someone else’s property on their own terms. The property owner controls those terms. If the bar owner lets the band play too loud (or maybe not loud enough), or the restaurant is too dimly lit, or the floor of the steakhouse covered with discarded peanut shells, do we want to regulate these things too?

    Some have compared a smoking section in a restaurant to a urinating section in a swimming pool. This comparison is ridiculous. You can’t tell upon entering a swimming pool if someone peed in it. You can tell, however, upon entering a bar or restaurant if there is smoking going on.

    Some make the argument that since we regulate businesses for health reasons already, why not regulate smoking? Without agreeing with the need for these regulations, the answer is this: First, these government regulations don’t necessarily accomplish their goal. People still become ill from food, for example. But there is some merit here. Just by entering a restaurant and inspecting the dining room and the menu, you can’t tell if the food is being stored at the proper temperature in the restaurant’s refrigerators. But you can easily tell if there’s smoking going on.

    A system of absolute respect for private property rights is the best way to handle smoking. The owners of bars and restaurants have, and should continue to have, the absolute right to permit or deny smoking on their property. Markets -– that is, people freely making decisions for themselves -– will let property owners know whether they want smoking or clean air.

    The problem with a smoking ban written into law rather than reliance on markets is that everyone has to live by the same rules. Living by the same rules is good when the purpose is to keep people and their property safe from harm. That’s why we have laws against theft and murder. But it’s different when we pass laws intended to keep people safe from harms that they themselves can easily avoid, just by staying out of those places where people are smoking. For the people who value being in the smoky place more than they dislike the negative effects of the smoke, they can make that decision.

    This is not a middle-ground position, as there really isn’t a middle ground here. Instead, this is a position that respects the individual. It lets each person have what they individually prefer, rather than having a majority — no matter how lop-sided — make the same decision for everyone. Especially when that decision, as someone said, will “tick off everybody.” Who benefits from a law that does that?

  • Kansas Smoking Ban Conflicts Wichita’s

    Here’s a letter the Wichita Eagle printed from Wichita businessman Craig Gabel.

    There are many reasons to oppose more smoking bans. The posts Testimony Opposing Kansas Smoking Ban, Haze Surrounds Wichita Smoking Ban, Property Rights Should Control Kansas Smoking Decisions, and It’s Not the Same as Pee In the Swimming Pool supply some background.

    The issue that Craig mentions is important. Just last year some establishments such as his spent a great deal of money to install the equipment necessary to conform to the smoking ban that Wichita passes. Now, if a comprehensive ban passes at the state level, this investment is lost. There needs to be some provision for these businesses to be exempted or compensated.

    By the way, did you know that the state exempted itself from the smoking ban when it appeared that it might hurt the state’s pocketbook? See Kansas Exempts Itself from Onerous Regulation.

    Charlie Claycomb has compared a smoking section in a restaurant to a urination section in a swimming pool. Claycomb needs to come and speak with those of us who have spent thousands of dollars remodeling our restaurants this past year to comply with the city of Wichita’s smoking ordinance.

    If lawmakers don’t want smoking, they should have the guts to outlaw smoking everywhere, as well as the sale of cigarettes. They know that if they did, their tenure in office would be limited to the next election. We don’t need any more liberal politicians pushing special-interest agendas and eating away at our personal freedoms “for our own good.”

    CRAIG GABEL
    Wichita

More posts