Join our Mailing List!
Please click the link below to sign up for your community paper mailing list. Stay up to date with all the events going on in your community as well as the latest news.Sign Up Today!
Bars should be exempt from smoking ban
COLUMN
By: Angie Anaya Borgedalen
Yes, to many people smoking may be distasteful or even disgusting, but if customers want to go to bars that allow smoking, that is between the establishment's owner and its patrons.
At least for now in this country, smoking is a legal activity for adults, and they should have the right to go in to a bar and light up if they so choose.
The Liberty City Council — just as many other cities in the Kansas City metropolitan area have — has long debated the merits of a smoking ban. On one side are the health conscious, who believe smoking is hazardous to the public's health, and on the other are business owners who think do-gooders are trampling their rights. Both sides are correct.
After weighing all the arguments, it is now up to the council to balance those conflicting interests and take action. Just put it on the table and vote.
After a recent lengthy debate — with audience participation — the City Council appeared to be split on this controversial issue. At least one council member wanted to put the issue on the ballot; another was fiercely passionate about not enacting what he termed “social legislation;” others wanted a total ban; and others supported some sort of limited ban but wanted to exempt bars and restaurants.
The council has toyed with the idea of adopting a smoking ban for public and private workplaces and buildings, including parks but exempting bars and restaurants, until Kansas City enacts legislation prohibiting smoking in those types of businesses.
Call it cynical, but I do not think the Kansas City Council will voluntarily adopt a tough smoke-free ordinance without an initiative petition drive forcing the issue on the ballot. About 64 percent of Independence voters passed a smoking ban last year.
A couple of years ago Kansas City approved a smoking ban that included bars and restaurants, but the ban won't kick in until 85 percent of the population of the surrounding metropolitan area adopts smoke-free legislation. The current percent is at 71 by some calculations. If Liberty adopted a smoking ban that included bars and restaurants, that percentage would increase to 73 percent.
Liberty City Council members should do what's best for Liberty. Go ahead and adopt a smoking ban in public buildings and parks, but exempt the city's bars and restaurants that generate at least 50 percent of their income from the sale of alcoholic beverages.
When Kansas City cracks down on smoking in bars and restaurants, local officials could revisit the issue. Like it or not, Liberty's handful of bars is in competition with Kansas City. Why economically harm our local businesses when customers who want to drink and smoke can just go across the bridge? People are not dragged into bars kicking and screaming. They go in there of their own accord.
I do think, though, that children should be prohibited from sitting in the smoking sections of restaurants, and those areas should be well ventilated and separated from the nonsmokers.
Yes, I understand that those kids whose parents smoke would still be exposed to second-hand smoke riding in the car and at home, but that does mean the public has to condone it in public places. The kids, I presume, will not be patronizing bars.
printable version
e-mail this story
At least for now in this country, smoking is a legal activity for adults, and they should have the right to go in to a bar and light up if they so choose.
The Liberty City Council — just as many other cities in the Kansas City metropolitan area have — has long debated the merits of a smoking ban. On one side are the health conscious, who believe smoking is hazardous to the public's health, and on the other are business owners who think do-gooders are trampling their rights. Both sides are correct.
After weighing all the arguments, it is now up to the council to balance those conflicting interests and take action. Just put it on the table and vote.
After a recent lengthy debate — with audience participation — the City Council appeared to be split on this controversial issue. At least one council member wanted to put the issue on the ballot; another was fiercely passionate about not enacting what he termed “social legislation;” others wanted a total ban; and others supported some sort of limited ban but wanted to exempt bars and restaurants.
The council has toyed with the idea of adopting a smoking ban for public and private workplaces and buildings, including parks but exempting bars and restaurants, until Kansas City enacts legislation prohibiting smoking in those types of businesses.
Call it cynical, but I do not think the Kansas City Council will voluntarily adopt a tough smoke-free ordinance without an initiative petition drive forcing the issue on the ballot. About 64 percent of Independence voters passed a smoking ban last year.
A couple of years ago Kansas City approved a smoking ban that included bars and restaurants, but the ban won't kick in until 85 percent of the population of the surrounding metropolitan area adopts smoke-free legislation. The current percent is at 71 by some calculations. If Liberty adopted a smoking ban that included bars and restaurants, that percentage would increase to 73 percent.
Liberty City Council members should do what's best for Liberty. Go ahead and adopt a smoking ban in public buildings and parks, but exempt the city's bars and restaurants that generate at least 50 percent of their income from the sale of alcoholic beverages.
When Kansas City cracks down on smoking in bars and restaurants, local officials could revisit the issue. Like it or not, Liberty's handful of bars is in competition with Kansas City. Why economically harm our local businesses when customers who want to drink and smoke can just go across the bridge? People are not dragged into bars kicking and screaming. They go in there of their own accord.
I do think, though, that children should be prohibited from sitting in the smoking sections of restaurants, and those areas should be well ventilated and separated from the nonsmokers.
Yes, I understand that those kids whose parents smoke would still be exposed to second-hand smoke riding in the car and at home, but that does mean the public has to condone it in public places. The kids, I presume, will not be patronizing bars.
Comments on "Bars should be exempt from smoking ban"
Comments are limited to 200 words or less.Rufus wrote on Oct 1, 2007 4:15 AM:
" "People are not dragged into bars kicking and screaming", from the article, is equally true for both customers and staff. If it is known that smoking is permitted in bars then one can hardly expect to be surprised to find people smoking in them.
Paul's comment is pretty much word for word what I would expect, only he doesn't go as far as the "no safe exposure level" which is customary. Compare and contrast with the UK prime minister's use of the phrase:
"There is currently no scientific evidence that BSE can be transmitted to humans or that eating beef causes CJD in humans."
There's no evidence because no-one is looking for it, just as the exposure to "toxic gasses" has no exposure because no-one with any credibility is willing to try and find a safe limit of something which occurs in such low levels anyway.
I agree with the article, let Liberty council do what's best for Liberty. The contribution of Paul and his ilk aren't terribly relavant. "
Paul wrote on Sep 27, 2007 4:10 PM:
" Smoking bans and restrictions are meant to protect non-smokers from the proven negative health consequences of second hand tobacco smoke. This is especially important for employees who could be exposed to the toxic gases for 40 hours or more per week. Why should any business be exempt from protecting it's employees from this hazard? It's a public health issue. You can't exempt some people from public health protection. "