Syring: Smoking ban should be upheld
Businesses, Kansas Supreme Court should deny indoor smoking
The owner of two local bars filed a lawsuit against Lawrence in 2005 for its smoking ban. Columnist Kaitlyn Syring argues that the ban — which is now being considered by the Kansas Supreme Court — should not be reversed because smoking is detrimental to patrons' health.
Friday, May 4th, 2007
You don’t know how much you love something until it’s gone.
This phrase rings true for me any time I go to a city that does not have a smoking ban like Lawrence’s. I’m allergic to smoke, and second-hand smoke affects me visibly. My eyes become red and start to burn, my nose runs and I can’t control my coughing. It’s not pretty.
It was not until I turned 21, however, and went to a bar outside of Lawrence that I fully appreciated it. I had to leave an Emporia bar because I could not open my eyes. The smoke had ruined my night, and therefore my friends’ night too.
Second-hand smoke is bad for everyone, not just those who are allergic to it. A recent study by the Surgeon General concluded that even brief exposure to second-hand smoke can have immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and interfere with the normal functioning of the heart, blood and vascular systems in ways that increase the risk of a heart attack.
The study also says that nonsmokers who are exposed to second-hand smoke at work increase their risks of developing heart disease by 25 to 30 percent and of developing lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent. The report says there is no risk-free level of exposure to second-hand smoke, and that the only way to protect nonsmokers from its dangerous effects is to eliminate smoking indoors.
I have been lucky enough to have lived in two cities that have smoking bans: Lawrence and Salina. Salina’s only applies to restaurants, which was just as well for me, as I couldn’t go to bars there. I came to the University of Kansas in 2004, just in time to enjoy the new smoking ban.
It was not until I turned 21, however, and went to a bar outside of Lawrence that I fully appreciated it. I had to leave an Emporia bar because I could not open my eyes. The smoke had ruined my night, and therefore my friends’ night too.
Now this ban is facing the possibility of being changed or taken away altogether. Dennis Steffes, the owner of Last Call and Coyote’s Night Club, filed a case against the city in early 2005 after his businesses received five citations for violating the ban. That case is now being decided by the Kansas Supreme Court.
Steffes says the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague because it does not provide owners with solutions to a problem with someone smoking in their businesses. It’s obvious that owners should ask the patron to put out the cigarette, take the cigarette outside or leave the premises. If he or she creates a problem, call the police.
I know that some business owners think they have lost customers because of the smoking ban. That’s why the city should make it as easy as possible for these businesses to construct outdoor porches for smoking patrons. I’m not for any Lawrence businesses having to shut down or struggle if the majority of their customers were or are smokers. But I would like to come to those businesses too, and I can’t do that if it means having smoke in my face.
The Kansas Supreme Court should protect the health of people in Lawrence by keeping the ban in place.
Syring is a Salina junior in journalism.
Discussion
All comments are moderated by Kansan.com staff. For our full user policy, click here.
Syring SAID: "...any time I go to a city that does not have a smoking ban"
What a crock. If Syring would stay out of the businesses that allow smoking....everything else is a mute point.
I advocate letting business owners decide and post it as such. Problem solved...unless you beleive in tyranny and oppression.
tyranny and oppression... or a legitimate health concern...
I think this whole issue is whether we side with the smoker's rights argument or the non-smoker's rights argument. I personally think as smoking is legal that dining institutions/bars and businesses of that sort should be allowed to decide for themselves whether to allow or ban smoking. Furthermore, forcing bar owners to ban smoking does harm their business as evidenced in Lawrence, and outdoor patios are not a solution during the winter months.
I'm definitely not a big fan of second-hand smoke. The last thing I want to do (when coming home from a late night at the bar) is have to shower in order to get the stench out. The other option is to continue to smell like that and have the stench rub off on the sheets.
I reside in Jacksonville, Fla and we have a smoking ban "with a twist" as I like to call it. Establishments that serve primarily food do not allow smoking, while establishments that serve primarily alcohol permit cigarettes. I'm not entirely sure what the food-alcohol ratio is (number wise) but it seems to work for everybody.
Share your 2¢
Requires free registration.