Kansas bill is all smoke, no fire

“The idea that a private restaurant is a public place and is harming other people, I find incorrect”

TOPEKA | Lighting a fire under a Kansas smoking ban is proving about as hard as rubbing two sticks together.

Legislative opponents have placed so many exceptions into the bill that even supporters don't like it. Those exceptions include casinos, bars, cigar bars, nursing homes and tobacco shops.

Restaurants are covered by the proposed ban, but the bill's supporters say there's a loophole lurking in the cigar bar exemption.

California, one of the first states to enact a statewide smoking ban, initially exempted cigar bars. But Sen. John Vratil, a Leawood Republican and smoking ban supporter, said the definition of a cigar bar wasn't clearly spelled out. Read more

[ks older]

Either it's smoke free.. or it isn't. Don't give me the crap about it being "so hard" to stop smoking...I did so (cold turkey) 37 years ago after 20 years of smoking terminating (thank god NOT) in 3 packs a day. Don't expect any one else to do that..it was a personal thing...but I'm embarassed at the discomfort and possible harm I may have caused to others. Your freedom to smoke it fine...just don't force it on others...it's like the religious right..."it's my way or you're damned"...I don't buy it. In public...where people are present...NO..in private where consenting adults are present...FINE>

[Rick op]

I quit at six packs a day when they were two-bits a pack. I wish no one would smoke, however, giving the government power to ban one thing, they will ban other things. I do not trust the feds, the state, and the local governments to regulate anything, anymore.

[door king]

You would have had to smoke them two at a time or not sleep, Rick Op.

[Freedom]

First they came for the smokers...

http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/20...

MISSISSIPPI LEGISLATURE

2008 Regular Session

To: Public Health and Human Services; Judiciary B

By: Representative Mayhall, Read, Shows

HOUSE BILL NO. 282

An act to prohibit certain food establishments from serving food to any person who is obese, based on criteria prescribed by the state department of health; to direct the department to prepare written materials that describe and explain the criteria for determining whether a person is obese and to provide those materials to the food establishments; to direct the department to monitor the food establishments for compliance with the provisions of this act; and for related purposes. Be it enacted by the legislature of the state of Mississippi:

SECTION 1.

(1) The provisions of this section shall apply to any food establishment that is required to obtain a permit from the State Department of Health under Section 41-3-15(4)(f), that operates primarily in an enclosed facility and that has five (5) or more seats for customers.

(2) Any food establishment to which this section applies shall not be allowed to serve food to any person who is obese, based on criteria prescribed by the State Department of Health after consultation with the Mississippi Council on Obesity Prevention and Management established under Section 41-101-1 or its successor. The State Department of Health shall prepare written materials that describe and explain the criteria for determining whether a person is obese, and shall provide those materials to all food establishments to which this section applies. A food establishment shall be entitled to rely on the criteria for obesity in those written materials when determining whether or not it is allowed to serve food to any person.

(3) The State Department of Health shall monitor the food establishments to which this section applies for compliance with the provisions of this section, and may revoke the permit of any food establishment that repeatedly violates the provisions of this section.

SECTION 2. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after July 1, 2008.

[Rick op]

door king wrote:

You would have had to smoke them two at a time or not sleep, Rick Op.

I don't know why I did not review my text before I posted it. It was three (3) packs a day, almost chain-smoking. Thanks for pointing that out. Rick from OP

[Rick op]

Freedom wrote:

First they came for the smokers...
http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/20...
MISSISSIPPI LEGISLATURE
2008 Regular Session
To: Public Health and Human Services; Judiciary B
By: Representative Mayhall, Read, Shows
HOUSE BILL NO. 282
An act to prohibit certain food establishments from serving food to any person who is obese, based on criteria prescribed by the state department of health; to direct the department to prepare written materials that describe and explain the criteria for determining whether a person is obese and to provide those materials to the food establishments; to direct the department to monitor the food establishments for compliance with the provisions of this act; and for related purposes. Be it enacted by the legislature of the state of Mississippi:
SECTION 1.
(1) The provisions of this section shall apply to any food establishment that is required to obtain a permit from the State Department of Health under Section 41-3-15(4)(f), that operates primarily in an enclosed facility and that has five (5) or more seats for customers.
(2) Any food establishment to which this section applies shall not be allowed to serve food to any person who is obese, based on criteria prescribed by the State Department of Health after consultation with the Mississippi Council on Obesity Prevention and Management established under Section 41-101-1 or its successor. The State Department of Health shall prepare written materials that describe and explain the criteria for determining whether a person is obese, and shall provide those materials to all food establishments to which this section applies. A food establishment shall be entitled to rely on the criteria for obesity in those written materials when determining whether or not it is allowed to serve food to any person.
(3) The State Department of Health shall monitor the food establishments to which this section applies for compliance with the provisions of this section, and may revoke the permit of any food establishment that repeatedly violates the provisions of this section.
SECTION 2. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after July 1, 2008.

Are diabetics next? Or maybe chocoholics? Although I'm an ex-smoke and wished everyone else is, this is the reason I oppose a complete ban.

This is the reason the National Rifle Association opposes ALL restrictions to any type of gun owenership. Look at the 40,000 gun laws on the books because we did not listen to the NRA years ago.

It is the same principle. If we give give government any kind of power to regulate, they will not no when to stop. We have proven that already.

[earlpittsamurica n]

I see no problem at all with store owners hanging a "No Smoking" sign. That's their choice. Many, many stores have done just that and actually increased business. Making it mandatory, however, smacks of totalitarianism. We have more laws to save us from ourselves on the books than we can prosecute now.

[Rick op]

earlpittsamurican wrote:

I see no problem at all with store owners hanging a "No Smoking" sign. That's their choice. Many, many stores have done just that and actually increased business. Making it mandatory, however, smacks of totalitarianism. We have more laws to save us from ourselves on the books than we can prosecute now.

I am in total agreement.

[Dennis in op]

I agree as well. There are way too many laws out there, designed to protect us from ourselves.

Did you see a few months back, when Nebraska was enacting their smoking ban?(Or was it the city of Omaha?)
The Governor suggested that people call 911 to report smoking violations. As if emergency workers didn't have enough to do already.

[Rick op]

Dennis in op wrote:

I agree as well. There are way too many laws out there, designed to protect us from ourselves.
Did you see a few months back, when Nebraska was enacting their smoking ban?(Or was it the city of Omaha?)
The Governor suggested that people call 911 to report smoking violations. As if emergency workers didn't have enough to do already.

Next, we'll be turning our relatives in.

[Husker]

You don't own the property...so you should not be choosing whether smoking is prohibited in the establishment or not. You can choose whether you allow smoking in your house and your car and what ever property you own...these poor owners do not. Several have seen a drop in revenue - as much as 40%. Ask the Independence bars who have filed a lawsuit for their losses.

Government is trying to mother us and tell us what we can and can't do with our lives. They may as well just make smoking illegal if they are going to continue these parades.

What else is government trying to control?
1. Trying to suggest that every pregnant woman needs to seek psychiatric help and anti-depressant drugs to combat post-mortem depression.(Mother's law) Give me a break!
2. Trying to force immunizations on us without liability to the drug manufacturers. I will hold a gun to the head of someone who tries to force something into my body I don't want.
3. Telling us that if we are obese then fast food restaurants can serve us. A rude way of telling someone that they are fat!
4. In Kansas - they are trying to pass a bill that states that if we don't rectify our bad behaviors within 2 years then we will lose health benefits.

This is getting crazy, very controlling, somewhat assaulting, and discriminating. Some of these things that they are trying to impose on us can have just as negative effect!

Why not also go after the food manufacturers who put all those toxic chemicals, herbicides, pesticides and preservatives in our foods as well. That contributes to poor health as well.

I wish you all had a clue and would stand up for your civil liberties. You can't make everyone happy, just make this a peaceful place to live in.

[Dennis in op]

ks older wrote:

Either it's smoke free.. or it isn't. Don't give me the crap about it being "so hard" to stop smoking...I did so (cold turkey) 37 years ago after 20 years of smoking terminating (thank god NOT) in 3 packs a day. Don't expect any one else to do that..it was a personal thing...but I'm embarassed at the discomfort and possible harm I may have caused to others. Your freedom to smoke it fine...just don't force it on others...it's like the religious right..."it's my way or you're damned"...I don't buy it. In public...where people are present...NO..in private where consenting adults are present...FINE>

Exceptional idea. In private, on privately owned property, where consenting adults are present, the owner hangs a sign that reads "Smoking Permitted". On other privately owned property, the owner hangs a sign that says "No Smoking on the Premisis".
I have no problem with that.
Just so I don't get hung out because of my habit, I also quit years ago. It's bad for ya.
But I don't think the gov't. should be able to decide that a legal activity, on private property should be outlawed. The owner should decide.
What's the problem with a "cigar bar"? The name implies there's smoking on the premisis.
I hate this discussion. Makes me want a cigarette.

[Rick op]

I posted this on a related forum:

"I'm an ex-smoker who hates cigaret smoke. However, I'm afraid a ban on one personal habit and/or product, will prompt the state to go farther. One state already is banning obese people from restaurants. What is they are traveling from one city to another? http://www.walletpop.com/2008/02/03/should-ob ...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22997073/wid/1191 ...
Being more libertarian than Republican, this scares me. I'm thirty pounds overweight, at 215 lbs."