Emails Needed on Ban Vote!

2009 was a busy year in Kansas.  Sheila Martin of Hutchinson joined with other bar owners and activists to fight one local ban after another and scored both victories and losses.  The battle in Kansas is now at a crucial stage.  The Antismokers have been screaming for a "level playing field" and the state government is now about to vote on a bill that would give that to them...
 
Except...  they're not happy.  Why?  Because the state ban Kansas is considering is a lot weaker than some of the local bans they've gotten passed and it would create that "level playing field" by preempting those bans.  The Antis are getting hoisted by their own petard! (Look that phrase up on Google by the way.... interesting history!)
 
While almost no government-imposed smoking bans make any sense or have any validity, the Kansas ban might actually be a benefit to the Free Choice movement at this point.  Why?  Because it would set a model for other states that are being pushed into bans, showing that a "mild" ban is actually something that most people are willing to support without significant business losses or enforcement problems and without the significant negatives that are finally being recognized as concomitant to stronger bans: sidewalk litter, crowds of smokers on sidewalks and around doorways, lack of differentiation between those places that truly enforce a ban and those places that tolerate smoking in the evenings or in back rooms, increased fire dangers from hidden smoking without proper fire-safety equipment (ashtrays), the general increase in social disruption and antagonism that accompanies widespread imposed bans, and of course the enforcement difficulties that result in less respect for the law, fewer resources for true health and food safety regulations, and higher taxes to cover general economic losses stemming from lost jobs and businesses in post-ban periods.
 
Given those considerations, the Citizens Freedom Alliance has decided, although with some reservations/warnings, to support the move for the smoking ban bill currently coming up for consideration in Kansas by urging our members to send emails to the representatives listed below.  The emails should be short, and urge representatives to support the compromise smoking ban bill #2642 ONLY if they believe they can hold absolutely firm against it being changed in conference committee. 
 
While CFA normally does NOT support these sorts of compromises because they are usually just a step-by-step parade toward total bans, we believe the Kansas situation at this point may be a little different.  The towns with total bans will probably welcome the roll back and people will see that they still have a good choice between smoking allowed and smoking banned venues without the heavy hand of government coming into play.  Additionally, Smoke Free Kansas is frothing at the mouth in its opposition to this  bill - and that's a pretty good sign that it's something worth supporting unless it's a double play by them to make sure it gets passed and into conference where they can beef it up.
 
Those of you in Kansas should make a point of noting where you are, and also make sure the email sent to your own particular Rep is customized even if you are sending the others out as a group. Those not in Kansas but in a state where there's already a ban should share something of the problems or misery that they've seen and explain why a total ban is bad news but that if the House feels that it MUST vote for a ban that a ban allowing for ventilation requirements and nonsmoking sections and demanding it be on a "level playing field" is at least somewhat acceptable.  Those in Kansas who are suffering under a strict ban of course should plead for all your worth to the State to pre-empt the local ordinances with something more reasonable: put the lie to the Antis' claim that "everyone is happy" with the local bans in their communities. Those in Kansas NOT in a locally banned area should say you don't want ANY ban, but that you're willing to accept a ban that allows a choice between smoking and nonsmoking places and that gives some relief to your friends suffering under total bans in Topeka and elsewhere.
 
Click on this link:
http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-house/index.do
and then click on Submit for the complete house roster to bring up the names of all the representatives.  Obviously individually addressed emails will get the most attention, but do whatever you feel you can do: every bit helps! Just make sure to emphasize that any stronger ban would hurt Kansas in the way it's hurt other states.
 
Michael J. McFadden
Mid-Atlantic Coordinator, Citizens Freedom Alliance

---

IPCPR Says No to Proposed Topeka Smoking Ban
Topeka, Kansas September 10, 2009 – With retail tobacco stores slated to be exempted from the proposed Topeka city wide smoking ban, you’d think that an organization of smoke shops would keep quiet and let the debate take its course. The International Premium Cigar & Pipe Retailers Association has other ideas.
Topeka city council members plan to act on the ordinance September 29. They will hear public comment about it at forums on September 21 and 28.
“We want to go on record opposing this ordinance for many reasons, not the least of which is that the statistics and so-called studies being cited by the pro-smoking ban forces need to be thoroughly vetted for accuracy. People tend to accept these generally false or misleading claims without challenging them. For every claim against smoking, secondhand smoke or the positive economic impact of smoking bans, there is at least one survey or scientific study that says otherwise,” said Chris McCalla, legislative director of IPCPR. “For example, even the Federal Reserve Bank says smoking bans can hurt businesses.”
McCalla cited obesity as the nation’s number one health problem, including many of those generally attributed to smoking. According to a study by the Centers for Disease Control, medical costs associated with obesity have increased from $78 billion in 1998 to $147 billion in 2006. Two-thirds of adults and some 20 percent of children in the United States are now overweight or obese.
“Does that mean government should prevent fat people from overeating or consuming high calorie foods? Of course not. It is not government’s place to tell us how to live or how to run our businesses. A business owner, not the government, has the right to decide if smoking will be allowed on his premises. When government interferes with that right, it begins sliding down the slippery slope of constitutional compromise which leads to the continued and growing loss of rights across the board,” said McCalla. “Just look around you to see growing erosion of our rights as United States citizens.”
In addition to proposing to tax food items such as sugary soft drinks, the CDC suggests banning television sets from children’s bedrooms.
“That’s just as intrusive, ridiculous and dangerous as legislative smoking bans. If you don’t want to be exposed to smoke, don’t go places where you might expect it. Patronize businesses that don’t permit smoking. That’s their right… and that’s your right. But government does not have the right to tell a business that it should or should not ban smoking. The constitution is on our side on this one,” McCalla said.
###
Contact:
Tony Tortorici
678/493-0313
tony@tortoricipr.com

Editorial: Let market rule

August 24, 2009

The only thing surprising about Topeka City Councilwoman Deborah Swank's proposal to ban smoking in public places is that it's taken so long for someone to bring the issue once again to the council agenda.

Several communities across the state have enacted smoking bans since the council last addressed the subject, and, realistically, it was only a matter of time before someone on the council suggested Topeka join the list, which now includes Kansas City, Kan., Lawrence, Emporia, Manhattan and Salina.

Swank's proposal would ban public smoking indoors and at places of employment -- the exceptions being retail tobacco stores, private residences not also used as a day care or health care facility, up to 20 percent of the rooms in a hotel or motel, outdoor places of employment and private places. The stated purposes of the ordinance are to improve and protect the public's health by eliminating smoking in public places and places of employment; protecting the right of nonsmokers to breathe smoke-free air; and recognizing the need to breathe smoke-free air shall have priority over the choice to smoke.

For the record, we don't support the ordinance Swank is sponsoring, which is on the council's agenda today for a first reading. We also haven't supported recent efforts in the Legislature to pass a statewide smoking ban.

However, it isn't our intent here to defend smoking, either. It is a nasty and dangerous habit, and we don't know anyone not employed by the tobacco industry who would argue otherwise. Rather, we think the issue is one best left to the marketplace.

If the city council is determined to play a role, it should be to put an ordinance on the ballot and let all Topeka voters decide whether all bars and restaurants must be smoke free.

Yes, we said bars and restaurants because that's primarily what the issue has become. Government entities, from school districts, cities, counties and the state have banned smoking in their buildings. Many hospitals and other health care providers don't allow smoking anywhere on the property. No one lights up in a retail store or an office building that serves the general public.

When someone is smoking inside these days, they almost always are in their vehicle, in their home or at a bar or restaurant that allows it. And those bars and restaurants that still do allow it are the primary targets of smoking ordinances, and the source of much of the opposition to such ordinances.

That there are some restaurants and bars in Topeka that prohibit smoking and turn a profit while doing so is evidence that the marketplace is capable of allowing consumers and business owners to decide the issue without government interference.
Read