What are these guys smoking?
 By Mark ForsytheThe Kansas City Post Emotions run high whenever government tries to restrict what some perceive to be personal freedoms. In the case of smoking we're talking about modifying freedoms that have existed since... Well, since forever. Change is never easy and I have met many people who view the restriction of their right to smoke in public to be on par with taking away their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Passionate arguments are made on both sides. I for one do not think that smoking restrictions presage the fall of western civilization, but that's just my opinion. It's easy for me to be cavalier because I don't own a business that caters to smokers and I don't feel that if I gamble or attend a Chiefs game I can only do so with a cigarette in my hand. A group of five petitioners have gathered enough signatures and submitted a smoking ban ordinance to be put before a public vote. I don't have a problem with this since I personally support a smoking ban across the board. What I do have a problem with is the petitioners' exclusion of casinos and the Truman Sports Complex. If you're going to be fair, do it all the way or don't do it at all. I expect this kind of weasily behavior from politicos, but I thought these petitioners were just average citizens? That's the line I keep hearing anyway. When questioned about the exclusion, one of the petitioners argued that "there are only a few casinos in the metro area, and banning smoking from Kansas City’s two casinos could really hurt them relative to the other casinos in Riverside and North Kansas City." (source) Fine for casinos but what about the bars and restaurants? And tell me against whom is the Truman Sports Complex competing? The other stadium in Missouri? Last time I checked you can't smoke at Busch Stadium either. What message is the petitioning committee trying to send? It's okay to put small business owners at a perceived "competitive disadvantage" but not the deep pockets of a couple of casinos and a stadium complex? Is this petitioning committee of regular citizens really for public health or just public health when it's convenient or financially expedient? The petitioners' arguments may be disingenuous, but at least they're steadfast about them. In a letter to the City Council, the petitioners have stated firmly that they will not accept any amendments. This is their right by charter of course, but what master are they serving by being so obstinate? Certainly not the regular citizens. So what's really behind the exclusion? Word on the street is that a casino representative met with one of the petitioners and let it be known that the casinos would fund a huge opposition campaign if the petitioners did not provide an exemption for gaming floors. In public testimony Councilman Ed Ford brought up the poignant fact that one of the petitioners is employed by the Truman Sports Complex and implied that therein lies the root of that exemption. Interesting. So we're led to conclude that as far as the petitioners are concerned the public health is of utmost importance... except in cases where the businesses affected have deep pockets, or sign your paycheck. Nice. All arguments aside, little bergs like San Francisco and New York City have managed to survive after passing smoking bans. With that kind of empirical data I would have to admit that I would vote in favor of a smoking ban. Just not this one. |
posted by Mark at 2:31 PM
Comments on "What are these guys smoking?"
-
Anonymous said ... (3:32 PM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (4:24 PM) :
-
Brent said ... (6:11 PM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (6:35 PM) :
-
mainstream said ... (10:43 PM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (11:16 AM) :
-
Mark said ... (11:32 AM) :
-
sophia said ... (12:08 PM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (12:31 PM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (2:18 PM) :
-
MichelleD said ... (12:52 PM) :
-
sotired said ... (11:45 PM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (9:49 AM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (10:46 AM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (8:22 PM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (7:21 PM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (5:19 PM) :
post a commentThe ban might not be perfect, but it is the opportunity I have to work toward a healthier Kansas City. It will have my vote when it comes on the ballot.
How can these people make the competition argument for casinos with a straight face? Incredible!
I personally hate smoking in bars. However, I do realize that each time I go to a smoking bar, that is a decision I have made to be there. If I choose not to go home smelling like Smoke (which is sometimes), I go to other places that don't allow smoking or have outside patios. That's my decision. I have a huge problem with people who want to inflict legislation because they don't want to make their own personal choices. If everyone who was in favor of a smoking ban only visited non-smoking bars, then there would be far more non-smoking bars. That's supply and demand.
That said, I do feel sorry for the people who have to WORK in these bars and restaurants. I have the luxury that people can't smoke in my place of employment -- some place I'm not choosing to go, but have to for substinance. Many bar/restaurant workers HAVE to work in a smoking place, and that's not fair for them. But that applies to people who work at Casinos also. THEY TOO deserve that right.
My problem isn't with the smoking ban as much as people's ease in wanting to take the rights of other people away (I'm not talking smoker's rights, here, but the ability to run a profitable restaurant and bar and allow smoking in it). The Casino exclusion is nothing more than the obvious -- I'm only looking out for me - mentality that I think is very negative for everyone's personal freedoms.
Jim Rowland, Pat Gray, Steve Glorioso and Mike White. Sounds like an Elect Jim Rowland for something team if I ever heard one.
Rowland's gig with the Jacko Sports Authority will be over when the stadium renovations are complete. He's going to need a new job and what better way to keep your name in the news. Rowland in 2011 anyone? Maybe that's why Ed Ford called him out in committee today.
Mark I think you have a very good point, which I of course respect and understand.
However, divide the square feet in the smoking area in question in the casinos by all of the restaurant and bar square feet ultimately affected by the ban.
I think that ratio is like 0.00001%of the smoking-banned square space (of the casinos) is going to be funding (or could fund) 75%+ of the multimillion dollar campaign to defeat the smoking ban.
Ok, maybe I'm too pragmatic, but punt the 0.0001% to get the 99.99997%, and save yourself the huge risk and fundraising costs of quadrupling (or more) your fundraising budget.
Have I become to real-politik?
Mark,
I wanted to take the opportunity to clarify a couple of keys points made in your blog of which I call myself a fan.
There is no exemption for the Truman Sports Complex; quite the contrary. Section 34-473 (10) of our proposed ordinance contains the following language: Sports arenas; including enclosed places in outdoor arenas. The ordinance speaks very clearly to enclosed spaces; bars and restaurants are free to allow smoking in outdoor patios as we have made no attempt to limit smoking in the outdoors except for sidewalks near acute hospitals.
As for my political motivation (of course I am motivated because I was once elected, right?); my father died just over 2 years ago from lung cancer. I promised him then that I would continue to fight for this issue and so that I am doing. My one and only goal was to see this issue on the ballot and let the voters decide.
I was a legislator therefore a pragmatist. I look to see what piece of legislation I'm attempting to pass has the greatest chance of success. I don't bend on principle but I get the greatest amount of good done as fast as I can (recycling was an example where we got every other week knowing that our goal long-term was for every week but I couldn't pass every week the first year). We need to pass a smoking ban; I agree long-term we need a comprehensive smoking ban but today this is the best piece of legislation that I believe will do the most good.
I realize and understand that as a former Councilman people always view your actions thru a political prism. I accept that but wanted to share my thoughts and motivation with you.
Best wishes for the New Year.
Jim Rowland
Thank you for the clarification Jim. It was my understanding that smoking would still be allowed in the concourses of the stadiums which during breaks in the game must be traveled by all who wish to use the restroom and/or concession facilities. I apologize if I am wrong on that.
My mother died of lung cancer from smoking when I was 20 years old so I appreciate and share in your feelings of loss.
As for not backing down, what happened to the Jim Rowland who "coerced" a troublesome night spot on Wornall into surrendering their liquor license? That's the kind of leadership this city is sorely missing.
I agree that not every fight is worth fighting and I appreciate your pragmatic approach, but my own personal opinion is that this fight is worth fighting if not merely for the fact that I don't think anyone deserves an advantage in life just because they have the biggest check book.
If we're going to have a ban, it should apply to the casinos. So what if they're threatening to fund a campaign against it? Are the petitioners afraid they can't win if people actually think about the issue? An ad campaign would at least redirect some of those gambling profits back into the community. And there's something disturbing about a public policy that directs people who are in the mood to drink and smoke in an enclosed space to go to a casino. The casino exemption doesn't just preserve competition among casinos, it offers them an increased advantage against other houses of vice (i.e. bars).
As for banning smoking on the concourses at Arrowhead, that's just rude. It's outdoors. It's not an enclosed space. It's not a health issue at that point, it's a smell preference. And the desire to restrict the behavior of others over a smell preference is precisely the sort of thing that makes people uncomfortable with these sorts of bans.
Sophia,
I take my kid to Arrowhead on occasion and the concourses are a smoke filled fog on some days. They may technically be outdoors but the air does not move and with that many people packed into such a confined area you can't help but breath second hand smoke.
Spare me the smoker's rights BS. It's my right to be able to take my seven year old to a Chiefs game and use the restroom facilities without having to come back smelling like an ashtray or have his Chiefs jacket get a burnt hole in the sleeve because somebody was careless with their cigarette.
No pass for the casinos in my book. As far as the stadium concourses I guess I can see both sides of that argument. I do see the point about trying to get to the restrooms. For me it's kind of like walking the gauntlet of smokers outside an office building main entrance. It's only a mild annoyance.
Its your right NOT to go to Chiefs games if you don't like the way it smells as well...vote with your pocketbook people!
Another thought on casinos... with WYCO passing gaming and building a LV style casino our MO casinos are going to face stiff competition. If you pass a smoking ban they're just going to go to the KS side and take their jobs along with it.
Also, I was told by a server in Midtown that the P&L district doesn't even have to abide by the smoking ban - part of their agreement is they can CHOOSE whether or not to follow the ban. Can anyone speak to this?
Michelled, to answer your question, the P&L district does not have an exemption but they have taken advantage of the opportunity to "build to suit". By this I mean they won't allow smoking inside but they have built easy access to their patio areas where they have built in heaters, almost like being inside. With their entertainment complex, they have bars outside so everyone will be allowed to smoke. Combine this with the exemption they do have to sell and allow open containers on the streets as well as permission to carry drinks in and out of different bars (no matter where they purchased it) they certainly have and advantage over other entertainment districts like the Plaza and Westport.
Mark, to clarify, the concourses are exempt. They are not considered "enclosed places". The definition of an enclosed place is defined as the following...
Enclosed means a space bound by walls (with or without windows) continuous from the floor to the ceiling and enclosed by doors, including, but not limited to, offices, rooms, all space therein screened by partitions, which do not extend to the ceiling or are not solid, office landscaping or similar structures and halls
Consider yourself spun by a pragmatist.
The concourses are not exempt. We have used the exact same language for arenas/stadiums as was used in the City's 2004 ordinance. There are areas on the outside open air concourses that allow for smoking (we are not attempting to regulate outdoor smoking at bars and restaurants either); we have chosen to not try to regulate outdoor air except in the case of sidewalks near acute care hospitals.
As for deep pockets, recently it was discovered that the Business Rights Coalition purporting to represent "local" bars and restaurants is being funded by Reynolds out of Winston-Salem, N.C. In turn the Business Rights Coalition funded candidates for City Council and Mayor.
Our special interest support: Greater KC Chamber, BCBS of Mo, Truman, individual Kansas Citians and 6,000 Kansas Citians who signed the petition.
The petition is the best chance we have to pass a tough smoking ban; it is the first increment in what I hope will be a comprehensive smoking ban that is passed long-term.
Jim
I guess that we will have to agree to disagree because if you used the same language as written in the '04 then there would be no smoking on the concourses right now. The 85% trigger only pertained to restaurants and bars.
If that were the case, John Sharp would not have testified using the story about the gentleman smoking in line and the kids he brought to the game. Ed Ford would not have testified about the smoke while standing in line. Last, Mark would not have wrote "It was my understanding that smoking would still be allowed in the concourses of the stadiums which during breaks in the game must be traveled by all who wish to use the restroom and/or concession facilities." if they weren't already exempt by the '04 ordinance. The reason for this is because of the definition of Enclosed Place provided earlier. I don't remember a trigger for the stadiums to have to wait to implement a ban. It is because the concourses are not enclosed that they are in compliance with the current smoking ban and the Sprint arena is a smoke free facility.
If you are going to remember inept backsliders ask what happened to the XO Club that Big Jim was going to make toe the letter of the law. He faded. Little Jim glover was a better councilman without even trying. Maybe Rowland can find a job over in Southmoreland neighborhood.
If you are going to ban smoking outdoors at the stadiums, then you really need to ban all the bbq'ing and grilling in the parking lot too.
I live fairly close to the stadiums and on big game days you can smell the stench of lighter fluid for miles unless there's a decent breeze.
Also, the fireworks need to be addressed. If you want to do away with noxious fumes and really take care of 'public' health, then get serious and do all or nothing.
First,your right its not perfect but its a good start.Second its not going to pass (even they know that im somewhat involved)so smokers ,bar owners no need to worry you will still be able to puff away at your favotite bar.Someday hopefully we will be up to date in K.C.and be able to go out without gagging on smoke.