Casper Star-Tribune Online

Advanced Search

Smoking ban talk raises more questions

Story Tools

Print this story

E-mail this story

Rate this story

Text Size

Share This Story:

trib.popular

By ALLISON RUPP
Star-Tribune staff writer

Wednesday, September 17, 2008 2:05 AM MDT

A smoking ban in public places represents one of the major conflicts legislators face, said Rep. Jack Landon, R-Sheridan.

He doesn't question the science and statistics behind the dangers of smoking and second-hand smoke, but he thinks a smoking ban in all public places, including bars and restaurants, would take away important personal liberties.

"If I were a smoker and chose to open a bar for all my friends who smoked, I would feel my property rights were taken away," Landon said. "I think it would be coercing adults and I have a real problem with that."

A fellow member of the Joint Labor, Health and Human Services Interim Committee, Rep. Lori Millin, D-Cheyenne, said a personal rights argument isn't valid.

She said she would like to drive her historic Mustang 100 mph on the highway, but laws tell her she can't. As do laws about seat belts and open containers, she said.

"This is a health and public safety issue" Millin said. "I feel like I was elected to protect my constituents."

The committee heard another day of testimony Tuesday from people about a possible smoking ban. Once again, most of the testimony was in favor of a ban.

The committee voted unanimously to continue working on a draft bill with reservations from some committee members.

Sen. Charles Scott, R-Casper, said the committee should use a bill sponsored by Millin last session as draft. The bill had an exemption for bars that would expire six months after the ban began.

If committee members want other exemptions, they can have them drafted as amendments, Scott said. The amendments, along with a draft of the bill, would be discussed during meetings Dec. 1 and 2. The committee would vote if it would sponsor any smoke-free legislation.

Millin's bill, which failed introduction, was sponsored by three other members of the committee: Sen. Bob Fecht, R-Cheyenne; Sen. John Hastert, D-Green River; and Rep. Elaine Harvey, R-Lovell.

Rep. Timothy Hallinan, R-Gillette, said he wouldn't vote for a ban on the floor of the House if it included restaurants and bars. He said a smoking ban in workplaces was OK.

"Since I am in the minority of my own profession, I thought it required some explanation," said Hallinan, a family practice doctor. "In my practice, I always used persuasion instead of coercion."

He said he would give patients all the information and tools they needed to quit smoking, but he would leave the final decision up to them. Like Landon, Hallinan said this is an issue of personal freedoms.

Several local businesses have spoken out against the ban. Pat Sweeney, owner of the Parkway Plaza Hotel and Convention Centre, Wonder Bar and Poor Boys Steak House, spoke Monday night about how a smoking ban would hurt business at his hotel.

Mike Moser, lobbyist for the Wyoming State Liquor Association, spoke Tuesday for about 1,000 businesses across the state. He said studies that say there is no economical impact on bars from a smoking ban are misleading because they don't look at individual businesses.

"If there aren't municipal exemptions, this fight will still go on," Moser said.

Lazy 8 Saloon on U.S. Highway 20-26 would lose a lot of business, said owner Linda Henderson. She said half her customers are smokers.

"They don't have a right to dictate my business," said Henderson, who didn't speak at the meetings. "They're always coming up with something new."

Scott said he usually agrees with personal rights issues, but he said it's different with second-hand smoke because it harms others.

Katherine Hooper is a prime example. She told the committee she was diagnosed with cancer of the voice box in 1990 even though she never smoked.

She said she worked in an oil industry office for 18 years, where everyone else smoked. When she complained about the smoke, her boss gave her a fan.

"You had to fight through the smoke to do your job," Hooper said. "We were the first to give women the right to vote. Let's be one of the first to ban smoking."

Contact health reporter Allison Rupp at (307) 266-0534 or allison.rupp@trib.com.


$1.50 lunch delights, educates		Cancer Society promotes breast health

Article Rating

Reader Comments

There are 27 comment(s)

Comments to this story.

Phil Williams wrote on Sep 17, 2008 6:29 AM:

" Lori Millins comment about wishing to drive her mustang at 100 mph is completely irrelevant. Cars are driven on public roads within the speed limits, however, the government has no power to legislate speed limits on private property.
Bars, clubs and restuarents are not public property and therefore it is not within the legal authority of government to legislate smoking within them.
As long as individuals are free to purchase and own property, it is the duty of government to protect their individual rights to run that property as they see fit.
Smoking is a legal activity, and adults are free to choose for themselves with establishments to visit.
The only justifiable action on the part of legislators, is to make it an offence to smoke inside establishments that the owner of said establishments wish to keep smoke free.
This would protect the rights of property owners without imposing unwarrented and unjustied restrictions on them. "

Past Smoker wrote on Sep 17, 2008 11:29 AM:

" Think about this. OSHA. Private Property does not allow one to endanger its employees. I believe second hand smoke has been shown to be dangerous. If an owner would like to allow smoking build a patio and have the smoking patrons go outside.

I am not sure but I think a class action was brought against some airlines for requiring attendants to work in an environment which permitted smoking. "

don wrote on Sep 17, 2008 11:31 AM:

" Mr. Phil Williams, you said it all. This smoking ban movement is just the latest step towards a tyranny of the Mob over their peers. The tyranny of one group over another. The subjugation of individual liberty to the whims of the inherently selfish. If smoking bans were such a good idea, then why do businesses suffer when these restrictions are placed? Where are all the nonsmokers rallying to public venues in celebration of thier work? Obviously they weren't much into going out in public places or their would be an increase in business when they get their way. I'm a nonsmoker, and I'm against these bans. "

Stephanie Stahl wrote on Sep 17, 2008 12:03 PM:

" So, Katherine Hooper told the committee she was diagnosed with cancer of the voice box in 1990 even though she never smoked.

We have been told for almost a century that cancer is a "smokers' disease". Yet, now, we're being told that, all along, nonsmokers have been getting cancer. For many decades, almost everyone smoked almost everywhere. If passivrauchen was really causing the disease, then nonsmokers would have been getting it too often for it to be called a "smokers disease" My heart goes out to Ms. Hooper, but the implications attributed to her testimony are irrational. The only rational implication of her testimony is that both smokers and nonsmokers get cancer, and we should therefore start looking for more plausible culprits.

Mr. Williams also makes a good point about the irrelevant comparison to speeding on public roads--and, no, the public does not own privately owned businesses that are open to the public (or portions of the public). In a free market, consumers "vote" with their feet and wallets. The fact that businesses must be coerced by law to enact a smoking ban is proof that business owners do not want such a ban. If businesses must be coerced to ban smoking, businesses cater to their consumers, and voters want a smoking ban, then voters are at-odds with consumers. That could be a serious implication for American politics as well as the economy.

Honestly, this antismoking stuff is getting stupider by the minute. It just doesn't make sense and it appears to cause serious, hostile divisions in society. Moreover, smoking bans appear to be consistently followed by downturns in economies, which really do affect a politicians' chances of re-election.

Withdrawal from nicotine entails temporary cravings. Withdrawal from smoking is a bit trickier. Withdrawal from freedom entails the corruption of science, law and humanity. "

Jeremy Richards Ph.D. wrote on Sep 17, 2008 12:21 PM:

" Wyoming would do well to avoid the smoking ban onslaught. Such a law would violate federal OSHA recommendations. OSHA found that the chemicals in environmental tobacco smoke were present at safe levels in workplaces and refused to regulate exposure. If OSHA will not intervene, why should the state legislature of Wyoming? www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=24602

In addition, the evidence of the dangers of ETS is very shaky. The vast bulk of ETS studies show that it is not dangerous. Here are some articles that deal with that: www.heartland.org/policybot/results.html?artId=22150
www.nycclash.com/Zion-Skeptic-Science_And_SHS.PDF
www.numberwatch.co.uk/zealots.htm "

A real American wrote on Sep 17, 2008 2:24 PM:

" A personal right argument isn’t valid? Who elected this Nazi? Why is it that the out of touch Wyomingites in Cheyenne seem to be so driven to take away individual liberties in the name of public safety or some other righteous cause. Thousands have died to give us and help protect the few freedoms we have in this country and self virtuous idiots like Lori Millin and the dope from Cheyenne that sponsored the open container law are spitting on their graves.
It seems apparent that they have nothing better to do than restrict others in order to claim themselves as protectors of the people. I don’t want your protection. I don’t smoke, but if I don’t like how smoky a bar is I will leave. I don’t want to be a Stalin or Hitler and dictate to others how to live their lives.
Since the open container ban came into effect I doubt it has saved one life. It has however resulted in tons more beer cans and other liquor container being thrown on the side of the street because folks will not keep it in a vehicle for disposal later. I do not even pick up this trash anymore like I use to because I may be arrested for having it in my car. The open container law is a joke and just a self serving ploy by some legislature to put his name on a bill.
Now Millin wants to make more laws and restrict more freedoms. Quit protecting us from ourselves, the few freedoms we have left are far more valuable than your self serving efforts. No liberty should be banned except under the most critical of circumstances. "

Robin wrote on Sep 17, 2008 3:46 PM:

" I really don't think a smoking ban is the way to go. Not only is it legal to smoke, it would be against our right to ban smoking. They say cell phone are causing brain tummors no one is banding them. If I can't smoke in public then people shoud not use there cell phones in public. "

Denver Rose wrote on Sep 17, 2008 5:14 PM:

" I live in Denver where there has been a smoking ban now for awhile - couple years I'm thinking - anyway, I am a smoker & it really isn't a big deal. If it is for the safety & well being of other like children then so be it - we shouldn't be so selfish and complain. I mean you can still smoke in your own home or in your car if you want to but hey, not everyone wants to smell our second hand smoke & they shouldn't have to. Stop being such babies & get over it or... stop smoking. "

wyomingite wrote on Sep 17, 2008 9:24 PM:

" if it's such a big deal to non smokers let them go outside to get fresh air as it is now smokers have to go outside to enjoy a cig. "

Pam Parker wrote on Sep 17, 2008 10:38 PM:

" One year after a draconian ban in Ohio, let me tell you the devastating results. Ohio just posted the largest unemployment figures since 1992. The #1 industry hurt is the Service Industry. Topping the Service Industry is Hospitality and Leisure which lost more employees than Transportation (with today's high gas prices), Utilities and Trade. The year before the ban, Hospitality & Leisure was projected to gain 10,000 jobs. Over 300 bars have closed. Liquor permit holders lost a potential of 67.44 million dollars in sales, while the state lost over 4 million dollars in sales taxes from those potential sales.

The "anti" groups all claim there is no harm to business from smoking bans. They LIE!!! How they sold the ban in Ohio was to put a ballot initiative together stating exemptions for family owned businesses and private clubs on the ballot where votes were cast with no exemptions in small print miles from any voting booth.

Wyoming - don't make the same mistake Ohio did. Signs work. Let customers drive the decisions of the business owners. Free market does work. Unfortunately, we never saw the hoards of new customers we were promised.

What amazes me is that business owners, particularly bars and mom and pop restaurants, are never asked what they want nor are their employees. These people stand to lose everything they've invested in their businesses.

I know. I own a bar in Ohio.

We've gotten a bill introduced in the Senate to exempt family owned businesses and private clubs like the law said would be exempted and of course, the American Cancer Society, who decieved the voters, is fighting the bill. They have the money, business owners struggling to keep their doors open don't. But we have right on our side and a lot of angry business owners.

Don't make the same mistake. "

Phil Williams wrote on Sep 18, 2008 5:12 AM:

" The anti smoking lobby groups that claim that 80% of the population want smoking bans are misrepresenting the facts. They are pretending to speak for all non smokers, yet this simply isn't the case. Antis are the true minority, but a very vocal one.
Most non smokers are happy to believe in a live and let live policy, especially regarding what legal activities people choose to do or allow others to do on their own property.
If the vast majority of people wanted smoking bans, then such bans would not be needed. Since business owners would always choose to cater for such a large market demand.
In the UK, like everywhere else, the ban was preceeded by false promisses of booming trade. This has since proven to be a complete farce. In the first year since its introduction over 2000 pubs have closed in England and Wales. Likewise a multitude of clubs and bingo halls have gone. Those pubs still managing to scrape a living are on the verge of bankruptsy. And unemployment has risen dramatically.
The economic damage is impossible to hide. And as a result the UK Labour government now has the dubious honour of being the most hated government in British history. They are losing seats in every bi-election they contest. And they know full well that they face a land-slide defeat in the next general election.
The anti smoking movement is a political poison pill. Do not allow these deceitfull minority groups to lead wyoming down the path of economic ruin. Especially now at a time when the western world is on the verge of economic collapse.
State funds will be scarce enough for the essentials, let alone to fund the policing of a ban that is simply adding to the financial crisis. "

WhAt wrote on Sep 18, 2008 7:17 AM:

" Such is the beauty of freedom: freedom to smoke, or freedom to choose a job which doesn't endanger you. Smokers are an occupational hazard for waiters and waitresses, there are dangers at any job. Accept that people will smoke in bars, and don't work there if you don't to risk it. If you don't want to tear your back up, don't work in a warehouse, If you don't want to risk getting burnt by a fire, don't become a firefighter, etc. "

Chris wrote on Sep 23, 2008 2:29 PM:

" Once again, it will happen, no matter the amount of complaining you do. I love it and so do the majority of Americans. Additionally, your days as smokers are numbered, as the FDA begins regulation in January. Expect large taxes if not outright bans. Good luck! "

Christinaj wrote on Sep 23, 2008 5:21 PM:

" Why don't we just make smoking illegal like marijuana and meth and cocaine and all the other drugs? Then they can fill up the prisons even faster.
I am a smoker and I go outside of my home to smoke so I am not around my children with it. I don't smoke at restaurants because there are usually children there including my own. I think that is the only place that smoking should be banned is where child frequent. Children are forced to go with their parents and aren't given the choice to be or not to be around the smoke. Of course some would say that if their parents cared then they shouldn't take them to the places that allow smoking, but that still means that children aren't ever given the option themselves. Children should never be in a bar, therefore it should not be banned there. Why is it that people want to go to a bar and destroy their livers and then complain about someone else destroying their lungs? If one is at all concerned about their health, there wouldn't be in a bar in the first place.
I have been in "designated" smoking areas before and had nonsmokers come to the area and still complain about smokers. I try to be considerate of others when I smoke because I know that not all care to be around it, but don't come to where I am allowed to smoke and then complain about it. You know what gets me is that alcohol seems to be an even bigger social nuisance and yet everyone wants smoking and loud bikes banned. Lets ban everything that could be bad for us: sugar, fat, cars, pianos(one could fall out of the sky), sunlight, eggs, fire, oil, gas, cell phones, tvs, jigsaws, sewing machines, guns, the list can go on and on. Then we can start on the all things that offend one person or another. When we are done there we could start on...oh wait, everything should be banned by then and wouldn't we all be so happy. "

Smokers are Jokers wrote on Sep 24, 2008 11:23 AM:

" I have always been concerned in the welfare of my fellow man, I strongly believe that smoking is one of the worst things one can do. It is also proven fact that smoking is the number preventable cause of death in the U.S. As much as I believe in our personal liberties I can't help but think of our childrens liberties. Don't they have a right to fresh clean air, free of cancer causing agents? You have the right to smoke but you don't have the right to contaminate our childrens' air. What has this debate become? Since when are Americans more interested in what we feel is our right and what we deem as safety? I strongly urge all Wyomingites to support state and local bans on smoking. After all don't we care about our children enough to give them fresh, clean air? "

An Idea wrote on Sep 24, 2008 11:57 AM:

" Lots of speculation posted here, few verifiable facts though.

What about this, we try a smoking ban for a period of say 90 or 180 days.

This trial ban would be for all government buildings, public transportation and eating establishments. This would exclude bars that do not "cook" food.

Then lets take some measurements and determine who and what was affected and how.

Once armed with the facts as we collected them, we can then make a longer term decision as informed citizens. "

Ryhlie wrote on Sep 24, 2008 1:25 PM:

" I like the trial ban idea to gather information first. Shouldn't we measure twice and cut only once? How could this be a bad idea and who would it hurt forever? "

Willow wrote on Sep 24, 2008 3:11 PM:

" I'm all for the test ban! Great idea! This is a real thinkers solution as a start to answering the question. "

Pat wrote on Sep 24, 2008 3:33 PM:

" An Idea, You proposed the only reasonable, middle ground idea so far. This means that the non-thinkers on both sides will attack you immediately! "

Shirley wrote on Sep 24, 2008 3:53 PM:

" I smoke and I say on with the test ban. Let's see what it can teach us about ourselves. The fines for breaking the test ban should be supervised community service for those that make to little to pay federal income taxes (it should cost them the hours that it would take them to earn the money based on their wages to pay the fine). For those able to pay federal income taxes the fines should be stiff, maybe figured as a percentage of their income. This would make the pain "fair" no matter what you earn. After all a $500 fine for a rich guy means nothing, a $500 dollar fine for a middle class family might be to painful to bear and cut into groceries or utilities for the month. "

test ban wrote on Sep 24, 2008 7:26 PM:

" Going to do it. Will post my property no trespassing by non smokers. The added benefit will be a welcome absence of thumpers knocking on my door. "

History anyone wrote on Sep 24, 2008 10:49 PM:

" When times get tough, men and women reach for a smoke! Ever seen a picture of soldiers in Iraq? I bet 70% of them have a smoke in the frame and even more of them are smokers. Ration package in WW II...you guessed it...smokes. Too bad those pesky Germans had a fuhrer who frowned on smoking. Fastest growing economy in the World...ya, a lot of Chinese smoke too.

Fortunately we have a gaggle of busy body soccor moms and their immasculated sidekicks to look out for our well being. Maybe they can don a pink suit and paper hat in our new service economy. Something tells me we have bigger problems to deal with than a bar allowing smoking.

Strange how the glory days of the United States always seem to have a smoke in the picture. Goodbye glory days, goodbye. "

Realist wrote on Sep 25, 2008 9:40 AM:

" I don't see any reason that we cannot accommodate both smoking and non-smoking within the same establishment. We can mandate that there be separate facilities for smoking and non-smoking with adequate ventilation to keep the smoke from the smoking area out of the non-smoking area; it's not really that hard to do. Why create a division when it's not necessary? I am a smoker and personally don't mind non-smoking establishments, as if I cannot smoke while I am somewhere, then I smoke less; I do not really want to smoke but am addicted; if I cannot smoke somewhere it makes it easier for me to not smoke. At the same time, I understand where the business owners are coming from; if their customers are outside smoking a cigarette then they are not inside spending money in the establishment. Maybe someone can explain to me how it would hurt anyone if there were separate facilities to accommodate both smokers and non-smokers. Maybe someone else can explain to me why the government needs to be involved in private business decisions; if an establishment allows smoking, non-smokers do not have to do business there; if an establishment does not allow smoking, smokers do not have to do business with them. Let them divide up into smoking and non-smoking establishments, make them advertise which type they are, and let the chips fall where they may. "

Smokers are Jokers wrote on Sep 25, 2008 12:20 PM:

" Ok so first, during the early part of our nations industrialization until the sixties-mid seventies we did not know how harmful smoking was. We just assumed that it made us feel good so we didn't bother to look into the dangers. That's why smoking was such a big thing. Ok and since when are the Chinese a good example of anything American? Don't get me wrong I accept their culture as their own, but just because their economy is doing well is no direct correlation to the percentage of people who smoke! I can see no valid connection with that point. Plus if that connection were quasi true given the same logic one would also be right in assuming that benzenene and lead use would further bolster our economy, along with not letting women vote, letting Richard Nixon back in office and redirecting our roles on social security and prohabition. Before any connections are made we need to look at what we need to solve. The PROBLEM is our disconnect between Smokers and Nonsmokers. We need to either strike an agreement or find something else to complain about. So now the question is who gives up thier rights? The Smokers who do have the right to smoke or the Nonsmokers who have the right to clean air? ........ but I don't see the great people of wyoming going down without a fight on either side.... So lets find something new to complain about! "

sharon wrote on Sep 26, 2008 10:03 AM:

" Once the smoking ban goes into place...the complaining stops. Almost all smokers want to quit, those that say they don't just think they can't. Smoking bans help people quit. The ones that don't quit just adjust where they smoke. It's been like that for over 10 years in California. "

Allan wrote on Oct 9, 2008 5:04 PM:

" Sharon, what you said about bans encouraging people to quit is NOT true at all. I am not a smoker, but know of many that do smoke, and in my home state(Illinois), the new state ban has not swayed a single friend of mine to quit who does smoke!

Another great example to prove my point is Ohio, where the smoking rate has not decreased at all after state voters voted in favor of a referendum for a ban in November 2006. In fact, it has remained steady at the same rate it did before the ban passed that year.

What Wyoming should do on this issue is very, very simple: Continue to allow business owners the freedom of choice on this issue! Several communities around the country, such as New Haven, Indiana(a suburb of Fort Wayne), and Lake Saint Louis, Missouri(suburb of Saint Louis), smartly enacted ordinances allowing business owners to declare themselves a smoking establishment, mixed smoking/non-smoking establishment, or completely non-smoking establishment. If Wyoming residents really want more smoke-free businesses, please do patronize any that already are voluntarily smoke-free! Otherwise, antis who won't ever patronize these establishments if a state ban were to pass need to shush their mouths, that's for sure... "

Jalestra wrote on Nov 8, 2008 1:07 PM:

" She said she would like to drive her historic Mustang 100 mph on the highway, but laws tell her she can't.

At least there are places where she CAN drive her Mustang 100MPH...at places with cleared roadways specifically for people who want to speed around. Shame there aren't places that are marked specific for smokers to go into and non-smokers don't have to enter if they don't want..

Sharon, until you know ALL smokers, I wouldn't be so quick to make blanket statements about what they do or don't want. I haven't felt you in my head here lately, so you know squat about what I or anyone else wants. You don't know how other people think or feel and to claim that you do is just arrogant. You do not know what I want, so you have no right to decide what I do or don't get.

By the way, smoking ban here, not a single person I know has quit either. None of their friends have quit and none of their friends have quit. You'd think if it was so successful I'd know at least a friend of a friend.... "

Submit a Comment

We encourage your feedback and dialog, all comments will be reviewed by our Web staff before appearing on the Web site.

Please note: We provide our story commenting feature in order to solicit feedback, debate and discussion on topics of local interest. Please keep in mind that civility is a necessary component of productive conversation. All blatantly inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate comments (i.e. vulgarity, marketing, etc.) are subject to rejection and/or removal. Comments will appear if and when they are approved. Thanks for reading, and thanks for participating.