Senate appears to support broad smoking ban

Friday, Feb 15, 2008 - 11:29:02 am CST

LINCOLN (AP) — A strict, statewide smoking ban cities and counties couldn’t duck got strong support from lawmakers Thursday as they moved a step closer to a final decision.

On a 33-13 vote, the Legislature approved an amendment that would bar cities and counties from opting out of a ban on smoking in bars, restaurants and all other workplaces in the state except for retail tobacco shops and places where smoking research is done. Hotel rooms also would be exempted.

A final vote is expected in the next two weeks.

Opponents on Thursday appeared ready to keep fighting the measure and are expected to offer amendments to soften it, while supporters said the vote signaled eventual approval of a ban.

“This is huge,” Mark Welsch, leader of the Nebraska-based Group to Alleviate Smoking Pollution said of Thursday’s action. “With 33 votes ... I hate to say it’s going to pass, because anything can happen, but it looks like it will.”

Should Nebraska adopt a strict ban, it would join 21 other states, according to the American Lung Society.

Approval of the amendment is a sharp turn from last year. Then, lawmakers in favor of a strict ban agreed to a local opt-out clause, believing they needed to make concessions to gain enough votes.

Some of those against the concessions argued that allowing the opt-out clause would actually hurt, not help, businesses. The fear was that customers who wanted to smoke would abandon their favorite bars and restaurants for those in towns that would opt out of a statewide ban.

Others said the local control cities often seek might lead to emotional, divisive debate such as Lincoln experienced three years ago. City voters passed a smoking ban similar to the one before state lawmakers (LB395). It is sponsored by Sen. Joel Johnson of Kearney.

“As a former small-town mayor ... I just think that’s going to cause so many problems,” Sen. Dave Pankonin of Louisville said of letting communities avoid a ban. “I think you’ll have communities and counties in an uproar.”

Opponents of a strict ban have said it would amount to bullying by the state against businesses that should be allowed to decide whether anyone can smoke on their properties.

Ban supporters countered by arguing that, in the name of public health, government often restricts what businesses can do.

That argument doesn’t wash, said Sen. Russ Karpisek of Wilber, owner of a meat market.

Existing laws “are to protect my customers from me, not my customers from other customers.”

“It should be the business owner’s choice,” Karpisek said.

“When are they going to stop telling us what to do?” said Les Agena, a smoker and owner of a business where smoking is allowed, The Corner Bar in Sterling, population 500.

While unhappy with the bill, Agena doesn’t think it will hurt business much — as long as the amendment approved Thursday remains.

”Where are people going to go to avoid a ban,” he asked, “if it’s every small town?”

On the Web

Nebraska Legislature: http://www.nebraskalegislature.gov

Leave a Comment

All posts are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
   
diAnn
Feb 15, 2008 12:21 PM
Now let us go after these large cattle feedlots and dairies and those pig factories, I don't like smelling methane which can be a deadly gas and cause health problems to people who live next to them.
Phil
Feb 15, 2008 12:43 PM
Let's get this done this year and not have to keep debating this issue. It's going to pass either now, or in the fall, or a year from now. There is no debate in the scientific or medical communities any more on the health dangers. And business is not harmed by smoking bans or other states with bans would have have rescinded some of them by now.
Chad
Feb 15, 2008 4:53 PM
Please pass this law,
I like going out and enjoying a drink with my friends. But I am so tired of smelling like smoke when I leave. You can even feel the smoke in your skin the next morning even after showering.
This smoke is a slow poison to everyones body. People who smoke should think of the harm its doing to the people around them. Smoking is a very unhealthy way of life.
Please pass this bill!!!!!!!!!!!!
Right on
Feb 15, 2008 5:18 PM
Phil & Chad hit the nail right on the head I agree 100% .
kitty
Feb 15, 2008 8:17 PM
Why are hotels exempt? I will never stay in a room where someone has been smoking. It's in the drapes, bedding, carpet and furniture. Let them set aside one or two rooms for those nitwits who are still trying to kill themselves and us with their filthy habit.
Christina Scott
Feb 16, 2008 1:24 AM
My husband and I are small town Bar & Steakhouse owners in Potter, NE. I believe that if someone wants to come into our places of business, it is their choice to walk through that door knowing it is a smoking establishment. All you have to do is post on the outside of your business, SMOKING ALLOWED, ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK. We do offer a non-smoking diningroom, to dine or drink w/ TV's. It is taking our rights away as business owners. It should be left up to us. We as business owners should be able to make this decision, not anyone else.
Johnny Scott
Feb 16, 2008 2:15 AM
Cigarette smoke stinks, and is bad for your health, NO DOUBT. BUT..........
It is our RIGHT as Americans to smoke!
Like it is a NON SMOKERS RIGHT to not go into a bussiness that has smoking, which is pretty much just bars now. So instead of taking smokers and(bar)bussiness owners rights away, STOP WHINING and find a non smoking place If you just cant stand it! STOP TAKING OUR RIGHTS AWAY!!!! Thats what it is!
rob g
Feb 16, 2008 8:43 AM
The Telegram does a very poor job of covering our local representatives. Rarley do I read about an important vote and actually know how Stuthman, or other area representatives actually stand!
Butt Out
Feb 16, 2008 10:15 AM
If you want to smoke fine. Just do it outside or in your own home or car. No one has the right to force others to put up with the second hand smoke. How to you expect families to take the kids out for dinner when all these places allow smoking ? It does very little good to have smoking & non smoking sections inside the same building. What separates the two ? nothing no walls just space the whole place has to smell the smoke & breathe it in. Sapp Bros took charge by going 100% smoke free & they are doing better then ever! More places need to follow their lead until it goes 100% smoke free state wide. Not soon enough!
old dude
Feb 16, 2008 12:24 PM
I am a recent quitter after 30+ years of smoking and I do realize now what others have been saying about the smell of smoke on your clothes, BUT I do not like the way government is trying to regulate people and businesses like this. If you want a non smoking establishment, then visit them and stay out of the smoking ones. I think a better idea would be to make tobacco illegal since it has no medicinal value. Our leaders are trying to please everyone and it cannot happen on this issue.
a nurse
Feb 16, 2008 3:42 PM
is it the right of the rest of us to pay for your healthcare needs and take up beds in hospitals because of something you choose to do. We all ready have enough other issues bleeding the healthcare and tax payers dollars dry because of consequences. If it is preventable than it should be prevented. You want to be left alone and smoke know but soon you will be needing help from us.
jusasec
Feb 16, 2008 6:17 PM
The lawmakers won't make tobacco illegal for quite some time. They have to first increase taxes (and implement new ones) on the entire U.S. public that will make up the lost tax income before they can do that! I wonder how the non-smokers will feel when their taxes jump 400% to make up the difference when tobacco is finally made illegal? Oh- and I don't suppose any of the non-smokers bothered to pay attention to the recently published Dutch study (article was in an edition of the Omaha World Herald last week) that proved non-smokers cost more medically than smokers and obese people because they live longer- contrary to what the non-smokers have been trying to pass off as proof that smokers cost the public taxpayers money because they develop cancer. As a matter of fact, the study proved that other than lung cancer, all other cancers were evenly spread among the "healthy non-smokers", the "obsese", and the "smokers". But I'm sure the Dutch study was all just more propaganda fabricated by the tobacco industry and that the scientists who studied it were paid off to falsify their findings!!! Cuz everyone knows the tobacco industry and smokers are filthy, disgusting, lying people who don't even deserve to be allowed in public venues- ever, anywhere, anytime. Personally, I think toilet paper should be taxed the way tobacco products are (or instead of tobacco). That way EVERYONE would share equally in the taxes. Not everyone smokes, not everyone drinks, not everyone owns a fancy home to pay huge property taxes on, but I hope to God everyone uses toilet paper!
Klem
Feb 16, 2008 8:22 PM
Did you know....? Obama is a smoker? It's true. He made the announcement at a campaign rally (which was televised) that he's trying to quit and is chewing Nicorette gum.
matt
Feb 16, 2008 9:33 PM
jusasec:

Have the taxes gone up 400% in California, Arizona, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, Utah, and Washington? That's 13 states that have banned smoking in all bars, restaurants, public places, and work places. Some of those states have had the bans in place for several years now and the businesses seem to be doing just fine with the smoking ban.

As for the Dutch study, don't believe every study that is conducted. Who completed the study? Who were the subjects? What type of insurance covered these individuals? Was there bias in the study and results? Who published the study? How many other studies are there that support this study? As sad as it is, newspapers do publish stories about current research and do choose to publish it for current event propaganda. Look at the study itself as opposed to what the paper printed and search for supporting literature on it. I'm sure there's a lot more literature/studies that refute this Dutch study.

As the study says, people who don't smoke live longer. If everyone didn't smoke than people would more than likely work longer as well as pay taxes for a longer period of time.
SouthSideRes
Feb 17, 2008 11:59 AM
To matt, I don't know about 400%, but you can darn well bet they went up somwhere to offset the lost revenue from tobacco products. You all love the benefits from tobacco taxes, but whine and complain about the people who generate those tax benefits. Example, Devaney Sports Center. If it wasn't for smokers you wouldn't enjoy any events held in that building. So that you slow folks don't get all bent out of shape, what I'm about to say is SARCASM, yet it has a big grain of truth to it. It ought to be mandatory that everyone should start smoking at the age of 16. A lot of problems will be taken care of in due time. All the weak & sickly will be gotten rid of within 2 generations and survival of the fittest will once again be the norm. The population will get thinned out and then it'll only be the hardier, healthier people who remain. Make tobacco products of any kind illegal after a 40 year timespan, once the weeding out process is complete. I PERSONALLY DID NOT THINK THIS UP ON MY OWN, it was a bit some "comedian" did that I happened to see.
Nesbit
Feb 17, 2008 6:13 PM
There are studies about the dangers of too much red meat. Therefore I propose a bill that would allow people to eat red meat only in their homes. I don't want to go to a restaurant and have to see it or smell it or think that I smell like a cheeseburger when I go home.

kitty
Feb 17, 2008 7:49 PM
Obama is a smoker? Just what we need, another president with an addiction. Oh well, I wasn't voting for him anyway.
matt
Feb 18, 2008 4:52 AM
How is there going to be such a lost revenue from smoking? So people have to go outside to smoke. They do it all over Lincoln. All of my friends from Lincoln that smoke haven't cut back their usage just because they can't smoke in a bar. On nice spring, summer, and fall nights plenty of them enjoy stepping outside to smoke. In the winter they smoke a little bit faster to get back inside. Those that smoke are already addicted to the nicotine. They need their fix and will still do what they have to feed that craving.
Nesbit
Feb 18, 2008 7:04 AM
Kitty:

If a candidate's decision to be a smoker affects his abilities as leader of the free world, you need to reconsider your priorities.
jusasec
Feb 18, 2008 5:00 PM
Ah, but Nesbit, it does matter!! Didn't you know-- someone who uses tobacco couldn't possibly be trusted to be President!! Just like someone who liked to skinny dip (President John Quincy Adams), or who was unfaithful to his wife (Presidents John F. Kennedy, President Bill Clinton) couldn't possibly be responsible enough to lead an entire nation. Heaven only knows what they'd do if they ran out of cigarettes and experienced a nicotine "fit". They might accidently push the button (you know, like a female president would if she was pms'ing). (Please note: all of the above writing was intended to have an incredibly sarcastic tone.)
jusasec
Feb 18, 2008 5:02 PM
And I forgot the most irresponsible President of all... Ronald Reagan. He was a (gasp!!) actor! And he acted with a chimpanzee of all things!! There is no way possible he was a good president because of his former career as an (gasp!) actor!!! (more sarcasm)
Christina Scott
Feb 20, 2008 10:02 PM
Everyone blames cigarette smoke as hazardous to your health.Step out-side a take a deep breath..and think how many poisonous toxins you are breathing in from vehicles, refineries etc..I can see banning smoking from places of business than only serve food, but Bars that serve alcoholic beverages and bar food should be exempt as long as there is a designated smoking area. My Bar has an enclosed dingroom for those that do not like the smoke and I can tell you it does make a difference for them. Everyone is pleased on both ends, my smokers are happy and so are my non-smokers.People like to go to bars have a good time,drink and have that occasional smoke(closet smokers)when people are happy doing what they enjoy they stay longer.(at a smokers point of view) It should be left up to us business owners to choose to go non-smoking. Like I said before you have that choice to walk through that door, knowing there is smoking in the builing. If you don't like it go somewhere that doesn't allow smoking.There are too many pplaces around that people can choose. Larger towns, the smoking ban won't affect them, it is us smaller ones that it will..We are 50/50.....All in all if you ban or make cigarettes illegal, you might as well do the same for alcohol(causes a hell of alot of accidents and liver disease and not good for diabetics(but they drink because it's their choice), and fast food restraunts( which causes obesity and clogged arteries, high blood pressure also not good for diabetics but that's also their choice to eat it. Why not leave the choice up to us to smoke......
Johnny Scott
Feb 20, 2008 11:55 PM
Bottom Line. Non smokers, If you dont like smoking and you go somewhere where there is smoking.... LEAVE! Its that easy. And to the nurse...If you would send me your address so I can send my Monthly Insurance Payment So you can pay for it. Taxpayers dont pay for my medical so shut up! that was just a stupid statment on your part. To chad, STOP GOING TO BARS THAT HAVE SMOKING! ITS NOT ANYONES RIGHT, To tell bar owners to not allow smokers to smoke inside, But the bar owner! PERIOD!!!!
It is your right to walk out, and or stay.To kitty, Be sure to ask for a non smoking room!..If they do not have any...find another motel....DUH!
To BUTT OUT, I havent seen a restraunt that allowed smoking for years! and again if they do and you can smell it! LEAVE! Americans lets not make more laws! Lets keep our rights in this country we have fought for so many years to have. If you dont like it, then dont do it. Speak your mind like we all have. But dont take anyones rights away. Smokers, Nonsmokers, Drinkers Non drinkers,Guns, No guns, Fat, Black, Yellow...So on and so forth. Choice is the answer to this countries indifferences. Not Bans or laws. I dont like guns and i dont ban them ....I JUST DONT BUY ONE!!!!!!!
Remeber its not about smell or medical....its about rights....And No one has the right to tell business owners who can smoke or not smoke in there business BUT THE OWNER!
Print This Story Email This Story
Traducira a Español

Hot Topics

Calendar of Events

Photos