Omaha/Nebraska Smoking Ban

Coyote · Post by **Coyote** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 5:03 pm

theomahacchannel.com wrote: Omaha Smoking Ban Will Be Reintroduced
Councilman Says He Has Votes To Pass Ban Now

OMAHA, Neb. -- An Omaha city councilman in ready to propose a smoking ban again, and this time he says he has the votes to pass it.

Councilman Marc Kraft said this is virtually the same proposal that the city council debated and voted down in August. He'll reintroduce the ban at the Jan. 4 meeting.

"I believe I have the support of the council members this time around to go along with this," Kraft said.

Kraft's plan would ban smoking in all businesses except stand-alone bars. At Tailgator's Bar and Grill, owners would have to send smokers outside because they serve food.

"I will fight it all the way," said Florence Stevenson, with Tailgator's. "I feel like someone's taking away my dreams."

Stevenson and other business owners, who fought the August vote, plan to plead with council members again. They say they need to serve food and allow smoking to survive.

Kraft said the health benefits a smoking ban would create are worth it.

"The public deserves this -- the waiters and waitresses and people who go into the bar because they have to not because they want to," Kraft said.

Mayor Mike Fahey said he would veto a partial ban. The mayor favors a total ban. Kraft is not sure if he has enough votes to override the mayor's veto, but he thinks he does have the votes to get it to that point.

Lincoln voters passed a smoking ban a few weeks ago. It goes into effect Jan. 1.

Many Lincoln bars have been applying for outdoor beer garden permits so their clients can smoke outdoors.

Omaha business owners were hoping they could study the impact of Lincoln's ban before another ban came up for vote in Omaha.

almighty_tuna · Post by **almighty_tuna** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 5:38 pm

Lincoln's ban is actually already in effect. There will be no enforcement however until midnight January 1. Unfortunately the city is being opportunistic with this; if common sense prevailed they would've cited the enforcement date as 1am, Jan. 1, which of course is bar closing time. By choosing midnight the city is forcing mass change in an uncontrolled manner, ultimately leaving initial enforcement to bar owners to when patrons are at their drunkest and rowdiest. Although I'm sure that there will be plenty of officers ready to write those $100 tickets for first offenses at 12:01am.

UNOstudent · Post by **UNOstudent** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 8:21 pm

i hope it passes.

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 11:34 pm

I hope it doesn't....and it won't.

Wow, is the early 2000's going to be known as the "freedom-banning" era, or what?

eomaha · Post by **eomaha** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:26 am

I'm all for protecting ones freedoms... as long as they don't affect me. I can't think of any 'freedom' more intrusive to others than smoking.

I have to say though... I did feel bad for the Linoln cigar shop owner that couldn't even allow his customers to try out his products in the store. There should be at least an exemption for smoke shops.

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 1:05 am

That's the thing. It doesn't HAVE to affect anyone who doesn't want to be affected by it. Americans have every freedom to NOT BE WHERE PEOPLE ARE SMOKING.

eomaha · Post by **eomaha** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 1:34 am

I don't see anyone suggesting that people should have the right to shoot others in the head in public places... yet the effects of second hand smoke can certainly have the same end result over time.

almighty_tuna · Post by **almighty_tuna** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 8:29 am

You know, Jeff, its ironic you should bring that up. After Jan. 1 the only legal place to smoke in Lincoln besides your home/car will be public places.

I hope it doesn't pass as well, but I'm not as confident as Streets that it won't. Zero tolerance is the PC way but also the path of least responsibility in most cases.

UNOstudent · Post by **UNOstudent** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 9:53 am

StreetsOfOmaha wrote:That's the thing. It doesn't HAVE to affect anyone who doesn't want to be affected by it. Americans have every freedom to NOT BE WHERE PEOPLE ARE SMOKING.

but i dont have the freedom of breathing clean air and not smelling like smoke where smoking exists. isnt that the point of the ban?

call me ignorant, but i just dont see any reason how inhaling smoke is desirable.

OmahaDevelopmentMan · Post by **OmahaDevelopmentMan** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 3:37 pm

I also don't have the freedom to KILL SOMEONE. Think people can't die from second hand smoke, think again. About 15 years ago my grandmother who had never touched a cigarette, cigar or anything of that sort died because of second hand smoke. I hope this passes. I have actually written letters to all of the city councilmen telling them my story. To me, this issue is personal. I hope for damn sure that NO ONE can take away any years of my life or anyone elses lives. And through second hand you are. Besides, can't you just wait the 40 min or an hour you are in a resteraunt without smoking? If you're that addicted, just step outside, you're already endangering your life, don't endanger anyone elses!

almighty_tuna · Post by **almighty_tuna** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:40 pm

OmahaDevelopmentMan wrote:Besides, can't you just wait the 40 min or an hour you are in a resteraunt without smoking? If you're that addicted, just step outside, you're already endangering your life, don't endanger anyone elses!

I don't think there is any diagreement that a smoking ban in a restaurant is a good thing. I oppose the ban in non-family places like bars, smokeshops, etc. One thing I can't understand is if everyone is so gung-ho about nonsmoking bars and the like, why not open one and reap the benefits.

projectman · Post by **projectman** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 6:59 pm

Well I just think we should allow meth labs in public places too. They can discard the needles where ever they want. I know it's a recreational drug and illegal but so what. If I step on a needle too bad.

Nicotine and the other chemicals in smoke sticks kills people... period. Smoking is a disgusting habit that makes your lips wrinkle, your lungs turn black, your eyes burn, your clothes stink and did I say your eyes burn. IF that's not a good enough reason to ban smoking in public places then I'd like to know why I and every other non smoker should have to breathe it.

almighty_tuna · Post by **almighty_tuna** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 8:35 pm

Its not about public places!!!!!! When Lincoln's smoking ban begins enforcement one may still smoke at Holmes Lake, Pioneer's Park and all other outdoor PUBLIC PLACES. Yes, I said it; Public Places. Lincoln's ban applies to places of business and indoor public places only. For those in favor of the ban, examine any proposal carefully to make sure it includes your location of interest.

projectman · Post by **projectman** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 9:00 pm

Yes it is about public places and my point of interest is restaraunts right now. I think smoking should be banned everywhere because it is a nuisance to public health. There's enough |expletive| in the air without cigarette smoke added to the mix.

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 9:31 pm

I don't see what the need for a ban is. Can't a restaurant or bar just impose it's own no smoking ban? It sounds real simple to me.

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 10:41 pm

Exactly, DTO. Capitalism, people! If a business thinks they'll make more money by banning smoking, they will, and yay for them.

My points:

I just don't like how demonizing smoking can get out of control so fast. I mean look. It's already been compared to meth and killing people with guns.

Some people act like if there were no cigarettes in this world, they never would have lost their gandma, or their dad, or whatever. People die folks, and it's your choice how you go about it.

Second hand smoke is a CHOICE. Just like it's a choice when and where people smoke. A curteous smoker will be sensative to non-smoker's level of comfort. On the other hand, if a non-smoker is in a situation where people are smoking, and paying no regard to his/her comfort, he/she has every freedom in the world to LEAVE.

I understand that some people hate smoking with a PASSION, whether it's personal, they just think it's disgusting, or both. Even I feel that way sometimes. But, I also LIKE smoking. Yes, I like it. It's something I'm free to do in this country.

The real argument here is "Who will be isolated from society? The smokers or the smoker-haters?" All concerned parties are HUMAN beings with rights. So, what do you do?

UNOstudent · Post by **UNOstudent** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:54 am

" On the other hand, if a non-smoker is in a situation where people are smoking, and paying no regard to his/her comfort, he/she has every freedom in the world to LEAVE."

why should the a non-smoker be the one forced to leave. the smoker is the one infringing on my air that i breathe.

why do u think there are ordinaces banning loud music? it intrudes on whatever other people are listening to. its difficult to listen to whatever music is in my car when a kid pulls up next to me w/ 3 12s vibrating the windows in my car. i dont know too many people that are thrilled w/ that.

also it sucks when i (a non smoker) contributs to medicare/medicaid to pay the hospital bills endured that are smoking related person. they should have known that it is bad and had the choice to stop, yet they continued smoking and eat everyones tax dollars.

lastly, my sister lives in minneapolis and said that a smoking ban will be effective come march 05 in bars and restaurants just in time for my 21st bday.

TechnicalDisaster · Post by **TechnicalDisaster** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 8:48 am

I totally disagree that second hand smoke is a choice. One of the reasons the ban has been put into place is to protect employees from second hand smoke, especially those employeed in the food service industry. Those employees have no choice about having to put up with smokers. And don't get all high and mighty telling me that they have a choice as to where they work. You go tell a single parent barely making ends meet that they can choose to work somewhere else. The ban protects them the most.

Is second hand smoke a choice to children who live with parents that smoke? Do you know how often the rescue squad is called to a house where a child is having an uncontrollable asthma attack and the parents are smoking in the kids face? It happens all the time.

I prefer to choose places of business that offer completely smoke free enviornments. Unfortunately, the only place in Omaha to get good Ribs is a place that allows smoking.

almighty_tuna · Post by **almighty_tuna** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:19 am

bradley414 wrote: And don't get all high and mighty telling me that they have a choice as to where they work.

What is so high and mighty about that? I know plenty of single parents, barely making ends meet, who have gotten different or better jobs.

Furthermore, bad parenting as in your example is just that. A parent's indifference towards their child is beyond the scope of the ban and this discussion.

jsheets · Post by **jsheets** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 12:17 pm

I'm honestly surprised to see such opposition on an otherwise forward-thinking and civic-minded forum! Not having a smoking ban reflects a midwestern hick image upon us. A smoking ban is seen as a good thing throughout much of the more urban cities in the country. Even in more blue-collar towns like Buffalo, the ban has been passed.

This is not a freedom issue, this is a health issue! Not going to those bars and clubs is a tough choice, because those are the "cool" bars and clubs to go to. I hate smelling like smoke whenever I leave a bar or club, but I doubly hate that I have to breathe in death from others!

projectman · Post by **projectman** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 10:24 pm

I especially love it when they throw their cigarette butts out the windows of their cars. Did they stop making ash trays or don't they like the smell.

This thread is going nowhere fast.

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:43 am

Once again, a lot of you seem to think people wouldn't die or have health problems if there was no smoking.

I agree that it's a disgusting habit, but it's a perfectly legal habit, and a habit that is pefectly easy to remove yourself from if you don't like it.

And, great point, Tuna.

eomaha · Post by **eomaha** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 11:07 am

Aaron... you're one of those liberals who gives us liberals a bad name. I'm sorry... but the right to not be there if you don't like smoke... isn't the one that needs to be defended. Driving drunk kills people who don't want to be killed as well... likewise, smoking in public places needs to be banned. We didn't simply tell people to stay off the street when drunk drivers are likely to be most prevolent. Give me a break.

I'd certainly defend your right to use marijuana...even meth (the sky is the limit) in the privacy of your own home. But the second you intrude on others with the side effects of those practices... is where the line needs to be drawn.

Try kicking the habit Aaron... maybe that's the key to getting you that positive outlook that is so lacking these days.

(by the way... I'm confused... you are a vegetarian right Aaron? So is that purely for animal rights purposes? Or maybe you simply don't like meat? Because it certainly can't be for the health reasons.... and projectman, I hate the butt tossers as well... it seems as though these people think a cigarette butt is too small to be trash (or bird food))

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:42 pm

jhuston wrote:Give me a break.

Ummm...no.

No, I'm not a vegetarian any more, and yes, it was for animal rights. And I still feel the same about that.

Anyway, I hardly think I give liberals a bad name. I'm not even that liberal. This is just my personal opinion.

And there you go again, comparing smoking to outrageous other occurences that cause death.

Whatever. I think we just need to drop it, Jeff.

the1wags · Post by **the1wags** » Wed Dec 08, 2004 5:51 pm

My $0.02, I can see both sides of this but I tend to side with smokers (I don't smoke btw) The thing I that bothers me the most is that if the ban is passed it forces bar owners and the like to comply. Lincoln passed the ban and some cigar bar has to have people go outside. Its retarded. Its just like the FCC fining Clearchannel or whoever shittons of money until they got rid of Howard Stern. If you don't like whats on the radio, change the @!?#ing channel. They want to take this away and that away, whats next, all public music ends because someone might find country music offensive (I do, lol) Exteme example but I hate sensorship and/or taking away any liberties. I go to bars knowing full well that it will be packed with smoke and accept it. Its the bar people. I also agree about this, if there is such a demand for a non smoking bar, someone should open some and rake in the cash. Maybe they should do something like the bar owner has a choice of smoking or not, and if they go non-smoking, they get a tax break or half off their liquor liscense or something like that. Anyways, Im done now.

eomaha · Post by **eomaha** » Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:07 pm

Exposure to music you don't like... doesn't kill you.

DMRyan · Post by **DMRyan** » Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:31 pm

It may not kill you, but listening to country can't be healthy for you. It just can't.

eomaha · Post by **eomaha** » Wed Dec 08, 2004 8:05 pm

Hey... if you've got busted love, betraying spouses, dead dogs, and broken down pickups... it may be indispensible.

almighty_tuna · Post by **almighty_tuna** » Thu Dec 09, 2004 11:21 am

Heresy!! Country w/out alcohol?! That's like neck w/out red, hee w/out haw, dude w/out ranch!!! Outrage!!

FatGuy · Post by **FatGuy** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 9:53 am

I just purchased Tim McGraw's greatest hits, great CD.

projectman · Post by **projectman** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 9:49 pm

I'm sorry.

papiostud · Post by **papiostud** » Sun Dec 12, 2004 2:43 pm

2nd hand smokin is a choice? LOL please.....

It's obvious this is gonna happen sooner or later, too bad it's only a partial ban as of now. Many other progressive cities have passed smokin bans like this, why can't we!

projectman · Post by **projectman** » Sun Dec 12, 2004 9:54 pm

People in Nebraska love to smoke.

I think this state supports the tobbacco industry more than people in Virginia and North Carolina.

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 2:38 am

projectman wrote:People in Nebraska love to smoke. I think this state supports the tobbacco industry more than people in Virginia and North Carolina.

Wow. I honestly doubt that.

How can you actually think that "nebraskans" love to smoke, and that there are more smokers here than elsewhere?

jsheets · Post by **jsheets** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 9:18 am

There have been surveys showing that the midwest in general has a higher percentage of smokers than either coast.

So I think it is safe to group Nebraska in with the midwesterners in these surveys.

From a quick google search, here's one example:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... i_79501197

In the Midwest, adolescents in central counties of large metro areas were more likely to smoke (15 percent) than those in the central counties of the South, West and Northeast regions (10 percent to 11 percent).

Source: Centers for Disease Control

projectman · Post by **projectman** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 6:52 pm

Thank you jsheets. I have heard from many people new to Nebraska that they cannot believe how many people here smoke. The fact that once again Nebraska is way behind the curve to ban smoking in restaurants and bars is an example of how much this state loves to smoke.

"Ya, Wow is right" Light up Nebraska, smoke your brains out.

I'm sure North Carolina and Virginia are greatful.

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:10 am

I know I am ;) .

eomaha · Post by **eomaha** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 8:12 pm

Omaha World Herald wrote: Sigerson offers proposal on smoking ban for city

Omaha City Councilman Chuck Sigerson says whether people prefer the smoking or nonsmoking sides of the aisle, they should be pleased with his proposed compromise in the smoking-ban debate.

All establishments seeking a liquor license after Dec. 31, 2005, would be required to go smoke-free under the proposal from Sigerson, who has been one of the staunchest opponents of a city smoking ban.

Existing establishments could continue to allow smoking.

All smoking establishments would have some new requirements under Sigerson's proposal.

For example, they would be required to have signs posted that they allow smoking and would have to note that fact in their advertising.

Sigerson said new smoke-free restaurants and bars would put pressure on the older establishments. New owners would be able to draft their business plans based on the new rules.

Over time, the number of establishments allowing smoking would go down, Sigerson said, although he acknowledged the plan was not the instant victory that anti-smoking groups were seeking.

"If they want to move toward a smoke-free environment, we can move toward that without taking away someone's rights," Sigerson said.

Sigerson briefed Mayor Mike Fahey on the proposal Friday. Fahey praised Sigerson for the innovative approach and is considering the idea, said Fahey Chief of Staff Paul Landow.

City Councilman Marc Kraft, the main proponent of a citywide smoking ban, could not be reached.

Mark Welsch, president of the Group to Alleviate Smoking Pollution, criticized Sigerson's plan as "complicated, weak and unfair."

"Why should employees and customers in all existing bars and restaurants be forced to breathe air that can kill them and does make many of them sick?" Welsch said.

projectman · Post by **projectman** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 8:18 pm

The smoking ban in restaurants can't come soon enough. Quit dilly dallying and just do it. I suppose it is going to be drug out until its analyzed to death and nobody's feelings are hurt.

Jon · Post by **Jon** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 9:23 pm

If there was a demand for smoke free bars, some enterprising individual would have jumped on it. Most restaurants are either smoke free, or segregated enough that it's not an issue. The argument about being damaging to employees doesn't hold water, there's few restaurants out there who wouldn't hire good staff on the spot. So if you're an employee who is bothered by the smoke, there's countless other restaurants you can work.

I think this is a classic case of government intervention where it could be more efficiently and effectively handled by the market.