Omaha/Nebraska Smoking Ban

Stargazer · Post by **Stargazer** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:46 pm

Quit smoking.

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Sat Feb 10, 2007 12:52 pm

I'm pretty sure that has nothing to do with this thread, and that it's also not your concern or your business.

Stargazer · Post by **Stargazer** » Sat Feb 10, 2007 4:09 pm

What? we're not talking about baseball stadiums or science museums here... and I choose to make it my business. Just be glad I'm not close enough to crumple up your cigarette cartons.

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Sat Feb 10, 2007 4:43 pm

Jeff...

What the heck is going on here? I feel like I'm debating/arguing with a 5 year old.

Back when you were in charge you used to get upset when people made personal comments aimed at other forumers. Now it's "do as I say, not as I do" I guess.

Very surprising... :?

Post by **Admin** » Sat Feb 10, 2007 4:52 pm

edsas · Post by **edsas** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 1:21 am

Jeff's comment didn't strike me as a "debate" so much as a friendly suggestion.

Anyway, 10 years into the California smoking ban, clubs and pubs are doing just fine for it. Trust me, Nebraska smokers aren't going to abandon their old hangouts just because they have to stand outside to light up.

Post by **Omaha Cowboy** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 1:37 am

edsas wrote:Jeff's comment didn't strike me as a "debate" so much as a friendly suggestion. .

Exactly..

But if the dude wants to fire up the cancer sticks when he drinks or whenever, that's his business. He's over 21 now..

And that feeling of invincibility is clearly apparent in your early 20's..

..Ciao..LiO....Peace

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:04 am

Omaha Cowboy wrote:And that feeling of invincibility is clearly apparent in your early 20's.

You mean I'm not invincible???? :;):

Post by **Omaha Cowboy** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:39 am

StreetsOfOmaha wrote: You mean I'm not invincible???? :;):

Oops..I didn't mean to let the cat out of the bag..

..

..Ciao..LiO....Peace

Coyote · Post by **Coyote** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 11:18 pm

New faces, different positions, change debate of smoking ban

Lincoln Journal Star wrote:The body has defeated previous attempts to enact a statewide smoking ban, including in 2005, when supporters fell six votes short of approval on a first-round vote. But the new makeup of the Legislature — term limits swept out nearly half of all state senators — makes history an unreliable indicator of what lawmakers may do this year.

For the first time in the nation’s history, more than half of Americans live in a city or state with laws mandating that workplaces, restaurants or bars be smoke-free, according to Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights. Seven states and 116 communities enacted tough smoke-free laws last year, bringing the total number to 22 states and 577 municipalities, according to the group. Lawmakers were scheduled to continue debating the bill Wednesday.

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Wed Feb 14, 2007 1:23 pm

Legislators take a break on smoking debate

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2 ... id=2331287

LINCOLN - Nebraska lawmakers will take a break on debating a statewide smoking ban so supporters and opponents can attempt to find a compromise.

State Sen. Joel Johnson of Kearney, who introduced the proposed ban, asked Wednesday for the issue to be put on hold for two weeks.

-Big E

Uffda · Post by **Uffda** » Wed Feb 14, 2007 1:59 pm

[quote]Sen. Deb Fischer of Valentine said she cannot support a ban that should be left up to cities. People who want to â€œlevel the playing fieldâ€

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Wed Feb 14, 2007 2:15 pm

Except for the fact that Omaha borders Iowa.

Uffda · Post by **Uffda** » Wed Feb 14, 2007 2:50 pm

My bet is most won't travel to Iowa just to smoke. I don't believe people go to bars to smoke. They go because they like the locale, the people that are there, the music, the food, etc.

Of course watching some of these people go outside to smoke in below zero windchills makes you realize how addicted they are.

Post by **Omaha Cowboy** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 6:32 pm

Uffda wrote:My bet is most won't travel to Iowa just to smoke. I don't believe people go to bars to smoke. They go because they like the locale, the people that are there, the music, the food, etc.

Agreed..

..Ciao..LiO....Peace

edsas · Post by **edsas** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 1:58 am

Streets, do you really believe you're going to give up your favorite bars in Omaha just so you can smoke in Iowa? Come on. You're not going to and neither will your friends. You'll just buck up and take your 15-minute break outside, then go back in.

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:56 am

StreetsOfOmaha wrote:And all I'm saying, is that for smokers, smoking is certainly something you go to the bar TO DO, just like conversation, music, and dancing are other reasons.

Unfortunately, the Surgeon General and 60+ years of research have not made a connection between secondhand conversation, music or dance and lung cancer. Trust I will be all over it when the science is there. ;)

-Big E

Stargazer · Post by **Stargazer** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:45 am

Funny, the two barflies here totally avoid the most obvious reason for going to these establishments. Is it because it indirectly results in the deaths of over 10,000 innocent people a year ?? (where are you on this issue Eric??

) I'm sure it was just an oversight.

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:12 am

Not sure I'm following, Jeff...???

-Big E

Stargazer · Post by **Stargazer** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:30 am

Sorry, just being me (the answer was 'drinking' ... most people go to the bar to drink ... and many of them are killing far more people driving home, than via their second hand smoke).

Back to regular programming...

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 11:10 am

That's what I thought you were referring to, but wanted to make sure. (I had a friend from high school whose older brother had the same horrible experience as the person in that poster, BTW.)

The difference is you can drink responsibly without affecting the person next to you (and yes, drinking and being drunk are two separate things). How many people have ever been killed by a drunk driver in a bar? Far fewer than the people who have died from secondhand smoke in a bar, I would wager.

-Big E

Swift · Post by **Swift** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 11:34 am

Stargazer wrote:

Sorry, just being me (the answer was 'drinking' ... most people go to the bar to drink ... and many of them are killing far more people driving home, than via their second hand smoke).

Back to regular programming...

But Jeff, drunk driving is already illegal.

Stargazer · Post by **Stargazer** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 11:34 am

I just found some irony in your both neglecting to even mention drinking at a bar ... when far more people are dying, the victims of drunk drivers. Let's face it... most of us care less about the (other) people dying... and more about our own displeasure with some cigarette smoke floating around in the here and now. The long term health issue just serves as a seemingly just argument for eliminating it.

Swift · Post by **Swift** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 11:36 am

Stargazer wrote:I just found some irony in your both neglecting to even mention drinking at a bar ... when far more people are dying, the victims of drunk drivers. Let's face it... most of us care less about the (other) people dying... and more about our own displeasure with some cigarette smoke floating around in the here and now. The long term health issue just serves as a good argument for eliminating it.

But the point is that we are trying to make smoking illegal because it harms people. Drunk driving harms people and is already illegal. You're not refuting any point of argument, just equating one legal act (smoking in bars) with one that is already illegal (drunk driving).

Stargazer · Post by **Stargazer** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:04 pm

(and they say I argue just for the sake of argument)

Swift, this is what I was going off of...

And all I'm saying, is that for smokers, smoking is certainly something you go to the bar TO DO, just like conversation, music, and dancing are other reasons. It's obviously different for everybody.

Unfortunately, the Surgeon General and 60+ years of research have not made a connection between secondhand conversation, music or dance and lung cancer.

I'm only commenting on the observation that neither Aaron nor Eric mentioned drinking at a bar (alongside conversation, music, dancing)... and how ironic it is that far more people die from the after effects of drinking and driving ... than from second hand smoke. Now as long as you bring it up, it seems to me, since we're still losing over 10,000 people a year to drunk drivers, in spite of drinking and driving already being 'illegal' ... maybe we need to do more. It's been several years since the loss of 3,000 people to terrorists on home soil... since that time we've lost tens of thousands to drunk drivers. What percentage of 'homeland defense' and the 'war on terror' budget do you suppose constitutes drunk driving prevention spending? Well, I don't know... but I'm certain that it's a TINY, TINY percentage (we just have to figure out how Halliburton can make money on it, huh? 'Damn Jeff, how many hot button issues can you hit on in one post?')

But again, I don't want to take anything away from this important discussion on second hand smoke... please, let's get back on topic...

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 12:21 am

Big E wrote:
StreetsOfOmaha wrote:And all I'm saying, is that for smokers, smoking is certainly something you go to the bar TO DO, just like conversation, music, and dancing are other reasons.
Unfortunately, the Surgeon General and 60+ years of research have not made a connection between secondhand conversation, music or dance and lung cancer. Trust I will be all over it when the science is there. ;)

-Big E

If it weren't bars we were talking about, that would be a valid argument. (drunk driving deaths, liver failure, alcohol poisoning, etc.) :D

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 12:28 am

Stargazer wrote:I'm only commenting on the observation that neither Aaron nor Eric mentioned drinking at a bar...

That's because it's a given. It's so obvious you don't have to mention it.

By the way, good points about the hypocrisy of second hand smoking deaths vs. alcohol related deaths. Not that cigarette smoke isn't a public health issue, it's just interesting to point out.

Swift · Post by **Swift** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 9:54 pm

Leaps in logic: 1)homeland security is to prevent terrorism. terrorism is a premeditated act meant to bring about a certain consequence (i.e. the loss of human life). drunk driving, from a legal point of view, is rarely, if ever, premeditated. no one goes out with the intent to drink and drive. drunk driving is a lapse in judgment, a form of criminal negligence.

2)drunk driving is already illegal. barring mandatory automated breathalyzer tests to start your car, there's very little that can be done legally to prevent further drunk driving accidents. there IS, however, still much that can be done legally to prevent second-hand smoke related deaths. regardless of how many more deaths are caused by drunk-driving than by smoking, drunk-driving is still legal, while smoking in confined public areas is not. the whole point of this public discourse is to put the two acts on the same legal level (of course no one is saying you should do 10 to 20 for lighting up at a bar). so your saying that no one is talking about how many people are killed by drunk driving is irrelevant, because drunk driving is already illegal, while smoking in confined public areas is not.

quit with your Johnny Cochrane tactics.

the1wags · Post by **the1wags** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 10:20 pm

Holy |expletive|, can we go back to talking about whether or not the bill is going to pass or do you guys really like flogging that dead horse?

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 10:29 pm

the1wags wrote:Holy |expletive|, can we go back to talking about whether or not the bill is going to pass or do you guys really like flogging that dead horse?

I think if there had been any new news, that's what we would be talking about. But in the meantime, a little related discussion never hurt anyone...

...unlike dirty, lethal, despicable second-hand smoke!

Stargazer · Post by **Stargazer** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 10:59 pm

Leaps in logic: 1)homeland security is to prevent terrorism. terrorism is a premeditated act meant to bring about a certain consequence (i.e. the loss of human life). drunk driving, from a legal point of view, is rarely, if ever, premeditated. no one goes out with the intent to drink and drive. drunk driving is a lapse in judgment, a form of criminal negligence.

Spoken like a true patriot... you didn't tell us they kicked you out of San Francisco (oh I know, I'm the one who's out of place here).

2)drunk driving is already illegal. barring mandatory automated breathalyzer tests to start your car, there's very little that can be done legally to prevent further drunk driving accidents. there IS, however, still much that can be done legally to prevent second-hand smoke related deaths. regardless of how many more deaths are caused by drunk-driving than by smoking, drunk-driving is still legal, while smoking in confined public areas is not. the whole point of this public discourse is to put the two acts on the same legal level (of course no one is saying you should do 10 to 20 for lighting up at a bar). so your saying that no one is talking about how many people are killed by drunk driving is irrelevant, because drunk driving is already illegal, while smoking in confined public areas is not.

Heck, I'd take 10-20 for a second offense drunk driver.

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:58 am

Is that a countdown I hear... ????

The ethics and legal wrangling of this has been debated to the point where no one has anything new to add. Let's leave this thread to LB 395 itself and go (re)start the "discussion" on another thread.

-Big E

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:05 am

Big E wrote:Is that a countdown I hear... ????

No.

Swift · Post by **Swift** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:43 am

Stargazer wrote:
Leaps in logic: 1)homeland security is to prevent terrorism. terrorism is a premeditated act meant to bring about a certain consequence (i.e. the loss of human life). drunk driving, from a legal point of view, is rarely, if ever, premeditated. no one goes out with the intent to drink and drive. drunk driving is a lapse in judgment, a form of criminal negligence.
Spoken like a true patriot... you didn't tell us they kicked you out of San Francisco (oh I know, I'm the one who's out of place here).

2)drunk driving is already illegal. barring mandatory automated breathalyzer tests to start your car, there's very little that can be done legally to prevent further drunk driving accidents. there IS, however, still much that can be done legally to prevent second-hand smoke related deaths. regardless of how many more deaths are caused by drunk-driving than by smoking, drunk-driving is still legal, while smoking in confined public areas is not. the whole point of this public discourse is to put the two acts on the same legal level (of course no one is saying you should do 10 to 20 for lighting up at a bar). so your saying that no one is talking about how many people are killed by drunk driving is irrelevant, because drunk driving is already illegal, while smoking in confined public areas is not.
Heck, I'd take 10-20 for a second offense drunk driver.

Hey, I kicked MYSELF out of San Francisco!

And I meant that no one is going to get a 10 to 20 year jail sentence for smoking in a bar.

Post by **Admin** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:22 am

OK. Now that we have settled all outstanding comments. Could we please return to LB395 discussion.

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:55 pm

This has ALL been LB395 discussion.

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:39 pm

Survey results boosts lawmaker's hopes of state smoking ban

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2 ... id=2338926

Seven of 10 Nebraska voters favored a law banning smoking in public buildings and workplaces, according to the poll, whose results were released Tuesday.

Strong support for a law banning smoking was found among Nebraskans of all political persuasions and in all three congressional districts.

Among tobacco users, who made up 15 percent of those surveyed, 67 percent opposed a ban and 31 percent supported it.

Those last tidbits shock me. One, only 15% of the participants smoke (I would have guessed it closer to 25%, but I'm sure some were probably not being honet). Two, a third of smokers did not oppose the ban.

I'd be curious to see how many non-smokers opposed the ban. I think I can figure it out with a little math, but I don't have the time right now.

-Big E

PS: The poll was sponsored by proponents of the ban such as the American Cancer Society, but it was administered independently.

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 4:51 pm

Could municipalities opt-out of a statewide smoking ban?

http://www.journalstar.com/news/politic ... 596423.txt

LJS wrote:Some opponents of a statewide smoking ban are working with supporters on a possible compromise that could pave the way for legislative approval of a ban modeled after the one in Lincoln.

The catch: Cities would be able to opt out of the ban through votes of elected officials or the public.

I actually wouldn't have too much trouble with this as long as it were left up to a vote of the people after a petition drive, and not a vote of some city council weiners. While deep inside I would know it is bad legislation that would set an even worse precedent ("Hey, let's opt out of the statutory rape laws!"), I also no there's no municipality in their right mind that would want that PR.

I also give this compromise almost no chance of passing or standing up against legal scrutiny, based largely on the precedent I mentioned above.

But hey, I've been wrong almost every time I chimed in on what I thought would happen so far. :)

-Big E

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:19 pm

LB 395 advances, BUT:

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2 ... id=2342754
(OWH keeps crashing my browser today, so I'm not going back for text.)

OR

http://www.journalstar.com/news/politic ... 970837.txt

LJS wrote:As it is now, LB395 would institute a statewide smoking ban but would allow cities or counties to opt out in whole or part with a vote of the people or a vote of a the local governing board or council.

Johnson said it presents a problem to allow city councils, village boards or county boards to vote on opting out of the ban. In some cases, three representatives, under distinct political pressure, would be making a decision on the health of a community, he said.

So there you have it. I think it's terrible that a city council can just decide to vote on it without a petition drive from the people, but it's a start. I do think the number of municipalities that will opt out will be almost zero, and they do it at the peril of ridicule almost on the level of the Kansas BOE and evolution.

At the very least, it's a start (and it's not officially done yet, for that matter). Hopefully someone will be on the ball and introduce legislation soon to tie tax money to compliance.

I think this one passes easily.

-Big E

Uffda · Post by **Uffda** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 2:08 pm

I don't like the idea of the cities or counties being able to OPT OUT. That starts watering it down like letting all the Keno places in Omaha not having to be non-smoking according to the Omaha.

The thing I would be worried about is the bar/restaurant owners in small towns surrounding larger ones putting pressure on councils to OPT OUT using the reasoning of attracting people out of the larger cities to their bars and bringing in more tax revenue for the local govt.

"I doubt there will be very many cities or counties that will opt out," White said. If many do and that creates problems, the Legislature could reconsider in future years, he said.

With the compromise amendment attached to the bill, 32 senators voted to advance LB 395 from the first round; six voted against it. Without the amendment, the bill could have died in the face of a filibuster.

Several LB 395 backers expressed unease about the compromise.

Sen. Vickie McDonald of St. Paul said the opt-out amendment would create undue pressure on local elected bodies.