OWH wrote: LINCOLN - Allowing city councils and county boards to opt out of a proposed state law to prohibit smoking in public buildings and workplaces could doom the effort to impose a statewide ban.
Supporters of Legislative Bill 395, including its chief sponsor, said they no longer would support the bill if the local option amendment added Tuesday remains part of the legislation.
State Sen. Joel Johnson of Kearney said he accepted the amendment to win enough votes to keep the bill alive, and lawmakers gave it first-round approval, 32-6.
OWH wrote:A provision that exempts certain businesses from Omaha's smoking ban has been upheld by a Douglas County District judge.
"The exempted businesses have different clienteles and different relationships with smoking,'' Hartigan wrote. "As to stand-alone bars, there is a 'bar culture' in which smoking accompanies the drinking of alcoholic beverages. The clientele of stand-alone bars without food is less likely to include children. ... The same holds true for keno locations where the establishments must hold a liquor license, seldom serve food and are patronized by a great deal of smokers.''
I'll post it here because this seems to be the most recent, active and civil thread on the subject...
I must say I'm astounded by both the ruling and the reasoning, buit mostly the reasoning. "Bar culture"? Why not just exempt these places from spousal abuse and child neglect laws, too? Ooh, and DUIs. "But ocifer, I was drigging at a place wif a 'bar cutcher'. I'm spozed to drunking and driving! Go join the Taliban, commie."
In the ongoing case of Common Sense v State of Nebraska, score another for Nebraska. I'm 0-fer-ever on guessing what the courts are going to do on this issue.
If it became law, LB 395 would supersede the Lincoln and Omaha smoking bans.
There is now a section in the bill that says this
Section 23 In any city or village which had an ordinance with respect to smoking regulation in effect on January 1, 2007, the provision of such ordinance shall supersede the provisions of the Nebraska Clean Indoor Air Act until June 1, 2009. Beginning June 1, 2009, in such city or village, the ordinance shall continue in effect......
The there are several things that could happen.
So am I reading this as Omaha's ordinance would remain in effect until June 1 2009 or even longer? While everyone else around Omaha would have to be stricter.
The first quote is from a previous referenced OWH article but i don't remember which one. The second quote comes off the referenced pdf link which I found when I went to look at the bill off the NE legislative page.
1) any local ordinance (to my knowledge, only Omaha, Lincoln, and Boys Town have smoking ordinances) on the books prior to Jan 1 of 2007 will NOT be superseded by the state ban until the June 2009 date
2) local governments are basically free to write their own laws after the June 2009 date, by either Council vote or general election (initiated by the council or petition)
So, what does that mean (again, IANAL)...
Assuming 395 passes (which I'm frankly not assuming anymore at this point), it would force most jurisdictions to live under the ban for about two years, at which time they would all have the opportunity to opt out. (There's not a real big precedent for municipalities opting out of/relaxing/eliminating smoking bans once they're imposed, BTW.)
I wish that any exemption would be forced to a public vote rather than allowing a city council to vote on it alone (no potential for shenanigans there). Again, please be clear that I'm making some interpretations on this that may or may not be accurate, since I haven't seen any recent coverage on this new language.
I will, however, hold off on much more commentary until I get the actual 411 from someone more in the know than myself.
Edit: Now that I re-read this, I think this is the PROPOSED amendment allowing cities to opt out, and I couldn't tell you one way or another if it has been added to the bill or not.
I guess I was seeing it as allowing OMaha's bar to still going about the smoking as was put into effect with the smoking ban until 2009 while cities around omaha like Ralston and Papillion woule have to follow the state act until 2009 when they could try to opt out which of course would give the Omaha Keno bars the advantage for 2 years
Uffda wrote:I guess I was seeing it as allowing OMaha's bar to still going about the smoking as was put into effect with the smoking ban until 2009 while cities around omaha like Ralston and Papillion woule have to follow the state act until 2009 when they could try to opt out which of course would give the Omaha Keno bars the advantage for 2 years
Well, that's certainly what it means (I think) from a current, local (to Omaha) standpoint.
The Minnesota Senate voted 41-24 on Tuesday to approve a sweeping, statewide smoking ban that would eliminate most indoor smoking in public places, including bars and restaurants, beginning Aug. 1.
What it does
The bill prohibits smoking in public places, aboard public transportation and at public meetings. Violations would be petty misdemeanors.
The measure allows bars, restaurants and bingo halls to build outdoor smoking patios. Electricity and heating would be allowed on the patios but not food or beverage service.
LINCOLN - Backers of a statewide smoking ban said they got 90 percent of what they wanted in a bill given second-round approval this morning.
But the bill also would make it easier for voters to overrule less restrictive smoking ordinances adopted by city councils and county boards.
Under an amended version of LB 395, petitions signed by only 5 percent of registered voters would put those local measures on the ballot.
The amended version of LB 395 would leave Omaha's smoking ban in place until June 1, 2009. The ban temporarily exempted bars that do not serve food, keno outlets and Horsemen's Park. Under city ordinance, those exemptions are to expire in 2011.
The proposed state law would take effect in all other parts of the state on June 1, 2008. That would give communities the opportunity to decide whether to adopt less restrictive local bans. The local measures could be adopted by city councils or county boards or by a vote of the people.
1) I like that the council votes will need to be approved by voters (I think I am reading that right), which essentially forces this to be a popular vote. I didn't catch that the first time I read it.
2) Why only 5% of voters required for a petition? Correct me if I'm wrong, but all other petitions require 15%. Why a special consideration for this one law?
3) Why wait until 2008 to implement it?
I do think it is a step in the right direction, and exponentially better than what we have now.
I really don't see any going to a ballot and being repealed, save for tiny municipalities of sub-500... and I'll be able to smell them and drive around. ;)
I think that might be in to make it easier to put to public vote -- maybe a compromise in that they let the city councils make the first law.
3) Why wait until 2008 to implement it?
The proposed state law would take effect in all other parts of the state on June 1, 2008. That would give communities the opportunity to decide whether to adopt less restrictive local bans. The local measures could be adopted by city councils or county boards or by a vote of the people.
I guess it meant to let those cities and villages make their own less restrictive bans.
I agree why wait? Iowa passes a cigarette tax and it has already taken effect.
OK so a scenario -- Ralston and Papillion make less restrictive smoking bans as their bars/kenos are going to scream that they are losing money to Omaha bars/kenos for two years as Omaha doesnt have to comply for 2 years --- so everything ends up getting watered down...... kind of like Omaha's did when they let all the 'new' Keno places in.
Keep in mind that any City Council that votes in a less restrictive ban has to deal with the fact that the general population favors a ban more than 2 to 1.
City councilmen, when it comes to this sort of thing, have proven repeatedly that they can be unbelievably weasel-ish. There's a HUGE difference between going on record in favor of a repeal than there is not going on record in favor of a ban. (That makes perfect sense in my head. Not sure if I got it out in words.) ie, when it comes to standing up in front of parents and voters and saying "My buddy (or myself) owns a bar and I want him to be able to allow smoking and I don't care if your kid has asthma and now there's no place for him to go in our one-trick pony town," I doubt you're going to see many of them sprout spines all of a sudden.
You'l see a small number of small towns make some small adjustments, which will all likely be overturned in a few years anyway (federal or a new sweeping state law). This is a big step in the right direction.
I understand what you are saying --- I guess I wonder why they gave Omaha until 2009 while everyone else has just until 2008. I can see the Marleybone still continuing their lawsuit as they are stuck as they are until 2009.
The two City Council members who co-sponsored Omaha's compromise smoking ban received financial contributions last year from groups that won temporary exemptions from the ban.
Since October, smoking has been prohibited in most public buildings, but bars that don't serve food, keno outlets and Horsemen's Park can continue to allow smoking until 2011.
Campaign finance filings for 2006 show that Councilmen Franklin Thompson and Jim Suttle received contributions from Omaha's keno operator, Big Red Keno. Thompson also got money from Horsemen's Park.
Thompson and Suttle said contributions from those groups in 2006 and in previous years did not affect their efforts on the smoking ban.
The two City Council members who co-sponsored Omaha's compromise smoking ban received financial contributions last year from groups that won temporary exemptions from the ban.
Since October, smoking has been prohibited in most public buildings, but bars that don't serve food, keno outlets and Horsemen's Park can continue to allow smoking until 2011.
Campaign finance filings for 2006 show that Councilmen Franklin Thompson and Jim Suttle received contributions from Omaha's keno operator, Big Red Keno. Thompson also got money from Horsemen's Park.
Thompson and Suttle said contributions from those groups in 2006 and in previous years did not affect their efforts on the smoking ban.
To avoid confusion, this has nothing to do with the statewide ban - LB395. This is related solely to the Omaha ban.
LJS wrote:It made it through a filibuster, two rounds of debate and serious compromise.
The question now is whether the lack of a timely response from Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning’s office will threaten a final vote on a statewide smoking ban.
Talk circulated around the Capitol Wednesday that a legal opinion requested on the opt-out portion of the bill would not make it out of Bruning’s office until after the session winds down at the end of May.
I guess I'm not aware of why this would get in the way of them voting unless they (the legislature) want it to get in the way. Looks like nothing more than a stal tactic to me.
And remember, we're asking for a legal opinion from the guy that likened gay marriage to marrying furniture.
Another state passes a non smoking bill. What I find interesting compared to the bill in NE (which won't get passed this year) is this is going into effect this year not in 2-3 years and local gov't would be able to enact stricter standards --- not weaker ones like the unicameral has in their bill
Both houses of the Minnesota Legislature passed a historic statewide smoking ban, amid fierce and emotional debate Friday and today pitting health concerns against personal freedom and property rights.
The bill, which would take effect in October if signed into law, would prohibit smoking in bars and restaurants and bingo halls, and would make Minnesota the 20th state to prohibit smoking indoors.
Smoking would be permitted on outdoor patios, and local governments would be able to enact even stricter standards. Gov. Tim Pawlenty has said he would sign a ban.
He said the bill, in the form it had reached the final stage of debate, was unworkable.
LB 395 would ban smoking in all public buildings and workplaces, with limited exceptions. The bill was amended to allow cities and counties to opt out of the statewide ban and to leave Omaha's less-restrictive smoking ban in place until June 1, 2009.
I figured that would happen after they were letting Omaha keep its less restrictive ban while the surrounding cities/towns would have a more restrictive. They amended it to death. :roll:
I work for Medicare and I can tell you that will NEVER happen. I see countless cases a day where we tell dying people we won't pay for certain procedures because they are getting them too often even though it's necessary to live.
I work for Medicare and I can tell you that will NEVER happen. I see countless cases a day where we tell dying people we won't pay for certain procedures because they are getting them too often even though it's necessary to live.
Thanks DTO! Good to see someone stand up for what they believe in... but then again, I'd like to know why the tobacco settlement money was for... Let's really fix the problem... If we're going to force smokers into this smoke-free lifestyle let's help them out... Remember, that not too long ago it was damn near a part of American culture to smoke!
I personally think you'll eventually see employers and insurance companies say "Here's your rate for smokers and here's your rate for non-smokers", and employers will start offering incentives to help people quit. The incentives could range from supplementing cessation programs to "Here's your incentive: quit or find another job." If you can fire someone for being gay...
I also think if and when major health care reform happens at the federal level, you'll see smoking bans and cessation programs be requirements of federal funding - much like BAC and drinking ages are tied to highway dollars. ie, "Sure, Nevada, you can have smoking in your casinos, and have fun paying for your own health insurance without federal money while you're at it." (OK, Nevada might be able to pull it off.)
Big E wrote:I personally think you'll eventually see employers and insurance companies say "Here's your rate for smokers and here's your rate for non-smokers", and employers will start offering incentives to help people quit. The incentives could range from supplementing cessation programs to "Here's your incentive: quit or find another job." If you can fire someone for being gay...
Haha, exactly.
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
Not in an attempt to revive a thread but in an attempt to revive awareness, here's what you have to look forward to during an exciting career in the tribal gaming industry:
• Must be able to tolerate areas containing second hand smoke, varying noise and temperature levels, illumination, vibration, crowds, and air quality.{bold mine}
ie, "we'll pay you if you'll tolerate our cancer causing bull-[expletive]. You like that, don't you? Say you like it. Ask us about our long term health insurance."
Visit OmahaHelpWanted.com
Click on "by city"
Click on "Council Bluffs"
Click on "Executive Associate"
An Omaha group is seeking make Henry Doorly Zoo smoke-free.
The Smoke Free Zoo task force is made up of Tobacco Free coalitions from Omaha, Sarpy and Cass counties.
The groups want the Omaha zoo to adopt a policy making its grounds completely smoke-free, noting that at least 81 zoos across the country have implemented smoke-free policies.
