Omaha/Nebraska Smoking Ban

projectman · Post by **projectman** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 9:53 pm

The restaurants that are segregated aren't segregated enough. You can still smell the smoke especially if you table is next to the smoking section. And people should be able to work where they want and not be harmed by the environment. There are laws that are supposed to protect all Americans in the work place.

DMRyan · Post by **DMRyan** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 10:55 am

I think they should eliminate smoking in restaurants entirely, but still allow it in the bars. For restaurants that have a bar, how about no smoking until after 8 pm? The City of Ames of has a smoking ordinance like this and it seemed to work out pretty well.

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 11:45 am

Jon, I totally agree with you. And Ryan, I think the idea of having smoking after a certain time for restaurants that have bars is a great idea!

I think Sigerson's approach is a good one. Introduce mandatory smoke free environments to the market with every new establishment, and let capitalism take its course with the old establishments.

Projectman. I think your comment about people having the right to work where they want is actually a little ironic. In a free-market society, where there are smoking establishments and non-smoking establichments, smokers and non-smokers alike are free to pick where they work. If you're a non-smoker, why would you want to work at a smoking establishement. You're free to work wherever you want, so go someplace that doesn't allow smoking. You're forgetting that smokers also have the freedom to work where they want. So what if they want to work someplace where they can smoke? Are you going to deny them that?

And by the way, as I'm coming out of my slump, I've been smoking much less. In fact, I haven't even smoked at all for several days. Just thought you guys would like to know ;) .

Zephyr · Post by **Zephyr** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 5:07 pm

Streets, I never knew you smoked!? If you need an accountability buddy to help, just let me know. I can leave you a phone message every day that says, "PUT IT OUT!"

Jon · Post by **Jon** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 5:41 pm

Streets - good luck in giving it up for good. Quitting was the single hardest thing I did in my life.

almighty_tuna · Post by **almighty_tuna** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 7:02 pm

Oddly enough, quitting wasn't that difficult for me once I actually sucked it up and did it. A couple times I said "sure, I'll just cut down"....which didn't work. Finally one night I decided to quit the next day and that was it. SO much easier then trying to cut down - you just don't smoke, its that easy. Good Luck, Streets.

projectman · Post by **projectman** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 7:28 pm

Good luck Streets. I'm pullin' for ya. Your lungs will be very happy.

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Sun Jan 09, 2005 12:59 pm

Thanks for the support, guys

. Still haven't smoked since I wrote that.

I agree, Tuna. It's not hard at all. When I smoked it was because I just wanted to smoke. I wasn't beholden to the cigarett, and I didn't physically "need" it. It was more psychological.

Now, the fact that I haven't smoked in a long time is not a big deal at all. It's like, I ran out one day and didn't feel like buying another pack. So I didn't

.

sokkerdewd · Post by **sokkerdewd** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 3:45 pm

Sorry, but this is rediculous:

A smoking "ban" that doesn't actually ban smoking anywhere... ...yet.

omahahawk · Post by **omahahawk** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 3:55 pm

StreetsOfOmaha wrote: Now, the fact that I haven't smoked in a long time is not a big deal at all. It's like, I ran out one day and didn't feel like buying another pack. So I didn't .

Have you tried drinking a beer or cup of coffee since you quit?

-lol

I also quit and can tell you those times were the worst.

I also found out that you go through two stages of quiting. First, you quit buying them, then you quit smoking. People used to ask me what brand I smoked, they had never heard of "Brads"

projectman · Post by **projectman** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 7:41 pm

Sigersons proposal is about the most ridiculous proposal that I have ever heard. Why even have a ban. So the 1000 restaurants in Omaha that are established will be grandfathered. So in 2006 any new restaurants will be smoke free. Big deal. What, did he get stupid after the Red Robin fiasco?

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 11:57 pm

omahahawk wrote:Have you tried drinking a beer or cup of coffee since you quit? -lol

I also quit and can tell you those times were the worst.

That's hilarious. Coffee and cigarettes go SOOOOO well together!

Coyote · Post by **Coyote** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 5:41 pm

eomaha · Post by **eomaha** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 6:10 pm

Now now... none of those save the smoking are going to pose a danger in second hand form.

almighty_tuna · Post by **almighty_tuna** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 9:21 pm

Your cell-phone is frying my brain... waaaah.

futrecndvlpr · Post by **futrecndvlpr** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:07 pm

After spending this week in California, I have now experienced first hand how great it is to have a public smoking ban. The ability to go into a bar/eatery and not come out smelling like smoke or teary eyed is great.

Not that I ever bought the "no one will go to the bars anymore" arguement, my experiences thus far have continued to show that this arguement lacks. All the bars are just as packed and the lines to eat dinner are just as long (even longer most of the time) here as they are at home.

Step up CC and pass an all out public smoking ban!

projectman · Post by **projectman** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 6:12 pm

Right on Future!

eomaha · Post by **eomaha** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 9:38 pm

KETV wrote: Bill Could Overturn Lincoln Smoking Ban, Omaha Proposal
Senator Wants To Usurp Local Smoking Bans

LINCOLN, Neb. -- Concerned that Nebraska might end up with a hodgepodge of local smoking bans, a lawmaker wants to put the issue under state control.

Sen. Pat Bourne, of Omaha, introduced a bill (LB754) Wednesday that would preclude cities from enacting smoking bans that are tougher than existing state law.

The bill comes less than a month after a city-wide smoking ban went into effect in Lincoln. Omaha also is preparing to consider its own ordinance. Bourne's measure would be retroactive, meaning it would invalidate Lincoln's ban.

"We need some uniformity and consistency," Bourne said.

He also said smoking bans are an infringement on the rights of business owners.

State law allows businesses to choose whether to offer smoking, ban it or allow it in designated areas.

Omaha City Councilman Marc Kraft, who has proposed the smoking ban in that city, assailed Bourne's idea, saying that bans cut down on health costs for the state.

Lincoln City Councilman Terry Werner said the proposal ignores the health of workers in places where smoking is allowed.

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Sat Jan 22, 2005 12:52 am

I'm all for that bill. It won't pass, though.

eomaha · Post by **eomaha** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 11:48 pm

I could live with this. I guess it's all or nothing for Mike though.

Omaha World Herald wrote: Fahey likely to veto smoking ban; housing development advances

A limited smoking ban was approved by the Omaha City Council Tuesday, but Mayor Mike Fahey intends to veto the ordinance. Also Tuesday, the long-contested Keystone housing development cleared a major hurdle with the council.

The partial ban would apply to restaurants but not to keno parlors and bars where food isn't prepared.

"Mayor Fahey said all along that he supports a full smoking ban," said Paul Landow, Fahey's chief of staff. "He does not support this ordinance because it does not apply equally to all establishments."

The council voted 4-3 to approve the ban. A fifth council member would be needed to override Fahey's veto.

Councilman Marc Kraft, who has promoted the citywide smoking ban, said he would work to find another vote to override Fahey's veto.

Voting in favor of the ban were: Kraft, Garry Gernandt, Frank Brown and Franklin Thompson. Voting against were Councilmen Chuck Sigerson, Dan Welch and Jim Vokal.

Lincoln is the only city in Nebraska with a smoking ban.

omahahawk · Post by **omahahawk** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 1:35 pm

So if I understand right, this will prohibit smoking in bars and grills as well as restaurants? Wonder, how many bars will drop their food service if this goes through?

omahahawk · Post by **omahahawk** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 1:43 pm

So if I understand right, this will prohibit smoking in bars and grills as well as restaurants? I wonder how many bars will drop their food service if this goes through?

projectman · Post by **projectman** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 6:52 pm

I'm with Mike on this one.

Coyote · Post by **Coyote** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 11:12 pm

OWH wrote: Restaurant smoking ban advances

LINCOLN - The Nebraska Legislature appears to be the latest public body headed for a battle over a smoking ban.

Legislative Bill 480, introduced by State Sen. Nancy Thompson of La Vista, made it out of the Health and Human Services Committee on a 4-3 vote Wednesday.

The bill would ban smoking in restaurants statewide but allow it to continue in bars.

State Sen. Ray Aguilar of Grand Island promptly declared the bill his priority for the year. Getting priority designation makes it more likely the measure will come up for debate by the full Legislature.

Thompson said the vote to advance the bill and the priority designation reflects the desires of people across Nebraska.

"People around the state want the Legislature to debate this," she said. "For me, first, last and always, it's a public health issue."

Along with the restaurant smoking ban, LB 480 would make clear that local communities could pass stronger smoking bans than the state law.

A reverse proposal remains in the Judiciary Committee. LB 730 would prohibit local communities from instituting stronger bans than state law.

projectman · Post by **projectman** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 8:54 pm

I just wish someone would pass a ban.

jsheets · Post by **jsheets** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 10:57 pm

And please don't let this bill pass!

LB 730 would prohibit local communities from instituting stronger bans than state law.

Coyote · Post by **Coyote** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 11:50 pm

Let's hope it stays buried in the Judiciary Committee that didn't want it anyway.

Coyote · Post by **Coyote** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 4:42 pm

Senators snuff out ban on smoking

26-19 voted against the bill.

projectman · Post by **projectman** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 9:08 pm

Damn it.

almighty_tuna · Post by **almighty_tuna** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 9:16 pm

Why get upset about it, projectman? This should be a good thing for people advocating a smoking ban. As written that law would not provide a total smoking ban, al la Lincoln's and would disallow any other ban with tighter restrictions. So if desired, Omaha could pass a total smoking ban now (theoretically) and be free of consequence from the state.

projectman · Post by **projectman** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 9:21 pm

I just want something, baby steps. I just get upset off with the law suits and the backdoor politics. How hard is it to get a ban in restaurants and leave bars alone for now? That's all I want. Let people smoke their brains out on a bar stool. I don't care. I just dont want to smell it when I'm eating.

Coyote · Post by **Coyote** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 9:28 pm

Be patient Projectman - that will come in time. This was not a set back to the clean air society just a necessary first round of state wide deliberation.

Swift · Post by **Swift** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 10:48 pm

indeed, dissapointing.

hopefully now though this makes way for a complete ban in indoor public places.

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 3:03 pm

Feel free to move this to the Lincoln section if you'd like, but I think it fits here just as well:

Smoking bans not hurting hospitality, cities report/Lincoln businesspeople still have complaints

http://www.journalstar.com/articles/200 ... 888294.txt

Seems to me it's basically the "Busch Light in a can" type of places that are having troubles. Big shocker there. I also still love how people think smoking is a right.

-Big E

adam186 · Post by **adam186** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 3:19 pm

^It is. I'm a smoker myself

; however, I don't do it around anybody and when I go to a restaruant I choose the none smoking section everytime. That |expletive| stinks especially when everyone around you is doing it. I'm for the smoking ban, ironically.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 3:20 pm

Smoking is a right just as I have a right to come over and upset in someone’s coke……. funny thing is urine doesn’t have carcinogens.

adam186 · Post by **adam186** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 3:22 pm

pkiphd wrote:Smoking is a right just as I have a right to come over and upset in someone’s coke……. funny thing is urine doesn’t have carcinogens.

Hahaha, except the legal part

.

TechnicalDisaster · Post by **TechnicalDisaster** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 3:34 pm

I'm not in favor a blanket ban, but I would like to see greater restrictions. For the most part, if you don't like the smoke or the health risks associated with it, just go to another restaurant. The problem with that is the children who get dragged to smoking restraunts by their parents don't get a say so. The intitial proposed ban in Omaha was to ban all smoking in places that had a kitchen, but that was too restrictive to bars.

How effective would a policy be if smoking would not be allowed in restaurants that have childrens menus? Family establishments would be smoke free, bars without childrens menus could smoke to your hearts content. I would vote for a smoking policy such as that, and I think it would make the few struggling business owners (post-ban in Lincoln) happy.

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 3:37 pm

PKIPHD--- I LOVE IT. I've used pretty much that same analogy in arguments before.

The way I look at it, if I were sitting next to someone in a bar or restaurant and dipped my hand into my own glass of water, flicked water on them from 5 feet away - constantly for 5 minutes, mind you - I would likely be thrown out of the establishment, if not punched and/or arrested.

Water dries, doesn't stink, and is quite good for you.

Now, when someone lights up a cigarette near me, I not only get the junk all over my clothes, skin and hair, it stinks and ruins my meal and/or drink (usually and). PLUS, I get the added benefit of coughing and burning eyes. Oh yeah, and it makes your breath smell like hot poop.

And that's not even looking at it from a public health standpoint, regarding emphysema, heart disease, asthma and cancer.

If YOUR smoking only gave YOU cancer, I'd say smoke if you got 'em. No one has ever developed liver disease from someone else's alcoholism.

Your right to swing your fist ends at my face.

-Big E

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 3:43 pm

I talked to Kerry the sweet lady that owns and runs Mojo’s Coffee house and she told me that is against the law for her to wear most jewelry and even wear her hair down. So why are the laws some GD specific about this trivial stuff and not against smoking that is so flippin nasty rude ugly smelly grose discussing deadly and is something that I have to sit in and put up with so that other disrespectful addict can get their little fix? I have faith that someday Nebraska will have similar laws as Cali, one good thing I heard lately that there was a hospital in town that will soon ban smoking on their property.