Now
Fair
25°
High
36°
Low
13°

Senators debate statewide smoking ban

Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

BY JoANNE YOUNG / Lincoln Journal Star

Tuesday, Feb 13, 2007 - 11:50:01 pm CST

Tobacco got no love Tuesday during debate at the Capitol on a statewide smoking ban.

But property rights, personal freedom and free market concepts got valentines from state senators.

And it was clear legislators are going to do plenty of talking about the Nebraska Clean Indoor Air Act.

LB395, sponsored by Sens. Joel Johnson of Kearney, Ray Aguilar of Grand Island and Arnie Stuthman of Platte Center, would ban smoking at worksites and other public places. It is modeled after Lincoln’s city ordinance.

As of Tuesday, the bill had collected at least 15 amendments, one of which was voted down.

An amendment by Omaha Sen. Gwen Howard that would have added foster homes to the list of places where people couldn’t smoke failed to get the required 25 votes.

Other amendments would limit the ban to metropolitan, primary and first-class cities, exempt tobacco stores and take away a requirement to ban smoking within 20 feet of workplace entrances and windows.

That, Johnson said, would put smokers outside some Lincoln bars in the middle of O Street.

Debate — some are calling it a filibuster to delay the bill — will continue today.

Most senators in the discussion Tuesday said they hate smoking. Some suffered smoking-related diseases or had lost family members and friends to them.

Sen. Tom White of Omaha said he smoked from age 14 to 25 and was diagnosed with bladder cancer at 39. He’s been cancer-free for 11 years.

“I doubt anyone on the floor despises cigarette smoking any more than me,” he said. “Nevertheless, I rise in opposition.”

White called the bill poorly drafted and said it takes away personal liberties — liberties that allow us all to be stupid if we so desire.

It also allows warrantless searches by law enforcement or health directors to determine compliance. It’s unconstitutional, he said.

“We cannot legislate common sense. We can educate and we can persuade,” he said.

Other opponents joined him in saying tobacco is an awful addiction, but businesses and individuals have the right to choose.

Sen. Pat Engel of South Sioux City stopped smoking 28 years ago, then had heart bypass surgery.

“I don’t believe the state should tell everyone in Nebraska what to do,” he said.

Nebraskans talk out of both sides of their mouths when they raise tobacco taxes for revenue, then take away the rights of smokers, he said.

Lincoln Sen. Danielle Nantkes, who opposes the ban, filed an amendment to strike a section from the bill that would allow any part of it to be declared unconstitutional or invalid without affecting the remaining portions.

Bar owners in her district are struggling because of Lincoln’s ban, she said. A University of Nebraska-Lincoln study showed Lincoln bars lost $170,000 in business each month in 2005, she said.

Sixty-two percent of Lincoln voters supported the city’s smoking ban in 2004.

Sen. Deb Fischer of Valentine said she cannot support a ban that should be left up to cities. People who want to “level the playing field” are not concerned about health, she said. They are concerned about business.

“I don’t believe our job is to have another state mandate,” she said.

But the bill also had support.

Lincoln Sen. Bill Avery, whose grandfather raised tobacco in North Carolina, said most people in his family — everyone but his parents, who didn’t smoke — suffered its effects.

Clean air is a public good, he said, and the Legislature’s job is to provide for the public good and to protect nonsmokers.

Sen. Vickie McDonald of St. Paul challenged those who touted the importance of local control. Why is there now support for a bill that would take away a city’s right to ban concealed weapons?

And for those who would hold up the rights of individual Nebraskans, said Sen. John Wightman of Lexington, more questionable practices have been banned — including a motorcycle helmet law, which protects only the rider.

Two years ago, an effort to ban smoking in all Nebraska restaurants and bars that sell food failed to get the 25 votes needed to advance from the first of three rounds of debate.

This bill, Aguilar said, “could be one of the greatest public policies in the state of Nebraska in 40 years.”

Reach JoAnne Young at 473-7228 or jyoung@journalstar.com.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Politics > Back to Top of Story

All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Michael wrote on February 13, 2007 4:08 pm:
" Local control has limited and often ignored the real needs of citizens and students. Local control often has meant dumbing down education and infrastrucutre because proprty taxes were too much for communities to bear. That led to erosion of principles and an exodus of young adults who felt the loss and alienation from the "real world". Cancer and repiratory diseases are real, it would be a state of denial not to protect the health of comminities across the state. "

sigh wrote on February 13, 2007 4:11 pm:
" I am an ex smoker of 14 years, I am so happy that Lincoln has a smoking ban, the air is cleaner, I do not have to worry about my kids inhaling smoke at resturants, Lincoln smells better. I know it is hard on current smokers but if you decide to quit you will be so appreciative of the ban. "

Justice for all wrote on February 13, 2007 4:59 pm:
" Then could somebody explain why Lincoln is $9 million short on there budget, and this is mostly from sales tax revenue and towns like Waverly have seen an increase in there's. So now lets send more dollars over to states like Iowa. Or see more home parties that are not regulated, but wait a minute we can pass a law saying you can not host more than six people at your home. "

here we go again wrote on February 13, 2007 5:42 pm:
" If it is going to be illegal to smoke the cigarettes when will the high taxes on them be lifted? Seems we had a temporary tax put on them to build the Devaney Center then instead of lifting the tax it just kept getting higher. I said twenty years ago that we would see the day that cigarettes would be legal to buy and illegal to smoke and we have reached that day. Now that Lincoln nonsmokers have all the bars, resturants and workplaces what do the smokers have? I know the nonsmokers rights are greater because they are better people with additional rights not granted to us lowly smokers. I don't like the smell of most perfumes so lets ban them in public places, or in dept stores so I don't have to rush to find a kleenex. What next is going to be banned??? "

Lets do it! wrote on February 13, 2007 5:45 pm:
" Save your lungs and mine, don't smoke! If you insist on killing yourself, please don't let your foolish decisions affect my life. Ban em!! "

Mike Honcho wrote on February 13, 2007 5:56 pm:
" The government can stop collecting taxes on tobacco when the sale of tobacco products is outlawed, and the smokers' health problems are no longer a burden on society. "

Comm UnSense wrote on February 13, 2007 6:22 pm:
" I don't like walking down the sidewalk and smelling your exhaust fumes. It's bad for my health, not just yours. I think we should ban all internal combustion engines. Then you can ride your horse to your non-smoking bar. "

Tina wrote on February 13, 2007 6:47 pm:
" Ban Smoking!! Ban Smoking!! Ban Smoking!! If the smokers want to smell like an ashtray, let them, but not around me. "

Joseph P. Sokolovsky wrote on February 13, 2007 8:14 pm:
" I could qualify as the poster boy for a nonsmoking campaign. I smoked all my life and was warned by friends and employers that smoking would ruin my health and life...but smokers are real smart people..right? Now instead of my bed partner being a attractive female, I sleep hooked up to a CPAP Machine by a ungodly mask plus oxygen, etc., to keep me breathing so I can sleep. And I take numberous kinds of prescription medication plus four different types of inhalers several times daily. I must carry around portable oxygen daily...yet, I still can only walk a few hundred feet before my breathing becomes labored and my lungs start hurting. My point? All smokers say 'it is my choice to smoke or not to smoke..don't take away from freedom." I have a message for smokers...by continuing to smoke you are destroying your own freedom that someday will be taken away from you because of your poor health...lungs do not heal once destroy. I say stop smoking to assure you will always have control of your life and your freedom...not to speaking of happiness in later years verses you bad health dictating your daily activities. That's my story and I am sticking to it! "

Mike Honcho wrote on February 13, 2007 8:19 pm:
" Sorry, the car analogy doesn't work either...automobiles have constructive uses, such as personal transportation, as well as transportation of everyday goods. Name one constructive use of smoking...I'd LOVE to hear it. "

John wrote on February 13, 2007 9:17 pm:
" 2 years ago I would have been a vocal opponent of the ban. That was before I quit smoking, now I can't stand to be around anyone that smokes, the smell makes me want to puke. I still don't like banning a legal product, it sets a bad precedent but I can't stand being around smokers. I wish I would have quit years ago. "

Roger wrote on February 13, 2007 10:40 pm:
" ban smoking now! "

John wrote on February 13, 2007 10:47 pm:
" Ban smoking!!! I like going to eat and having a drink. But I cant because smoke affects my sinuses so much. Smokers can go out side and smoke!!! "

Terry wrote on February 14, 2007 6:13 am:
" One "constructive use of smoking?" I'll start with the Devaney Sports Center. A dime a pack tax to pay for it, that was never removed, long after it was paid for. "

sam wrote on February 14, 2007 9:59 am:
" remember when the state made people stop smoking in the state offices, all but their offices in the capital. Other office in the capital had to stop but not the the ones making the rules. Let people alone to make their own decision lincoln has a rule which appears to work for them but it might not work in crawford ne let the town do it if it needs to be done "

Husker Neocon wrote on February 14, 2007 10:45 am:
" Why dont we ban drinking. More harm is done by far due to alcohol consumtion. Just visit the jails any night, and half are intoxicated. Why dont we leave it up to the people to smoke or not. It is not the job of government to tell us what to do. More laws dont solve problems. Education may. "

Tammy wrote on February 14, 2007 11:13 am:
" The problem with this is...Lincoln's ban was VOTED on, not mandated. Each city should decide for itself. I still say if the government bans any activity they should not be able to collect any monies (read:taxes) from said activity. Instead, place those taxes into a fund to pay for smokers health issues (for both smokers and non-smokers who can unequivically prove that smoking caused said problem). Then non-smokers can no longer whimper and whine about thier tax dollars taking care of smokers health issues. Of course, the tax revenue collected from tobacco would have to be collected somewhere else, so I also expect that NOT ONE complaint would be heard when those taxes were shifted to gasoline, alcohol, or some other place. "

Dave M wrote on February 14, 2007 11:22 am:
" No smoking is not being banned. Smokers have houses and cars and the open air. If that's not enough opportunity to smoke then tough. Nonsmokers don;t want more rights they want the same right smokers have - the right to choose whether they want to inhale tobacco smoke or not. Bars and restaurants are public accommodations. Nigh on 80% of the people do not smoke, but unless they are in Lincoln or Omaha, have their right to choose to NOT smoke usurped by the 20%. The "they should stay out of bars" so called argument is asinine - why shouldn't smokers - the ones causing noxious fumes - be the ones who have to stay out. Why is the debate even a debate when we have to weigh the "rights" of 1/5 of the people to engage in an activity that harms and incoveniences others to teh rights of 4/5 to remain unharmed? For what other activity would this even be a question? "

Linda wrote on February 14, 2007 12:00 pm:
" I am getting so tired of the government telling us what we can do and what we cannot do. The other bill that was passed about parents not being able to spank their chidren is such a poor bill. The World is more communistic, and we are supposed to be a free people. That is getting to be a joke. "

No more freedom of choice? wrote on February 14, 2007 12:28 pm:
" Here we go again - BAN SMOKING - cause "we" don't like it! That is not the issue. The issue is the right to choose and the freedom to make your own decision good or bad. As long as cigarettes are still legal to buy, you should still have the choice to smoke and businesses should not be told whether or not they can allow it!! "

Suzy wrote on February 14, 2007 12:29 pm:
" All I have to say is that it is so nice going out to the bar and waking up the next morning NOT smelling like smoke. It ROCKS! I'm all for the smoking ban! "

Deb wrote on February 14, 2007 12:41 pm:
" Thank you Senator White and Senator Engel, for having the common sense to see that smoking bans should be handled on a local or individual basis. I agree that smoking is both harmful and dangerous, and it's not very pleasant to try to enjoy a meal next to someone who is smoking. But as we're seeing in Lincoln, the 64% of people who voted FOR a smoking ban appear NOT to be the people who spend their money in bars. And so now the smokers have no place to go hang out, and all the clean-lunged people are sitting at home -- just like they were before the smoking ban. While all the smokers are smoking at home, polluting their children's lungs instead of each others'. It defies logic. "

mg wrote on February 14, 2007 12:54 pm:
" I don't think everyone understands this issue. It isn't about smoking, or not smoking, but an issue of property rights. As much as people like to think otherwise bars, restuarants etc are private property, not public. To tell a bar owner how to run their business based on the latest vote is not right, and it sounds an awful lot like socialism to me. People vote with their buying dolars, many places in lincoln were smoke free before the law because the business owner saw an incentive to do so, not because they were forced to. I don't like to be around smoke either, but it is much better than letting the government dictate what we do on PRIVATE property, in a PRIVATE business. would anyone allow the city council to tell you what you can or can't do in your house because 51% of the voters said so? "

death and taxes wrote on February 14, 2007 12:55 pm:
" Personally, I am opposed to any ban. If a person wants to smoke, let them smoke. Banning smoking only denies the state vital tax revenue, a burden to be bourne by us all when smoking is forbidden. Also, the newly non-smoking smokers will live longer, depleting our social security at a rate even faster than it is today. Ultimately, the newly longevitus population will overtake our food supply, and widespread starvation will ensue. Won't happen? Says you! I say smoking is as sure as death and taxes. "

Stop the SMOKE wrote on February 14, 2007 1:57 pm:
" PLEASE BAN...If New York and L.A. can do it I think Nebraska should be able to do it. "

Ban It wrote on February 14, 2007 2:17 pm:
" No one is telling you that you cannot smoke. Just not in public places where my right to a healthy atmosphere is now superceding your 'right' to pollute yourself and the atmosphere. Laws are always about the balancing of 'right' with very few absolutes. "

mg wrote on February 14, 2007 2:25 pm:
" take a new look at facts it was 63% of voters that voted for the ban "

mg wrote on February 14, 2007 3:53 pm:
" again, it is not public places. businesses are still private property, they choose to invite the public in, you don't have to go into a bar that allows smoking. and if enought people aggree with you, that business will either ban smoking, or go out of business, either way, anti-smoling crowd wins, without having to pass oppressive laws. Voters have no right to tell a business owner how to run their private business. and, just to be clear, 63% of the voters is still not a majority of the population in lincoln. It reminds me of the old saying, democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on dinner. Not a very fair system if you look at it. The Free market left on its own will regulate itself without the use of threatened violence on the part of the government. "

JK wrote on February 14, 2007 4:02 pm:
" I don't care if 99% of the voters approve something, it is not an excuse to trample property rights! "

Clyde wrote on February 14, 2007 5:10 pm:
" If this is a private property rights issue, how can nudity be banned in Lincoln bars? It's far less harmful than smoke, plus the LPD wouldn;t be wasting their time hassling 20-somethings at the bar. Let the business owners choose...smoking, nudity, number of toliets, number of emergency exits, underground sex parties, whatever. It's PRIVATE PROPERTY, right? "

Justice for all wrote on February 14, 2007 5:18 pm:
" The roll of the government is to protect people from unseen hazards. When I walk into a private business I can’t see the way the building was built or how his or her food is stored or prepared, but I can see if someone is smoking then it is my choice if I want to be there. If our State Senators want to send a message it should be “people grow up and start making your own decisions”. "

whatever wrote on February 14, 2007 5:56 pm:
" Like it or not, a statewide smoking ban will have significant effects on tax revenue. The state will be forced to raise taxes elsewhere to make up the difference. Lincoln is a good example of the kind of revenue decrease you can expect. You will also see a lot of bars and restaurants close down. The Journal Star had an article a while back on the trend of building home bars. That's what a lot of the smokers are doing now, building home bars and inviting their friends over so they can drink and smoke as they please. "

Tom Issaquah wrote on February 14, 2007 6:27 pm:
" This is an opportunity to set a precedance for the country. Sure it will be inconvenient for a while but everyone will adjust and be healthier for it. GET IT DONE! "

TP wrote on February 15, 2007 6:45 am:
" Before we worry about people smoking lets look at the Factories and the damage they are doing. WHAT A JOKE,I know lets plant some flowers and raise the taxes. "

Kathy wrote on February 15, 2007 7:06 am:
" "An amendment by Omaha Sen. Gwen Howard that would have added foster homes to the list of places where people couldn’t smoke failed to get the required 25 votes." What is the problem with just not putting the kids in those homes that allow smoking. It is a known fact that second hand smoking is dangerous. So my question why is the state taking a chance and placing a child in a dangerous situation? Wake up people. "

Been There, Done That wrote on February 15, 2007 8:24 am:
" The Lincoln smoking ban is well written and a good piece of legislation. However that being said I think that business should be allowed to have smoking if they wish. I also choose if I am going into a place with smoking. BTW, I don't smoke. Lincoln should ammend the current laws and allow smoking in businesses that apply for a permit, pay a fee, and install appropriate ventialtion equipment. This will give business the choice, only they have to pay for their choice, thus eliminating the need for an increase in taxes. The legislature can ammend LB395, put local enforcement in the local health department with state HHSS/NDEQ oversite. Fees for permits would go to the local health department. Just my two cents. "

Soylent Green wrote on February 15, 2007 10:31 am:
" Does anyone else find it ironic that Sen. Danielle Nantkes is opposed to the ban because the bars in her district are struggling? Maybe someone needs to explain to her that if the ban becomes State-wide then all bars will be on the same playing field... Granted, I can see some smokers leaving Lincoln to go out into the county to smoke and drink, but I hardly see them going out of State to smoke and drink! Unless, of course they like to gamble...but that is another issue! "

Dave M wrote on February 15, 2007 12:03 pm:
" There is a legal difference between public PROPERTY and public ACCOMMODATION. Any business that is open to the public is a public accommodation. By basing your business on allowing the public in you make yourself subject to thousands upon thousands of legal requirements. This is not new, and except in the case of smoking, seems to cause no concern. If your business also serves food/drink to the public you are subject to a whole host of additional requirements. Why do people not complain about these? Businesses which are public accommodations serving food must undergo health inspections. They must demonstrate safe, appropriate and hygienic food handling. They must have pest control programs. They must not refuse to serve people on the basis of race, gender etc (Denny's is private property too). Most of them - all bars included - must provide toilet and washing facilities. Where is the outcry about these infringements on private property? Why is it OK to legislate that cooks must wash their hands to protect customers from foodborne contaminants but not OK to legislate that bars ban smoking to protect customers from airborne contaminants? Face it - the "private property" argument is a desperate attempt to avoid the minor inconvenience of stepping outside to pollute the air - I have yet to hear one person make that argument who is consistent and wishes that bar-owners were exempt from other legal requirements designed to promote public health and safety. And on another note I'll gladly match bar tabs up against anyone who thinks that nonsmokers didn't start going to bars a lot more often after the ban. Bars who lost business after smoking bans were providing exactly what kind of amenities and service to attract customers? It can't have been that good of a place if the only reason to go there was to smoke can it? The place I go to is doing fine - but then it's clean and comfortable with good service, plus they have lots of big screens for sports, some decent draft beers, satellite trivia, beer specials, poker tournaments etc etc to bring people in. Well run bars that actually attract a wide base of customers will do just peachy. "

Tax revenue? wrote on February 15, 2007 12:09 pm:
" Don't put too much stock in first - and partial at that - year numbers. No other location that has banned smoking has seen a long term drop in taxes from bars and restaurants and I doubt Lincoln will either. California, NYC, Mpls ALL showed an increase in taxes in following years. We will too. A state wide ban would actually make any even temporary and isolated business loss much less likely. Unless you are a few miles form the border where will you go? Home bars are no big threat (and people pay taxes there too) unless you can have a home bar with all the amenities and all the social interaction of bars. It's ALWAYS been cheaper and less restrictive (no DUI, no opening hours, no lousy music or TV choices made by others) to drink at home but people go to bars for the socializing and amenities they are unlikely to have at home. "

tired of this subject wrote on February 15, 2007 1:04 pm:
" Instead of trying to dictate how business owners operate their business on a behavior that is legal and provides tax revenue I think the legislature should start working on ways to attract new business to Nebraska before the taxes become too high and all the young people have to move away. And as for Nebraska setting a precedent for the rest of the Country, get real, I doubt any of the other states pay much attention to what's going on in Nebraska if it's not college football season. "

whatever wrote on February 15, 2007 5:17 pm:
" Local control is always the best option. State and Federal control has limited and often ignored the real needs of citizens and students. "

John wrote on February 19, 2007 12:09 am:
" A state wide smoking ban is a GREAT idea! I absolutely HATE going to the bars in Nebraska when I go back to visit my parents in Scottsbluff. I currently live in Fort Collins, Colorado, where there has been a city-wide smoking ban for the past 3 years, and a state ban that went into affect in summer '06. When debating the ban, they looked at the Fort Collins area and found an INCREASE in tax revenue from bars. People argue about smoking bans taking away their rights, but what about my right to breath clean air? I'm all for a state-wide ban! "