- Kansas City
- Jackson County
- Clay County
- Platte County
- Cass County
- Johnson County (Kan.)
- Wyandotte County
- Leavenworth County
You should be able to find whatever you need (locations, times, sample ballots, etc.) at those links.
The only really controversial thing I've heard about this time around is Question #3 for Kansas City, MO. Here is the text:
Shall the City of Kansas City prohibit smoking in enclosed places of employment, enclosed public places and on public sidewalks abutting acute care hospitals, while allowing it in casino gaming areas until all casinos located in the Missouri counties of Jackson, Platte and Clay, and the Kansas counties of Johnson and Wyandotte are obligated by ordinance, statute or law to prohibit smoking within the casino areas where gambling games are allowed, as set forth in Ordinance No. 080073, for the purpose of promoting public health by decreasing citizen's exposure to secondhand smoke and creating smoke free environments for workers and citizens through regulation in the work place and all public places?
I've heard radio ads both for and against this measure. As I understand it, this measure would ban smoking in bars, restaurants, and other businesses, while allowing it at Kauffman/Arrowhead and the local casinos. I don't have a dog in this fight since I don't live or vote in Kansas City, MO, but I'll offer my opinion in case anyone wants it. :)
If I was voting, I would oppose this measure for several reasons. First, this is clearly a political hack job. Why else would the big-money places (sports stadiums and casinos) be exempt? If smoking was really such an evil thing, why not ban it everywhere? There is clearly some big money being shuffled behind the scenes to allow these exceptions, so it's about money rather than health. Second, this may directly impact many small businesses who currently allow their patrons to smoke. Bad news for small business means bad news for many families and communities, especially as revenues go down and doors potentially close. Third, I am a big opponent of banning anything (that isn't actually illegal) on private property. You long-time readers know this about me!
I hate smoking, and I really don't like being around people who are smoking. But, on private property (i.e. a business such as a bar), government should not stick its nose in and dictate how that business is run. If patrons don't like the smoke or if they feel second-hand smoke is unhealthy, they don't have to go to that bar (does the phrase 'vote with your feet' ring a bell?). If too many people leave because of the smoke, the bar owner has every right to re-evaluate his own policies and ban smoking himself. But that's HIS choice, not the government's choice. And, speaking of health risks, do you suppose you'll find more children at the ballpark or in a smoky bar?
Smoking is an easy punching bag right now, but efforts to ban things that are 'dangerous' or unpleasant will not stop with smoking. This is a precedent, and by setting the precedent at a place where private property is regulated by the government is a very, very bad thing. If you don't agree with me, just wait until these liberal over-legislators target something you love doing, eating, or whatever. I suggest you consider opposing this smoking ban based purely on the principle rather than the specific practice being attacked right now. If you don't bother with the principle now, you're going to have that much more difficultly fighting it in the future, when it's your thing being attacked. When you lose your favorite thing, you'll have no one to blame but yourself. And the smokers -- and me -- will be saying, 'See, I told you so!'
There's my two cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment