Posted on 10/20/2007 1:52:53 PM PDT by Wheee The People
Poll: Two-thirds of Wyoming voters support statewide smoking ban
CHEYENNE, Wyo. - A statewide poll shows that two-thirds of Wyoming voters support a ban on smoking in public places, including restaurants and bars.
The poll, commissioned by the American Cancer Society in Wyoming and other health organizations, also found that 74 percent of registered voters believe the right of customers and employees to breathe clean air outweighs smokers' right to light up indoors.
"It shows that the people of Wyoming would absolutely support a smoke-free Wyoming," said Loretta Wolf, spokeswoman for the American Cancer Society in Wyoming. The American Cancer Society and the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, a national group that supports smoke-free legislation, also helped pay for the poll.
Harstad Strategic Research Inc. of Boulder, Colo. conducted the poll between Sept. 26 and Oct 1. They contacted 504 registered voters across the state. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percent.
A poll commissioned last year by the Casper Star-Tribune found 57 percent of Wyoming voters supported a comprehensive, indoor smoking ban. That poll, conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, Inc., surveyed 625 Wyoming voters and had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
The new American Cancer Society poll found that 92 percent of voters say they would go to restaurants more frequently or at least as frequently as they currently do if smoking were prohibited in them.
Only 6 percent of voters said they would go to restaurants less frequently if indoor smoking were outlawed, while 8 percent said they would be less likely to frequent bars.
While 66 percent of voters supported a statewide smoking ban, the American Cancer Society poll found 32 percent opposed it. Democrats and Republicans supported the ban at about the same level, 67 percent and 68 percent, respectively.
Support for the ban also remained constant among people of different ages, with support only varying a few percentage points between voters aged 18 to those 60 or older.
The poll found that 70 percent of women supported a smoking ban compared to 61 percent of men.
More than 70 percent responded that they believe exposure to secondhand cigarette smoke is harmful to people's health. Twenty-seven percent of voters surveyed said that exposure to secondhand smoke is "just somewhat" or "not at all" harmful.
The poll results were released while a legislative committee is considering whether to introduce smoke-free legislation at the upcoming budget session in February.
Wolf, of the American Cancer Society, said her group is pushing for a comprehensive bill that includes a ban on smoking in bars, restaurants or other businesses. About 27 states have adopted smoke-free laws but the restrictions vary.
Sen. Charles Scott, R-Casper, chairman of the Labor, Health and Social Services Committee, has said he only intends to introduce the bill in next year's budget session if a majority of the committee members supports it.
Rep. Dan Zwonitzer, R-Cheyenne, sponsored a similar bill in the last session, but it failed to make it to the House floor for a first-reading vote. Lawmakers anticipate a tough fight in the coming session if the bill moves forward.
Dan Hatanelas, manager of a bar in Cheyenne, opposed a citywide smoking ordinance that became law last year. He said he would also oppose statewide legislation.
However, Hatanelas said that a statewide ban might be more fair to businesses in Cheyenne that now must compete against nearby Laramie County businesses that are exempt from the local ban. He said his bar saw a 19-percent drop in revenue during the first 12 months of the local ban, which took effect in August 2006.
"I'd hate to see anything happen, but maybe on a statewide basis it would be less traumatic for us," Hatanelas said.
In addition to Cheyenne, the cities of Laramie and Evanston have adopted their own smoke-free ordinances. The Rock Springs City Council is considering a similar ordinance. Voters in Casper rejected a proposed ban in 2000.
Information from: Star-Tribune, http://www.casperstartribune.net
I agree. That’s why I said “many” not “all” smokers. I say let the marketplace speak but please smokers - pick up your butts and be considerate when lighting up in front of others!
In effect what you are saying is that every non-smoker should just stay home. Very few restaurants will implement a no-smoking policy because there’s always the place down the street that allows it. Non-smokers won’t show up so the business is impacted negatively.
If all businesses are non-smoking, then everyone is free to use every restaurant. Even smokers can breathe there.
I’m not familiar with the KELO decision. There may have been some negative unintended consequences or enhanced implementation that you’re referencing that I am not aware of.
If you’d like to explain, I’ll respond.
When two people walk into a restaurant they are equal. As they both share the same air they are equal. As they eat they are equal. When they pay the bill and tip the waiter they are equal. As they leave they are equal.
When one of those people lights up, they are no longer equal. Once person is enjoying his habit while the other person is having to deal with the stink.
Who took the offending action?
I know you think you are advancing the cause of freedom. I don’t see it that way at all. You are advocating the freedom to destroy someone else’s freedom, and then telling that person whose freedom was impacted that they are in fact the one destroying the other person’s freedom.
That libertarian guideline has been repeated to me many times. It shouldn’t be something that only applies when it works for your benefit.
Thanks for the response.
Well, that’s the way I see it as well. I appreciate your comments.
How can you call smoking bans an infringement on property rights when it is the restaurant owners themselves that support statewide smoking bans.
For example even in the Great State of Texas the Texas Restaurant Association supports a statewide restaurant smoking ban.
http://www.restaurantville.com/v2/std/newsrelease.cfm?newsid=22
The government took the offending action, by removing the option from the private property owner to invite smoking customers.
The thought of eating sushi repels me, so I avoid sushi restaurants.
For the life of me, I will never understand why anti-smokers seem unable to make a simple choice. Enter, or not.
Libertarianism argues in favor of private property rights; socialism argues "equality."
Libertarians shout rights when it suits them. Non-smokers only have a right to stay home.
Just the opposite. If the non-smokers are indeed a majority and represent most of the people, than any business owner would be advised to have a no-smoking policy to solicit their business. Those businesses that permit smoking would attract less business and cater to essentially the smoking crowd, if smoking is as offensive as you believe. Instead of having the goverment mandate no-smoking, let the people decide with their feet.
Very few restaurants will implement a no-smoking policy because there’s always the place down the street that allows it.
That defies your basic premise. If smoking is so popular that the place down the street can draw customers away from the places that have a no-smoking ban, that should tell you something.
If all businesses are non-smoking, then everyone is free to use every restaurant. Even smokers can breathe there.
Spoken like a true socialist. Why can't someone who smokes [a legal substance] be able to go to a restaurant and enjoy a cigarette or a cigar after a meal? We are fast approaching a complete nanny state where the government decides what is best for us and what is offensive. One size doesn't fit all. People should have a choice just like they do between a Prius and an SUV.
My wife is a smoker. I have never smoked. I don't advocate smoking. It is a bad habit. However, I don't want smokers to be considered as lepers. Don't businesses have a right to cater to them as well. If smoking is so bad or offensive, then ban it. Otherwise, let the business owners and the consumers decide where they will eat and drink.
Shouldn't the decision be up to each restaurant owner and the individual customer? If the restaurant owners are so opposed, then we should allow them to make the decision rather than having mandated by government bans. Using your logic, the effect will be the same.
From your link:
“TRA members recognize that the current disparities that exist in smoking bans enacted at the local level have had a detrimental impact on the restaurant industry in Texas,” said Richie Jackson, TRA executive vice president/CEO. “By applying an equitable ban that is enforced in all workplaces, we will ensure a level playing field and the $32 billion Texas restaurant industry will continue its vital role in our state’s economy.”
In essence, when one town or area bans smoking, some patrons go to other towns or areas without the smoking bans, thereby harming the restaurants in the areas with the bans.
The phrase ‘level playing field’ just makes it easier to back, it’s a pretty business term.
If you want my opinion about what the best situation would be, I’ll give it to you. If the offending party would simply use some common courtesy, none of this would be necessary.
If smokers would go outside or simply hold off smoking for the hour to hour and a half they were in the establishment, none of this would be taking place.
Instead we have to look for a solution to this mess.
You have advocated to have feet make the decision. I don’t think that would alleviate the problem, but that’s my thought on it.
Non-smokers have a right to patronize establishments that cater to their wishes; they don't have a right to call on the full force of the government to force property owners to cater to their wishes.
A free person has choices, which implies that alternatives exist.
The fact is that overtime, due to public demand, the number of venues where smoking is permitted will continue to decrease.
This is true from the movie theater to the airplane to the office to the restaurant.
The owners of all the above at first resisted smoking bans but now if bans were lifted very few if any would revert back to the days where smoking would be permitted in their venues.
You expect addicts to abate their addiction for an whole hour and a half!
The owners of all the above at first resisted smoking bans but now if bans were lifted very few if any would revert back to the days where smoking would be permitted in their venues.
#################
Well then, let’s try it, I’m game... Lift all these draconian bans and see who reverts back to smoking or not.
Free Market - What a Concept!!!
Opinions are like a##holes, everyone has one. You consider smoking to be offensive. Not everyone does. It is a legal substance, but the politicians won't ban it because it is a cash cow for them. They would rather add 61 cents a pack tax to fund another socialist program.
If smokers would go outside or simply hold off smoking for the hour to hour and a half they were in the establishment, none of this would be taking place.
Why should they be inconvenienced if they would like to enjoy a cigar after dinner with a cognac? There would be no problem if people had choices between smoking and non-smoking restaurants and bars. Then there would be no one offended. You know as soon as you enter what the policy is. We don't need the smoke-Nazi to decide for us.
You have advocated to have feet make the decision. I don’t think that would alleviate the problem, but that’s my thought on it.
It is only a problem because we have some people trying to impose their views on others using the government as the instrument of enforcement. Taking it out of the hands of the individual consumer and business owner is the cause of the problem. Again, if smoking is that offensive and bad, it should be banned period.
Again, you don’t need government mandated bans to achieve that result if smokers are so offensive to the vast majority of people. Each business is capable of making that decision and so is each consumer. And certain businesses can decide to cater to the niche market.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.