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
Seems this would imply that establishments operating under a ban were at a disadvantage.
but now if bans were lifted very few if any would revert back to the days where smoking would be permitted in their venues.
If this were in fact true, then why the need for an "equitable" ban? Because the market spoke and the government had to be called upon to stifle it, under the guise of "equity."
Let me relate what took place in my area. Nobody would ban smoking. What they did is make accomodations for the non-smokers. They would put up a little six inch riser on the back of a seat and explain that smokers sit over there and non-smokers sit here. Then the air floated over into the non-smoking area and pretty soon there was a cloud over there as well as in the smoking area.
One of the other great things was that restaurants would set up one little side room that looked like it was a partitioned off section of the hallway to the bathroom. It truly was comical.
Yes, there were choices. Those choices involved staying at home or putting up with the smoke, or spending a considerable amount of money to be placed in a closet.
The majority of people are sheep who demand tyranny.
LOL, you are treading on dangerous ice here fella.
I live on a very heavily travelled road and have 500 feet of road frontage. In my regular cleaning of the ditches I find FAR more fast food trash and liquor/beer/soda bottles/cans than I find cigarette butts.
BTW, no one throws a cigarette butt out my car window; if they do it will be the last time they do such a stupid thing.........I'll stop the car and make them get out and find it. There is an ashtray in my car and it is used for only one thing -- discarding cigarettes.
Sorry you still can’t comprehend it.
The smokers are the ones who make it miserable for others. It isn’t the other way around. Non-smokers don’t do something that impacts the other party. They can’t simply stop breathing for an hour and a half. Smokers can stop smoking for an hour and a half.
You flip it upside down when you state that non-smokers are the gulity party just because they object to the folks that do take actions to offend others.
You’ve got it so bass akwards that it’s hillarious.
Most restaurant associations are top-heavy with chains and nearly totally controlled by their wishes. The chains all support the bans and he who has the money control the debate.......the mom and pops get steam rolled by them.
You posted: I don’t think the lies about second-hand smoke are the primary reason for the bans.
***
I agree completely. The majority are now displeased with the smell and trash assoiated with smoking. The shoe was on the other foot in the 50s and 60s, when smokers were the majority and those who didn’t like it just had to put up wth it. Seems there is little courtesy on either side.
I am a non-smoker, and don’t care for the smell and butts all over the place, but I oppose legislation against smoking, except in public places operated by government, that people have to go into. Otherwise, let the property owner and his patrons decide. Similarly, I think smoking in cars with little children is pretty inconsiderate, but there don’t have to be laws about it.
I will grant you that there are many inconsiderate people out there. As you point out cigarette butts are certainly not the only thing thrown out on the side of the road. It’s a shame people act that way.
I’m proud of our beautiful nation. Sounds like you are too. Good for you.
“”Let me relate what took place in my area. Nobody would ban smoking. What they did is make accomodations for the non-smokers. They would put up a little six inch riser on the back of a seat and explain that smokers sit over there and non-smokers sit here.””
****************************
Your beef shouldn’t be with the smoker and their smoke, then. It should have been with the Private Business Owners who own the restaurants.
Pressure the restaurants to ban smoking on their own [and many already did on their own] and not to put in level playing field bans to every Tom, Dick and Harry establishment out there...
Some people like to go somewhere and smoke to enjoy their time more fully, others hate the smell of smoke. Some people like steak houses others like sushi...
If there’s an avenue to cater to the smoker, and profit can be made, why limit a Private Business Owners right to thrive?
Leveling the Playing field makes for a boring game.
Having waited tables and tended bar on and off over the course of the past 30 years I totaly disagree with your claim.
By the end of a shift in a smoking section a waitress would have had 4 or 5 fewer tables than people in non smoking sections.
Never was my experience, also those that camped out for a while were far better in the tipping department, smokers or non-smokers.
To both of you and others, I appreciate the discussion. Look, I understand and agree with some of your agruements. I don’t like the idea of the government getting involved and telling folks what they can and can’t do. They have and in this instance I will admit to being glad they did.
Is it right that you shouldn’t have a place to frequent where you can smoke cigarettes and cigars and have a drink? I don’t think so.
It seems to me there should be a habidachery or some place where smokers could congregate and smoke. Then OSHIA would come in and step on that plan.
Let me ask you folks something. If the free market had gone it’s course and every establishment in the state would have gone non-smoking, would you have accepted that?
I expect one of two responses, one more than the other.
Here’s the one I expect most. That wouldn’t have happened. Some places would have remained a smoking establishment. AT first I would agree. But then as the business dwindled, I’m not so sure it would have remained that way.
Here’s the one I expect after that. No.
Well, you are definitely one of the more polite smokers and I thank you for that. :-)
I know you didn't ask me, but I would like to chime in.
Yes, I would have accepted that and used the opportunity to open my own place that permitted smoking and create my own market niche.
One of the very first bars to go non-smoking, on it's own, in Delaware was doing a booming business. Then the state-wide ban went into effect. The place, after many, many successful years went, out of business within a year or so of the ban. The state essentially stole the market niche the owner had created for himself.
Some might wonder if brushfire or tundra fire can exist at 5 degrees. Yes, it can. It can also exist in S California, but due to smoking restrictions it is not so dangerous to health. Stop coughing.
It has nothing to do with being a “polite smoker.” I was taught not to litter when I was growing up. Littering annoys me to no end, regardless of the “what” that is littered.
Ouch.
I’m sure that probably took place at a number of business concerns. It is an interesting unfortunate dynamic regarding this issue. I appreciate you bringing it to our attention. It is part of the overall picture that must be considered on this topic.
I comprehend it quite well. You want the government to impose your views on others and limit the freedom of choice of both the customer and private business owner.
The smokers are the ones who make it miserable for others. It isn’t the other way around. Non-smokers don’t do something that impacts the other party. They can’t simply stop breathing for an hour and a half. Smokers can stop smoking for an hour and a half.
Problem solved. Why not allow the individual business owner to decide on whether he will ban smoking or not and allow the customer to decide what business he will patronize? Why must the government mandate it? Non-smokers don't have to patronize businesses that allow smoking. Isn't that fair? FYI: As a non-smoker, I have no problem going to places that allow smoking.
You flip it upside down when you state that non-smokers are the gulity party just because they object to the folks that do take actions to offend others.
I am not ascribing guilt to anyone. Smoking is not illegal in the US. Tobacco is a legal substance. Let smokers and non-smokers and business owners make up their own minds. Why not allow the marketplace to decide?
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.