« Taxation without representation | Main | Support health-care reform bill »

December 13, 2008

Secondhand smoke unhealthy

I suffered from childhood asthma until I was 6 years old. My father, who was a smoker, died of lung cancer when I was 5 years old. Though no one can go back and verify the connection between my father’s smoking and my asthma, scientists and doctors today have verified the connection between secondhand smoke and a host of illnesses.

I can’t have my father back, and I can’t be rid of the memory of gasping for air as a child. But what I can do, I will do. It’s simple and it doesn’t cost anything. It leads to lower rates of cancer, heart disease and other illnesses.

The simple solution is reducing exposure to secondhand smoke in public places and workplaces, including restaurants, bars and private clubs.

I live in Kansas City, Kan., and I will contact the Unified Government and encourage my representatives to create a smoke-free community. Won’t you?

Rick Behrens
Kansas City, Kan.



Since when did smoking become illegal? Did i slip into a coma for a few years when i wasnt paying attention? Seems to me that if something is legal and there arent specific zoning issues, then whats the problem with letting a business decide? If they thought they could turn a profit catering to only non smokers they would have done away with smoking a long time ago.


Private clubs and bars? Let's have no drinking at provate clubs and bars Second hand drunk driving kills people.
Restaurants makes sense but not bars, casinos, private clubs or open air stadiums.


Banning smoking in public places is a OK for a government but a private business should have the right to decide. Maybe post a sign that smoking is allowed, then let the customer decide whether to enter.


But see Dolce the anti's will tell you now that it is a "question of work place safety", i.e. "no one should have to work in a hazordous environment breathing second hand smoke". Thus they are able to skirt the issue of anyone'r right to operate the business, established by their own efforts and capital, as they chose to do so.


I'm going to disagree with the author. If one doesn't want to frequent an establishment due to smoking, they don't have to. What many communities that have gone smoke free have discovered - many businesses are struggling or going under. Everyone suffers - the business goes under - unemployment goes up - and the city gets less revenue since there are reduced or no sales to be taxed. Why do you think the casinos are still having "special" privileges regarding smoking? Those cities are concerned they won't be able to maintain city operations with substantially reduced revenue. Otherwise, casinos would be completely smoke free, too.

About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright