The Manhattan City Commission will vote Tuesday to determine whether to enact an ordinance that will ban smoking within Manhattan city limits at any place of employment or any public place, according to www.wibw.com.
About 1,600 people signed a petition supporting the ban, which was 300 more than was necessary. The commission has 20 days to allow the ordinance to take effect, or it will be put up to a public vote in no more than 60 days.
This ban is wrong on many levels. Initially, it easily can be shown the ban is unfair. Manhattan's population is estimated at 51,707. This means that the 1,600 people who signed the petition represent slightly more than 3 percent of the total population of Manhattan. Additionally, the population count would not include many students who call Manhattan home and spend time around the community. Yet if the commission chooses to enact the ordinance, citizens of Manhattan will not get a chance to vote on the issue.
But more importantly, this question involves government intervention in the everyday lives of people. It is not the place of government officials to dictate what business owners can or cannot allow in their own establishments. If someone owns a restaurant and they have decided they want people to be able to smoke in their restaurant, that is their decision, and no commission or anyone else should be able to tell them that a previously legal action, like smoking, is now illegal on their property.
The argument made for the ban is clear and easy to make. Cigarettes are unhealthy, and it has been scientifically proven. It is also a nuisance to some people who do not like the smell of cigarette smoke. But when did the question of personal accountability fly out the window?
Many restaurants have taken it upon themselves to have smoking and nonsmoking sections. If people do not want to smell smoke while they are eating, no one is forcing them to eat at this restaurant. They can choose to eat wherever like.
Also, if there was a large enough outcry for a smoke-free environment, business owners would take it upon themselves to provide one to make more money.
Another argument made is that the employees at these establishments also have to deal with the smoke, and for some reason this is unfair.
Business owners make it very clear when they hire employees what will be required of them, and there are no jobs that come without hazards. If a person applying for a job doesn't like the smoke, they can apply for a job somewhere else.
Take, for example, someone who tears down houses for a living. They are informed some houses might have hazards like lead paint and asbestos, and they are also informed that if they are uncomfortable with this, they can apply for a different job. Again, no one is holding a gun to these people's heads and telling them they have to work at places that allow people to smoke.
Ultimately it comes down to making a decision over whether government should or should not take on the roll of babysitter in the everyday lives of citizens, telling them what they can and cannot do on their own property.
Or perhaps the government should merely serve the needs of the people and allow them to function free of an over-intrusive government.
Marc Erbacher is a senior in political science. Please send comments to opinion@spub.ksu.edu.
Local smoking ban would interfere with civil rights
Published: Monday, August 25, 2008
Updated: Monday, August 25, 2008
 "Photo: N/A")
Your discovery of non-residential voting intrigued me. Often the corruptness of the political force in Manhattan goes unnoticed. With city hall zoning monopolies and public city officials getting fired for embezzlement and pornographic browsing on company property (bet you guys forgot about that), issues of great importance are constantly being under-rug-swept. The mere idea that smoking will be banned on sidewalks, parks, and bars will create a fathomless opportunity for the city to bully its citizens even more. As someone who smokes occasionally and whose hobby is jogging, I find it intriguing that non-smokers are attacking you and have the maturity to use asterisks as signs of aggression. The idea comes down to personal freedom, like you said. Since the early 90s, anti-smoking campaigns have labeled smokers as “bad people.” Smokers are not bad people. To assume that would be similar to me assuming that the non-smokers who added their comments to this article are not only invalid but inept at creating a decent argument…and that would be wrong. Some may argue that smokers affect others; some may argue that it is a personal right. But this article was about the power of voting being taken away from the citizens of Manhattan…and in case you didn’t know, that’s us. How much farther will this slippery slope continue before all decisions are made under the basement of city hall? Smoking hardly seems as important as the issue at hand. A city that will pass a ban without the votes of its citizens.
I went to Lawrence recently and it was so wonderful to be in smoke free establishments. My eyes didn't burn, I could see and didn't smell and I wasn't breathing in nasty smoke. So just go smoke-free Manhattan!
To sum it up, keep your eyes out for the truly twisted things going on out there. If you want a worthy cause to take up and fight for, there are so many things that are much more worth your time than trying to take a holier-than-thou approach on smokers. & always keep in mind, once Big Brother gets his foot in the door, it's a LOT harder to get him back out again. The government already has FAR too much say in our day to day lives, why surrender more power to them? Let us, the people, decide what we want in our restaurants, bars, pool halls, pubs, bowling alleys, Bingo houses, all of it. It's our money from the sweat on our backs that keep these places alive, and our tax dollars that pays for all the government propaganda, hoping to get the public to keep feeding into their agenda. Pay no attention to the war behind the curtain, the drunk beating his wife, or the 24 year old guy having his way with the 12 year old girl. Smoking is the devil. Cigarettes are the real evil, what's really out to get you. If you truly believe all that nonsense, please lemme know where you got that pair of rose-colored glasses, I want to make sure to get me a pair, so I can live with the same pathetic obliviousness that you people ******AND BY THE WAY: TO MARK GIEFER, POSTING ELI NEAL FTW!!!!!!11:********Maybe if you weren't sitting there bitching about "douchebags and fags" you could get out more, and wouldn't be so pissed off because your wiener hasn't been touched since prom (probably from your "fat" prom date, that later blew your lame ass off. Don't take it personal, maybe she was just into guys with more than 2 brain cells to rub together, who could handle themselves in a fight instead of crying about it, and didn't have the grammatical abilities of a 6 year old. Or maybe it takes more than 3" to keep her happy. Pft...gee you're right, stuck up bitch!) Or maybe you're just a good old homophobe, because deep down inside you know the truth; you were the little "douchebag" staring a LITTLE TOO LONG AND HARD in the locker room? Whatever the case, you should try comin on out of that closet...the weather's just fine,.