Now
Light Rain Fog/Mist
65°
High
79°
Low
55°

Survey: Statewide smoking ban has wide support

Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

BY JoANNE YOUNG / Lincoln Journal Star

Tuesday, Feb 27, 2007 - 05:46:33 pm CST

If you support a statewide smoking ban, you have friends, many friends.

A survey of voters from western Nebraska to the Missouri River boundary shows wide support for a proposed ban.

Only smoking voters gave the ban a thumbs down. And nearly a third of them said they favored not allowing smoking in most public places.

A telephone survey by Public Opinion Strategies of 500 registered voters in Nebraska, released Tuesday, showed a majority questioned Feb. 14-15 strongly favored a smoke-free law in work places, public buildings, offices, restaurants and bars.

Eleven percent more said they somewhat favored a ban, for a total of 69 percent support.

The survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.38 percent.

The American Cancer Society and other public health partners paid for the poll.

In the 1st Congressional District, including Lancaster County, 70 percent favored the law.

Seventy-percent of voters living in the 2nd District, including Omaha, favored a statewide ban.

Opposition to a smoke-free law is strongest in the western 3rd District, with a little more than one-third opposed. But 63 percent still favor the ban.

And most voters say the rights of employees and customers trump the rights of smokers and business owners. Fifty-seven percent say the rights of employees and customers are much more important and 15 percent said they are somewhat more important.

The Nebraska Clean Indoor Air Act (LB395), modeled after Lincoln’s ordinance, would ban smoking statewide at worksites and other public places.

Senators spent two mornings earlier this month debating the bill before sponsors Joel Johnson of Kearney, Arnie Stuthman of Platte Center and Ray Aguilar of Grand Island called a timeout to look at what changes should be made to the bill before continuing.

Supporters had suggested earlier that debate might continue today, but it is not on the schedule and it is up to Speaker Mike Flood to put it back on the agenda.

Johnson said Tuesday he is interested in how senators will react to the survey.

It is one of the most important health matters in front of the Legislature in decades, Johnson said.

“We can’t walk away from it,” he said.

Sen. Deb Fischer of Valentine, who opposes the bill, said the results of the poll don’t surprise her. If people in cities support a smoking ban, they can enact one, she said.

“What I don’t support is a state mandate,” she said.

Sen. Norm Wallman of Cortland agrees a ban should be in the hands of local city councils and county boards, because they better understand what their constituents want.

He doesn’t smoke and prefers to stay in smoke-free hotels, he said, but he has heard from three Lincoln business owners who had to move to smaller communities to continue to operate their businesses the way they preferred.

Wallman said he has been pressured to vote for the ban, even by his own doctor.

“If I would strictly go by my constituents, I would vote for it,” he said. “I think I’m here for the majority but I’m also here for the minority. Government is supported to protect the minority.”

Anyone who wants a ban can put a “no smoking” sign on their own door.

“We are genuine hypocrites if we sell cigarettes and then ban them from buildings,” he said.

Sen. Mick Mines of Omaha, who also has spoken against the ban, said he believes the majority of senators are for the ban.

“But 33 aren’t,” he said.

Thirty-three senators would be required to stop a filibuster on the bill, like the one that took place earlier this month.

Reach JoAnne Young at 473-7228 or jyoung@journalstar.com.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Politics > Back to Top of Story

All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Tom Issaquah wrote on February 27, 2007 1:12 pm:
" Com'n Unicameral here is your chance to do something good for you constituents. They and all their relatives to come will thank you!!! "

James wrote on February 27, 2007 1:34 pm:
" Just goes to show what the people want! Hopefully we'll get it. "

Dave M wrote on February 27, 2007 1:49 pm:
" No doubt the addicted will complain that they didn't ask the patrons of smoke-filled dives who strongly opose the ban. Their reasoning is that the people who are actually customers of bars all/mostly smoke. They are of course wrong. I spend 5-6 sessions a week at my local bar in Lincoln and have a bar tab of about $700 a month. Where I lived before banned smoking in 2005. Prior to that my tabs were about $400 at more expensive places - I have in fact more than doubled my time at bars and almost doubled my expense there thanks to smoking bans. Had the survey just looked for customers in dive bars it would have missed the people who rarely or never attend such places but would if they could avoid smoke. Much furor has been caused by partial first-year returns which showed a reduction in tax revenue from Lincoln bars but this is a red herring. Not one other location has shown an enduring reduction in tax revenue from bars and restaurants in the following years after the initial change, as people adapt their habits. Overall revenue from bar/restaurant taxes increased long term in NYC, CA, Minneapolis etc and will increase here long term too as the nonsmokers find they can now enjoy bars and the minority of truculent smokers who reduce their bargoing immediately following a ban realize they miss the amenities bars offer and put up with walking a few feet to the exit to light up. Yes some bars will lose out but that's the market telling you your bar has no attraction other than as a place to smoke! Overall bar revenue will increase - it has everywhere else. "

Um?? wrote on February 27, 2007 2:04 pm:
" With a $700 a month bar tab I think you have more to worry about than second hand smoke in your lungs...what about your liver?? That one's not as important?? "

tori wrote on February 27, 2007 2:34 pm:
" If the band is so great why are the bars losing money? The non smokers are spending more time at the bar but the bars are still down in revenue. How is it that they are at the bar more but the money is not? What are we going to do when we have to pay more taxes? Due to the fact the people will quit smoking and are not paying the extra cigarette tax? Has anyone really answered questions about the revenue that will be lost? How can the ban really help except make everyone pay more instead of just the smokers? "

Stop the SMOKE wrote on February 27, 2007 2:34 pm:
" PPPPLEASE "

Dave M wrote on February 27, 2007 2:57 pm:
" Quite possibly, but the difference is it is MY liver and not yours or anyone else's to which I am risking harm. The same cannot be said of smokers who inflict harm on others as an unavoidable byproduct of their self-inflicted harm. Besides I thought the idea of smoking bans was exactly that - to make the nonsmoking majority more comfortable in these places? Besides that number sounds scary but equates to about 4 beers plus food plus tax plus tip per visit over a usual span of some 2-3 hours. Trust me that is not enough to turn a large male such as myself into a quivering drunk with failing organs over the short term. No doubt the long term effects will not be positive, although I'm doing just peachy right now, but again they will be limited to me and not inflicted on anyone else, which is the important point. You MIGHT have an argument based on my hypocrisy if I wanted to ban smoking entirely to save the health of smokers themselves but nope not the case - we all have to die of something and if Joe wants it to be smoking and I want it to be liver failure and Fred wants it to be a jogging injury or malnutrition from vegan diet that's no skin off anyone else's nose. I just want their foul and toxic byproducts kept away from people who choose not to smoke, and in return believe me I absolutely promise I will never force the dregs in the bottom of my glass down the throats of teetotalers next to me, which is a more accurate analogy for what smokers do in bars. "

Dave M wrote on February 27, 2007 3:12 pm:
" Sorry - follow up note. One issue you may also be missing is that I do not make decisions based solely on my own preference. I honestly think if I were a smoker I would support this ban, I certainly support bans on people causing harm to others because of drinking or because of any of my other habits or hobbies, so consistency is unlikely to be an issue. I am philosophically a utilitarian who uses universalized felicife calculus to decide moral or ethical questions - in short the greatest good to the greatest number. Just as I support taxes that "harm" me but help a greater number of the less fortunate because I see greater benefit in them having food and shelter than in me having another watch (or a few more beers :-) ) I support restrictions that limit my fleeting pleasure if the same action IN AND OF ITSELF (this is an important distinction) causes greater harm to others. Drinking of course does not do that, but for an example I happen to be a competitive shooter. It would be far more fun for me to be able to shoot in my back yard than at a controlled range but the noise, risk, and byproducts of that activity would cause far greater harm to my neighbors, so I have absolutely no interest in attempting to change the laws restricting such activity and would not support a bill that did so regardless of whether it would increase my fun. I make no claims to extreme altruism or selflessness here as even utilitarianism is a self-interested ethical system when universalized. I am however consistent and rational, and it is apparently rare indeed to find a smoker who is the same in this debate. "

Comm UnSense wrote on February 27, 2007 3:16 pm:
" Of course it has support. The anti-smoking crowd is on a roll. But, after Nebraska is smoke free, what legal activity will they go after next? What else will offend them? Maybe fat people will be banned from bars because they take up too much room. Maybe old people will be banned from sidewalks because they move too slow. Be careful what freedoms you give up, or you may lose them all. "

Tammy wrote on February 27, 2007 4:01 pm:
" I assume on the heels of the statewide ban there will be a bill to revoke all state collected taxes on cigarettes as well? It's unethical to profit from something you have banned. "

Terry wrote on February 27, 2007 4:59 pm:
" What the people want? Seems to me the people voted on a referendum, and the Dictacameral and Governor haven't done anything to enforce that! I'm one of the people that want the state to keep it's tenticles out of things that should be matters of personal and local choice! "

Luke wrote on February 27, 2007 7:17 pm:
" Oh well. I'll just go to Council Bluffs. I'll buy my smokes and gas there. "

brian in lincoln wrote on February 27, 2007 8:06 pm:
" They are not banning the substance, just the act...big differance. I can't wait to for the ban...the sooner the better "

Russ’s district wrote on February 27, 2007 9:38 pm:
" Sen. Norm Wallman of Cortland said- “If I would strictly go by my constituents”. I hope this is bad reporting. If it is not, thank god that this man is not my voice in the government. Wasn’t he elected to represent his constituents? Not according to this comet. I hope my senator votes the way the majority of the people he represents want. Mr. Wallman must be looking to take Senator Chambers place of denying the majority for the sake of the few. "

Donna wrote on February 27, 2007 11:08 pm:
" I am a non-smoker, people that want to smoke that is their choice. I get tired of hearing if non-smokers don't want to be around it or work around it then go somewhere else. Having the smoking ban doesn't stop them from going to those places or working at them, they just have to go a little longer without a cigarette and go outside to smoke it. Non-smokers shouldn't have to avoid going to these places or working in them because people want to smoke there. Second hand smoke is just as bad if not worse then smoking itself. Seriously, what would it hurt smokers to step outside and have a smoke? They can still go to non-smoking places but non-smokers should find somewhere else to go! Not quite right! "

tori wrote on February 28, 2007 12:02 am:
" The resson to go to Council Bluffs is to not give Nebraska any money for something, they want to band. The stop the smoke person if you dont have anything to say dont say anything at all. It was your choice to go into a smoking bar. They did have a smoke free bar in Lincoln before the ban went into effect,it was doing ok for the only one now it too lost money. Another matter is you don't harm anyone when you drink, well for some reason I get the feeling you don't drink and walk. Nebraska is unethical they will raise the tax again to make up for the difference. (Look at the past raise the gas tax one cent because the people were driving less and that was last year, but at least they made it so everyone pays that one.) Another thing I have not missed going to any bar around here. I haven't gone since the smoking ban went into effect, and yes I went into the bar at least once a week if not more before the ban. "

whatever wrote on February 28, 2007 5:29 am:
" It will be curious to see how much state tax revenue goes down if a smoking ban passes. On the one hand we can expect higher tax revenue and more jobs to be created with higher commodity prices due to ethanol production. On the other hand we can expect higher unemployment and lower tax revenue if the smoking ban goes into effect. Couple this with higher food costs due to ethanol production and one could conclude the restaurant business will take a beating if the smoking ban is enacted. Yes, people say they go to bars and restaurants more or about the same with a smoking ban, but the empirical evidence would suggest these folks simply don't spend the money they once did. Time will tell. "

Naked and screaming wrote on February 28, 2007 6:41 am:
" I am banned from running about naked in public places. I am also banned from screaming obscenities at the top of my voice in public places. I also cannot carry a concealed weapon in public places. Why on earth can I spread poisonous and offensive fumes about a public place? "

eagle60 wrote on February 28, 2007 7:31 am:
" Why waste time on mandates? Isn't there more pressing issues that need the time and expenditure? I don't smoke, but I also disagree with people being told how to live. Next thing will be a mandate on the types of food we can or can not eat. Thats a great idea! Obese people are prohibited from food. Lets get to work on more pressing problems. "

FY wrote on February 28, 2007 8:28 am:
" Why is it that if Lincoln and Omaha ban smoking the state has to follow?? What are we a bunch of sheep?? I live in the country and when I go to your cities all I smell is gas and diesel coming from the congestion of your city. Then there is Columbus and Grand Island that are going to allow coal-fired coal plants to be built which put out mecurey in the air and water. What a bunch of hyporcrites!! If the cities want to ban smoking let the individual cities decide--NOT LINCOLN AND OMAHA!! If this passes then I want to go after the farmers of this state not to be able to use pesticide and herbicides because they are in my space for breathing clean air--ever smell the spring when the farmers are out planting and working the fields. Sometimes it is so bad you can taste it in the air, and let's not forget the methane that comes off those hog factories and huge feedlots now there is an odor you won't forget. Where is it going to stop if you ban smoking then it will open doors to other things--think about it. "

Smoker wrote on February 28, 2007 8:43 am:
" I realize that Nebraska's government will forever be trying to compete with states like California and New York. I realize that everyone from our Governor to the Mayor of Lincoln have some kind of inferiority complex when it comes to the amount of "respect" Nebraska gets on the national level. I also realize that second-hand smoke is bad. Now, here are some thing you ban advocates need to realize - NEBRASKA IS MADE UP OF MORE THAN LINCOLN AND OMAHA! There are hundreds and hundreds of miles and hundreds of cities and towns that DON'T want this bad, don't believe that the government has a right to tell business owners what to do with their OWN property, don't want to lose their businesses and/or livelihoods, and don't agree with ALOT of the decisions that are made in Lincoln and Omaha. However, that doesn't matter because your opinion doesn't count in this state unless you hail from one of the two. You should also realize that most smokers aren't the devils you make them out to be. I (like alot of smokers) have no problem not smoking in a restuarant. As far as I'm concerned, any place where children could be should be smoke free. HOWEVER, in a bar???? A place where you have to be 21 or over to even walk in the door?? You people are ridiculous - and I can't wait until cerrosis of the liver takes over lung cancer as the next "issue of the day." For as many people on here who swear they go out more now that the bars in Lincoln are smoke free, you'd think enrollment at the detox center and DUI's are way up - maybe that's how they plan to get back some of the lost sin taxes. Idiots. "

West of Lancaster Co wrote on February 28, 2007 10:47 am:
" I don't live in Lincoln or Omaha, and I don't want to sit in other peoples smoke. Its not just those two citys. "

The way I see it... wrote on February 28, 2007 11:01 am:
" theis City, County, State and Country is creating laws, laws and more laws that control freedoms of personal choice. Let the businesses that wish to be smoke free do so, and let those that want to have smoking in their establishments do so. Let me decide where I wish to go to do what I wish to do. Let those that wish to play keno and smoke do so in the City limits so some of that money stays here, instead of crossing the county and state lines to where they can do as they choose and take their money with them when they go. Do your homework before passing another law. When the smoking goes, the money goes. We in Nebraska do not have the advantage of other states that get large amounts of tax money from industry. The only thing we have in this state to tax apart from the goods and services we purchase is the land. Ban smoking in Nebraska, and be prepared to pay a great deal more than you already pay. We don't need another law, especially not this one. "

Spell Checker wrote on February 28, 2007 11:27 am:
" Perhaps there are people such as me who are just tired of smokers. Who litters more than anyone else in the city? Who gets a 10 minute break every hour while the rest of us keep working? I'm not entirely sure the smoking ban is constitutional, but I'm so tired of seeing hundreds of cigarette butts piled ten feet from an ashtray (13th between P and Q), that I don't give a damn about smokers' rights. "

I'm confused wrote on February 28, 2007 11:47 am:
" If the smoking ban is costing the bars customers, and thus, costing the bars money, how is it that The Watering Hole can afford to expand and drive out Avant Card ("Avant Card to close downtown store" by Jean Ortiz, Feb 27, 2007)? Obviously, some bars are doing well with the ban. "

also west of lancaster co wrote on February 28, 2007 11:51 am:
" I hate the fact that I have to drive 40 miles to Lincoln to have a smoke free drink at a bar. I would LOVE to be able to go to the local bar and grill and enjoy freinds and family SMOKE FREE! "

shadow wrote on February 28, 2007 12:34 pm:
" I am a smoker and have been for a long time. i fully support no smoking in a public venue but am totally against the government mandating it. the one word that comes to mind is prohibition. i know that my habit is bad for the people that are around me so i try and be somewhat courtious with it and not force people to suffer the same fate as i will eventually endure. heres an idea, instead of making this law, why not offer some of those precious tax incentives to bars and businesses that create a smoke free environment and see how many owners line up to conform to it. we would save money trying to enforce it and people would have some options for an establishment that suits their prefrences. in the end everyone would win. "

we have a voice wrote on February 28, 2007 2:15 pm:
" If senator wallman feels the minority is the most important thing for him to look out for then he should think about the majority who will remeber how he voted the next time. I myself will not relect a person who will not do what is best for the health and the wishes of the people who put him in office. This is the majority's rite to elect senators who will do what we want and need rather than those few who would look out for special intrests. Remember how your senator votes on the next election. "

Dave M wrote on February 28, 2007 2:24 pm:
" actually shadow's point is a good one. The "free market" has obviously been completely ignoring the vast majority of us who want a smoke-free environment for decades (not just a claim like many posts contain - check out the survey done on this topic - a vast majority DO want smoke free bars and restaurants). This means that a "let the market decide" option is a, pun intended, smokescreen, as there have been none to very few choices for those who prefer a smoke free beer prior to the bans (and another renminder - smoking is not going to be banned - smoking in enclosed spaces open to the public is going to be banned - it's an impotant distinction few make). So then if we want - really want - a free market option we must regulate it. Tax incentives would be a great way to do that. Or we could even limit "smoking licenses" to 20% of the bars in town, and hand them out either on a evenly distributed basis so no-one has to drive from NE to SW to smoke or vice versa to avoid it etc. The problem is bar-owners have resisted such compromises everywhere bans have been suggested, instead forcing total bans as the only option legislators have to keep the majority of their electorate happy. I for one have no real desire to eliminate places to smoke as long as there is a choice of places which do NOT have smoking. And I mean a real choice - not being limited to fast food restaurants or one place downtown. 20% of the population smokes. I would have no problem if 20% of bars allowed smoking. "

Whhh? wrote on February 28, 2007 2:51 pm:
" "We are genuine hypocrites if we sell cigarettes then ban from from buildings?" So are we hypocrites if we sell alcohol and ban it from parks? Are we hypocrites if we sell cars but ban them from going across medians? Are we hypocrites if we sell condoms but ban public fornication? Since when did making a product available for private use become hypocrisy when that use is regulated in public places? "

Joe wrote on February 28, 2007 3:12 pm:
" The free market ignores no one. If there was a market for smoke-free bars, there would be more smoke-free bars. Proprietors are not going to ignore profit. You want a smoke-free bar, start your own and put your own money on the line if there is such a demand. "

citizen rights wrote on February 28, 2007 3:47 pm:
" Big brother is controlling your life. How come we don't ban alcohol as it has killed more people in the state. I like clean air but I am more for the individual rights of a citizen. After I get clean air I want to have safe roads to drive on. lets work on becoming a dry state. Oh I forgot to many like to drink in this state. "

Tom wrote on February 28, 2007 4:55 pm:
" I'm getting pretty tired of hearing those against the smoking ban talking about how the ban is infringing upon their rights. If memory serves, didn't 70% of Lincoln voters vote in favor of the ban? That means democracy worked in this instance! Majority rule prevailed! And if the polls and surveys regarding a statewide ban are accurate, it appears that a sound majority of Nebraskans favor a statewide ban as well. Get over it, smokers. No one wants to be around your disgusting cancer sticks. "

Solution wrote on February 28, 2007 5:16 pm:
" The solution for recovering the tax revenue that may be lost by passing the smoking ban is very simple; just raise the tax on cigarette sales by a five dollars a pack. It is very apparent after reading the comments from the smokers that they are so addicted to nicotine that they will pay any price to support their habit. On the off chance that the ban causes everyone to stop smoking the money that the state spends to care for dying smokers can be redirected. "

Yes it does Jon wrote on February 28, 2007 6:20 pm:
" The free market ignores the 63% of non Lincoln/Omaha Nebraskans who want smoke free bars doesn't it? Are 63% of the bars in greater Nebraska smoke free? If not then they have been ignored. Same as those living in Lincoln and Omaha were ignored until very recently. You can't look at the FACTS of a population that is 80% smoke free and 65-70% desirous of smoke free bars which had maybe a handful of choices out tens of thousands before the ban and say that the free market did not ignore them. I don;t need to open my own smoke free bar because I live in Lincoln, but I was actually intending to do just that when I lived in pre-ban Minneapolis. What stopped me? The progress towards the current ban there, which would have left me highly leveraged in a cut-throat business without the competitive advantage of being the only smoke-free choice in town after the ban. Good job I didn't do it after all! That however is a moot point for the 95% of the population who are not fortunate enough to have access to the $1MM+ it takes to open a decent bar/restaurant, even by going into debt as I would have. Not much point catering to the higher echelon non smoker market with a $300K hole in the wall dive is it? "

Greg wrote on February 28, 2007 11:26 pm:
" If we don't want people to smoke we shouldn't use their tax money, and it is a lot! I think we should add a full one dollar tax on gas to offset the loss. Plus, that way eveybody pays for our city services, not just the smokers. "

Solution wrote on March 1, 2007 9:38 am:
" Greg: your statement makes very little sense. If we don’t want people to smoke we should penalize them every they buy a pack of cigarettes to support their deadly habit. Maybe they will get the picture that smoking is worth the risk and cost. To be honest they could do the same thing with alcohol, this would probably make me reduce my consumption "

tori wrote on March 2, 2007 1:00 am:
" What makes a smoker so bad? You better think before you answer because people are to be accepting eveybody without judgement. I wonder if anybody has read that before. Why is it that you are trying to tell people what they can do and can't do. I know alot of smokers and they are really good people they aren' out to tell everyone how they are to live. Like it seems some of you people on this site are trying to do. I cannot wait to see what people say when they raise taxes because of loss in money. I do hope they tax you more for something you do and constantly single you out, that way you know what it feels like. Some of you have giving me the feeling that you think all smokers are bad people, and try to teach others that they are not worth time and day. What is wrong with you? "

tori wrote on March 2, 2007 1:17 am:
" This smoking ban is about taking freedoms away from people. The choice should be up to the person that owns the business not goverment. Why is it up to goverment to tell someone how to live and what to do? If I wanted anyone to tell me how to live and what I am allowed and not allowed to do. I would move to a different country. I thought here (America) we had the choice. "

Harold wrote on March 2, 2007 7:00 am:
" I think it makes sense to issue permits for smoking. A limited amount for an area with no restrictions to which kind of business. I bet that a lot of resturants and family places would not even apply for them. If bars get all of them is OK with me. I no longer frequent bars but when I did I guess that smoke was an inconvenience but it didn't stop me from going. Maybe it just has something to do with maturing. "

Western Nebraskan in Colorado wrote on March 2, 2007 1:41 pm:
" It is true that smokers aren't bad people. A lot of them just don't have any consideration for others in regards to their smoking in public. A friend of mine, who is a smoker, didn't think smoking was aloud inside anywhere and said, "that's disgusting, they can take it outside." Remember, that was coming from a SMOKER! People tell me I can choose to go to a non-smoking bar, but what I ask you is "What non-smoking bar?" Outside of Lincoln, there is that one in Kearney, and that's probably it. Where is the closest place in the western end to go to a bar and not smell like an ashtray or hack up a lung for the next three days? Cheyenne, WY. Next after that is in Colorado. What people don't realize is rights are not being taken away here, but they are being granted to the majority. The right to breath clean air, the right to be ABLE to choose to go to ANY public place. Fort Collins has been smoke free for 5 years and the bars are doing great! Seems like every year I've been down here there is a new bar opening because the demand can't keep up. It won't hurt the business in the long run. "

Ban wrote on March 3, 2007 10:58 am:
" smoking I'll just go across the state line to spend my money. "