Four hours and only one opportunity for a smoke break?

Tuesday night's City Commission meeting was a nightmare for smokers and nonsmokers alike, as commissioners failed to pass a complete ban on smoking in public places in Manhattan, instead opting for a partial ban.

Dozens of extra chairs were set up outside the City Commission Room to accommodate more than 100 people in attendance for the first reading of the smoking legislation.

Commissioners discussed three potential ordinances ranging from a ban in all public places and work places at all times to banning smoking only in restaurants during certain hours.

They approved the second ordinance, banning smoking in public places and work places with a long list of exceptions. Patrons may smoke in restaurants between the hours of 9 p.m. and 5 a.m. Bars, or "drinking establishments," are exempt.

Under this ordinance, smoking also is permitted in private residences, designated hotel rooms, retail tobacco stores, outdoor areas, country clubs and lodges, billiard or pool halls, bowling alleys and bingo halls.

STUDENTS

Twenty-four members of the community spoke at the meeting, including high school students, doctors, business owners and K-State's student body president, Lucas Maddy. The Student Governing Association passed a resolution last week supporting a total smoking ban in Manhattan.

"There would be no noticeable effect, at least for college students, in enforcing a 9-5 smoking ban," Maddy said. "In my opinion, the aim of policy is to effect a benefit - a noticeable benefit. If there isn't one, I think there isn't much use in adopting an ordinance."

Tanner Bannion, governmental relations chair, also spoke.

"Municipalities have made great strides in public health over the years," he said. "We have things like mandatory sewage systems and fire codes. I look at this like this. If we're trying to protect public health, I don't look at it as more of an invasion."

Ten people spoke in favor of the total ban before one of a handful of people spoke out against it.

"Every building has an ashtray, and every ashtray has butts in it," said George Hodges, non-traditional student and freshman in social science. "I'm a smoker. I really appreciate that other folks don't like smoking. But first, it will start at the door. In a month, well, you have to go 25 feet from the door. Then it's 50 feet from the door. Next thing you know, you'll be out back.

"They're taking people's rights in incremental steps. Don't let them do it."

RESIDENTS

Others who opposed the ban said it takes away the rights of business owners.

"What I want to say is quit dancing around the term 'public places' - we're talking about bars," said Billy Porter, owner of Porter's Bar in Aggieville. "The establishments this is going to affect are some of mine."

Porter said the high school students who spoke at the meeting would not be harmed by a more lenient smoking ordinance.

"They're not allowed in my establishments. They're not adults yet. When they turn 21, I will welcome them with open arms. But it's still an adult's choice," he said.

Many people who supported the first ordinance said they did not want to see the second or third ordinances passed.

Kristen Bruce, health initiatives specialist with the American Cancer Society, said the commission should get rid of the two "fake" ordinances and vote for the one that was "simple, strong, enforceable and fair."

"If you will not support a comprehensive ban, we request that you vote against the two other fake ordinances," she said.

COMMISSIONERS

Commissioners also were divided on the issue. They voted 2-3 against the first ordinance and 3-2 in favor of the second ordinance.

"For me, this is an issue of worker health," Commissioner Jayme Morris-Hardeman said. "That's the issue that's foremost in my mind. You would not allow a buisness owner to operate knowingly exposing workers to asbestos or mustard gas.

"Those ordinances are worthless. They are not protecting worker health. We're not doing anything. We're taking away business owners' rights by passing two or three. I don't think that's what we intended to do here."

Commissioner Mark Hatesohl said he supported the second ordinance because it was a compromise.

"We're only taking some rights, not all," he said. He also said there should be freedom from governmental interference when possible.

Commissioner Tom Phillips, whose wife supports a smoking ban, also voted against the first ordinance.

"This has been extremely hard for me," he said. "We're simply displacing smokers to the outdoors. They'll be lining up on sidewalks and outdoor seating areas. People are still going to be subjected to second-hand smoke."

Mayor Bruce Snead said he received more public input on the smoking ordinance than on almost any other issue put before the commission. He said he received 230 e-mails in support of a ban and 22 against it.

"I wish the state would pass a ban," he said. "I think it's important on a state-wide basis. But we all live right here; that's where we can all make a difference."

He said he would vote for the first ordinance but not the second. Snead said the question of the economic effect of a ban has been answered, as there has been no profit loss in cities like Lawrence.

"Sometimes, doing something isn't better than doing nothing, especially when you have the opportunity," he said. "What two does is nowhere near what could be accomplished by one. Clearly for me, if we pass any other ordinance, we're falling short of what the facts and our public speak to clearly.

"In our form of representative government, you do the best you can. You do something that works well and provides an even playing field, and I think that's what this community expects in this regard."

City manager Ron Fehr said the second ordinance would take time to implement.

"It may be some time before we bring the second reading back to you," he said.