The Emporia Gazette

glarson (anonymous) says...

More comment on the original letter:

http://www.emporiagazette.com/news/20...

October 4, 2008 at 3:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

How do I feel regarding second hand smoke and health concerns?

The same way I feel regarding second hand smug. I stay the hell away from it.

October 4, 2008 at 3:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

"There are two kinds of people in this world. Those who drink too much, and those who drink to little, and the latter is far worse than the former."--Winston Churchill

October 4, 2008 at 3:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

Sorry, BigE: Try and spin the truth all you wish, be as condescending as you choose, and call the kettle black all you want, but it is what it is. I am fighting a battle against a small group of self-serving elitists intent on forcing their personal values upon the majority and infringing on personal rights and freedoms... and you are defending them.

Continue your personal attacks on me and keep spinning your yarn. Those who read this thread are plenty bright enough to determine right from wrong.

Elitist? Not me, sir. To discover the truth, look inward.

October 4, 2008 at 4:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Newsie (anonymous) says...

Thanks, Josie: So let's say -- hyptothetically, that science proves beyond a doubt that second hand smoke leads to serious lung disease, and one of your employees gets this disease from breathing second-hand smoke in your bar. As the bar owner and employer, what are your obligations?

October 4, 2008 at 5:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

neighbor (anonymous) says...

Not Josie, but if the hypothetical employee sued claiming liability on his part for hiring his pathethetic butt and exposing him to SHS, he would be due what work comp would pay for his medically proven disability, that's it, Kansas Law.

October 4, 2008 at 7:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

I've stated before, I would have the same obligations to my employees that Sauder's does to its employees that weld galvanized metal. The people I hire have an inordinate amount of common sense. If they don't like it, they are free to leave, and they all understand this.

October 4, 2008 at 7:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Newsie (anonymous) says...

Perhaps I am wrong, but doesn't Sauder have an obligation to his employees if they are "injured" in the performance or a result of their job?

October 4, 2008 at 8:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

dhcc66 (anonymous) says...

josie, how long has your bar been around? i can remember a josies when bruffs burned down, but i'm pretty sure it wasn't you who owned it.

you go around acting like you've been around for decades (like town royale, marys or bruffs). most bars in this town stay here for what, 2 or 3 years at best. as i stated before (and josie didn't like my statements then either) there are many more determining factors in whether a bar stays open than just smoking bans. heck, some of them closed down just this last year without threat from any smoking ban.

i say manage your bar well, offer your patrons a safe and reasonable place to gather, and i'm sure your business will stay around just like the other "old timers" (sorry bruffs and town, it's a title given with respect). if all of the bars in town are non-smoking...don't go thinking your well established crowd will flock somewhere else

October 4, 2008 at 8:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

BigE- I agree, you and the CAE have not forced your will upon the citizens of Emporia, YET! The key word being (YET). But you and the CAE are trying with all your might, rehtoric and resources to force your will upon the majority of Emporia citizens and that does make you elitist, dictortial, totalitarian or autocratic.
However you and the CAE are determined to force this smoking ban and your will upon the citizens by any means necessary, such as worthless compromises and by demeaning those who oppose you and the CAE.
You and the CAE contend that this smoking ban is a health issue !
I would like to ask you and the CAE this question, if smoking or second hand smoke is such a health issue, why don't you also add a ban of all motor vehicle exhaust emissions, pasture burning, burning wood in fireplaces, outdoor smokers and barbecuers, since all of these also emit unhealthy polutants, both first and second hand and polutants from these will carry a lot farther than Peter Pan Park, oh and I almost forgot a ban on loud music emminating from vehicles and dwellings, and the drinking of all alcohalic beverages or for that matter all beverages you deem unhealthy.
Also I would like you or the CAE to tell me and the rest of Emporia's citizens who has the unbridaled authority to decide what is absolutely, without a doubt unhealthy !

October 4, 2008 at 11:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

dhcc66- So you and the rest of the smoking ban advocates are saying that the bar, restaurant, tavern and club owners, who allow smoking are not managing their businesses well, is that right ?
And if that is right, then you think that they will be better able to manage their businesses better if you smoking ban advocates stick your noses in and impose a smoking ban !
Just how egotistical and unreasonable can you people get or become ?

October 4, 2008 at 11:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

P.S. And here is the kicker, I imagine even if this smoking ban is approved and goes into effect, I doubt any of you egotistical smoking ban advocates would visit any of the businesses you are complaining about now, even if a smoking ban were approved.

October 4, 2008 at 11:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

Methusla: I don't know who lit your fuse, but I like it! Well said and straight to the point. I think you read the CAE folks like an open book.

October 4, 2008 at 11:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Bjnemp-My fuse, as you put it has been burning for over 40 years now, mainly at the audasity of some individuals and their families who have been imposing their will on the rest of Emporia's citizens for a long, long time now, under the guise of knowing what is moral and best for everyone.
If these people really had the insight, wisdom and where-with-all to actually know what was best and beneficial for everyone, Emporia, in fact, would be a much better place but instead all these people can do is manage to make life in Emporia more restrictive and miserable for everone but themselves and that makes them nothing more than the worst kind of hyprocrites.

October 5, 2008 at 1:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

DOES ANY-ONE posting here think that the City Commission should decide this issue by themselves? Do most favour a public vote? Should the majority of voters decide? If the City Commission tables both proposed ordinances then either side could petition to bring it to a vote in the April election, that is unless the state passes its ban 1st. Seems like a good solution to me. Call or e-mail your commissioners and tell them to table both proposals! They have more important things to worry about.
,

October 5, 2008 at 8:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

You see it as imposing their will, they see as a health concern. Who are you to judge? People have opinions, that is what makes us individuals. If enough people see it the same way or something is proven to be harmful, then we make decisions, and guess what, not everyone agrees. I can see both points on this issue, but both parties also need to realize each others point of view.

October 5, 2008 at 8:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Newsie: Sauder doesn't own Sauder Tank but the owners do have an obligation to ensure worker safety, and OSHA would regulate it.

dhcc66: You have some big b_lls I must say. What difference does it make how long Matt has been in business? He is standing up for HIS rights, as a business owner to make HIS own decisions on the running of HIS business. HE is the one that put up HIS money, HIS hours of work, His time and trouble to provide a venue for HIS customers to partake of a LEGAL PRODUCT. After all of his work in opening a business , I hope he lasts 30 years or more so he can pay His taxes and help Emporia be a good place to pursue the American Dream!

October 5, 2008 at 9:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

goodoleboy- First of all there is a big, big difference between someone having an opinion and some one trying to dictate to everyone else that their opinion is the only right opinion and force everyone to live his or her life based on that opinion, when that happens it no longer becomes an opinion, but becomes the matter of them forcing others to live their lives based upon that opinion, which they think , in their own minds, as moral and right and that is wrong.
Everyone has and is entitled to their opinion, but just entitled to their opinion, they do not have the right to force others to live by that opinion.
What will be the next thing these people will try and ban, if they think it is unhealthy, certain foods and places to eat, what when, where and what time to eat, go to bed, watch t.v.,
go to the bathroom, take a shower, where to work, when, where, how and what time to have children, what church to attend, what school your children should attend, etc, I could go on and on. However my point is this, if one individual or group is allowed to impose their will or opinion if you wish, upon all, the situation can get completely uncontrolable and in fact out of control.
I no longer smoke and know first hand that smoking is unhealthy to most, but I also know that every man, woman and child has the right to choose how they live their lives and make their own choices as to what they believe is right for them and what makes them happy and that is what is known as freedom of choice and that any loss of any constitutional freedom is far more unhealthy to all citizens, than smoking or second hand smoke will ever become.

October 5, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BigE (anonymous) says...

Bj,you stated "To discover the truth, look inward." Are you just saying "no i'm not, you are"? That is a great argument! Works in any situation. No matter what someone says, just say no i'm not, you are. I don't know why more lawyers don't use that in court. It's irrefutable! (unless of course the other lawyer just repeats the same thing). What's next, your dad's bigger than mine, and your dad's gonna beat my dad up?

methusla, 2 words, common sense. I'm not familiar with the studies stating the health effects of cooking out or pasture burning, although i'm sure there are some studies out there pertaining to those things. If those things are a health issue, why don't you be a trendsetter, park your car and ride your bike? Stop cooking out, and burning your fireplace, and pastures. Or better yet, write up a proposal with your concerns and present it to the city commission! That's a thought, it's perfectly legal, and our constitution says it's OK to do that!

I also find it interesting that you and bj keep using the word majority, or overwhelming majority. You are just speculating there aren't you? You don't have any way to confirm that do you?

October 5, 2008 at 9:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

BigE: You're funny. I enjoy how you keep trying to defend the indefensible and refusing to recognize the obvious. And as to your comment:

"I also find it interesting that you and bj keep using the word majority, or overwhelming majority. You are just speculating there aren't you? You don't have any way to confirm that do you?"

Why, yes we do, BigE! It's called putting it to a VOTE of the people. You know; that's the thing you and you're CAE jackboot enforcers have been working so hard to avoid.

October 5, 2008 at 10:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

dhcc66 (anonymous) says...

well meth,

i hardly said anything about smoking, now did i? all i said was that no matter smoking ban or not, if matt runs his business in an efficient manner, then i'm sure he'll be around for quite some time, smoking regulations or not. i have no personal problem with matt or any other bar owner, just with the argument they are making.

my point was that the argument of whether or not a smoking ban would kill a bar business is at present unprovable. I'm sure if you go to other cities who have banned or regulated smoking, there are still bars, restaurants, and other businesses that used to be smoker friendly. the difference now is that they aren't populated in part by smokers.

oh, and PS...i don't like the CAE point of view either, but based on the meeting the other night, the smokers aren't giving any ground either to meet in the middle of anything.

October 5, 2008 at 10:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

BigE, You and your smoking ban advocates have repeated over and over and over that smoking and second hand smoke is unhealthy and that you and the smoking ban crowd are the only ones that absolutely know what is good and moral for everone else living in Emporia.
In fact, Sir, if you would only take the time to research the facts and studies done on vehicle emmissions, pasture burning, and the other forms of air polutants that I mentioned you would find that they are indeed unhealthy, so why don't you, as the self appointed health crusader single out and attack the producers of all the other air polluting entities in and around Emporia.
I sir have the common deceny to respect everyones right to live their lives as they chose to do and not try and force my way living, life and philosophy upon them, as I respect your choice to live the life you choose and your opinion, but the only way to be fair and equitable about any kind of a ban on personal freedoms is to consider a ban on all sources of air pollutants that may be unhealthy and not just punish those who may smoke and own businesses that allow smoking, but alas I guess that you and all smoking ban advocates are neither fair, decent or equitable people, only self centered.
Can you or the CAE truthfully and honestly tell all Emporians, that if this smoking ban is approved, that you and others like you will not, in the future, will not find someone elses actions annoying to you and try and ban that action also?
Myself and others are not disputing the fact that smoking may or may not be a healthy thing to do, and we have had to say this, in some way, over and over. What I and others have tried to say, as nicely as possible, is, we, who oppose a ban on personal freedoms, which in our opinion a ban on smoking is, have had to repeat over and over, any ban of personal freedoms, no matter if is smoking, listening to a certain type of music, going to a certain church, going to certain place of business, etc, is not right, correct, moral, fair or equitable to all.
Loss of any personal choice or freedom of choice is not something to be taken lightly.

October 5, 2008 at 11:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

dhcc66: Why should smokers be " giving any ground" on this issue. They didn't introduce this oppressive autocratic proposal which makes a mockery of American values and freedoms and attempts to dictate law without benefit of vote.

When confronted by a thug, you have two choices: flight or fight. In this case, flight equals a beating. Fight, without compromise, is our best option due to the deceptive and demanding manner in which this edict was brought, and the unfair, vindictive, and uncompromising nature of it's content.

I'm tired of this nonsensical double-speak from BigE, Slvrnblck, and other CAE lackeys touting their right to bring their "concern" before the city commission. That's laughable. CAE didn't submit a concern: they demanded arbitrary action on an edict to force their will and values on an entire community without the right of the citizens to review, dispute, or revise and then had the gall to suggest the public not be allowed to vote on it.

That is not voicing a "concern". That is skirting the system and deceiving the public in order to dictate what is perceived by some as acceptable behavior for all. This is clearly a despicable attempt by a small clique of self-ordained socially superior citizens to use power, privilege and influence to dictate not only behavior and moral values for an entire community, but what is actually legal or illegal and the punishment for failure to adhere.

That is wrong. That is elitist. That is CAE.

October 5, 2008 at 11:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

dhcc66 (anonymous) says...

bj,
your attitude is exactly the example of reasons why this argument persists. nothing is autocratic unless the smokers decide to be a no show at the meetings or the polls.

before you start calling people thugs, look back at most of the smokers posts. they demand things just as well in a totally uncompromising nature. in a manner of speaking it seems that they are saying just leave them and their habit alone and there won't be any trouble.

i say the democratic process is alive and well and if the smokers put their money where their cigarettes are, then putting this thing to a public vote won't be a problem...right?

October 5, 2008 at 12:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

dhcc66: Were you at the meeting? I doubt it, as about half of the people speaking against the ban were NON-SMOKERS. This is not about smokers vs non-smokers. And where are the non-ban people demanding anything other than there right to be left alone and make their own choices of where to go or not go. If you read the proposed ordinance from Emporia Open For Business, There are no demands or 'PROVISIONS WE WILL NOT AGREE TO" on their proposal. But we can agree on if this goes to a public vote then it won't be a problem.
Also I have put my money where my m y ciggaretts are as I have spent over $1,500.00 of MY MONEY on fighting it , and will likely spend some more before this is over.
And as most of you know by now rbow is Steve and Linda Corbin from the Town Royal. There, we put our names out, let the other side do the same. I doubt many of you will.

October 5, 2008 at 2 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

dhcc66 (anonymous) says...

steve,
happens that i was not at the meeting. from what i hear from those at the meeting and from what i read in the paper, it was very obvious to me, as i previously stated, that neither side will give much except if i remember correctly some of the CAE and some of the commissioners offered concessions and further studies in how to make the ordinance more fair for all.

it makes each side's argument all the more ridiculous to not make concessions to the other. CAE has started by offering to budge on certain things. The Commission has offered to study ways to entertain each side's concerns. now it's time for the rest of you to take a little time to at least try and see things more fairly.

Go away and don't bother us or our "freedoms" is not the way to handle things in this city. anybody who has lived here for more than a year should be able to see that. remember folks, the commission could just as easily pass the ordinance it sees fit without public debate or outside influence....it's much more pleasant to work on things with the commission and get things that both sides want instead of forcing their hand. remember, they don't have to allow a public vote for this one.

October 5, 2008 at 3:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

I am sure there will be a sit-down with CEA and EOB and city officials to try to work out some kind of compromise on this. But when you are talking about the choice to allow THE USE OF A LEGAL PRODUCT in YOUR PLACE OF BUSINESS, well it gets a little complicated. Sometimes you just have to take a stand and say "no-more." I truly hope some kind of middle ground can be reached as the city Commission does have more to worry about. We do to ,for that matter.

October 5, 2008 at 9:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

dhcc66- I guess I will have to repeat myself, yet again, I am a smoker turned non-smoker and I am against any ban that seeks to take away individual freedoms of anyone, smokers and non-smokers alike and that is the whole issue, this debate is about, not whether smoking is healthy or unhealthy, again all smoking ban advocates have the freedom to choose to visit or not visit businesses that allow smoking, noone is trying to force them to enter a business that allows smoking, it is your and their freedom of choice either to visit or not visit a business that allows smoking, just like it is the business owners choice to allow smoking and his patrons freedom of choice to go to that business to smoke and have a good time, however it is you and the smoking ban advocates that seem determined and hell-bent on taking away certain individuals freedom of choice and no matter how you say it or try to accomplish it. It is wrong.
As for the smoking ban advocates consessions or compromise. I feel, as I am sure the business owners do, that the consessions or compromises put forth by the smoking ban advocates are un-acceptable as the idea of a businesses patrons being allowed to smoke, outside, no closer than 10 feet from the front door or being religated to smoking near or out side the back door or in the alley and deems those patrons who wish to smoke to be second or third class citizens, which reeks of discrimination, the likes that have not been seen since, racial discrimination of years and decades past.

October 5, 2008 at 9:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

BJ--

How exactly did CAE demand action? They requested that their proposal be passed but they hardly DEMANDED anything be done. The commission is the one who decides what they will or will not do. They can very easily say "no, we don't think it is an issue" and turn it down. The fact that the commission has listened to their proposal and has held public hearings on the matter at least shows that they beileve in the reason for concern.

And furthermore how are they deceiving anyone?? Is there proposal not public? Is it not spelled out in black and white? You may not believe in what they are doing or why they are doing it but they have very clearly documented everything.

And once again, CAE are not the ones who make any decisions. The commission has that burden. If any of you ban opposers have a concern, you can feel free to take it to the commission. They will decide that concerns fate also. So quit complaining that a group of people who share a similar interest has brought potential legislation to the table. Every single one of you has the exact same freedom and right to do the exact same thing. If you don't like or agree with something use your American right to get off you *ss and do something about it.

October 5, 2008 at 10:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

dhcc66 (anonymous) says...

see meth,

it's not that you have to repeat yourself unless you just enjoy blowing the same smoke that CAE is blowing. I think that both sides are equally silly in their arguments and that something should be decided independantly by the city commission. It's nice of them to hold a public forum, but they don't have to. It's nice of them to ask your opinion, but they don't have to. and if you think thats bad, wait until the 2009 state ordinance is brought up....the local ordinance may not even be needed.

the state law, as it was written last year, may be even more restrictive than what CAE proposes. you can look it up at the Kansas Legislature website under Senate Bill 660 for 2007-2008. it's due back in the 2009 legislature with some revisions, but the basic package will remain the same. a quick view of it insists that smoking be banned in ALL businesses with very few exceptions and that owners provide their employees with a smoke free working environment. the only exceptions are commercial vehicles, adult care facilities when children are not present, and some other minor related places. If i read it right, smoking would even be banned in apartment complex residences......

rbow i totally agree with you. the city has much more pressing business to attend to. i also thought this about the whole dog in the back of a truck thing. and for those wondering where that went, ask the guy who used to have the doggie jail in back of his truck...i'm sure he'd be glad to explain it.

October 5, 2008 at 11:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Newsie (anonymous) says...

Rbow: Once again, you nailed it. We are wasting our time debating an issue that probably won't even be settled at the local level.

This I know:
The city will attempt to reach a compromise.

CAE, as any good negotiator knows and despite what they said, asked for more than they wanted knowing they would have to give up a little to get a ban.

Matt "Josie" Slater is the poster boy for business owners' rights, although he seems to have not noticed that the government is already seated at the corner table.

We have all said (ad naseum) just about everything that could be said to defeat or defend the proposed ban.

And, the city does have FAR more pressing things to contend with. And whatever they do, on what ever the issue, someone will be pissed.

God Love The Gazette, who provided us with a forum that allows us to debate just about any issue we want. That is what newspapers are for.

October 6, 2008 at 6:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Newsie (anonymous) says...

Newsie has left the building (but is keeping the door open)!

October 6, 2008 at 6:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Summer_Breeze (anonymous) says...

Although I grew up in Emporia, and lived and worked there for many years, I'm no longer a resident, and I haven't been for nearly a decade. So, perhaps I have a somewhat more objective perspective of this issue than those of you who posted such impassioned arguments to this forum.

A couple of things really strike me: first, some things never change. Emporians still see themselves divided into two distinct categories--the "Country Club set" and everybody else. How ridiculous that seems from the other side of that myopic lens. When will Emporia residents realize that those class divisions exist only in their own minds? Learn to reach out to each other to develop better solutions! I was never part of the "Country Club set," but I learned to work hand in hand with people who were considered to be in that group, and I can tell you that together we accomplished much more than they or I could have done on our own.

Second, I've been somewhat amused at the outcry against a smoking ban by some of the same folks who've indicated they think the legislature can dictate whether or not a woman can have an abortion. Before you all jump on me about the abortion issue, I'm NOT equating the issue of second-hand smoke with the issue of abortion. I'm merely pointing out that if you don't want civil liberties trampled on, recognize that ALL issues of civil liberty should be equally sacrosanct!

Methusla put it well, "have the common deceny to respect everyone's right to live their lives as they choose to do and don't try and force [your] way of living, life, and philosophy upon them, [but] respect [another's] choice to live the life [he/she] chooses and [his/her] opinion."

I also like the idea posted by several--put it to a public vote. Let the citizens decide if they want a smoking ban.

Having said all that, I will offer the opinion that this smoking ban seems to me to be in the same category as many other "public safety" laws, such as helmets for motorcyclists, seatbelts for vehicle occupants, car safety restraints for infants and children, fire occupancy restrictions, vaccinations for school kids, etc., etc. This country is all about trying to legislate the SAFETY and well-being of its citizens, because we don't trust our citizens to make good, sensible choices for themselves. Is that wrong? I'm not sure...

October 6, 2008 at 9:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BigE (anonymous) says...

Bj, you state:

"Why, yes we do, BigE! It's called putting it to a VOTE of the people. You know; that's the thing you and you're CAE jackboot enforcers have been working so hard to avoid".

Bj, you may not know this, but there has not yet been a vote on the topic, therefore, by definition, the use of the phrase "majority" in this instance is speculation on your part.

Slvr, once again you have stated the obvious, but it still seems to be escaping Bj and meth.
I agree, if you all are so upset, take your concerns to the commission if the form of your own proposal and stop b*tching about how CAE has somehow broken the law. Again, they have done nothing that is not afforded to them by the U.S. constitution, stop trying to take away THEIR rights!!!

Bj, you call CAE "jackboot enforcers". To that I say, no they're not, you are. (I knew that argument would work! Thanks for reminding me of that great rebuttal Bj!)

October 6, 2008 at 12:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

I say put it on a ballot. If it passes, great, if not, great. This needs to come to a vote. The fact that CAE stated they were adamantly against this coming to a vote makes me question them. Can we all agree the only fair way for this ban, one way or the other, is to put it to a vote?

I am here by claiming my official position on the smoking ban. I feel it needs to be put on a ballot and voted on in a general election.

October 6, 2008 at 2:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

Josies--

You and I may not see eye to eye on the whole ban issue but I do agree with you regarding a vote. Let's allow the public to vote and get the damn thing over with so we can start debating a new topic.

That's 2 for a general vote....anyone else?

October 6, 2008 at 2:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

BigE- I took your advice and put a proposal before the City Commissioners and I am sure you will here of the proposal, one way or another and I am curious as to what you and the rest of the smoking ban advocates will think of it.
However if my proposal is not discussed or given consideration by the Commissioners and they only file it in the trash can, then I and all of Emporia will know that all Emporia citizens can not expect to be treated with fairness, equality, consideration and respect.

October 6, 2008 at 4:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

Now we are coming to the crux of this issue. When they first introduced the now infamous smoking ban, Big E, one of Emporia's most condescending and self-perceived privileged, and the CAE elitist social reformers specifically requested and desired that their socialist referendum never be brought to a vote of the people. That tactic smacks of deception and stormtrooper mentality.

The sooner this is brought to a vote the sooner we can put a lid on Big E and the CAE and send them back to the country club to lick their wounds and work themselves into a frenzy over some other issue they wish to force upon the unwashed bourgeois masses.

The elitists brought it up. The public will bring it down.

October 6, 2008 at 5:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

smarterthanyou (anonymous) says...

driving under the influence is illegal. . why? not only because it is potentially harmful to the driver but also it could be harmful or fatal to bystanders. . . most of us agree to that policy. . . they are not saying no smoking, but not in a public facility. . yes they all say "if you dont want to inhale it you can leave" well lets see the other side "if you dont want to smoke in a public facility you can leave or excuse yourself momentarily(sp) to smoke a cancer stick." i understand addictions and if you you feel the urge to fullfill the need please do just not in a public building or 30 ft from the door. . . and i just thought about this. . .what about the hospital ?i mean how dare they make you leave to smoke off grounds i mean what can smoking do to people anyways?)))

October 6, 2008 at 11:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...

I just love this flawed drunk driving argument. When I smoke and people breath my allegedly harmful second hand smoke, there are absolutely no comparison that can be made to drunk driving. No one breathes a drunk driver's car. I am not impaired while smoking. Smoking is legal. Cigarettes and smoke are not capable of speeds in excess of 100mph. Cigarettes and smoke do not require focus and a steady hand to operate, nor do they weigh thousands of pounds.

You should come up with a fitting analogy for you cause. Since there really are no good arguments for a smoking ban, I guess the proponents will continue to beat up the straw man and make these tired inapplicable health code/drunk driving arguments. Why don't you post about seatbelts next. Everyone knows deep down that this has nothing to do with health and your insistance on posting invalid arguments in favor, prooves it.

October 7, 2008 at 8:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

smarterthanyou: That post proves you are not.

October 7, 2008 at 11:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

smith_ron (anonymous) says...

If Matt has the right to allow whatever he wants in his bar -- without government interference -- then shouldn't I have the right to allow whatever I want on my property, too? That seems only fair, does it not?

October 7, 2008 at 12:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BigE (anonymous) says...

that's right smith_ron. it's your property, do whatever you want. who cares if it harms someone else! you can slap each person that steps on your property right in the face if you want, it's your property, right? or better yet, expose them to some asbestos, SHS, lead paint, or something that will really effect their health for a long time (maybe forever).

although they are not the same, the drunk driving analogy does share some similarities. of course you opposed to the ban will dismiss it, but they both have the potential to harm others. so if you are in the parking lot driving drunk and run over someone is that ok? that's private property, right? in fact, couldn't you guys use some asbestos in your places of business? it's dirt cheap, and i hear it makes great insulation...so what if it causes cancer. it's your property, you should be able to do whatever you want.

Bj, your last post only confirms that in fact, smarterthanyou probably is.

New mission statement for those opposing the ban:
Don't let them interfere with our constitutional right to use asbestos and lead paint!

October 7, 2008 at 1:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

smarterthanyou (anonymous) says...

damn B.E every time i turn around you are there you must get on this forum every tweny min. . just joking. . .anyways atleast someone can understand the analogy. . . i will admit it was vague. . . the point is there they have implaced policy or regulations on private property to help others health. . . ie.lead paint, no drinking while driving,and asbestos. . . sorry for restating what B.E already said. . . while we are on the topic where do i buy the asbestos for my place sounds like good stuff.

October 7, 2008 at 6:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

smith_ron (anonymous) says...

Why is it then my neighbor, who owns his house, can't park his boat in his driveway?
Why can't I serve beer to my kid?
Why can't I drink in drive (I own my car, I paid for the beer, my taxes paid for the road)?
If government can't tread on the rights of business owners, then why can they tread on the rights of all other property owners?

Mr. Josie, what do you know that the rest of us don't?

October 7, 2008 at 6:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

BigE: Your empty and inane arguments and relentless rude, condescending, low class personal attacks on me make it apparent that your life mirrors your comments: weak, cowardly, void of substance, lacking in manners, short on education and intelligence, and wreaking of perceived privilege and arrogance.

And you called me "a simple little man"? There's some irony for you.

October 7, 2008 at 9:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Pingeon (anonymous) says...

Can someone tell me why CAE is wasting people's time and money (taxpayer money too since it is my understanding they are funded by grants) bringing this ban up and trying to get it passed before the state votes on this next year? If the state enacts the ban, then Emporia will have to comply and this whole debate was a huge waste of time. If the state doesn't enact the ban, then I could see CAE bringing it up at the city level. Right now, it just doesn't seem to be the smart way to go about getting this done (not that I am for it, but I am against wasting taxpayer money even more).

October 8, 2008 at 7:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

smith_ron:

Your neighbor can't park his boat in his driveway because of neighborhood covenants.
You can't serve beer to your kid because that is illegal.
You can't drink and drive because that is illegal.
Lead paint and asbestos are banned from sale and use.
Driving 50 mph in a school zone is illegal.
None of these laws would be on the books if everyone used the common sense God gave them. And by your very own post you prove that we do need these laws because some in society do not have much common sense. Cigaretts ARE a legal product, and as such should not be regulated on private property. I would not come to your house and light up and smoke when I know you don't allow it on your property. Matt and I just ask the same common sense and courtesy when you come to our "houses".

October 8, 2008 at 8:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

smith_ron (anonymous) says...

First, there are no covenants in my neighborhood. The neighbor got a letter from the city stating it was against zoing laws to park a recreational vehicle in front of his house in his own driveway. Why is it illegal? Because government says so. Apparently you can park on the side or in back, but not in front.

Certainly beer is a legal product and can be served on private property. While then not to a minor? Because government has stepped in and made it illegal.

Why can't I have a big bonfire in my backyard? Because government made it illegal.

Why do I pay taxes on my private property? Because government says I must.

If government can tell me what do and not do on my private property, than what makes Matt think they can't tell him what to do in his bar. The ONLY reason smoking is legal is because the government has not YET made it illegal.

You are right about one thing, there would be no need for a ban if both sides of this issue would use some COMMON SENSE!!!

October 8, 2008 at 11:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BigE (anonymous) says...

Posted by Bjnemp: And you called me "a simple little man"? There's some irony for you.

No Bj, you are incorrect, I did not refer to you as a man. And are you using the "no i'm not you are" argument again? Damn it, I still don't have a come back for that one. Oh, wait a minute, here's one: no i'm not, you are! YES!

Obviously you would rather turn this into a personal issue. Stating that you know me, or are qualified to pass judgement about me, my education, or manners based on my opinions from an anonymous forum is silly. I'm certainly not putting much stock in the things that you stated. I'm sure nobody else will either.
Have a nice day...

October 8, 2008 at 11:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

smith_ron (anonymous) says...

BigE: When logic fails, the weak-minded make it personal. It is a defense mechanism developed in childhood. Some just haven't outgrown it.

October 8, 2008 at 12:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

One thing has been brought up many times on this forum and it is what is perceived as "COMMON SENSE". I may be wrong but most of the smoking ban advocates perceive there version of "common sense" to be, the fact that all of Emporia's citizens will only have "common sense" if all Emporia's citizens give in to the smoking ban advocate's perception of what is right for all citizens of Emporia.
Now I believe that most of us who oppose such a smoking ban believe that "COMMON SENSE" is the ability to know that when you go to a business establishment, private residence or anyplace that you know or can see that smoking is allowed and you do not like smoking or be around anywhere that smoking is allowed, you will have the intelligence, "COMMON SENSE" and respect for the rights and freedoms of others to just not enter that business, private residence, etc.
If you truely have any " COMMON SENSE' you will not try and require other people to live by your misconceived perception that people have to live their lives based upon what you think is right, wrong or your distorted notion of "COMMON SENSE".

October 8, 2008 at 1:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

smith_ron (anonymous) says...

common sense says don't expose oyhers to the dangers of second-hand smoke.

October 8, 2008 at 1:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Common sense also says to respect the rights and freedoms of others.

October 8, 2008 at 10:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

smith_ron (anonymous) says...

Exactly, Methsula. There is no right to smoking. There is the right to not have to breath deadly second-hand smoke. I believe the Bill of Rights calls it the right to life.

October 9, 2008 at 12:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

smith_ron: You said, referring to me:

"BigE: When logic fails, the weak-minded make it personal. It is a defense mechanism developed in childhood. Some just haven't outgrown it."

Pay attention, smith. It was your rude and sophomoric comrade, BigE, who instigated the personal attacks and name calling, not me. But you're right; he is "weak-minded" and childish. He's also an adult, though, and that makes his behavior sad, pathetic, and inappropriate.

Also, smith: You said above:

"There is no right to smoking. There is the right to not have to breath deadly second-hand smoke. I believe the Bill of Rights calls it the right to life."

Wrong again, smith. Smoking is indeed a right. It is a legal product protected and subsidized by the federal government. And I don't think smoking is mentioned anywhere in the Bill of Rights. Me thinks you made that up, along with many other anti-smoking "facts" you CAE crybabies keep quoting.

As for "deadly second-hand smoke". Another contrived assumption on your part. OHSA and countless other agencies and scientific researchers claim there is no conclusive evidence that second-hand smoke is dangerous, even in heavy doses, let alone deadly. Just because you don't like it, approve of it, or personally consider it "deadly", doesn't make it so. Please show me evidence of one, just one, death certificate EVER filed in the US with second-hand smoke listed as cause of death. You can't because their never has been.

I'm not saying second-hand smoke isn't irritating, or even aggravating to some people's pre-existing health problems, but it is a long way from deadly.

Second-hand smug is aggravating to me but I'm not calling for a ban on you and your childish, condescending cronie, BigE. After all, that is your right and your choice... and isn't that what this entire debate is all about: the right to choose?

October 9, 2008 at 12:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BigE (anonymous) says...

Here you go again Bj, yet another personal attack, "sad, pathetic and inappropriate". You are going to have to come up with something better, you have surpassed your limit of the "no i'm not you are" argument. Please try to do better, I know you can do it!

Additionally, the debate is not about the right to chose. As we have stated numerous times previously, it is a health issue.

October 9, 2008 at 1:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BigE (anonymous) says...

Let me add, before Bj runs with the above post. I stated this debate is a health issue, not a rights issue. That is not to say that I oppose the right to freedom of choice. I know, if given the chance, B will run with a twisted version of my statment, so be certain that I DO believe in freedom of choice, I just don't feel the issue in this debate is about that.
By the way Bj, there are thousands of studies that do state the dangers of second hand smoke. Because you think it is not harmful, does that make it fact? I think not. If given the choice to believe you and your opinion, or the above mentioned studies, I will believe the studies. Thanks though.

smith_ron, you may have noticed that anyone who does not shares Bj's views is, according to him, absolutely wrong. He is like the person going up the down escalator and looking at everyone else like they are going the wrong way.

October 9, 2008 at 3:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

BigE: I am lost for words to describe the helpless and indefensible tone of your transparent arguments and classless snide comments. Your arguments, especially the worn-out and untrue contention that this issue is strictly about health, make you appear to be a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.

October 9, 2008 at 5:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Hey Gwen,

Let's close this thread down and wait for the next story about the ban. That will give everyone time to relax and calm down. Then we can begin anew!

October 10, 2008 at 8:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BigE (anonymous) says...

Bj, don't tease us, I know you are not lost for words. I think we all know better than that.

P.S. it's a health issue, plain and simple.

October 10, 2008 at 11:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Some people on this forum, and you know who you are, claim this issue to be a health issue. I would like any one of those people to give me a straight, logical, common sense answer to my previous questions, in case you have forgotten the question, here it is again.
What makes any of you think that you know or have the right to tell other citizens what is healthy or healthy for them, when it is that citizens choice to live his or her life the way he or she choses, even if it is unhealthy for them and all those who think it is unhealthy or don't like it have the choice to either not associate with them or the places they gather ?
Until I hear a valid argument that you know better what is healthy or unhealthy for all citizens or that the rest of the citizens of Emporia are not capable of choosing the life or life style they wish to live, I will continue to believe that this is not a health issue, but simply a power trip by some !

October 10, 2008 at 3:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Oh, and here is another question for you policy making individuals. Do you or do you not think that if this ban is approved, that religating those people who wish to smoke at Josies, Town Royal, etc. to only smoking out side, 10 feet from the front door , near the back door or in the alley, you are treating them as 2nd or third class citizens, and discriminatory? After all people of color, were treated the same way before "CIVIL RIGHTS" was enacted, afterall the people of color that were discriminated against were only a different color.

October 10, 2008 at 4:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BigE (anonymous) says...

So first you compare the smoking ordinance to Hitler and the Nazi's, now you are using racial discrimination as a comparison? Are you serious?

P.S. it's a health issue!

Also, rbow, by requestion that Gwen shut this thread down, I feel that you are treading on my constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression. Are you some type of elitist trying to push your unfair beliefs on me? That sounds kinda Hitler-like. Please do not try to take away my rights, because once you take away this right, what will be next. It may never end! (I think it's called a slippery slope.)

October 10, 2008 at 6:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Again, BigE you have managed to side step answering a straight forward question as you have said many times the smoking ban advocates have failed to answer your questions with a straight forward answer.
Again I put the question to you in a straight forward manner, Why do you think you have know and have the right to tell other citizens of Emporia what is healthy or unhealthy for them, when it is each citizens choice to live his or her life the way he or she chooses, even if it may or may not be healthy ?
The definination of Discrimination is and I quote" Treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit". Seems to me you are putting smokers and those who allow smoking in their businesses in either group (smokers), class (smokers) or category (smokers).
Also I believe I never once referred to nor out right mentioned Hitler or Nazis in any of my posts, I don't remember for sure.

October 10, 2008 at 8:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

smith_ron (anonymous) says...

Methusla: It is a health issue because the AMA, CDC, WHO, American Cancer Society, surgeon general, and scads of other experts say it is. This is not a one-man, or even one-town crusade to pick on a select group of individuals. This is an attempt to bring a healthier lifestyle to those who chose NOT to smoke and don't want to be exposed to the toxic gas spewed by those who do. There is no discrimination if the ban applies to ALL.

October 12, 2008 at 3:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

smith_ron: Double-speak and twisted words.

"There is no discrimination if the ban applies to ALL."

Not "ALL" are smokers, therefore it only applies to smokers and that makes it discrimatory. Also, OHSA has done countless extensive tests and concluded that second-hand smoke presents no danger to patrons or employees in businesses that allow smoking even in heavy doses for up to 8 hours at a time.

Interpreting the "evils" of smoking from the thousands of reports available is much like interpreting the bible: one can spin the words to mean about anything one wishes them to mean. CAE and their supporters are certainly experts at doing just that.

October 12, 2008 at 9:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

I am assuming that all of you smoking ban advocates, since you consider smoking a health issue, do not consider air polution from vehicle exhausts, wood burning, charcoal burning, etc. a health risk, what about UV radiation emitted by the sun, it has been shown that over-exposure to UV radiation causes skin cancer and that includes tanning beds at tanning salons and a lot of people, maybe even some of you, pay to be exposed to tanning bed UV radiation, what about electromagnetic radiation emitted by electric lines, electrical appliances, etc, that has also been shown to have certain health risks, using cell phones has been shown to be a health risk, I could go on and on, but my point is, in order to be fair and non-discriminatory to one individual or group such as smokers, you will have to ban all things that have been shown to be a health hazard and that is going to be quite a few things to try and ban.
Please read and hopefully understand the definition of discrimination below.
1. an act or instance of discriminating.
2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
I hope you will understand that by singling out, or targeting smokers, you are in fact putting smokers in either, a group,class or category and you are not judging smokers on their individual merit.
You also say that your smoking ban will apply to all citizens of Emporia ! That argument will not fly, because not all citizens of Emporia smoke, therefore the smoking ban will affect only those in Emporia who smoke and allow smoking in their business establishments.

October 12, 2008 at 11:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BigE (anonymous) says...

So are you putting non-smokers, who do not care to breathe SHS into a group, class, or category of their own? Is that also discrimination? I believe that smith_ron was making the point that no one benefits from SHS, so in that sense it is not discriminatory. Argue all you want that the health effects of it are trivial (although I think we all know better), but there is no way that you can argue that it is beneficial. Therefore, by eliminating a potentially harmful product from the environment, everyone benefits. Smokers and non-smokers alike. Therefore, it does not discriminate, it is beneficial to all, even those producing it, because smoking outside will also decrease the level of SHS that smokers are exposed to.
Again, your decision to tan in a tanning bed does not affect others, do we really have to go over that anymore?

October 13, 2008 at 5:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

smith_ron (anonymous) says...

BJ: If Osha has concluded that second-hand smoke is not a risk, then why, in 1994, did it propose "designated smoking areas that would be separate, enclosed rooms where the air would be exhausted directly to the outside."

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadi...

OSHA withdrew the proposal in 2001, not because it did not find any health risk, but because most workplace smoking regulation was taking place at the state and local level. The withdrawal even had the support of anti-smoking groups.

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadi...

Sounds like the Emporia effort to regulate second-hand smoke is behind the times.

October 13, 2008 at 6:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

smith_ron (anonymous) says...

Ad here is what the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, a state agency, has to say:

"Tobacco use remains the most preventable cause of death and disease in the U.S. and in Kansas. It is estimated that 3,900 Kansans die every year from smoking-related diseases."

http://www.kdheks.gov/tobacco/downloa...

October 13, 2008 at 6:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

smith_ron (anonymous) says...

"Also, OHSA has done countless extensive tests and concluded that second-hand smoke presents no danger to patrons or employees in businesses that allow smoking even in heavy doses for up to 8 hours at a time."

Cite the source of this information. I'd like to read it for myself.

October 13, 2008 at 6:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

I don't believe that any of those who oppose a smoking ban are saying that smoking or second hand smoke is beneficial.
I will try and express as clearly and precisely as I can, so you may get the point, when an individual, individuals or group try and limit or take away any citizens rights or liberty to live his or her life as they see fit, by using or convincing local, state, or federal governments to be the instrument to do so, then that individual, individuals, group of individuals and government is violating a citizens freedoms and liberty guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and Constitution.
Also I for one minute do not believe that if this smoking ban is passed you will stop at only that. I believe that it will not be long before you will convince yourselves that you are the only ones who have the right to dictate how all citizens should live their lives and what is best for everyone based on your own life styles and will therefore go on another ban something crusade to take away another freedom, that doesn't fit your perception of rights, freedoms and liberties.

October 13, 2008 at 11:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

I again have seen and heard the "term smoking-related" when it comes to "related" causes of death and disease.
I am not arguing the point that smoking may or not be the sole cause of a persons health problems, but can anyone say unequivacly, that smoking is the only and absolute cause of a persons health problems. The key word used here is "related", which means 1. associated; connected . Seems to me that to determine that smoking absolutely is or has been proven to be the only determining factor in a persons death or health condition. It is somewhat jumping to conclusions that smoking or exposure to second hand smoke was the only determining cause of that persons death or health problems.
The only way you can absolutely say that smoking is the absolute and only determining cause of a persons death and or health problems, is to absolutely know for sure that the person was absolutly, totally healthy and disease free before smoking and being exposed to second hand smoke and that person was not exposed to the numerous other unhealthy and death causing, man made polutants in the world today.
As for all smoking ban advocates, can you absolutely, truthfully state that you are without a doubt abslolutely healthy and have no pre-existing, hereditary disposition to any possibly unhealthy, fatal condition or diseaseoccurring among members of a family usually by heredity; "an inherited disease"; "familial traits"; "genetically transmitted features" [syn: familial] or that you are or were not exposed to any other unhealthy, disease causing or possible fatal polutant other than second hand smoke !
If someone smoking and having a good time and enjoying their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is going to be the only pressing problem in our all to short lives, then we will be truly lucky and fortunate, we should all be pursueing what makes us happy in our lives and respect all people and their right to live their lives as they see fit to do without threat of interference in their lives by anyone.

October 14, 2008 at 9:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

smith_ron (anonymous) says...

Methusla (I won't demean you by shortening your name): you're right. I can't quote the facts regarding the terms second-hand smoke and smoking-related diseases. However, the KDHE, CDC, et. al, can and does, so I defer to them.

October 14, 2008 at 6:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

smith_ron (anonymous) says...

Can someone point me to the OSHA reports/tests that "concluded that second-hand smoke presents no danger to patrons or employees in businesses that allow smoking even in heavy doses for up to 8 hours at a time."

October 14, 2008 at 7:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BigE (anonymous) says...

So which is it methusla, you keep saying it's a rights issue, then you quote a bunch of health aspects. So which angle are you taking? Seems like you can't decide.
Obviously no one can state that they do or do not have a genetic predisposition to the effects of SHS. That makes it even more important to limit the exposure to all individuals. If something may or may not cause irreversible disease to certain individuals, aren't we obligated to assume that it will until proven otherwise? Seriously, if eliminating our exposure to SHS could possibly help us to avoid these life threatning diseases, shouldn't we do that? What if it gives us a few more years to spend with our families, being parents, or grandparents? Isn't that enough reason to smoke outside so others are not at risk?
To answer your earlier question as to why SHS is not listed as cause of death. Cause of death pertains to the specific disease process that is found. In other words, the cause of death secondary to SHS could be cancer, congestive heart failure, emphysema, etc... Just like if you were killed by being hit in the head with a hammer, the cause of death is not listed as hammer, it would be blunt trauma to the head. Just an example...
I too would like to see the OSHA study that you have reported to say that SHS presents no danger in an 8 hour shift.

October 15, 2008 at 12:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

lyon (anonymous) says...

i can't not stand the smell of smoke! it makes my eyes water/burn and stinks up your clothes.
I feel that they ought to have the smoking ban in all restaurants. Because people go there to eat. But as of bars...well....what can I say it's a bar...you expect that and I am not a smoker.

October 16, 2008 at 2:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Big E
I have never waivered from my belief that this is indeed a rights and freedom issue. I mentioned the health aspects in order to try and explain that for anyone to blame all health issues and problems on smoking is simply, in my opinion ludicrous at best. I will also state again that I have never stated that smoking does not contribute to a persons health problems, but one also has to consider the other contributors that may also be present.
Let me put a hypothetical question to you, if you were invited to a persons home for a dinner party, important meeting, or what ever and that person was a smoker, would you expect or even demand that person go out-side or leave his or her home just because you think that they should not smoke or would you simply have the respect and decency to leave in order to protect your own health ?
I can unequivacly tell you that I know that smoking contributated to my own health problems, but it was not the sole cause of my pulminary fibrosis, copd, diverticulitus, tachacardia, arthritus and diverticulitus and neither do I expect anyone else to give up their freedom to live their own lives as they chose to do.
Now, I am also quite certain that you will have a smart-a_s reply and continue not to answer any questions with a straight forward truthful, logical answer and continue to be the demeaning, self-centered person you are.
Looking forward to your side stepping, double talking reply !

October 17, 2008 at 7:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

P.S:
It was not I that mentioned any OSHA report, because I simply cannot find one that states that smoking or exposure to shs does not contribute to health problems.

October 17, 2008 at 8:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

smith_ron (anonymous) says...

For what it is worth, Methusla, I could not found one, either. BJ, can you give us a hand finding this report?

October 18, 2008 at 8:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

smith_ron:
Thanks, even though I was unable to find any OSHA facts on SHS not contributing to health problems, I still believe that every citizen of the U.S. still has the right and freedom to live his or her life as they choose, even if it may be a healthy or unhealthy life style, I believe that is still their individual right and freedom to do so. I also believe that noone has the right to try and force their way of living or life style upon another individual. I also would like to believe that most everyone is intelligent enough and has enough common sense to know if and when he or she comes upon or is around something that they perceive as unhealthy that all they have to do is move away and avoid contact with what they believe to be an unhealthy situation, afterall you would not run toward a raging fire or a cloud of poisonous gass would you ! This whole situation can be resolved with a little decency, respect for others and some tolerance on everyone's part.
There is far to little respect and tolerance in todays world.
You seem to have some respect for other peoples right to have an opinion and I commend you for that.
However as for Big E, I can't help but feel that he has no respect for anyone's opinion, rights or freedoms but his own, which he seems to believe is the only way to live life and way of living and that makes me feel sorry for him, because a person who is unwilling to let his fellow man live their lives as they wish and be happy doing so, is pathetic at best.

October 18, 2008 at 9:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

smith_ron (anonymous) says...

From Sunday's Wichita Eagle:
http://www.kansas.com/business/renger...

Something's different

From the day Town & Country opened in 1957, the restaurant allowed smoking in the entire building. There never was a nonsmoking section.

So when owner Larry Conover prepared to go completely smoke-free when the law changed recently, he did so with some trepidation.

"I really thought because of the 50-year history... that there'd be some downturn," he says of business.

"I never thought we'd close our doors or anything like that," Conover says, but he was concerned.

Business hasn't dropped at all, though.

"The very next day, in fact, business was up instantly," he says.

Conover isn't a smoker, but he was used to that atmosphere since he started working in the restaurant when he was 11.

"When it first went away, for a little while it was strange," he says. "It was sort of a character about it. All of a sudden it seems sterile around here."

And not only to him.

"We have customers come up and say, 'Have you painted? Done some remodeling?' "

There are definitely some faces missing who Conover was accustomed to seeing through the years, and he's sorry for that.

But he doesn't mind that the law changed.

"It's been good it's happened."

October 19, 2008 at 10:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BigE (anonymous) says...

You are way off methusla, I have stated time and time again that it is your choice to smoke. I'm not concerned with the health risks that people want to expose themselves to. The issue is not smoking, it's SHS that others are exposed to. Everyone is entitled to live how they want, and make their own choices, unless they affect others. I cannot be anymore straight forward than that.
I'm sorry to hear that you have all of those health issues, I wouldn't wish them on anyone. But in my opinion, those are all reasons to try not to expose anyone else to SHS. If an indicidual understands the risks of smoking and chooses to do so anyway, that is their choice. However, it is wrong to inflict those illnesses on others who choose not to smoke.

October 19, 2008 at 11:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

smith_ron, The above article about a restaurant in Wichita showed that some businesses were not hurt by the ban in Wichita. However, the city commission in Wichita
AT LEAST gave the business owners the
CHOICE OF GOING SMOKE FREE. Wichita's ordinance allows a business to purchase a "Smoker Friendly Permit" that allows smoking in a business with the appropriate signage and the stipulation that no-one under 18 be permitted on that property. After hearing our citizens at the public meeting, I don't understand why there cannot be a compromise like this on Emporia's ban. Your thoughts on this please?

Steve

October 19, 2008 at 5:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

smith_ron (anonymous) says...

I've stated before, I will avoid any business that allows smoking. I simply choose not to be exposed to SHS. I agree with others who said either go all smoking with a sign designating such or go smoke-free.

October 19, 2008 at 8:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Big E-
I appreciate your concern for my health problems, but I feel I need to explain a little about what caused my health problems, so please bear-with-me.
1. The pulminary fibrosis and copd, were caused by 2 things, which were, my smoking for 20 years, but the most lung damage was done by exposure to chlorine fumes, ammonia fumes, lime dust, carbon dust, fluoride dust and alum dust. Any way thats what I was told by the pulminary specialist at K.U. Medical Center.
2. My tachycardia, as I understand is caused by a genetic flaw in the transmission of brain signals to my heart.
3. My arthritus was caused by wear and tear on my cervical spine, shoulders, knees and ankles from working at loading swing meat on trucks at IBP.
4. Diverticulitis is caused by eating foods such as popcorn, nuts, foods with small seeds, etc.
5. My type 2 diabetes was also caused by not eating the proper foods to avert becoming a type 2 diabetic.
I guess the point I am trying to make is, not all health problems are the sole cause of smoking or exposure to second hand smoke and if I had known then what I know now, I probably would not have chosen to smoke, but I did and that was soley my freedom of choice to do so.
I do not smoke now and have not for almost 25 years, however neither my choice to smoke nor the condition of my health now changes my mind about the fact everyone should have the freedom to choose to live their lives as they choose to do.
I know that I have gotten a bit testy about things and I appologize for that, but I am very passionate about anyone's loss or restriction of their freedom to choose how to live their life.

October 20, 2008 at 4:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BigE (anonymous) says...

methusla, don't you think that there should be some type of regulation on the amount of exposure to the things listed in #1? If all of those things can cause such serious illness, and I'm sure that they do, I feel that we should have some type of protection for the worker that is exposed to them. I'm well aware that there are many other things other than smoking that cause illness. I think that many of those things have been discovered over the years, and have become more closely monitored or regulated. Again, I understand that is an individuals right to make the decision to smoke. I'm am not against that. I don't feel that the term smoking ban is accurate. It is not about banning smoking. I do believe, however, that we should all be responsible enough to avoid exposing others to SHS. I also think that if everyone was considerate enough to do that, this discussion would not even be taking place.

October 26, 2008 at 11:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Big E:
The government does regulate who can purchase and use chlorine, ammonia and fluoride but not lime, carbon or alum and only the purchase and use is regulated. The training of the employees who are required to work with and around these chemicals is entirely up to the employer. However that does not stop accidents from happening.
However there is no federal, state, or local regulation enforcment on the addition of chemicals to tobacco products, what-so-ever, that is why I believe that the clean air coalition should be putting more effort into banning the addition of any chemicals into tobacco products, which in my opinion would result in a less harmful product, instead of punishing individuals for choosing to use tobacco products.
I admit I don't know whether banning chemical additives to tobacco products would make for a healthier product, but it woud be interesting to find out, but it surely couldn't make it any worse!

October 27, 2008 at 12:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )