The Emporia Gazette

glarson (anonymous) says...

More discussion from the original letter:

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

November 17, 2008 at 9:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

irishemporia (anonymous) says...

Eugene: Actually, I love to talk about the First Amendment, but I need to be able to breath to do it.

November 18, 2008 at 6:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

bj-Thank you for the kind words.
crackinsack- bj is correct in stating that I am basically trapped in my home because of my ailments. However for you to assume that I am a drinking lush you are very much mistaken. I don't drink any alcoholic beverages at all and neither do I smoke.
However I stand by my statement about "social status and unequality because of it". If you read my quote I did not state anywhere in it that you or all smoking ban advocates were of any particular social status, my implication was that those who believe themselves to be the social elite of Emporia seem to be the ones who want to control all Emporia citizens lives, tell them how to live their lives and tell them what they can freely choose to do with and in their lives.
You may not consider yourself to be of higher social standing in the community, but I believe those who iniatiated the ban do consider themselves of higher social standing and you and others certainly agree with those that consider themselves of higher social standing and agree with them that the rest of Emporia's citizens are not worthy nor capable of having a freedom of choice in how to live their lives, therefore you and those you agree with believe yourselves to be above everone else and those who disagree with your way of thinking, should be told how to choose to live their lives.
Also if you think the conotation that I used in my post was a form of profanity, then you sir live an even more sheltered life than I do. Also you compare smoking to beating your wife with a stick. That is simply a ridiculous comparison, because beating your wife or anyone with a club or stick is against the law and smoking is not, at least not yet. But could very well be against the law if the ban smoking advocates get their way.
Which will result in the loss of a personal freedom, (freedom of choice).
Also you and the other smoking ban advocates are forgetting one important thing. The fact is that Ryan and possibly others, knew that the job he was taking involved working in and around people who smoked, and yet he took the job anyway and wants to continue to work there and his employer freely admits that if the smoking ban is adopted that he will probably have to cut his work force because of it.
I wonder how Ryan feels about people other than himself feel about making lifes decisions for him and repurcussions that those decisions that others made for him will affect him !
Sorry for the length of this post.

November 18, 2008 at 8:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

methusla; No need to worry about the length of your post, it's the content that matters. Your content was 100% correct.
Thanks for bringing the subject matter back to Ryans letter.
Sometimes these posts do have a way of getting off theme. We can only hope that the city does not pass this ordinance, and Ryan can continue his job, (no matter how dangerous), and continue to be counted among the ever shrinking ranks of the employeed.
Steve

November 18, 2008 at 9:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

Crackinsack: Just more of your now infamous irrelevant, irrational, irritating ramblings.

What are you crusading against here: smoking, Ryan's health, or spousal abuse? I can't tell. Do you even know?

"Ryan might also be “ok” with an unhealthy work environment, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t help him and others like him."

Again, it is my contention that it is not your place, right, responsiblity, or business to "help" Ryan or anyone else who doesn't need, want, or ask for your "help". You---and this may be hard for you to accept---are NOT the defining social conscience of Emporia. Besides, how is it going to help Ryan if meddlesome moral crusaders like you cause him to lose his job?

Support and protect freedom of choice, jobs, and the rights of small business owners. Banish the ban!

November 18, 2008 at 10:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

Oh! Crack: I forgot. Another of your signature inaccurate statements was:

"I was only generalizing by putting you in the same boat as the others opposed to the ban.(who DO spend a lot of time in the bar)"

There you go again, Crack: making false accusations to defend your indefensible cause. I oppose the ridiculous smoking ban but I drink one, maybe two, cold Heinekens per year, in my home, and haven't been inside a bar or tavern in 20 years. You seem to know a whole lot about nothing and nothing about a whole lot... so you make it up.

I'm glad you're still here though, Crack. I thought you might be gone. I watched "The Wizard of Oz" the other night and saw Dorothy throw water on a lady who melted right in front of her flying monkeys. I'm relieved it wasn't you.

November 18, 2008 at 10:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crackinsack- If people like myself, Bjnemp, and others don't defend the rights and freedoms given to all citizens of the U.S., from being taken away by those who think they know whats best for all citizens, whether they base their (your) decisions on health, etc. who will, and if the loss of rights and freedoms continue to be taken away what will the U.S. become ?
As I have said before, if this ban is approved what will the next thing that those who think they know what is best for all citizens propose a ban on and what will the U.S. become if rights and freedoms continue to be taken away from all citizens and how long will it be before someone decides that something you or any of the ban smoking advocates is doing in your chosen life style that is not healthy or of "useful purpose" and proposes banning that aspect of your freely chosen way of living your life? If and when that happens how will you or any of the ban smoking advocates feel about not having the freedom to choose how to live your life?
You and others say you don't have a choice as to whether or not you are exposed to SHS ! Well I say you all must be incapable of making a decision as to whether or not to expose yourself to SHS or not, after all the decesion to enter, frequent or visit a place that allows smoking is your choice, if not whose choice is it, if you or others are not capable of making such a choice, then you definately need someone to choose how and when you and others should live your lives.
As for those who work in a smoking environment, such as Ryan, these people may have already made an informed choice and don't need anyone to make lifes choices for them.
Ryan has already said as much.
I wonder how many others feel the same as Ryan ?
Also I will say again that there are over 1000 chemical additives that are added to tobacco products during the manufacturing process by the tobacco companies and these additives are the real reason tobacco products and the by products of tobacco products, such as SHS are "unhealthy" and these chemical additives are what should be banned.
Just a little something to think about !
Again sorry for the length of this post.

November 18, 2008 at 11:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

Good grief, Crack! Comparing domestic abuse to second-hand smoke is like comparing hijacking a passenger jet to hailing a cab! One is illegal, one is legal, and both are a conscious choice!

I oppose spousal abuse (although you tempt me to question my decision) because it is illegal and forces injury on innocents who have NO CHOICE in the matter. I oppose the smoking ban because smoking is legal and everyone, like Ryan and you, has the CHOICE to avoid it or ignore it.

Come up with a legitimate and intelligent argument to support your faux crusade or go play elsewhere. Geez. You remind me of Don Quixote, waging war on windmills. But then, Don Quixote wielded an actual weapon and his cause was noble. You have no weapons and your windmills don't exist.

November 18, 2008 at 11:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

WILLIAM_A (anonymous) says...

Hey Crack!

Keep up the good work and keep posting here. Your post have convinced several people I know that this ban is wrong and should not be passed....

EOFB Crack is doing great things for your cause.

And again keep up the great work CRACK

November 18, 2008 at 2:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

BJ--

You make absolutely no sense. If you were to actually read the posts that crack wrote and then take it one step further by actually comprehending them you would realize that he is not for spousal abuse, or saying that it should or should not be legal. He is saying that at one time spousal abuse was an accepted activity, it is now illegal because the government did what they are supposed to do and stepped in to help it's citizens, regardless of if they thought it needed to be done. He believes the same should be done in this situation, take a currently legal accepted activity and make it illegal to do in places the public goes, for the benefit of all of it's citizen's health.

It is his belief and he in entitled to it. Just like you are entitled to yours and I am to mine. You keep accusing crack of attacking others or being disrespectful.....maybe you should look in the mirror to figure out whom the really disrespectful person is.

November 18, 2008 at 3:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

slvmblck-I would like to know. Just how much butting in and interference into an individual citizens freedom to choose his or life style and how he or she lives his or her life, by so called well meaning individuals, groups and government is enough and where does it stop ?
When each and every citizen no longer has the freedom to choose to live their lives as they choose to and must live their lives the way some individual, group or government entity, who thinks they are better qualified to make that choice for us all ?
I would like hear some explanations and answers to these questions !
Also does anyone posting on this forum know what " Totalitarianism " is, if not please take the time to find out.

November 18, 2008 at 3:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

methusla--

You are missing the point. I am not taking anyone's rights away, neither is crack, not the government. You can still smoke. That makes no difference to me. What does matter to me is when you smoke your byproduct is then exhaled into the air for all of us to breathe whether we choose to want to or not. Unfortunately, some smokers are very disrespectful with where they smoke and have been disrespectful enough that a group got together and decided that we are going to need the government to step in and place a ban on smoking in any place the public can go. That is a terrible shame that the disrespectful smokers forced this to happen.

November 18, 2008 at 5 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

I talked to a friend the other night who smokes. He was at a football game the other day and without thinking lit up a smoke. He forgot the stadium was non-smoking. A gentleman nearby screamed at him to put that damn thing out now a_ _hole! My friend quickly put out his smoke and apologized. He was caught up in the excitement of the game and simpley forgot. Tell me Who was the disrepectfull person in that encounter? I think this disrespect thing works both ways.
Steve

November 18, 2008 at 5:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

irishemporia (anonymous) says...

Steve: When someone near me lights up in a place where smoking is not allowed, I always, and as politely as I can (you never know who is packing) as them to stop. About half the time, they put out the cigarette and apologize (which is not needed). However, the rest of the time, I get cussed at, stared at and told to mind my own business.

In other words, bad manners exist on BOTH sides of the fence.

November 18, 2008 at 6:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

irish; That's what I am saying. My friend is not known for holding his temper in check, which was lucky for the guy who screamed at him. Most people are sensible and act accordingly, but there are always those few. I cannot imagine that about half of the smokers you have talked to were rude to you. I do agree everyone should be half way civil as you said "you never know who is packing".
Steve

November 18, 2008 at 6:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

I can understand the premise behind smoking bans. I understand that second-hand smoke is not good for you. This ban that was proposed was the most restrictive in the US as far as I could find, and I researched 30+ smoking bans. The way the ban was worded, to me, was nothing more than an attack against drinking establishments and restaurants that allow smoking. Let it come to a public vote! If the citizens of Emporia want non-smoking bars, let them choose it. If they want private businesses to allow smoking, LET THEM CHOOSE IT! When CAE first proposed the ban, they clearly stated they were opposed to it being voted on.

Let's get this thing on a ballot, and finish it, one way or another! Let's just be done with it already. I feel this ban has split the community in ways we can't even comprehend right now. This will have very long lasting effects.

By the way, if the turn-out at the meeting in Sept. is any indication, this thing will fall flat on its face, again, in my opinion.

November 18, 2008 at 6:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

There are those of you who support the smoking ban who say,"we are going to need the government to step in and place a ban on smoking in any place the public can go."
To me this statement means that the only place that those who smoke will only be able to do so in the their own homes or will the still be able to smoke in their privately owned vehicle on a public street, in public. Sounds very discriminatory to me .
I agree that this proposal should be put to a vote of the public.
But if the proposal is defeated, will those who wanted a smoking ban cease their efforts to impose their will upon the citizens of Emporia ? I think not. I believe that if the smoking ban proposal is defeated in an open vote, the smoking ban advocates will try even harder to get the vote overturned and a smoking ban approved, without a vote.

November 18, 2008 at 8:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

Slvrnblck: You stated:

"You keep accusing crack of attacking others or being disrespectful.....maybe you should look in the mirror to figure out whom the really disrespectful person is."

Hi-Yo, Slvr. I did as you asked. I looked in the mirror to figure out who the really disrespectful person is. Bad news: turns out it was Crack... and you.

November 18, 2008 at 10:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

methusla--
"I believe that if the smoking ban proposal is defeated in an open vote, the smoking ban advocates will try even harder to get the vote overturned and a smoking ban approved, without a vote."

Exactly my point. And how long do you think the people who overturn a public vote would last in office? Like I said in the above post, this thing will have a very long-lasting effect in Emporia. If the city commissioners overturn a public vote, I can almost guarantee they won't last long enough in office to even get voted out, I feel the public outcry would be so great. Especially when I put which commissioners voted to overturn it on the bar's marquee.

November 19, 2008 at 2:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

How many people read these posts anyway? Let's find out. Call the city managers office today before his 3:00 meeting with CAE and EOFB and let him know how you feel. Leave a message if need be. Maybe that will help the meeting go a little more two sided.
Steve

November 19, 2008 at 6:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

rbow-I don't mean to sound uninformed but what exactly is EOFB, I think I have an idea but am not sure. If it is a group that opposes the smoking ban, how do I get personally involved.

November 19, 2008 at 9:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

methusla--

EOFB is Emporia Open for Business. Yes they are the group who opposes the ban but have made compromises for the CAE.

EOFB's proposal is very loose while CAE's is very tight.

Furthermore, I agree with Josie's lets just vote and be done. I personally think the ban will pass, but would be happier to just have the public vote on it so we all know what the majority wants.

November 19, 2008 at 10:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

josiesbar- Sorry if I repeated what you said in your earlier post.
rbow- I not only called Matt Zimmerman, to no avail, but I also sent him an e-mail stating my objections and thoughts on a smoking ban ! Perhaps if everyone who opposes a smoking ban were to email the City Manager and City Commissioners it may cause them to do a bit more considering and thinking as to whether a smoking ban is the right thing to do.
Do you or anyone know whether there is going to be another public meeting on this subject and when and where it may take place !

November 19, 2008 at 10:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Right now it is on for the study session on Wed. 26th (day before Thanksgiving). I don't know if they will have another public input meeting before they vote on it . If you want to become involved with EOFB you can give me , Sandy Bastin , or S.C. Dixon a shout. We will probably need some help with petitions if it comes down to that. Will keep all here advised.

Steve

November 19, 2008 at 10:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

So no public vote huh? Nice.

Our business is already down 80% from what it was a month ago. What's another 20%?

November 19, 2008 at 12:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

"We will probably need some help with petitions if it comes down to that. "

Petitions for the $500,000 bailout the Emporia bars are going to need if this ban passes?

November 19, 2008 at 12:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

So, if I am understanding josiesbar comment correctly, there will be no open public vote on a smoking ban proposal ?
If I am correct, then so much for a free democratic vote on the making of laws in Emporia. And one more step toward the "Totalitarian" local government I have been professing all along. Again If anyone does not know what "Totalitarianism is, here it is in plain english.
totalitarianism (tōtăl'ĭtâr`ēənĭzəm), a modern government in which the state involves itself in all facets of society, including the daily life of its citizens. A totalitarian government seeks to control not only all economic and political matters but the attitudes, values, and beliefs of its population, erasing the distinction between state and society .
So if anyone believes that involving the local government in banning and controlling one aspect of everyday lives of the citizens of Emporia is not a form or step toward "Totalitarianism", then please tell me what it is, it damn sure isn't a form of fair an equal government.
(Sigh!) After many decades of the same old status quo form of local government I am way past way past being proud of Emporia and believing that everyone in Emporia is thought of as being equal and having equal rights, freedoms and equal voice in whats fair, right or wrong.

November 19, 2008 at 3:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

calm down Matt. I didn't say there wouldn't be a public vote I said it didn't LOOK like there would be 1. We can still hold out and hope the city commission does what is right.
Steve

November 19, 2008 at 3:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

cracknsack; If you think a business is run just like your class in "business 101" I've got news for you, it ain't. Sorry for my 6thgrade grammer. And also, maybe our local bars have been run like the BIG3 in Detroit and we don't have enough socked away to carry us,to see if business will improve. That's why I like Matts idea of a bailout.
Steve

November 19, 2008 at 3:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crackinsack- I am sorry, but there you go again, sounding off without any consideration for anyone but yourself, I hate to say it but apparantely your mouth runs about 70 miles an hour faster than your thinking or compassion for your fellow man. Quit frankly I and probably others are getting pretty tired of your insensitive ramblings. Have you or any of the other ban smoking advocates ever given any thoughts to anyone elses feelings or how this ban may seriously effect them in their ability to make a viable living ! I don't think any of you really have given any serious thought to anything but getting your way no matter how it may adversly affect anyone else.
Your statement reeks of a " I really don't care if anyone goes out of business because of a smoking ban attitude", which tells me what kind of person you really are. Also sounds like a "targeting" campaign to me.
Again I will ask you and all ban smoking advocates, " Will you frequent these businesses that allow smoking now any more if a smoking ban passes than you do now? "
Please a straight forward and truthful answer would be appreciated.
Before you answer, please remember that there is already a smoking ban ordinance for all publicly owned and operated businesses in effect now.
Here is another question for all smoking ban advocates.
If a smoking ban passes, where are the people who smoke supposed to go and socialize if they cannot go to a privately owned bar, tavern, club, restaurant or grill and wish to socialize with friends or have a meal other than their own home ?

November 19, 2008 at 3:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Hey Matt,
Just wanted to make your day a little bit better by reminding you, (if you haven't already), to write that big check to the dept. of Revenue for Octobers liquor tax. Got to keep shoveling money into EDA's campaigns.

November 19, 2008 at 3:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

rbow- Sorry for jumping to conclusions. But as you may know by now I get very passionate about the possible loss of anyones rights and freedoms which so much blood has been shed to preserve.
It really riles me to think that a fellow American is trying to dictate to me and others how we can freely live our lives.
Again So Sorry !

November 19, 2008 at 3:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

methusla:

Do you think if everyone just ignored cracks posts and didn't respond to them he/she would hush-up? But then again the entertainment value would be sorely missed. Damned if you do and Damned if you don't. Know what I mean?
Steve

November 19, 2008 at 3:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

rbow, josiesbar, S.C. Dixon-
I was wondering if a person was to open a bar,tavern, restaurant and grill outside the city limits of Emporia would a smoking ban apply to that business also, since it would be outside the city limits of Emporia and would that business have to pay taxes to the City of Emporia or just to the County?

November 19, 2008 at 3:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

methusla;

Sure a person could open a bar outside the city limits and the taxes paid by that business would go to the county and not the city. And it could be a smoking allowed business.
BUT!

Don't forget Teresa Walters was just elected to the county commission so it won't be long before she pushes her agenda at the county level.
Steve

November 19, 2008 at 4:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

methusla:

Please don't apologise about your passion on this issue!

I am just as upset as you but I've got to watch my blood pressure as I am getting a check up at the VA hospital tommorow.

I am really saddened by the people on this blog that are so eager to give up one of our most fundemental rights as an American citizen. Little by little it will happen until we are no longer the Land of the Free.
Steve

November 19, 2008 at 4:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

giggles (anonymous) says...

Crackinsack you keep sidestepping the issue of who you think put you in charge. Who gave you that power? You keep saying that we don't realize the harms and don't realize what is best for us.
Who told you that it was your place to put us in ours?
The only arguement you have left is that the people who choose to go into those establishments must not be able to make their own decisions. You want to make that decision for those people, however many or few that may be. You think that it is your right to tell them what their right is or is not.
So, I really need to know, if I am to take any piece of your arguement into consideration, if I am to somehow get some lightbulb moment that tells me that you are some deciding faction in my life, just WHO are you?
If you think you can make this decision better than I, WHO are you?
This seems to be the last proving point in this debate, WHO are you people that think you make the decision for us all.

November 19, 2008 at 4:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

rbow:

I'm going to mail the check out this weekend. If this ban passes, it'll probably be the last tax check I write though...
We had 10-15 people down here last night, and all but one of them smoked. Just throwing that out there...

PLEASE let this come to a public vote!

November 19, 2008 at 4:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

irishemporia (anonymous) says...

Do you ever get the feeling the city is toying with us -- people from both sides of this issue? What progress has been made toward a resolution? Surely they are not hoping that it will go away, because it won't.

Nobody wants the city to rush into a decision -- either way. However, it would be nice to see some progress.

November 19, 2008 at 5:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Irish; what do you consider progress? The loss of personal choice?
Steve

November 19, 2008 at 6:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

irishemporia (anonymous) says...

Progress as in moving closer to a resolution.

November 19, 2008 at 6:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

don't think it will happen without a vote, I hope I am wrong>
Steve

November 19, 2008 at 6:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

irishemporia (anonymous) says...

Actually, I believe a vote is the only correct way to decide what the public really wants.

November 19, 2008 at 8:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

giggles (anonymous) says...

You don't add anything new to the table crackinsack. Your ridiculous remarks and really bad analogies have done nothing to change my mind that there are too many of your kind. Your kind being those who think they have the right to tell others how to spend their time. This includes the city government. There is really no good purpose for this ban. People can use their own intelligence and good sense to do what is right for them. Whether it be relaxing in a smoke filled downtown bar or going to one of the other non-smoking businesses in town. Nobody needs anyone else telling them how they should proceed. God gave us free will for a reason, there is no need to have the city taking that away.
BTW, if you claim that no one put you in charge you need to start acting that way, because as you remark here, you pretend to have some overbearing power over anyone else's decision making abilities.

November 20, 2008 at 10:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

irishemporia (anonymous) says...

C'mon giggles. Nobody has added anything new here for months. IT is all the same rehetoric, just different mouths. The only real difference is that both sides have run out of logical things to say and have now made it personal through attacks on character, etc.

November 20, 2008 at 12:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

I propose the gazette remove cracknsacks account from here. It is dangerous to allow that kind of thinking on here and it should be banned.I want to be protected!
Steve

November 20, 2008 at 4:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

giggles (anonymous) says...

God is involved in everything. God gave US free will. What we decide to do with it is our choice. Whether I do or do not treat my body as a temple is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. That is the point, period. I was just wondering how if you make sure that you are staying away from those establishments that allow smoking, why you have such a deep seeded interest in their business anyway? You take care of yourself they will take care of themselves. Simple. Stop complicating the issue.
Need I remind you that I do not smoke. I am excercising my right to voice that I don't need the government's help making my personal decisions.
They have done quite enough with spending my money how they see fit. It is somehow best for me to give more money to financial institutions who couldn't handle their own.
They don't know if it is the right thing to do. They don't know if handing them the money will work. However they have no trouble telling you and me that it is needed.
You talk about measures to protect us. Just because it is meant to protect does not make it right. Just because the government is involved does not make it a good and just cause. You cannot protect with speculation and conjecture. Governments do things all the time under the guise of to protect and serve, that does not make them right. Our government is no different. We who are opposed to the ban are saying that in America we are opposed to such intrusion.
So I guess if this is some sort of conspiracy, a very conspicuous one at that, then yes I am fighting it.

November 20, 2008 at 4:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

crackinsack,

I believe even the sight of your name elevates rbow's blood pressure to extreme levels. I know it does mine.

Always and forever,
Matt

November 21, 2008 at 2:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

And the government making all our decisions for us is healthy?
crackinsack, you and people like you who can't or won't use the common sense the Lord gave you and then turn to government to make the decision, are very unhealthy for all the rest of use who enjoy our freedoms.

November 21, 2008 at 8:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crackinsack-If the number of smokers in Emporia is as low as you say, what are you and the rest of the CAE advocates so worried about ? Seems to me that if the numbers of smokers are few and far between then you and the rest of the smoking ban advocates should have no trouble avoiding them and SHS.
Ahhhh! The TOTALITY or should I say TOTALITARIAN slant of your comments.
Back to Ryan Fritz. If Ryan should happen to lose his job because of a smoking ban. Will you, Teresa Walters and the rest of the ban smoking advocates at least have the decency to either hire Ryan or at the very least help him to find a job at a smoke free place so he may continue to earn a viable living or donate to a trust fund to support Ryan. As selfish and selfcentered as all the ban smoking advocates sound, I doubt whether you will ever give a second thought to or even care about anyone losing his or her job because of a smoking ban.
The citizens of Emporia have respected each others rights and freedom of choosing how to live their own lives for 151 years and 9 months, that is until until recently. When someone or some group decided that they absolutely know what is in the best interests of the rest of Emporia's citizens.

November 21, 2008 at 9:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crackinsack- You and all ban smoking advocates have either decided that you don't want to, don't have any sensible answers or are just plain close minded, because none of you have had any kind of answer to the questions I have put to you for answers ! Perhaps you have forgotten what the questions were, if that is the case I will ask them again, if you wish.

November 21, 2008 at 11:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

crack-

Your name doesn't bother me enough to not come here. If it did, I would choose to not come here.

November 21, 2008 at 12:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

giggles (anonymous) says...

It is a really unsound hypothetical. You make it seem as if somehow smokers are going to gain back some of the places that it is no longer allowed. Obvioulsly, smokers have been backed into a corner.
Only you can decide if you want to participate in your friends celebrations. It's all about personal choices. The government shouldn't be involved in your personal life to the degree that they are accomodating your preferences for party participation.
Finally, you just summed up life. Sometimes things are just unavoidable. You cannot bend life to your every whim. However smoking being unavoidable is still a ridiculous argument. It is as simple as "just don't go there". You still have to prioritize the important things in your life. Health or fun.
If you can't make that decision for yourself, ask one of your friends to. Play rock, paper, scissors. No, need to get the government involved.

"Sometimes it's just unavoidable...unless you allow it to control your life." Sounds like the government. . . and you want them to control your life.

November 21, 2008 at 3:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

giggles (anonymous) says...

Hey you know where drunk people can be drunk legally in public, in bars, which is where the smokers currently can go too. Drunks can go out but that isn't legal. Once again, you failed with a point.

November 21, 2008 at 5:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crackinsack & all smoking ban odvocates- The following is a list of questions I have posed and not received any sensible answers to.
Since the tobacco companies are the ones that add the chemical additivies to their tobacco products that make their products unsafe, why not direct your efforts toward the tobacco companies ?
Since the person who smokes is not the one who makes the product he or she uses unsafe, why pick on them and take away their freedom of choice to live their lives as they see fit to ?
Why do you believe you know or have the ability to decide what is in the best interests of all of Emporia's citizens ?
Why should all citizens of Emporia live their lives according to what you want or believe ?
Since all of you or some of you say that there is not many people who smoke in Emporia, why are you so worried about such a small number of people smoking ?
Do you believe that if a smoking ban is not enacted that Emporia will be come the smoking capitol of the world and you won't be able to breathe or see because of the smoke cloud over and in Emporia ?
Since a smoking ban already exists for all public buildings and businesses in Emporia, why do you feel that a smoking ban needs to encompass all of Emporia's businesses ?
Why do you think that those businesses that allow smoking is unfair to you, when you have numerous businesses in Emporia you may frequent that do not allow smoking ?
Do you believe it is fair to the people who smoke to not be able to go to a bar, tavern, restaurant, etc. and socialize with friends and eat, have a drink, etc. and smoke if they wish to ?
If a smoking ban is enacted and a person is driving down a public street in their privately owned car and is smoking, would they be breaking the smoking ban ordinance and subject to a ticket and a fine ?
Will all of you smoking ban advocates, if a smoking ban is enacted, frequent the business that used to allow smoking, (before the ban) more after a ban and spend more money at that business than you did before the ban ?
Can any of you smoking ban advocates guarantee that if a smoking ban is enacted, such a ban will or will not, in fact cause those businesses that used to allow smoking before a smoking ban, go out of business and people will not loose their jobs because of a smoking ban ?
Do you believe it is fair to those private business owners who wish to run and manage their businesses as they see fitm to force them to run their private business as you are trying to force them to do ?

November 21, 2008 at 5:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crackinsack- You don't seem to realize the fact that, being drunk on a public sidewalk, street, etc. and driving while drunk or under the influence of illegal drugs is against the law.
Smoking is not, but all of you ban smoking advocates are trying very hard to force the local City government to write and enact a law which in my opinion violates a citizens freedom of choice, which is guaranteed by the Constitution and a citizens right to protection from undue individual, group or government interference or influence in a citizens life, which is guaranteed by the Bill Of Rights.

November 21, 2008 at 6:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

irishemporia (anonymous) says...

Hiya Meth,
I have a new product you might be interested in. It makes you feel good, especially when consumed with a beer or alcoholic beverage. IT is affordable and plenty of folks think it is OK.

OF course, like everything, it has a few side effects:
Can cause cancer
Respiratory infections
Asthma
Premature babies, to name a few

Heck, you don't have to actually try it to enjoy its benefits. Just being nearby will give you plenty of chance to try it out.

What do you say? Think it stands a chance? Want to give it a shot?

November 21, 2008 at 7:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

Crack--

If you kept coming to my favorite news site over and over, I would open my own news site, and run it how I damn well pleased, and you would be banned from said news site, because it is my news site, and I can choose who is allowed there and who is not.

Need help planning an outing in Emporia in non-smoking businesses?

http://emporiansfordrugawareness.com/...

There ya go buddy, 64 businesses in Emporia that do not allow smoking! Do NOT tell me you can't plan an outing in Emporia because of smoking.

November 21, 2008 at 8:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

crackinsack; so we need a law for everyone limiting the rights of everyone because YOU can't make the choice to attend "mom's birthday party" because it is being held at a place that allows smoking? If you are that big of a "sheeple" maybe mom booked the party there because she did not want you at her party.

November 21, 2008 at 8:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

irishemporia; why don't you e-mail some of your family back in Ireland and ask them what their country wide ban on smoking has done for the old country? It all still comes down to choice. You don't like smoking or drinking and I don't believe in virgin sacrifices. I think your choice is illegal and mine are not. However if you must follow your beliefs just don't infringe on my legal choices. You stay away from my bar and i will stay out of your church.
Steve

November 21, 2008 at 9:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

irishemporia (anonymous) says...

Twisting words, again, Rbow? Never said I believed in Virgin Sacrifice. Just said what if.

And your activity is not legal everywhere, and won't be in Emporia for much longer once the voters get their say.

November 21, 2008 at 10:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

irishemporia (anonymous) says...

Not to be blind, I googled Ireland smoking ban. Most of the hits I saw report the ban is a success and that other European countries, including the UK, have followed. Sounds like support for a ban here. Did I miss something, Rbow?

November 21, 2008 at 10:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

irishemporia (anonymous) says...

"Some bars have reported an increase in business after a ban, so hopefully the revenues won’t decrease."

I doubt Emporians would go without bars. I predict the good bars -- the ones with good management practices and sound business plans -- will survive a ban. The not so good ones...well, we shall see.

In other words, laws change, times change, drinking ages are raised and smoking bans are adopted. Want to survive? Change with the times. Adapt or drown.

November 21, 2008 at 11:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

irishemporia-I have a couple of questions for you. Of course I am assuming that you are either Irish or of Irish decent.
1. Why did you or your decendents immigrate to the U.S. ?
2. If I am understanding you correctly. You and all the other ban smoking advocates believe that the businesses that allow smoking, are practicing bad business management and you and the smoking ban advocates believe that you know how to better manage those businesses, just by imposing a smoking ban ?
3. So you as well as other smoking ban advocates really believe that if a business fails after a smoking ban that it will not be because of a smoking ban, which would cause a loss of business and revenue, but would be because of bad business management ?
4. Will you frequent a business that allowed smoking before a smoking ban more after a smoking ban than you do now and spend more money there to help make up for lost customers and revenue ?

November 22, 2008 at 10:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

P.S. irishemporia- I don't know what your answers to my questions will be. But I believe that most people who immigrate to the U.S. do so because they wanted the freedoms that exist in the U.S. and that includes the freedom of choice to live as you choose to live without the fear that an individual, group or government entity is going to try and force their particular beliefs and way of living upon you and others.

November 22, 2008 at 10:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

irishemporia (anonymous) says...

Howdy Methusla,
1. I don't know why my ancestors migrated to America, but it is probably a safe bet that it was for a better life and freedom.
2. You do not understand. I never said someone who allows smoking is practicing bad business management. What I said was that a good business manager will plan for change. For example, a good business manager will figure out how to adapt even when the rules under which he or she operates change.
3. I do not believe that a smoking ban alone will kill a business. Again, I do believe that failure to take the appropriate action after the rules change will kill ANY business. Newspapers, for example, have failed to adapt to new technology and look what is happening to them.
4. I do frequent businesses that do not allow smoking and I do spend money...not to save their business but because the are in tune to my needs -- in this instance, smoke-free environment. For example, I stayed away from Village Inn until they went non-smoking. Now I eat there several times a week. It's great. The only problem is that the place always seems packed and I have to wait for a table. Will I go to bars after the smoking ban is in place. HELL YES! I can't wait. I want to go to Josie's because I hear they are a great supporter of local music, The Lariat because I've been told the have a great exhibit of photographs, Natashia's for the pool tables, Town Royal because, well, I like their TV commercials. Unfortunately, I don't go to these places because it is not worth the risks -- the health risks caused by second-hand smoke. I don't want to end up tied to an air tank because of all the crap that ended up in my lungs. Methusla, you are right about one thing; this is about freedom. My freedom. I exercise the right to avoid, as best I can, the crap that we humans -- supposedly the superior species -- dump into the atmosphere. I say try to avoid because, being an industrial nation, we cannot halt the industrial machine whose byproduct is the crap we spew daily into our world. We can, however, do our best to limit and regulate it. We have an obligation to do so. Failure to do so is suicide.

I am all about freedom and I don't want freedoms stripped away (does the Patriot Act come to mind?). However, when my mom told me, "Don't run with scissors," I didn't argue that she was taking away my freedom, I thanked her for looking out for my health.

November 22, 2008 at 2:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

Why do we need this ban? The only businesses in Emporia that allow smoking are 6 restaurants and all of the bars except one. Maybe 20 businesses total. Maybe. Why do this? This is one of the worst times economically anyways, why make it harder?

Irish, crack, etc,

Have you ever ran a bar or restaurant? I would like both of you to answer this question please, along with any other person who is for this ban. If you haven't, you have NO idea how competitive this business is, NO CLUE! I would venture to say this is one of, if not the most, competitive business in town.

Here are some other questions I would like answers to:

1.You say you will go out more if they pass a ban, why not open your own place and make it non-smoking?
2.If there is such a demand for a non-smoking bar, why hasn't one opened years ago?

Irish, I agree this should come to a public vote, however, after the turnout at the public meeting in Sept., I wouldn't place any bets on it. If you weren't there, there was at least 80% of the people there against the ban.

November 22, 2008 at 4:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

irishemporia (anonymous) says...

Josie: I am sorry if you don't think your bar will survive a smoking ban, but I stand behind my earlier statement. You will survive if you plan for change.
As I told Methusla, bars have been a part of the Emporia scene for years and years. Heck, they survived when the drinking age was raised from 18 to 21. What makes you think they won't survive this?
I have never owned or managed a bar or restaurant. I have managed other businesses and I have worked in a few restaurants and bars in my day. Plus, I have good friends who have been or are owners or managers (in fact, you might be shocked to find out who I am). I am aware of how competitive the business is. That's why I believe that anyone who thinks cigarettes are necessary to keep a bar open lacks vision, and wrongly puts profits over health.

A1. As far as opening my own bar or restaurant? No thanks. I have enough to do with my other business interests without taking on more work. That is not to say I wouldn't give it a try under different circumstances. I like a challenge.

A2. That's a good question. I suppose it is a cultural thing, like beer and NASCAR or beer and barbeque. However, last time I checked, neither NASCAR nor barbeque were nearly as deadly as cigarettes.

Actually, I have a bet that it will pass. Seems to me that's the trend these days. As political races have shown, one poll, no matter how gathered, does not always predict the outcome. I believe the trend is for bans (Lawrence, Manhattan, Kansas City, Winfield, to name a few). I will admit that voting for a ban is probably the human way of overcoming guilt for our other over-indulgences.

November 22, 2008 at 6:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crackinsack, irishemporia-You have provided answers to some questions. However by reading your answers, I for one have come to the conclusion that the mind set of all ban smoking advocates is that your beliefs and way of thinking is so selfish and self centered upon the belief that you are right and dead set on getting what you want, that you are completely in denial and disregard of other citizens right to freely choose how he, she or they have the freedom of choice to choose how, where, when and what they choose to do with with there own lives, which comes down to loss of a freedom, no matter how you cut it !
As I have said all along, and your answers prove it, is that this smoking ban is nothing more than what an individual, individuals or group of individuals wants, regardless as to whether all individual citizens feel the same way or don't feel the same way or who or what it may harm in the way of loss of their business, jobs or ability to make a living.
And if any of you say it is entirely a health issue, some of your answers prove otherwise, so please be honest and forget the health excuse because it doesn't fly.
I will attempt to give you a blanket rebuttle to your questions now.
It appears that all or at least most of you ban smoking advocates want the people who smoke to make a choice as to whether or not they want to stay home or go to a public business and not smoke, on the other hand you ban smoking advocates want to be able to leave your home frequent any place in Emporia you wish, without having to make any choice what-so-ever. Fair and considerate to others, I definately think NOT !
If you wish I can give you a rebuttle to each of you questions, but it will take some time and space, but as closed minded and self centered as most of you ban smoking advocates seem to be, it would probably be a waste of your and my time anyway.

November 23, 2008 at 10:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

irishemporia-I would like to make a rebuttle to one of you answers, you answered as follows.
4. I do frequent businesses that do not allow smoking and I do spend money...not to save their business but because the are in tune to my needs -- in this instance, smoke-free environment.
According to your own words as stated above, apparantly you were able to frequent businesses that do not allow smoking, therefore aparantly there are businesses that you can and will frequent, so why not be satisfied with that and have the respect and decency to let those who smoke be able to frequent those businesses that allow smoking, because if a smoking ban is approved those citizens who do smoke will no longer have a choice as to being able to frequent a business that allows smoking and socialize and smoke. Again I say Fair and impartial, in one word NO, because per you own words you are only thinking of one thing and again your own words, ."..not to save their business but because the are in tune to my needs -- in this instance, smoke-free environment", the two key words in your selfish statement are "my needs". Enough said.

November 23, 2008 at 2:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

irishemporia (anonymous) says...

...this smoking ban is nothing more than what an individual, individuals or group of individuals wants, regardless as to whether all individual citizens feel the same way or don't feel the same way

Exactly, Methusla. I think you are starting to get it, by jove. If a majority of the Emporians who vote (as opposed to those who could vote) favor a ban, as I suspect they will, then a group of individuals have spoken. If the majority do not favor the ban, then a group of individuals have spoken. Either way, it is the individuals who get to decide. You will never, EVER, get all individuals to agree. Ain't going to happen. A clear majority is all we can hope for, regardless of the outcome. That way, the people have their say,

...or who or what it may harm in the way of loss of their business, jobs or ability to make a living.

Again, I say a good business manager will plan for a change. I also think people like Ryan are quite capable of securing some other employment other than tending bar. Besides, do you really believe that all the bars will close because a ban in approved? I, for one, don't think any of them will close solely because of a smoking ban.

Finally, am I selfish? Yes -- about my health and the health of others. Do I think I am trampling on the rights of smokers? No, because I am not support a ban on smoking. I am supporting a ban that says smoking is not allowed in a place where the only one harmed is the smoker -- in other words, in no place where the public has access.

And, I think I would like a full rebuttle from you, Methusla, including to my "new" product outlined above. I'd also like to hear from Rbow why he seems to think a smoking ban has harmed Ireland.

November 23, 2008 at 5:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

irishemporia- As always you smoking ban advocates either misquote or fail to include the whole quote in your rebuttles and answers. So here is my whole quote, again." As I have said all along, and your answers prove it, is that this smoking ban is nothing more than what an individual, individuals or group of individuals wants, regardless as to whether all individual citizens feel the same way or don't feel the same way or who or what it may harm in the way of loss of their business, jobs or ability to make a living."
Makes the whole meaning of the quote different doesn't it !
And no I am not starting to "get it" , as you so wrongly put it, just as you wrongly did not include my whole quoted sentence.
And as far as giving you a full rebuttle on your comments, I haven't really decided whether to or not, since you and your other ban smoking advocates seem to have penchant for either misquoting, leaving parts of quotes out or not fully understanding some statements and jumping to wrong conclusions from reading only partial statement sentences.
Perhaps after destressing through tonight, I may decide to give you a full rebuttle tomorrow and if I do I certainly hope you will read, understand and include the whole quote sentence in any of your rebuttle's.

November 23, 2008 at 10:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

P.S. And just to keep things straight, after reading through your answers to my questions. I realized that I was just as guilty as you in not including all of one of your quotes, so I will now rectifiy that error. Here is your whole quoted sentence for all to see.4. I do frequent businesses that do not allow smoking and I do spend money...not to save their business but because the are in tune to my needs -- in this instance, smoke-free environment.
However even when including all of your quoted sentence, it does not change my rebuttle to this part of your answer, not one little bit.

November 23, 2008 at 10:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

irishemporia (anonymous) says...

Geez, Methusla. I never intended to misquote you. I simply included a paraphrase of your quote as a point of reference. I don't know why you took offense to what I wrote. I simply asked for your reply. I want to keep the dialogue going. These forums aren't worth the effort if everything becomes a personal attack.

November 23, 2008 at 11:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

I have just read the "revised" ordinance that will go to the city commission for their study session this Wed. @10:00 A.M. No compromise has been reached so it's up to the commission to do what is right. TABLE THIS, AND LET CLEAN AIR EMPORIA GET IT ON THE BALLOT FOR THE ELECTION IN APRIL. EOB will be working on a voter registation drive to start soon to get voters involved. Those few who read these blogs have until Wed. @ 10:00 to call, or e-mail their commissioners to let them know your feelings, (suggest tabeling). If they table this proposed ordinance it will be up to the CAE to get the registered voters to sign petitions to bring it to a vote of the people. And after all ,CAE has the money to accomplish this, so let them "go for it!"

Steve

November 24, 2008 at 7:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

irishemporia-If by my simply pointing out to you that you apparantly decidided to interpret only part of my response, to make it sound as if I were "getting it" and agreeing with a smoking ban, which by the way I am not agreeing with you or any other smoking ban advocate.
I was merely pointing out the fact, that when you view, read and understand the entire quote as I wrote it, you and others would understand that I do not agree with a smoking ban, so you see that paraphrasing someone's quote may or may not be viewed by the person who wrote or made the statement as twisting their words or distorting their view to your advantage.
If you view this as a personal attack then that is your fault, as my intention was not meant to be a personal attack.
rbow- Count me in on either voting No Smoking Ban or Table the Proposal. Also I certainly hope those who read this forum and blogs are finally starting to see that there is a real threat to their individual freedom of choice going on here and it is not entirely based on health as professed by CAE and its advocates. Also I have already been e-mailing the city manager and the city commissioners about how I and possibly many others feel about a smoking ban, but have had no response from them so far, but I will continue to e-mail them.
irishemporia-I will post a response to your statements, so watch this forum, but you may not like or even agree with my response, you may even view it as another so called personal attack, if so that is your perogative, however I will try and word my response so that won't happen.

November 24, 2008 at 8:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

irishemporia (anonymous) says...

Methusla, I never said you agree with the ban. What I did say is that if the ban goes to a vote and it passes, then it is what a majority of the citizens who vote want. If it fails, then it is what a majority of the citizens want. In other words, your statement applies both ways.

I don't expect to like or agree with your response. However, I welcome your contributions to the discussion. I am sure you are quite capable of an intelligent discussion -- one that does not boil down to a personal attack.

November 24, 2008 at 8:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

irishemporia-I just had to respond to your last post now.
You and other ban smoking advocates are assuming much in thinking that you may be a majority. But the fact is that there is also a number of non smokers who agree that such a ban amounts to limiting or taking away an individual citizens freedom of choice.
Hmmmmm! Something to think about.
I will be responding to you other questions or statements later.

November 24, 2008 at 9:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

8jnemp (anonymous) says...

It has been brought to my attention that Bjnemp has used the term “elite” (or “elitist”) 42 times since discussion on the smoking ban began on this site. Ever heard about the boy who cried elitist? A word tends to lose its impact after being thrown out so much.
Someone needs to find a new favorite word! Am I right?
8jnemp
(Ate at J's in Emporia)

November 24, 2008 at 11:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

irishemporia & those who wish to ban smoking-
Those of you who wish to ban smoking in Emporia, wish to force or request our local governing body ( City Commissioners ) to write and enact a law banning smoking in all public places, including privately owned businesses, that the public has access to.
Am I correct so far ?
Also you wish to have the FREEDOM OF CHOICE, to go wherever you CHOOSE, whenever you CHOOSE and do whatever you CHOOSE, even if you CHOOSE to do something while you or other smoking ban advocates are there, that might be construed by someone who is also there, as an activity that is unhealthy to them and others and that person or persons decides to force or request the local governing body to place a ban on your particular activity. I would imagine that you and the other smoking ban advocates would shout as loud as you could that your FREEDOM OF CHOICE was being taken away, banned or restricted, and that such a ban against you is not fair, respectful or impartial.
Now, let me see, (thinking). If I am understanding the CAE, its followers, and you correctly. You wish to have the ability to FREELY choose not only THE FREEDOM OF CHOICE as to how you choose to live your lives, but you also want the freedom of no bans, restrictions or limitations imposed upon you.
And yet you do not believe that the citizens of Emporia, who do smoke, are entitled to have the same Freedoms from bans, limitations, restrictions and having to make choices that you smoking ban advocates have or would have.
Fair, respectful, compassionate or impartial. NOT ON YOUR LIFE !
This is enough response for now, perhaps more later.

November 24, 2008 at 12:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

http://www.nypost.com/seven/11162008/...

From the New York Post, Nov. 16th 2008:

"The city has come up with a plan to help you shake your salt habit, according to New York magazine.

In a closed-door gathering at Gracie Mansion late last month, health experts and food-industry representatives were told about Mayor Bloomberg's next crusade - an effort to reduce the salt in processed food by 20 percent over the next five years, the magazine reports in this week's issue.

City health czar Dr. Thomas Frieden went as far as saying that high blood pressure, which is linked to excessive salt, is "the greatest public-health threat facing the city."

He leaned on industry groups to sign on to the plan by the end this month, according to an attendee.

Restaurateurs will be encouraged to join a "voluntary" initiative and that there won't be new regulations."

This is what is next after the smoking ban. First saturated fats, then salt, what's next after that, handguns? Stop this slippery-slope dead in its tracks. Just say NO to the smoking ban.

November 24, 2008 at 1:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Ate at J's:

I haven't seen the "E" word used on this blog much, are you sure? Maybe you have had to many of those gooooood greasy fried onions on you burger and it is clouding your judgement. Not to worry that will probably be the next ban proposed for Emporia, NO FRIED FOODS. I do know a few of Emporia's "E " people and they are against this smoking ban.
And perhaps you could change your username so it's not so much like Bjnemp's?
Steve

November 24, 2008 at 1:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

crack, I think I have said all I can to you. If this ban passes, I will look forward to chatting with you about it every Friday at Town Royal, because I am SURE you will start going out now that you don't have to deal with the evil SHS. Or could I just meet you at The Blind this Friday, because it is already non-smoking? Come down off your high horse for a minute, and talk with us "lay-people."

My point here is that this ban will affect VERY few businesses. 6 restaurants, and most of the bars. Thats it. You said earlier you can't have an outing in Emporia because of SHS, and I called BS on you. You never replied to that, nor answered my questions, yet you continue to say just smoke at home. Because of where I live and how this ban is worded, I won't be able to do that either.

The people who are for this ban will not go out anymore than they do right now. Lets either shelve this thing completely, or force it to come to a public vote.

November 24, 2008 at 3:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Matt ;
See my thoughts on todays people speak under Paying For Trouble.

Steve

November 24, 2008 at 3:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crackinsack-I don't agree with your conotation of "another swing and miss", as I see it the truth is never a swing and miss situation or skewed in any way.
In your own words,"Don't get me wrong, if someone tried to ban something I enjoy doing, I would fight it UNLESS there was a good reason to ban it. A good reason like...oh, I don't know....my fellow citizens would be healthier if I wasn't doing said activity, for instance" . "You are correct on your first paragraph, but then you get a bit skewed. I do enjoy the freedom to go when/where I please, but I'm not doing anything at those places that is unhealthy to those around me".
Here is the plain truth about your statements. You simply don't know what anyone else may perceive what you are doing as unhealthy and unhealthy to them or others, or serves no useful purpose, it may be something, such as , driving your vehicle which spews out hydro-carbons and carbon monoxide, both of which are unhealthy to you and others, would you give up driving your vehicle, or sneezing, coughing or spitting in public, which are all unhealthy for you and others, and everone does these things at some time. You simply don't know what someone else's perception of what you are doing in a public setting, is healthy or unhealthy to you, them and others, even though you believe that what you are doing is not harming you, or anyone else. Oh yes I forgot that you believe that what you may be doing serves a useful purpose and makes you happy, even though someone else may believe that what you are doing serves no useful purpose and should be banned.
I believe that in such a case, you and anyone of the ban smoking advocates would be screaming louder than anyone about your rights and freedoms being violated.
At the risk of repeating myself, the truth of the matter is, that smoking is already banned in all public buildings that the public has access to and some privately owned businesses.
Also the truth of the matter is, that the CAE and its followers want all the Freedom of Choice and not be restricted by having to make difficult choices, limitations, etc. and yet want to impose all the difficult choices, limitations, etc. and loss of or restrictions of Freedom of Choice on the smokers and private business owners who wish to allow smoking in their businesses, as well as dictate to the private business owners how to run or manage their businesses, which is not right, fair or impartial.
Truth, Truth, Truth, Hit, Hit, Hit.

November 24, 2008 at 6:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crackinsack- Your statements to josiesbar have the selfish logic of someone who neither wants nor can make difficult dicisions in life and sounds a lot like irishemporia in the fact that you want only what is in line with "your needs and wants" and only " your needs and wants" and to the devil with other peoples "needs and wants".
Boy talk about having a selfish attitude and belief.

November 24, 2008 at 6:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

neighbor (anonymous) says...

"The Blind is a bit small for my liking and I’m not crazy about the location either."

I think you should have used a different screen name, Goldilocks would have fit you better.

Too smokey, a bit too small, bad location, blah blah blah.

Admit the obvious, you don't patronize bars.

November 25, 2008 at 1:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

Crack-

Here it is again, in case you missed it.
http://emporiansfordrugawareness.com/...

Here are (again!!) 64 businesses in Emporia that don't allow smoking, and there are non-smoking businesses that are missing too. SIXTY FREAKING FOUR! You said,
"I was saying it is difficult to go on an outing and that I feel somewhat trapped by smokers. Below are a couple of generic conversations that non-smokers may face when planning an outing."

How in the hell do you feel trapped?

"Honey, let's go out to eat tonight....Ok, where?...Oh, no can't go there, they allow smoking...Ok how about ?....no might be smokers there too..."
How about you look at the PDF from CLEAN AIR EMPORIA THAT TELLS YOU WHAT PLACES ARE SMOKE FREE. Wow!

"Well, crackinsack, some of us are going to the bar for a drink. Why not tag along and we can talk about that possible promotion?...Sorry, boss. The SHS is bad for me...Ok, guess you don't want the promotion......Ok, boss, I'll see you there."
This is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. No boss in his right mind would ever say that. EVER! Man, gotta watch those fly balls from left field, they'll get ya.

Crack, once again, (as usual) your arguments hold no water, and show people on here just how out of touch you are with reality.

Hugs and Kissies,
Matt

November 25, 2008 at 8:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crackinsack- I would also like to know what you would do, if your BOSS smokes and wanted to go to a place that allows smoking and wanted to smoke a cigarette, cigar, etc., while you were discussing your PROMOTION and obvious increase in pay that goes with the PROMOTION !
Would you still say the following, " No thanks BOSS, I can't stand the SHS and would you also inform your BOSS that you and others are trying to ban smoking everywhere in Emporia, except in your own home and that includes your place of business and office, BOSS !

November 25, 2008 at 9:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Here is another question for the ban smoking bunch.
Would your smoking ban include those City of Emporia employees, who work outside, repairing the City streets, sewers, water supply facilities, etc. ?
I don't actually know whether any of the City Commissioners smoke or not, but surely the CAE smoking ban would also include them and whatever other local government officials that just happen to smoke.
Just something for even the local Government Officials to seriously think about and consider. After all you local Government Officials who happen to smoke will also be losing you FREEDOM OF CHOICE to freely choose how to live your lives and freely choose your style of living and remember the only place the CAE and its advocates will allow you to smoke is as a prisoner in your own home.
Also remember that smoking is already banned in every public building in Emporia now and some privately owned business also impose and enforce there own smoking ban, which they freely choose to do.
Yes, we all have to make sacrifices at times, but we are now able to freely choose whether we want to make those sacrifices. If this smoking ban is adopted that freedom to choose to sacrifice or not will no longer be yours to freely choose, it will be forced upon you by those who believe that they are the only ones who have and are entitled to FREEDOM OF CHOICE.

November 25, 2008 at 9:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )