The Emporia Gazette

glarson (anonymous) says...

Continued discussion from the original letter to the editor:

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

December 10, 2008 at 6:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Matt :

Get them enlarged (to fit the bans requirements), and We can get them posted on March 3rd. Have you got your patio heaters ordered yet? You may need them for at least the March weather here in Emporia. You lucky dog , at least you have a patio.
And for you pro ban people eagerly awaiting the first tickets being issued under this ban to all those bars and the smokers in them, it can work both ways. There is a rumored movement afoot to form the smoking police patrol armed with video cameras and cell phone cameras to report and document law-breakers at other businesses: ie, repair shops, attorney offices, retail stores, plumbers, contractors, heating and air conditioning co's , car dealerships etc. Wouldn't it be ironic if the first person charged with breaking this new law was a city commissioner who voted for it?
Regards
Steve

December 10, 2008 at 8:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...

Matt-
I love the signs. They clearly reflect non-smoking, as well as how we got there.

December 10, 2008 at 8:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

clancy (anonymous) says...

Not much difference between spitting tobacco juice on the floor of a bar and puffing out secondhand smoke into the surrounding air. Both actions are not only offensive but unhealthy. Spitting anywhere you wanted used to be an acceptable behavior--in the old days. Smoking in public will soon be remembered as an unusual behavior that many people were addicted to--in the old days. Ashtrays and spittoons should be relegated to museums and so should the thinking and the companies that fostered them.

Smoking not only harms the primary breather, but also the secondhand breather who is inhaling in the same toxins from someone else's cigarette smoke. No business or individual has a constitutional right to harm another person. Freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness does not include harming another person--or forcing non-smokers to protect themselves by absenting themselves from smoky environments.

Congratulations to the three Emporia city commissioners who voted to protect the majority of their residents from a public health hazard.

December 10, 2008 at 9:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

Here we go again!
clancy,
There are already laws restricting smoking. They are enough.NO ONE IS SAYING SMOKING IS HEALTHY! I am a nonsmoker and have never felt this great burden of protecting myself or my family from second hand smoke that you speak of.
People on the pro ban side are blowing things way way away out of proportion and completely ignoring the current laws.
It is not at all difficult to avoid second hand smoke. The very very very small amount of inconvenience we nonsmokers have to live with is worth it for others rights and our right to choose not to smoke or go around it.
Sorry to tell you but the government can't save you. You are going to have to do some things for your self sometimes. In case you hadn't noticed local, state and, federal governments are kinda strapped for cash as of late and might need the rest of us to do some things for ourselves. Why are they in financial trouble? Because they spend money like mad rabid idiots on meth. Let me see if I can think of an example .................hhmmm..................... OH YEAH AN UNNECESSARY SMOKING BAN!

December 10, 2008 at 11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

Okay, I've been reading comments on Gazette stories since the Tyson layoffs, and I have read quite a few bizarre statements by a few of the posters, but one from yesterday's posts finally inspired me to register and retort:
"If you think about it, you are selling a service (not goods) to your customers. You're not really selling any goods because folks can buy alcohol anywhere." (crackinsack to josiesbar)
I guess Walmart doesn't really sell any goods to customers either because folks can by toiletries, groceries and worthless crap anywhere too. I have to say, josiesbar, methusela, rbow, seriouslyfolks, Weltha and their allies seem to have more sensibilities and consistencies in their comments than their opposition.
Oh yes, and speaking of meth (seriously's comparison statement), I've had to deal with that in my neighborhood in the recent past and I see that as a far more worthy law enforcement issue that needs funding than most other problems here in e-town. God bless Det.s Dragonas and Delgado for all the hours they spent trying to erradicate the dealer. Unfortunately, the dealer's rights are so protected and the law enforcement division is so underfunded that the dealer is still on the streets after three arrests. Since then, I haven't worried too much about my kids being exposed to an hour a week or less of the semi-polluted air of the non-smoking section of the restaurants we patronize. Nothing I've read in parenting magazines over the past seven years indicates that that level of exposure has any effect on their health. Meth houses exploding, paraniod addicts roaming the neighborhood with all manner of weaponry and territorial gang leaders/dealers, however--I think I read once that those are considered to be immediate and terrible health risks to children.
You may think I'm exaggerating, but I didn't spend all those hours documenting license plates and talking to those fine detectives because of a fluke.

December 10, 2008 at 3:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

"Why are they in financial trouble? Because they spend money like mad rabid idiots on meth."

HAHAHA, that is one of the funniest things I have read in a long time! Thanks for the laugh! (I know you are very serious and dead on accurate, it just seemed really funny! Great mental image, I guess, haha!)

December 10, 2008 at 3:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

I'm in the wrong business because crack and people like him think I am in the wrong business, and spend an inordinate amount of time, money (both private and public), and manpower trying to put me out of business. THATS why I'm REALLY in the wrong business, isn't it. Admit it, you don't like bars.

Every person on this forum has been cracking (pun intended) your nonsense and over the top ideas open for over four months. You have perseverance, I will give you that, its just that every one of your ideas and thought processes behind said ideas are fundamentally flawed.

You've got no business experience, yet you think you completely understand the bar business and the target-market we cater to, even though me and Steve and whoever else, each target a completely different clientele. Basically what I am trying to say is, if you have never been there, done that, how can you possibly even begin to imagine you know what you are talking about?

December 10, 2008 at 3:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

With all due respect, Crackinsack, I think it is you missing the point here. I respect your right, and choice, to defend this smoking ban. I am a smoker. I don't deny smoking is a bad, and expensive, habit and can be detrimental to one's health. I feel the jury is still out on second-hand smoke, however.

I don't object to smoking being prohibited in governmet bulidings, public offices, retail stores, etc., but this ban has abandoned that battle and begun an assault on another front.

As a smoker, I don't light up in restaurants. I don't smoke in other people's homes unless they also smoke. I don't smoke in my own home if non-smokers are present. But if I go to a bar, which I rarely do, to have a legal adult beverage then I expect the constitutional right to also enjoy a legal government subsidized and taxed tobacco product while doing so.

This ban is so far over the line as to be ludicrous, unfair, discrimatory, and bordering on un-American. I am disabled. I can't walk too far or stand too long without severe pain and am unsteady on my feet at times. To enact legislation which forces me to get up, walk outside in the dark, cold, rain, wind, ice and snow in order to partake of a legal activity is unfair, discrimatory, and causing an undue hardship.

And don't give me your usual stale CAE argument that "your smoking causes ME a hardship". No it doesn't. You see, you have the CHOICE to patronize a non-smoking restaurant (the vast majority are) or non-smoking bar, or go where smoking is allowed. If this ban goes into effect, what choices will I have? I will have one: stay home or don't smoke. Where is my choice? Where is the choice for the bar owner who is trying to serve the wishes of his clientele and earn a living?

I understand your concern for your personal health, but you have the right to make choices to protect your health. This ban will give you and your overly-sensitive and fearful friends a choice of 40 eateries and a dozen bars in town where you can eat and drink without being exposed to smoke. The ban will give me 0 choices.

This ban is about rights, freedoms, choice, and tolerance. It is also about maintaining sanity, safety, and legality. Do you actually feel calling 911 to report someone smoking and involving police and fire fighters is a good idea?

A law that makes criminals out of honest people for doing legal activities, or allowing that legal activity on their private property, seems pretty lame, if not completely stupid.

"Our lives are determined by the choices we make along the way". If we lose the right to make those choices, then who contols our lives? CEA? The Emporia City Commission? The federal government?

I feel confident that the good people of Emporia are far too smart, too independent, too strong, and too patriotic to allow this discrimatory and ludricrous ban to become law in our city.

December 10, 2008 at 4:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

Dear Crack: I asked you to not "give me your usual stale CAE argument that 'your smoking causes ME a hardship'.", and you did.

December 10, 2008 at 5:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

crackinsack:
I see your point, but you don't see mine. If people start buying the goods at a different place, he closes, same as any other type of market. Therefore, since the sale of the goods keeps him open, he is selling the goods. The service is simply to make the goods more appealing to increase sales of the goods. That it is less appealing to you right now, doesn't mean that he isn't selling the goods. If you were to look at his accounting, you would see the purchase and re-sale of alcohol as the foundation of his business--same as a liquor store. He obviously has concerns that if he is forced to change that environment, his sale of goods will decrease. If smoking tobacco is at the crux of that change, then that means he is currently making money by way of tobacco. I strongly suspect that you knew that, but just like to argue. You also said, "Part of your service is to provide a healthy environment for your customers." Under current national laws, that is only part of his service if he CHOOSES that based on his customers' desires. The last time I checked, alcohol is considered a toxin to many of our internal organs. So by virtue of selling alcohol as his goods, he is not providing a healthy environment for his customers. Given that he has enough of them to keep his business open, I would say that they aren't interested in a "healthy environment." Therefore, it is not part of his service after all. You speculate that the forced changes will not have that drastic of effects, but he has numbers to back up his fears; and if you're wrong, HE loses.
Wasn't that a bit presumptuous of you to assume that I parent only from magazines just because I cited them as a source. My point was that those kind of studies would be very prominent in publications that are devoted to the safety and well-being of children through educating parents. Once again, I don't believe you meant it, but you sure shot it out there to stir up an argument through mockery.
Oh, and I don't believe that I mentioned making laws against drug dealers. I did imply that the laws might be changed to protect his rights a bit less and mine a bit more given the danger he put my family in, but my actual statement was about funding so the current laws could be better enforced rather than wasting money on this issue. Why is it that the laws in place for a truly life-threatening but inadequately controlled problem are enough for you, but the laws (the ones that seriouslyfolks keep reminding us are there) about a possibly-later-in-life issue are not enough? The studies done on second-hand smoke involve much longer and more concentrated levels of exposure than most of us get by going to a restaurant once a week for an hour or less.

December 10, 2008 at 7:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

Crack,

I don't understand your pickle comment. Why don't you explain yourself so we all know exactly what it is you are talking about. I've heard some immature stuff on here, but that takes the cake with a cherry on top.

What is this, 4th grade? You just lost every ounce of respect you had from me, with your little comment. It also tells me that when you have been beaten, you resort to junior-high level insults, because you lack the intelligence/wits to admit you are wrong. After that comment, sir, you are nothing more than a sore loser.

Matt

December 10, 2008 at 10:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Pingeon (anonymous) says...

dude on crack says:

"I thought I should post some entries from josiesbar's favorite website. http://www.nightclub-business.com/forum/...
It seems to me that the majority of those bar owners like being smoke free. Here are a few of my favorites. Enjoy!

BARTENDER_54 (same user who called us idiots)"

WHOA... WHOA... WHOA.... Wait just a second there. That guy/gal did not call US idiots. What he/she said was "I read most of the posts from EG, wow you've got your share of idiots, HUH??"

Now, I cannot speak for this guy/gal, but I am pretty sure I can figure out who he/she is referring to in that statement.

December 10, 2008 at 11:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crackinsack- Just one more time. The Constitution of the United States, guarantees and protects our right to "LIFE, LIBERTY and PROPERTY".
Now lets look at the meaning of "LIBERTY" for a moment. "Liberty, the freedom to act or believe without being stopped by unnecessary force."
Now, if the CAE proposed smoking ban isn't taking away a guaranteed and protected "LIBERTY" or "Right" if you will, by "unnecessary force", since a smoking ban already exists in Emporia, then please explain to me what is "unnecessary force". Seems to me there is a Constitutinal Rights violation being proposed by the CAE and its advocates.

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

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Like I said on the other post today, how about the gazette changes the rules on this forum and requires posters real names, just as they do on the people speak and opinion columns. If you can't stand by your comments and take the heat for them, shut up already!
Regards
Steve

December 11, 2008 at 10:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

and crack, we are still awaiting your reply to the pickle comment, but make sure you have a good libel attorney before you answer.

December 11, 2008 at 10:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Sad,
Sad,
Sad.
Steve

December 12, 2008 at 9:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

hardchelle (anonymous) says...

WOW!!! I have avoided this site for some time and now I remember why. I am very passionate about the rights we DID have as business owners. The fact that one more has been taken away is just appalling to me. I don't know all the legals or how to speak "properly" in public situations so I will leave that to Steve and Matt. You both are doing an incredible job and THANKS!!! I must say at this point that the passing of this ordinance in Emporia is WRONG! This town has suffered enough blows in the last few years that Emporia shouldn't make it harder for a business to keep it's doors open. Good Lord. It's hard enough (let alone the expense) of keeping ABC happy and staying within the guidelines- I truly feel for the downtown bars/businesses. I have been getting feedback from my travelers, both smokers and non-smokers and the majority are against. They have seen businesses suffer and they understand the simple fact that........WE DON"T NEED THE GOVERNMENT IMPOSING IN OUR LIVES ANYMORE THAN IT ALREADY HAS.!!!!!!!!!!!!

December 14, 2008 at 2:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )