The Emporia Gazette

glarson (anonymous) says...

Additional comment from the original story:

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

And let's keep it civil, folks.

January 27, 2009 at 9:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Gwen,

While I agree with your decision to remove the posts from last night, I want to offer you my apologies, and an excuse.
Sometimes it is hard to be civil when others are not attacking just your opinion, but your very livelyhood. I have stated before that this ban is doing just that. This forum is a great way for me to vent, hence all the posts. I will try to watch it from now on.
Steve Corbin

January 27, 2009 at 10:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jmcmannis (anonymous) says...

I for one is against the ban for the simple we escaped the tyranny of a Tyrant 3000 miles away to form a nation where we can govern ourselves without goverment influence. I for one say down with the tyrants (the ones that forced their beliefs down our throat) in Emporia and let us live our lives or run our businesses the way they run. They have not only tried to outlaw smoking but also have tried to ruin the adult entertainment in this town and many other towns because they thought it to be morally wrong. I fought back than and I choose to fight back now and stand against TYRANNY. After all that is why this nation was founded to escape tyranny and enjoy the prusit of life liberty and happieness. I apologize if I got some of this out of context, I am sick and my brain is not working well.
Down with the ban and down with tyranny, wonder if burning effigies is legal?

January 27, 2009 at 12:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

romano1784 (anonymous) says...

You put yourself in harms way crack, by going to a place that allows smoking you hurt yourself. If you dont like smoke dont go their. Its a simple concept that seems beyond the grasp of many.

January 27, 2009 at 2:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

romano1784 (anonymous) says...

You mean you would actually have to weigh good vs bad and make your own decision? Cant have any of that. Why you people think you should be able to walk into any business and have everything your way astounds me.

The bars are responsible for serving liquor and letting people have a good time, thats it. No one forces the employee to stay there, its about making money plain and simple, not providing a safe from everything environment.

"Besides, it makes more sense to tell a smoker "If you want to smoke, don't go there." When we tell them this, however, they get all upset like their habit is more important than the health of many"
Not if the owner says otherwise. It is THEIR establishment not yours. If the owner says their allow smoking you should respect his/her wishes, or leave. There's what 15 businesses that allow smoking? Go to the other 50 that don't. You call smokers tyrants for offending your delicate sensibilitites, but you want the world, we just want to keep what we already have.

January 27, 2009 at 2:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

"It has always been, however, a business's responsibility to provide a safe workplace for their employees as well as a safe environment for their customers."
You keep saying this, crack, even sometimes replacing "safe" with "safest." Where do you get that? These are not hospitals. They serve greasy food and or alcohol. They are to provide a REASONABLY safe environment as provided by laws based on verifiable health hazards (actual body counts).
You have made it clear that you do not want alcohol outlawed because it is your friend. So let me get this straight; you prefer to consume a product that is characterized as such:
"Alcohol affects every body system, CAUSING a wide range of health problems. Problems include poor nutrition, memory disorders, difficulty with balance and walking, liver disease (including cirrhosis and hepatitis), high blood pressure, muscle weakness (including the heart), heart rhythm disturbances, anemia, clotting disorders, decreased immunity to infections, gastrointestinal inflammation and irritation, acute and chronic problems with the pancreas, low blood sugar, high blood fat content, interference with reproductive fertility, and weakened bones." http://medical-dictionary.thefreediction...
Other sources include:miscarriage, heart disease, premature death, clogged arteries.
But you are morally opposed to breathing a pollutant that MAY:
increase RISK for heart disease and lung cancer, and if they could prove it might account for some miscarriage, infertility, premature death, clotting disorder, SIDS, ear infections, asthma, breast cancer, nasal sinus cavity cancer, and nasopharyngeal cancer in adults, and leukemia, lymphoma, and brain tumors in children, bronchitis and pneumonia in children aged less than 18 months.--commonsenseemporia's posts compiled

So you're really telling us that you'd rather die from a simultaneous heart attack and stroke while on dialysis than from a risk of ear infection. Brilliant!!!!

January 27, 2009 at 3:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

"If I do that, then I'm letting the smokers control my life. Who are the tyrants again?"

You really need to look up the definitions of tyranny and freedom. Is a seafood restaurant oppressing someone who is allergic to seafood? How about candy bar manufacturers to people with peanut allergies? They have to make choices based on their health in specific environments. So do you and I. Yes, YOU!! If you aren't comfortable or feel compromised in any environment, you should not willingly, knowingly walk into it.
I posted this on another forum, but I want to make sure people you may be misleading see it so here it is again:
"Oh, and crack, that's a nice double standard you own there, son.
"I should not have to choose what environment I consume food or drink in even if it wasn't designed for me because I am entitled to go into any place of business and have it conform to me. However, idiot kids should just know when a drink isn't designed for them and should not feel entitled to it or choose to consume it."
The motive of your convenience shines ever more brightly after your statements here." --Energy Drinks article comment

Some places ARE NOT designed with you in mind--get over it!!

January 27, 2009 at 3:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crackinsack- You see the problem with your whole way of thinking is, you believe smokers are controlling your life. Please explain again how smokers are controlling your life, when smokers and the supporters of this ban are not proposing to force you to enter a business if you believe you will endanger yourself in any way or leave a place of business against you will, just because you do or want to do something that someone else objects to, you will still have the right to choose to enter a business, if you so choose or the right to choose to leave a business when you choose to leave and not be forced to leave. However on the other hand you and the CAE and all other smoking ban proponests are, in fact trying to force those who smoke to give up their right to ave a place or business that they may gather or whatever that will allow them to enjoy their right to partake of a legal, commercialy available product without any restrictions and the right of a business owner to operate his business as he wishes and cater to a certain clientel, just as those businesses that don't allow smoking are catering to acertain clientil, with out any restrictions. Plus you also want those who choose to smoke. to leave a business and have to endure all kinds of enclement weather, etc., which you and others will not have to forceably do, just so you will not have to make any everyday life choices, now which ones are being dictatorial, tyrants and totalitarian and selfish beyond belief !
Besides crack, do you really believe that if you and others do away with tobacco product smoke and shs you will not become unhealthy, get cancer or heart disease, etc ?
If you truely believe, in that way of thinking and phylosophy, you are truely either very naieve or living in a totally unbelievable dream world ! As there are numerous elements, etc. that you and all of us are exposed to each and every day that are and will cause you, us to become ill, unhealthy, get cancer, heart disease, etc., maybe even kill us in time.

January 27, 2009 at 3:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

My point never was that smoking is healthy--but there is no solid proof that SHS will kill you.
And if someone was pouring alcohol down my throat, that would be physical assault and I would have them arrested. But here's the deal--I don't drink, so I don't go to bars because they aren't designed for me. I have never gone down to Town Royal and insisted that they start serving fruit smoothies for my health and the health of others. If I did drink alcohol, I would go to the Blind, understanding that the environment there was designed for me. If I preferred the company at other places, I would just put up with the environment in which they are the most relaxed and friendly. Have you ever watched the effects of withdrawal--even nicotine? Relaxed and friendly are a long time coming back--especially to a person who was forced into withdrawal. They aren't hurting anyone for sure except themselves and if they are hurting others, the others there should be only those who accept that there may be consequences. If you stay out, there's no problem.
Now I'm late to leave.

January 27, 2009 at 4:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

crack,
I thought I would have heard your responses to my answer on the other thread so I will paste them here;

1. You're asking ME to dial it down a notch?
2. Unlike you, I have put my name out there for everyone to know how I feel. No anonymous postings from me.
I'll deal with the consequenses, if any.
3. As I have said before if this ban stands I probably wont be in business much longer anyway so what the heck?
4. What is great about this country is that you and I can disagree, and you have the choice to walk into my bar or not. If my active stance against the ban upsets you, Don't come into my bar now, why wait until the vote?

Steve Corbin

January 27, 2009 at 4:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

well crack,
You know what they say about old dogs & new tricks ?

To late for me to embrace change, even if I wanted to. Some change is good, some-not so good.

Steve corbin

January 27, 2009 at 5:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Pingeon (anonymous) says...

Embrace a change that will decrease your revenue stream. There's something to be excited about......

January 27, 2009 at 7 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Pingeon;

Well man I was planning on doing that myself. It's called retirement. But with the market & economy that will need to be put off. Now a smoking ban.
Steve Corbin

January 27, 2009 at 7:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Pingeon (anonymous) says...

Steve - Hopefully the economy will snap back, you can sell your stocks and retire in style......

January 27, 2009 at 8:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

wyse_guy (anonymous) says...

Crack I agree with you 100% if a buisness is non smoking I wont spend my money in there either.We have to stand up for ourselves smoke or get out.No non smoking tyrant is going to run my life.Like you I like the smell of fresh lit cigar after a meal.

January 27, 2009 at 8:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crackinsack- So as I understand your demented logic and thinking, you are absolutely telling everyone to adapt, is that right ? However you and your ban smoking co-horts believe that you should not have to adapt to absolutely anything, is that right ?
Again I ask a simple question. How selfish, onesided, dictatorial, tyranical, totalitarian can any one person or group of people possibly get or be, to demand and expect anyone or everyone to adapt to their way of thinking, believing and living ?
History absolute reeks of people such as you and your ban smoking co-horts, and all of these people or figures of history, both ancient past, not so ancient past and present time, were and are thought of and remembered as tyrants, dictators, totalitarians or evil people !

January 27, 2009 at 8:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Pingeon

didn't want to retire in style, just wanted to retire period. Such is the life of the self-employed or unemployed.

Any way, it'll all work out, the ban will be overturned and I will keep promoting all the things that are bad for everyone and crack will continue to cower at home staying away from all things that may be harmfull and lead a long, but somewhat boring life.
Steve

January 27, 2009 at 8:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Pingeon (anonymous) says...

Steve - in that case, I hope the economy bounces back enough to allow you to retire soon. :)

January 27, 2009 at 9:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jmcmannis (anonymous) says...

I agree we need lawas against drunk driving but I have not heard of anybody dying of second hand smoke either. I have worked in the hospital, fire and construction industry and many of those that know about what smoking does to their lungs it does not affect them. I have not been affected with lung disease from being exposed to it. All I was trying to say their are worse evils than worrying about someone saying we cant smoke in public. It was not until recently that this issue has come up. Hell my grandmother has smoked for damn near 65 years and has not gotten lung cancer and she wont quit until she dies. So if it is so bad for us why is she not dead yet?

January 27, 2009 at 11:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jmcmannis (anonymous) says...

I just thought of something at the corner of 12th and commercial there is a smoke free bar called the Blind or something like that why not go there if you want a smoke free drink Crack or the rest you people that are for the ban.

I choose to go to the bars that have drinking and smoking because for me the smoke adds to the atmosphere.

Shoot I have inhaled more dangerous smoke than second hand smoke, try taking a dose of cresote with your smoke. You will be hacking and blowing black crap for at least 3 weeks. I volunteered to be a firefighter and I took that risk going on grass fires next to the railroads. Second hand smoke bahh never really seen concrete prooff of the harm it does.

January 27, 2009 at 11:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

You know the state is facing tough economic times right now, can it do without the revenue and taxes from my business? While the taxes paid for by drinkers comes back to the city, we do have Kansas Lottery at my bar. Not to brag, but LOTTERY sales in 2008 were $445,000.00 + at my bar alone. Take out an estimated 50% pay out for winnings and that leaves the state with $227,500.00 income. If I lose 50% of my keno players that means the state loses $113,750.00. Can we in Kansas afford that?
Steve Corbin
An American

January 28, 2009 at 4:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

neighbor (anonymous) says...

Add in the loss of payroll taxes, lost tobacco sin tax and sales tax, would make your above listed amount seem small.

January 28, 2009 at 6 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

rbow--

So you are saying that people will quit playing the lottery because they can not smoke in your bar??

The tobacco sales will eventually decrease but not immediately. It's not like all the addicted smokers will suddenly decide to give up their habit. Besides it would be a good problem for the state to have because it means that it's citizens are getting healthier.

January 28, 2009 at 8:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

slvrnblck- You are as naieve or as hard headed as all the other ban smoking proponents !
I will put the same question to you that I put to them, hopefully you will have a sensible answer or even answer the question, as no one else apparantely has an answer.
Do you really and truthfully believe that if tobacco smoke and shs is eliminated, that you and the rest of us will not get ill, will not become unhealthy or get any kind of cancer, any kind heart disease, etc ?

January 28, 2009 at 8:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

I second crack's last post. Of course people will still get sick. But if we can reduce the SHS then I think we decrease the chances. Isn't that why people take the flu shot, or go to the doctor for checkups or why we wash our hands, or cover our mouths when we cough or sneeze? Don't we do all of that to lessen the likely hood of getting sick? As crack said SHS is an UNNECESSARY risk that can be prevented, why wouldn't we get rid of it?

January 28, 2009 at 9:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jmcmannis (anonymous) says...

Since smoking has been around since the dawn of time, when did this new health kick and sudden desire about peoples health and SHS come to fruition. Also name one person or name a statistic on how many have died from second smoke. You are more likely to get hit by a car or shot in a holdup than die of SHS.

January 28, 2009 at 9:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

So crackinsack, you agree that eliminating smoking will not cause a ceasation of illnesses, cancers, heart disease, etc. !
Then why do you and the other ban smoking crusaders want to ban only one element of the many, many elements that everyone is exposed to or threatened with in our everyday lives and accept all of the other potential health hazards that everyone is exposed to ? I have already posted on this and other sites that burning wood in fireplaces, etc., has some of the same cancer, heart disease, etc., causing chemicals in the smoke and shs as tobacco smoke and shs and that wood smoke and wood smoke shs could be even more harmful that tobacco smoke and tobacco smoke shs. Yet there is no effort on your part, the CAEs part or any smoking ban proponents part, to be to concerned about this particular health threat and I have posted statistical, scientific information and websites to back up my posts and claims about wood smoke and I can also give you the same information and websites about the hazards of smoke from charcoal cookers, meat smokers, etc, and the health hazards of vehicle exhaust emissions.
Yet you and the other ban smoking proponents, continue to cling to and use your scare tactics and scare propaganda about tobacco smoke, shs and those businesses that allow smoking, to scare and frighten the public into laying down and accepting that what you say is absolute gospel ! And in most cases your statements and information is not absolute proof or fact, but just conjecture, biased opinions, and at times out right fabrications and lies !
All of us, who oppose such an unreasonable smoking ban, on the other hand have never told anyone that smoking and shs, will not harm anyone. All of us have only stated that, every person has and should have the right to decide for themselves what they believe is right and wrong and make their own choices, when it comes to being around smoking, smokers or shs, which everyone has the right to do.

January 28, 2009 at 11:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

P.S. I suppose that all of you smoking ban proponents are also going to cling the lame old excuse that burning wood in fireplaces, vehicle emitions, meat smokers, etc. are a " NECESSARY" risk. Now that is what I call a selfish, selfcentered, and stupid way of thinking and believing.

January 28, 2009 at 11:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

methusla--

You are really talking about 2 different things but for entertainment purposes I will bite and respond to you argument....

In most cases, and I repeat MOST CASES, wood burning fireplaces take place in private homes and have chimneys that pull the smoke out into the open air. They are a personal choice that typically, TYPICALLY, only affects the user. Also, most logs are not laced with added chemicals that cigarette companies add to their cigarettes.

January 28, 2009 at 11:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jmcmannis (anonymous) says...

Well we could all switch to Native cigarrettes that are sold on reservations. They are made with pure tobacco and no additives, my grandma smokes them sure the smoke smell is a little stronger because they are all tobacco but at least they do not have the chemicals that are supposedly bad for us. Hell one of the ingredients in name brand smokes is or was formaldehide. Maybe that why my grandma is so well preserved lol.
Either way I am going to vote against the ban on a matter of protecting my freedom from tyranny and the ones try to oppress my rights as a God given American.

January 28, 2009 at 11:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BigE (anonymous) says...

Good point slvr. Isn't that what the smoking restriction will accomplish, having the smokers blow their smoke out into the open air, much like a chimney? (I do think it should be referred to as a restriction, not a ban).

Next thing you know the opponents to the restriction (not a ban) will be showing up at the local eating/drinking establishments with their fireplace in tow!

And no meth, no one thinks that eliminating or reducing SHS is going to solve all of the worlds health issues, that may be the most irrational thing I have read on these forums yet...

January 28, 2009 at 11:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

slvrnblck & Big E- slvrnblck, Big E, apparantely you two and all of the ban smoking crowd believe that just because you burn wood in your fireplace or wood stove and the smoke and shs goes up the chimney that no-one else is effected. " WRONG " this particular smoke and shs will be and is dispersed much farther and affect more people than tobacco smoke and wood smoke, carries some of the same carcinogenic chemicals as tobacco smoke and wood smoke also carries with it certain particulates that are much more hazardous than tobacco smoke or shs. Wood smoke is definately not a different thing, except, maybe to your and Big Es mind-set and way of thinking, but since they both can cause health problems, why not ban both types of smoke and shs. Oh I forgot burning wood in fireplaces are not on your particular targeted ban agenda, and such a ban may also affect you and other ban smoking proponents and that would not be tollerated would it !
Beg E, you are a great one to complain about irrational statements, here is your latest irrational statement, (I do think it should be referred to as a restriction, not a ban).
I guess you didn't realize it or just don't want to realize the fact that the current smoking ordinance that is, ( was ) in place was a lawful smoking restriction, as it restricted smoking and smokers to those places that allowed smoking and those places only, hence known as an ordinance restricting smoking to certain businesses, areas within those businesses or buildings and certain public places.
This new smoking ban ordinance proposal, is exactly that an unnecessary ban on smoking and not a restriction.
Here is another irrational question for you smoking ban proponents.
When and if this ban is passed and smokers are forced to smoke outside businesses and buildings and you or anyone continues to become ill or your or anyones health fails, what are you going to propose a ban on then. The people who smoke outside as you forced them to do ? Just exactly what rediculous ban will you force upon thepeople then ?

January 28, 2009 at 12:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jmcmannis (anonymous) says...

Well the smoking ban is in the hands of the voters, stick that in your pipe and smoke it. We are one vote away from overthrowing tyranny in Emporia and telling EAD and CAE to quit telling us how to live our life or run our business.
I for one hope the ban is stalled until after the vote.

Smoking ban petition verified
By The Emporia Gazette (Contact)
Wednesday, January 28, 2009

The petition filed to put Emporia's smoking ban to a public vote has been certified.

In an e-mail at 11:23 a.m. today, Tammy Vopat, Lyon County clerk, said the petition organized by Emporia Open for Business has been verified with 793 signatures of qualified Emporia registered voters. A total of 762 valid signatures was required for the petition to be successful.

For information on the next step in the process, see Thursday's print Gazette

January 28, 2009 at 12:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

Does this mean that it will definitely be on the ballot or is there still some tricks up the sleeves of the CAE that could prevent the people from voting again?

January 28, 2009 at 1:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

frank1911 (anonymous) says...

Bottom line... it is all about government control. Whether it is smoking bans or gun bans or what have you....

Read the text below, we are NOT a democracy and this country was never meant to be!!

http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
America is a Constitutional Republic . . . NOT a Democracy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How often have you heard people refer to America as a democracy? When was the last time that you heard America referred to as a Republic? There is a very good reason that our Pledge of Allegiance refers to our country as a Republic and there is a very good reason that our Declaration of Independence and our constitution do not even mentioned the word "democracy".

Many people are under the false impression our form of government is a democracy, or representative democracy. This is of course completely untrue. The Founders were extremely knowledgeable about the issue of democracy and feared a democracy as much as a monarchy. They understood that the only entity that can take away the people's freedom is their own government, either by being too weak to protect them from external threats or by becoming too powerful and taking over every aspect of life.

They knew very well the meaning of the word "democracy", and the history of democracies; and they were deliberately doing everything in their power to prevent having a democracy.

In a Republic, the sovereignty resides with the people themselves. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives when he chooses to solve a problem. The people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government is a servant of the people, and obliged to its owner, We the People. Many politicians have lost sight of that fact.

A Constitutional Republic has some similarities to democracy in that it uses democratic processes to elect representatives and pass new laws, etc. The critical difference lies in the fact that a Constitutional Republic has a Constitution that limits the powers of the government. It also spells out how the government is structured, creating checks on its power and balancing power between the different branches.

The goal of a Constitutional Republic was to avoid the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy but what exists in America today is a far cry from the Constitutional Republic our forefathers brought forth.

January 28, 2009 at 1:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crackinsack- I stand corrected, about America being a democracy. Although it is a Constitutional Fedral Republic, you, the CAE and all proponents are still ignoring part of why the founding fathers meant America to be a Constititutional Federal Republic.
I quote the following part, "They understood that the only entity that can take away the people's freedom is their own government, either by being too weak to protect them from external threats or by becoming too powerful and taking over every aspect of life."
As you see from this particular part you the CAE have knowingly forced and used the local government to take over a certain aspect of a certain group of citizens life, maybe not every aspect of life, but an aspect of life of certain citizens none-the-less.
So Democracy or Republic, it is apparant that you the CAE and all of the CAEs followers can quote and post certain information but when it comes to respecting and honoring that information, you cannot or will not and our elected government officials have neither the strenth nor the will to stand up and protect certain citizens aspect of life from those who would use government to rob certain citizens of their aspect of life.

January 28, 2009 at 3:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

Every rule,law and ban is a restriction on something or somebody. DUH!!! Oh, maybe we could find a new synonym (different word that means THE EXACT SAME THING) for pro-ban advocates that packages them LESS prettily! How about...................communist,............Fascist, .....................Nazi,......................um ..........tyrant........... hmm.....dictator,......................? No,.....I think we've used them all already. Any new ideas out there? A newly coined synonym perhaps?

January 28, 2009 at 10:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

oh4theluvof- How about these words they are not synonyms, but nouns, Autocrat or Despot, these are similar in meaning.

January 28, 2009 at 11:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

methusla--

I disagree with you completely with that last statement you made in your last big post.

you said:

" our elected government officials have neither the strenth nor the will to stand up and protect certain citizens aspect of life from those who would use government to rob certain citizens of their aspect of life."

I believe our elected officials did stand up and protect it's citizens from those who believe it is their right to harm others with their SHS. Until recently the Government did not protect us from that and in turn robbed every citizen the right to not breathe SHS. I applaud our elected city officials who finally stood up for ALL of it's citizens. SHS harms everyone. Not just the smoker, not just the non smoker, but everyone.

January 29, 2009 at 9:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

slvrnblck
I really wish people would stop pretending that there were no restrictions on smoking before this ban. It really makes people sound ignorant. methusla has posted the ordinance the city had before this ban. So please stop saying that prior to this ban the government did nothing. That is a lie.

January 29, 2009 at 9:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

methusla:

I really like "despot." Nothing pretty sounding about that one, is there? I believe it is a synonym too. Excellent!! Thank you!

(for other readers who don't know)
des⋅pot
   /ˈdɛspət, -pɒt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [des-puht, -pot] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a king or other ruler with absolute, unlimited power; autocrat.
2. any tyrant or oppressor.
3. History/Historical. an honorary title applied to a Byzantine emperor, afterward to members of his family, and later to Byzantine vassal rulers and governors.

January 29, 2009 at 2:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

despot slvrnblk:
Until the smoker is coming into your smoke-free home or into businesses that have been deemed smoke-free demanding "clean" airspace belongs to them as well, there is no behavior that indicates that they "believe it is their right to harm others with their SHS."
The only reason that you and others keep touting that same old line is because you want access to all the businesses in town that look attractive without having to compromise a health belief. You can't fairly have it both ways. You can only have it both ways if you strip the rights away from the person who has invested all their time and money to create that business. Steve (to name just one) is a smoker. His home is smoking-allowed. His business where he spends a good portion of his life is smoking-allowed. He wishes to cater to others like himself. I know his place is attractive and the people are fun to hang out with there. There are other places that are also like that. Question: will those places be just as fun and attractive when the current frequent patrons only stick around for an hour or so (some of that hour spent out in the parking lot) and the owners are stressing behind the bar instead of kicking back to shoot the breeze with everyone because they have lost too much business to employ bartenders and are still losing money having it open? Doesn't sound like the atmosphere you all want to morph into, having it cater to you, does it? This ban will negatively change the very personalities of these businesses thereby threatening the lives of the businesses.

January 29, 2009 at 2:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

slvrnblck- You disagree with me and everyone else on here, who opposes this ridiculous, "power play " of a smoking ban.
However, I respect your right to either disagree or agree with anything on this forum, and that is your personal right guaranteed to all of us by this Nations founding fathers.
However it is my opinion and belief, that the CAE and its supporters, have absolutely ignored and trampled the founding fathers thinking, belief and opinion of " the only entity that can take away the people's freedom is their own government, either by being too weak to protect them from external threats or by becoming too powerful and taking over every aspect of life."
The CAE had either brow-beat or forced our local government to use its " GOVERNMENTAL " power to impose an unnecessarily harsh ban upon a certain segment of Emporias citizens and businesses. Especially when there was a fair and imparshial smoking restriction ordinance in place.
Therefore what the CAE and its supporters did was, is and will be doing is not right, nor is what the founding fathers of this Nation intended !
And what is appauling is this sort of thing is happening all over this Nation and causes me to believe that this Nation and the freedoms and rights of its people are in grave peril, if this sort of thing is allowed to continue to be allowed to happen freely, without any opposition what-so-ever !

January 29, 2009 at 2:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

oh4theluvof- I thought you might like either of the words I posted. As for the CAE and smoking in your home, I would not count out an effort by the CAE to also try and impose a ban on smoking in private residences. Did they not get the commission to adopt a very harsh smoking ban on the privately owned businesses in Emporia that allowed smoking !
I even forsee the possible formation of the EASP ( Empora Ant-Smoking Police), possible modeled after the SS.
The CAEs play for absolute power in Emporia is far from over.

January 29, 2009 at 3:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

True that, methusla. Have you seen Salina's current situation in the news this week?

January 29, 2009 at 3:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )