February 13, 2012

Emporia Weather

Currently Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri
26° Snow
Partly Sunny
Rain Likely
Partly Sunny
Mostly Sunny
Light Snow Fog/Mist 34°
25° 		46°
32°		 46°
31°		 47°
28°		 49°
30°

Advertisement

Advertisement

Reader Poll

What should the City of Emporia do to improve Housing in Emporia

View all polls

Events

Search events

Comments

glarson (anonymous) says...

Additional comment on the original article:

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

February 16, 2009 at 7:09 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

posted earlier by crakinsack;

"Even if the ban does get voted down, at least we’ll have had the chance to stick it to the smokers for a month. That ought to knock ‘em down a peg. Just kidding!"

February 16, 2009 at 7:29 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Heard the 1st pro-smoking ban commercial on KVOE this morning. At least with this campaign we will all know where the money is coming from and how much is spent on the local media outlets. We have our work cut out for us.
Steve

February 16, 2009 at 7:36 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crackinsack- Do you actually believe that you have been absolutely civil in all of your posts, etc., to everyone on this forum or that you have come into contact with in person or has someone on this forum or in person, made a comment that has angered or insulted you, which made you become less than civil toward that person ?

February 16, 2009 at 9:10 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

P.S. A perfect example is the last part of your last comment, where you absolutely infer that smoking customers of a business are not good customers and that you or all non-smokers are good customers. "CIVIL", I doubt it.

February 16, 2009 at 9:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

methusla
crack is too busy looking at the faults of others to see any in himself. That is how he can so easily look down on smokers and justify his alcohol problem. Some call this hypocrisy but I call it.................. well I call it hypocrisy too.

February 16, 2009 at 9:24 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

crack
Think about your liver!!!!!!!!!!!;)

February 16, 2009 at 10:05 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

driveonby (anonymous) says...

The money behind this smoking ban is from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, partner of Johnson and Johnson, distributors of Nicorette, Nicoderm, and Chantix. The company reported $64,000,000,000.00 (billions) in sales last year. They lobby in Kansas through the Kansas Health Policy Authority, and through grants to local health department employees. They also make huge yearly donations to other PRIVATE foundations in Kansas. The advertising money is through the Kansas Health Foundation grants from RWJF. This way your Health Department Employees can say that they don't have access to those funds. So Nicoderm funds are coming in from different angles. It is very hard to pin all this down. News people will NOT report all this, as the income from advertising is huge. And newspapers are not doing good right now. Senator Barnett knows how all this works, maybe he could explain it to us. Hurting small local businesses, to help a huge international drug company push it's products, seems very low to me. It's just a big advertising campaign to J&J. $450,000,000.00 per year is a drop in the advertising bucket.

February 16, 2009 at 10:21 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

"Otherwise, the terrorists (smokers) win."

Another quote from crack.

February 16, 2009 at 10:42 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Welcome back driveonby:

It's kind of sad when our side quotes facts and studies about the dubious studies on smoking and SHS the anti's
say they are not valid because they were funded by big tobacco. When Johnson&Johnson funds studies they are quiet. Come on you guys you know J&J ? The makers and sellers of nicorderm, nicorette, and chantix. Those studies couldn't be suspect now could they?
Steve

February 16, 2009 at 11:09 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Hey matt, looks like you will be picking up a customer. Beware those olive branches, they sure hurt when they are buried in your back.:)

Looks like we'll be able to keep on smoking no matter what happens with the ban, if my ex friend won't be at my place to turn me in. Oh well my loss your gain.
Steve

February 16, 2009 at 12:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

" If repeated often enough, a lie will become the new truth" ,

was a quote made by "Paul Joseph Goebbles, Minister of Propaganda, Nazi Germany.

Sounds like some of those quoting all of those disputed studies.
Steve

February 16, 2009 at 12:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

crack
Sorry about that, my copy and paste button seems to be having problems.;)

February 16, 2009 at 12:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

Crack, it is my understanding (you may want to check with the place, though) that The Noose is going to try going smoke free starting 03MAR. So why don't you go be a good customer there. Or you could go to The Blind, which has been smoke free since it opened, and will be the business most affected by the smoking ban. Well, second thoughts on the blind, they are only a beer bar, and don't really have a good selection of chick drinks...

February 16, 2009 at 12:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

Crack,

Let's say there were 60 theaters in Emporia that were non-smoking, and 6 that were smoking. Why would you go to one of the smoking theaters to see the same movie that is being played at a non-smoking theater if you don't like second-hand smoke?

Now replace the word theater with restaurant, and you'll see how dumb your analogy is.

February 16, 2009 at 2:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

I think the theater analogy is a bit backwards. The current theaters are "no talking" because the owners preferred to keep the business of the majority who preferred to hear the movie. The business owner's choice of clientele. Now, say I think there is money to be made by running a "talking allowed" theater for the teeny-boppers who think the movies are a social scene. Would any of you come to my theater and start a big stink among my existing customers because you like the atmosphere of my theater, but you don't like all the talking? Who would like to change my business atmosphere to suit their preference rather than going to the other theater where talking is already against the rules??????? I can name one who would.....

February 16, 2009 at 3:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

And, no, immunizations are not required by Kansas law. Heavily recommended, but not required.

February 16, 2009 at 3:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

And, yes, I am aware of the immunization statutes, but there are exemptions that leave big enough legal holes, that a person can legally not have their kids immunized. For the sake of argument, I stated that it isn't required, but decided I should clarify my intentions with that statement.

February 16, 2009 at 3:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

jmcmannis (anonymous) says...

My question to rbow or josies is where can one donate to your adverstising cost to vote against the ban. I emailed the mayor and comissioners and only one responded to my email.

As for cracks theater vs smoker post I can see the holes in it, I do not know of one resturant in Emporia except for Bruff's that allows smoking.

My problem with this whole smoking ban it takes away the freedom to choose that was granted by the founding fathers and sealed in the blood of the men and women who died or were wounded making this nation what it is.

Some form of smoking has been around since ancient times and cannot be proven to be the total cause of the deaths from lung cancer.
Coal dust, some toxi cleaning chemicals, asbestos, biological/chemical weapons of warfare, creosote smoke (what they put on railroad ties can all cause lung cancer.

Unfortunately smoking and the supposed SHS has been labled the cause of it

Historically one of the biggest crops of the south was tobbacco, it may still be. As long as there is a demand for tobacco products the companies will keep putting the supplies out even if the cost of a pack of cigarrette is around $4 depending on where you go.

Sorry just my little rant. However if rbow or josie will let me know where one can donate to help vote down the ban I would greatly appreciate it.

February 16, 2009 at 3:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Heres a little hypothetical soap-opera that takes place if and when a smoking ban is adopted. Between 1 and 8 ban smoking supporters decide to visit a bar that used to allow smoking ! When they enter there is a person tending bar and 2 to 3 other costumers in the place. They belly up to the bar and one of them who had been there once when it was a smoking bar and says, " Give me a beer and one for my 6 or 7 friends" and says" Hey where is that cute chick bartender and everone else". The fellow or lady tending bar and waiting on them says, " Oh, Mandy the cute chick bartender and the rest of the help, I had to let them go. That will be $120 for the six beers ! The smoking ban supporter says with a shocked look on his or her face, " $120 for 6 *%#@!+?/ beers, thats outragious ! The guy or gal behind the bar (who just happens to own the bar) says," Well since the *%#@+?/ smoking ban ordinance was adopted, I have lost all my good regular customers because they can no longer smoke and have a good time in here, I used to have 100 or 150 people in here all the time. So I have to charge $20 for a beer now, to try and just break even." By the way would you like to buy a bar ? "

February 16, 2009 at 4:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

jmcmannis--

First off, thanks for your support! If you are interested in making a donation, which would be GREATLY appreciated, btw, Steve at Town Royal is collecting them. Thank you VERY much in advance! I'm really glad to see how many people in this town are standing up against fascism and not just showing, but doing something to keep their rights as individuals! Town Royal is open 1pm-2am Monday thru Friday, 12pm-2am Sat, and 1pm-12am Sunday.

Ohh, and crack, I have two questions for you.

1. Why do we drive on a parkway and park on a driveway?

2. If smoking is bad for you, and the government knows what is best for you, why does the President smoke?

February 16, 2009 at 4:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

Methusla, that was awesome, lol.

February 16, 2009 at 4:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

romano1784 (anonymous) says...

Well hi all.
Crack, crack, crack. Anyone here who is a regular knows I have no problem speaking my mind. Here is a little bit of info since you seem to be clueless. I imagine you are an adult, though how you managed to make it without getting the crap beat out of you day in and day out astounds me. There was something we have all been told since we were kids, even you i'm sure, YOU DONT GET EVERYTHING YOU WANT. The "smoking theatre" has the bigger screen? Tough. Bruffs has the better steaks? Tought. You really are just damn greedy. "There is something there I really want, but those smokers are there. Boy, I wish I could change the rules to specifically benefit me while I pretend to have a health interest." You obviously haven't been told no a lot in your life, and its about time you learned the meaning of the word. I plan on gloating like crazy specifically to you when this ban is gone. Bye bye buy bonds!

February 16, 2009 at 4:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

jmcmannis (anonymous) says...

Thanks josies for that information.

BTW I think it is funny we are arguing over a ban on smoking when State employees wont get a paycheck on Friday because the GOP refuses to approve a loan to help the State pay its bills or tax refunds.

It is funny also CAE is trying to blackmail and take away our rights just like the GOP are.

If anyone on here is a State employee my thoughts and prayers are with you.
If you are a member of GOP or CAE you can Kiss My Grits.
You will not tread on me or my rights. Down with Tyranny

February 16, 2009 at 5:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

jmcmannis (anonymous) says...

Let me clarify my last post "It is funny also CAE is trying to blackmail and take away our rights just like the GOP are".

Blackmail is a form of scare tactic in my book. If I am wrong guess what it is ok because I am protected by the First Amendment.

February 16, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

jmcmannis (anonymous) says...

oops I forgot to add to voice my opinion to the last part of my post

February 16, 2009 at 5:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

jmcmannis;

During all this our state senator spent ALL afternoon debating a smoking ban for the state. I don't know about you, but this is not what our elected senator should be worried about right now.

How did he get re-elected?

And let me guess who was the only commissioner to reply to you was. Jeff Longbine? If the commissioners did'nt want to hear from the voters, (and at least give them some kind of response), why are their e-mails posted?

It's time to send a message:
Steve

February 16, 2009 at 8:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

jmcmannis (anonymous) says...

rbow yes it was Jeff that responded to me. he thanked for my concerns, agreed with the points I made and gave an idea how he was going to vote on Wednesday.

I have to agree it makes one scratch their head here the State employees are not going to get paid, tax refunds are suspended, while as you say our Senators was arguing over the damn state wide smoking instead of saving our State from not being able to pay their employees.

This state and city has gone backwards in a hurry.

February 16, 2009 at 8:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

I sent emails to all of the Commissioners about why they should postpone the smoking ban until after a public vote.
But have not received a response from any of them. I am afraid that the City Commissioners, at least three of them, are so deeply imbedded in the pockets of the CAE and its more affluent members, to the extent they are absolutely deaf and oblivious to the wishes and voices of the average citizen of Emporia.

February 16, 2009 at 8:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Pingeon (anonymous) says...

rbow - I voiced my concern. Don't think it will do any good though. We'll see.

Pingeon

February 16, 2009 at 8:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

jmcmannis- As I stated on another forum, Its the same old political game, as usual ! And the bad thing is this stupid game has gone on for decades and there doesn't seem to be anyone interested in playing any other game, that will benefit everyone.

February 16, 2009 at 8:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Hint , Hint city commissioners,

If you don't want to take the time to respond to your constituents e-mails , at least set up an automated response system to at least acknowledge them sending you a message.
Steve

February 16, 2009 at 9:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

I sent e-mails as well, and have received a similar response as jcmcmannis from Commissioner Longbine. I doubt that at least three of my other ones have even been opened. I guess we find out in less than 48 hrs..............................................

February 16, 2009 at 9:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

It kind of makes you wonder if the other ones even read their e-mails, if they had would they have voted for this ban.
I did recieve a reply earlier from Kevin Nelson on an earlier issue, but never from Ms. Johnson. Does she even know she has an e-mail account with the city? And mayor Aglers comes back undeliverable from Emporia Motors. What's up with that?

Steve

February 16, 2009 at 9:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

Steve, do you have Agler's other one? Matt was kind enough to direct me to the EDA website and the address for him there is an @emporia-kansas.gov address like the others.

February 16, 2009 at 9:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

oh4;
we used the link off the city of Emporia web site & kept getting that message. We called the city managers office and notified them but don't know if it's been fixed yet. If you got thru using that sight maybe it's fixed. But then you can't know for sure until you get some kind of response can you?
Steve

February 16, 2009 at 9:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Pingeon (anonymous) says...

Steve - Here's where I found the addresses:

http://www.emporia.ws/web%20page.nsf/...

February 16, 2009 at 9:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Ok, I'll try those addresses; but have any of you recieved a reply from our mayor?
Steve

February 16, 2009 at 9:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

jmcmannis (anonymous) says...

I sent one email to all of them adding their email address on the same line and alll I have heard from was commissioner longbine.
I may go back and try emailing them individually

February 16, 2009 at 9:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

jmcmannis (anonymous) says...

whoops I meant Vice Mayor longbine lol

February 16, 2009 at 10:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

I did individually--only Longbine replied, but I never received any "unable to deliver" notifications. No, no response from the mayor.

February 16, 2009 at 10:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Another great quote from ole cracky that is especially fitting today--with the states budget crunch.

'You see, the government does know what's best! They’ve been watching your back this whole time! "

I sure hope Jim Barnett worrying about a state-wide smoking ban doesn't interfere with state workers paychecks this weekend.
Steve

February 17, 2009 at 10:27 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Hey guys, Ole Jim boy has to keep up a good front for the people who probably donated to his relection campaign, such as KVOE, MODERN AIR, AGLER & GAEDDERT, EMPORIA MOTORS, the local WENDYS, the CAE, EDA, etc.. Oh, I almost forgot Johnson & Johnson.
He sure wouldn't want to lose his job or monetary donations if he angered them, now would he !

February 17, 2009 at 11:07 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

We also must not forget that selfishness, greed and corruption is what politics is all about these days and who has the resourceses to buy a politicions vote and influence !
Hence the fact that Jim Boy is debating the state wide smoking ban, while the State and its people go to He_ _ !

February 17, 2009 at 11:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

" UP THE REVOLUTION "

February 17, 2009 at 11:14 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

jmcmannis (anonymous) says...

interesting tidbit I heard back from Commissioner Kessler today and was surprised but not surprised at his answer.
He must read these forums because he was talking about how going through with the ban might be good for a trial period to try out the pros and cons of going smoke free. I damn near fell offf my chair laughing.

Shoot they need to worry more about the damn budget than a stupid smoking ban.

February 17, 2009 at 11:27 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

jmcmannis- Of course the Commissioners read these forums, they would be stupid not to.
However you have to remember that the CAE and its affluent members and supporters either are good friends with or have some sort of business tie to some, if not all of the City Commissioners.
So an answer such as you got from one of the Commissioners does not surprise me in the least.

February 17, 2009 at 11:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

I like to use the email addresses off the Clean Air Emporia website. And then I like to post on here that I used the email addresses off the Clean Air Emporia website.

Hehe, Hey, CAE! I'm using the commissioners email addresses that are on your website to try and overturn legislation that you proposed.

People like CAE hate that.

February 17, 2009 at 11:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

jmcmannis- Why should the Commissioners worry about the budget ? They can always raise taxes to get more money !
After-all, all of the people of Emporia have nothing to say about what is done in Emporia. Only a certain sector of the people in Emporia have any say as to what the City Commission does or passes that affects everyone in Emporia.
The only way all of the people have anything to say in City Government is if the people bring about a referendum and force a public vote on the matter !
And then a public vote on any matter, that the people feel is not right or fair or needed, raises the ire of the certain affluent, power hungry and those who want to rule everyones lives in Emporia, ie, the CAE, and its affluent members.

February 17, 2009 at 11:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

jmcmannis (anonymous) says...

hmm I had not thought of that meth, thanks for the tid bit

josies that is the funny post I read all day, nice way to turn it back on them lol

February 17, 2009 at 12:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

http://www.emporiansfordrugawareness....

Thanks guys! :)

Ohh, EDA, one more thing. What are you doing with all of this money? There were 2 events posted on your online calendar for the past year, and one of those was a EDA potluck dinner. I mean, where are the tens of thousands of dollars you get every year going?

February 17, 2009 at 12:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

"I think this will be a good test period to try this out before the election. If people like it or not they will have had a chance to experience the pros and cons before they go to the polls."

This is how Kessler responded to an e-mail asking him to postpone the ban until after we know how the people feel about it. To me this is one of two things, either it is condescending or ignorant. Does he seriously think that people are too stupid to figure this out without a trial period? I've posted before an easy solution to this. If you want to know what it will be like to have a smoking ban go to a place that doesn't allow smoking. It is just that simple. So either he thinks that everyone is too stupid to figure this out or he himself is.

February 17, 2009 at 1:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

jmcmannis (anonymous) says...

Seriouslyfolks I got the same message from him. However Longbine said "I plan to vote infavor of the delayed implementation date". So obviously we can tell who EDA or CAE possibly paid for the ban.

So let me see if I have this correct :If I see a smoker light up within 10 ft of a doorway or in a bar I can call the police and they will come and give them a ticket for exercising their freedom granted to them under the constitution. Than said smoker faces a fine, possible jail time? and a permanent mark on their criminal records for lighting up.

Another question what if the school or community theater puts on a play and they smoke in the play. Are the actors, and directors going to get fined as well if this stupid ban passes.
Give me a break I am not a snitch and I could give a damn where you light up the smoke dont bother me.

Maybe we should all light up at Wednesdays meeting lol

February 17, 2009 at 1:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

seriouslyfolks- If you go to two of my previous posts, February 17,2009 at 11:34 a.m and Februrary 17, 2009 at 11:48 a.m.. I believe you will find what may be a good explaination of why at least three of the Commissioners voted for a smoking ban and why, it looks like all of them may vote "NO" on postponing the smoking ban until after a vote by the public and as it says in the CAEs, Smoke Free Fundaments, tactics hand book, " Avoid a public vote by any means necessary or at all costs". " And recruit government insiders to the cause".

February 17, 2009 at 3:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Everyone should read the " FUNDAMENTALS OF SMOKEFREE WORKPLACE LAWS" tactics handbook.
This thing reads like a Dictators manifesto on how to control government and do away with certain of a persons libertys, freedoms, civil liberties and certain personal rights.
And if you think that if an indoor smoking ban, is upheld in a public vote, that will be the end of this ban or battle over rights, here is an excerpt from the aforementioned " FUNDAMENTALS OF A SMOKE FREE WORKPLACE LAWS".
Tobacco control advocates should work “from the inside out.” Prior to addressing
outdoor restrictions, communities should first have effective smokefree laws for indoor
environments. Because people are exposed to higher levels of secondhand smoke in
indoor settings than in outdoor ones, it makes sense from a public health perspective to
protect nonsmokers indoors before seeking outdoor air laws.
There is emerging science on the health hazards of outdoor exposure to secondhand smoke,
and as more scientific evidence becomes available, we may see increased support for
outdoor smoking restrictions on the basis that they are necessary to protect public health."
Now, people does this tell you anything about what is happening or going to happen in Emporia, the State or the Country. I am telling you, here and now, all of our libertys, freedoms, civil liberties and certain personal rights are in danger, even in our own homes !
The Cae and this smoking ban needs to be stopped in the upcoming public vote, if everyone doesnt want someone dictating to them how to live their lives everywhere, even in you own homes. " Shades of Europe 1939 to 1945 ".

February 17, 2009 at 3:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

So, as you can see, the CAEs plan is to eventually expand the smoking ban to outside areas also.
And those bar or restaurant owners who already have an outdoor area or are planning to spend money to build an out door area for smokers, you will eventually have to be entirely no smoking or you will have planned and spent money for nothing. As the CAE tyrants and its supporters want absolutely no-one to be able to smoke anywhere and I will predict right now that private residences will eventually be included in a tyrannical CAE and its supporters regime of power ! " SIG HEIL, SIG HEIL "

February 17, 2009 at 4:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

jmcmannis (anonymous) says...

Is tarring and feathering legal still?

I thought the commissioners and other elected officials were supposed to work for us, and not to the highest pimp errr bidder.

So I take it we vote them in in hopes they work for us but some higher tyrannical power comes along and throws money at them and they will do the pimps errr highest bidders doing.

Is there a way to overthrow the CAE and regain control of Emporia before it is totally swallowed by the cesspool of tyrannical goverment.

We should fly the flag over every bar and public place: "Dont Tread on Me" the battle cry for the first Am. Revolution.

February 17, 2009 at 4:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

The only way I can think of right now to defeat or overthrow the CAE, its affluent and influential leader and afluent and influential members and supporters is for everyone who does not want to lose any of their libertys, freedoms, civil liberties and certain personal freedoms and try and keep the CAE out of every aspec of our lives is to absolutely vote to throw out this tyrannical bid for control of our lives, smoking ban and send a message to the CAE and the CAEs, City Commissioners that we are not going to let them or anyone trample all over our lives, liberties, freedoms, civil liberties and certain personal rights.

February 17, 2009 at 5:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Also how many of you recall how many times the CAE and its supporters have stated on this forum that this is a health issue and that smokers could go ahead and smoke outside of a building ! Now, after reading the excerpt I posted from the " FUNDAMENTALS OF A SMOKE FREE WORKPLACE LAWS", still believe anything the CAE and its supporters say or promise. Such as, " if this ban is approved, that will be the end of it " ?

February 17, 2009 at 5:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

jmcmannis (anonymous) says...

No meth I do not believe it will stop there.

Can we find some nice hot tar and feathers?

February 17, 2009 at 5:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

As I understand it, all this won't matter because the free market system is crashing, and soon there will be no cigarette allowances because there will be no family budgets. I'm sure Philip Morris will team up with Jonson and Johnson to get a nice supply contract with the new government, but it won't be to make cigarettes--not for the US (Ungrateful Simpletons) of A anyway. Maybe they will be charged with putting nicotine in our federally funded soup--I hope so, cause that's the only way I'll eat it.

February 17, 2009 at 6:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

I hope they have stew, and not the beef stew they have been trying to feed us.

February 17, 2009 at 8:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Here is another little factoid to go along with all the other misinformation, out right deceit, scare tactics, smoke and mirrors the CAE and its good little puppet supporters have posted on this forum. The CAE and its supporters profess that wood smoke from fire places goes up and out the homes chimneys into the open air, hence they have no problem with that, because burning wood in fireplaces, etc. is a necessary thing ! I have posted factual information on this forum, that wood smoke carries with it almost the same exact, so called health hazards as cigarette smoke, in fact it is reported that wood smoke carries particulates in it that are actually more harmful than cigarette smoke or SHS.
According to their "gestapoesque", " " FUNDAMENTALS OF A SMOKE FREE WORKPLACE LAWS", the CAE may at some time in the future try and ban smoking even outside also, if this proposed smoking ban is approved by a public vote.
Now who in their right mind would believe that this smoking ban is absolutely a " HEALTH ISSUE "
I for one do not buy it for an instant !
I have said many times on this forum, when you start taking away a citizens, libertys, freedoms, civil liberties and certain personal rights, you are starting down a very slippery slope, from which there is almost no stopping or return to the top and that once bans have started and are forced upon the people with the help of the government, it will only get worse in the form of more and more bans on personal rights, etc., and have been degraded, chastized and called names for saying so, let alone thinking so.
Well I will say it again, if this ban is approved by a public vote, mark my words the slope will get steeper and slipperyer, unless we the other public vote to throw this ban out !
I have proven what I say, with actual facts, you can see for yourself, in recent posts, on this forum.

February 17, 2009 at 8:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

Beef? I thought it's been twenty years of pork that's gotten us into this mess? Oh, different forum, sorry.

February 17, 2009 at 9:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

read the following from state senator regarding the vote on statewide smoking ban:

MR. PRESIDENT: I vote NO. Yesterday, out of one side of the mouth, it was stated that
if I disagreed with SB 25 as it stood I was ‘‘in the pocket of big tobacco’’ and against health,
yet out of the other side of the mouth voted to exempt ‘‘our’’ business, casinos, from the
bill. I oppose this bill, not because I am in the pocket of tobacco, but because I am in the
pocket of the people. How dare we openly recognize the negative effects of this bill by
exempting our ‘‘state owned’’ business, but not consider the livelihood of our constituents
who sent us here. I am not opposed to any kind of smoking ban, just this hypocritical one
we have before us today.—TY MASTERSON

Why can't we have this guy for our senator?
Steve

February 18, 2009 at 7:02 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

A politician that has the insight, understanding of all the people in mind and the conviction to do what he believes is right, fair and imparcial for all the people and fortitude to publicly, before his peers, voice those beliefs and convictions and stick by them, is very rare in the political arena of today !
I applaud and congratulate Mr. Masterson, he is a very rare find for his constituents.
Unfortunately, we in Emporia are not so lucky, in both our local, county, state and Federal political choices of representation.

February 18, 2009 at 8:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

A little more info on the plans of the CAE, aka EDA. This little bit comes from CAEs own RESOLUTION ON SECONDHAND SMOKE form for their supporters to sign when they join the CAEs army.
"Whereas, opening a window, sitting in separate areas, or using ventilation, air conditioning, or a fan
cannot eliminate secondhand smoke exposure."
Just another glimpse at things to come from the CAE, EDA, and its army of zombie puppets.
People, keep in mind that slippery slope ! The day of being told what to eat, what you can and cannot wear, who you can associate with, etc., is just a little further down that slippery slope.

February 18, 2009 at 9:14 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Guess I will quit posting, as it seems I am talking to myself !
I guess my info and points are not interesting or relevant !

February 18, 2009 at 9:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

I'm listening meth, but working on the ad campaign to fight this and all the paperwork to go with it. It's also tax time so that stuff can't wait either. Look at it on the bright side! Maybe ole cracky ran out of things to say. :)
Steve

February 18, 2009 at 9:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Another state senator who gets it:

MR. PRESIDENT: Comments were made that indicated that those who oppose this bill
don’t care about the health of citizens, or are in the pocket of big tobacco.
I would suggest there is another reason.
Is it desirable to protect all of the state’s citizens from those vices that have a negative
impact on themselves or other citizens?
Is smoking the only individual right that some people choose to engage in even when
they know it’s to their detriment and even knowing that it might have a negative impact on
others around them? How about gambling, or drinking alcohol?
So, the question becomes, does the force of government require every individual who
enjoys a vice that is legal to then submit to having their rights subsumed within the concept
of ‘‘the state knows what is best.’’
Just as there are already many laws regarding cigarettes, there are many laws concerned
with the use of alcohol and regulating gambling. Should we continue to try and regulate
them out of existence?
The State cannot, nor should it be in the business of infringing on the rights of its citizens,
even when those rights are counterproductive to good health and well being of that same
citizen.—STEVE E. ABRAMS

Another senator who voted no to Barnett's and Wysong's smoking ban.
Steve

February 18, 2009 at 12:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

jmcmannis (anonymous) says...

I am listening as well Meth but I have school to worry bout as well. So I can get an education I think thats whats it called.

February 18, 2009 at 1:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

MisterO (anonymous) says...

methusla posted, "Guess I will quit posting, as it seems I am talking to myself! I guess my info and points are not interesting or relevant !"

Wrong. Your posts are both interesting AND relevant. Trouble is, those who support this ban have no intention of allowing facts or logic to get in the way of their propaganda campaign and their assault on the freedoms of Emporia citizens.

February 18, 2009 at 1:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

jmcmannis (anonymous) says...

Is the meeting tonight open to the public? Also where is the municipal courthouse never been there before?

February 18, 2009 at 2:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

jmcmannis- The court house is on the corner of 5th ave and Commercial street, it is the big building with the large curved glass above the main entry doors.
As to whether the meeting is open to the public or not I don't really know, nor do I know what time the meeting is to take place.
Are you sure the City Commission meeting is going to be at the court house and not the municipal building or auditorium in the commission meeting room just off of where the police dept. is, as that is where all of the City Commission meeting have been held before.

February 18, 2009 at 2:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

As there are those who feel that the info, comments and facts I have posted are of some use and somewhat informative, I will continue to make comments and post what I think maybe relevant info and facts on the true goals of the CAE.

February 18, 2009 at 2:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

To all who are interested the City Commission meeting on the postponement of the smoking ban and other business will be at 7:00 pm this evening in the municipal court room and will be televised. There will be no public comments allowed on the smoking ban postponement proposal.

February 18, 2009 at 3:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

jmcmannis;

Meeting is @7p.m. in the city court room which is the civic auditorium west side by the police dept lobby entrance. It is open to the public but I don't know if they are going to allow public comment.
Steve

February 18, 2009 at 3:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

jmcmannis- The meeting is definately going to be at 7:00 pm in the municipal courtroom, which is near the police dept. on the west side of the auditiorim down the stairs. Just follow the signs or the people to the municipal court room. The meeting will be televised by possibly WIBW, KAKE or others.
There will be no public comments allowed on the smoking ban postponement proposal. I am planning on being there.

February 18, 2009 at 3:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

jmcmannis (anonymous) says...

Thanks ya'll for the info. I plan on being there. Darn shame that the people are not allowed to speak up for their rights. God I love living in the land of the dictators lol.

February 18, 2009 at 3:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Yea, too bad history is repeating itself. Only this time in the U.S. instead of Europe, Iraq, or someplace else. I guess that some people just don't learn from History or they just learn the bad History.

February 18, 2009 at 4:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

irishemporia (anonymous) says...

Wasn't Abrams on the state Board of Education and one of the members who tried to get science standards tossed out of public education?

February 18, 2009 at 5:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

jmcmannis (anonymous) says...

The smoking ban will not take effect until Apr 8 after the Apr 7 vote. The vote was 3-2 in extending the date.

Score one for democracy

February 18, 2009 at 9:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!
Who voted which way? Anybody know?

February 18, 2009 at 9:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...

What a bunch of Nancys.

While two of the commissioners had the brass to stand up to the local business thugs who only care about lining their pockets with silver, the other three couldn't stick by a decision if it was rammed up their bums by the Devil himself. Thank God my Corps isn't run that way or we'd all be speaking German.

February 18, 2009 at 10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

A veteran against capitalism. How sad.

February 18, 2009 at 10:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...

Buddy, I am a veteran who fought hard to keep America safe. By God, I don't want some greedy son of a... let those who gave the ultimate be diminished.

February 18, 2009 at 10:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

I am a veteran also and I don't appreciate you taking my Lord's name in vain, buddy. I don't see how allowing smoking in a bar diminishes those who gave all. Please explain that, maybe I'm missing something.
rbow is a veteran and a bar owner.

February 18, 2009 at 10:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Pingeon (anonymous) says...

Who changed their mind?

February 18, 2009 at 10:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...

You may be a veteran, although I seriously doubt that, but I bet you have no idea what it's like to put your life on the line for your country. You talk about smoking like it is some kinda freedom. It ain't, buddy. It is a privilege, just like driving your Ford down the street. Freedom is the right to NOT breath the same crap that you put in your lungs. If you wanna commit suicide, do it in your own home so the rest of us don't have to smell your stink.

February 18, 2009 at 10:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

I want to personaly thank Mayor Agler for voting in favor of our rights to vote on this issue. He said from the outset he was for this ban, but he thought the"
DEMOCRATIC PROCESS SHOULD PREVAIL. "

and 1st sgt retired;
if you are truly a first sargent retired what did you serve your country for all those years? The right to call us "Nancys"?
I think there might be a few MARINES who would disagree with you! It's not only sad, it's amazing!
Steve Corbin
Not a Marine vet, But a vet.

February 18, 2009 at 10:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...

Learn to spell sargeant, you nitwit. And it's obvious you aren't a Marine vet. You haven't got the brains for it if you think a smoking ban will kill your business. It's obvious you haven't got the brain to keep a business alive.

February 18, 2009 at 10:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Pingeon (anonymous) says...

Well, that's not something I thought I would see.

I don't the state is going to get it done this year from what I'm hearing. I also saw that Salina is starting a petition to get part of their ban overturned as well.

February 18, 2009 at 10:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...

And I'd like to personally ask Agler to resign from office if all he is going to be is a waffle.

February 18, 2009 at 10:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

1sgt_retired
1st of all I am a veteran, I will meet you down at the Lyon County court house and you can take a look at my DD214 if you would like. You don't want the memory of veterans deminished but you insult me, a veteran. That doesn't seem right.
Go back and read these forums and you will learn a lot about me. You will learn that I don't drink or smoke so I can pretty much cast stones at either group but I choose not to. Why because I understand freedom. I understand that there are already reasonable laws on the books that protect people from shs in most places while still allowing most business owners to allow smoking if they feel their market is demanding it. MOST places don't allow smoking already because the owners determined that they would do better that way. That is how the FREE market works, that is the American way.
I am still baffeled by all the health nuts that want to hang out at BARS, this makes no sense to me.
You also forgot to explain how allowing smoking in a bar diminishes those who gave all.

February 18, 2009 at 10:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

sorry I was so pissed about your comments that I didn't proof read my post. And I have been in business for over 30 Years now and I think I know how to run it better than any 2nd hand "SALLY" thinks I should.
Steve Corbin
A vet who isn't afraid to post their real name on this blog.

February 18, 2009 at 10:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

1sgt_retired- I am not sure I fully understand your second post.
According to your first post,
While two of the commissioners had the brass to stand up to the local business thugs who only care about lining their pockets with silver, the other three couldn't stick by a decision if it was rammed up their bums by the Devil himself. Thank God my Corps isn't run that way or we'd all be speaking German."
In other words, you feel that the commissioners should not have postponed the smoking ban, until after a public vote, is that correct ? However, you will or did gladly fight to keep America safe. But when it comes to Americans losing their liberty, freedom, civil liberties and certain personal rights, and that means you also, you could care less about or would not fight to preserve the most precious of all of American citizens constitutional guarantees, those being, liberty, freedom, civil liberties and certain personal rights, including yours.
My friend our liberty, freedom, civil liberties and certain persnal rights are being threatened, not by some foreign enemy thousands of miles away. But our liberty, freedom, civil liberties and certain personal rights are being threatened from within America by Americans. I would hope that the oath you took to defend and preserve this Country, its Government, its citizens and the Constitution from all enemies both foreign and domestic is one that you took or take seriously as I did when I took that very same oath in 1961.

February 18, 2009 at 10:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

Oh I see only Marine veterans are worthy. Again I say how very sad. We've got past the race barrier by electing our first African American President but certain veterans feel they are better than others. How very sad. Maybe the soldier,sailor, and airman's blood wasn't red enough. How very very sad.

February 18, 2009 at 10:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...

Your right, Methusla, you don't get it. You think your right to make a buck supersedes the right of the rest of America to breath free and breath clean air. Non-smokers have the right to go anywhere the public is allowed. You probably still believe that African-Americans shouldn't be allowed at the lunch counter, too.
You need to get your head out of the smoke and join civilization.

February 18, 2009 at 10:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...

There is nothing about smoking that is a liberty, freedom or right. As I said, it is a privilege. And lets face it, a Marine vet is top of the heap. The others are just vets.

February 18, 2009 at 10:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

1sgt_retired- I am assuming that by " My Corps", you mean to infer that you are a retired Marine, am I correct ?
And if I am correct, I certainly did not know the Marine Corps. ever took part in the war agains Germanys Fortress Europe.
I always thought the European Campaign only involved Armies and Airforces of the U.S. and the Allied powers.

February 18, 2009 at 10:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Keep on posting 1st, you are making our point more than crackinsack, or are You?
Steve Corbin (at the bottom of the heap)

February 18, 2009 at 11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

1sgt_retired- Smoking, definately falls under the guaranteed right to civil liberties. You need to look up the definition of " civil liberties ". And if you as a vet do not believe in the preservation of American citizens, liberty, freedom, civil liberties and certain personal rights. Then the oath you took when you entered " Your Corps " meant and means absolutly nothing to you.
I do not own a bar, restaurant or any kind of business. But I am an American who takes the preservation of my and every Americans liberty, freedom, civil liberties and certain personal rights very seriously, such as the right to vote, by way of a public vote on any matter that is going to threaten those liberties, freedoms, civil liberties and certain personal rights and will do so with all my ardor.

February 18, 2009 at 11:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Hey posters, I think this is another bait&switch poster like before. I know a couple of hundred real jar- heads and not one of them would post sh-t like this so called Marine

February 18, 2009 at 11:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

I would also like to commend the Commissioners who voted to postpone the smoking ban until after the public vote. I believe that you as our elected officials are finally beginning to represent all of Emporia citizens and listen and consider all of the citizens voices and not just those who are affluent and have influence. Again I commend you on doing what is right, fair and imparcial. JOB WELL DONE !
And I would also like to extend a JOB WELL DONE to all who emailed the commissioners. I seriously thought that the commissioners had already made up their minds to vote against a postponement of the smoking ban, what a wonderful surprise. However the battle is not won, yet. Again I applaud all who may have had some influence with the commissioners.

February 18, 2009 at 11:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

P.S. I have waited to see something like this for over 40 years and just thrilled beyond words.

February 18, 2009 at 11:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

rbow- I will have to agree with you about 1sgt_retired ever being a Marine. I to have had many friends and buddies who were in the Corps and some of them have had sons and have grandsons in the Corps and they certainly have a different take on liberties, rights, etc.

February 18, 2009 at 11:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

anyway back to the vote:

Mayor Agler joined Longbine and Nelson to postpone the effective date of the smoking ban until April 8, 2009. The democratic process IS alive and well. What better way to decide this issue than a vote OF THE PEOPLE? I commend the mayor for taking this stand, even though I think in his heart he thinks the ban is best for Emporia citizens. I am not sure, but his reasoning tonight sounded a lot like my Marine friends. I am still awaiting 1st's real name.
Steve

February 18, 2009 at 11:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

I have more tidbits from the CAEs " FUNDAMENTALS OF SMOKE FREE WORKPLACE LAWS " handbook that is the Bible of the CAE and all clean air advocates. Some of the passages can show just how deceiving, double talking and misleading their tactics can be and are.
Just let me know if any of you are interested in seeing them, and I will try and post them here.
Boy, the vote by the City commissioners has renewed and revitilized my will to fight this CAE injustice.
We still have about 6 weeks of battle left.

February 18, 2009 at 11:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

pingeon;
I am not really up on computors like yourself, but isn't there some way the Gazette can keep people form posting under 3 or 4 names like 1sgt (AKA crack) just did?
Steve

February 18, 2009 at 11:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

1sgt_retired
"God, Country, Corps"
This is a Marine saying, is it not?
It seems to me that God is at the top of this list yet you blaspheme His name. Here are your words "By God, I don't want some greedy son of a..."

Here are some of God's words
Jeremiah 9
23 Thus says the LORD:
“ Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom,
Let not the mighty man glory in his might,
Nor let the rich man glory in his riches;
24 But let him who glories glory in this,
That he understands and knows Me,
That I am the LORD, exercising lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness in the earth.
For in these I delight,” says the LORD.

It astounds me that Marines say that God is at the top of their list yet they have so much pride and boasting in number three on their list. Here are some more of your words "And lets face it, a Marine vet is top of the heap. The others are just vets."

Judging by the Marine list of priorities I'd say you're not doing so well.

Posted by
A soldier in His service

February 18, 2009 at 11:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Go for the spelling errors 1st, Im just pi--ed off!
Steve

February 18, 2009 at 11:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

rbow-jmcmannis- I am sorry I was not able to make it to the meeting tonight, but I was there with you in spirit, and jmcmannis, it was a pleasure talking to you on the phone today !

February 18, 2009 at 11:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Meth,
When they first put this on the agenda they said no comments would be allowed and I almost did not show, but with various things going on no one on our committee could make it so I went. When the Mayor said they would entertain comments I was shocked and as there was no-one else there from our side I got up and stumbled through a short plea. Jc was there and made a good argument for holding off. We are really happy , but there is a lot of work to do before the election to counter the bogus health issues brought by CAE. But in the end at least it will be the voters who decide. Imagine Emporia Kansas the first city in Kansas not to give up their rights.
Steve

February 18, 2009 at 11:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

rbow- Again I appologize for not being there to help support you with comments of my own. The following by T. Walters is very laughable, " Teresa Walters, a representative of Clean Air Emporia, said she was disappointed by the vote.
“I was hopeful that they would realize that going ahead with the previously-determined enactment date would provide those citizens who had expressed an interest in having an ordinance an opportunity to experience it,” Walters said. “... I’ve had many people tell me they were looking forward to March 3 and the opportunity to go out and socialize without being exposed to that. ... “
I didn't know there wasn't anyplace in Emporia that the non-smoking, smoke and SHS, CAE, people could go that was didn't allow smoking now, so they could socialize and have a smoke free experience ! Wow, I am not so sure I live in the same Emporia, Kansas as these idiots!
Looks like the CAEs, handbook rule, " Avoid ballot measures " just took a hit !

February 19, 2009 at 12:14 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

I would ask the posters on here not to respond to mr. bait and switch crack, (AKA 1st sgt.) Just another anti who won't post their real name trying to goad us on. We have too much good to talk about on here.
Steve

February 19, 2009 at 12:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

jmcmannis (anonymous) says...

Meth I enjoyed talking to you on the phone as well maybe one day we can meet.

rbow thank you for the hospitality following the victory, I passed your message on to Greg at Club O and he will pass it up the food chain.

I was shocked that the mayor opened it up for public discussion as well, I said my peice and sat down.
have to admit rbow i was surprised that we did not get a rebuttal from T. Walters. and company.

The battle is only half over we still got a long way to go to preserve our civil liberties.

February 19, 2009 at 2:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

rbow-I agree completely with your assesment of 1sgt_retired and will no try very hard not to respond.
I will however post any info and facts about SHS, smoking etc
I was planning on attending the meeting, but had a personal family problem arise sometime after I had talked to jmcmannis on the phone that afternoon and was not able to make the meeting. I to was surprised to hear that public comments were allowed, as I had called the City offices and was told that there would be no comments allowed..

February 19, 2009 at 7:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

For those who are interested, here is a little more insight into the CAE strategy, taken directly from their hand book.

" Remember: your goal is not to pass a law,
but to effectively protect the public from the health effects of secondhand smoke and to change social norms.
Don’t be afraid to walk away with nothing rather than accepting something that is bad for public health and detrimental to future efforts."
As you can see their goal is not for them to pass a law, but to pressure the local or state elected officials into passing a law. Which is what they tried here in Emporia and to change accepted social behavior to their standards, beliefs and way of living. I believe that the last three words of last sentence in the above quote from the CAE handbook has ominous overtones for all of us, " detrimental to future efforts." , I believe that these three words mean that future bans can be expected.

February 19, 2009 at 8:19 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Here is another tidbit.
"If you are considering the pursuit of a law at the state level, the same rules within this
document apply."
Sounds to me like they are trying to pass laws, or at least force laws to be passed. Do these people intend to lie, decieve, etc. to get their agenda enacted by any means possible. I will let you, the people make up your own minds.
All I ask is that you remember these statements I have posted come directly from the " FUNDAMENTALS OF SMOKE FREE WORKPLACE LAWS" and please notice the last word in the title of the handbook.

February 19, 2009 at 8:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

If the real and factual information that I have, am or will post is boring or not relevant to our current and serious struggle to preserve our liberty, freedom, civil liberties and certain personal rights, TOO BAD ! I will continue to post any information or facts I believe are relevant.

February 19, 2009 at 8:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

jmcmannis (anonymous) says...

please do keep posting meth.

I hope all is well with your personal issue.

I was shocked when the mayor opened the floor to public comments and I knew I had a golden opportunity. Granted I could not say what I really wanted to say but I got my shot across the bow.

I basically asked with the financial crisis we are in is this the best time to implement the ban. In other words most people have not had the money to buys signs, rehab their biz. Not to mention the countless man/woman hours the police are going to put in policing the smokers.

One question for rbow the city manger mentioned educating the masses and for the first month a warning and education,
Who the hell are they going to educate? Who is going to do the education?

I can see it now Officer Joe respond to a smoker smoking call and he says I am sorry sir/ma'am but you have to put out your ciggarette/cigar. Here is a warning citation and here is a phamplet detailing the harm of smoking and SHS.

U gotta be kidding me right. This town is going to be the laughingstock of KS if this passed. Having the police, fire and god knows who else responding to a smoker violating the law call.

February 19, 2009 at 9:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

jmcmannis- Everything is fine now. It was just something that could not wait or be put off and needed immediate attention.
Thank you for your concern.
I have posted info from the CAE handbook, in ealier posts on this and other forums, that if and when a smoking ban is adopted, there will be an attempt to expand upon the existing smoking ban to include banning smoking virtually everywhere !
So this proposed smoking ban, that is being challenged by the people by way of a public vote, is in fact, just the tip of the iceburg as far as this ban and other bans in the future.

February 19, 2009 at 1:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Pingeon (anonymous) says...

Posted by rbow (anonymous) on February 18, 2009 at 11:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

pingeon;
I am not really up on computors like yourself, but isn't there some way the Gazette can keep people form posting under 3 or 4 names like 1sgt (AKA crack) just did?
Steve
****************************************************************************************************
Steve - Sorry for the delayed response. Was at work all day. There are certain things the Gazette can do for this, such as only allowing 1 log in id to 1 e-mail address (which they may do already, never tried myself). However with hotmail, gmail and any other type of free internet e-mail address, that's pretty pointless anymore. There are a few other things they can do as well, but it comes down to a cost/benefit scenario. Is it really worth it? Probably not.

The other side of it is they probably do not control the website 100%. I don't know for sure, but I doubt they have a full IT department. They probably farm out most of their website to an outside party and just upload their news stories and advertisements. I have no idea on that one though. I only know a couple people that work at the Gazette and they would not be involved with website operation, so couldn't ask them.

February 19, 2009 at 6:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Pingeon;
Thanks for the info.
Steve

February 20, 2009 at 8:09 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Pingeon (anonymous) says...

Boy Steve - that boycott that 'ole Crack had on you didn't last long....

February 20, 2009 at 7:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Hey great Idea Gwen, combine the smoking blogs together.
A lot less wear and tear on the ole keyboard.
Steve

February 22, 2009 at 7:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

MisterO (anonymous) says...

crackinsack posted, "You DON'T know everything, so please stop assuming you do and quit posting your lies."

You should learn to take your own advice, crackinsack.

February 22, 2009 at 8:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

I still can't figure it out.

With the state of the economy right now, and the way local, state and the federal government have run things, Why would anyone want to give up the right to make their own decisions? Are those people in the government doing such a great job?
Steve

February 22, 2009 at 8:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

Well, I just talked to the County Clerk and confirmed my understanding of Kansas ballots. She said that in the State of Kansas, there is no way to purge a pool of candidates and force a re-filing. The write in vote of "none of the above" is not a recognized vote--you can do it, but it is counted as a non-vote. Any name written in has to gain a certain percentage of the total vote to become a viable candidate. So, unless we can find and support new filers/seat opposition, we will be left with whoever filed holding the position for which they filed. It seems that maybe we need to be lobbying around town, asking people to consider arranging their lives in a manner that they could file and run at the next opportunity, assuring them of adequate financial and man-hour resources for their campaign. This seems to be the only way we have available in the State of Kansas to "change the dirty pool water." I guess we might also look into asking the State to change the voting ballots to include an option for the citizens to contest unopposed candidates. Not a great start to my day............

February 23, 2009 at 9:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

Letter to the editor sent---let's see if they do anything with it....

February 23, 2009 at 10:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

oh4theluvof;

Yep, that is why I am voting for Kevin Nelson and Mike Mercer only on my ballot. Oh I am also checking the NO box.
Steve

February 23, 2009 at 12:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Finally an idea to get rid of the T. Walter's EDA group.

On the stories forum, under city talks to legislatures:

The Govenor proposes changing the liquor tax disperments, from state =10%, city=90% to the opposite.
While not good for the city, we would lose more than $270,000,00. It may mean the end of EDA being funded by the city, and school district. No more tax dollars paid by drinkers to have the EDA fund smoking ban campaigns.
Steve

February 23, 2009 at 3:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

crack
"selfish, arrogant attitude" Funny how this describes you to a T. From what I know about you on these forums anyway.

February 23, 2009 at 6:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

jmcmannis (anonymous) says...

Taking the money away T. Walter's EDA group is a good way to kill it, I am not sure they could find someone dumb enough to back them especially when the ban goes down in a blaze on Apr. 7.

February 23, 2009 at 9:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

I would like to know how anyone absolutely knows that they have been or are being harmed by exposure to ETS ( Environmental Tobacco Smoke or SHS ) and that said harm is caused by exposure to ETS or SHS and souly or exclusively by exposure to ETS or SHS. Especially since the Surgeon General has not and cannot definately state that any serious illnesses or diseases are or have been caused souly and exclusivly by exposure to ETS or SHS and even admitts in his report that some or most testing can be or may be wrong due to confounding errors. I have posted numerous statements of conclusions reached by the Surgeon General, straight from the 2006 report " THE HEALTH CONSEQUENCES OF INVOLUNTARY EXPOSURE TO TOBACCO SMOKE ". I believe just about everyone accepts the Surgeon General and his reports as the recognized authority and last word on health matters in the U.S. !

February 23, 2009 at 9:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Isn't it amazing thatour state senate passed a "comprohensive" state-wide smoking ban and sent it to the house with just a couple of small amendments.
Let's see, the one where STATE-OWNED CASINOS were exempt.
If our law makers are sooooo concerned about our health, why would they exempt a state owned business?
Could it be, LOSS OF REVENUE?
Steve Corbin

February 24, 2009 at 9:05 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Calm down everyone. This is a rights issue, and anyone who has ever visited a National Cemetary such as the Punch Bowl or Arlington in Washington D.C. and seen the thousands of gravestones lined up forever and ever will appreciate the fact that those vets gave their all to protect our rights. That includes cracks right to their opinion. I just think that if they had ever seen such a scene in person, their take on this ban could be different.
Steve

February 24, 2009 at 10:36 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

I have a question for the CAE, CAI, CLEAN AIR COALITION, and any of their followers, supporters, etc.
Why are all of the above listed organizations connected to or receiving info and possibly assistance from " THE PRAXIS PROJECT" and do any of you know exactly what " THE PRAXIS PROJECT " is and what the meaning of the word " PRAXIS " is ?

February 24, 2009 at 1:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Hey everbody, take a look at the following info,
[ANR] AMERICANS FOR NONSMOKERS RIGHTS
Defending your right to breathe smokefree air since 1976
GETTING STARTED
Ordinance Development Planning Form
August 2004
For advice on how to assess and diversify your coalition, please refer to The Praxis Project’s
document “Building Diverse Community Based Coalitions,” available on their website at
http://www.thepraxisproject.org/tools... or call 202-234-5921 for a copy.
It seems to me, from the heading on this particular form, that non-smokers who support any kind of smoking ban believe that a smoking ban is their "RIGHT" and not just a health issue and you ban smoking supporters have the audacity to try and tell everyone that this smoking ban is not a " Rights " issue !

February 24, 2009 at 1:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

More CAE and smoking ban supporter info,
[ANR] AMERICANS FOR NON SMOKERS' RIGHTS
Defending your right to breathe smokefree air since 1976
MODEL ORDINANCE ELIMINATING SMOKING
IN ALL WORKPLACES AND PUBLIC PLACES
(100% SMOKEFREE)
Revised April 2008
This Model Ordinance is almost identical, word for word like the one the CAE proposed for the City Commission to approve for Emporia.
As you can see by the document heading, this is definately a " RIGHTS " issue, not a health issue.
Also the first paragraph of this documents cites certain statements from the 2006 Surgeon Generals report. However the statements used in this first paragraph are entirely taken out of context to benefit the smoking ban cause.
The framers of this Model Ordinance were not straight forward enough or honest enough to include the statements that could possibly damage their cause and agenda.

February 24, 2009 at 1:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

jmcmannis (anonymous) says...

actually crack your wrong that getting rid of SHS is free.
It will cost the city and the taxpayers in the long run when the local bars no longer have clientell to help pay the bills.
Than the liquor stores will have to raise prices to offset the cost of the business lost.

This is just a hypothesis of mine but getting rid of SHS is not free.

February 24, 2009 at 5:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...

Meth: Do you suppose we should not worry about HIV because people don't die from HIV?

February 24, 2009 at 8:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...

Hey Meth: If I get hit by a car and die, will the cause of death says that I died as the result of an auto accident or will it says the cause of death was standing in the middle of the highway?

February 24, 2009 at 8:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...

Hey Meth: If I understand your logic (and I will admit that I don't) then I don't have to worry about SHS because no one dies from SHS, or I don't have to worry about getting HIV because no one dies from HIV, or that I don't have to worry about standing the middle of the highway because no one dies from standing in the middle of the highway.

February 24, 2009 at 8:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

I wish you ban smoking people would make up your minds. Is this smoking ban a " HEALTH ISSUE" or is it a " RIGHTS" issue or is it a " HEALTH ISSUE and a "RIGHTS" issue or is it an " HIV" issue. I know its a " RIGHTS " issue and it is also an attempt to " ABOLISH CERTAIN CITIZENS RIGHTS ENTIRELY " and not a health issue. You smoking ban people change you attitude as well as thinking whenever anyone calls you on anything with facts and now that the facts have been thrown in your face that this is definately a " RIGHTS " issue you change your statements and say that it is both a rights and health issue. I am beginning to think that 1sgt_retired is posting his bizarre comments from another planet.
You smoking ban advocates need to come up with some sort of valid facts showing and proving, without a doubt that smoking and SHS are totally and souly responsible for harming you or anyone else. I don't believe you can.
I have already posted numerous facts showing that smoking and SHS exposure, has not been proven to be souly responsible for any harm to anyone. Whether you believe or don't believe the facts as posted, is your right to choose.

February 24, 2009 at 8:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Read the following,
The scientific data available does not support EPA's classification of ETS as a "Group A" carcinogen. Of the more than 30 epidemiologic studies conducted attempting to link second hand smoke and lung cancer among nonsmokers, the overwhelming majority reports no statistically significant association. The studies focusing on ETS exposure in the workplace also generally have not reported a statistically significant increased risk. The classification of ETS as a Group A carcinogen required substantial stretching by EPA. To reach that conclusion, the EPA report combined eleven spousal smoking studies from the United States in a so-called "meta-analysis." Of the eleven studies, however, ten reported no statistically significant increase in cancer among nonsmokers purportedly exposed to ETS. To ensure that the meta-analysis would produce the desired results, EPA had no choice but to manipulate the numbers.

EPA and the scientific community use a 95% confidence interval as a means of ensuring that study results did not occur by chance, EPA adjusted the confidence interval downward to 90% in its report on ETS. James Enstrom, an epidemiology professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, explained, "That 90% doubles the chance of being wrong." To put it in lay terms, EPA's statistical maneuvering is the equivalent of moving the goal lines at a football game in order to score more touchdowns.

Coronary heart diseases and second hand smoke

Various risk factors that contribute to the development of heart diseases:

Age
Gender
Hypertension
Atherosclerosis
Blood clotting tendency
Hormones
Personality and emotional Stress
Diabetes/ carbohydrate intolerance
Diet: salt
Total calories
Fat
Vitamin intake
Hyperlipidemia
Physical activity
Heredity
Social pressures
Obesity
Smoking

I will let you draw your own conclusions as to whether smoking or shs exposure are the absolute, soul cause of harm to any non-smoker.
If you desire more info or facts, just let me know.

February 24, 2009 at 9:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...

The point, Mr. Meth, is that no one dies from HIV, or SHS, or standing in the middle of the highway. However, each of those can (but not always) lead to death. HIV can lead to AIDS, and that CAN kill you. Standing in the middle of the highway can lead to getting hit by a car, and that CAN kill you. And, as the Surgeon General noted in the Fact Sheet of the study you cited, and as the American Medical Association, The World Health Organization, the American Lung Association among many reputable agencies has noted, Second Hand Smoke can lead to heart attacks, lung cancer, respiratory failure and and whole hosts of ailments, most of which CAN kill you.

So which is more important Health or Rights? Personally, I recognize the "rights" issue. Afterall, if I owned a business, I would not really want someone telling me what my customers can and can't do (even though it is already done). But, I think the higher priority issue is the health issue. It seems to me that more people die from second hand smoke inhaled in a bar than people who die from not being allowed to smoke in a bar.

So another side of that is that non-smokers don't have to go into a smoker's bar. Yes, that is true. From a health perspective, if a non-smoker does not want exposure to second-hand smoke, then avoid the situation. But, from the rights point of view, what about the non-smoker's right to walk into any place where the public is welcome without undue fear potentially damaging one's health (I know, I know, you can't walk down the street without fear of damaging one's health, but shouldn't you be able to walk into a restaurant or bar and feel a little safer?). If I walk into a business, and the owner calls out, "Hey "N-Word," I have much of the same options as the non-smoker. In the future, I can avoid that business and avoid the N-Word, or I can assert my right as an American Citizen to be in that business and not be verbally assaulted, or, I can study the intent of the owner and determine if he, indeed, intended to harm me or was simply addressing me in a very familiar way (as many African-Americans refered to each other as "N-Word" without intending it to be offensive). But hate speech is regulated, you might say. However, intent plays a part in that regulation. If I, as the target of the N-Word, is not offended and the bar owner did not intend it to be offensive, then where is the foul?...(More to come)

February 24, 2009 at 9:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...

....
Then you might say that smoking is a legal activity. Yes, it is legal, BUT regulated, as someone earlier in these forums noted (my apologies, but I do not recall who). And many see a smoking ban as further defining the regulation of an already controlled substance (as opposed to narcotic), and not an attempt to take outlaw smoking. Afterall a ban of smoking in public means IN PUBLIC and does not infringe on the private home or car.

But bars are privately owned and are private property, you say. Good point, except that how private can a bar be that allows most anyone to walk right in?

Now, if you made it this far (and I would not blame you if you have not), I'd like to hear what you are thinking...

February 24, 2009 at 9:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...

And regarding Civil Liberties...those are the freedoms (freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to due process, privacy rights, etc), that protect the individual from the government. They are very important rights, and that's why no one is trying to stop smokers from smoking in the privacy of their homes. However, and this is the sticky point, and to reiterate what I posted earlier, how private is a business that invites most of the public to come in -- even if it is privately owned?

Thoughts?

February 24, 2009 at 9:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

My thoughts,

Violation of Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

a) Equal protection clause

Laws banning smoking expressly and unequivocally provides unequal and adverse treatment under the law of smokers, as compared to nonsmokers, which significantly impinge the former’s exercise of their fundamental First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of association and freedom to travel.

b) Privileges or Immunities clause

Bans on smoking improperly abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States in violation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States.

The Fourteenth Amendment privileges sought to protect the customary rights to enter into contracts and to acquire and maintain property free of government interference. Thus, bans on smoking abridge the rights of citizens to enter into contracts with owners of private property which is open to the public who of their own volition wish to permit smoking. Such contracts have been made - either explicitly or implicitly - and have long been in effect; and, except for the intrusions of the state and municipal laws, would have remained in effect to the benefit of all willing parties to the contract. Ban’s on smoking improperly impinge on the rights of citizens to enter into contracts, to freely assemble and freely associate, and abridge their rights and the rights of others to travel in violation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

February 24, 2009 at 9:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...

Did I mention that I never claimed to be a Constitutional scholar? This will take some thought...

February 24, 2009 at 9:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...

Mr. Meth: Am I right in concluding that your post comes from NYC C.L.A.S.H. v. City of New York and State of New York (July 2003)? If so, do you know how the court ruled and the disposition of the case?

February 24, 2009 at 9:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...

requiring flu shots is a great idea. However, isn't it true that the flu shot only covers a few strains of the flu and that no shot will cover all types?

For that matter, does Kansas already require some immunizations, for example, should someone want to attend a public school?

And, mrwho, are you suggesting that we mark any non-compliant immunization dodgers? Perhaps you are suggesting they could wear a star on their clothing?

February 24, 2009 at 10:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

"Did I mention that I never claimed to be a Constitutional scholar?"

This is a very scary statement. Do you all have any idea how many of our citizens this describes? And yet, this is supposed to be a Constitutional Republic: a government of the people, by the people and for the people. What's so scary is how many people (often including judges) don't understand the parameters set forth to protect them and all other citizens equally.
If smoking--first or second hand--was unreasonably dangerous, it would be outlawed the way cocaine is. First hand smoking verifiably kills the smoker. Second hand smoke cannot be verified as a killer. Making laws based on a lack of data does not look out for our fellow citizen, the businessman. Therefore, this is where the health issue ends and the rights issue begins.

February 24, 2009 at 10:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Pingeon (anonymous) says...

This talk of requiring flu shots and all other immunizations before school is just the type of slippery slope that the ban opponents are talking about. You will not get me in to get a flu shot. The one time I did, I was sick the next day. Haven't had one since and have only had the flu a couple times in the past I don't know how many years. The point is, I'll take my chances. As for the school immunizations, you are not required to have those either before school. There are ways out of it that are easier than you would think.

Anyway, the point to this getting off topic is that while the shots may be a good idea to some, the government should not mandate them. It should be up to you to make an informed decision on your own.

I've asked the question a few times and no one seems to respond. Why does EVERY bar have to be non-smoking? If someone wants to drink a beer with a few buddies and have a smoke while they do it, why must it be at home? There could be both non-smoking bars (like The Blind and The Noose for instance) and smoking bars (like Town Royal and Josie's for instance). You want to go to a bar and have a smoke, you have a choice. You want to go to a bar and not be around smoke, you have a choice there too.

February 24, 2009 at 10:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

History follows a time line--a straight line. One event leads to another which leads to another and so on and so forth. History does not follow a circle. When thinking of laws, bans, policies, etc., we need to make sure we are thinking in straight lines and not in circles. It is my observation that the smoking ban logic runs in a circle, which 1sgt kindly outlined for us in his 9:18 and 9:19 posts. This is not to pick on 1sgt, but he put it all in a small round nutshell for us to easily follow around and around. This is the same argument that others have been using and why we can't seem to get anywhere in the argument. Just when ban opposition gets to what should be the end of the argument, we get swept back up into an ongoing circle that wants to make a law for someone else to end the cycle rather than using a personal choice to accomplish this.

February 24, 2009 at 10:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

The statement or claim has been made by nearly every smoking ban supporter on this forum, that they are not trying to take away smokers right to smoke ! Well, I say that this is an out right lie in the largest sense of the word lie.
The following statement comes from the CAEs own hand book
titled, FUNDAMENTALS OF SMOKEFREE WORKPLACE LAWS.
"Tobacco control advocates should work “from the inside out.” Prior to addressing outdoor restrictions, communities should first have effective smokefree laws for indoor environments. Because people are exposed to higher levels of secondhand smoke in indoor settings than in outdoor ones, it makes sense from a public health perspective to protect nonsmokers indoors before seeking outdoor air laws.
As you can see, just the mention of " seeking outdoor air laws", means that banning smoking outdoors is the next smoking ban ordinance and then a smoking ban everywhere, even in your own home will be the next smoking ban proposed by the CAE, if the recently proposed smoking ban is approved by a public vote and as you can see the loss of indivicual, personal rights, etc. will just go on and on.

February 24, 2009 at 11:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

I also grow tired of arguing with close-minded people who will not believe facts, even when those facts come from a publication used as a guide by the very organization (CAE) that they are supporting.
I will continue to post what I believe is solid and factual information to try and inform those who wish to be informed.
Those who have open minds and are capable of intelligent thought process may form their own opinions from the information I post and those who are close-minded, well they don't have to read the information at all.

February 24, 2009 at 11:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...

I am going to bed, but before I go, I want you to know that I am not a member of CAE, I don't want to be a member of CAE, I don't care about their tatics. I simply believe that ban is necessary for health reasons, not for "rights" as defined by a few posters on these board.

I will promise to do my best to keep an open mind. Please, someone convince me that my opinion on the issue is flawed.

February 25, 2009 at 12:10 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...

One last thing, Mr. Meth. I am anxiously awaiting your reply to the court case I cited above. Thanks.

February 25, 2009 at 12:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

In fact here is a little bit of information about burning wood in fireplaces, heating stoves, etc.
16. (a)The EPA estimates that the lifetime cancer risk from wood stove smoke is twelve
times greater than that from an equal volume of second hand tobacco smoke. (The Health
Effects of Wood Smoke, Washington State Department of Ecology); (b)"Burning two
cords of wood produces the same amount of mutagenic particles as: Driving 13 gasoline
powered cars 10,000 miles each at 20 miles/gallon or driving 2 diesel powered cars 10,000
miles each @ 30 miles/gallon.
One wood fire can cost as much as $40. of medical damage to neighbors.
But of course the ban smoking advocates say that they are not concerned about burning wood in fire places, because burning wood is a necessary thing and poses no health risk to anyone ! If they are so concerned about their and everyone elses health, then they should be including anything that is a proven health risk in their proposed smoking ban !

February 25, 2009 at 12:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

I also have valid factual information on the health hazards of vehicle exhaust emissions that I will post at a later date.

February 25, 2009 at 12:14 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

I am sorry, but I cannot find any information on the ruling of the NYC court case. However, how about the cancer risk of exposure to wood smoke being greater than cigarette smoke or exposure to cigarette SHS !

February 25, 2009 at 12:21 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

P.S. that was my last comment to you 1sgt_retired, as I feel that no matter what facts that blow holes in any smoking ban supporters supposed statements of fact, etc. you or any smoking ban supporter will still be closed minded to any truths or valid facts that show your arguments to be invalid ones.

February 25, 2009 at 12:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

I would like the CAE, its members and supporters to read the following valid facts and then decide which is the more serious health hazard, wood smoke from fireplaces, wood heating stoves, etc. or cigarette smoke and SHS !

Chemicals Found in Both
Wood Smoke and Tobacco Smoke

!Indicates a hazardous chemical for which ATSDR has prepared a toxicological profile
OIndicates a chemical classified as a carcinogen by the US government
"Indicates a chemical that is one of the Top 20 CERCLA priority hazardous substances
1-275 Indicates position on the CERCLA priority hazardous substances list
198! carbon monoxide
245!O formaldehyde
72! acrolein
! acetaldehyde
6!O" benzene
68!O toluene
acetic acid
formic acid
! nitrogen oxides (NO, NO2)
77! naphthalene
substituted naphthalenes
162! phenol
! catechol
270! fluorene
219! phenanthrene
! anthracene
106! fluoranthene
249! pyrene
34!O benzo(a)anthracene
117! chrysene
10 60 70!O" benzofluoranthenes
8!O" benzo(a)pyrene
180!O indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
O dibenzo(a,h)pyrene
16!O" dibenz(a,h)anthracene
!O chromium
53!O nickel
2!O" lead

After reading and studying the list can any of the smoking ban proponants make the claim that they are not just targeting individuals that smoke or businesses that allow smoking ? If you can still make that claim, then bigotry, tyranny and tyrants are alive and well in Emporia.

February 25, 2009 at 11:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

The following is the chemical composition of just wood smoke.

Wood Smoke
Chemical Composition
!Indicates a chemical present in both wood smoke and tobacco smoke
!Indicates a hazardous chemical for which ATSDR has prepared a toxicological profile
OIndicates a chemical classified as a carcinogen by the US government
"Indicates a chemical that is one of the Top 20 CERCLA priority hazardous substances
1-275 Indicates position on the CERCLA priority hazardous substances list

ALL CHEMICALS LISTED BELOW ARE REPORTED PRESENT IN WOOD SMOKE

!!198carbon monoxide, 66methane, volatile organic compounds
(C2-C7), aldehydes: !!O245formaldehyde, !!72acrolein,
propionaldehyde, butyraldehyde, !acetaldehyde, furfural;
substituted furans, !!O"6benzene, alkyl benzenes: !!O68toluene,
!acetic acid, !formic acid; !!nitrogen oxides (NO, NO2),
!sulfur dioxide, !methyl chloride, !!77naphthalene, !substituted
naphthalenes, oxygenated monoaromatics: guaiacol (and
derivatives), !!162phenol (and derivatives), syringol (and
derivatives), !catechol (and derivatives); particulate organic carbon,
oxygenated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons,
!"9polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: !!270fluorene,
!!219phenanthrene, !!anthracene, methylanthracenes,
!!106fluoranthene, !!249pyrene, !!O34benzo(a)anthracene,
!!117chrysene, !!O"10 60 70benzofluoranthenes, !benzo(e)pyrene,
!!O"8benzo(a)pyrene, !perylene, !!O180indeno(1,2,3-cd)
pyrene, !benzo(ghi)perylene, coronene, !Odibenzo(a,h)pyrene,
retene, !!O"16dibenz(a,h)anthracene; trace elements: Sodium,
Magnesium, !186Aluminum, Silicon, Sulfur, 96Chlorine, Potassium,
Calcium, Titanium, !197Vanadium, !!OChromium,
!138Manganese, Iron, !!O53Nickel, !Copper, !73Zinc, Bromine,
!!O"2Lead; particulate elemental carbon, normal alkanes
(C24-C30), cyclic di-and triterpenoids, dehydroabietic acid,
isopimaric acid, lupenone, friedelin, !Ochlorinated dioxins

Sources:
Larson TV and Koenig JQ. 1994. Wood Smoke: Emissions and Noncancer Respiratory Effects.
Table 1, Chemical composition of wood smoke. Annual Review of Public Health, v.15, p.136-137.

US Surgeon General. 1989. Reducing the Health Consequences of Smoking. Tables 5-8, p.81-89.

US Department of Health and Human Services. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR). Toxicological Profiles.

US Department of Health and Human Services. National Toxicology Program.
Report on Carcinogens. Tenth. 2002.

US Department of Health and Human Services. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR). Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
List of Priority Hazardous Substances, 2001

February 25, 2009 at 12:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Does anyone still believe that tobacco smoke is the only smoke that the public is exposed to that carries a risk harming the publics health ?
And does anyone still insist that the smoking ban proposed by the CAE and its supporters is not a campaign aimed at certain individuals or certain businesses that allow smoking ?

February 25, 2009 at 12:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Gee, standard answer, its necessary and we sure wouldn't want to target any of the CAE individuals or their supporters who just happen to have fire places or wood stoves that actually pollute the air with the same toxins that tobacco smoke does and that everyone is forced to breath, because it is belched from numerous chimneys into the surrounding neighborhood and country side now would we ! No we would rather target certain individuals who use tobacco products and certain businesses and business owners, because we do not like what they are doing or are allowed to be done. There is one word for that type of attitude and thinking it is, " BIGOTRY" !
And if you and the other smoking ban supporters can't accept the facts that wood smoke is exactly the same as or possibly more harmful than ETS or SHS then you are the true essence of a " BIGOT" ! Using the excuse of something that may be harmful being accepted as necessary is the lamest excuse anyone come up with, especially when you claim that using tobacco products or smoking is not necessary.
Kind of a double standard isn't it ?
And just exactly who has the right to determine what is necessary or not necessary, the CAE, you, smoking ban supporters, exactly who ?
One does not have to burn wood to keep from freezing, there are numerous options to keep from freezing, however it is your and others right to choose to burn wood for heat, even though you know it may be harmful, just as it is a persons right to choose to smoke and use tobacco products to pursue their personal right to " Life, Liberty and Happiness"
Your neighbors and others do not have the option of not leaving their homes to get away from being exposed to a neighbors toxic wood smoke belching from the neighbors chimney and infiltrating their their home and outside air.
Do you and others not understand the facts that the health hazards of wood smoke are the same as those of cigarette smoke or SHS or possibly more so !
You and other smoking ban supporters just cannot accept or acknowledge the fact that your whole smoking ban campaign has been exposed as a special campaign that targets certain citizens, businesses and business owners who are doing something or allowing something you don't particularly like and are trying to use the local government officials to force them to live as you dictate and live by your particular lifestyle or way of living and abolish certain of their personal rights.

February 25, 2009 at 2:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

crack posted earlier:

"How do the customers know which ones are full of deadly SHS? I suppose I need to keep a list of those bars so I know which ones NOT to go into "
IN YOUR CASE,
FOLLOW THESE RULES OF THUMB EVERYONE ELSE CAN MAKE UP THIER OWN MIND UP.

It is called a international No smoking sign! You know the one that shows a lit cigarrette in a red circle with a line throught it. The international smoking allowed sign is the same but in green with no line through it.
SHS HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO BE ANY MORE TOXIC IN SMALL DOSES THAN STUPIDITY.
duh?
Steve

February 25, 2009 at 4:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...

A couple of things for Meth and friends.

Of course most Americans aren't a Constitutional Scholar, which is a person who has long studied the Constitution and has become a master of his or her discipline. Most of us have a mere high school government of this document.

In C.L.A.S.H. v. NYC, I believe (but am not postive) that the court ruled against the anti-ban folks (in our case, that would be the EOB). One of the more interesting court statements is this:

"In sum, while it is true that, as CLASH suggests, the Smoking Bans figuratively and literally leave smokers "out in the cold," CLASH has failed to demonstrate that the enactment of the Smoking Bans was not rationally related to some legitimate governmental purpose. The Court finds that the New York State and City legislators had a rational basis to enact the Smoking Bans, and such enactments were a valid exercise of the State's police powers over the health and welfare of its citizens. Accordingly, the Court rejects all of the claims in CLASH's amended complaint and grants summary judgment in favor of Defendants."

http://ash.org/norights

Meth: I am sorry you have decided not to respond to my posts. I thought the discussion was getting interesting.

February 25, 2009 at 6:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

irishemporia (anonymous) says...

Sarge: Don't apologize. You've actually accomplished something. You've made Methusla be quiet. Many of us have been wishing for that for some time.

Also, don't worry if he has stopped reading your posts. Many of us don't read his anymore, either. However, unlike yours, he stuff is simply crap.

February 25, 2009 at 6:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

1sgt_retired posted:

"However, and this is the sticky point, and to reiterate what I posted earlier, how private is a business that invites most of the public to come in -- even if it is privately owned?"

Thoughts?

We are not talking about a private business here, we are talking about PRIVATE PROPERTY. You know like your home, (if you are a homeowner). You buy it, your pay real estate taxes, on it, You maintain it and it is yours.
As far as inviting the public in to a business, most businesses would encourage this. duh.
While you at you home probably do not invite the general public in, it is your right to restrict any drinking, or smoking, or any kind of behaviour that you deem undesireable. Is your home surrounded completely by a fence to keep out everyone but you? Mailman, paper carrier, delivery people neighbors, meter readers etc? Thus the public does have access to your private property. Do you want ANY GOVERNMENT to tell YOU , ON YOUR PRIVATE PROPERTY, that you have to keep certain people off while allowing others on?
Once again this is A RIGHTS ISSUE!

PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS.
Steve

February 25, 2009 at 7:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

On the flip side of your argument the Senate version of the state-wide smoking ban has exempted state owned business from the ban?
Thoughts?

February 25, 2009 at 8:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Pingeon (anonymous) says...

Steve - The state has excluded state owned businesses from the smoking ban because they know it would be detrimental to business. Of course, they won't put it quite like that, but that's why. If they own it, it's ok. If you own it, then you cannot allow smoking. Makes perfect sense to me.

February 25, 2009 at 8:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

If I did'nt know you were kidding that would scare me.

Stayed in Tulsa last night, the city per say is non-smoking. Went to a nice JOE"S CRAB SHACK for supper. Nice landscaped smoking area out back with a pond for fish and ducks, and geese, they didn't seem to notice shs. I wonder if the city of Emporia would let me landscape the parking lot next to me for a small smoking outdoors area?
Steve

February 25, 2009 at 8:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

crack posted:

"I don't consider only being able to go places I "have" to go living life to its fullest. (the pursuit of happiness) "

My, My, that said it all.

You are guaranteed the "PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS"
You are NOT GUARANTEED HAPPINESS.
steve

February 25, 2009 at 8:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

Myself, I'm still waiting on an answer from crack on these two:
".....I will simply ask you why you persist on going into smoky environments if you don't feel well afterward? I know you keep talking about not letting smokers control you, but isn't becoming stubborn and rebellious toward any entity, letting it cause negative thoughts & emotions within you or even harmful behavior, also allowing it to control you?"
and, since you brought it up,
"If evolution is true, then wouldn't the fittest of us survive the exposure? Wouldn't that mean the "fatalities" were the weak ones of the species that the earth doesn't need to survive? Just wondering."

February 25, 2009 at 11:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

ohatheluvof,

I guess we convinced them.
Good job all !
Steve

February 26, 2009 at 8 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

A city in Kansas that regulates but doesn't ban, how weird is that?

The Associated Press
KANSAS CITY, Kan. - A smoking ban in Kansas City, Kan., begins, but there will still be bars where customers can light up.

While many cities have restricted nearly all indoor smoking, the Kansas City ordinance exempts businesses that pay an annual $250 fee.

At Jerry's Neighborhood Sports Bar, the money was raised by setting out a coffee can labeled "smoking fund."

Twenty-five businesses already have the exemption.

An American Cancer Society official says it's an extremely weak ordinance that doesn't move the community forward in protecting the public health.

The city also eased up on restrictions for businesses that allow minors inside. Those establishments can get exemptions if they designate a smoking area that doesn't allow customers under 18 or if they prohibit smoking until 9 p.m.

If CAE had not been so stubborn this could have worked in Emporia, without all this fuss& muss.
Steve Corbin
Emporia Open for Business

February 26, 2009 at 8:10 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Well, Well it would seem that the irish terroist that posts on this forum wants and needs me to be quiet because he thinks that the information that I post here, from the CAE hand book, Surgeon Generals report and other viable reports is " CRAP". Well you " IRISH, MICK, TERRORIST ", do you also think the direct quotes from the CAEs own ban smoking ban hand book, that I have posted on this forum are also " CRAP" as you put it.
You seem to want to enjoy the libertys, freedoms, civil liberties and certain personal rights afforded you by the generosity of Americas Constitution and Bill of Rights, but you do not want anyone else to enjoy those same libertys, freedoms, civil liberties and certain personal rights, if they don't coincide with your needs, wants, beliefs, way of life, way of living, thinking and believing.
You are one selfcentered, egotistical, biggoted individual, who has not or either cannot contribute anything with any amount of fact or truth to it. So you are the one who needs to be quiet or shut up and cease spewing you particular brand of " CRAP ".
My whole argument about this smoking ban has been and always will be that certain individuals and groups of individuals are trying to take away certain rights of certain individuals, certain business and business owners.
And noone, whether it be an irish terrorist, or what ever is going to intimidate me into being quiet or do I not have the right to " free speech" any more !

February 26, 2009 at 9:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crackinsack-" It's almost like they were murdered and evolution can't really protect you from that. (too sudden to adapt to)"
So now you are turning to trying to make everyone believe that anyone who smokes is a "MURDERER" and committing "MURDER" !
You smoking ban advocates and supporters are really reaching the end of you arguments, when you imply that the people who smoke are "murderers" and "murdering" you and other people.

February 26, 2009 at 9:29 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

FROM THE SALINA NEWSPAPER:
2/26/2009

New city commission should not take up ban, but let voters decide

You have to hand it to Leonard Dahl. He and other opponents of a new and tougher smoking ban are excellent strategists.

Dahl is one of the organizers of a petition drive to repeal the near-total ban that was approved by the Salina City Commission in January. They were successful at collecting more than 1,600 signatures -- more than the 1,390 signatures required to trigger a public vote.

As reported by the Journal's David Clouston, organizers deliberately chose not to turn in the petition by Monday's deadline for getting the proposal added to the April 7 school board and city election ballot.

Now the petitioners can call a special election for a later date, which will cost city taxpayers about $20,000 because an additional public vote will be held.

Dahl said they purposely passed the deadline to give smoking ban opponents two shots at repealing it. The first will come if the majority of the new commissioners support a repeal. If that does not occur, then the special vote can be held in an attempt to repeal it at the ballot box.

We disagree with the tactic to force a separate special election. We hate to see $20,000 of our tax dollars spent on a public vote that could have been conducted for free.

It's too late to change that. But there's a chance the public can get some benefit from that $20,000.

Let's go ahead and have the special election after a new commission takes office. Let's see how voters feel about the smoking ban when it can be decided apart from school board and city elections.

But in the meantime, the new city commission should not take up the smoking ban issue until after this public vote is held.

Dahl and petition supporters say the public should be included in this decision. They are correct. And the best and purest way to accomplish that is through the ballot box. Let us have that vote, regardless of who sits on the city commission.

-- Tom Bell

February 26, 2009 at 12:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

irishemporia (anonymous) says...

Stevie: What is the point of this? Haven't we moved beyond this? I mean, Emporia's ban is going to the voters -- probably the one thing many of us on this forum can agree on. And, we aren't having a special election (unless I am wrong that it is part of the routine spring election),

February 26, 2009 at 12:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...

Methusla: Looks like we are uncovering the REAL you. Hey Irishemporia, what do you think?

February 26, 2009 at 12:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

The only point, I am making is that Emporians Open for Business could have done this also. Forced a special election after the commission election, but we did not.
Most in Salina were satisfied with their excisting ban, but the clean air people their decided to make it stronger,(SLIPPERY SLOPE). The same will happen here if this ban becomes effective.
Steve

February 26, 2009 at 1:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

crack,
I don't really agree with you about the evolution and shs thing. With the MANY years of shs exposure (think open and unvented wood fires for thousands of years) you would think that the human lung--or at least the "fittest" ones would have a tolerance or immune function for any kind of low-level smoke exposure. But since you've already indicated that you don't agree that the lung mucous is adequate to flush out the smoke irritant, then evolution must be broken.
And, while I'm thinking of it, you indicate that you don't expect to see any actual health ramifications of shs for many years and won't even know then if it was caused by shs or not. I'm pretty sure that in this country, we need to have proof of immediate and unreasonable harm before we make laws that strip rights away from others, if we are going to abide by the parameters of our Constitution. I understand that there are some judges that have disagreed with that, but mis-interpretation or redefining the Constitution seems to be the reputation most judges are getting these days.
I am also curious to know why you aren't okay with there being private clubs for smokers.

February 26, 2009 at 2:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

GET OFF YOU HIGH HORSE crack,

While methusla's term in his post was regretable, it's not the worst that's been used on here. You and I, Irish, 1sgt and a host of others have been just as guilty of throwing out s--t when we were upset at another poster. About the only one on here that hasn't done this is oh4theluvof.
Steve

February 26, 2009 at 3:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Weltha (anonymous) says...

I think the "secret knock" that crack is refering to should be that the perspective patron being able to read the sign stating that "smoking is allowed in this establishment". Sounds like a win win to me. Just an attempt at humor mind you. This circle talking is getting old crack and others. Show some PROOF. I haven't been on here for 2 weeks now and reading a little today nothing new is happening.

February 26, 2009 at 3:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Hey why don't you check out letters to the editor today,crack,1sgt. You've got new people to jump on.
Steve

February 26, 2009 at 3:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

irishemporia (anonymous) says...

1sgt, Sometime ago I decided to not read Methusla's comments because they bordered on ridiculous. I never told anyone else (that I recall) to avoid his posts. I simply stated that was my decision.
So I went back on my decision and read some of his latest posts. Reading his reference to me as a terrorist and a M _ _ _ reminded me that, while he writing style is good, his rehetoric is nothing but hot air. Now we know he is full of foul air. For those of you who do not understand, calling an Irishman a M _ _ _ is the same as calling a African-American the N-word. Not very cool. It rates right up there with those who so compare the ban to Hitler.
My first thought was to suggest his post be removed, but I decided it ought to stay just so others will know exactly the kind of ignorant, racist person they are dealing with.

By the way, 1Sgt, thanks for pointing out that the information Methusla is so fond of citing is from a case the anti-ban people in New York LOST. It all is a testament to Methusla's character (or lack of it).

For now, I will go back to NOT reading anything written by Methusla, at least until someone can convince me that he has something intelligent to say.

February 26, 2009 at 5:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

So, crack, now it seems that you are saying that evolution of the mind has to be relied on until the evolution of the body catches up, correct? And you said that a warning on cigarettes would be helpful to those of us who "don't get it," presumably to help our feeble minds evolve?
Why are we the ones who need this assistance? The current laws give every business owner the right to "ban" smoking in their establishment and to post a warning to patrons who may want to smoke while eating/drinking that this may not be the establishment for them. Even with all that smoke inhalation, they all seem to be able to comprehend and act accordingly. Why don't you expect the same from yourself when there is an absence of "no smoking" signs and the odor of smoke?
Oh, and I'm fairly certain that we started out with that mucus in our lungs--there is no survival outside of a bubble without it and there weren't bubbles for that millions of years ago. Also, man did not invent fire (volcanoes, lightning), man only allegedly discovered how to control (starting, containing and stopping) fire. The creatures that "survived to become man" did so by running far and fast away from the smoky smell. Hmmmmmmm, how could we learn from this? Well, I already have, so.......................

February 26, 2009 at 5:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Boy some of you people throw insults, and degrading remarks like you use them everyday and then when someone gets tired of the insults, vague inuendos, attempts at intimidation and attempts to anger and when someone does get fed up with your " CRAP" and retaliates with insults, inuendos, intimidation, etc. you get on your on your high horse and call them racist, etc.. Just what in the hell kind of response did you or do you expect. I or anyone will take only so much "Crap" from anyone and then I or anyone will respond in like kind or worse. I will not apoligize to anyone who throws insults at me personally, trys to intimidate me or thinks that he or she is better, more intelligent or looks down their nose at me with their remarks.
Irish, crack, 1sgt, commonsense, you want me banned from this forum, well I demand that Gwen Larson also ban you from this forum as well.
As far as all the other smoking ban opponents on this forum, as you can see irish, crack, 1sgt, plus a few others believe they have the right to throw insults, etc, at whom ever they wish and when like kind is thrown back at them, they become whining, crying, thumb sucking cry babies.
And Gwen, since I seem to have no right to freedom of speech or opinion as far as this forum is concerned or have nothing "INTELLIGENT" to contribute to this forum but "CRAP", I am removing myself from any futher participation on this forum !
Finally, to all the other smoking ban opponents, make very sure that what you say is by all means " INTELLIGENT" and definately not "CRAP" and remember to treat all the smoking ban supporters with kid gloves, as they believe that they are superior to smokers or smoking ban opponents in every way, shape or form.

February 26, 2009 at 6:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...

Methusla: do whatever you want. I don't recall anyone calling for you to be banned, though.

February 26, 2009 at 7:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

good night all'
steve

February 26, 2009 at 9:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

jmcmannis (anonymous) says...

I saw the yellow vote no for the smoking ban signs today. How does one go about securing one to display in his/her yard or window. If rbow or meth knows give me a shout, cause I want one.

February 27, 2009 at 1:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

jmcmannis;

Limited number of signs so we are looking for high traffic locations. give me a call at the bar between 5 & 6 today and i'll see if we can get you one.

How about you methusla? Do you have room for a sign in your yard? Shoot me an e-mail or reply here i'll get one to you if you agree.

Steve

February 27, 2009 at 7:36 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Now we are finally getting to the real issue of this whole smoking ban issue, " tolerance" ! Crack, you say," I am a very tolerant person." Not true, if you were a tolerant person you and others would not object to people who smoke, having certain businesses in which to gather to have a good time with family and friends, to socialize, eat, drink and enjoy, what to them, is a happy pursuit of their way of living and life. However, you, the CAE and other ban smoking supporters are in fact "INTOLERANT" enough to force and demand that these people who smoke and businesses that wish to allow smoking, to change part of their way of living, life style, etc., just to accomodate you, the CAE and other smoking ban supporters needs, wants, wishes, way of living, life style, beliefs, etc., and that is not the actions or words of anyone who says, "I am a very tolerant person."

February 27, 2009 at 10:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

rbow- I would be more than glad to place a sign in my yard, however I don't live in a very high traffic area, but would be more than glad to have one. Will you have them at the " ROYAL", if so I will drop by about 5:00 and pick one up !
I will call you about 4:30 p.m. today and discuss it with you .

February 27, 2009 at 10:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

methusla;
Don't get out, it's cold outside. Just call the bar 343-1232 and leave your address and I'll swing by and put it up for you
as soon as possible.

Steve

February 27, 2009 at 12:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

mrwho- You have just been hit with the old excuse from the ban smoking proponents, that everything that is or may be hazardous or fatal to a persons health, except smoking and shs is " we are more lenient on herbicides and pesticides because they " SERVE A USEFUL PURPOSE" .
I will stoop the terminology used by another favorite poster on this forum and say using their words " WHAT A BUNCH OF CRAP". Not my words, but the words of another well known poster of this forum.
And now you are implying that smoking and SHS is like an assault on someone or like committing manslaughter. And how do you know the people that work in a smoking allowed business, etc., even want you or the local government to intervene in a personal choice they make to work in that environment in the first place. You are also making choices for people that may not want you to make their personal choices for them. Would you want someone makeing personal rights choices for you and then forcing you to live by them everyday ? The problem with you smoking ban advocates is, you are so hellbent on forcing everyone to live by your choices, rules, wants, beliefs and way of living, you cannot or will not think about what or how other people have the right to choose how they may want to live their lives, their needs, wants, beliefs, etc.and you are doing so under the illusion that these people are not intelligent enough to make choices on their own or that they want you to save them from their choices. You should only be worrying about making the choices for yourselves and family that you feel are right for you and your family and let everyone else make their own choices and live their own lives and stop trying to interfere, with the help of the local government.

February 27, 2009 at 1:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

"Right, I don't want smokers to keep me from having fun with friends and family..............................................In my opinion, the benefits of being with friends and family out on the town out-weigh the short-term effects of SHS." from an earlier post by crackinsack.

crackinsack, I am genuinely sorry that your friends and family choose to smoke around you, disregarding your feelings about it. I know you can't do much about the family thing other than avoid them in retaliation and I'm glad that you aren't choosing to do that. Friends are different, though. If they disregard your feelings, it is paramount that you take a firm stand and then if they don't value your friendship, find other friends that see you as their equal. However, you are retaliating toward both groups for not regarding you by supporting something that forces them to conform to your preferences. And in the process, you are hurting local business owners who make their livelihoods from their freedom to choose patrons.
As for the person in the abusive relationship, all you can do is plead with them to leave and offer them your assistance. You cannot force a change--it is their choice to stay and sadly, many of them do. If you do try to force them out, it only makes the situation worse--more unhealthy. Like with the ban, let the market come to the realization and support it in changing by pleading with the owners to do so. Don't alienate your relationship with the owners (as with Steve) in the attempt to force a change (paralleled with alienating an abused friend by trying to force them to leave the abuser).

February 27, 2009 at 4:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

If they know that you don't want to be at smoking allowed places yet still go, they are disregarding you. That's how I got the idea--because you seem to feel that your option is to go with them or be left out and if they knew you didn't like smoke and insist on going around shs, then.............as you said, "Der."

You can have an abused person forcefully removed, but if they don't want to leave, they will go right back.

February 27, 2009 at 4:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crackinsack- You have tried the " its a necessary thing", murder, assault, manslaughter and implying that you are a "hero and would intervene if you saw someone assaulting another person" and now the spousal abuse argument to justify your, the CAE and other smoking ban supporters having no "TOLERANCE" for the beliefs, way of living, and certain rights of others, who just happen to not want to live their lives or believe the way you believe. So you and others, such as the CAE are going to force them, against their free will, to live by your standard of living and believing, by forcing the local government to adopt unnecessary laws, because the CAE, you and any other smoking ban proponent can not force a smoking ban on anyone, on your own. And again you make bogus comparisons, such as spousal abuse to smoking and SHS, what exactly does spousal abuse have in common with smoking and SHS?
I am no hero, but if I saw someone being physically assaulted,
I would intervene by calling 911 or the police directly and letting them do the intervening legally and avoid possible assault charges being brought against me and I would do the same in the case of spousal or domestic abuse !

February 27, 2009 at 5:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Lets all take a look at part of cracks last post.
"If we have to change our plans on account of other smokers being at my friends favorite bar, then the smokers are controlling us and we aren't living our lives how we choose."
Now here is a possible statement from a smoker.
If we have to change our plans on account of non-smokers being at my, friends or my familys favorite bar or restaurant, then the smokers are controlling us and we aren't living our lives how we choose."
Where is the difference in smokers, supposedly controlling non-smokers lives and non-smokers controlling smokers lives, with an unnecessary smoking ban.
Isn't the present smoking restriction ordinance a fair and imparshial law, that gives no-one either smoker or non-smoker the power to control each other ! And does it not require both smoker and non-smoker alike to make sensible, intelligent resonable and tolerant choices about their health, etc !

February 27, 2009 at 5:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

No, crack I don't get your drift. There are only 20% of restaurants that allow smoking of any kind. That means there is 80% trying to cater to you and your friends, but instead of giving them your business (stay with me here), PAYING them to reward them, you are choosing to take your money and your lungs to a place that you KNOW allows smokers, that you KNOW you will encounter shs and you choose to terrorize that business. I have tried the past few days to engage you in reasonable conversation, but as time and conversation has gone by, you get snippy-er and snider in your responses.

February 27, 2009 at 6:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

I am totally with you oh4theluvof. And the thing is the more you try to logically and intelligently reason with these ban smoking people with sensible and factual information the more bellegerent, condescending, rude and insulting they become.
And it becomes harder and harder for you or anyone to respond to them in a civil and gracious manner and some of these people are worse than others.

February 27, 2009 at 10:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

I'm a non-smoker who has occasionally read bits and pieces of this thread.

One of the luxuries I took on some time back was avoiding places where there were large numbers of smokers. That included restaurants. I learned my lesson at Applebee's when my wife and I were seated near the bar, where smoking was permitted. It didn't take us long to decide to leave. We didn't argue with anyone. We didn't demand our right to be smoke free. We left quietly and went to the grocery store, bought a couple of rib eyes, baked potatoes, etc. That and a nice bottle of wine at home made for a very pleasant evening. We saved quite a bit of money in the deal, including a tip of around 20-22%. We figured if Applebee's could live without us, we could live without them. We haven't been back

We don't spend time arguing with smokers. We don't feel like not frequenting places that allow smoking has somehow made our lives less meaningful. We don't feel boxed in. We don't feel that our "rights" as non smokers are being infringed upon. Since we made our decision about the only restaurants we frequent are those in Kansas City for special occasions and the Mexican restaurant adjacent to Aldi's in the strip mall where we usually get a booth far from the smoking section.

One of the benefits of this arrangement for my wife and me is better health. One of the side effects of eating out all the time was clogged arteries, brought on by all the fried foods. A necessary double bypass just made healthy eating a necessity, not a luxury. So, now we eat at home. We occasionally have friends over. We've found that the food is much better, the conversation engaging, our health better. Not only that, but we've saved a lot of money.

Perhaps those who favor the ban think that folks like my wife and me are surrendering. We simply don't see it that way. We've found a much better arrangement. We don't feel the need to fight over something we've come to see as a non issue. There are far more important things we need to focus our attention on than being able to legislate whether or not people should be allowed to smoke when we're in a bar or restaurant. Hence, we are voting against the ban.

I'm sure this forum will go on no matter how the vote goes. I'd recommend that you'd find a way to tone down the rhetoric. There are times when, on both sides, it becomes nothing but a torrent of insults and ad hominems. For example, if I had a big stake in this issue I would have found being called a "mick" vulgar and offensive (I'm Irish-American). There's no call for that sort of thing or the others (terrorist, nazi, etc.). It only weakens your arguments.

February 28, 2009 at 6:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

netloafer;
Bravo! Your post has to be one of the most thoughtful and sensible I have seen on here. I appreciate your candor and common sense. And I will try to tone it down a bit as you have suggested. It is my hope that all voters clearly think out their votes when casting them.
Steve

February 28, 2009 at 8:35 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

netloafer-I too would like to congratulate you on being civil, straight forward and sensible in your approach to dealing with the issue of making logical and intelligent choices in life, without abusing anyones right to choose.
I am a native Emporian, born and raised here, I used to smoke but have not for 25 years and it was my choice to quit, not because I thought it was unhealthy, but because I thought it was getting too expensive, 50 or 60 cents a pack at the time. Even after quitting smoking, I developed health problems, not because of the smoking but because of exposure to other toxic substances and my weakness of liking to eat good home cooked food and a lot of it.
I have tried to be civil, sensible and make logical, intelligent informative posts on this forum. Unfortunately there are those who, it seems can only belittle, insult, degrade, etc., instead of debate or inform with courtesy and civility and unfortuneately one of these posters got under my skin and I allowed this to bring me down to his/her level and use a derogatory remark, therefore I offer you my apology, however I will not apologize to that person ( they know who they are) to whom I directed the remark. I will try to be civil, respectful, logical and informative in my posts.
However I believe that , " Disrespect earns Disrespect".

February 28, 2009 at 9:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

BigE (anonymous) says...

It seems funny to me that the people in favor of the ban are accused of hurting the economy, because those opposed think that a passed ban would just make people stay home and drink. However, netloafer wants to stay home to eat, and the ban opposition thinks it is the best post ever. Now tell me how that isn't a double standard...
Is it just because netloafer is gonna vote no?

February 28, 2009 at 10:47 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

No, BigE, not everyone came to that consensus. netloafer's rebuke of derogatory remarks struck some consciences in a positive way, making his post inspirational. I am glad for netloafer that his and his wifes choices make them happy, but they have limited themselves far more than is neccessary, in my opinion. I was personally not very thrilled to read that most of their dining out budget goes to Kansas City when we have many good restaurants with healthy dish options and smoke-free environments. I am pleased that he sees the ban as unnecessary but I do wish he and his wife would see fit to support Emporia financially as well as with their vote.

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

netloafer (anonymous) says...

I'm not sure if those against the ban have done any extensive studies on the economic impact, but if they have I think their position (I think legitimate) is that it would have far more impact on the desire of their smoking customers than it would those non smokers who frequent their establishments.

As for me, I didn't make my decision based on economics, although it did have a positive effect on our cash flow. I simply chose what I believed to be a reasonable option. I don't smoke, don't intend to smoke in the future. I just don't see the need to be confrontational and simply do not believe that smokers in these establishments are infringing on my rights. I also feel that I could use the time that might be spent fighting the issue better spent at home over a good meal, some nice Zinfandel, and great conversation. If I started spending too much time focusing on areas where I feel my rights are being infringed upon I could find myself calling for bans on all sorts of things I think are unhealthy for the public, particularly me. Then the fur would start flying, activists would spend lots and lots of money, the public would get up in arms, and more important things that need attention (economic development, high poverty rates, high taxes, etc) would wind up on the back burner.

February 28, 2009 at 11:54 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

BigE,

I was encouraged by netloafers post because it was
A. Thoughtful & Respectful
B. Because they showed a lot of common sense in THEIR CHOICES.

No matter how they vote it would be nice to hear more in Emporia exhibit that common sense.
As they haven't gone out on the town, (so to speak), their decision does not affect the economic aspect of this needless ban.
Steve

February 28, 2009 at 12:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

I too was moved by netloafers respectful post and that is why I offered my apology to him. I will give respect to those who will show me the same amount of or some semblance of civility and respect. I just happen to be someone, who has not smoked for 25 years, who believes that this proposed smoking ban does not show any respect or tolerance for the people who do smoke or the businesses or business owners who wish to allow smoking in their business. I would also like to say, that most smokers I know are respectful enough of those who do not smoke and the current smoking restriction ordinance, that they will put their smoke out if asked in a civil and respectful manner and will not smoke in a no smoking allowed business or no smoking section of a business. I have no doubt that there are those smokers who are not so respectful, but there are those kinds of disrespectful persons in all walks of life.
I and my sister do not go out much either, because we, like netloafer and his wife have found that we also can eat healthier and cheaper at home. Also I am a diabetic, and that fact also limits my choices of eating out.

February 28, 2009 at 2:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Thank you netloafer for you most respectful and civil posts !

February 28, 2009 at 2:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

"Every step we take towards making the State our Caretaker of our lives, by that much we move toward making the State our Master."
- Dwight Eisenhower

We ADULT Emporian's don't need the government to make our decisions for us. A NO vote in April is the way to stop the caretakers, and big-government.
Steve

March 2, 2009 at 7:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Advertisements