The Emporia Gazette

glarson (anonymous) says...

More on the original article:

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

March 25, 2009 at 5:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

pencilguy
you said
"I've seen some of you admit that there actually is some kind of chance of getting hurt by second hand smoke. Why, then, do you even take the chance? "

Are you reading my mind or something? You sure aren't reading my posts. This is exactly what I've been saying. Thank you! If you feel that shs is harmful to you then stay away from it. The current laws and the fact that most places are already smoke free make it easy. That is exactly why this ban is not needed. "Why, then, do you even take the chance? " I like that. You need to talk to the stubborn ban proponents that feel as you do about the dangers of shs but refuse to use their own decision making skills to not "even take the chance" and go to bars and smoking allowed establishments anyway. It is not necessary to get the government involved anymore than they are when people can think as you do and not "even take the chance". Yes I like it. If you feel that shs will surely be the death of you "Why, then, do you even take the chance? ". Use your brain, use your feet, if you smell the smoke hit the street! Yes indeedy no need for further government intervention on this.

This nonsmokin' nondrinkin' third party votin' US Army veteran says vote NO please. Thank you.

March 25, 2009 at 8:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

meth--

you said

" How can smoking/SHS be intentionally meaning to harm anyone"

Because when someone smokes their byproduct automatically does harm to others. If they know this is the case then it is intentional.

Are you serious with your last post? Do you really think I would maliciously go and urinate in Town Royals water supply? HA! Get a life. It is a comparison and actually a very good one. I used Town Royal as an example because he is one of the posters on here. If you thought I was serious you are a joke. Insinuating that I am a terrorist.??? Buy a clue meth. If you think I or anyone on here is a terrorist or Nazi then you are more confused than I can even imagine.

March 25, 2009 at 9:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

Smoking is legal. Intentionally urinating in someones drinking water is not. Going around smokers if you are deathly afraid of shs is not smart. Not going around smokers is easy right now, the way things are right now. It hasn't always been this way but it is now. "Why, then, do you even take the chance? ". Use your brain, use your feet, if you smell the smoke hit the street!

This nonsmokin' nondrinkin' third party votin' US Army veteran says vote NO please. Thank you.

March 25, 2009 at 9:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

slvrnblck;

You either need to learn to read or comprhend what you read ! I never even indicated that you were a terrorist or Nazi !
Here is the exact quote from my last post on the other thread.
" Some of the smoking ban advocates have called some of the smoking ban opponents terrorists !!!!! " Now where in any part of my last post on the other thread did I once refer to you or anyone, personally as a terrorist or Nazi ?
You see you and other ban smoking supporters have a habit of putting words in peoples mouths or statements and twisting words and statements and that is sad indeed ! And the inferences to the tactics used by certain groups in Germany is only a reference to the tactics used and that is all it is, a reference to certain tactics and agendas !

It is you and other ban smoking supporters who need to get or buy a clue, your words, not mine !

March 25, 2009 at 10:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

slvrnblck ;

You see, when you make comments comparing possibly urinating in anyones water supply, that can and is taken or could be taken as a legitimate possibility and not a joke !
And you, thinking that even the possibility of anyone doing such a thing is the same as someone smoking, now that is not only a joke it is also absurd ! You and other smoking ban advocates claim that smoke/SHS does serious harm and cite evidence that it is and we who oppose a smoking ban say that smoking/SHS does not do that much harm and have cited evidence that smoking/SHS does not do that much harm ! A ban, any ban, in order for such a ban to be touted as a health issue, would and should be a ban that would ban any and all substances that have been or are proven without any doubt to be the soul, primary cause of any potentially fatal disease or potentially fatal illness, no matter how much of a purpose or necessary they may be and not single out just one substance or group of individuals who are doing something that is suspected of being a risk to someones health or alleged to be a risk to someones health !
No, I have not been convinced that this is not just a simple play for power and control by a selfish individual or group of selfish individuals !

VOTE NO !

March 25, 2009 at 11:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...

Hey Irish: You need to check out what Methusla posted above!!

March 26, 2009 at 7:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

SHS harmful? According to CHE, it is, and smoking should be banned in ALL businesses in Emporia. But in my business I say it isn't harmful so it shouldn't be banned.

Have you noticed that slvr says SHS "affects" him.
He doesn't say it "harms" him.
So this is a rights issue, NOT a health issue.

Steve Corbin
Proud owner
Town Royal
405 Commercial St.
Emporia, Kansas

March 26, 2009 at 8:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

seriously--

Yes smoking is legal. So is urinating. It boils down to where you do it. You can't urinate anywhere you want and soon you won't be able to smoke anywhere you want.

March 26, 2009 at 9:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

meth--

you took what you said out of context...here is your actual quote...
" By the way targeting the Town Royal to do your gutter attack to, is maliciously targeting someone or a business that apparantly you dislike or hate and that fact in itself proves that this is not a health issue but an over the top dislike and control issue ! And some of the smoking ban advocates have calle some smoking ban opponants, " Terrorists " !!!!!!"

To me that is insinuating that I am acting like a terrorist.

And referencing the smoking ban to a Nazi act is...well...ignorant at best. The Nazi's wanted to control everything. The CAE doesn't want to control you or anyone else. If you were to choose to smoke you would just be asked to do so outside. If you or anyone else choose to smoke you still can!!

March 26, 2009 at 9:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

meth--

you said "And you, thinking that even the possibility of anyone doing such a thing is the same as someone smoking, now that is not only a joke it is also absurd ! "

Actually it is the exact same thing except one is currently not legal and the other soon won't be either. Let's see if I can explain this to you. I drink a beer. The beer enters my system and eventually I have to urinate. When I do so I choose to go to the toilet to get the byproduct out of my system. I suppose if I was a malicious person I could urninate in someones water supply, but I am not so I go to a designated place to complete the act.

Now, lets say I smoke a cigarette. I inhale the smoke. The smoke enters my system and eventually I have to exhale. If I was a courteous person, I would go outside and do that so that no one is affected by my smoke. Unfortunately, a lot of smokers aren't courteous and don't care who they harm so the CAE has asked that a law be put in place so that the uncourteous smokers are required to smoke in designated areas. You know kind of like I am required to urinate in designated areas. Both are done for the benefit of everyone.

I hope this helps you understand.

Your BFF,

slvrnblck

March 26, 2009 at 9:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

rbow--

Can something "affect" your health or can it only "harm" your health?

SHS affects your health in a harmful way. Affect is kind of a big word isn't it Steve...it can mean to influence, change, shape, impinge on, distress, disturb, etc etc etc. You are right though it not only will affect my health but it can also affect other things like the color of the walls in your bar, or the smell in the air. Good point sir!

March 26, 2009 at 9:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

slvr
You can't smoke anywhere you want now. When people make the claim that you can that is lying. Many folks on here have demonstrated in many ways(all truthful) that the vast majority of places in this town don't allow smoking. One person on your side even trys to make it out that only government buildings are smoke free so the only way to have a job where you aren't exposed to smoke is to get a government job. This is a lie. I have worked for four different private companies in this town since getting out of the Army and none of them allowed smoking inside. No where that I go allows smoking inside, Wal-mart, Town Crier, Hasting's, Family Video, Country Mart, Dillon's, Arby's, Mcdonald's, Flint Hill's Music, Hardee's, Game Stop, Papa Murphy's, Gambino's, Papa John's, KFC, I can't wait to go to the new Wendy's(I hear the restrooms are going to be quite the sight!) anyway you get the idea. Does Apple Bees allow smoking? I was in there a week ago and didn't notice smoking in progress but I guess I'll find out if I drop dead arghhh! oh ... it.... hurts.... arrrghh...... call..... 9....... 1.... hhhhhhh

March 26, 2009 at 10:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

slvr
Put down the phone. you don't really need to call 911. I was just kidding. Seriously though, to say that you can smoke willy nilly any where that you want now is not truthful. Not even close. It used to be that way but it's not now. I have presented a simple solution to the problem without government intervention and it has been reject so if you are harmed by shs it is now on you. If you are afraid of shs "Why, then, do you even take the chance? ". Use your brain, use your feet, if you smell the smoke hit the street!

This nonsmokin' nondrinkin' third party votin' US Army veteran says vote NO please. Thank you.

March 26, 2009 at 10:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

seriously--

You are right. There have been limitations put in place but there should be more and there soon will be.

12 DAYS TO A SMOKE FREE EMPORIA.

VOTE YES! IT WILL BE GREAT!!

March 26, 2009 at 10:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

slvr
"12 DAYS TO A SMOKE FREE EMPORIA."
Do you not even understand the ban. Emporia won't be smoke free even after this ban. Maybe the next one or the one after that or after that one but not this one. Stop the bans now before one steps on your toes.

I have presented a simple solution to the problem without government intervention and it has been reject so if you are harmed by shs it is now on you. If you are afraid of shs "Why, then, do you even take the chance? ". Use your brain, use your feet, if you smell the smoke hit the street!

This nonsmokin' nondrinkin' third party votin' US Army veteran says vote NO please. Thank you.

March 26, 2009 at 10:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

You are right there will still be smokers but they will have to do so outside so that others aren't harmed. I guess that is what I am excited for.

VOTE YES

March 26, 2009 at 10:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

slvr
Others are only harmed if they choose to go around the smokers. The way things are right now it is easy to avoid shs. It hasn't always been this way but it is right now. I have presented a simple solution to the problem without government intervention and it has been reject so if you are harmed by shs it is now on you. If you are afraid of shs "Why, then, do you even take the chance? ". Use your brain, use your feet, if you smell the smoke hit the street!

This nonsmokin' nondrinkin' third party votin' US Army veteran says vote NO please. Thank you.

March 26, 2009 at 11:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

seriously--

Are you just on auto repeat? I don't think you have had an original thought for the last 4 or 5 posts.

VOTE YES!

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

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

"VOTE YES! IT WILL BE GREAT!!"

What will be great, slvr? Losing your rights and freedom of choice? I CAN'T WAIT! You people have NO idea what you are giving up. In a year or two, when Walters, Inc. is in front of the city commission trying to ban something you enjoy, don't say I didn't tell you so. They have already made it plainly clear that they don't like energy drinks.

Don't say I didn't warn you.

Vote this down, and stop these people before they gain momentum.

March 26, 2009 at 12:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

This is one issue. We aren't talking about anything other than the smoking ban. Quit being so paranoid that the sky is falling and trying to scare everyone into thinking this is more than what it is. All that I ask is that if and when you smoke to please take it outside so that myself and others don't have to smoke with you.

Thank you for your YES Vote!

March 26, 2009 at 12:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

Oh man! I had a really long post in response to slvr and crack and for some reason it didn't get posted. Oh well. slvr you are correct that I am being repetitive but seriously haven't we all gotten to that point. You want the ban but say that you need it. I think it's not needed. I presented an easy solution, you and crack don't like because it doesn't use the government as an agent of revenge against those that have inconvenienced you.
crack
Your motives for wanting this ban are not noble in anyway no one believes you not even your allies.

I have presented a simple solution to the problem without government intervention and it has been reject so if you are harmed by shs it is now on you. If you are afraid of shs "Why, then, do you even take the chance? ". Use your brain, use your feet, if you smell the smoke hit the street!

This nonsmokin' nondrinkin' third party votin' US Army veteran says vote NO please. Thank you.

March 26, 2009 at 12:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

seriously--

I think your solution is lacking because once again the smoker then dictates where people can go. They are the ones changing the enviornment around them so they should be the ones to make the change. Why should I be inconveinenced? I didn't do anything.

VOTE YES!

March 26, 2009 at 1:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

slvrnblck, crack and all the other smoking ban supporters who want control of everything and everyone, I will pose this question to you and see if you can give a straight forward and truthful answer to it ! Which I seriously doubt you can !

Say just by chance this smoking ban passes the vote. In the near future, when the CAE goes before the City Commission and the County Commission and demands that smoking be banned outdoors, in private residences, private vehicles, etc., will you support passage of such a ban ?
And if you would support such a ban is that not a blatant attempt to control all peoples lives and way of living, just as you are trying to do now ?

VOTE NO to an attempt at control of your lives !

March 26, 2009 at 1:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crackinsack;

So you do agree that this is a control issue to you and possibly others, more than a health issue and you would go along with an outdoor ban, even if the fair grounds, parks, etc., are out in the wide open air ? You even hinted at the fact that you would even agree to a ban in private vehicles, would that include inatentive driving caused by cell phone use, eating, putting on make-up, etc., as well as smoking and driving ?

And you still contend you and others are not intending to control other peoples lives !!!!

You, nor any other smoking ban supporter has not convinced me that this whole ban issue is nothing more than a power, control and dominance agenda by certain individuals or group of individuals .

I still believe there is a need to VOTE NO !

March 26, 2009 at 2:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

meth--

I too would not support a smoking ban outside or in private homes or private vehicles. Outside is outside. Private home and cars are just that, private. Private businesses that cater to the public are a completely different animal in my opinion, so I still support that.

I have stated this in the past also but I hope this answers your question.

VOTE YES on April 7th.

March 26, 2009 at 2:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

slvrnblck;

Then why are these business classified as " PRIVATE " businesses instead of " PUBLIC " businesses ?
And why do you believe that you or anyone else has the right to dictate to the private owner of that private business, how he must run his business, especially if you, me or anyone does not have any financial stake in that business ?
And why do you believe that you are above having to decide whether to choose to enter those smoking allowed businesses or leave those smoking allowed businesses, especially when those who smoke already cannot smoke in all of the no smoking allowed businesses or have to smoke outside those no smoking allowed businesses now anyway ?
And why is the smoking restriction law that is not in effect so unfair to you and the other non-smokers ?

March 26, 2009 at 3:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

meth--

I already said that a private business that caters to the public are different than private homes. I can not enter your private home without you inviting me in. However, as soon as Steve flips his open sign I can go in. The Govt already tells him certain things that he can and can not do in his business that benefit the safety of his patrons. Imagine if he were able to serve outdated food. It may or may not get you sick but it is illegal for him to do on the basis that it COULD get you sick and that it is bad for your health.

I don't believe I am any better than anyone else. I do believe that where I go should not be dictated by where smokers go. As I said before, they are the one's altering the enviornment not me. Clean Air is the default setting, not smoky air. If someone wants to smoke it up there needs to be protection for people who don't want to smoke it up.

I think your last question was supposed to be out the smoking ban that IS in effect so I will answer it that way....

The current ban does not protect everyone from SHS. People are still exposed to SHS now whether or not they want to be. The new one will protect all of the citizens and patrons of Emporia. It still lets smokers smoke, and everyone gets cleaner air....isn't it a great compromise?!?!?!

Thank you CAE for looking out for EVERYONE!

VOTE YES

March 26, 2009 at 3:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

slvr
you said
"I think your solution is lacking because once again the smoker then dictates where people can go. They are the ones changing the enviornment around them so they should be the ones to make the change. Why should I be inconveinenced? I didn't do anything."

Again you point out that this isn't a health issue. It is a convenience issue. This does not warrant a ban. If it really is trying to protect the health of others as you say it is then why wouldn't you support a ban in homes. Their are children in the homes that don't have a choice to leave or not go there like you do with bars and a few restaurants? This makes no sense. The only way it does make sense is if you admit that it's not a health issue. By what you've said thus far I can tell that for you and crack that it is not a health issue but it would be good for you to admit it, even if it was only to yourself. That would really cut down a lot on the faux self righteous and sanctimonious talk that comes from your side when you get on your health soapbox.

"Why should I be inconveinenced?" Who isn't inconveinenced from time to time. Some more than others, some less. It's a fact of life. You take the good. You take the bad. You take em both and there you have the facts of life. The facts of life. Seriously if having to choose one restaurant or bar over another is the biggest inconveinence in your life you are truly blessed and are grumbling about something you should be thankful for.

I have presented a simple solution to the problem without government intervention and it has been reject so if you are harmed by shs it is now on you. If you are afraid of shs "Why, then, do you even take the chance? ". Use your brain, use your feet, if you smell the smoke, hit the street!

This nonsmokin' nondrinkin' third party votin' US Army veteran says vote NO please. Thank you.

March 26, 2009 at 7:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

pencilguy (anonymous) says...

PARAGRAPH TO MISTERO: There are a variety of topics I could use for my paragraph. But I'll use Fires.
Fires need 3 basic things. The heat (cigarette) fuel (public places) and oxygen( OUR OXYGEN). Fires can sometimes get out of hand, and may start a deadly fire. While most of the time people escape fires with just burns and their lives, we should do our best to keep all fires controlled, including those caused by cigarettes.
You'll probably bring something up about citing cigarette incidents. 3 words; LOOK IT UP! You'll also say things about changing the topic. Well you said we are repetitive. And how am i supposed to know what you mean?!

March 26, 2009 at 7:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

justamarine (anonymous) says...

Why should I as a smoker have to get up and go outside 10- 20 ft away from the door to have a cigarette,why you the nonsmoker gets to sit inside and watch the ball game,while drinking and eating, It doesn't make any since. I have been to places where this ban is in effect,this ban has hurt the businees owner.The owners had to spend money to set up outside smoking areas, raise prices to cover the cost,lose regular customers do to the inconvenance of having to go outside, either in the rain or heat,why the average joe blow only visits once or twice. This is most definitely a rights issue.
Vote NO and keep money flowing thru Emporia, Because if a yes vote wins Emporia loses more than just the smoking.

March 26, 2009 at 8:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Pingeon (anonymous) says...

justamarine - But if you listen to the group that believes in taking rights away, they will tell you that the business will INCREASE after the ban. More people will suddenly crawl out of the woodwork that would not go there before!

You've talked to people experiencing this, I have talked to people experiencing this, but for some reason, the CLean Air People still think Emporia will be different. Yea, riiight....

March 26, 2009 at 8:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

justamarine (anonymous) says...

Pingeon- Clean Air People are right, Emporia will be different. There will be a lot less money flowing thru Emporia, because alot of businesses won't be able to sustain very long if there us no one to serve or cater to. Let the owners decide what is right for there business,after all it's their business. It's tough enough on the business owners now with the economy were in.Emporia took a big hit not too long ago with Tysons leaving town,a person with any type of common sense would think with all that income that left, that they would discourage hurting the local economy any more than it already has, After all the air did get a little cleaner when Tyson did leave.. right.

March 26, 2009 at 10:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

PENCILNECKGUY:

Thanks for a new topic, fires. You STATED:
"Fires need 3 basic things. The heat (cigarette) fuel (public places) and oxygen( OUR OXYGEN)." You also said to look up cigarette fire incidents. Well, I looked and looked, but here in Emporia I could not find any public Building fires caused by cigarettes in the last few years. There have been several residence fires & some fatalities in homes and apartments.
Now if all of these ole drunks are forced to go home and drink, and they get drunk and pass out alone with that stinky butt burning, without the Bartender their to watch them, Won't there be more fires and possibly fatalities?

NOW THAT'S SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT!
Steve

March 27, 2009 at 7:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

With the current laws and the fact that the vast majority of places are smoke free it is very easy to avoid shs. It hasn't always been this way but it is now. With it being an easy thing to avoid it really comes down to the individual to decide where they go. It's no inconvenience at all, I have done it for years. With the ease of avoiding shs it is really the stubborn people that go around it even though they think it will surely be the death of them that are harming themselves with their stubbornness.

I have presented a simple solution to the problem without government intervention and it has been reject so if you are harmed by shs it is now on you. If you are afraid of shs "Why, then, do you even take the chance? ". Use your brain, use your feet, if you smell the smoke, hit the street!

This nonsmokin' nondrinkin' third party votin' US Army veteran says vote NO please. Thank you.

March 27, 2009 at 10:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

justamarine (anonymous) says...

Crack- Why should I give up my right to smoke in an establishment that already allows smokers to enjoy the atmosphere and friendship of these places. If the business owner wants to allow smoking in his/her place it is their right to do so,if you don't like what he/she is selling don't go,that's how simple it is.What if I opened a cigar shop and sold cigars and cigarettes, and allowed customers to sample a product before they bought it. Would you have a problem with this? I don't see how you could because it's my business and I want my costumers to be satisfied and to return, that is the basic principle in business to have returning and satisfied costumers.And your group wants the business owner to change the way they do business. (Yes you do, by telling them that they can't smoke in their own buildings) Is your group going to go out and spend money in these places to help replace the revenue that will be lost if the ban passes? (I think not.) This is very much a RIGHTS ISSUE. Vote NO NO NO. To make it even easier for you Crackhead the owners of these places will put smoking allowed signs in their windows so you won't be confused and enter, because your safety is of the most importance to me and I don't want you to breathe my dirty air.( By the way how did you live in Emporia all these years with (IBP) Tysons burning all that stuff?)

A former WISEGUY
S.N.B.C

March 27, 2009 at 5:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

pencilguy (anonymous) says...

rbow
no.no.no! you don't get it. I thought drunk driving was illegal. You can compare that to smoking. It isn't a sure fact that you you are going to kill someone when you drive drunk. But isn't it kind of like smoking? It isn't sure that you'll kill someone. But you could. Also it's stupid. Even the best drivers won't drive well while drunk. Drunkies, will break the law and go home because they wouldn't want to break another law? This is the worst reply i've heard from you. And another thing, who ever said i agreed completely with the ban. I think you should be able to smoke in bars. BUT bars ONLY!

March 27, 2009 at 8:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

pencilguy (anonymous) says...

seriously

March 27, 2009 at 8:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

pencilguy (anonymous) says...

also my neck it's not even painted yellow. why would you call PENCILNECKGUY? Is that what you resort to for winning the vote, calling people names? you make me sick!

March 27, 2009 at 8:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Well, if it isn't the SHS in my bar, it's my comments on this thread.
To keep from getting sick, You can avoid both!
Your choice, no government interference, just make your own informed choice! Stay out of my bar, and stay off these threads. Maybe clean air Emporia can ban me next to protect you.
Steve

March 27, 2009 at 9:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

and what the heck is pencil talking about? When have I said anything about drunk drivers in response to pencil?
Steve

March 27, 2009 at 9:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

justamarine (anonymous) says...

Steve-
They are just frustrated...because they know we are right, so they have to twist the story around and try to make themselves look like they know what they are talking about

March 27, 2009 at 9:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

and is pencilneckguy as bad as "pighead"?
Steve
Come on back pencil guy and tell what the heck you are talking about.

March 27, 2009 at 9:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crack;

And yet again, in this comment you made, " Posted by crackinsack (anonymous) on March 27, 2009 at 9:43 a.m.
The non-smokers don't have to go outside because they aren't harming people with their actions. How does that not make sense? also this comment in the same paragraph,
“ Well…because everyone else aren’t killing people."

Again you are stating that smokers are harming people and that they are also killing people ! These two statements have to be the most " Crass " statements yet and it would be very difficult to prove either statement has any validity to it at all ! Also statements such as these have drastic overtones of desperation in them !
Try to comprehend the following : First of all the smokers are not harming anyone that does not choose to enter the same environment, Bar or businesses the smokers gather in and you and others apparently know which places these are, you have complained about them repeatedly. Also the smokers are not killing anyone for the same reasons previously stated.
Further, if you conciously choose to enter and stay in an environment that is harming or killing you that is your fault and responsibility for choosing to be in that situation in the first place, not the smokers responsibility, they are not forcing you enter or be in any environment or place that you or anyone believes is harmful or deadly !

Do the right thing and VOTE NO !

March 27, 2009 at 11:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ksgram (anonymous) says...

OK, I'm going to try to be the voice of reason & will most likely P... O.. both sides. Here goes..FACT smoking..1st, 2nd, 3rd...hand is harmful. IT'S STUPID TO BE ARGUING ABOUT IT. FACT, tobacco is a legally sold substance to abults. FACT, a business owner has the right to say what legal activity can take place in his place of business. As the law stands right now, there are very few places where a smoker can sit & relaxe while feeding their habit. (FYI, I'm not one of them, don't smoke). It's not about the individual smokers right, it's about the business owner's right to say what LEGAL activity can be conducted on his property. It's been said on here that some have their own agenda, don't know about that, it doesn't make sense to me. All the talk about government conspiarcys trying to take away our rights scares me. Reminds me of the "malitia" that wants to over through the government...as Bush 1 said.."scarry" (not the fear of over through but the nuts saying it)

March 29, 2009 at 9:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

pencilguy (anonymous) says...

sorry my computer crashed. rbow
i made a mistake. i accidently read your comment as drunk driving, im human, im not some evil demon. but at least i admit my mistakes. unlike some other people i know. another thing. SCIENCE SCIENCE SCIENCE. Do you believe in God? ( I do by the way, im catholic) just think. Can you prove he exists? Do you believe in Him?

March 30, 2009 at 5:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

It is clear that everybody knows that shs is harmful to some degree. No one is argueing that it isn't. The arguement is whether or not the levels in the bars and restaurants reaches a harmful level. I am positive that if you are not exposed to shs it has no effect on your health one way or another. Heat will burn you if you get to close to it. If you stay away, it doesn't burn you. This seems pretty simple to me. There are very few smoking allowed establishments in this town so it is very easy to avoid shs. Tobacco regulations and the demand on the market for more nonsmoking places has seen to this. It hasn't always been so easy for the nonsmoker to avoid shs but it sure is now. For those that are deathly afraid of shs, simply avoid it. Your choices are greater by far than the choice of someone who wants a place to hang out and smoke.
A very simple solution that we all should be able to agree on.
Please vote NO. Thank you.

March 30, 2009 at 9:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

77flint (anonymous) says...

rbow = slow painful death of city

April 6, 2009 at 8:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

77flint
How exactly is that? It seems to me that if people that feel that shs is going to kill them painfully and slowly they would be smart enough to stay away from it. With most restaurants being smoke free and even a few bars(I would suggest staying away from bars because nothing there is healthy anyway) it is very easy and convenient to avoid. If the number of people that say they are afraid of shs would only do business with nonsmoking establishments there would be even less smoking allowed places and more smoke free ones. you see a business needs people to buy things from them and if people aren't doing that the business owner either finds out why and adapts or goes out of business. Why aren't these citizens doing what they should? Why do they continue to go to places with shs if they can't stand it? The message they are sending is the opposite of how they feel. If this city is going to fail it will be for the same reason this republic will fail, the citizens are unwilling to do for them selves and they need the government to be their everything. How very sad.

April 6, 2009 at 9:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

YY4U
That's a great one! It has become very evident to me that man must change and the government is the worst agent of change.
"If You Wanna Make The World A Better Place Take A Look At Yourself And Then Make A Change" Michael Jackson (1958-present) I don't condone anything that Michael Jackson does outside of music but those lyrics are just too true.

77flint
Still waiting for your witty retort.

April 6, 2009 at 10:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )