The Emporia Gazette

Beatnik (anonymous) says...

I read the news report on business at the local taverns, and something that I have not yet heard discussed became readily apparent to me.

Cigarettes are not the most dangerous substance used in bars. Perhaps someone out there might have statistics to compare deaths due to 2nd hand smoke compared to deaths due to alcohol related accidents; I don't have that information readily available, yet I am quite sure which statistic will win.

Banning smoking in bars in the city limits of Emporia is driving smokers elsewhere to drink. Although driving home from the bar after drinking is illegal, we all know plenty of people do it.

Some may have had an acceptable place to drink within walking distance before the smoking ban. Others may have driven home anyway, but at slower speeds for much shorter distances.

In any case, the export of the liquor business to areas outside of the Emporia area cannot help but make the surrounding highways more dangerous.

For the sake of public safety, I encourage people to support an exception to the smoking ban as it applies to establishments that serve alcohol. Am I the only one that thinks the alcohol should have been banned before the cigarettes?

July 11, 2009 at 3:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Beatnick;

If you think any legal product should be banned then you are probably part of a very small minority.

The article in Emporia's paper tonight just proved what many knew would result in the passing of Emporia's smoking BAN.

Teresa Walters has been trying to shut down bars for years and this smoking ban may be just the trick for her.
And I will bet you a dollar to a doughnut that before she is run out of the county commission she will propose a county wide ban.
Steve

July 11, 2009 at 4:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

I read the news today oh, boy
About a lucky man who made the grade
And though the news was rather sad
Well, i just had to laugh...............

Seriously though I also think that if something has to be banned it definitely should be alcohol before smoking. That said I don't think alcohol should be banned. There is no doubt that alcohol causes a lot more harm in society than smoke in a bar but people will try to argue that it doesn't. That's how you can tell who has an alcohol problem, when they defend it so vigorously.

The first line in the op(original post) reminded me of this song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiFYOn...

July 11, 2009 at 4:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Also beatnik,

It's a good thing that it's the weekend and ole crackinsack is on her work-release or she would be all over you for suggesting the banning of booze. She don't smoke so that ok to ban , but you start talking about taking away her 40oz'ers and boones farm she get all riled up.

July 11, 2009 at 5:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Beatnik (anonymous) says...

For the record, I don't support banning alcohol either. I am merely making the case that this is a MUCH greater danger than second hand smoke ever was. The result of the ban for me is simply that I don't go to bars anymore -- but as I DO drive on the Americus road often, sometimes during the wee hours of the morning... I figured I'd mention this.

July 11, 2009 at 5:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

I know where your coming from. all the points in the article were brought up while debating the smoking ban.

We said business would suffer, CAE said it would improve.

We said people would drive outside Emporia to drink and smoke, CAE said that was silly.

Things were so much simpler the days before the CAE coven stirred the pot.

July 11, 2009 at 5:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Beatnik (anonymous) says...

Sorry if I've simply brought up something that's been discussed before. Today was the first time I've logged into this site, and I didn't really follow the debate much when it was happening.

I'm not sure how to react if this was discussed before the ban happened. Quite frankly, I find it rather disappointing that someone would discard a secondary effect that endangers me and my children as "silly."

Honestly, I did not go out to bars much before the ban (I rarely drink, and lightly when I do... though I did enjoy a little karaoke now and then), so I didn't really care at the time. My usual place to go out to a resaraunt was already Olpe Chicken House, so I didn't care if they banned it in the restaraunts. This is really the first time I've really examined the subject.

July 11, 2009 at 5:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Welcome to the forums, beatnik.

You will find that a lot of the posters have definite opinions, and at times the "debate" can get quite heated. But sometimes we can learn something on here so it is pretty much a harmless way for some of us to vent.

Have fun with it.
Steve

July 11, 2009 at 6:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Beatnik (anonymous) says...

Please note: the similarity between "secondary effect" and "second-hand smoke" is not accidental. It is pretty much the same argument used for the smoking ban thrown back at ya. Which is more dangerous... sombody smoking across the room, or a drunk driver on a county road with lots of twists and turns?

July 11, 2009 at 6:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_c6tF...

July 11, 2009 at 7:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

I'd also like to welcome Beatnik back for the first time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lqfQi...

Seriously R. Folks

Yeah, I'm differnt!

July 11, 2009 at 7:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

"tobacco use impairs military readiness in the short term"
Bull butter!
I smoked a pack a day when I was in and was in the best shape of my life. There was this really arrogant dude that was supposed to be real fast and one morning they had us doing sprints, I raced him and smoked him(not literally, I mean I beat him .........you know in the race). After pt I went to my room and had a smoke to celebrate, it was a menthol, very refreshing.

This "health care reform" is going to usher in a new age of all kinds of bans and government control, "for our own good" of course. Don't think this will stop with the military.

July 12, 2009 at 6:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

justthinkin (anonymous) says...

I'm so sorry to discover that crackinsack is now or has been working at the Pentagon as well...... Leave our troops alone... banning their tobacco use would be nearly as sad as sending the hospice patients at the VA hospitals out to the grounds to smoke.... something they have love, and enjoyed for years... and is most likely their last pleasure.... and it wouldn't change their outcome one little bit to take away their last pleasure.... smoking.

July 12, 2009 at 9:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

I've used the following from an e-mail I recieved:

"What a tragic irony it would be, if nations where millions of citizens were willing to sacrifice their lives in the struggle to ensure liberty and freedom for all, ended up sacrificing that very liberty and freedom in cowardly and futile attempts to run away from the inevitablity of death, by forcing minimal-risk lifestyles on all of their citizens."

July 13, 2009 at 6:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

The article is called:

6 BILLION PEOPLE WILL DIE!

Yes, it's a fact - within the next 120 years, every person alive in the world today will have died, and there is nothing that medical science can do about it.

Doctors are not Gods, despite what they may think. They will not, they cannot conquer death.

DEATH IS INEVITABLE !

Every person who smokes, is going to die
Every person who never smokes, is going to die

Every person who is "overweight", is going to die
Every person who is never "overweight", is going to die

Every person who uses illicit drugs, is going to die
Every person who never uses illicit drugs, is going to die

Every person who drinks alcohol, is going to die
Every person who never drinks alcohol, is going to die

Every person who fails to heed the advice of health advocates, is going to die
Every person who devotedly follows all the advice of health advocates, is going to die

July 13, 2009 at 6:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

1. There will always be a "leading cause of preventable death".
2. If it is justifiable to use the various coercive and punitive powers of the state to prevent people dying from the current "leading cause of preventable death", it must be justifiable to use those powers to prevent people dying from any cause of preventable death.

Suppose that taxation and regulation of the tobacco industry, as well as taxation, regulation, "de-normalization" or even criminalization of the behavior of smokers, actually succeeded in reducing the number of deaths attributable to smoking to negligible levels. Something else would then become the leading cause of preventable death, and presumably be attacked with all the fanaticism that is currently being directed at smoking and other tobacco use.

In fact, this is already taking place. For a variety of reasons, smoking-related deaths are starting to decline and the next highest alleged cause of preventable death - obesity - is now coming under increased scrutiny and attack. Public health officials and advocacy groups have begun to call for the same kinds of coercive and punitive measures employed against tobacco and smoking, to be used against the "fast-food" and restaurant industries and their customers.
The stated goal of the anti-smoking industry is a smoking-free society. If the level of fanaticism involved in the "fight against tobacco" is justifiable, it must be justifiable in the coming "fight against fat". The amount of coercive and punitive measures and regulation that would be necessary to create a fat-free society is unknown at this time, but it would surely require an even greater intrusiveness into and regulation of people's personal choices, habits and behavior than those already used against tobacco have required. And if such tactics actually succeeded in bringing the rates of death attributable to obesity to negligible levels, what next?

Perhaps drinking alcoholic beverages might become the leading cause of preventable deaths. Would the public health advocates then demand that the full weight of the state be employed to bring about an alcohol-free society? Deja vu! Haven't we been down that road already, once before?

After alcohol, perhaps auto accidents might become the leading cause of preventable death.

July 13, 2009 at 6:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Could anything less than a total ban on personal vehicles come anywhere close to acheiving a society with no auto accidents?

Let us not forget deaths caused by sexually-transmitted diseases. HIV-AIDS is still responsible for large numbers of deaths in Western nations, and enormous numbers of deaths in Africa and other developing areas of the world, for example. Would we be looking at regulations governing when, where, with whom and in what manner we all have sexual relations?

Eventually, recreational sport injuries would become the remaining leading cause of preventable deaths. A ban on the sale of climbing gear? Massive taxes on hockey rink rentals? No film footage or other depictions of downhill skiing on prime-time television, of course - we can't have children being seduced by the nefarious sport equipment industry into needlessly endangering their lives by imitating this irresponsible behavior, which is now the leading cause of preventable deaths...

July 13, 2009 at 6:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

This scenario is not a paranoid fantasy! It is the logical eventual consequence and probable outcome of allowing public health officials and advocacy groups to get away with intrusive regulations and coercive and punitive measures by claiming that such tactics are justifiable in order to combat the leading cause of "preventable" deaths - whatever that cause of death might be or become.
The regulation of virtually every aspect of our personal lives, the continual and progressive erosion of our personal liberty and our freedom - this is the price we will all have to pay, if we are to accept and follow the prescription for minimal-risk living which public health fanatics are attempting to write for us.

It is worthwhile contemplating that the 295,000 American and 39,000 Canadian military deaths which occurred during World War Two all fit the definition of "preventable" deaths. Immediate capitulation to the Nazi regime would have prevented most, if not all, of those deaths.

July 13, 2009 at 6:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

The above are parts of a great article I received, and wanted to share.

On the local front:

The article in Fridays Gazette about the ban, and the loss of business in Emporia, will serve one purpose. Teresa and the coven from CAE will now be able to propose, (in the interest of a "LEVEL PLAYING FIELD"), A COUNTY WIDE BAN. Just watch!
Steve

July 13, 2009 at 6:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

As I have said before many times. The age of " Big Brother " is upon us, not in the future, but now. Yes, the government is the one labeled as " Big Brother ". However it is the influential people, T. Walters, S. Sauder, B. Sauder, etc., the power brokers, the so called know whats best for everyone, bigots and hypocrits, who are as you say rbow, the ones who influence and use the various coercive and punitive powers of the state to rule, dominate and control the lives of everyone else .
And I also agree that the next step in bans will be an outdoor smoking ban and a county wide smoking ban .
And you are right, there are only two things that are guaranteed to man or the human race, being born and dieing. " For as you are born, so shall you surely die " !
No human man, woman or child knows when, where or how they will surely die only that they will surely die !

July 13, 2009 at 8:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

When I saw the picture I told the mrs. just wait till ole cracky gets back from her week-end release, she will be the 1st. to mention "what about the children?"

Gosh and it looks like the kid in the picture is downing a triple Jack & root-beer float!

If that is a real kid, (and not a cardboard cut-out put in to stir crack up), someone should notify social services and get them to give ole cracky custody of the poor abused kid.

The kid looks really abused.
You just don't get it crack, small town bars are a meeting place for adults and kids in those towns. But there is no arguing with you cause you know what's best.

July 13, 2009 at 4:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

giggles (anonymous) says...

Ole crack also didn't notice the clothes on the kid's back and food in his stomach, because his parents can afford to keep their business open.

She misses more of the big picture than she would like to admit.

July 13, 2009 at 5 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Beatnik (anonymous) says...

Dearest Crakinsack,

If I am responsible for harmful second-hand smoke when the so-called "victim" has every right to be somewhere else...

Then so too is the law responsible for unintended consequences. Have you eaver heard anyone say "Choose your battles carefully?"

True, it is illegal to drive while drunk. However, it would obviously be wrong to assume that no one does so. Take the number of DUI arrests and take it times about 100 or more, and you might have an accurate picture of how often it happens. Unfortunately, the smoking ban is more enforcable, if less logical.

Simply stating that drunk driving is against the law does not pardon the law when it puts more drunks on the roads. If our legal system wants to prevent drunk driving, it must do more than merely arrest random people for it.

July 13, 2009 at 6:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Beatnik (anonymous) says...

On another point, how many children have you seen in bars in Emporia? Most of them have not allowed persons under the age of 18 to come in the door. This is not true in the case of more rural drinking holes.

July 13, 2009 at 6:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Beatnik (anonymous) says...

"The worst thing you can to a person is let them suffer the consequences of their own actions."

Here's for hoping that an anti-smoking activist has a minor accident with a drunk on a nearby county road. I wouldn't go so far as to actually wish them bodily harm, but knowing they had to steer their car into a deep ditch would be welcome.

July 13, 2009 at 6:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Beatnik (anonymous) says...

Idealistic attitudes are dangerous when it comes to passing laws. One should look at not only whether the law is ethically "right" or not, but at all of the consequences. I have often used the same logic in my discussions on the war in Iraq, for instance. Historically, the final judgement will be dependant upon whether we do any good over there or not.

Unfortunately, a small majority of Emporia citizens thought that their vote meant "smoking is bad," and really didn't bother to understand the overall effect of such a ban.

Also unfortunately, local lawmakers have the need to make their voters think that they actually have a job to do. This results in continual restrictions upon the citizenry. I am actually a progressive democrat, but it has come to the point that I think that local lawmakers should councentrate on deleting old laws rather than making new ones. Call it an unfortunate aspect of living in a small city, perhaps.

I would be much more comfortable living in an Emporia where my neighbor can raise a goat in his back yard, for instance (would be better than the noisy dog that's out there now!) than in an Emporia where the actions of its citizens and businesses are being continually restricted for overadvertised and overstated petty causes.

July 13, 2009 at 7:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Hey, how about the City Commissioners, commission new City of Emporia signs to put at all the entrance roads to the City of Emporia. With the slogan " WELCOME TO THE CITY OF EMPORIA - THE HOME OF THE BUSINESS KILLERS ".
That should attract some visitors and new businesses ! NOT !
crack, how does your crow taste, since the bar business is suffering badly because of you and the rest of your ban cronies have managed to absolutely wreck a number of businesses and businessmen/businesswomen in Emporia ! Great job !
If I am not mistaken, wasn't it you and the rest of the ban cronies who crowed that business at the bars would increase with the ban ?
KANSAS DRINKING LAWS
LEGAL AGE
No person under 21 years of age shall possess, consume, obtain, purchase, or attempt to obtain or
purchase alcoholic liquor (alcohol, spirits, wine, beer and every other liquid or solid containing more
than 3.2% alcohol by weight) or cereal malt beverage (any fermented or undistilled liquor made
from malt, but does not include any such liquor which is more than 3.2% by weight) except as
authorized by law.
crack, please show me anywhere in the above Kansas statute where it is against the law for a child to be in any place that serves alcolol, as long as they are accompanied by an adult, so long as they are not drinking or served an alocololic drink.
Do you intend to ban children from APPLEBEES, BRUFFS and anyther establishment that serves drinks along with meals and allowes children to be there. Are you also saying that the parents should leave there children at home or in the car when inside APPLEBEES, BRUFFS, etc.?
crack you need to get a life and leave other people to live their lives as they see fit and stop your selfcentered interfering !
What have you done recently that will try and bring jobs to Emporia, instead of kill businesses and cause job losses ?

July 13, 2009 at 7:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Beatnik (anonymous) says...

I wonder how much marijuana smoking is incidentally omitted when people blame health hazards on "second hand smoke." "Cause" statisticians are often willing to ignore reality if it is beneficial to their cause. There was a well known Hollywood personality (sorry, i forgot the name), who died from lung cancer. The press made a big deal of the fact that she never smoked... all but directly attributing her death to second hand smoke. What they forgot to mention was the fact that she had been through drug rehab multiple times.

What was the statistic the D.A.R.E people throw around about the tar content of marijuana? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it seems like they said the tar content of one joint was the equivalent of 3 packs of cigarettes; or maybe that was scare tactics, too, I don't know.

July 13, 2009 at 8:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Beatnik (anonymous) says...

Heh, the one time I went into a bar after the ban, it smelled WORSE! The smoke odor was gone, but the stale beer, B.O., and stale fart smell was far worse. I wouldn't have even smelled these things if there was cigarette smoke to cover them up.

July 13, 2009 at 8:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Don't ask ole cracky a question that she can't answer. As a matter of fact don't ask ole crackie any question . She will only p--s you off with her answers. That's her job. To keep you occupied from the real issues while respondig to HER drival.

July 13, 2009 at 9:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

Hahaha...I noticed that one day on a walk downtown, Beatnik. I passed a door that used to have strong cigarette odor wafting out of it but now it smelled like stale alcohol and the Pine-sol every bar uses to clean up and disinfect the bathrooms and floors. (not yours, Steve) Talk about a horrible smell----and to know that that smell now dominates 24-7.......
I wasn't a bar-goer before, but now I would be less likely to go into one---who wants to throw up before their even drunk?

July 13, 2009 at 11:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

You know, crack may be right. Maybe Teresa and the coven SHOULD push for a county-wide ban. Reasons:

1. It MAY cut down on drunk driving.
2. It MAY protect the health of children and those to dumb to chose where they go.
3. It will definately help with ad revenues for KVOE and the Gazette.
4. It will definately give those county residents who wanted to vote in the city election a chance to let their voices be heard.
5. It will definately remove another right of those business owners outside of Emporia on how they run their business.

But it will make those pro-ban nuts feel good.

crackinsacks says: Is the 30% increase in revenue worth the impact on that child's well-being? Is the bar's revenue going to pay for his treatments should he develop lung cancer? Sad, sad, sad...

I ask crack;
what would you say if your paycheck was reduced by 30%?
Oh shucks, I just asked her a question:)

July 14, 2009 at 10:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crack
Don't you believe that parenting of children should be left up to the parents of their own children, without the threat of some selfcentered busy bodies, interfering in those parents, parenting process and ability to do so ?
And crack, " where has all the business gone " . That you and all the T. Walters coven members insisted would be there even after the smoking ban ?
A 30% to 40% drop in business and business revenue is a big loss and may never be recouped, especially to those businesses that have been most affected by the smoking ban !
What kind of affect do you think a 30% to 40% drop in business and taxable business revenue will have and is having on the rest of the City of Emporia, that aspect of your selfish equation never entered into your equation did it ?
What are you doing to improve business, taxable business revenues and the jobs base in Emporia or do you not care about the long range affect of what you and your ban coven has managed to accomplish ( screwed up ) ?
Think about this. The Big Box retail businesses, that you are so enamored with, will not locate anywhere, they believe a suitable jobs base and disposable income of the local people or area is not or will not profitably support their business ! These or any business are not stupid !

July 14, 2009 at 12:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crack
As to the " but in ", interfering, control everyone and everything " attitude of you, T. Walters and the ban or control coven.
I am reminded of a saying I heard my grandmother politely say to some such as you, T. Walters or anyone who tried to but into and interfere with her way of living or deciding how to do something. She would say to them, " You go tend to your own knitting and let me tend to mine, thank you ".

July 14, 2009 at 12:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Beatnik (anonymous) says...

Here's the real cusp of the issue to me. If we have any claim to being a "free" nation, we should have the right to take our own chances and make our own choices, even if they are bad ones. The government should never try to be my mother, or that of any other sane adult... and yes, I would say that this applies to the seat belt laws, drinking age restrictions aganst people who are otherwise adults, and even drug laws, though I don't do drugs.

The bartenders and waitresses affected by second hand smoke always had the choice of NOT working there. Patrons have always had the choice of NOT being patrons.

If the patrons of the local bars wanted a non-smoking bar, then a bar that does not permit smoking would have good business, and thus, it would be a good business decision to create one. There were already plenty of non smoking restaurants. The truth of the matter is that most of those who voted for the smoking ban were people that don't even go out to bars... even in a smoke free environment, and thus, they probably should've minded their own bleeping business. For what reason should a person who does not have any vested interest in a type of business be able to affect the practices of such a business through law?

If you are concerned about second hand smoke hazards in the local bars, the correct way to act would be to open a non-smoking bar; NOT arbitrarily enforcing your will upon every such business in the area, and consequently destroying them entirely.

July 14, 2009 at 1:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Beatnik (anonymous) says...

And yes, I'll freely admit...

The whole drunk driving tirade was merely an attempt at making an argument that public safety advocates could relate to. That does not mean that the argument wasn't valid; I was merely choosing an audience that may have origionally disagreed with my purpose.

July 14, 2009 at 1:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

Gotta keep health care costs down ....................more bans to come.

July 14, 2009 at 1:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Beatnik (anonymous) says...

Lumping businesses whose primary purpose is to serve alcohol in with restaraunts was unquestionably a miscarriage of justice. Might some people have voted one way for restaraunts, but another way for taverns? I think they would, considering that a higher percentage of bar patrons smoke than is seen in the general public.

July 14, 2009 at 2:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Beatnik (anonymous) says...

"Gotta keep health care costs down ....................more bans to come."

Rising health care costs come primarily from an overabundance of hypochondriacs in our society, due to scare tactics used by the medical industry and the press, in my opinion.

I am a smoker, and guess what? I haven't seen a doctor in over 15 years!!

July 14, 2009 at 2:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

Yeah, but there will be more bans in the name of keeping health care costs down now that the government is getting more involved. I could care less if people believe it or not, they will see.

July 14, 2009 at 2:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Beatnik (anonymous) says...

Heh, I'm not quite THAT paranoid, YY4U, but I would agree that corporate and political psychologists are doing our society more harm than good. I don't question their intentions, only their impact. Their motives are just like anyone else's in a capitalist society: To make money.

July 14, 2009 at 7:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Beatnik (anonymous) says...

Let me put it this way, Crack. I'm going to use a little metaphor here to show you the flaw in your logic.

Let's say that you are sitting in your car at a stoplight, and some complete lunitic walks in front of your car with a crowbar, threatening to kill you. He pulls back the crowbar and looks prepared to damage your car with it.

Under normal circumstances, you would have every right to run him over in self defense. However, let's say that someone innocent of any wrongdoing is also crossing in front of your vehicle, and appears to be oblivious as to what is going on. Would it still be OK to step on the gas?

For the sake of the metaphor, the lunitic is a smoker, though I in no way imply that the habit is so perverse or so damaging. The person behind the wheel is THE LAW. The innocent bystander is the poor sucker that ended up in a head on collision with some drunk on the Americus road due to your petty little law.

In your opinion, it appears that the law is not responsible in any way for what may happen to the innocent bystander. He should step on the gas and run the lunitic down, along with anyone else that might be in the way.

July 14, 2009 at 10:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

WHEN ASKED A GOOD QUESTION, BY MULTIPLE POSTERS, NO RESPONSE. such is the life of ????

July 14, 2009 at 11:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

giggles (anonymous) says...

Crack, you are ignoring the fact that we are in dire straights as a nation right now. The job market is so low even those with good skills can't find a job. Some college students who could graduate are staying in school trying to wait it out, all the while racking up their student loans. "Pretty easy, really." You are NOT being realistic.
Real is holding onto the job you have right now, in hopes that you can make it to calmer waters. It doesn't help the situation when someone comes along and makes it extremely difficult to do even that.

July 15, 2009 at 10:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

Wait up! Hold the phone! Slow your row! Back up! boop boop boop boop boop boop(sound of a large truck backing up)
crack
Are you actually saying, in all seriousness, no kiddin', for really real, that you are for smoking bans? How did I miss that?

Seriously R. Folks

July 15, 2009 at 10:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crack
For one final time. I nor anyone else is harming you, YOU ARE HARMING YOU by choosing to frequent businesses that used to allow smoking and by your continued choosing to make the bad choice to be exposed to that which you believe does you harm.
And now you are expanding your " selfcentered interference " to those bars in other communities, because of one picture of a child in an establishment, that just happens to serve drinks, by making the assumption the child is being served an alcoholic drink and being exposed to shs.
Your exact statement is, " but you get bars like the one in Americus that serve children, so you have to make it all-inclusive if you want it to be effective."
So, from this statement, is it true that you are implying the bar is serving children alcolic beverages and are you implying you are in favor of a county wide smoking ban ?
When your taxes are substantially increased to make up for the 30% to $40% loss in tax revenues are you going to hollar that money isn't everything then, SISTER ?
And you do need to tend to you own knitting, as noone is doing you harm, but you and only you ! I do not smoke, Thank you very much !

July 15, 2009 at 10:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Well I did ask you the question, but your reply kind of surprised me:

"If my paycheck was cut by 30% I would cut back spending until I found a new job. Pretty easy, really. Maybe I just have a more marketable skill set..."

With the un-employment rate as high as it is, (and that doesn't even count recent grads from colleges, and high schools), I really hope you do have a marketable skill set.
Some do, some don't, and they are all suffering.

July 15, 2009 at 11:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crack
You are so stupid you can't even see that robbing a bank and causing a community and the people in it harm by causing a drop in collectable tax revenues and in the process, destroying businesses, a community and peoples lives, because of your idiotic, selfcentered, brainwashed, beliefs.
You have the right to go into any business you CHOOSE to.
Only thing is if you CHOOSE to enter said business knowing that there may be something present in that business that may do you grievous harm, THEN THAT IS HARMING YOURSELF BY YOUR OWN SELFISH CHOOSING. Noone forced you to enter that business etc., only you forced yourself to go there and only you are to blame for any harm inflicted upon yourself .
You and your cronies, possibly irrepairable harm to certain business in Emporia and possibly Emporia itself and many other citizens in Emporia by forcing a possible increase of taxes, service rates, etc., by you and your ban cronies. Oh, and robbing a bank is a premeditated act and smoking and shs is not or was not a premeditated act.
And the kid in a bar/restaurant that allows smoking is the resposibility of his/her parent and definately is not your resposibility. If you want to be responsible for every kid in the country or the world, I suggest that you start adoption proceedings immediately.

July 15, 2009 at 11:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Oh and by the way Teresa, you spout about this being a free country and yet you have no qualms about restricting others freedoms, do you !
You have been brainwashed by the propoganda of the CIA handbook well. As a matter fact so well that you spout sections of the CIA manifesto hand book almost verbatum.
You would make certain persons in past history very proud !

July 15, 2009 at 12:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

crack
If I knew what an ibid is I might be offended. Is that something you do on Ebay?

Seriously R. Folks

July 15, 2009 at 12:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

Oh, i figured it out it's when you bid on an Apple product on Ebay.

I'm still not sure if I'm offended. I wouldn't mind having an ipod though. Do you think an ibid could operate an ipod?

Seriously R. Folks

July 15, 2009 at 12:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

giggles (anonymous) says...

You're only half right about one statement, this is or at least is supposed to be a free country. Therefore, those businesses should be able to conduct business as they see fit.
The inherent harm is relative. Your views of harm from SHS aren't held by everyone or even an overwhelming majority. Robbing a bank however is.
Overall, in any ecnonomy, those private owners should be able to conduct a profitable business. Your own personal harm from it is and should be your business, if you can't manage it then that is your own fault. I guess if there were a class on personal accountability, you would have failed miserably.
Too bad there isn't such a class, then it could be a requirement for graduating. Some people just wouldn't be able to get a degree.

July 15, 2009 at 12:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

giggles (anonymous) says...

We are not talking about building codes. We are talking about a legal substance.

ethical
Adjective
1. of or based on a system of moral beliefs about right and wrong

The ethics of this are vague. Is it morally wrong to allow smoking? When the research is sketchy at best, it is hard to say that this is such a prominent form of death, so you then have to look to image or social standards. Still unclear of the ethics. Hmmm... guess I don't see the ethical wrong here.

Smoking is a legal danger, so is alcohol, sex is legal, and is regulated as to what exactly is legal sex. These have all been ethically regulated to begin with. There ar warnings everywhere about these dangers. Once again we come to PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY 101. You know the dangers, so avoid them for your own safety, and remember you are responsible for you.

July 15, 2009 at 2 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crack
That person that stabbs you while walking down the street, did you know before hand he was going to stab you ?
The drunk driver in the other car, did you know that he was drunk and going to run into you before hand ?
Just as no one forced you into an establishment that allowed smoking and shs, you knew before hand that putting yourself in that situation was or could be harmful to you and yet you persisted in you selfish way to enter, be exposed to a harmful situation and then blame everyone else, how selfish is that ?Unlike the stabber or drunk driver you had no knowledge of them before hand, but you knew before hand that a certain establishment allowed smoking and shs and still you entered, therefore allegdly harming yourself !
Geez, your logic is as dumb as a stump.

July 15, 2009 at 3:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crack
You have or had this demented idea that people who smoke and the businesses that used to allow smoking are or were pushing you around !
However it is you who are pushing others around or are you to stupid and blind to that is what you are doing ?
How does it feel to know that you are the one doing the pushing of businesses and people around ? Seems a little bigoted to me.

July 15, 2009 at 3:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crack
Oh, now you are saying if you live in a neighborhood that does not look as nice as where you live, those neighborhoods and the people who live in a not so nice looking neighborhood, should be banned from Emporia and pushed around by you and the other bigoted snobs who are fortunate enough to be able to live in a so called " NICE LOOKING " neighborhood ?
If thats your bigoted attitude, then Emporia and this country is truly in big trouble !

July 15, 2009 at 4:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

P.S.
Its just too bad people like you live in a so called " NICE LOOKING NEIGHBORHOOD " , I for one wouldn't want to live anywhere near you or your neighborhood of bigots !
Oh yea, " Looks aren't everything " .

July 15, 2009 at 4:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

giggles (anonymous) says...

This all comes back to the fact that just because you can go there doesn't mean you should.
The other is that at the time the majority of those who went to the smoking allowed establishments, were not that greatly affected by the harm, hence the reason they went there.
Others, who were worried about their health, stayed out, and minded their own business, as they should. Some people realized that there are other people in the world who may enjoy things that others do not. Maybe those things are harmful maybe not.
Point is some people let those others have their own space harmful or not. Things were pretty peaceful that way, now they definately are not, and furthermore, the promises made by those who wanted the disruption, were not kept.

July 15, 2009 at 5:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crack
Yes, I know where Steve lives and Steve knows where I live and yet we have the common courtesy to respect one another and one anothers rights and I would venture to say that neither of us are envious, jealous or degrading of where each lives or what the neighborhood is like. People live where they want, can afford and are comfortable with living there .
The neighborhood does not make the person nor gives the person anymore rights, etc. as the next person.
But you on the other hand, seem to be a bird of another feather and attitude entirely.

July 15, 2009 at 5:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Well that was amusing. Google has a lot better photo than most of the real estate agents in town. I will say that since that picture we have had the shrubs pruned and the grass mowed. And we are getting ready to paint the windows. Anyone looking to buy?
Steve

July 15, 2009 at 10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

rbow
crack, is absolutely a certifiable moronic, idiot ! Who knows what sort of an idiotic ranting tactic she will try next to keep from answering logical questiions and comments.
Boy I am going to have to take a break from crack for awhile !

July 15, 2009 at 10:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Well at least she knows how to use google earth. The correct address however is 935 Oxford. And my phone number is in the book. Don't know what any of that post had to do with this thread, but then some can lose their train of thought pretty easily.

July 15, 2009 at 10:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

paulkersey (anonymous) says...

I work at a bar here in town which will remain unnamed, and we have yet to see this so called influx of non smokers. Where are they all at? I won't debate business ethics or harmful effects or anything else, I just want to know where are these mythical non smokers now that their ban has passed. I know they all promised to come out, but have never materialized. You all had better start coming out and soon, before you don't have any bars to go to. I know of at least 4 bars that are on the brink of closing, and the only bar that was non smoking was the first to close.

You all really screwed the pooch on this one.

July 16, 2009 at 2:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

I'LL GET YOU MY PRETTY, (smokers)!

AND YOUR LITTLE DOG,(bars), TO!

overheard @ EDA offices.

July 16, 2009 at 7:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

giggles (anonymous) says...

I think some people just can't mind their own business. It is getting rather disturbing. She seems to be stalking people now. Quite frankly, I would be scared. I won't be posting my birthdate that's for sure, and furthermore, if she winds up with this info., that spells serious trouble to me.

July 16, 2009 at 9:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

I sign my real name. I had to have it changed after a run in with a local "group" over a nonpayment for some Thin Mints.

Seriously R. Folks

July 16, 2009 at 11:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

cracky, have you earthed Teresa's house yet? It's a lot purdyer than my ole shack.

giggles, As long as you don't sign your name on here and don't say anything liebelous the gazette won't release your identity. Thank goodness I am good friends with several at the Gazette. I know who cracky is also, but promised not to reveal it. don't get fired up Gwen, after all this is Emporia, and everyone thinks they know everyone elses business.

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

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

S. R. Folks,

Shame on you!

BREAKING THE LAW
BREAKING THE LAW.

July 16, 2009 at 12:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

I usually don't break the law, the ones I agree with anyhoo, but I had to in this case. Those Thin Mints were a little long on the thin and short on the mint, someone had to stand up to those gals and say "Hey, we're not goin' to take it!". Long story short, I had to make a run for it and get some fake papers which was suprisingly easy in this town and start life all over again.

Seriously R. Folks

July 16, 2009 at 5:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

Hey, now that I've googled my own address, I'd like to put it on my desktop. Is that possible? Can someone advise me how to do it?

July 16, 2009 at 6:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

I would think that you would need a very large desk for that.

Seriously R. Folks

July 16, 2009 at 7:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

ROFLMAO, seriously. I walked right into that one, didn't I?

July 16, 2009 at 9:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

That is just freaky!!! I wish they'd taken our street photo when we had the "Vote NO to the smoking ban" sign up.

July 16, 2009 at 10:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Beatnik (anonymous) says...

Hey crack,

I think I suggested it before, but apparently you didn't get it. Yes, I smoke... but I don't smoke in places that don't allow it. There were already plenty of restaraunts that didn't allow smoking... more than there were that did, as a matter of fact.

Again, if you are so worried about the effects of second hand smoke, you DO have the option of not going places that allow smoking.

No one ever tried to force non smokers into the bars and restaraunts that allow smoking. There was even one non-smoking bar in this town for a number of years, though I'm not sure if it was still operating that way.

Therefore, as it has been said before.... I am not doing damage to anyone when I smoke in a bar... the smoke is expected in such places. At worst, you could say they are doing damage to themselves by being there. Thusly, the law is trying to be "mother to us all" in this type of situation.

And as far as the insinuation that I am one of the people who might be breaking the law in the ways I've been speaking against? You're wrong. I wasn't lying when I said I haven't been to a bar since the ban... unless you count the time that I walked into one in Emporia for about 2 minutes, couldn't stand the smell, then left without so much as ordering a drink. I haven't been a heavy drinker in ages, and only went to the bars about once a month anyway... and often drank nothing but coke when I was there. I did enjoy a little karaoke now and then, and sometimes played poker when they had tournaments, but that's about the limit of my nightlife activities.

July 16, 2009 at 11:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

romano1784 (anonymous) says...

hello hello. You guys/girls still bothering with crackedinthehead? lol how about we all take courses on how to shoot yourself in the foot instead, its gotta be less painful. Methulsa why do you bother? You seem to be well educated, you maintain common/book smarts, yet you keep getting drawn into these mindnumbing debates with a person who wont tie her own shoes without the ok from CAE, police, and a hazmat team? I know this will upset crack, but strangely i dont seem to mind in the slightest. but you know us smokers, we just take no accoutability for our actions.
By the way if anyone is reading this, I didnt write it.

July 16, 2009 at 11:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

romano1784
You are right, I do get drawn into debating the idiotic logic of crack and I am going to take a break from debating with some one who has cement for a brain. However I can only stand just so much of cracks idiotic, illogical ramblings for so long and then am drawn back to try and inject some semblance of sane, common sense logic into the fray !
I guess this is my weakness !

July 17, 2009 at 8:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

"Nanny State Strikes Hometown, USA

Today at 5:00am

The City of Marietta, Georgia, a northwest suburb of Atlanta just up the street from my hometown of Smyrna, Georgia, has earned two gold, Nanny-state stars. The Marietta City Council has just voted to ban smoking in the town square, Glover Park.Henceforth, any poor sap who might still be harboring under the illusion that he lives in a free country, and makes the mistake of lighting a cigarette, cigar or even a “weed,” in the great outdoors that might also happen to be within the confines of the town square, can be arrested and fined $500. One freedom-loving council member, patting herself on the back for this all-American action to outlaw yet another vestige of individual freedom, pronounced herself “pleased” and expressed hope that the ban would soon be extended to all parks in the city."

Bob Barr

July 17, 2009 at 8:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Beatnik.......

I spent hours arguing the same points you are arguing now with old crack before finally deciding it wan't worth the effort. Your doing a good job though so keep up the fight as long as it remains fun. Just remember one thing.....You will never get her to understand or accept anything but the CAE handbook, so don't expect any change of heart or logic from her....it won't happen.

July 17, 2009 at 12:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Now that we are crack-free for the weekend, I would like to try to bring another into the frey.

NUTSABOUTOOLS continuousley posted befor the vote, that they could not see the ban affecting businesses. I wonder after these articles and posts if they still feel that way?

I know we like dogging old cracknsack, but the really sad thing about this whole ban thing is there were 2,369 voters who felt the same way. That vs. 2361voters who got it means there was no mandate for this devisive issue.

Since the ban has taken effect, Emporia Open for Business has lost one backer. They are no longer open. I am afraid another one will be closed by August.

Maybe Emporia can be proactive like a lot of other cities whose unemployment rate is 10% and higher.

July 17, 2009 at 9:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Steve......one of the few things I do admire about old crack is her willingness to continue to fight for the cause. I once described her as maybe the only true believer of the bunch. While the rest of CAE crowd has taken the money and ran....never to be heard from again.....she continues to stand toe to toe week after week.

I don't know weather that indicates true dedication and believe.....or just a masochistic drive to be beat-up on. Whatever.....it's interesting to watch..

p.s.
Thanks for the nice words on another thread. I don't know if they were deserved...but they were appreciated.

July 18, 2009 at 6:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

As posted on another thread;

go to kvoe's web site and click on "something to think about"

and read Sauders remarks about this biased report from the gazette.

July 19, 2009 at 9:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

STINKY SMOKE!

August 26, 2009 at 11:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Blight be gone

August 30, 2009 at 9:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )