The Emporia Gazette

glarson (anonymous) says...

More from the original story:

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

September 29, 2008 at 5:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawker (anonymous) says...

Gwen: Thanks for removing my post. I was embarrassed about it as soon as I posted it. This whole issue is emotional to me (I'm very protective of our rights in this country and the costs that some have paid in order for us to have them). I'll be more careful from now on. I hope that everything is fine with whatever the reason was that you were in the hospital waiting room over the weekend.

September 29, 2008 at 8:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

"I hope that everything is fine with whatever the reason was that you were in the hospital waiting room over the weekend."

+1

By the way Jayhawker, I would be willing to bet you were dead on ;)

September 29, 2008 at 9:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

BigE;
What you and your group are trying to do is wrong and has nothing to do with morals because when you or anyone tries to force someone, anyone to live by your rules and way of life and try to take away someone elses freedom of choice of how they want to live their lives, is moraly wrong, especially when you claim it to be a "health" issue. If this were actually a health issue, you need to also add a ban on "the operation of any and all motor vehicles, through and within the City of Emporia, ban all burning of wood in fireplaces within the City of Emporia, ban all meat smokers, barbecuers or cookers that use any thing other than propane or natural gas as a fuel, ban all train traffic through The City of Emporia because of the exhaust pollution of their diesel engines, ban the use of sugar, caffeine, ice-cream, soda pop, all alcoholic beverages, ban the eating of certain foods that are unhealthy, now do you see how this whole ban thing, based on air pollution and health may get completely out of control. The true moral thing to do would be to have mutual respect for your fellow man and his freedom of choice.
You do have the right pass your moral values onto your son, but I sincerely hope you will also teach your son that everyone has the right to freedom of choice to live his or her life as they choose to do and everyone has the freedom of choice to make good or bad choices in their lives.
I wonder if you think that two infamous men in recent history were morally right in doing what they believed was moraly best for millions of people, I believe you know to whom I am referring.
I don't know if I have answered your question about morals or not, if not, then you will never get an answer, as you are convinced you are absolutely and totally right.

September 29, 2008 at 9:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

P.S.
Gwen, I too am sorry to hear you were ill and hope you are feeling and doing well now, I too am like Jayhawker, passionate about the possible loss of anyone's freedoms and may get a little carried away with some of my rhetoric.

September 29, 2008 at 9:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

I guess, maybe I had better not attend tonights meeting, as I get pretty upset when the thought of an individual, individuals or group believe that they have the moral right to remove freedom of choice from all individuals.
Especially when there are those of us who fought to protect the right to freedom of choice for all citizens of the U.S., even those who wish to deprive all citizens of freedom of choice, based on what they percieve as a moral, health issue.

September 29, 2008 at 9:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BigE (anonymous) says...

Is there a moral aspect to this debate that has not been addressed? If it's legally acceptable, does that also guarantee that it is morally acceptable?"

rbow, i made no mention of govt. dictating our morals, just a question. please read the post, and don't insert your own words. thanks

MisterO, same to you, I didn't mention legislation of our morals, those are your words. thanks

methusla, (that was a lengthy post), I think 2 words will address most of those issues, common sense. thanks

Bj, (you seem angry) Thank you for inadvertantly addressing my questions about morals. Let me state, I am NOT a skinhead, or racist of any kind, but I guess they do have the freedom to have their own beliefs. Obviously , the city would not adopt their beliefs or pass them into law. But this, at least in my mind, confirms that something can be legal, without being morally acceptable. Same with the idiots that burn our American flag, they can hide behind the legalities given to them by the constitution, but it still in my mind is immoral. thanks

September 29, 2008 at 9:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...

I am to understand that since you did not respond to my answer to your moral question that you accept it as valid?

September 29, 2008 at 10:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BigE (anonymous) says...

Negative on that Outsider, I disagree. I do believe that something can be legal, yet immoral. See above post. Again, before anyone runs with a misconception, I am not condoning the action of skinheads, or any racists, or their beliefs.

September 29, 2008 at 11:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

clancy (anonymous) says...

All businesses must meet safety and health requirements.

Once business owners apply for and receive various licenses from the city and the state to operate, they then control a lot of what happens in their businesses. But these licenses (business, liquor, food establishment, etc.) provide the privilege of doing business in a community, and they also set out the safety and health norms to protect workers as well as customers. So there are requirements for rodent and pest control, clean kitchens and restrooms, the hotness and coldness of certain food and beverages, limitations on what workers under 17 years old can do, designation of closing times for some businesses, restrictions on noise level, etc. These requirements—or regulations-- help provide a safe environment for the people entering or working in such businesses.

The requirements change over the years as more information is learned. Do we allow spittoons on the bar room floors or the common drinking cup in food or drink establishments? Now we expect clean glasses and buffet tables with protective shields.

We now know exposure to secondhand smoke is a danger to patrons and workers alike. The easiest protection against secondhand smoke is a smoke free policy for public indoor areas, with smokers still free to smoke outside where they are not contaminating other people’s breathing space.

Since 2002, twenty-eight cities and two counties in Kansas have adopted restrictions on secondhand smoke in public places, and many other communites are considering such policies.

Everyone should have the right to breathe clean indoor air where they work, where they eat and where they play. Why shouldn’t all workers as well as all customers in Emporia have that right also?

September 29, 2008 at 12:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BigE (anonymous) says...

Clancy

Great post, well done!

September 29, 2008 at 12:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Why don't you find out from the people who work at and go to these businesses that allow smoking if they enjoy working there or shopping there and if your banning smoking in a place of business they are gainfully employed at should happen to cost them their job, etc., if they will support such a ban, so you see this is not only about health, it can end up being about revenue and jobs, also it is moraly wrong to threaten anyone's ability to make a living through gainful employment, no matter what that employment may legally be.
Oh, by the way Walmart does not allow customer smoking in their business but they do have an employee smoking lounge for their employees, now that being said are all of you ban smoking advocates going to stop shopping at our local Walmart, bet you didn't even know that bit of information, because you can't even smell second hand smoke at Walmart.

September 29, 2008 at 1:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

To all of you whom oppose the proposed ban by the CAE are definately fighting a loosing cause, because, and my next statement will be removed or get me banned from the forum, as I was about to say, because, the powers that be in Emporia that control Emporia's government will win this, because of who they are, what they are in local society. Therefore I neither care if my comment is removed or I am banned from this forum, because as BigE insinuated in his posts, he and the his CAE cronies are the only people living in Emporia who have the right to dictate how all citizens of Emporia make choices and live their lives and if you don't comform to BigEs and the CAEs rules and regulations, you are deemed to have no moral values or right to freedom of choice , so you see ordinary citizens of Emporia you mean absolutely nothing and have no value to these Gods of Emporia !
I will not attend the meeting to night as I have no moral values and am an insignificant "little fella".

September 29, 2008 at 2:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

BJinemp,

You really have a way of twisting words to your liking, complete with Jew,black,Nazi, and any other keyword used to instantly try to paint me evil. Bravo sir!!!

Now back to reality

They are citizens enacting legislation, and based on the last gazette poll the general public agreed with hence the "ramrod" you speak of is not happening. My point has always been that the government is not to blame here, its the citizens, ergo why when I post of this nature its makes me question the logic of individual's thinking. You however clearly are one that belongs with them, comparing a smoking act to anything within the realm of some of the most hideous atrocities in history is laughable at best. Stay on point, the jump to conclusion mat is that way------------->

September 29, 2008 at 2:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

Clancy, you are correct. Smoking bans have passed in many cities in KS. I have spent the last few days researching smoking bans across the US, and as far as I can tell this is the most restrictive smoking banI have found in the US, CA included.

I understand the idea for a smoking ban, but THIS IS NOT IT! This is a personal vendetta by a select few elitists towards the bars and restaurants that serve alcohol in Emporia. Most smoking bans that have passed have been business friendly. To even mention those words in regards to this ban is a laughable gesture to say the least. I suggest you read this ban, then compare it to other bans. It seems to me (and I think this is exactly what happened) that they took smoking bans from all over Kansas, combined them, and then added even more restrictions to that.

September 29, 2008 at 2:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Had to chuckle at the front page graph on tonights paper. This so called survey taken by esu students was a joke. When they walked into the bars they told the managers they were working on a class project, DID NOT MENTION THE SURVEY WAS FOR CAE! Came in after 8:00 P.M. when most of the smokers were gone. They showed no-one the proposed ordinance and how restrictive it was. If you look at the wording on the graphs the words PREFER several times not MANDATE. I challenge CAE to conduct a follow up survey taking into consideration these three things and I would imagine the results would be quite different.

September 29, 2008 at 5:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BigE (anonymous) says...

methusla

you wrote:
"as BigE insinuated in his posts, he and the his CAE cronies are the only people living in Emporia who have the right to dictate how all citizens of Emporia make choices and live their lives and if you don't comform to BigEs and the CAEs rules and regulations, you are deemed to have no moral values or right to freedom of choice"

what are you talking about?

September 29, 2008 at 6:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

johnsmith (anonymous) says...

I think he was trying to tell you nicely that you are an elitist pig. But I could be wrong

September 29, 2008 at 6:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BigE (anonymous) says...

johnsmith
uh, what?

September 29, 2008 at 10:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

were any one of you on this forum at tonights meeting? I went and you know what? The CAE people stepped on a snakes nest and tonight they were bitten. DON'T TREAD ON ME!

September 29, 2008 at 10:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BigE (anonymous) says...

rbow,

by TREAD, do you mean "blow second hand smoke"?

so maybe you mean don't blow second hand smoke on me?

September 29, 2008 at 11:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

If you weren't there, I would say roughly 85% of the people there were against this ban. If I'm exaggerating, 85% is too low.

September 29, 2008 at 11:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

BigE,

I think he means don't interfere with his (and mine) rights to run a private business the way he sees fit. Were you at the meeting tonight?

September 29, 2008 at 11:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

And everyone at the meeting are representative of the whole community? Lets see this on the ballot and leave it up to the masses as it should be.

September 30, 2008 at 6:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Goodoleboy: what gazette poll are you talking about? If you are talking about the graphs on last nights front page get real. The gazette poll a couple of weeks ago showed that people were opposed to the ban. The graphs in last night paper are invalid for the following reasons:
1. The people taking the survey lied about the reason for the survey and who they were. (College students for extra credit on a health class.)
2. Not one person who signed their petiton was shown a copy of CAE's proposed ordinance. I have talked to more than a few who said if they had seen the ordinance they never would have signed it.
3. Not everyone who signed the petition were registered voters who live in Lyon County as per state law.

September 30, 2008 at 7 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

I agree 100% goodoleboy. I feel everyone at the meeting WAS representative of the whole community, and if I am right, when and if this thing comes to a ballot, its going to get stomped in a mud hole. I did not fully understand until last night what a small group of people CAE supporters are.

By the way, if anyone has any "big tobacco money", let me know! I haven't seen a dime of it. All of the money that has been used to fight this thing has been working man dollars from small business owners. There is no grant or private foundation bankrolling this. This is 100% grassroots, and from the looks of things last night, I think CAE messed with bull, and got the horns.

September 30, 2008 at 7:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

rbow,

In an online poll taken by the gazette a few weeks back the results were narrowly in favor of the ban. Again I do not feel that it should be taken for canon but its does show a degree of support for this. I have always said this should be up for a vote, I was never in favor of the commission ruling on it, I will gladly abide by and concede a vote.

September 30, 2008 at 7:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Weltha (anonymous) says...

What should the Emporia City Commission do with the CAE's proposal to make Emporia smoke free? Sept 11, 2008

Where do you see narrow approval it looks the opposit to me.

Not approve it 47% 649 votes
Approve it 38% 525 votes
Seek input with an advisory election 14% 193 votes
1367 total votes

September 30, 2008 at 8:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

Did they close it or can you still vote? I looked at it mid September and the results were approx 51 for 49 opposed. Either way, I hope it goes to a vote, that will settle it in my eyes.

September 30, 2008 at 8:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Weltha (anonymous) says...

Pretty sure its closed

September 30, 2008 at 8:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

BigE- What I ment by my post, was that evidently you and your CAE cronies think that you and your CAE cronies are the only citizens of Emporia who have the moral right to dictate moral law and how every citizen in Emporia should or should not live their lives, run their business, etc., therefore you and your CAE cronies are trying to force your way of life and values upon every other citizen of Emporia by using the City of Emporia government, which by the way may be unlawful, discriminatory and un-constitutional.
Now, I believe I have clarified my earlier post and position so that even a 3 year old may understand it.

September 30, 2008 at 3:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

josiesbar- Have you or any of the other opponents of what the CAE and their supporters are trying to do, checked to see, if the CAE and their supporters, by trying to use the Emporia City government to take away citizens rights and freedom of choice is unlawful, discriminatory or un-constitutional, might be something to look into.
Also I would not be patting each other on the back or handing out congratulations just yet, because you are dealing with an elite and powerful Emporia entity and I feel that this is far from over.

September 30, 2008 at 3:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

Goodoleboy: You blessed us with this comment, directed to me:

"BJinemp,

You really have a way of twisting words to your liking, complete with Jew,black,Nazi, and any other keyword used to instantly try to paint me evil. Bravo sir!!!"

Thank you, goodoleboy. However, I have never tried "to paint" you as evil. I just directed some light on you so everyone could see your existing true color.

September 30, 2008 at 3:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

Methusla,

You are right. This war is far from over. It really did help last night to see exactly how few people we are dealing with. We would have been dealing with far, had they not been threatened and intimidated, however (rolls eyes). What I am working on right now is getting a line-item budget from CAE and EDA to find out exactly what they spent $92,650 a year on, when they only did 4 events in two years.

September 30, 2008 at 5:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Newsie (anonymous) says...

Josie: You and Custer have something in common. You both underestimated the enemy's strength.

September 30, 2008 at 6:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )