A new group intent on clearing the air in Emporia made its public debut Thursday evening at the annual Working Women After Hours event at the W.L. White Auditorium.
Clean Air Emporia, organized through a grant under the auspices of Emporians for Drug Awareness, set up a display among a host of other vendors from public and private sectors.
About 1,500 women strolled along the displays, socializing along the way and stopping to see what Clean Air Emporia was all about.
“We feel it’s really important that we are helping people become aware of secondhand smoke, why it is such a public health issue,” said Bobbi Sauder, who is in charge of the group.
Sauder said that she has been pleased with the early responses to Clean Air Emporia’s campaign to educate residents on the health hazards of secondhand smoke, and she is looking for more volunteers to help with the effort.
On Thursday, Sauder and others were handing out lists of area businesses that have no-smoking policies and information sheets detailing the effects of cigarette smoking on the non-smokers around them.
The materials draw on information gathered from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Center for Disease Control, the Surgeon General and a list of other health-related groups.
Secondhand smoke exposes non-smokers to a known cancer-causing agent, according to the information sheet.
That danger cannot be eliminated by ventilation systems or by separating smokers from non-smokers, Sauder said. The health hazards are compounded by dangerous chemical additives the government allows cigarette manufacturers to inject into the tobacco.
“Tobacco is not regulated by the FDA on what they put in there,” Sauder said.
Educating the public about those hazards is the first phase in a campaign that she hopes ultimately will bring a no-smoking ordinance to the city. Other cities in the state already have ordinances that restrict smoking in public places and, Sauder said, Kansas City, Mo., approved a smoking ban this week.
Clean Air Emporia advocates want an ordinance that will include bars, restaurants, and other places where smoking currently is allowed. Secondhand smoke is especially harmful to employees in those businesses, who are exposed to harmful chemicals throughout their workday, she said. According to the material provided by CAE, non-smokers sitting behind a smoker in a bar will breathe in the equivalent of four cigarettes during a 2-hour period; workers in a smoky bar will breathe in the equivalent of 16 cigarettes during an 8-hour work shift.
“The statistics are alarming,” Sauder said.
The group has not yet presented the request for an ordinance to the city. For the time being, CAE is building its base of support and trying to reassure business owners that prohibiting smoking will not hurt business; in some cases, business could improve, the group contends.
“We’re just educating right now,” Sauder said. “We’re hoping that we’ll have a comprehensive smoke-free ordinance for Emporia. We’re hoping to have no exemptions.”
madpoet (anonymous) says...
Good luck. I remember when S'ghettis banned smoking then their business dropped off. I don't know if that is why they closed or not. I wish we could ban smoking but don't hold much hope. Smokers get very defensive about their "right to smoke" but don't understand that someone else might have a "right not to breathe their fumes." I feel coke your lungs if you want but leave the rest of us out of it.
April 11, 2008 at 1:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Absolute (anonymous) says...
How wonderful! Everyone deserves the right to breathe clean air! Especially our children.
April 11, 2008 at 3:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
Nonsense. I, too, believe second-hand smoke may have harmful effects but passing legislation allowing more government intrusion and control in our private lives is unwise and unnecessary. A business owner---particularly of bars and restaurants---should have the unobstructed right to determine whether or not smokers are welcome in their establishment. No one forces anyone to frequent any business. If you or your children don't want to breathe smoke in that business, don't go there. Find a business that doesn't allow smoking. I don't like drinking or being around idiots that do so I don't spend my money in places that allow drinking so loudmouths pollute the atmosphere or impaired drivers can kill me and my family on the streets. I have no problem with that. They have a right to drink and I have a right to go someplace where they don't. Same with smoking. You don't like it, go somewhere else, but don't allow big brother, or bleeding heart do-gooders, to make that decision for you. Freedom of choice is the premise upon which this nation was founded. Why are some so intent on destroying that right by reverting to socialism or letting airhead politicians control every aspect of our private lives?
April 11, 2008 at 5:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
I prefer non-smoking areas of restaurants because I'm there to eat not to taste someone's exhaled smoke. I can't stand being in a bar where the smoke is so thick you can't see across the room. I find it absolutely rediculous when people stand outside a building, right at the door, smoking where everyone walks in and out throwing their butts on the ground instead of using the ashtrays usually provided. I don't appreciate seeing folks throwing down their cigarettes anywhere.
With that being said, I am a smoker. I don't do what I complained about above. I don't have a problem with smoking being banned in publicly ran establishments and restaurants if they choose to do so on their own. I do have a problem with legislation forcing all businesses to ban smoking in their businesses and in outdoor public areas. Some of you people better start thinking about just how much tax money is collected from cigarette/tobacco sales and where big brother will go looking to replace that revenue when they ban tobacco altogether.
Did you know Lung Cancer is more frequent than all other cancers combined? Over 60% of lung cancer victims either quit smoking decades earlier, most never smoked at all. Secondhand smoke the cause? Why arent the smokers(who are around the same second hand smoke that the non-smokers are subjected to) represent the majority of lung cancer sufferers?
April 11, 2008 at 6:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Gilbert_Craig (anonymous) says...
I frequent the restaurants that do not allow smoking, unless it's barbeque. I like my food smoked, but not my body.
April 11, 2008 at 6:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rcakmon (anonymous) says...
A smoking section in a restaurant is like a peeing section in a pool.
People that want to smoke can do it outside. I think this group has the right idea. Good luck!
April 11, 2008 at 7:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
cookatwork (anonymous) says...
I am a smoker and I don't have a problem with public places being smoke free. I don't like eating some where full of smoke and frequently ask for the non-smoking section. I don't frequent the bar scene much - but... I used to bartend... it seems like the two always went hand in hand - working in a bar and not expecting it to be smokey, to me, would be like a coalminer not expecting to be exposed to something that could cause Black Lung Disease. But........ if I did go to the bars I wouldn't have a problem stepping outside to smoke.
April 11, 2008 at 11:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Paccifier (anonymous) says...
Seems like this comes down to one group trying to control the lives of others, and bend things to only their way of thinking. Can't see that we need to allow that- I don't smoke to any extent, but where does it stop? Will they decide to go after booze after they get smokes? Maybe Emporia just ought to require (expect) businesses to post smoking status on the outside of the location- Smoking allowed, no smoking, no smoking section available, especially at restaurants and bars, that way folks can know what to expect before they go in, or go someplace else.
April 12, 2008 at 8:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
The trouble is, they won't stop at banning smoking inside buildings rcakmon. Next they will push for banning smoking on sidewalks, city streets and parks, etc.
The huge tax increases on tobacco have had nothing to do with health concerns, the government simply wanted to tap into the huge profits that were being made by big tobacco companies. The lawsuit was the same. Do a search on the how many states have been found using the settlement money for things other than anti-smoking campaigns the money was supposed to used for.
I understand the dislike for secondhand smoke, and agree it smells bad, I too don't like breathing in someone else's exhaust. I don't support legislation that will take away personal choice. I am adversely effected by strong colognes and perfumes, should we ban them? No! I don't like being in public places with other people's pets, should we ban them from taking them in public? I hope I'm getting my point across here, where do we stop on laws trying to control other people's lives and choices?
April 12, 2008 at 10:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
You are correct, Neighbor. From 1995 to 2006 I was in Seattle four to six times each year for meetings. The city first passed a ban on smoking in restaurants, then all public buildings. Later they banned smoking within 20 feet of a door to a building. The last year I was out there, when we got a ten minute break from the meetings the smokers had to dash across the buliding to the elevator, down six flights to the basement parking garage, 50 yards to the door, and then another 50 yards to a special smoking deck in the rain. Watch out. Each step of a smoking ban is but a rung in the ladder to total elimination of smoking within city limits. I resent anyone trying to force their morality, politics, religion, or lifestyle habits upon me as if I were too ignorant to make my own choices. If you have some obsessive compulsion to ban things or force your opinions on others, please campaign for lower taxes, a national flat tax, dissolving the IRS, closing our borders, cracking down on illegal immigration, ending welfare fraud, ceasing partisan politics, or disbanding Emporia's "Good ol' boy" city government and electing some people willing to look past their noses into the future and do so with the good of the community in mind instead of with no mind or sense of any kind, including the common variety. Get off the non-smoking soap box. You have every right to your opinion but no right to interfere with mine.
April 12, 2008 at 11:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
In Hawaii, they post certain colored flags on beaches to warn of such things as sharks or jellyfish, but no one is there to drag you out of the ocean. The consensus is that you make your own judgement. If you go swimming on a beach where the shark flag is flying and scarlet billows start to spread...oh well. See ya. Maybe we can post flags outside of restaurants to indicate smoking or non-smoking. Red for smoking allowed, Dine at your own Risk. You get the picture.
April 12, 2008 at 12:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
admireed (anonymous) says...
Smoking should be banned in private homes too. If it is "bad" in public it is "bad" in private too. Children, workers, friends, are exposed no matter where it is.
April 12, 2008 at 4:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
There are a lot of activities that occur in my home that would be "bad in public" and "bad in private, too" that I wouldn't want "children, workers, friends" exposed to but I will put up a heck of a fight to maintain the right to do them! :)
April 12, 2008 at 6:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
77flint (anonymous) says...
Smoking hurts others and yourselves. Why would you want to continue doing this? Go home and smoke do what ever you want at home. Don't force you choice to destroy yourself on others.
April 14, 2008 at 9:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
Good point, 77flint. My grandfather was a heavy smoker all his life and died of cancer at the young age of 93. My grandmother, also a heavy smoker, died in 1994 at the age of 102. Who knows how much longer she would have lived had she not smoked? My aunt, their daughter, doesn't smoke but was exposed to their secondhand smoke all her life. She is now 92 and has to use a walker to get around. Dad-blamed smoke! Smokers should go home and smoke, as you said, so they don't hurt others. Using that logic, drinkers should only drink at home, too. Alcohol hurts them and drunk drivers kill thousands each year. AND... Muslim zealots are killing WAY too many people. They should only be allowed to worship at home. And don't even get me started on the dangers of those ornery kids with baseballs and skateboards!
April 14, 2008 at 9:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Deepthoughts (anonymous) says...
My personal preference would be for a smoke free environment since I am not a smoker and there is nothing worse than going to a restaurant and sitting in the non-smoking section yet still getting the lovely smell from the smoking section. Yes, I could stay home, but then I'm the one being punished (especially if I really want that particular restaurant's food) - or I could take it to go I guess.
On the other hand, I really do not think the government should be passing laws on little things like this, especially since the government does not own the business that would be affected (I guess they could make the rules they want for Federal buildings, etc.). I guess if the business owner had enough of their customer base push back and lost enough business/profits then perhaps he/she would make it non-smoking only, but that should be left up to the business owner to make that decision. It's his/her money on the line. Overall I would have to vote to keep the government out on passing even more regulations for private business owners.
April 14, 2008 at 10:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Penny (anonymous) says...
What sort of regulations are already in place now in private business for the protection of employees? I'm guessing there are standards (by OSHA, perhaps?) that dictate all sorts of employee safety nets. Why should protecting the health of employees be any different than that? And don't say they can just "choose" to work elsewhere; jobs are not exactly plentiful these days. Our high school students frequently work in food service because that's the only thing available to them. Is it right to have these hard-working children breathing in smoke all shift? College students often tend bar because they can make more money in a shorter time than most other legal alternatives. Being in that smoke-filled environment for hours leads to increased colds, flu, bronchitis, asthma problems in the short-term and the potential for much more serious consequences in the long-term. Do we really think it's right to do this to our employees?
The government wouldn't need to step in if people voluntarily did the right thing, unfortunately they don't.
April 14, 2008 at 12:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Deepthoughts (anonymous) says...
The government has all kinds of regulations/programs in place besides OSHA that are for the employee's benefit (unemployment, worker's comp., etc.). Penny I hadn't even thought of the effects of the smoking environment on the employees, so thank you for bringing that up - I was strictly thinking of the patrons.
I know you said you don't want anyone to say this, but no one is forced to work at a particular job (unless it's some form of slavery, sweatshop, prostitution ring, etc. which unfortunately I'm sure there are some situations where people are forced to do a certain job). Granted most students do end up working in food service, but I would hope that they could find employment that met their medical demands. If a college student chooses to be a bartender and be around smoke all the time just because they can make more money in a shorter amount of time, I can't say that I feel sorry for them because once again, to me that is a choice. We all have free will to make our own choices, so even though there may not seem to be a choice, there always is - we just might not like the alternative.
April 14, 2008 at 1:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
Krstebuchet: You've done it now. You've let the cat out of the bag. You see, The Gazette hasn't yet heard that Bill Self is staying at KU. When they do find out, I'm sure they'll eventually change the poll subject; maybe something timely like "Do you believe Tyson exploits it's employees.". Until then, humor them. What the heck do you think the Gazette is, a news reporting operation?
April 14, 2008 at 4:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
EsqEB (anonymous) says...
I have no problems with smokers blowing their second hand smoke on me at the bars. It is what they like to do and it is a natural by-product of their enjoyment.
However, I like to drink beer and a natural by-product of such is urine. So hopefully the smokers wont mind if every once in awhile I get up on a bar stool and urinate on their heads. This action, while revolting and unsanitary, is still more healthy for them, than second hand smoke is for me.
If they don't want to be urinated on, they should stay at home or go to a non-urinating on others establishment. The last thing we need is Big Brother coming in with some law and telling me I should stop urinating on people.
April 15, 2008 at 11:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Absolute (anonymous) says...
Love it Esq! Good analogy.
April 15, 2008 at 12:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
admireed (anonymous) says...
esqeb...if you thought that up on your own you have a great mind. Very well put.
April 15, 2008 at 3:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
77flint (anonymous) says...
Well Said Esq!!
April 16, 2008 at 11:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
Sorry, esqEB, that analogy makes absolutely no sense. A smoker exhaling breaks no laws and, according to half of medical professionals and scientists, does no proven damage to anyone but the smoker. What you advocate breaks several laws including felony assault. You're comparing watermelons to limes.
April 16, 2008 at 12:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Absolute (anonymous) says...
Just because there is no law against smokers blowing their smoke on the public, doesn't mean it is not vile and disgusting.
And I would like to see your research that states that 50% of scienctist and medical professionals state that there is no damage to those exposed to second hand smoke.
April 16, 2008 at 12:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
That is a great analogy Esq! It is stated perfectly and encompasses the whole point of the non smokers side of the arguement.
Bjnemp--I am not sure if you are serious with your response or really just that dense. Esq was not referring to the law as it currently is. He was making an analogy for what it is like for the non smoker.
I personally believe that smoking should be banned in all public places. You are polluting the air that I and my kids breathe. There is plenty of evidence out there that shows that 2nd hand smoke is harmful. Even if you are smoking outside and I walk past, I am affected by your cloud of smoke. I hate all this talk about smoker's rights what about non smoker's rights. How did it ever become a right to pollute my lungs with your smoke??
April 16, 2008 at 12:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
EsqEB (anonymous) says...
Bjemp~ Blowing smoke on people purposely in a rude or insulting manner is also assault and battery due to the particulate matter which lands on the victim.
And I was not condoning this action as legal (figured most people with an IQ over 23 would have caught on to that), but like slvrnblck said I was just showing what it is like for a nonsmoker putting up with smokers who not only do not care about their health, but of the health and comfort of others in society.
And most scientists believe that second hand smoke is more harmful than first hand...
April 16, 2008 at 1:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tmt (anonymous) says...
It became a right just the same as its a right for you to pollute my environment with your POS outdated car emissions.
Riddle me this - why is it okay to smoke in a casino, but chew tobacco is prohibited? At least the "chewers" are keeping their tobacco in.
Just pointing out how stupid some rules and laws really are. None of it makes sense.
April 16, 2008 at 1:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
Better dust off your law books, Esq. Assault & battery are two different offenses and blowing smoke where it is legally allowed is neither. I do agree that "most scientists believe that second hand smoke is more hamful than first hand". The last statistics I saw showed just over 50% believe that. The other half don't buy the anti-smoking lobby propoganda or the Al Gore radical theorists. The facts aren't there; just biased spin and conjecture. In the world of science, a court of law, or during brain surgery, anything less than 100% doesn't count. As for the snide white trash personal attack concerning my IQ: you don't want to go there. I don't think you are well enough armed to fight that battle.
April 16, 2008 at 2:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Penny (anonymous) says...
I am curious where you saw those statistics, Bjnemp. I did a quick search and found nothing to substantiate that. Who do you believe is behind the "anti-smoking lobby propaganda"? Usually groups who spout propaganda without basis in fact have financial gain in mind (like the big tobacco lobby and their multi-billion dollar propaganda machine). I can't think of a group with a financial incentive to keep smoke from killing people but I'm sure you'll enlighten me.
And to tmt, the reason most casinos ban spit tobacco at their establishments is not for health reasons but because they don't like to have to clean up the spit. Both are unhealthy for the user, of course, but as a public health issue, the smoke hurts not just the user but anyone unfortunate enough to be breathing in the same vicinity.
April 16, 2008 at 2:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
"Who do you believe is behind the "anti-smoking lobby propaganda"? Usually groups who spout propaganda without basis in fact have financial gain in mind (like the big tobacco lobby and their multi-billion dollar propaganda machine)."
Sounds like a good description of the people who are benefitting financially from the ever increasing tobacco taxes that are being charged and collected on tobacco sales and those that benefitted from the lawsuit settlement Big T paid to the states. The tobacco issue is and always has been about money, not the health issue IMO. Sure smoking is not good for anyone, but it's not the evil that it's being made out to be. They say it is known to be a cause for lung cancer, why then are over 60% of lung cancer victims non-smokers? Some of you have been led to believe it is because they have been exposed to secondhand smoke. What about breathing car exhaust fumes and other contributors to smog? A recent report claims that vapors escaping from buttered microwave popcorn bags when you take them out of the microwave is harmful to your lungs and have caused serious respiratory problems. Remember asbestos and the big push to protect society from it? I know some very old plumbers that used to install the stuff daily in their younger days, they don't have lung cancer. Boy did that big health threat create some jobs and generate revenue. I'm betting the next big health crisis will be caused by soda pop. You are already paying over $5 a gallon for it now, wait until they declare soda burps toxic and claim it causes lung cancer.
April 16, 2008 at 4:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Penny (anonymous) says...
Actually, the reading I've done says about 10% of lung cancer in men is in non-smokers, and 20 % for women. The hypothesis of why more women non-smokers get lung cancer than men is that more men are smoking and exposing women in their lives to second hand smoke. You're correct, though, there are other carcinogens known to cause lung cancer; Smoking is by far the leading cause of lung cancer, but radon, asbestos, chromium and arsenic are also associated.
Lung cancer is really only one issue with second hand smoke. It is also known to contribute to heart disease, several other types of cancers, emphysema, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, asthma...........it really is a very long list.
Of course there are other factors as well, one of the main ones being genetics. When people talk about Great Aunt Tillie who smoked all her life and lived to be 108, you usually can look at the family history and see there is a definite pattern of longevity. This is similiar to some people being able to eat bacon and eggs every day for breakfast and never having cholesterol problems or heart attacks. That's not proof that eating bacon and eggs for breakfast everyday is good advice for everyone to follow!
And who exactly are these people getting rich off tobacco taxes? That is a totally separate issue from clean air ordinances but still, I'm curious.
April 16, 2008 at 5:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
Good points, Penny. All make cents. You forgot one, though. Single men don't live as long as married men... but Married men are much more willing to die.
April 17, 2008 at 12:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Weltha (anonymous) says...
Funny post bj. LMAO
April 17, 2008 at 3:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Penny (anonymous) says...
bjn: You're so clever! Is that original?
April 17, 2008 at 4:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
Sorry, did not mean individuals are personally getting rich, but the State and others are benefitting from the creative taxation the whole process has created. I agree 100% with you that cancer is genetic, effecting some families more than others. I have many "Aunt Tillies" in my family that smoked right up to the end, living long product lives without any kind of respiratory problems nor other medical issues. Big T used to be one of the most influential/wealthy lobbying groups in politics, until others including the Insurance lobby exceeded their wealth. The lawsuits against Microsoft were not about them having a monopoly on software, it was about tapping into their profits like politicians have done with tobacco. Global warming is the latest attempt at fear taxing. My research on the radon issue is where I read 60% of lung cancer victims were non-smokers. I will look thru the data again and post the link here when I locate it.
April 17, 2008 at 6:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
Penny: I have no original thoughts. I am married.
April 17, 2008 at 11:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
They say laughter is good for your health. Bj, you have added years to my life this morning. So funny!!!
April 18, 2008 at 7:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Penny (anonymous) says...
bjn: I think you and my Grandpa must have the same funny bone. If he were alive he would be amused that those old jokes are still bringin' down the house.
Neighbor, I'm glad that you have a pretty good chance of inheriting those longevity genes. You have the right to take your chances with your own health and I pray the odds are in your favor. I remember reading your post earlier about your consideration towards others and I sure appreciate that as my family is full of cancer genes. Unfortunately (as you've observed) not all who smoke are that considerate. If they were, an ordinance would not be necessary.
April 18, 2008 at 9:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
Penny & Create: Thank you for the kind remarks. I actually appreciate marriage. My lovely wife and I have had 4 really good years together. We've been married for 34.
April 18, 2008 at 9:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slimbolen99 (anonymous) says...
I'm a smoker. I'll admit that. When I go to a restaurant, I don't expect to be seated with smokers...why? Because the ones I love whom I'm eating out with don't smoke. It's not that big of a deal to me.
HOWEVER, when I go to a bar, I have no such concern towards those around me when I'm drinking and smoking. I'm here to get my drink on, and when I drink, I enjoy to smoke.
I do not believe that the city should regulate where I can smoke my cigarettes and where I can't. When I'm walking down Commercial Street going from shop to shop, I don't smoke, because there are people I'm sharing the sidewalk with that I'm sure don't "enjoy" the smell and negative health effects of my smoke.
My point is this: if an establishment wants me to have the right to smoke in their place, that's their choice. I WILL NOT go to a bar that doesn't allow smoking...however, I WILL go to a restaurant that doesn't allow smoking. Doesn't make much since, but I guess when I'm "sinning" by drinking, I should be allowed, with permission by the owner of the establishment, to smoke my cigarettes.
In Hawaii, and many other places, it is illegal to smoke anywhere in public. I believe that if the city or state is going to regulate that action they should regulate drinking anywhere in public, smoking anywhere in public, wearing perfume in public (I'm allergic to some perfumes, possibly to the death), etc.
In my opinion, if we're going to regulate where we are going to smoke, I think we should eliminate outside smoking (public air), but allow store and restaurant owners to make their own decisions. IF you don't like it - don't shop / eat / drink there...
April 18, 2008 at 9:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
Thanks to WIBW for sharing the numbers in their newscast tonight. Kansas has received $66million since the lawsuit settlement. All together, Big T has paid out over $7billion to the states. These totals do not include the state taxes collected on each pack. I sure hope no-one is naive enough to believe banning smoking would help reduce medical care costs, or reduce insurance rates.
April 18, 2008 at 10:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
I am still going thru all the links for the source about the lung cancer percentage I stated above. Here is a couple of paragraphs from an article that makes the same statement, but is not the source. I will continue to try to locate it Penny, there is alot out there to go thru.
"Stage I is the only curable lung cancer," explained Britt, whose father and 42-year-old brother died of lung cancer, 10 and 20 years after each had quit smoking. "If a parent or sibling dies of lung cancer, you are three times more likely to get the disease. But when I asked my brother's oncologist about getting checked out every year, he said to get a mammogram instead."
More than 60 percent of all new lung cancers are diagnosed in those who never smoked or who quit, sometimes decades ago. But many physicians seem unaware of that.
April 20, 2008 at 8:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Penny (anonymous) says...
Neighbor, I know you don't believe smoking/second-hand smoke is dangerous, however, look at the facts: this is from the Tobacco-Free Kids coalition:
Deaths in Kansas From Smoking
Smoking kills more people than alcohol, AIDS, car crashes, illegal drugs, murders, and suicides combined -- and thousands more die from other tobacco-related causes -- such as fires caused by smoking (more than 1,000 deaths/year nationwide) and smokeless tobacco use. No good estimates are currently available, however, for the number of Kansas citizens who die from these other tobacco-related causes, or for the much larger numbers who suffer from tobacco-related health problems each year without actually dying.
There are so many reliable sources of factual information our there, from the Surgeon General's report to the American Lung Association. Virtually all scientifc evidence confirms that tobacco products are deadly. Only tobacco companies and smokers believe differently, and actually the tobacco companies know the truth, they just ignore it for profit (That is the basis of many of the tobacco lawsuits)
Tobacco companies spent over $106 million in advertising in Kansas last year. I'm not sure $66 million in settlement money is enough!!! Although I agree that it is shameful that some of the settlement money has been used to cover budget shortfalls when it was intended to be used to prevent kids from ever starting smoking. I guess one could make the argument though that without using that money to cover the shortfall, taxes would have had to be increased, so it did benefit all Kansans, just not the way it was intended.
I hope no one is naive enough to believe that tobacco is harmless and that "Big T" has your best interests in mind!
April 22, 2008 at 9:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bdprotheroe (anonymous) says...
I agree, whole-heartedly, with "rcakmon": A smoking section in a restaurant is like a peeing section in a pool. The smoke does not remain contained in one area.
In California, smoking is banned in all businesses, public buildings and public spaces (i.e. parks). Once I moved out west, I became instantly aware of the difference in the cleanliness of the air in places serving food, coffee and/or alcohol. WOW! It's is so nice to go to a restaurant or nightclub, enjoy your meal or beverage, and then arrive home not wearing the strong scent of an ashtray.
The last time I visited Emporia, I joined my family for dinner at Bruff's in the non-smoking section. As soon as a woman in the smoking section (just on the other side of the glass wall) lit a cigarette, I began to laugh. Non-smoking" give me a break! I can smell the odor, clearly. Before California, I mistakenly believed non-smoking sections were just that... free of smoke. How blind I was!
Smokers in California have become accustomed to lighting up outdoors.
Emporia should consider the smoke-free climate. It's a wonderful change.
Brian Protheroe
San Francisco, CA
April 22, 2008 at 11:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Penny (anonymous) says...
Brian, I repeatedly hear that from visitors who come from areas with Clean Indoor Air Ordinances. I also hear from Emporia natives who move to Lawrence for college being so pleased at the smoke-free bars and restaurants there. Once they've experienced smoke-free its a shock when they come back home to "smoking sections".
April 22, 2008 at 5:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
Penny, you have me painted into the group of people who are unable to recognize the obvious. I do realize smoking is unhealthy, but it's not the cure all for what ails America's health like most have been led to believe. It would not be the target of the current tax to death plan and attempts to ban it's use if the tobacco industry wasn't so profitable, and able to ransom it's survival, my real point all along. Your data is missing the amount of sales tax and tobacco tax stamp monies collected by Kansas. I have appreciated the civil discussion we have had.
Brian, go get your steak where smoking is not allowed, you have the choice. I don't go to Bruffs because of some of the people who go there, the drunks, cheap colognes and perfumes, and other disgusting aromas associated with alcohol consumption. Most businesses, and public buildings in Emporia are smoke free already. I would wager there are 4 times as many non-smoking restaurants as there are smoking allowed now(I prefer them as well). Clean air in SF?
April 22, 2008 at 6:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Penny (anonymous) says...
I'm just curious where in town can you go to get a grown-up, sit-down meal with a good steak that doesn't have smoking allowed? This is a genuine question so don't tell me "home". We don't get to go out and actually sit down to enjoy a meal very often but when we do get the opportunity, I'd sure give my business to a place with clean air.
April 23, 2008 at 9:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
glarson (anonymous) says...
OK, gang. Time to move to your own discussion board.
http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/...
Gwen Larson
Managing Editor
April 23, 2008 at 11:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )