Dangerous smoke
Julius Cohen
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
I COMMEND our local citizens who have committed their efforts toward eradicating secondhand smoke in public places.
Two years ago, a Kansas Senate committee reviewed SB 37 that had a similar purpose. The health community was solidly behind it; the business community solidly opposed it. The bill went nowhere, was not even voted on.
Secondhand smoke is a menace. It contains 4,000 chemicals, 250 of which are toxic, with at least 50 carcinogenic. According to Mayo Clinic physicians, other serious health problems may also result. Children especially are vulnerable in such a toxic environment.
The rights of smokers end at the point they inflict illness and suffering upon others. Let us be clear and emphatic about that. I trust that our city fathers will act accordingly, with solid community backing. Experience elsewhere shows profits are not sacrificed. Neither should the good health of our people be for the indulgence of an inconsiderate habit.
Julius Cohen
Emporia
eiggohp (anonymous) says...
I totally agree with Cohen....AMEN!!
August 20, 2008 at 6:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LifeGoesOn (anonymous) says...
Julius Cohen, do you drive a car? if so your exhaust is killing me and the planet. so your quote "The rights of smokers end at the point they inflict illness and suffering upon others" doesnt hold water.
I suppose I could say "The rights of people driving cars end at the point they inflict illness and suffering upon others with their exhaust"
should we ban cars to?
August 20, 2008 at 9:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
This is just a printed version of the same rhetoric we have heard in the other forums and articles. The smoke I inhale is pretty well filtered by my lungs (filtering is kinda their secondary function). What is exhaled is so dillute that it barely registers.
I can't say it enough times apparently, so here I go again.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A RIGHT TO SMOKE.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A RIGHT TO BREATHE SMOKE FREE AIR.
The only established right in this entire discussion is the right of private property owners to cater to whomever they please, or whomever they want to frequent THEIR business.
There is a such thing as a choice to smoke and a choice to breathe less smoky air. Choice and right are very different. Why am I the only one that realizes this. Mr. Cohen I would suggest a civics class and a nice steaming glass of deal with it.
August 21, 2008 at 8:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
You make some good points, Mr. Cohen. Unfortunately, none are valid. First, you advocate "eradicating secondhand smoke in public places." That is a problem. You see, the minute I step out of my front door I am in a "public place." What you are suggesting is that smokers be held under house arrest. You are seeking to force your values and lifestyle on everyone in the community and take away freedom of choice to appease your sensibilities and whims.
You stated that Senate Bill 37 "went nowhere, was not even voted on." Perhaps that was because our lawmakers recognized the bill for what it was: a veiled attempt for one segment of society to inflict their will on another by eroding personal freedom and right of choice. In other words, it was wrong.
And so is this proposed smoking ban in Emporia. It is nothing short of an attempt by a few socially superior meddling matrons to force their will upon the poor unwashed masses. I have lived in Emporia for many years and often frequent local eateries and bars. I have yet to encounter even one of the poor souls you contend are being inflicted with injuries and "suffering" due to an assault by a "smelly", "dirty", and in your own words, "inconsiderate" smoker. I contend that you and your anti-smoker vigilantes are crusading against a problem that does not exist.
I do agree with one comment you made, though. You said, "I trust that our city fathers will act accordingly, with solid community backing." I'm sure they will, Mr. Cohen. I feel confident that our city leaders, and the majority of our citizens, are more than intelligent and fair enough to recognize this attack on personal rights for what it really is... and squash it like a bug.
Time to circle the wagons, folks. A few self-proclaimed soldiers of social conscience have launched an all-out assault on your personal rights and will roll over you like tanks over toads unless you speak up and make your voice heard. If you let these tobacco tyrants get away with this one, then you opening the door for them to come after other behaviors they find unacceptable in their self-perceived perfect world.
Let these elitist crusaders win this battle and you are giving them control of your life. It's your choice; choose wisely.
August 21, 2008 at 2:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
OutsiderJ--
Business owners CAN NOT do whatever they want. The Government is already there restricting certain things. If the owners truly had a right to cater to whomever they please they could ban certain races and/or sexes of people. And they also have the choice of whether or not to have a business, so if this ordinance passes, which I hope they do, then they can choose whether or not to continue to do business.
August 21, 2008 at 2:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
emporian (anonymous) says...
Might be a good ban for the small towns since people will just go to Olpe, Hartford, Americus, etc to the bars instead of spend money in Emporia.
August 21, 2008 at 2:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
Oh, slvrnblck: you can keep grasping for that straw all you want but in the end, you are going to drown. I'm sorry, but your reference to banning "races and/or sexes of people" has absolutely no relevance or bearing on this argument. You are fighting a battle with emotion because you have no facts for ammunition.
See the article in tonight's Gazette titled "Hygienist says the science on second-hand smoke not clear".
I think this quote from that article applies to you and your mis-informed biased buddies:
“People who make those types of statements have no proof behind what they’re saying,” Keller said. “It’s a judgment on their part, but I hear it all the time. It’s very common for people to put their feelings into play rather than looking at something scientifically. … It’s very common for people to use their perceptions and emotions to come to a conclusion, rather than scientific fact.”
I reckon that pretty much sums up you and your anti-tobacco terrorists, slvrnblck.
August 21, 2008 at 3:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
slvmblck you said, "Business owners CAN NOT do whatever they want. The Government is already there restricting certain things. If the owners truly had a right to cater to whomever they please they could ban certain races and/or sexes of people."
Businesses can do this anytime they want, they just can't tell anyone why. All they have to do is hang a sign that says, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."
I could walk into any business in town and they could flat refuse to serve me on a whim for no reason. The only thing that they couldn't deny me is an application for a job, ironically enough.
I realize that my argument here is as flimsy as yours is, but what is good for the goose and all that.
August 21, 2008 at 4:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jayhawker (anonymous) says...
Although there are some exceptions, what this comes down to is that the militant anti-smokers want to impose their will on everyone else. If it takes trampling upon the property rights of others or making up science to do so, then so be it. This same attitude brought us prohibition. The lessons from that are legion, obvious to all who will open their eyes to see. Unfortunately for them, it becomes an inconvenient truth.
August 23, 2008 at 8:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lycomu (anonymous) says...
I sure as heck hope we dont have dogs loose in the back of pickups smoking while advocating that their brethren pit bulls are outlawed.
August 23, 2008 at 9:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
Well said, Jayhawker!
August 23, 2008 at 10:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )