Opponents say Clean Air Emporia over-reaches with smoking ban plan
By Bobbi Mlynar
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Not all Emporians are willing to support a smoking ban ordinance that is expected to come before the city commission in the next month, and some of them are circulating a petition against the ban.
Clean Air Emporia’s proposed ban is set to be heard during a study session on Sept. 10. The group wants to ban smoking in all buildings to which the public has access, including businesses, offices and areas that have walls and a ceiling or roof.
The dissenters predict that the ordinance will bring loss of business and tax revenue, as well as eliminate freedom of choice for them and their customers.
“I don’t feel like it’s government’s place to do that,” said Ray Toso, former Emporia city commissioner and mayor. “If the bar owners or the restaurant owners want to make them non-smoking, you know I’m all for that. And I don’t smoke. But I just don’t think we need any more government interference.
“I think God gave us a brain and two legs and if we don’t like it, we can leave. And there’s times that I’ve done that.”
Toso said he would prefer an ordinance that required restaurants or bars to post signs saying that smoking was allowed inside.
“Let the people make their choice before they go into it,” Toso said. “That would be sufficient. I don’t think we need more government regulations.”
Government buildings, such as post offices and courthouses, are public buildings and should be non-smoking, he said; businesses should be private.
Several in the hospitality industry agreed.
“My bar is not a public building; the courthouse is a public building,” said Steve Corbin, owner of the Town Royal bar. “You walk into my bar, it’s my land, my property.”
Corbin sat down recently with S.C. Dixon, co-owner of The Noose, and Sandy Bastin, manager of Bruff’s and Mary’s Place, to talk about the reasons they believe any no-smoking ordinance needs to give business owners the opportunity choose whether their businesses would go smokeless.
Dixon said that he and the bar’s other two owners had discussed whether to make The Noose smoking or non-smoking when they remodeled and re-opened it about a year ago.
Dixon, a non-smoker, said that only one of The Noose’s three owners smoke, but they decided that, from an economic standpoint, a smoking bar made more sense.
“We’re not building a playground like McDonald’s next to the bar. Kids aren’t supposed to be there,” said Dixon. “I would be happy to put up a sign that says ‘This is a smoking place.’ That’s up to me. That’s up to (other business owners). That’s not up to Joe Do-Good. That’s none of their business.”
In responding to the remarks that a smoking environment is harmful to employees, Corbin said that he makes sure all prospective employees know they would be working in a smoking environment. One of them, who worked as a bartender in addition to his primary part-time job in construction, decided to resign from the construction job because he could earn more money bartending, Corbin said.
The group said that other occupations also are dangerous to employee health, but those are ignored. Highway workers were the first job that came to mind.
“He makes a choice to breathe all those fumes,” Bastin said of the asphalt and exhaust fumes the workers inhale throughout the day.
Other everyday items also pose a risk, they said, citing a study that said cell phones may cause brain cancer.
“We can’t save everybody from everything,” said Daryl Polzin, a non-smoker who sat down with the group after lunch. “The private sector should not be a part of it.”
The group talked about the federal government’s paying subsidies to tobacco farmers while some local governmental units try to limit use of tobacco by enacting ordinances governing businessmen’s rights to run their own businesses.
Dixon resented the intrusion of others into the way he chooses to run his bar.
“It goes beyond somebody’s personal choice,” Dixon said. “I just think of the massive ego and presumptuousness. … That someone thinks they can dictate my business practices. … It just stuns me how pushy that is.”
Corbin believes an ordinance banning smoking in public places would undercut his livelihood, or cause his business to close. He said about 70 to 80 percent of his customers smoke.
“If I tell them they can’t smoke here, where do you think they’re going to be? Home,” Corbin said. “I guarantee it will affect business and if someone says it doesn’t, they’re nuts.”
Bastin said that profit margins already are down in every establishment.
“How much can we take?” she asked.
“This is my livelihood, not a hobby,” Corbin said. “I guarantee you I won’t be open; I won’t last a year because of 70 percent of my customers are smokers.”
Dixon said his bar has about 70 to 80 percent of smokers: “If we took the smokers out, we wouldn’t have anybody there.”
The bar owners are skeptical of the scientific research used by the smoking ban group, saying the results are dependent on the organization or group paying for the research.
Bastin has searched for objective studies and, instead, she has found conflicting information, such as the often-cited result that inhaling second-hand smoke all day is equal to smoking 16 cigarettes.
“Actually, there is a study that says that it’s a half-cigarette,” Bastin said.
They also countered Clean Air Emporia’s likening the smoking ban to the health department’s restrictions on businesses that sell food or beverages to the public.
Corbin said that comparison is not valid. Laws that require restaurants to pull food from hot containers after a certain length of time are enacted to protect the public from food poisoning.
“There’s undisputed scientific fact on that,” Corbin said. “You can’t find a scientist who’d disagree with it. With second-hand smoke, you can’t do that.”
All of them talked about the tax revenues that would be lost by the city and state if smokers stay home from bars and restaurants.
The businesses that sell alcohol for customers to drink on-premises currently collect 10 percent drink taxes to the state on all alcoholic beverages sold, the owners said. They pay an additional 8 percent in enforcement taxes at the time of purchase to the wholesalers that sell them the strong beers, liquors and wines the bars and restaurants sell.
Bastin said there is 36 cents collected in tax on every beer sold at Bruff’s and, Corbin said, the brewery also pays a gallonage tax.
Corbin said he understands that the city of Emporia pays $18,000 of hospitality taxes to Emporians for Drug Awareness, which supports the smoking ban.
“Instead of doing Emporians for Drug Awareness, they could subsidize my business and it still wouldn’t make up for the loss,” Corbin said. “How’re they going to pay EDA if I go out of business?”
Toso said that attention needs to be paid to other environmental issues, rather than focusing on smoking.
“We pollute more with the internal combustion engines than we do with smoking,” Toso said, adding that people would not want to part with their vehicles. “We’re getting a little ridiculous, I think.”
He cited his mother-in-law’s diagnosis of lung cancer as an example of blame sometimes misplaced on smoking. She had never smoked, he said, and had not worked or been around smokers. The doctors were incredulous when they heard.
“They just didn’t believe it,” Toso said. “If they can’t blame it on smoking, they just don’t know what to do.”
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
It is about time we heard some public opposition to this ban from the people it most effects. Or is it affects. Anyway, I agree with these business owners wholeheartedly and hope that everyone takes notice. The opinions of the private business owners are possibly the only ones that really matter in this issue. They have the most to lose, whether it be revenue or rights.
August 20, 2008 at 2:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MerryCarol (anonymous) says...
Restaurants who allow smoking have lost our family business already. That's several people. They can do what they want, as things stand now. But I wish I had the freedom to go into some of the restaurants that I can't use now.
The gov't will hender the smoker's rights to smoke anyplace they please if this goes through.
But the smokers themselves are already hendering my right to move about as I please.
I wish that people were simply polite enough not to smoke in restaurants at all. Then this issue would be a moot point.
It isn't like anyone is keeping me from eating. I guess I would just like to be able to go to some places I can't go now. I'd like that freedom.
August 20, 2008 at 2:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
madpoet (anonymous) says...
I agree with MerryCarol. I feel disgusted that I can't take my family to restaurants because someone just has to smoke while eating. Toso's idea of marking smoking establishments is a good one. I've had some unpleasant surprises when going someplace I didn't realize allowed smoking. I think bars and clubs should be exempt from a smoking ban. It's restaurants where families go that concern me.
August 20, 2008 at 2:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Summer_Breeze (anonymous) says...
I absolutely agree that smoking in bars should be at the option of the OWNER, not the government. People go to bars of their own volition, and they can choose not to go if they don't want to be exposed to the smoke.
In my mind, restaurants are a different matter. Yes, they are also privately owned, and yes, the patrons can choose whether or not they go inside. The problem with that in Emporia is that the choices of places to dine is already so limited that non-smokers have few options.
I would support banning smoking in restaurants, but not in bars.
August 20, 2008 at 2:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
Merry and mad--
You keep saying that you can't take your family there. A little dramatic, wouldn't you say. You can take you and or your family anywhere you want. Nothing is preventing you from doing that. It has nothing to do with your right to move about as you please, that right is fully intact. You make a choice to go to a business or not. No rights infringed, you either choose to enter or not enter.
This notion that smokers have a right to smoke and that non smokers have a right to breath clean air in someone else's privately owned property is ridiculous and tiresome. Neither of those notions are the slightest bit true. Those are choices people make, to smoke or not, to frequent a business that allows smoking or not. I don't want to start a vocabulary lesson on the definition of a right and a choice, but so many people on both sides of this issue have it wrong.
The only RIGHT in this whole argument is the right of property owners to manage their private property as they see fit. Period. It is a long established and cherished right in this country. Do you want all the businesses to take down signs that read, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." Because the flip side of that sign and message are exactly what we are dealing with. It being that a business reserves the right to serve its customers and patrons the way it sees fit.
As I asked on the other forum, If the gov't wanted to ban businesses from allowing something completely legal and harmless (instead of completely legal and possibly harmful), which side of this issue would you be on?
August 20, 2008 at 2:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
fudgesickle (anonymous) says...
I heard this same opposition when Lawrence banned smoking. I notice they don't reference how that turned out in this article. Business actually increased because more people were going out to smoke free establishments. Smokers just stepped outside when they wanted a puff.
I'm a smoker and I prefer being in a non-smoking establishment. It's not difficult to step outside for a couple of minutes and smoke.
August 20, 2008 at 3:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Suzanne (anonymous) says...
It's interesting that Corbin states that the argument for a smoking ban being compared to regulations enforcing the safe handling of foods to protect the public from food poisoning is not valid and he proposes that scientific evidence does not do the same for secondhand smoke. Apparently, Corbin is unaware of the 2006 Surgeon General’s report, from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services which clearly states that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. The U.S. Surgeon General has concluded that breathing even a little secondhand smoke poses a risk to your health. Scientific evidence proves that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer.
Secondhand Smoke is a known human carcinogen and contains more than 50 chemicals that cause cancer. Concentrations of many cancer-causing and toxic chemicals are potentially higher in secondhand smoke than in the smoke inhaled by smokers.
Secondhand Smoke causes heart disease. Breathing Secondhand Smoke for even a short time can have immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system, interfering with normal functioning of the heart, blood, and vascular systems in ways that increase the risk of heart attack. Even a short time in a smoky room can cause your blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability. Persons who already have heart disease are at especially high risk of suffering adverse affects from breathing secondhand smoke, and should take special precautions to avoid even brief exposure.
Secondhand smoke causes acute respiratory effects, contains many chemicals that can quickly irritate and damage lining of the airways; even brief exposure can trigger respiratory symptoms, including cough, phlegm, wheezing and breathlessness; brief exposure to SHS can trigger an asthma attack in people with asthma.
Persons who already have asthma or other respiratory conditions are at especially high risk for being affected by secondhand smoke, and should take special precautions to avoid SHS exposure.
For more information, go to www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/second...
With scientific evidence proving the deleterious effects of secondhand smoke, it is the rightful duty for the public to be protected from Secondhand Smoke.
August 20, 2008 at 3:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
madpoet (anonymous) says...
OutsiderJ---I CHOOSE not to take my child to places where he'll be exposed to smoke. I had 18 years of breathing that crap and think my health suffered. My point is that my options are limited by the choice of others to smoke.
August 20, 2008 at 4 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nks (anonymous) says...
Are there regulations on smoking and non smoking areas of restaraunts as far as ventilation, etc? I would say they are very flexible, or most restaraunts do not abide by them.
I dont care if people chose to smoke, but if I want to take my family out to a restaraunt to eat, I dont think I nor my small children should have to suffer from people across the aisle smoking.
Yes, you can say, "well dont go to those establishments." It can be the same for smokers if places go to a non smoking policy.
Of course I dont like breathing second hand smoke because of health issues, but what about people with asthma, etc... I know the minute I get a whiff from cigarette smoke, my eyes itch and I cant breathe. I am sure I am not the only one with these issues.
Smokers do have a right to smoke, but when their actions affect others, it violates non smokers rights.
I think some are onto this "they can't tell me what to do" kick. The bottom line is, is that the habit of smoking can sicken the people around you. It doesnt choose the gender or age. It affects everyone that breathes in the smoke omitted from a cigarette.
Afterall, restaraunts are eating establishments, not smoking establishments and should be able to be enjoyed by everyone.
August 20, 2008 at 4:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
Your options may be limited. But your rights are fully intact. YOU set the limits on your options, not anyone else. Why should a privately owned business and its owner be denied the same courtesy. Why is ok for you to make choices about where and who you will be around, but not them. They are protected under the law and afforded the same rights as you, so why would u exercise your choice so freely and yet deny theirs. I'll tell you why, because you don't like smoke. This is a matter of preference, not fact, and it makes me a little sick that people are so eager to throw their morals and beliefs all over everyone else.
August 20, 2008 at 4:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rdgrey (anonymous) says...
CONTINUOUS heavy thick 2nd hand smoke will be bad for you if repeatedly eposed, but sitting in anouther area of a restaurant with seperate ventilation will not inpose the type of air quality that would harm your family. I know it sounds bad that I am not a smoker but business owners have a choice. There are alot of things out there that can cause health problems. I say ban fatty foods, put weight limits into the society, NO ONE can enter DQ over the weight of 170Lbs. Sounds absurd? Yes it does BUT thats is whats next, twenty years ago we would have thought the same thing about smoking bans. It will not stop, protect your rights to make decisions for yourself. Thats right.....I MYSELF, as head of my family, can make logical decisions about what is good for MY FAMILY. Not impose my belief throughout the town, Go to these restaurants at down times, pick non smoking restaurants, do carry out, go to Lawrence.
August 20, 2008 at 4:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
alanemporia (anonymous) says...
Has anybody ever seen a clean air convection fan. If a place has enough money they can buy one. I have seen them...........once smoke comes out of the people..............it just gets sucked right into the roof........................sticks to filters.........................
August 20, 2008 at 4:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
More toward the point, and I think someone already asked this, but what is Emporia for Drug Awareness doing about real drugs. As I understand it, this group is about educating young people about the dangers of drug abuse. Not trying to regulate legal decision making. It seems that they have got a pretty skewed sense of purpose. I fund a chunk of that organization with my taxes too, and I would like to see them talk about or focus on Drug Awareness, not legislating businesses to death. The scope of EDA's involvement in this issue should end after awareness. Hand out some fair and informative pamphlets on the possible dangers of second hand smoke and go away!!! Better yet start a campaign to more aggresively go after real drugs like meth and crack. In short do what you were designed to do and leave running businesses to business owners.
August 20, 2008 at 4:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
toninj (anonymous) says...
I do not smoke and I have made a CHOICE not to take my children to establishments that have smoking; however, I don't think it is my RIGHT to make private business owners not allow smoking so I can take my family there. At that point I would be putting my own rights above those of the business owner.
I agree second hand smoke is a bad thing and I do my best to avoid it, I don't think that should really be the argument here. I also do my best to avoid foods that can cause cancer; I wear a mask when using chemicals that can possibly cause cancer. It is an individual's responsibility to make choices that are best for them and their families. The businesses need to be able to make choices that are in their families’ best financial interest. I personally am tired of the government telling all of us what can and can't be done in social issues. They should simply provide the public with the information and let the public make the choice for themselves. Give us back our individual rights.
Just a side note, last time I was in Lawrence I probably took in more second hand smoke on the sidewalks going in and out of the businesses and the downtown area was gross from discarded cigarettes.
August 20, 2008 at 4:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rdgrey (anonymous) says...
alanemporia
To easy of an answer for some who want LAWS.
August 20, 2008 at 4:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
toninj-- Amen. The litter in Lawrence is out of control. At least it was going into the dumpster when people used ashtrays instead of the ground. When outdoors I generally try to "field strip" my cigarett and keep the filter in my unused left back pocket. When I get home I throw them away and wash my hands. That way only the burning remains of the tobacco go on the street. It leaves a black smudge, but nothing else. I guarantee that if this ban passes Emporia will see a marked increase in litter on the sidewalks and in the gutters. But at least the Walters and Sauders of Emporia will be able to go out to eat.
August 20, 2008 at 4:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Suzanne, you stated that Corbin must not be aware of the 2006 Surgeon Generals report on 2nd hand smoke. I can tell you that he is aware of that report and the fact that particular report is disputed by many in the scientific community. For every study you pull off the internet that shows 2nd hand smoke is dangerous you can find 2 studies that says it is not .
August 20, 2008 at 4:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
Merry and MadPoet, a little quiz for you.
1. List the restaurants that currently allow smoking in Emporia.
2. List other establishments that serve food that allow smoking.(Do not include Bars such as Bruffs)
3. Name one public building (no not the bars or other privately owned businesses because they are private property) where smoking is permitted.
4. a. List one restaurant you would go to if they banned restaurant smoking completely.
b. List how many managers you have spoke with about considering a ban on smoking.
5. If Bars became non-smoking, how often would you go to them and how much would you spend on drinks on each visit?
I predict you will find that your perception and belief that there are not smoke free choices and options in Emporia is a bit skewed.
August 20, 2008 at 5:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
clancy (anonymous) says...
In answer to rbow who questions the accuracy of health studies on secondhand smoke. Actually for every 15 studies on the adverse health effects of secondhand smoke, there is one that claims secondhand smoke may not be all that bad. Of course those skimpy studies are often financed by the tobacco companies whose profits depend on keeping people smoking while attracting new smokers, mainly kids, to replace the smokers who die off or give up smoking when they are too sick to maintain the addiction.
August 20, 2008 at 5:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eiggohp (anonymous) says...
I do not care what they do about the smoking in bars, but I am terribly allergic to smoke...and I would like to have a variety of restaurants that I can take my family.
I appreciate eating in Lawrence and Salina...no smoke or no stink!! I don't think smokers know how much they stink..and are very annoying to be around....surely they do not like having that bad breath, smelly clothes, hair, etc.....UGH!
August 20, 2008 at 6:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
Every time I go into an establishment to purchase food or drink, I vote with my $$$. Is this tavern , bar , or restaurant worthy of my VOTE!!! If I feel the location is unsafe , guess what . I VOTE NO and go elsewhere. What im against is someone taking my Vote away from ME!!! let me decide if a private business is safe for me or not, not a group who has untold agendas!
August 20, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rdgrey (anonymous) says...
eiggohp
You make it sound as though everywhere you go there is a plume of smoke behind every door you open. That is not true and if so let me know where the smoke is an issue but I eat out alot and have yet to have a problem with it. As far as people stinking, deal with life, everyone stinks and it is not a perfect world. People smoke in there cars and at home then go into a store, they will smell of cig smoke yes, but is that a health hazard NO. That is just getting petty and if you can not deal with how others might smell, dress, wear their hair, then hire someone to run your errands for you and stay home.
August 20, 2008 at 8:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
truckingirl (anonymous) says...
I personally feel attacked about the whole smoking thing they say it's not anti-smoker BS. You want clean air close all the highways down don't be doing the demolition derby or the tractor pulls anymore those cars and diesels pump out more bad fumes for you than any damn cigarette. Pretty soon I WE wont be able to smoke in our cars with the windows down. But we can sit behind a vehicle that has major exhaust issues and nothing happens think about what you are really saying here this is nonsense you don't want to be around smoke then turn your happy #SS around and leave. If I don't like something I sure don't stay. We the people of Emporia have a right that we don't want taken away. If smoking is such a concern why didn't you do something about it years ago. Come on there are more important things to be worrying about in this town besides smoking. Need to be concentrating on illegal drugs than just the cigarettes.
August 20, 2008 at 9:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LifeGoesOn (anonymous) says...
My guess is that many of those who are for this ban are the same ones who go out and have drinks then drive home half drunk.
August 20, 2008 at 9:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
truckingirl (anonymous) says...
On the log from madpoet & Merry and MAD what restaurant did you want to go to that just started letting people smoke? Hello, I am almost positive this restaurant has been here for quite sometime and always a smoking establishment why are you making such a big fuss? When did you lose your right to move about Emporia and pick and choose where you go? I liked neighbors log Sauders and Walters answer those questions and tell Emporia the truth on would you go to the bar and have a few more drinks?
August 20, 2008 at 9:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JohnDoe (anonymous) says...
Bars in bigger area that have enacted smoking bans have built accomodations for their smoking crowd such as decks and patios. The last time I checked the majority of bars, especially bars downtown, would have great difficulty accomplishing that. It would discourage business in a time we need the most revenue we can get. Not to mention make more vacancies downtown. I'm a non-smoker and I highly oppose this on the grounds of what it does to business owners who have done nothing wrong in being accomodating to their clientele. Smoking/non-smoking should be the choice of the owner. If there are that many non-smokers on board it should, in theory, be a lucrative business move to do so.
Perhaps there is a middleground in this. Stay smoking but install air purifiers? I still think this entire thing is pretty ridiculous. Smoke at a bar is about as common as water at a swimming pool. If you can't stand it, don't go. No one is forcing you to go.
August 20, 2008 at 9:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
truckingirl (anonymous) says...
LifeGoesOn I agree with you 100% on that. LOL
August 20, 2008 at 9:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MerryCarol (anonymous) says...
Truckingirl, I'm not making a fuss. I'm not pushing for non smoking establishments. I am aware that smoking has been a very long time thing in a lot of places.
But the fact is, I do not do well in smoke, not cigarette smoke, not the Spring prairie fires smoke, not bbq smoke that winds up in my house when the neighbor bbqs too close to my house.
I was simply wishing that smokers were more polite. To me it seems rude to smoke in an enclosed area.
Don't get defensive about it. You want to smoke wherever you want to smoke, period. I want to not breathe smoke. You are the one with the freedom to make the air unpleasant for others. So be it. I'm not going to fight you.
If ever the laws change, it'll make life just a tad more pleasant for me and my family. You can still smoke, just do it elsewhere if that happens. If those laws don't happen, then just keep on keeping on, do what you do and don't give anyone else a second thought.
August 20, 2008 at 10:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LifeGoesOn (anonymous) says...
MerryCarol, they ain't going to stop burning pastures or cooking on the BBQ grill for you either, so would all those people be "rude" also?
Thats like saying people should check with all travelers on south 35 highway Before they burn the flinthills every spring, ya know, they dont want to be rude.
It's as many have said before , If ya dont like the smoke , don't go there. I dont like all the loud noise and nitro fumes at the car races so ,I do not go.
Same thing....
August 21, 2008 at 6:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Why not choice? When my husband (who smokes) and I go out to eat and we go to a non-smoking restaurant, he leaves his smokes in the car and doesn't whine about it. If we go to a smoking allowed place I don't whine about it, that was our choice to make. There are over 30 restaurants in Emporia who don't allow smoking. If non-smokers really want to eat at a smoking restaurant deal with it and quit your whining.
There is a huge selection of family oriented places to take the children that are non-smoking, go to them. Part of being an adult is making your own choices, having the government do it for you is a bit odd, don't you think
August 21, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MerryCarol (anonymous) says...
Rbow, actually, I agree with you. When I talk about how I feel about it, I'm being honest. I'm not trying to change anything, just telling how I feel about it. Should I hide my feelings for some reason? You didn't. I don't see why I should.
As for prairie burning and bbqing, no, I wouldn't try to change those either. I did ask my neighbor if he would mind moving his bbq unit though, and he did and was glad to know. He was very accomodating. I didn't ask for much, in fact, he was good enough to do more than I asked. He's happy with his set up, and I'm more comfortable in my home. It's really that simple. Some people in this world are just really good, and he is.
Prairie burning is necessary, and I can stay inside my home with the windows shut. It does ruin part of the Spring for me, and that is just a simple fact, no whining, just the way it is.
Nothing is ever going to be perfect. We all live with the imperfections that we both get inflicted on us, and cause for others.
August 21, 2008 at 10:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
helpless (anonymous) says...
Thanks to whoever posted the questions! I was thinking the exact same thing myself! I am a smoker, and I have NO problem smoking somewhere else! If the bars are banned from smoking...how many of these complainers are going to become drinkers because of it?? DUH! I try very hard to be a courteous smoker. I understand that people dont like smoke...but as many have said, there are many other things that are harmful besides smoke!
Private business owners absolutely should have the right to make their own decisions about whether they are a smoking establishment or not! If you dont want to go where smoking is allowed....DONT! If I dont want to go where smoking isnt allowed... I WONT! Simple as that!
August 21, 2008 at 10:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
citizen (anonymous) says...
I do not like smoke and I am allergic. But I am all for the RIGHT TO CHOOSE. I like my freedom and do not want government to take that a way from me. DO NOT let the government control yet another aspect of our lives.
August 21, 2008 at 1:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
exemporian (anonymous) says...
The people of Emporia continue to astonish me. This is not an issue of smoking or non smoking issue. The issue is government taking control of much more then they should be. If you are lucky enough in life to own a business, you should be able to choose how you run that business. Wake up Emporia!!!
August 21, 2008 at 1:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
prettyblues (anonymous) says...
I agree with helpless and neighbor!! Is anyone going to answer those questions? Yes, I'm a smoker and a mom with children. Do I smoke in the car, in my home with my children around NO!! I'm respectful to others and I can go outside I don't mind. I go to restaurants that have a smoking section, but my family and I sit in a non-smoking section I don't want to smell smoke while I eat either. I guess my question is most restaurants around here are non smoking anyways, and really the size of Emporia is not nearly the size of Lawrence, that being said they have more restaurants to choose from. I can agree with making the restaurants non-smoking, but if I CHOOSE to go to a bar and drink my liver away, then I guess I should be able to CHOOSE to go to the bar and smoke my lungs away. That's my choice! That's the owners choice to have smoking available, not the government not a group or a panel. That's their personal property, and if they make a living off it Great!! Just like the smoke shop makes money off smokers, the Liquor store makes money off those that CHOOSE to drink...which by the way is bad for you too...LOL
August 21, 2008 at 2:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
Why can't you people understand that it is not about YOU smoking?? It is about you putting YOUR SMOKE in the air that we all have to share. I don't get a choice as to whether or not to breathe.
And as I have stated many, many times, businesses do not get to do whatever they want. There are many licenses required and rules to follow, this would just be another one that benefits EVERYONE'S health, not just mine and the other pro-ban supporters but even the people who are against it.
August 21, 2008 at 3 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
KUtriSIS (anonymous) says...
On the note that so many above have shared, it should be a choice that is up to the PRIVATE business owner to make the decision that is best for them. After all, it is THEIR place of business and how they make money to support their family. I am a non-smoker, or wait, maybe a smoker when I drink. Does that make me a smoker? You know what, I don't care because IT IS MY CHOICE! If a restaurant makes the choice to go non-smoking because they believe it will help their business that is great. All of you complainers can go to the non-smoking place. But when a restaurant has established that it is a smoking facility there is a good reason for that. Anyone who does not agree should probably talk to someone from a place like Bruff's and then get you some water to wash it down with...yes I mean your foot in your big mouth. IT'S A GREAT BUSINESS FOR THEM THE WAY THEY HAVE IT OR IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT BY THEIR CHOICE. Don't all of you complainers that say non-smoking would increase the revenue think that if that was the truth it would be done already?
August 21, 2008 at 3:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
slvrnblck: Thank you for being so concerned for our health but, if you don't mind, we would prefer to make our own decisions concerning our health instead of allowing you to make those decisions for us. What qualifies you to override our personal right to choose?
August 21, 2008 at 4:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
toninj (anonymous) says...
I pulled this up on our Flint Hills Health Dept. web site. It is a guide to all the businesses in Emporia that were smoke free in 2007.
http://www.flinthillshealth.org/news/...
After reading through this, it looks to me like there are plenty of CHOICES in Emporia for those that want to go to smoke free places. I think it is time for this "group" of women to leave the rest of the businesses and their RIGHTS alone!
August 21, 2008 at 4:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
Thought about cutting and pasting that to this thread toninj, thanks for posting the link that hopefully will be used. I know the anti-smoker posters will never admit their claims of being deprived of public access supposedly due to secondhand smoke are false. Hopefully, others will recognize their claims are inflated and exaggerated to say the least after viewing that list.
An ordinance banning smoking in public buildings is not necessary nor needed and is a terrible waste of tax money. The overwhelming majority of restaurants and public buildings are already smoke free, done so by free choice by the management and owners of said buildings who recognized the benefits of going smoke free on their own. This effort is terrible waste of tax payer money being spent by the EDA, a self righteous, special interest group. They should not be receiving the public funds to push their personal agenda.
August 21, 2008 at 6:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
slvrnblck posted: "Why can't you people understand that it is not about YOU smoking?? It is about you putting YOUR SMOKE in the air that we all have to share. I don't get a choice as to whether or not to breathe."
I would counter:
Why can't YOU people understand...you DON'T have to share the air in bars and other private businesses. You DO get a choice. Your choice is to NOT GO IN.
Why is that so hard for you to figure out? If you don't want to breathe smoke in a private business, don't go in.
And by the way, count me in among the non-smokers. I quit 12 years ago because it was bad for my health.
August 21, 2008 at 7:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Doug (anonymous) says...
Hey Teresa! I have seasonal allergies. Can we go after anything that produces pollen too?
August 22, 2008 at 5:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
TacoBellB (anonymous) says...
I'm so glad someone called these people out with a quiz. funny I didn't notice them answering any of the questions. should it be that hard to defend your side if you actually did the research on the topic you are such a die hard supporter of?
August 22, 2008 at 5:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
I went to Bruff's tonight for dinner and to watch Clint race at Bristol. They had a good sized crowd, smokers and non-smokers alike. I asked my wife, a non-smoker with allergy issues, if the cigarette smoke was noticable or strong smelling to her? She said it was not, and if I hadn't said anything about it, she would have never thought anything about there being people there smoking. Good job on the ventilation efforts Gary/Bruff's staff.
August 24, 2008 at 12:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )