Commission sets vote on smoke ban
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Proposal on agenda
for Wednesday
The Emporia Gazette
The Emporia City Commission is expected to vote on a proposed smoking ban for the city when it meets at 1:30 p.m. Wednesday in the City Commission-Municipal Court Room at 518 Mechanic St.
The ban on smoking in public places was proposed by Clean Air Emporia. The group proposed an ordinance in September that would ban smoking in public places and places of employment within city limits. At the Sept. 10 meeting, Bobbi Sauder spoke for the group. She said Clean Air Emporia wants to promote the health and safety of all Emporians.
She went on to describe the U.S. Surgeon General’s statements that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. There have been studies on this issue for 44 years, Sauder said, that have proven the carcinogenic effects of secondhand smoke.
“Everyone has the right to breathe clean air in all public places,” Sauder said.
The proposal provoked the organization of an opposition group, Emporia Open For Business, which has described the issue as one of personal and property rights.
Other items on Wednesday’s agenda include:
- An ordinance decreasing liquor license fees for cereal malt beverage package sales.
- A proclamation honoring Larry Adams for 35 years of service in the police department.
- A proclamation honoring John Aufleger for 35 years of service.
- A proclamation honoring Don Cook for 26 years of service in the fire department.
- A proclamation honoring Rick Hinson for 32 years of service in the refuse department.
- A proclamation honoring Bob Palmer for 20 years of service in the facilities department.
- A proclamation honoring Alan Sage for 21 years in the fire department.
- A proclamation honoring Dorothy Shipman for 30 years of service.
- A presentation of League of Municipality Service Award certificates to employees.
- Award of a contract for repairs at the Waste Water Treatment Plant.
- Approval of a reappointment to the RDA Board.
- Approval of a reappointment to the Community Corrections Board.
- A report from city manager on city activities.
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Unlike CAE 's petition to ban smoking which was invalid because those signing it were not shown the restrictive ordinance before they signed ,The Emporia Gazette held a readers pole on Sept. 12, 2008 after the ordinance was made public. Although this pole is not scientific it did reflect the wishes of the Emporian's who took the time to vote on it.
Question: What should the Emporia City commission do with CAE proposal to make Emporia smoke free?
NOT Approve it 47% 649 votes
Approve it 38% 525 votes
Adisory election 14 % 193 votes
total votes 1,367 votes
Seems like the commission has a clear mandate to NOT APPROVE THIS ORDINANCE! If they pass this I want to hear their reasons why, and it better hadn't include the words "public Health".
Everyone who can, be at the meeting early to get a seat and see how our elective form of government works, (or Doesn't)
Steve
December 2, 2008 at 3:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Newsie (anonymous) says...
If the city doesn't approve the ban then I want to hear the reasons why and it better not include the words "owner's rights."
December 2, 2008 at 4:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Crackinsack; on the other hand you COULD take the 47% number and add the 14% number to come up with 61% that are against this ban. Like I said this wasn't scientific but 47 still is greater than 38.
Steve
December 2, 2008 at 5 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Pingeon (anonymous) says...
Dude on crack says:
"As for the selfish non-business owners who are against the ban…they just want to practice their bad habit no matter who it harms."
How many times must it be pointed out that the people against the ban are not all smokers? I don't smoke and could name quite a few others on this board and elsewhere that don't and all of us are against this ban. This has nothing to do with bad habits or harming others. It has to do with personal freedom, keeping the gov't out of our lives, letting me decide what's best for me and business owners run their own business how they see fit.
Of course you know that and don't want to read it. Just like you are going to have your own response to this without reading it.
December 2, 2008 at 5:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
johnsmith (anonymous) says...
crack says- (I also don’t want the smoker smell from the guy next to me to rub-off on me) I, for one, am very excited that Emporia is ready to take steps for a healthier future. Pay no attention to the selfish business owners who think they have the right to harm their own customers. It should be their responsibility to provide a safe environment for anyone who walks in their door. As for the selfish non-business owners who are against the ban…they just want to practice their bad habit no matter who it harms.
CRACK- ARE YOU 12 YEARS OLD? If you are not, you sure do sound as if you are. Mommy he touched me. get a flippin' life and leave these people alone. I don't smoke but I might start after all your lame a$$ rants.
December 2, 2008 at 6:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
I've put this on here before, but this reminds me of the "smoking ban" the Nazi's put in effect in the 1930's and 1940's.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/s...
(from the article) "We live in a paranoid world overpopulated by ninnying jellyfish who dare not dip their toe in the water in case there's a law against it, it might upset someone, or it might be bad for their health.
Many people will read this article having lost loved ones as a result of smoking. Please don't have a knee jerk emotional reaction, try to understand that the point I'm making - smoking is unhealthy but it is healthier than fascism and government regulation of personal habits leads to dictatorship.
The fact that the very language and policies that we are now bombarded with as a justification for state regulation of our personal lifestyle choices are directly lifted from Nazi policies for racial hygiene from the 1930's should alarm us all and act as a wake up call to the true agenda behind today's anti-smoking purge."
December 2, 2008 at 6:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Pingeon (anonymous) says...
Ok, what happened at the meeting? The EG isn't posting anything, so what's going on up North?
December 2, 2008 at 8:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Pingeon,
The commission meeting is tomorrow at 1:30.
December 2, 2008 at 8:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Pingeon (anonymous) says...
Whoops, read right over that one. Thanks for the correction Matt. :)
December 2, 2008 at 9:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
crackinsack- What makes you so positive that the 14% who want to put the smoking ban to a vote are solidly in your and the CAE camp.
As for being "selfish", I would imagine that you and the rest of the CAE , who want to have everything in Emporia, exactly the way you "need and want" it to be and to hell with everyone elses' " needs or wants", believe that you and the CAE are not being selfish!
The citizens who are against the smoking ban and smoke are only asking for the "FREEDOM" to have a few places to go, socialize, eat, have a beer, and smoke a cigarette, cigar or pipe and run their business the way they choose to, with out the fear of breaking some "gestapo" type law.
As for the citizens that do not smoke, I believe the non-smoking citizens, who are against the smoking ban realize or believe that this smoking ban will just be the beginning of the takeing away, restricting or limiting of their basic "RIGHTS" and "FREEDOMS" to freely make their own personal, private and individual decisions and do not want any more individuals, group of individuals or government involvement in their own choices and decisions about how to live their own lives.
I believe that everyone in Emporia has everything to fear and very little or nothing to gain, if this smoking ban is approved, for as surely as the Sun rises in the East and Sets in the West, this smoking ban will only be the beginning of more, future bans, concoted by so called "do gooder" or group of "do gooders" who think or believe that they absolutely know how everyone else should be living their lives, running their businesses or what ever !
December 2, 2008 at 10:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ratdog (anonymous) says...
So far, after months of debate, I have yet to hear ONE SINGLE proponent of this intrusion on the rights of private business reveal ONE SINGLE place in Emporia, Kansas where ONE SINGLE citizen is exposed to ONE SINGLE breath of second-hand smoke that that citizen cannot avoid by exercising ONE SINGLE ounce of personal choice.
Our commisioners should be ashamed of themselves if they get pushed into passing this most needless and foolish erotion of personal freedom. Not only will they take away rights from business and property owners, they will take away the right of all citizens to make their own decisions and choose what's right for themselves.
December 2, 2008 at 10:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justthinkin (anonymous) says...
OMG - Let's change the subject ...... 199 years of service retiring..... WOW. I hope Emporia (Commission & Mgt) understand what they are losing !
December 2, 2008 at 10:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JohnDoe (anonymous) says...
With the economy what it is and our mainstreet with vacancies CAE is there to throw gas on the fire. Unless you're a business owner, don't infringe on enterprise. If restaurant and bar owners want to ban smoking so be it. This just looks like a group of people pushing for something "everyone else is doing" and not thinking about whether or not our businesses have the infrastructure/funds to accomodate. Not everyone comes from the financial position Ms Sauder is in. Hopefully businesses in this town will be able to operate in a way to best serve the customer and not the wealthy & vocal.
December 3, 2008 at 12:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
JohnDoe and JustThinkin,
I agree with your assessment of the situation, and think you are dead on accurate. This group wants Emporia to be so much like friggin Lawrence they can't stand it, and it never will be. These people have NO clue, NONE, what they are giving up by forcing this through the commission. I've NEVER seen one single person on the CAE/EDA board at a bar, EVER. Why they care so much about places they don't go is beyond me. To me, this has absolutely not one thing to do with clean air, and everything to do with politics and personal agendas.
December 3, 2008 at 1:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
http://www.forces.org/images/index-im...
December 3, 2008 at 1:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
On a funnier note...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgTG55...
December 3, 2008 at 4:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
I was wondering what if?
What would happen after this ban is passed and I light up at the next city commission meeting? I know I would get a ticket for $100.00 but what about the city? According to the ordinance the property owner gets fined also. Who at the city is going to pay that fine?
Steve
December 3, 2008 at 7:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
JohnDoe, justthinkin, josiesbar and others,
I agree with your right on thinking and logic, about this whole issue being about "social class and power" and what the so called higher social class's " needs and wants" are. However it is my thinking, that anyone who attacks or attempts to take away anyones' right and freedom to make his or her own decisions to choose how to live their own lives or mangage and run their bussineses that they own, has no "CLASS" at all. Granted there are some followers of the CAE who are probably of a lower social class than the leader or founder of the CAE and other CAE notables. But these people have been duped into believing that the ban smoking in Emporia campaign is about health. I have said this same thing right here on this forum and elsewhere ever since this whole issue came to my attention.
Another thing I have noticed about the CAE and its followers is the fact that when you, me or anyone happens to post any kind of statement on this forum that happens to be the truth, the CAE and it followers immediately revert to twisting your words and then come the personal attacks.
Well here is another truth for the "higher social class" CAE and its followers.
Emporia has never been and most likely, never will be the cultural or social capitol of the U.S. or the world, no matter how much you, the CAE or its followers, try to "BROWBEAT"(brow·beat (brou b t) . To intimidate or subjugate by an overbearing manner or domineering speech; bully.) the rest of Emporia's citizens into thinking that it will be or could be the cultural and social capitol of the world or that you have the right to dictate to all the people of Emporia how and what personal decisions are best for all of the people of Emporia.
December 3, 2008 at 8:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
rbow-
I don't know for sure, but I believe that the fine to the City would either never happen or the $100.00 fine would most likely be paid to the City out of the General Fund, which means that it would be paid with taxpayer money and in that case noone associated with or employed by the City would be out anything and you as a taxpayer would actually be losing not once but twice.
December 3, 2008 at 8:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
"Why they care so much about places they don't go is beyond me." You're right, Matt, these people don't go to local watering holes so it's all politics and personal agenda, but don't forget the money. In order to for their organization to receive x dollars, they have to do x things, and getting this ordinance passed is one.
I heard recently that a good deal of this money is coming from the closing of St. Francis Hospital in Wichita via Senator Barnett. Any truth to that? I asked the person who told this to me for more info but that's all they know so I can't trust that kind of evidence. Just thought that perhaps others have heard the same and have more info.
At any rate, I hope the commish takes into consideration these tons of comments that have been made against this ban. I am not a smoker; I signed the protest, and like most, I am against the ban because it interferes with private and individual rights.
December 3, 2008 at 8:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
orangecountry (anonymous) says...
This should be a business owner's choice! IF you don't like smoke, don't go to places where smoking is allowed. There are plenty of smoke-free places in this community that you can dine and drink at. It isn't about the cigarettes, it is about RIGHTS!
December 3, 2008 at 9:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Just a piece of information for everyone to digest.
German cigarette manufacturers have been producing a "SAFE" cigarette since 1959. The German "SAFE" cigarette brand name is called "VANGUARD".
So called "BIG TOBACCO", here in the U.S. aquired the patent for the "SAFE" cigarette from the German manufacturers in 1966. So you see, the U.S. cigarette manufacturers have had the ability and technology to make a "Safe" cigarette since 1966. I got this information from, the sight address is,
www.tobaccodocuments.org. However this is a huge site and has over 11 million copies of tobacco company documents and is somewhat difficult to navigate, but it can be done, I did it. However to gain access to all documents you must open an account,(which is FREE). If you decide to visit this site it will be quite a learning experience.
So you see this is why I have been saying the CAE and its followers and the rest of the ban smoking crowd have been targeting the wrong people. They should be and should have been targeting "BIG TOBACCO" all along and not the innocent people who are and have been duped and lied to by both our own government and "BIG TOBACCO" into believing that they are using a non-harmful product. " Big TOBACCO" is the real "MURDEROUS VILLIAN" along with our own government for not regulating the chemical additives "BIG TOBACCO" adds to all tobacco products they manufacture.
December 3, 2008 at 9:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
locopunky (anonymous) says...
I for one cannnot wait for it to pass and for all the bars and restaurants to be smoke free. It's about time Emporia caught up with the rest of the cities in the State.
December 3, 2008 at 10:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
crackinsack- Again you say and these are your words.
This isn't about cigarettes nor is it about rights. This is about the health and well-being of our citizens. Second-hand smoke harms everyone in the room, not just the person smoking. I just don't understand why smokers think they have the right to harm others. Let the government do its job and protect us citizens.
First of all, this is definately about "smoking a cigarette as well as Second-hand smoke", simply because if it were about "SMOKE or SMOKING" in general and wanting to provide a healthy environment, you and your CAE pals would include all activities that produce smoke or smoking in a smoking ban. And I have listed such activities in past posts.
But simply because you and your CAE cronies believe that the activities that cause potential harmful " SMOKE OR SMOKING" that is not cigarette smoke related as "serving a useful purpose", how lame can an excuse to remove a citizens " FREEDOM OF CHOICE", and it definately is a taking away of a citizens right and "FREEDOM OF CHOICE", by doing so under the guise of "Promoting Health for all", when this smoking ban, is actually about your own selfish "needs and wants".
Secondly, all business owners who " LAWFULLY" allow smoking now will be loosing the "RIGHT", "FREEDOM" and ability to run and manage their private, solely owned business as they now have the "FREEDOM OF CHOICE" to "LAWFULLY" do with out fear of interference from some individual, group of individuals, who's selfish, misguided thinking and beliefs are meant to do one thing, that is to browbeat all of Emporias' citizens and governing body into getting what they selfishly "need and want", with out regard to the "needs and wants" on any of the other citizens of Emporia.
Thirdly, if you and the rest of your CAE cronies who do not have the ability or inclination to make your own right choices concerning what you should do about your own health,( such as not going to a business that allows smoking) then you definately need some private individual decision making education.
However, because you and your CAE cronies cant make, what must be difficult decisions, does not entitle you to try and force others to live by your decisions or indecisions or force the local government to force your decisions or indecisions upon all the citizens of Emporia.
December 3, 2008 at 10:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
locopunky-I see you are another person who can't make lifes' difficult decisions.
Such as, "They allow smoking here, should I go in or should I go where smoking is not allowed , boy I am having a difficult time deciding, wait I will just have the government make my decision for me", because I only care about what I "need and want".
December 3, 2008 at 11:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
cookatwork (anonymous) says...
Am I getting this correctly? The city commissioners are voting on this - NOT the people of Emporia? This is such a HUGE issue with everyone - I think that the registered voters of Emporia should be the ones voting on this. I think we would get a more clear picture on what the PEOPLE of Emporia want.
December 3, 2008 at 11:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
crackinsack-Again when anyone else posts the truth on this forum, you again come back with a rediculous statement.
Just which peoples interests will the government that is in place be acting for ? Yours and yours only !
Again I must explain to you that you already have many publicly accessed businesses that you can frequent without being subjected to SHS and those who smoke who frequent those same businesses must not smoke while they are there and you may also choose to frequent those businesses that allow smoking if you so choose, but again this seems to be too difficult a choice for you and other to on you own without the intrusion and help of the government.
December 3, 2008 at 12:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
"Unless, of course, you actually think we should protect our interests with gun fights."
Isn't that how the government protects its interests?
December 3, 2008 at 12:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Good comment, josiesbar, but crack thinks the Iraqis and Afghans are stupid and uncivilized.
December 3, 2008 at 2:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Read more carefully, crack. Didn't you get what josiesbar meant by the government protecting its interests with gunfights?
December 3, 2008 at 2:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
vankamp (anonymous) says...
The ban just passed
December 3, 2008 at 3:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LifeGoesOn (anonymous) says...
I dont know all the ins and outs of this ban, so does this mean a smoker can now be fined for walking down the street with a lit cig (within 20ft of an entrance)?
December 3, 2008 at 3:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Pingeon (anonymous) says...
create - I live in Wichita and have not heard of St. Francis closing. What's going on there?
December 3, 2008 at 5:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
I don't know, Pingeon, I'm as baffled as you are. When I asked the person who gave me this information for more info, she said this is what she had heard. I hope she was wrong. Is there another Catholic hospital closing down there? It all seems strange to me too. I'll try to find out more info.
December 3, 2008 at 7:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Pingeon, I got a bit more info now. The Sisters of ??? hospital sold and some of the funds from the sale went to the state to use for the no-smoking progam. I didn't couch it in my terms, just exactly what was told to me. So that's all I know. At least we know now it isn't St. Francis.
December 3, 2008 at 7:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
LifeGoesOn--
It's not 20 feet, its 10, and yes, a person can be fined for walking and smoking within 10 feet of a place of employment.
December 3, 2008 at 8:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Pingeon (anonymous) says...
create - I vaguely remember hearing something about that. Not exactly sure what it is though. You did have me wondering though. If Wesley or St. Francis closed, there would be something major going down. Both of those places are huge.....
December 3, 2008 at 10:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
locopunky (anonymous) says...
Methulsa, I don't see anywhere in my post where it says where "because I only care about what I "need and want".
"...please show where I said that.
December 4, 2008 at 9:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Pingeon, Yes, I agree about it being major if those two institutions were to close. Glad I could clear that up. Perhaps we'll hear more.
December 4, 2008 at 9:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
crackinsack- As to your statement of Dec.3, 2008 and I quote,"Actually, create, I was referring to people resisting the smoking ban when it is clearly best for us. ;) I said nothing of the Middle East."
Exactly which "US" in you statement were you making reference to, because it sounds as if you are referring specifically, to youself, the CAE and its herd of sheep followers. Just as I suppose that you believe that a 10 billion dollar per month war was and is best for "US" !
December 4, 2008 at 1:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
driveonby (anonymous) says...
In Hutchinson, the Anti smoking crowd call themselves the Reno County Anti Tobacco Use Coalition. This group is run by employees of the Reno County Health Department. This group, in order to obtain the grant money from the private foundation, The Kansas Health Foundation, must form a separate group(?),but it is STILL your Health Department employees. I guess in Emporia they call themselves the CAE. The Kansas Health Foundation has a website. Their 2006-07 Report is online. On page 7, they quite proudly praise the donations of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, who are partners with Johnson and Johnson, makers and distributors of Nicorette, Nicoderm, Chantix, and other nicotine replacement products. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation control over 35,400,000
shares of J&J stock. They are spending 100s of millions yearly on this campaign. This is WHERE the dollars are distributed into local communities (Health Departments).
This is WHY your anti smoking activists are NOT trying to outlaw the SELLING of tobacco. They want to degrade and humiliate smokers into quitting over and over again. If the SELLING of tobacco was illegal you would NOT need to use J&J smoking cessation products, that actually do NOT work, but people will use them repeatedly in their efforts to conform.
When your local Health Department employees do this on their OWN time, not on tax payer time, (they do not even clock out from the County pay!), and WHEN they lobby to stop the selling of nicotine products, perhaps more people would believe their story.
Also, find the OSHA report, that states, that you would have to put over 300 smokers in a 20 by 20 foot, completely enclosed room, without any smoke cleaning equipment, smoking over 50 packs of cigarettes each, in 8 hours, to reach the LOWEST level of any known carcinogen.
Please do your homework. The Government, your CIty, the anti smoking coalition, do NOT want you to quit smoking. They would all lose too much money. Your County Health employees are simply grant chasers, and they should have avoided this one.
Is anytime a good time to put tax payers out of work?
Is your paper running the full page, color ad signed by SmokeIsPoisonous. These ads are paid directly from the Kansas Health Foundation. In Hutch they cost over $3,000.00 per ad. That kind of money could actually help people with real health issues!
Cigarette companies cannot advertise. The ONLY times kids see smoking products is when the ANTI group posts these ads. Interesting, they are selling tobacco to kids, NOT Tobacco companies.
Always follow the money. Johnson and Johnson are CLEANING UP with this interesting advertising campaign. County employees should be serving the tax payers, NOT Nicoderm pushers.
Good luck
December 18, 2008 at 12:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
good post driveonby!
Steve
December 18, 2008 at 7:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )