madpoet (anonymous) says...

I am ready to get this issue behind us. We've beaten a dead horse into dust. People are entrenched now and not likely to change their views. As a nonsmoker with a small child, I am glad the restaurants are going to be nonsmoking. I think the ordinance it too restrictive, though. But I've also heard that only about 25% of the population smokes so wonder how huge an impact it will have on business. If ALL the businesses are nonsmoking, I would think the people will keep going there. It sounds like we have about a month to find out between when the ordinance goes into effect and a vote in April. A friend in Columbia, MO didn't think their smoking ban had an effect on businesses. I hope the same is true in Emporia.

December 4, 2008 at 3:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sail (anonymous) says...

As a senior citz who has high bp , why not have children free restaurants, that way those little SH**ts wont endager My health!! Or how about an law forcing all vehicles larger than a malibu has to go 20 mph to protect me from a car acc with a larger vehicle. I also think its now time to have the town engage all the pit bull owners, dogs can stay but the owners have to go!! This is great we can become all the town we want to be.

December 4, 2008 at 4:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

shoehorn (anonymous) says...

I agree, it's done, let's put it behind us........ OK, Now let's go after the FAT people!! After all, obesity and diabetes are both major killers, and associated to fat people, who are costing our health care system extra money. So, let's pass an ordinance restricting large orders of fries, super size soft drinks, and restrict malts only to those that can walk ten feet from their cars to the front door of the fast food joints. Is this the logic that our society should use and the rule that we should implement?

December 4, 2008 at 6:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

LifeGoesOn (anonymous) says...

To Julius Cohen
I have no doubt "you want" only what "you feel" is best for all on this matter, but I must say that this ban in its current form is a bit over the top for me, I have a HUGE problem of being told that it is ok to use the 911 system to report a smoker. It is a stupid thing to even suggest, What is your feelings on this part of this ordinance?

December 4, 2008 at 7:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I don't see what good putting it to a public vote will do. We already live in a age where the public overwhelmingly votes one way, then a handful of judges playing God overturn it....

December 4, 2008 at 8:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Pingeon (anonymous) says...

"And, if you smoke when you are pregnant, you are doing significant harm to your baby by forcing it to smoke."

This statement I agree with. It does do harm to the baby. HOWEVER, where do you get off telling someone else how to live their life? They know the risks and they know the consequences. All you are allowed to do is provide information. When they screw up, all you can do is say "Well, it's not like you didn't have the tools to make it work."

I can also believe that only 25% of the population smokes. However, I would like to see a SCIENTIFIC poll (ie, not on the EG website where it is not truly a random sample) on what percentage of people that frequent a bar smoke. I bet that little 'ole 25% will rise WAY up.

I have to agree with madpoet in the end. People are entrenched and are not going to change their view either way no matter what is said. It's just too bad that there are so many Big Brothers out there........

December 4, 2008 at 8:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

tbluma (anonymous) says...

Every time we turn around we give up one more GOD given right. I still fail to see how a privately owned business can be considered a public place, I would bet anything that a big majority of the dogooders who propose to save me from second hand smoke also favor free choice when it comes to abortion [murder]. But most of these people are only prochoice when it favors their position. Tim Bluma

December 4, 2008 at 9:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

tbluma (anonymous) says...

Does Julius Cohen drive a car, does JC heat his house, does JC charcoal steaks, DOES JC HAVE A LIFE? Iwould like to know what Julius Cohen [JC] has done that made him my lord and protecter. If he does any of the above he's just as much a polutant as a smoker.

December 4, 2008 at 9:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

open_eyes- When this ban smoking issue is forced to a vote of the public, and I believe that it will be, and if the smoking ban ordnance is overturned by a public vote.
I can guarantee you and everyone else, that the smoking ban proponents will not accept a vote overturning the ban as the will of the people, because they think of themselves as the only people in Emporia that count or amount to anything, to them everyone else is just sheep, to be dictated to and herded in a direction of their choosing. Afterall the smoking ban proponents' believe they are the only people entitled to any "RIGHTS and, or FREEDOMS " at all.

December 4, 2008 at 10:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

tbluma (anonymous) says...

AMEN

December 4, 2008 at 10:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Pingeon (anonymous) says...

I'll see that AMEN and second it!

December 4, 2008 at 10:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

LifeGoesOn:
Using 911 to make a non-emergency call IS illegal. I suggested on another blog that people wishing to report a smoking violation after hours call the city managers home phone.
Steve

December 5, 2008 at 7:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

madpoet;
type in columbia mo. smoking ban and go to the Federal Reserve Banks link showing the economic results of the ban in Columbia.
Steve

December 5, 2008 at 7:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

madpoet: Check out this link, page 13

research.stlouisfed.org/regecon/op/CRE8OP-2008-002.pdf

Steve

December 5, 2008 at 8:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

locopunky (anonymous) says...

Just curious. If this does go to a public vote and if it passes; what will you do then? I know those are some big "IF"s...

December 5, 2008 at 9:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

LifeGoesOn & others:
Steve is absolutely right about making a non-emergency call to 911 is indeed against the law and as for making a call to 911 to report a cigarette smoker, how in the world can that be justified as an emergency, except according to the CAE, the Sauders, the 3 City Commissioners, Plummer and the City Manager, smoking a cigarette may be a threat to someone with a deadly weapon !!!!!!!!!!!
How ludricusly stupid can a ban be or get. Next thing you know you are going to need a permit to carry a cigarette pack as a concealed weapon !!!!!!
I am telling you here and now this whole bans thing is going to get out of control and once that happens, and it will happen, there will be no way of stopping or reversing it..
I also suggest that, when you see someone smoking a cigarette you call, not only, the City Manager, but you also call the 3 City Commissioners who voted for the ban, and to also call City Council Plummer, Ms Walters, the Sauders', both Steve and Bobbi and not bother the Fire Dept. or Police Dept. with a call to 911 and leave 911 open for real emergency calls.

December 5, 2008 at 9:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nutsaboutools (anonymous) says...

Thank you Life, rbow and methusla,

The whole 911 arrangement was what concerned me most about this ban. I'm surprised the Fire Dept & Police Dept are "OK" with this. It'll be interesting to see how many calls they get (once this goes into affect) and what the impact will be on "real" emergencies (I sure hope it doesn't result in delays to response).

That's the problem I have with "government" stepping in. They never seem to consider the consequences (how will it be enforced, is it enforceable, what will the costs be. . . . .).

Julius, although interesting comments, if you're going to use the "health care" argument, then you should include expenses resulting from motor vehicle accidents (especially for those who refuse to wear seat belts and those motorcyclists who refuse to wear a helmet), abortions, obesity, alcohol, poor diets, frivolous lawsuits, etc. Second hand smoke and smokers are not at the top of this list (statistics-wise by the way), as the primary cause of the increase in health costs ("Medicare").

December 5, 2008 at 11:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

rbow, methusla, bj and anyone else--

I am just curious what you will do if the ban still is passed by public vote?

I do commend you and hope that you do accomplish the task of getting it that far because while we sit on opposite sides of the fence, I believe that the fairest way to decide this issue is by public vote. I am just curious on if you will continue efforts after the public votes.

December 5, 2008 at 12:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

IF this comes to a vote and the smoking ban stands then I will concede my thoughts on this and give up another right and follow the law, just like I have in the past. Unlike you however I am not ready for BIG BROTHER to run my life without a fight.
Steve

December 5, 2008 at 1:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

slvmblck- Speaking for myself I will abide by whatever the outcome of a public vote may be, I may not like it but a vote is the only way to know the will of the people. I don't really know about anyone else who opposes a ban and whether or not they will abide by a public vote whatever the outcome may be, but I believe they will.
Now, since you are a smoking ban supporter, I would like to pose the self same question to you that you asked me, rbow and anyone else, and do you believe the CAE and those who insisted on starting this whole thing, because, I might add, they are non-thinkers, but followers who are dead set on being like all the other Cities who have passed smoking bans, and have no individualism or ability to think for themselves, ability to make lifes' difficult choices for themselves and allow others to do the same, will abide by whatever the outcome of a public vote may be, I don't believe they will, especially if that vote is not in there favor. I have been around a long time and I know the mind set of these people and the people that came before them and the mind set before and now are identical.

December 5, 2008 at 1:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

methusla--

Fair question. I don't like the assumption that you make when you classify myself and the CAE as non-thinkers. I think that it is unfortunate that we had to have a group like the CAE form because of the disrespect shown by smokers inability to take their cigarettes outside and not pass their SHS on to everyone else.

But, to answer your question, yes I personally will drop it. I believe that if the majority of the people want places to remain smoking establishments then so be it. Let the people speak. However, I am not involved with the CAE so I can not speak for them. I would assume that the CAE will drop it because it appears some sort of ban will becoming down from the state level.

rbow--

If I may also ask, why do you think you will lose business? I don't see how yourself or any other bar owner's playing field has changed. You compete with other bar's like Josie's and they will have to follow the same rules. I am not trying to be difficult, it is a serious question. I guess, I have never said to my buddy..."Hey let's go out tonight to have a smoke!"

Please enlighten me.

December 5, 2008 at 3:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

lets_get_reasonable (anonymous) says...

Lets break it down, shall we?

A smoking ban won't hurt businesses because the ban would be on ALL businesses. A customer won't say, "oh, let's go to that bar rather than this one because THAT bar allows smoking!" Nope. They can either go to the bar anyway and step outside to smoke for two minutes, or they can go out of town. The more cities that take the ban into effect, the better! That way, the choice to go smoke in another city will be out of the picture too. If smokers want to drink or eat out, they'll have to either drink and/or eat at home or suck it up and stay in town.. business will remain. Honestly, who do you feel sorry for out of these two situations? A family who chooses not to visit their favorite restaurant because they don't want to expose their children to smoke, or someone having to step ten feet outside to do something that takes two minutes? A cigarette is deadly whether you want to believe that or not, so we shouldn't for one second feel sorry for someone because they have to go outside to do something that will kill them in the long run.

Now on to the topic of the 911 calls. THAT is ridiculous and no matter what any official says about it, I'm always going to consider that a joke. It's already a laughing matter! It's definitely against the law, as it's a non-emergency. That's that.

Next up, the "big brother" issue. Yes, it's unfortunate and unfair that the government involves itself where it's not wanted. Of course many of you will disagree when I say this, but I don't think this was the intention. I really believe that intentions were good, and that YES we were following the smoking-ban trend. I don't see anything bad about that. It doesn't mean we're not a free-thinking city. It means we're health-conscious, just as the other cities with the ban are. Oh my God, how horrible it is to be health-conscious.

If the ban is put into action, everyone will get over it. Plain and simple. Business will continue to run, people will continue to smoke, just not indoors. Big deal. I saw a hilarious photo on the internet of a sign posted on a non-smoking bar's front door. It read: "Smoking is your pleasure. The by-product of smoking is smoke. Beer is my pleasure. The by-product of beer is urine. How upset would you get if I urinated all over you in public places?" I think this pretty much sums it up.

December 5, 2008 at 3:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

shoehorn (anonymous) says...

I'm kinda confused. Are there some people here that actually believe that mom, dad and junior go to places like Town Royal for a family night out?

December 5, 2008 at 5:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

slvmblck- I would like to try and answer your questions as to the concern about loss of business that a lot of the bar owners have.
1. As I understand these bar owners will either have to construct outside open air patios to accomodate smokers or the smokers will have to go outside and stand no closer than 10 feet from the entrance, on the public side walk or in a dark alley way or parking lot and if the smokers have to go either place to smoke and have a drink, as you and I know that they do, then they will be subject to a drinking or drunk in public arrest and fine as welll as possibly a smoking fine if someone calls 911 and complains about either smoking or drinking in public or both. However those who do not smoke will have the best of everything. As I see it this whole thing is an absolute "Catch 22 " situation for the bar owners and the smokers.
2. The bar owners such as townroyal, josies and probably some others do not have the space to build an open air patio for the smokers, which is going to cost a tidy sum to construct, and since they don't have the extra space to construct an open air patio for smokers so the non-smokers may enjoy the comforts of being inside the business, I believe the bar owners are correct in saying that they will denfinately lose business because the smokers will just stay away. and I believe that most or all of the smoking ban advocates have not nor will not frequent these business and I believe that the influx of non-smokers only will not make up the difference, hence some or possibly all of these smoking allowed now business will either go "belly up" or suffer dire financial hardships. So you see it is also a "Catch 22" situation for bar owners as well.
And I also believe that having these businesses go "belly up ", since they are or may be thought of as second or third class businesses by the organizers of the CAE and others may just have been the plan in the first place, under the disguise of a healther Emporia !
I also never intended to insult you by thinking of you or anyone as a non-thinker, that comment just came out in the heat of the moment and I appoligize.

December 5, 2008 at 6:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

Slvrnblk: I obey the law, period. If this ban prevails, I follow it to the letter. I may eventually move to another city, one not run by a few wealthy holier-than-thou hypocrites and good ole boy politicians, but I will obey the law as long as I am unfortunate enough to reside in this cliquish, backward, laughing stock of a town.

I do want to stick around long enough to see how the 911 thing works out for those who want to report someone smoking in public. That is going to be a hoot! The lawsuits are going to fly on that one! It boggles my mind that supposedly educated and responsible city officials could ever implement such an idiotic, dangerous, economy-wrecking idea.

Calling 911 to report a smoker. You MUST be kidding! Wait until Leno and Letterman get hold of this one!

December 5, 2008 at 6:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

"A smoking ban won't hurt businesses because the ban would be on ALL businesses. A customer won't say, "oh, let's go to that bar rather than this one because THAT bar allows smoking!"

You're exactly right, lets_get_reasonable. The conversation will more likely be "Ohh, you can't smoke in bars anymore, lets just stay home, and call some friends over."

From what I have heard talking to owners/managers in other states, the general consensus was business dropped 20-40% the first year, and then leveled off to about 10% down from pre-ban.

Here is also what I have been told by owners who went through a smoking ban:
*Yes, people will still go out. They won't stay as long, and will come out later, but they will still come out.
*No, there won't be a magical influx of new non-smoking customers. There will be a few for the first month or so, but they gradually move back to the living room.
*The smaller the town, the more the ban affects business.

December 5, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

hogan77 (anonymous) says...

CAE= Citizens Against Emporia.

There you have it folks, I deciphered it for you.

To have a smoking ban simply is ridiculous, many people are going to do whatever they want anyway. And who in their right mind is going to make a non emergency 911 call, and change getting fined for doing so?

A couple questions to the non smokers who are for the ban:

You say you don't want a smokers restaurant. Well, who twisted your arm and forced you to go sit there and eat?

You say you don't like walking behind a smoker out in public. Why is it so damn hard to just move away from them? Last I knew, the sidewalks were wide enough you could walk around us dirty smokers and get ahead of us. Or is it to hard to kick in power walk for 10 seconds?

You say you don't like going into a smoky bar to have a drink. Well, I don't like you coming to the bar to have that drink, because you get drunk and cause fights. There, we are even.

You say you don't like smokers in general, and you are going to do anything in your power to make sure we don't light up our cancer sticks around you... you are tired of breathing in our smoke. Well, I say, I am tired of you using all your chemicals on your lawns, revving up your old beat up car- the one with the thick black smoke coming out of your tailpipe, I am tired of you using your cheap paint on your house- the thick noxious fumes from it is making my brain foggy, I am tired of your loud voices in public places- it hurts my sensitive ears, I am tired of your constant whining of you thinking you are getting the shaft. Because all I see is YOU getting to keep YOUR rights, and me having to give up mine.

December 6, 2008 at 10:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

hogan77 your mostly right but they are actually giving up their rights to. They are just too short sighted and selfish to see it. They don't seem to get that this is an issue of freedom. Smoking is already restricted by laws and a ban is not necessary.

December 6, 2008 at 2:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ccitypolarbear (anonymous) says...

Why doesn't the government keep their nose out of the publics business I am a non-smoker and I don't think it is fair to try to make smokers stop smoking in some public places,how about enforcing a law against alcohol being served in places such as Applebee's(a family place)kids go in there and people are drinking,these kids see it and think it is ok,and then when they become of age they go driving and kill an innocent person,I have never heard of a person smoking a cigarette ,having an accident and killing an innocent person.If smoking is banned I think alcohol should be banned,why should I as a non-drinker have to smell alcohol,the people who smoke are only killing themselves why should we care it is their life not ours.The government should put laws together for everyone not just for them,but wait the majority of our government probably are drinkers,so raise the taxes on smokes and not alcohol because we can afford booze but not smokes.Let's just get polluted!!Ha Ha I made a joke.

December 6, 2008 at 6:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...

Let's go after people with warts! Warts can be spread, you know.

Also, I wonder if we still have a law against spitting on sidewalks. If that's still in effect, we could install video cameras on all of the street corners, That spit could carry germs you know!

December 7, 2008 at 6:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

djdiablo (anonymous) says...

"Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it..."
Henry David Thoreau

December 8, 2008 at 2:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

djdiablo (anonymous) says...

By the bye, do some research on TB and read how it is spread, how long it is viable outside the body, etc. and you'll see why spitting on the sidewalks became illegal in the first place. It still is illegal in most places and, believe it or not, for a very good, perfectly valid reason. TB is on the rise, and yes, you can walk where someone has expectorated and the "tuber" can be taken into your home, spread by pets, etc. But like most other Emporia laws such as littering, jay-walking, pulling U-turns in the middle of Commercial, burning rubber at the lights, running the lights, blaring bass notes loud enough to rattle windows, skateboarding on the sidewalks, who cares? Rather than collect fines WHILE actually enforcing the law, it is far easier to raise my property tax and to increase sales tax so that our small town neighbors would rather just take their business to Topeka...

December 8, 2008 at 2:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jackslap (anonymous) says...

How are they going to allow smoking in a private office? If that office is on the same heating and cooling system all your going to do is circulate that second hand smoke.

December 8, 2008 at 3:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

The coming Emporia smoking ban is, without a doubt, the most ridiculous, unnecessary, restrictive ordinance ever conceived by modern man, or woman. Call 911 to report someone smoking? Applies to private clubs and taverns? Ten feet from the door of any business? This travesty of rights and freedom is flat-out stupid. But, when one considers the source, not all that surprising.

December 8, 2008 at 5:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Folks as I see it this is about three things, " LOSS OF RIGHTS, LOSS OF FREEDOMS and "SUBJUGATION" of all the citizens of Emporia by those who believe that their way of living and believing is moral, right and the only correct way to live. All under the 'SMOKE SCREEN" of being a "HEALTH" issue.
Our "Rights and Freedoms" are becoming as extinct as the dinosaurs and a lot quicker and sooner than anyone had ever anticipated.
When your ( our) "RIGHT and FREEDOMS" are eventually gone you (we) will all be at the mercy of the "LORDS" of Emporia.
Also the "RIGHT to bring an issue to a public vote of the people is also quickly becoming an extinct "RIGHT and FREEDOM" as witnessed by what is trying to be done with the current smoking ban.
So those of you who truely believe that this smoking ban is wrong and do not want to be subject to the beliefs and whims of the "LORDS" of Emporia, sign the upcoming petitions to bring this to a vote of the people, while we still can and then if and when it comes to a vote, vote to kill the smoking ban and uphold your (our) "RIGHTS and FREEDOMS" that we as citizens of Emporia deserve to have.
And remember that the loss of any "RIGHTS and FREEDOMS" maybe as "UNHEALTHY" or more "UNHEALTHY" than any other perceived health threat.

December 8, 2008 at 7:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

irishemporia (anonymous) says...

Speaking of arguments wearing thin....geez, Methusla.

December 8, 2008 at 9:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

irishemporia-The argument or fighting to preserve all peoples rights and freedoms is not as thin as an argument to take away peoples rights and freedoms under the thinly disguised health issue. If you ban smoking advocates were truely concerned about everyones' health you would be banning all actions that cause unhealthy air polution and not just smoking and by the way it is not the smokers who have made the product they "lawfully use" unhealthy. It is the producers and manufacturers of the product that is to blame for producing an unhealthy product.
So as I see it the only argument that is thin and getting thinner is the "ban smoking because of health argument".
I have a question for you irishemporia, are you seriously ill, unhealthy or in danger of dieing because of exposure to SMOKE OR SECOND HAND SMOKE or are you wise enough to excersize your right to freedom of choice and have avoided those places and businesses which allow smoking and if you are seriously ill, unhealthy or in danger of dieing, can you absolutely prove that the cause of your problems was, absolutely without a doubt, exposure to cigarette smoke or second hand smoke ?

December 9, 2008 at 8:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

For those of you who think this is going to actually help bars, here's a story from Columbia, MO where a bar owner is down 30% of sales, and had to give up his health insurance because he can't afford it any more.
http://www.komu.com/satellite/Satelli...

We have become a weak society. We are relying on the government to make all our decisions for us. There is very little personal responsibility left, the government has taken it all, whether its a smoking ban, suing McDonald's for hot coffee or making you fat, or expecting the government to bail out your business when you repeatedly make bad decisions. The people in this country have become to dependent on a broken system. On a side note, why would you let someone/something that is 10 trillion dollars in debt tell you anything?

The people for this ban have never seen first-hand what a true loss of freedom is. They have never seen a society where police have the right to search your house without a warrant or just cause. They have never seen a society where men and women aren't equal under law. They have never had to dig up the mass graves after the all-knowing, loving, and protective government decides it doesn't like you anymore. They have never seen poverty. And I'm talking actual, I have absolutely not one damn thing poverty, not the poverty in the US (i.e.-I'm living in poverty because I can't afford my Starbucks today.) These people have never seen any of this, and I feel sorry for them.

I have said it before, and I will say it again, the people who are for this ban have absolutely no idea of the rights they are giving up, not one damn clue.

Matt

December 9, 2008 at 9:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

On a different note, I am also of the opinion that the City is 60 Million Dollars in debt, don't they have bigger problems to worry about?

December 9, 2008 at 9:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

Anyone care to take a stab at what part of town Mr. Cohen lives in?

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

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

Crack, I lived at that address for less than 3 months with my cousin and his fiance while they were renting it.

December 9, 2008 at 10:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

The good news is I have found a restaurant that I can still legally smoke at after the ban goes into effect. :D

December 9, 2008 at 11:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

WILLIAM_A (anonymous) says...

Where is that place to eat Matt.. Do tell, so I can still go out with my smoking friends to have supper.

December 9, 2008 at 11:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

Haha, Sonic.

December 9, 2008 at 11:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

Hey Crack, here's a question for you...

If Uncle Sam can make money from people smoking cigarettes, why can't I?

December 9, 2008 at 12:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

The Noose is a perfect example. They have a license to sell tobacco. Now, after Mar.3, they can sell you cigarettes, but you can't smoke them in there. Tell me thats not ridiculous. This whole ban is treating the adults of Emporia like children.

December 9, 2008 at 1:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crackinsack- josiesbar or none of the other smoking bars and businesses are not making any or at least not much off of you non-smoking crowd, according to you non-smokers , now anyway. The bars and businesses who allow smoking now, will probably not make anymore money off of you non smoking advocates if and when a smoking ban is voted in and adopted, because as per your own words, "You can't make money on this currently because you are in the wrong kind of business". This quote from your own mind and mouth says to me that you or the non-smokers have not and will not frequent those smoking bars even if a smoking ban is voted in. Also since you view a smoking allowed bar or business is not the right kind of business to be allowed in Emporia,that sir can and is viewed by most tolerant people as "Bigotry". And just in case you don't know or have forgotten the defination of "Bigotry" it is, noun, plural -ries. 1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. 2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.
I also believe that the afore mentioned defination of "bigotry" also describes all smoking ban advocates and the CAE and its founders, who must work very hard each day to convince them selves that they are not a " bigot, bigoted, or engage in bigotry".
I know, I know you will probably say, well you advocates against the smoking ban "bigoted" also, however you forget one thing we are not trying to ban you as non-smokers from doing anything or force you to start doing something that is against what you believe you have a right to do, which is to freely choose to do it or not do it and be tolerant and respectful enough to let others do the same.

December 9, 2008 at 2:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

letsgetresonable?

At my little dive downtown, my adult customers come in from 1:00 on. 70 % of them smoke. Most stay a couple of hours, maybe longer, and in that time they have 3 or 4 beers or drinks. During the same time frame they smoke 4 or 5 smokes. I know my customers and they know me. When I asked them how this ban would affect us, almost to the last one said they would not stand outside in the rain and snow and enjoy their legal product. We'll still come in and visit Steve, but when the urge to lite one up hits, we'll jump in the car, light up on the way to the liquor store and then head on home. I will be able to adapt, if I want to open at 9:00 and cater to the college crowd, but that means laying off the day help, some who can't work at night. It also means cutting prices to compete with the other college bars who practically give drinks away to bring in business. That means a loss of income and tax dollars to the city. After 30 years in the business I think I understand the business. All those years and several times close to going broke (which was my fault) only now to have someone else tell me how to do it the right way. All because some overfunded nitwits and their co-heart commissioners don't have the brains to understand the word CHOICE.
Regards
Stev Corbin

December 9, 2008 at 3:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

sorry thats Steve Corbin

December 9, 2008 at 3:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

WILLIAM_A (anonymous) says...

Hey Crack

You stated the following

The following is a list of a few POTENTIALLY harmful products that are legal to sell/possess/use:
alcohol
firearms
fireworks
motor vehicles
tobacco

My question to you is:
What do you do when you are around or with someone that is:
1. Someone drinking to much and acting like an ass
2.Handling guns in a manner that you feel is not safe
3.Driving in a manner that you feel is not safe
4.Is smoking around you

Please answer

December 9, 2008 at 4:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Pingeon (anonymous) says...

What are the cops feelings on this ban? Has anyone talked to them? I can't imagine they are going to rush out to a bar when someone calls 911 to report *gasp* A SMOKER! Let's see, I can pull over this guy that is speeding, pull over this other guy that can drive in his own lane, or go give a $50 fine to a smoker.

December 9, 2008 at 5:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

crackinsack,
You said the following in an earlier post and are wrong.
"The following is a list of a few POTENTIALLY harmful products that are legal to sell/possess/use:
alcohol
firearms
fireworks
motor vehicles
tobacco
4 of these things already have laws in place that ensure that the products are USED in a safe manner. Why is it so different to place restrictions on the public USE of tobacco?"

5 of the 5 products you listed currently have laws restricting who can use them and where they can use them. Without the ban tobacco use is restricted by laws. I think they are enough. You obviously aren't aware of them or choose to ignore there existance. For instance people under 18 can't buy tobacco. In fact the laws are so effective I rarely notice ,as a nonsmoker,smoke in the places I frequent. The current laws are enough, the ban is too much. I've said it before and I'll say it and get ignored again.

Pingeon,
I've talked to a few officers and they aren't too happy about this but will continue to do their jobs no matter how rediculous it gets. This whole situation is just crazy. Way way overboard on the part of the CAE folks and supporters.

December 9, 2008 at 6:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

Crack,

All of your answers involved calling the police. Does that scare anyone else but me? All we are doing is turning our police into glorified babysitters! Every one of your answers was "let the cops handle it." You need to grow up, and learn how to take care of yourself! I was always taught to believe that emergency personnel were for exactly that, emergencies. I know you are 100% dependent on the system, but as for me, I like to think I can generally take care of myself, and do not need more laws to help me in that endeavour!

December 9, 2008 at 6:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

Matt,
I read most of the posts from EG, wow you've got your share of idiots, HUH??

http://www.nightclub-business.com/for...

This is what a bar owner from Nebraska had to say about our little suare' here online.

December 9, 2008 at 6:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

WILLIAM_A (anonymous) says...

Crack,

I asked these questions and you decided to spin the questions.

My question to you is:
What do you do when you are around or with someone that is:
1. Someone drinking to much and acting like an ass
2. Handling guns in a manner that YOU FEEL is not safe
3. Driving in a manner that you feel is not safe
4. Is smoking around you

No where in there ^^^ is an illegal act being committed.

And all 4 of those situations could be avoided by you if you just had enough courage to make an adult decision on your own. But you state call the cops on all of them, you are a loon.

See how simple it is.. Put the big girl or boy panties on and make a decision for yourself and let the city officers get back to the budget and important things like that. We can help them out by not bothering them with things that we can control ourselves.

December 9, 2008 at 8:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crackinsack- You are absolutely right, I have not met you nor know you, however your comments absolutey tell me what your mind set is.
Also in order to have/practice common sense one also needs some amount of tolerence/respect and the ability to make some of lifes' tough decisions and make sacrifices hisself or herself, instead of demanding that the other person or persons do all the sacrificing and you sir evidently either do not have the ability or just plain do not want to do any of the aforementioned and that sir does indeed place you in the "B" catagory.

December 9, 2008 at 10:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

Well, I found our no-smoking signs!

http://thepipesmoker.files.wordpress....

December 10, 2008 at 4:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )