josiesbar (anonymous) says...

Source?

December 11, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...

Crack--
You should just copy all of your arguments and save them in a folder on your 'puter...That way you wouldn't have to actually type the same thing over and over and over again.

December 11, 2008 at 1:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...

The big difference that the opponents are right, that it is about rights. Here is a philosophy about private property rights you may or may not find interesting. I'm sorry its so long, but the entire document is even longer and most of it is irrelevant. I will post the link though.

11. The Right to Private Property

One reason that it must be shown that the social regulative principle of a right to private property is sound and that it ought to be respected and protected in human community life is that it is a vital conceptual or logical implication of the individualist story. If individualism is indeed sound, so is the principle of private property rights. When the right to private property is not respected and not sufficiently protected, then there is something wrong with a community.

This means that it is not quite fit for human inhabitation, given the individuality of every person and how respect for this is a precondition for his or her flourishing.

There are many different ways in which private property has been supported in the history of political economy. Most prominent has been the claim that there should be legal protection of the right private property because this facilitates productivity--a point that's in agreement with Marx, only universalized beyond a given epoch. Protecting this right helps society get rich--not only in the 16th century but always. Both Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill tended to argue along these lines: It's a good thing to have these rights because if we act in terms of them we will have greater prosperity. Many economists today argue a similar point. Indeed, that is one reason many governments engage in privatization, so as to encourage economic growth.

December 11, 2008 at 2:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...

CONTINUED...

All of this is vital but it isn't what is most important. What needs to be shown is that the individual has these rights regardless of what's done when simply exercising them. Even if individuals waste away their lives, they have that right. It is theirs to waste away, not someone else's, because they are the important element of society, not some outsider, not some other being such as society, the community, the tribe or the ethnic group. It is this element of liberty, the right to choose how one lives, that is most central to human community life, even if, indeed because, as a matter of one's personal life it is equally important to make the right choice, to choose to do the right thing.

That is exactly why the right to private property is vital. When effectively protected, it secures for human individuals a sphere of personal jurisdiction, the right to acquire and hold the props, as it where, with which to order one's life. Moral virtues such as generosity, kindness, courage, moderation, prudence and the rest are all imperatives the practice of which engage one with the natural world. If one is not in charge of some of that world, at least oneself, one cannot conduct oneself virtuously. So the right to one's life, liberty and property are necessary conditions for a morally significant or meaningful life in human communities.

It needs to be noted here, as a significant aside, that even if we are essentially individuals, this doesn't mean we are not also naturally members of societies. But, as moral agents and as candidates for membership in some human communities or societies, we are morally responsible to take into consideration and never neglect the fact that we must judge those societies as to whether they do adequate justice to our individuality, most generally, and whether they best serve our flourishing.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/property.htm

December 11, 2008 at 2:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...

I think that this may be my favorite blog about this issue. It sums up in a nice clear fashion most of the anti ban arguments you find on the Gazette blog.

Property rights trump second- hand smoke
Posted by Gamecock on Monday, May 28, 2007 10:33:38 AM
Imposing smoking bans in restaurants is power play by non-smokers
MIKE DEVINE
Special to the Observer
"It's not about personal freedoms. It's not about businesses' property rights. This is a health issue bill."
That was House Majority Leader Hugh Holliman's final plea for a statewide smoking ban bill that was voted down 55-61 by the North Carolina House this month. Georgia is still the Peach State, Tennesseans still volunteer, and Winstons and Salems may still be smoked in privately owned businesses in Winston-Salem. That a majority of Tar Heel legislators rejected the Davidson County Democrat's nanny-state proposal and upheld rights the framers of the Constitution deemed most indispensable to liberty should win approval from smokers and non-smokers alike. For James Madison, Father of the Constitution, the legitimacy of government depended on its active protection of private property rights. John Adams declared, "Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist." The Bill of Rights' demand that government pay just compensation when it "takes" one's property fits these sentiments like a hand in a glove.
Air, liberty and workers
Supporters of Holliman's bill waxed profuse defending "rights" and "entitlements" found nowhere in the Constitution, but they were poised to chuck the most fundamental rights the Constitution meant to protect. No one is compelled to patronize private businesses that allow smoking. And no one has a right to have other people build restaurants for their pleasure in the first place, much less maintain air quality therein to others' liking.Holliman and other supporters of the smoking ban claimed the bill was about public health and "worker" rights.
Not so.

December 11, 2008 at 2:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...

CONTINUED....

Concerned about health? How about mandatory masks for waiters where second-hand smoke wafts about? Not called for by Holliman. Coal miners wear masks. Waiters could, too.

The bill was not about health. It was about the rights of workers all right -- restricting those rights, not protecting them, as do-gooders claim.

Want to protect workers' most precious rights? Protect enjoyment of the fruit of their labor. Privately owned property is the fruit of much labor.

In large measure, our Constitution's property rights produced the miracle known as America. Wealth generated by the miracle in the hands of the most benevolent, free nation in history works for the liberation of millions from tyranny around the world and longer life-spans here and abroad. Miracle-generated resources have made possible the defeat of enemies anxious to reduce the life-span of smokers quicker than the snuffing out of a couple of cigarettes.

In no small measure, the increased life expectancy of Americans results from benefits produced by property-right-incentivized work habits.

The fact is that first-hand smokers today live longer than non-smokers of yesteryear thanks to advances in medicine and technology unimaginable apart from the liberty secured by rights to property.

Smoke alarmists

Property rights created the wealth that buys our freedom and increase our life span much more than second-hand smoke could reduce it -- if in fact second-hand smoke does reduce it.

Medical studies cited by ABC News reporter John Stossel cast serious doubt on the claims of second-hand smoke alarmists. Common sense called them into question long before that. It takes first-hand smoke a long time to kill the smokers it kills. We are supposed to fear greatly reduced life expectancy when the smoke is diluted thousandsfold?

If workers' health is not the target, what is?

Power.

This is a brazen power grab by the non-smoking majority. They prefer to eat in a smoke-free environment, so all restaurants must cater to their preference. Never mind that the free market continues to create smoke-free restaurants at an amazing clip without aid from legislators.

Do not misunderstand. Despite my skepticism of the dangers of second-hand smoke, my sympathies extend to Holliman, and all other who have lost loved ones to tobacco-induced cancer. I lost a grandfather (age 73) and my father (age 65), both life-long smokers, to lung cancer.

They chose to smoke, despite the warning labels, and died from it. That's no reason to restrict the freedom that ensured they lived as long as they did.

http://gamecock.blogtownhall.com/2007...

SORRY FOR THE LONG POSTS, BUT I DON'T THINK ANYBODY READS IT WHEN A LINK ALONE IS POSTED.

December 11, 2008 at 3 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...

Crack...
I think taken in context...private property is private property.
I feel it applies because it discusses uses of private property.

A great example of my stance that a ban is premature at best; base on the health argument is the "Helena Heart Attack Study" When it hit in 2003, I was living in Montana and it was all you heard about. I'm pretty sure people are still arguing about it today.

It goes to show that the is just too little information to difinitively blame SHS for anything. Even if I wasn't against the ban for property rights reasons, I would still have a hard time buying it for health reasons. I know this is a moot point until an April vote, but dangit...its just such common sense to me...as I'm sure it is on your side, Crack.

Time will tell.

December 11, 2008 at 3:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

Private property is private property
Privately owned business is not private property

If they are the same then why are they subject to different rules? It it illogical to assume they are the same when they are treated very differently.

I still have a hard time getting over people that defend their rights on this by telling me I am to go elsewhere, and in that very sense, making my choices for me. People who chew tobacco in bars are not being attacked because the very nature of the habit is such that it is not shared with the immediate parties in the vicinity. Maybe next time I go to bar I'll just throw a beer or spit some chew on the next smoker that lights up next to me and see how that goes over eh?

December 11, 2008 at 3:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

crackinsack; I hope you are a registered voter and you live in the city limits. Will you sign my petition to bring this to a vote? After all it is the American way, and the majority rules so you shouldn't be afraid of signing the petition.
Steve

December 11, 2008 at 3:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

And if my private property, (Town Royal) is not private property why am I paying taxes on it? Some of you need a law 101 course. Maybe the author of the letter feels the 3 commissioners are toxic to his health, and want's them removed to protect his health.
Steve

December 11, 2008 at 3:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

Had 4 law classes in my BS/MBA journey, all about BUSINESS law. Yes it is your property, but since it is open to the public it is not subject to the same rules as that of your personal domain, this is common knowledge and any lawyer will tell you the same. Just you pay taxes on something does not give you the right to use it however you see fit, i.e. I have a vehicle, but I still have to follow the rules of the road or pay the fines.

December 11, 2008 at 4:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

Microwave ovens have been determined (by somebody; maybe CAE?) to be harmful to the health of humans so private businesses, such as restaurants and bars, have been asked to post signs at the door warning those who enter of their presence. The same goes for companies who use peanuts in their food preparation. Some people have serious, even fatal, reactions to peanuts. A restaurant in Indiana uses only pure lard (animal fat) to cook it's food. Lard clogs arteries like mud in a gun barrel, so the restaurant posts a sign on the door to warn patrons and let them choose to pig out on grease or graze on greens.

If microwaves, peanuts, and lard are so dangerous that restaurants and bars must post warnings on the door to inform the public--- so they can make a CHOICE as to whether or not to enter--- why does Emporia feel it must completely ban smoking from all bulidings, even private clubs? Wouldn't a sign posted on the door solve the problem? People could then exercise their right to choose to enter or not.

Sounds like other communities are just as concerned with public health as Emporia is but are far more concerned with rights, freedoms, and common sense than we are. Or do other cities just give their citizens more credit for being able to make their own decisions?

Personal rights, freedom of choice, and common sense seem to be a very low priority around these here parts.

December 11, 2008 at 6:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Flatlander (anonymous) says...

Tis the season to be jolly, think of others and respect all.
When will smokers wise up and admit they are killing
themselves. Have they never seen what the smoker's lungs look like? For years the nonsmokers have let the smokers
smoke around us and help to kill us too. The time has come
that others are now speaking up for the non smokers and the good health of all the children in our city.
Good job I say, and keep up the good work. You have my
vote every time.
Life time Flatlander

December 11, 2008 at 6:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

emporiateacher (anonymous) says...

Is the Gazette really so hard up for stories that they have to publish this junk! There is nothing helpful about this letter.

December 11, 2008 at 9:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

tbluma (anonymous) says...

I say that we should ban abortions in the city of Emporia. I would be willing to bet there are more lives lost to abortion than to SHS, but then I guess we can't do that because of a woman's right to chose; or can we? I don't seem to have a right to chose, unless it fits someone else'e need. Tim Bluma

December 11, 2008 at 9:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Let's change the rules for this forum, and require all posters sign their real names for all to know. That would shut crack up in a hurry, and spare us all his/her drival. If you can't stand the heat, stay the hell out of the kitchen.
Steve

December 11, 2008 at 9:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

emporiateacher:
You may feel there is nothing helpful about this letter , some others may feel otherwise. I hope you won't be teaching my grandson about the constitution.
Steve

December 11, 2008 at 10:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

tbluma (anonymous) says...

I agree with you Steve. Tim

December 11, 2008 at 10:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

Crack, you said,

"I'm basing that on what I've seen/heard"

That seems like a very sound and thoroughly detailed survey to me. Well done on doing some amazing research! So what you are trying to say is that "around 60% of our citizens support the ban" What's the margin of error on this, if its over 10%, what then? To me, I've seen 90% of the people are against this, with an error margin of 39%. Guess what, I still win.

December 11, 2008 at 10:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

Hey Irish, just in case you decide to chime in again,

"Having been through the Smoking Ban in Ireland (which was the first COUNTRY to adopt the law across every workspace) I can tell you the effects were huge. Bars in the cities that had no space to build an outside smoking area had smokers filling the pavements outside blocking the doorways to potential customers. Those bars in the rural locations saw their trade dwindle as they relied on an older (smoking) clientele. While the recent figures show that it hasn't in any way reduced the number of smokers in Ireland."--From a bar owner in Ireland

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

December 12, 2008 at 1:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

PocketKings (anonymous) says...

Sigh,
Just because the bar allows smoking doesnt mean you have to go to it.

This is like me saying I hate/dislike american food! I think it makes me fat and is bad for my health! So LETS make laws so I dont have to smell/eat/taste/see that food ever again and ban it from private restaurants/establishments!
Oh wait thats my opinion on american food....

PETA doesnt like people eating meat. Imagine if there were more peta people out there that actually could make laws pass.

Gosh too much secondhand smoke mustve destroyed your brain cells, to the point of not making well thought out laws taking away more luxury of choices away from the common person/business owner.

Oh.... wait... you dont go to places that allowed smoking..... but you still want to change what they can and cannot do even though it doesnt include you....

Now I understand.

December 12, 2008 at 3:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

PocketKings (anonymous) says...

Its simple, Clean air emporia wants to make the personal decision for us! They think we are too stupid and cant make our own choice of whether we should enter an establishment that allows smoking or not.

December 12, 2008 at 3:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

trainrech (anonymous) says...

If you are opposed to the ban, put your money where your mouth is. Gather the signatures necessary to force a public vote. In my opinion, that is what the city commission wants you to do. I really don't think they want to be the ones ultimately making this decision, but again, that's my opinion.

My suggestion is that you stop wasting your time here arguing about this every time someone says "kick 'em out". Instead, gather the support to force the public vote. That way this doesn't have to be the city commission or CAE "making a personal decision for us".

Nothing will be accomplished in the end if it is not put to a public vote. That way we'll decide what is best for the majority. Great thing about a democracy is majority rules. But not on the opinion page of the local newspaper.

December 12, 2008 at 7:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

trainrech:
EOB is going to put our money where our mouth is, unlike the clean air group who used tax & tax exempt monies to get this thing passed. Hopefully we can get the 762 signatures the county clerk tells us we will need on the petition, and bring it to a vote in April. That election will also be an opportunity to elect 2 new commissioners that are not so eager to give up our rights. You need to remember that if the current commissioners really wanted a public vote on this they could have tabled the ordinace and forced CAE to do what we are now doing and they could have done it with their money. As it is, my poor employees Christmas Bonus will be a little smaller this year as it is being used to fight this darn thing. And a public forum such as this is a great way to get it off our chests, so to speak. I just wish the gazette would use the same rules here as they do for opinions and letters to the editor. Sign your name and stand up for what you believe.
Regards
Steve

December 12, 2008 at 8:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Sad,Sad,Sad.
Steve

December 12, 2008 at 9:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

HeatherBliss (anonymous) says...

Several bars here in Olathe, after the smoking ban, changed into a private club, requiring memberships for only two or five dollars, somehow it doesn't apply to the smoking ban in place in Johnson County. Maybe if you are so concerned about it you should talk to your bars... there is a loop hole.

I'm a smoker, and not being able to smoke in restaurants is perfectly fine with me, as well as all the people I know. Smelling smoke while you are eating doesn't go well.

December 12, 2008 at 10:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

locopunky (anonymous) says...

I'm just curious what will all of you do if this does go to a vote and if this passes? No one has responded, but I don't check back often; so maybe they did *shrug*?

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

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Heatherbliss;
Private clubs are covered in this ordinance. Kinda takes away the meaning of private doesn't it?
Steve

December 12, 2008 at 12:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

loco,

I'm not exactly sure what you mean. If this passes in a public vote, then of course I will follow the law. I have stated many times on here that this issue SHOULD be brought to a public vote.

December 12, 2008 at 12:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

koach52 (anonymous) says...

Just curious..... Perhaps it has been addressed in here and I have missed it. I have seen many good points expressed on both sides of this issue. Although I tend to lean toward one side, I am really undecided on this issue as of now and as it has been drawn up. I do think that anyone on either side of the issue can see some validity in the others arguements. I can see the points made by the property owners. Hopefully bar-owners can see some of the reasoning of the smoking ban supporters. Have any of those opposing the ban suggested where that line should be drawn instead of what is being offered? What would those against the ban like to see in place instead?

December 12, 2008 at 1:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

locopunky (anonymous) says...

Josie,

That's what I was looking for, like I said I'm not on here that much. I was just looking for an answer, and it turns out that I did get a chance to follow up and now have my answer. Thanks for answering it.

December 12, 2008 at 1:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Sad,Sad,Sad
Steve

December 12, 2008 at 3:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

Glad,Glad,Glad
anonymous

December 12, 2008 at 4:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

pbpw (anonymous) says...

Well Mr. Crackinsack. You say Steve might kick out people who disagree with him. I gaurantee that would not happen. He would never kick out someone for disagreeing - He would just argue with them. He loves to argue. Now some of his regulars who will be losing their rights to socialize as they see fit with their friends might just decide to set in their cars (where they can smoke) and keep note of those people who are not known regulars that drift in and probably won't stay long enough to make up for the ones who they have run off with their unreasonable rules.

December 12, 2008 at 4:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

and I wasn't going to respond to sadsack any more but;

My employees make there own choices thank you. I think, at least what they have told me to my face, that they are more concerned with people like you trying to Protect Them because they are too dumb to find a job elsewhere that would be safer for them. You see the thing is that they ARE recieving a Christmas Bonus this year, (I don't know of a lot of other businesses doing this), And it is based on longevitey and profits of the business. If I hadn't had to spend roughly $3000.00 so far to fight this ban, profits would have been better and so would their bonuses. SO YOU SEE THIS BAN HAS ALREADY ADVERSELY AFFECTED A BUSINESS & IT'S EMPLOYEES. And if hasn't even taken affect yet. And judging by your unsigned posts, the only thing that can be judged by me right now, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE MADE IT PAST THE INTERVIEW PROCESS TO HIRED!
Steve

December 14, 2008 at 12:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

shadou (anonymous) says...

For lack of a better place to post this, I thought maybe this might reach someone. Admittedly, Kansas City is larger than Emporia but we seem to have the same underlying problems, a city commission that is just in it for the glory of expansion without regard to the infrastructural needs of the city and its residents.

http://www.kansascity.com/340/story/9...

December 14, 2008 at 12:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

patty (anonymous) says...

As I am reading all these comments it saddens me, because of the way it was done. We don’t know what the public wants. This should have never been decided by 3 people. What really upsets me these days is that Emporia has changed. It’s all politics and who has the control and power. I think the city commission was afraid that the public would vote against the ban so they wanted to make sure it went through and made that decision. That is not how the city government had been in the past years. My father and grandfather and anyone that was born and raised in Emporia know this is not the right way to handle, taking away freedom from business owners, private property owners. What happen to us? I think we need to think about who we got running are city. You should have an open mind and the care of the whole community and not just the people that may live up in the country club standards. We have other issues in Emporia that is more important than taking away from our business owners. We need these business and others to stay in Emporia. We can’t afford to loose any more money in this town. Look what we have already lost and now something we didn’t have to change we are changing for the sake of people that don’t ever go to these places. What about the fair grounds, we should have had the city commission just vote that. That would have helped this town out more than a smoking ban. It isn’t about who smokes and who doesn’t; it is about who has the most powering and money in this town. If people are worried about their health then go to the gym. Stop eating out. Stop drinking. You know a big whopper has 2500 calories. That is your choice to eat that big whopper. I believe the number one cause of heart disease is cholesterol.

To people with comments should be brave and use your real names. American is home of the free. Correct? I was brought up thinking that anyway.
You can count on me Steve.

December 14, 2008 at 1:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Thank you Patty,

You are entirely right that this is not about who smokes and who doesn't smoke. It goes to the very essence of our founding fathers principles and beliefs as they set them down for us in the constitution. If all in Emporia realize this it will be overturned.
Regards
Steve

December 14, 2008 at 3:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Just the facts ,

1.There was a smoking ban in place before 3 commissioners voted the new one in.
2. That ban did not allow smoking in public places.
3. Under the old ban ALL Emporian's had the right to chose where they did business.
4. Under the new ban NO Emporian has the right to chose where they do business.
5. Under the new ban smokers are being discriminated against.
6. Clean air Emporia brought their concerns to the commission for consideration using money
from a foundation grant.
7. Commission holds public comment session.
8. Public comment against smoking ban overwhelming at public session.
9. Commission studies proposed ordinance.
10. Potential conflicts of interest are brought to commissions attention.
11. City attorney says no conflicts exist.
12. City attorney is listed on the board of Emporians for drug awarness web site.
13. No expense reports from CAE or EDA have been made available to the general public for
this campaign.
14. Commission has 3 options;

option 1 Approve ordinance and force Emporia Open for Business to petition a voter
referendum, at their expense.

options 2 & 3 Deny or table ordinance & force Clean Air Emporia to petition a voter
referendum, at their expense.

15. Commission votes 3-2 to approve ordinace.

This is my opinion of what I think the facts are.

My questions are; Why would any business owner, commissioner, vote to take away all the citizens right of choice even if there wasn't a conflict of interest?
Why didn't they table the ordinance and let CAE use that foundation money to bring it to a vote?

Steve

December 14, 2008 at 6:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

My opinion on this whole fiasco is that the city is $60 Million dollars in debt. Why do they even care if someone is smoking at a bar? They have a LOT bigger issues on their plate.

December 14, 2008 at 11:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

rbow--

I am going to go through your 14 points and give you my opinon about it...you may not want to hear it but it is kind of what these forums are for

1.There was a smoking ban in place before 3 commissioners voted the new one in. TRUE

2. That ban did not allow smoking in public places. TRUE

3. Under the old ban ALL Emporian's had the right to chose where they did business. TRUE AND THEY STILL DO

4. Under the new ban NO Emporian has the right to chose where they do business. COMPLETELY FALSE EVERYONE STILL HAS THE RIGHT TO DECIDE WHERE THEY DO BUSINESS

5. Under the new ban smokers are being discriminated against. FALSE THEY CAN STILL SMOKE

6. Clean air Emporia brought their concerns to the commission for consideration using money
from a foundation grant. I BELIEVE THIS IS PARTLY TRUE BUT THEY ALSO HAVE PRIVATE FUNDS

7. Commission holds public comment session. TRUE

8. Public comment against smoking ban overwhelming at public session. YES THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE THEIR OPPOSED THE BAN, HOWEVER CONSIDERING THE CIRCUMSTANCES I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU COULD EXPECT ANYTHING DIFFERENT

9. Commission studies proposed ordinance. TRUE

10. Potential conflicts of interest are brought to commissions attention. COMMISSIONERS WHO VOTED AGAINST THE BAN GAVE THEIR SUPPORT TO THE ONES WHO WERE QUESTIONED

11. City attorney says no conflicts exist. I ASSUME YOU ARE CORRECT ON THIS ONE BUT I HONESTLY DON'T KNOW

12. City attorney is listed on the board of Emporians for drug awarness web site. WHO CARES

13. No expense reports from CAE or EDA have been made available to the general public for this campaign. I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS A REQUIREMENT

14. Commission has 3 options; THEY CHOSE THE ONE THEY BELIEVED TO BE THE BEST.

WE ELECTED THEM TO REPRESENT US. WE HAVE NO IDEA HOW MANY CALLS OR EMAILS THEY HAVE RECEIVED FROM PROPONENTS SUPPORTING THE BAN OR OPPOSING IT. WE CAN ONLY ASSUME THAT THEY DID WHAT THE PUBLIC WANTED.

December 15, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

"WE CAN ONLY ASSUME THAT THEY DID WHAT THE PUBLIC WANTED."

You know what happens when you make an assumption. You make an @__ __ out of you and umption.

December 15, 2008 at 2:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

crack,

That was my Pulp Fiction quote for the day.

December 15, 2008 at 3:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

nice to see your back, who was your weekend in the city?
Steve

December 15, 2008 at 3:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

sorry the smoke was in my eyes. I meant to say nice to see that you are back. How was your weekend in the city?
Steve

December 15, 2008 at 3:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

slvrnblk:
Hey look, we both stated our opinion on this and we disagreed. And we didn't get nasty about it! You are right, that is what this forum is for. I guess we'll have to wait for the vote to really find out what the majority of voters want. Did you have to work outside today? Darn it was cold.
Regards
Steve

December 15, 2008 at 4:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

admireed (anonymous) says...

Smoke ban will carry 60% or more in public vote...you think?

December 15, 2008 at 5:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

been_there (anonymous) says...

Two things - First of all, if I own property and work in Emporia but live outside city limits, do I still get to vote? And second, the Emporia Gazette poll shows that currently, voters on here believe the ban will be repealed. Would that be a close demographic if the city does take it to a vote?

December 15, 2008 at 6:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

been-there,
While I don't think it is right , I don't think you will be able to vote on this. It really sucks because there are at least 5 business OWNERS whom this affects and they live outside the city and can't vote on it. As far as the gazette poll goes it really isn't scientific but it does show what the readers here think. Believe me you people in the county will be able to voice your opinions come Jan. when the big T takes office as your county commissioner. It might not be the first thing on her agenda but it will be soon, I guarentee it!
Regards
Steve Corbin

December 15, 2008 at 9:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Have you all seen the recent ads in this paper from the bar in Olpe? They have a great point, but come Jan. the big T
will be after them "TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD".

ANY BETS CRAIG?

Regards
Steve Corbin

December 15, 2008 at 9:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

kmoney (anonymous) says...

Thank God for a smoking ban in Emporia. That shows that the town is definitely making progress. The low lives who continue to smoke, even after the health consequences are widley known these days, obviously don't care about respecting themselves (their bodies, their health), and so of course will never care about respecting other people. I mean, why would you even want to be SEEN smoking in public?? Why don't you just wear a sign around that says, "I'm pro-cancer and you should be too." Sick people.

December 17, 2008 at 11:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Hey kmoney,
Why not tell us how you really feel?
Steve

December 17, 2008 at 12:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

outdoorsman25 (anonymous) says...

we should kick them out not for the smoking ban but for brining lowes to town

December 17, 2008 at 12:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

kmoney
Your joking right?
You can't be serious. You say the smokers are disrespecting others but you call them "low lives" and "Sick people". Hypocrisy does not become you.
Smokers are not pushing to make others smoke. Who told you they are? Someone has made a fool of you.
The issue is that the CAE is taking away the right for people to choose to allow smoking in their business along with a lot of other rights. I'm not going to list them because you can read them for yourself on this and similar forums.
If indeed your post was a joke, I apologize.

Slightly off topic:
I did just get a great idea from all the health fanatics that we apparently have in Emporia. OK here it is..................a JUICE BAR! You can come in and get your high colonic after a long day at work and enjoy a nice fruit smoothy. You can have mildly heated debates about Yoga vs pilates. With all the health concerned folks we have here this would surely make a killing. I wonder why we don't have several of these already? Huh? I wonder?
Maybe just maybe the market in Emporia isn't quit what some make it out to be. Maybe just maybe this isn't really the health issue the self righteous make it out to be. If the voices crying for this ban were as many as they are loud surely there would be way more juice bars than regular bars. This is how a free market economy works, supply and demand. Where ARE all the juice bars?

December 17, 2008 at 12:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

I hope the Lowes has a juice bar.

December 17, 2008 at 12:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

Kmoneynobrains,

You can take your holier-than-thou comments and go square to hell.

December 17, 2008 at 1:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

Crack
You have legs and know how to walk and a brain and can use it to not stay around people smoking. There are already laws restricting tobacco use that assist you in avoiding it. I feel those laws are enough you obviously don't. Hopefully we will get the chance to vote and see who is in the majority. That is something I'm sure we can both agree on.
And I do understand how smoke works.

Can I name my juice bars Crackinsack's? That would be awesome!

December 17, 2008 at 1:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

crack
You obviously haven't read my many posts on this subject or you would know I'm not a smoker. I know a lot of people who don't smoke and are against this ban. I probably will be in the minority but will continue to do what I can for freedoms sake.
Way to really stereotype smokers by the way. Is kmoney another of your aliases like bbob?
What if I had beer flavored juice?

December 17, 2008 at 2:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

Crack: You vigorously defend the unfair discriminatory smoking ban with commendable enthusiasm but fail to understand that your ridiculous rants are totally void of reason or credibility.

December 17, 2008 at 3:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )