Petitions to bring the smoking ban ordinance to a public vote are ready to be signed, according to Steve Corbin, of Emporia Open for Business, the group that opposes the ban recently approved by the Emporia City Commission.
“We got them out yesterday afternoon, and we got 150 signatures already,” Corbin said.
To get the question on the ballot, the wording of the petition has to be approved by Lyon County Attorney Marc Goodman. That approval came today, Corbin said.
“He told us to go ahead and start putting them out if we wanted to,” Corbin said. “Actually, the petition is to bring it to a vote, but I don’t know how they’re going to word it on the ballot.”
According to Corbin, the group hopes to have enough signatures by the end of January in order to give the city clerk enough time to verify them.
“We want to get plenty (of signatures) in case we get duplicates or people that aren’t qualified to sign,” he said. “If it goes as good as it did yesterday, we might have enough by the end of next week.”
The group needs the signatures of 762 registered voters, or 5 percent of people who voted in the most recent city election. Emporia Open for Business is also actively registering voters in the community. “We’re going to try to get 1,500 signatures,” Corbin said.
According to Matt Slater, owner of Josie’s Tavern, 19 E. Sixth Ave., interest in the petition is high. In one day, he has gotten 77 signatures and registered six people to vote.
“I went around yesterday and talked to people from place to place on Main Street,” Slater said. “And then I was just passing them around at the bar.”
The petitions are currently available for signatures at Corbin’s business, The Town Royal, 405 Commercial St.; Josie’s Tavern, 19 E. Sixth Ave.; Bruff’s, 2640 W. 18th Ave.; Wagon Wheel, 2909 W. Ninth Ave.; The Purple Duck, 1516 W. Sixth Ave.; Cigarette Express, 1711 W. Sixth Ave.; The Blind, 1124 Commercial St.; and Jack’s Tobacco, 324 E. Sixth Ave.
djdiablo (anonymous) says...
Good...let the people speak, once and for all, without the conflict of interests we've seen so prominent in recent commission decisions. It is too bad when the people we elect to speak for us decide they will do so only for those with whom they share a vested interest.
December 18, 2008 at 3:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Funny story, haha. Russ calls me around 8:30 this morning ( didn't get home til 3), wakes me up, and asks me how the smoking petition is going.
I was still mostly asleep and am getting over a cold, and the conversation goes like this. LONG pause (while brain tries to engage) "What smoking petition?" Russ explains, and then, LIGHT BULB! "Ohh, THAT smoking petition." I'm sure he had a good laugh when he hung up, because I did!
December 18, 2008 at 3:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
generalsn (anonymous) says...
Ballot initiatives are STRICTLY FORBIDDEN by the ban lobbyists guidebook. They need to pass their bans with little public knowledge of what is happeing, like they did in Illinois. see for yourself.
www.no-smoke.org/pdf/CIA_Fundamentals...
December 18, 2008 at 11:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
Everyone needs to get out and sign this petition and urge your family members, friends, neighbors and co-workers to do the same. This is a golden opportunity for Emporians to bring democracy back to our city. Of late, we have seen an attempt by a privileged few, and their close friends on the city commission, try and derail the system.
CAE thinks it, with the backing of their commissioner buddies, runs Emporia. But Abraham Lincoln had a different view of how government should run. He said, "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
Bring the ridiculous smoking ban to a public vote. Let the people decide. Sign the petition.
December 18, 2008 at 11:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
Wow. Everyone needs to read the link posted above by generalsn. It shows how ruthless, devious, and committed these anti-smoking radicals really are. CAE has followed the guidelines to the letter. A public vote is the LAST thing these radical social reformers want to see. Let's disappoint them.
December 18, 2008 at 11:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Here is another link that is very interesting concerning the Illinois smoking ban. Take a look !
http://kfvs12.com/Global/story.asp?S=...
December 19, 2008 at 7:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Kujiin (anonymous) says...
Observation -
Not really sure how to take your post here. I think Methulsa was just pointing out that in Illinois someone is standing up for their rights. Not that we should follow their guidelines.
December 19, 2008 at 9:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
I think this will be of interest to all who oppose a city wide smoking ban and why the CAE tried hard to avoid putting this on a ballot to vote on by the people. The following is a lead in paragraph from chapter 8 titled "AVOID BALLOT MEASURES" and comes from the site above that Observation suggested visiting. Very interesting and enlightening reading as to the strategies employed by Clean Air Advocates.The following was taken directly from the Clean Air Colalitions manual.
Advocates new to the smokefree indoor air movement often wonder why they should
bother trying to convince local elected officials to enact a strong smokefree indoor air
ordinance when they could put the matter on the municipal ballot and let voters decide.
The answer to this question is found in the experiences of smokefree advocates around
the country, which indicate that ballot initiatives are NOT the preferred method to enact
local and state smokefree laws. It is important to note that public opinion data showing
public support for smokefree laws does not automatically translate into victory at the
polls. The winner is determined, not by poll results but by money and voter turnout.
Ballot measures are NOT a short cut that enables you to avoid going through the
arduous, time-consuming process of conducting a traditional city council-centered
smokefree campaign. Rather, ballot measures are a last-ditch option to turn to when
all other approaches have failed. Losing at the ballot is not an option.
Sounds a little like mid to late 1930s' Europe to me.
December 19, 2008 at 10:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
from the handbook:
Advocates new to the smokefree indoor air movement often wonder why they should
bother trying to convince local elected officials to enact a strong smokefree indoor air
ordinance when they could put the matter on the municipal ballot and let voters decide.
The answer to this question is found in the experiences of smokefree advocates around
the country, which indicate that ballot initiatives are NOT the preferred method to enact
local and state smokefree laws. It is important to note that public opinion data showing
public support for smokefree laws does not automatically translate into victory at the
polls. The winner is determined, not by poll results but by money and voter turnout.
Ballot measures are NOT a short cut that enables you to avoid going through the
arduous, time-consuming process of conducting a traditional city council-centered
smokefree campaign. Rather, ballot measures are a last-ditch option to turn to when
all other approaches have failed. Losing at the ballot is not an option.
The perceived benefits of using the ballot as a public health tool come at a significant
cost because the election process provides the tobacco industry with two key advantages:
•Political
sorry it got cut off but if it got you attention go to the post.
Steve
December 19, 2008 at 12:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
sorry about the double post.
December 19, 2008 at 1:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
A note from one of the members of EOB group:
Emporian's Open for Business WILL COMPLY with all local and state statutes in the pursuit of this petition action. That means: Petitions will NOT be laying around unwatched for anyone to sign. The locations that have been listed have a registered voter who lives in the city, to witness each signature and they will have to sign a noterized statement attesting to that fact.
You must be a registered voter living in the city limits of Emporia to sign the petition.
If you have just recently registered to vote you cannot sign the petition until you recieve notice from the county clerks office that you are registered.
However we still encourage all to go ahead and register to vote as the election in April Or the primary in March will be extremely important to the people in Emporia.
If you see someone walking around town carrying a clip board ask them "Is that the petition form, can I sign it? Chances are, it will be one of us looking for signatures.
Steve Corbin
December 19, 2008 at 1:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
What I now find interesting is the fact that after someone discovers the CAE and the clean air advocates hand book and the underhanded tactics that they are trying to employ to deprive all the people of the U.S. and Emporia their "Right" to protect their "Rights and Freedoms " by excersizing the "Right " to put all important matters to a vote of the people. These sneaky, self centered, people then resort to trying to find some other means of trying to force their beliefs upon the people by changing from smoking to littering with toxic cigarette butts as crackinsack has just attempted to do with his/her last post. I certainly hope that by now intelligent people have or will see the real game the CAE and all Clean air advocates are playing. Also, to me their Hand Book reads and sounds like something that AL QUIDA might just use as a training handbook.
We freedom and rights loving citizens of the U.S. need to and must stand up to this blatant attack on not just one of our "RIGHTS and FREEDOMS", but the attack on all of our "RIGHTS and FREEDOMS" that is and will surely come.
December 19, 2008 at 2:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
clancy (anonymous) says...
There have only been two petitions on clean indoor air issues that have gone to a vote in Kansas. And the advocates for smokefree air won both. In Salina pro-smoking folks brought a petition to a vote to rescind the smokefree restaurant ordinance passed in that city in 2002--and they lost. This past November, Clean Air Manhattan brought a clean indoor air policy to a vote--and they won.
After all the majority of people in Kansas--over 80%--do not smoke and most of them do not like having to inhale tobacco smoke toxins. The majority of Kansans –83%--believe that secondhand smoke is a health hazard. In addition the majority of Kansans—73% --want clean indoor air policies protecting them from exposure to secondhand smoke in their own communities.
If the Emporia Open for Business petition actually comes to a vote, it is logical to assume that the majority of non-smoking Emporians will vote for a healthy environment in workplaces and public places. And Emporia will still be open for business but in a much healthier way.
December 19, 2008 at 3:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
Kansas City, Kansas just passed a smoking ban after studying and revising for over two years. This was in the Topeka paper this morning.
"The Unified Board of Commissioners of Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kan., on Thursday voted 9-1 for an ordinance banning smoking in all indoor spaces. The ban includes restaurants and bars, but EXEMPTS their outdoor seating areas, as well as casino floors, tobacco shops, private clubs and some hotel rooms. In addition, businesses can apply for a $250 license exempting them from the ban for up to three years."
Now, that is a smoking ban that makes sense and all can live with!
Can we hire the KCK/Wyandotte County commissioners? They seem to be far more open to compromise and common sense---and less prone to favoritism---than our paid political puppets.
December 19, 2008 at 4:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
bjnemp:
Tried to get just about that very compromise with CAE but the bigT and the big B wouldn't even talk about it at the so called compromise meeting with the city manager.
Steve
December 19, 2008 at 4:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
clancy,
You just keep thinking those logical thoughts. If this comes to a vote you won't even have to get out and vote because the majority will carry.
Steve
December 19, 2008 at 4:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
All of you people smokers and non-smokers alike who oppose this smoking ban, should go to the following web site.
http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/CIA_Funda....
And read the Clean Air Coalition and CAE manafesto on how to underhandedly force all citizens to live by their rules and way of thinking and basically eliminate the "Rights" of certain Businesses and individual citizens.
You should pay particular attention to sections III, IV,V,and VI and the folllowing paragraph is directly from section VI.
Coalitions should develop relationships with city council “insiders,” local business
contacts, and other allies who can inform them about “outsiders” who have suddenly
surfaced following the introduction of a smokefree ordinance and who are lobbying,
holding meetings with restaurant owners or political organizations, helping create new
restaurant or hospitality associations, phone banking, conducting “push polls,” or petition
gathering in opposition to an ordinance. It also is important to become aware of the many
tactics that the tobacco industry uses to fight smokefree ordinances and to learn how
others have successfully countered these tactics. Opposition is likely to be especially
fierce in the first community in a state to consider a strong smokefree ordinance and in a
state’s capital city.
Man, this particular paragraph absolutely blew my mind and faith in my fellow so called AMERICAN. I believe that you business owners should read and pay particularly close attention to sections III, IV and V. This particular paragraph, sounds more like a "COMMUNIST OR TERRORIST" manifesto to me, where did this stuff come from Chairman Mao's, Little Red Book and these people think of themselves as people who understand "Rights and Freedoms". Please, give me a break !
December 19, 2008 at 6:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Freedom loving people of Emporia and the U.S. after reading the Clean Air Coalition and CAEs training manual or manifesto. It has become abundentaly clear to me that all of us who love our "RIGHTS and FREEDOMS" have absolutely nothing to worry about from any threat from outside the country. The obvious serious threat to all citizens "RIGHTS and FREEDOMS" are under serious attack and danger from right here in our Hometowns, Counties, States from so-called Americans who are trying, by any means possible, to force their concept of who has "RIGHTS and FREEDOMS" and what "RIGHTS and FREEDOMS" a citizen should have upon all citizens.
The time is quickly coming for all citizens to stand up to these domestic "I can't call them what I would like to on a public forum" and defend and preserve the small amount of 'RIGHTS and FREEDOMS" that we have left.
So all of you smokers and non-smokers who oppose this smoking ban, get out, sign the petition to bring this to a vote of the people that individual "RIGHTS and FREEDOMS" is not dead and will not die in Emporia.
Here is another thought after reading the following in the section VI paragraph, Coalitions should develop relationships with city council “insiders,” this particular line makes me wonder how many of our city commissioners, their secretay, city attorney, city manager, etc. could or would be considered by the CAE as "insiders". I believe there could possibly be at least 2, possibly more !
Possibly an "Illegal" coursion or "Conflict of Interest", certainly makes me wonder !
December 19, 2008 at 7:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
crackinsack:
Why is it when you and the rest of your sneaky, underhanded CAE , Clean air coalition comrades can circulate a petition and no-one makes smart, snide little remarks about it, but when those who you do the same you tend to do your best to make it seem petty and trivial ?
If you are so confident about a total victory if and when a vote comes, what are you worried about ?
Oh yes that is all part of the coalition strategy set forth in your coalitions manual isn't it. Oh yes the part about avoiding a public ballot is outlined in the paragraph from your manual, I posted in my post of December 19, 2008 at 10:25 a.m.. Even if it means intimidating, attacking verbally or degrading people into not signing a petition to publicly vote on the matter of a smoking ban.
I believe or at least certainly hope that the so called "CAT IS OUT OF THE BAG" as to how you, the CAE and the Clean Air Coalition works and has managed to bully Towns, Citys, Countys and States into passing smoking bans all across the country, by any sneaky, underhanded and possibly illegal means you may be able to get away with.
December 19, 2008 at 7:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Ok, here's the deal. The petitions are available at the following locations: Town Royal, Josie's, The Smoke Shop, Annie's West, The Purple Duck, Beer 30, Cole's, Bruff's, The Wagon Wheel, Sidetracks (Sunday), Mallards, The Noose, and for you non-smokers, it is available at The Blind. Like Steve said, if you see me out and about and want to sign, stop me because I'll have it with me. For those of you who would like me to bring it by, feel free to call me at Josie's after 8 pm to set up an appointment. The number is 620-343-2929.
Also, we are just trying to bring this to a public vote. Even if you are for the ban, but would like to see it being put on the ballot (where it belongs, IMHO), your signature would be appreciated!
Thanks,
Matt
P.S.- Observation, your link didn't work.
December 19, 2008 at 10:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
josiesbar, Matt:
Try going to my post, December 19th, 2008 at 6:42 p.m. and click on that link, so far it has worked for me everytime.
December 19, 2008 at 10:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
P.S. Matt, I have tried the link on Observations last post and it would not work for me either, However the link I posted on my earlier post still works everytime I try it.
December 19, 2008 at 11:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Observation:
I think you are ahead of me, but did you know you can send a letter to the people speak column on this website?
No stamp, no paper needed. It's sweet. One submission a month and 300 word limit.
Steve
December 20, 2008 at 11:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mikkokantonen (anonymous) says...
Thank you, thank you, thank you for the ban.
December 21, 2008 at 1:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
mikkokantonen:
Your thanking the commissioners for taking away your rights?
SAD, SAD, SAD
STEVE
December 21, 2008 at 6:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Friday night in my smoke filled bar, (& I know it is,) a customer came in and When I asked her if she would like to sign the petition she told me she was for the smoking ban.
But guess what, she signed the petition so it could be brought to a vote. I thank her for her dedication to her beliefs and also that she thought enough of our system of voting that she signed the petition anyway. I guess what I am trying to say is; No matter what you think about the smoking ban, what harm could voting on it cause? Please sign the petition to bring this to a vote.
Steve
December 21, 2008 at 7:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
mikkokantonen:
I posted this in your general direction in another thread so here it is again in case you miss it over there. You seem to be dropping your opinion all over these forums to ruffle some feathers. Well, consider my feathers sufficiently ruffled.
The post was in response to your post about being inconvenienced at restaurants. You want to hear it? Here it goes.
ME ME ME! I I I!
Hey as long as it's only about you!
Doesn't sound selfish at all.
You couldn't pick a different restaurant?
Most are nonsmoking.
In fact all grocery stores are nonsmoking and you can determine whether our not your kitchen is smoking or not.
You want to take away others rights for your own convenience? Please take some time and read through all these threads and weigh both sides of this debate before you make up your mind about this issue. I'm sorry if I sound as if I 'm attacking you but from your post the reasoning behind your opinion on this seems to be purely selfish. If after reading both sides you feel the same way, so be it, but then you will at least maybe have some better reasons for wanting to take away peoples rights than a couple of meals with a mild odor in the air. I imagine our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have less than desirable eating conditions too. It kinda puts things into perspective, huh?
December 21, 2008 at 9:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
crackinsack- I must say that you certainly keep trying to find something to ban or something that doesn't include interfering with somes "Right and Freedom" and you may have found it because the dog doesn't understand anything a bout the loss of its "Rights and Freedoms". However the owner of the dog and the business does understand his or her "Rights and Freedoms" and the potential loss of them. If the dog is the dog I think it is, and I believe the owners initials to be P.G., I suggest you lay of the dog comments. And I believe you did not go to the town royal just to socialize and have a drink, you evidently went their to reconnoiter for the CAE. I have been in the town royal and myself having COPD, I have no problem with breathing and the smoke was not thick enough for me not to be able to identify anything in the place.
December 22, 2008 at 9:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
rbow-My friend I believe the female customer that was in your bar on Friday the 19th was none other than crackinsack, so you may possibly know her real name.
She may have been in there on a reconnisence mission for some other ban something iniciative, maybe even the CAE, etc.!
December 22, 2008 at 9:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
crackinsack-As you can see I did not mention any names other than crackinsack on this forum, so don't presume to tell me what the User Poster Agreement Policy is, I know full well what the poster agreement is, if what I posted to rbow is not the truth then there is nothing to worry about, unless rbow posts your real name on this forum, futhermore if you were not the person that visited the town royal on that date and time and doing what I suspect you were doing then you still have nothing to worry about.
So lets let Gwen or the moderator of this forum police this forum shall we and statements are only accusations if proven not to be true.
Thank you very much
methusla
December 22, 2008 at 10:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Matt Slater is out at Bruff's for lunch today taking signatures for the petition. Thanks Matt!
Corbin
December 22, 2008 at 1:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
We'll try to have someone at Bruffs tommorrow, and maybe Coach's From 11:30 to 1:00 to take signatures.
Steve
December 22, 2008 at 1:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Ella Duncan has petitions ready for signature. If you know Ella, you know where she's at. Thanks.
Steve
December 22, 2008 at 1:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Methusla:
I'm way past caring who "sadsack" is. I doubt she would come into the bar because of the smoke and she would hate to see my employees suffering from shs (which in bar lingo means second hand stiff!) But you must admit her posts are sometimes amusing if not down right hilareous!
Keep on blogging !
Steve
December 22, 2008 at 1:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Still makes me wonder why you would go in a place with that much unhealthy SHS when you can choose not to, how about it crackinsack ! Especially now that most of the people who read these forums know the dubious strategy of the CAE and the Clean Air Coalition, to avoid a vote at all costs and an outright assault on peoples "FREEDOMS and FREE WILL"
Hmmmmmm just thinking while I still have the "FREEDOM" to choose to do that !
Oh and if the smoking ban is defeated in a vote of the people, can you and your superiors guarantee that you all will abide by the will of the "PEOPLE" or will your bunch just change tactics or try and abolish or ban something else that is not in line with your beliefs and way of living ? Before you answer maybe you should consult your Clean Air handbook or manifesto !
Also I must say, it must make you all proud to be part of a so called non-profit organization that is allowed to use tax-payer funded grant monies to wage war, assault and try and abolish U.S. citizens "RIGHT and FREEDOM" to their own "FREE WILL and LIBERTY".
I know it makes me proud to be opposing such attempts at the "OPPRESSION" of citizens of the U.S..
December 22, 2008 at 2:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
rbow- I don't really care who, as you put it, "sad sack is", I just can't tollerate his/her "Holier than Thou" attitude or demeanor.
December 22, 2008 at 2:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Talk about broken or repeating recordings."This ban truly is for the best." Geeez !
December 22, 2008 at 3:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
to the sadsack, How dare you call Shelly's date a dog? And a bulldog to boot!. Now youv'e gone to far! At least her date knew his place. Why don't you go up to the Country Club, (it's non-smoking), and find you a nice retired rich guy to keep you busy?
Steve
December 22, 2008 at 3:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
crackinsack and all citizens;
Yes I have countinued to try and make all citizens see that this ban is not only an issue of "HEALTH", but (and here it comes again) an issue of what is "RIGHT and WRONG" and an issue of (oops!) 'RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, especially the "RIGHT to excerise ones "INALEANABLE RIGHT" to excerise and practice ones 'RIGHT to FREE WILL", and "RIGHT to LIBERTY", without interferance from any "individual, group of individuals or government entity" !
I have been fighting to preserve and defend these pricipals of our nations founders for over 40 years now, both on foriegn soil and for the past few decades domestically, here in Emporia.
Now I am tired of trying to convince some hard headed, selfish, selfcentered, egotistical, hypocritical, holier than thou people that what they are doing or trying to do with this smoking ban is wrong. I have signed the petition to bring this to a vote of the people, which is and was the only right, proper and fair way to have considered such a restrictive and biased ban.
I have brought the people certain information on the dubious tactics of the Clean Air Coalition and the CAE, and allowed all of the people to make up their own minds as to the tactics used by these so called non-profit organizations.
I have one more thought to leave you people with. That thought is that I am pretty sure the CAE influenced the vote of 3 of the City Commissioners. Now I have been thinking long and hard about the last City Commission meeting when the smoking ban was voted on by the Commission, and I in my own opinion have come to the conclusion that the other 2 Commissioners voted against the smoking ban for the purpose of not having a unanimous vote for the ban, to keep the appearances of fair voting, in other words I believe the whole thing was influenced by the CAE or at the very least some of its more powerful and influential members.
I know I will be degraded and chastized for these comments, however I don't really care, for this is my last post here, oh, I will vote against the ban, and I will continue to survive the past, present and future attempts by certain people in Emporia to control my life for me and God willing I will continue to survive. Oh I may read some posts from time to time but I will no longer comment on the CAE, CLEAN AIR COALITION, or any of its followers, believers or advocates.
And I sincerely hope and pray that this ban is defeated by a vote of the people.
December 22, 2008 at 4:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LifeGoesOn (anonymous) says...
methusla said
"Now I am tired of trying to convince some hard headed, selfish, selfcentered, egotistical, hypocritical, holier than thou people that what they are doing or trying to do with this smoking ban is wrong."
And I found it funny that crackinsack responded
" I respect you and appreciate the comments you have made on this site and I sincerely hope my posts haven't swayed you from further voicing your opinion"
So. Crack , what made you think Methusla was talking to you? lol Was it because they said selfcentered or egotistical or hard headed? or one of the others?
December 22, 2008 at 7 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
crack
I'm still waiting for some answers to some questions I had for you. You'll have to look them up because I don't want to sound like a broken record.
I do honestly want answers to those questions. I am not opposed to hearing the other side of this debate. I just have not heard any good(in my opinion) reason why the current(pre ban) laws are not enough. I found out today that a friend of mine who I have a lot of respect for is for smoking bans and can't wait to hear her view on this. I was a little suprised to find out she is pro ban so I look forward to hearing from her on this.
Don't freak out I'm going to talk about being a veteran but I promise not to rub it in your face.
It got me thinking about perspectives when I heard of my friends opinion and I thought of something Steve said last week during the whole vet not vet fight we were all having. He said something like we as vets have a perspective on rights and freedoms that non vets don't have. This is absolutely true and I hope you take it into account when reading our opinions on this issue. I honestly don't mean to rub my service in your face. I am willing to listen to the other side but I don't feel as though you've brought your A game. I have a feeling however that my friend will truely challenge my beliefs on this ban. I'm almost positive she won't change my mind but perhaps broaden my perspective.
I'll keep waiting for a good answer from you as to why you feel the current laws aren't enough. Maybe you can bring up something I havent thought of.
December 22, 2008 at 7:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
seriously,
I am afraid that you are wasting your time with that last request. The poster you were addressing has an interesting posting history. You should go back and read it sometime. He/she makes many claims to want civil debate and to never have attacked first, but I took some time intermittently throughout the course of my day and read through what was actually posted. His/her introduction into this debate was to call smokers low-lives who were out to hurt others, or too ignorant to know not to hurt themselves and others. The only valid arguments made against smoking I would completely agree with; however they are all irrelevant to this particular ban as they could only be addressed by banning cigarettes entirely or banning smoking in homes and cars.
methusla,
I hope you do not leave the posts entirely. I know you're worn out by this debate, but you have fought the good fight, my friend and you can rest assured that while some rejected your knowledge, others are encouraged by it. I hope to see it emerge on future topics.
to all:
I'd like to sign off for this evening by addressing a post made clear back in August by our favorite poster to josiesbar: "Nazis? Seriously? In the USA, people are allowed to practice their beliefs."
I would like us to remember that many Germans made similar statements in the two years prior to Hitler's rise. It should make us stop to think about the big picture.
December 22, 2008 at 11:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
glarson (anonymous) says...
Let's move to a forum:
http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/...
and try to keep it civil.
December 23, 2008 at 8:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )