Clean Air Emporia this morning officially launched its campaign for a city ordinance to ban smoking in public places here.
The goal is to have an ordinance enacted by October, according to Teresa Walters, who moderated the meeting today at Gambino’s Pizza, 1003 Industrial Road.
Walters is director of Emporians for Drug Awareness, a community consultant for the Regional Prevention Center of the Flint Hills, and a member of the CAE steering committee and team.
She said before the meeting that the group had been joined by Amy Townsend’s Health Promotion class at Emporia State University, which conducted surveys on the topic for the past few months, and obtained signatures on resolutions to support the proposal. The surveys were conducted in restaurants, bars, and other local businesses. Results are being collated, checked for duplications and tallied before they can be released.
Video
Smoking-Ban Presentation
Teresa Walters of Clean Air Emporia talks this morning about efforts to make Emporia a smoke-free community.
Public interest in a smoking ban spurred the group to open now to a broader audience instead of waiting.
“We feel that it’s very high,” Walters said of the interest. “I’ve had very good responses from the community.” Today’s meeting was an effort to “clean the air in more than one way.”
An advertising firm in Wichita has prepared a professional campaign, including billboards and other media, in conjunction with the campaign. Its involvement came through a grant from the Kansas Health Foundation, which chose Emporia as one of six Kansas communities that will receive the firm’s assistance in similar campaigns.
At least 28 cities and two counties in the state already have enacted public smoking bans, speakers said. Ireland, France, Australia and other countries are among those that have smoking bans.
“This is a growing movement,” said Kim Rice of the American Cancer Society.
Gambino’s owner Brad Richardson told the audience of about 30 people that his restaurant has been smoke-free for about 10 of the 12 years he has owned it.
“In the past 10 years, we have never regretted that decision to become a smoke-free restaurant,” Richardson said. Patrons and employees alike benefit from the policy.
“We feel it’s better for our employees not to have to work around an environment where they have to breathe second-hand smoke,” Richardson said.
Walters said that members of the group will be available to make presentations about the proposal on request.
madpoet (anonymous) says...
Good for them! There's places I won't go because of the smoke. People like me with allergies really get hit hard by tobacco smoke. Not to mention the negative impact on your health breathing those nasty fumes. Yeah, yeah someone will yell about their rights etc. What about my right not to breathe smoke? Take it outside or better yet quit and save your health and money.
July 10, 2008 at 3:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eiggohp (anonymous) says...
I agree 100% with madpoet. I also have an extreme allergy to smoke and I also think that I have the right to breathe~~~as well as go to places that I would like to go. I certainly hope Emporia will get behind this effort and make our city "smoke free" in public places.
July 10, 2008 at 3:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
smith_ron (anonymous) says...
I am glad Emporia is considering a ban on smoking in public places. Much as I hate to walk on the rights of others, I can't help but think about babies, teens and others who can't afford the risk from second-hand smoke. And truthfully, it is not a matter of avoiding places that allow smoking. No matter where you go(ball games and other outdoor events included), , it seems that one can't get away from the smoke.
July 10, 2008 at 4:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
supernanny (anonymous) says...
I agree completely. I am all for this!!!! Yah Emporia!
July 10, 2008 at 4:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaGarrison (Melissa Garrison) says...
i know a lot of people won't like it if this passes, but i will. it's really irritating on campus...having to walk behind a smoker on my way to class, or walk through a cloud of smoke before i go into a building. i hate smelling like smoke and, as lame as it is, i have to carry my inhalor around for those reasons. smokers also get several breaks a day from work to go light up a cigarette, but do i get 15 minutes to go stand around outside? it bothers me that we cater to their bad habit.
July 10, 2008 at 4:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Deepthoughts (anonymous) says...
So if they ban smoking in public places, then where can people smoke - only in the privacy of their homes? I don't smoke, but I'm trying to understand how this will work.
July 10, 2008 at 5:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rmbcollege (anonymous) says...
I also have smoke allergies. I think this is also a great move!
At work, we do not cater to their needs of smoking. If they have to smoke, they have to do it on their 10 minute break. They are treated just like everyone else there.
Public places are businesses. Smokers are able to smoke outside.
I agree about the smoking on campus. They are supposed to be 1000 ft from the door, but if it is raining, that never happens.
July 10, 2008 at 6:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
truelovecharlie (anonymous) says...
Did y'all hear that? More of your "freedoms" some goody-2-shoes wants to tell you how to live. Wear a seat belt, you can't smoke but in the privacy of your own homes, ban cell phone use, you can't say that word as it offends....every day someone, somewhere is trying to take away another freedom. Your only freedom anymore is to live and be taxed to death. More reasons for people to just drive right on past Emporia and not stop.
July 10, 2008 at 6:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Merry_Carol (anonymous) says...
TrueloveCharlie, Actually, Emporia is way behind the times. There are towns in the USA where this battle happened 15 years ago.
Having a public smoking ban may actually bring more people to Emporia. People are getting smarter about it and want to go places they can breathe good, smoke-free air.
If you need to smoke, do it inside your own home, unless nonsmokers live with you. We had a neighbor who lived clear across the street and smoked on her front porch, but due to the way the breeze usually blows, often her cigarette smoke wound up in our house.
You have a right to smoke, but you don't have a right to damage my health or anyone else's with your smoke.
I hope this happens, and soon. We will enjoy our restaurant experience and spend more money in Emporia if we can go places that are totally smoke free. "Smoking sections" would work, if they could keep the smoke confined. Usually though the smoke drifts around the whole restaurant. Not to mention the wait staff that has to serve in the smoking area should not have to breathe that stuff.
Yay for Emporia to catch up with the times and give us the freedom to be able to breathe clean air.
July 10, 2008 at 8:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
alanemporia (anonymous) says...
What do you do if you live in a public place ?...........like ESU, apartment, or other type of public or private housing that will only allow smoking outdoors. Do i have to drive out of the city limits 4 times a day just to enjoy a smoke. Is this not taking away freedoms. Now we just need to ban alcohol because the city sewer will get backed up with drunks vomit.......give me a break.
July 10, 2008 at 10:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Merry_Carol (anonymous) says...
alan, If I was a landlord, I would do my best not to rent to smokers. Do you know what smoke does to a place? It takes a lot more work to clean up after a smoker, whether it is an apartment or the workplace. It gets in the carpet, on the walls, even gets into the attic and basement. Now, that isn't the end of the world, but for a landlord it ultimately creates more work.
Most landlords do allow smoking inside though, so not to worry if you are a renter.
And, I don't think they are talking about outlawing it outside, just inside buildings used by the public. Don't panic. If you live in some kind of gov't housing or where the landlord says you can't then go outside to smoke. I know smokers who do that anyway, because they don't want to get smoke smell in their belongings.
Many college campuses across the states don't allow smoking anyplace on campus, at all.
This will be a wonderful move for Emporia. It will encourage more people to come to town and spend their money. It's a wise economic move.
July 10, 2008 at 11:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
alanemporia (anonymous) says...
Merry_Carol.......you do strike a good point. Also ESU has ash trays all over.
July 10, 2008 at 11:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BillHannegan (anonymous) says...
Dear Mayor Agler and Emporia City Commission:
Government should always err on the side of freedom and property rights. I believe than an independent consideration of the evidence will show that Emporia can responsibly tolerate smoking in "over 21" bars and restaurants if appropriate air filtration and ventilation measures are in place. Numerous independent studies of the highest quality call into question the dangers of secondhand smoke, prove the efficacy of ventilation and air filtration systems to eliminate all airborne hazards in bar and restaurant air, and establish the harm a smoking ban would do to bars and restaurants.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?...
Indeed, Federal Reserve economist Dr. Michael Pakko studied the economic effects of a smoking ban that included bars in Columbia, Missouri. Dr. Pakko found the Columbia bar business down 11 percent due to the smoking ban. Restaurants that serve alcohol are down 6.5 percent. Though many Columbia businesses were already smoke-free before the smoking ban was imposed, Dr. Pakko shows that the smoking ban caused a 3.5 to 4.0 percent drop in the Columbia bar and restaurant business overall. Dr. Pakko determined that Columbia lost $60,000 of tax revenue due to the ban during its first half year. Emporia could suffer similar losses.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/regeco...
http://research.stlouisfed.org/econ/p...
http://www.columbiatribune.com/2008/M...
July 11, 2008 at 12:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BillHannegan (anonymous) says...
Furthermore, smoking bans have other negative unintended consequences that someone needs to point out:
Recent research has shown that a smoking ban would not reduce the overall exposure of non-smokers to secondhand smoke and would actually increase the exposure of young children to smoke as smokers are displaced to their cars and homes.
http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications.ph...
Surprising research by two University of Wisconsin economists, published this month in the Journal of Public Economics, finds that communities that impose a ban on smoking in bars experience, on average, a 13 percent increase in drunk-driving fatalities. The researchers suggest that the increased death toll is because smokers will drive farther to find venues in which they can both smoke and drink, as well as bar patrons drinking more and being more affected by alcohol when they cannot smoke. Furthermore, the study found that the rate of drunk-driving deaths increased the longer the ban remained in place.
http://www.econ.iastate.edu/calendar/...
July 11, 2008 at 12:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BillHannegan (anonymous) says...
Please let me suggest a non threatening, painless alternative to a smoking ban. The Emporia City Commission could simply require venues that allow smoking to purify their air 15 times or more per hour thru both electronic and HEPA air filtration machines separate from the establishment's regular HVAC system as air filtration engineers recommend. Such air purification would not only remove tobacco smoke, but also viruses, bacteria, chemicals, pollen, dust, mold, fungi and, most importantly, radon decay products, which the EPA claims causes 21,000 lung cancer deaths per year, seven times more than secondhand smoke is reputed to cause. Commercial and industrial air filtration machines are affordable and readily available. Venues that allow smoking could be retrofitted without expensive ductwork or other construction costs. Here are a few companies offering this
technology.
http://www.air-quality-eng.com/
http://www.smokeeaters.org/
http://www.industrial-maid.com/commer...
http://aircleaningequipment.com/items...
http://www.nosmokeking.com/home2.html
http://www.jdstools.com/index.asp?Pag...
http://www.fivehawk.com/technology.htm
http://www.casinoair.com/site/1272069...
http://www.airistar.com/src/CEM_12_05...
The CDC even recommends that such air filtration systems be installed in buildings as a way of protecting workers from airborne chemical, biological or radiological attacks:
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2003-136/
I don't work for any tobacco or air filtration company. I just see this technology as a public health solution that would provide truly clean air to Emporia and not hurt business.
Sincerely,
Bill Hannegan
July 11, 2008 at 12:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
paulkersey (anonymous) says...
I can understand restaurants (establishments whose income is more than 50% food sales) being smoke free, but please leave the bars alone. You do not go to a bar to be healthy. I feel (as a non-smoker) that a nice cigar and brandy can make even the worst of days vanish. The people who are putting this on don't go to bars (although I think a drink or two might not be a bad thing for Mrs. Walters). Children don't (I hope) go to bars. Wichita passed a resolution almost exactly like this, saying restaurants were smoke free but bars could remain as they are. If you want to go to a smoke free bar to drink, there are a few in town, as I am led to believe. I believe The Blind-1124 Commercial, is smoke-free, and I have heard rumors that Wheat State Grille-707 Commercial, will be smoke-free. It will be interesting to watch these businesses to see if it affects their business.
July 11, 2008 at 2:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
madpoet (anonymous) says...
I used to be on a dart league and would have to take a Benadryl before going into some bars to play. There was one in town I refused to enter since the smoke got so bad at times you could barely see the dart board! What about the people who work there? They breathe that smoke for an entire shift. Don't say, well they could work elsewhere. Jobs are few and far between. I know from personal experience you take what you can get. This is especially true for ESU students who have to find jobs that work with their class schedule. Air filters are a good idea but probably pretty pricey. I don't know if they would cost more than loss of business. The bowling alley redid their air system a while back and it made it much more bearable in there. Smoking is an expensive habit both in money terms and health issues. Maybe this would cause people to cut back or quit smoking. That would be a good thing.
July 11, 2008 at 9:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
j_mai (anonymous) says...
I agree with paulkersey Mrs. Walters needs to leave the house more often. I have a few points to state about this law. Why do most people go to a bar, to drink hang out with friends and relax. Right? Well think about this, we now have to do this at our homes because the bars all went belly up. So we have to go over to a friends house and they have cats and dogs well say you am allergic to cats and dogs, what are you going to do contact Mrs. Walters to have a ban on cats and dogs in the personal house? No I will deal with it or stay home. Next point have any of you people in favor of this bill been to Lawrence lately? My guess is no, look at the terribly littered streets with smoking garbage. The town which used to be one of my top 10 nicest downtown areas has now become one that I dread visiting. Do you want that to happen to Emporia? Next point I already see where you are going to come back on the last one, are you going to put police on litter patrol to keep the smokers from littering the street instead of patrolling for pedophiles, rapists, and drug dealers? Ha this smoking thing doesn't seem so damn bad when you think about what our government should be caring about instead of someone enjoying their lives and having a smoke, which is (for all you christian folk) given to us by your GOD. Alcohol is man made tobacco isn't so where are your beliefs now. Also there are bigger issues in our great country than smoking. Obesity, pedophilia, rape, drugs, and murder, we need to address these situations first before even beginning to take rights away from people that don't break the law. Why not leave it up to the business they are the ones to be set-up for failure here.
July 11, 2008 at 9:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaGarrison (Melissa Garrison) says...
"Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a pool."
July 11, 2008 at 9:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dougmarshall (anonymous) says...
Why not leave it to the business owner? Each business would have the choice. It would not cause a public health issue and patrons would be the ones to decide the if the choice of the owner was correct. Maybe we should try to maintain a market driven society. If I'm smoking in a bar, it will not harm the children swimming at the water park.
July 11, 2008 at 10:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Merry_Carol (anonymous) says...
dougmarshall, what about the college students or other people who can't find work elsewhere? Jobs aren't all that easy to get in Emporia. That is still a public health issue.
Melissa, LOL so true, so true.
And anyone who thinks smoking should not be prohibited in public places...... How long do you want Emporia to wait before it catches up with most of the rest of the country?
The rest of us have a right to breathe clean air. If you smokers could keep your smoke right around your own face and not tresspass on mine or the next guy's, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. "Your right to swing your fist stops at my nose."
This is such a positive move in the right direction. I will be sorely disappointed if Emporia doesn't go smoke free in public places.
July 11, 2008 at 10:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Paccifier (anonymous) says...
Still think the better alternative is to allow the business owner to decide their own smoking policy, but require that it be posted clearly on the entrance of the establishment. Then customers can make their own decision to enter or not. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? I am a non-smoker, but I see to many rights being taken away and it is time to stop. I know that I will not vote for Teresa Walters for a County Commission seat. I don't want her personal agenda issues to influence county business. Controlling smoking may be only the tip of the ice berg.
July 11, 2008 at 11:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
j_mai (anonymous) says...
So Merry_Carol what you are saying is the college workers have no choice but to work at a bar, well they could go work at McDonald's and support Obesity, or what about the guys that work for APAC/Shears those guys are exposed to way more harmful exhaust and smoke, but they choose to work there. You know why? Because it pays the bills. Your point about the workers is now a mute one. Workers rights, hahaha you have the right to show up, do your job, and then get your check at the end of the week. If you wish not to work in these Environments please do not apply. I don't mind business being non-smoking by their own FREE choice, not by being forced down upon by a Communist law. That is why we fought communism is to get better choices for the people versus their former governments communist beliefs. CORRECT?
July 11, 2008 at 11:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Penny (anonymous) says...
I am in favor of this ordinance, I have been to Lawrence several times since their clean indoor air ordinance was passed and have never seen the "trash" that j_mai refers to. Perhaps we hang in different parts of the town, but where I have been, it remains as beautiful as always. I do agree that some smokers tend to not be very respectful or responsible about disposing of their butts, a public beach I went to in Florida last year was horribly littered with cigarette trash.
dougmarshall, what you are suggesting is the status quo and it is indeed a Public Health issue, that's why the push for change. Non-smokers, who are the vast majority by the way, are tired of being limited where they can go. Many businesses in Lawrence have actually seen an improvement in business since the ordinance was passed, in particular the owner of the bowling alley who was initially opposed has come out publicly now to say it's been great for business.
ESU Residence Halls have been smoke-free for several years, seems like a fire in one of the halls (started by a cigarette) prompted it, if I recall correctly.
Students that I have talked with about this are very excited about bars going smoke-free in Emporia, so I hope the ordinance doesn't get "watered down" and allow exemptions for any establishments.
BTW, kudos to the new (and only) smoke-free bar in Emporia, "The Blind". I'm not much for the hunting motif, but I may go there just to support such a progressive business.
July 11, 2008 at 11:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Penny (anonymous) says...
Thank you, Teresa Walters, for being willing to be the "face" of this movement. It is not easy to subject yourself to personal attacks and I admire your willingness to do so. Thanks also to the rest of the men and women on this committee working to bring Emporia forward.
July 11, 2008 at 11:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
This really should never have been a choice to begin with, had people known how horrible smoking was as a habit than this would have been the norm long ago. This is not an issue of taking choices away, people can chew and drink all they like but smoking FORCES others to share the habit, which is just unacceptable on so many levels. I often have wanted to take up chewing just to spit on smokers as payback lol.
July 11, 2008 at 11:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Bill Hannegan,
Having said air filtration installed and maintained would in no doubt negate any lost business based on the numbers you have presented. I could make a case inversly on what the ban would constitute in saved health care costs. Bottom line here is that this is a habit that others should not have to tolerated in any way shape or form due to its intrusive nature. The matter is not so much about choice, people can still choose to smoke all they like, just not where unwilling citizens have to partake as well.
July 11, 2008 at noon ( permalink | suggest removal )
Nancy_W (anonymous) says...
Bill Hannegan lives in St. Louis. If you follow his links you'll find that 98% of them take you to studies and articles that are either erroneous, extremely one-sided, or otherwise completely unscientific.
He shops around the internet looking for places that are trying to enact smoking laws and tries to get people outside his own state (perhaps even his own country) to bend their views to his.
July 11, 2008 at 12:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dougmarshall (anonymous) says...
I would love a ban on smoking Mary_Carol, I don't smoke and I hate to breath it. What I am saying is let the business OWNER decide his/her internal policy. If the owner is the county or city, they can decide their policy for their buildings too. If a business owner makes a choice, you can choose too. A government dictating policy to private business will lead to socialism and history shows that is not the best way to go. ... By the way, I call bs on your job issue. There are plenty of jobs in smoke-free environments. You may have to sacrifice your pride to eat.
July 11, 2008 at 12:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
emporialifer (anonymous) says...
doug -
You are right on the money. I also am not a smoker and don't like the smell either, but I make my own choices and if I choose to go to a restaurant that has a smoking section than that is my choice. I also have the choice of going to a different restaurant or staying home or eating wherever, whenever I want. It is absolutely RIDICULOUS for them to think they should have the right to tell a business OWNER (wait - who paid for that establishment again - was it Mrs. Walters - didn't think so) what type of patrons they can serve and exactly how they have to run their business.
The reasoning of poor high school and college kids that can't find jobs elsewhere is also getting old. People CHOOSE where they work - find another job if you don't want to be around smoke. Working and having a job is a privilege, not a right.
Besides, if there is such a huge push for a smoking ban, why don't these people stop going to the restaurants now, then if they really have the numbers behind their cause that they think they have, the restaurant will go out of business on its own. I have a feeling they don't want to do that because they realize they don't have the support they need.
July 11, 2008 at 1:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
If a few don't like it or agree with it, ban it. It's become the American way. Lying in the wake of such flawed thinking is "Under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance, Christmas in schools and public buildings, exploration and drilling for domestic oil, right to discipline one's own children, our nation's sovereignty & culture, national security, right to keep & bear arms to defend one's life and property, and the ultimate example of the folly of such thinking, the 18th Amendment.
Perhaps society would be better served by these crusaders of social conscience if they used their obvious abundance of idle time to battle real demons, such as illegal drugs and dealers thereof, illegal aliens with no respect for our nation's laws or culture, corporate greed, government corruption, gang activity, violent video games and "RAP" lyrics, pornography and pediphiles.
Here's a radical idea: How about letting individual business owners make their own decisions as to whether or not they allow smoking in their establishments and let customers make their own decisions on whether or not to frequent that business. Same with employees. If the business allows smoking and you don't like it, work somewhere else.
Since America boasts of being "the land of the free", perhaps that would be the REAL American way of doing things. I don't like meddlesome do-gooder crusaders, but you don't see me petitioning to have them banned. That would be wrong, and un-American. It's their legal right to do so. If I don't like them, I avoid them---as I do smoky places.
July 11, 2008 at 1:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
emporialifer (anonymous) says...
By the way, if this craziness actually goes anywhere, then I only think it's fair that we start banning other things that might affect our health. Like obese people. It's not my fault you're fat. I shouldn't have to deal with your unhealthy eating habits pouring over into my airline seat on the plane and crushing me against the window to the point of having difficulty breathing - that is hazardous to my health! Or how about those people who smell - either from bad hygiene or too much cologne/perfume, etc. Surely those vapors are hazardous to my nose, so that will go next. How about the band at the ESU basketball games. I mean they play their music SO loud, that can't be good for my hearing. Anybody catching how insane this can all get?
C'mon people, we make CHOICES - the freedom to choose - if you don't like it, choose to go or be somewhere else.
July 11, 2008 at 1:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
scripta (anonymous) says...
"j_mai" Alcohol is a natural byproduct of the fermentation of of sugars by yeast (aka, not manmade). Man is indeed responsible for distilling it down into a stronger concentration and putting it into a bottle. The last time I checked cigarettes didn't grow out of the ground. They require a little help from man to find the consumer as well.
July 11, 2008 at 1:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
I smoke. But not in restaraunts, I always choose non smoking. I try to be about as polite and reasonable with my habit as I can be. Banning smoking is the first step to facism. Emporialifer and bjemp and j_mai have it right. Its ridiculous to limit personal freedoms because you don't like something. I foresee this ban becoming a reality and it makes me crazy. I would like to see the government levy a huge tax and some unrealistic restrictions on another legal drug that people choose to use. Namely caffeine. Can you imagine the backlash if a cup of coffee cost you about $8.00 and you could only use it until noon each day, or perhaps only in designated caffeine areas. I don't drink coffee very often and I hate coffee breath more than about anything, so I say tax into submission like tobacco and regulate where and when it can be used and purchased like tobacco and alcohol. This is the kind of thing that becomes possible when bans are tossed about all willy nilly. If we have to regulate and ban something, lets go for something that nearly everyone does.
July 11, 2008 at 2:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Penny (anonymous) says...
Do you really think being privately owned gives a business freedom to do as they wish?!? I have never owned my own business but I have friends in various places who do and as I understand it there are many, many regulations and codes that tell an owner what they can and can't do. That is part of it.
This is so not a "moral issue" and I haven't seen anything by this group that suggests it is. It is entirely a Public Health issue and a way overdue one at that.
bj, for someone who complains about Emporia being such a "backwards" place you sure seem resistant to progress.
July 11, 2008 at 2:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
scripta (anonymous) says...
Noone ever died of diseases caused by secondhand caffeine. Perhaps we should lift any regulations in place on where a person can discharge a firearm. I'm sure when these were passed people complained too until they realized it is in the best interest of public safety/health.
July 11, 2008 at 2:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Heaven forbid democracy actually work for once and the majority win, this country is not entirely founded on everyone being able to do as they please, if this were so nothing would get done. Facts are that a group of people are using a democratic process to enact legislation, anyone who claims that to be anything other than democratic needs their head examined. Majority rules my friend.
July 11, 2008 at 2:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
j_mai (anonymous) says...
scripta-- no but it takes a lot more man power to man alcohol then to burn tobacco it doesnt have to be in cigarette for it can be in a pipe which is very easily made. My point wasnt against alcohol just the people that use it and claim that they are godlike but hate smoking.
July 11, 2008 at 2:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
j_mai (anonymous) says...
scripta-- no but it takes a lot more make power to man alcohol then to burn tobacco it doesnt have to be in cigarette for it can be in a pipe which is very easily made. My point wasnt against alcohol just the people that use it and claim that they are godlike but hate smoking.
July 11, 2008 at 2:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bobhornet (anonymous) says...
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
July 11, 2008 at 2:39 p.m. ( permalink )
Paccifier (anonymous) says...
Yes goodoleboy, this is a democracy, When was the vote? You seem to think you are in the majority, and it seems there are a number of non-smokers and smokers that are against this- so maybe we ought to have a community wide referendum on the issue, with town meetings and all- there is an election coming- so the ballot option will be available. Let this go to a community wide decision, see who can pump the most money into the campaign and win. Or maybe the anti-smoking group really thinks they know better that the rest of us and we can't be trusted to vote.
July 11, 2008 at 3:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wyse_guy (anonymous) says...
personally i would rather walk behind second hand smoke then walk behind a BEER FART can we ban those 2?
July 11, 2008 at 3:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
Penny: Banning a legal product, restricting citizens personal rights, and pandering to anti-smokers propaganda is NOT progress. That classifies as regression.
July 11, 2008 at 4:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
Goodoleboy: "Majority rules"? Since when? What planet have you been visiting? 85% of Americans are Christian, yet we are not free to celebrate Christmas for fear of offending a few atheists or Muslims. 90% of Americans prefer to use "under God" in our Pledge of Alliegance yet we are asked no to. 60% of Emporians wanted to be able to shoot fireworks in the city limits on The Fourth, but we were bannned from doing so. 75% of Americans want closed borders and no amnesty for illegals. Is it happening? Majority rules? In your dreams.
July 11, 2008 at 4:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
Until it can be proven beyond all shadow of a doubt that second hand smoke is a health risk, we shouldn't ban anything.
http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/s...
Check out this website and the studies there in.
For every study that says its harmful, I promise I can find one that says it isn't (most of which are not funded by tobacco companies).
So who is right?
I'll tell you who....
Whoever can afford to pay the most researchers on the subject.
"Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable."
Mark Twain
July 11, 2008 at 4:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
Scripta...
You can't shoot anyone with a cigarette.
"I'm sure" no one ever died from diseases related to second hand firearm exposure either (if there is such a thing).
July 11, 2008 at 4:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
IHEARTESU (anonymous) says...
I, personally, am a smoker but I have no desire to go and sit in a smoke-filled environment. I know that doesn't make much sense but it is not a pleasant experience for me. People seem to be awfully worried about smokers rights, what about the rights of non-smokers? What about the children? I can get behind this law. If you want to smoke take it outside.
July 11, 2008 at 4:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
IHEARTSU: Don't be so naive. You really don't think this witch hunt will stop there, do you? First they get smoking banned in all buildings, then they regroup and go after a ban on smoking within 100 feet of a door. Later they will want a ban on smoking anywhere in public within city limits, on the street, in cars, or even in homes. This ban attempt isn't the end; it is the beginning. Crusaders don't end the carnage until the bones are bare and bleached.
July 11, 2008 at 4:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
Outsider beat me to the punch by pointing out what should be obvious if you have any kind of thought process. capabilities. Unless you live in a sterile environment, only consume healthy food, don't consume any form of caffeine, don't eat/drink anything sweetened by sugar, haven't had your home tested for radon or carbon monoxide, wear breathing apparatus and or masks while in public, etc well then you simply have no clue what is really harming your health. Sure, tobacco is an easy target, big tobacco makes billions every year. So does Microsoft and KFC who have both been attacked in court by the militant/liberal/ tree/animal hugging left wing do gooder facists. I can appreciate that your nose is offended by cigarette smoke, and you have your low opinion of those that smoke, that is your right. It's my right to have a low opinion of you as well. I know who you are, I've heard your snide comments, heard your pathethetic fake coughs, seen your looks of digust, you rolling of your eyes even though my smoke was nowhere near your nose(while I was smoking outside). Most likely everything about your personality, appearance, attitude and choice of cologne/perfume etc is offensive to me, I pity people like yourself, you must be miserable to be around all the time, all you do is complain about everybody and pass judgement about them all the time.
I may be mistaken, but besides bars and a handful of restaurants, how many businesses in Emporia allow smoking nowadays? Very darn few if any. Your hypocrisy is not hard to distinguish anti-smokers, especially when your moral meddling mouth piece made a respectable living clogging the arteries of everyone who ate at their business.
July 11, 2008 at 5:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
scripta (anonymous) says...
"OutsiderJ" Not at all my point, shooting smokers is the type of ridiculous rants I detest. My point was that just because a law may limit the rights of some doesn't make the world a worse place.
Secondhand smoke = Smoke from smoker to INNOCENT bystanders. Therefore when applied to guns, plenty of people die from "secondhand firearm" .(just ask Beau Arndt's family)
July 11, 2008 at 5:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaGarrison (Melissa Garrison) says...
How about we don't bring Beau into this.
July 11, 2008 at 5:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
alanemporia (anonymous) says...
As the saying goes........"If something exists, there will always be somebody or something aginst it."
July 11, 2008 at 5:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
Scripta: Give me, and the educated world, a break! You said "plenty of people die from secondhand firearm". What! I have never in my long life heard of a firearm, first hand or second hand, jump out of a drawer and kill someone. Second class people kill people, not second hand firearms. You don't like smokers. You don't like guns. I bet you don't like dogs or children, either.
July 11, 2008 at 7:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BillHannegan (anonymous) says...
Elected officials and voter have a right to complete information when considering new public health laws that will curtail the personal freedoms of citizens and the property rights of business owners.
Is a smoking ban really necessary to protect the health of workers? OSHA, the government agency charged with
the protection of worker health, doesn't think so and so has opted not to impose a workplace smoking ban. OSHA has established PELs (Permissible Exposure Levels) for all the measurable chemicals, including the 40 alleged carcinogens, in secondhand smoke. PELs are levels of exposure for an 8-hour workday for which, according to OSHA, any health risk is small enough to be tolerated. OSHA explains that under normal workplace circumstances, secondhand smoke “exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs)”
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadi...
“Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace
with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded."
-Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Ass't Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadi...
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadi...
July 11, 2008 at 10:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MrCmonkeeDo (anonymous) says...
"We had a neighbor who lived clear across the street and smoked on her front porch, but due to the way the breeze usually blows, often her cigarette smoke wound up in our house."
Really Merry_Carol?
Really?
Look folks, MrC is gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that maybe (just maybe) Merry_Carol is exaggerating a tad there. We apologize for Our crudeness pointing it out in such a public forum an' all. But really, please Do not even try to convince MrC that such a thing is possible under any conditions; especially on any kind of regular basis.
Now MrC doesn't mean to belittle Merry_Carol; an' He wouldn't if He could help it, but He can't. There seems to be this whole group of people that Do that sort of thing though, any o' the rest of Ya notice that?
Heck even MrC does it sometimes; for instance whenever He sees a box of Puffs Plus (it's the wildflower design) He'll get a tickle in His nose an' His eyes will start to water an' itch, it's weird. But MrC knows when it's happening an' He recognizes that He's not allergic to the design on a box. It's just Pavlov's slobbery-assed flea bit Dog ringin' MrC's snot box bell.
The point is MrCmonkeeDo would never start making wild claims that facial tissue is the cause of all His ailments an' He especially would never make such a claim in an attempt to Keep said tissues away from You All an' therefore out o' His sight. It's weird, too weird in fact, even for the likes of yours truly.
Perhaps in pointing it out to Merry_Carol she will see that she is only doing what a lot of Us monkeys Do and it's perfectly normal, but ya gotta recognize it for what it is folks. Otherwise you'll end up as just another sucker who purchased a cure all from some slimy snake oil sales person.
And speaking of Ms. Teresa Walters...
July 11, 2008 at 11:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justthefacts (anonymous) says...
Having lost a parent due to second hand smoke, yeah, the doctor said so as did the medical examiner. Watching the parent die a slow and agonizing death because of second hand smoke, I guess I would tell you all to just keep puffing away. I won't go in a business that allows smokers. I figure the laws of economics will take care of it. As will the lawsuits from employees who sue their employers for forcing them to work in an unhealthy environment. I figure at some point OSHA will probably rule it is a dangerous environment and that will be it anyway.
Admission of addiction, weather it be tobacco, caffeine, alcohol, or other drugs is the first step to recovery. Hopefully the road to recovery will come soon to all of you either in your lifetime or through the ultimate cold turkey...death. Hopefully those who attempt to remain healthy will not have to subsidize your growing costs of health care.
Please keep in mind that people have a right to petition their government. The commissioners didn't take this up. A group of residents have been quite open about it. There will be a public hearing at some point. I would suggest those concerned about this issue on either side, make a reasonable, civil, case for their position and let their elected officials exercise the Constitutionally provided authority. If you don't like what they do, encourage someone who shares your view to run. That's how our republic is designed to work.
July 12, 2008 at 12:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MrCmonkeeDo (anonymous) says...
"Having lost a parent due to second hand smoke, yeah, the doctor said so as did the medical examiner."
That's B.S. justthefacts. Either the Dr. and Medical Examiner were lying to You or You are lying to Us.
The truth is, seldom can we point to any one cause of lung cancer. In some cases perhaps, but nobody knows if the stuff MrC pushed around with a bulldozer (it's called, Oily Waste) at Pester Refinery in Eldorado, Ks while still a youth will turn out to be the thing that kills Him.
Actually before MrC worked in the Oily Waste area of the refinery He helped empty the sludge ponds that would later make up the Oily Waste to the city land fill. It's probably there to this day polluting the ground waters around Eldorado (We hauled truck load after truck load of sludge to the city dump, and That's no exaggeration.)
The Oily Waste area of the refinery was an experimental kind of thing where they tried to turn it back to dirt that would at least grow grass. The tentative plan was to use it to build the containment dikes around those large tanks you see in refineries. It was full of mercury and all manner of other bad stuff an' MrC dutifully stirred an' stirred it eight hours a day, Monday through Friday for about three years. It's frightening, but the world was different then. We didn't know. MrC was a kid pretending to be a man, He didn't know, besides He did what He was told.
Once left to His own devises, a young MrC found one of those big electrical transformers laying almost on the ground but at an angle with the bolts that hold the top on removed and He stuck His nose in first like an idiot an' He don't know what that stuff was but "Whew! Put the cover back on!"
Did you know that just a few years ago (ten or so) Dry Cleaning establishments threw their perc filters in the trash? Today We know that Perc is horrible stuff. Fire dept's respond with Hazmat suits whenever there is a reported spill in a Dry Cleaning establishment. And yet people still drape their bodies in suits an' dresses that have been soaked in it.
And Radon it seems is in all kinds of places. The odds that We All do not come into contact with it almost daily is surely quite slim.
It seems to MrC that the odds that any of us will die at the hands of a normally competent driver talking on a cell phone while driving have got to be far greater than the odds that any of us will die from lung cancer.
MrC just happens to be losing a dear friend to cancer as He writes this. It's in his lungs and bones and head. The Drs. can't know which came first at this stage, or what caused it in a man his age. They just can't. There are just too many variables.
But We are a funny bunch of monkeys. We don't like answers like that. We want definites. We want answers bygod and will take just about any they'll give, so they give us one we can live with.
Here is a fact for ya though:
Most smokers do not die from lung cancer.
July 12, 2008 at 3:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
Justthefacts needs to change his name to JusttheBS. No doctor or medical examiner on this planet could possibly list a cause of death as secondhand smoke. Some people will say anything in an attempt to validate an invalid position.
July 12, 2008 at 9:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Renegade (anonymous) says...
Unfortunately, or fortunately, (depending on which side you are taking)...the Smoking-Ban, IS going to happen.
I lived in 2 States, where I saw it happen. Once, it starts, nothing stops it.....but, what I did see happen as a result of the Ban was....
Smokers adapted!!....and quite honestly, most of them weren't treated like lepers in the city...but, were given places to go on breaks and have their cigarette break.
I also saw that, at times, those that smoked got a few more, or longer breaks at work, than others...Which caused some problems...because if we tried to take a break while they were having their cigarettes...we all got into trouble:-)
The local Bars lost a lot of business,(some closed) because as, someone here, pointed out, "drinking and smoking"often go together.
Restaurants that had bars in them, lost business too, because people would go in to eat, and leave. No more waiting for a table in the bar..They stayed outside, and smoked until they were called in to their table. Then, ate and left.
In one State...They made the owners of the Restaurants make very expensive changes in their buildings to have smoking and non-smoking areas....THEN..the ban went to No Smoking at all. Very costly to the Restaurant, and bar owners.
At first, in most places, you could just step outside your work and smoke....Then..that wasn't enough, and you had to stand at least 25 feet away from the building.
Now..in California...they are talking about a BAN on smoking in your vehicles...and IF you are caught smoking in your Vehicle with your children with you....well, then you are in BIG trouble....(more fines)...
There are pros and cons to the smoking ban....I have taken both sides, at different times......I do believe that if someone invests in a business and chooses to allow smokers in his/her business...then they should be able to make the choice of whether to allow smoking or not...
However, if I know a restaurant or other business allows smoking....I can make the choice of whether I want to eat in their restaurant or bar, or, whether or not I wish to enter any business that allows people smoking in it.
Just hope everyone has a closet in their house...because before long....everyone is going to be a "closet smoker."
Good Luck Emporia!
July 12, 2008 at 10:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justthefacts (anonymous) says...
Thanks for the civil discourse folks. Believe what you will. The good news Darwin's Theory is a live (or should I say dying) here. Good luck cause you all are gonna need it.
July 12, 2008 at 11:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
scripta (anonymous) says...
BJnemp: I'm about to persue my third college degree in the sciences (I am the educated world). I do realize that secondhand firearm is absurd, but I defined secondhand smoke in a way that few could argue it was inaccurate. I simply applied the it to firearms, by definition it fits. Guns nor cigarettes (via secondhand smoke) kill people without help from somebody. I have nothing against smokers at all. I smoked for years. If you smoke, smoke it up, but it won't kill you any faster to take it outside, but it may kill me slower. All I want is that not one red cent of the medicare and taxes I pay out of my paychecks go to caring for any smoker with an illness that is in anyway linked to smoking. I've seen Arkansas' the ban go into effect. Where public smoking is allowed in 21 and over establishments or establishments where 50% of profits were derived from alcohol sales. There were the intitial grumblings of the evil politicians aiming at controlling every nuance of your life, but people adapted. The bowling alley I worked at saw an increase in overall business with the help of people whom had previously avoided the center because it was too "smokey".
For the record: I'm anti-gun control (for law abiding citizens), I love dogs (even if they want to ride in the back of a truck), and my wife and I want children one day, but after I finish graduate school (aka becoming even higher member of educated world). In nearly all cases I'm very much pro-rights including gay marriage, abortion, and even that jack**s in Topeka that pickets funerals. As long as he does it from a distance (kinda like smoking).
July 12, 2008 at 2:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
glarson (anonymous) says...
Time to move, folks:
http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/...
July 12, 2008 at 4:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )