Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

Anthony, my friend, these people aren't trying to infringe upon your personal freedoms and relegate you to second class citizen status because they are inherently bad, or because you are inherently bad. They want you to not smoke because they don't like it, they fear it, and they don't understand it. They are also convinced they are much smarter than you, more educated than you, and know far better what is good for you, than you. In short, they think you are an idiot and are hell-bent on saving you, and all of their socially elite friends, from you. Crusaders and reformers are dangerous people in saint's clothing.

July 16, 2008 at 2:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

lycomu (anonymous) says...

Kansas's excise tax per pack of cigarettes: $0.790
Kansas's excise tax collection for the fiscal year ending June 2006: $120,015,000
Sales tax on tobacco products: 5.30%
Tobacco products sales tax collection for the fiscal year ending June 2006: $30,080,000
Local tax on tobacco products: $0
Federal excise tax per pack of cigarettes: $0.39
Total federal excise tax collections in fiscal year 2006: $7,480,030,000
So we ban smoking...ok sparky...how are the lost tax dollars
made up?

July 16, 2008 at 3:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

DCW (anonymous) says...

i have to be honest. as a former smoker, i do support the non smoking or "clean air act" but not because i'm smarter or better than smokers, in fact, my parents are smokers and i love them very much, and not because i wish to infringe on anyone's rights, but i do believe that smoking is dangerous to smokers and those of us nonsmokers exposed to second hand smoke. i think this is a hard issue because i believe that smokers should have the right to choose to smoke, but i also believe that it is my right NOT to be put in a dangerous situation that is preventable, and my right to protect mine and my child's health. i wear my seatbelt and my child is in a carseat 100% of the time for the same reason. i choose not to eat at some smoking restaurants during peak times so that i am not exposed to the smoke and i'm not angry about that, it is my choice and a concious effort i make to protect myself and my family. but i do agree that i should not have to worry about exposing myself or my child to second hand smoke simply by walking in a door where someone else wants to smoke. as a health care provider, i'm concerned about the health of those bright and truly intelligent people who are unable or unwilling to give up smoking. i agree that we all have the right to put our own health at risk if we choose to do so, but no one has the right to endanger mine or anyone else's. and believe me, i certainly make some unhealthy choices, in fact, i am far from the picture of health, but MY choices don't impact YOUR health. to me, this issue is not much different than drinking and driving laws. you can choose to drink, but you don't get to put me or my loved ones at risk by getting behind the wheel.

July 16, 2008 at 3:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

Stop comparing smoking to drinking, overeating or any other problem, its faulty logic and in no way can be compared to smoking. For example, drinking is something that is not shared with everyone around the individual. Driving drunk is illegal and punished harshly, there just is no comparison. It is not smoking that is on trial here, it is other people having to breathe your smoke. Here is a fair analogy for you. Would you like it if someone who chewed tobacco spit his byproduct on you? I really doubt it. Stop clouding the issue and drawing comparisons where there are none. I could care less if people smoke, but when I have to partake in others habits unwillingly it is an infringement upon my rights. I am sure there will be a vote that settles this and if that is not the democratic way to handle it I dunno what is.

July 16, 2008 at 4 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

DCW (anonymous) says...

i agree with you completely, while at the same time trying to be sensitive to the opposing views. i do like your analogy with the chewing tobacco. and like drinking and driving laws, should the clean air act be passed, those who choose not to comply will also have consequences for these actions.

July 16, 2008 at 4:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

Crackinsack: Your bombastic and biased words above have just confirmed my suspicions. This "clean air" proposal isn't a social consciousness issue at all: it's a personal attack on people you and your ilk consider, in your own hateful words, to be smelly, dirty, rude, ignorant, filthy, dangerous, and unsightly. You are a prejudiced bigot bent on forcing your views upon the masses. You have removed the sheep's clothing from the wolf. For that, I thank you.

July 16, 2008 at 4:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sadinemporia (anonymous) says...

crackinsack...I have to say, that was pretty darn funny! Not that I agree with you, but it was still comical! It made me laugh!

July 16, 2008 at 5:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

eiggohp (anonymous) says...

Anthony~~
You have the right to "kill yourself" by smoking, but you DO NOT have the right to infringe on me for having to breathe your smoke!! I have a right to have clean fresh air to put in my lungs, if you want to coat yours in black soot, that is your problem, just do it outside and not where others do not have to breathe it too. IT IS OUR RIGHT....and I certainly hope that it passes in Emporia. It sure is nice to go to eating places in other cities that have the ban....so will keep taking my business out of town so I do not have fight the allergies YOUR smoke causes me!!

July 16, 2008 at 5:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Absolute (anonymous) says...

"I don’t force my cigarettes on you"

You do when you smoke in a public place!!

July 16, 2008 at 6:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

gazette_reader (anonymous) says...

I have mixed feelings on laws banning smoking in public places because I believe that a business should have the right to make decisions on how they want to run their own place, What we're seeing in Emporia is that many places have eliminated smoking because they saw "smoking allowed" tables sitting empty while customers waited for non-smoking tables. Other customers who can't handle the smoke because of allergy, asthma, or personal preference) simply choose not to eat at restaurants that allow smoking. That's basic supply and demand at work.

On the other hand, many people suffer from asthma and allergies, and many customers can't enter buildings where people smoke. I overheard a child at the library turn down a reading prize for a free bowling game because Flint Hills Lanes allows smoking.

Mr. Romano, I don't care if you smoke. What you do to yourself is your business. But I don't want to sit in a restaurant where you're smoking. It makes my nose stuffy, it makes me cough, and I can smell it in my hair for hours after I leave the restaurant. I wouldn't want to be a server in a smoking facility because I value my own health too much to want to put up with it. The fact that these bans are being successfully passed means that a lot of other people feel the same way.

Is the law the right thing? I don't know. Am I glad to find places to eat that are smoke free? More than you can imagine.

July 16, 2008 at 6:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawker (anonymous) says...

This is not complicated. If you don't smoke, don't go where smokers are. We don't need laws to regulate this.

July 16, 2008 at 7:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

shoehorn (anonymous) says...

Smoking can be imposed on other people with second hand smoke. Drinking can be imposed on other people with drunk driving. Overeating can be imposed on others with higher insurance rates because of obesity, diabetes, bad joints, circulatory problems, and not fitting in your own seat in an airplane. I smoked for 33 years. I quit 4 years ago. If someone else wants to smoke, I don't mind. I work with HVAC equipment. (that's big airconditioning equipment) Air behaves like a fluid. Airflow can be manipulated. Negative airspaces can be created, containing smoke to one area. Positive airspaces can be created to keep smoke out. If exposure to smoke is a big concern, then promote better ventilation to accommodate everyone, If we don't, are "we" going after the fat people next? or the average Joe six-pack? How does that poem go? First they came after the.....

July 16, 2008 at 9:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

momus (anonymous) says...

So, smokers should be able to dictate where people who don't smoke go? When one group has the right to dictate to another where they can and cannot go, is that not the least bit problematic? A smoker can go into a non-smoking environment and refrain from smoking; the same cannot be said for a non-smokers ability to enter a smoking environment without breathing. At what point do the individual’s rights end and the infringement on other's rights begin? Because clean air (unless you live in China) is the status quo, does adding smoke to a benign atmosphere constitute a passive, unavoidable and persistent infringement on the rights of others seeking to partake in that most necessary of biological functions (breathing)? Why is it that the smokers right to smoke must supercede the non-smokers right to breathe clean air? Why should the rights of those choosing to participate in a voluntary activity (smoking) out weigh the rights of those wanting to inhabit the same public space? I'm sorry for being so blunt, but because both sides of this debate are so unapologetically unyielding and unwilling to compromise in any sense of the word, these questions need to be answered. Otherwise this simply becomes a "you can't make me" debate, which works only until an ordinance is passed. I can see how smokers view this act as an assault on individual freedoms, but are smokers willing to look at the issue from the non-smokers point of view? Jayhawker, I can empathize with a lot of your arguments, but I disagree with your last post. Some non-smokers view entering a smoking environment as being needlessly subjected to pollution. Would we say to those drinking from a tainted ground well “they shouldn’t have drunk from the well” or would we go after the source of the pollution so everyone could enjoy the natural resource? The law needs to clarify individual rights and responsibilities in this instance.

July 16, 2008 at 9:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ksalhoff (anonymous) says...

I wonder what all of the non smokers do around here during the spring months when the air is so filled with smoke from burning pastures that you could cut it. Do you all leave town? I can see it coming in your future agendas for the betterment of all of us. No pasture burning because it is against the clean air act of Emporia. Are you going to challenge the big smoke makers or only the little guys that hang around the doorways of buildings because that is where they have been scorned to. It looks like you could just slip past them by maybe even holding your breath. Then you could go after the big smoke makers or maybe go mind your own business.

July 16, 2008 at 10:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

neighbor (anonymous) says...

"So, smokers should be able to dictate where people who don't smoke go?"

So, should non-smokers be able to dictate where people who do smoke go?

Endless debate indeed. Neither side will accept what the other side feels is right. As a smoker, I predict that if the ordinance passes, it will not satisfy the morally/politically correct side until they get smoking banned altogether so we will live like they do. Yes, I believe that is what they are really after.

Those of you who proudly support such a move, think about how you would respond if it effected you in a negative way. What if you preferred to only drink bottled water. Then comes along a group out to save the world from people being gouged by the rediculous price being charged for ordinary tap water(that is what most of it is). They announce their intent to save the community from the dangers of drinking from unsterilized bottles, harmful diseases can be present, plastic contains harmful substances as well. At first, they only claim to desire to ban them in C-stores and public places like Walmart to accomplish their true motive.

Insert anything you do by personal choice into this scenario, your choice of church, your favorite restaurant, your favorite drink or drinking establishment, etc, etc, etc. Oh yeah, smoke causes cancer and other ailments they say. Do you refuse to have x-rays at the Doctor and Dentist? Radiation causes cancer you know. Have you had your home checked for Radon? Mold? Asbestos? Lead paint? They all cause cancers and problems too they say. Do you use chemicals in cleaning your home? Personal Hygiene products? Ever read the hazards to your health on those bottles and cans? Do you wear filtered masks to prevent breathing all of the particles hazardous to your health that are present in the atmosphere? Say what? Didn't read about those did you? Do you tan your skin out in the sun or allow your bare flesh to be exposed to sunlight without taking measures to block UV rays? Yep, cancer causing, are we going to ban sunbathing too? I'm betting alot of you non-smokers have problems with ulcers worrying about all that will get you out there.

I am going to extremes here yes. I do appreciate non-smokers opinions and desire to not be exposed to secondhand smoke. To me this ordinance is extreme and unnecessary. I say this because there are very few businesses and public buildings that allow smoking today. Forcing a privately owned business to ban smoking inside their facility is not what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the constitution. What next, draft an ordinance so that all bars are neutral themed and dictate what music they can play so they don't offend someone elses senses?

July 16, 2008 at 10:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

Dear Morons who compare smoking to other issues:

None of the issues stated above DIRECTLY affect others such as second hand smoke does. If one chewed tobacco would you accept being spit upon? It is the same thing, we are dealing with backward logic, this ordinance affects everything but the bars, and in the end it will be a POPULAR matter that will be resolved with a vote. Deal with the majority or go elsewhere, this is and always has been the American way.

PS

Bjnemp

debate me please on this I will own you completely, else leave and quit spouting nonsense, You were baited and humiliated, leave with dignity while you can.

July 17, 2008 at 12:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goatwoman (anonymous) says...

Do any of you remember "The War On Drugs", the one that didn't work?. When it became clear it wasn’t working our government passed a law making it illegal for any one under 18 to buy cigarettes. We were protecting our children from smoking cigarettes, now they are smoking pot. We can control the sale of cigarettes but we can't control the illegal drug trade. Our country forgot that “The War On Drugs” was a failure because they were saving the children from cigarettes. The same type people who were protecting our children then, are the same type that are jumping on the second hand smoking issue. Our society can not control crime so it chooses to enact laws that are easier to enforce. In doing so, it infringes on our personal freedoms in the name of protecting us. It is bad enough that smokers stink, are rude, put others peoples lives in danger………but smokers AND non smokers are so stupid our government has to protect all of them. This is as ridiculous as African American children not being allowed to attend “All White” schools. The white children had to be protected from any adverse effects from their exposure to the “other” race. Does any one study history? How does a dictatorship start? It starts by taking away it’s citizen's freedom. It progresses to over taxation to enforce the laws that take away the freedom. There are other solutions which might prove more difficult, but I doubt would be more costly. Wake up America this is not protection, it is indeed, a loss of freedom!

July 17, 2008 at 12:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MrCmonkeeDo (anonymous) says...

"I have a right to have clean fresh air to put in my lungs"

Oh yeah? Who says so?

And where will you find that clean air you so fervently seek?

July 17, 2008 at 12:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

emporialifer (anonymous) says...

So for those who want to force restaurant owners to ban smoking from their establishment, what is the next step? Are you then going to tell those restaurants exactly what food they can and can't serve because you have a RIGHT to go out to eat and eat what you want?

It really is as simple as jayhawker said - if you don't like to be around smoke, don't go where smokers are.

If there is THAT big of a push against smoking and people stop going to those restaurants then you will force the restaurants to do what you want or shut down without another law. We all know the reason that isn't good enough for you - because it wouldn't work!

I liked how Mrs. Walters only referred to one business that said what a good thing the smoking ban was. Did she not talk to some KC businesses that ended up going out of business because the smoking ban passed? Even a Tanner's location closed down and they are a solid chain. Then again, in a bar & grill setting with TV's, what smoker would want to go 4 hours without getting to smoke while watching the game.

Common sense people - don't go to smoking establishments if you don't like it. You don't have a RIGHT to eat at any establishment you want and completely enjoy the atmosphere, but you do have a RIGHT to make your own decisions (for now anyway until more and more of these ridiculous laws get passed).

July 17, 2008 at 8 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

justthefacts (anonymous) says...

This discussion thread just hits home a point that I guess I always suspected. That the addiction to the nicotine is an amazing force that drives all common sense. Please remember that tobacco products are a government regulated item because it is considered a drug. Just like alcohol. One must posses a license to sell it. You must be a certain age to use it. It is not a Constitutionally guaranteed right to use. It has, for years, been a government regulated product. Restricting advertising back in the 60's was a government intervention. Limiting the use in public areas is simply an outgrowth of what started well over 40 years ago. The Republic is not going to fall because people who wish to kill themselves can no longer take innocents with them. I travel quite a bit and this process has taken place already in many states. I believe that the majority will ultimately rule and there will be a state-wide ban in Kansas soon.

July 17, 2008 at 8:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

Goodoleboy: I doubt you "own" anything, especially me. You sound more like a renter to me. You better stay on the porch and let the big dogs play so you don't get bit.

July 17, 2008 at 8:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

madpoet (anonymous) says...

momus-I totally agree with you! It ticks me off when people say they should be able to do whatever they want even if it adversely affects other people. We have friends who smoke but they respect our wishes and keep it outside and away from our child. I don't care if someone smokes but when it is excluding other people from public places, that is going too far. I've learned to ask for non-smoking hotel rooms when I travel. On a business trip I got stuck in a room that was so foul with leftover cigarette smoke in the carpet etc I was sick for several days later. Everyone who came into my room commented on the smell. One night in that room was all it took to send my allergies off the deep end. If smokers would calm down and honestly look at it from the viewpoint of someone who is allergic to smoke, I think they would be a little less hostile. Smoke. I could care less but please don't expose others to it. I DON'T go to places that allow smoking if I can help it. Is it right that a minority can dictate where others can go? I don't think so. I am entitled to my opinion as much as you are so don't go ballistic.

July 17, 2008 at 10:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawker (anonymous) says...

When we nonsmokers have properly taken away all of those mean ole stupid smokers' rights, who do we go after next? Maybe the fat people? How about just plain ole ugly people? Wow, this will be fun!!

July 17, 2008 at 11:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawker (anonymous) says...

crackinsack, you are saying that when we identify a class of people that we are going to tell what to do, that that is not relevant to the topic? You don't see the elitism in your own words? Have we really gone this far? I will give you credit, though, for at least honestly saying what this is really all about, and that is that we don't like smokers, consider them stupid, lacking in social graces, not cool, needing help and bad parents. Oh, and most important of all, smoking is not "the right thing to do". I don't smoke, and I agree with others who, like me, don't want to be around it. For me, its simple. I don't go where it is, or ask for a nonsmoking table. I worry about the future of our country when the elitists and the politically correct acquire this much power.

July 17, 2008 at noon ( permalink | suggest removal )

paulkersey (anonymous) says...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ll2CtBbaJBA

July 17, 2008 at 12:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawker (anonymous) says...

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
for I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the smokers,
I remained silent;
for I was not a smoker.

Finally, they came for me,
but there was no one left to speak out.

July 17, 2008 at 12:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

momus (anonymous) says...

Yes, because not being able to smoke in a public place is akin to the Holocost. My goodness, are we getting a little over dramatic here? There is a reason why the slippery slope is identified as a logical falacy...

July 17, 2008 at 12:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

wyse_guy (anonymous) says...

lets just ban everything that has odors and pollutes like cars, trucks, motorcycles, mopeds, LAWNMOWERS everything just do it and get it overwith. ban this ban that why dont we worry about saving the ECONOMY instead of all these STUPID bans.

July 17, 2008 at 12:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

paulkersey, too much!!! LOL

July 17, 2008 at 1:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawker (anonymous) says...

paulkersey: Your video says it all. Thanks for the post.

July 17, 2008 at 1:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

eldiablo (anonymous) says...

I actually am smarter than bjemp.

July 17, 2008 at 1:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

emporialifer (anonymous) says...

Obesity is also a slow form of suicide. So I guess the government needs to start enforcing more laws on what the public can and cannot eat since the majority of people are not intelligent enough to make healthy choices. Bye bye McDonald's.

July 17, 2008 at 1:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawker (anonymous) says...

Although I am not a smoker, crackinsack, I don't know what benefit a smoker gets from smoking. But that is exactly the point here - who gave you (or anyone else) the right to decide that because there is no benefit from a behavior that the behavior should be limited? If "benefit" is the standard by which our behavior will be regulated, there are many things that are subject to regulation. Further, who gets to decide what's beneficial and what isn't? You? A government agency? The City Commission? The Courts? Congress?

July 17, 2008 at 2:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

I don't smoke, nor do I spend a lot of time crusading against smokers. My wife and I have had a few occasions where folks in an adjacent booth in a restaurant were smoking. Rather than create a scene or get into an argument we decided to leave and eat at home. In the end these situations seemed to turn out better. The food was better, as was the atmosphere, and the cost of a better quality meal was significantly less. There are some things I'm willing to fight and die for (another's freedom from slavery), as we Americans always have been. And there are some things that aren't worth a fight for me. Cigarette smoking is one of those things

Having said that, I'm hard pressed to understand why some are trying to make this a civil rights issue or something akin to the Holocaust. I'm sure there's something I'm missing, but I cannot bring myself to the place where smokers' rights can legitimately compared to the freedom marches of the sixties or the days of demonstrating for womens' suffrage in the early 20th century.

Years ago my wife and I spent one day of a European vacation at Dachau. It made our blood run cold. The photos of the grisly experiments done on Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, evangelical dissenters, political dissidents, Jehova's Witnesses, etc were almost more than we could bear. These people were tortured, abused, starved, then gassed to death and reduced to cinders in the ovens. I fail to see the comparison between what those who passed through Dachau endured and those possibly impacted by a potential city ordinance here in Emporia, Kansas. I'm not sure I agree with Ms. Walters, but I hardly think there is anything in her proposal to ship smokers off to the camps or gulags. She's wanting to have smoing prohibited in public places. I hardly find the proposal to be a new Holocaust.

July 17, 2008 at 2:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawker (anonymous) says...

Your point is valid, netloafer. My point is that this is a slippery slope. I don't smoke, either, and I don't like being around it. Like you, I ask for the nonsmoking area and have not had any big problems. If you read these posts, you will notice that no one argues that they have suffered from the smoke (because of nonsmoking areas, etc.). What the common thread is that they don't like smoking. Well, I don't either. But I'm not going to be an elitist and try to regulate someone else's behavior because it is different than mine, especially since nonsmokers have provision made for us already. Once headed down that slope, where does it end? No one spoke up for Anne Frank's people and see where it led. Dachau isn't the goal of these proponents, but what is? What other behavior that lacks "benefit" will we prohibit?

July 17, 2008 at 3:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

Jayhawker

I can't divine what's one Theresa Walters' mind. I'll assume her motives are good.

Perhaps the best way to solve the problem is for non-smokers to stop frequenting smoking establishments altogether - a quiet, non-confrontational boycott. The economy is soft right now and the cost of a restaurant meal is becoming more and more prohibitive. My guess is that most of us have wives, husbands, or significant others who can cook a better meal than one could find in almost any restaurant in town and to be more engaging, pleasant company to boot. And it would all cost less than half of what folks are charged in places like Applebee's here in town . I suspect if enough non smokers started this quiet kind of boycott it would elminate some of the economic problems they have and drive their point home far better than any ordinance could. And, in time, businesses would have to make a decision as to whether non smokers are valued as customers. Who knows, they may even come to see that they have neglected the majority of their potential customer base to satisfy a vocal minority.

The solution for my wife and me is to not frequent places where the smoking lamp is lit. But, that's not a one size fits all solution. There are a lot of non smokers who want to frequent these public places. For them it's not going to be good enough to say, "If you don't like the smoke, just stay away."

From what I read in this thread there doesn't seem to be any willingness to find a suitable compromise to accomodate both groups. That's unfortunate. I don't where others will go from here, but I'll stay home, enjoy a better meal, a better wine, better conversation

July 17, 2008 at 3:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawker (anonymous) says...

Perfect solution, netloafer. I endorse that completely. We don't need a brand new law. The market place is perfect up to handling this, as you suggest. (Incidentally, I don't subscribe ill motive to Mrs. Walters or anyone else. I just don't think that they thought it through. Obviously, you have. Thank you for the suggestion.)

July 17, 2008 at 3:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

Jayhawker

Who knows? Maybe an idea like this could become a real transufion of hope here.

I can see dinner conversations where parents are re-introducing themselves to their children ("Wow, you've really grown since the last time I saw you." "You gonna' be needing some help with the geometry problem after we eat?") or husbands and wives are sharing a wonderful meal followed by a glass or two of wine, good game of cribbage, and capping it all off with some sweet nothings. It might be the beginning of an Emporia baby boom. And, the crowning glory of it all will be the money saved and subsequently deposited in the kids' college funds.

July 17, 2008 at 3:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

emporialifer (anonymous) says...

Crack,
I disagree - poor health choices affect us all, whether it is smoking or becoming obese. How? Well I get to help pay for the health issues of those people. I mean isn't that why my insurance premiums go up - I could be in perfect health, but when companies take big hits on insurance claims with the less healthy people associated with the company - everybody else has to pay more. Now you ask how does money out of my pocket hurt my health like 2nd hand smoke, right? Well if I have less disposable income, I may have to start doing things that are detrimental to my own health - such as skipping the yearly doctor's appointment and only going every other year or not buying the healthier food choice, but rather going with the cheap, less healthy choice. I could go on and on, but hopefully you get my point.

Net - that is exactly what I think many of us have been saying - why do we need a law - why not just stop supporting restaurants that do things you don't approve of (such as allowing smoking). If the restaurant feels the hit from the loss of business, perhaps they will make the change on their own instead of having the change forced down their throat.

There are places in town owned by people I don't like, so my solution is to not give them my business. Do I have a right to eat there? Nope, I have the choice and I choose not to. I could make an argument that eating at an establishment of a person I do not care for IS detrimental to my health in the sense that I'm sure my blood pressure would go crazy just thinking of the fact that my money was going to that individual.

July 17, 2008 at 4:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawker (anonymous) says...

netloafer: Let's just hope that those newborns don't grow up to be smokers.

crackinsack: I understand the point that you are making, although I have never in my life heard anyone defend elitism until now. I apologize about this, but I have trouble overlooking misstatements of history. The North did not start the civil war by passing laws against slavery. The first legal action came on January 1, 1863 (two years after the war began) with the Emancipation Proclamation, which only applied to States then in rebellion and was considered illegal since the Constitution allowed slavery. In fact, slavery remained legal in four states (Delaware, Maryland, Missouri and Kentucky) until 1870 with the passage of the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments to the Constitution, five years after Lee's surrender at Appomatox. The civil war was not over slavery (that institution was guaranteed by the Constitution); supposedly, it was over tariffs and trade policy relating to southern agricultural products. Rumor has it, however, that it was over Northern elitists wanting a smoking ban placed on southern plantations and banning the singing of Dixie.

July 17, 2008 at 4:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

truelovecharlie (anonymous) says...

How does one figure drinking doesn't affect those around the drunkards? Do you not read the papers? Drunks became violent and hit and destroy. Drunks drive. The one that said they deal harshly with drunk drivers; do you read the same papers I do? I see all the time DUI 3rd and 4th offense. Again, this is just more poeple trying to make everyone else live how they think one is suppose to live. They want to dictate everything about everyone until someone wants to infringe on something that THEY do, then they cry foul.

July 17, 2008 at 4:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ladyluck777 (anonymous) says...

Instead of banning smoking in public places why don't we ban the high prices of gas, groceries, utilities and everything else that has gone up and maybe start striking for higher wages. What a concept.

July 17, 2008 at 6:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

bobhornet (anonymous) says...

I posted a comment on this story that illustrated what I perceive as some hypocrisy on the part of some of the people attache do this anti-smoking campaign. Someone at the Gazette saw fit to delete my comment. I'll admit--my comment wasn't nice and it might have offended a few people, but it was not indecent and contained no objectionable language.

I would suggest that the editorial staff at the Gazette keep a standard of reasonable integrity by not silencing free speech on a message board they have created to elicit comments from the public. Let the people speak instead of censoring their comments when someone criticizes a privileged town leader. Instead, the Gazette continues to prove that it is a small-town newspaper trying to protect certain town elites instead of trying to tell the whole truth.

(I hope Gwen Larson reads this before someone deletes it!)

July 17, 2008 at 7:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MrCmonkeeDo (anonymous) says...

"Without mentioning the “right to do it”, could one of you smokers please explain to me the benefits of smoking? What do you get out of it? It’s not considered “cool” to smoke anymore, so you’re not gaining anything in the social status department.(quite the opposite) What on Earth could be so appealing that it out-weighs all the negatives? Face it, you are a slave to your addiction and you need help. Why else would you continue to smoke? If I understood the reasoning, perhaps I could appreciate your side of the argument. So please, enlighten me."

You've asked a fair question crackinsack. It is difficult to know where to start in answering your question. When MrC was a youngster it was not only socially acceptable for an adult to smoke it was practically a requirement. Just about every adult MrC knew smoked. For many of us smoking was a "rite of passage." It signified our entry into adulthood. When MrC was a young man most of His colleagues were smokers, about all of His friends were smokers and many of the adults who smoked in front of Him when He was just knee high to a grasshopper were STILL smoking.

Ya know what? Not a single one died of lung cancer. To this day many of 'em are still smoking. Some have quit; many have not. Regardless cigarettes have become a way of life for us. Strange though it may seem Our smokes seem to provide a certain amount of comfort, even though we know they are harmful. More than that though, cigarettes stimulate us.

Brain getting tired of Doin' all that thinkin'? Have a smoke. Feeling run down? Have another smoke. Feeling confrontational? Smoke. Want some coffee with that? Hit Me!

Cigarettes are also a great appetite suppressant and help keep MrC slim an' trim.

July 18, 2008 at 4:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MrCmonkeeDo (anonymous) says...

MrC is not saying He does not believe cigarettes can lead to lung cancer or emphysema or heart disease or whatever ailment they can come up with next. However, many of You peeps seem to think just about all smokers will die of lung cancer or some similar ailment. The truth is cigarettes only increase the odds that smokers will die early. Anybody that'd tell You otherwise is a L.I.A.R. and MrCmonkeeDo doesn't listen to liars and would suggest that You don't either.

Liars have weird agendas that don't always make sense. They sublet the truth into units of half truths and no truths and they add 'em up 'till the truth becomes hollowed and unrecognizable. But They all have one thing in common and that is that They think We are stupid.

Doctors for example, think We are stupid; so Do Lawyers an' politicians and Judges an' Cops and most educated peeps; even the ladies that work behind the counter at Cable One seem to think We are stupid (what up with that?) Surely MrC is not the only one who sees this.

But They pale in comparison to the DoGooders in sheep clothes that head-up committees to sell their snake oils an' rapid fix feel good potions for the benefit of all mankind. Their lust for power and control knows no bounds. They impugn MrC's reality with wild conjecture disguised as fact with intent toward the bending of His will; just to watch it bend.

Believe this; if We allow peeps like that to bend us over even one time when We Don't want to bend, We will All end up Doing nothing but.

Some of you folks claim to be so affected by second hand smoke that you have to devote your lives to avoiding it. MrC will concede that it is possible that a body could be that allergic to an ingredient in 2nd hand smoke that they could become ill in it's presence. But there couldn't be more than one or two of ya per town. MrC has never met anyone like that personally; if He did He surely would have snuffed His smoke post haste. You peeps should wear signs or somethin'. Sheesh!

Finally this here country was founded by smokers. Tobacco has been carried by Our fellow countrymen in every war since forever. Tobacco never caused any of these wars and was a comfort to soldiers in the field. Heck tobacco helped build this country. Now a group comes along claiming tobacco is the enemy and those that would use it a danger to all. Well MrCmonkeeDo ain't buyin' their snake oil today and would suggest that You don't either.

July 18, 2008 at 4:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

Mr. C, whether I agree with you or not, I enjoy reading your prose because it has a rhythm almost right out of Mark Twain. As it happens, I agree with you on this, particularly when you said, "Their lust for power and control knows no bounds."

I am a former smoker, and like you, I learned early because everyone around me was smoking. My father quit smoking at age 65, but he would bum one from me on occasion. He died at age 99 when he fell and cracked a hip.

Why did I quit? Because I was coughing too much and that's the only reason, my own. Did I gain weight? Good grief yes!!! Do I miss smoking? Good grief yes, especially when I get upset; cigarettes make good nerve pills. Coffee doesn't taste quite as good anymore either. And you know what? Every now and then, when I walk past someone standing outside for a smoke, if it's a good brand, I can't help but enjoy the whiff.

Nope, I ain't buyin' their snake oil either, because if I do, they may be giving me a ticket for having crab grass in my lawn next.

July 18, 2008 at 7:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

glarson (anonymous) says...

We're moving this discussion to the forums:

http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/...

July 18, 2008 at 8:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )