Posted by PocketKings (anonymous) on July 25, 2008 at 12:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why dont you want to give clubs and restaurants the right to choose if they would want smoking or no smoking. ESPECIALLY on private property with tax dollars I mean that is ridicoulous.
Dont you have something better to do emporians for drug awareness than mess with other peoples private business?

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on July 25, 2008 at 12:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bar means an area which is devoted to the serving of alcoholic beverages and in which the serving of food is incidental to the consumption of such beverages.

If the above applies to your Mr. Corbin than you have little to fear, last I read the ordinance that was proposed was very similar to that of Lawrence and Kansas City's. Restaurants that house less than 30 people would also be at their own discretion. Education is a good thing, try it.

Posted by LilJHawkFan (anonymous) on July 25, 2008 at 12:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I just am going to stop going to the businesses that allow smoking. Hopefully more people will do the same and then they will have to close. Problem solved.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 25, 2008 at 1:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

goodoleboy: In earlier posts on this subject, there has been considerable discussion about the "slippery slope" that we will find ourselves on if this is adopted. Telling Mr. Corbin that he has little to fear because this restriction applies only to other establishment owners is of little consolation. That may be true to get their foot in the door, but if this is adopted, it won't be long until they will be after Mr. Corbin, too. Actually, LilJHawkFan has a much better idea than Mrs. Walters and her group. LilJHawkFan will spend his money in businesses that agree with him on this subject. Perfect solution. The free market, being not only consistent with our Constitution, allows patrons to vote everyday.

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on July 25, 2008 at 1:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Goodoleboy- The ban in lawrence is in effect for every single bar. When I lived there you could smoke. The first time I visited after the ordinance I was asked to leave 3 different bars before I even knew they had an ordinance. Two of them were large bars, one was a very small hole in the wall. I'm not positive, but pretty sure that Lawrence has an indoor smoking ban. Meaning anywhere indoors.

Posted by mammawd (anonymous) on July 25, 2008 at 1:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh I have a better one for you Steve - how about Emporians for Drug Awareness having "DRUGS ARE BAD!!!" commercials on TV using kids from Emporia that have been busted for drugs and alcohol...Didn't see those kids on TV fessing up to what they did!!!

That holier than thou group we have trying to run our city!

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on July 25, 2008 at 1:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Slippery Slope? I really doubt it. The same people will still go to the bars they do now and life will move on. The thing I still don't understand that gets lost here is that this will be voted on. Making it democratic procedure enacted by the majority. This country was never an "every man for himself" institution like people make it out to be. People are tired of smoking, simply because its a habit that affects everyone in the vicinity, a fact that no other habit can claim, you don't see them outlawing chewing tobacco do you? Alcohol is safe as well, they already outlawed and brought it back once because a ban on it foolish and never feasible. It’s like comparing apples to oranges.

The ban here as I understand it will not affect bars as I understand it, I might be wrong as I have not seen the final ordinance in writing but I really fail to see the logic in all the end freedoms argument, in all the other places this has gone into effect there has not been anything further happen, and even in a few instances the ban was overturned a few years later in some cases by a (gasp) vote.

Posted by PocketKings (anonymous) on July 25, 2008 at 2:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Its simple, why make a ordinance on something thats as simple as DONT GO THERE IF YOU DONT LIKE IT. Do not try to impose your beliefs on businesses that have the right to choose whether they want to allow it or not.
You dont like it. Dont eat, shop, or do business in that establishment. There is no need to pass an ordinance on this or even waste money on this.
Ban it from Public places, schools.... but dont force the businesses/private property to say "we dont allow smoking".
Because it frankly shouldnt be your say on the matter, whether you like it or not.

Posted by jackslap (anonymous) on July 25, 2008 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Legalize Marijuana

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 25, 2008 at 2:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There is another very serious issue associated with this proposal. A form of it is being discussed now on another thread (How much?). We are in a very serious economic situation in Kansas. Our taxes are higher than any of our neighboring states, and consequently, no investment is being made here. When a $3,500,000,000.00 electrical generation plant was proposed, our governor ran those investors off. Without new industry, no wealth will be created in our state, and we will get poorer and poorer. Similarly, when we over regulate local businesses and make it more difficult for them to compete in the market place, we cannot expect local capital to be invested in local businesses, either. This smoking ban proposal is an example of that. If we don't get on top of this and quit acting like the politically correct east and left coast, our population will decline, our roads and schools will deteriorate and eventually we will be a "buffalo commons" (an expression used by a New Jersey professor predicting that Kansas will lose its population to the buffalo sometime in the future). These business owners have put their savings on the line, which benefits the entire community. Let's not make life harder on them, because to do so would put yet another business at risk of failure and discourage investors from establishing any new businesses. When you squeeze a balloon in the middle, it pops out on the end.

Posted by exemporian (anonymous) on July 25, 2008 at 3:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The more I read the threads on this site, the luckier I feel to have moved away from this city. The citizens of Emporia DO NOT want to make the city better. The citizens of Emporia have forgotten what is important. It is quite apparent that most of the people who are "for" this ban are not business owners. I do not own a business either, but cannot fathom why anyone would want to hurt another persons business, especially in Emporia. If we keep giving power to Local, State and Federal government, we might as change our motto, and stop referring to ourselves as the land of the free. Emporia has a lot more to worry about than a smoking ban. IF YOU DON'T SMOKE, DON'T GO TO THE ESTABLISHMENTS THAT ALLOW IT! Freedom of choice! Any idiot who wishes another out of business is in for BAD karma!

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on July 25, 2008 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ever consider that business might pick up with this ordinance? You are assuming that it will only have a negative impact, which is not the case. In point of fact there are many places that saw an INCREASE in business as a result of this ordinance.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 25, 2008 at 3:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

goodoleboy's posting is a good example of the elitist thinking that underlies this proposal. He believes that if we dictate to the business owner what he can or can't do with his business that that will be best for him. In other words, the elitist wants to protect a person from himself because the elitists are much smarter than the rest of us. I would submit that the business owner is motivated by profit, and if it will be more profitable for him to do so, he will regulate smoking on his own. He doesn't need an elitist making that choice for him.

Posted by kcfan (anonymous) on July 25, 2008 at 3:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Smoking and bars go hand in hand. Both are adult activities and each bar owner, manger and employee is personally responsible to ensure that they are abiding by the laws. If I want to smoke I should have that right. Its appropriate to ban smoking from places that cater to children, such as schools and parks that I agree with. Heck I even agree with the ban in general areas such as on public streets and in front of businesses, but inside a confined building where children shouldn’t be in the first place? Get real! For those of you who don’t think that a smoking ban would hurt the bar business think again. How much business is the Blind doing? Lucky’s tried “no smoking”. That lasted for about 3 weeks. It will directly affect the bar industry. It might be better for others, but the bar industry will be impacted! It’s tough enough to make a dollar in this industry especially with Barnett jumping on his 1 issues bandwagon against drinking.

Posted by exemporian (anonymous) on July 25, 2008 at 3:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Okay, I will bite. Isn't it possible that some business increased because other businesses had to close? My point exactly. The logic of most current Emporia citizens blows me away. Many of the smaller owned clubs in Lawrence had to close when they lost business due to the ban. College students and other adults decided it was much more enjoyable to stay at home, or host their own parties. How many people in Emporia have lost their jobs in recent years? I think that the City of Emporia has more important things to worry about, and as for Emporians for Drug Awareness, I think they should use their funding to work on Empoira youth, not adults!

Posted by madpoet (anonymous) on July 25, 2008 at 3:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If smoking is banned from ALL restaurants, why would one fold and not another? I know S'ghettis tried nonsmoking then dropped it when they lost business. But if there is no "smoking" restaurants what difference would it make? I asked a friend in Columbia, MO if she thought the smoking ban caused restaurants to close and she really didn't think so but had no hard numbers. If people want to smoke in bars, fine with me. Kids don't go into bars and adults can choose not to go there either. But for Heaven's sake, if you can't go without a cigarette for the amount of time it takes to eat a meal, admit you have an addiction to nicotine and quit using excuses so you can inflict your smoke on the rest of us. My family avoids many places in Emporia due to the smoke. I don't think it's fair that a minority (smokers) get to dictate to the majority (nonsmokers) where we can and can't go so they can indulge in a habit. But life goes on and we deal with it. But smokers should look at the subject from the other side of the issue. Non-smokers have rights too. We're not trying to trample on your rights, we're trying to protect ours. You can smoke but please don't exhale around me or my family.

Posted by KUtriSIS (anonymous) on July 25, 2008 at 3:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Alright, here I go! This law or ordinance, whatever you want to call it is NOT new. This is the same one that is going around the nation and has about one state joining every other month. As for the individual cities, they usually pick it up before the state in it's entirety does or they go into effect as soon as the whole state does. I worked in a restaurant in Oklahoma for four years. While there were many restaurants that had already banned smoking, there were ways to get around it. IF YOU HAVE A BAR LICENSE AND A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF ALCOHOL AND LIQUOR SALES YOU CAN BE CONSIDERED A BAR FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME. This is what kept our restaurant a smoking establishment until the whole STATE picked up the law two years later. This group trying to get it passed is only fast-forwarding the inevitable. As far as the smoking in bars go, this law does not pertain to an actual bar that is not established as a family oriented restaurant. It would take much more for that to take place. So bars are safe because the city/county would be who has to pass a separate law for bars and I think the majority of bar goers know that would NOT pass and it would be a complete waste of OUR money to try and pass it. The restaurants that are not able to prove they are mainly a bar establishment and in a differnt category would be affected by this. I must say this though, if you don't like the smoke don't go to a bar. Chances are the laid back people that go to bar are not the ones that will complain about smoke. I understand that some people don't appreciate having smoke filter over their table while they are trying to enjoy a dinner but that is COMPLETELY different than just going to a bar that probably only has peanuts and popcorn to eat where a good percentage of people are sitting around smoking and drinking.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 25, 2008 at 3:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

madpoet: What Emporia restaurants are you patronizing? I'm a nonsmoker, too, and everyone of the restaurants that I have been in have a no smoking section. I can't recall a single incident where I had anyone's smoke invade my space. You disclosed your real agenda with you comment that smokers need to admit that they have an addiction. The real purpose of this is to "get the smokers" because their habit is bad. Elitist mentality has its place in San Francisco, perhaps, but not in Emporia.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on July 25, 2008 at 3:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jayhawk,

I am not an elitist, merely stating and opinion same as you. An opinion that has a basis in fact I night add, as there were many Lawrence business owners that reported increases in business after they went no smoking. But yeah, let’s resort to name calling and crying rather state the facts. Seriously examine your logic sir, I see both sides of this but how do you explain the growing number of cities that are subscribing to this trend? My god by your logic they should all be broke and destitute should they not? It's not rocket science, if its unpopular and the majority of the town don't want it, it will not happen, simple as that. Else quit crying please.

Posted by madpoet (anonymous) on July 25, 2008 at 4 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have no "agenda" and care less what people do to themselves. No smoking areas are fine but not really that effective. Air does circulate and the servers bring the smell over on their hair and clothes.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on July 25, 2008 at 4:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jayhawker said
" The real purpose of this is to "get the smokers" because their habit is bad"

Wrong, Wrong, and wrong. Chewing tobacco is not being attacked. Chewing is just as bad in that it is unhealthy for you and causes cancer. Same product essentially, nicotine and tobacco product except you don't SHARE your habit with others.

No smoking sections rarely work as intended, I could name half a dozen places off the top of my head that have no smoking sections that do not work. You are making this into a rights issue when its not, the majority rules in this country, not the individual.

Posted by EsqEB (anonymous) on July 25, 2008 at 4:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It was always the children of the "Emporians for Drug Awareness crowd", that were the biggest bunch of boozers. Mainly because mommy was out watching what everyone else's children were doing...walking through the bars and pointing out underage drinkers to police, driving through the country looking for parties to call in, etc.

Posted by supernanny (anonymous) on July 25, 2008 at 6:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I hate nothing more than to go into one of our favorite restraunts and eat, and there is someone smoking. I dont care if they have a nonsmoking section or not, once there is smoke in there it just does not stay in the smoking section cause there is a sign. It floats around and fills the room. Why should I have to stay out of restraunts and not enjoy their services because someone in there wants to smoke. I dont have anything against smokers.....just PLEASE go outside and respect the others who do not smoke.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 25, 2008 at 7:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you, KUtriSIS, for your honest and fair minded post. I hope that everyone read it. Several posts have suggested that the slippery slope concept that I have mentioned is not valid. Your post clearly established that, at least in Oklahoma, that is precisely what happened. The bars were exempted initially, but two years later, they were regulated, too. That is the way that this insidious encroachment works. After they have completed their quest to ban smoking, what would be their next target? In the mean time, the establishment owners, their investments and their very livelihood are used as pawns in the game. This idea, its Kansas' genesis coming out of Lawrence, has its roots in the politically correct regions of our country where common sense, the idea of a free market and the laws of unintended consequences are absolutely foreign concepts to a population that understands freedom to mean the ability to stop any progress for the future. Ironically, they do so in the name of personal freedom, about which they clearly haven't a clue. Unfortunately, we have a fair number of people who choose not to think for themselves and believe that because Lawrence did it, so must we. They have found a solution and now look for a problem, and are willing to make one where none existed before. I hope that we have not reached that point in Emporia.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on July 25, 2008 at 8:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jayhawker: You are my hero. Another excellent, literate, and profound post.

Posted by paulkersey (anonymous) on July 25, 2008 at 10:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I hope that this comes to the ballot, and is not dictated by a select few. This is how prohibition came about. Turning common people into criminals. It sickens me that taxpayer dollars are being used to do this. I hope that someone gets a petition going about this. This whole thing is ridiculous. I can almost understand banning smoking at restaurants. Bars are a completely different matter. No one under 18 (the legal age to use tobacco) goes there. Come to think of it, the people who are promoting this so hard never go to bars. If you never go there, why the hell do you care if someone smokes there? Leave the bars alone, they are one of the few businesses in Emporia that actually make money, why mess that up?

Posted by marebear14 (anonymous) on July 25, 2008 at 11:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There is a petition going around. It was on the counter in the smoke shop when I was in there the other day. That said I do smoke but I don't smoke in restuarants and almost always request a seat in the none smoking section. However that is my choice and I think we should allow people to chose not dictate to them. I frequent several places that are none smoking and it doesn't bother me. I don't smoke in my house or around my children because that seems the best decision for me. Thats my choice.

Posted by hogan77 (anonymous) on July 25, 2008 at 11:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What is going to come next? One poster said... My house may be on private property, but I can’t build anything without a permit from the city. My point is that the city has the right to enforce such rules on your property if it is in the best interest of the city." So what is next? Are they going to tell you that you can't smoke in your own home, or that you can't decorate your walls in a particular way, because it is in the best interest of the city? Give me a freaking break.

Point is, all businesses are private property offered to the general public. No one twists your arm to go in there, no one is pointing a gun at your head and forcing you to enter. The owners should have the right to do things as they see fit, and if you don't like it, stay away. Want to go out to eat... go to one of the restaurants that has said, we are non smoking. Want to have a couple of drinks? Go to your home and do it. Pretty simple really.

I will say, I am a smoker. However, I have enough courtesy not to smoke my cigarettes while eating in a restaurant, or while shopping in stores. I do have the ability to think... hmmm, perhaps I shouldn't smoke that cigarette around that baby. Just try a little common sense here people. Unfortunately, because so few people HAVE had that same common courtesy, towns are being forced to go non smoking. No one to blame here really but ourselves. But, I do think that businesses should be allowed to make their own decisions about this. It is THEIR property, not yours.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 25, 2008 at 11:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Very good post, paulkersey. Prohibition uniquely demonstrated that there are consequences when a small, but vocal and politically correct group is given rein to run amuck. In the early part of the 20th Century, the elitist and arrogant prohibitionists made exactly the same arguments to support their proposal as we hear from the prohibitionists today. Both claimed the moral high ground, that they, and they alone, knew what was best for the commoners, the establishment owners and all America. Since the commoners lacked the courage to stand up to them (they were politically correct, after all, and thereby had the support of the press and the politicians), they were able to run over everyone, establishing their morality as the law of the land. Are we commoners of today to repeat the timidity of that day, to again allow the prohibitionists to impose their iron will unabated? Have we learned nothing from history of less than 100 years past? The free market system has worked well for everyone, commoner and elitist alike, to resolve market place issues. Lets just let it work, settling this with market forces, not dictates from the politically correct highbrowed elite.

Posted by paulkersey (anonymous) on July 26, 2008 at 2:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think we should ban galvanized metal welding. That is FAR worse for you than smoking. Go to Sauders and try to get THAT started, see where they tell you to put your idea. Hint- it's going to be a dark place (no sunlight, etc.). I mean, no one goes there who doesn't want to, except the poor employees, and they can't find ANY other line of wo.....WAIT A MINUTE! Maybe they LIKE welding? NO! It's bad for you, they can't POSSIBLY like welding! Teresa (you don't deserve Mrs. Walters) maybe I liked bartending? Come to think of it, it was one of the highlights of my life. Smoke or no (I don't) I loved every minute of it. Maybe you should walk into a bar sometime (probably not Town Royal), and sit and talk to people, and keep an open mind about it. I'm sure that you will recognize some familiar faces (like the girl EFDA hired with taxpayer money to sit in front of Amanda's last week, and promote the smoking ban. She smokes. News to you, huh? Guess what, its her job, so she does it.) Maybe you should realize that some people (not the people you have tea with) actually ENJOY going to a smoky old tavern, and having an adult beverage, while enjoying a cigarette (or cigar, my preference now -don't inhale em, haha). This is absolutely ridiculous, and I personally will never vote for you for county commission, because you will use our tax dollars to promote your own morals on those who would rather tell you to pound sand.

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on July 26, 2008 at 3:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Teresa Walters and everyone else who wants to ban smoking in clubs and restaurant, stay away from my club."

You're not welcome at Josie's either. You will be receiving your official notice in the next few days. If you don't like it, stay out. Don't push your elitist ideals on everyone else.

For those inquiring about a petition, we have one going here, please come sign it. I believe most other bar owners do as well, plus the cigarette outlet, which was mentioned. I agree completely with the slippery slope idea, and I wonder what is next?

Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on July 26, 2008 at 10:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"I agree completely with the slippery slope idea, and I wonder what is next?"

Karaoke? Those that cannot hold their alcohol and honestly believe they have talent enough to sing to a crowd are hazardous to other people's mental health. :) <<<(That's a smiley face at the end of the sentence, which means I am only kidding)(sort of)

Ever notice that the majority of the time, the people who promote actions like this smoking ban are the types that wouldn't know a good time if it was dumped in their lap? They walk around looking down their noses scowling at people that aren't like them, or are doing something contrary to their apparent/implied moral superiority. They are too busy trying to push their own personal agendas/beliefs on others to live their own life and enjoy themselves.

Those that don't go to the bars now supposedly because of smoke, won't be going to them if this proposed ordinance passes either. They will not patronize restaurants that currently allow smoking anymore then they do now as they claim.(there's only very few that even allow smoking anymore). Most all businesses, ALL Government buildings, and the overall majority of restaurants in Emporia no longer allow smoking. Why do we need this ordinance then? So they can get their foot further in the doorway towards a total ban.

I too believe these folks will not be satisfied enough to stop if the ordinance passes as it is currently written. They will keep pushing until there will be no smoking allowed anywhere, not in your home, even with the curtains drawn.

I was visited last night by a bible thumper just as we sat down for supper. How about we ban door to door solicitation, especially by religious groups? There, I think, is where we chould make up the loss of tobacco taxes no longer being collected because of PC crowds' efforts.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 26, 2008 at 2:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Some of us have wondered where this insidious need to ban something will go after smokers are made into criminals. A few minutes ago, the news reported that the Governor of California signed legislation banning restaurants from serving any foods with trans fats. Can we imagine how much costs there will be to the restaurant owners to comply with this one? How about the cost of compliance and enforcement? The cost to the owners of lost business? Wow. I bet anything that the prohibitionists in California used the exact same arguments that Emporia prohibitionists are using - we know best what is good for you, and we will run businesses out of town if necessary to get our way. Once groups of this kind smell blood, there is no end to it. Historically, we have had book burners, prohibitionists, smoke banners and now trans fat policemen. This needs to be stopped in its tracks before it goes any farther.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 26, 2008 at 3:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here is a news item from msnbc's website:

“Today we are taking a strong step toward creating a healthier future for California,” (the governor said in signing the ban on trans fats in restaurants).

Violations could result in fines of $25 to $1,000. Food items sold in their manufacturers’ sealed packaging would be exempt.

New York City, Philadelphia, Seattle and Montgomery County, Md., have ordinances banning trans fats, but California is the first state to adopt such a law covering restaurants, said Amy Wintefeld, a health policy analyst for the National Conference of State Legislatures.

California and Oregon already had laws banning trans fats in meals served at schools, she added.

The legislation signed by Schwarzenegger will take effect Jan. 1, 2010, for oil, shortening and margarine used in spreads or for frying. Restaurants could continue using trans fats to deep-fry yeast dough and in cake batter until Jan. 1, 2011.

Trans fats occur naturally in small amounts in meat and dairy products. Most trans fats are created when vegetable oil is treated with hydrogen to create baked and fried goods with a longer shelf life.

Stephen Joseph, a Tiburon attorney who was a consultant to New York City in developing its ban, said trans fat is a larger health risk than saturated fat because it reduces so-called good cholesterol.

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on July 26, 2008 at 9:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here is my question to Mrs. Walters. We have four security personnel on staff on the weekends. Two of them check IDs at the door, and two others work the floor checking for minors drinking and people starting trouble. Having them ensure people aren't smoking as well is going to add considerably to their workload, making them unable to complete their first two duties successfully. Basically what I am saying is which would you rather have my security staff doing, ensuring minors aren't drinking, or people aren't smoking? You can't have both, I'm sorry, and I am not in a financial position to hire an extra person to ensure people aren't smoking. Maybe a grant from Emporians For Drug Awareness would help out...

Posted by truelovecharlie (anonymous) on July 26, 2008 at 11:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you will remember, I have been saying for a long time now that our freedoms are being stripped away; one by one. Wear your seatbelt, don't smoke, you can't spank your child, you can't say certain things as they offend....now laws against trans fats. It will never end until we have an uprising! The elite few dictate to the majority. Yes, I said dictate as we are becoming a dictatorship! Oboma will be our Hitler and Teresa Walters will be one of his loyal tyrants.

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on July 27, 2008 at 8:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

to reply to (crackinsacks) post "move your business to the county if you don't like the city ordinance, that kind of thinking is pretty right on if you don't mind the increase of drinkers on the roads coming back into town, or the decrease of tax dollars coming into Emporia when we really could use every bit of revenue.

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on July 27, 2008 at 8:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

A question to goodoleboy,
What businesses saw an increase in Lawrence after the ban went into effect verses those that have closed or lost revenue? Give us names and contact information so we can all check it out. Let's have some facts related to your "point in fact"

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on July 27, 2008 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

My response to (Madpoet) about the ban in Columbia Mo.

Since the ban,16 bars/resturants have closed their doors and all reported the ban as a significant reason for closing. Think of the employees without that income? It sounds like your friend from Columbia doesn't get out much.

Posted by djdiablo (anonymous) on July 27, 2008 at 12:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Death by a thousand cuts.

Restricting one activity makes it easier to restrict another. Passing a law for the "Public Good" makes it that much easier to pass another, and another, and another until, as in this case, the "Public Good" is in the eye of the beholder.

As an American, I've always believed that part of the original deal was that I could tell the government and other moral crusaders to "LEAVE ME ALONE."

But they chip away and chip away, all under the guise that they know better what is good for you than you know yourself. California has now, officially, banned the use of trans-fats in restaurant foods. What is next, soda pop, coffee, cocoa, sugar, all tobacco, wine or other alcoholic drinks, ethnic foods that don't meet the government's criteria for "being safe"?
This is indeed one of the proverbial “hot-button” issues today, but I must again remind everyone involved in this discussion that buying, selling, and smoking cigarettes is a LEGAL activity.
If you’re looking for a cause to adopt, try decrying the hypocrisy of a government that preaches abstinence from the evils of smoking the vile weed while simultaneously providing cash subsidies to those who grow it, meanwhile raking in bazillions of $ taxing the product they want you to believe they so honestly disparage…hopefully they will not inundate us with their crocodile tears…but that’s another article altogether.

Big Brother is alive an well, every where, but he and Big Sister are only now raising their ugly heads in Emporia. Right here in River City.

That's Trouble with a "T"....

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 27, 2008 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Folks, this gets better. Los Angeles now has banned fast food restaurants in an area of the city, because, according to it the LA Times news article, "she [the the city council sponsor] has been attempting to address the health issues associated with fast food, such as diabetes and obesity." What does one say? The banners are ever more insidious. We aren't California, are we?

Here is a cite to the news story: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-...

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 27, 2008 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I admit that I might have gone a bit far with an earlier post when I adapted a poem about the holocaust (When they came for the jews, I was silent, for I was not a jew. . .) to apply to this smoking ban, but I have to tell you, the more research that I do, the more I am absolutely and unequivocally convinced that if this insidious proposal becomes law, it will only be the beginning. Just this week, new bans are coming out of California (prohibiting fast food restaurants altogether and prohibiting trans fats in the remaining restaurant foods). Seriously, if you own, work at or enjoy eating at a fast food place in this town, I would urge you to find one of those petitions against the smoking ban and sign it, even if you don't smoke and wish that others didn't. In the strongest terms possible, people need to be warned about what is really going on here. Let's not be silent just because we are not a jew.

Posted by billclinton (anonymous) on July 27, 2008 at 5:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am very much in favor of the smoking ban, but I also think there can be a compromise.

I understand the private property argument. Therefore, the city of Emporia should offer tax incentives to local establishments that offer a smoke-free atmosphere. That way, owners can choose whether or not to ban smoking and can also choose whether or not to receive the tax break.

No rights are violated. Problem solved.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 27, 2008 at 5:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you squeeze a balloon in the middle, it pops out on the end. I understand what you are proposing, billclinton, but it creates an artificial adjustment to the free market. If you did that, every time that a new idea came along, there would be pressure to give tax incentives to get people or businesses to get in line. More taxes would be assessed to pay for it, and taxes are too high now. Of course, we would need to spend many thousands of dollars on a study to see how much the tax break should be in order to adequately compensate the business owners. Can't we just let the free market handle this?

Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on July 27, 2008 at 10:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"That way, owners can choose whether or not to ban smoking."

They already have that choice now. What other reason do we need the proposed law for?

Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on July 27, 2008 at 11:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The lefty loonies are feeling empowered this year. Defeat them at the polls.

Posted by momus (anonymous) on July 28, 2008 at 8:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Like Bill above, I would like to see a compromise on this issue. A few months ago I suggested this compromise and it got no where, but if Emporia is like many other cities, this ban will eventually pass. I don't see this as an individual rights issue, because either way someone's rights are being violated, but I can definitely empathize with business owners like Mr. Corbin who has developed a customer base over several years.

So, here's my idea: Grandfather all current bars. Allow all current bars to maintain their smoking status, but bars that open after a certain cut off date, or change hands after said date, would be subject to the ban. New restaurants and bars would know exactly what they were getting into, while established businesses would not be forced to change their clientele. Over several decades (if ownership remains stable), we would eventually become "smoke free", but we wouldn't perceptually infringe on the rights of current bar owners. I'm sure that both sides will hate this idea, which is generally the sign of a good compromise. If bar owners were to suggest this idea, I think it would give them a PR win and force the other side to give consideration as opposed to the pursuit of a blanket ban. Feel free to blast away.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 28, 2008 at 9:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

momus: The bar owners would still suffer economically by making his business less valuable to sell, especially during the early years when his smoking clientèle would have other options, thereby making the new owner less likely to keep them as clients.

What is wrong with just letting the free market handle this? If there is strong support for nonsmoking restaurants and bars, then the free market will take care of it for you with a lot less angst.

Posted by momus (anonymous) on July 28, 2008 at 9:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

jayhawker,

I can empathize with your position, but my fear is that if bar owners take an all or nothing stance they will end up with nothing. If owners diversified their ownership prior to the cut off date, they could avoid the "selling" problem all together, but I see your point. Other than the status quo, that EDA won't stand for, do you have a compromise suggestion?

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 28, 2008 at 9:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks, momus. I wish that I did. I bet that you are correct that EDA feels empowered and will not compromise. This proposal, momus, is so foreign to what we understand America to be. It is insidious (see posts above about bans on fast food and trans fats). It is (I know this is not a good word to use when talking compromise, but it's the only one that fits) elitist. Seriously, why not let the market place take care of this?

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 28, 2008 at 10:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The only compromise that I can see that would even be half way fair is to forever grandfather all establishments of all kinds that exist as of the effective date of the ban. Of course, that would be contrary to our economic development hopes inasmuch as it would restrict a business looking at our city for investment and would put it at a disadvantage. If you squeeze a balloon in the middle, it pops out on the end. I really believe that since the incidence of smoking is declining that if EDA would be patient, the market will take care of this within the next 15 years or so. In the mean time, they could devote their resources as we all understood that they would in the beginning, and that is to keep kids off drugs, a worthy endeavor indeed.

Posted by toninj (anonymous) on July 28, 2008 at 11:29 a.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on July 28, 2008 at 12:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah, because kids with great parents NEVER make mistakes. Please.......

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 28, 2008 at 12:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Although I am a strong Republican, I will not support Mrs. Walters either because I don't think that she values American freedoms or understands our free market system. However, I think it unfair to criticize her personally. I think that she is a nice person, concerned about her community, but terribly uneducated and totally misguided. My support goes to the Democrat in that race.

Posted by bobhornet (anonymous) on July 28, 2008 at 8:50 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by erikg (anonymous) on July 29, 2008 at 10:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I understand your frustration, but life will go on. I live in New York and no one here (and there are lots of people) minds going out to the street to have a cigarette. There's been no smoking indoors except in private homes since 2003. No big deal. Even for a smoker.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 29, 2008 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

erikg: If they took away your right to vote in New York, would that be a big deal? Where do we draw the line when American rights are under attack. It's only property owners now, so do we remain silent? We by now understand how insidious these things are. I'm not a smoker, and therefore I am tempted to endorse EDA's idea. But once we do something like this, we are on the slippery slope. You may not understand that in New York, but by God, I hope that we still do in Kansas.

Posted by paulkersey (anonymous) on July 29, 2008 at 10:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

My guess is this whole smoking ban started with a few too many martinis at the country club.

As far as "It was always the children of the "Emporians for Drug Awareness crowd", that were the biggest bunch of boozers."--Kids will be kids. The President's daughter was caught drinking under age. Al Gore's son was caught with marijuana (he probably got it from his dad, but that's another discussion), you can name a bunch of people whose kids have put them on the front page.

Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on July 29, 2008 at 1:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Theresa Walters may not be a perfect person and you may not like her idea but to attack her personally is completely uncalled for and makes you appear ignorant and rude.

The topic of this discussion is whether or not businesses should or should not be allowed to have smoking in their establishment. It is not how good of a mother Theresa Walters is.

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on July 29, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here are some very interesting perspectives from bar owners who have gone through a smoking ban.

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

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

But this is what these laws can lead to:

Court Backs NYC's Ban on Dancing in Bars

NEW YORK (AP) -- Come and meet those dancing feet, up on 42nd Street - but only in nightspots with special licenses.

The city's 80-year-old cabaret law banning dancing by patrons in ordinary bars and restaurants is legal, the state Supreme Court's Appellate Division ruled Thursday.

The Gotham West Coast Swing Club and several people had sued, saying the law violated their constitutional right to free expression.

But the appeals court backed the law, which was enacted in the Prohibition era to crack down on speakeasies.

"Recreational dancing is not a form of expression protected by the federal or state constitutions," the court wrote.

City lawyer Norman Corenthal welcomed the court's decision, saying it upheld the city's right to enforce laws that protect residential areas from noise, congestion and safety hazards.

The plaintiffs claimed that in the 1960s, about 1,000 places legally allowed patrons to dance, but fewer than 300 such places exist now. They also had challenged the city's application of zoning laws, arguing it was arbitrary and capricious.

Norman Siegel, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said he was considering an appeal.

Posted by toninj (anonymous) on July 29, 2008 at 1:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There are actually 2 women that basically run EDA and spend the majority of their time pushing their values off on the rest of us. It is the second, not Theresa, which the referral to children with problems was about. As in the last few years her adult children continue to make poor choices in relationship to drinking habits. I believe the frustration in that is that these two women have put themselves above everyone, making themselves sound “perfect”. If you are ever in a closed setting with them they will bad mouth everyone in the community and how they raise children. This is why they tend to get personally attacked. People don't just want to sit back and watch these women attack everyone else. They have put themselves in glass houses.

The smoking ban they are pushing, which they do want all the bars included in, is just one more instance of them pushing their own values. Yet they frequent the places that allow smoking. IF they don't like it, don't go.

Posted by glarson (Gwen Larson) on July 29, 2008 at 4:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Time to move to the Smoking Ban forum:

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

And, please, watch the potentially libelous comments. If you can't back them up with facts, they can't be said.