Agrees with them
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
I AM WRITING in regards to Mr. Corbin and Mr. Dixon.
I agree with both of you. Smoking is not illegal. I am a smoker. I have tried several times to quit. It’s not an easy thing to do.
Smoking may disgust some folks. And some may be allergic to the odors of cigarettes. If I’m aware of their feelings, I don’t light up. The next thing we know we won’t be able to smoke in our own homes — private property that taxes go up on every time we turn around.
Have all these people that want smoking banned figured out where the tax revenue from cigarette sales will come from once those sales aren’t made?
I know a young father of three. Never smoked. Was sent away from his wife and children to Iraq. When he returned home, it was with a cigarette in hand. Said he would give them up after his nerves were more settled, that he was doing better since coming home to his family. But while serving his country in a distant land, he had smoked 2 to 3 cartons a week, never knowing if he would see his family again or if his platoon would even see a new morning.
There’s no way I could tell him — you can’t light up in the good ol’ USA. He gave up too much to ever be told that. So Mr. Corbin, Mr. Dixon, hang in there!
I really think we should see all the illegal drugs banned first. Meth, cocaine, etc. Did you every hear of overdosing on legal cigarettes? Or smokeless tobacco?
I don’t want my grandchildren to smoke. But I’d rather catch them with a cigarette in hand than a needle full of killer drugs. Yes, cigarettes are addictive. I know this. But it should be a person’s choice whether to smoke or not, too.
Carolyn Henery
Madison
USNretired (anonymous) says...
Wahh to all service dodgers.
November 4, 2008 at 4:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Happiness08 (anonymous) says...
crackinsack: Sounds like you been in that crack in a sack again.
November 4, 2008 at 5:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
I am curious to see how Manhattan's smoking ban will go tonight. It is apparently on the ballot there.
November 4, 2008 at 8:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
smith_ron (anonymous) says...
Winfield commission passed a ban last night.
November 4, 2008 at 8:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
"There’s no way I could tell him — you can’t light up in the good ol’ USA. He gave up too much to ever be told that."
My thoughts exactly.
What would be the service record of most, if not all, of the folks who want to ban smoking?
I'm guessing pretty close to zero (as in, zero folks that want to ban smoking ever served in the armed forces).
Melissa
November 4, 2008 at 8:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
smith_ron (anonymous) says...
TV says Manhattan ban will pass.
November 4, 2008 at 9:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
crack--
Maybe you should join. Then you'll see sacrifice.
Oh--and this little comment:
"Are you suggesting that ALL service men and women are selfish chain smokers who could care less if they endanger those around them?"
I guess if you want to put words in my mouth, that's your right. However, don't degrade any service person for any reason. It's tacky. Plus it shows your overzealousness to control others.
November 5, 2008 at 11:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wookdog13 (anonymous) says...
Crack, I think what Melissa is saying is that if a vet wants to light up, so be it. They have earned the right. They should be allowed to go to a bar or even the VFW and have a drink and a smoke if they so choose.
I do believe it is the right of the owner of the establishments to make a decision for their business.
If you stop and read back on the smoking, most of the people that are for the ban do not frequent the places mentioned, yet they want the right to tell others what and what not to do for their benefit.
It is an individual right to choose what establishment they want to go into. I have yet to see any one dragged somewhere they did not want to go.
As with the election last night, people have the right to decide for their own self what is right or wrong for them. Those choices are theirs to make. Be it wrong, then they pay the price, not you.
Just like raising children, you can teach them right from wrong, but after a certain point in their life, the decision is theirs to make.
As an adult, you should be able to make a decision if that is a place you want to go, and if it is then, you must not complain about what goes on, because you supposedly used your brain on what was right for you!
November 5, 2008 at 2:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
Crackinsack said, "to protect their fellow citizens from ALL harm; foreign and domestic."
Nice try, but the oath I took when I served is the same as the one people take now, and we swore to protect America from all ENEMIES both foreign and domestic. Not all harm....for you to twist such a noble and selfless oath to serve your ends is low to say the least.
When you said, "by "domestic" I'm including harm from second hand smoke" all I can think is that most active duty vets could care less who smokes where, I think they have bigger fish to fry than protecting people from legal activities.
November 6, 2008 at 9:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
This week, all those who are against this ban need to contact their city commissioners and re-state their opposition. They are getting ready to vote on this and it looks like there will be no consideration given to property rights, or those who have served their country to preserve those rights. What a slap in the face to veterans from the city where Veterans Day was started.
Steve
November 7, 2008 at 12:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
As I have stated before, in my opinion all the efforts of the clean air advocates, who wish to ban smoking, are misdirected toward individuals and businesses who smoke or allow smoking and I have stated in previous posts that it is the tobacco and cigarette manufacturers who are allowed to add some 599 chemical additives and poisons to their product and that is what makes smoking and second hand smoke unhealthy. If the effort that is put forth to ban smoking and punishing people who smoke or allow smoking in their businesses were directed at our Federal Government to ban the tobacco and cigarette companies from adding any of the 599 chemicals and poisons to their tobacco products, just maybe those who wish to smoke and allow smoking and those who would be exposed to SHS would no longer be exposed to an unhealthy product or by product and would be exposed to an all natural product and by product instead. Hmmmmmmmm ! Just a thought !
And again have any of you clean air advocates ever given any thought to what may be in the smoke of a lets say oh, a house fire, vehicle fire, land fill fire or pasture or farm land being burned, which has possibly had fertilizer and insectiside sprayed on it or any thing that is burned and causes breathable smoke, apparently not, well if you are going to advocate clean air, why not go all the way and ban any and all burning that causes possible harmful smoke.
November 7, 2008 at 3:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
crackinsack:
In otherwords, to your way of reasoning, if something, anything serves a purpose and it is also unhealthy and exposes anyone and everyone to a health risk, then according to your way of thinking that is allright and acceptable, as long as it serves a purpose ?
What if the people who smoke believe that their smoking serves a purpose to them !
Do you also believe that everything that everyone does in life should serve a purpose and does everything you do in life serve a purpose and is beneficial to everyone and does what you do in life outweigh any of the downsides, not only to you, but to everyone else around you ?
Also there are numerous things both natural and man made that, if you are over exposed to them, cause you to die and even some of these do not serve a useful and beneficial purpose to everyone.
November 7, 2008 at 5:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
P.S.
Am I also correct in understanding that if any form of smoking could be made safe to smokers and non smokers alike, by not adding the chemicals to the tobacco products, you would still demand a smoking ban ?
November 7, 2008 at 5:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BigE (anonymous) says...
methusla, i think that is correct since this is (and always has been) a health issue. i believe that if smoking were harmless to smokers and non-smokers alike, there would be no need for this discussion. however, i don't think that all of the harmful chemicals in tobacco are added by the tobacco companies. i think many of them are naturally occurring in the product. you quote 599 chemicals in tobacco, is that 599 added chemicals and toxins? i have seen quotes of up to 4900 chemicals found in cigarettes and smoke. if you eliminate the addition of 599 of them, that still leaves a large amount of chemicals, toxins and carcinogens. if these facts are correct, it seems like it would be pretty hard to make it a safe product.
November 7, 2008 at 7:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
crackinsack:
I applaud your brothers service to our country as well as all the others who have defended our freedoms, including myself. I also have respiratory problems, but I understand my rights as a citizen of The United States of America. Have you asked your brother how HE feels or are you speaking for him? My property is mine and if the government wants to run it then I will gladly sell it to the city, then they can tear it down for another parking lot in the downtown area. We do not need the government to protect us from each other, we need to protect each other from the government.
Steve
November 8, 2008 at 8:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Big E, rbow & others:
I want to make myself perfectly clear on this issue.
I am against any type of ban which restricts the freedom of choice of any individual citizen or business owned by an individual citizen of the U.S. and Emporia and gives the government or any other individual citizen the power to intrude, dictate or ban any other citizens freedom of choice in how they choose to live their lives or how best to run their business.
November 9, 2008 at 8:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Big E:
Any one who has had any training or education in chemistry knows that even though their are 599 chemicals and poisons added to the tobacco products, that these 599 chemicals when combined with each other could possibly combine and the end result could very well be some 4900 or possibly even more.
Also the one major chemical found in an all natural tobacco leaf is Nicotin, and yes nicotin is a poison when ingested in large concentrated doses. Of course one has to take into consideration what the tobacco farmer sprays or applies to his crop to increase yeild and eliminate pests, such as spraying with pesticides and fertilizers which the plant absorbs throught osmosis.
So I believe that the ban and regulation needs to be concentrated on the tobacco farmers as to what they can apply to their crops and banning the adding of all chemicals to the tobacco products by the tobacco product manufacturers, as none of the 599 chemicals that are added at the manufacturers are found in the natural tobacco leaf.
Also, aren't all food, beverage and water producers, farmers, etc. regulated and certain bans put on chemicals and additives that the producers of all food, beverage , etc. products, but the tobacco product producers are not regulated as to what they can add to their products, at all.
November 9, 2008 at 9:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BigE (anonymous) says...
methusla
i doubt that tobacco farmers are exempt from chemical regulations. is that true? where did you get that information? i am also skeptical of your position stating that eliminating added chemicals would make it a safe product. we all know that something being "all natural" does not automatically make it safe.
why do you feel the need to blame everyone except the smoker?
November 9, 2008 at 12:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
BigE and anyone else whom may be interested, the following sites are why I say that everyone who wants to ban smoking which is thought of by the people who smoke as a freedom and as beneficial to them need to put preassure on the tobacco product manufacturers first and foremost.
These sites contain the chemical additives put in tobacco products by the manufacturers and some of the pesticides used by tobacco growers in the U.S.
Additives- http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/nicot....
when you arrive at this site click on "whats in a cigarette".
Pesticides-http://about.com/quitsmoking.about.com/od/chemicalsinsmoke/a/pesticides.htm., when you arrive at this site, type "pesticides in smoke" then click GO, then in the next window, click "pesticides in cigarette smoke".
The next sit I am going to give you is a very interesting site, as it will show that the tobacco product industry knew how lethal their product was as far back as 1966 and that they also had the ability and knowledge as to how to make a "healthy cigarette" also in 1966. These are actual internal tobacco industry documents. The site address is as follows,
http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/1....
This particular site and document also disusses how to target women as potential smoking customers.
Very interesting info.
If you go to these sites and get more info, I hope that you will see why I say that smokers are unwitting victims of Big Tobacco as well as non-smokers and why I feel that the majority of effort to clean the air and make a healthy product should be directed at Big Tobacco instead of unknowing smokers. I hope smokers who read this will also go to these sites and see how Big Tobacco have been manipulating them and causing them and others harm without them knowing it.
Maybe smokers and non-smokers can unite and force Big Tobacco to make a 'Healthy Cigarette", since they had and have the ability to do so.
November 9, 2008 at 5:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
USNretired (anonymous) says...
Self sacrifice and self discipline are foreign to the spoiled children of America who know "like" and "don't like" rather than "right" and "wrong". They often supplant fact with opinion, and would rather run than serve. Most of these vehemently deny the role service plays in American Society, especially service in the Armed Forces. Especially since anyone so self centered would never voluntarily join.
November 9, 2008 at 5:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
What is more dangerous than smoking and 2nd hand smoke? The slow and gradual loss of the freedoms and rights of all Americans. It has been happening slowly the last few years and it works by small steps as in this ban. Using the "health issue" card as a way to remove yet another freedom or right of a good segment of the population.
Employee health: YOU DECIDE where you work and whether your employement there could affect your health.
Customer health: YOU DECIDE where to do business and whether that business could affect your health.
YOU DECIDE ! Two words which are slowly losing any meaning in our society. More and more people are looking to government to make our decisions for us, as we seem to have lost all common sense to make them ourselves. The #1 question asked when Clean Air Emporia started this proposed ban was "Where in Emporia is ANYONE FORCED to breathe 2nd hand smoke?" The question remains unanswered.
The nanny state is coming very close to becoming Big Brother.
November 9, 2008 at 5:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Sorry about the mess up folks the first web site address should be as follows-http://quitsmoking.about.com/nicotineinhaler/a/cigingredients.htm. When you arrive at this sit, click "list of cigarette ingredients", then in next window click "additives in cigarettes".
November 9, 2008 at 5:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
rbow-I agree with you 100% and I only posted the website addresses in the hope that smokers and non-smokers alike would see and realize that Tobacco Growers, Tobacco Product Manufacturers and yes even our own Government has deceived smokers and non-smokers alike into being victims of Big Tobacco's quest for Profit, without regard to whether harm is being done or not and enlighten smokers and non-smokers alike that Big Tobacco has had the ability to produce a "Healthy Cigarette" as far back as 1996 or earlier.
November 9, 2008 at 5:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
If you are against this ban I would like to invite you down to the Town Royal @ 405 Commercial this Tues. to watch the Veterans Day Parade. Anti-ban signs are optional but welcome. This is not a protest but a great location to watch the parade:)
Steve Corbin
November 9, 2008 at 6:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
Kudos to all the Emporia companies who have chosen to recognize this amazing holiday and allow their employees the time off to see the parade, be with their families, etc.
The last time I attended the Veterans Day ceremonies in Emporia was 9 years ago and it was totally worth it--and to this day, I'm still discontented that my husband and I cannot celebrate it together--he is Navy and I am civilian now....but to know that a majority of America thinks of it as "just another day" is abhorrent and embarrassing.
BTW--The City of Emporia should do more to promote Veterans Day since there is A LOT of dissention about how and where it began (I'm not saying Emporia wasn't the beginning, I'm saying there's a dispute about who began Veterans Day).
November 9, 2008 at 7:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )