Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on November 24, 2008 at 3:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Real business for the city commission:

DO AWAY WITH THE YEARLY ALLOTMENT OF TAX DOLLARS TO EDA & GIVE IT TO THE MENTAL HEALTH CENTER INSTEAD.

Steve

Posted by SgtT (anonymous) on November 24, 2008 at 3:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just a note to the City Commision; If you recall the head count against the Smoking Ban at the Sept meeting, it was far greater then those in favor of the Ban. Oh, and by the way, Most of them were voters!
Now, you need to ask yourself; "How much do I like my Job as City Commisioner" ??? hmmmmmm

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on November 24, 2008 at 3:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I second that motion and mirror the emotion. The proposed smoking ban is a shameful powerplay and deceitful sham. Every Emporia citizen should rise up against this assault on personal freedoms and right of choice. If initiated as proposed, this horrible edict would have a negative impact on all Emporians, our economy, and our image.

Posted by SgtT (anonymous) on November 24, 2008 at 3:28 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on November 24, 2008 at 3:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Again crackinsack misses the point. But the laugh was good for me.
Steve

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 24, 2008 at 3:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So a head count at a meeting is representative of the entire voting population? Gimme a break, if this gets put to vote(which it should) then enacted are you saying that commissioners will lose their seats? Bad logic is bad logic, put this to a vote, either side deal the consequences!

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 24, 2008 at 3:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

One more question? I assume the liquor tax is applicable to liquor stores all the same, hence that is where the real money comes from and smoking or non smoking really has no bearing on "joe sixpack"(pun intended) does it? I can see you point with the bar scene but in the grand scheme of things the real tax dollar is made in the stores, not in the bars. If I am wrong in my assumptions then I apologize and will eat my words gladly.

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on November 24, 2008 at 4:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

goodoleboy;

Start munching. Liquor stores charge a 8% enforcement tax when you or my bar buys from them. That 8% goes to the state to fund the ABC. NONE COMES BACK TO THE CITY! Bars clubs include the 10% tax in the price of their drinks sold. All of that tax, 100 % from the clubs inside the city limits goes back to that city. If outside the city it goes to the county. By kansas law 1/3 can be used for special parks funding, 1/3 goes to alcohol abuse programs, and the city may designate the other 1/3 for drug or counseling programs. So tell me , which would you rather see everyone ,(Joe 6-pack) buying their drinks at the liquor store and nothing coming back to the city,(no not even sales tax),
or a few people drinking at their favorite pub and 10% what they spend comes back to the city? If you add it up clubs pay 8% up front when they buy their stock, Then they pay 10% tax when they sell it. Chew slowly my friend.
Steve

Posted by SgtT (anonymous) on November 24, 2008 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

For the record, I have been following this story from the start. I just had to speak up because I'm sick of reading your lame, uneducated coments. I'm not Corbin but I am a patron of the Town Royal. Here is a thought for your small mind to concider;
"It is better to remain silent and thought a fool, then to speak up and remove all douts!
Now, I'm sure the entire Gazette reading world is eagarly waiting for your "snappy" come back

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 24, 2008 at 5:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As I said Steve it was an assumption, I gladly recant my theory

Posted by truelovecharlie (anonymous) on November 24, 2008 at 7:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am so tired of all the whining about the dangers of smoking and exposure to 2nd hand smoke. I have been smoking since I was 8 years old (almost 40 years), my mother smoked for over 60 years. Cooped up in a car and in the house all those years with smoking. The very few times I have been sick, have been nowhere closely attributable to smoking or exposure to second hand smoke. My father has alwas been very healthy, dispite all the years exposure to second hand smoke (not counting the years he smoked early in life). One can find any research to support any side of a debate. It is the same as in a trial situation, it simply ends up with whose professional witnesses do you believe. I personally believe you are either pre-disposed to contract certain diseases (exempting sexually transmitted diseases) or your not. Would I like to be able to quit smoking? You bet, but not do to any fears. Do I think I should tell others where they can and cannot smoke (except for in my home)? Absolutely not. It was not all that long ago you could smoke while you shopped in Woolco/Woolsworth, TG&Y and almost any other stores. In my personal opinion this is the same as the seatbelt laws (I abhor); it should be each individuals choice, including a business owners right to decide what type of customers he wishes to serve. Keep up the good fight Steve.---Charlie

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on November 24, 2008 at 7:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

People keep forgetting, there are choices. There are more non smoking restaurants than smoker friendly restaurants in Emporia. There are non smoking bars. Let free enterprise dictate the market. The people vote with their dollars. This is America. Some how, we keep forgetting that. And once we forget that and let people keep taking away business rights, there will be no more businesses. Just the government. And they just keep spending our money, especially on things that take the rights away. (EDA)

Not rbow
Just a customer that cares.

Posted by bobhornet (anonymous) on November 24, 2008 at 8:03 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on November 24, 2008 at 8:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I would like to thank Matt from Josie's for his steadfast concern on personal choice rights. I have heard through the grapevine that come the first of the year he may be called up for service in Afganistan or Iraq. While you are defending "crack"'s right to free speech,and dodging bullets, I can only hope that "crack" enjoys his/her rights to free speech that you are allowing by serving your country. Some people just don't understand. Cracknsack are you ready to put your life on the line for your beliefs? I didn't think so.
Always Steve

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 24, 2008 at 10:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Steve,

Seriously, calling an unknowns patriotism into question is bad form. You have no knowledge of what the individual has done or even if said individual was able. You act like serving this country gives entitlement, I say it it deserves gratitude and respect but just because someone serves their country it does NOT trump the rights of those who did not or could not, or even chose not to, that would go against the very fabric of equality. If only the government shared your elitist view of soldiers when it came to their care...

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 25, 2008 at 12:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

goodoleboy- One should not talk about " choosing" or "equality", when they want to place limitations on other peoples choices, freedoms and equality.
josiesbar, Matt- If what Steve has heard through the grape vine is true about you possibly being deployed to Afganistan or Iraq, I would also like to add my most heart felt, sincere best wishes and good luck and Thank you for defending everyones rights and freedoms and God be with you, watch over you and keep you safe.

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on November 25, 2008 at 7:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If I offended someone by questioning their patriotism I offer an apoligy. I wrote that after thinking about Matt already serving in Bosnia for a year ,coming back to Emporia and starting a business, only to have to fight with some of his hometown people who feel they know what is best for him. Now he gets to go back to an even more dangerous situation and fight again. Thanks to Matt and all like him who have CHOSEN TO SERVE. Goodoleboy you are right, it ALL comes down to CHOICE.
And the care by the government afforded to me from the VA has been fantastic and topnotch. I know there are problems with the system but I haven't seen it.

Steve

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on November 25, 2008 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Crack,

I would rather stab myself in the foot with a rusty icepick than deal with "a brand-new crop of less-angry, higher-tipping, non-smoking patrons" like you. Two things REALLY irk me, ignorance and arrogance.

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on November 25, 2008 at 9:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ok, EDA is getting a $92k/yr. grant, plus 1/3 of liquor taxes, roughly $13,000/month plus fundraisers like making the City Manager dress up as a girl, and taking pennies from school children, no wonder this thing won't die. If this thing just goes away, I wonder how much money EDA and CAE (which also got a grant) will be out?!?! WOW!

Kind of brings new meaning to the phrase money talks and BS walks, now doesn't it?

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on November 25, 2008 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

One more and I'm done for a while, haha.

Crack,
You might make fun of "The Network," but right now, that speech is more accurate now than it was in 1971.

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on November 25, 2008 at 10:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Are my ideas really that lame and uneducated"

Yes.

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on November 25, 2008 at 11:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

That pretty much sums it up!

Posted by WILLIAM_A (anonymous) on November 25, 2008 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Just a thought:

If this ban passes, will EDA have enough money to go after the real drug problems (Meth, Underage drinking and smoking ect.) in Emporia without all those tax dollars?

Drugs are illegal to make, to have, to use, and there is no age limit.

Cigarettes are legal to make, to have, to use and to sell, and you must be 18.

SHS worse than our drug problems ... Ummmmm I dont think so.

Just a thought

Posted by WILLIAM_A (anonymous) on November 25, 2008 at 11:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Bad link Matt, page not found

Posted by WILLIAM_A (anonymous) on November 25, 2008 at 11:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Oppss sorry Matt,,,,,BAD LINK CRACK

And that is fitting for you, it does seem that your chain has a few bad links

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on November 25, 2008 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Don't worry, I saved it. I'm heading down to the bar for some techno/video remixing. I'll post the youtube link when I'm done, I think you'll like it :D

Posted by WILLIAM_A (anonymous) on November 25, 2008 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Crack you said
Why would we invest tax money to ban something that is already illegal? That does not make sense.

Yes DRUGS are illegal, but that has not stopped the problem.We need to fight and control the problem.
WE HAVE A LARGE DRUG PROBLEM in Emporia if you are not aware of that.

I do believe our tax dollars would be much better spent fighting the ILLEGAL drug problems, rather than trying to tell legal businesses how to operate.

If you would like, I can drive you around and show you some of these drug dealers places of business. But I dont know if you could pull yourself away from the damn keyboard long enough to go see the real problems in Emporia.

And I can guess what you next outburst will be. So here is the answer:

Yes,the police and sheriffs do know about these places. But it takes money to fund all of the extra manpower to investigate and take them to trial. But with the current budget problems, there will be no funds for fighting the drug problems. Maybe EDA should step up and give the money they get from the taxes the bars pay, and give it to the city and county to fight the drug problem.

Just let me know when you want to take a joy ride. Keep it mind it could take several hours.

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on November 25, 2008 at 1:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

WILLIAMA-- That was a great way to put it...I have been wondering what smoking in private businesses has to do with EDA's mission statement which is, and I quote from their website, "Emporians for Drug Awareness is a partnership dedicated to preventing substance abuse among youth and, over time, among adults.". The smoking ban is about SHS which by nature and definition is not a substance abuse issue. The resources they have available to them are being squandered on this cigarette smoke nonsense. I have seen rather few ads in the paper or campaign's from EDA that deal with their mission. Perhaps they are strong in areas I do not have contact with like public schools, but who knows. I would wager that they are less active in substance abuse areas now that they have partnered with CAE. I wonder if they have any oversight at all, or do they just cash the grant/tax checks?

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on November 25, 2008 at 1:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

After taking a closer look at EDA's website, it is merely a place full of drug free slogan's and tips to keep kids off of drugs that have been rehashed and unsuccessful for the last 25 years since the "war on drugs" began. What a waste of a chance to make a difference and actually combat the rampant drug problem in Emporia. If I see one more spun out tweeker at Wal-Mart, I may scream, but as long as they aren't smoking 20 feet from the door, it is just fine with EDA.

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

EDA's website also provides a forum, in the more classical style of forum's for people to discuss and get answers on these issues. As you can see for yourself there is one post on it. That post is 16 months old and a test to see if the forum works. In 16 months not one concerned person has posted on their message forum...What an effective waste of our money EDA is.
http://www.emporiansfordrugawareness.com...

The last "activity" listed was in May of this year, merely months before this ban nonsense. I guess I know how they have been spending their time and money...
http://www.emporiansfordrugawareness.com...

The rest of their website for parents, youth, and the resource sections are merely phone lists for support groups and 12 step programs...

I think WILLIAMA is definetly on to something here...What exactly does EDA do except campaign against smoking. Does this campaign really cost $93K a year or whatever their tax/grant total is??? I doubt it. If the citizenry of Emporia is dense enough to let this group pull the wool over their eyes, with "health issues" and scare tactics, then I will pity none of lambs that are slaughtered.

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on November 25, 2008 at 1:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Crackinsack--
You must love the environment because you recycle that same tired argument on a daily basis...."Since smoking tobacco is allowed in public, smokers aren't just hurting themselves; that's the real difference."

You can not tell me that anything EDA has done is regards to this power grab of a ban has anything to do with their mission statement. Smokers are not abusing the substance, they are using it as it was intended by the manufacturer, and doing so is sanctioned by law (meaning legal). Additionally, EDA's mission is to prevent substance abuse, and since most people complaining about SHS are not smokers and do not become smokers as a result of SHS exposure, where is the prevention. I'll tell you where, they are trying to prevent business owners from operating as they see fit because they don't like smoke. Plaily put...this health argument is paper thin at best. You said yourself " I HAVE inhaled quite a bit of Second Hand Tobacco Smoke. " Now, I assume since you able to type your often invalid arguments that you are alive and well, cancer free, with a working respiratory system...You've made it quite clear in so many of your posts that this is a preference issue with you. You reference the bad smell, the way you don't like the cloud in the room, how you can't go out. In doing so your credibility in speaking on a ban as a health issue has gone out the window. Take a closer look at EDA and CAE and you will see that this is nothing more than a struggle for control and an unneccesary regulation of business owners.

Posted by SgtT (anonymous) on November 25, 2008 at 1:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ah Ha! So crack, You did catch the mispelled words. Perhaps I was a little harsh. I too have served overseas in the past several years. I think I've earned the right to choose. I'd like to know what "part" your doing right here at home? Have you ever served in the Armed Forces? Do you know what it's like to lose a buddy in combat?
I say "Let's leave the Right to choose to the people". I'm guessing that if the smoking ban passes, you won't go to any of the bars or tavern your trying to shut down, Anyway! WHY Bother???

Posted by create (anonymous) on November 25, 2008 at 1:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

EDA and CAE are taking aim at easy targets. They don't have what it takes to take on bigger ones, so they just take the money and do a little lip service. Most of the pro-ban folks on this website have done more work than the EDA or CAE themselves have. All they've done is set mischief afoot in this town by getting people to fight and argue while they laugh all the way to the bank. Why doesn't Kansas have an investigative arm that would make these people cough up their records? If there is such an agency, they're doing a poor job.

Crack, I wouldn't make such light of the local (or national) drug trade. Just because you don't see it going down doesn't mean it isn't. They don't usually advertise. Remember, we live along the I-35 corridor.

Take a look here at what some real heroes have done. Second hand smoke? Ha! Easy pickings compared to the real problems that CAE won't ever tackle. I don't know who voted for her; I know I didn't.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 25, 2008 at 1:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OutsiderJ,WilliamA,rbow,josiesbar-I believe that we are all wise enough to realize that when any group, such as CAE propose anything and suddenly realize that the opposition to ther proposal is much stiffer than they had anticipated, those who iniciated and support the proposal almost always resort to all kinds of intimidation and scare tactics. Hell, these type of tactics are even used in public elections and have been used for ages.
However I for one am not impressed or intimidated into changing my mind, feelings or belief that this, selfish, impartial, unfair,possibly discriminatory and is just plain wrong, no matter how much the CAE and its supporters try to intimidate or scare me.

Posted by SgtT (anonymous) on November 25, 2008 at 2:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

crack, I'll bet if your true I.D. were known, you would NOT be going to the Town Royal, The Noose, or Josiesbar!!!

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on November 25, 2008 at 2:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Crack--
You are half right. You can support the ban for any reason you want...Just support for THAT reason...even if it is as superficial as preference. You portray yourself as health conscious and concerned when stumped, while the majority of your posts portray you as neither. Your arguments aside, if you think that EDA and CAE give rip about anyone's health regarding SHS or that this ban is in any way supported by EDA's mission statement, then you should sue your optomistrist because you are blind. At the very least you should concede that this is an issue EDA should have nothing to do with. By your failure to mention any of my content on that point, am I to think you agree??? If you don't, you should because it the truth in black and white, straight from the EDA's site.

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on November 25, 2008 at 2:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Further Crack you said, "that will make people healthier". This ban will not make anyone healthier. Even if I were to concede that this is a health issue (which I am not), at the very best this ban would only keep them from getting less healthy. It would not improve anyone's health.

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

callng atension to mississppelled postes ar a pritty shaby way of rebutyng sumewun's argyewment. Yew ar reely reeching, allmoest despirit to bee write, arnt yew crak.

Posted by Weltha (anonymous) on November 25, 2008 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

crack says- Since these drugs are illegal, drug activity has gone underground; out of the public eye. In other words, you won't have someone blowing marijuana smoke in your face at your favorite restaurant. Often when people are doing drugs, they are only hurting themselves because they have to do it in private.

Explain to their family ie: their children how these illegal drug users are "only hurting themselves" crack
While you are at it please explain to me how that statement is true. Just how "often" does that hold true?

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on November 25, 2008 at 3:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I would argue that healthier is a pretty subjective term. I don't consider getting sick less or having less respiratory issues to be the same thing as healthier. The act of getting well from and illness is getting healthier, getting sick less often is just getting sick less often. Not to mention that the study is pretty subjective. It is based on what bartender's reported. Anyone who has ever conducted a medical exam will tell you that what a patient tells you is the subjective portion and what you deserve is the objective portion. Additionally if do the math of the 53 bartenders surveyed 75% of them (39.75) we'll say 40 bartenders reported problems. After the ban 59% (23.45) we'll say 23 bartenders said they felt better. Sounds pretty good right. They even tested lung function after to prove it was better. What they didn't do is test lung function before. So the results are a little ambiguous, considering the subjective befores and objective afters. That is the sham of this ban talk being a health issue. The studies are conducted in a way to find the results desired by the ones paying the bills.

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

I mis-read, they did test lung function before and after, not just after. I still don't think it can be solely attributed to less smoke, especially considering the 13 bartenders who didn't report symptoms or the 17 who got no relief after the ban. So in actuality 40 bartenders of 53 (roughly 75%) saw no change at all. I know if you put them up side by side the math is not the same. If 23 say better health how could 40 see no change, when there were only 53 studied. Ah, its the 13 that didn't report in the first place. You see how easily stats are skewed even by a layman like me. Don't believe everything you read.

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on November 25, 2008 at 4:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OutsiderJ--

As far as EDA's funds go, I have made that exact statement a month and a half ago. Where is the money going? Radio station ads would be my guess, but I don't know. It seems like most of the activities EDA did for Red-Ribbon week was fund-raisers. I want to know where approximately $250,000/yr is going. Anyone else care to know??

(I figured the $92,000/yr grant they are getting, plus approximately $13,000/month from liquor taxes, which is probably more. This is not counting fundraisers, the CAE grant, etc. so in actuality we are probably looking more towards $300-$350k/year)

Posted by Kujiin (anonymous) on November 25, 2008 at 4:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Is fireplace smoke the same as SHS? I get sick when I walk outside and inhale fireplace smoke. If I aske the City to please do something about that. Would they? Walking down my street is that a public place?

Posted by bdprotheroe (anonymous) on November 25, 2008 at 6:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/condition...

"Lung cancer incidence and mortality increased in 18 states, most in the Midwest or South. These states generally have not passed anti-smoking laws, such as banning in public places or increasing excise taxes on cigarettes, said Dr. Ahmedin Jemal, lead author of the study at the American Cancer Society's Epidemiology and Surveillance Research Department."

Posted by Weltha (anonymous) on November 25, 2008 at 6:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

crack even after your sermon I will have to go with scenerio number 2. Especially when that is what the money was donated to them for anyway not to be the SHS and morality police.
How many smokers run the risk of falling with their child in arm compared to the risk of a drunk or druggie doing the same?

"I understand where you are going with that, but preventing something from happening in someone’s home is much harder (less feasible) than preventing it in public. Even if the drug user is harming his/her family, it is still a smaller population that what is exposed to SHS in public places."

Who desides when the population is "small" enough that you need to quit interfering in someones life?

Posted by Weltha (anonymous) on November 25, 2008 at 6:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh and crack- You never did answer my question.
Again- Explain to their family ie: their children how these illegal drug users are "only hurting themselves" crack
While you are at it please explain to me how that statement is true. Just how "often" does that hold true?

All I got from your post is as long as it only hurts a few you are ok with it. As long as that few isn't you. You think SHS is worse than illegal drug abuse because you don't have to see it. Am I reading wrong? I see from all other of your posts there is no reasoning with you so I will bid you ado. You did help sway me though I must confess. Thanks to you and a couple others like you on here, I have desided that when this issue comes to a vote I will be voting against the ban.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 25, 2008 at 10:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

crackinsack- I would like to digest or disect your following statement.
Kujiin,
It's similar. The difference is that fireplace smoke is vented (often via a chimney) up and out of the house. Since this smoke is expelled above the houses and in the open air, it disperses rather quickly. You'll be able to notice the difference in density between a bar and the sidewalk because you hair won't smell of fire place after walking down the sidewalk. Step into a bar and...yep, you're gonna smell like an ashtray.
Furthermore, fireplace smoke hopefully doesn't contain all the chemicals as cigarette smoke. Fireplaces also serve a purpose of keeping people warm and living. I don't think "walking down the street" fits the definition of public place as defined in the ban. Looks like you are out of luck because they’re not going to ban it
First of all the fireplace smoke that goes up the chimney can be smelled and detected clear across town, its just that the closer you get to the source the worse and stronger it gets and what about the neighbors and neighbors children, etc. that live close to the source, exposed to possibly unhealthy smoke ! If you don't think it can be bad, just try coming to my house when the neighbor has got his fireplace rolling and try and breathe either inside or outside my house. GAG !
Hell even the inside of my truck, which I have to leave parked in the driveway, even smells like a musty fireplace. As for fireplace smoke not being as harmful, who knows what chemicals the trees or wood has been exposed to and saturated with.
Oh, and I just love your standard answer for allowing fireplace smoke, pasture and farmland smoke and your answer is and has been and I quote " these serve a useful purpose"..
I would rather smell like an ashtray than a fireplace that has had God knows what burned in it for years and years.
Lastly if you and the CAE are saying that you are not banning smoking on PUBLIC sidewalks and PUBLIC streets in Emporia, then you have definately convinced me that this smoking ban is nothing more than a campaign targeting certain businesses, for some lame reason or another, such as a health issue. And that in my opinion is TARGETING or DISCRIMINATION.
Oh, and if you believe that fireplace smoke is similar to cigarette smoke and are also forms of potentialy unhealthy SHS, then you must also agree that smoke from pasture burning, farmland burning, and charcoal cookers are also similar to cigarette smoke and this smoke is also potentially unhealthy and also causes SHS.
and a bigger BOOOO to you.
meth

Posted by Kujiin (anonymous) on November 25, 2008 at 10:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well Crack,

I'm not for this smoking ban even though I have asthma. Here's my reason. Don't you think that local, state and federal governments already tell us what we can and can't do! Enough is enough! It's just the first step in more government control. Start with smoking ban and little by little they will more of our choices away.

Posted by Doug (anonymous) on November 25, 2008 at 10:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OK. We've determined the war on drugs is a joke and the EDA is pilfering public funds. So what do we do? ELECT THEIR LEADER TO COUNTY COMMISSION.
dee dee dee

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on November 26, 2008 at 1:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

kujiin,

Great point. There is legislation proposed in NYC RIGHT NOW that aims to limit salt content in foods. California passed the same trans-fats law. What's next on your agenda CAE, handguns?

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 26, 2008 at 8:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

josiesbar, kujiin-
You both have stated good points and I have been trying to get across to the CAE, its followers and the City Commissioners, since this whole thing started, that when you start placing limitations, bans, restrictions on citizen freedoms, it does not level the playing field as the CAE and it followers profess. Doing such a thing will only result in more and more bans, restrictions, limitations based on what an individual or group of individuals want. In other words it will become like a snowball rolling down a hill, it will only get bigger and more out of control.
I think the CAE (Clean Air Emporia) should change their organization logo from CAE to OWWWA (Only What We Want Allowed) or OONAWM (Only Our Needs And Wants Matter) !

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 26, 2008 at 8:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

P.S. The CAE and its followers should contemplate very seriously an old saying which is, " What goes around, Comes around ".

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on November 26, 2008 at 9:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Crackinsack--
How come you ignored all of my wonderfully informative posts yesterday. What is your stance on EDA's mission statement and joke of a website. Where oh where is your dialogue regarding the maniputlation of statistics. Could it be that you are beginning to see that this is not a health issue. I should be so lucky.

I will be thankful this year for the ability to agree to disagree, ALL of the people who post on this forum, the things I have learned, and the freedom I enjoy.
Happy Thanksgiving to you all!

Posted by Kujiin (anonymous) on November 26, 2008 at 10:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Right On!!!!!

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on November 26, 2008 at 12:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We have one week. Next Wednesday its coming to a head. After the meeting today, as of right now, it will pass 3-2. Kessler, Agler, and Johnson-yea, Longbine and Nelson nay. If you haven't already, write your commissioners (Methusla, LOVED it!). We have one week to get this ridiculous piece of legislation overturned. If you want this ban to pass, don't do anything. If you do NOT want this ban to pass, pull all stops.

Posted by WILLIAM_A (anonymous) on November 26, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks Josies for the yea and ney info.

I am in need of a new Heating and Air unit at my house and I know where I wont be getting it. And after many of many of years, it looks like I will be finding a new accountant. Looks like I will also be buying my next vehicle (a GM product) at the local GM dealer after buying Toyota's from Emporia Motors/North motors for the last 15 years.

Thank you Longbine and Nelson for supporting the local business owners and their rights.

What comes around goes around.
Taketh from me and I will taketh from you.

Posted by smith_ron (anonymous) on November 26, 2008 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And thank you Kessler, Agler and Johnson for supporting a healthier Emporia over greed.

Everyone, on either side of the issue, should let commissioners know how they feel. Here is their email addresses:

Kevin Nelson
knelson@emporia-kansas.gov
Bobbie Agler
bagler@emporia-kansas.gov
Jeff Longbine
jlongbine@emporia-kansas.gov
Julia Johnson
julia.johnson@emporia-kansas.gov
Jim Kessler
jkessler@emporia-kansas.gov

Posted by smith_ron (anonymous) on November 26, 2008 at 2:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Are y'all sure you are looking at the correct website? I found it here:

http://www.emporiansfordrugawareness.com...

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on November 26, 2008 at 3:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Crackinsack--
How does one abuse tobacco products. You either use them or you don't. Abuse conotates use outside the realm of normal or the intended use. EDA should have nothing to with legal products outside of the realm of abuse. Even alcohol if simply used is not that destructive. I am the type of person that can go for A beer and call it quits, moderation is the rule, abuse is the over indulgence. You said...
"If we discourage smoking in public, less kids will see it and "think it's cool" to be in a bar smoking"

I never see children going by bars and looking in the windows in this town...Further I think it is the responsibility of good parents to explain to their children about tobacco use, why some people do, and the consequences of use. That includes a discussion of choices adults make, good and bad, and a host of other things. I do not need legislation to tell what is good and bad for me, neither do you, neither does Emporia.

Posted by Penny (anonymous) on November 26, 2008 at 4:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

EDA's involvement with this issue as a function of preventing drug abuse is entirely appropriate because all tobacco use is illegal (ie: abuse) for children. Areas that have clean indoor air ordinances have lower teen smoking rates because you create a non-smoking cultural norm. Seems that fewer teens smoking is something we could all agree is a good thing. Areas that have clean indoor air ordinances have fewer lung cancer deaths. Also seems like a good thing. Also seems like a public health issue. Thanks to the commissioners who were brave enough to publicly come out in favor of protecting public health.

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on November 26, 2008 at 6:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The actual vote isn't until next Wednesday, if anyone was confused, I apologize. All 5 commissioners gave their stance on the issue, and that is where its stands right now (and probably will stand next Wednesday). In my humble opinion, this is nothing more than small town political BS, i.e.- TGOBS (The Good Old Boy System). Again, in my humble opinion...

Posted by Kujiin (anonymous) on November 27, 2008 at 12:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm tired of the whole issue. The plain and simple truth is it infringes on my right to make my own choice. Mark my words if this passes more choices in the future will be made for you. Once they get the ball rolling who knows where it will stop. Don't gripe at me in a few years if you can't smoke in your own house.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 27, 2008 at 8:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What I would like to know is, what were the three City Commissioners promised by the CAE and its followers for their yea vote or what sort of intimidation or scare tactic was used by the CAE and its followers for their yea vote ?
It would seem that only two of the City Commissioners have any perception of what is right or wrong with this issue.
I would also like to add my thanks to Jeff Longbine and Kevin Nelson for voting not to take away one of the basic, fundamental principles of the United States, A UNITED STATES CITIZENS FREEDOMS, and congratulate you on being the only two who are openminded enough to see how dangerous starting to ban any citizens freedoms, is and could and will lead to the eventual loss of other citizen freedoms, which I believe noone in their right mind would really want to happen.
However, mark my words, if this removal of freedom of choice a.k.a. smoking ban is adopted, you will eventually see another freedom of choice being attacked by some off the wall individual or group of individuals. Remember the attack on the "Christmas Program" and the Nativity Scene that used to be proudly and reverently displayed in front of the Auditorium !
I would also like to add, that I along with my sister purchased a vehicle from Lonbine Motors 4 months ago and will be purchasing our next vehicles, when we need them, from Longbine Motors and my sister and I will be reccommending to everyone who asks, that they purchase their vehicles from Longbine Motors. My sister and I will also be needing new heating and A.C., in the past we did business with Modern Air, but no longer will do business with them.

Posted by Pingeon (anonymous) on November 27, 2008 at 2:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

One of the comments that keep coming up through all this is "What about fat people, or what about strong perfume?" The next comment that comes from the pro-ban group is "That's just silly". Well folks, it's not silly. It's here. Check it out:

http://www.kansas.com/weird/story/612392...

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on November 28, 2008 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

First off: The Statements made by the commissioners were not definite indication of how they would vote next Wed. They can and may change their minds. What is important that they know everyones input on their vote so I urge all to e-mail their posistions now to the commissioners. I do believe, like josiesbar that the good ole boy network is alive & well in Emporia. However, if enough pi__ed-off people make their voices heard this ban will NOT pass.

Next week during the Christmas parade, we will be registering voters at the Town Royal 405 Commercial. If you are not registered , or have a name or address change since the last time you registered you may do so at this event. We we also be registering voters at other locations during the next couple of months. All voters are welcome.
Wouldn't it be great to get 100 new voters registered Tues. night?
Steve

Posted by justthefacts (anonymous) on November 28, 2008 at 12:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you don't agree with how a commissioner votes then vote for someone else at the next election. Why on earth would you want to punish all the employees who work at LOCAL businesses because of someone who works or owns the business votes as an elected official. That kind of sophmoric behavior is why nobody wants to serve as an elected official. Pretty soon the only people who run for office will be those who have nothing to lose or are unemployed. I'd prefer not to have that representation either. You might want to keep in mind that elected officials are to represent the views of the MAJORITY of the population not just the most outspoken or those who threaten their livelihood. You should keep this on a public discussion basis..not make it personal.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 28, 2008 at 1 p.m. (Suggest removal)

justthefacts-I must disagree with your thinking on elected officials such as",You might want to keep in mind that elected officials are to represent the views of the MAJORITY of the population not just the most outspoken or those who threaten their livelihood. "
An elected official, if he is honest and has the best interests of all the citizens of Emporia in mind he or she will give due consideration to the needs wants, rights and FREEDOMS of all the citizens, whether a citizen voted for him or not and he will treat all citizens as equal, no matter where they live, their social status or how much money or business they may give him if he is a business owner, and it is also the right and FREEDOM OF CHOICE for any citizen to choose to no longer do business with an elected officials business interest, after all I would imagine that citizens on the other side also use the threat of the loss of their business as a tool to get the elected official to vote in their favor, thats just the way politics is done in this day and age, after all "fair is as fair does".
I believe that these debates and discussions on this issue has been kept public, however their are a few who have managed to make it personal, however that can't be helped and is up to the discretion of the individual poster.

Posted by Pingeon (anonymous) on November 28, 2008 at 1:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Do not think for a second that the elected official will follow what the majority of the area he/she represents wants. Down here in Wichita when the smoking proposal came about, my parents were taling to one of those elected officials about the upcoming vote. My mother asked this person if he knew which way he was leaning yet and his response was "I'm voting for it." She pressed further asking if that was the majority of his constituites wanted. His response was "Doesn't matter, that's what I want".

As for punishing some of the businesses there for not voting the way you want them to, that's politics. Always has been, always will be.

Posted by glarson (Gwen Larson) on November 28, 2008 at 1:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow, I take a Thanksgiving holiday and miss 30-plus comments. We're overdue to move this to a forum:

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