The definition of “compromise” was in dispute before the Emporia City Commission on Wednesday morning.
After several meetings seeking compromise between opposing groups on the proposed smoking ban, the issue came up for discussion before the commission at its regular study session.
The commission will vote on the smoking ban ordinance on Dec. 3, after a final version is drafted.
Representatives of Clean Air Emporia, the group that proposed the ban in August, and Emporians Open for Business, a collection of local business owners who drafted a counter-proposal, were at the meeting to comment on the ban.
City manager Matt Zimmerman opened the discussion with a list of compromises that were ostensibly agreed upon by both parties, but he also listed a number of areas in which no agreement could be made. This list includes whether or not the ban is even necessary, the exemption of private clubs and fraternal organizations, the impact of secondhand smoke on the general public, and the length of the implementation period once an ordinance is passed. Clean Air Emporia wants it to take effect within 60 to 90 days, while Emporians Open for Business wants a six month period to allow businesses time to plan for the permits and the construction they will need to comply.
Attorney Mike Helbert, representing Emporians Open for Business, immediately disputed the notion of compromise once the meeting was opened to the public.
“This was not a compromise,” Helbert said, “this was not a mediation. There was nothing to compromise here. What happened at those meetings was that this ordinance was drafted, and after it was drafted we were offered the opportunity to tell what we didn’t like about it. But there was no give-and-take, there was no good-faith negotiation that was even allowed, let alone talked about other than pure semantics.”
Helbert went on to explain Emporians Open for Business’s view that this is an issue of freedoms. Freedom of choice, economic freedom, the freedom to use one’s own property as one sees fit, freedom of association and freedom from government intrusion all were addressed. Helbert went on to question a number of studies Clean Air Emporia used to show the dangers of secondhand smoke. “The EPA studies that were brought in ... were thrown out as being hopelessly invalid.”
“No one will argue that smoking isn’t bad for you,” Helbert said, “but this is about an adult, legal behavior. ... The people of this town are not children, and that is exactly the way this ordinance will treat them.”
Helbert said the group offered a number of ideas during the course of these discussions, all of which were dismissed by Clean Air Emporia. These ideas included grandfathering in existing businesses that currently allow smoking, clearly posting the fact that a business allows smoking and allowing smoking in businesses that cater only to adult clientele.
Teresa Walters spoke for Clean Air Emporia. She stressed the group’s concern for public health and noted, “Secondhand smoke is the third leading preventable cause of death.” Walters cited a number of studies showing the effects of secondhand smoke, and noted that the ban is intended to protect the health of the public. “We contend that it is possible in Emporia, Kansas, a community that promotes itself as being progressive and looking to the future, that people can socialize in an environment that conveys a positive image of our community and helps protect public health. ... Everyone has the right to breathe clean air.”
S.C. Dixon, a co-owner of The Noose, spoke up against the ban. “There is a contention that there already is a smoking ban in Emporia. It is enacted and enforced by the owners of each and every business to do as they see fit.”
Solomon Boyce said it appeared to him a decision has already been made. “What happened to the possibility of a vote? Isn’t there any way this could be put to a vote?” No matter how the community would vote, it would at least be given an opportunity for a voice, Boyce said.
The issue could be forced to a vote only after the commission votes one way or the other on the proposed ordinance. “We can not bring it to a public vote that is final,” Mayor Bob Agler said. “All we can do is pass an ordinance, pro or con. Assuming an ordinance eventually is passed, then either side that’s represented here could develop a referendum and put it on the ballot ... and then the results of that would be binding.”
According to Zimmerman, for anyone to put a question on the ballot requires a petition containing 25 percent of the voters in the last city election, which in this case would be 752 valid signatures.
“The time has come to decide,” Commissioner Jim Kessler said.
The commission will decide the issue at their regular meeting next Wednesday at 1 p.m. in the municipal court/city commission room, 518 Mechanic St.
Comments
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 27, 2008 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I can understand why there was really no mediation or compromises made, it would be impossible for Emporians Open for Business to be truly representative of the public as a whole, they are but a fraction of the whole of the public. So am I to understand then that the Commissioner's vote on this and then it goes to a ballot based on the way this article reads, hence it will eventually be voted upon. Sounds fair to me.
Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on November 27, 2008 at 2:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Its only fair if it is not implemented until voted upon, that way no undue costs are incurred by bringing businesses into compliance with something that may not come to pass.
Posted by generalsn (anonymous) on November 27, 2008 at 8:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Page seven of the "tobacco control advocates" (lobbyists) guidebook strictly forbids ballot measures, It is not allowed. There is no discussion. See for your self
www.no-smoke.org/pdf/CIA_Fundamentals.pd...
Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on November 27, 2008 at 9:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
goodoleboy--
Emporia Open For Business is representative of business owners rights, not the public as a whole per se. Also, a referendum must be drawn up with at least 752 signatures AFTER it has been voted in place by the commission to even appear on the ballot. If the commission votes it in place, we must draw up a referendum and get 752 registered voters' signatures in Emporia to put this on the ballot.
To me, personally, this thing reeks of small town politics. I guess I am stuck in the past, back when personal responsibility and freedom of choice actually meant something.
I would like to thank Clean Air Emporia for being so open to discussion on this matter and making several very difficult compromises. I also want to commend them for protecting me from myself, you have NO idea how grateful I am for that. I'm REALLY glad SOMEONE came forward and did it, because I am wholly incapable of doing it myself.
I'm really saddened that those of you for this ban have NO INKLING of an idea of the rights you are now giving up. I'm really looking forward to the salt-free soy-burgers from J's in 5 years. You people have NO clue whatsoever.
Matt
Posted by spectator (anonymous) on November 27, 2008 at 10:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"First they came…" is a poem attributed to Pastor Martin Niemoller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group.
"In Germany, they came first for the Communists and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.
And then they came for the trade unionists and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
And then they came for the Jews and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
Communists and trade unionists were simply paraphrased references for schools, the press, organized religions and so on. There are many versions of this poem but Niemoller, in 1971, said he preferred this one.
I never did smoke nor do I plan to start but Niemoller describes the classic foot-in-the-door-tactic and gives rise to the questions "What's next? What are you going to dictate to me next?"
Please people, let me decide for myself where I go to eat and drink. You are likely sincere in the belief that your self imposed "save-me from-myself" mission is of maximum importance but wouldn't all of this be better spent in making a genuine effort to reduce, or even better eliminate, dangerous stuff such as MDMA, meth, Ketamine or even marijuana, to mention only a pittance of the trash floating around?
Law enforcement has more than enough to do trying to bust dope dealers and serious users and trying to enforce the many laws already on the books. And that brings up something else: who's footing the bill for the additional tobacco-law-enforcement people and their tobacco-law-enforcement equipment, etc?
Please, I beg you, I have so few rights left. Please leave them alone.
Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 27, 2008 at 10:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Matt- I agree with your assesment of the situation 100%.
Also I am taking it upon myself to draft a referendum petition, to present to the City Commissioners, after this smoking ban is apparantely going to pass by a 3 to 2 margin, with the 3 City Commissioner whom the CAE apparantely have managed to put in their back pocket by one potentialy dubious means or another
. I wish to thank and congratulate the 2 City Commissioners who had the back-bone and courage to consider and represent the wants and needs of all the citizens of Emporia as a whole and not just the wants and needs of certain individuals who's only consideration was and is their own selfish wants and needs.
In the next couple of days or so I will be working on drafting the referendum petition we will need. I spoke to my son who wants me to give him a copy to take to work, as he says that almost everyone at his work place will probably sign it.
When I am done drafting the petition I will e-mail a copy to rbow for him to look at a suggest possible changes or additions to the wording and he may also e-mail copies of it to any whom he thinks might be interest in it. Rbow also has my e-mail address and he has my permission to give it anyone who might be interested in trying to set right a wrong.
Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 27, 2008 at 10:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Matt, aka josiesbar- I also sent Steve, aka rbow copies of the second set of e-mail letters that I have sent to the 3 City Commissioners. If you like you may ask him for a copy of them.
Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on November 27, 2008 at 11:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Methusla,
I have a copy, and loved it. Very well written, too bad I am afraid it won't help very much... Thanks for your support on this!
Matt
Posted by snowbird (anonymous) on November 28, 2008 at 1:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
An alternate to smoking bans
It is clear that separation of smokers from non-smokers combined
with air exchange technology is a complete solution to this largely
artificial problem. All it takes is regulating authorities setting the
standards for indoor air quality on passive smoke, and the technology
does the rest. Such air quality standards are common in industrial
and environmental contexts. But, to date, no country in the world has
set them for smoking areas. It seems clear that the reasons are not
scientific, nor are they economic or technical: they are political.
As to the annoyance of smoking, a compromise between smokers and non-smokers
can be reached, through setting a quality standard and the use of modern
ventilation technology.
Air ventilation can easily create a comfortable environment that removes not
just passive smoke, but also and especially the potentially serious
contaminants that are independent from smoking.
Thomas Laprade
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 28, 2008 at 4 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The Patriot Act infringes upon our rights and freedoms far more than this ever will. Smoking bans are nothing new and would not be passing all around the nation if he majority of voters did not support them.You do not see chewing tobacco or drinking challenged simply because there is no DIRECT byproduct that is uncontrollable, and before you go on a tangent about how that is next I have seen 0 legislation on those matters in others cites that have adopted a ban, many of which that have been in place for years.
Posted by generalsn (anonymous) on November 28, 2008 at 8:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Here in Chicago, after nearly a year, the hoopla and novelty have worn thin. The ban lobbyists have moved on to other states and communities (yours). Many small neighborhood bars "where everybody knows your name" ignore the ban. There have been no customer or worker complaints, even from non smokers, like myself, who like the fact that my smoking friends have somplace to congregate. Anyone who thinks they can control bars that they never go to have delusions of granduer. Al Capone is laughing in his grave.
Posted by alfalfa (anonymous) on November 28, 2008 at 9:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't smoke. I don't really like to be around smoking. But, I think if you own a business that it is up to you to decide whether or not smoking is allowed in the business, just as it is up to you to decide if smoking is allowed in your home. A private business is just that, a private business, it should not be confused with a public school or the civic auditorium. If the non smokers quit frequenting private businesses because of smoking, sooner or later those businesses will enact their own private smoking bans, or go out of business. The city and county can't enforce the laws already on the books, I think it much more important to go after drug dealers than businesses that allow smoking a legal product.
Posted by LifeGoesOn (anonymous) on November 28, 2008 at 11:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
evrybody just needs to wait for the vote, there will be one soon enough. And give this topic a much needed rest
Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 28, 2008 at 11:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
spectator- That is an excellant quote from Martin Niemoller's poem. However you may be chastized for comparing what is happening today in the U.S. and Emporia to what happend in Germany and Europe in the late 1930's and early 1940's. As the individuals and groups of individuals who work so hard at taking away the Rights and Freedoms of others, for the sake of their own selfish beliefs, needs and wants can not stand nor see the similarities between what they are trying to do and are doing to what Hitler and his followers did to the people of Germany and Europe, sans the trying to exterminate an ethnic group of people ! However they are exterminating, one by one the FREEDOMS of the individual citizens of the U.S. who do not agree with there phyosophy or belief of their way of life or living.
If we as FREEDOM loving citizens do not put a stop to the erosion of our FREEDOMS by those who believe that only they have the right and FREEDOM to dictate that everyone should live according to their beliefs, needs, wants and will then living in a " TOTALITARIAN " ruled society with out any individual FREEDOM OF CHOICE is not far in the future of every citizen of EMPORIA and the U.S..
Posted by rbow (anonymous) on November 28, 2008 at 12:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
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 ratdog (anonymous) on November 28, 2008 at 4:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So far, after months of debate, I have yet to hear ONE SINGLE proponent of this intrusion on the rights of private business reveal ONE SINGLE place in Emporia, Kansas where ONE SINGLE citizen is exposed to ONE SINGLE breath of second-hand smoke that that citizen cannot avoid by exercising ONE SINGLE ounce of personal choice.
Our commisioners should be ashamed of themselves if they get pushed into passing this most needless and foolish erotion of personal freedom. Not only will they take away rights from business and property owners, they will take away the right of all citizens to make their own decisions and choose what's right for themselves.
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on November 28, 2008 at 4:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How very sad that a small group of economically advantaged individuals in our community perceive themselves to be so important, so intellectually superior, that they feel it necessary to force their values and lifestyles on the whole and dictate what is best for others. These egotistical moral crusaders have no regard for the wishes, rights, or needs of anyone other than themselves. They don't let reason or facts interfere with their march toward moral victory no matter who it hurts or what price is to be paid.
I'm ashamed that members of our community would be so narrow-minded and apathetic concerning freedom and individual rights. I even more ashamed, and deeply angered, that our city commissioners would accommodate and support a small coalition of people hell-bent on getting their way.
If this ban is implemented as proposed by CAE, Emporia will have reached a new low in image and new high in embarrassment. Why would ANYONE wish to visit, relocate to, or start a business in a town that refuses to acknowledge or celebrate Independence Day, cancels a Veterans Day parade due to 43 degree weather, refuses to recognize the term "Christmas", introduces a smoking ban so restrictive as to be laughable, and ignores the rights of business owners and individuals and wishes of the majority.
When a city allows a small elite clique of self-perceived and selfish "do-gooders" to dictate law, that city is doomed to failure. Will the last one to leave Emporia please turn out the lights.
Posted by Penny (anonymous) on November 28, 2008 at 6:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Rat--I have to breathe second hand smoke whenever I take my car to Longbine's shop for warranty work. Sure, I could take a day off work and drive elsewhere, but I why should I have to? I guess that's not force in the sense of being held at gunpoint, but it's close enough.
Bj: I disagree (nothing new there), I think Emporia's image will be helped not hurt by the passage of this ordinance. It shows us to be open to change and committed to the health of our citizens. And where do you get the idea that the ordinance is against the wishes of the majority? Everyone I talk to says things like "it's about time" and "it can't happen soon enough". Plus, surveys done both a couple of years ago and recently all show a very strong majority of Emporian's in favor.
I'm thankful for the 3 commissioners who are currently in favor of the ordinance. Thank you, thank you, thank you!
Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on November 28, 2008 at 9:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The most laughable part of the ban to me is the 10 foot rule that businesses are obligated to enforce within 10 feet of their entrances. LMFAO!
If we have people in line waiting to get in, first off, how am I supposed to keep people from smoking within 10 feet of the door? Hire new people? Can't do it. Second, am I supposed to tell the first 8 people in line that they can't smoke and everyone else can? This is absolutely NOT enforceable! I HOPE someone tries to give me a fine for someone standing in line waiting to get in smoking a cigarette! PLEASE do it!!
I want CAE and any other proponent to actually come to a busy bar in Emporia for one night. Here, Town Royal, Cole's, whatever, and watch the staff, and then seriously explain to me how a bartender in The Noose is supposed to SEE, let alone CATCH someone walking by with a cigarette! I am very serious about this. Come actually spend time in the trenches and realize how absolutely ridiculous and unenforceable this is.
Another thing, we don't open until 8pm. If someone is caught smoking when we are closed within 10 feet of our door, and I get a ticket, what then? Are you going to tell me that I should pay someone to guard BOTH of my entrances 24/7 in case someone walks by with a cigarette? That's cost-effective.
Lastly, if I am here doing books at 4 am, 2 hours after we close, no employees are here, no "public" is here, I can't smoke? Ohh right, but I can in the privacy of my own home right? Let me tell you something, I'm here 12-14 hours a day, at least. This IS my home. I just have a separate place that I sleep, eat, and take a shower.
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on November 28, 2008 at 10:40 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 29, 2008 at 3:11 a.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on November 29, 2008 at 8:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Adapt and overcome this ban. Don't use snappy terms you don't understand. Oorah charlie fox
Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 29, 2008 at 10:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Penny-I have been to Longbine Motors numerous times over the years, either to buy parts, shop for an auto or truck and more recently to have my sister's vehicle serviced, which I, we do regularly and I have never, in all the times I frequented Longbine Motors have I ever noticed any "mainstream smoke or SHS" present at Longbine Motors nor have I ever had a problem breathing there. If anyone is going to have a problem breathing where there is any kind of smoke, etc, it will be me as I have COPD, Asthma and Pulmonary Fibrosis, yet I have had no problem at Longbine Motors. There were even days, when I woud drive past Modine and had a problem breathing, just in that area.
If you truely have a problem with the air at Longbine Motors, why not make arrangements for them to pickup your vehicle and return it to you when they are finished with it, afterall most auto dealerships offer this service to their customers !
What about a certain Heating and Air Conditioning business or a certain Accounting firm, do you have a problem at those or any other business in Emporia, or are you just singling out Longbine Motors, for one reason or another.
How selfish, to not want nor have to make any sacrifices or difficult decesions in life and want that which only suits your own wants and needs and tramples the rights, freedoms and subjugate all citizens to your way of life, thinking and beliefs.
I have a question for you, the CAE and all its advocates.
Do any of you, who can remember recent History, how in the late 1930's and early 1940's, how an individual and followers absolutely destroyed all semblence of FREEDOMS in most all of Europe, which resulted in a devastating World War ?
And it all started with what seemed like an insignificant ban on the freedom to freely choose how you could conduct your business and who you allowed in your business, where you could go and what you could do when you got there and escalated to other losses of rights and freedoms.
Sound familiar !
Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 29, 2008 at 12:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I hope all of the City Commissioners are visiting this forum and reading the posts to get an idea of the wants and need of all of Emporia's citizens and not just the wants and needs of a group of citizens, as they see from these posts there are also non-smokers that think that this ban is not right.
It is the responsibility of you, as freely elected public officials to consider all of the " needs and wants" of all of Emporia's citizens and not just those of the CAE and its followers.
In other words you must or should consider the rights, freedoms, needs and wants of all Emporia's citizens, no matter where they live, shop, socialize, social status, monetary status, or whether or not they do business at you privately owned business, if you are a businessman.
Above all you must or should protect the " RIGHTS " and " FREEDOMS", including " FREEDOM OF CHOICE" from attack and being denied or taken away by any individual or group of individuals, no matter where they live, shop, socialize, social status, etc. You must also protect any individuals right not to be "SUBJUCATED" or forced to live by the "wants and needs " of any individual or group of individuals way of life or beliefs.
As I believe all of you Commissioner know or should know. There is already a smoking ban imposed and enforced in all public businesses, schools and hospitals now in Emporia.
There are even a number of pivately owned businesses in Emporia that have the "FREEDOM OF CHOICE' to implement and enforce their own smoking by using a "NO SMOKING ALLOWED ON THE PREMISES" sign.
Why not allow all privately owned businesses who wish to allow smoking now, to continue to have the same " FREEDOM OF CHOICE " to allow smoking in their privately owned businesses by displaying a "SMOKING ALLOWED " sign in their window and allow the individual private citizen to excersize their " FREEDOM OF CHOICE " whether to freely choose whetherto frequent or enter a business that allowes smoking or does not allow smoking .
Are the CAE and its advocates so insecure that they cannot, are afraid or will not make lifes difficult choices. If that is the case, I pity them.
Those who oppose the smoking ban or any other ban may come along need to email, mail or call the City Commissioners and let them know that any ban of any of a citizens "FREEDOMS' is a slap in the face of "FREEDOM", for which many have died, bled and sacrificed much to protect.
Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 29, 2008 at 12:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
P.S. here the contact info for the City Commissioners.
City Commissioner
Kevin Nelson
knelson@emporia-kansas.gov
Mayor
Bobbie Agler
bagler@emporia-kansas.gov
Vice-Mayor
Jeff Longbine
jlongbine@emporia-kansas.gov
City Commissioner
Julia Johnson
julia.johnson@emporia-kansas.gov
City Commissioner
Jim Kessler
jkessler@emporia-kansas.gov
To contact the Commissioners: Call (620) 343-4251 City Commission Meetings are at 1:30 p.m. on the 1st Wednesday and 7:00 p.m. on the 3rd Wednesday
in the Municipal Court Room/City Commission Room
518 Mechanic.
Send correspondence to:
P. O. Box 928,
Emporia, KS 66801
Posted by rbow (anonymous) on November 29, 2008 at 5:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Can anyone here tell me if CAE has spent any of their foundation money on any other radio station other than the ones that are owned by the husband of CAE's program director Bobbie Sauder? It seems that the Gazette and Emporia's radio stations have made a boat load of advertising money off this issue. And wouldn't it be a conflict of interest for the CAE program director to direct monies to her husbands business? Isn't it illegal for a non-profit 301c3 to lobby government officials?
Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 29, 2008 at 6:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
rbow-I doubt whether the CAE has spent any foundation money or any other moneys on any radio, t.v. station or any other news media that does not support a smoking ban.
I don't know whether it is illegal for a 301c3 non-profit organization to lobby a government official or whether it is illegal, but look at the church sponsered, non-profit organizations, they do it all the time and apparantely it is not illegal for them to do it, and that may be true for non-profit organizations. I believe the claim of being a so called " NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION " may be just enough to get away with lobbying government officials.
I also believe that since at least 3 of the Emporia City Commissioners, possibly all 5 are business owners, I believe that none of them should be allowed to vote on anything that would affect either their businesses or other businesses in Emporia, as I believe to allow them to vote on such a matter would constitute a " CONFLICT OF INTEREST ".
This is also another reason why I believe that a " CITY COUNCIL" form of government would be the best and fairest form of government for Emporia and its citizens. With Emporia divided into 9 seperate and distinct districts, with 2 representatives, freely elected from each district to represent the interests of all the citizens in their respective districts 1 councilman or councilwoman being the official representative and 1 being an alternate, to fill in, in case the official representative is not able to. This would be a much fairer and imparshial form of City government, with all of Emporia's citizens being fairly and imparshially represented and it would make " CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ", lobbying, etc. more difficult.
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on November 29, 2008 at 9:11 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on November 29, 2008 at 10:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wasn't goodoleboy the one crying about the "d___" comment on an earlier story?
Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 29, 2008 at 10:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have just realized, by going back and reading some of the posts on this issue and have discovered that there are some on this forum who believe that implementing a smoking ban will project a better image of Emporia. I would like to ask those who belive this.
What kind of an image will be projected if and when one of the most important rights and freedom of the individual citizen is abolished, restricted, or limited and that being the " FREEDOM OF CHOICE " that each and every citizen of Emporia has now to choose his or her own way of life, how to live his or life as they see fit, how to manage or operate his or her privately owned business, but will no longer have that "FREEDOM OF CHOICE' after a smoking ban goes into effect ? Talk about projecting a negative image.
What does the Chamber of Commerce, Planning Commission, City Commissioners or City Manager tell a prospective Industry or Business that is looking at Emporia as a place to locate a Factory or Big Retail Business, etc., but the Company or Big Retail Business, etc. wants to allow smoking in their Factory or Retail Business, what should they be told, no thanks Emporia doesn't want your Factory or Retail Business, because this is a smoke free Community and you have no Right to FREEDOM OF CHOICE as to how you run or manage your Factory or Retail Business, because a group of individuals who live in Emporia has said that you must live and manage your factory or your retail business according to their specific "needs and wants" ?
Doesn't project a very good " IMAGE" or "VISION FOR THE FUTURE " of Emporia does it ?
As I have said before and I'll say it again. The consequences of loosing any individual freedoms, can and possibly be dire for all citizens including the CAE and its advocates.
Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 29, 2008 at 11:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I also wonder if LOWES knows or has been told by Christie or anyone that in the very near future that the way they were possibly planning on running and managing their business will not be the same as when they first started the process of locating in Emporia.
I believe I will write a nice little letter to LOWES corporate headquarters and fill them in on the latest and probable changes in the city ordinances and laws.
Posted by smith_ron (anonymous) on November 30, 2008 at 12:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Methusla,
You keep throwing out Freedom of Choice like it is an absolute thing. How much freedom of choice do you think we actually have?
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on November 30, 2008 at 12:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Josiesbar: I believe you are right. Goodoleboy thinks rules of civility and decorum apply to everyone except Goodoleboy. It appears he harbors the same selfish feelings concerning individual rights and freedoms: it's only right if it's right for Goodoleboy.
Posted by irishemporia (anonymous) on November 30, 2008 at 12:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Actually, Methusla and Smith_Ron, the better question is how much Freedom of Choice do you think we should have?
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on November 30, 2008 at 12:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
smith_ron:
"How much freedom of choice do you think we actually have?"
Far less than we used to have. And just how much more do you feel we should give up before we say "enough!" and take a stand?
Posted by smith_ron (anonymous) on November 30, 2008 at 12:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
freedom of choice is not static. Everytime government -- local, state or federal -- passes a law, it alters our freedom of choice. It is not always a bad thing, either, depending on your point of view. For example, should Fred Phelps have the freedom of choice to picket military funerals? Depends on your point of view. Should we have the freedom of choice to speed in a school zone? Again, depends on your point of view, although with that one, it seems to me that the popular choice would be no.
For some, a limit on smoking is an afront to freedom of choice. For others, it provides more choices -- in this case, going into to any public-accessible business without the fear of running into second hand smoke. Depends on your point of view.
And Methusla, for what it is worth, I can't imagine Lowes thinking twice about a community that limits smoking. Since smoking is a health risk (hard to dispute that) and productivity is tied to healthy employees, then I would think a company would not only not want to allow smoking in its building, but also be more interested in a community that has a smoking ban on the theory that the residents (and labor force) would be healthier. Yes, before you start bashing, that is only my theory.
Posted by smith_ron (anonymous) on November 30, 2008 at 12:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Also, for you who insist on using profanity (and thinly veiled profanity) and personal attacks, no one is impressed. All you do is weaken your arguments.
Posted by tmegredy (anonymous) on November 30, 2008 at 1:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Tonight, I sent the following:
To the Emporia City Commission:
My name is Tod Megredy. I live at 2943 Rio Vista Drive. I support a smoking ban for Emporia.
On Christmas Eve in 1978, my dad, Richard Megredy, died of a heart attack. He was 51 years old. I was 20. My dad smoked all of his adult life. At the time of his death, the doctor said that they were able to restart his heart, but it was too weak to beat on its own. The doctor attributed that to smoking.
Just 28 days ago on Nov. 2 (20 days before my 50th birthday), I suffered a heart attack. It seems that I not only have my father’s eyes and his sense of humor, but his bad arteries as well. The difference? I survived. My cardiologist tells me that by not smoking nor putting myself in situations to be around second-hand smoke, I greatly increased my chance of survival.
My dad left behind a wife and five children. The youngest child was just 15. Growing up without my dad was horrible. I have a wife and two daughters. The oldest child is also 15. I plan to be around to watch them grow.
Please pass the smoking ban. Do it for the kids.
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 30, 2008 at 1:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
BJnemp
When I get back from holiday I will gladly toss up links to post after post where you make statements that you cannot back up, argue the point, lose, then are not heard from in that thread again. I have 0 respect for individuals such as yourself and I can assure you that most of us here are playing on a whole different level than you are.
Oh wait here a few I had bookmarked to my jump drive browser:
http://www.emporiagazette.com/news/2008/...
http://www.emporiagazette.com/news/2008/...
You made statements in both of these threads that were rebuked with undeniable facts, and oddly enough you bow out afterwards. One does not even have to arm oneself when dealing with individuals such as yourself, you shoot yourself in the foot.
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 30, 2008 at 2:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
As I said before, I wish that EVERYONE here would have been half this passionate and informed about the Patriot Act, as far as "giving up rights" goes it has by far been the biggest travesty I have seen in moderns times.
Posted by rbow (anonymous) on November 30, 2008 at 8:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
goodolboy: I agree that the patriot act is one the biggest threats to our country right now. Bigger than the threat of another terrorist attack. Hopefully the new administration and congress will strike it down. However since all politics are local, let's nip this ban here in Emporia and keep our personal choice rights that the other progressive(?) cities have been so eager to give up.
tmegredy: The loss of a loved one is indeed hard. Your lifestyle Choice enabled you to survive your heart attack and I hope you will live a long and healthy life, there is just about nothing better than having your first grand-child born.
My wife of thirty years is a five year survivor of lung cancer.She and I have smoked all our adult life. The cancer was a type caused by chemicals,(MOST likely at her place of employment). She quit smoking. After her treatment we advised her surgeon (1 of the best in the U.S.), that we operated a bar with 2nd hand smoke present and would that pose a risk to her health? His answer was the effects of 2nd hand smoke were way overblown and would pose no problem for her. He also said for her not to start smoking again or go to work in a coal mine, but otherwise she would be fine. And thank God she is still cancer free!
What I am trying to say is your personal choices have helped you and hopefully your children. By the content of your letter it is obvious you are a good and carring parent.This ban will not protect your children anymore than you are doing now and it could be the start of a snowballing loss of rights which could harm all the children of this country.
Steve
Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 30, 2008 at 10:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
All of you who don't believe in preserving individual freedoms and only want to limit, restrict or down right take them away and force all citizens to live by what you perceive as being the correct way to live their lives as you dictate, under the guise of healthy or unhealthy.
Yes, I keep throwing out the word FREEDOMS and FREEDOM OF CHOICE. I am wondering where you, me and every citizen of this country and City would be or will be if certain individuals or group of individuals are allowed to trash the rights and (here is that word again) FREEDOMS of all the citizens of this community and country . I will certainly keep throwing out phrases and words, such as " LOSS OF INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS" or ' LOSS, OR TAKING AWAY OF FREEDOM OF CHOICE'.
Do you think there would even be a United States if the founders of this country hadn't wanted certain FREEDOMS or FREEDOM OF CHOICE ( OOPS! there's those words again), if they would not have had the ability to freely choose how to live there lives, without someone forcing them to live their lives as certain individuals or group of individuals ordered them to ! If the founders of this country had not fought for their " FREEDOM, FREEDOMS and FREEDOM OF CHOICE' (darn ! there's those words again) it is very possible that this country would be a BRITISH COLONY and subject to British Laws instead of the Free country that it is.
Why do you think the founders of this country fought a reveloutionary war for the "FREEDOMS and FREEDOM OF CHOICE' (OOPS! there I go again), that they apparantely held very dear and believed in.
Yet in the United States of recent time and today, the rights and "FREEDOMS" of the individual citizen of the United States and City's across the United States, such as Emporia, is being attacked, eroded and taken away by not only those outside the United States, but also by those individuals or group of individuals who are citizens of the United States.
As to, " How much freedom of choice do you think we actually have?" We now have more than we will have after a smoking ban.
As to, "Actually, Methusla and Smith_Ron, the better question is how much Freedom of Choice do you think we should have?" At least as much as we have now or had before a smoking ban.
As for personal attacks, I have tried not to attack anyone personally on this forum, however I have always tried to post the truth and if the truth is seen as a personal attack on you, that is your right and "FREEDOM OF CHOICE" (boy! those word just keep appearing), to do so.
Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 30, 2008 at 10:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
smith_ron
Yes, Lowes will or would probably locate anywhere it wanted to, smoking ban or no smoking ban.
What I was trying to do was make a point and did so very badly I am afraid, so I will try again.
Suppose a corporation or business was looking for a place to locate and build a factory, retail business or what ever !
The corporation or business has in place a company policy to allow its employee's, retail customers and management personal to choose whether to smoke or not to smoke in their factory or place of business ! And remember that this corporation or business will create jobs for the people of the area !
Do you or anyone believe that the corporation or business that is thinking of building a factory or business, will even consider locating and creating jobs in a community or area that is going to put limitations on it, because an individual or group of individuals has demanded that not only the corporation or business and the citizens of the community or area abide by what that individual or group of individuals believe that they absolutey know what's right for everyone including how the corporation or business should run and manage its business, but will also have to change its company policy just to locate in that community or area. I believe the corporation or business will pass that community or area by " like a train passes a tramp".
My main point is this, the limiting, restricting, baning or taking away of certain "FREEDOMS" or "FREEDOM OF CHOICE" ( there's those words, darn!) can and will have adverse effects on a community's or area's "FUTURE" and 'IMAGE".
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on November 30, 2008 at noon
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on November 30, 2008 at 12:03 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 30, 2008 at 1:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am sorry to say that, I will be not be posting on this forum for a couple of days, as I will be busy emailing the City Commissioners in an effort to try and get them to see that any limitations, restrictions, bans and the possiblity of losing any (here are those words, again) FREEDOMS, RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF CHOICE ) is and would be absolutely the wrong thing for present the present day citizens of Emporia and the Future of Emporia and the Image of Emporia.
I hope that all those who see and believe that this ban is a bad thing and the start of what could possibly mutate into even worse bans. Will contact the City Commissioners in one way or another and let them know your feelings and thoughts on this issue.
I know there are those of you who read and post on this forum who probably wish that I would just " fade away", but , "no such luck". " I will return".
Posted by rbow (anonymous) on November 30, 2008 at 1:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
smith-_ron: "freedom of choice is not static" Of course it's not, but it should be guarded very closely. Does Fred Phelps have the freedom of choice to picket soldiers funerals? Under the 1st ammendment he does no matter how odious his group of haters are. We also have the choice, (as in the Patriot Guard) to drown out those offensive bigots. We don't need the government to decide what is offensive and what isn't, we can and should do it ourselves. Speeding laws , yes they are enacted to protect us from idiots also. A ban to protect us from a legal product used by adults is not protecting anyone anymore than the smoking laws already on the books. You and I will never agree on this ban, but Thank God we still have the freedom to disagree with each other and voice our concerns in a public forum.
Steve
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 30, 2008 at 5:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes cause bookmarking a thread that I reply to takes
A. 2 secs of my time
B. Easier for me to go directly to said thread
C. Gives me perspective and ammunition for the likes of people like you that DO regularly embarrass themselves by putting said information easily at the click of a button.
I feel for you I really do, having to play the life card is a very desperate act lol, I work in IT, thus everything I do is highly automated and anything technology related I am sure I can do in 1 step what takes you 5 House in the country, great job, great marriage kids and a dog, yep I'm pathetic alright, lol! Play the life card elsewhere buddy, you must be full up on crazy assuming you know someone from a blog haha.
Posted by rbow (anonymous) on December 1, 2008 at 7:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Did you hear the one about the city commissioner and the Clean Air program director going on a Christmas cruise together to celebrate the passage of the smoking ban? It's a good one!
Steve
Posted by irishemporia (anonymous) on December 1, 2008 at 11:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Steve: if you have some accurate and truthful info regarding this, then share. Otherwise, continue and you better hire a good libel lawyer.
Posted by rbow (anonymous) on December 1, 2008 at 12:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
irish: I was talking about a joke circulating. Do you know something I don't?
Steve
Posted by irishemporia (anonymous) on December 1, 2008 at 1:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Secondhand smoke kills, too
The Winfield Daily Courier
www.winfieldcourier.com
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
There may be an argument about the right to smoke, but there is no argument about the effects of secondhand smoke.
About 20 percent of adults in Kansas smoke, according to the state department of health and environment. In 2006 the number of adults in Kansas whose deaths were attributed to their own smoking was 3,900.
The number who died from exposure to secondhand smoke was between 220 and 630, the department said.
The annual health care costs in Kansas directly caused by smoking are $927 million, according to the department.
Breathing secondhand smoke has immediate harmful effects on the cardiovascular system that can increase the risk of heart attack. This has to be a concern of any adult.
The City of Winfield has adopted an ordinance that prohibits smoking in places where the public gathers. The ordinance is intended to protect the public's health,
The ordinance is a change from the past policy of letting private business owners decide if they want to allow smoking.
Change brings resistance. Certainly citizens have the right to petition their government.
But there should be no doubt that the city commissioners who voted for the ordinance were stepping up to their responsibilities. Winfield will be a healthier community after Jan. 1, 2009.
The commissioners who made this possible deserve our respect and admiration.
Posted by irishemporia (anonymous) on December 1, 2008 at 1:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Only what you've told me, Steve. I am no expert, but if I said what you did, I would be nervous...at least enough to make sure I was on solid ground.
Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on December 1, 2008 at 2:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"The ordinance is a change from the past policy of letting private business owners decide"
This passage scares the hell out of me, I don't know about anyone else...
Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on December 1, 2008 at 2:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
By the way Irish, I'm pretty sure what rbow said isn't libel ;)
To me, this whole thing reeks of the small town politics, good ole boys, and some quid pro quo thrown in for good measure.
Posted by irishemporia (anonymous) on December 1, 2008 at 2:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
That's good to know, Josie (about the libel). I wasn't sure. If someone on this board got sued for libel, they'd probably shut the board down and no more discussions.
Anybody know the definition of libel and how it is determined?
Posted by rbow (anonymous) on December 1, 2008 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Irish, The definition of libel is in websters and if someone on this board was sued I doubt that would force the Gazette to close it down.
Steve
Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on December 1, 2008 at 3:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. Slander refers to a malicious, false, and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation
Posted by rbow (anonymous) on December 1, 2008 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Matt if I see you at the bar I'll give you the punch-line. I"m kind of afraid to give it here with all the touchy ban folks.
steve
Posted by spectator (anonymous) on December 1, 2008 at 4:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
methusla: I meant no disrespect by the comparison of Emporia to Europe circa WWII. A smoking ban is NOTHING compared to that European horror. What I meant was that individuals and groups of individuals are attacking rights and freedoms and taking them away slowly but surely. I fear that once a couple get passed right here, it will snowball and continue to get worse. I don't smoke, never did and never will but this is ludicrous. And I repeat: "What are you going to dictate to me next?"
Posted by Newsie (anonymous) on December 1, 2008 at 4:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Pretty good, Josie, but you left out the distinction between private citizens and public figures and public officials. It does make a difference.
Also, you forgot to mention how it is determined or "tested."
Posted by Newsie (anonymous) on December 1, 2008 at 4:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am curious about a couple of things:
I've seen a couple of posts that imply some of the commissioners are in the pockets of CAE. How do you know this?
How is it that the two commissioners who apparently oppose the ban represent the everyone in Emporia while the other three only represent one side?
Not looking for a bashing. I just want to see if I have missed something.
By the way, I am sad about Natasha's. It looked like an interesting place.
Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on December 1, 2008 at 6:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Newsie,
"I've seen a couple of posts that imply some of the commissioners are in the pockets of CAE. How do you know this?"
We know.
Natasha's was hands down the nicest/classiest bar in Emporia. I too was saddened to see it close. I consider myself good friends with Eric and Becky, and wish them the best.
Matt
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on December 2, 2008 at 6:36 a.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by glarson (Gwen Larson) on December 2, 2008 at 7:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
time to move it to forums, folks:
http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/ope...
Posted by rbow (anonymous) on December 2, 2008 at 8:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Let's all go down to the meeting tommorow and see how this works out. At least everyone will know where everyone else stands. Then either side can,(by petition), do what they think is best for Emporia. By the way we are registering voters tonight @405 Commercial before and during the parade. People on both sides of any issue are encouraged to register if they are not already.
Natasha's was a nice place now it sits among the many other empty buildings in downtown Emporia. And the commission want's to pass another needless restriction on businesses.
Steve