Joe (anonymous) says...

I do believe that this should go to public vote and let the citizens of Emporia decide its fate.

I also believe in paying my taxes.

Kansas Dept of Revenue Deliquent Tax Report shows:

DEBRA S SIMMONS
S & S CAFE
2604 W HIGHWAY 50
EMPORIA , KS 668016353 LYON SALES TAX $6,277.37 08ST11

www.kdor.org/warrants/listing.aspx?ty...

October 20, 2008 at 3:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Walts37 (anonymous) says...

I totally agree with Debbie on this issue if you want to live in a socialist country move to Russia or somewhere the government controls your every move and keep out of other peoples business. I do not smoke but if i did I would not need you to tell me where and when I can lite up. We do have the option to go to another establishment if we desire, it is supposed to be a free country & you do have a choice so butt out. IMO Walts37

October 20, 2008 at 3:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

truelovecharlie (anonymous) says...

A socialist society is exactly what America seems to want. The quickest way to get there is allowing these idiots to dictate on the local level, while the rest of America elects Obama and his cronies at the national level. Mark my words; we are beginning the end and our children have no future left!

October 20, 2008 at 4 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

frulu (anonymous) says...

How educated are you people? I am a college graduate with plenty of friends that would like to see the smoking bans passed, and some of them even smoke. This is a health issue not taking away people's rights! So why don't you people just understand that?

October 20, 2008 at 4:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

So, now some of you smoking ban advocates have started to demean and slander, not only those citizens who own businesses and allow smoking, but also the customers and citizens who frequent that business, whether they are smokers or non-smokers. The very idea you would make the following statement and I quote Those "former to present Emporia State University students" probably come in "all hours of the...night" because they are sloshy drunk. In my opinion, any who eats at your restaurant is either desperate(no other places open), impaired(drunk), or has a serious lack of judgment to begin with. In my opinion you crackinsack, are a dangerous individual.
Also there are probably many individuals, etc., that owe back taxes. What has that have to do with this issue anyway ?
Boy some of you smoking ban advocates have some audacity, when your reasoning fails, you revert to personal attacks.
Some of you need to read some of my other posts about, respect for others rights and freedoms, decency, respect, common sense and tolerance for your fellow man.
After all this is not a perfect world and man is far from perfect.

October 20, 2008 at 4:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Let the name calling begin!

It seems that the pro-ban people have to use name calling to further their cause. As far as the back tax issue, I have seen many names on that list before, some from our supposed civic leaders. There are many reasons it could happen and I am sure it will be taken care of sooner rather than latter. As far as the pro ban posts go; can you all go 1 week without using the words
"Lil"
sloshy drunk
desperate
impaired(drunk)
idiots, that 1 is Walts37,
any word that degrades another person?

Probably not.
Steve

October 20, 2008 at 4:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

eatasheep69 (anonymous) says...

Crackinsack is correct. Completely.

October 20, 2008 at 4:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

Does this lady not see how many other laws that the government imposes on her already? Businesses are subject to laws that protect people I don't see her whining about those. I really got a good laugh out of the loon who ties anything Obama and this to socialism, seriously, do more homework and educate yourself on socialism.

By the way, any citizen or business that does not pay taxes is a criminal, I care less what position they hold or who their name is. Perhaps the poster above crying about socialism would be better served whining about how we will be paying her bill?

October 20, 2008 at 4:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

USNretired (anonymous) says...

The amount of education one has doesn't dictate what one thinks, especially outside of their discipline. What education allows us to do is debate the pros and cons in an adult, civil manner. I am an ESU alum who does not like bans against legal activities, and wants an explanation when I encounter such a ban. I have been to plenty of other countries and have seen some pretty ridiculous bans in some of them.

October 20, 2008 at 4:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

shoehorn (anonymous) says...

This is what Britannica.com has for a main description of socialism. What do you think?

social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.

October 20, 2008 at 5:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

smith_ron (anonymous) says...

I don't really care who Debbie is or whether she is a "criminal." She still has a right to her opinion, even if I don't agree with her. I don't believe every ESU student that set foot in S&S is a drunk, either.

I am disgusted at members of both sides of this issue who have tried to take it to a personnel level with name-calling and put-downs.

C'mon folks. If you don't have any thing to contribute, then don't say anything. Let's not revert to kindergartners.

October 20, 2008 at 5:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

silver07 (anonymous) says...

What proof do you have that you will lose business? I lived in Lawrence for 5 years and there were a ton of business owners who swore up and down that they would lose business because of the smoking ban and business did the same or better after the ban was put in place. One example is Free State Brewery...the owner tried to stop the ban by saying that people would stop coming there to drink (the majority of the restaurant was either smoking or in the path of smoke.) Since the ban, the restaurant is even more packed than it used to be and there is still a 1-2+ hour wait on weekends.
Personally I don't go to restaurants that have no closed off non-smoking section and I know smokers who don't like to breath in a ton of smoke when they eat. You are losing my business and the business of people who step in and walk out because of the stench. Even if it is your "right", look at all of the non smoking restaurants that are thriving in town..if the food is good, people will come.

October 20, 2008 at 6:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

Excellent now look at how much socialistic principles have been present in our government in the last 100 years, the new deal, the bail-out, and many other acts have a great deal of socialism injected into them. People say it like its a dirty word, but in truth its been going on a long long time in some degree.

Ron_smith

Tax evasion is a serious problem in this country and something I do not condone or take lightly, I find it hard to listen to someone crying wolf about the government and what it can and cannot do when they themselves do not follow the rules, guess we can just bail her out but heaven forbid we as citizens enact legislation she does not like.

October 20, 2008 at 6:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

smith_ron (anonymous) says...

Nobody said you had to listen. Because tax evasion has little to do with SHS, I choose not to worry about her conduct. It is not an issue.

October 20, 2008 at 6:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

good advice smith_ron, some people on both sides can't seem to debate the issue, whether it be smoking, the effects of SHS or rights or freedoms without resorting to demeaning comments or name calling.
I also agree that deliquent taxes has nothing to do with the debate going on here.

October 20, 2008 at 7:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

trainrech (anonymous) says...

People, this is so simple it is scary. If you don't like to be (whether working or patronizing) in an establishment that allows smoking, then don't!

I've only lived in Emporia for 10 years, but you know, only once have I set foot in the S&S Cafe. Once I realized it was a smoking establishment, I turned and found another place to get breakfast.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Let your wallet do the talking.

October 20, 2008 at 8:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MelissaE (anonymous) says...

Debbie, I am very fond of S & S. My dad was one of those who would be there around 5-6am and bs with all the other regulars. Except that my dad was different...he would take my sister and I with him during school days and buy our breakfast. I can't recall any of the other regulars doing that.

But anyway, if S & S were to change, I would be incredibly sad because it holds memories that one can only get in the small-town cafe's that are few & far between nowdays. And memories that only locals who were born & raised there can appreciate. :) I'm sure if I showed up there on a Thursday morning, say 5 or 6 am, I would see all those regulars like I used to do. I miss that.

BTW--We went there for breakfast around 2am on Sept. 1 and, to this day, it was the best breakfast I've had in a long time. For any naysayers, we'd been drinking but we weren't drunk--we'd just been to my sister's wedding and going there was like sitting with dad and eating breakfast before school all over again. It was theraputic. (Also, we WALKED there, in case you thought we were irresponsible).

I really hope nothing changes at S & S or any other establishment in Emporia. I feel that if you don't like the atmosphere, you should probably just not go there in the first place.

Melissa

October 20, 2008 at 9:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

benhorse3 (anonymous) says...

I'm not intending to interrupt whatever y'all are arguing about, but I'd like to weigh in on the side of individual rights. Rights are like prices at the grocery... if you give in, it ain't ever coming back your way. Meaning: let them take something away, and it is gone forever... and will be expanding voraciously to devour your other basic rights until you really are just a cash cow to be milked, like the pod babies in The Matrix. Think I'm kidding or delusional? Our government is different from 3rd world poop holes by just a hair... greed and ambition overtakes the high ideals in just over a nanosecond. Under the guise of public health and safety, smoking is banned, firearms are banned, fat people on airplanes are banned, bacon is banned... you see where I'm going with this? And for what? To insure someone's re-election? I'd rather die sooner than live in a sterile world erected by people who do not know me or do not care about me as an individual person. This is the Great Plains... we are free thinking, robust individuals... take this PC junk back to the coasts, and don't forget to write!

October 20, 2008 at 9:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

kelly (anonymous) says...

I have seen how a non-smoking ban has worked in wichita, and I think that they went about it the right way. Any place where minors (anyone under 18) ar allowed in there is no smoing. But is a place is a 18 to enter (bar's and clubs) than you can smoke. Both sids do have rights. Look at it this way. A smoker makes the choice to smoke on their own, but a non-smoker is forced to breath in other peoples smoke. The unfiltered smoke. The smokers by choice at least have the filter for them. I would much rather have non-smoking all around, but that is not realistic. Meet in the middle. Allow smoking at the Bar's and Club's (the 18 to enter places) and at the family places have the non-smoking ban. There needs to be places for non-smokers to go and have that smoke free enviorment, and at the same time the smokers can enjoy there smoking places. You have to be 18 to smoke anywaysso why not do it this way.

October 20, 2008 at 10:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

benhorse3 (anonymous) says...

OK, I'm a proponent of compromise, but my point is this: if I eat bacon, smoke cigarettes, fail to exercise and Lord knows what else, I must surely become a burden to the system and to my fellow citizens. Therefore, it is in the public interest to prohibit my behaviors, right? Where does it all end? The thing is, I'm not ready to become a white-clad clone creature functioning solely for the State in a sci-fi sort of way... remember Soylent Green and the Suicide Parlors? Laugh all yoou want, the future is just around the corner, and your DNA, your genetic seed and your ability to produce organic electricity all has value to the State. Got grandchildren? Envision them with bar codes tatooed on their forearms. Stop the envringment of your individual rights in it's tracks right now!

October 20, 2008 at 11:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

Typical, when it does not suit your needs ignore it.

if this person did over 6k in damage to a public entity you would be crucifying her, her tax record is very relevant because it goes to her character. We as taxpayers will have to foot her bill, but socialism is good right? Sorry all out of sympathy for criminals, but a I a crazy liberal eh? the irony.....

She should spend more time worrying making things right with the taxpayers than this legislation.

October 21, 2008 at 1:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

goodoleboy, don't worry about the tax issue. The state will make more money off this late tax payment with all the penalties and interest they will charge.

crackinsack. I'll bet a carton of smokes that you have never tried a western omelet at the S&S. mmmmmmmmm good!

October 21, 2008 at 6:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

wookdog13 (anonymous) says...

How sad it is for people to think they can impose what they believe on others. If you do not like something, why can you not make the decision for yourself and just stay away. I do not understand what gives people the right to tell other people what to do and how to live.
Like I have said before, most of you are like the ones who complain of porno on tv, rather than get up and turn it off. My decisions are mine to make, they may not be right for you but that doesn't necessarily mean it is right or wrong for any one else. The choice is mine to make without interruption of others imposing what they think might or might not be best for me. I say each to his own.
How sad that time and money are wasted on trivial things such as this when our government is in a state of shambles.I believe there are more important issues at hand than a smoking ban. Why are you people not concentrating on the wasted money the city and county are already wasting, especially with the doom and gloom over our country.
In other words, I think more attention should be paid on the corrupt government in Emporia.

October 21, 2008 at 8:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

hello_neighbor (anonymous) says...

Wookdog & others that are saying "If you don't like it then don't patron, etc"

Unlike being able to turn the channel on the TV, one cannot "turn off" the smoke filling the air. What is one to do, go over and put out the cigarette?

Breathing poisonous gases is hazardous to 100% of the human population, no one is immune to its effects.

Talk about wasted money...health issues related to inhalation of toxic fumes requiring medical attention.

October 21, 2008 at 2:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

"Talk about wasted money...health issues related to inhalation of toxic fumes requiring medical attention."

You mean like fumes from welding galvanized steel?
http://www.aws.org/technical/facts/FA...

Listen, we all understand that second hand smoke is not the best thing in the world for you. I don't know how many times I have to say this, so I will do it one more time... I know second hand smoke is bad for me, and I don't care. I don't smoke, if someone around me IS smoking, and it bothers me enough to want to waste 4 months of my time and the time of city commissioners proposing the most restrictive ban in the United States (fact), I would just leave instead!

October 21, 2008 at 3:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

smith_ron (anonymous) says...

You know, the problem with second hand smoke is that it is second hand smoke. Sometimes it can't be avoided, even if one stays out of bars.

The problem with this issues is that as long as one side sees it as a rights issue and the other sees it as a health issue, it will never be resolved. Can we move on to an easier topic, say abortion, religion or politics?

Matt, I had not heard that this ban was the most restrictive in the U.S. Can you point me toward the information that qualifies this statement? For that matter, I am intriqued by the OSHA report that states SHS is not a problem in the workplace. Can you direct me to that one as well?

October 21, 2008 at 5:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

http://www.ornl.gov/info/press_releas...
Try this site ron smith, it's not osha but is a good read.

October 21, 2008 at 6:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seadog (anonymous) says...

I know this is going to come across wrong... but whatever your stance or position,,, please use spell check or at least read over what you've typed before sending. It's hard to take anyone seriously when their message is rift with grammatical and spelling pot holes...

My ulimate position is this: the American public, including my neighbors here in Emporia, are not smart enough to govern their own lives, much less dictate to the rest of us. We vote in idiot politicians instead of leaders, largely based on name recognition, we drive badly, we eat badly, we spoil our children and we neglect our parents. We don't take any personal responsibility, we sue anyone who dares cross our path in the hopes of unearned, ill gotten gain... our overblown sense of entitlement has made us the laughingstock of the globe, we have pissed away the values and treasures our forebears died for and sit around whining about cigarette smoke... my plan is to set right my little corner of existence and hope and pray that the rest of you will at least consider doing the same.

October 21, 2008 at 8:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

smith_ron (anonymous) says...

Thanks, rbow. That's useful information.

October 21, 2008 at 8:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

smith_ron (anonymous) says...

Seadog: Even us illiterates have opinions.

The problem isn't that we don't elect leaders, it's that the leaders (well, most of them) don't run for office. And some would say that regulating SHS is taking control of our little corners of existence.

Just a thought.

October 21, 2008 at 8:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seadog (anonymous) says...

I told you that would come across wrong.... of course we all have opinions. Viva la difference. But would you want someone patently ignorant and bigoted dictating your personal preferences? Of course not! BTW, what is SHS? Acronyms are fun, as long as they are obvious... otherwise, just a speedbump in the highway of communication. A leader will arise, and he scares the hell out of me. Once we have dissolved everything we have created and attained, someone will come along and see how to gather up all the broken glass and create a new world order based upon their own psycho-twisted vision. We need to take control before it is too late. Can't say the N-word? Can't smoke cigarette? Can't hunt a deer or turkey? PC and liberalism can kiss my A.... I long for the world of my great grand parents!

October 21, 2008 at 9:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

smith_ron (anonymous) says...

SHS: Second-hand smoke. IT has been used enough on this board that I figured most knew what it meant. Sorry about that.

And you can say the N-word, and MOST anything else, but why would you want to?

October 22, 2008 at 2:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

Yeah, there is going to be nothing that comes out here that hasn't been discussed before. Lets just put this to a vote and be done with it.

October 22, 2008 at 12:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

Ok, on that note, did anyone see the smokeispoisonous.com ad on the main webpage?

check out communismispoisonoustoo.com

October 22, 2008 at 12:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

frulu (anonymous) says...

How about everyone in the Emporia Community pick a day. And not patronize any of these establishments that have a problem with going smoke-free. This will show why it would be important to go smoke-free and that people might visit their establishment on a more regular basis. I think they are so worried about losing peoples business or their "RIGHTS" that they aren't concerned with anyones health.

October 22, 2008 at 12:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

smith_ron (anonymous) says...

So when is the city going to take some action? If they are waiting for this group to figure it out, there going to waiting a long time.

October 22, 2008 at 1:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

wookdog13 (anonymous) says...

Frulu, that is about as ridiculous as every one not by gasoline on a certain day! I still say if you do not like something, stay away from it. Why must you all worry and fret about what every body else is doing. Do not try to make others believe as you do. That is why we are America. THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE.
Besides, since most places do not allow smoking inside, why don't you just stay inside. Problem solved.

October 22, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

photobuggy2 (anonymous) says...

I personally prefer a non-smoking enviroment. I quit smoking 9 years ago and cannot handle smoke any longer. So I pretty much stay away from places that allow smoking.

That said, I also agree that a business owner should be able to decide if they will ban smoking in their establishment.

You don't have to agree or disagree with me, it is my personal opinion...and everyone has a right to theirs, but don't try and shove your opinion down my throat. All that does is make me angry and does not further your position or the possibility of swaying me in your direction.

To bring up someone's tax information (even if it is public record and delequent) makes this seem more like the commercials for the election. Tacky, tacky, tacky! It may be true but it doesen't have anything to do with the smoking ban issue.

She doesen't want a smoking ban...well thats fine, I just won't go there, because as I said, I can't handle the smoke anymore.

October 22, 2008 at 1:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

wookdog13 (anonymous) says...

Well said and good for you photo. It is really weird that you have to tell someone to stay away if they do not like something. You would think people would just use their common sense.

October 22, 2008 at 1:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

frulu: good idea , but make it a week or month or year boycott. the name of my bar is The Town Royal and it is a smoker friendly bar, hell, the smoke is so thick it could choke a horse. I don't need you to tell me how to run my business, I have done so for 30 years. If you feel the need to boycott I'll see you on down the road at the Blind.

October 22, 2008 at 2:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

frulu (anonymous) says...

Just giving everyone the option to do something about it if they want to. People say they want things one way so then plan something to do something about the issue.

I never said that it would work.

I have no problem going to a non-smoking bar. I know a lot of people that really enjoy going to the Blind. So I do give them props!

October 22, 2008 at 2:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

Frulu, don't come to Josie's either, I'd rather not have you in there. Stick to the Country Club, and leave us lowly, unworthy peons to our Budweisers and Marlboros.

October 22, 2008 at 2:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

“If’n you ain’t smokin’ you ain’t welcome!”

I like it!

October 22, 2008 at 4:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

crackinsack; Don't count your bans until their passed.

Josie's Hey Matt, crackinsack has some good business ideas on how to increase your take home. Maybe you should offer a managers job or a partnership?

frulu; I wasn't being a smart@ss about your idea of a boycott, in fact it is truley a great idea. If all who were for this ban practiced it there wouldn't be any need for a ban!

And please, before anyone questions the health issue with my employees please talk TO them not FOR them.

October 22, 2008 at 4:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

smith_ron (anonymous) says...

Just curious, when did the pro-ban folks become the rich elite folks. I like the idea of a ban, and I am about as far from rich as they come.

October 22, 2008 at 5:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

frulu (anonymous) says...

Good one! Who says that you have to be rich and elite to agree with the smoking ban.

Just because you might think those are the kind creating it you should think twice.

Some of you business owners might lose business because of your judgements not because of the smoking issue.

October 22, 2008 at 10:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Correct me if I am wrong, but I just did some research on hazardous chemicals that occur naturally in raw tobacco, and there appears to be only a few.
The claim of the ban smoking coalition is, there are some 4000 hazardous and potentially lethal chemical compounds found in processed cigarette tobacco, cigarette smoke and SHS.
After researching the chemicals added to tobacco by the manufacturers of cigarettes and tobacco products during the manufacturing process and the list of chemicals added to natural tobacco is quite long, it seems to me that by simple logic and reasoning that the companies that manufacture the tobacco products that people use are the main culprits to blame for the health hazards of tobacco products, not the smokers, etc. that use the product and all the ban smoking advocates as well as everyone needs to concentrate on making the tobacco product manufacturers and companys stop putting the poisonous chemicals in there product and make a safer product. Everyone should demand that the government implement and enforce a ban on the addition of any and all harmfull chemicals into a product that is consumed by human beings or animals.
But of course the tobacco industry is firmly entrenched in WASHINGTON D.C. and contributes a lot of money to WASHINGTON INSIDERS, so it is much easier to ban smoking in the smaller public arena, instead of blaming the real culprits, the fat cat tobacco company's, ceo's etc.
Also the number of chemicals that are added by the tobacco companies is no where near 4000, but the burning of the tobacco with the added chemicals, could cause these chemicals to combine with
various others present and could very well produce 4000 chemical variations present in the smoke, etc.
After having done some research and said all the above, I still believe that each and every citizen should have the freedom to choose his or her lifestyle.

October 23, 2008 at 12:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

smith_ron (anonymous) says...

More curiousity: How many hazardous chemicals does it take -- natural or otherwise -- before we should be concerned?

October 23, 2008 at 2:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Who even mentioned the "Rich and Elite"? I think Matt said something about the country club but membership in that place hardly qualifies someone as rich or elite. Some of the biggest dead-beats in this town belong to the ECC. Some of the smartest people in town belong there also. Some of those most bored with life belong to the ECC. The origins of this proposed ban was born there. The club is non-smoking and I am sure new non-smoking members would be welcome. Does anyone out there have info on the membership requirements?

October 23, 2008 at 6:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Before everyone jumps on me, I am not bad mouthing the ECC. I am just saying there are all kinds of people who make up its membership, and they are not all Rich or Elite .

frulu; If I as a business owner lose business because of my judgments then it is my fault and I will live with that. To have someone else make the judgment for me and the resulting possiblity of losing business is not acceptable.

smith_ron;
Two undeclared wars.
5,000 dead and thousands more wounded from those wars.
Billions of dollars in red ink in the budget from those wars.
The loss of costitutional rights from illegal search and seizure ie; wire taps without a search warrant.
The holding and torture of prisoners without due process.
The Wall street bailout.
Fannie and Freddie bailout.
Gas prices
Stock market losing value.
A do nothing congress caring only about their hold on their offices.
Politicians promising everything to everybody just to get elected.
These are just a few of the things we should all be worried about and working on instead of the harmful chemicals you have asked about. This ban would not be needed if people would use that good ole COMMON SENSE everyone talks about . The city is closer to passing this ban, (in one form or the other), and it will not satisfy everyone. but seriously in the grand scheme of it all, was second hand smoke in Emporia Kansas that big of a deal to begin with?

October 23, 2008 at 7 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

momus (anonymous) says...

In the spirit of compromise, a friend of mine with a lot of experience in the local bar scene came up with this rationale and suggestion: Smoking is legal for those OVER 18 years of age. Thus, those over 18 should be able to choose their environment, as adults, and are responsible for where they go and what they do. Those UNDER 18 are typically dependant on someone else. They are not allowed to use or access certain chemicals for a variety of reasons, one of which is the assumed negative effect certain chemicals will have on a younger person’s physiology. Thus, businesses that allow individuals less than 18 years of age into their establishment should be smoke free (limiting exposure to a drug that is illegal for that age range), while establishments that just allow individuals over the age of eighteen should remain in the status quo.

As I said, I can't take credit for this one, but I'm interested to see what both sides have to say about this potential compromise.

October 23, 2008 at 7:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

momus;

as a bar owner I could compromise with the over 18 requirement, but I think it should be 18 and over, OR with a parent or legal guardian. That leaves the choice to the parent on exposing their kids to second hand smoke. The age requirement you came up with is similar to the Wichita ordinance and was offered to the Clean air group as a compromise but they rejected it. I will ask you and others that think this is a good fit for Emporia to once again call or e-mail your commissioners and let them know what you think.
Steve

October 23, 2008 at 10:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

I also could agree with the 18+ ordinance, however I feel the whole thing needs to come to a vote.

October 23, 2008 at 11:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

frulu (anonymous) says...

Now what would be the purpose of a smoking ban if parents could still bring their kids into smoking places? If you want specific regulations set, and if everyone doesn't have the same regulations then the smoking ban would be pointless.

You can compromise, but to an extent, you either have to have it or you don't. It just doesn't make sense to say. Oh this business has this regulation, and that one has something different.

October 23, 2008 at 2:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nutsaboutools (anonymous) says...

methusla,

I think you're on to something. If all these "hazardous" and "toxic" chemicals in cigarette smoke are a result of the manufacturing process and we could eliminate them, maybe the concerns would diminish ( I didn't realize how much is "added"). But like you said, the tobacco companies have so many "connections" in Washington, that it would likely be difficult to get these "additives" removed.

You'd think that the tobacco companies would welcome the request (less cost) and if the toxicity of cigarettes is reduced, less pressure (and lawsuits) on them. I'd be interested in the comparison of "toxic" chemicals produced from cigarettes as compared with cigars and pipe tobacco.

I've always wondered why we're so concerned about 2nd hand smoke and yet every Spring, and Summer we burn acres and acres of fields. Nobody seems to be concerned with breathing that smoke.

October 23, 2008 at 3:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

frulu & crackinsack;

My proposal on the 18 and over OR accompianied by a parent or legal guardian would allow the parent to make his/her own decision on what is best for their own child. A good meal at Bruff's with possible exposure to the evil 2nd hand smoke, or a fat filled kids meal at the local Wendy's or Micky D's. Are you saying we need to regulate parenting even more? Why wouldn't it work? A international smoker friendly sign on the front door stating 18 & over or accompanied by a parent to enter.

October 23, 2008 at 4:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

WILLIAM_A (anonymous) says...

Crackinsack
You stated

The children need to be protected from their parent's deadly habit as much as possible.

I think you should contact child services and turn in all those parents for exposing their kids to SHS. How many kids do you think SRS is going to remove from the home. NONE is the answer!!! There must be a reason for this.

October 23, 2008 at 8:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

WILLIAM_A

Be carefull, you might give Clean Air Emporia ideas. This is starting already in the Great state of California. No smoking in cars with children, and in some towns no smoking in your own home if you have children.

October 24, 2008 at 7:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

smith_ron (anonymous) says...

Considering the risks associated with SHS, it his hard to imagine any good parent would smoke around kids.

October 24, 2008 at 7:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

WILLIAM_A (anonymous) says...

Rbow

" The great state of California" that is just wayyy to funny.
I say lets charter a plane and put all these do gooders on it for a one way trip to the the great state.

ron_smith
Yes a good parent would not expose their kids to SHS. And that being said, is why a good parent would not take their kids into a place of business that allows smoking.

Whats the world coming to!!!!
Everyday we wake up and we are bothered with the job of making good choices.

This smoking ban is a waste of time. Let business owners and customers make those choices. We dont need a vote nor do we need local goverment to do this. I think there are much bigger problems to address in this city.

But this has been said several times already.

October 24, 2008 at 8:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

This is a perfect example of what a slippery slope this ban is. Lets ban smoking in "public" places. Then lets ban smoking in private cars. Then lets ban smoking in private homes. Then lets ban guns in public buildings. Then lets ban guns in private homes.

October 24, 2008 at 12:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

wookdog13 (anonymous) says...

Why not just use common sense! If you do not like smoking or what ever else, then "simple" stay away. You know, you do have a choice. Do not talk about good food and smoking at the same place. If you do not like the smoke you should not have been there in the first place.
Now, for taking your kids, I would hope that you would have good judgement of your own and not have to have someone else make the decision for you. I have yet to see any one in handcuffs being dragged into a smoking place just because they do not like SHS. Being a parent also means sacrafice.
I suppose you all are the same ones that do not like smoke but let your kid eat the massive junk food available.
To me this is all kind of a double edged sword and we were given brains to figure out what is or isn't good for us. In other words we have the right to choose without others butting into our business.
If you ban smoking in vehicles, will it also help with drunk drivers? Seems that has been around for a long time. Besides, a lot more people have been killed because of drunk drivers than smoking drivers. It seems to me that would be more of a concern.

October 24, 2008 at 12:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Holy Cow ! Now some are stating that all parents who smoke are "BAD PARENTS" ! Smoking does not make a parent a "good parent" or "bad parent". Some parents who have been percieved as good parents in fact, have been found to be bad parents, whether they smoke or not. As for smoking not serving a purpose, has anyone ever asked anyone who smokes if they believe that smoking is serving any particular purpose for them, maybe it makes them happy, feel good, etc.. Also as for field or pasture burning, does it serve a purpose for anyone except the farmer or cattleman and what about the insectiside, fertilizer, etc., residue that is present in the smoke, which by the way carries a whole lot farther than cigarette smoke. Just in case your interested, if you should ever contract poison ivy and swear you have never come into contact with poison ivy itself, poison ivy is also carried in smoke when it is burned, so if a farmer or rancher burns his field and inadvertantly burns poison ivy, the poison ivy is present in the smoke also, along with whatever other chemical residue that was put on the field or pasture, besides whatever other natural toxins may be present.
As I have said in some of my other posts, when you start down the road of restricting, removing or banning rights and freedoms of the people and believing you think you know what is best for everyone and how everyone should live their lives, you are embarking on a journey on a road that continues to go downhill at an alarming rate and the only inevitable end will be one of "TOTALITARIANISM" , where everyone will eventually lose most all of their rights and freedoms and will have to live their lives according to the dictates of the few who will be the only ones who will have rights and freedoms and believe their way of life is the only way for everyone to live or what is best for everyone.

October 24, 2008 at 2:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

P.S.
According to the Dept. Of Health and Human services there are 599 chemical additives added to cigarette tobacco during the cigarette making process. Below is just a few, see if you recognize any.
Acetanisole
Acetic Acid
Acetoin
Acetophenone
6-Acetoxydihydrotheaspirane
2-Acetyl-3- Ethylpyrazine
2-Acetyl-5-Methylfuran
Acetylpyrazine
2-Acetylpyridine
3-Acetylpyridine
2-Acetylthiazole
Aconitic Acid
dl-Alanine
Alfalfa Extract
Allspice Extract,Oleoresin, and Oil
Allyl Hexanoate
Allyl Ionone
Almond Bitter Oil
Ambergris Tincture
Ammonia
Ammonium Bicarbonate
Ammonium Hydroxide
Ammonium Phosphate Dibasic
Ammonium Sulfide
Amyl Alcohol
Amyl Butyrate
Amyl Formate
Amyl Octanoate
alpha-Amylcinnamaldehyde
Amyris Oil
trans-Anethole

October 24, 2008 at 3:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

P.S.
Also I have not been able to find any info that states that cadmium is an additive that is used in the making of tobacco products.
If anyone wishes, I can post the rest of the chemical additive list here for all to see, but I would have to do it in several stages, as it is quite long.

October 24, 2008 at 3:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

wookdog13 (anonymous) says...

Good one methusla. Why can not those people just choose to stay away from what they do not like or approve?
I have a mind and hopefully enough common sense to know what is right or wrong for me. But maybe my rights and wrongs may not be for you, that is why the smart person would use their own mind to figure out for themself. I think most adults are capable of making a choice. Of course, I have said that over half the US is just plain stupid.
In other words, why do we need anybody to tell those of us who are capable of thinking, what to do, where to go, and how to use it? LOL

October 24, 2008 at 3:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BigE (anonymous) says...

Has Debbie Simmons even been in the S&S cafe? I know she said she manages it, but "very good air intake and exhaust", is she serious? That's one place that some smokers even avoid because of too much smoke.

Methusla, first you said you researched and found only a few chemicals, then you said 599, then you said there were so many that you would have to post it in several stages. There's quite a difference between a few, and too many to list in one post.

October 24, 2008 at 3:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BigE (anonymous) says...

seadog posted:
"I long for the world of my great grand parents!"
Who doesn't? Who wouldn't want to have a life expectancy of about 30? Get polio, measles, mumps, T.B., the plague, etc... or get shot by some random stranger that thinks you are stealing his cattle. Oh those were the good ol' days!

October 24, 2008 at 4:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Big E:
I can see that I need to clarify my statement of a "few chemicals found in tobacco", what I should have said was, "in tobacco that is natural growing there is only a few chemicals found, the main one being nicotin along with what ever pesticide or fertilizer residues that are used by the tobacco farmer.
The 599 chemicals I refered to, are the ones added by the cigarette and tobacco product manufacturers and you will have to admit that 599 is not 4000. I hope I clarified my earlier post, sorry for the confusion and I hope you can see that the people that smoke are really not soley responsible for the health hazards found in cigarette smoke, etc., but the largest blame for the poisons, etc. found in cigarette smoke, etc. clearly lies with the tobacco product manufacturers and our government for allowing the manufacturers to add such chemicals to a product consumed by human beings.
So, doesn't it make more sense to ban the manufacturers from adding hazardous chemicals to their product, instead of denying individual citizens from living their lives as they choose to do.
After all if you found that meat processors, etc. were adding hazardous ingredients to their product wouldn't you do everything you could to make those products as safe as possible or would you ban meat eaters from eating meat, milk drinkers from drinking milk.
Now I am sure that you are going to say eating meat, drinking milk, etc. is not the same as smoking, but the principle point is the same, and the point is if you know that a manufacturer is the prime offender in making an unhealthy product, shouldn't you go after the manufacturer or the government that allows the manufacturer to produce and sell a tainted and unhealthy product to the public ?
Also there are numerous chemicals on the list of 599 used by the cigarette and tobacco product manufacturers that are so toxic, poisnous and carcinogenic that the common ordinary person cannot purchase them.

October 24, 2008 at 5:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

It is getting pretty old trying to respond to Big E. Me thinks he/she/it just argues to argue to argue to argue, to argue to argue.
We think that people are smart enough to decide their own fate, YOU think that people are too stupid to and need the government to decide for them. After the last 8 years of government running our lives I would trust my stupid ideas over the governments anyday. What part of CHOICE do you not understand? I would suggest to Gwen that she shut this thread down, but I would not want to be compared to Hitler. Let's just all agree that you hate smoking and all those who smoke and you think it should be outlawed. Then we can lable you as a
the "bigot" you are.

October 24, 2008 at 9:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

rbow:
You may be right about Big E, I don't know for sure. However I do believe that he truely believes that if everyone would live their lives as he believes he knows best that the world would be a better place, no matter how missguided his thinking and beliefs may be.
What I have tried to do in my last few posts is try and educate Big E and the rest of the smoking and hate smokers advocates to the real fact that smokers are not totally responsible for the hazards of smoking cigarettes and using tobacco products, but in fact the real responsible parties that are most responsible are the " THE BIG TOBACCO COMPANYS " who add the most hazaradous chemicals to the products they manufacture and our governments allows them to add the chemicals to their product that is sold to the public and that every individual has the right and freedom to live their lives as they choose without interference from anyone or any thing and that the individuals freedom to pursue what makes him or her happy is protected by the constitution.
But trying to instill some reason into a single minded person is like trying to tear down a brick wall with a rubber band, it can't be done.

October 24, 2008 at 10:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

"Who wouldn't want to have a life expectancy of about 30?"

If it meant I could live free, I'd take it in a New York minute!

October 25, 2008 at 2:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

smith_ron (anonymous) says...

Lord, man. You have NO IDEA what it means to be oppressed.

October 25, 2008 at 7:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

smith_ron:
I hate to disagree with your bit of sarcasim, but according to the definition of "opress", that is exactly what will happen and is trying to be implemented by a smoking ban.
op·press (-prs)
tr.v. op·pressed, op·press·ing, op·press·es
1. To keep down by severe and unjust use of force or authority: a people who were oppressed by tyranny.
2. To weigh heavily on: Poverty oppresses the spirit.
3. Obsolete To overwhelm or crush.

October 25, 2008 at 11:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BigE (anonymous) says...

That's right methusla, keep swinging your rubber hammer...
Funny how rbow reprimands those who are posting for name calling, then he comes back with the ever popular "bigot" and methusla chimes in with the famous "single minded". God forbid anyone have a different opinion than you two.

rbow, i do not care for smoking, but don't think that it needs to be outlawed. I just don't think it should be done where others are exposed to SHS. That seems pretty simple to me. Also, I will state my own words, and don't need you to do it for me. You stick to stating your opinion and I will state mine.
Thank you. Have a nice day...

October 25, 2008 at 7:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

smith_ron (anonymous) says...

Restricting a health hazard hardly qualifies as an act of tyranny, especially when more than a few favor it.

October 25, 2008 at 7:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Big E:
I evidently struck a nerve with the "single minded" remark, it would seem that there are those who can dish it out but not take it ! If being labled as single minded is calling some one names your mind what is referring to some one as "a little man" ( your words, not mine) known as in your particular circle.

sin·gle-mind·ed
adj.
1. Having one overriding purpose or goal: the single-minded pursuit of money.
2. Steadfast; resolute: He was single-minded in his determination to stop smoking

I have given you facts on who is the real bad people are who are poisoning, not only non smokers but smokers alike and I will not repeat the facts to you again as all you have to do is either go back a few posts and read for yourself or do some research as I have.
I will give you the same sarcastic sign off as you have seen fit to give myself and others.
Thank you. Have a nice day.......

October 25, 2008 at 10:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

BigE:
In case you haven't been able to see it or realize it I have admitted that smoking is not the healthiest thing to do and that there are indeed poisons and hazardous chemicals, ( now read carefully) added to the tobacco products by the company's who make the tobacco products that are sold to the people who purchase and use them. But the people who purchase and use these products are as much a victim of the unscrupulous company's who make the product, so why in the world don't you go after these company's who are adding these chemicals to their product !
I may be wrong, but just maybe these large rich company's are a bigger dog to go after and you are afraid you may get seriously bitten, so you are willing to go after and punish the little guy (who is also a victim) instead of fighting the big guy who in actuality is the real bad guy.

October 25, 2008 at 10:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

smith_ron (anonymous) says...

Perhaps I am wrong, but this is not so much trying to get rid of smoking (although some may disagree with me on that point) as it is trying to regulate a health hazard. Restricting smoking in public and quasi-public(?) areas is not the same as banning all smoking everywhere.
One: The national economy would take a serious blow if the tobacco industry were shut down.
Two: I believe what is done in the privacy of one's own home is, in fact, private. No, I don't think the same applies to bars, etc., simply because MOST don't truly regulate who comes in the door. For example, if I walked into Matt's bar right now, would he throw me out? Probably not. However, if I walked into his house, he'd probably throw me out, and shoot me (rightly so) in the process.

For what it is worth, I think the personnel attacks made by some of us are still taking away from the actual importance of this discussion.

October 25, 2008 at 11:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

The criteria for my apartment and my bar are two separate things, but I do have standards for both. If you are overly intoxicated, you are not welcome in either. If your name is Ron Smith, you are welcome in the bar, and not my apartment. If your name is Angelina Jolie, you are welcome in both... I digress...

We do have standards here (at Josie's) regarding entrance. Yes, we do allow far more people in than I would in my apartment, however, we are still not open to everyone, same as any other privately owned business in Emporia.

October 26, 2008 at 2:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

smith_ron (anonymous) says...

Out of curiousity, what type of person is not on Josie's "A" list (not meaning that in any way but to be funny. I guess it is not so funny when you have to explain it).

October 26, 2008 at 8:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

I have posted the facts as to the practice of adding hazardous chemicals to tobacco products by the tobacco product manufacturers.
The list of chemicals is readily available to anyone who cares to go get it, as I have done.
I would like to have the Clean Air or ban smoking advocates explain to me, why you have not or do not want to go after the tobacco manufacturers, who add the toxic and hazardous chemicals to their product and insist upon going after and punishing the individual, public citizen,(who is as much or more of a victim as anyone), after all is it not the tobacco product manufacturers who are responsible for poisoning all of us with their tainted product?
I believe your efforts should be aimed at getting the company's who manufacture the tainted tobacco products to stop adding anything toxic and hazardous to their product and ban them from doing so.

October 26, 2008 at 9:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

smith_ron (anonymous) says...

I imagine it is because no one wants to ban smoking, they just want to regulate where smoking occurs. It is hardly the role of RJ Reynolds to decide where Emporia should be exposed to second hand smoke. That job belongs to the fine folks of Emporia.

For what it is worth, plenty of folks, including the state of Kansas, have gone after the big boys, according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_...). Some have actually won.

October 26, 2008 at 11:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BigE (anonymous) says...

methusla, it's plain to see that you always have a dictionary nearby, as most of your posts appear to be directly from Webster's. You also must be very efficient with said dictionary.

Let me get this straight, now you are playing the victim card from both CAE and big tobacco? You really are oppressed! On one side you have a group of citizens trying to implement a plan to help protect the health of all citizens (or as you call it trying to take away every last freedom that you have). On the other side you have a huge tobacco industry that is trying to slowly kill you with various chemicals and toxins. That is what I call a true dilemma.

dilemma–noun
1. a situation requiring a choice between equally undesirable alternatives.
2. any difficult or perplexing situation or problem.
3. Logic. a form of syllogism in which the major premise is formed of two or more hypothetical propositions and the minor premise is a disjunctive proposition, as “If A, then B; if C then D. Either A or C. Therefore, either B or D.”

You may already know this, but no matter how many toxic components they put in their product, they are completely benign until the package is opened and the product is lit. Again, I'm NOT against smoking, just against exposing others to SHS.
Thank you, have a nice day...

October 26, 2008 at 11:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

"Out of curiousity, what type of person is not on Josie's "A" list (not meaning that in any way but to be funny. I guess it is not so funny when you have to explain it)."

I leave the "A" list qualifications to our door personnel, but it is actually pretty liberal. By the way, it is not only explained, it is in our SOP and explained to every new person we hire.

18+
Not intoxicated

Haven't had any problems with the person before

Aren't causing problems at the door

No gang crap (a few people in Emporia like to think they are in a gang; i.e.- "I REPRESENT THE SOUTH SIDE!" Yeah, because Reebles is hard knocks man (rolls eyes)

Of course no weapons of any kind

Must have valid photo ID

That is the basics, i don't have the complete list with me, but I think you get the general idea. Basically it is the doorman's perogative. If he lets you in great, if he doesn't, move on...

October 26, 2008 at 12:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

smith_ron (anonymous) says...

Thanks Matt.

Can a bar or restaurant or other such business kick someone out based on race, sexual preference or any of that stuff?

October 26, 2008 at 3:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

smith_ron:
to answer your above question, yes, but why would you want to?

October 26, 2008 at 4:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

smith_ron (anonymous) says...

I would not kick out anyone who was not causing problems, especially if they were spending money..

October 26, 2008 at 4:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

smith_ron'

Pretend you own your own small business (bar). You have spent thousands of your own money into opening said business. You have dealt with restrictive health, building and fire and liquor codes in the time you have run your business. You have invested some of your profits into remodeling your business and pay the higher taxes that are the result. You have donated time and money into various charities and worthwhile causes in your community. You employee a small staff of employees who make a living wage working for you, and they do so knowing full-well the downside of working in a bar. You have, (over time), come to think of your customers more as friends than just as customers. Then you have a group, who has never been into your bar come in and tell you that you must kick out your regular customers and friends because they have a habit that is offensive to the new group. Under these conditions what would you do? Please answer honestly.

October 26, 2008 at 5:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Big E:
The only dilemma I have is how a person can say that they are trying to protect the health of all citizens, when they (you) know that if you really and truely wanted to protect the health of ALL citizens you would be demanding that big tobacco cease adding hazardous chemicals to their product, and to say that big tobacco is benign until the package is opened is the most stupid thing I have heard yet, especially when they (big tobacco) knows full well what they are adding to their product and exactly what the consequences of anyone using their product will be and they also know that their products package will be opened and used or consumed.
As for smokers being victims I for one believe that they are as much a victim as you and CAE believe you are victims of the self same product the smokers use. You do believe you are victims of SHS don't you ?
I sir, also believe that you are the one with a severe dilemma, in the fact that you say, Again, I'm NOT against smoking, just against exposing others to SHS. It appears to me that someone who is not against smoking and yet wants to ban smoking in certain places, which you probably dont frequent anyway, is a very mixed up individual.
Would you please have the straight forwardness and gumption to truthfully tell everyone, especially the business owners whom you are indeed targeting, I use the word targeting, because smoking is already banned in almost every publicly owned business or building now, anyway, would you please tell these business owners if you have ever been in their business establishment and if not why and please list the names of the businesses you have not visited because they allow smoking and you will visit if a smoking ban is adopted.
And please don't twist other peoples words, etc. to try and justify your beliefs. And for your information, I am not playing any kind of victim card, etc., just stating what I believe is the truth based on facts and what I have been reading here, it is your statements that lead me to believe that you and CAE think of yourselves as victims.
Thank you. Have a nice day........

October 26, 2008 at 11:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

"Can a bar or restaurant or other such business kick someone out based on race, sexual preference or any of that stuff?"

rbow summed it up, yes you can, but its really stupid, and I would never do that. I do believe that every person on my staff has been called a racist, whether they are white, black, Mexican, male, or female, myself included. We have a running joke that when we close on Friday we are holding a klan rally, and Saturday is open for the black panthers. I have found when you kick someone out, a lot of times they will pull the race card. I've had white guys we have removed call me racist. Stupid.

You can kick people out/refuse entrance to anyone for any reason. In bigger cities, color themed nights are really popular; white, blue, red, black, etc. People are invited to the theme nights, and dress only in that color. In some bars, if you aren't wearing that color, they either refuse entrance or charge an outrageous cover charge, just because of the color of shirt you are wearing. Bars in cities as close as Topeka (Juls is one) have dress codes, and if you don't meet the dress code, you aren't allowed in, no exceptions.

Basically I am saying that you don't need a reason to remove/refuse entrance to someone, because it is a privately owned business, hence the sign, "We Reserve The Right To Refuse Service To Anyone For Any Reason."

That means exactly what it says. Whether you are wearing the wrong colored shirt, the wrong KIND of shirt, you are too intoxicated, you talk to loud, you are the bartenders ex-boy/girlfriend, and yes, your race and your sexual preference, although as stated before, with the last two, it is really stupid. It might be sad, but I would bet money that there are bars in this county, if not city, that if a gay couple were to go in holding hands, they would be asked to leave. It might not be morally right, but it is up to the business owner, and him alone, who he allows in his bar.

October 27, 2008 at 12:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

smith_ron (anonymous) says...

Thanks Rbow and Josie.

Honestly, the race question didn't have anything to do with the smoking ban. I really was curious about if and when you could remove someone.

2. Rbow: I would not kick out anyone just because a group (especially one that I did not agree with) said they were offended by an event happening in my bar. However, if the LAW said the event (or activity) were illegal, then I would hope my friends and regulars would have enough respect for the bar (and me) to not partake. As far as kicking them out, if they disrespect the bar (by breaking the law), and refuse to stop, then out they go. Why risk the heat over someone who has no respect for you?

October 27, 2008 at 7:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Rbow, josiesbar:
Correct me if I am wrong, but don't a number of businesses post a sign in their establishments stating," WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE" and doesn't this mean that the business or business owner may refuse to offer service to anyone or remove anyone from their business for, any reason the business owner deems improper, according to the standards the business owner has set forth or believes is improper !

October 27, 2008 at 10:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

former_emporian (anonymous) says...

The "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" signs are illegal in most states.seems the people who run the business use that sign to get rid of people who are black,brown,blue,red or purple,or those who live on the other side of the tracks.a lot of buisness owners use that sign as carte blanch when they don't like the looks of someone trying to patronize their establishment.

October 27, 2008 at 10:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

former_emporian:
Thank you for the answer. I also have another question, I have also seen signs that say " NO SHIRT, NO SHOES, NO SERVICE" signs, what about these signs ?

October 27, 2008 at 10:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

Ok, correction on the race thing. Yes it is illegal to ban/bar someone because of race, however former_emporia, "The Right To Refuse Service" signs are not illegal.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library...

"So Are “We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone” Signs in Restaurants Legal?

Yes, however they still do not give a restaurant the power to refuse service on the basis of race, color, religion, or natural origin. These signs also do not preclude a court from finding other arbitrary refusals of service to be discriminatory. Simply put, restaurants that carry a “Right to Refuse Service” sign are subject to the same laws as restaurants without one.

What Conditions Allow a Restaurant to Refuse Service?

There a number of legitimate reasons for a restaurant to refuse service, some of which include:

Patrons who are unreasonably rowdy or causing trouble
Patrons that may overfill capacity if let in
Patrons who come in just before closing time or when the kitchen is closed
Patrons accompanied by large groups of non-customers looking to sit in
Patrons lacking adequate hygiene (e.g. excess dirt, extreme body odor, etc.)
In most cases, refusal of service is warranted where a customer’s presence in the restaurant detracts from the safety, welfare, and well-being of other patrons and the restaurant itself."

"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits restaurants from refusing service to patrons on the basis of race, color, religion, or natural origin."

You learn something new everyday!

October 27, 2008 at 11:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

smith_ron (anonymous) says...

Course, if you had a doorman who said, "I am not letting you in because you are black," you probably need a new doorman.

October 27, 2008 at 12:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

the sign on our door says "Smoking Allowed,
Whining is Not! "

steve

October 27, 2008 at 1:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

smith_ron (anonymous) says...

Oh, so you want to restrict whining in a bar...next thing you will know, they won't allow smoking.

Just kidding.

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

LifeGoesOn (anonymous) says...

I wonder where the gazette stands on this subject? Oh Wait! I guess they have not moved this story like they do most others after about 50 posts, that should tell me what their opinion is!

October 27, 2008 at 6:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )