slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

Does anyone know when the commission is supposed to vote on this issue?

September 12, 2008 at 3:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

madpoet (anonymous) says...

I agree that smoking is bad and avoid it like the poison it is. But it's really dicey when they want to dictate to private businesses that aren't places people HAVE to use. I would like to see a smoking ban in restaurants where children might go but bars are for adults and you can chose not to go into them. I really see both sides of this issue and it's a tough one. There are places I would like to go but don't because of the smoke. But I'm not sure it's my right to tell the business owner what they have to do with their private property. I wouldn't be happy if someone came to my house and said, well, you have (whatever) and we think people shouldn't be exposed to it. Since people come visit you here you must get rid of it. I think the ordinance is too restrictive as it stands. I feel pity for people who smoke and can't quit. It took my dad decades of trying before he kicked it.And he took that medicine to help wean him off the cigarettes. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask people to go the length of a meal without smoking. But bars and clubs are hangouts for adults. I don't know how it would affect their business. I doubt people would drive out of town for a drink but they may stay home more. We wouldn't know unless it's passed and then it may be too late if some businesses fold.

September 12, 2008 at 3:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawker (anonymous) says...

I am not a smoker, and I will dispute so much of her implicit claims that second hand smoke is proven to cause the ill effects about which she claims. Besides, that is not the issue. Non smoking areas are already provided for in restaurants, and no good parent will take children into a bar. It would be helpful to everyone in this debate to honestly discuss the issues.

September 12, 2008 at 3:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

emporian (anonymous) says...

I've got bigger things to worry about than what second hand smoke causes. I come into contact with worse stuff at work all the time. Heck, everything gives you cancer these days.

September 12, 2008 at 3:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

neighbor (anonymous) says...

"It is an addiction that harms or kills infants, children and adults, causing low birth weight infants, ear infections, upper respiratory infections (colds), acute lung infections and chronic conditions such as asthma, bronchitis and emphysema."

Now lets see the list of other possible causes for these ailments that were also tested, considered and were eliminated from being the possible "cause" you so boldly claim to be caused from tobacco smoke.

I grew around numerous smokers. I weighed nearly 10 lbs at birth. According to your brazen claims, I should be on oxygen already. I very rarely get sick. Colds are caused by viruses, not from smoke, being a nurse, I'm surprised you posted that BS claim. If they know the cause of the common cold, how is it they cannot cure it? I smoked in the house before my kids were born, thru their grade school years, and until we built a new home 3 years ago. The oldest weighed 9lbs at birth, the youngest 7 almost 8 lbs. Nope, didn't fit your gloom and doom "fact". Neither suffered excessive incidents of ear maladies, colds, nor from asthma. Most of their colds, flu bugs, and other illnesses were exposed to them at Daycare, where other kids passed around one virus or the other weekly. Smoking wasn't allowed there of course. Neither had acute lung infections, nor have I or their mother. I'm telling Mrs. Grother, just like I have my physician and our peds doctors, you blaming cigarette smoke for causing all the medical maladies you mentioned, is worse than blaming all fires on matches.

The anti-smoking/alcohol/drug league of Emporia has failed miserably at the school level obviously. I predict they will fail at this attempt to force their desires on the adult population and on local businesses.

September 12, 2008 at 4:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

justthefacts (anonymous) says...

Yup and Neville Chamberlain told his fellow Englishmen and most of Europe that Hitler would never invade western Europe despite the warning from the experts. Everyone found it easier to stick their head in the sand for find some other "expert" that would convince them otherwise. I've never seen such a case of enabling of a very real addiction of a drug (nicotine) as there is during debates of the use of tobacco products. We restrict the right of freedom of speech in a public building to yell "fire." We restrict the right to burn (except in the county it seems) because of the health concerns. We regulate air quality by auto emissions and fuel additives. Since carbon monoxide and other carcinogens are found in tobacco fumes and vehicle exhaust I have a hard time understanding why we won't not want to be proactive. Many employees who work in smoking establishments cannot find alternative employment. We don't allow employees to work in other dangerous situations why this? I would agree that it is ok to allow them to continue to be exposed to unhealthy environments so long as they can sue their employers for $1 Million Dollars if they get sick of a connected illness.

Seems to me if people who are working the field identify real concerns, they should be shown better consideration that that which was posted above. Seems like there are too many Chamberlains in Emporia!!

September 12, 2008 at 4:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

Even if the ordinance were to pass, smokers will still light up in their own private homes, cars, and yards. The ordinance doesn't cover that so what good will it do? Besides, "the community" you speak of is against this ordinance because it is just one more way that the few try to control the many. There are far too many real problems in this town with which some warrior of the welfare could get involved.

September 12, 2008 at 4:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawker (anonymous) says...

Good point on Neville Chamberlain, justthefacts, but for the opposite reason that you assert. Chamberlain attempted to appease Hitler rather than directly deal with the threat. He did not recognize or appreciate the insidious nature of Hitler's ambitions. In effect, he stuck his head in the sand. The same could be true here - if we appease these folks by caving into them, we should be forewarned of the insidious nature of their agenda. We need look no farther than California, one of the leaders of this movement. After they got smoke outlawed, they went after trans fats in restaurants, and now LA has banned fast food places in certain parts of the city. Their reasoning for all were the same - these practices are unhealthy, they contribute to health care costs and we are the "experts" who know what is best for you, even if we trample all over the private property rights of owners. The example of Chamberlain is evidence of why this should be opposed, and opposed vigorously.

September 12, 2008 at 4:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

dhcc66 (anonymous) says...

don't force our laws on you? ok, lets do it the even way. if you want to smoke, don't force your second hand smoke on us. it's annoying, it smells horrible, and it causes health problems for those who are allergic and/or asthmatic. do it in the privacy of your own home, your car, or anywhere else allowed by law.
if they decide to pass the ordinance, smokers, please abide by it. If you don't, then i'll be asking the nice officers to come make a report and let me sign a ticket with your name on it for smoking where you aren't allowed to.

if you still insist on objecting to it, move to somewhere that allows to you kill yourself slowly on your own and not around others who don't want to go with you.

September 12, 2008 at 5:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

I salute Joan Grother's choice of profession, it shows her compassion for others health. I do not support Clean Air Emporia's proposed ban as it takes away an individuals right to partake in a legal substance. The choice of an adult to enter a private business that allows smoking. The choice of an adult to not enter a business that allows smoking. Name 1 place that allows smoking that anyone is FORCED to enter. NONE IN EMPORIA!

September 12, 2008 at 5:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawker (anonymous) says...

dhcc66: You have identified one of the serious practical problems with this ordinance. Put yourself in the position of the police department or an officer receiving and responding to a call of a felonious smoker. This officer would go into the bar and attempt to investigate who was smoking, a difficult task indeed if the cigarette had been completed before the officer's arrival. Assuming that there is evidence (a smoked cigarette butt, for example) and witness statements, then you put the officer in the position of arresting the smoker. After the call (with an arrest or not), the officer has to spend time writing a report of the matter, etc. In the mean time, real calls are going unanswered. Do we really want an ordinance that puts the Police Department, and individual officers, in this situation?

September 12, 2008 at 5:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawker (anonymous) says...

Another problem for the Police if this ordinance is adopted. If you call for them to come into a bar to arrest a smoker, remember that drinking is rampant in bars, and it is entirely possible that a drunk, or several drunks, may not take kindly to the police arresting someone for smoking. Suddenly, a simple call becomes a serious call, and now instead of one or two officers dealing with a smoking issue instead of real calls, the simple smoking call may require four or five officers. In a lot of legislation, there are unintended consequences, and this will definitely be one of them. We need to think this through carefully, and so far, I don't know that we have.

September 12, 2008 at 6 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawker (anonymous) says...

Let's take it to the next step. Once an arrest occurs, then the courts must deal with it. If it turned into a Battery on a Law Enforcement Officer, then the County Attorney and the District Court must handle it. That means additional costs to the county taxpayers, especially if it involves appointed lawyers for the suspect. If the officer (or officers) are injured from the battery, then the city will bear hospital and other medical costs, plus worker's comp expenses, and the department will be understaffed until the injured officer can return to duty. If it goes only to municipal court, then you have further clogged its docket, and whatever fine is assessed will not cover the total cost. This thing if fraught with difficulties.

September 12, 2008 at 6:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

jayhawker, I agree with you 100%. I was at the proposal meeting and here is how Saubere Luft Emporia foresees enforcement.

A person is smoking at a bar, and someone sees them. They call the police, they do an investigation (it was Professor Plum in The Noose with the Marlboro), and if someone is found the person and the establishment get a fine. If nothing is uncovered, the complaint goes on record, and after 3 or 4 complaints, Saubere Luft Emporia wants the liquor license revoked.

September 12, 2008 at 6:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawker (anonymous) says...

Since most of these calls to the Police will occur during evening hours, dhcc66, it will involve officers who are assigned a shift to work that is different than the hours when the courts will consider the matter. Therefore, it will be necessary to bring in officers for court and pay them overtime, since it would occur at a time when they are off, even in the most simple of smoking cases. That will further stress the city's budget.

September 12, 2008 at 6:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawker (anonymous) says...

Ah, hah, josiesbar!! An ingenious way to impose prohibition! Call in false reports on each bar 5 times, and get their licenses!! By closing them, de facto prohibition!! (I'm kidding, but the police examples are very serious and very real.)

September 12, 2008 at 6:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

jayhawker,

My other fear is that this will be misused. This has already happens with the police and fire marshal, where someone will "tattle" on a bar for capacity or whatever with the sole purpose of getting that bar shut down for the night. This will be just another way to do it. I can see this being SERIOUSLY misused. The Kansas ABC had an anonymous 800 number that was to be used for people calling in bars that served minors. I don't think it lasted 6 months, due to misuse in the above mentioned manner.

September 12, 2008 at 6:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawker (anonymous) says...

I don't know anything about our new Chief of Police, josiesbar (other than rumors that spending has skyrocketed since he came), but If I were him, I would be telling the City Manager and the City Commission that his department wants nothing to do with this. They have enough PR problems already, given the nature of their job, and the last thing they need is another minefield fraught with PR nightmares, besides the practical problems with it.

September 12, 2008 at 6:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

Jayhawker & Josiesbar: You are giving the "clean air" clan way too much credit. They could care less about rationale, reason, facts, or right and wrong. All they care about is getting their will implemented. Cost, hardship, or fairness is of no concern to these environmental commandos.

September 12, 2008 at 6:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawker (anonymous) says...

Bjnemp: I don't know about you, but situations like this makes me feel like I belong to a bygone age, and I probably do. In the world that I grew up in, when my values were formed, nobody would be so rude or elitist enough to try to tell somebody else how to live their life or what they could or couldn't do with their private property. Now, look at us. These people will probably get this thing passed. We're not talking about New York or San Francisco either, we're talking about Emporia, Kansas. I'm still healthy, although very old, but sometimes I wonder how long I can endure the take over of my world. It is a lonely, lonely feeling sometimes, and once in a while makes me regret good health. These people are strangers, the whole town is getting more and more full of strangers, strangers to common sense and our way of life. Its as if my home has been occupied by people that I have never heard of and they are telling me to get out. I always lived in the present and looked forward to the future, but here I am, in my old age, pining for the clear thinking world now made up only of those long dead.

September 12, 2008 at 6:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawker (anonymous) says...

When I was much younger, George Orwell's book "1984" was something that everybody talked about for a while. The conclusion was that the world would never come to a "Big Brother" society. We thought that Orwell was suffering from a big imagination or was just trying to sell books. Yet, here we are, talking about the police arresting people for smoking in a bar. I wish that I could go back to that time and warn people what lay ahead, and to have tried to stop it. The man that we thought was crazy turned out to be a prophet.

September 12, 2008 at 7:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MisterO (anonymous) says...

"if you want to smoke, don't force your second hand smoke on us." dhcc66

Dhcc66 - please elaborate and tell us exactly when you were forced to enter any business against your will and forced to breathe second hand smoke.

"As a nurse practitioner for the last five years and a registered nurse for the last 20 years, I have seen first hand the devastating effects that smoking and second hand smoke has had on individuals." Joan Grother

Joan, please provide reliable statistics that show exactly what "devastating effects" you have seen directly attributed to second hand smoke. I'm sure the medical facility you work at keeps statistical records that could prove your claim if true. Please ask the medical facility to provide you the number of individuals treated at the facility that have had devastating medical problems caused by second hand smoke.

I'll be eagerly awaiting your reply.

September 12, 2008 at 7:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

LifeGoesOn (anonymous) says...

Though repetition has little to do with "the truth," we're repeatedly told that there's "no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke."

OSHA begs to differ.

OSHA has established PELs (Permissible Exposure Levels) for all the measurable chemicals, including the 40 alleged carcinogens, in secondhand smoke. PELs are levels of exposure for an 8-hour workday from which, according to OSHA, no harm will result.

Of course the idea of "thousands of chemicals" can itself sound spooky. Perhaps it would help to note that coffee contains over 1000 chemicals, 19 of which are known to be rat carcinogens.
-"Rodent Carcinogens: Setting Priorities" Gold Et Al., Science, 258: 261-65 (1992)

There. Feel better?

As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright that:

"Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded."
-Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Ass't Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997

The dose makes the poison
http://www.nycclash.com/smoke_chart.html

Once again, the Anti-Smoking Movement reveals that it's true motive is basically Prohibition (stopping smokers from smoking; making them "social outcasts") --not "safe air."

September 12, 2008 at 8:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

LifeGoesOn (anonymous) says...

The World Health Organization estimates that pack-a-day smokers of American cigarettes inhale 2.6 ug arsenic per 8-hour work shift. The National Research Council says nonsmokers inhale 0.1 to 1% of what smokers inhale. Now, if a bartender has 25 seats in his bar and 10 are occupied by smokers, each smoking two cigarettes per hour, 160 cigarettes would be smoked per 8 hour shift. L. Stewart, author of Epidemiology 101, or How to Read and Understand a Study, shows that even if the 160 cigarettes could somehow all be smoked in a 40-inch cube without ventilation, the airborne arsenic inhaled in that cube would be only 0.064 ug—which is far, far, far below the OSHA standard. If instead of being confined to a 40-inch cube, the smoke was dispersed throughout a room large enough to hold 25 people, the concentration would be far, far, far less.

September 12, 2008 at 8:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

shoehorn (anonymous) says...

Allowing
smoking only in separate and isolated rooms,
typically dedicated to smoking, can control ETS
exposure in non-smoking spaces in the same
building. Effective isolation is achievable through
airflow and pressure control including location of
supply outlets and return and exhaust air inlets to
preserve desirable airflow directions at doorways, as
well as the use of separate ventilation systems
serving the smoking spaces.

http://www.ashrae.org/aboutus/page/335

September 12, 2008 at 8:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

LifeGoesOn (anonymous) says...

It’s time to end this charade and end this government intrusion into property rights based on hysterically overblown health risks. If I own a bar or restaurant, I should get to choose whether it’s smoking or non-smoking based upon what I think my customers want. I should advertise right out front whether it is a smoking establishment or not. And customers could then choose whether they want to go in or not. Freedom of choice for everyone and no one gets exposed to smoke unless they choose to. I already have parents; I don’t need the government to act like one.

September 12, 2008 at 8:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

shoehorn (anonymous) says...

the link to environmental tobacco smoke pdf

September 12, 2008 at 8:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

shoehorn (anonymous) says...

page 7, #2 Smoking Only in Isolated Rooms :)

September 12, 2008 at 8:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

Jayhawker: I feel your pain, my friend. I, too, am retired and on the downhill side of mortality. It seems as if we live in a different country than the one we once knew and loved, if not a world gone mad. Our freedoms, our incomes, and our heritage are being attacked and eroded and no one seems to care. This bogus ban by a bunch of bored pseudo-reformers is just the latest in an ongoing assault on our freedom, patience, and sanity.

September 12, 2008 at 9:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Jayhawker: I too am an older person from a by-gone era, in fairly good health, although I do suffer from COPD and TACHACARDIA, both of which, I have been told by my local doctors and specialists at K.U. MED CENTER were caused primarily by to things, 1. smoking cigerettes for 20 years and exposure to various chemical gases and dusts at my last place of employment, so those who say that they have smoked and been around second hand smoke and have no ill affects from the exposure, I say this to those people I envy you and not everyone in society shares your penchant for exceptional luck, for you are truely very lucky and I hope your luck continues.
I also agree with Jayhawker about George Orwell and his excellent literary masterpiece "1984", and he was truely an enciteful man with a huge amount of foresight, because "Big Brother" that he wrote about in his novel "1984" is much closer to reality than anyone can imagine.
As a final comment I have never and never will try and impose my will or way of life on anyone, however I do expect some amount of respect for my not wanting to be around anyone who does smoke or businesses that allow smoking.

September 12, 2008 at 9:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ksfarmer (anonymous) says...

I don't understand the part about no smoking in motel rooms?
If I pay for a room for the night that's designated a 'smoking room', this ban wouldn't allow smoking? You've got to be kidding! People traveling, stopping for the night, wanting to spend good money in Emporia but told 'sorry, no smoking motel rooms at any price'? Keep your bogus ordinances off my LEGAL vice!! You're not sleeping in the motel room!

September 12, 2008 at 10:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

supernanny (anonymous) says...

No ksfarmer I am not sleeping in your hotel room but I may after you leave and that smell is in the carpets, on the wall, in the beds. And it stinks....it chokes up my child, and makes her sick. Why should I have to suffer cause you smoked in a public place?

Right on Joan! I hope this passes! I dont care what they all do in their homes, cars, or yards. But keep it away from places I would like to enjoy!

September 12, 2008 at 11:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MrCmonkeeDo (anonymous) says...

Yes, Jayhawker, there is a Big Brother. He sees you when you're sleeping, He knows when you're awake, He knows if you've been bad or good so be good fer goodness sakes!

He'll bust you if yer smokin', Or drivin' without a belt, He'll Taser yer kids fer sneakin' a drink or skippin' their Ritalin. O! You better watch out! Better not cry, better not pout You know the reason why. Big Brother is already in town.

He'd like to pretend He's yer best friend, only wants what's best fer you but He's only tryin' to fill the coffers, by outlawing the things you Do. O! You better watch out! Better not cry, better not pout You know the reason why. Big Brother is already in town.

Meanwhile the scientists tell us an' the Preachers Hell us O, what's a monkeeDo?

September 13, 2008 at 12:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

LifeGoesOn (anonymous) says...

supernanny, Thats why YOU get one of the No Smoking Rooms Duh!

September 13, 2008 at 7:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Renegade (anonymous) says...

To Supernanny.. You can choose whether or not you want Smoking or Non Smoking rooms, when you travel.
If you have a pet, you can get accomadations that allow you to have your pet with you........These are CHOICES, you can make.

I think the problem is taking care of itself. I've lived in Emporia for a year and a half..and I have never seen anyone smoking in a store...and, there have been times I've been tempted to accept a seat in a smoking area in a restaurant, because no one was using it.
I seldem have seen anyone walking down the street smoking.

Last I heard, Cigarettes aren't illegal!!!!!!

I agree with Methusla...

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on September 12, 2008 at 9:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"As a final comment I have never and never will try and impose my will or way of life on anyone, however I do expect some amount of respect for my not wanting to be around anyone who does smoke or businesses that allow smoking."

September 13, 2008 at 8:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

USNretired (anonymous) says...

As I stated before, I don't smoke but I will support a lawsuit against this attack on my civil liberties. Emporia has a history of appeasing extremist like the ACLU, but this is not the American way. Are we European now?

September 13, 2008 at 9:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

USN-

This isn't like Europe at all... You can smoke almost anywhere in Europe.

September 13, 2008 at 10:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Pingeon (anonymous) says...

Posted by supernanny (anonymous) on September 12, 2008 at 11:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No ksfarmer I am not sleeping in your hotel room but I may after you leave and that smell is in the carpets, on the wall, in the beds. And it stinks....it chokes up my child, and makes her sick. Why should I have to suffer cause you smoked in a public place?

One problem here supernanny, this is not a public place you are referring to. This is a private business.

September 13, 2008 at 3:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

Supernanny: Stop worrying. I have the solution to your problem. Since you are a non-smoker, why not request a non-smoking room in your hotel instead of staying in a smoking room and offending your fragile senses?

There ya go! Problems can often be solved by simply applying some common sense instead of griping, complaining, and infringing on the right's of others by demanding new laws and government regulations in order to satisfy your narrow and biased view of how the perfect world should be.

It's amazing how pleasurable and rewarding life can be when you concentrate more on what is good for you and your family and concentrate far less on what you deem bad or unacceptable for everyone else.

Freedom and choice. It's what we live for, and what our ancestors died for. I suspect every brave man and woman buried in Arlington, Leavenworth, and other military cemeteries across our nation would be very angry to hear that self-serving groups like "Clean Air Emporia" are attempting to usurp the very freedoms they gave their lives to defend.

September 13, 2008 at 4:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

wyse_guy (anonymous) says...

THIS IS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA YOU STUPID DRUNK IDIOTS .THE GOVERNING BODY IT SOUNDS LIKE SOME FOOLS TRYING TO CHANGE WHAT THIS COUNTRY IS BASED ON.FREEDOM IS ALL OF OUR RIGHTS NOT JUST YOURS YOU DONT LIKE IT ITS YOUR RIGHT TO MOVE THE HELL OUT OF THIS COUNTRY.YOU WANT TO GO BACK IN TIME MAYBE WE SHOULD BAN WOMEN FROM RUNNUING FOR ANY OFFICE.YOU SHOULD BE SEEN OR NOT BUT CERTAINLY NOT HEARD.LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE THE WRONG PEOPLE IN OFFICE EVEN CONCIDERING A FOOL BAN LIKE THIS.BUT I GUESS IT DEPENDS ON HOW MUCH YOU PAY SOMEONE AROUND HERE TO WHAT GETS DONE.WHATS NEXT SMOKE FROM BBQ GRILLS.YOU THINK YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE FREEDOMS FROM OTHER PEOPLE JUST BECAUSE YOU DONT LIKE IT.THEY HAVE TAKEN RELIGION OUT OF OUR SCHOOLS BUT THEY STILL MAKE YOU SWEAR ON THE BIBLE IN COURT.THERE MIGHT BE SOME BIG CHANGES COME NOVEMBER.MAYBE ILL TAKE UP SMOKING JUST BECAUSE YOU DONT LIKE IT.

September 13, 2008 at 5:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

USNretired (anonymous) says...

Josie, I have been to Europe and while I have seen kids smoking in public, there are also some bars in Toulon where they seem to allow everything but smoking tobacco. I seem to recall some in Naples and Palma de Mallorca as well.

September 13, 2008 at 9:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

I started a facebook event for the smoking ban townhall meeting on Sept. 29th.

http://www.new.facebook.com/home.php#/ev...

If you are against this smoking ban, and use facebook, pass this on to all your friends and invite them too. In order to combat Saubere Luft Emporia, which has all the grant money, we must have the numbers, and we must force this thing to a vote.

September 13, 2008 at 9:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ksfarmer (anonymous) says...

Well I see Supernanny hasn't bought a motel room recently to be asked "Smoking or No-Smoking?" Maybe they need to get out away from the children a little more often. I've seen the question often on this forum to name a public place these people are forced to endure 2nd hand smoke in an enclosed area, has anybody answered that? I think the grant money was available and a few people didn't know what else to do with their time but preach about a smoking ban because everybody else has one. Another case of them thinking Emporia has to act like all the other lemmings. Sheeple....jeeeez! Baaaaahhh!!! Baaadd idea!!!

September 13, 2008 at 10:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawker (anonymous) says...

Bjnemp, et. al: You have made excellent points, all well reasoned and persuasive to reasonable people. Of course, the proponents of this ban have become so wrapped up in it that they are no longer reasonable. My question now is how to best defeat this outrageous proposal? What strategy can we use? I suppose that for now, the target audience consists of only 5 people (the City Commissioners) since they have the authority to either adopt it, reject it or submit it to a public vote. I strongly recommend that we all contact our commissioners and make this case. If the commission chooses to put it to a vote, you can bet that the "Clean Air Committee" will be well organized, with money, fully prepared to present a campaign. We are unorganized with no money and not even close to being able to present a campaign. Posting on these blogs is helpful, but reaches only a tiny fraction of the community. Let's hope that by individually contacting the commissioners that we find that they are reasonable people who will put an end to this Big Brother idea; however, if they don't and submit it to a vote, somebody is going to have to take charge of getting our point of view in front of the voters. It is an unfortunate fact that if the "Clean Air Committee" is all that the voters hear from, this will pass. Even though reason is clearly on our side, it will still require a lot of work and money to defeat this insidious, elitist, politically correct proposal. I'm way too old and used up, so it will have to be someone other than me. Is there an ambitious and smart young person out there? Whomever it is, the rest of us need to support him or her with our money and our time. If we don't, Big Brother will be here to stay.

September 14, 2008 at 1:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

dhcc66 (anonymous) says...

wow, glad to see i can stir people up a little. all i'm saying is that IF the ordinance is granted, I would hope that people would just deal with it. if you object to it, then it sounds like some or most of you will have a chance to VOTE on it later on. hope you smokers are as proactive as you are vocal about your habits.
as for the "bad pr" that the police department supposedly has....the only bad pr lately seems to be people completely confusing the difference between the words "SHERIFF" and "POLICE" printed on the sides of a patrol car. thanks to the gazette for clearing that little issue up.

September 14, 2008 at 3:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

dhcc66: Your earlier post where you stated I'll sign my name on the officers ticket when you get arrested for smoking where your not supposed to Let me give you another senerio.
the local Police or Firefighters are called by you to a local bar because you see a smoker lighting up. While thay are there writing the ticket for you to sign, the get a call for a hugh fire. As the bar is busy and noisey they can not here the call from their radios. ( A not unheard problem in this town,ask any cop or fireman). A family of five perish in the fire due to the delay. Will you still feel so smug then because you got that smoker a ticket?

September 14, 2008 at 5:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawker (anonymous) says...

One other matter on a strategy to fight this insidious, politically correct attack on personal freedoms: If the "Clean Air Committee" has its way, any campaign that comes about will pit smokers against nonsmokers (class warfare, and since there are more nonsmokers than smokers, guess where that fight ends up). Of course, that is not what this is about (I'm a nonsmoker, for example). It will be important to keep it focused on the real issues: 1) The private property rights of the establishment owners, and 2) The costs and practical problems associated with enforcement.

September 14, 2008 at 8:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

We sent out invites to over 700 people just through facebook alone, and that was totally free, and took 20 minutes. There are ways of getting the word out, you just have to be creative and think outside the box, because Saubere Luft Emporia is completely incapable of that.

September 14, 2008 at 10:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

Jhawker and rbow--

So if the law/ordinance is adopted the police should not be bothered with helping enforce it because it might inconveinence them?? Please! That is what the officers are paid to do. To enforce the laws of this town. Why don't they just quit enforcing the underage drinking law because breaking up those parties and chasing 17-18 year old kids around is too hard. Or maybe they should quit driving around town passing out citations for junk vehicles and junk in yards because who is that really hurting....Emporia's image?? Who cares? There are more important things for them to work on like tracking down all the people speeding in town right? We should get to choose which laws to enforce and which ones not to. Right?

Come on, IF it is a law then it should be enforced.

When is the vote? I am tired of this debate.

September 15, 2008 at 9:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

Slvrnblck,

If Saubere Luft Emporia gets its way, there won't BE a vote. Mrs. Sauder stated at the proposal meeting that she felt it wasn't necessary for this to be voted on. I feel whether you are for or against this ban, it needs to be voted on.

September 15, 2008 at 10:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Penny (anonymous) says...

Whew, I've been away for awhile, and this thing really heated up! A call to action for those in favor of this ordinance: you must make your voices heard to the right people (commissioners). The opposition is obviously vocal and you need to be as well. Don't just assume the commissioners will do the right thing and pass this, you must write or email the commissioners immediately!
Now, to address some of the "points" made by the opposition. This is in no way "prohibition". No attempt is being made to force people to quit smoking that I have seen. This is simply a public health regulation like clean water, safe food, etc. I've seen some comparisons to alcohol, remember that alcohol, though legal, is one of the most regulated substances in the U.S. This ordinance is an attempt to regulate second hand smoke in a similiar fashion, in order to decrease it's harm to others. Period. I mean, good Lord, comparing this to Nazi's?!? Get a grip!
"Where in Emporia are you forced to be around smoke?" If you mean force in terms of being hauled in at gunpoint, then of course, "no where". However, in reality, not being able to participate in places where the public is invited is indeed a problem. A person with severe asthma may be covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act, much like those with more visible handicaps. A person with severe asthma is unable to be around second hand smoke without risking death. By not regulating where second hand smoke can be, you are in essence saying they don't count. So, let's look at places in Emporia that are not welcoming to those with respiratory disability:
Applebee's
Carlos O'Kelly's
Bruff's
Centinela
Josie's
Town Royale
Natasha's
The Noose
This is just a short list off the top of my head, but you get the idea. The majority of people who are in favor of this ordinance are not bored Neo-Nazi's with a morality agenda (let's see, did I get all the top insults in there?). We are hard-working, tax-paying, health-conscious, common sense people who say, it's past time we had public health regulations for smoke.

September 15, 2008 at 11:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

Josie's bar--

I know that you and I sit on opposite sides of this debate. But I strongly agree with you on the fact that is should go to a public vote.

I guess my question is when do the commissioner's decide the proposal's fate.....yes, no or public vote.

September 15, 2008 at 11:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

For this bogus, ill-conceived, self-serving proposal to even be considered by our city commission, let alone be offered for popular approval by vote, would be a travesty of justice and an affront to the Constitution of The United States.

Have we forgotten about "...with liberty and justice for all" and replaced it with "liberty and justice as dictated by the privileged few"?

And Penny: You said "The majority of people who are in favor of this ordinance are not bored Neo-Nazi's with a morality agenda (let's see, did I get all the top insults in there?)."

I'm sorry, but the proposal I've seen, and the comments made by it's supporters, sure make them "look like a duck, walk like a duck, and quack like a duck" and that duck sure appears to be a bored Neo-Nazi with a morality agenda.

C'mon, Penny. This isn't a "clean air" issue. It's a social cleansing issue.

September 15, 2008 at 11:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Penny (anonymous) says...

Guess it's in the eye of the beholder, BJ. I have read the proposed ordinance, spoken with several people who support these efforts, and read most of the Gazette coverage and I can't see or hear this duck you have issues with.

BTW, the reason the ordinance is so darned long and complicated is that the attempt is made to close all the loopholes other cities found themselves trying to close after the fact. In that regard, I think it is a very well thought out document that leaves little open to "creative interpretation".

Another point of confusion for folks seems to be why it isn't up for public vote. Why would it be? It is a matter of public health policy. Would you expect a city-wide vote to regulate our drinking water or proper food temps at eateries? Having said that, I don't think Clean Air Emporia has anything to fear from a public vote if the commissioners wimp out and insist on doing it that way. It just takes longer and is inappropriate for public health policy in my opinion.

September 15, 2008 at 3:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...

Penny you listed 4 restaraunts that allow smoking. Two of them serve mexican food. There are 6 mexican restaraunts that I can think of in Emporia in less than 5 seconds and the two you listed are not even as good as the ones that don't allow smoking. If you want a non smoking steak go to Montana Mike's instead of Bruff's. If you want the crap covered in cheese that they serve at Applebee's I 'm sorry I can't really help you. If you want to go to a bar you could always go to The Blind, I'm sure Brodie will set you up with as many cold ones as you would like in a non-smoking atmosphere, or go to the bar in the earlier part of the day when there is hardly anyone there to offend your delicate senses. It seems that naming 4 of the 30 or so restaraunts in town is hardly proof that your choices are limited.

The health issue has been done to death. It can not be absolutely proven or disproven in regards to risk (i.e. surgeon general vs. OSHA or my scientists against your scientists.)

So if I understand this correctly, your choices are not that restricted or limited in where you spend you recreation budget. No one can be sure, for sure, that this is a health issue. That really only leaves on reason for the ban. Because you and those of your ilk don't like smoke. And if you think it is okay to run around imposing your will and the will of the cig-facist regime, then you are missing out on the great ideals of a great country. The biggest of those being the beauty and simplicity of private property owners rights to use their property to cater to whomever they please. The only true "right" in this whole debate. A time honored right, one that is in the slant of, "once its gone, its gone for good". So you let them take it today, and you will find yourself giving it away tomorrow.

September 15, 2008 at 4:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MisterO (anonymous) says...

"Another point of confusion for folks seems to be why it isn't up for public vote. Why would it be? It is a matter of public health policy. Would you expect a city-wide vote to regulate our drinking water or proper food temps at eateries?" Penny

Well, Penny. Drinking water and proper food temps are regulated on a Federal level. If the dangers of 2nd hand smoke were a severe as you would have us believe, don't you think the Feds would impose regulations? Don't you think OSHA would regulate 2nd hand smoke in the workplace?

It's been asked before in any number of articles here in the Gazette: How many people in Emporia, KS have died or been hospitalized with severe complications from 2nd hand smoke?

If it really is such a health risk, shouldn't every single person exposed to it have cancer, emphysema, asthma, or some other health issue?

Can you explain why the overwhelming majority of people exposed to 2nd hand smoke do NOT have serious health complications?

If this smoking ordinance was truly about public health, shouldn't you provide concrete evidence to the nay-sayers that this is an immediate risk to everyone?

Death certificates are public documents. Can you or anyone else provide a death certificate that says the person died from 2nd hand smoke?

Come on...there should be enough of you who are for the ban...surely SOMEONE can answer the question and provide a death certificate or two.

September 15, 2008 at 6:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Penny (anonymous) says...

Gosh, I think someone explained the death certificate issue already, but I'll go through it one more time...

I have not spent time searching through death certificates (as I assume you haven't either). I would be pretty surprised to find second hand smoke, or even smoking listed as a cause of death, though, because cause of death is usually listed as "lung cancer", "heart attack" or "emphysema", the terminal event which causes life to cease at that minute. Now, if you had access to all the medical records of all those people, you would find that the overwhelming majority had something in common...any guesses?

Actually, we don't have to guess because the Centers for Disease Control keeps track of that kind of data for us. So, while "second hand smoke" probably isn't going to find it's way to a death certificate, it is found in much other epidemicological data. Really, look for it, it's there.

Public Health issues do not have to harm everyone to be considered a very real threat. Even back in the days before regulation of water, you could say "the vast majority did not get harmed by unregulated water". But, how many is too many? Sure, some people beat the odds, probably due to genetic makeup that protects them. Lucky them. Those who are not so fortunate deserve protection.

Let's look at what happens if we're wrong. If people who care about public health, and the CDC, the American Heart Association, American Lung Association, US Surgeon General, and others are wrong, where's the harm. A few people have to re-learn habits about where it is lawful to smoke and where it's not. If the other side, who apparently does not believe the mountain of evidence that smoke is unhealthy, if they are wrong, people die. Inconvenience vs. Death Seems pretty clear to me.

September 15, 2008 at 7:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

romano1784 (anonymous) says...

Does everyone here know about the chemical risk taken everyday by employees in Emporia just in the day to day functions of work? Dolly Madison: Exposure to Asbestos, Quorum Purple, Bleach; Tyson: Exposure to chlorine, ammonia, alkali, phosphoric acid; The big difference between cigarettes and these chemicals are, the chemicals are 100% guaranteed to be harmful if inhaled. No they aren't accessible by the general public, but they HAVE to be uses (usally by the same person) day to day to get the job done, and the person that does this job is exposed to them EVERY SINGLE DAY. Alkali and Phosphoric Acid are known to cause lung cancer and even emphesema with long term exposure. Lets say a person dies from long term exposure, the death certificate says Lung Cancer, guess what the Center For Disease Control has you as a statistic? Uh huh, damn there goes another smoker.

September 15, 2008 at 9:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MisterO (anonymous) says...

"I have not spent time searching through death certificates (as I assume you haven't either). I would be pretty surprised to find second hand smoke, or even smoking listed as a cause of death, though, because cause of death is usually listed as "lung cancer", "heart attack" or "emphysema", the terminal event which causes life to cease at that minute. Now, if you had access to all the medical records of all those people, you would find that the overwhelming majority had something in common...any guesses?" Penny

Penny, once again we are talking about two different things. The "something in common" you want us to guess about is smoking - not 2nd hand smoke.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying hand smoke is good for you, but to directly like 2nd hand smoke as the sole cause to any of the above diseases is stretching it a bit, don't you think?

September 15, 2008 at 9:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

We know that Walters and Sauders are two of the nicotine neo-Nazis behind this ridiculous proposed smoking ban, but do we know the names of the others involved? I would like to know in case any of them ever run for office (so I know who not to vote for) or if any of them own a business in town (so I know where not to spend a penny of my money). Besides, we may someday want to build a city "Hall of Shame" and we sure wouldn't want any of the anti-smoking socially superior soldiers to go unrewarded for their efforts to dictate behavior and business practices in Emporia.

September 15, 2008 at 10:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

WILLIAM_A (anonymous) says...

He Josies, do you want to go into a new business with me?

New cab company that will offer service to and from towns like Americus and Olpe.

Maybe the City would sell us an old LCAT bus, god knows the city is going to need some revenue after this ban.

I am a non smoker and hate smoke. But am 100% against this ban and even the fact that the city is considering a vote on it.

September 16, 2008 at 7:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )