Posted by Penny (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 4:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Show me in the Constitution the line that gives smoking as a "right", I guess I missed that. Personal liberty is generally trumped by public well-being, which has been upheld many times in the higher courts over the years.

Thank you, Clean Air Emporia, for attempting to give all Emporian's the equal right to breathe smoke free!

Posted by rox_alan (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 4:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As an ex-smoker I agree with Ryan, it does not give the people of the Clean Air Emporia the right to tell anyone where they can or can't smoke and fine them on top of that. That is against the rights of freedom that our MEN And WOMEN are fighting for overseas and here in our own country. "Why are they fighting for then?" It is your right to choose whether you want to go to that establishment whether it is a non smoking or smoking. You have that choice. It shouldn't be up to that Group to tell anyone where to go. So I'm very against the smoking Ban it should be left to the owner and whether they allow smoking or not.

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 4:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I see no mention of a right to smoke in Ryan's statement. Only a right of property owners to choose who they serve. Which is one of the time honored and truely original rights that was practically created in this great nation. And I am telling you that it is a right that 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.

You know there is no such thing as a right to smoke as well as I do. But there is also no such thing as a right to breathe only the air you approve of, or a right to breathe smoke free air if that air resides in someone's private property, where there are usally still signs that read, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anybody." If that ban passes these signs will have to go because the flip side is "We reserve the right to cater to whomever we please". You can't have one without the other. And yes Penny whomever we please includes smokers. Last time I checked I wasn't better than anybody else, as a smoker, but I will be Goddammed if I am not just as good. And this paltry light that the clean air people and you yourself cast on smokers as somehow beneath you is sickening.

Posted by ratdog (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 4:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Penny

Please name one place in Emporia where there is a significant risk of secondhand smoke and you cannot avoid by using your constitutional right to make your own personal choices.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 4:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Penny: There you go again. The rights at stake are constitutional - the rights of property owners to be free of a taking of their property or a diminishment of it and their livelihood without due process or renumeration. What this so-called Clean Air group is attempting to do is divide and conquer by making this into a nonsmoker v. smoker issue, when it clearly is not about that at all. I bet that if they came to your property telling you what you could or could not do, you would be singing a different tune.

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 4:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Furthermore, I resent this notion that smoker's are unconcerned with public health. This slanderous campaign that somehow because someone smokes they are ignorant and uncaring. Not to mention that this country was practically funded and founded on tobacco sales and exports just a couple hundred years ago.

Posted by dale011 (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 4:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I thought Kansas was the "Free State" for a reason. Thanks Clean Air Emporia, but no thanks, I'll decide for myself if want to expose my lungs to someone's smoke. Even though I don't smoke, it is not my place, nor is it yours, to tell me or anyone else what we can do in a public place unless it is an illegal act. If you force the city commission to ban smoking in a public place, thus making it an illegal act, our personal liberties will be the victim.

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 4:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

1. My country,' tis of thee,
sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing;
land where my fathers died,
land of the pilgrims' pride,
from every mountainside let freedom ring!

2. My native country, thee,
land of the noble free, thy name I love;
I love thy rocks and rills,
thy woods and templed hills;
my heart with rapture thrills, like that above.

3. Let music swell the breeze,
and ring from all the trees sweet freedom's song;
let mortal tongues awake;
let all that breathe partake;
let rocks their silence break, the sound prolong.

4. Our fathers' God, to thee,
author of liberty, to thee we sing;
long may our land be bright
with freedom's holy light;
protect us by thy might, great God, our King.

Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 5:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is a myth and will never stand up. To all you business owners out there preaching this go ahead and try to refuse service to a black man or a hispanic or an asian or a woman. You won't get very far with that. A lawsuit will be slapped on you so fast it will make your head spin.

In my opinion the defense that "I own the business and it is on my property so I should be able to what I want" is weak. The government already tells you what you can and can not do. The Clean Air folks just want to add one to the list. Now, I understand that smoking has been accepted for many years and it is hard to accept change but it might happen, actually it probably will. Maybe not this time, but I don't suspect that the issue will be voted on and then dropped.

Look at this situation from a health perspective. Smoking is not good for you. You breathe out harmful smoke that others breath in. Smoking causes cancer, emphyzema, asthma, brochonitis, cardiovascular disease, and strokes. Second hand smoke increases the risk for health problems for other non smokers. Smoking is the single most preventable cause of death in the US.

18 States in the US have already passes laws that prevent smoking in all public places including restaurants and bars. Since 1999, 70% of the US workforce has worked in smoke free enviornments.

Why do you suppose that these states and the work places have adopted such policies? Do you really think that it is because a group of , how do you put it? oh yes "holier than thou" people crusaded to convince everyone? Or, do you think it is more logical that we have discovered that smoking and second hand smoke is a poison that we emit into the air that can be controlled very easily? Now, I am not preaching to anyone that they should quit smoking, I am just asking that you take it outside when you do.

Posted by trainrech (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 5:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I like the way the Kansas Turnpike Authority handles the issues of smoking, the effects on health (and as a direct result - insurance costs), and the effects on non-smokers:

"KTA will not consider for employment persons who smoke or use other tobacco products and whose spouse smokes or uses tobacco products."

Posted by bobhornet (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 5:31 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 5:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Nice post Ryan! Now we just have to get a good showing at the twon-hall meeting on the 29th. If you're against this ridiculous ban, make sure you voice your opinion at the town hall meeting Sept. 29th, 7 pm, at the auditorium (tentative)!

Posted by sexingthecherry (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 6:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The government already tells you what food you can eat/serve--it must be approved by the FDA, both in content and preparation, etc.

Your private business may also not violate standards set forth by the EPA regarding pollution. Similarly, the vehicles we drive must also meet these standards.

You are also not entitled to completely free speech--you can violate obscenity laws pretty easily. How many times do you hear certain words permitted to be said on TV?

Even if no one dies from secondhand smoke (which I seriously doubt), you cannot contest that secondhand smoke is directly harmful to others. Other peoples' obesity does not harm you. And your proposed unhealthy food ban doesn't work, either, because any food that is approved by the FDA is healthy, when eaten in moderation.

Posted by hottopics (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 6:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I totally agree with you Ryan and have said that the Land of the Free is getting smaller and smaller with each new proposition.

Posted by MisterO (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 6:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"try to refuse service to a black man or a hispanic or an asian or a woman. You won't get very far with that." slvrnblck

Slvrnblck, the reason you won't get very far with that is because there are Federal laws against discrimination. There are NO Federal laws against smoking cigarettes in private businesses.

As to your comments, "Look at this situation from a health perspective. Smoking is not good for you. You breathe out harmful smoke that others breath in. Smoking causes cancer, emphyzema, asthma, brochonitis, cardiovascular disease, and strokes. Second hand smoke increases the risk for health problems for other non smokers. Smoking is the single most preventable cause of death in the US." This ban isn't about smoking. It's about 2nd hand smoke. I ask you to provide statements from doctors or scientists that directly attribute any of the above conditions exclusively to exposure to 2nd hand smoke.

AND...as has been asked many many times and has yet to be answered: Please name one single private business in Emporia where an individual cannot avoid 2nd hand smoke by personal choice and common sense.

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 6:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sexingthecherry,

First of all, let me say your user name is somewhat disturbing.

Second, I'm not saying second hand smoke is good for you or those around you. Actually I know that it is not. Does Emporia NEED a smoking ban? No. Very few restaurants still allow smoking, and there are now at least 2 bars that I know of that are non-smoking. Seems to me like the open market is taking care of itself, no? Why do we need (more) government involvement if the free market system works?

My second point of contention with this ban is the way that it is presented. To me, this ban is unfairly targeting bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. Mrs. Sauder clearly stated that after 3 or 4 ALLEGED violations, she wanted the city liquor license revoked. What happens if McDonalds gets a violation? Do they get their city liquor license revok....Ohh wait, they don't have one! What happens to these businesses that don't have liquor licenses? They were never even thought of because this ban, in my opinion, unfairly targets bars and restaurants that serve alcohol.

Lastly, Saubere Luft Emporia is completely against this ban being voted for. This really disturbs me, because they way I see it, having it put on the ballot is the ONLY fair way. Now I know that life isn't fair, but lets be realistic about this. You cannot in good faith argue that this ban should NOT be voted for without having a hidden agenda somewhere.

Matt Slater,
Owner-Josie's

Posted by Pingeon (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 7:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Matt Slater,

Out of curiosity, what has been proposed for a business that does not have a liquor license if they are caught with a smoker on more than one occasion? As you pointed out, McDonald's does not have a liquor license, so what do they lose? This proposal does seem to be a little one sided here.

Thanks,
Pin

Posted by romano1784 (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 8:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey hottopics a little FYI to you. The reason that you dont hear the "obcenities" on TV is simply because the FCC won't allow it. "The FCC a government appointed body, not elected by the general public, decided all by itselt that radio an tv are the only two aspects of American life not protected by the Freedom of Speech directed by the Constitution of the United States of America." Quote by George Carlin that, if researched you will find is Very accurate. Don't you find that odd that people we didn't choose to be in charge tell you what to say? Its the same with the Clean Air crusaders.Yes vehicles are cleared for pollutants before they are made available, however they are cleared according to their areas of release, say the levels of pollutants in California are much higher than say the state of Kansas. That being said if the level of exposure in Emporia is to high, are we supposed to smoke in Olpe?

Posted by flexj66801 (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 8:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I seriously have no idea when people will wake up & realize that we are Policing ourselves out of any kind of freedom. We have so many unenforced laws now, Whats one more right? WRONG! There are way to many people building their own little soap box to rant from because some town or city has passed an ordinance that all the sudden we need one too. I don't know about you all, But I am sick of hearing about what other places do. If I cared, I'd LIVE THERE! If you think breathing in second hand smoke is bad why don't you put your lips around my tailpipe & suck real hard. I think that is a much bigger issue that some of these people could but some of their efforts on.

Posted by sail (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 8:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My question is what will the voters do if this ban is forced on the good people of Emporia? Will it have an impact on our elected officials?? Will there be a backlash , will we see new town leaders??

Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 9:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

misterO--

My point, that you missed completely, was that no one actually has "the right to refuse service". So these business owners who think that they should be able to do whatever they want in their business are mistaken. They can't do whatever they want. The Government is already there, telling them what they can and can not do.

And, many people have posted places they would like to go. The bowling alley was mentioned earlier, Applebees is another, however, that is not the point. People should be able to go into any place the public is allowed and not have to worry about being exposed to second hand smoke.

And finally....from the American Lung Association....

The current Surgeon General’s Report concluded that scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Short exposures to secondhand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of heart attack.

Posted by trainrech (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 9:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I originally was for a ban on smoking. I hate to go to a restaurant which allows smoking, request a non-smoking table/booth, and be ushered through the smoking section to get there. I enjoy going to a couple of the bars for a beer or two on the weekend, but I hate the smoke I have to put up with while I'm there and the smell of my clothes after I leave. And I really hate going into a gas station/convenience store and coming out smelling like a tobacco farm burnt to the ground.

That said, I'm starting to think a law banning on smoking in public establishments isn't what we need. We need to talk with our wallets and preferences. Don't visit/support those establishments which continue to allow smoking. If enough people take that stance the business owner will either a) make the change to non-smoking, or b) see significantly reduced business, possibly being driven out of the business.

But therein lies the problem, are there enough people out there to make that point? In heart, maybe, in action, probably not. It is easier to have someone do the dirty work for us instead of taking the responsibility upon ourselves to make a change of this magnitude happen.

So, I've decided that given the choice on a ballot I'll vote against a ban on smoking. I'll then vote with my wallet and let the businesses that allow smoking that I'd like to patronize know that I'll come back when they've decided to accommodate people like me - nonsmokers.

Posted by flexj66801 (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 9:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Heres an idea for people complaining about second hand smoke. If you seriously think that other businesses could prosper from going smoke free but don't like the idea. Then maybe that would be a clue to open your own NON SMOKING business catered to NON SMOKERS! After all, Since you would be the owner of said business you could CHOOSE who you would cater to. If its a good enough idea to try to impose your will on someone else then it has to be a great idea to create YOUR VERY OWN non smoking prospering business. That way everyone wins!! We can all continue on with our CHOICES (FREEDOM) & both sides will have their sanctuaries. Seems like a logical solution to me.

trainrech, This was not actually aimed at your comment although it seems that way. Some of your comments reminded of several previous things I had read in related articles & comments. If you like having a few beers on the weekend but hate the smell of smoke try The Blind just south of 12th & Commercial. It is smoke free.

Posted by MisterO (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 9:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

slvrnblck, I didn't miss anything. You compared something that was against Federal laws (discrimination) with something that it legal and has no Federal laws prohibiting it.

As for the determination by the Surgeon General, that doesn't address what I requested. I'll post again, just for clarification:

I ask you to provide statements from doctors or scientists that directly attribute any of the above conditions (cancer, emphyzema, asthma, et. al. ) exclusively to exposure to 2nd hand smoke.

Sticky blood platelets does not equal cancer or emphyzema. But I'm sure you already knew that.

Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 9:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow Trainrech, what a novel idea and approach. Hope folks are paying attention and see the COMMON SENSE in your previous entry.

Posted by lisag (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 10:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The way I read the ban in the newspaper, you wouldn't even be able to smoke at a shelter house in a city park, ... outside! Too many laws on the books aren't enforced now, why one more?

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 10:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am a nonsmoker and second hand smoke is bothersome to me. However, except for the S & S Cafe, I have not been in any restaurant in Emporia where second hand smoke is a problem. Frankly, even the bars have not been a huge problem (some I have not noticed it at all - Wagon Wheel, for example).

Although I am not a restaurant, motel, club or bar owner or operator, I hold dearly to the recognized and fundamental rights of private property ownership. I am also thankful for the free market system that allows us to put our property to economic profitability, and, at the same time, makes us earn our livelihood by catering to our paying clientele. This system has worked well for more than 200 years.

I have read of the insidious nature of these proposals. California, one of the leaders in the smoking ban movement, recently banned trans fats in restaurants by state statute, and parts of LA have banned fast food restaurants by ordinance. The arguments in favor of all three were that these places and practices were unhealthy and added to the economic burdens of taxpayers and insurance ratepayers through increased medical costs. It all started with a simple smoking ban.

We are in difficult economic times, especially in Emporia. To do anything that hurts the economic viability of any business, existing or potential, as this ban will do, is exactly the opposite action needed to assist in our recovery. Most of these businesses have worked very hard at accommodating nonsmokers and smokers alike, with great success. It would be a mistake to push them over the edge, especially with the number of businesses that we have lost now. I know that you have heard the proponents say that this measure will not hurt businesses, but those statements defy common sense and require no rebuttal for reasonable men and women to see through them.

This proposal should be rejected for several reasons: First, it is contrary to the private property rights of the establishment owners effected; it is a remedy for a nonexistent problem (a collary to the old saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it); and it will hurt several of our businesses that may be marginal and economically fragile, at best. Finally, this is America where choices abound and enterprising citizens seek new markets to take advantage of specialty interests, like smokers. Let's not take that away from these good people who are now making a living, providing a service and contributing to our community, all by living the dream upon which America was founded and supported as a basic tenant and right of its citizens.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 11:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow. Jayhawker, that was good! Please send it to our city commissioners.

Posted by slipandslide (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 11:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

wow jayhawker if the bars could elect you as their spokesperson, walters would lose her crusade.

Posted by create (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 8:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jayhawker, if you yourself have not yet sent that to the city commissioners, one of us needs to. Bravo!

Posted by jdserrano1 (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 8:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

To the good people of Emporia - I was born and raised there but now reside in Connecticut. Our state passed a smoking ban some 5 years ago I think. I am a smoker but also am very cautious of when and where I am lighting up. Most of you have already mentioned this but it bears repeating.

**This is a gateway law *** You open the door for bans such as this and next thing you know you are all buying resuable bags for grocery shopping. It happened here (select cities). No plastic bags of any kind may be used in the local businesses. If you are a small business that uses them...too bad...you must only be sacking in paper. I don't mind but I think that's a business decision not for the government to be deciding for us.

Smoking is also prohibited in public places such as our city parks. You may not park on the park property and even smoke in your car. Smoking is even banned from the workplace if your company has more than 6 people employed. Now they want to make it illegal to smoke in your vehicle while driving with a minor under the age of 16. One place you still can go and smoke is the Casino's here in CT. But even they are under pressure to institute the smoking ban.

Open the door with this law and you open the door for more and more restriction that will infringe on your day to day lives. If people do not question these issues we will become a nation of Lemmings while eating our fruits and vegies because red meat is bad, very bad for us according to the gov.

Just a side note about the smoking ban in restaurants and bars here in Connecticut. At first it was rough and you would have smokers who were smoking outside near the entrance of a restaurant. So most people had to walk thru the puffs of smoke just to get into the place. To me, that was asinine.

Good Luck!

Posted by frulu (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 9:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jayhawker- I am thinking that you must not go to ANY establishment at the prime time then. Because you're crazy if you say smoke doesn't affect you in any of these establishments. I have been to Wagon Wheel many times and smoke lingers in there a lot. I have been to many other places that if you're there at the right time it is pretty smokey even if someone is sitting clear across the bar or restaurant smoking. Yes it is my choice to go to these establishments, and yes usually how smokey the environment is depends on how much time I spend there. I am young, I have many friends that smoke, but what is wrong with people having to go outside to do it. Atleast they still can.

I don't think that people realize how many affects smoking does have on our society. Many places struggle with health insurance rates because of smokers that work within their company. Is it not true that anymore companies will give incentives for their employees to quit smoking.

There are many places across Kansas that have gone smoke-free, and yes it might have hurt their business at first, but I can only imagine that it might help business by bringing in people that never would have gone to the place before. Everyone is so worried about their freedom instead of trying to make our society a healthy place to live. But I guess sometimes our choices make our decisions for us even if they are not healthy.

I hope Clean-Air does pass. We won't know how it affects anything unless it does!

Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 9:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

MisterO--

From the American Cancer Society--

Secondhand smoke is classified as a "known human carcinogen" (cancer-causing agent) by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US National Toxicology Program, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a branch of the World Health Organization.

Tobacco smoke contains over 4,000 chemical compounds. More than 60 of these are known or suspected to cause cancer.

Secondhand smoke can be harmful in many ways. In the United States alone, each year it is responsible for:

an estimated 35,000 deaths from heart disease in non-smokers who live with smokers
about 3,400 lung cancer deaths in non-smoking adults
other breathing problems in non-smokers, including coughing, mucus, chest discomfort, and reduced lung function
150,000 to 300,000 lung infections (such as pneumonia and bronchitis) in children younger than 18 months of age, which result in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations
increases in the number and severity of asthma attacks in about 200,000 to 1 million children who have asthma
more than 750,000 middle ear infections in children
Pregnant women exposed to secondhand smoke are also at increased risk of having low birth weight babies.

Posted by frulu (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 9:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Also...Even though smoking might be an addiction is it that hard to go eat dinner without having to have a smoke? If you can't go one-two hours without it you should look at the strength of your will power to control yourself.

Posted by Vince (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The U.S. Supreme Court found that a private business does not become public simply because the public is invited in.

In all the hysteria (fear mongering) that a comparatively few anti-smokers have raised,one salient point seems to have been forgotten.There isn't an effect for secondhand smoke (shs) to be the cause of.The most likely cause of any deaths described by these people/orgs. is still air pollution.(another recent study also found this) For that matter,if you wish to believe that shs causes harm (that's all this is-a belief or more correctly-an expensive attempt at social engineering),then the very air is about 25 times as likely to kill you.This is another reason that you won't be "killed" by shs.Pretty well any other cause will "kill" you first.These anti-smokers etc. know this.This is the reason that their "death toll" keeps rising.Some here may remember that the EPA's "death toll" of 3,000 didn't fly.The study was found to have been built or faked in U.S. Federal Court.(see Osteen decision) Now they are trying to claim 52,000 to 60,000 "deaths".You do not get more effect (deaths) from a substantially declining cause (smoking).This is an axiom of medicine.If this situation is found,you are supposed to look for another cause.This becomes more evident when exposure to the supposed cause had declined by 70% in a period before there were many smoking bans.(This nonsense had just started in California near the end of this particular study.)The American Cancer Society,using a Center for Disease Control study,announced this.Also do not forget that there is a wealth of studies that found that there is not any risk from shs.These studies were done by orgs. like the WHO,ACS,AMA etc.,etc.There are about 50 years of these.Many of these were done in eras where exposure was far greater.Even the man who many people consider to be the "father" of the anti-tobacco movement,Sir Richard Doll,stated ""The effect of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me." (2001) Peto stated that any risk would be "immeasurable".OSHA finds that shs levels are well within acceptable limits.Johns Hopkins figures show the same.

Since this nonsense started in California (where many "nutty" fads start) consider this.There is ample physical evidence that Cal. (& the western seaboard) will become ocean bottom at some time in the future.Millions will die.Shouldn't the governments save people from the greater danger and start evacuating this area now?Why haven't the members of these anti-smoker,so-called citizen groups started fleeing in panic?

Posted by MelissaGarrison (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

i honestly don't care that much about the rest of town, but i really wish they would ban smoking on campus. it is my choice whether i want to go to bars and restaurants that allow smoking, and i can leave whenever i choose. and sure, being in college is a choice, but it's a priviledge above that. there's not even that many smokers on campus but i always manage to get stuck behind one. so i can either a) keep walking behind them and get to class on time or b) go out of my way to find a different route, since we're usually all walking the same way. hmm... be late to class or smell like smoke when i get there? tough choice.

Posted by Joe (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 11:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

All of you make fine arguements. We must look at this from a political point of view. The city commissioners are not going to approve or reject this issue. That would be political suicide. The only action they will take is puting it to a public vote. Then, as voters, you may decide its fate. Just as it should be.

Posted by prettyblues (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm a smoker..i do not want to see this bill pass. But, Tell me this if it does are the police in emporia going to start giving tickets to parents who have small young children in their vehicle and they are lighting up in the car??? Where are the young childrens rights??? I do smoke heavily but, never with my child in the car!! But then again if a person owns their car they should be able to do what they want to do in their veheicle..that goes for the businesses, it's their property and their right if they want customers in their establishment smoking.

Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 12:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Smoking in cars with children in there should be illegal as well. I am curious to know what the people against the ban think about that. Let's hear it BJ, Jayhawker, create, MisterO, et al ...what are your thoughts??

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 12:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." -- A. Hitler

Posted by trainrech (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 12:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'd love to see parents who smoke with their kids in the car get a ticket for endangering a child.

Posted by fudgesickle (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

First... Vince. This comment: There is ample physical evidence that Cal. (& the western seaboard) will become ocean bottom at some time in the future.Millions will die.Shouldn't the governments save people from the greater danger and start evacuating this area now?Why haven't the members of these anti-smoker,so-called citizen groups started fleeing in panic?

is one of the dumbest things I have ever read in my life.

Second, this is a public health issue and not the removal of an individuals or business owners rights as many believe. There are plenty of things out there that a business owner can't do in terms of keeping public health in mind. This is no different.

I will agree with Matt that bars and alcohol serving restaurants are being unfairly targeted. Fines should be straight across the board from a bar to a fast food restaurant to the individual who is smoking. A ban should not be allowed with a provision discriminating the type of establishment involved.

I do however agree with a ban. It is a positive for public health, and for the business owner, I have yet to live in a town that banned smoking where business didn't increase for most establishments after the ban.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 1:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So, fudgesickle, you also pretend to impose marketing strategies on businesses, too? Don't you understand that in a free market businesses are profit motivated? If there would be more business by banning smoking, it would have happened long ago. Let's at least have an honest debate about this proposal.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 1:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

slvrnblck: The difference between you and me are that you are much more willing to hand off to the government decisions that individuals (and parents as to their children) should make. We live in the cradle of personal freedoms, starting with a great experiment 200 years ago that nobody thought would work. Much to the surprise of the whole world, we have made freedom a cornerstone, and not only survived, but became the greatest country on earth. Now, with the benefit of this 200 year experiment, we can look back on world history and see that what nobody thought would work has actually worked better than any of the monarchies or dictatorships that ruled since the beginning of time. Proposals like this one depart from personal freedoms and the free market, in other words, in the face of the history of this world, you and others want to return to practices that failed. Let freedom ring, and everything will be fine (or at least as fine as it can be with humans in control).

Posted by Rhoadgunner (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 1:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks Matt for the quote! That hits the nail on the head. As stated in numerous statements This is gateway legislation.
The fact that history has many examples of how small laws that remove the smallest liberties soon lead to the death of freedom.
I do not smoke or drink, but I do not think that some solcial champion has the right to enforce their agenda on me or those around me.
I do believe that we all have the choice of where we can go and the enviroment in which we spend our time.
The Clean air Emporia group needs to champion a real cause. Like I don't know maybe convince our City fathers to bring in some manufacturing plants, fixing the streets, or anything that actually makes this city somewhere that people want to be.
That is a real issue this town needs to focus the legitmate issues.
Bottom Line is if you don't want to be around second hand smoke don't go to the place where the second hand smoke is.
Don't infringe on others rights, Your beliefs are yours mine are mine.
Remember the flag with the Snake on it and the Phrase that stated Don't tread on me. It still has the same meaning!!!

Posted by fudgesickle (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 1:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

business is driven by profit??? That is just crazy....

It happened in Lawrence, where I used to live. Bar owners were against it and more people are going out now that smoking is not allowed inside. Now I live in Overland Park and the same is true.

I don't know where they stand, but I would think the bars that already do not allow smoking would be the most opposed to this right now. They have the most to lose.

Look at it this way. Most people that smoke, me included, are not going to stop going out because they can't smoke inside. It isn't too difficult to step outside for 5 minutes. A lot more non-smokers will go out with the knowledge that they have more clean air opportunities to go to. I generally will select a non-smoking bar over a smoking bar even though I am a smoker.

The reason a ban hasn't passed is because of the fear of infringement on personal freedom, even when, in this case, it is more a matter of public health.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 1:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The most significant post on all of these threads concerning this issue is posted above by jdserrano1. All of us, whether we are for or against this proposal, need to pay heed. We have talked about the California experience on this, jdserrano1 gives us the Connecticut experience. Connecticut is a whole continent away from California, but the experience was the same. Once the prohibitionists have drawn blood on personal freedoms and the free market, they go in for the kill, like a pack of wolves followed by vultures to consume the carcass. This is America, and we need to remember it, before we lose it.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 2:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I should know this, but I don't. Is Mrs. Walters opposed by Mr. Bartel or by Mr. Winter? Whomever it is, we need to assist that candidate with our vote (if we live in the district) and a contribution of money (even if we don't live in the district). I am a strong Republican, but I will be supporting a Democrat in that race.

Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 2:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jayhawker-

I agree that this is the greatest country in the world but IMO it is because we have allowed change and have allowed the Governement to step in at times when people take their freedoms a little too much to heart. Sure we are free to do as we choose however your freedom stops when it infringes on my freedoms. Sadly, alot of people don't understand that so the Government steps in to aid in the freedoms of the people being infringed upon.

I really do understand your point of view and you are one of the better posters on this board. You rarely if ever make personal attack and you typically can back your side of the debate with facts. However, I think you are on the wrong side of this debate. And, I am sure you think likewise.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 2:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

slvrnblck: Thank you for the compliment, which I sincerely return to you. I learned a long time ago that two reasonable people can look at a set of facts and draw opposite conclusions. In such cases, we should agree to disagree. I know that I will not dissuade you from your opinions on this proposal, and consequently my posts are not intended to do so. I write hoping to reach those who haven't thought about these issues. To me, the freedoms that we Americans enjoy are very important and should be preserved even if it inconveniences some. During my military service (longer ago than I will admit to), I knew men who gave all for the cause of freedom, and I live with their memory everyday. When I see a flag, to me it is their personal crest, as much as if it had their names printed on it. I also saw what it does to people who live under the whims of dictators. We cannot let this happen to us here. I recognize that, in the scheme of things, a smoking ban is of itself not a big deal. However, once we accept the underlying notion that freedom is dispensable if it gets in the way of what we want, we are headed down a slippery slope. Consequently, to me this is not just about a smoking ban, it is about the very nature of a democracy and what America stands for. Thanks for your post.

Posted by frulu (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 2:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I wish I could sit here all day trying to voice my opinion on the smoking ban. Maybe some people need to spend more time on their businesses than the gazette boards!

Like many have said before this isn't about taking away people's freedom it has become a huge public health issue in the last 10 years. If you believe that second hand smoke doesn't kill I think you should do some research!

Posted by fudgesickle (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 3:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jayhawker.

I agree with you wholeheartedly on personal freedoms. I believe that the government stepping in to save us from ourselves has, in general, caused more problems than they have prevented. Prohibition was a disaster and empowered the Al Capone's of history. The war on drugs is another example of disastrous consequences. Sure, both of these may have had good intentions, but the problems they have caused far outweigh those which they were intended to prevent. I also believe many censorship laws are ridiculous.

I believe this, however, is a different issue. I do not believe this to be an issue of personal freedoms. This is an issue of public health. I do have the choice to go to a smoking or non-smoking establishment. I also believe that the locations impact on my personal health should not have to be a deciding factor on where I eat dinner. I shouldn't have to worry that the food is tainted or cockroaches are crawling around the prep table(thank you FDA). I also shouldn't have to worry that the air I am breathing will be tainted. What I eat, what I drink is again a personal choice, and I can then choose to eat fatty food and drink beer that is likely detrimental to my health. That is personal freedom.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

fudgesickle: You make very strong points in support of your position. I think where your argument failed was when you said that "the location's impact on my personal health should not have to be a deciding factor on where I eat dinner." As you correctly stated, there are choices for you and others that will not expose you to smoke. However, you want there to be no other choice. Think about how elitist that statement is. In your zeal to avoid inconvenience, you have no difficulty in denying private property rights to owners and personal preference to those who smoke. The free market has nicely compromised so that all have a choice and in a way that preserves freedom. I am a nonsmoker, too, and I admit that from time to time, I am inconvenienced, too. S & S Cafe makes good omelets, but I don't go there because of the smoke. I am willing to pay that price for our American way of life. I submit that it is a small price in comparison to the sacrifices of many.

Posted by fudgesickle (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 4:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I do not see it as a failed argument.

Is forcing a restaurant to provide non-tainted food infringing on rights?

Is forcing a business to provide a clean and healthy establishment for workers and patrons infringing on rights?

By the counter argument I am seeing here. If we allow an establishment to provide unhealthy air, then is it unreasonable to expect them to provide untainted products? These are both public health concerns.

I see where you are going with the "Thank You for Smoking" argument. I just don't believe it applies here.

Also, I think you misunderstood me earlier. I am a smoker. I also choose to step outside whether in an establishment or at home when I light up. It's a disgusting habit, but dang it.... it's the only thing that calms me down.

I respect your point of view and agree to disagree with it. No amount of bickering has ever solved a problem.

I also do not believe that the proposal should be passed as is if Matt is correct on the regulations they want to impose on alcohol serving institutions.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 4:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

fudgesickle: There is no point in my beating a dead horse, so I will not repeat the argument about how we have choices now to fit everyone, but your proposal would deny choices and in the process deny property rights to owners. I do think that your post is very helpful in one very important way. The promoters of this ban have attempted to make this a smoker v. nonsmoker issue, centered on public health issues. You and I have proven that it is much, much larger than that. You are a smoker supporting the ban, while I am a nonsmoker opposing it. We both acknowledge that anyone who doesn't want to be exposed to smoke have choices that are consistent with his/her preferences. The issues surrounding this proposal, as you and I make clear, are by far greater than whether someone has a smoking habit or not. I respect your opinions and thank you for an honest assessment of the issues.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 4:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

slvrnblck: You wrote:

"Smoking in cars with children in there should be illegal as well. I am curious to know what the people against the ban think about that. Let's hear it BJ, Jayhawker, create, MisterO, et al ...what are your thoughts??"

Almost too ridiculous to deserve comment. So if smoking in a vehicle with children on board should be outlawed, does this mean smoking in one's own home, if children live there, should also be "illegal", which by defintion means a criminal act and therefore deserving of monetary fines, arrest, or incarceration?

Slvrnblck, you are making a very solid case AGAINST this bogus ban and the Merry Matrons of Mayhem who introduced it. You and your smokophobic comrades are using misinformation, scare tactics, emotion, and outright lies to force this legislation. Why? Because facts won't support this anti-neighbor, anti-business, anti-American attack on smoking, smokers, and personal freedoms.

You can't legislate social behavior or lifestyle, even it doesn't measure up to your liberal, elitist, save-the-world standards. You and your bored buddys are a bunch of badgering bullies hell-bent on creating a problem that previously didn't exist and then using deceptive tactics to demand restrictive laws to fix that suddenly threatening problem.

What could possibly lead you and your storm trooper busy-body friends to think you have the right to force your morals and standards on others or arbitrarily demand the elimination of the rights of business owners?

This smoking ban isn't about clean air, health, good citizenship or humanitariansim. It is about a small group of self-perceived socially superior reformers out to force their values on the inferior uncouth masses through any means necessary.

BJ, Jayhawker, Create, MisterO, and an army of others opposing this silly ban will be at the open discussion meeting September 29th. We'll bring with us some things so foreign to you and your friends that you won't be equipped to deal with them: truth, facts, reality, common sense, and respect for the individual freedoms of our fellow citizens, our community, and local business owners.

Most of our city commissioners are pretty smart and most are business owners. I think they will see through this bogus ban like a politician's promise.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 4:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

One other thing, fudgesickle. You and others have made the comparison to regulations concerning tainted food and other health issues. The free market is well up to handling that, too. If a restaurant got a reputation for lack of cleanliness, people would quit going. The better comparison would be a situation where the city inspected some restaurants and not others. People could choose at which to spend their money. If that was important to enough people, the ones not supported by the free market would have to change their ways. The same is true here. I personally think that if the supporters of this ban would be patient, in another 10 years or so, with the declining incidence of smoking (a very good thing), there may only be a few specialty places left for smokers. I would applaud a resolution like that. No government intrusion, no fines, no invocation of the city's enforcement and punitive powers, no taking away the police and the courts from real cases, and, best of all, no wholesale destruction of American values.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 4:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lest someone seize upon my last post to create a red herring by suggesting that I oppose health inspections in restaurants, let me make it clear that I have no problem with them. The difference between health inspections and this ban are daylight and dark. Since business owners have no clientele who prefer salmonella over healthy food, health inspections are good for businesses (as long as they are reasonably applied) because it gives them a certification from an independent authority that their product is what the market wants. This proposal is more akin to telling the establishment owner what he can put on his menu.

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 4:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think all of these if you can then why don't they statements regarding tainted food and other federally regulated things shows how truly week the argument for a ban is.

Vince's comment above reflects the true nature of this proposal. This myth that you have the right to breathe the way you want to. I have been saying on this forum for a ling time that there is no right to smoke and no right to breathe smoke free air. The only right we are dealing with is the right to manage your property as you see fit.

Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 5:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BJ--

I think you misinterpreted my intentions with the question....all I wanted were your thoughts, which I guess I got, but I certainly didn't intend to cause another big one on one debate. I just thought that the person who initially wrote that brought up a good point. Because shs is harmful to you why would you put your kids in harms way? And, if you choose to do so wouldn't that fall under some kind of child endangerment law.

It is just a topic for debate nothing more nothing less, you can save the personal attacks for another debate.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 5:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

slvrnblck: Bjnemp did make an excellent point, though. Adults smoking in a car with children is no different than adults smoking in their home with children. I think that we can all agree that that is not a practice that we condone. Surely you are not suggesting that the police go door to door looking for parents smoking in front of their children? It is the same thing. This is what happens when we try to inject government regulation into our lives.

Posted by fudgesickle (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 7:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"The only right we are dealing with is the right to manage your property as you see fit"

Time and time again throughout history, government intervention has saved us from this belief.

This was one of the South's main contentions for seceding from the Union.

Child Labor, worker's rights, US Bank, monopoly control, regulations to what is in our food, what we drink, etc..

If you think we live in a true free market and capitalist society you are very very blind to the truth.

I'm all for letting the free market roll as is, but many times, influence from governments, unions, and social uprising has changed acceptable policy on how you treat your workers, patrons, and how you conduct business.

jayhawk: I get your critique of the analogy to FDA food and drug inspection and board of health checks. I will say this. With no regulation, there is no guarantee that any place will have quality food. We live on the assumption that without regulation, people will act in an acceptable way in the business world. That is not an assumption I would be willing to make in any industry. These regulations have led to the society we have today where we can feel very safe about the integrity of what we are putting in our bodies. 100 years ago, this was not the case.

Also, they would try to turn your statement into a straw man, not a red herring. ;)

Posted by glarson (Gwen Larson) on September 16, 2008 at 8:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My, you all have been busy. Let's close this down and move to a forum:

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