The squeaky wheel
Matthew Slater, Josie’s-Owner
Monday, September 15, 2008
My name is Matthew Slater, and as the owner of Josie’s, I cannot in any way endorse the smoking ban proposed by Clean Air Emporia. This ban tramples the rights of all business owners (not just bars and restaurants), and in my opinion, has nothing to do with air quality whatsoever. I believe that this group is enacting this ban, not to protect Emporia citizens, but to incur financial burdens on bars, and to a certain extent restaurants. This group, in my opinion, is trying to force its holier-than-thou attitude on the general public, and the fact that Clean Air Emporia is against this ban being voted on proves my point.
Another point hat this ban is targeting bars is the way Clean Air Emporia wants to revoke liquor licenses after two or three alleged offenses. I was at the meeting when Mrs. Sauder was explaining that if a bar had as few as three or four complaints, she wanted the liquor license revoked. This is absolute lunacy. My security is already over-worked on our busy nights. My security team has much bigger problems to worry about. Keeping people from smoking cigarettes is the least of my worries.
Lastly, if you still believe this ban is about second-hand smoke exposure, here is what an anonymous proponent wrote in the forums on the Gazette website:
“There’s a saying, ‘The squeaky wheel gets the grease.’ You smokers are quite the squeaky wheel, no doubt about that. I don’t think you’ll be getting any grease, however. You see, sometimes when the squeaky wheel is a non-essential part of the machine it’s easier just to get rid of it rather than to constantly maintain it. The rest of us (the larger, more significant, non-squeaky wheels) will run a lot more efficiently if we can eliminate that little wheel that is emitting smoke all the time.”
I believe this sums up everything I have stated about the smoking ban. This has nothing to do with the quality of health in Emporia, but rather this is an elitist group trying to impose its will on the rest of the city.
jayhawker (anonymous) says...
crackinsack: I didn't take your post literally; however, it did show an extremely elitist attitude. Your elitist attitude may be greater in degree than some of this ban's supporters, but at the bottom of all of this is an undemocratic and unamerican idea that some of us are smarter than the others and therefore we should have our way no matter whose property rights we trample into the dirt. I am a nonsmoker and I don't like second hand smoke either, but I am not so intolerant of others as are the supporters of this ban, and more importantly, I take our constitutional rights very seriously. This is the kind of thing that one would expect out of Hitler, not citizens of Emporia, Kansas.
September 15, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Right on, Jayhawker. Since the very beginning, the proponents of clean air have used language characteristic of power. Words like "force," "eliminate," and "demand" have led non-smokers like myself to view this proposal as authoritarian and therefore very dangerous.
September 15, 2008 at 3:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LifeGoesOn (anonymous) says...
has anyone heard of when this is supposed to be decided? if or when there will be a meeting open to public discussion before the commission votes on this? I for one dont think our city police need to be wasting thier time trying to enforce such a silly waste of time. As far as Walters goes, isn't she running for County Commission? She wont be getting my vote! If this is the kind of nonsense she will be bringing to the table.
September 15, 2008 at 3:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
Way to go Matt!! I think that this and the other material in the paper by business owners sends a very clear message about this ban. I can imagine you want to scream STOP messing with my livliehood. The clean air people's argument is paper thin at best. And for them to affiliated with EDA is ridiculous. I work in a local business that is often hit up for money and donations, and I received a solicitation with information from EDA recently. I read their mission statement and could not find anything about legal activities. It was all about stopping illegal drug use and abuse. but I saw throught that too. Especially when they are aiding the nico-facist regime we see here in Emporia.
I say bring it to a vote. Or at least certify the existing signed petitions and present them to city government. If that doesn't convince them that this is the product of the south end of a north facing bull, then it may at least get this issue voted on.
September 15, 2008 at 3:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Penny (anonymous) says...
I've been away and may have missed some of the coverage, Create, but I don't recall those words being used by Clean Air Emporia. I do recall the opposition using those words or ones like them when making accusations, in addition to some rather rude ones as well.
Life: September 29 is the public comment event, at least according to an announcement I saw in the Gazette.
September 15, 2008 at 4:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
If anyone is still naive enough to think this proposed ban by a small group of self-perceived social reformers is about "clean air", consider two more comments made in the Gazette blog by supporters of the ban:
"Force all of the smokers to smoke only high tar, high nicotine, unfiltered cigarettes. That way, we can be rid of all of them in about 20 years when they all kick the bucket from lung cancer and emphysema."
"times are a changin’. Society, like a machine, occasionally gets upgraded and if you don’t adapt, you become obsolete and get left behind. I just don’t want you fine citizens to miss the boat. So what do you say? Why not quit that nonsensical, archaic habit and get with the times?"
Does that sound like a sincere concern for the effects of second-hand smoke, or a vicious attack on smokers and smoking? Is "clean air" the concern of the ban supporters, or do they seek an adjustment of moral standards?
An elitist group of meddlesome Country Club Crusaders have annointed themselves as the social conscience of our community and are tenaciously attempting to outlaw smoking in Emporia. One post, copied above, even goes so far as to suggest the killing of smokers. The other---the same person who made the comments mentioned by Matthew above---calls smokers "obsolete, non-sensical, and archaic".
This proposed smoking ban is not a "clean air" issue. It has become abundantly clear that it is an attempt at social cleansing.
This is more about inflated egos, air of superiority, and forcing lifestyle and morality on others than it is about health. These people don't give a hoot about health. What they care about is that smokers don't lead a lifestyle that meets their approval or moral standards.
Clean Air Emporia: a privileged few with a selfish view of what is best for you, with absolutely no regard for who it will hurt, what it will cost, or whose rights will get trampled in the process.
September 15, 2008 at 4:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ratdog (anonymous) says...
Again. This ban is SILLY! There is not one place in Emporia where there is secondhand smoke that cannot be avoided by personal choice. If someone can name one, then CAE should go directly to that place and demand a change. Otherwise, stop the nonsense!
This is not about anyone trying to protect anyone else's health.
September 15, 2008 at 4:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
toninj (anonymous) says...
I've been inquiring a little about the drive behind this ban. In speaking with a friend of mine that once sat on Emporia for Drug Awareness’ board, it seems that this is a requirement of the Federal grant that the group receives. So Federal funds were at risk if they did not take on a project to "better" our community and this is the project they chose to take on, as there were even more grant funds available to them if they took on this project. Basically what it comes down to is the MONEY, federal and state money, paid by our tax dollars so that the government can tell private businesses how to run.
I also found out that it was necessary for them to take on this project as their last attempt at "bettering" our community failed due to the inability of the group to work with community members and be open minded. It seems they were working on an alcohol density project that would have restricted the number of liquor licenses issued in the city of Emporia. To bad that project failed as it would have been good for both the community and the businesses. It would have helped the current bars in place not to deal with the short term bars that come open take business from long standing bars, serve minors and then get closed down. From the sounds of it this project was run the same way...it was going to be their way or no way at all.
September 15, 2008 at 4:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dale011 (anonymous) says...
Ratdog, I posted a comment here about the S&S Cafe being one place that you can't escape the smoke, but I will not go there to eat ever again so problem solved. The folks that were there that Saturday morning were all completely happy in the dingy smokey room, so let them be happy. I agree with the other postings that there is more to this issue than just banning smoking in public buildings, it's about forced behavioral modification. If it moves and sounds like a Nazi, maybe it is one.
September 15, 2008 at 4:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
This is a copy of the email I sent to the City Commissioners, just an FYI.
September 15, 2008 at 5:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bobhornet (anonymous) says...
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
September 15, 2008 at 5:31 p.m. ( permalink )
USNretired (anonymous) says...
If this does get enacted without a vote, I know who I wont be voting for next time around. :)
September 15, 2008 at 6:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Toninj, Thank you for your post because at last you have shed some light on why the Air Queens are pushing so hard with this proposal. I knew it had to be money somewhere along the way. Again, thank you.
Everyone, I hope you are making your opinions known to commissioners. See you all at the Sept. 29 meeting. Go Matt!
September 15, 2008 at 7:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Pingeon (anonymous) says...
"Air Queens"
LOL, that's funny right there.... I don't care who you are......
September 15, 2008 at 7:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pizza (anonymous) says...
I find it rather interesting that Teresa Walters is so concerned with people's health when, for years, she ran a restaurant that served lots of artery clogging french fries and greasy hamburgers. Like Toninj said....it's the money. Perhaps without her government grant she would be out of a job.
September 15, 2008 at 11:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jayhawker (anonymous) says...
I would prefer to not think that the "Clean Air Committee" is promoting an anti-American proposal such as this warmed over prohibition scheme only for money, but unfortunately in our society, that happens more than we want to believe. If this allegation is true, the promoters should have trouble looking at themselves in the mirror. I assume that they have a conscious, so I'll let them live with it and reconcile themselves to it in whatever way that they can. Let's just hope that that is not their agenda.
September 15, 2008 at 11:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ratdog (anonymous) says...
Dale011:
I think you may have missed my point a little, but in the end, you made it quite nicely. You sited S&S as "one place where you can't escape the smoke....." That is not correct. I think you'll agree that you chose not to escape the smoke. You further made the choice not to go there again. You didn't run to the city commission and say, "You have to ban smoking at S&S immediately so I can eat a ham and cheese omelete."
In the past there were places where secondhand smoke was unavoidable by choice. People routinely smoked in offices, at high school football games, on airplanes and everywhere else. This is simply not the case any longer. It hasn't been the case in a pretty long time.
The only remaining places where you might encounter secondhand smoke are privately owned businesses. Many of those businesses either don't allow smoking or control it very effectively. But, even if there is significant smoke in the air, there isn't any reason that anyone can't simply leave or change tables to avoid the presumed threat. That's just basic freedom.
This ban offends me on many levels. It represents a further erotion of personal choice and freedom. It's a silly waste of taxpayer money and threatens to be a much bigger waste of money and law enforcement resources. And, what offends me most, is that any group or person is so presumptive as to think that they should for any reason be able to make a common sense decision or personal choice for me or any citizen in this community.
September 15, 2008 at 11:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bobhornet (anonymous) says...
I'm surprised that pizza's comment wasn't removed--God forbid somebody criticize Teresa Walters on this website. I'll just say this: her efforts are very hypocritical.
September 16, 2008 at 4:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )