‘’T’ain’t nobody’s business’
S.C. Dixon
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
YIKES! I just finished reading the smoking ban ordinance as proposed by Clean Air Emporia in Thursday’s Gazette! Although I am a quick study, it took me a while to muddle through and I needed a second cup of coffee to keep myself attentive enough to follow all the New-Speak.
Although I was impressed that the writers of this proposed ordinance seemingly have dotted all of their “i’s” and crossed all their “t’s,” both literally and figuratively, I was however plagued by a disturbing visualization of George Orwell, turning madly in his grave like a whirling dervish on a spit as I meandered through this blueprint of creeping socialism and additional government intervention into small businesses and private lives.
(I also envisioned a flag from the early American Colonial period depicting a coiled rattlesnake and the stern warning, “Don’t Tread On Me.” {As an aside I think a go-getter downtown business person might sell out their entire stock if they could find a source for those flags…})
There is so much in Emporia to be improved that I have to wonder at the shear amount of manpower (woman-power, too!) and the vast amount of currency being spent on a campaign which many of us don’t see the value or usefulness of in the first place. We have more than enough unenforceable laws and ordinances as it is. Not long ago there was even a discussion of adding a canine criminal class to the books via an ordinance prohibiting dogs from riding in the backs of pickup trucks. (I hopefully assume that, once and for all, this also prevents them from driving as well.)
As it is we have an ordinance banning excessive noise or “music” from vehicles (a moot point I suppose when even that cacophonous racket is drowned out every ten minutes or so by another deafening train whistle.)
We have ordinances prohibiting littering, “J” turns in the middle of our main thoroughfare which is, by-the-bye, also a state highway, driving in a pouring rain without headlights, jay-walking, etc. , yet anyone who works or shops downtown sees violations of these and other ordinances each and every day.
Smoking is a nasty habit and there are few who would deny that. But it is a LEGAL one. Rather than stirring up ill-will and forcing folks to take sides on what is, in the end, a purely personal decision as to whether or not to smoke or whether or not to patronize smoking or non-smoking establishments, I think I’ve hit on a crackerjack solution which shines in its simplicity.
As co-owner of “The Noose™” I have posted a sign on the door informing anyone who enters that THIS IS A SMOKING ESTABLISHMENT. That is of course assuming that they can read. (If not our whiz-bang staff can read it to them…)
At my photography studio, where smoking is NOT allowed, I have taken a different course. Initially it came to my mind that I could publish a full newspaper page of small print to state my intent to Emporia and the world at large but then, in a euphonious flash, it occurred to me to simply post a sign consisting of two simple words, “NO SMOKING”.
Holy Cow! It works like a charm!
Because, when all is said and done, you see, the decision is MY business. Literally.
I pay the rent, I pay the utilities, I pay the wages, and I pay the innumerable, immutable, and sometimes inexplicable taxes that help to keep the whole shebang, city, county, state, and nation afloat.
So, like other small-business folks, you must forgive us if we bristle a bit at being told what we must and must not do by otherwise disinterested parties who have never darkened our doorways and whose opinions we have neither solicited nor do we particularly welcome.
Don’t tread on me. I’ll return the favor.
S.C. Dixon is the owner of S. C. Dixon Portrait Art, 724 Commercial St., and a part owner of “The Noose,” 323 Commercial St.
Comments
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
Posted by clockman (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 3:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Dixon, I would like to thank you for speaking your mind and telling it like it is. I am not the owner of a business nor am I a smoker. I am a simple run-of-the-mill man who has worked his entire life in Emporia. I grew up in a non-smoking family, but I have lots of friends who choose to smoke.
Unfortunately, this group of so called do-gooders are trying to cram another rediculous restriction down our throats. It is way past time for us, the silent MAJORITY, to speak up and tell these people to MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS! I won't tell them what to do, so don't try to tell me what to do.
Like you say, there are so many important things in this world that need to be addressed. I am not a politically minded person, but I do vote in every election. I promise that I will work extremely hard to vote any commisioner that agrees with this ban out of office!
Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 3:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Very, very well put S.C.! Make sure to attend the town-hall meeting on this, Sept. 29th.
By the way, if you find anyone selling some flags, let me know, I'll take one.
Matt Slater
Josie's
Posted by bobhornet (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 4:21 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by sunshine (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 5:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Dixon,
Well said! I would also like to say that there is a card available to the public listing many of the businesses in Emporia that are smoke free. This card is designed to be folded and carried in your purse or wallet. I found this at the Emporia Rec. Center fitness area. It is quite a lengthy list and I know there a many businesses in Emporia that are Non Smoking buildings that are not on the card...my point being that people have plenty of choices if they don't want to mix with smokers. I have seen several comments from people stating that they can't take their families out to eat or go into places without encountering cigarette smoke and they would like the ban so they can go into all these places. I think that is just ludicrous because there is a large enough variety of places that do not allow smoking to suit just about anyone and any taste.
So, people do have choices. But for some that isn't enough...they want it all. If we leave it how it is now both smokers and non smokers have places to go that suit them. Why is this a problem?
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 5:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow.What a well-written, literate, common sense response to a most aggravating, needless, and non-sensical proposal. I hope you will be in attendance at the culture clash on Sept. 29th, Mr. Dixon. Emporians have been drawn into a war of will between those who advocate the legislation of individual behavior and the eradication of personal freedoms and those who still believe in the basic premise of rationality, reason, and freedom for all.
Thank you, S.C., for helping strip the sheep's clothing off of this disguised wolf.
Posted by booker5m (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 5:50 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by soggy (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 6:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey S.C.
I got few flags on the way.
If you want one email me.
emporiaflags@gmail.com
Posted by wneighbor (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 7:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Too bad something so smelly and deadly is also coming to the stage of eliminating brain cells...the evidence of the harms of second hand smoke make up volumns of information and I dare say volumns of obituaries...maybe clean air regulations will be easier to put in place when Al Gore starts screaming that second had smoke is contributing to his global warming...people can smoke all they want...go ahead...more power to ya...but not in public places...not in eating places...not in recreational places...and not in my space as a nonsmoker who really does not want to smell or die....
Posted by blulitespecial (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 8:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I regularly fly the Don't Tread On Me flag-In the form of our historical first and current Navy jack.The message is loud and clear-no explanation is needed.
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 10:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
wneighbor: Funny post! Not funny in a "ha-ha" way, but funny in a "what the heck was that about?" way. I liked the Al Gore reference, though. That would kill this stupid smoking ban crusade in a hurry!
You sound very angry and self-involved, neighbor. You need to lighten up and have some fun. You said you don't "want to smell or die". I have bad news for you. I suspect you don't smell all that good now, and I gaurantee you are going to die, so quit being so judgemental and selfish, stop trying to dictate social behavior, halt the attack on the rights of business owners, and go to your grave knowing you actually were a good neighbor.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 11:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bjnemp: When Pat Kelley retires, I hope that you apply for the job. The paper's circulation will double because the highlight of Emporia's day will be reading the nightly editorial. You certainly have a way with words, sometimes offensive, yet never offend.
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 11:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You are too kind, Jayhawker! I would gladly take that job, too. In fact, funny you should mention me working at the Gazette. I actually applied for a management position there in 2006 but they passed. Too old, I think.
I appreciate your comments on my writing style. I was actually involved in writing for many years in my business career. I wrote ad copy, radio spots, TV spots, a radio sports show, newsletters, and several sales training manuals and seminars. I'm usually too wordy, a bit overly dramatic, and tend to embellish, but I have fun and make my thoughts known and understood with clarity.
I'd love to write an editorial column for a newspaper but I think The Gazette would find my independent, conservative views a bit too reasonable and unbiased for their liberal taste.
Thanks again, Jayhawker. You made my day.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 11:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
At least keep posting here. You are tart, to the point and funny, all at the same time.
I'm too wordy, too. If I am writing something that I want to be done as well as I can, I remember General Robert E. Lee's dispatch by courier to General Hood at Gettysburg. It started off thusly: "General, I apologize that I don't have time to make this shorter." I've found that if I write something, put it aside for a day or so, I can cut it by 25% and make it clearer, sharper and more succinct. Unfortunately, we usually don't have that luxury. Your posts are excellent, too wordy or not.
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 11:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm sure I will, Jayhawker. I'm retired. I got out of the rat race at the age of 59 which makes me too old to live and too young to die. Even my mean old bossy wife can't find chores enough to keep me busy all the time so I'll be checking in and adding my two cents (or no sense) worth from time to time, at least as long as the Nicotine Nazis are terrorizing the city. They get my blood flowing faster than a double dose of Viagra.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 12:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm worried that too many of us think that posting on these threads will be enough to defeat this crazy proposal. However, I doubt that more than 1% of Emporians read these things. This "Clean Air" outfit is organized with money (probably federal money from some grant or another), and we are an unorganized ragtag of posters with nothing but common sense on our side. Somebody needs to take charge. Right now, the target is the City Commission. If they punt on this and send it to a vote (which is what I think is likely to happen), the "Clean Air" folks are prepared to run a campaign. They will no doubt pit smokers against nonsmokers in class warfare, and because there are more nonsmokers, they win. The young guy from Josie's seems the closest to anyone taking the initiative, and he may be fine. It needs to be someone familiar with how to run a campaign, raise money and understand that we will only win this thing if we keep the issue focused on the rights of private property owners and the empirical data showing how, once they draw blood, they will want to ban other things, too. What do you think?
Also, do you know which of the Democrats running for the County Commission (Mr. Bartel or Mr. Winter) is running against Mrs. Walters?
Posted by dhcc66 (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 12:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
it's interesting that nobody complains that somebody passes a law that prohibits drinking and driving. and it's interesting that nobody complains that stalking laws are becoming more strict. it's also interesting that there isn't this much stink about the drug laws. but yikes....when somebody wants to regulate smoking, it's like somebody pulled the carpet out from under the entire smoking world!!!!
smokers. it's not that we non-smokers object that you smoke. just don't make us smell like you and have to breathe your smoke polluted air.
oh, and about the argument that nobody makes me breathe your air or go into the places you are interesting in polluting...if you whine about wanting to smoke anywhere you doggone well please, that doesn't leave much of anywhere for me to go now, does it?
wait, i've got an idea that you smokers spawned!! Don't tread on my clean air.....thanks for listening.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 12:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
dhcc66: The only whiners that I've heard in this debate are the "Clean Air Committee" and its supporters. I admit that some of its supporters have made some mildly good points, but they are not the ones who offer nothing to the debate except name calling. Maybe you can be in charge of their media advertising if this comes to a full fledged campaign. You'll have a big budget to call all of us names with full page display ads and radio announcements. That will really help your cause. Incidentally, I'm not a smoker and I don't like second hand smoke anymore than you; which has nothing to do with this debate.
Posted by slipandslide (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 12:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
i ve never had a smoker refuse to put out a smoke, but guess what, drinking and driving laws were passed because drunk driving was proven to have deadly consequences, stalking laws are becoming more strict i suspect because stalking has had some serious effects, think about the predators who stalk kids online, and the drug war may have been overdone, but who can argue that some of the powerful drugs in circulation cause violence? second hand smoke might stink but it wont kill you or cause you to become violent. maybe thats what the big stink is about
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 12:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
dhcc66: This may go over your head, but since you raised the question about some of the other laws about which no one complains, you need to understand the historical and legal theories that justify laws and regulation of people's lives. The English common law broke it into two categories: Malum in se and Malum Prohibitum. Malum in se is based upon making illegal those acts which are regarded as inherently wrong or evil, primarily based upon The Ten Commandments. Examples are laws against Murder. Malum Prohibitum, on the other hand, were not inherently wrong or evil, but were justified if necessary for a well ordered society. Modern examples are speeding laws. The laws that you mentioned were primarily derived from the Malum in se category (other than drug laws). This "Clean Air" proposal is an example of Malum Prohibitum. Where it fails is that it addresses not a problem, but rather is intended to avoid a mere inconvenience (since most bars and one restaurant will expose you to smoke if you chose to go in them), and mere inconveniences were never considered to be sufficient to meet the "necessary" element of an orderly society.
Posted by slipandslide (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 1:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
isnt it odd that emporia spent decades putting up with the putrid smelling pollution tyson belched out every day but now we think we need an ordance to control smelly smoking? some of the colognes i smell in the store are offensive to me, but its my choice to be there while the odor is there. smoking odors can be lived with.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 1:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We all have a First Amendment right to offer our opinions. However, some of us would appear to be a whole lot smarter if we chose not to invoke those rights.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 1:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
dhcc66: There is a new crusade underway that you may want to join. It's premise is that certain television programs are offensive and shouldn't be viewed by anyone. This crusade is run by the "Clean Television Viewing Committee," and it has developed a list of unapproved television shows. It will be taking it to the City Commission requesting that an ordinance be forthcoming that makes it illegal for anyone to watch an unapproved program. It will apply to everyone, and the police will be making inspections of private homes and businesses to insure compliance. It will be no defense to this that you put the television in a place that those who may be offended cannot see it. They will also respond to complaints. If a resident is found to be watching one of these offensive shows, they will be arrested. If the police are called four times and find no violation, your right to be a citizen of this community will be revoked and you will be asked to move. No doubt there will be whiners who will claim that watching a show on private property is their right, that the government has no right to impose such a law on private property, etc., but since they are only whiners, their opinions will be disregarded. I think that I heard the Committee say that they are on their way to your house right now, with the police.
Posted by ratdog (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 5:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Dixon is right on. There is only one question that has to be answered in this entire debate. The answer will prove who is right and who is wrong. The question is: "Can you name one place in Emporia, Kansas where there is any significant risk of secondhand smoke that cannot be avoided by exercising the bare minimum of personal choice?"
Anyone that says, "There are places that I would LIKE to go but I don't because people are smoking......", does not understand the potential impact of this initiative. They take for granted the most valuable thing we all share -- individual freedom and personal choice.
Smoking has been eliminated in EVERY place that we can't avoid it. That's exactly how it should be. But now, you and I are being told that we don't have the basic common sense to make what are really simple decisions about what is best for ourselves and our families.
There's an old joke that Johnny Carson used to tell all the time: "I went to the doctor and I said, "Doctor. It hurts when I do that! The doctor said, 'Don't do that!'"
It's as simple as that old joke. If you don't want to be exposed to secondhand smoke, simply don't be exposed to secondhand smoke. We certainly don't need a law to make such a simple decision for us.
Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 6:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Bj, wneighbor cannot come up with an original screen name and has to copy someone else's, so I doubt SHE would be able to follow your suggestions. Al Gore and global warming, and probably a Cadillac driving purple hair as well.
Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What I think dhcc meant was that driving drunk wasn't illegal initially but because it was a dangerous activity that the public had to endure they made a law against it.
Things like this happen all the time. We think something is good or fun or whatever and then after some time passes we learn that, "that thing", is actually bad for us, and worse yet it is bad for other people to be around it. So, in order to protect the general public from the few's bad habits they bring in laws and ordinances to aid in protecting the public.
Posted by create (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you, houndi. Great comment, and one that bears repeating.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 12:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
houndi: I doubt that many of the "Clean Air Committee" (I love that name) have ever had to dodge bullets. If they had, they may better understand what America and it's freedoms stands for, and it ain't for prohibition and bans.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
When the "Clean Air Committee" gets done ramming this ban down our throats, they can change their name to the "Clean Books Committee" and ban all the books from the library that they don't approve. When they're done, there will be a whole lot more space in the library.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 1 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Am I the only one, but does the name "Clean Air Committee" remind anyone of the "Central Committee" of the Polit Bureau of the Soviet Union? That was the Committee that Josef Stalin and his successors chaired, hence the title "Chairman Stalin". I wonder if the "Clean Air Committee" has a chairman.
Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 1:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I understand about second hand smoke, but what about the imminent dangers of second hand smug....
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 2:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't know who the Chairman of the "Clean Air Central Committee" is, but perhaps they could honor the memory of their trailblazer by posthumously naming George Orwell as its Honorary Chairman.
Posted by romano1784 (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 2:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Does anyone remember when the group in Washington, the name escapes me at the moment, tried to make pornography illegal on the grounds that it would eventually make the general public into sex raving maniacs? How about when churches burned "witches" to save the general public from the devil?
Driving drunk: If you look into the history of law you will find that it was illegal to ride a horse while intoxicated. Actually we had a president, Pierce, who was fined for riding drunk and running over an old lady. Pierce, incidently is a direct relation to George Bush Sr. through his wife. Not really any point to that comment but educational nontheless.
The point is pornography is still in wide circulation and people still get married and live decent lives. Smoking is a choice, one I've made by myself to do. No one forces me to smoke, I didn't start from peer pressure, didnt think it was the cool or adult thing to do, it was just my choice.
For all the non-smokers out there who made the choice not to smoke, I applaud you for your choice. Yes we smoke in some places that non smokers go, but we don't stand right next to you, and more often than not if you are exposed to secondhand smoke it is in passing.
Restaraunts and bars that allow smoking are usually ventilated very well, or at the least had walls that seperated the rooms. If this ban passes people at Tyson, Dolly, Applebees, Menu, any business that has so much as put up a carport for smokers to smoke, will have to make a new area for smokers to go. Tyson, menu and dolly have carports for smokers, but they have walls and a cieling so you cant smoke there. Applebees has a walled area, cant smoke there anymore.
Thirty feet from any doorway is ensuring sickness from smokers, especially with no cieling. Standing in snow, rain, freezing rain, or just the cold will guarantee sickness. Now nonsmokers say why don't you just quit? Because its my choice to smoke. I'll be honest, I don't give a damn about Lawrence, I don't visit there, I don't shop there, live there, work there, hell I just don't go there. My choice.
Posted by djdiablo (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Discussion is a good thing. I think the significant item of note here is that the reaction that we’re seeing AGAINST the proposed ordinance has really very little to do with smoking in an of itself, it’s just the fact people are sick of being told what to do by nameless, faceless bureaucrats. I’ve talked to a great many non-smokers who feel like this is just the sort of intervention into our everyday lives that we have to finally take a stand against.
A friend of mine, a devout libertarian, has a plaque on his desk that says something to the effect of “as an American I have the right to be left alone.”
It seems now that there is a seemingly constant tide eroding away that right and many others as well. Likely enough, this issue is as good a place to start as any.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 3:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
djdiablo: Amen.
Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 7:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There is going to be a meeting here at Josie's this coming Monday, the 22nd, for all of the opponents to this ban. The time will be 7 p.m. I am not going to turn the outside lights on, but the doors will be open, so come on in. The address is 19 E. 6th. It's right across from where Bruff's was, the old CJ's, Outback, Buckets, etc, etc. If you are opposed to the smoking ban, for whatever reason, I invite you to attend, and would love to hear your thoughts. Let your friends know!
Matt Slater
Owner-Josie's
P.S.--There will be second hand smoke present.
Posted by MisterO (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 9:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"it's interesting that nobody complains that somebody passes a law that prohibits drinking and driving. and it's interesting that nobody complains that stalking laws are becoming more strict. it's also interesting that there isn't this much stink about the drug laws." dhcc66
Drinking and driving: You can't make a personal choice to avoid drunk drivers. You CAN make a personal choice not to enter a private business that allows smoking.
Stalking laws: You can't make a personal choice to avoid a stalker following you. You CAN make a personal choice not to enter a private business that allows smoking.
Drug laws: I guess it depends on what drug laws. There is an increasing number of individuals and groups who recognize that the "war on drugs" isn't working and may never be successful. People who feel that a better approach lies in providing treatment rather than enforcement.
"It's not that we non-smokers object that you smoke. just don't make us smell like you and have to breathe your smoke polluted air. oh, and about the argument that nobody makes me breathe your air or go into the places you are interesting in polluting...if you whine about wanting to smoke anywhere you doggone well please, that doesn't leave much of anywhere for me to go now, does it?" dhcc66
You've just said it yourself, nobody is making you go into places that allow smoking. And that's the truth of the matter. Are you really so helpless that you are unable make such a choice on your own free will? Do you really need the government to make those decisions for you?
Nobody is saying anything about smoking anywhere they please. Quite a few people ARE saying let the private businesses decide for themselves if they want to allow smoking or not. Quite a few people ARE saying let individual citizens exercise their right to CHOOSE whether or not they want to enter a private business that allows smoking.
Posted by dhcc66 (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 10:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
First of all let me say thank you so very much to Jayhawker for the history lesson. It really wasn't needed, but I guess you just had to look it up and let me know. As for being over my head, not even close.
Mr O.
The choices/non-choices you state are all nice, but the last point you tried to make was a little silly. I guess i could choose to not go lots of places, but why should i have to make the concession?
I understand that the smokers are banding together to fight the city. Thats all good and well and they have every right to do that. I guess if i were them, maybe I would spend my time reading up on the ordinances from some of the other cities that have enacted no-smoking ordinances with little or no resistance. I'm not sure why there was little or no resistance, but I would venture a guess that it has to do with where smoking was prohibited and whether or not some businesses were given a choice.
now, that being said, i'm sure the horribly well educated "jayhawker" could go look that up just as well as he did the legal stuff he graced us with earlier.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 11:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
dhcc66: You might want to look up the consequences to your point of view when you choose to be an advocate and insult your audience. It not only makes it clear how lacking you are in general education, but reflects poorly on the group for whom you advocate. You are a poor ambassador for your cause when you do so. If you wish to persuade, you will do so only if you offer something meritorious to the debate. Maturity will help with that.
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 11:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
dhcc66: I don't know Jayhawker, but from having read many of his intelligent and literate postings, I would suspect he didn't have to "look it up". I bet he knew. I can also assure you he is not " horribly well educated". Quite the contrary. Having read posts from both of you, it appears Jayhawker is extremely well educated. You are the one who appears to be horribly educated.
Sorry I had to stoop to your level, dh. but your rude comments deserved a response and I had to do it in a manner you could understand.
Posted by MichaelJMcFadden (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 2:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Antismokers justify including private clubs in their bans by saying "they have employees."
But when they run into problems with places that simply have no employees, where it’s all volunteer, they simply redefine the word "employee" to mean anyone who provides a service with or WITHOUT pay. Under Antismoking NewSpeak, Gandhi and Mother Theresa, Jesus Christ and Buddha, even Hitler and Stalin were nothing but mere "employees" to be protected from secondhand smoke.
Think I'm kidding?
Check this out: “ ‘Employee’ means any person, including but not limited to, independent contractors and volunteers, who performs services for an Employer, with or without compensation. ‘Employer’ means a person, business… corporation... which utilizes the services of one or more Employees at an Enclosed Place of Employment.“
That quote is from "Public Peace Morals and Welfare, Smoking In Public Places" of the City of Shawnee, Kansas. Note the wonderful circularity regarding employee, employer & place of employment, & the Orwellian redefinition of the base word itself.
OK, maybe you think I just pulled an oddball law from a tiny town filled with tornados & little dogs named Toto & made a big thing about it.
Nope.
This is standard boilerplate from antismokiing lobby groups. You can find it in ban laws from Shawnee KS to Somerville MA, from the entire State of Oklahoma to the entire state of Ohio.
Smoking bans are bad laws based upon lies. They tortuously twist our language with the classic Orwellian intent of making it almost impossible to even *think* in ways counter to the desired outcome without running into a stone wall.
Another, from two days ago in a North Kentucky push for a ban:
"This is not a smoking ban," said Shawn Cox of the American Cancer Society. "People can use the product that they have a right to use, but they should use it in a manner that does not affect other people's health."
Amazing. A smoking ban that is not a ban because people are still allowed to cower in their homes and perhaps sneak a smoke behind a dumpster somewhere. Using that kind of weasel-wording I guess Prohibition never happened. Americans could still make their own beer and wine, they could still bring a few bottles back for personal consumption from Canada, and they were more than welcome to drink as much as they wanted of what they'd bought before 1918. Prohibition is just a figment of our imagination.
"This is not a smoking ban, said Shawn Cox..."
Would you buy a used car from this guy?
===
And finally, here in PA, the State University has taken the "Clean Indoor Air Act" and told its students that the law requires them to ban smoking throughout all the hundreds of acres of the grounds and parking lots and roads of its 14 state campuses.
Orwell is more alive today than he ever was in life.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
Posted by MisterO (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 7:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"The choices/non-choices you state are all nice, but the last point you tried to make was a little silly." dhcc66
"the horribly well educated "jayhawker" could go look that up" dhcc66
So...the point I made about using your freedom to choose whether or not to enter a private business is "a little silly" and jayhawker is "horribly well educated"?
Wow. Thanks for sharing that. Are you saying that those who believe in exercising their freedoms are silly and need the government to take away those freedoms? That those who are educated are too smart for their own good and need some "I know better than you" group to tell them how to run their lives?
Because if that's what you are saying, I totally disagree with you.
Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I found this economic data sort of interesting. Especially toward the top about the skewed statistics for NY and CA.
Good article S.C.
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/economic.h...
Posted by SStahl (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 9:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Regardless of whether or not my little commnts make headlines, I hope S.C. Dixon knows what a good article this is!
Indeed, these antismoker laws are never about smoke. (In fact, for anyone who has read actual, long-term studies of people exposed to SHS/ETS, it isn't even a matter of health.) These laws always trample on rights, in this case personal property rights.
It's frightening to think that so many in the public can't read a simple sign on a door. Yet, legislators assume that everyone has read through every dotted-i and crossed-t in some obscure ordinance language. Scary.
Thanks for remindsing us, S.C., of the immortal words:
Don't Tread On Me.
Posted by wyse_guy (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
as printed in the gazette aug 22nd 2008 --- The call set off a flurry of activity. Reporters, editors, and publisher huddled in the smoking room in the basement to make assignments for interviews with the candidate and with members of the expected crowd, and to come up with a slate of questions on topics pertinent to this area.
While the gazette is busy deleting comments maybe they can take time to give us their input on this ban. According to one of their articles they have a smoking room in the basement wonder if they have made any decisions on how they are going to handle a smoking area 20 feet from their entrance or are they going keep it tucked away in the basement. Oh wait tthey wont be able to walk 20 feet across the street the city owns the parking lot? they wont be able to go 20 feet out the backdoor isnt that school property back there? no smoking on any city owned property will be allowed. Does that include sidewalks, streets and parking lots owned by the city (tax payers) Sounds like a lot of smokers huddled in the basement over all the excitement. where will they smoke when this passes?
Posted by create (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 11:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Easy. They can just go to their cars and talk to each other on cell phone conference. Or they can all come to my house.
Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In an epiphany of common sense this morning, I thought of something I haven't really seen addressed on this second hand smoke is bad issue. If people are getting so much of so many dangerous chemicals in their systems from second hand smoke, how is that non smokers who are routinely subjected to SHS are not addicted to nicotine? How come everyone who has endured repeated exposure to SHS isn't do the old shuck and jive nic fit dance?
The radio says that if you are near a smoker, then you are smoking. Really???
Or could it be that the lungs of the smoker are filtering out most of these toxins? Could it be that an organ in the human body is actually fulfilling its secondary function (so to speak, the lungs and sinuses work as air filters for the body).
Could it be that this issue has nothing to do with health and everything to do with preference?
It is apparent that those who complain about not being able go to their favorite places because of SHS have never heard of ordering their food "to go". Heck, if you call it in I bet you'll even get the food faster than if you had sat around with all those people you consider beneath you and your standard of life. Ya Think?
God save the property owner!!!
Posted by Rhoadgunner (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at noon (Suggest removal)
S.C., Matt, Jayhawker, BJNemp, and the countless others who have tried to show the real content of this ban.
Those who believe that we are so incapable of making our on choices that we need yet another ordinance,law, or restriction in our lives. Have as pointed out probably never had to dodge bullets! Or for that matter sacrificed for the common good that this country was built on.
I doubt that they have ever had to say I when asked to who will lay it all down for the noble cause of freedom. The simple act of taking that oath and modeling ones life around service of the greater good. Changes the way one looks at such things as freedom and liberties!
I look around and see so many take for granted the freedom they have.
They don't understand it and it scares the social elite and librail minded that everyone has the choice and freedom to go where they want and do what they want.
This ban is I believe their way of trying to save us from our selves, Even if we don't need it.
Because appearently we aren't smart enough to do it ourselves.
Don't tread on me! Has been my personal mantra since I was old enough to understand what it meant.
Thank you S.C.
Posted by slipandslide (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 7:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
maybe they should have a prehire form that a new employee has to sign swearing to participate in the downstairs smoking or ignore it. im sure it wouldn t work, they would wind up hiring some self righteous person who would put up a fuss.
Posted by ichoosefreedom (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 12:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Gosh, spoken like someone who invested THEIR money into THEIR business. Now you know how those of us who did the same thing to buy a bar in a state with a draconian smoking ban feel. I could NOT have said it better. Interesting that this paper chose to run a poll asking people if they would support increasing the cigarette tax to fund health costs. Lets see..non smokers out number smokers so how do you THINK this poll will come out? Let's do a poll and see if bungee jumpers should be taxed to fund health costs. After all, we outnumber them and what they do is risky. How about skydivers? NASCAR drivers? Heck, let's just tax ANYONE who takes risks? Sound stupid? So is having smokers pay for EVERYTHING as if we're a cash cow. We are already the single most taxed group of people using a legal product. Go suck off of someone else.
Posted by glarson (Gwen Larson) on September 22, 2008 at 8:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We're moving this one, folks:
http://www.emporiagazette.com/news/2008/...