Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 2:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So are you against a liquor tax? Drinking age? Fire codes? Liquor laws? Government for the people by the people remember, seems to me that the minority is always crying about choice when the majority wins. We have individual rights which no one is contesting here, this is a legislative process enacted by people making a choice to try and change things, if enough people agree with this measure who are you to say your voice counts more than they many of your peers that did not agree with you.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 3:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you look at it from that perspective it is pretty pathetic when you think about it.

Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 3:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Does Annies West serve food? Just wondering.

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 3:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How can the three of you consistently miss the point. She OWNS THE BUSINESS!!! Period. End of story. If she wants to have a cross dresser only night, or bring your pet scorpion to the bar night, or whatever--it should be her choice to make. Not the city.

If the city wants to dictate who a private property business owner caters to, then the city should pay her business licensing fees, liquor licensing fees, property taxes, inspection and code enforcement fees. Heck the city should just own the business if they are going to take away about the last bit of control these owners have in regards to what happens at their establishment.

Not to mention with clubs like Desparado's and other places that have I.D. checks at the door and cover charges, think of the "smoker" re entry and the extra work. And I will bet you that you because of this re-entry you will see a loss of profit from people drinking beer from their cars in the parking lot, not to mention underage drinking is likely to increase. And no goodoleboy I don't have any scientific data on this, but I do remember the tricks I used when I was under 21 and clubs allowed 18 and over with re-entry.

Think about it, this ban to appease the preference of those that do not value the freedom I served for, and so many are serving for, is a loser on so many levels. Not the least being, the rights of property/business owners.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 3:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No you are completely missing the point, there are a great many regulations and laws that private businesses have to adhere to, and when they do not they get fined and possibly sued. Just because you own a business you are not afforded the same rights in said business that you are in your home due to the very nature of it, you are deluded in your logic sir. Government for the people by the people sir, if enough people in Emporia see fit to enact this that is also a choice being made through a democratic process, we are not being being dictated or forced into anything. Choice is the right for people get behind an idea and make it happen, how is that not American?

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 4:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Your forgetting that if it were up to the clean air people, this ban would go into effect without the imput of the people sir. It would never see a ballot, never be put to a vote, and never get a part in the democratic process. It would just be adopted by the city coucil and put into law. I know that we elected these people, but in this day and age we have little say in what they do after elected. So for the people and by the people in this case would be a pretty small group of people that it was by and that is dictation and force. Unless you are saying you would support a vote on the ban. Which I think is the very least Clean Air Emporia could do to start to find a compromise, which they seem opposed to.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 4:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with you %100 there should be some compromise, it bothers me that Clean Air Emporia is not open to this, but nothing is final yet. It is also not for certain that the matter will not be voted on, a lot of things are still to be decided. I can tell you this, if the elected officials pass unpopular legislature then they won't be in office very long, and history has taught us that laws can always be undone.

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 4:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think the elected officials in this city have been on thin ice for a long time. I wonder if they just keep all of their office stuff in boxes for moving day. But even if everyone on this forum disagrees with each other on the ban, I think we can all agree that it should be voted on.

Posted by BigE (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 6:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It seems like those opposed have tried to correlate this ban with every possible, but not probable scenario. Weeks ago someone stated that it would hurt Emporia's economy due to a decrease in tobacco sales. I am confident that smokers are going to continue to smoke with or without this ban. "Underage drinking is likely to increase"? Are you kidding? I would also disagree with the statement that "the ban is to appease those that do not value the freedom I served for". Are these people not exercising that freedom by identifying a health risk, organizing an effort, and presenting it to the council?
Agree with them or not, I applaude them for all of their efforts.

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 6:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This ban clearly targets bars and restaurants that allow smoking and serve liquor, and here is how.

In the smoking ban ordinance, Section 14, subsection G (Violations and Penalties), it states "In addition to the fines established by this section, violation of this ordinance by a person having control of a public place or place of employment shall be grounds for suspension or revocation of any permit or license issued for the premises on which the violation occurred."

Here's the kicker: the only license the city issues is a city liquor license. The rest, food service, sales tax account, etc, are either issued by the county or state, which the city cannot revoke. That means the only people who have anything to lose are bar and restaurants owners. Hereby this ordinance unfairly targets bars and smoking restaurants that serve liquor.

Matt Slater
Owner-Josie's

Posted by eiggohp (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 8:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree....it sounds like these business managers/owners are a "greedy lot" and not being concerned about the health of the employees and those who would like to patronize them, if they didn't have to fight smoke to do so.

I have asked some from Olathe, Lawrence, Salina, Hays, Garden City, etc....and at first it did reduce some revenue of certain businesses, but now have increased due to the fact that a wider spectrum of people now patronize them...and I feel the same would happen in Emporia also.

Posted by LifeGoesOn (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 9:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

goodoleboy , I have a question for ya, if this ban is not just targeting bars, let me ask, Lets say I go into walmart or true value hardware, I smoke a cig and blow the smoke, and I do this 5 or 10 times, what license will the city pull from these businesses? Will they get the same fine as a bar would?

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 10:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

LifeGoesOn,

Exactly my point. In the ordinance, it threatens "revocation of licenses." Except the city doesn't issue any licenses, except liquor licenses. The CLean Air People (The CLAP) must think I am stupid or something.

Posted by dhcc66 (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 10:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I made it a point today to look at the storefronts and the doors of the businesses I frequented, checking for that ever present crossed out cigarette. It seems to me that there is hardly anywhere that anybody can smoke in a "store" any more, so I'm not sure why somebody would argue that point.

Second, I think that most of the posters in here are correct that the city might (or should) listen to the arguments of private businesses when considering the content of the ordinance. I do not agree in the blanket statements that the Clean Air group wants in the ordinance, but, they are a special interest group attempting to get their wishes written into law. I also don't agree however with the people on here who post that they, as smokers, should be able to light up anywhere they please. There has to be a middle ground and if the two sides aren't careful, the City, not the citizens, may just decide what to put in the ordinance.

Lastly, I would suggest that anybody interested Google some of the Kansas newspapers for the citites where the smoking ordinances already exsist. I found articles in several of those papers that examine the "post ordinance" fallout. It's not as bad as some would make it out to be. Lawrence in particular has had a smoking ordinance since 2004 and they cite little or no issue with enforcement. The Lawrence ordinance also stood up under Kansas Supreme Court scrutiny as recently as January of 2008.

PS...josiesbar...go check out the shawnee kansas city website. their ordinance offers a "loophole" for some drinking establishments that are not restaurants.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 11:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

dhcc66: Much better post, and, I have to admit, persuasive. In fact, persuasive enough that it requires a response. I don't think that any reasonable smokers have submitted that they should be able to smoke anywhere that they want. In fact, the issues in this debate center around the private property rights of the owners to decide whether smoking is, or is not, allowed on his property. There is no constitutional right to smoke. There is, however, a well recognized and long established constitutional right of owners to do with their property as they wish. You are correct that there are lines of cases in which the Supreme Court has restricted what was originally understood to be an absolute right. This debate concerns not the legal issues, but the public policy, unfairness, and departure from long held American beliefs, practices and culture. One thing no one here can deny - if the City does this to these property owners, they can do it to you. The question each of us should ask of ourselves: Are we going to stand by and let this happen to fellow citizens? If we do, don't expect them to come to our aid if something similar happens to us.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 12:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

dhcc66: You stated above:

"I also don't agree however with the people on here who post that they, as smokers, should be able to light up anywhere they please."

I believe I have read every entry concerning this topic, pro and con. and I don't recall a single post by a smoker advocating, or even suggesting, that they "should be able to light up anywhere they please." I don't know a single smoker, including myself, that would request such a thing. That would make us as unreasonable and selfish as the anti-smoke folks. We respect their rights as we would like them to respect ours.

All smokers are asking is for private businesses to be allowed to decide their own fate---smoking or non-smoking---presenting customers with a choice of which to patronize. I don't think any reasonable smoker, and I feel most are, objects to smoking being banned in public buildings like government offices, banks, offices, malls, theaters, and retail stores. I don't even object to restaurants that forbid smoking. It just makes sense. Some folks don't smoke and some are even allergic to smoke. I understand that and respect it. It's the restaurant's right to forbid smoking on their premises and it's my right to eat there or not. Usually I eat there if the food is good. The point is, I have the choice.

The main bone of contention in this Clean Air debate seems to be with restaurants and bars. All other buildings in the area are already smoke free and therefore irrelevant. The Clean Air Clique wants EVERY restaurant, bar, and private club to ban smoking. In essence, they want to eliminate the element of choice for a large segment of society while reserving unlimited choices for themselves. Opponents of the ban just want the freedom of CHOICE to exist for everyone. Equal rights doesn't seem like too much to ask in the land of the free.

It all boils down to choice. A business owner should have the choice to allow smoking in his business, or not. A non-smoker should have the right to choose whether to spend his money in a smoke-free business or choose one that does allow smoking, based upon the owner's decision. A smoker should have the same choices: Patronize the non-smoking business and not smoke, or drive on to a business that does allow smoking.

The point is: Emporia now has choices for everyone. More for non-smokers than smokers, actually, so why are we even debating this silly smoking ban proposal?

Let the business owner make his own choices and the customers make their own choices.You take the high road and I'll take the low road, and I'll get to heaven before ya---but at least we will both be happy in the meantime and have lived a life in Emporia free to decide our own destiny.

Posted by Sensemuch (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 5 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If your the owner of the business you SHOULD have the say on what GOES ON INSIDE OF YOUR BUSINESS if people can legally do it in his/her own home.

This is absurd that people are not smart enough to realize that if the business owners did not want smoking in the establishment they wouldve already put a sign on the door that says NO SMOKING. Just because a certain group of people do not want smoking inside of your PERSONAL business doesnt mean that it should become a law. In other words people DEAL WITH IT and DONT GO IF YOU DONT LIKE IT noone is forcing you to go do business with a place that allows smoking.
If you dont like a product DONT BUY IT. In this case if you dont like it DONT GO TO THAT PLACE.
and as for greedy business, LOL isolated much? Go learn what all insurance companies are doing.
Common Sense People. Get Some.

Posted by Sensemuch (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 5:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Let the Private businesses decide what happens inside of the business that they own and control. And you as a customer/consumer decide whether or not you will do business with them.

Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 9 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think it was Will Rogers that said "Never argue with idiots, they just drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 9:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Does CLAP plan to clean up the air by doing anything other than ban smoking???

Posted by wyse_guy (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 9:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It appears to me that this ban most likely came from writings on bathroom walls from different bars.Theres no way someone in their right mind would have thought it up. Im starting to think its somekind of bathroom bar cult.What is this [I dont under stand this] but its still in there.Maybe if you were sober when you wrote it up maybe you would under stand it.It would have been a whole lot shorter to write up where people cannot smoke then where they can. Put your bottle down and try it again.USNretired and it was Teddy who said [walk quitely and carry a big stick] I guess to watch out for idiots.

Posted by wyse_guy (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 9:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The CLAP has added a part of the orinance they dont even understand . Why would they add number 4 and not understand what it means but o we better stick it in the ordinance because lawrence did! If they want to come up with a ban they should come up with their own material.

AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES AND PLACES OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE CITY OF EMPORIA, KANSAS.

Section 8. WHERE SMOKING IS NOT REGULATED: PRIVATE AND PUBLIC PLACES

4. Restaurants, hotel and motel conference or meeting rooms and public and private assembly rooms while such places are being used for private functions except while contracted food or beverage service functions are taking place (including set-up, service and clean-up activities or when the room is used for exhibit activities (Lawrence, I don't understand this one)

Posted by wyse_guy (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It would have been a whole lot shorter to write up where people CAN smoke then where they cannot.

Good thing walters sold wendys before this all came about or she would be feeling the impact of losing business.

Posted by lisag (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Section 4 Prohibition of smoking in outdoor areas.............
4. In all public transit stations, platforms, and shelters under authority of the city of Emporia."
Even if you're the only person at the park, if your standing under one of the shelters, you'll be in violation! Watch out for the CLAP, they're hiding behind the bushes!

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 11:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

GOD I AM TIRED OF HEARING ABOUT LAWRENCE! The reason they have not had problems with their ban is because most businesses just ignore it.
If you want government to make every decision in your life move there. This is Emporia Kansas U.S.A. (land of the free)
I also know most of these bar owners and they are hard working, honest tax-paying citizens. Greedy ? NOT. If they were they would be in a different line of work.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 12:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sensemuch

You said
"If your the owner of the business you SHOULD have the say on what GOES ON INSIDE OF YOUR BUSINESS if people can legally do it in his/her own home."

You have any idea how deluded and idiotic this statement sounds? Home and business are DIFFERENT ENTITIES. Even put it all caps for you so and the rest of the people here that think you have the right to do what you please in a business can get it. The law is simply not structured this way. Quit lumping it together, it just makes you look like blathering idiots spouting whatever comes to mind instead of the actual truth.

Just want to add that I do not condone a ban on bars, but I do on most everything else, I happen to like the smoke free under 18 premise myself. Sorry if I come off coarse, I just get tired of people grouping in choice with this, the choice you have is fight this matter not whine about the government dictating your every move, public citizens started this legislation, not the city or the state, or even the fed.

/rant off

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, it looks like its coming down to two groups. The Anti-Legislation League In Emporia re: Smoking (The ALLIES) and the CLean Air People (The CLAP). :D

Just trying for a bit of levity...

Posted by djdiablo (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 2:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I cannot imagine a WORSE time for Emporia to penalize ANY business or to cut into anyone's profit, considering the state of the local economy and the number of already empty buildings downtown.

And about that "greedy lot," I hate to rain on anyones parade but business is ABOUT PROFIT...that's why we have all the nice things like hospitals and fire stations brought to you by the PROFITS to the community provided in no small part by businesses. Welcome to America. We are a capitalist nation. If you want socialism or communism there are already places that provide that. However, it does seem that businesses don't do quite as well there as here and the standard of living is often much lower...but then they do let disinterested parties foster their personal beliefs off as public policy.

Ah, well.

By the way, the Gazette poll's final number show that of 1,367 participants, 47% are against the smoking ban.

Posted by birch (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What constitutes smoking? Can you burn cigarettes without inhaling through the lips in an establishments. Would this be an act of civil disobedience? Should it be illegal for the Catholic Church to burn incense? I know these are wacky questions but this is a wacky issue.

Posted by former_emporian (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 9:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well if its "my business" let's bring asbestos back.(it would reduce the risk of fire from a careless smoker) Hey its my choice as a business owner to do as I wish because its my establishment right?
Once the ban passes(its going to happen,smokers can't light up in the voting booth) emporia will have stepped in the right direction for once.

Posted by dhcc66 (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 11:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jayhawker, bj, and others...
you have rights. we all have rights. we ESPECIALLY have the right to object to an ordinance that some don't think is fair/correct/legal...or what have you.
take for instance the dog in the bed of the truck ordinance. did anybody realize that the man with the "dog jail" doesn't have it any more?? does anybody know why he doesn't have it any more?? maybe we, or better the smokers should ask why......(hint: it may have to do with the ordinance??)

we all have rights, the smokers, the non smokers, and even the "social smokers" , or what i'm sure is at least some of the bar crowd. it's just hard for one side to understand the other because "we" aren't "them", and maybe it's hard for one side to know what it's like to need/want to smoke, or to need/want to stay away from smokers.

I guess all i have left to say is, there is probably no way to make everybody happy. if the ordinance passes, the smokers will cry foul. if the ordinance doesn't pass, the "Clean Air" people will cry foul. I just hope that common sense prevails no matter what the outcome.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 11:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey, Goodoleboy! Let's take a closer look at what you said above. You said:

"I just get tired of people grouping in choice with this, the choice you have is fight this matter not whine about the government dictating your every move, public citizens started this legislation, not the city or the state, or even the fed."

Hmmm. From this, I must assume that you see absolutely no correlation between "government dictating your every move" and "this legislation". Government dictating? Legislation? Uh-Oh! Do we see a connection there?

Wake up, badoleboy, and see through the CLAP smoke screen. This overly restrictive, unnecessary smoking ban proposal has everything to do with choice.

The only person commenting on this issue coming off as a "blathering idiot" is you.

Posted by wyse_guy (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 1:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh we go they want us to vote on raising taxes on cigarettes to help fund health care and ban smoking at the same time.What a bunch of idiots you want your cake and eat it to.This town has enough problems they cant take care of without all of this.We have people frauding the welfare system drug abuse , gangs. You need to clean up whats on the plate before you pile more on it.Your just trying to make a name for yourself at the exspense of US citizens.This ban should not even make it to a vote the way its writen.Theres something wrong with the city commision after reading this and dont make a few changes so it dont infringe on our rights.

Posted by ratdog (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 1:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Somebody PLEASE! Name one place in EMPORIA, KANSAS where you are exposed to secondhand smoke and cannot exercise your God given right of personal choice to avoid it! If you cannot answer this question, all of your arguments are invalid.

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 2:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

ratdog-

I will, and I quote " Name one place in EMPORIA, KANSAS where you are exposed to secondhand smoke and cannot exercise your God given right of personal choice to avoid it!"

Josie's. You HAVE to come to Josie's. I heard a girl tell another girl that on her cell phone, so that tells me people are forced to come here. That other girl was forced to come here. Not only that, after she was forced to come here, she was forced to wait in line for an hour to even be afforded the opportunity to breathe our second-hand-smoke polluted air! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Posted by slipandslide (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 8:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Geez, she actually waited in line for the privalege or being able to breath polluted air? what happened to the good ole days when all you had to do was live inside Emporia to be able to breathe an overwhelming amount of IBP/Tyson pollution. guess with Tyson being smaller now, she has to go to more trouble to get her pollution 'fix.' yeah, everyone lived with Tysons putrid pollution, but now there needs to be an ban against the few places left in town that has smoking sections.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

BJ,

I do see it for what it is, you don't. Government for the people by the people. Who enacted this? Public citizens that's who, government will not be doing anything but enforcing the will of the people here, PUBLIC CITIZENS using the system to enact this are who is to blame. Believe me I see through this, the fact that are not willing to compromise makes me want to oppose them to be honest, but people like you and some of the more juvenile bar owners using this "CLAP" reference make me not even want to be associated with the opposition based in behavior alone.

Choice is and always will be a touchy issue in this country. Whether you like it or not the majority views of the general public often dictate the choices of everyone. An great example of this would be the abortion issue, who are we to tell an individual what she(or in extreme cases he lol) can and cannot do within their own body? Some want to make that choice for them, others do not. See the point? Choice is relative, and in no way not always your own. I expound enough for you?

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 9:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

For the non-business owner to question the statment from the business owner that their business would suffer from this ban is idiotic. Michelle knows her customers and has catered to them for years. If she feels her business would suffer, she is probably dead-on correct. For those who think the business oppertunities of a non-smoking business are so great, there are a lot of empty buildings in town that could be rented or bought to start your own.

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

crackinsack: Your statement shows you don't get out much. Annie's West is a lounge that has never served food. And yet you want to force her to go non-smoking because people have to eat. Why are you trying to regulate a private business that you have obviously never been to or never will?

Posted by LifeGoesOn (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

goodoleboy , I have a question for ya,AGAIN!
if this ban is not just targeting bars, let me ask, Lets say I go into walmart or true value hardware, I smoke a cig and blow the smoke, and I do this 5 or 10 times, what license will the city pull from these businesses? Will they get the same fine as a bar would?

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 9:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

LifeGoesOn,

I have said many times in multiple threads that I do not think that bars should be included in this, nor that I agree completely with the structure of it. I think CAE's inability and apparent desire not to compromise could torpedo this for them. There is no doubt in my mind that the majority of people in this town want an ordinance, but in its current incarnation I think this ordinance is not the one.

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 11:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

From Wikipedia about Hawaii's smoking ban:

In Hawaii, a large number of establishments openly defy the statewide smoking ban, one of America's strictest, which went into effect on November 16, 2006. Several bars have disclosed their defiance in local newspapers, and have invited television stations to film the unlawful smoking. As of 2008, no bar has been fined, and open defiance continues. Up to half of the bar owners in Honolulu have signed statements claiming losses averaging 30%, and expressed open concern at the anti-smoking lobby claim that it would not affect business. A claim that was later re-inforced by the Hawaii Department of Health's air quality study and Honolulu Liquor Commission sales data. As a result, proposals currently are before the Hawaii Legislature to exempt bars from the statewide smoking ban by creating a new type of liquor license which permits the licensee to allow smoking.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 11:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Have you been to Hawaii? Seriously no one goes there for the bars, its for the scenery and tourism IS their economy, I highly doubt that when planning trips are concerned with a smoking ordinance. How does this have any bearing on Emporia? It's really apples and oranges. How can you be sure that the recent economy problems in the last few years have not been more responsible for their losses or at least a major part. More information is needed here before you make these statements sir.

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 11:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Have you ever been to Lawrence? Seriously no one goes there for the bars, its for the KU football and basketball IS their economy, I highly doubt that when planning trips are concerned with a smoking ordinance. How does this have any bearing on Emporia? It's really apples and oranges. How can you be sure that the recent economy problems in the last few years have not been more responsible for their losses or at least a major part. More information is needed here before you make these statements sir.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes I have been to Lawrence, and I can tell you with a resounding yes that people go to both Lawrence and Manhattan for the bars. The bars in both those towns are great and still are to this day. Hawaii and Kansas are night and day differences and in no way should the polices of either be relevant or applicable to the other in this matter. Hawaii has to cater to tourists, we do not because tourism is not our primary source of income. Frankly I am amazed the officials in Hawaii went for it since they are a service economy.

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 11:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Here is from Nightclub and Bar Magazine's forum, to a question I posted about the effects of smoking bans:

"I'm down 85%...

I own a small bar in central PA, and I was excited about the smoking ban. I was happy that I wasnt going to smell like an ash tray any more...

This friday and saturday which are normally good nights for me...the bar was just dead... The other bar down the road that had smoking was packed...

I dont want to but...i'm going to HAVE to get smoking back in to my place...if i dont i'll loose everything..."

http://www.nightclub-business.com/forum/...

Posted by create (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just a second here. Goodoleboy, Hawaii is just not only for tourists. In fact, Hawaii has a dual existence. There is one Hawaii for tourists. That one has all the hype -- hula girls, and palm trees, mountains veiled in mist, and surfers, and outrigger canoe rides, and cute little pink jeeps, and cheap plastic leis, and Mai Tai's on the seaside terrace at sunset.

The other Hawaii is my Hawaii. It's for the residents who live there, who work there, who raise their children there, who battle daily traffic jams there, who are unemployed there, who play there, who fight city hall there, who worry there, and yes, who go to bars there. Tourists don't go to those bars. In fact they're smart to stay away from many of those places.

The point is that Hawaii's bars are asking for bars to be exempt. All bars, not just the ones in Waikiki. Emporia's bars should be exempt as well.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 12:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Did you read what I said?

Hawaii's primary source of income is tourism. They have a service based economy. This is their bread and butter any way you slice it. If not for tourism and the military base, there would be no one living there except the natives, debate that please.

We are agricultural producer, comparing our infrastructure and economy to one that relies heavily on people's disposable income is apples and oranges, not the same at all. These comparisons are moot, one only has to look at the other cities in Kansas and similar Ag communities to draw real comparisons concerning economic impact.

Issues of choice and government are not applicable in this comparison, it was just an economical comparison, not an all encompassing one.

Posted by create (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 3:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What does that have to do with making bars exempt from the smoking ban?

Unfortunately, the officials in Hawaii listened to their own Air Queens who were just as vociferous and demanding as the ones around here. Now the legislature has to go backwards and redesign the ordinance all because they listened only to one faction. Bar owners in Hawaii, just as Emporia bar owners are doing around here now, tried their best to mount a campaign against the smoking ban for bars. Now all they have left to do is defy the ordinance. That's possible because they have numbers. Here in Emporia, unfortunately, there are too few bars for lighting up and daring authorities to make arrests.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 6:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It has to do with the comparison of Emporia vs. Hawaii, there is none. They are different animals, I can tell you why they openly defied the law. I would wager many of the offenders are tourists, who would go back to Hawaii if they were fined for smoking, and furthermore what administration would provoke the very people they depend on for their living by fining them? This was just a lousy comparison and pointed it out. We have plenty of places right here in Kansas that we can look at for a very accurate comparison.

Posted by SWLarsen (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 7:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A few years back, when NYC banned smoking in bars and restaurants, a hue and cry came from business owners who said, like Michelle Harding, owner of Annie's West, that they would loose business. Guess what? Business in these establishments INCREASED not decreased.

Oh and one more thing: as a student and admirer of author and newspaper editor William Allen White: White would have loved such an issue as this debated in his Emporia.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 7:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

SWLarsen: It is a basic tenant of the free market system that business owners are profit motivated. Therefore, if banning smoking would increase business, the business owners would have done it long ago. You have repeated nothing more than an erroneous "talking point" for this unamerican idea.

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 9:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

SWLarsen:

I ask that you cite your source. I'm hearing from bar owners all over the U.S. that once a smoking ban occurs, they lose anywhere from 20% to 50% of their business the first year(http://www.nightclub-business.com/forum). Instead of asking bar owners in other cities what happens after a smoking ban, why don't you ask Emporia bar owners what would happen if they were to lose 2-% to 50% of their business.

Guess what sunshine, their answer would be the same as mine. They close! If that is what you really want, I feel sorry for you. Me personally, you won't take this without a fight!

Posted by ladyluck777 (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 9:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There is one resturant in New York City in litlle Italy where you can smoke. The owner was ticketed 4 times for fines of $10,000 each. When he went to court he told the judge that he owns the building he owns the business and he sells tobacco products in his restuarant. He provides a no smoking section outside. He won his case, didn't have to pay the fines and you can still smoke in his restuarant today. His business hasn't suffered as a result.

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 10:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

SWLarsen,

I said it before, and it got banned, but I'm going to say it again.

Praemunio Pacis , Instruo Pro Bellum!

Posted by SWLarsen (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 11:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow. Sounds like I hit a raw nerve with some people. My source in stating bars and restaurants in NYC are, in fact (but still disputed by a select few in the industry, smokers, or both.,..) doing better comes from "Bars and Restaurants Thrive Amid Smoking Ban, Study Says", New York Times, March 29, 2004.

I laughed about jayhawker's belief in the 'basic tenant of the free market system is profit'. Been watching the news lately, jay? We the taxpayers are on the hook for at least $700 billion bailout on Wall Street and it ain't over yet. And they call this free market enterprise. It hasn't been 'free' for decades.

Thanks, ladyluck777 (but I think you need to get some new numbers): Citing one case (unattributed I might add) out of over 120,000 establishments is, shall we say, insignificant?

Smoking is figuratively - and literally - a dying habit. Ever try to light up on a train, bus or airplane? In a school, government building or church? Like those who fought the Industrial Revolution, some people's attitudes aren't keeping up with the times and THAT is what hard-working, entrepreneurial people do to succeed in business. I'd like to see how all the businesses who fought this non-smoking proposal are doing five years from now if the smoking ban goes into effect. You probably will find more money in the till. Change is hard. But change in this ever-changing world is the life blood of existence.

Posted by truelovecharlie (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 6:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What if: They pass a city ordinance that all homes must be white with black trim? An ordinance that noone can smoke on their own front porch? An ordinance that all Emporians must be in bed between the hours of 9p.m.-5a.m.; unless working? Rediculous; you say. If these people are allowed an inch, they will take away your freedoms inch by inch. It all boils down to Your Freedom to make your choices with Your property! I believe Iowa (or some state up north) has a law that you cannot smoke while driving. If you want to smoke; you must pull over and park. There are places in these United States that it is illegal to drive and use your cell phones; unless, you use hands free. All these ordinances are to allegedly protect us from each other. Life happens; deal with it. There is no way of completely protecting everyone from each other.

Posted by glarson (Gwen Larson) on September 22, 2008 at 7:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Let's move to a news forum:

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