Posted by rbow (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

All posters remember to forward your comments to the city commissioners.

Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 3:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

“They can’t eliminate freedom of choice for smokers and take all the choices for themselves"

It's funny how this has become a smokers vs non smokers debate.

Why do smokers who "choose" to smoke in places get to "choose" for others to breathe their smoke public, private, inside or outside? The non smoker is choosing not to take place in the activity of smoking yet anywhere they go that allows smoking, others get to choose for them??

Posted by eatasheep69 (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 4:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well said, slvmblck. My thoughts exactly. I don't have a problem with a smoker's right to smoke. That's their choice. With my choice to not be a smoker though, I don't feel I should be restricted when I also choose to not be a second-hand smoker.

Posted by therealme (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 4:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think that the people that want to be able to smoke in restaurants are the same people that you see driving around with a baby or kid in the back seat smoking. They dont care about anyone but themselves. You would think that people would care enough about their kids or kids in general to not want to smoke around them due to health affects in can have on them. PLUS the fact that it can be an influence on the kids. I dont care if im around smoke cause im used to it cause of friends and family but im not going to take my kids out someplace to eat dinner and let them be around smoking. The owners of these businesses dont realize how many more non-smokers there are out there that would be going to their bar if it was non smoking. Let the smokers go outside and light up. They can punish their own health all that they want but they should not be punishing the rest of us. Will the smokers be able to stop smoking long enough to go vote on this issue? I guess time will tell.

Posted by rbow (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 4:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

slvrnblk:
You have the same old tired argument. No-one is forced to go into a smoking business. And this isn't a smoker versus non-smoker issue. The meeting last night was attended by approx 50% non-smokers. They were there because they worry about the loss of their freedoms. Perhaps you should be a little worried about that also.

Posted by romano1784 (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 4:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

One major argument I've heard since this "Crusade" started is kids being forced to be around smoke. I have a son, I smoke, I don't smoke around him. Most parents make a choice to smoke away from their kids. Yeah some smoke in their cars with their kids, but I've alway seen windows open, and any smoker who had ridden on the highway knows if one window is open, all the smoke goes out of it. I've eaten in the non smoking section of restaraunts just to see what I'm missing, I found out I was missing nothing. No one ushered me through a smoke clogged area where I was "forced" to breathe smoke, as a matter of fact the smoking area was avoided completely. Places like China Buffet have their smoking section in the back of the restaraunt where those who will be affected by the smoke are not exposed to it.
Another point brought up, smokers get sick more often than non-smokers. Interestly put, considering we are expected to stand outside in whatever weather, just to appease non-smokers, with even a few places outside that we can't smoke because we are endangering others. Colds do last longer with smokers due to the carcinogens, this is true, but why did we get the cold in the first place? From standing in the cold.Anyone who argues this ban should pass should stand in the cold as much as we have to.
Yes smokers can wait an hour to smoke if they went out to eat, we honestly can. But why should we? Cigarettes are a legal product in the ENTIRE UNITED STATES. Why should we wait, or worse hide that we do it?
Cigarettes cause cancer, lung disease, emphesyma, ect. Cell phones are a main cause of ear aches from electrical interferance to the brain. Car exhaust has 10000 times the carcinogens, toxins, and cancer causing agents found in cigarettes and non smokers are CONSTANTLY exposed, do we ban vehicles next?

Posted by rbow (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 4:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There are over 30 completly smoke free restaurants in Emporia.

There are at least 3 smoke free bars/clubs in Emporia.

Would someone please name one place that they would like to go to that they can't because of second hand smoke? Start a list here, maybe you can sway one of the 7 retaurarant owners or the 13 club owners who still allow smoking to change their policies on smoking.

Posted by dale011 (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 4:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Some would like to make believe this issue is about smoking or not smoking, but for those of us who value personal freedom it is about forcing behavioral change and sanctioning the folks that don't behave.

Posted by crackinsack (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 4:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You should call your little club the
"Delegation Un-Moved By the Ailments of Secondhand Smoke"

Posted by rox_alan (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 5:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As an ex-smoker I will say this.... IT is your choice whether you want to go to that establishment that smokes. Just like it is the smoker's choice to go to places where it is non smoking. By taking away the rights of the smokers you are taking away the freedom of choice. So you who are non smokers can go to non smoking establishments I'm sure there are some places out there. But let the people make the decision on their place of business whether to be a non smoking or smoking establishment. This is AMERICA and we do have freedom of choice. Isn't that what our men and women are also fighting for our Country and our forefathers before them.

Posted by rbow (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 5:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

crackinsack: Is that the best you have? Sticks and stones you know/

Posted by JFish (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 6:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm not sure that I get this. It's a "right" to smoke anyplace, at any time? I'm not sure why.

Nobody is trying to get anyone to outlaw smoking.

Are smokers so terribly attached to cigarettes that they can't wait until they are in a more appropriate place than a restaurant where food is served to smoke?

It doesn't make sense to me. I'm not trying to be rude to smokers or anyone else. I'd just like to understand why their right to smoke supercedes others' right not to breathe cigarette smoke, and why they can't simply go do it elsewhere.

If this has to do with freedoms, then look at it from the other side. Many laws come about because people won't, on their own, behave in a reasonable, civil manner. They are treading on other people's rights in some manner. So, a law is made to compell people to behave.

There are rights being stepped on no matter which way you look at it. Smoking is an option, not a requirement for life.

For instance, we can take seeing eye dogs into restaurants and certain stores that we can't take other dogs into. Having a dog along for most of us isn't a requirement, and in many places we just can't take them. But a blind person might need their seeing eye dog, thus it is a requirement, and they should have their dogs with them.

When it's shown that smokers cannot get along without a cigarette for X amount of time, then personally, I'd back their right to have a cigarette. If they need it to stay alive or to stay healthy, then fine with me. Until then, I see it as an option that doesn't need to be done in my air space.

Posted by builderboy (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 6:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

hey rbow

You want to know a place I can't go because of second hand smoke? Well I'd like to go to coaches without the smell of smoke coming over the dividing wall. I'd like to go to bruffs without smoke coming from the smoking table that always seem to be next to me. I'd like to go have a beer some where there isn't some dang chain smoker just puffing away. Hey No one is saying you can't smoke ...Just take it outside. Maybe some of you smokers should just stay home with each other and having a cigarette tasting party? It works for wine drinkers..

Posted by builderboy (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 6:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

hey rox_alan

Hey ever thought about this? There are rules for places that serve food to make sure your safe. There are rules for places that sell fuel to make sure your not getting ripped off. There are rules in place to make sure your neighbor isn't raising wild pigs in town. There are speed limits and school zones to keep the roads and kids safe. What would happen if all those rules and regulations where repealed??
This proposed city ordiance is designed to help keep use safe. You smokers need to look at the bigger picture here. No one is saying you can't smoke in your own home. No one is saying you can't purchase cigarettes. No one is saying you can't smoke in an outside smoking area. Maybe you should just quit smoking and you could go more places without getting so offended!!

Posted by Joe (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 6:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To romano1784
You said:
"Colds do last longer with smokers due to the carcinogens, this is true, but why did we get the cold in the first place? From standing in the cold.Anyone who argues this ban should pass should stand in the cold as much as we have to."

You do not get a cold from standing out in the cold. It is a virus contracted either orally or airborne. The outside temperature has nothing to do with it.

Cigarettes and cigarette smoke also cause a breakdown of your immune system. That is why you take longer to beat a cold and other ailments.

None of this nonsense matters much to me. If you want to smoke, go right ahead. When your children and grandchildren ask you why you have to tote around your oxygen tank all the time and can't walk more than 20 ft without wheezing and hacking, you'll be able to tell them with pride.

Posted by mythoughts (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 6:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I used to love to go to Natasha's, but the place reeks now. If I'm in there more than five minutes I get a bad headache and stink for the remainder of the day. I can't go to bed without a thorough shower. I do not go to Bruffs because it's too smoky, which is OK I guess since everytime I've been there I've been treated like yesterday's meatloaf.

I miss Euphoria. Where else can I go besides The Blind, for some beer, local companionship and TV? Do I have to hang out at Applebees? Yuck I'd love to catch the live music at the Noose, but even after all they did to clean out the old nicotine, it's now just as disgusting as it ever was.

On the other hand, I do think the ordinance as proposed is too stringent, and I'd much rather drive up to Lawrence to have fun...at Tellers, or Free State, or the Bottleneck, or Pachamama's, or Wheatfields, or.....

Posted by Newsie (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 6:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In the past two weeks, I have encountered smoking in the following places:

--Walmart, where the employees sit on a bench and smoke outside the doors.

--China Buffett where the smoking section is not 20 feet from the buffett (certainly not in the back of the room but on the east side).

--Dog park, where smoking is banned, yet cigarette butts were found around the tables.

--ESU's football stadium, where a spectator watching Saturday's game felt the need to smoke and refused to put it out when asked politely.

--Outside Graves in downtown Emporia, where the only way to avoid the smoke from a couple walking down the street was to cross to the other side.

--In front of Plumb Hall at ESU, where students congregate across the circle drive to light up.

FOLKS, do I need to go on?

The truth is, both sides of this issue are in error. If smokers would limit their habit to the privacy of their homes and the bars and businesses that allowed it, we would not have this issue.

If non-smokers were informed of all the places where smoking is allowed, they could avoid it.

Smokers claim the right to light up. However, many refuse to respect the rights of others to not breath second-hand smoke. Whose right trumps whose?

Don't pull this "Government does not have the right to tell me what I do in my business" crap. Government can and does....can you sell beer to a minor? No. Do you have to pay taxes (sales and payroll)? Yes. Can you kick out a patron because he or she is not white? No. How private is a business that has to play by government rules?

And don't say a smoking ban will shut down your business. Do you really think smokers who drink beer are going to stop going to bars just because they can't light up? Apparently not in Lawrence and other cities who have banned smoking.

And for all of you who are afraid that government is becoming Big Brother, where were you when the President Bush and Congress passed the Patriot Act? Talk about a loss of freedom! You say that the Patriot Act is to protect Americans? So is a smoking ban. The only difference is with smoking, we are killing ourselves. You are worried about a smoking ban, which, I predict, will happen eventually, when you should be worried about the greatest threat to our freedom -- The Patriot Act. Thanks to our government, never in the history of this Great Country have our rights been so trampled.

Posted by amused (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 6:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am a smoker and it does not bother me if I can not smoke at a store or a restaurant etc.. I do have respect for other people that do not smoke and my kids and feel uncomfortable smoking around non-smokers. But... in a bar, do not tell me you don't like going in there because second hand smoke is bad for your health. What about the alcohol you drink. And then you probably drive home too.

Posted by bureacracysucks (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 7:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Newsie-
It's true that you can come in contact with cigarette smoke in various places around town and that can be annoying. But you do have the right to keep walking, or don't patronize a restaurant if you aren't comfortable there. As far as the football game goes, I completely agree that the smoker should have put the cigarette out. I really don't have a problem with the ban, I've smoked maybe 2 cigarettes in my life and don't plan on smoking again. And yes, it is annoying smelling like cigarettes when I go out. But I have also actually read the proposed ban. Has everyone else? The fact that you have to be 20 feet away from an entrance, window, or vent. Which, in downtown, means smokers would have to smoke in the street. Even if the business has a patio or would be willing to put one in (like bars/ restaurants have done in Lawrence) it wouldn't matter. Isn't that a little too much? Or my other favorite part, the three strikes and you are out clause. Which simply put would revoke the license of any business caught in violation three times. That kind of seems like the ban is targeting bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. Aren't bar owners also allowed equal protection under the law according to the fourteenth amendment. I don't think any law should directly or indirectly target anyone, especially when that entity employs people and pays it's fair share of taxes.

Posted by Pingeon (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 8:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Newsie said:
Don't pull this "Government does not have the right to tell me what I do in my business" crap. Government can and does....can you sell beer to a minor? No. Do you have to pay taxes (sales and payroll)? Yes. Can you kick out a patron because he or she is not white? No. How private is a business that has to play by government rules?

Newsie,

I would agree with you on every statement here except for one big difference. Smoking is legal if you are over 18 years of age. The rest of the things you speak of here are illegal. If you want to argue that businesses could not allow anyone under 18 if they allow smoking, I could go for that compromise. I don't necessarily agree with that, but it would be very hard to argue that it does not affect the minors in the building. Therefore, I think that would be a fair compromise.

The over 18 to allow smoking approach is what they have done here in Wichita. Most of the restaurants have chosen to just not allow smoking and the bars have chosen to not allow anyone under 18 (like they did before anyway). The Bar & Grill type places have either chosen to eliminate smoking or put in a totally separate section with a separate ventilation system.

Truth be told, and as I've said before, if this were allowed to play out with no government involvement, all businesses would go smoke free eventually anyway. There are less and less smokers out there and the non-smokers would eventually outnumber the smokers at the bars. Once that happened, they would demand that the owners not allow smoking or they would take their business elsewhere. However, at least it would be their choice to cater to their customers desires as it should be........

Posted by Adrastus (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 9:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have never smoked and i never plan too. But i completely disagree with this ban. How hard is it to avoid the places where smoking is allowed? Its not like theres all that many. Also to those of you saying that smokers are making the choice for you to breath there smoke. There not, your making the choice to stay there and breath it. Its very easy to walk away. You might want to try it sometime instead of punishing the businesses and smokers.

Posted by nmse_s (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 10:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Rbow, my family and I went to Centinela's for dinner the other evening. The first thing we smelled when we walked in their front door was cigarette smoke. This restaurant is one of our favorite places to eat in Emporia but if the first thing you come in contact with is smoke, that is a major turn off. I don't understand the uproar over this ban. People may think their "right to smoke" is infringed upon, but what will those people think 10, 20, or 30 years from now when they will be hooked up to an oxygen tank and stuck in a wheel chair because they can't breath from emphysema or COPD?

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 10:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Builderboy, your post disturbs me and here is how.

You CAN'T go to Coach's and Bruff's, or you choose not to? You say, and I quote "I'd like to go have a beer some where there isn't some dang chain smoker just puffing away." Guess what buddy, there are a BUNCH of empty building on Commercial St. A liquor license is only a few thousand dollars, so what are you waiting for?

JFish-- It's not your air space, its the business owner's air space, and if he wants to allow it to be filled with smoke from cigarettes that are legal, then it is his right. It would be a totally different issue if it was smoke from marijuana, but since cigarettes are legal in the US, it is his right to allow smoking or no.

Posted by ratdog (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 11:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

More and more, people advocating the CAE initiative cite places in Emporia they would "LIKE" to go where smoking is allowed. This completely illustrates the fallacy and needlessness of this proposed ban. Each of us has things that we'd "LIKE" to do, but choose not to for any myriad of reasons. This is no different.

I keep hearing the opposition say this should be voted on by the public. It will disappoint me beyond belief if it gets to that point. Simple common sense dictates that this proposal should be filed in the first available trash can.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 11:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jfish: before you start arguing, make sure you understand what you are arguing about. You said:

"I'm not sure that I get this. It's a "right" to smoke anyplace, at any time? I'm not sure why."

Who said that? No one who is against this ban is advocating "a right to smoke anyplace, anytime". That is not the issue. I guess you haven't been following this debate and don't realize that every government & public building in town is already smoke-free. So are 30 of the 37 restaurants in town. Smokers have no problem with that. The problem is in the RIGHT of restaurant and bar owners to determine whether their personal business will be smoke-free or not and for customers to have the CHOICE of whether or not to patronize that business.

"Choice" is the operative word. It kind of fits with the whole "land of the free, home of the brave", "with liberty and justice for all", "give me liberty or give me death", "don't tread on me" thing.

Smoking is not the issue with the anti-ban dissenters. Choice, freedom, and individual business owner's rights are the issues.

Smoking, and smokers, IS the issue with the Clean Air Emporia proponents and their misled followers. Read the posts above. They are complaining about people smoking outside in open spaces, on sidewalks, and, (I love this one!) "In front of Plumb Hall at ESU, where students congregate across the circle drive to light up". "Newsie" said that. Me thinks Newsie has an extremely sensitive nosey.

Newsie also stated that smokers should only be allowed to smoke, a legal activity, in their homes! And you think this ban movement is fair and not about discrimination and bias against smokers?

This issue is not about smoking, clean air, health, social conscience, civic responsibility, or humanitarianism. It is about choice, individual rights, common sense, and respect.

The anti-smoking ban coalition is attempting to protect everyone's right of choice, business owner's rights, common sense, and respect.

The "Clean Air" commandos and self-appointed social conscience of the unwashed masses are trampling on those rights, choices, freedoms, and respect for others, like elephants on egg shells.

Posted by Sensemuch (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 12:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dont Move your airspaces into a place that allows smoking then if you dont like it dont shop/do business there.
Why are you all so ignorant on this issue lol. Common sense.

Problem solved noones rights being taken away.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 12:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Bjnemp: There is an old axiom in politics: If you state an untruth as a truth enough times, it becomes true. The point, of course, is to blunt an argument that is killing you. That is exactly the problem these radicals face. They know full well that the real issue here is, as you so well stated, the rights of private property owners. This is not an issue about smokers' rights. Everyone knows that smokers do not have a right to smoke other than on their own property or with the consent of the property owner where they are. That is not in dispute, no way, no how, by anybody. Of course, the radicals want us to think that that is our platform so that they can run against the big bad smokers, in a class war with the nonsmokers (like me), and not have to face squarely that they are running against time honored American rights, which they cannot reconcile nor defend. Don't let them get away with it - make them deal with the real issue, because if they do, they lose.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 12:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well said, Jayhawker, as always. Missed you at Josie's last night. Was looking forward to giving you the pleasure and honor of meeting me! Others asked if you were there, too. You have fans.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 1:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Bjnemp: Thank you for the nice words. You probably won't see me. I'm too old, used up and battle scarred to actively participate anymore, especially since I have so much trouble getting around. My great granddaughter introduced me to the wonders of blogs, which allows me to battle on, but from afar. To be honest, I like it best this way. I'm afraid that I'm too dated to be of much help, and this way I can stay close to the bathroom. I sure hope that you and the other fearless troops can soldier on. You know, of course, that you are "fighting City Hall" and in Emporia, that can be a tough fight indeed. It reminds me of my younger days, and through you I can enjoy it vicariously. Besides all that, cigarette smoke bothers me. The only thing that bothers me more is an elitist hell bent on destroying American rights, about which they know nothing. When they lose them, I bet that their learning curve sharpens exponentially.

Posted by ratdog (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 1:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As this debate continues, I am saddened by the increasing number of Americans that have to rely on, and invite government, to make their decisions for them.

Anyone out there that is for this ban please explain to me why you cannot walk into a restaurant, smell smoke and turn around and walk right back out of the door. After three weeks of asking this question in this forum and in person, I have yet to get an answer to this question.

In additon, no one has been able to name a single place in Emporia, Kansas where any risk of secondhand smoke was present that could not be avoided by exercising a minimal amout of personal choice.

Over and over again, I hear, "I'd "LIKE" to go to Bruff's" or "I'd like to go to Coach's".

If this "secondhand smoke initiative" is all about banning something just because a few, or even a lot, of people "WOULD LIKE" to go eat a steak and drink a few beers without smelling cigarette smoke on a Friday night is true, the City Commission has no choice but to kill it immediately. I'm optimistic because at least 3 of the current commisioners are private business owners and understand the consequences of ANY further erotion of freedom and choice.

Posted by rbow (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 5:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

JFish: Let's say you have a job selling cars,(example). This ban passes so the dealership is smokefree. (most are anyway.) I come in to buy from you a $50,000.00 cadillac and while we are doing the paperwork I want to light up. Are you going to call the police and have my arrested?

builderboy: You would LIKE to go to Coaches without the smoke? The coaches in Salina HAD to go smokefree because of a ban and in now closed I believe due to lost revenues.

Posted by rbow (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 5:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jawhawker: I also wanted to meet you at the meeting at Josie's. You are the voice of reason and common sense on these posts. If you can't make it to the Public Meeting on Mon. the 29th how about posting something on here that could be read by one of our pro business rights people?

Posted by crackinsack (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 8:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

jayhawker,
If you're a shut-in who doesn't like smoking, why do you care if it's banned in the establishments in town? Are you just trying to make sure your great grandkids have a place to be exposed to second-hand smoke? More likely, perhaps, you're just taking up a cause to keep you busy. I’d like to know what your great granddaughter thinks of your position on this.

Posted by slvmblck (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 9:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Smoking is great! I think everyone should smoke. If you are under 18, I think you should make your parents smoke so you can enjoy the second-hand effects. In fact, smoking should be mandatory in all the restaurants and bars in town. There should be at least 2 cigarettes burning in the room at all times. Anyone who supports this ban is a fool as the benefits of smoking clearly out-weigh the cons. The ability to smoke in public is our most precious and sacred right. If everyone smoked, there would be no war. Smokers are far more rational than non-smokers when it comes to this argument. Smokers are right to expose as many people as possible to the wonderful scent of tobacco smoke. Anyone who doesn’t like smelling like cigarettes is a communist. Teachers should be allowed to smoke in classrooms; it’s their right. Who cares if our health or the health of those around us suffers? This is America! Smoking is a very natural process and our bodies are meant to inhale smoke. Smoking is not an addiction, it is the common-sense choice.

Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Nice....now I have someone sabotaging my name. Come on people if you have an opinion, then be brave enough to at least use your own username.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 9:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Crackinsack: Now, concentrate. Ignore that crack in the sack and try to pay attention for a minute or so. You asked Jayhawker:

"If you're a shut-in who doesn't like smoking, why do you care if it's banned in the establishments in town? Are you just trying to make sure your great grandkids have a place to be exposed to second-hand smoke? More likely, perhaps, you're just taking up a cause to keep you busy."

Did you read his post at all? Did you forget it the second you read it? Or does the truth hurt too much? He clearly stated why he opposes this ban even though he is a non-smoker and smoke bothers him. He said, "The only thing that bothers me more is an elitist hell bent on destroying American rights, about which they know nothing."

"An elitist hell-bent on destroying American rights about which they know nothing." Ring a bell with you? I believe that shoe fits, Cinderella.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 9:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jayhawker: My friend, your body may be "too old, used up and battle scarred to actively participate anymore", but your mind is still as sharp as my wife's tongue. You are one wise old boy with exceptional writing & communication skills. You're an inspiration to many, including me: your biggest fan.

Be well, Jayhawker, and keep fighting the good fight.

Posted by bureacracysucks (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Just curious, if I were trying to ask questions of Clean Air Emporia. Does anyone know how to get ahold of a board member?

Posted by crackinsack (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Bjnemp,
My username has nothing to do with narcotics…it refers to an inside joke and you wouldn’t understand. Implying I’m a drug user was a nice touch though.
I don’t care if you or I lose the “American right” to smoke in public. The intent of my questions to Jayhawker was to see why he thinks the right to smoke is worth fighting for. If the “right to smoke” doesn’t benefit you and actually harms others, why do you want to preserve that right? Is it merely the principal of the matter? Is this his stance? --> “I’m not gonna let the government tell me what to do…even though it doesn’t impact me whatsoever and could benefit others.”
The day they try to outlaw something that matters (and is worth protecting) is the day I’ll join the rebellion. I’m just trying to understand why Jayhawker feels so strongly about this PARTICULAR “right” when so many innocent bystanders are suffering the consequences.
Good luck with your selfish crusade.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 11:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with every word that Jayhawker has said and would like to add my two cents worth to his eloquent prose.
This whole argument, debate is not about smokers rights or non smokers rights, its about the loss of freedom of choice and the ever increasing encroachment of government and a stubborn few, into our lives and dictating what your freedoms and rights are or will be or what is best for you as an individual, which is making a complete travisty of the Constititution of the United States and if it is allowed to continue we will soon all be living in a totalitarian state.
I too am like Jayhawker, old, battlescared and suffer from COPD which was caused by mainly two things, smoking (which was my choice to do)and exposure to various chemical dusts and gases. I no longer smoke and haven't for some 20+ years now, but I am not about to infringe on someones choice to smoke or a business owners choice to allow smoking in their business establishment.
We don't need anymore government interference in making individual choices for us and a word to you non-smoking Clean Air People, stop trying to impose your way of thinking and life on those who wish to choose to live their lives the way they choose to ! After all I am assuming that you non-smokers have the ability to make choices and I am sure would not care to have a City Ordinance passed taking away your choice to do what pleases you and stating you had to let someone smoke in your place of business or home if you didn't want them to.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 11:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

crackinsack: You are hearing only what you want to hear. This is not about smokers. You and I agree that smokers have no right to smoke, except on their own property or with permission of the property owner where they are. We agree so far, correct? This is about a fundamental American right, that of a private land owner to control his own property. If a private property owner forbids smoking on his property, that should be respected. However, if he extends the privilege to smoke on his property, that should be respected, too. This is NOT about the right to smoke. It seems that there are many on here who either don't get this very important distinction, or don't want to because it makes their case very weak.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jayhawker;
Well said, I applaud you, I am afraid I am not as eloquent in stating my thoughts and views as you, sorry.

Posted by builderboy (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

hey joies's bar and rbow

Your both right it is my choice and I have excersiced it many times to leave business's that allow smoking. Like I said I just went to another business that doesn't allow smoking. I want to "Shop Emporia First" But instead I take my money to a national chain restraunt or colburns and eat there.
As far as the coaches closing in salina how many other restraunts closed in salina after the smoking ordiance was put in place?? Perhaps it was a bad location from the beginning with bad management?? Who knows.

Hey jayhawker..get up from your nap and go eat some supper in a smoking restraunt.

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 12:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Builderboy--

Ok, you want a burger at a smoke free restaurant, and "can't" go to Bruff's or Coach's, so you have to eat at a natl. chain restaurant or colburn's right?

What about J's, Bad Ol' Bern's, Commercial Street Diner, or Dari Delight?

There are 4 options right off the top of my head that don't allow smoking, aren't a natl. chain, and aren't Colburn's.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 12:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

builderboy: I have eaten in plenty of smoking restaurants. I sit in the no smoking section. The only one in all of Emporia that I avoid is the S & S Cafe. Do you suggest that I should be so bold as to tell the S & S owners how to run their property in order for me to enjoy an omelet? If those owners chose to do so, they could limit smoking, and I might go back in. As it is now, the owners and I both have a choice. It's what America is about.

methusla: You and I grew up in different times, when life was harder. Isn't it interesting, though, that perhaps those hard times gave us a perspective now lacking in society? We learned to respect others and not be so much about ourselves, to be accepting of our neighbor, and enjoying the respect that he gave in return. You remember, I'm sure, how when we were younger just about everyone smoked. I tried it briefly in the Army, but I didn't like the way that it made me feel, so I didn't continue. I was in the minority. But because of my respect for others, it never once crossed my mind to tell private business owners that to accommodate me they needed to make a business decision that would effect their livelihood. I grew up breathing many times more second hand smoke than anyone today, and most of it being the "leaded" smoke (Bull Durham, Prince Albert, Velvet, Long Green, and later after the "tailor mades" came out, unfiltered Camels and Lucky Strikes). I have not had any problems. As a smoker, you have suffered ill effects (I'm sorry about that). Yet, both of us stand up for the private property owners even though, if we were as selfish as these other folks, we would benefit. Times have changed, haven't they, my friend?

Posted by rbow (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 1:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It is probably a safe bet that those pushing for this ban have never paid a business tax or license fee. They probably never had to pay social security and medicare taxes for the employees.
They probably haven't had to lay off or fire an employee due to downturns in the economy.

Anyone (in their right mind) who is in business now or used to be would be against this ban which is all about restricting owners rights.

Posted by rbow (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 1:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And builderboy : Even if you HAVE to go to Coburns or a national chain, if it's in Emporia the tax revenue stays here, not to mention they employee local residents, you know JOBS.

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 1:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

rbow, thanks for mentioning that. It reminded me I need to swing by the post office today! After I do that, I am probably going to enjoy a nice juicy, medium rare B.A. Burger at Bruff's (with no tomato). Builderboy, you have any plans for lun...Ohh that's right...you CAN'T go to Bruff's... I really didn't want you to go anyways, to much second hand smug...

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 1:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'll tell you what, maybe we can discuss this further over lunch tomorrow. How does the Wagon Wheel sound? I'll be there at 1 :)

Posted by mmstormont (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 1:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As someone previously stated, there are bars available in town that are smoke free, just go there if you don't want to breathe second hand smoke. Just keep in mind that the alcohol you are comsuming along with your clean air is potentially much more hazardous to your health than second hand smoke, so you must not be too concerned with your well-being. Why don't you stop driving as well? The emissions from your vehicle causes more damage to clean air than second hand smoke does. I could go on and on...

This issue should be left up to the business owners, I cannot understand why people are even arguing this. This is an issue about fundamental rights and our freedom of choice. Period.

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Builderboy,
You sure missed a GREAT burger! Too bad the place was full of second-hand smoke. I couldn't believe how many people were actually smoking in Bruff's today when I was in there. Care to take a guesshow many smokers there were? The number starts with an "N". It ends with "ot one damn person". There was not a single person smoking in Bruff's from 1:30 to 2:15. Even if there was, Gary owns the building, the business, all the licenses, writes all of the employees' paychecks, so its his decision whether to allow smoking or not!

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 3:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jayhawker;
Yes, you and I grew up in harder times, for instance when I was a kid going to school I wore patched hand-me-down pants, shirts and shoes, because my parents could not afford new ones, I can still see my father setting at an old shoe last that he had resouling our families shoes with pieces of leather he had scrounged from somewhere, however I never felt sorry for myself and still respected those who had more than me, that is as long as they showed me the same respect regardless of what I wore, etc.
I too started smoking in the Army and did so for 20 years, but that was my choice, however I don't feel sorry for myself because of what smoking, etc. did to me and I certainly will continue to repect others choices to do what makes them happy and their freedom to make choices in life be they good or bad, for it is their life and their choices and noone and I mean noone has the so called right to deprive anyone of their freedom of choice.

God Bless you my friend !

Posted by crackinsack (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jayhawker,
I agree that a private land owner should have the right to “control his own property”, but here’s the part you’re not getting:
Private properties, especially businesses, are often subject to regulations. These regulations are in place to protect EVERYONE who steps foot on that property. Since these restaurants and bars are open to everyone (and their mamas), we need to make sure it’s a safe environment for EVERYONE.
Suppose a downtown business owner wanted to support his building’s roof with columns made of straw. (because it’s more cost efficient or more attractive than other materials) Some folks may not mind it, but there is a strong possibility that that roof could collapse and hurt people. This scenario is obviously not safe for the occupants of the building, which is why we have building codes that prevent such construction methods; to protect EVERYONE who enters.
The smoking ban is just another regulation that is in the best interest of EVERYONE. Sure, you may not have your pretty support columns made of straw, but at least we’ll all be safe. If it keeps a roof from failing on my head or cancer from forming in my lungs, I’m glad someone is stepping-in to restrict how an owner “controls his own property”.

Posted by notasheeple (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 4:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We should outlaw alcohol and smoking in the city of emporia that will clean thing up (rolles eyes)

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 4:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dear delusional Crackinsack: Are you serious? Above, you said: "Good luck with your selfish crusade."

What!! I am not with Clean Air Emporia, the Country Club Crusaders, or the Neo-Nazi Nicotine Narcs who wrote and introduced this ridiculous, ultra-restrictive, unnecessary smoking ban proposal. I am with the opposition! So, why are you wishing me "good luck with your selfish crusade?" Tell Walters and Sauder that. It is their, and obviously your, crusade, not mine. I am defending, not crusading.

Also, Ms. Crack in a sack, you said "I don’t care if you or I lose the “American right” to smoke in public." Well, DUH! As if you had to tell us that! You and your smoking ban buddies could care less about rights, freedoms, and choice. Forcing your selfish will on others is all that matters to you.

One more time, crack lady: this issue is not about clean air. It is about the rights of business owners and citizens to maintain their inherent right to make choices, preventing a small group of self-perceived social reformers from forcing their morals and values upon others, and keeping government from placing yet another unnecessary restriction on our personal freedoms.

Some where along life's path you and your CAE friends became convinced that what is best for you is best for all, and I suspect no one will ever penetrate your cocoon of perceived pious privilege to convince you otherwise.

You are living proof that one can not reason with an unreasonable person. That I continue to try proves I am a hopeless optimist.

Posted by glarson (Gwen Larson) on September 24, 2008 at 5:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ok, gang, let's move:

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