City commissioners listened to an alternative proposal to Clean Air Emporia’s proposed smoking ban at Wednesday morning’s study session in the city conference room.
The proposal allows business owners to choose whether or not to allow smoking within their establishments. Those who do must post signs notifying the public that smoking is allowed, and employees will be required to sign statements to show that they know they work in a smoking establishment.
The proposed penalties for violations of the ordinance are $50 for the first offense; $100 for the second offense within one year; and $250 for a third or subsequent offense.
The presentation was opened by S.C. Dixon, co-owner of the Noose, 323 Commercial St. He was representing a group of local business owners and concerned citizens calling themselves Emporia Open for Business. The group opposes Clean Air Emporia’s ordinance as too restrictive of business owners’ rights.
“There are many important things to do in Emporia rather than to pass and to try to enforce what may be an unenforceable smoking ban,” Dixon said. “It is not my intent to prey on your emotions; it is my intent to appeal to your good sense.
“I will forego the rhetoric and take a plain and direct approach to this. ... I’m here to present you a pragmatic point of view from the standpoint of small business. For a lot of us gathered here, this is an issue about business.”
The group believes the proposed ordinance by Clean Air Emporia is too harsh and will be harmful to local businesses. The group especially takes issue with the penalties of the ordinance, which call for businesses to lose their liquor licenses after three violations, and the restriction of smoking within 20 feet of doors and ventilation systems.
“For Emporia, small business is vital,” Dixon said. “You need to ask yourselves, ‘Where would Emporia be if all night spots disappear?’ It would be a very dull place without us. Take away our businesses and then tell me about rolling the sidewalks up a 9:30 at night.
“... It’s not all about alcohol. It’s not all about smoking. It’s the big picture.”
The presentation was concluded by Mike Helbert of Helbert & Allemang Law Offices.
“Essentially what this alternative does is create a very simple framework. That is, if you’re going to allow smoking on the premises, then you have to warn the public, you have to warn your employees and your employees have to sign off on that,” Helbert said.
“We’re talking about a relatively few businesses that are trying to survive in a tough economic environment. There have been a lot of bold-faced claims (by Clean Air Emporia) but very few facts.
“To me, this is not about smoking,” Helbert said. “It’s about four basic things. Number one is private property. Number two is government interference with the use of that property. Three is the unprincipled taking of a business owner’s profits without just compensation. And finally, it’s about free market principles. ... The market works. Many places are smoke-free. Only a few allow smoking. The purpose of these businesses is to make money. They serve the public, but the public can vote with their wallets and refuse to patronize them.
“Are we, as a population, afraid to trust our own citizens to make those choices?”
The city commission will hold a public hearing on the matter at 7 p.m. Monday at the Little Theater in the Civic Building, 111 E. 6th Ave.
wirewatt (Ken Bazil) says...
I think this is the best proposal we have seen. The only problem I see with any ordinance is that the person smoking also needs to be ticketed. The business cannot stop someone who wants to be a pain in the neck. I like the part where the employee's have to sign off on the smoking part.
September 25, 2008 at 4:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
abbymagly (anonymous) says...
I encourage everyone to attend the public hearing on Monday the 29th. The proposed smoking ban goes beyond the issue of smoking. I believe business owners have the right to run their business the way they see fit. If the government is allowed to dictate what business owners can do on private property how long before the ban includes our private residences? I strongly feel that the government already dictates enough of what we can and can't do.
September 25, 2008 at 4:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Newsie (anonymous) says...
Just curious: what kind of coverage do this businesses give to their employees when they get sick from inhaling smoke? Will the owners step up and pay for health care when the employees get sick from second-hand smoke -- either now or years from now?
September 25, 2008 at 4:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jayhawker (anonymous) says...
In case anyone doubted the insidious nature of this proposal, or that George Orwell's book "1984" was a fiction, the following is a post from a related thread:
Posted by nutsaboutools (anonymous) on September 25, 2008 at 3:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree crackinsack,
Let's ban field burning too. Same toxins and health hazards as all that smoke from cigarettes.
September 25, 2008 at 5:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Excellent alternative, S.C., Mike Helbert, and others. The penalties outlined in CAE's proposal were strangling, and I can't help but believe they were designed to close down businesses. For that reason alone, I believe that CAE has an agenda for this town and it won't end with second-hand smoke.
September 25, 2008 at 5:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Newsie: Get real and quit blowing smoke! Insurance coverage for second hand smoke? OSHA , who by the way regulates business health and safety issues has not established guidlines because their studies didn't find any evidence of danger from 2nd hand smoke in normal working conditions.
September 25, 2008 at 5:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
My employees get the same health care benefits for second hand smoke that employees at Sauders get for fumes from welding galvanized steel.
September 25, 2008 at 6:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BigE (anonymous) says...
rbow, get real and quit blowing smoke! here is some info from the world health organization regarding second hand smoke. I think it really validates the question that Newsie asks.
In June 2002, a scientific working group of 29 experts from 12 countries convened by the Monographs Programme of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization, Lyon, France, reviewed all significant published evidence related to tobacco smoking and cancer, both active and involuntary. Its conclusions confirmed the cancer-causing effects of active smoking. It also concluded its evaluation of the carcinogenic risks associated with involuntary smoking and classified second-hand smoke as carcinogenic to humans.
There is clear scientific evidence of an increased risk of lung cancer in non-smokers exposed to SHS. This increased risk is estimated at 20% in women and 30% in men who live with a smoker. Similarly, it has been shown that non-smokers exposed to SHS in the workplace have a 16 to 19% increased risk of developing lung cancer. The risk of presenting lung cancer increases with the degree of exposure. The Californian Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA) estimates that SHS causes 3000 deaths each year due to lung cancer in NON-SMOKERS.
Seriously, if you guys want to debate that the CAE guidelines are too strict that's one thing, but don't try to convince anyone of the safety of breathing second hand smoke...
September 25, 2008 at 6:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
This ban targets bars and restaurants that allow smoking and serve alcohol. Period.
Section 14, subsection G, (Violations and Penalties) 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."
The ONLY license the city issues is a city liquor license. That is the only license the city has jurisdiction to revoke! (side note: makes you wonder why Ms. Walters is running for COUNTY commissioner...) If McDonald's gets a violation, what license are they going to lose? Food Service License? Nope, thats KDHE. The state will tell the city to pound sand if they try to take that. If I get a violation, they can close me down.
THIS BAN UNFAIRLY TARGETS BARS AND RESTAURANTS THAT ALLOW SMOKING AND SERVE ALCOHOL! PERIOD!
September 25, 2008 at 6:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Weltha (anonymous) says...
Sorry people but I just have to.... bear with me. Oh my something causes cancer in lab rats in California.... If Cal. says its true the rest off us better yell "The sky is falling." Rant over carry on. LOL
September 25, 2008 at 6:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hornet08 (anonymous) says...
My dad made bombs for the United States during Vietnam(angent orange). He was also a smoker. His smoking increased while in Vietnam and I feel that if he would have seen a professional he would have been diagnosed with PTSD. By the logic that these bars should provide insurance for diseases caused by second hand smoke then I should be receiving a big settlement from the government for losing my father to lung cancer. Who wants to increase taxes so the government can cover my losses and those of other veteran families?
BTW I'm not saying I should recieve money I am pointing out how illogical the post I'm referencing was.
September 25, 2008 at 6:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
peanutbutter (anonymous) says...
I think that this does sound like a fair proposal. Although, I would like to go out for a night of fun without smelling like an ash tray when I get home, but I guess you play you pay. . .
September 25, 2008 at 8:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
BigE: your clear scientific evidence quoted in great length has been shown invalid by other sources . I'm not trying to convince anyone that second hand smoke is good for your health, but if it posed a real danger to workers wouldn't OSHA converge on our bars and restaurants and force them to shut down? It is THE governmental agency in charge of worker safety My point is if you are an adult with ANY common sense, you could avoid that smoke by using choice not to go or not to work there. And thank God we still have the right to voice our opinions on this blog. At least we have that right so far!
September 25, 2008 at 8:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hottopics (anonymous) says...
I think the commissioners will agree with what we all have said in the first place. Leave it up to the owners, post a friggin smoking sign and go back to real business issues. Ones that make money not reduce it. Who can survive another hardship?
September 25, 2008 at 8:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Azaite (anonymous) says...
I’m amazed of the influence that a large group of people has on city government. The “no” vote on the Lowe’s proposal and the eventual smoking ban. If the city wants to dictate where a business can build, when/if they come, sorry to say it can tell bar owners to go smoke free. So my proposal (pick one): 1) Close your business 2) Accept Clean Air Emporia 3) Move Away 4) Smoke more, because we all know what will happen to you and frankly I don’t want you to take me down with you.
September 25, 2008 at 9:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dhcc66 (anonymous) says...
The Lowe's issue and smoking bans are two totally separate things. One is zoning and the other is a regulation on how exsisting businesses operate.
I agree with the way the Lowe's thing turned out. The area they wanted to occupy is too congested already and they need to find an alternative. The only sad thing is that nobody came up with a solution except to turn a decent business away AGAIN.
The only thing that I can say on the smoking thing is that I'm glad there are two opposing views and that the city has chosen to hear both of them. I for one will choose to frequent non-smoking establishments. If somebody were smart, they might add another non-smoking bar to the several that have already gone that way to give the non-smokers a choice.
September 25, 2008 at 10:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
dhcc66: Good post. I applaud your clear thinking and common sense.
September 25, 2008 at 10:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wildcatnurse (anonymous) says...
We just moved back here from OKC. In Oklahoma, there is no smoking in restaurants or bar/grills....anywhere children could go to eat. If the business wants to allow smoking, they must provide an area that is COMPLETELY blocked off and must have it's own ventilation system.
Also, when I was at KSU, one of the bars banned smoking and it became the busiest bar in Aggieville. I think that banning smoking completely is extreme, just keep it out of restaurants and away from children.
September 25, 2008 at 11:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pmh61 (Won Ton) says...
I don't smoke I don't care for it because I think it smell nasty. But like some comments were made I could go for, if you have your own separate area with YOUR own venting system and I don't have to smell like a horses rear. Then I am good with it. And if they choose not to smoke in there area,...and they can't follow that simple rule then you probably wouldn't want there business anyway. They would probably be more likely to cause you problems anyway.
September 26, 2008 at 1 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Azaite says, "I’m amazed of the influence that a large group of people has on city government."
Do you live in the same country that I do? I won't bore you with the entire etymology of the word democracy, but "demos" means people, and in my country, large groups of people can wield power.
Get your buds together, Az. See you on Monday evening.
September 26, 2008 at 5:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
madpoet (anonymous) says...
I have to laugh at all the OSHA references. OSHA ignores a lot of dangers and has some really silly rules that make no sense that actually don't protect people. Just because OSHA doesn't crack down on something doesn't mean it's safe. We can argue until we're blue in the face about how safe or unsafe second hand smoke is and not come to an agreement. People are out there (including me) who are allergic to tobacco smoke. I start to cough and wheeze and my eyes burn and tear up when exposed to smoke. I am not saying that the ban is good. I like the counter proposal. That way I can know before entering a building if I will be exposed to something that makes me sick. But please stop arguing that second hand smoke is not harmful. Even if it doesn't cause lung cancer, it does cause an allergic response in some people.
September 26, 2008 at 7:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
I have noticed a striking trend on these threads as of late. Most of the people posting for the smoking ban lately have related it to one issue only. That issue is how they smell when they leave. There are 2 references to how you smell after being in a smoking establishment in this short thread alone.
This is very typical of the clean air advocates. It exposes their true motivation and nature. They don't like the smell, they don't like smoke, and they could care less about the health of waitresses and bartenders.
Comments like this one reinforce jayhawkers astute notion that this is intended to start a class war mentality among Emporians. Smokers vs. nonsmokers. This idiotic post also has nothing to do with second hand smoke or the health of Emporians or the loss of choice involved with a ban. It is just inflammatory rhetoric.
"So my proposal (pick one): 1) Close your business 2) Accept Clean Air Emporia 3) Move Away 4) Smoke more, because we all know what will happen to you and frankly I don’t want you to take me down with you."
This clean air 'my way or no way' garbage is just the kind of bullying that you would expect from a group of people who think they know best.
No one ever answered my common sense question. So how bout it crackinsack, slvmblck, BigE, Azaite. According to the clean air advertising and your experts, if you are exposed to second hand smoke you are smoking. It is just as bad, just as unhealthy and dangerous. If this is true, how is it that we even have nonsmokers. How come all the nonsmoker waitresses, bartenders, and patrons of smoking establishments are nic-ing out all the time, or becoming first hand smokers? Where are the withdrawals from second hand smoke? Where is your common sense? Where is your desire to make your own decisions? Where is your ability to reason as an adult?
This is not about health. Clearly according to most of the posting proponents of the ban, it is about preference.
September 26, 2008 at 8:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bjohn (anonymous) says...
Madpoet did you know many people are severly allegeric to peanut butter? Should we pretend that peanut butter is not harmful to people? Most of the time we do. Perhaps it should be banned from Emporia as well. It does cause people health problems. Just because you are personally allergic to something does not make it a community health hazard. I'm allergic to ragweed. Can we get that banned from Emporia too? I would love ragweed free air to breathe everyday.
I would actually support this ban if they limited it to eating establishments. Most of the time I just make my own choice to not go into an establishment that allows smoking. That is why I go to Burlington to bowl. Though I haven't gone bowling in a long time...Why don't we just buy all the Clean Air advocates breathing masks with filters? Then they can breathe all the clean air they want?
September 26, 2008 at 9:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
madpoet (anonymous) says...
bjohn, read my post again. I said I was NOT for the ban. I was just pointing out that second hand smoke is a health issue for some. AND if you go to some restaurants they have it posted they have tree nuts in their products. Go to Dairy Delight and you'll see it on their take out window. I just get tired of the whole stupid debate on how healthy or unhealthy second hand smoke is. Every person's body is different and some people tolerate smoke better than others. And it's not like people are shoving peanut butter into innocent bystanders mouths! A very small percentage of people may be bothered by the "fumes" from peanut butter but most have to ingest or at least touch peanuts to get ill. Smokes drifts over a large area from the smoker and lingers in the air long after they are gone. And gets in the walls, ceiling tiles etc. When the breakroom at my workplace went smoke free they had to replace all the ceiling tiles and paint Killz on the walls to get rid of the odor. So please don't tell me smoke isn't different from peanut butter! What a stretch! AGAIN I AM AGAINST THE PROPOSED SMOKING BAN. I am a nonsmoker but think it is way to restrictive and unfair to the bars and bar and grills in town.
September 26, 2008 at 10:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Never before has California banned smoking on private property used exclusively by members of the owner's family - until now.
Beginning this month, motorists can be fined $100 for lighting up a cigarette in their own car, even in their driveway, if one passenger is a child.
The law marks a new frontier in more than two decades of state smoking restrictions that focused on workplaces, public buildings, restaurants, flights, tot lots and gathering spots.
It also comes as cigar-smoking Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is teaming with Democrats to push a proposed ballot measure that would increase cigarette taxes by $1.75 per pack to expand health insurance.
Lawmakers returning to the Capitol this week will consider pushing the state's smoking prohibitions even further.
September 26, 2008 at 12:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Sen. Jenny Oropeza, the Long Beach Democrat who proposed California's new vehicle-smoking law to lower children's exposure to dangerous smoke, has already proposed legislation to ban smoking on state-owned beaches or parks.
Statewide, smoking has been falling for more than two decades, to 13 percent of adults now, compared to 25 percent in 1984, state health surveys show.
Audrey Silk, leader of New York-based Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment, said opponents nationwide seem determined to price cigarettes out of the market and, for those who won't quit, to expand smoking bans wherever possible.
''It's exploiting children to push their agenda,'' Silk said of California's new ban. ''It's emotion-driven, not science-driven.''
Numerous California cities have passed tighter smoking restrictions than those imposed statewide: Belmont has targeted apartments, for example, while Calabasas has taken aim at sidewalks and Roseville, parks.
Silk predicted the same arguments used to pass Oropeza's legislation - health risks to kids confined in a smoky place - will be recycled to fight parents who light up in their own homes.
''This is part of their incrementalism plan,'' she said.
September 26, 2008 at 12:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Other critics say California's new law reflects a disturbing trend to legislate personal behavior in ways ranging from banning soda pop in schools to requiring skateboarders to wear helmets.
''People engage in activities that I adamantly disagree with, all the time, in the comfort and privacy of their homes,'' said Republican Assemblyman Anthony Adams. ''I have no business, as a legislator, interjecting myself into their private lives.''
Sen. George Runner, a Republican, said the new vehicle law blurs parental rights in a dangerous way that could spark legislation to limit children's hamburger or french fry consumption, for example, because of health risks from trans fats.
''I've got no problem listening to government's advice on raising my kids - I welcome it,'' said Republican Sen. Tom McClintock. ''But I'll be damned if I'm going to take its orders.''
Anti-smoking advocates counter that the state has an obligation to protect kids and always has done so, from barring minors from buying alcohol to forbidding sex offenders from teaching in schools.
Regulating motorists' behavior is nothing new, they note. Drivers already are required to use seatbelts, strap infants into safety seats, and beginning July 1 the state will start enforcing restrictions on using cellular phones in vehicles.
Attorney John Banzhaf, director of Action on Smoking and Health, one of the nation's leading anti-smoking law groups, said California should and probably will prohibit parents in coming years from smoking in homes when kids are present.
Supporters hail the vehicle ban as protecting kids too young to help themselves, but opponents blast it as intruding on property and parental rights - and they suspect that homes will be targeted soon.
''Nobody recommends smoking in the presence of a minor,'' said Republican Assemblyman Chuck DeVore. ''But where is the line between individual responsibility and government force?''
California's new law is the strictest of its kind nationwide because it applies to driving with anyone under age 18, while similar laws in Arkansas and Louisiana seek to protect children under 6 and 13, respectively.
September 26, 2008 at 12:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
'We thought this was of particular importance because it focused on children in a space that's confined and where they have limited access to leaving,'' said Alecia Sanchez of the American Cancer Society.
Neither side argues that secondhand smoke is healthy or risk-free, but they disagree over the extent to which opening a car window dissipates the smoke and reduces risk to a child.
The California Air Resources Board classified secondhand smoke as a toxic air contaminant in 2006 because of its potential for causing cancer, heart disease, asthma or other respiratory ills.
Children who spend one hour in a smoke-filled car can be exposed to the same quantity of toxic chemicals as if they had smoked 17 to 35 filter-tipped cigarettes, according to the California Medical Association Foundation.
Californians interviewed last week had mixed views of the new law.
''I think it's fine,'' said Loretta Holloway, 62. ''Children can't voice their opinions and smoke is harmful to them, so why should we smoke in their presence?''
But Freddy Green, 56, said the ban accomplishes little because children of smoking parents will continue to be exposed inside their homes - and targeting the latter would invade privacy.
''It's going to get to the point in California where you can't smoke even in your own private backyard,'' said Lorena Dorsey, a 52-year-old smoker.
Legislation, court decisions or common practice in many states have restricted smoking in various other residential settings - through child custody orders in divorces, for example, or in prisons and foster homes where taxpayers must pay for health care, Banzhaf said.
''Smoking, like other activities, should be confined to consenting adults yn private,'' Banzhaf said.
But Oropeza said she has no intention of targeting private homes in California.
''This is America, for goodness sake,'' she said. ''I'm not into prohibition.''
http://www.newspress.com
September 26, 2008 at 12:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Sorry for the many posts, but I STRONGLY feel this needs to get out!
Matt Slater
Owner-Josie's
September 26, 2008 at 12:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bjohn (anonymous) says...
I'm sorry cracked but if we are going to have clean air then lets have clean air. I'm also allergic to most perfumes. Can we ban the stores from having perfume departments that spray the stuff all over their airspace? They are deliberately spraying it into the air, it cause me health problems. It must be bad, it must be baned. Sorry....just my choice not to go into those stores. Same choice you have. Don't take away my choice and I won't take away yours.
Madpoet you missed the point of my post. I summed it up but you didn't read it closely enough. Allegies do not equal health hazards. Is that clear enough?
September 26, 2008 at 12:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
That's what I thought. Common sense got your tongue?
September 26, 2008 at 12:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
madpoet (anonymous) says...
I am saying smoke is a health hazard to some people. An allergic reaction is a health hazard. To some people (probably more than you realize as a BUNCH of people tell me their sensitive to tobacco smoke) second hand smoke is harmful. It's all the debate over the health hazard from smoke that is getting silly.
I agree with many other people that this proposed ordinance is less about the side effects of smoke than a small group's wish to impose their will on the majority.
September 26, 2008 at 12:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bjohn (anonymous) says...
I should clarify my last statement. Personal allergies should not be equated with community health hazards. That is what I should have typed the first time and maybe there wouldn't have been any confusion.
September 26, 2008 at 12:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jayhawker (anonymous) says...
Thank you, crackinsack, for your posts. You have made stronger points than anyone else in support of this ban. However, even though yours have been the best posts, your post do nothing more than reinforce what a radical idea this is, rooted in elitism and based upon the same bankrupt ideas upon which prohibition was sold to the country. This is America, and in America, we take our freedoms seriously. One of the most important freedoms is the ability to control one's own property and to be able to compete in a free market. This ban is a slippery slope as the California experience noted by josiesbar points out above. If Californians want to give up their freedoms, that's up to them. We in Kansas understand that when you give up a freedom, you never get it back.
September 26, 2008 at 1:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this smoking ban is associated with the same group (EDA)that last year proposed an ordinance limiting the number of liquor licenses in Emporia, and the year before extending the number of feet a bar had to be from a church, school, and historical building from 200 ft. to 600 ft(which would have been most bars downtown)? If you want me to believe this group isn't targeting bars with this smoking ban, I want you to believe that I'm a Chinese jet pilot.
September 26, 2008 at 2:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Ok, here's a little info on our favorite little group.
http://www.samhsa.gov/StateSummaries/...
Grantee: EMPORIANS FOR DRUG AWARENESS Emporia, KS
Program: Drug Free Communities SP011233
Congressional District: KS-01
FY 2007 Funding: $92,675
Project Period: 09/30/2005 - 09/29/2009
The grantee will: (1) Reduce substance abuse among youth and, over time, among adults by addressing the factors in a community that increase the risk of substance abuse and promoting the factors that minimize the risk of substance abuse and; (2) Establish and strengthen community anti-drug coalitions.
Would someone from EDA care to come on here and tell me what exactly you feel "factors in a community that increase the risk of substance abuse," are.
My guess is it starts with a B....ends with AR!
September 26, 2008 at 2:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Sorry to Bogart this post, but here is something else to consider about our great friends at EDA.
$92,675 broken down into 5 years is $18,535/yr. According to their website, http://www.emporiansfordrugawareness.com , under the news and activities link, there have been 2 events this year.
One called Canned Energy, "A Town Hall meeting to hear what local experts say we should be telling our youth about the use of energy drinks. Some contain alcohol which makes them illegal for those under the age of 21 and mixing the two can be risky at any age."
The other, called Keep It a Safe Summer, "Over 50 agencies are expected to provide information on organized activities for youth, as well as general safety information. Fun family activities will be provided, as well as entertainment, free food and door prizes."
Now, these two events, as far as I can tell, the only events EDA has done this year, are put on with local agencies and "experts." So what exactly has EDA spent $18,535 on this year. There are no upcoming events on their calendar for the remainder of the year, or any next year for that matter. From the looks of their website, it hasn't been updated since around May, which also happens to be Clean Air Month. :D
September 26, 2008 at 3:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Good work, Matt. You get a click!!! Remember those? Now we need to ask for a line item budget. Keep this stuff in mind for Monday night.
September 26, 2008 at 3:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jayhawker (anonymous) says...
Now isn't this something? So, the funding for this campaign, promoting anti-American ideals, is a grant from our government. Unbelievable. If this goes to a public vote, the resulting campaign will be paid for by the government for the proponents, while the opponents will have to raise private money. This stinks to high heaven. I think maybe some lawyers need to look at this from a constitutional point of view. Folks, we need to get this thing stopped. This raises a brand new dimension to this whole debate. Are we sure this is America anymore? This sounds like the way they did business in the USSR, and the way they still do business in Iran, North Korea and Red China. I simply can't believe this.
September 26, 2008 at 4:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jayhawker (anonymous) says...
We best get organized on behalf of Phil Winter for the County Commission, too. I am a strong Republican, have been all my life. This is a situation where we Republicans had better join with the Democrats to keep Mrs. Walters from getting a seat on the Commission. This may be the most important election in all of Kansas this year. Send Phil Winter a check, offer your yard for a sign, and above all, vote for him. This lady does not understand America at all. Imagine if she acquired the power that goes with a seat on the County Commission.
September 26, 2008 at 4:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jayhawker (anonymous) says...
crackinsack: There you go again. You know full well what the issues are. You and the others associated with this radical proposal want to create false issues because you clearly will lose as long as everyone understands what the real issues are. I know that you are trying hard, but I don't think that you will be able to fool enough people to get this passed. As Abe Lincoln said, "you may be able to fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
September 26, 2008 at 4:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
This proposed "smoking ban" and bogus "clean air" initiative by a few bored socially superior meddlers should never have received this much attention or advanced to this stage of consideration. It should have been relegated to the recycle bin the minute it was presented to our city commissioners. It saddens me that a few self-perceived and self-ordained civic saviors can trample on the rights and freedoms of an entire city with impunity and apathy.
It's time to put a stop to this travesty. Ban the ban.
September 26, 2008 at 4:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jayhawker (anonymous) says...
I noticed from an earlier article that Mike Helbert spoke on behalf of the opposition to this notorious un-American proposal. I don't know who paid him, but it might be worth the money to ask him to look into the funding source for this group. If they are using government money for this, something needs to be done. It is outrageous that a private business owner, through his/her taxes, is supporting a campaign to put him/her out of business, and in the process take another step in destroying private property rights, one of the keystones that America (supposedly) stands for. For goodness sakes, how did we let George Orwell's warnings go unheeded? How did this happen? My generation bears some of the responsibility. None of us took it seriously at the time. How I wish that I could go back in time and raise the alarm. I hope that it is not too late. I'm afraid that we have gone so far that Paul Revire's warning that the British are coming would now be that the British are here, and won.
September 26, 2008 at 4:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Excellent point, jayhawker, particularly when you emphasize how ironic it is that business owners are being threatened with the very tax money they collect and send to the state. There's something horribly wrong with the picture of giving someone a hatchet so they can scalp you with it.
September 26, 2008 at 7:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
crackinsack,
The way I understand it, Clean Air Emporia is a spin-off of EDA, but gets its funding separately?? Maybe?? I am of the opinion that I would love to see an line item budget for both groups, because unfortunately, I believe create is correct in saying that a good majority of money went to Mr. Sauder's radio station.
My biggest complaint against EDA is that according to their website, they aren't doing anything at all. 2 events all year, with over $18,000 in funding? Come on now!
September 26, 2008 at 9 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Make that 3 events. I forgot "Brain Awareness Week."
September 26, 2008 at 9:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )